66 FISH AND GAME COMMISSION. 



must operate each machine to capacity and that if he operated it at less 

 than capacity his allowance was reduced accordingly. To make it 

 simpler of enforcement, the Commission notified the canners that it 

 would consider they had complied with the law if they canned what 

 would amount to 75 per cent of the catch. This was apparently satis- 

 factory to the canners at Monterey, where the sardine season com- 

 mences in July, but when the season began later in southern California 

 the canners in the Los Angeles district organized to contest the Com- 

 mission's interpretation of the law. The litigation lasted throughout 

 the season, during which time the canners adhered very closely to the 

 Commission's order. 



The first decision of importance was given by the appellate court in 

 Los Angeles, which declared the allowance of one hundred and fifty 

 tons for each line of closing machines to be unconstitutional ; but the 

 decision did not state whether the whole special privilege to canners was 

 unconstitutional or just the method of determining capacity. 



A later decision in the superior court of Los Angeles County was to 

 the effect that canners were still entitled to 25 per cent of their 

 capacity, but did not enlighten us as to what constituted capacity- — 

 whether it was what they actually canned or what they could can. 

 This matter of what constitutes the capacity under the law came up 

 still later in the superior court of Los Angeles County. The judge's 

 decision was still somewhat ambiguous, but he did say that the essence 

 of the matter was the good faith of the canner, and that if his machines 

 and other necessary equipment were not ready and intended to run, his 

 capacity was reduced accordingly. Both sides have claimed a victory 

 as a result of this decision. It would appear, however, from the 

 decision that if a canner was prepared in good faith to run at his 

 claimed capacity he would have to operate up to that capacity before 

 he would be entitled to any overage. This interpretation would give 

 the canner less overage that he would have under the Commission's 

 old order giving him 25 per cent of the catch. 



During the past sardine season of 1925-1926, we were able to hold 

 down the percentage of sardines used in reduction plants much better 

 than any previous season in spite of the continued litigation. The 

 amount used in reduction plants was a little less than 25 per cent of the 

 catch, and the pack of canned sardines was greater than the season 

 before although the total catch was less. 



A good market has developed for our sardines and the canners, most 

 of them, have changed their attitude in regard to the amount of over- 

 age they should have. The time seems right to fix in the law a definite 

 limit to the amount of sardines a canner can divert to his by-products 

 plant, and this amount should be made as low as is possible. What the 

 canners need more than anything is to organize and through a selling 

 agency, or some other legal means, stabilize the price of canned sardines. 



During the sardine season of 1925-1926, which lasts from July to 

 March at Monterey and about November to March in southern Cali- 

 fornia, the sardines were abundant during the first two or three 

 months at Monterey but thereafter at Monterey and during the entire 

 season in southern California, the fishermen had difficulty in getting 

 enough to keep the canneries busy. If it had not been for the purse 

 seine fishermen, the season would have been about a complete failure 

 in southern California. These boats being larger can fish farther 

 away from their home port. They had not operated on sardines to 



