ALASKA INDUSTRIES. 417 



I desire again to impress upon you the fact that it is not within the proscribed 100 

 yards that the salmon need protection, but in those portions of the streams and rivers 

 above their mouths and hereinbefore mentioned as the playgrounds of the fish, 

 where their movements are such as to tempt the cupidity of those who, if left to 

 their selfish devices, would soon annihilate the species. 



In view of the foregoing I respectfully suggest, recommend, and urge that the 100- 

 yard limit, as proposed to be enacted into law, be eliminated from said section 1 of 

 the proposed act. 



Respectfully submitted. 



H. J. BAKLING, 

 Manager of the Alaska Improvement Company. 



JOSEPH MURRAY, 



Special Agent for Protection of Salmon fisheries in Alaska, 



Washington, D. C. 



BROOKLYN, N. Y., February 18, 1895. 



DEAR COLONEL: Supplementary to my letter of the 14th instant, I beg to state 

 that the bill meets with the approval of our president, Eva. He requests, however, 

 injustice to all the various canning interests concerned, that the words in section 2, 

 "or to fish for or catch, or kill in any manner or by any appliances, any salmon or 

 salmon trout in any stream less than 100 yards in width in the said Territory of 

 Alaska between the hours of 6 o'clock in the morning and 6 o'clock in the evening 

 of the same day of each and every day of the week," be eliminated. He lays stress 

 on the fact that those words would be detrimental to the interests of quite a few, 

 and he claims that section 3 amended so as to read, "set aside certain parts of 

 streams," etc., would be sufficient, and at the same time it would not limit thediscre- 

 tiouary powers conferred upon the honorable Secretary of the Treasury, who could 

 then designate any certain stream or streams which were in danger of exhaustion or 

 impairment of their run of salmon. 



Another reason he had in mind was the difficulty which would beset the Govern- 

 ment in enforcing the law, inasmuch as some catch most of their fish at night and 

 others during the day. 



By leaving it to the discretion of the Secretary he could, as he saw fit, absolutely 

 prohibit fishing in any stream or only partially so, such as is suggested by the specific 

 language which Mr. Eva desires stricken out in section 2. 



Yours, respectfully, H. J. BARLING. 



Col. JOSEPH MURRAY, 



United States Fish Commissioner for the District of Alaska. 



SAN FRANCISCO, February 7, 1895. 



DEAR SIR: Your valued favor of 1st instant just received, also the bills, for pro- 

 tection of salmon in Alaska, referred to, in regard to which will say that I can 

 discover nothing in them but that which will be a benefit to all. You are to be con- 

 gratulated for having framed such a bill, and if you are successful in having it 

 become a law will deserve much credit. These bills will afford the necessary 

 protection and mean the maintenance of a permanent industry in the Territory. 

 With my best wishes for your success, I remain, 



Yours, truly, R. D. HUME. 



Hon. JOSEPH MURRAY, 



Washington, D. C. 



It is not necessary, I think, to criticise all the objections raised by 

 my friends to the bills proposed; for if once given a fair trial the 

 faulty parts will easily be detected and quickly altered without injury 

 to anyone. 



The main point to be considered is that the Alaska fisheries are of 

 great extent, immense value, and deserving of the greatest care; that 

 H. Doc. 92, pt. 2 27 



