Mr. DIMOND. There are plenty of salmon along the Siberian coast. The salmon fishery of Siberia is very valuable and it is my information that the most of it is now under lease to the Japanese.

Mr. SIROVICH. I mean, have they been spawned up in Bristol Bay, in the lakes and rivers there, or at some other place?

Mr. DIMOND. No, the Siberia salmon are not Alaska salmon.
Mr. SIROVICH. They are not Alaska salmon?

Mr. DIMOND. No; the Alaska salmon do not go to Siberia. That is my information about it, and I think that is correct.

Mr. SIROVICH. And what was it you said you thought was leased to Japan?

Mr. DIMOND. The Siberian fisheries are under lease to the Japanese and, as I shall show and as other witnesses shall show a little bit later, the Japanese, by intensive fishing, have seriously depleted the Siberian salmon fishery so that the Siberian fisheries are in danger of exhaustion, just as they will do with our fisheries if they keep on along the road they have started.

Recently, and particularly during the year 1937, the salmon fishery of Alaska has been seriously threatened through the operation of Japanese ships, of from 6,000 to 12,000 tons, equipped as floating canneries and attended by a large number of smaller vessels which serve in catching the fish and conveying the same to the floating canneries. These floating canneries are ocean steamships fitted up and equipped completely as salmon canneries and evidently capable of handling and packing large quantities of salmon. The operations of the Japanese have taken place in Bristol Bay and that part of Bering Sea which is close to Bristol Bay. The operations have been carried on at some distance from shore; but, by reason of the shallowness of the water on the continental shelf over which the ships operate, no difficulty has been encountered. During 1937 the Japanese operated two such floating salmon canneries in Bristol Bay and in Bering Sea. Mr. SIROVICH. About how many has Japan had over there? Mr. DIMOND. They had two in 1937.

Mr. SIROVICH. And what was their tonnage?

Mr. DIMOND. One, I understand, was 12,000 tons; the other one I have not any definite information, but it was, I believe, above 6,000 tons.

Mr. SIROVICH. Are you sure they were not there taking soundings of the waters and photographs of other things for war purposes?

Mr. DIMOND. Other witnesses will go into detail about that. We have photographs of one of the Japanese floating canneries which was anchored, and one of the witnesses testified she had on her deck, at the time the airplane flew over her, a large quantity of newly-caught salmon, which were estimated by the experts in the plane at some 20,000. Of course, they could not be counted exactly. But if 20,000 could be seen, which was the result of one catch, we can surely come to the conclusion that the Japanese last summer took a vast quantity of salmon out of the waters of Bering Sea-although I think to this very moment they have denied they took any for commercial purposes. Mr. SIROVICH. Have complaints been made to the State Department in opposition to that, so far as you know?

Mr. DIMOND. Yes, sir; some very torrid complaints have been made to the State Department and to the Bureau of Fisheries. Mr. SIROVICH. With what result?

Mr. DIMOND. I am sure both the State Department and the Bureau of Fisheries are fully alive to the seriousness of the situation at this time.

Since the Japanese continuously deny that they have packed any salmon in that region other than in an experimental manner, there is no way in which we have been able to discover just how many salmon they have caught and packed. From the evidence at hand, we believe the number so taken by them was large and may embrace several millions. All that was necessary for the Japanese to do was to set their nets in the shallow waters of Bristol Bay and Bering Sea in the paths of the incoming salmon enroute to the inland waters to spawn. The Japanese commenced fishing in Bristol Bay several years ago, but at that time their avowed purpose was to catch only crabs and not to take any salmon. During or about the year 1932, Japanese commercial representatives of the crab packing industry came to the city of Washington, told our then Commissioner of Fisheries of their proposed operations [which perhaps had already been commenced], and inquired whether we had any objections thereto. At the time they assured us that they had no intention of taking salmon or interfering in any way with the salmon runs or migration. Upon that assurance we interposed no objections to the operations of the Japanese in catching and packing crabs, and so, since 1931 or 1932, the Japanese have each year packed considerable quantities of crabs taken from Bristol Bay and Bering Sea, and have sold a considerable part of such packs in the markets of the United States. In addition to crabs, the Japanese also took material quantities of cod, halibut, and other ground fish, but until recently they did not take commercial quantities of salmon.

Mr. SIROVICH. Why have they been granted the privilege to crab over here?

Mr. DIMOND. Well, that is a question I cannot answer.

Mr. SIROVICH. Well, you are the Delegate from Alaska; have you objected to that?

Mr. DIMOND. No, sir; I have not objected to it because, as far as I know, our own people in the fishing industry did not show any indications they wanted to take the crabs.

Mr. SIROVICH. I want to assure the Delegate from Alaska, for whom I have a personal affection and love, that I would be glad to help him, as a member of this committee, prohibit the Japanese having anything to do with Alaska, altogether. I think the sooner we get rid of the Japanese there, the better it will be for us.

Mr. DIMOND. I am glad to have the gentleman express that opinion, and I am sure the gentleman can help do that in passing this bill which is now under consideration.

While conclusive proof is not available, it is likely that in 1936 the Japanese commenced to pack salmon commercially in Bristol Bay and Bering Sea. For several years prior to that time it appears that the Japanese Government each year sent one or two of its public vessels to waters off the coast of Alaska for the purpose of studying the fishery resources of those waters and in certain cases to visit St. Paul Island to inspect the American fur seal herd. The American Government has on occasion given the Japanese Government permission for these vessels to enter American ports and waters, but it was always understood that all salmon fishing carried on by such Japanese Government

vessels was experimental and for the purpose of research only and was not a commercial enterprise. However, in 1936 some of our merchant seamen observed the Japanese steamer Chichibu Maru near the mouth of Bristol Bay and east of Pribilof Islands, apparently packing salmon. This ship gave every evidence of being a large floating cannery and was accompanied by six tenders each from 65 to 90 feet long, fishing with gill nets for salmon; in fact one of the tenders was observed to discharge salmon on the Chichibu Maru. The Japanese Government, however, and Japanese commercial bodies steadily denied that they were packing salmon commercially in Bristol Bay.

It seems likely that the Japanese found the 1936 salmon packing operations in Bristol Bay attractive and profitable, for on February 23, 1937, in Seattle, Wash., Mr. T. Takasaki, managing director of the Toyo Seikan Kaisha, Ltd. (Toyo Canning Industry Co.), of Osaka, a leading Japanese can manufacturing company, presented a prepared statement and made informal proposals to a group of American salmon packers and others interested. He was accompanied by Mr. M. Tamura of the same company.

The proposal made by Mr. Takasaki was an amazing one. It is best understood by reading his prepared statement, which is as follows:

In compensation for the scarcity of natural resources in Japan, God has endowed her with an unique gift of excellent fishing talent to take care of her population. Their destiny is, therefore, to develop that art further and further, and to exploit the fisheries products even from the open sea where the international law gives them absolute freedom and protection for such operation. In other words, they may operate floating fisheries on the open sea, and prepare the products on board the mother ship. This is the only way for them to obtain the chance of more employment by means of which they will take care of their overpopulation. According to the opinion made public by Colonel House, the spacious colonies held by some powers should be given up to the overcrowded nations in order to make better and fairer distribution of the natural resources. As long as this sound idea is not practiced, Japan will not give up the policy of hunting the products in the open sea-because this is the outcome of her right of living.

Due to bitter experience in the operation of floating fisheries since the year 1920, Japan has succeeded in putting crab, fish meal, salmon, and whale floating factories on the basis of a perfect sound industry. However, the Japanese Government recently enacted a law which requires a permit or license to operate floating fisheries of any kind. The spirit of the law is to avoid the wasteful operation which may come from too many operators, and also to avoid possible ill feeling with the fishing industry of other nations.

Japanese floating salmon canneries, which seem to bear a close resemblance to the same industry of Alaska, were licensed and actually operated off both sides of Kamchatka by many well-equipped steamers up to a few years ago. However, as they rapidly developed, the Japanese Government felt anxiety as to the possible effect on the shore canneries, so that an order was issued to consolidate them into one concern. The latter now bears the name of Taiheiyo Gyogyo Kaisha (Pacific Fisheries Corporation), whose shares are largely held by Nichiro Gyogyo Kaisha (Nichiro Fisheries Corporation), which controls the majority of the shore canneries of Kamchatka. The floating salmon canneries are operated aboard four steamers, and cooperate closely with the shore canneries. According to the statistics of canned salmon packed in 1936, the following figures are available for reference.

Kamchatka Shore Canneries, 1,094,797 cases:

Floating canneries, off the shore of Kamchatka, 281,540 cases.

In the meantime many enterprising fishery operators have naturally turned their eyes to the possibility of the same industry off the coasts of Alaska, due to the loss of their operations as a result of the birth of the Pacific Fisheries Corporation. As a matter of fact, at least 10 applications for operating licenses have been made to the Government since 1933 by these well-qualified and well-equipped out-of-job operators. However, the Government has so far refused licenses, and only in 1936, by parliamentary sanction, it was decided to send out an investigation ship.

47570-38-2

According to the explanation given by the Government at the session of Parliament, the chief purposes in sending this vessel are to investigate the biological aspects of the salmon fishery, to study possible effect as to international relations, and also to determine what effect the floating canneries would have on the shore packing. This work is to be continued for 3 years, beginning 1936, so that the result will not be published until it is completed. However, one thing becomes certain that there is quite a large possibility of profitable operation. The real motive for withholding the licenses in the name of the investigation is supposed to be the result of judging the probable wish of the American Government.

From the standpoint of the salmon canners on the Alaska coast, it is very natural to feel great anxiety as to possible damage in the matter of conservation of salmon when an ulnimited number of floating canneries operate in the open sea. This question should be thoughtfully considered without selfish arguments, particularly with respect to the floating canneries.

Mr. SIROVICH. Are you talking of floating canneries outside of the 3-mile limit, now?

Mr. DIMOND. Yes, sir.

Mr. SIROVICH. By nationals of Japan?

Mr. DIMOND. By the Japanese. Our nationals are not permitted to operate more than 3 miles from shore; they are forbidden by our laws and regulations to bring in any fish from these outside waters. But the Japanese claim they have the right, by international law— which I challenge, and deny-to intercept salmon beyond 3 miles from shore, and to take all the salmon in Bering Sea, even if it results in a complete exhaustion of the species.

Mr. SIROVICH. May I ask you a question on that subject?

Mr. DIMOND. Yes, sir.

Mr. SIROVICH. I can conceive, when you are away outside of the 3-mile limit, if this salmon are coming in schools, and they are swimming in 5 fathoms of water, that by putting a purse seine all around the place, Japan could practically take all of the fish that come there and prevent their even going into Bristol Bay.

Mr. DIMOND. There is no question about that, Doctor. That is just as certain as it is that we are sitting here, and that is precisely what the Japanese are going to do, unless we stop them.

Mr. SIROVICH. Is it your theory that international law permits them to do that?

Mr. DIMOND. They claim so, but I deny it. I deny that international law permits any such thing, and I say if we pass this bill and enforce it which we have a perfect legal right to do, both under the principles of our municipal law and international law-we can stop it, and it is the only way I know of that we can stop it.

Mr. SIROVICH. And that we could send up there Army and Navy ships and bomber airplanes to see that they get out of our waters?

Mr. DIMOND. Of course, that is something for the future. I think we have a right and a duty to protect our industries under any sound, sane, moral theory of international law. As I shall point out a little later, I think it was Mr. Wheaton who said that international law really means international morality.

Mr. SIROVICH. From what I heard years ago, when I was traveling throughout Europe, we found parties of Japanese going along the Aleutian Islands and Bristol Bay, and Alaska was undefended in those days. We had 200 soldiers in all of Alaska, and the Aleutian Islands were undefended. And it is their theory, if they ever have a war with this country, that they will go into Bristol Bay and take those Aleutian Islands, where they will have access to the salmon to

feed their army, and they will use the Aleutian Islands as a base for their airplanes to bomb Washington, Oregon, California, and destroy the Panama Canal and isolate the Hawaiian Islands. And I am in full sympathy with the purposes of the gentlemen (Mr. Dimond) in his bill, to prevent Japan from having anything to do there in Alsaka, at all.

Mr. DIMOND. Thank you, sir. Now to continue reading the statement of Mr. Takasakı:

Looking into the problem of conservation, although I am not a student of physiology of salmon, in my humble opinion we should forbid the river fishery first

And may I interpolate here and ask the committee to pay particular attention to this; this is what the Japanese gentleman proposed. He said, "In my humble opinion, we should forbid the river fishery first." That is to forbid us the use of our fishery! Now to continue reading from his statement:

* * * the coastal fishery next, and the open sea fishery last, for more efficient conservation of the salmon. The open-sea fishing is not commonly operated, regardless of the fact that it seems to answer best the question of conservation. For what reason? Is it not for the economic reason that the operation of floating canneries usually costs more than the others? Why then should it be fair to stop open-sea operation of a party who knows how to operate it more profitably than the shore packing?

The salmon born in a Japanese hatchery may be claimed as the property of that place so long as it is kept feeding there. However, when the salmon once goes out into the open sea, we may not be able to claim it as our property, no matter who may catch it. May this not hold true in the similar case, when the salmon has grown up in the open sea and is caught there by other nationalities, regardless of whether or not it was spawned in a United States hatchery? May Americans claim that such fish is actually their property?

It goes without saying that it is absolutely unknown what effect the floating cannery, if it operates, will have on the shore packing. Can anyone deny this? A Japanese fishing expert offered his opinion that the probable number of salmon caught by sea animals, such as seals and sea lions, which are protected by the four-power treaty, greatly exceeds the number caught by human beings.

As a business man I venture to offer my humble opinion that the best solution of this case should be to make a careful investigation of all the facts. Such investigation can readily be accomplished through the full cooperation of the American interests concerned.

A trial operation will not only give all the facts and data required, but also may yield quite a large return to be divided between both countries.

That closes the reading of the formal statement presented by the representative of the Japanese business interest. After reading his prepared statement, Mr. Takasaki made proposals more definite in character.

He said that by reason of unemployment among fishermen and idleness of fishing vessels in Japan, political pressure has been_brought to bear upon the Japanese Government to permit the Japanese operators to extend their operations into Bristol Bay and that it may not be possible to prevent the Government from granting permits for floating cannery operations in the Britsol Bay and Bering Sea area.

In order to avoid any dispute which might arise through the granting of permits by the Japanese Government to operate floating salmon canneries in Bristol Bay, Mr. Takasaki proposed that Americans and Japanese jointly finance and operate one or two small Japanese floating canneries for operation in the Bristol Bay area, the work to go forward under a board of directors of whom half should be Americans and half Japanese.

Mr. CULKIN. Where is Bristol Bay?