no gill net being permitted with a length in excess of 150 fathoms or a depth of 28 meshes-approximately 12 feet.

Mr. SIROVICH. How about the 26 fixed canneries that are located along Bristol Bay and control the openings of the rivers? How do they catch the fish which they have to utilize in the fixed canneries? Do they have gill nets, traps, or what?

Mr. WALKER. They have gill nets in the Bristol Bay area and they fish strictly under the regulations of the Bureau of Fisheries.

Mr. SIROVICH. Does every fixed cannery have a right to have a certain number of gill nets, or can they use an unlimited number of nets?

Mr. WALKER. I do not think there is any restriction as to the number. There is a restriction as to the type, as I have described. Mr. SIROVICH. There must be some restriction as to the number; because, as I understood Commissioner Bell, he said they allow 50 percent of the salmon to escape even during the time that they are fishing; that that is a part of the conservation law.

Mr. WALKER. That question would be more properly answered by the Bureau of Fisheries, Doctor.

The CHAIRMAN. All right; proceed.

Mr. WALKER. American fishermen have long been familiar with the fact that fishing operations can be successfully conducted offshore in Bristol Bay. They are well aware that by using larger vessels equipped with gasoline or Diesel power and long gill nets of great depth, or seines, sea traps, or artificial shore leads, the catch per man could be greatly increased.

But the Bureau of Fisheries in the interests of conservation has prohibited offshore fishing and has prohibited the use of more effective appliances. The fishermen, realizing the wisdom of this policy and the security to their future means of livelihood which results from it, have generally approved the policy so adopted.

But with the advent of the 1937 season and the appearance of Japanese "mother ships" or floating canneries, the American fishermen found themselves confronted with a competition bound by no restriction and subject to no regulation. Japanese nationals conducted their fishing operations in offshore waters closed to American fishermen by American law. The vessels and nets used by the Japanese fishermen were of the most efficient type and of a size and nature prohibited to American fishermen by the Bureau of Fisheries. Neither were the Japanese fishermen subjected to a closed season nor closed weekly period, but fished continuously.

As a result, the American fishermen now feel that if Japanese nationals are to carry on unrestricted fishing operations offshore, there is no longer any end to be served by American attempts at conservation, since the runs are doomed to depletion or extinction in any event. Consequently the American fishermen are demanding of the Bureau of Fisheries that if the Japanese continue to fish, the regulations be relaxed to permit them to fish on the same basis as that enjoyed by the Japanese fishermen. Such a procedure would undoubtedly result in extinction of the runs in a single cycle of 5 years.

Americans have long considered that the salmon runs of Bristol Bay and elsewhere throughout Alaska were an appurtenance of the land due to their exclusive development and utilization by American citizens and American capital and that they are the peculiar and exclusive property of the American people. This is particularly

so in view of the vigorous and timely measures taken for their conservation and propagation. Furthermore, in Bristol Bay and also in other sections of the Territory, the salmon appear near the surface of the water and are subject to capture only after they have passed on to the continental shelf and into waters so shallow as to be considered practically a part of the upland.

For several years Japanese vessels have been visiting Bristol Bay for the purpose of taking shell fish which abound in those waters. In recent years rumors were circulated among the residents of that section to the effect that Japanese vessels were also preparing to intercept the salmon runs. This matter was called to the attention of the American Government and resulted in diplomatic exchanges during February 1937. At that time it was reported that the Japanese Government assured the American Government that no vessels had been or would be licensed to take salmon in the waters of Bristol Bay.

It was understood at that time that certain Japanese interests were urging their Government to grant licenses for that purpose. Subsequent happenings would indicate that these or other Japanese nationals, not being satisfied with the decision of the Japanese Government, determined to engage in the taking of salmon in Bristol Bay without a license to do so.

Mr. SIROVICH. In other words, we could wall that, if it is against the license of Japan do to that, bootlegging in fishing in the outside waters, and it is the contention of the nationals of America that if the nationals of Japan can bootleg fishing, they ought to be able to to do the same and, if they both do the same, it will destroy the conservation principle?

Mr. WALKER. That would be the result, Doctor. Information from reliable sources indicates that Japanese nationals and Japanese vessels were observed from time to time, throughout the months of June and July 1937, taking salmon in Bristol Bay waters. Photographs of these operations were taken and these, together with the statements of the observers, were obtained by the press. Full publicity resulted and the residents of the Pacific coast and of Alaska, including the fishermen then in Bristol Bay, immediately became aware of the salmon operations being conducted by Japanese nationals. The salmon fishing season of 1937 has now closed and the Japanese vessels observed in Bristol Bay in June and July 1937 have departed. However, the situation which will result if these or other vessels return this year and engage in offshore salmon fishing, either with or without the Japanese Government's consent, will be a grave one. The CHAIRMAN. Is there any threat on the part of any other nation to come in there and fish; as, for instance, Norway, or Sweden, or Russia?

Mr. WALKER. I have no information, Mr. Chairman, that there is. Mr. CULKIN. How far is the mainland of the island of Japan from the mainland of Bristol Bay?

Mr. SIROVICH. The tip of the Aleutian Islands is 700 miles. Mr. CULKIN. I am asking from the mainland of Bristol Bay to the mainland of the island of Japan. Do you know, Mr. Dimond?

Mr. DIMOND. It is about 2,000 miles I would say from Bristol Bay, to Japan. It is 810 miles from Unalaska to Attu Island, which is the last of the Aleutian Islands; then it is about 700 miles from Attu to the northernmost island of Japan.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Walker.

Mr. WALKER. The American citizens who live in Alaska and on the Pacific coast are keenly alive to the economic importance of the Alaska salmon fisheries. Sentiment in that region has rapidly crystallized into conviction that some steps must be taken immediately to preserve the Alaska salmon fisheries for the use and enjoyment of those Americar citizens who have developed and conserved them, and who are now dependent upon this resource for a means of livelihood.

Nearly all of the employees engaged in the Alaska salmon fisheries reside in Alaska and the Pacific Coast States, particularly the cities of Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco, and they are closely organized into labor unions. Those unions are unanimously demanding prompt and effective action on the part of the Government to save the Alaska salmon fisheries from destruction by the Japanese. The American capital invested in the Bristol Bay salmon fisheries and the other Alaska salmon fishing areas is to a large extent centered or controlled in Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco. The plant owners, through their trade association, have also urged and are now urging the Government to act for their protection.

Unless a solution to the problem, satisfactory to the people of Alaska and the Pacific coast, is reached in the near future it is certain that the intensity of feeling, aroused by the invasion of the Japanese of the Bristol Bay salmon fisheries may lead to extremely serious consequences. Moreover, both the fishermen and the plant operators insist that in the event Japanese nationals again engage in fishing for salmon in Bristol Bay and Bering Sea in the waters adjacent to the coast of Alaska, the restrictions heretofore imposed by the Bureau of Fisheries on American fishermen be immediately removed and that they be given an opportunity to engage likewise in unrestricted fishing with vessels and gear which they deem most efficient, for they justly urge that there is no point in preserving the Bristol Bay fisheries if the Japanese continue to operate and thus eventually entirely exhaust the fisheries.

The CHAIRMAN. You are limited now to 30 days, and how long do they fish?

Mr. WALKER. Well there are no restrictions on them. We have no jurisdiction over them yet.

The Chairman. How long is the run; what is the limit as a practical proposition?

Mr. WALKER. I think there will be witnesses here, Mr. Chairman, who can testify as to that. That is a scientific problem.

Representatives of the Bureau of Fisheries state positively that unrestricted fishing by both Japanese and Americans will extinguish the entire salmon run in the short period of 5 years. The net result would be a total loss of the American capital invested and in the end, after a brief period of prosperity, the Japanese would be obliged to move their floating canneries and fishing fleets to some other waters. The CHAIRMAN. You say "move to some other waters"; there are no other waters to move to, are there?

Mr. WALKER. I do not know of any other, Mr. Chairman. It appears they have partly exhausted the Siberian coast and they will exhaust this coast. It is purely exploitation.

Mr. SIROVICH. That would only be for the red salmon, and they could go for the pink salmon then?

Mr. WALKER. We greatly fear that they will extend their operations down there to the pink salmon district. That is where I live. The loss of the invested capital and the annual business would be felt keenly in Alaska and in the Pacific coast ports. The thousands of employees who, with their families, depend upon the Alaska salmon fisheries for livelihood would be thrown out of employment. This would tend to further inflame and exacerbate the already intense feeling which exists in Alaska and on the Pacific coast over the operations of the Japanese in the Alaska salmon fisheries. There is indeed. likelihood that the feeling engendered over the question would probably become so intense as to restrict the free flow of trade between the United States and Japan. It seems clear that the permanent interests of Japan will be best served by requiring the Japanese nationals to refrain from any further salmon fishing operations off the coast of Alaska.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions?

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, may I present the revenue figures for the Territory that I have here?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. WALKER. They start in 1929, when the total salmon taxes amounted to $808,455.69; total Territorial tax revenues, $1,077,682.97; percentage of salmon catches to total, 75.1 percent.

Mr. DIMOND. Senator Walker, before you read from that statement you have there, will you describe it?

Mr. WALKER. This is a statement taken from the auditor's books of the Territory.

Mr. DIMOND. And it shows what?

Mr. WALKER. It shows what I have read you.

Mr. DIMOND. It shows the total Territorial revenues, the total income, the total part of all of the revenues which is derived from the tax on salmon, and the percentage of the amount derived from taxes on salmon, and also the amount paid to the Federal Government from the case tax on salmon, does it not?

Mr. WALKER. Yes; it does that.

Mr. DIMOND. And that covers all of the years from 1929 to 1936, inclusive?

Mr. WALKER. It does; yes.

Mr. DIMOND. Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is necessary to read that.

The CHAIRMAN. I quite agree with you. Without objection, that will be inserted as a part of the record.

(The statement above referred to is as follows:)

Relation of salmon taxes to total Alaska Territorial tax revenues

1 These sums are paid directly into the Federal Treasury and allotted to the use of the Territory. They are in addition to Territorial taxes and are not reflected in the Territorial totals. In the case of incorporated cities the entire proceeds are turned over for support of the schools.

Mr. DIMOND Will you answer one question in connection with that: Taking all of those figures together, taking your totals at the bottom, will you tell the committee what proportion of the total territorial revenues was derived from the tax on salmon for the years 1929 to 1936, inclusive?

Mr WALKER Sixty-nine and eighty-seven one-hundredths percent. Mr DIMOND And that does not include the amount of the Federal tax paid by the salmon packers to the Federal Government, which is returned and spent in the Territory of Alaska?

Mr WALKER It does not

Mr DIMOND And what was the average of that amount, of the total amount of salmon taxes paid to the Federal Government by the salmon industry, and returned afterward and spent in the Territory, over the period of years mentioned? Is the average given there?

Mr WALKER I have the figures but I have not the percentage worked out.

Mr DIMOND. I do not want the percentage, but the average over that period of years.

Mr. WALKER. $290,902 92 is the average paid the Federal Government which, in turn, comes back to the Territory.

Mr. DIMOND. And that is in addition to the 69.87 percent?

Mr. WALKER. That is in addition to the 69.87 percent.

Mr. DIMOND. Of the total territorial revenue that is derived from the salmon industry.

Mr. WALKER. Yes. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have a statement from the Treasurer's office that specifically covers the Bristol Bay area. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, that will be incorporated in the record.

(The statement above referred to is as follows:)