Senator WALLGREN. Now the question comes up, as in section 12, if that were eliminated how would a man sue if he thought his application had been arbitrarily handled?

Mr. SLAUGHTER. You mean for the Pacific Division?

Senator WALLGREN. Let us take a man in the canning business or fishing business. He has quite a lot of investment; he has made quite a study of this business. He knows whether or not there is going to be a run of fish as well as, possibly, anybody in the Northwest. He feels his trap has been closed without a proper study and he thinks he can prove his case. Where would he go? What could he do?

Mr. SLAUGHTER. Well, I think the original person to proceed against would be the Secretary of the Interior since he is the person who would have the final authority with respect to the granting or disapproving of any permit.

Senator WALLGREN. He could sue either the director or the Secretary, and the Director has his office in Chicago and the Secretary has his office here in Washington, D. C. Now the question is would both the Director and the Secretary be a necessary party to the case?

Mr. SLAUGHTER. No, I think only the Secretary would need to be made a party.

Senator WALLGREN. Section 12 also provides for a review in an appellate court. Where would legal action be brought in the absence of that section?

Mr. SLAUGHTER. In the absence of that section it would have to be brought in the district court.

Senator WALLGREN. Do you mean the district court of the District of Columbia?

Mr. SLAUGHTER. Oh, no; in any United States district court in which service could be had upon the defendant. That would include the District Court in Alaska.

Senator WALLGREN. Of course, the Secretary is here.

Mr. SLAUGHTER. The Secretary is here. You are correct.

Senator WALLGREN. Which would make it so that you would have to do it in this court, wouldn't it?

Mr. SLAUGHTER. I think I ought to make it clear, we are not trying to exclude a man from seeking judicial review either directly or by some arrangement which makes it impracticable for him to obtain a review. Our principal objection to section 12 as it is written, is that it authorizes a very broad type of review on the merits which would exclude a reading of the statute and allow the authorized court not merely to determine whether the decision of the Secretary and the Director was in accordance with law and supported by substantial evidence, but simply upon the whole range of discretion of the court, so that the court in effect would be the party who was determining what was the proper regulation and what was the proper license or permit to be issued rather than the Director and the Secretary.

Senator WALLGREN. Why do you object to permitting a jury trial in which forfeiture of gear is involved, section 16, page 22?

Mr. SLAUGHTER. The difficulty there is the practical one, that in Alaska most of these violations have in the past and in the future probably will be tried in the Commissioner courts, and the Commissioners do not have juries. So that in any case where a jury trial is specifically authorized, the case would have to be held over for a regular term of the United States district court.

Senator WALLGREN. Well, this only permits a jury trial of a case of seizure.

Mr. SLAUGHTER. This requires jury trial in the case of overseizure. Senator WALLGREN. This is off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. H. T. AUSTERN (representing Association of Pacific Fisheries). That provision is one in which the labor unions have been much concerned. I don't know what the difficulty that Mr. Slaughter anticipates is but, as I understand it, in each case the gear would be released subject to bond. It is difficult to see why any delay either in time or travel would be a source of difficulty since the bond put up, and the trial in the district court can take place at some later time. But the labor unions are much concerned about the problem of having gear confiscated without the opportunity for a jury trial. They compare the situation where gear is subject to seizure to that where a vessel is subject to seizure and they say that the gear is just as important as the vessel might be to do the fishing. That is one section in which representatives of labor unions have expressed great concern.

Mr. SLAUGHTER. I know among the amendments that have been proposed here there is one which would except seizures of fish from jury trial.

Senator WALLGREN. That was included, as I understand it, Mr. Slaughter, because representatives of the Wildlife Service pointed out that the current practice in Alaska in the event of seizure of fish is to take the fish to a cannery, have the fish processed and receive a check from the cannery. That check is thereafter deposited in the district court. I am not altogether clear as to what happens after that. Off the record, Mr. Reporter.

(There was discussion off the record.)

Mr. AUSTERN. This is on the record. That change with respect to fish was made at the request of the Service so as to permit illegally caught fish to be confiscated in summary fashion without a jury trial and the union people understand that that would happen in the case of fish. However, when you get to the point of confiscating gear, their feeling is that there ought to be a jury trial upon request, in the case of any forfeiture of gear.

Senator WALLGREN. Off the record again, Mr. Reporter. (Further discussion off the record.)

Mr. SLAUGHTER. This bill, S. 930, as set up under any proposed amendments would require a court proceeding to forfeit the gear. That point is clear.

Senator WALLGREN. Now, there is a point here about-I would like to have the committee distinctly understand this is a food fish, commercial fishing, regulation or law. That is on commercial fish, not game fish at all. I think there isn't anything in this whole bill that has anything to do with game fish. Now, in Alaska, as I said, there is a lot of water in Alaska and we can take care of a great many game fishermen. Now, there is a new suggested clause in there that S. 930 shall not be applied to such species of fish as are from time to time defined or declared to be game fish, and so on. I was a little bit puzzled about that.

Mr. SLAUGHTER. The purpose of that is to accomplish just the objective you have in mind. Bill S. 930 as written is broad enough

94737-44-10

to apply to any type of fish, whether game fish or commercial fish, and to any type of fisherman, that is game fisherman or commercial fisherman. There are certain exceptions that pertain to commercial fishermen, but the broad authority in this bill applies to all types of fishermen. Therefore, in order to get the game fish out of this billand they are provided for specifically in the act of July 1, 1943, which amends the Alaska game law-we have attempted to exclude from the operation of this bill all the game fish coming under the operation of the act of July 1.

Senator WALLGREN. Well, to reverse that a little bit, the Alaska game law does not say anything about commercial fishing, does it? Mr. SLAUGHTER. The Alaska game law applies to certain specifically named types of fish, plus such other fish as may be determined to be game fish by the Secretary of the Interior.

Senator WALLGREN. Well, I want to ask now, Is there anyone here from the industry who cares to speak in behalf of the industry? I think that is all for Mr. Slaughter, as far as I am concerned.

Senator BILBO. Mr. Slaughter, we are certainly under obligation to you for coming up here.

Mr. SLAUGHTER. I am glad to be of any assistance that I can.

STATEMENT OF ERNEST D. CLARK, SECRETARY AND TREASURER OF THE ASSOCIATION OF PACIFIC FISHERIES, SEATTLE, WASH.

Senator BILBO. Dr. Clark, will you take this chair here for just a moment?

Senator WALLGREN. We are about to conclude the hearings on this bill, Dr. Clark, and I just thought that while there have been representatives of the industry here, that I would like to know just exactly how the industry feels about this bill. I have discussed the bill with them long before it was ever written and known of their interest in the past, but this bill under the proposed amendments is entirely different from what we discussed. To some degree, I think that things have been tightened up considerably for the operators under this bill. Do you speak for the industry?

Mr. CLARK. Yes; I can.

Senator WALLGREN. What is your position?

Mr. CLARK. My name is Ernest D. Clark. I am secretary and treasurer of the Association of Pacific Fisheries, a trade association of salmon canners with headquarters in Seattle. I think on this matter, Mr. Chairman, I can speak as a representative of the Northwest Salmon Canners Association which is an affiliated trade association. Together, these two associations include virtually all the salmoncanning operators in the Territory of Alaska.

We have closely followed the course of this hearing and have particularly noted the various amendments which have been suggested to S. 930. I think on behalf of the industry I might say that while S. 930 as amended by Senator Wallgren at this hearing extends an extremely wide scope of administrative authority, we are satisfied with the inclusion of the opportunity for court review in cases of arbitrary administrative action and believe that the bill will result in adequate conservation of the Alaskan fisheries. We are hopeful that it may in addition to strengthening the conservation regulations

serve to remedy the present inadequate conditions which have tended to hamper an efficient functioning of the industry and in providing an essential food supply. We feel that with the passage of this legislation that Senator Wallgren will have made a notable contribution which will serve effectively to carry on the conservation principles incorporated in the White Act.

Senator BILBO. Thank you, Mr. Clark.

Senator WALLGREN. Mr. Chairman, if it is possible, could the committee go into executive session at this time?

Senator BILBO. Yes. Is there anyone else to be heard?

(There was no response.)

Senator WALLGREN. I don't know of anyone else.

Senator BILBO. Very well. The committee will go into executive session now.

(Whereupon, at 11:10 a. m. the hearing was concluded, and the committee met in executive session.)

(The following was submitted for the record.)

WASHINGTON, D. C., HEADQUARTERS OF THE

Hon. MON C. WALLGREN,

SEATTLE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
Washington 5, D. C., January 24, 1944.

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR WALLGREN: With reference to the discussion before the committee this morning as to the granting of a vested right to the owner of a trapsite in Alaska, I think the following facts should be brought out:

Under the Mineral Land Leasing Act, administered by the Interior Department, a 20-year lease is granted under fixed terms and conditions, payments of royalties, and so forth, on oil lands. Under the lease, during the past 25 years, a considerable amount of oil drilling has been done in Alaska. I, myself, was interested in one enterprise at Katalla and another out at Yakataga Beach, a hundred and fifty miles south of Katalla, where there are large seepages of petroleum.

Under the water power bill, which originally was administered by the Interior Department, but is now administered, I understand, by an independent commission, a 50-year lease is granted under fixed conditions and terms for the duration of the lease.

In placer and quartz mining, permanent occupancy of the property is obtained under specific conditions; namely, a minimum of $100 worth of work must be done on each claim per annum, and title to the property may be secured by patent after $500 worth of work has been done.

The Forest Service regulations permit a 30-year lease on a block of timber in Alaska under fixed terms and conditions. Also, sufficient timber is set aside to

add another 15 years to the life of the enterprise.

These leases clearly are vested rights, and the title to them is transferable. The Interior Department, also, makes permanent leases for the coal lands of Alaska but, so far as I know, these leases are of no fixed duration.

It seems to me that if permanent occupancy is guaranteed the man who wishes to construct a newsprint or pulp mill, a petroleum production plant, or hydroelectric plant, any one of which, on a large scale, would involve an investment of several million dollars, certainly some assurance of a supply of raw material should be given the man who invests his money in a salmon cannery.

With kind regards, I am

Sincerely yours,

JACK UNDERWOOD.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR Wallgren

Mr. Chairman, yesterday Mr. Slaughter of the Department of the Interior was good enough to explain, in answer to some questions of mine, the reasons for the belated departmental suggestions to change S. 930. A good number of the changes suggested had of course already been made by me after conferences with Dr. Gabrielson and the Secretary-and included in the bill before we got this report. After hearing Mr. Slaughter, I have carefully studied his various suggestions; and in order that the record may be complete, I should like-with the committee's

permission-briefly to indicate my recommendations as to which should be accepted or rejected.

Section 2: In section 2 the Department has accepted my language concerning the jurisdiction of the United States. The committee will understand that this entire question is left for diplomatic consideration or for future legislation.

The department has suggested that the reenactment of the language of the White Act should not be made.

I cannot agree with this. The objection seems to be a pure matter of form. It is said that in S. 930 this language appears in the preamble as a statement of congressional policy, whereas in the White Act it appears in a proviso. It seems to me that in either case Congress is writing a law and that the congressional words are the same whether stated in the form of a simple sentence or stated in the form of a proviso.

Moreover, I want to point out to the committee that there is no inconsistency between anything in S. 930 and this language of the White Act which I propose to continue. The restrictions in S. 930 relate to fishing gear and vessels. There are no restrictions on the right of any person to secure a fishing license under S. 930 unless he is an alien. This is the same as the existing law.

The only difference between the exact words of the White Act and what I have suggested for section 2 is the addition of the phrase "subject to the provisions of this act." I might say to the committee that these words were put in at the suggestion of Dr. Gabrielson who wanted to make it perfectly clear that the protection of the right of every citizen to get a fishing license would not interfere with his control of fishing gear.

I am satisfied that S. 930 makes no change in the White Act and if there is any question of aboriginal rights, it is no different in this bill than it was in 1926 under the White Act.

Section 3: In view of the Department's suggestion about using dynamite, I am very glad to make the insertions they want in subsection (a) of section 3.

The next two amendments are those which I suggested originally and of course I think they are desirable.

I cannot agree that those who purchase fish without knowledge of their having been illegally caught should be penalized. I have found no other congressional enactment which does this. Indeed, I find that in the Fair Labor Standards Act, there is a somewhat similar provision protecting the common carriers who accept goods for shipment without knowledge of any violation in their manufacture. In such cases the carrier is not subject to penalties for shipment of such illegally manufactured goods. As I said yesterday, the violator should be punished, not the innocent purchaser without knowledge.

Section 4: I can see no difference between the language the Department suggests on page 4, line 4, from that which appears in the bill, but if they prefer their way of saying it I see no objections to using such language.

Section 5: The changes suggested by the Department in subsections (c) and (d) of section 5 seem to me to be proper.

I do not, however, think that the proposed changes in section 5 (e) are desirable. Two sentences of their proposal are already in the bill. In my statement yesterday I hoped I made it clear that I think that this is a conservation measure. If it is, the sentence on page 6, line 6, should be retained. This means that in determining whether a man should get a permit for a vessel or a lease in one fishing area, the controlling considerations of conservation in that area should govern. If we permit the Director to withhold permits or leases in one area because the applicant there is an applicant or a permit holder in some other place, I think we open the way for all types of personal preference. This sentence was talked about a good deal yesterday and I want to make it clear that I think the safeguards it imposes are highly important.

Section 6: The Department's proposals for section 6 (c) cannot, I believe, be acceptable to the committee. The two changes proposed would in effect permit both taxation of the industry and the expenditure of the proceeds without any congressional control. This is not a revenue bill, as I stated yesterday. The fees to be collected should be sufficient only to offset the cost of administering the regulatory system now provided.

I called the committee's attention to page 23, section 19, of the bill, which provides for a continuing automatic appropriation of all such fees and rentals. This makes it important that a specific limitation on the amounts of such fees be specified on page 7. Unless this is done we have substantially given the Department the power to tax and spend the money without any congressional control.