treaty with the Japanese will settle precisely nothing. One must be an optimist indeed to even be able to hope that any treaty with the Japanese is worth the paper on which it is written. Volumes might be said on that point alone, when we recall the fate of the Nine-Power Treaty and the Kellogg Pact at the hands of the Japanese.

If we make a treaty with the Japanese that will save the salmon fishery for our nationals, it is certain that we will have to pay a large consideration for it. In my judgment, anything paid under such a treaty is the equivalent to the payment of tribute. The most unfortunate thing which resulted from the Bering Sea arbitration was the agreement on our part to pay the equivalent of tribute to Japan and Great Britain as a sort of a bribe to them not to exterminate all of the Pribilof Islands seals by pelagic slaughter. There is serious question whether it would not have been much better, in the long run, to have permitted the wiping out of the seal herds rather than pay the unreasonable and unmoral demands of the two nations mentioned. In that connection it may be in order to observe that at the present moment under the theory of law established by the Bering Sea tribunal, there is nothing to prevent any nation, not a party to the seal treaty, from taking all the seals which they can get as long as they stay 3 miles from the shores of Alaska and the islands of Bering Sea. Under the treaty mentioned, the ships of Norway, Sweden, or Denmark, or Portugal, or Spain, or Italy may lie beyond 3 miles of the shores of the Pribilof Islands and within a few years entirely exhaust the seal herds, and they would be well within the principles of international law as laid down by the Bering Sea tribunal. I have often wondered why some nation or nations, other than Japan or Great Britain or Russia (which are signatories of the seal treaty), do not permit their nationals to enrich themselves on the seals at our expense. The only reason why that has not taken place which occurs to me is that these other governments profess and follow a higher code of public morality than that which was professed and followed by Great Britain and Japan with respect to the seal herds. The other nations must have concluded that the exhaustion of the seals, certain to take place through pelagic fishing, would constitute an indefensible wrong, not only against the United States but against all mankind, and, therefore, all other nations have refrained from interfering with the seals. The outcome of the Bering Sea arbitration may be well designated as public immorality triumphant.

I decline, therefore, to recommend any such course with respect to the salmon fishery. If we have superior right in law or in morals to the salmon of Alaska, then we have a corresponding right and duty to protect them, a right which we should not give away by a treaty which we know from "past performances" is not likely to be kept by the other signatory.

Moreover, if we make a treaty with the Japanese for the preservation of the salmon and pay what we know the Japanese are bound to demand by way of compensation or tribute, then how long will it be before some other nation will make similar demands upon us and require similar compensation as the price of their abstaining from destruction of the fishery. If we pay tribute to the Japanese, why should we not pay similar tribute to all the other nations of the world which will demand or accept it.

No; if the Japanese admit the salmon are ours and that they ought not interfere with them, then no treaty is necessary. If we must

make a treaty with Japan for the protection of the salmon, then they will insist upon payment of plenty of compensation for doing what they ought to do without a treaty.

In my judgment, Mr. Chairman, the making of a treaty and the payment thereunder of a single cent of compensation for the protection and preservation of the Alaska salmon fishery would constitute a surrender of our just rights, and, in essence, a payment of tribute. We must be either "men or mice." Since it is ever so much more becoming to be men, and in the long run safer, the choice is one which it ought not be hard to make. Let us pass this bill and then enforce it, and thus save a great industry and protect the labor and means of livelihood of our own citizens.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Now, who is your witness?

Mr. DIAMOND. Mr. Chairman, I should like to have Mr. Bell, the Commissioner of Fisheries, testify at this point.

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK T. BELL, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF FISHERIES, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, at the outset, please permit me to say that any statements made by me or members of the Bureau's staff regarding the bill under consideration will not represent any commitment whatever as to the attitude of the President concerning his legislative program.

In reporting to the Secretary of Commerce on December 1, 1937, the Bureau expressed its concurrence in the objectives sought to be accomplished by H. R. 8344; but as to the extent of territorial jurisdiction in dealing with the problem, the idea was conveyed that this would be a matter for attention primarily by the Department of State.

In connection with the bill, it is believed that certain factual information concerning the salmon fisheries of Alaska, particularly of the Bristol Bay region, where controversy has centered in respect to operations by foreign vessels, may be helpful and of interest.

In 1936, the last year for which complete figures are available, the fisheries of Alaska yielded products of a manufactured value of $50,455,272, and employment was given to 30,383 persons. Of the total value, $46,496,222 was credited to the salmon industry, of which $44,751,633 represented canned salmon. Of the total pack of 8,437,603 cases of salmon, Bristol Bay produced 1,450,067 cases, valued at about $12,000,000.

Mr. SIROVICH. In other words, out of $50,000,000 received from fisheries in Alaska, 44 million came from salmon?

Mr. BELL. Yes, $44,751,633. Thus Bristol Bay alone, because of the fact that it is the chief region for the production of the highly valuable red salmon, yielded more than one-fourth of the entire value of all the salmon fisheries of Alaska.

It at once becomes apparent why foreign interests direct their attention to Bristol Bay in any consideration of possible offshore exploitation of the salmon fisheries of Alaska. Bristol Bay is particularly attractive, not only because of the abundance of red salmon, but also by reason of the fact that the run of salmon is confined almost wholly to the comparatively short season of about 1 month, thus enabling a quick clean-up and get-away, instead of a long-drawn-out

47570-38-6

period of operation with the catch thinly distributed over several months, involving more expensive overhead costs of operation.

The first canning of salmon on Bristol Bay occurred in 1884, when 400 cases were packed. Prior to this there had been salting of salmon for commercial use to the extent of only a few hundred barrels. In the 54 years from 1884 through 1937 there have been caught in the Bristol Bay region approximately 622,000,000 salmon, of which about 588,000,000 were red salmon, the species chiefly sought. Of these, practically all were canned, the remaining comparatively small number being salted.

For the past 35 years the business has been upon a remarkably stable basis, with upward of 20 canneries in operation and an average annual catch of more than 15 million red salmon. The maximum catch of red salmon in the Bristol Bay district was 24,513,532 in 1917.

As the waters of Bristol Bay are quite turbid, the region is well adapted to the use of gill nets for the capture of salmon. Prior to 1923 a few traps also were used, the maximum number operated being 17 in 1906. În 1937 there were 1,086 gill-net boats in operation, 451 used by the resident whites and natives and 635 by outsiders. Resident fishermen numbered 1,216 and outsiders 1,269, a total of 2,485. Shore workers and transporters brought the total up to about 8,000 persons employed in the Bristol Bay salmon fisheries.

The average yearly value of the salmon product of Bristol Bay is about $12,000,000. It is estimated that the investment in this region is about $20,000,000.

All this long-established business can be nullified and practically destroyed in a few years if foreign fishermen should undertake operations. There is no doubt that purse seines, gill nets, and other forms of fishing apparatus can be successfully operated in connection with floating canneries anchored many miles offshore.

Mr. SIROVICH. Have you the right to license these gill nets, Commissioner Bell?

Mr. BELL. No. Our fishermen that fish in Bristol Bay with gill nets operate chiefly outside of the 3-mile limit. They fish out 10, 12, or 15 miles, and bring the fish to the shore canneries.

Mr. SIROVICH. Are they allowed to fish outside of the 3-mile limit? Mr. BELL. Yes, in the open season; they are not allowed to fish at all during the closed period, but, during the open period, our people fish out beyond the 3-mile limit.

Mr. SIROVICH. You know, Commissioner, I have had a very wholesome affection for the fine work you are doing as Commissioner of Fisheries, but I want to know, in the conservation of the fisheries, do you need to have any legislation to help you in that 30-day period, if you think too many gill nets are being used?

Mr. BELL. No; I can regulate that under the present law.

For hundreds of miles the waters of Bering Sea are comparatively shallow so that anchorage for floating factories can be readily obtained. In the season of 1937 Japanese nets several miles in length were observed more than 25 miles offshore, for the purpose of catching salmon. Some of these nets were in the form of fences, creating artificial shore lines, converging to an apex within which the salmon in more concentrated form could be taken by smaller nets.

Mr. SIROVICH. In a run of salmon, how many salmon can you catch with a gill net at one time, and how many can you catch, as a maximum, with a purse net?

Mr. BELL. Of course it would depend on the length of the net. The gill net they fish with up there is 150 fathoms. I do not believe I can make an estimate, but there are some men here who can do that.

Mr. SIROVICH. All right; I do not want to interrupt your statement. Mr. BELL. In order to get the picture clearly before us, we must sketch briefly the unique life history of the Pacific salmons. The red salmon, the most desired of the five species, rounds out its life usually in 5 years, invariably dying when it spawns in fresh water streams and lakes of Alaska each summer. A few months later the eggs hatch and the young fish spend a year or two in the streams and lakes before going down to sea where they wander far and wide before returning to their native stream a couple of years later as mature fish ready to spawn and die.

The salmon fisheries of Bristol Bay have been built up to their present stable and productive basis by reason of laws and regulations restricting commercial fishing to such a degree as to provide a sufficient escapement of breeding fish to the spawning grounds. Under the provisions of the act of June 6, 1924, not less than 50 percent of salmon must be allowed to proceed to the spawning grounds for reproductive purposes.

Mr. SIROVICH. How much is it under the old law-50 percent? Mr. BELL. Fifty percent; yes.

Mr. SIROVICH. That is during the 30-day period?

Mr. BELL. At all times we must see that there is a 50-percent escapement.

The restrictive measures necessarily imposed upon American fishermen have included definite limits upon the time, place, and manner of capturing salmon. The season is limited to an over-all period of 1 month, from June 25 to July 25. Not only this, but there are closed periods aggregating 60 hours each week, and in some waters there is an additional closure, so that fishing is restricted as much as 24 hours out of the total of 168 hours of each week.

Fishing also is confined to unpowered boats, and there is a limit of 150 fathoms upon the aggregate length of gill nets used by each boat. There is also a definite limit of 5%1⁄2 inches upon the size of the -mesh of such nets used for red-salmon fishing.

For many years the capture of all salmon has been limited to gill nets. These are primarily drift nets, operated sometimes as far as 15 or 20 miles offshore. In addition, a few gill nets attached to stakes extending out a short distance from the beach are used.

Mr. SIROVICH. Have they traps there, too?
Mr. BELL. Not in the Bristol Bay area.

Bristol Bay area.

There are no traps in the

Mr. SIROVICH. And this salmon along the shore, after they escape 50 percent, can they escape the canneries up there along the river front?

Mr. BELL. Yes. We see that the fishing is suspended during this closed season, and the salmon go on up the river past the canneries. It will be seen that American fishermen have made heavy sacrifices by reason of restrictive measures necessary to place the Bristol Bay salmon fishery on an enduring basis. An outstanding example of such sacrifice was in the season of 1935 when, owing to seasonal closings by the Secretary of Commerce, only 238,707 cases of salmon were packed, instead of a normal pack of a million or more cases. This

་

drastic regulatory action was taken to restore the weak cycle of the runs of salmon in the years divisible by five.

Mr. SIROVICH. Was not it due to the fact that the year before they had had a surplus pack and they were trying to dispose of that? Mr. BELL. No; I would not say that, Congressman. You see, the 5 years preceding that

Mr. SIROVICH. I mean to keep up the price of salmon?

Mr. BELL. No; that is not correct. The restrictive measures were applied because 5 years previously there had been a small run and we predicted there would not be many salmon.

As a result of this severe curtailment of commercial fishing in 1935, there was a sufficiently large escapement of salmon to the spawning grounds to build this cycle up to the level of the cycles of other years. Thus there should be an excellent run of salmon in 1940, instead of the exceedingly weak run that undoubtedly would have occurred if American fishermen had not made a heavy sacrifice in 1935.

Mr. SIROVICH. Tell me, Commissioner-when you curtail the run of the fish to about 270,000 cases, would that bring an increase in the price of salmon for the consuming public?

Mr. BELL. I am not qualified to answer that.

Mr. SIROVICH. Pardon me for interrupting you.

Mr. BELL. If foreign fishermen should intercept the runs of salmon in Bristol Bay before they reach the waters where American boats. make their catch all the sacrifices of American fishermen heretofore made and all the efforts of the Government to the United States of protect and conserve this valuable fishery would be set at naught. Salmon canning on Bristol Bay is an American industry based upon a species of fish which spends a considerable part of its life in our lakes and streams. Naturally, American fishermen and American industry are alarmed and show deep resentment toward any foreigners bent upon plundering the salmon runs, regarded by Americans as their property, when the salmon are hurrying home from their sojourn in the sea to complete their life cycle by spawning and dying in the waters where they were born a few years before.

Mr. SIROVICH. Now, Commissioner, when these runs of the salmon take place, is that the time when the Japs are there with all of their ships?

Mr. BELL. Yes.

Mr. SIROVICH. Or are they there at all times during the months of June, July, and August?

Mr. BELL. Well, they are there in June and July. They leave the latter part of July or later, but they are supposed to have been fishing for crabs, mostly.

Mr. SIROVICH. Why should we give the Japs the right to go crabbing up there when we have our own people who are suffering; why should we give them a concession to do a thing of that nature? Do you know?

Mr. BELL. I do not believe American industry has shown any inclination to go crab fishing up there, so far.

Mr. SIROVICH. You mean that industry has not been developed as an American industry?

Mr. BELL. Not to any extent.

Mr. SIROVICH. Well, why is it profitable for the Japs?

Mr. BELL. I cannot explain that. But the crab is somewhat different from the salmon, in this respect, that it spawns offshore