Senator BURTON. I would be glad to have it. I am particularly anxious to know: Does that report reach any conclusion on this type of a suggestion?

Mr. DIMOND. No, sir. The report, as I recall, declined to recommend favorably the abolition of all fish traps, which I have urged, but the report did not go any further and did not recommend the enactment of any legislation such as is now before you with respect to fish traps.

Senator BURTON. And you are not taking the position now that you would favor the elimination of all fish traps?

Mr. DIMOND. I would if I had my way about it, but I am not asking the committee to take any such action. You see, Senator, we have tried that. We have tried it in minescule, I guess you would call it. We have tried it in a small area, in Bristol Bay. There are no fish traps in Bristol Bay. It is one of the richest fishing grounds in the world. There are no fish traps in Bristol Bay. Now, they say that we had some of them but they couldn't use fish traps. That is all horse feathers. Traps could be used in Bristol Bay, and they could be used efficiently, but years and years ago, back in World War I-and I get this upon excellent authority; I know what I am talking about— when there was a demand for men for the Army and for men for the shipyards, and so on, there was a demand that traps be installed in Bristol Bay-oh, they had a few, not many-that traps be installed in Bristol Bay; and a request was made to the President, and Mr. Gompers, who was then Secretary of Labor, was successful in stopping it because he knew that the men who were fishing there, if they were taken out, would never get back. And I think you ought to extend that all along the coast of Alaska and not have any fishing by traps at all. But others who are equally intelligent disagree with me and think we ought to have traps.

Of course, I say there should be none or all. If we have traps, why not make it all traps: Eliminate your fishermen entirely and make it all by traps. Of course, they don't want to go to that extent, and so they have sort of compromised. The fishermen have a chance, and the trap owners have a chance. And yet all I am seeking here is not to have the trap owners get any greater rights than they have at present. I am seeking to prevent passage of this legislation.

I spoke a little while ago of absentee landlordism, and we have it with a vengeance in Alaska. I haven't any grievance against those who invest their money in Alaska or work in Alaska, God knows. But here we have a provision for hearings on the regulations, and that provision is that the hearings are to be held where, to regulate the Alaska fisheries? They are to be held in Seattle, Wash. That is where you are going to have your hearings. That is on page 11, line 14. Then it provides, generously, that the Commissioner in his discretion can have hearings in Alaska. If he says so, he may have hearings in Alaska. One of my constituents in Alaska described this as the bill to protect the suburbs of Seattle, and that is just about what it is.

The idea is carried out further in the provision on page 12. It is in section 10 (c) for the creation of an advisory borad to advise the Secretary of the Interior or the Director of the Fish and Wildlife

Service, and this advisory board is going to consist of two principal members

consisting of three members and two alternates. The Secretary of the Interior shall be the chairman of the Board, and as such chairman shall have the sole power of determination of all matters submitted to the Board for review

I am reading at the top of page 13.

except that he is authorized to appoint a member of the executive staff of the Department of the Interior as chairman of the Board for any particular hearing, who, when so sitting, and for the purpose of determining the matters heard by him, shall have the full power of chairman. The two other members of the Board shall be known as the advisory members and shall sit in an advisory capacity only. The advisory members of the Board shall be selected in the following manner: One of such members and one alternate shall be selected by employees engaged in the Alaska fishing industry, and one of such members and one alternate shall be selected by the employers engaged in the Alaska fishing industry

All right. Now, I know just how they are going to be selected: Packers, the operators, the employers, so 99 percent of them live outside of Alaska, and so they will represent Seattle or San Francisco or Portland or some other place.

Senator WALLGREN. Would you say 99 percent of them—
Mr. DIMOND. I would think so.

Senator WALLGREN. Live outside of Alaska?

Mr. DIMOND. Ninety-nine percent.

Senator WALLGREN. Outside of Alaska?

Mr. DIMOND. Outside of Alaska, 99 percent.

Senator WALLGREN. How long does it take you to get from Seattle to Ketchikan

Mr. DIMOND. It takes me 6 hours.

Senator WALLGREN. By boat, we will say?

Mr. DIMOND. Two days by boat.

Senator WALLGREN. Two days by boat. Mr. Dimond, getting back to this

Mr. DIMOND. Wait just a minute. Well, go ahead.

Senator WALLGREN. I want to get back to something here, if you don't mind.

Mr. DIMOND. All right.

Senator WALLGREN. What is the total pack in Bristol Bay? Do you know?

Mr. DIMOND. I think it was 1,250,000 cases this year, something like that.

Senator WALLGREN. 1,250,000 packed without traps?

Mr. DIMOND. That's right.

Senator WALLGREN. And that would leave, out of a 6,000,000 pack, 4,750,000 packed?

Mr. DIMOND. It wasn't 6,000,000. It was about five million three hundred and some thousand.

Senator WALLGREN. About five million three hundred and some thousand?

Mr. DIMOND. Yes.

Senator WALLGREN. About 5,000,000 that were packed not with traps? Partly seining?

Mr. DIMOND. That is right.

Senator WALLGREN. Partly gill-netting? I wonder if we have any figures on the total number of cases of fish that might be packed by fish that were taken from traps.

Mr. DIMOND. That information was all submitted to the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries years ago. I haven't it with me, I am sorry to say. I didn't think there would be any question about it.

Senator WALLGREN. Is it quite a considerable amount?

Mr. DIMOND. Oh, I think the traps-I don't know. I am justmy memory is not good enough. The traps, as I recall, outside of Bristol Bay, furnish more than half of the fish; maybe considerably more than half. I don't know. Some canneries, I do remember, filled 90 percent of their requirements from traps, and others lesser percents. Undoubtedly these gentlemen here have all the figures, and they can tell you all about it.

Senator WALLGREN. Well, of course-
Mr. DIMOND. May I continue?

Senator WALLGREN. Yes; but there is one more little question. You were talking about hearings to be held in Seattle.

Mr. DIMOND. Yes. We have fishermen in Alaska who cannot travel to Seattle. This is an Alaska industry, and our fishermen are entitled to some consideration here. The packers can more eaily go to Juneau than the fishermen with their small income can come to Seattle. I think it is an outrage.

Senator WALLGREN. Well, the fishermen would only have a representative, would they not, coming down, and you would have 99 percent of the packers, you say, are outside of Alaska. Then why wouldn't Seattle be rather a pretty good spot for them to meet, sort of a central point for them?

Mr. DIMOND. No; this is an Alaska fishery, and out fishermen live there. We have some people in Alaska-I don't know what percentage of them-who have some rights, Senator, in the fisheries in Alaska and live in the territory. I suppose more than half of them; I wouldn't know. But they are entitled to some consideration. Let us have the hearings in Alaska. If you want to have hearings in Seattle also, that is fine; have them there. But this bill provides that the hearings by mandate must be held in Seattle, and then the Commissioner of Fisheries, if he sees fit to do so, and only if he sees fit to do so, can have the hearings in Alaska.

Senator WALLGREN. Well, now, Mr. Dimond, I have one or two questions. I want to be clear on the matter, too, because you mention the fact that you would like to see-there is no need of any legislation, you say?

Mr. DIMOND. No.

Senator WALLGREN. Yet you feel that the War Department has no right whatever to interfere or to determine whether or not a man should be permitted to drive a trap?

Mr. DIMOND. I say, Senator, that the War Department has no right to discriminate, to say that one man may have a permit to drive a certain structure at a certain place in the waters of Alaska and that another man may not have such a permit, because that is none of the War Department's business, and the War Department agrees with that.

Senator WALLGREN. Their discrimination has amounted to this; has it not: That they have not permitted anyone to drive a trap within a mile of another trap; is that right?

Mr. DIMOND. Oh, that is by regulation.

Senator WALLGREN. Yes.

Mr. DIMOND. That is a different thing entirely.

Senator WALLGREN. Well, no; but doesn't the War Department control that?

Mr. DIMOND. Well, the War Department can control it, but I don't know of any reason why the War Department did or should, unless the War Department steps outside of its authority and seeks to regulate the fisheries, and the War Department has never been given by Congress the right to regulate fisheries.

Senator WALLGREN. What if the Bureau of Fisheries were to say, "We open these waters to fishing," and then does that mean that there is going to be a mad scramble and a lot of ligitation and a lot of

Mr. DIMOND. Everybody has the same thing.

Senator WALLGREN. And all the lawyers in Alaska are going to be kept pretty busy?

Mr. DIMOND. Well, there were a few lawsuits in the old days. I guess one time I could call them all by name, but I have forgotten the titles now. Perhaps there were half a dozen trap cases involved, and that's all; very few, if any, more. There wasn't any mad scramble generally. In some individual instances; yes. And I think that unless you want to create a monopoly, unless you want to authorize homesteads in the sea, you have to go back to the original plan.

Senator WALLGREN. Well, you would say, then, that the existing law provides a monopoly?

Mr. DIMOND. The existing-it is not a law.

Senator WALLGREN. Well, the existing regulations?

Mr. DIMOND. The existing situation

Senator WALLGREN. Yes.

Mr. DIMOND. Wherein the War Department takes it upon itself to say that one man may have a permit to drive a trap and no other man can drive a trap at that point or within a mile of it. That does create a monopoly.

Senator WALLGREN. Then there is just a monopoly in existence now, then?

Mr. DIMOND. And I would have raised plenty of uproar about that before if we hadn't been in the midst of a terrible war when we all want to keep silent on these irrelevant things and get on with the war. And I say to you, Mr. Chairman, the thing to do now is to get on with the war and to ditch this legislation.

Senator WALLGREN. This legislation has been pending for a considerable period of time.

Mr. DIMOND. Well, let me go on with my story here. On page 13 we have this provision about the advisory board. You pointed out that the packers are going to be nonresidents of Alaska, very likely. We haven't very many packers residing in Alaska. When I said 99 percent, I mean 99 percent of the ownership anyhow; whether in number or not I wouldn't be able to say. And of course the chances are so large that there is not much chance opposite, that the members chosen from the employees will be residents of the States too. The Secretary can choose them, and since these hearings are going to be held in Seattle, why, I suppose he would choose a representative of the employees who lives in Seattle or San Francisco or somewhere

else and who does not live in Alaska. And so if you pass this legislation with the language unchanged, why, you can well label this bill as this man from Cordova-Mr. Wiese I believe-has, "a bill to protect the suburbs of Seattle."

Senator WALLGREN. How many people in Alaska do you figure are engaged in the fishing business?

Mr. DIMOND. I don't know that. The Department can furnish all those figures. The Department has

Senator WALLGREN. Have you an approximate idea?

Mr. DIMOND. I just don't know. I should say 15,000 of them anyhow.

Senator WALLGREN. You will admit the value of the salmon pack in Alaska is close to $50,000,000?

Mr. DIMOND. You said it right; between forty and sixty million.
Senator WALLGREN. Between forty and sixty million dollars?
Mr. DIMOND. Quite right.

Senator WALLGREN. Do you mean to say that we have to turn all that over to the residents of Alaska?

Mr. DIMOND. Why, no; of course not. I am not asking you to turn anything over to the residents of Alaska. I am telling you, I am asking you to leave things as they are, with the one exception as to the illegal action of the War Department. And I don't blame the War Department for it because the War Department was trying to cooperate with the then Commerce Department, which had jurisdiction of the fisheries, in refusing to grant more than one permit for a trap in any certain location.

Senator WALLGREN. Well, if you were the Director of Fisheries and that right would be taken away from the War Department, how would you handle the situation? Where you were going to open fishing waters to fishing, how would you handle the question as to whether or not 8, 10, 2, 3, or 4 men were to be granted the right to drive traps within waters that were open to fishing?

Mr. DIMOND. Well, the courts have decided that: "First in time. strongest in right." The courts have decided that. And when I was practicing law, as I recall, I engaged once or twice as an attorney in litigation of that nature, and there wasn't any great difficulty about it Senator WALLGREN. Well, you might have quite a mad scramble. Some of those traps are valuable.

Mr. DIMOND. That is right.

Senator WALLGREN. There isn't any question about it.

Mr. DIMOND. I can recall a case in which there was-you can call it a mad scramble; it was a scramble between two persons each of whom claimed he was first in time and strongest in right, but the court finally decided it, and that was the end of it.

Now, Mr. Chairman, by and by Alaska hopes to become a State. I hope it will come soon. I think it ought to come soon. With the coming of statehood, unless all the precedents are ignored, the whole control of the fisheries will go to the State of Alaska. I would like to have some amendments, too. Since we are doing fairly well with the laws we have, I suggest that no such revolutionary legislation as is proposed here should be enacted at this time or until the end of the war, at least, when we have a chance to pay attention to such matters again.