Mr. SIROVICH. These fish you are talking of being artificially hatched in the State of Washington, are they the pinks or the red salmon?

Dr. CLARK. Some are pinks, some are reds, some are chinooks on the Columbia River. They have marked them by clipping the fins, and in one way and another, and know that they do come back.

Mr. SIROVICH. How long does it take them to come back?

Dr. CLARK. It depends on the cycle. If they are pink salmon, they will be back in 2 years; red salmon, or sock-eyes, will be back in 4 years; chinooks in 4 or 5 years.

Mr. SIROVICH. What percentage of the eggs which one salmon produces are ultimately fertilized and return; what is the mortality? Dr. CLARK. The mortality is very high. I have heard it stated and only make this as a tentative statement, that it is something like 3 or 4 percent.

Mr. SIROVICH. That would return.

Dr. CLARK. That would return-of the actual number of eggs laid. Mr. SIROVICH. I have heard witnesses here testify about the red salmon, who were experts, say that out of every 3,000 eggs laid in the lakes and rivers of Alaska, only five ultimately return.

Dr. CLARK. I should not be surprised. It depends on their predatory enemies, birds or trout, and the obstructions in the streams, freeze-ups, and a thousand-and-one things. It would be usefless for the different governments and the States to have very stringent conservation regulations themselves as to the closing of streams and protecting the mouths of streams, if that was not based on the fact there was a very reasonable expectation that those fish were coming back.

Now I have here a pamphlet of 48 printed pages, which is the Alaska Fishery Regulations for 1937. They go into great detail as to the seasons, times, when and where fish may be caught, and how they may be caught. Now these are the controls that our Government has established in Alaska for the protection and conservation of the fisheries.

Mr. SIROVICH. Is that a State regulation?

Dr. CLARK. No; these are Federal regulations for Alaska, and you can realize how detailed they are when I tell you there are 48 closely printed pages and some sections run up to 18 subsections and they have to use up nearly all of the letters of the alphabet for some of the smaller subsections.

Mr. SIROVICH. Has the development of Coulee Dam there destroyed your fishing altogether?

Dr. CLARK. Coulee Dam has not reached the stage, as yet, where I think it is interfering; but steps have been taken at Bonneville and a large amount of money has been spent there to try to insure that the salmon will go up all right and, also, that the little ones will come back. There are two problems; one is to get the fish up to spawn in the headwaters of the rivers; the other is to get them back. Both are serious problems.

Mr. SIROVICH. You think that could be solved?

Dr. CLARK. I hope so.

Something has been said on the marketing of the American canned salmon pack. Most of it is consumed in our own markets.

Mr. SIROVICH. May I ask you a question, Doctor, because I may have to go, and I am very vitally interested in and I have always tried

to protect the State of Washington and its interests in salmon. I have had complaint made to me by a physician of the packing interests of the State of Washington that there is an unjust interference by the Department of Foods and Drugs in condemning salmon without giving the individual owner the right to have his own physician, chemist, or examiner present at the time these condemnations are taking place. Do you think legislation ought to be enacted that would enable the owner of the pack to have a competent consultant over there with the examiner of the Department of Foods and Drugs, so that there can be a dual inspection?

Dr. CLARK. Yes, sir; we have asked for it.

Mr. SIROVICH. And that has never been done?

Dr. CLARK. No. And we hope in the pure food bill, when it comes up in the House, that the question you discussed will be given consideration-that where salmon or any other fishery product is to be condemned or to be judged by any test other than an objective test, which an ordinary chemist or bacteriologist can carry on-that where the test is a subjective one, depending on the sense of sight, smell, feeling, or something of that sort, that we feel the owner of the goods, whoever he may be, is entitled to have a man there at that time, to know just how he does it.

Mr. SIROVICH. And to take samples at the same time, himself? Dr. CLARK. Exactly; because, in the very nature of things, fish being so perishable, the can of the fish when the smelling is done, or the tasting is done, is gone and you can never duplicate that can, as the evidence is destroyed.

Mr. SIROVICH. I have had many people come to me from the State of Washington and say they were practically ruined; that they had packed 40,000 cases, or 50,000 cases, and then just on the whim and caprice of one inspector, they would seize the whole thing without having the owner given a chance to be present at the same time. Dr. CLARK. That is correct.

It has already been pointed out to you that the amount of the salmon which we export-which, by the way, is a relatively small amount; not over 10 or 12 percent-goes to the English market. Up to 1913, when the Japanese took charge of the enormous salmon fishery of Siberia and began to exploit it, the United States and Canada had the British market to themselves. But today the situation is entirely changed and, with the development of the Japanese canneries, not only of Japan and Siberia, but offshore canneries, 50 percent, now, of the English demand is supplied by Japanese salmon; the United States has over 30 percent and Canada has fallen down to only 15 percent. Mr. SIROVICH. What is the comparative difference in price of a case of pink salmon sold by Japan to Great Britain, and a case of pink salmon sold by the United States to Great Britain?

Dr. CLARK. We do not sell, Dr. Sirovich, very much pink salmon to Great Britain; neither does Japan. The English market demands the bright red salmon.

Mr. SIROVICH. What is the difference in price there; I would like to have an idea, because I know with the cheapness of Japanese labor, when we get up on the floor of the House to show the members in Congress the difference in price, we are in a position where we have got to talk in a tangible way.

Mr. FRIELE. The pink salmon of that particular kind in half-pound tins was selling in New York for 72.5 cents per dozen.

Mr. SIROVICH. Seventy-two and a half cents for how much? Mr. FRIELE. For 12 cans. And the American salmon was selling for 85 cents per dozen.

Mr. SIROVICH. In other words, there is a difference of 13 cents that Japan undersells the American salmon?

Mr. FRIELE. Yes. And the difference in the price of red salmon, I believe Mr. Childs can tell you.

The CHAIRMAN. And did I understand you to say there was a duty, too?

Mr. FRIELE. Yes, of 25 percent.

The CHAIRMAN. And even after paying that duty of 25 percent, they still undersell you?

Mr. FRIELE. Yes; they still undersell.

The CHAIRMAN. And the duty is how much?

Mr. FRIELE. Twenty-five percent.

The CHAIRMAN. Would a 50-percent increase in the duty take care of the deficiency?

Mr. FRIELE. It would; yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Has an application been made to the Tariff Commission for an increase in the duty?

Mr. FRIELE. Yes; at various times we have made it.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any matter pending now before the Tariff Commission having that in view, or do you know?

Dr. CLARK. No; the actual importation of Japanese salmon into the United States is very small and we have had it up from time to time with the Tariff Commission, but their theory is, unless it reaches a considerable proportion of the American production, they cannot do anything about it.

Mr. SIROVICH. What is the difference in the price of red salmon, even with your 25 percent tariff?

Dr. CLARK. I have never heard of any Japanese red salmon being offered in the United State.

Mr. FRIELE. No; all of the Japanese red salmon comes in competition with the American salmon in England.

Mr. SIROVICH. What is the difference in the price of a case of red salmon in Great Britain from the United States, and a case of red salmon in Great Britain from Japan?

Mr. FRIELE. Our price, the American price, is $2.50 per dozen for one pound, talls; and the Japanese price is $8 per case, or $2 per dozen, comparing it to the same price for 1 pound, flat.

Mr. SIROVICH. In other words, the Japanese red salmon per dozen and the American red salmon per dozen, sold in England, shows a half dollar difference in price?

Mr. FRIELE. Yes; per dozen.

Mr. SIROVICH. That is the amount which Japan undersells the American product in foreign countries?

Dr. CLARK. They have another advantage, too. Their currency is depreciated 40 percent with relation to the British pound, and so the English duty collected on their product is on a lower value.

Mr. SIROVICH. Is their labor element examined, too, so far as seeing that their work is sanitary in the packing of their goods? Dr. CLARK. In Japan?

Mr. SIROVICH. Yes.

Dr. CLARK. I think not, but all of their product is subjected to a very good examination.

The CHAIRMAN. At the same time, we have not only the examination of the product, but also sanitary regulations applying to the canneries, have we not?

Dr. CLARK. In the plants, yes; that is true.

Now I should make one point here, that, in the matter of prices, we have to bear in mind that the red salmon we sell in Great Britain is in 1-pound tall cans, and the Japanese product is in the flat cans, and the British market is willing to pay more for salmon in flat cans. than in tall cans.

Finally, there is one point I think should be brought out again, that is that this catching and canning of salmon by the Japanese offshore, whether off Kamchatka, or off Alaska, is not for the purpose of feeding their people at home, but for the purpose of being put into international trade and building up their trade balances; because their consumption of canned salmon, particularly of the red salmon species, is very low at home.

Mr. DIMOND. Dr. Clark, do you know whether, as a matter of fact, until the Japanese came into Bristol Bay to fish for salmon the salmon-packing industry of Alaska and, indeed, of the whole United States, was strictly an American industry?

Dr. CLARK. As far as I know.

Mr. DIMOND. You never heard of any foreign nationals engaging in it?

Dr. CLARK. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Now I see Mr. Magnuson is in the room. want to make a statement, Mr. Magnuson?

Do you

Mr. MAGNUSON. I just want to endorse Mr. Dimond's bill here. The CHAIRMAN. Do you desire to have that entered in the record? Mr. MAGNUSON. Yes; I desire to have that entered in the record. Mr. DIMOND. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Bower a few questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

STATEMENT OF WARD T. BOWER, CHIEF, DIVISION OF ALASKA FISHERIES, BUREAU OF FISHERIES

Mr. DIMOND. Will you please state your name and official position? Mr. BOWER. Ward T. Bower, Chief, Division of Alaska Fisheries, Bureau of Fisheries.

Mr. DIMOND. Please tell the committee your experience in the Bureau of Fisheries with relation to the salmon-packing industry of Alaska.

Mr. BOWER. I have been associated with the salmon-packing industry and the fisheries of Alaska since 1910-27 years.

Mr. DIMOND. Continuously?

Mr. BOWER. Continuously.

Mr. DIMOND. Have you been in Alaska?

Mr. BOWER. I have made 15 trips to Alaska, covering various parts of the Territory-all parts of it where salmon fisheries are located.

Mr. DIMOND. Including Bristol Bay?

Mr. BOWER. Yes, sir.

Mr. DIMOND. Until the year 1936 and 1937, when, according to the testimony here, the Japanese have packed commercially some

salmon in Bristol Bay, do you know whether Alaska salmon fishing has been strictly an American industry?

Mr. BOWER. Wholly so, to the best of my knowledge and belief. Mr. DIMOND. You have never heard of any foreign nationals engaging in the salmon packing industry in Alaska, or off the shores of Alaska?

Mr. BOWER. Never.

Mr. DIMOND. And from your intimate knowledge of the industry, is it not almost certain you would have heard of any such efforts made by foreign nationals to engage in the salmon fisheries of Alaska, if they really had so entered into the fisheries?

Mr. BOWER. I think so.

Mr. DIMOND. I wish you would state to the committee, generally, your opinion of the present condition of the salmon fishery of Alaska, as compared with former years, and particularly with reference to laws and regulations for the conservation of the fishery?

Mr. BOWER. Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, as a result of the regulations of the Secretary of Commerce, the salmon fishery of Alaska is now upon a very stable and enduring basis. I think it has been built up from a point of exhaustion, in many sections, to its present high level of productivity, as a result of the regulations.

When I first went to Alaska, in 1910, there were many practices in vogue that have been abated since then by reason of the regulations. Those practices included fishing in streams or too close to the mouths of streams, continuous fishing throughout the week, and other practices that certainly had the salmon fisheries of Alaska headed toward commercial exhaustion.

Mr. DIMOND. What about Bristol Bay; what about the condition of the Bristol Bay fishery at the present time?

Mr. BOWER. I think the Bristol Bay fishery is on a high level of productivity. We have built up the one weak year of the 1930 cyclethe cycle of the years divisible by five-through the closing order effective in the season of 1935. I think Bristol Bay is in fine condition under the present situation, unless extraordinary difficulties should arise.

Mr. DIMOND. Unless there are offshore, unregulated, unrestricted fishing operations which you cannot control?

Mr. BOWER. That is my opinion.

Mr. DIMOND. That is all. Now, Mr. Chairman, may I ask Mr. Gilbert one more question?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

FURTHER STATEMENT OF J. N. GILBERT

Mr. DIMOND. Mr. Gilbert, I think you have already testified that you have been in pretty close contact with the Bristol Bay fishery and, indeed, with all of the Alaskan salmon fishery for a good many years.

Mr. GILBERT. Yes.

Mr. DIMOND. And you probably mentioned the period of years; is that correct?

Mr. GILBERT. Yes; I did say 27 years.

Mr. DIMOND. For 27 years you have been in close contact with it?
Mr. GILBERT. That is right.

ww