ry Ni a Serr tk ae aie a 4) aie a | Author ato tateetee eaet a eee Title _ Sipe eer he ma Ht ey ts ie i ol se | Class Ue seen Imprint: Oe i cet cata s en ses wl to e Boake kes ie oak “A oem ahem a et ey as ly me me pn UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS HOUSE ‘OF REPRESENTATIVES SIXTY-THIRD CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON H. R. 13005 FEBRUARY 20, 1914 STATEMENT OF MR. MILLER FREEMAN, or Sartre, Was. WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFIOR 1914 COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS. Houser oF REPRESENTATIVES. SIXTY-THIRD CONGRESS. (Committee room, gallery floor, west corridor. Telephone 230.) HENRY D. FLOOD, Virginia, Chairman. WILLIAM G. SHARP, Ohio. CHARLES B. SMITH, New York. CYRUS CLINE, Indiana. JOHN R. WALKER, Georgia. JEFFERSON M. LEVY, New York. HORACE W. VAUGHAN, Texas. JAMES M. CURLEY, Massachusetts. HENRY A. COOPER, Wisconsin. J. CHARLES LINTHICUM, Maryland. RICHARD BARTHOLDT, Missouri. ROBERT E. DIFENDERFER, Pennsylvania. GEORGE W. FAIRCHILD, New York. WILLIAM S. GOODWIN, Arkansas. STEPHEN G. PORTER, Pennsylvania. CHARLES M. STEDMAN, North Carolina. W. D. B. AINEY, Pennsylvania. EDWARD W. TOWNSEND, New Jersey. JOHN J. ROGERS, Massachusetts. B. P. HARRISON, Mississippi. HENRY W. TEMPLE, Pennsylvania. ROBERT CATLETT, Clerk. B. F. ODEN, Assistant Clerk. N. OF 5, JAN 33. 1015 ~ FISHERIES TREATY BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND DOMINION ; OF CANADA. COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, HousrE oF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., Friday, February 20, 1914 The committee met at 2.30 o’clock p. m., Hon. Henry D. Flood (chairman) presiding. Present: Representatives Cline, Linthicum, Townsend, Vaughan, Bartholdt, and Fairchild. The CHarrMAN. The committee will come to order. This is a bill, H. R. 13005, to give effect to the provisions of a treaty between the United States and Great Britain concerning the fisheries in waters contiguous to the United States and the Dominion of Canada, signed at Washington on April 1, 1908, and ratified by the United States Senate April 13, 1908. Mr. Freeman is here representing some Pacific coast parties who are engaged in the fishery business. He has to leave to-night and asked to be heard before he went away. We would be glad to hear you now, Mr. Freeman. Mr. Lintruicum. Would this bill affect the Pacific coast ? Mr. FREEMAN. Yes. Mr. Lintruicum. Are you for or against the bill ? Mr. FreemMAN. I wanted to make a statement in behalf of the people engaged in the salmon fisheries of Puget Sound, outlining the position they have had in the matter, and merely presenting the points as I find them. The Guarrman. I introduced this bill H. R. No. 13005 at the re- quest of the Bureau of Fisheries, and that is the bill you are address- ing yourself to? Mr. Freeman. Yes. I am here in compliance with a request to present a statement before this committee relative to the bill you now have before you intended to put: into effect the provisions of the international fisheries treaty covering the boundary waters of the United States and Canada. STATEMENT OF MR. MILLER FREEMAN, SEATTLE, WASH. Mr. Chairman, I should like to call your attention to the fact that Mr. Woodruff has introduced a bill similar to this except that I be- lieve by an understanding of the two international commissioners, Dr. Smith and Prof. Prince, Saginaw Bay has been excluded, that bay being merely local, and Dr. Smith tells me it is not involved in an international way; that fisheries there do not need to be governed by an international body. Mr. Crrve. I should like to understand for my own information whether you expect to discuss the relative merits of all three of these 3 4 UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES. bills which have been introduced here, touching the same subject, or whether your remarks will be confined to any one of them ? Mr. Freeman. They are the same bill, I think, with the exception of just excluding Saginaw Bay, are they not, Mr. Chairman ? The Cuarrman. H. R. 13005 and H. R. 13300 are exactly the same bill with that exception. I have not looked over this one introduced by Mr. Miller. Mr. Freeman. I am not familiar with the bill introduced by Mr. Miller. Mr. Linruicum. May I ask you whom you represent? Are you just speaking as an individual, or are you representing somebody ? Mi. FREEMAN. I am here in behalf of the Puget Sound Canned Salmon Association. J think, as far as my remarks are concerned, they will apply generally to this question of the ratification of the regulations as covered in this treaty, the details of which are not important to us except as relating to Puget Sound. It was suggested that I should come here, make inquiry about the status of this matter, and ask for a reasonable delay until we could communicate with our people or I could return, and that delay being for the purpose of securing a new investigation and a revision of these regulations, which our people thought unfau from our standpoint. Mr. Cringe. Who prescribes these regulations ? Mr. FREEMAN. The regulations were formed by a commission of two members, one appointed by the Government of Great Britain, of which Prof. Prince was one. They have had two or three over there, and Dr. Jordan was appointed for the American Government. Mr. TownsEnpD. Dr. Jordan, of Stanford University ? Mr. Freeman. Dr. David Starr Jordan. The opinion of the cannery men in the fishing interests of Puget Sound has been that not sufficient time and thought and scientific investigation were given to the consideration of the questions in our waters, and I was expected to ask for an extension of time on this treaty sufficient to permit of a new investigation being made by competent authorities. We were willing to leave it to Dr. Smith, for instance, to go there and make an impartial and dispassionate investigation, with an idea of having the facts come before the Gov- ernment, and make new regulations, and then have a treaty passed in that form. Mr. Barruotpr. Let me ask you if the changes which you desire should be made in these regulations, would the changed provisoins still comply with the provisions of the treaty ? Mr. Freeman. I am informed that Canada having passed these regulations and carried out its part of the bargain, which is part of the compact of this treaty that the two countries are to get together through this commission, formulate regulations, and they are to be ratified by their respective legislative bodies, and those regulations then are to be in effect. This treaty was duly ratified in 1908, I think. The regulations, if I am not mistaken, were filed in 1910, two years later. Canada accepted those regulations. This country has deferred action. It was reported to us that the Government of Great Britain has felt that the delay has been very great, and they are asking now that this country fulfill its part of this agreement. I do not want to state this as quoting the Government, because that UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES. 5 can be done by other people; but I understand that notice has been served by Great Britain that after this delay of great length, if we do not complete our part of the deal the treaty is to be abrogated, and they ask now for action at once. Some of the regulations in this bill are decidedly detrimental to the American interests, and while we have been promised by the American representative of the international commission that they will be so modified as to eliminate the objectionable features, I wish to call the attention of your committee to some of the points in the regulations as included in this bill that cause our people great hard- ship and the enforcement of which would mean that the fishing operations on the American side would be greatly curtailed, to the immense advantage of the Canadians. It was because of these unwarranted and burdensome restrictions that we had expected to get a delay in the matter until they could be modified by the inter- national commission. The Fraser River is not included in the territory covered by the international treaty. If there is any virtue in having a single control, the entire area where fishing is carried on should be covered. The close season in section 62, from August 25 to September 15, affects all the different species of salmon and will prevent the fishing for humpbacks, as the best and greatest part of the run is during this close-season period. The weekly close season, as provided in section 63, makes the period 48 hours instead of 36 hours. This increase of 12 hours is unreason- able and an injustice to the American interests and altogether in favor of the Canadians. Section 64 abolishes the jigger. As traps are built to catch fish and the jigger is an essential part of the traps, this provision should be stricken out. Section 65 requires that mesh of trap leads be exactly 4 inches, which is impracticable. Section 66 prohibits purse seine fishing within 3 miles of any river, whereas the present Washington State law makes the distance 2 miles. There is no just reason for this increase of distance. Mr. Townsenp. Mr. Chairman, have we a map of Puget Sound here available ? The CuarrmMan. Not a good one. Mr. Freeman. An ordinary atlas would do, or I could draw it in a moment. Mr. Townsenp. Just give the committee a notion of how much of that water of Puget Sound is American water and how much Canadian water. Mr. Freeman. If I had a chart I could explain it very quickly. Mr. Farrcuitp. What do you mean by a new investigation of Puget Sound ? Mr. Freeman. The former investigation, it is felt by our people, was not fair to American interests. | say this without intent to reg- ister any criticism. I do not know what the custom of these hearings is. I do not want in my informal reply to questions to have it implied that I am here making reflections upon so great an authority as Dr. Jordan or any other gentleman. Mr. Curve. Let me ask you a question. When were these stipula- tions here approved by Canada ? 6 UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES. Mr. Freeman. Dr. Smith can tell you that. They were approved by Canada within a short time after the regulations were filed. Mr. Cuine. If these regulations were not satisfactory to your people, how does it come that you have waited for six or eight years before you come here to make this request ? Mr. Freeman. It is four years. The opposition on the part of our people was so bitter that we think it has had the effect of deferring the acceptance of these regulations in Congress. ’ Mr. Curve. I should have thought you would have proceeded then to have a reinvestigation of the whole matter if you are not satisfied with the regulations as they were made out by the commissioners six, seven, or eight years ago. Mr. Freeman. Not necessarily so. I think it was felt that these regulations were put in as having been adopted by the two com- missioners when they were filed. There they were of record. There was one recourse they had at that time; that was to oppose what they felt was too extreme. More than that there was a very strong feeling against Federal control and bureaucracy out in our country. Mr. Crine. Have there been any steps taken prior to this to have a new investigation made and the regulations revised ? Mr. FREEMAN. The treaty is supposed, as a matter of fact, to have been dead; that when Congress failed to act at that time, that settled it. I think everyone felt so until the British Government has again called it up. Mr. Curve. The treaty was ratified eight years ago. That made it—— Mr. Freeman. 1908. The regulations were formed and presented, I think, in 1910. Mr. Lintruicum. Can you tell me anything about the depletion of the catch in those waters ? Mr. Freeman. Would not you gentlemen prefer that I finish my very brief statement, and then I would be glad to answer any ques- tions? I can define my position, and then I will be glad to answer any questions. Mr. TownseEnp. | just wanted to ask you one question. Does this Canadian-American line, the international water line, come down between Vancouver Island and Clallam County, or do we claim all that water up there [indicating] ? Mr. Freeman. We have an equal division of these waters, as shown by this red line [indicating]. Mr. Townsenpb. That international line runs along here halfway between Vancouver Island and Clallam County, Wash., and then how does it go up there [indicating] ? Mr. Freeman. Right about in through here, through this Haro Strait, I think. Mr. Townsenp. Halfway between Washington and Vancouver Island in Haro Strait. In a general way it is an imaginary line that runs Mr. FREEMAN. Halfway. That line is the boundary line. That little point is Point Roberts. Mr. Townsenp. That is Point Roberts ? UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES. 7 Mr. FreEMAN. Yes, coming down here [indicating]. As I explained, it has been expected that upon learning of the revival of this treaty matter application could be made here for a new investigation, particularly because now a new international commissioner has been appointed, who is serving, who must not have been familiar with the full facts, and whom we thought it would be perfectly proper to ask that he go over the ground, or have capable representatives go over the ground, to determine what the actual conditions are in the American waters from the American stand- point. I learned since arriving in Washington that the State De- partment felt that action was necessary at once, so [ endeavored to ascertain what would be the likelihood in case these regulations as now provided for in this bill should pass, what protection Americans might have in the way of securing modifications or prevent what we may consider an injustice being done as against the Canadian rights. I interviewed at once Dr. Smith. Dr. Smith got in touch with Prof. Prince, the international commissioner, who wrote him February 10 a letter I present to go in the record. « - Also, I made inquiry of the State Department, Mr. J. B. Moore, counselor, as to whether in his opinion these regulations, if adopted, would be fixed and of a permanent and inflexible character. He replies at some length in effect that these regulations are not of a permanent inflexible character and it is placed within the power of the two Governments by joint or concurrent action to modify the regulations at any time as experience and changing conditions may suggest. Mr. Farrcuitp. I suggest that the letter be read. Mr. Freeman. This letter is from Prof. Prince, dated February 10, Ottawa, Canada, and reads as follows: Orrawa, Canapba, February 10, 1914. Dr. Huex M. Smira, International Commissioner, Bureau of Fisheries, Washington, D. C., U.S. A. Drag Mr. Smiru: I was very much pleased to receive your wire and to note the favorable aspect of international fishery matters, thanks to your efforts. I went across to our House of Commons, but Mr. Hazen was in the midst of pressing business in the house, and he left over the consideration of your wire until this morning. You would receive my reply, framed after my conference with the minister and deputy minister, thismorning. While Iam convinced that some of the changes which you regard as necessary do not vitally affect the regulations as a whole, the Govern- ment here feel that at this late stage they would invite severe criticism if they author- ized me to guarantee detailed changes, which are to be the subject of immediate inves- tigation. Article VI of the treaty, in its last clause, provides for our joining in amend- ments, if our investigations justify them, and that surely is sufficient. Extensive salmon-hatchery operations under the auspices of both countries we can strongly urge, more strongly than in recommendation 2, Part II, of Jordan and Prince’s Code. I sincerely hope that any opponents of the regulations will feel that in your hands their views are safe and that we can, after investigation, meet any difficulties, but th Government here are impatient of the long delay that has occurred. ; With best wishes, I am, Yours, faithfully, (Signed) Epwarp E. Prince. 8 UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 13, 1914. Mitter FREEMAN, Esq., New Willard Hotel, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: Referring to our conversation of yesterday afternoon, concerning the bill pending in Congress to give effect to the treaty for the preservation of food fishes in the waters contiguous to the United States and Canada, I desire to repeat that the prompt adoption of this measure appears to be essential to the accomplishment of an object of great importance to the permanent interests of the people of both countries. The regulations to which the bill proposes to give the force and effect of law were formulated by the international commission for which the treaty provides, but, as is wisely stipulated in the treaty, these regulations are not of a permanent and inflexi-" ble character. In the first place, they are, by the terms of the treaty, to remain in force only for a period of four years from the date of their promulgation, and there- after until one year from the date when either Government shall give notice to the other of its desire for their revision. But even this is not necessarily definitive; for, in the second place, by the express terms of the last clause of Article VI of the treaty, it is placed within the power of the two Governments, by joint or concurrent action upon the recommendation of the commission, in which both countries are equally represented, to modify the regulations at any time as experience and chang- ing conditions may suggest. Of this clause due notice is taken in the pending bill, which provides that immediately after the bill becomes a law the United States commissioner shall begin inquiries with a view to determine what modifications in the regulations are required by existing conditions. In this task the cooperation of the Canadian commissioner is already assured, for, although he is unable to give in advance a guaranty as to what the results of the investigation will be, he states that he will ‘“‘undertake conjoint investigation without delay.’’ It thus appears that all reasonable precautions have been taken to safeguard the interests of fishermen on both sides of the line. In our conference, at which the American commissioner was present, you pointed out that it might be desirable to adopt some measure, not embraced in the existing regulations, to prevent the destructive taking of undersized and immature salmon at or near certain feeding grounds which, although not in territorial waters, are in waters adjacent to the coast. Itisrepresented that these fishes, if permitted to develop, come into territorial waters to spawn and that the taking of them in an immature state, before they have reached the spawning age, cuts off a source from which the stock is replenished and threatens seriously to dimish the supply. This subject, as it appears directly to affect the preservation of the fisheries in contiguous waters, would seem to be a proper one for the investigation and consideration of the inter- national commission under the treaty and pending bill, and it is not improbable that measures might be devised for the correction of destructive practices such as have been described. I am, sir, your obedient servant, (Signed ) J. B. Moors, Counselor. For the Secretary of State: There are two featuces there I want to call the attention of the committee to. One is that Prof. Purvie implies that he will imme- diately join in a modification of these regulations, if desired, after these regulations are passed, to endeavor to meet the conditions more satisfactorily. Also what is of equal importance to our people is the inference or the implied promise of extensive salmon-fishery operations under the auspices of both countries, which we can strongly urge. Something which our people are very greatly inter- ested in is the question of propagation on a scale of considerable magnitude to maintain those fisheries. Mr. Townsenp. Can you give the committee any idea of the salmon packed there now ? Mr. FREEMAN. Yes. Mr. Townsend. I wish you would do that; that is, on the American side. Mr. Freeman. The salmon packed on the American side of Puget Sound last year was 2,583,463 cases. UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES. 9 Mr. TownsEeND. How many cans to a case? Mr. FREEMAN. Forty-eight 1-pound cans. Mr. TownsEnD. This is all packed on the American side ? Mr. Freeman. Yes, sir; the value of that product was $13,329,168. Mr. Townsend. That is, at the Puget Sound market ? Mr. FreeMAN. The Puget Sound pack. Mr. Lintaicum. What was it five years ago ? Mr. FREEMAN. In 1909 the total pack was 1,632,949 cases. Mr. Ciine. Are you familiar with the bill introduced by Mr. Flood ? Mr. FREEMAN. Yes. Mr. Cuine. Do you not think that would reach the desired end that you want, by the enactment of this bill, or a similar one, where it provides “‘That immediately after the passage of this act the Interna- tional Fisheries Commission shall begin with a view to determining what modifications in the regulations herein provided for are required by existing conditions, and shall transmit to Congress, at the opening of its next session, through the Secretary of State, recommendations for such modifications as the International Fisheries Commission shall decide to be proper and necessary.”’ Would that not be a good court for you to apply to? Mr. Freeman. That is in effect what this correspondence bears on. It-is implied by Prof. Prince and also quoted by the Department of State. I wanted to check it up as clearly as possible, in a way that our people could understand. - I wish to say that the attitude that we take is that we have been fearful of Federal control. Mr. CiingE. How could you get an examination of this proposition you submit without a commission being appointed ? Mr. Freeman. The commission still exists. Dr. Smith is the international commissioner for this country and Prof. Prince for Canada. I wish to suggest that I think it would be highly advisable if Dr. Smith could attend this committee and elaborate to a con- siderably greater extent on the scientific features of this treaty. I suggested to him a little while ago that he come up, but he had an appointment which he could not break. Mr. Curve. I do not see how you could get any quicker action than you could by the passage of a bill of this character. Mr. Freeman. This, by the way, is a new bill with the provision in it, as I understand, to immediately modify existing regulations. That was suggested to be written in there by Dr. Smith. Mr. Cringe. I inquire whether you are opposed, and the people that you represent, to any Federal regulation at all of the salmon fisheries in Puget Sound ? Mr. Freeman. [| wish to say that our people rather do not want to be put in the position of opposing any good legislation for the main- tenance of the fishing industry if it may be decided in the wisdom of Congress or this administration, after proper consideration, that such administration is to be a benefit to the industry. It is felt by the fishing interests generally, I believe, that they do not want to inter- pose any active opposition. Mr. TownseEnp. In order to get some facts into the record, I want to call the attention of the committee to a publication that Mr. Freeman has referred to, entitled ‘‘Pacific Fisherman Year Book. January, 1914.”’ I find a statement on page 40, under the subhead 10 UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES. ‘Pack of canned salmon on Puget Sound from 1887 to 1913, by species.” In that statement I find that the total value in 1913 was— are these dollars ? Mr. Freeman. Yes. Mr. TownseEnp. I find here that the pack of canned salmon on Puget Sound in 1913 was $13,329,168. Mr. Freeman. That is correct. Mr. TownsenpD. The year before $2,283,791. Mr. Freeman. That is correct. Mr. Townsenp. I think the committee would be much interested to know what that increase of $11,000,000 was due to, from 1912 to 1913. It might operate very effectively on our minds. Mr. Freeman. I will be glad to tell you briefly. I think that Dr. Smith could perhaps enlighten you better from the scientific point of view on these matters. 1 am the publisher of this journal, and have been now going on 11 years. The salmon on Puget Sound do not run regularly. The sockeye runs particularly heavily every four years; 1913 was the fourth year. Here [indicating] is the fourth year. Here itis again. You see those figures out there Mr. TownseEenp. Yes; but let us get the value of them. This committee is supposed to deal with diplomacy, but we are very much interested in the material conditions of the country. If you will permit me, Mr. Chairman, I will read-from this yearbook. In 1913 the value in dollars, as stated here by this publication that I have identified in the record, was $13,329,168. The year before it was two million and some hundred thousand dollars. But the fourth year above that it is practically $8,000,000. The year above that it is $2,669,095; is that right? Mr. FREEMAN. Yes, sir; that is 1905. The fourth year above that runs up again to $5,615,433. Mr. Lintuicum. That is 1905? Mr. FREEMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. TownsEnD. I have quoted enough of the figures, Mr. Chairman, to show that this total of value of the pack on the American side runs up to $13,000,000 in 1913, and the smaller figures in between are to be accounted for because, as the witness states, the sockeye comes only in great quantities every four years. Mr. FREEMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. Linruricum. In other words, those fish that were born in those fresh waters in 1909, for instance, will return four years afterwards to spawn themselves. Mr. FREEMAN. Yes, sir; that is correct. They mature in four ears. 5 Mr. Linruicum. And return to practically the same stream that they were originally. Mr. FREEMAN. That is the assumption. Mr. Linrurcum. Will you tell us what method you are using now for catching fish up there ? Mr. Freeman. On Puget Sound ? Mr. Linruicum. Yes. Mr. FREEMAN. Traps and purse seines. Mr. Lintnicum. Are not a great many of those fish drowned in those traps, or what you call pound nets ? 7 UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES. 11 Mr. Freeman. No, sir. Mr. Lintuicum. They are all used in the cannery ? Mr. FREEMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. Linruicum. And none used for fertilizer purposes ? Mr. FreeMAN. No, sir; absolutely not. The purse-seine method is shown there in the book. Mr. Linruicum. I know the method. You continued the system of those pound nets or traps, as I would term them, and you in- creased in 1909, when it was how much—8,000,000 2 Mr. FREEMAN. No; you are speaking of cases, are you ? Mr. Lintruicum. Dollars. Mr. FREEMAN. Yes. Mr. Linruicum. In 1909 up to $8,000,000 and in 1913 to $13,000,000, and you are catching vastly more fish, are you not? Mr. FREEMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. Linruicum. What effect is that going to have on the supply ? Mr. Freeman. That is one of the questions that is open to a more thorough investigation than it has been given in the past. Dr. Smith will be able to enlighten you as to the habits of the fish, but the point, so far as these boundary waters of Puget Sound and Fraser River are concerned, is that Fraser River, a Canadian stream, is the chief spawning stream. [am not making an argument for or against this proposition, but for the purpose of explanation. The local gov- ernments of the province of British Gstnahis and the State of Wash- ington have endeavored for years to come to some agreement with reference to the control of these waters where they are interwoven, but it has not been successful. That is the theory upon which I be- lieve Congress is proceeding with reference to the treaties respecting these boundary waters. The Cuarrman. Did I not understand you to say that the reason you had a large catch in 1913 was because of the spawn of 1909 com- ing back? Mr. FREEMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. .Ciinge. Why did you not have a large catch in 1912 when the spawn of 1908 came back ? Mr. Lintutcum. And less fish. Mr. TownsenpD. Now with reference to these figures in the table as presented here, and to which this gentleman has referred, we have five varieties of salmon, and when he speaks of the large packs the year before —1911, I believe it was Mr. Curve. I am led to understand by your statement that they change around—one set comes up one year and another variety the next year. Is that what you want the committee to understand ? Mr. Freeman. The runs of the different species are variable. Mr. TownseEnD. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that these very interest- ing tables be incorporated in this record. The CHarrMan. That will be done. (The tables referred to are as follows.) 12 UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES, Pacific coast canned salmon pack, 1913. Kings, Springs, Chinooks. | Reds, Sockeyes, Bluebacks. Medina fac Conbess Te ick g a @ if a a 3 a = gsuacl is qe aed = S q g & = q 5 cs) ic) 38 ao) ce) gS cs) ce) oN SI S| =e) ga a Se) g ist eles} 5 3 Mistie) 3 3 50 3 = 3c fe} ° S 0 i) ° ow tS) ° ow = re Re im = Re 5 — — oa = 4 Po) = - en IAS Keen tt 5 eee 32.840) bene 1,327 | 1,917,961 | 17,628 | 28,790 | 73,218 721| 3,438 Puget Sound........ 716 Fateh ee kee 967,119 | 485,426 |220,554 | 20,440] 38,354] 2,295 Columbia River..... PAG tom || WesGRS) |e iChy Sepascecocelssceccscs 11,152 | 10,437} 19,408} 11,124 Sacramento River...}........- 9505 ees 28] eeeeemiase 2 sees e eee eee erceetecl|s-s2so=—c||-25--2-2 Outside streams. -...- 4,827 6,957 | 4,172 13, 458 5,778 | 3,381 24,011 12, 893 13, 942 Total American pack.........| 67,121 | 105,058 | 72,244 | 2,898,538 | 508,832 |263,877 | 128,106 | 71,376 | 30,729 British Columbia....| 34,282] 1,579] 5,188 | 290,063 | 270,368 |411,747 | 52,937| 7,946| 8,939 Total pack of entire coast. .| 101,403 | 106,637 | 77,432 | 3,188,601 | 779,200 |675,624 | 181,043 | 79,322) 39,668 Pinks, Humpbacks. Chums. Steelheads. Total. Reet = = 3. = 3 3 $ District. s = a g Ss a q a | 8 S Se ea ge eee eee se 2 ed oo | 5 3U 3 S 390 3 | su 2 Bech, cY dcBe deh Entel hel iilecEeliae) «lec ae nS = oF os st | rk z Se & ING ys 1h a 1377586 |, 4, 766.1020) 564 || 261161. 5.688 )\| 1 S25a| eset eee aoe 3,746, 493 Puget Sound....... 61776) |r ove| 91239439 ibd 100) noel oby | meee ee eee | Nee aan | ne 2, 583, 463 Columbiay Rivers s|tecace 2 sas |- emeaaeel | eaaeree 1S Se sees eee 122 | 1,137 | 3,785 | 4,017 266, 479 Sacramento RLVED. 352 cm,-c ses «| sae en vel Senn Heciesll «cee aroma Ree he oe Seale keer | eee | 950 Outside streams... - 4,141 159 177 | 17,349 316) |- S522 600). 4. 52S) ees 112, 161 Total American DAckoe) ee 2,143,503 | 22,092 | 33,684 | 345,791 | 8,109} 947 | 1,737 | 3,785 | 4,017 | 6,709,546 British Columbia...| 148,799 | 12,928 | 31,160 | 76,369 | 1,596 |.......|.......|..-...-|..-.--- 1,353, 901 Total pack of entire coast...) 2,292,302 | 35,020 | 64,844 | 422,160 | 9,705 947 | 1,737 | 3,785 |4,017 | 8,063,447 Canned salmon jacks, by grades, 1910-11-12-13. Grade. 1913 1912 1911 1910 es LaV ah ogee) ena Nr Bt AR RR TN Ree wee I 2,392,166 | 1,556,128 | 2,373,595 | 598,815 Red, Sockeye, Blueback.................- a Daan seiaallt 4) 643, 425 | 2/544) 435 | 1,869,927 | 2,262, 401 Coho, Silverside Med uReds. saw. eee a ee ” 300, 033 621, 817 676, 141 502, 837 ea, Bonnet Chol: ., ayes ak cam eees tr ani 285,472 | 426,338 | 627,714 | 409,402 CTA IR ED ASA a, OES NAS ES ee ee eee 432, 812 808, 630 592, 790 530, 990 Steelhead Be echt, ugh d tleeeeetaia. oo y's Sue pe I A ths Re 9, 539 7,198 8, 618 5,576 Total Mt Sas Seki ae. ee as «Oa gos eee 8,063, 447 | 5,956,953 | 6,140,887 | 4,316, 453 \ California canned salmon pack, 1913. Chinooks. Total, Company. Cannery location. full 1-pound + pound cases. ats dozen Carquinez Packing Co..............--. Sacramento River.........--.-- RU |eacaaa sc 950 Klamath River Packing Co...........- Kamath wRiverss- sees e sees eee 3, 897 2,479 6, 376 OTA. Se SP oe ek SOS. ct sees Se ee eR ee See ee 4, 847 2,479 7,326 UNITED STATES-CANADA FISHERIES. 13 Pack of canned salmon in Alaska from 1898 to 1913, by species. Coho, or Silver. Dog, or Chum. Humpback, or Pink. Year. Cases. Value. Cases. Value. Cases Value. Gy yall aoe aia ey al Bes eee 109! 399) Wo ve niore = sn SGOROGi Hei. oe eee TEED oan a ae D3 AON Race eee LEO ae se 10786146 ae eee LS De 2 son cee Oe SG eee 37,715 tO 4065 |e aaneee eee 1 54801398 oe aoe seers INQ c cnceRe en os 43,069 |.. Us SUQES Sarl ees i OsO1 648041 ames IME. Cee SS sae 59,104 |.- 1, 685, 546 |) ROBE BG eral Mem ean sooe IB... 5 SS abe eee ae ee eaeeee 47,699 1, 687, 244 Ay 2AGSAUO) so cae seers ote el OL ee Bee ee Al OS6sIE toes cts oe 1,505, 548 1:'9533;006) [Es seee seen TM ps UE Se es 42,125 $141, 999° 1,574,428 | $5, 335, 547 1,894,516 $6, 304, 671 [MCs So See os oo 30, 834 116, 222 1,475,961 5, 620, 875 | 2,219,044 7,895, 392 IMI. . oS eo ee 43, 424 181. 718 1, 295, 113 5, 915, 227 | 2,169,873 8, 781, 366 TUT... Joe Se ea aie 23,730 99,867 | 1,651,770 | 7,524,251 | 2,606,973 | 10,185,783 NSS). -22 SSeeeee oee Sa ee ae 48, 034 207, 624 1, 705, 302 7, 610, 550 | 2,395,477 9, 438, 152 A Ps Peo ate cs Se 40, 221 214, 802 1, 450, 267 7 774, 390 2,413,054 11, 086, 322 TOW. . 2 lh ot 45, 378 363,024 | 1,320,705 | 8,552,512 | 2,820,966 | 16,198,833 IMIG.) eee aa 52, 594 310,847 | 1,904,258 | 10,776,987 | 4,060,129 | 16,890,229 ICI). 2) Coe eens eee eae 34, 167 140,914 | 1,964)379 | 9,136,616 | 3,746,493 | 13,859,478 Oregon coast canned salmon pack, 1913. Cainooks. Silversides. Chums. aw ; Tote ~~ Company. Cannery location.) 4_ 1 - i 1 3- L- : full 5 pound] pound Foes pound! pound pound pound] pound WEEE talls. | flats. davon: talls. | flats aleyin talls. | Hats. Barnes, F.C., & Co.| Waldport.....-.. 1,175 185 | Reece <2 Addl GO5 lee