Who Gets the Salmon? A Fish-Trap Bill Stirs a Fight Over Foreign Canners

OLYMPIA, March 13.—Special.—Thomas Payne, the well-known sawyer of Blaine, who is here authorized by the council of that town to oppose the Biggs fish bill, says: ‘The Biggs fish bill, which is now before the House, is solely in the interests of the Fraser River canners, and is against the interests of our American fishermen. It does this on this side by extending the distance between traps to 5,000 feet, whereas the fish commissioner recommends that this distance shall not exceed 1,500 feet, and on the Okanagan River this distance is still further reduced to 300 feet. Should the Biggs bill become a law it would make it impossible for a poor man to take any fish on this side of the British line. It is a well-known fact in Olympia that the bill was drawn in the interests of the British Columbia canners, and that they have been urging it through. Why an American legislature should be passing laws for the benefit of foreigners and against the interests of our own citizens is quite mysterious. Another strange thing in connection with the history of this bill is the fact that Biggs was elected on a platform which contains a plank declaring absolutely against fish traps, while his bill provides for trap fishing on such a scale that it would necessarily place the business in the hands of but few wealthy men, owing to the great distance there must be between the traps. Mr. Goodfellow, who had the bill drawn, was here before the fish committee. He stated that his contracts for fish were all made with British Columbia canners. So far as the idea of protecting the fish by restricting the catch is concerned, this is as ridiculous as it is mischievous. It is well known that the fish are hatched on the Fraser River in abundance, and that the annual run is increasing rather than diminishing. As an illustration, the records show that the largest run ever known on the Fraser River was during the season of 1891.’