CANADA'S ANNOUNCED PURPOSE AN INSULT TO OUR PATRIOTISM.

Canada's procession toward the fulfillment of this purpose is accompanied by blatant, insulting arrogance which challenges the patriotism of our citizens by assuming that we dare not resist and that concealment of its intent is, therefore, unnecessary.

BRITISH AMBASSADOR MAY HAVE BEEN MISINFORMED.

It is incredible that the British ambassador could be drawn to the support of Canada's claims, except the facts have been withheld from him. If properly informed he must of necessity, through sense of fairness, withdraw his protest or become a party to Canada's unjust contentions.

SUMMARY OF ISSUES INVOLVED.

What are the issues involved? What would be the inevitable result of further permitting present conditions?

First. A purely American industry would be permanently diverted from American to Canadian ports.

Second. The $5,000,000 capital investment of American citizens would become valueless and be absorbed by Canada.

Third. The fishing fleet numbering hundreds of vessels would pass from American to Canadian registry.

Fourth. Thousands of American fishermen would eventually be displaced by Canadian subjects.

Fifth. American transportation companies-water and rail-would be robbed of the transportation of fish caught on our own coasts destined to American markets.

Sixth. American commerce would lose the trade benefits incidental to operation of this $5,000.000 industry yet in its infancy.

Seventh. The control of a valuable American food supply and of its cost to American consumers would pass from the United States to Canada.

JUSTICE TO AMERICANS IMPOSES NO UNFAIR COMPETITION ON CANADA.

The judgment of a Solomon is not a requisite to a just determination of the question. Shall we rob Americans of the results of their enterprise and industry at the instance and for the benefit of Canada, or shall we conserve American interests regardless of Canadian protest, confident in the knowledge that our act of self-preservation imposes no unfair competition on like interests of Canada? There can be but one answer. Self-preservation is the first law. If we destroy ourselves we must gain but the contempt of other nations who attribute our concessions to inefficiency or fear.

TO ACQUIESCE IS ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL VASSALAGE. To acquiesce in the protest by Great Britain in the face of the evidence is to shame the spirit of '76 and to humbly and submissively extend our wrists to be manacled as evidence of our commercial and industrial vassalage. We, there fore, voice our protest on behalf of American institutions and ask the small protection for our industry and our employees that would be afforded by providing "That from and after 90 days from the passage of this act no fresh or frozen halibut or salmon from the North Pacific Ocean or its tributary waters shall be admitted into the United States through any foreign country except when the same shall be in bond from an American port."

We, the undersigned, subscribe our names to the foregoing statement of the handicaps to and threatened extinction of the American fresh-fish industry which we represent in the belief that if the facts known to us and set forth in this statement are presented to the administration and Congress they will outweigh the uninformed and uninforming protest of the British ambassagor and that Congress will immediately provide the necessary protection.

BOOTH FISHERIES CO.

SAN JUAN FISHING & PACKING Co.
NATIONAL INDEPENDENT FISHERIES Co.
RIPLEY FISH CO.

GLACIER FISH CO.

HALIBUT LANDINGS, PACIFIC COAST.

In view of the apparent efforts being made to transfer to Canada as far as possible benefits from the fisheries which should accrue to Alaska I will insert for the benefit of the committee the following comparative statements of halibut landing at the four principal markets upon the Pacific coast, prepared by the Bureau of Fisheries:

It may be pointed out that the halibut fleet of Puget Sound (Seattle) consists of 109 independent vessels, also 8 steamers aggregating 840 net tons, owned by the fish companies. The Vancouver fleet comprises 33 vessels, which include the steamers owned by the Canadian subsidiary of the New England Fish Co., operated under the British flag. The Prince Rupert fleet consists of 62 vessels, many of which were formerly under the American flag and owned in Alaska or Puget Sound. The halibut vessels actually owned in Alaska are few in number and consist, as Delegate Sutherland says, mainly of small craft, which fish the near-by banks. The number of such vessels is not shown in the Pacific Fisherman Year Book, from which the foregoing is compiled. If the fisheries for United States markets were required to be conducted from Alaska instead of being permitted to be controlled from Canadian ports, Alaska would build in population and wealth. A key to why it can not so develop under present conditions may be found in the following: Extract from statement by Mr. Thompson, merchant and fish buyer of Ketchikan, Alaska, made at Ketchikan, Alaska, May 18, 1918, Shipping Board Rate Hearings, docket 3, pages 190-193:

"Mr. THOMPSON. It is generally understood that the Grand Trunk Railway has practically subsidized one of the buyers in Prince Rupert for the purpose of getting the business. That is one of the reasons why most of the schooner fish or schooner halibut goes to Prince Rupert.

"Mr. CLARK. By being subsidized they are able to pay higher than American buyers?

In

"Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. There are so many things that have a bearing on the buying of halibut that it is pretty hard to take them all into consideration at once. There is a great deal of halibut that is bought in Prince Rupert. certain parts of the year 50 per cent of it is shipped from Prince Rupert to Seattle. Cull halibut are shipped to Seattle during the season of high prices and they are sold in the Seattle market for Seattle consumption at a higher price than the same fish can be sold in the East, for at that time of the year practically no fish are shipped east. That is a little trick of the fishing game that goes on all the time between Seattle and Prince Rupert. As I say, there are so many things that enter into that, that it is pretty hard to consider them all at one time.

"Mr. CLARK. Is not that also true of fish buying in American ports? In other words, is not the eastern market being educated to ask for what is called No. 1 halibut, that is medium-sized halibut which is largely blue meated, and no gray-bottom fish?

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes; they have.

'Mr. CLARK. And it is recognized that the other fish, while called No. 2 fish, is just as good as the No. 1 fish and consists largely of large fish and chickens. "Mr. THOMPSON. I do not think that the transportation problem on fresh fish would be affected any way; that is, the shipments of fish from Alaska ports would not be affected any by Canadian competition as far as buying of the fish is concerned.

"Mr. CLARK. I recall telegrams that were sent by the heads of fresh fish companies in Seattle to Washington at the time the bill was up proposing the

admission of foreign ships into the coastwise trade, in which it was expressed that they feared the admission of foreign competition, because the shortening of American competition would probably result in diverting the fish business from United States ports to Canadian ports by reason of better rates offered to such ports than would be offered to American ports.

"Mr. THOMPSON. Yes.

"Mr. CLARK. I wondered if you had that same view.

"Mr. THOMPSON. I do not take that view, for the reason that Prince Rupert and Vancouver are not actively engaged in buying boxed fish as they are in Seattle. Prince Rupert is a great market for schooner fish. But at the present time, to my own knowledge, they do not want to see boxed fish come in there. They are not looking for boxed fish. I have shipped to the Prince Rupert market myself, and every time that I have done so I have done it to my sorrow, for the reason that it is not the kind of fish they are looking for. They are not after that business.

"Mr. STRONG. I would like to ask Mr. Thompson if it is not a fact that Prince Rupert interests are working in every way to center the schooner business at that port? They want the business of the schooner fleet?

'Mr. THOMPSON. Yes; that is the truth. They want the schooner business. "Mr. STRONG. It builds up industry at their port, and they want the schooner business.

"Mr. THOMPSON. They will bid on schooner fish from 2 to 3 cents per pound more at any time, whether it is salmon or halibut, than they will on boxed fish. “Mr. CLARK. In other words, they discriminate against boxed fish in order to force the fishermen into that port?"

Mr. GARFIELD. Then I will ask you another question in the same connection, Mr. Clark: Why is it no American line competes with the Canadian lines on the triangle run between Seattle, Victoria, and Vancouver?

Mr. CLARK. Being in the customs service, you will know that it was caused by a ruinous rate war waged by the Canadian Pacific Steamship Co. against the American carrier, coupled with the same kind of loose interpretation of our laws as has obtained in Alaska, as the result of which that Government subsidized Canadian company drove out the American line just as they would in Alaska if permitted opportunity at your plea. A statement of the conditions which eliminated the American carriers upon that route is a matter of record in the hearings on H. R. 5609, Sixty-fifth Congress, referred to by Mr. Edmonds this afternoon. In addition to the rate war, there was understood to be the accompanying threat that the Canadian interests would finance compeition with the American carriers in the purely American port-to-port coastwise routes of the latter upon Puget Sound, for the purpose of forcing the American carriers into submission to Canadian desires. A competition such as was inaugurated in Alaska by the Grand Trunk Pacific Co. with the steamer Tilamook, a vessel wholly owned by foreign interests but camouflaged under the American flag through a "dummy corporation" now owned by the Government of Canada. Mr. GARFIELD. Then they bluffed you out of the trade?

Mr. CLARK. They did more than bluff; they had behind their bluff the treasury of the Canadian Pacific Railroad, enriched by a cash subsidy from the Dominion of Canada of over $345.000.000.

Mr. GARFIELD. Any time an American in his ingenuity will let a Canadian put it over on him I think he is a pretty poor fish.

Mr. CLARK. As you are in the United States customs service you ought to know how is was accomplished. At the present time the American line upon Puget Sound, having been whipped and otherwise influenced into subjection, is permitted to operate one vessel to Victoria by an indirect route during the year, and for about three months in the summer time is permitted to operate a vessel to Victoria on the direct route. It is understood that such arrangement is by and with the consent of the Canadian Pacific Railway Co. This vessel may only operate as far as Victoria, and does not make the "triangle run" which would include Vancouver.

Mr. GARFIELD. They can operate to Victoria or Vancouver.

Mr. CLARK. Oh, yes; they should be permitted such operation; but it is not arranged at the present time, I understand, other than by special consent of the Canadian Pacific Railway.

Mr. GARFIELD. Any more than we would permit any of their boats to operate between two American ports.

Mr. CLARK. That is not a parallel case. We do not seek for American vessels the right to carry between two British ports, but only to secure the square deal in the export and import trade and coastwise trade of our own country, and to

preserve the integrity of our coasting trade. To prevent us from doing so is a part of a British policy, a policy I will establish before the committee by documentary evidence before I finish.

Mr. GARFIELD. Well, I simply maintain that we have natural outlet through Prince Rupert to the mother country of the United States.

Mr. CLARK. To which nobody has as yet objected.

Mr. GARFIELD. For all the products of Alaska.

Mr. CLARK. To which nobody has yet objected so long as you use American vessels.

Mr. GARFIELD. And if you people, the people you represent, were as patriotic in this matter and as anxious to get the business as you claim to be, you would put American bottoms on that run to handle that business.

Mr. CLARK. I am representing the National Merchant Marine Association, which is not engaged in business.

Mr. GARFIELD. Is not the National Merchant Marine Association in the shipping business?

Mr. CLARK. The National Merchant Marine Association is a patriotic organization developed and maintained without profit which is attempting to expand and build up an American merchant Marine sentiment that shall undo some of the results from propaganda for foreign interests such as is being presented here to-day in the hopes of influencing American legislation to permit operation of foreign shipping in American coastwise trades.

The CHAIRMAN. You will always find plenty of friendship here for American shipping; I will guarantee you that.

Mr. GARFIELD. We have every bit of friendship for American shipping; but we say that there is an opportunity here for the development of the Territory of Alaska if these people, the American shipowners, see fit to give it the service which we ought to have. That is all I am here to represent. As long as we get that, why, then, there will be no use for having Canadian boats carrying any of that trade.

Mr. CLARK. If that is your only object, I would like you to explain to this committee, in writing, if you will, why there were no shipments from Alaska ports to Prince Rupert when American vessels were operating there and prepared to handle the business for which you are so solicitous.

Mr. GARFIELD. The fishing business at that time was not developed to the extent that it is to-day; the railroad was not completed clear through at that time and they could not handle shipments through to the East.

Mr. CLARK. Oh, yes; the railroad was completed.

Mr. GARFIELD. A very short time after the railroad was completed, these vessels were taken off. They only ran there during the boom days of Prince Rupert, as long as they could get passengers enough to warrant their calling at that port.

Mr. CLARK. Oh, no; on the contrary, the vessels were continued late into 1916, until they were discouraged to the quitting point by an interpretation by the Canadian customs of a Canadian order in council that they would not be permitted to carry American fish in export from Prince Rupert to Seattle. That was the "straw that broke the camel's back" and so Canada got rid of the American competition with its Canadian rail line owned water carriers.

Mr. STRONG. If we could get that American car-ferry service established to Alaska, would not that solve the question; would not the shipments from all the ports of Alaska, bound for the East and all the shipments to Alaska naturally come in there on American boats to American ports, and it would not be necessary for service of Canadian boats?

Mr. GARFIELD. That car-ferry service will come from Ketchikan to Prince Rupert whenever there is business enough going both ways to pay for its operation. Mr. STRONG. And will you admit that there will be business enough to justify that when we get adequate protection to the Alaska fisheries?

Mr. GARFIELD. The matter of an export duty on American fish which is in volved here

Mr. STRONG. It is not an export duty.

Mr. CLARK. An import duty such as should be imposed on fish coming from Canada.

Mr. STRONG. Not necessarily an import duty either. Merely a law requiring that the fish moving to the American markets, through Canada, shall originate at an American port; that the fishing fleet, either American or Canadian, shall discharge her fish, if it is going to the United States, at an American port, and there will be no duty at all.

Mr. GARFIELD. But in order to accomplish that, you have to place a discriminatory duty on that fish to overcome the differential.

Mr. STRONG. Not necessarily at all. It is not necessary for a duty; merely a regulation that fish intended for an American market should be discharged at an American port. Now, I would like to ask this question-if such legislation would not solve the whole thing in connection with protecting Alaska Fisheries and the car-ferry service to Alaska. Would not that solve everything; would it not bring transportation to Alaska and wouldn't it increase the population of southeastern Alaska by 10,000 people and give her a pay roll that will run from $5,000,000 to $10,000,000 a year, that we are not getting now and that is now going to Canada? Answer that question.

Mr. GARFIELD. The handling of the goods in that manner, by car ferry service, will be accomplished just as soon as the traffic is sufficient to warrant it.

Mr. FREE. Why don't you answer his question, please?

Mr. GARFIELD. The traffic is not sufficient to-day, and it is not possible for that to take place.

Mr. STRONG. If we had a regulation that would prevent those fish that are now being taken by the Alaska fishing fleet to Canadian ports-if we had a regulation that would require them to be taken to Alaska ports, would not we have the volume of business?

Mr. GARFIELD. And if you could make such a law as would absolutely prevent the American fishing people from going any place, except to the American port, to discharge their catch, why, then, it would probably accomplish that end. Mr. STRONG. Yes.

Mr. GARFIELD. But that law you can never make.

Mr. SUTHERLAND. Where do you get this $10,000,000 of American fish going to Prince Rupert?

Mr. STRONG. I say about $5,000,000 at the present time.

Mr. SUTHERLAND. Where do you get those figures for the present year?
Mr. STRONG. The statistics show that.

Mr. SUTHERLAND. How many pounds of halibut go into Prince Rupert per year, if you are familiar with it?

Mr. STRONG. It is not all in halibut; it is about $3,000,000 in halibut and the rest in other fish.

Mr. SUTHERLAND. $5,000,000 worth of fish?

Mr. STRONG. That includes the pay roll for preparing those fish for shipment; that is icing and everything. We are sending $5,000,000 a year there now to buy fish and I say the volume will increase-if we do not get legislation it will increase to $10,000,000.

Mr. CHINDBLOM. Let me suggest that we allow Mr. Garfield to finish his statement, otherwise we will never get through.

Mr. GARFIELD. I want to state this much in passing in relating to what Mr. Strong said this afternoon. I bel'eve, if I understood him correctly, he said there were American buyers in Prince Rupert buying Alaska fish in Prince Rupert market and to be shipped across the continent to the United States. Mr. STRONG. Yes.

Mr. GARFIELD. Why is it, then, Mr. Strong, that they can pay more for that fish than your buyers in Ketchikan or the buyers in Seattle?

Mr. STRONG. Why, for the very good reason that no man can buy fish in Alaska and ship them to the United States in competition with them. We have not the facilities and we never will have the facilities, because we have not the volume of business until we get legislation throwing the volume of business to us. Mr. GARFIELD. How far is it from Ketchikan to Prince Rupert?

Mr. STRONG. It is about 90 miles.

Mr. GARFIELD. Yes.

Mr. STRONG. And you mean to say a man could buy fish in Ketchikan and ship to Prince Rupert and let it pass over the Grand Trunk Railroad in competition with the man who is doing business on Canadian soil?

Mr. GARFIELD. No; but I say this: That our fishermen in southeastern Alaska can very frequently take their fish to Prince Rupert and get a higher price. taking also into consideration the cost of transportation and the running of their boats there, than they can in either Juneau or Ketchikan.

Mr. STRONG. Yes; for the reason, in Ketchikan and Juneau, they can not do anything with them.

Mr. GARFIELD. Then our fishermen demand that they have that opportunity to get the highest price that they can for their fish and to go wherever they can get that, and if our markets do not afford the price which can be paid in Prince