# Appendix — United States v. Alaska > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386414_0462%3A01 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1975 - **Citation:** 422 U.S. 184 ## Text Su the Supreme Court of the Hnited States OCTOBER TERM, 1974 No. 73-1888 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, | Petitioner, VL STATE OF ALASKA, Respondent. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT INDEX Page Volume I Chronological list of relevant docket entries 0.00.00... Complaint, March 20, 1967 22000000. .00..occccccccccccceteeeeeeeeeceeeeeeeeee 6 Answer, April 18, 1967 0.200000... Stipulation portions of pre-trial order, January 6, 1972 ........ 11 Relevant Portions of Transcript of Trial - 16 ii INDEX Page Relevant Portions of Transcript of Trial—Continued Plaintiff’s Witnesses Baltzo, Charles Howard, January 18, 1972 ............ 16 Ichimura, Takami, January 19, 1972 ........................ 42 Defendant’s Witnesses Roberts, Donald M., January 19, 1972 .................... 65 Headlee, Fred F., January 20, 1972 ........................... 78 Strohl, Mitchel P., January 21, 1972 ........................ 84 Hunt, William Raymond, January 21, 1972 ............ 93 De Armond, Robert N., January 21, 24, 1972 .......... 118 | Stewart, Donald M., January 24, 1972 ........................ 134 Rogers, George William, January 24, 1972 ................. 143 Middleton, Kenneth Robert, January 24, 1972 ........ 159 De Rossitt, Frank M., January 25, 1972 .................. 164 Ask, Kjarton J., January 25, 1972 .................0.--...00-. 170 Swanson, Stanley D., January 25, 1972 ................. .. 174 Rickey, Roy A., January 25, 1972 179 Egan, William A., January 26, 1972 ....................... 182 Relevant Portions of Depositions Admitted in Evidence ....... 218 Adams, Harley, September 9, 1971 ................... 218 Branson, Jim H., March 20, 1971 o.......0s-scccccsseeeee-- 225 Carter, Jared, June 2, 1971 -00u...222......eeeeeeee eee 233 Chayes, Abram, June 5, 1971 -...2.........2.22.2..-.eeeeeeee-e- 247 Costello, Thomas J., April 18, 1971 -...........0.0.00002....... 253 Day, Albert M., June 4, 1971-22222... 266 Erickson, Donald W., September 7, 1971 .................... 282 Gharrett, John T., Septemibor 28, 1971 -...........0000...... 290 Hodgson, Robert D., December 9, 1971 ..._................. 295 Kirkness, Walter, September 28, 1971 _..................... | 343 December 9, 1971 ....... - 349 Larsen, Holger S., March 25, 1971 358 \ INDEX . iii Page Relevant Portions of Depositions Admitted \in Evidence— Continued Marchant, Court, August 19, 1971 3.000... 361 Mosher, George A., July 22, 1971 0.0.08. 370 Naab, Ronald C., February 25, 1971 ..2...0000000000000000... 375 Pe TR EO ice eas 392 Odale, Thomas M., September 8, 1971 |....................... 445 Omsund, Svrre, September 7, 1971 een sahtaveodhanatcse 457 Rietze, Harry L., August 20, 1971 «2.0.0... 462 Scudder, Henry Clay, July 23, 1971 .......... Rewesceesesseeeee 468 Shea, Claude William, September 7, 1971 .................. 480 Simon, Donald J., June 3, 1971 o...ccceoo.- ee 495 Skerry, John B., April 13, 1971 0000.00.00. 496 Smith, Theron A., March 20, 1971 ...........0....: a aenercaees 510 Solie, Earl, September 7, 1971.00.00... “Sessessee 525 Studdert, William T., March 23, 1971 .............. ieee 531 Swanson, C.D., April 18, 1972 0c — 552 Terry, William, September 28, 1971 ......................... 580 Wardleigh, Thomas H., April 14, 1971 _....0.000000000... 589 Wilson, R. Charies, July 21, 1971 —.....02..22-.22... 594 Yingling, Raymond Thomas, June 2. 1971 Soeeeeeesiere 603 Volume II Plaintiff’s Exhibit Nos. cn he ee ese 613 Ds eeepc nerreiere 631 BE cee tree ene nioe 665 } | een eee TENET EE wees eae ee 675 > | anne n nsec yee nan en ane ~ 676 TR oe eee | ee > 678 iv INDEX Page Plaintiff's Exhibit Nos.—Continued eerie sbeeinceraeeceinesconccinmneleetenonettcsouaseraemeracsaisauiseasgsacuseenias 691 BE eeiiesieceseeiepestee noceinnnsdiensasaseiennirerenmebunaicnianennpeesandsadobiese 729 OD sccientnichectinainnsccicatenipteeeesbaiiniheecenscciocpaedenecinnbecnngeapacucbeseiwaionn 755 OO science cadactedn dade piecheedep ctisecpieniesesncunsateedonianenenseen 758 73 761 DE sietbetihieeieleeaacncinsicscigignanaaipaereiulamecpndansiucenbeantasstecsesteeiins 167 75 772 77 802 NR Sciacca ecedectenpetectentorcientsnseheraneenntenetasnnsedcamincnntantak 804 93 828 98 830 Bese eterna einentneanarnteenseaeeaninncidebuanmnconctencnees 834 ee ee ae 887 104 838 107 sssneennssnsenestesensesensnssuesnarsnsssssnssasesnnsnetessneesssenene 864 118 ... 874 BR panda spreneanvinsttarreastnaencininsnecieenimienccenneiensieeencamns 884 Defendant’s Exhibit Nos. W (included in Plaintiff’s Ex. No. 4) .................. x “ Y “ @ or (included in Plaintiff's Ex. Nos. 10 and AB-2 = AB-3 . | AM 888 AN 892 AR 893 BD (Same as Plaintiff's Ex. No. 75) ................... INDEX Defendant’s Exhibit Nos.—Continued BE BF BQ (same as Plaintiff’s Ex. No. 77) OCC meem econ cresecccccccccscocccccceccccccccoce Hoo em ew eewereweereseereees Tete enw ewweerseeerreesene TOO t Ree ew wne ewes weesassseeree 901 vi INDEX Page Defendant's Exhibit Nos.—Continued FF . 1036 FF-A 1038 | fj Se eae ee ae : . 1041 FF-2 (included in Plaintiff's No. 107) .............. FF-3 1043 FE wecaiiapieeieneacensencedpsrnircesevistestainequiasinnaiansiniesiatoners 1044 BE, ieksnncesnteiaesesncmienseniennnnnnitosaccaisitapinsiecnceseiitonesnsiaedinilowansins 1046 FO 1047 GH-1 to GH-12 .. following 1208 MAE. ‘snspitcisphenscnshsrstivancecd esessnnsocdestnsnitciueiaieabndnleceneiioneioadiims 1048 TEAR essen necieaisninceceeciestsbienenhoriebicascinssincinomedanacuetsonidinndiiciate 1059 HV .. following 1208 Hx pncieieeteanuceens 1060 . TE eccre dese neiehbermeivarestnictinseaarasdnieisedeamandmincemmennsiia 1107 Fe wipetsicencicestecndestinieecicincentetenenensopeiaane 1109 IC-1 1111 IE-1 fesecssnensoestlactcnssosecesestassmsevecantesieestecesrssu ove 1113 IE-2 .... 1116 IE-3 . 1117 IE-4 (included in Plaintiff’s Ex. No. 107) ............ I satictieseseeseserseness tintin scieieaicnilannciaegaceonaniicnescetaaeiitteniaicts 1137 IE-6 1139 IE-7 ‘1140 IE-8 1141 IE-9 O>rO Po 46 Q What kind of detection gear was used by these vessels when they were searching for fish groups? A The equipment was based on the principle of sonar detection. Q Was this equipment used while these vessels were in transit? A Yes. Of course, they were not used until the fleet arrived in the fishing ground area near Kodiak Island, - but from that point on at all times during navigation all of the five boats were using the detection equipment. Q According to the fishing methods that you have just described, was it necessary while in the course of these operations to utilize the entire fleet? A Yes, they were necessary. Q Normally, would the purse seine boats set their nets before they detected schools of fish? A Not under normal conditions. Q Under what conditions would they set their nets before—excuse me—before they detected a fish group? A Well, around Kodiak Island, in Shelikof Strait when we arrived—shortly after arrival, we were not finding any herring schools, but dropped the nets in the water a couple of times for one to check the mechanism of the purse seine, and also practice methods of handling the net. What officer was responsible for the navigation of the [245] Banshu Maru from Japan to the Kodiak group? ; A Captain Mongo Hanasaki was responsible. Q Did the captain make all the navigational decisions during the voyage to the fishing grounds? A Of course he did. Q Did his responsibility for navigational decisions change at any time? A : Yes, it did. Q On this trip? When did it change? A From after the fleet’s arrival on the fishing ground. Q How did it change? A First of all, the purpose of the sending of the fleet is—the primary purpose is to implement the herring operation plan and therefore after arrival on the fishing 47 ground, not only the movement of the vessels, but also the planning thereof, and also those other matters directly relating to the movement of the vessels comes under the supervision of a group of five individuals who are charged with the responsibility of conducting the operations plan. Of course, even if the group takes over the operating responsibilities and movements related to it, the captain of the vessel continued to exercise—maintained or exer- cised authority in two areas. One, the safety of naviga- tion, the other— Q What is the operations group? A Policy work. These are five individuals sent by the company [246] to execute the project. Who were the members of that group? A The group was headed by Mr. Yamaki, and fish- ing efforts were supervised by Mr. Kominato, processes by Mr. Toyoda, and general affairs by Mr. Kominato, and I, myself, took the responsibility of planning. Q Can you describe in some more detail the functions of this operation? A First of all, the manager of the group is in charge of the overall supervision of the function of these men. And then Mr. Kominato, who is in charge of fishing efforts, he will determine such matters as the density of a given school of fish, the size of it, and also a suggested method of catching the fish. He being the expert on these subjects, he naturally makes studies and recommendations to the group which will be discussed and reviewed within the group for final decision by the manager. Mr. Toyoda, in charge of processing, of course, is in charge of the~production, all phases of production, and his primary responsibility is to see to it that the quality of the product is the best attainable. : Mr. Kominato, in charge of general affairs, his role is to take care of the payroll of the crew and keep elemen- try check on the various provisions apd other general a of the conduct of the internal affairs on board the ats. [247] If you remember, myself in charge of planning, my responsibility was to detect a migration route of ee a a ge es A No, it did not. Q On what basis was the decision to change areas made? \ . A After going around the island of Kodiak once in which time no fish \schools were found, we came to the conclusion that the main herring schools were still migrat- ing from outside into the spawning ground, and realized the necessity of continuing our cruise around the island in order to study the pattern of migration. Q Did your job, Mr. Ichimura, your function on the Banshu Maru, require\ you to be familiar with the log of the Banshu Maru? |. A Yes. Q Why did you to be familiar with that log? [248] A You see, t of all, we have to look for the fish, the schools of fish.\In our efforts to detect the fish schools, it naturally follows that we have to keep our- selves abreast on the ment of the vessel itself and _ methods and direction of future movements. These are quite important as a is of the discussion for the group in order to make critical operating decisions. And in order to determine the p t and future points of the 49 Where on the vessel is this log kept? In the chart room on the bridge of the motherboat. Did you have access to that room? Of course, I did. : What reasons would you go into that room for? The primary reason is the fact that the conferences of this operations group was frequently held in this chart room. Q How often would these conferences be held? A Well, sometimes there might be as many as three to four meetings a day. Other days, there might only be one meeting. Q How often would you check the log of the Banshu? A You see, whenever there is a change of course, this is preceded by a conference amongst the members of the operations group [249] for good rasons that you under- stand, and therefore, at such times we all check the log to make sure that we are doing it correctly. Q So, you saw it at least every time the boat changed direction? A Yes, most of the time. Q Why did the Banshu Maru keep the log? A First of all, it is required by the law of navigation of Japan that the captain keeps the vessel—keeps the log. It is a legal requirement. And secondly, the employer organization requires a certain record keeping during the navigation period, and for these two reasons, the log was kept aboard the motherboat. Q What were the legal requirements imposéd by Japan on the vessels to keep a log? A As to the particular specifics of the requirement, I don’t have knowledge. Q What was the nature of the entries that were made in the log? A The information contained in the log consists of the following, such as position of the vessel at noon, 1200 hours, the various conditions of the weather, time of the change of the position, whether or not the catchers are detecting the fish schools, the consumption and entries of oil, water and other supplies. Q A Q A Q A 50 Q Were these entries made in the log of the Banshu Maru during [250] the Kodiak operation? A Yes, they were. Q Who were these entries made by? A They were entered by the chief officers of ‘the vessel. Q Generally, can you describe at what intervals they were made? A It is impossible to say how often, because it de- pends on the conditions and the nature, such as type of weather, and also change of the course of the vessel which might occur very often one day and not at all another day. Q What language was the log of the Banshu Maru kept? > English language. Mr. Ichimura, can you speak English? Only a little. Can you understand spoken English? If you don’t complicate what you are saying. Can you read English? Yes. Can you write English? Simple sentences, yes. MR. BRADLEY: At this time, your Honor, I would ask the Clerk to hand to Mr. Ichimura Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 104. BY MR. BRADLEY:. Q Mr. Ichimura, will you please review that docu- ment? Do you recognize that document? [251] A Yes, I do. Q Would you tell the Court what it is? A It is a copy of the log book of the Banshu Maru 31 of that time period the operation—herring operation con- tinued at that time. MR. BRADLEY: Your Honor, at this time, the Plain- tiff would like to re-offer Plaintiff’s Exhibit Number 104 as the authentic copy of the Banshu Maru. THE COURT: Is there any objection? POP PO PO 51 MR. CRANSTON: There is no objection, your Honor. THE COURT: It may then be marked and received into evidence as 104. (Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 104 received in evidence.) BY MR. BRADLEY: Q Mr. Ichimura, during what period of time does this log cover? What period of time does it cover? A From the time the fleet left the Japanese port in the latter half of March 1962 through the month of June until the time of our arrival back in Japan. Q Mr. Ichimura, what was the operational plan of the vessel Banshu Maru and the fleet when it reached the Kodiak fishing ground? A First of all, we had had previous biological knowl- edge that there was a principle spawning ground in the Shelikof Strait, [252] particularly in the waters adjacent to Uyak and Uganik. Therefore, our preliminary plan called for placing the center of our operation in that vicinity. However, we had no biological knowledge what- soever of the general pattern of migration of the schools. Therefore, we also had in mind a plan to move around the island of Kodiak in order to determine scien- tifically the condition of migration of different schools of herring, and at the same time, in so doing discover mature spawning herring schools, capture them and process them. Such was the purpose of the plan at the time of arrival. Q Did you search for fish in the area you originally arrived? A Of course, we did. Q Did you find fish. A No, we could not. Q What did you do? A Well, we went around the island and moving northward we passed waters south of the Barren Islands and came back to the Shelikof Strait approximately where we had started, and I remember in the beginning 52 of the month of April, finally we for the first time found a school of herring. It was near Uyak. Q After leaving Shelikof Strait the first time and passing south of Kodiak Island, did you fish on the Paeifie side of Kodiak Island? [258] A Yes, we looked for fish. Q Did you find fish? A No. Q Did you set your nets there? A No, we did not. Q Continuing on the route you described, did you fish north of Kediak Island? A We looked for fish, but did not find them; therefore, did not use the fishing gear. Q You testified that you finally found fish when you reached the Shelikof Strait area; is that correct? A Yes, we did find—we did find them and we caught them. Q What did you do with these fish? A Well, we conducted a series of biological tests starting from the measurement of the body of the fish, and particularly as it was important for the purpose of the operations, the rate of sex maturity, having to do with the maturity of the eggs, but most of the fifteen ton of fish were found in the stage of prematurity. They were immature and therefore, as a result of these tests, we arrived at the conclusion that the season was as yet too early and the main part of immigration was still to come. Q What did you do as a result of these findings? THE INTERPRETER: Excuse me. Since you spoke, I missed him. I had asked him to repeat. [254] BY MR. BRADLEY: Q What did you do as a result of these findings, Mr. Ichimura? : 1 A AsI said, we came to the conclusion that the main - body of the mature incoming schools are not yet around, and therefore from that conclusion we came to the decision of going once again around the island of Kodiak in search of them? 58 Q Did you search for fish on this route? THE INTERPRETER: Which—on this route, you mean the second route? MR. BRADLEY: The second route. THE WITNESS: Of course, as I said, we were searching whenever in navigation. BY MR. BRADLEY: Q Did you find fish? A No. Q Then what did you do? A Well, we only made one further trip which was unsuccessful. This time in going around the island again we decided to go north of Barren Islands be- cause the last time when we made that turn south of the islands there was no finding reported. We had the final view in mind of coming back to Shelikof Strait. Q At this time, you testified that you went north of the Barren Islands? A Yes, if north is not appropriate, above the islands. [255] MR. BRADLEY: At this time, your Honor, I . Would like to ask permission for the witness, the in- terpreter and myself, to approach the easel to which is attached Plaintiff Hodgson’s Deposition Exhibit Num- ber 7. Q Mr. Ichimura, have you ever seen this map before? A -Yes, I have. Q When have you seen it? A Yesterday afternoon in the basement of this build- ing. Q Who showed you the map? A_ The person standing in front of me. [256] Q Do the lines which are drawn on this map and which are lettered A and B have any significance to you? A I think it is the reproduction of the course taken by the fleet headed by the Banshu Maru 31 around the 6th of April 1962. | Q And to the best of your memory, these lines rep- resent the general course of the Banshu Maru? \ 54 A Yes, it must be the course of the fleet. Q \Were you searching for fish groups on this day? A \Yes. As I said, boats were instructed to do s0 while in cruise. -— Q If groups of fish had been located on this day, would you have set your nets to capture them? A ie Q this 8 / most likely, they would have. le on this route which have described on as represented by Lines A and B, was the . Banshu Maru interferred with by any authority? A No, not at all. Q Did you take this route north of the Barren Islands “that you have described in order to on a port? A (Nodded to the interpreter: ) Q A port? AA all right. No. Q en you enter a port north of the Barren Islands? A No. \. ; [257] ee you take this route north of the Barren Islands 5 on this chart in order to find shelter , from the weather? an f A No, it wasn’t. \\ Q Did enter on this route north of the Barren Islands to find shelter to repair damage to\your vessels? A No, there wasn’t. Q Mr. Ichimura, as you took this route which you have descri and which is delineated on this ,map and you here between Cape Elizabeth and the Barren Isl did you think you were entering the territorial waters of the United States? : / Poet ee \ * o em & I [258] THE WITNESS: No, I had no knowledge of that. his cross examination, there is a matter about\the iden- tification and admission of the map that I used in the direct examination of Mr. Ichimura. It is an exhibit to Plaintiff iar deposition. It is Exhibit Number 7. We wonder t procedure we should use ys sas it ; [260] MR. BRADLEY: Before Mr. Cranston begins 1 55 identified here so it won’t be confused with the Hodgson deposition as an exhibit to it as well as this.. ‘THE’ COURT: Perhaps the record could reflect that ee eee ee tam from the Hodgson deposi MR. BRADLEY: "Dr. Hodgson, the geographer of the [261] Department of State. MR. PHILLIPS: Is it presently marked? Why ' eouldn’t we use the same number? MR. BRADLEY: No, it is not. It is subject to all of the qualifications and restrictions on ps censemnea ex- hibits that you ? ge yesterday. ! THE COURT: Well, it, could be offered as a casien exhibit. The only trouble with that is to separate it from the deposition or, of course, it could receive, beth. I don’t know as it would be particularly confusing. Why don’t ’ we give it the next number and aie tiny ‘be veborned ~ th TUE teens ee Me NS aCe F Be Sa i hy to the, deposition. MR. BRADLEY: Thank aig I believe it is 116. THE COURT: Is there any objection to ‘receiving it as illustrative of this aithes's testimony? MR. CRANSTON: There is no objection to that, your Honor. HE COURT: You mark it next in order, then, Mr. Clerk, and directly into evidence, and then it may be—after the witness has completed his testimony, it may be returned to the deposition. THE CLERK: . One hundred sixteen, your Honor. THE COURT: One hundred’sixteen. - Eee (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 116 received into evidence. ) , . . . Res - “, [262] - CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. CRANSTON: Q Mr. ea en ee t the voyage you commenced on or about the 6th day of April around the Barren Islands, which is rliodek ia the exhibit. I would like to pursue that a little bit fur urther, with you. eae 56 Mr. Ichimura, after you left the area which on this chart is this area here (indicating), could you tell us where you went? A We went to the waters close to Ban Bay. Q And that, Mr. Ichimura, I believe is off the west coast of Kodiak Island; is that correct? * * * * [264] THE WITNESS: If you mean the west coast means the side [265] « the Shelikof Strait of the Kodiak Island, yes. MR. CRANSTON: A Clerk, does Mr. Ichimura have before him Exhibit 1047 If not, I wonder if it could be handed to him? THE CLERK: Yes, Mr. Cranston. * * * a Q Mr. Ichimura, I would refer you to page 41 of the exhibit to the entry in the last portion between the two heavy lines commencing 2110, and, I would ask you to have—I would ask (266] that you read that through the use of the interpreter if necessary. _ A “2110, got alongside Teal, T-e-a-l, U.S.A.F.D.O., fishing, inspect boat and eame on board, fishery depart- _ment officer.” * * _ * ' [267] MR. CRANSTON: At this point, I would read into the record ‘the entries which have been explained to Mr. Ichimura. “2110, got alongside Teal, U.S.A.F.D.O., fishing inspec- tion boat, and came on board, fishery department officer.” “2300, cast off Teal. ‘Captain went together by reason of breaching territorial waters. Otori Maru, Dairyo Maru Number 61, were suspected of breaching territorial waters. Soon arrested.” | BY ‘MR. CRANSTON: Qi would ‘ask Mr. Ichimura if he recalls these events. So Yee, do recall. 57 Q Is it true that the captain of the Banshu Maru Number 31 was arrested by the officials of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game as indicated in the log? MR. BRADLEY: Excuse me, your Honor. At this time we have an objection. That calls for a legal con- clusion which [268] the witness is not qualified to give. THE COURT: No, he may answer if he knows. He may not speculate, so if he knows the answer, he may answer, but he must not guess at it. THE WITNESS: Yes, what you said is correct. THE INTERPRETER: Mr. Ichimura’s amplification, in answering to your question, after saying, “Yes, what you said is correct,” Mr. Ichimura further states that he has no knowledge or recollection of whether it was an official from Alaska State Fish and Game or possibly United States Coast Guard or some other agency, be- cause he recollects at the time of the boarding of the officer the request by the crew for presentation of a warrant was not heard, and as a result, no warrant was seen by anybody, thus making it difficult for Mr. Ichimura to recognize who it was, but it was most likely that it must have been some kind of government officer. THE COURT: All right, go ahead. [269] BY MR. CRANSTON: Q Then, I can take it, Mr. Ichimura, that the cap- tain of your vessel was taken into custody by someone and had to leave the vessel? A It is a fact. Q Do you know, Mr. Ichimura, if any other persons from either the Banshu Maru 31 or any of the other five vessels in your fishing fleet were taken into custody by anyone at that time? A Yes, there were others. Q How many? A The captain and crew of all three, Otori Maru, and also captain and crew of Dairyo Maru. Now, Mr. Ichimura, I would refer you to page 44 of the Exhibit 104, and I will read into the record the 58 entry appearing after the figure 1950, and ask the trans- lator to read it to Mr. Ichimura. “Got alongside Teal (U. S. Fishery Department and Game Inspection Boat). 1000, Cast off Teal. Captain been arrested. Again owing to take territorial waters into court, Alaska State.” Could you look that over, Mr. Ichimura, please? Mr. Ichimura, are you familiar with that incident? A Yes, I am. Q And was the captain referred to in the log entry once again Captain Mongo Hanasaki? {270} A Yes, it is. Q After the arrests, or after the iniahdant which we have just referred to, Mr. Ichimura, was an agreement entered into between the Eastern Pacific Fisheries Com- pany and the State of Alaska? A Yes, I am aware of it. Q@ Mr. Ichimura, one further question. Was the agreement of which you are aware reduced to writing? A Yes, it has been. MR. CRANSTON: ‘I would like to hand the Clerk a copy of an agreement dated at Kodiak, Alaska, April 19, 1962, executed by the State of Alaska and the EaStern Pacific Fisheries Company, that agreement being a record in Criminal 62-141, 62-142, 62-1A, in the Superior Court for the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, entitled, “State of Alaska, Plaintiff; versus Mongo Hanasaki, Mine Sotashi and Higashima Tadao,” and I would like that— I will hand a copy to counsel. I would like that marked next in order. THE COURT: It may be given the next in order for the State for identification. THE CLERK: I-V, your, Honor. ° (Defendant’s Exhibit I-V marked for identification. ) THE COURT: It may be handed to the witness. [271] BY MR. CRANSTON: Q Mr. Ichimura, you have been handed what has been ‘marked for identification as State of Alaska Exhibit I-V. I would ask you to turn to the last page of that . 59 document, and I would ask you if on that document you recognize the signature of Captain Mongo Hanasaki? A Yes, there is such a signature, and I can personally recotnize it. Q And do you recognize personally the signatures of the other Japanese individuals on that document under the heading, “Approved and consented to”? A Yes. MR. CRANSTON: At this time, your Honor, I would move the admission into evidence of State’s Exhibit I-V, which is a certified copy of a document by A. M. Vokachek, Clerk of the Superior. Court, Third Judicial District of the State of Alaska, and which I described earlier. THE COURT: Is there any objection? MR. BRADLEY: No objection, your Honor. THE COURT: It may then be marked. (Defendant’s Exhibit I-V received in evidence.) = = = = [272] Q Mr. Ichimura, I notice the agreement which has now been admitted as Exhibit I-V was signed on the _-19th day of April 1962. Will you tell. me what the fishing fleet of which you were involved did after the signing of the agreement? A After the date of signing of this agreement, as a result of the terms and conditions agreed upon, the cap- tains and crews of both the Otori Maru and Dairyo Maru, - together with the captain of the Banshu Maru 31 were released from detention and therefore the three immedi- ately proceeded to reorganize group operations and went southward through Shelikof Strait, going around the southern end of the island, again sailed northward on the Pacific Side of the island. _ Q And did the group then engage in further fishing activity thereafter? Pn A Yes. Q Where was that? [273] A It would be much easier if I were next to the chart to point to the course, but short of that, let me say that the fleet went further north and turned east- ward, the general direction of Juneau, and kept conduct- ing detection and other surveys in the waters within the limits prescribed on the permit issued by the fisheries agent of the Japanese Government. Q I take it, then, the fleet did not again enter the area of Shelikof Strait or Cook Inket? A No, you are right. Q Mr. Ichimura, you were then aware, were you not, that the Japamese Government was consulted by your company about this agreement, Exhibit 1-V? A Of course, yes, but let me describe how we did it. It was evident at the time that there would be a very substantial financial loss incurred already as a result of the incident, and therefore, in proper discharge of our responsibility, we tried and did contact our government through our lawyers in Tokyo, checking on the impor- tant points of the problems we were faced with. Q Mr. Ichimura, you also knew, did-you not, at that time} that the agreement could not be signed without the consent of your government? A I -was—i had no knowledge of that. Q Did you not know, however, that if there had been opposition from your government, the agreement would not have been signed? [274] THE INTERPRETER: Excuse me. Opposition to the effect that they should not sign it, is that what you are saying? BY MR. CRANSTON: > Q Did you not know, however, that in the event of opposition from your government, the agreement would not have been signed? * * * * THE WITNESS: Of course, we were waiting patiently for the instructions to come through from our Tokyo law- yers as to what to do about it. However, the actual con- dition that prevailed at that time, you might describe it as a chaotic situation, and there were conflicting news and information. Therefore, in the final analysis the deci- sion to sign it was arrived at through a joint conference amongst ourselves. 61 BY MR: CRANSTON: +, in rephrasing my question, Mr. Ichimura, a eee eompany have signed this agreement, and up have agreed to the signature of this i teen el if there would have been opposition from the Japanese Government? [275] THE WITNESS: [f cannot answer that question. . BY MR: CRANSTON: — Q Mr. Ichimura, at the time when we spoke about this matter aPProximately two nights ago, did you not tell me in. res te a question, the question being— MR. CRANSTON: Do you want to interpret at that point? BY MR CRANSTON: Q Would your company have signed the agreement if your government had opposed the signing of the agree- ment, that bei™ my question. Did you not answer, “The agreement would not have been ‘signed in the event of opposition from my government”? A Yes, I did, but then I was expressing my personal opinion, and of course, in the final analysis and the final decision that was made through our lawyers in any event, and based on their decision, I would have discussed the matter and ovr operations group head would have made the final nominal decision as to what to do. _Q_ FI take it, then, no opposition—that you were aware of no [276] opposition from your government concern- ing the signing of this agreement? A I have no personal knowledge whether the Japanese Government made opposition to the act; however, I was aware at the time of it of a directive from the head- quarters of my company telling us not to sign it. * a a * Q Let me ask this, Mr. Ichimura. Has the Eastern Pacifie Fisheries Company since the time of the signing 62 of this agreement conducted fishing operations in Cook Inlet or Shelikof Strait? A No. Q Do you know of any other Japanese company whose fishing vessels have engaged in fishing in Cook Inlet or Shelikof Strait since the date of the signing of this agreement? | * * * * [277] THE INTERPRETER: Yes, he did. \His answer was, “I don’t know.” BY MR: CRANSTON: Q Mr. Ichimura, going to your testimony which you referred to this exhibit which has been marked as Exhibit 116 in this case, can you give me an approxima- tion of the amount of time which elapsed between the time you were at what has been indicated as Point A or Point B and until you reached the location which is indicated as 1200. hours, 4/6/62? A You see, as I remember, the 1200 hour position record on the preceding day is somewhere below the middle of the Kodiak Island on the Pacific side. There- fore, judging from that, the number of hours spent in between these two points you mentioned, namely from A and B to that day’s 1200 hour point, it must have been, I think, something like 10 to 12 or perhaps more 12—10 hours. Q Now, Mr. Ichimura, during that period which is represented by the lines drawn on Exhibit 116, ~~ ~~ of the vessels involved have any fi-’:ing nets out? 0. Q Or were any other type of fishing gear such lines or purse seines being used or out of the boats A You see, I was, as you know, on within visual distance from the catchers most of the Therefore, [278] when I say that they were not the gear in the water, my statement is based on assumption that they should not have been gear in the water because they normally the gear in the water unless fish schools have been f through the detector, and I also happen to know tha 2 F FR iu cE SS TEE eGcebls « ct be t=) 63 this time period there was no reporting by any one of the catchers of finding of any fish schools. Q So, then, the reasonable conclusion is, is it not, Mr. Ichimura, that there were no nets, fishing gear, lines or other type of fishing gear in the water? A Yes, it is quite reasonable. Q A few more questions, Mr. Ichimura. First, did you observe the presence of any vessels from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game during the period of time that you were cruising between Points A, B, and the 1200 hour location on Exhibit 116? A No sighting of Fish and Game boats around Bar- ren Islands, nor in the subsequent cruise time until 1200 hours point. However, I have recollection of sighting a vessel before we came into the waters shown on that chart, and the position was somewhere northeast of Kodiak Island below Barren Island, [279] facing the Pacific Ocean we sighted a boat which might have been an Alaska State Fish and Game vessel, or can equally have been United States Coast Guard boat. We weren’t _ certain, but both our boat and this vessel exchanged sig- nals by the use of flags, mutually wishing safety on the sea. Q And this was, Mr. Ichimura, prior to the time you arrived at the Point A-B on that exhibit; is that correct? A Yes, it is. Q Mr. Ichimura, have you ever had any training in er subject known as international law of the sea? No. Q And have you ever, apart from any training you have had, ever studied the legal*regime of historic bays? A No. Q_ I take it, then, your testimony in response to Mr. Bradley’s question to which I objected while you were standing up here at Exhibit 116, it was not based on any teaching or opinions on your part relative to the legal status of the waters in which you may have been? A Of course, I was—I was not with any such trained knowledge at the time of the cruise. However, as I have 64 told you before, throughout the time we spent together on the ground we were in eontinuous conferences amongst our group including the captain of the boat, and since captains never make any mention: of such legal problems, regimes, restrictions, I was [280] of the impression that— no, I was unable to obtain any expert knowledge on the subject. ~- MR. CRANSTON: I have no further questions, Mr. Ichimura. THE COURT: Any redirect examination, Mr. - Bradley. MR. "BRADLEY: Yes, sir. May I have a second? THE COURT: Yes, you may. MR. BRADLEY: Your Honor, Mr. Cranston, on cross examination, opened the subject of the collaboration and the knowledge of the Japanese Government and their rela- tion to the fishing vessels signing this agreemnt. At this time, we would like to read into the record: the Japanese response to this agreement. “Ambassador of Japan presents his compliments to the Honorable Secretary of State, and with reference to the recent incident involving Japanese: fishing boats off the coast of Alaska, has the honor, under instructions of his government, to make the following representation. One, a fishing fleet consisting of the.mother ship HIKK, East Pacific Fisheries Company, was engaged in herring fish- ing.” [281] THE COURT: Are you reading from an exhibit? MR. BRADLEY: Yes, your Honor, United States’ Exhibit Number 57, which is a diplomatic note from the Government of Japan to the United States. [282} MR. BRADLEY: [If the State will stipulate that the vessels mentioned in this exhibit that is in the diplo- matic note is the same vessels upon which Mr. Ichimura served as a member of the operations committee— MR. CRANSTON: Does it refer to the: Banshu Maru Number 31, may I ask? 65 MR. BRADLEY: A. fishing fleet consisting of the mother ship Banshu Maru Number 31 KK, East Pacific Fisheries. MR. CRANSTON: We fully agree, your Honor, they’re the same vessels. THE COURT: The stipulation may stand of record. Now, you may direct a question to the witness. * a Sd 2 DEFENDANT’S WITNESSES [300] | DONALD M. ROBERTS being first duly sworn upon oath, testified as follows: THE CLERK: Please state your full name for the record; and spell your last name. A Donald M. Roberts, R-o-b-e-r-t-s. The COURT: Counsel? DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. CRANSTON: Mr. Roberts, what is your present address? 217 Bentley Drive East, Fairbanks. ~ What is your occupation? Regional supervisor for the Division of Protection, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Q How [sic] long have you had that occupation? A I have been with the department for 12 years. I have been in Fairbanks six .years. I take it, then, you have been with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game since Alaska became a state? A Well, since they took control of their resources as of January 1 of ’60. Q Prior to that time, by whom were you employed? A Well, prior to that I was in the wholesale business in [301] Anchorage for a while. PO PO 66 Q And before then did you ever have any employment with the United States Government? A Yes. I was employed as an enforcement agent for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Q And while you were an enforcement agent were you ever employed by the Fish and Wildlife Service in the Cook Inlet area? A Yes, I was. Q All right. What was the first year you were in the Cook Inlet area? A 1951: Q All right. What were your duties there in 1951? A In 1951 I had a title of biological aide. During the summer I worked for the Commercial Fisheries Section of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Q All right. And generally what were your duties? A Well, general duties for that summer for stream surveys, stream counts, and assisting with the enforce- ment on Cook Inlet at the peak of the red salmon run. Q All right. Were you — on any patrol vessel during that period? A Yes. I was aboard the ood ‘Steelhead. Q Now, could you describe briefly the area which you patrolled in Gook Inlet while you w board the Steelhead? K 3 [802] A Weil, I was—the red run was dy started, and the area, of course, was new to me, as you under- stand, having been new to Alaska that year, but itis my recollection we started patrolling south of—picked up the fleet south of Kalgin Island and moved with them as the fish moved, checking boats for proper registration and seeing that they didn’t fish closer than the legal dis- stance between gear. And we boarded—would board vessels every day checking their registration against their vessel plate numbers and also we would measure lengths of the drift gill nets. They were restricted to certain lengths, and some fishermen once in a while would have a tendency to put on another shackle or two, and also they were not allowed to carry more than the legal limit of gear 67 We checked the vessels to see if they had extra hung gear aboard. Q Now, is this generally the type of activity you were concerned with during these patrols? A During my stay on the Steelhead that summer, yes, that was our primary concern. Q While you were on ‘the Steelhead, did you patrol the area which would be south of a line drawn from Herring Point to the southern end of the Kalgin Island, and thence over to Ninilchik? A Yes. Q And did you concern yourself or pay any attention to whether [303] you were more than three miles from any shoreline in that area? A Our only concern was being with the fleet and checking them, which is out in the middle of the inlet. Q Can you describe the area in Cook Inlet in 1960— 1951 where you did patrol south of that line which I just described? A You mean 1952? Q Right. Is this the year you are testifying to? A 1952, I am speaking of,*yes. Q Oh, I believe earlier you may have said 1951. A Oh, I am sorry. I am in error. I wasn’t even in Alaska in 1951. Q Oh, all right, 1952. A You want me to describe—would you repeat the ’ question? Q The area over Cook Inlet over which you patrolled in 1952 while on the Steelhead. A Well, there was—I can’t be real precisely exact, the degrees and latitude then, but it was—I was put aboard, I know we were south of Kalgin Island because there was another fellow aboard a Grummin Goose that set us off and we dropped him off at Kalgin Island to assist in the stream guardgthere, and then we flew south and I don’t know how long we flew or how many minutes, but we fiew south and they dropped—and put me aboard the Steelhead, and then that is where I spent my time for the next—it might have been 10 days or two [304] weeks. 68 \ I just really don’t recall exactly now. Following the— working with the fleet, following them north as the fish moved on up from that point, mostly up along the’ east side of Kalgin Island and the fish moved around the island, and then. om north, and then they go—they go moving back around the north side of the island. Q Did you patrol as far south as the latitude of Anchor Point that year? A It would be possible, but I couldn’t say for sure that year. Q Now, did you return to Cook Inlet, the Cook Iniet area in any later years? A Y¥es, I did. I was there—well, the fall of ’52 I took a permanent position then with enforcement, protection, 06 Fish and Wildlife Service as enforeement. agent. The following summer I went down—well, left Anchorage on the patroli vessel Chum, weil, probably a little bit after the middie of May, because the—fishing season used to from: about Anchor point, because there was no: drifting cross this line; then, of course, they were allowed to ee . = I up around the island, and the same pattern up to the north end and the ‘ish weuld break off and go into the various rivers. Q Could you describe where this closed area was located? A The closed area I mentioned to the drift fishing? Q Yes. | Se A There was no drift netting south of a line from Anchor Point south. ; Q Now, did that line extend across Cook Inlet? | / od ° * * [306] Q You testified, I believe, that there was a line at Anchor point. I am just wondering, did that line extend to a point on the opposite shore of Cook Inlet for purposes of the regulations? A Well, as I recall, that was correct. There was no drifting’ from a line north of Anchor Point. Anything south of this line was closed to drift netting, gill netting. Q And did you determine whether the closure to drift netting south of Anchor Point included an area more than three miles from the shoreline of Cook Inlet south of Arichor : Point? A There was nothing in the regulations that stated . this. Q Did you— , A’ The three miles didn’t enter into it. Q Well, let’s put it this way: Did you determine that your patrol responsibility was to prevent. drift netting more than three miles off shore south of Anchor Point? A No, just to prohibit drift netting in that whole general area south of this line, and— Q What I am trying to get at, what do’ you mean by “the whole [807] general area”? A Well, there was an area, I think we used to call it the Southern District, from Point Gere and Cape Douglas north, and then there was another line that— this Anchor Point line, so there is a space in between. I Bee you have got a map over there. There is a space in there we refer to as the Southern District. It was i eae | open to seining, but not open to gill or drift netting in this area, in this—I think it was called the Southern Dis- trict. It was open to fishing, but not that type of gear. Q So, did you determine that you would enforce this ation throughout 2 that water area that you have just described? '. & Oh, yes. This area takes in Kamishak Bay on the west and Kachemak on the east, or not the—not Kache- mak, but Point Gore. Kamishak and Kachemak, excuse me, both of them. There was that whole area cross there that if there had been any fishing in this area, drift netting, we’d have apprehended them. Q Now, did the drift fishery in 1953 exist in an area north of Anchor Point more than three miles from the shore? A Yes.’ Q . And what did you determine your patrol responsi- bility to be in that area concerning the drift net fishery? A igh are speaking north of Anchor Point, correct? ight. [308] A Well, my area of responsibility, as I under- stood it by regulations, for the fisheries of Alaska, that it was from bank to bank of the inlet, the whole body of water, and people were expected to comply with the regulations, and if they didn’t, regardless of where they were, a mile from shore or 10 miles from shore, they would be apprehended, if ean were in violation of the regulations. _ Q All right. en: passing up 1953, did you have any er 6 in the Cook ~_. area in any ‘subsequent years? 1954. Q All right, what were your duties in the Cook | Inlet ‘area in 1954? A Well, enforcement. I was agent in charge of the Cook Inlet fisheries for enforcement purposes in 1954. Q All right. Now, generally during 1954—how long were you in this position, then? A Well, it was for the entire summer when the fisheries were active. ' Q You stated you were agent in charge of enforce- ment; is that correct? ‘ 71 A Agent in charge of enforcement for the commercial fisheries. Q Did you ever engage in patrols that year? A Continuously, yes. Q And what type of equipment did you use for your patrol activities? [309] A _ I had at my disposal a Grumman Goose. It’s a twin-engine amphibious aircraft, and a pilot. I am not a pilot. ,@ So, I take it you conducted your patrol activity with aircraft; is that correct? A That is correct. ‘Iran my patrol activities from aircraft, then I had two patrol vessels in the inlet, and I had both officers and agents aboard those patrol vessels patrolling, also. Q All right, when you were engaging in these aerial patrols, where would you fly? A Well, I covered my entire area of responsibility, which was from—well, the Cook Inlet area as described by the regulations, which is actually all—as I recall it now, it is all the waters of Cook Inlet from Point, Gore and Cape Douglas north, and all the waters as tributary in this enclosure. Then I had—then I had also included under my jurisdiction for enforcement was the Resurrec- tion Bay area and that went—took the outer—called the outer district, the outside of the Kenai Peninsula which runs from—it was Point Gore over to Cape Fairfield. Q Now, did you engage in aerial patrols in Cook Inlet over all-of the area which you have described? A The entire area I described on practically a seven- day-a-week basis, yes. And this was while you were on an aircraft? {310] A That is correct. Did you engage in any vessel patrols this year; that is, 19547 A I was not personally aboard vessels on patrol, no, but I directed their activities, but I was not personally aboard. ’ Q All right. Now, we have talked a lot about patrols in the three years. Could you describe perhaps in some 72 more detail what was the purpose of what you have described as a patrol? What was Ge function of the patrol? A_ Now we are speaking of this 154, or in general? Q We are speaking iin general. A Well, the purpose of—our whole purpose in life as enforcement agents in working this fishery, of course, was to enforce federal fishery regulations for the protection of the fisheries in the Territory of Alaska. And in our prescribed areas, of course, in the area I was assigned was Cook Inlet, and I patrolled the area, and people that later worked for me patrolled it to en- force and prohibit violators—apprehend violators of these regulations anywhere within this prescribed area of Cook Inlet and the Resurrection Bay area. . * . . [312] Q Would you describe for the Court the type of regulations which you were enforcing in these patrols relative to the drift net fishing? A Well, if I follew you correctly, regulations, as I recall them, limited the length of gear and area in which you may fish; hours, days that you may fish, such as this as no—I mentioned earlier, you’re not allowed to carry more than the legal limit of gear aboard. There were—used to measure sizes, this sort of thing, in rela- tion to the drift fishery. Q And was it in these same regulations you are deseribing that the prohibition of drift netting south of the Anchor Point line, was that among these regulations? A Yes, that is correct, that is part of it. Q Now, you have described your enforcement, your duties as agent in charge of enforcement pertaining to two areas, one the Cook Inlet area, and the second one, the Resurrection Bay area. Now, we have been talking about regulations. Generally, what was the source of these regulations? Was it a book that you received? A Yes, they were. It was published—the published regulations, and of course, there were copies given (0 me by my superiors which they received from Washing- ton, D.C. 73 Q All right. Now, with respect to the Cook Inlet area, did [313] you determine—this was again in 1954 while you were agent in charge of enforcement in the Cook Inlet, you did determine the geographic area over which you had authority to enforce these regulations? A Yes, from these published regulations. Q All right. In other words, you did determine the area, and in making that determination you relied on these published regulations? A That is right. MR. CRANSTON: I wonder, Mr. Clerk, could I have State’s Exhibit IU. It’s been marked for identifica- tion. BY MR. CRANSTON: Q Now, Mr. Roberts, I am going to ask the Clerk to hand you Exhibit IU, and I have a white piece of paper at page 34 of the portion of that exhibit entitled, “Laws-and_Regulations for the Protection of the Com- mercial Fisheries of Alaska, 1954.” When the Clerk hands you that exhibit, I wish you’d turn to the— MR. CHARNEY: May I please see that? What was marked here? THE COURT: 1954 regulations, Mr. Charney, page 34. BY MR. CRANSTON: Q You have that in front of you, Mr. Roberts? A Yes. Q_ All right. Now, you stated you had determined the | [314] “geographical area over which you had authority to enforce the regulations in that you had relied on the regulations. When you referred to the regulations, was it those 1954 regulations which you have before you? A Yes, this would be correct. Q Now, is the regulation upon which you relied set forth at page 34? A Yes. Q And what regulation is that? A Cook Inlet Area, Part 109. 74 Q All right. Now, would you read the number, and read the regulations, please? A You want which? You want the particular sec- tion, or— Q That one you read, the Cook Inlet Area. A Well, Cook Inlet Area, Section 109.1. “Definition of Cook Inlet Area is hereby defined to include Cook Inlet and its tributary waters and all adjoining waters north. of Cape Douglas and west of Point Gofe. The Barren Islands are included within this area. — Q All right. Now, that is the regulation you relied on; is that correct? A Yes, that is correct. Q Now then, based on that regulation, what area of Cook Inlet did you determine you had enforcement au- thority within and over? [315] A Based on this? Q In order to-carry out your duties in Cook Inlet as the agent in charge of enforcement, was it necessary for you to determine the area over which you had en- forcement responsibility? A Well, it wasn’t up to me. It was up to my super- visors as to what I was instructed to do, the type of program to conduct [316] in the area I was responsible for in enforcing the regulations. The area I was re- sponsible in enforcing the regulations were confined in this as described here by the definition, this being what I wouldn’t go beyond, because that is another fishery agent’s and another agent in Kodiak is in charge of it, so I am just concerned just in this area as described in the definition. : Q All right, and then you have testified that you patrolled throughout the entire area, water area, as de- scribed? A That is correct, the entire area, in addition, as I mentioned earlier, the Resurrection Bay area. Q Now, in order to carry out your duties as agent in charge of enforcement in the Resurrection Bay area, 75 did you d ; ‘ : you had enj’rmine the geographical area over which orcement authority? ry oe > Resurrection Bay area? Thon yes, it was the area, to mention the general _” aries that’e Gore to Cape Fairfield, and all the tribu- two points,°nter into the Gulf of Alaska between these primarily ’ and bays and inlets in this area. This is prohibited ? seine fishery down there. Drifting was shout threend we patrolled from—now, you are talking confused b Miles here. A little while ago I was a little way we ercause it didn’t apply to us in our—in the —* Jets but deorced regulations up [817] there in the in- - eoncerned WN here it was a different matter. We were our patrolWith the three-mile limit there and we ran approxima? differently.» Sometimes we would fly out can see frely three miles, maybe two miles, and you fly in the ’™ the air, of course, a long ways, and then illegal actibays and inlets and so forth, patrol for any All jities. same Exhiight, I wonder if you would turn to—in that is a pagedit IU which is in front of you there, there see on thamarked with a yellow marker, and do you area? ; page the definition of the Resurrection Bay A Part All 110, Resurrection Bay Area, Section 110.1. had enforcight, is this the area over which you also A Yeszment responsibility? Q Andthat is correct. definition does that definition set forth the—is that the A Yesf that area? rection B: Would you like me to read it? “The Resur- ritorial cy Area is hereby defined to include all ter- Alaska beastal and tributary waters in the Gulf of field on thween Point Gore on the west and Cape Fair- Q Ane east.” you were- it is within this area that you determined is that cotthat there was a three-mile limit applicable, A Yesrect? that is correct. a 76 [318] Q Now, let’s suppose, going back to Cook Inlet, and your patrols—what procedure would you follow in your patrols on the inlet, no matter what year, whether it was ’52, 53 or ’54, had you perceived a violation in the drift gill net fishery more than three miles from shore? A Same way we'd handle any violation. We would have apprehended the individual. Q Could you describe exactly the procedures you would go about in doing this? A Well, you would detect what the violation is, and then, weather permitting, whether in aircraft or vessel, come alongside and board them, inform them of the violation that they were—section of the law they’re in violation of, and advise them to proceed to Seldovia, Kenai area, where there was a United States magistrate or commissioner, and we would arraign them and charge them with the violation of these regulations. Q Did you ever make any boardings of vessels more than three miles from the shore in Cook Inlet in the area south of a line connecting Harriet Point, Kalgin Island and Ninilchik? A Probably 95 per cent of our boardings were in this area, were out in the center of the inlet, because that is primarily where the—where the drift net fishing took place, where the schools of fish were. Q And would these boardings take place down as far. south as [319] a line in the inlet equal to the latitude of Anchor Point? A Oh, yes. Q During the period of time you were in Cook Inlet, did you ever observe any Canadian halibut vessels fishing - in Cook Inlet? -A No, I did not. Q Were you aware that there was a Canadizn halibut fishery carried on in the Cook Inlet? : A Not to my knowledge, not during those years. Q Were you aware of any determination that had been made relative to allowing Canadian halibut boats to remain unmolested in Cook Inlet from a federal en- forcement standpoint? 77 A No, I don’t recall it; anything like that. There was—I just don’t recall, because the regulations would prohibit it. I just don’t recall anything like that. Q When you say “the regulations would prohibit it,” what do you rely on in making that statement? A Well, back in there you are talking about 18, 19 or 20 years ago here, but somewhere in here, I don’t think it would be too hard to find, there is an alien—a prohibition against foreign vessels or alien vessels fishing in Alaskan waters, and if they had been in Cook Inlet as described in the regulations— [820] Q Would you continue? Were you going to con- tinue to answer? A I guess I was. I was just—I guess I was thinking of if there had been any vessels in Cook Inlet as de- scribed by the regulations, we would have apprehended them because it prohibited the taking of fish from this area by foreign vessels. MR. CRANSTON: I have no further questions. THE COURT: You may cross examine. CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. CHARNEY: Mr. Roberts, I am going to ask you— MR. CRANSTON: One matter, your Honor. I wonder at this point, we have had Exhibit IU marked for iden- tification. It is the regulations which formed the basis of Mr. Roberts’ [321] testimony and are federal Fish and Wildlife Service regulations, the Court could un- doubtedly take judicial notice of them, but we would request they be admitted as an exhibit. [8322] THE COURT: You may then release it to Mr. Cranston at the time of recess, Mr. Clerk. ; 78 With that understanding, it may then be received and marked as IU directly into evidence. (Defendant’s Exhibit IU received in evidence.) [335] FRED F. HEADLEE being first duly sworn upon oath, testified as follows: THE CLERK: Please state your full name for the record, and spell your last name. A Fred F. Headlee, H-e-a-d-l-e-e. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. CRANSTON: Mr. Headlee, what is your address? Box 806, Ketchikan, Alaska. And what is your present occupation? I am retired federal employee. Mr. Headlee, were you ever employed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in the region of Cook Inlet, Alaska? A Yes, I was. Q@ And what were the years that you were employed in the Cook Inlet area? [836] A 1944, 1945. Q And during those years, what were your duties? A I was the fishery management agent in charge of the Cook Inlet District. Q When you were in the Cook Inlet District in 1944 and ’45, were federal regulations in existence? A You say were they in existence? Q Yes. A Yes, they were. Q And did you look to these regulations and rely upon them to determine the geographical area of your responsibilities? OPO PO * * a * 79 Q Mr. Headlee, what did you look to to determine your area of responsibility in Cook Inlet? A It was defined in our book of regulations. MR. CRANSTON: All right, I would ask the Clerk to hand the witness Exhibit IU. THE COURT: The witness has the exhibit. BY MR. CRANSTON: Q Mr. Headlee, do the 1944 regulations appear in that exhibit? {[337] A _ Yes, sir. Q All right, would you turn to that booklet of 1944 regulations? Have you found the 1944 regulations? A Yes. It is not— Q Then, let me ask you another question. Does the regulation upon which you relied to determine the geo- graphical area of your responsibility appear within those regulations? A Yes, they do. Q And would you refer to them and tell me what regulations you relied upon? * * * * Q Would you refer to, them and tell me— A It is Section 209.1; Definition, Cook Inlet Area. “The Cook Inlet Area is hereby defined to include Cook Inlet, its tributary waters, and all adjoining waters north of Cape Douglas and west of Point Gore. The Barren Islands are included within this area.” Q And what you just read was the regulation; is that . correct? You have just read the regulation? A Yes. [338] Q Now, would you turn to the 1945 regulations as they appear in that bound volume? Are they in that volume, the 1945 regulations? A Yes, they’re right here. Q All right, would you refer to the regulation upon which you relied to determine the geographical area he your responsibility in 1945? A It’s exactly the same section, 209.1. es Q All right, and would you read that, please? — 80 A “Definition of Cook Inlet Area. The Cook Inlet Area is hereby defined to include Cook Inlet, its tributary and all adjoining waters north of Cape Douglas and west of Point Gore. The Barren Islands are included within this area.” Q Thank you, Mr. Headlee. You may close the book of regulations if you wish. Now, generally, what were your responsibilities in the Cook Inlet area in 1944 and 945? What exactly did you do? A Enforcement of the regulations, gather statistics ~ and make any recommendations for the following year. {889} Q What did you do in order to enforce the regu- lations? What type of activities did you engage in? A I was aboard the vessel Teal with an outboard motor, a fast one, and Wwe patrolled the entire inlet as . much as possible with the time we had. How far south of the inlet did you patrol? A Well, mainly the lower—the Kenai Peninsula and occasionally out to the Barren Islands. Q What 'was the purpose of these patrols? A To enforce these regulations. Q And by “these regulations,” to what are you referring? _A The regulations in the Cook Inlet District as re- ferred to in this book I just read out of. ‘Q All right, were you furnished a copy of these regulations? A We were furnished hundreds of copies, and we kept them and distributed them to the fishermen. Q Do you know why you were furnished a copy of these regulations? A So we would know exactly what we were doing. * . * + [840] THE WITNESS: That is really what we relied on all the way through for area and our duties. BY MR. CRANSTON: Q Did you rely on any other acts or laws which may have appeared in that booklet- you were furnished? 81 This same booklet refers to the Alien Fishing Act. And did_you rely on that act? Absolutely. ~~ For what purpose? For enforcing the regulations for any aliens.. MR. CRANSTON: I have no further questions of this witness, your Honor. THE COURT: You may cross examine. CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. BRADLEY: Q Mr. Headlee, while you were in charge of the Cook Inlet Fisheries Management Area, how much equipment— fishery patrol equipment was in the inlet at that time? A During 1944 we had the vessel Teal and a fast outboard motor, with a plane if we chartered it, if we needed it. Q Is that all the equipment that was there to cover the entire inlet? A That’s right. Q How long was it there during each season? A During every season probably from early May until September. [841] Q The Teal was there that entire time? A Right. Q And your primary concern was the salmon fishery; is that correct? A Yes, it was. Q Did you patrol other fisheries? A Well, anything that was called upon in the regula- tions. Q Now, you said that part of your duty as a fishery management agent were to make recommendations for the next season. This was done in a meeting, wasn’t it, between fisheries agents and fishermen? A We wrote in our recommendations and then, if there were any questions, they were all taken under advisement. PO PO p> 82 Q So, there were conferences between the fishermen and the fishery management agents at the completion of each season as a matter of procedure? A Actually, not as there were in later years, at that time. Q But, you did know where the fishery—the concen- trated area of fishing in each season would be. You didn’t patrol where there wouldn’t be fisheries; is that correct? A Wherever there was an open season, and of course, in others we patrolled mainly and then we kept the rest of the inlet occasionally in case there was somebody out- side of the open areas. Q But, the prime focus of your patrol was in the areas where you [342] knew there was fishing; is that correct? A. That’s right. Q And even then, you didn’t have enough equipment to do this sufficiently; isn’t that correct? A We figured we covered it pretty well. Q You did. Would you describe the area that one boat covered each season in the inlet? A The entire inlet. Q And that is the entire shoreline for beach seines and for traps? A All over the inlet. Q I see. Can you tell me what your title was again, please? A At that time I was a deputy fishery management agent. Q And who was your superior in the inlet at that time? A I was in charge. Q You had no superior? A Notintheinlet. . Who was your immediate superior? A I believe his name was Culvertson. He was the supervisor for Alaska fisheries. He was stationed in. Juneau. Q And who was his superior? A The regional director. 83 Q During the course of your patrols, did you ever arrest or cite or board—well, arrest or cite American_. fishermen in the middle of the inlet more than three miles from a line [348] along the shoreline? A Well, we didn’t pay any attention to any three miles, because it was all our area and we actually didn’t see anybody fishing out in the middle of the inlet. Q So, there was no fishing in the middle of the inlet at that time? A No, sir. Q So, your primary patrol was not in the middle of the inlet because, as you testified earlier— A Only when we crossed from one side to the other. Q Did you ever see foreign fishing vessels in the inlet? : A Never. Q Then, you never cited a foreign fishirig vessel in the inlet? A Never. Q You never had any occasion to enforce the alien fishing regulations that you mentioned? A No, I didn’t. MR. BRADLEY: No further questions, your Honor. THE COURT: Any redirect? MR. CRANSTON: I would just like one or two, your Honor. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. CRANSTON: Q Mr. Headlee, you testified you never cited any foreign vessels in Cook Inlet. Was there a Canadian halibut fishery carried on of which you were aware dur- ing 1944 and ’45 in [844] Cook Inlet? A Not to my knowledge. Q Did you ever see any Candian vessels in the inlet? A I couldn’t say that I had. There was one that pulled into Port Dick in the middle of the night one night to get out of a storm. I am not sure whether it was Canadian or American. Q What did you do on this vessel? 84 ' A I boarded it and checked to see whether his license was validated, and carried on the time of day and every- thing was sem so I went back to my ship. RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. BRADLEY: Q Mr. Headlee, you have just spoken about a vague incident where you boarded a vessel which you weren’t clear whether it was American or Candian. A I said that I wasn’t sure just to this day whether it was American or Candian. He had a validated halibut license and he was_in during a storm only. Otherwise, he’d have been out. , Q Could you describe the halibut license he had, the nature of [345] it? A The halibut fisherman is required to have a valid— -a@ validated license which is validated by the-U.S. Cus- toms after every trip, and at that time they had 90 hours, I think. Where was the vessel located? ~ A In Port Dick, in a safe harbor for the night. [456] MITCHEL P. STROHL bejng first duly sworn upon oath, testified as follows: (457) DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. CRANSTON: Q What is your address, Mr. Strohl? A 96 Rue Thiers, 92 Boulogne-Billancourt, France. THE COURT: Just a moment. Can you spell that for the court reporter? THE WITNESS: B-o-u-l-o-g-n-e—B-i-l-l-a-n-c-o-u-r-t. 85 BY MR. CRANSTON: Q What is your occupation? A I am registrar and lecturer in political science at the American College in Paris, in France. Q And I take it, then, that you are a professor; is that correct? A Currently at that college I do not hold that title. I have in the past, yes, and I am called that. Q All right, Professor, would you tell us what your educational background has been? A Iam a graduate of the United States Naval Acad- emy. Also a graduate of the United States Naval War College, Boston University and the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. Q Now, tell us a little bit about the courses which you took in the United States Naval Academy. A Well, the course at the Naval Academy, and espe- cially in my time, there is primarily a professional] course with a view toward the graduate becoming an active line naval officer, and [458] especially devoted to navigation, seamanship, ordinance and gunnery, a good bit of mathe- matics, engineering with a certain sprinkling of the liberal arts and history and English, plus quite a good bit of language study, too. Q All right, and what sort of courses did you take at the Naval War College? A The Naval War College is a highly professional institution primarily devoted to staff management, but with peripheral courses in such things as national strat- ~ egy, international relations, international law, and also, strangely enough, public speaking and various peripheral activities. Q All right, would you tell us what your past em- ployment has been? A Yes. I am a retired naval officer with 22 years of active service as an officer over and above the Naval Academy. During that time, I performed about 15 years at sea, including six specifically as a navigator, in most of the waters of the world. After that time, I was an associate professor and head of the department of gov- 86 ernment at Lycoming College in Williamsport, Pennsyl- vania. , Following that, I was executive secretary of the League of Americans residing abroad, which is a political lobby, and after that, I took my present job which I hold at the present time. Q Now, you have Btated that you did spend 15 years at sea and [459] that you -rere a navigator. Would you tell or describe the voyages, generally, where you have been at sea? A In the early part of my career, I spent it nearly all in the Pacific in World War II, about one ‘year, inci- dentally, in the Aleutian Chain of Alaska. At other times in various places in the South Pacific, in Japan, and fol- lowing the war it was nearly all in the Atlantic with a very great deal in Europe and the Middle East, occa- sionally in the north of Africa. Q Now, could you describe generally what your duties were on these voyages as a navigator? A The navigator is, on an American naval vessel, by law and regulation, is totally responsible for the naviga- tion of the ship and advising the commanding officer. In that connection, one had to do all of the celestial naviga- tion on the high seas and do what in the generic term is called piloting, which is navigating the ship in sight of land, in bays, estuaries, inlets, harbors and closely along the coast. I have done this in most of the waters of the world, I think. Q Now, when you were not serving during these years as a navigator, what were some of your inticee while aboard ship? . A At a very early time, I was chief engineer of a destroyer. By the way, all my sea duty was.on destroyers and small ships. In addition to that, and then somewhat - later, I was a radar officer or combat information center officer, which, incidentally [460] has a very large respon- sibility for navigation, also. Following that, I was gunnery officer, and then, as I said, for six years I was navigator. And following that I was a commanding officer. Then, I did one period which was more or less sea duty a good part ofthe time in 87 . educating others which I was head of a mission in Saudi Arabia. Q During your capacities on board ship while you were not serving in the function of the navigator, was it necessary that you familiarize yourself or be aware of navigation? A Absclutely. I might qualify that by saying on a small ship this is necessary because the duties are not categorized or departmentalized to the same extent that they are on a large one, and I was never on a large ship. Q Now, Professor Strohl, getting up a little further, have you made any studies concerning the navigational and marine characteristics of Cook Inlet in order to pre- pare yourself for your testimony in this case? A Yes. Q All right, what research have you done with regard to this? : A As a preliminary, of course, I studied a good bit about Alaska in general, including history of Alaska. Following that, and more specifically, I studied the charts, the sailing directions, all of the normal qualifications, all of the normal publications that would have to do with navigating Cook Inlet. In addition, for comparative pur- poses, I went [461] into the sailing directions of France, Britain. I had a translation made of the Japanese sail- ing directions, and then I did some comparative study with—concerning other bays in the world, I guess about 30 of them, and I did most of this work at the Interna- tional Hydrographic Bureau in Monaco, which was the closest access to me. _ Q All right, you have indicated, Professor, that you read or researched other publications concerning Cook Inlet. What would those have been? A In addition to the sailing directions were the light lists, the tide tables, the current tables, some weather reports including air navigation charts. I went thoroughly into the Coast and Geodetic Survey report that was writ- ten after the 1964 earthquake to see what light that might shed upon it. I think that is about it. Q And within this research were there materials on the subject of navigation? A In one form or another, yes. Also, some, for exam- ple, the Coast and Geodetic Survey report of the earth- quake had quite a bit to do with surveys taken in the Cook Inlet. Q All right, in addition to your research, have you familiarized yourself in any other way with the marine and geographical characteristics of Cook Inlet? A Yes. Q And when did you do this? [462] A Last..summer in early July I came up here for that pu , among others, and as part of an experi- ence at that time I boarded the ferryboat Tustamina to travel from here to Kodiak and return, which is about a 48-hour trip, as I recall. Perhaps I had better explain a little bit how I went about that. Q Yes, please do so. A You see, in the normal life of a naval officer, in becoming acquainted with a particular body of water one reads all the books and if one has to know the place thoroughly, such as Norfolk or Newport, Naples, in my case, you make so many trips in and out that if you don’t see something one time you see it the next time, but in this case, of course, I did not have a chance and I had to familiarize myself with it as absolutely and completely as possible within the time available, so that from the time I was on the Tustamina, I spent the—nearly all of it on the bridge and talked to the ship’s officers, saw precisely what they were doing from one end to the other, made continuous observations with them, followed it all on the chart from one end to the other twice, made all the—what I thought were necessary observations of the waters and had the fathometer on all the time in order to learn as much as I could in the shortest possible time, which was all the time I had available to me. Then, fol- lowing that, just in order to refresh my memory and get another look [463] two days ago in a Fish and Game Department airplane, a rather slow flying airplane, alti- tude about 500 feet, I made a flight all the way down Cook Inlet on one side, down to the Barrens, Cape Douglas, Cape Elizabeth, out the Barrens, up the other 89 side, took about three and a half hours, I think. This familiarized me reasonably well. Q All right, I take it, then—let me ask you this: Was this sufficient, in your mind, for your preparation for your testimony in this case in order to familiarize your- self with Cook Inlet? A Yes, I think so. To try to do it as thoroughly as possible and at the risk of appearing immodest, I think I am quite prepared to take a ship right up Cook Inlet without a pilot and put it alongside the pier out here. * a * * xY ' , [464] Q Professor Strohl, based upon your preparation described above, have you formed an opinion as to whether or not Cook Inlet from the standpoint of a mariner, a navigator, is a body of water which is neces- sarily inland? A Yes. Q What is your opinion? [465] A My opinion, sir, is that Cook Inlet—as a body of water, Cook Inlet rates as a body of water neces- sarily inland. Q From the standpoint— A From the standpoint of navigating and navigating experience, yes. Q All right, Professor, would you state what the reasons are for your opinion? A I think, sir, that these fall into about six cate- gories: The configuration of the shore; secondly, the con- cept of a landlocked body; third, the matter of entry, then the category of tides; fifth, this would be the weather, 0 finally, the navigation aids, I think about in that order. Q All right, Professor, let’s take them one at a time, then. State the reasons for your opinion based upon the shore configuration of Cook Inlet. A Well, the shore configuration dictates all in that it’s a rather elongated body, some 140 miles long, with varying widths, quite a good bit longer than it is wide, 90 rather regular, and a good bit of the eastern shore indented with one bay, Kachemak Bay and several smaller ones like Turnagain Arm. Well, Turnagain Arm is not so small. And then on the western shore the shoreline _ is rather more indented, somewhat more irregular. And they open out into two entries, primarily [466] two entries for navigation purposes, and the distinct sort of barrier at the bottom. That is the general picture of the shore. Q What are the two entries to which you refer? A One entry is—comes up through Shelikof Strait, and the other is really divided in—subdivided into two other entries, or possibly three. The third one from a navigation standpoint is pretty risky. That is Chugach Passage. The other is a pair of passages to the north and to the south of the Barrens. Perhaps it is relevant to point out in this connection that from a navigator’s standpoint, the picture is quite a good bit different from simply looking at lines on a chart, .because actually, the amount of navigating clear water in any of these pas- sages is substantially less than one would look at when one looks at blue water on a map. ‘In other words, it is about—there is about 38 miles of clear water and this is divided down pretty rapidly, 18 through Shelikof Strait and eight to the north of the Barrens, and about 12 to the south of the Barrens. We will rule out Chugach. That is all right for small boats. Q All right, Professor, getting to the point of—you mentioned the concept of being landlocked. State the basis for your opinion in that area. A Well, here again, I think I’d like to refer to this in a mariner’s conceptual terms. First is the matter of entry. [467] You go into it. You have the conception that you must navigate by aids around you rather than by celestial navigation. You look out on all sides and you see land there. Then, secondly, there is the matter of shelter which rises rather promptly in ones mind for navigating pur- poses, and then thirdly, which is often forgotten, except those who do navigating, and that is that the landlock imposes the problem of getting out, especially if suffi- 91 ciently bad weather arises. You have doubt about holding ground. You have to get out in a hurry. This landlocked matter arises and plays quite considerable importance. Q How do you apply this concept, specifically to Cook Inlet? A In the case of Cook Inlet there is no doubt in my mind that first there is the matter of entry, how do you get into it? There is the anticipation of some shelter. It gets to be rather more important if one is with naval ships, I think, and decidedly the problem of making up your mind in light of the weather how you are going to get out of that place if you have to get out. Q All right. Now, discussing specifically the entrance of Cook Inlet, you indicated that there may have been a problem, or a problem arises. Could you describe that as in the way it formed the basis for your opinion? A Yes. Actually, the principle navigation entrance, as I see it occurs on either side of the Barrens, and there is a somewhat [468] lengthy process that—almost a check-off process one goes through in formulating what he is going to do at that kind of entrance. The sailing directions will immediately tell you that certain risks are involved because of tidal currents. In anticipation of weather changes and shelter, and in anticipation of the tidal currents which occur right there, and es- pecially tide rips and eddies, and then looking again at the chart and seeing it, where the depth of water changes, I might add that the fifty fathom curve is right in a curved line going just about from Cape Douglas to Cape Elizabeth, one formulates—as a navigator, one formulates a mental picture of crossing a barrier, and that is especially what seems to happen, and in—I might add, in connection with the matter of weather and shelter, I was—had the good fortune—nobody else looked at it as good fortune—in going on the Tustamina on a rather bad day going and coming, and there was a de- cidedly marked difference in the water conditions and the weather as one came nearer and crossed over this _parrier. You can even tell this as a navigator because ‘the ships work in a different way. The swells are longer _ ~ 92 outside; they’re shorter inside. In fact, there is very little sea inside. There is a decided barrier down there. Q You mentioned the tide, Professor. What attributes do you find about the tides that support your opinion? [469] A Well, tides, in themselves, are important in connection with coming alongside a pier and in connec- tion with where one would like to, anchor, and there is quite a substantial diurnal change here over a 24-hour rise and fall. In the vicinity of Anchorage it appears to be about 29 feet. Down at Port Graham near the entrance it is about 14 feet. Now, that is all right, but what is of quite considerable importance as respects navigating inside Cook Inlet is not so much the tide, per se, but the tidal current, and in certain parts of Cook Inlet when there is an ebb or a flood, this can be rather spectacular. For example, out here alongside this pier, the Port of Anchorage, when we came in on the Tustamina there was about three knots of tide going out at the oil derrick. This is really something to catch the eye. There can be about four or five knots out there in the middle of the channel. There is about four knots down in the vicinity of the Barrens. The book says that there is about two knots, and I think, judging from the number of course changes that they had to make on the Tustamina to com- ~ pensate for tidal current, two knots was pretty con- . servative. I think it was more like three. The tidal current, for purposes of interior navigation, are really probably—well, they’re much more important than the tide itself. That is, the rise and fall of the - tides. Were these tidal currents apparent to you outside “of the [470] Barren Island area? A No, because the whole matter dissipates outside. “You see, there is a funnel effect inside Cook Inlet. It channels the tide. - Q All right, you discussed the concept of aids to apa What, in that respect, supported your opin- ion ~A Well, first, if one hypothesizes that he is entering Cook Inlet, he is looking for initial aids to navigation to~channel his way in. These occur on either side of the 93 entrance of the Barrens and on the Barrens, themselves. Then, in addition, about 15 miles eastward of the Barrens is the first sort of navigational aid pick-up point, and that is a lighted buoy. Then, of course, these get to be quite important for fixing the ship’s position when that is related to the currents inside. There are a number of navigation aids inside Cook Inlet. My feeling is that they’re just about adequate for the amount of traffic. Now, these, again, are for purposes of fixing the ship’s position. They’re quite necessary, I might add, in Cook Inlet. Q Who has placed the navigation aids in Cook Inlet? A Currently, that is the ‘responsibility of the United States Coast Guard. Q You mentioned, Professor, the weather. Did you have any reasons for your opinion based on the weather other than what you have described now? [471] A Yes. There are—actually, when I talk about the weather, I am talking primarily about winds. THE COURT: Excuse me. About what? THE WITNESS: Winds. . THE COURT: Winds, okay. THE WITNESS: From my reading of Cook Inlet, and I found this by experience, the winds inside are relatively mild with two funnel-like exceptions, and that is a sort of venturi effect coming out of Turnagain Arm and another one coming out of Kachemak, but they dis- sipate into the inlet. But, as soon as one passes this barrier that I was talking about before, and fortunately, again I was out there when the winds became very, very strong, indeed, and it can be—I think we were experienc- ing about 30 knots of wind outside, which we weren’t experiencing inside. [474] WILLIAM RAYMOND HUNT ‘being first duly sworn upon oath, testified as follows: * * * * 94 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PHILLIPS: Where do you live, sir? Fairbanks, Alaska. By whom are you presently employed? The University of Alaska. What is your position with the University of Alaska? A I.am an associate professor of history there, and the head of the history department. Q Now, at the request of the State of Alaska, and without at this point going into detail, have you made certain studies relative to Cook Inlet? A Yes, I have, sir. [475] Q I want to ask you now some questions as to your qualifications to make those studies and draw con- clusions therefrom. First, will you tell the Court briefly your formal educational background? A I graduated from Seattle University in 1951 with a bachelor of social science degree, majors in business administration and literature. I graduated from the University of Washington Law School in 1958 with an LLB which has since been upgrated to a JAD. I gradu- ated from—with a master of arts degree in history from the University of Washington in 1956. I took my Ph.D. in 1967 from the University of Washington in history. Q Did any of your theses or dissertations deal with the matter of the Northwest or Alaska? A My thesis was entitled, “Changing Ideas about the Cartography of the Northwest Coast.” Q Now, Dr. Hunt, give us briefly your past employ- ment background, particularly insofar as that background is relevant to history or to being a historian. - A I taught history and geography in secondary schools of Seattle from 1959 until 1967. In 1967 I came to the University of Alaska where I have since been teaching courses relating to the north, and became head of the history department and associate professor last year. OPO PO 95 Q In your present position as head of the history department, I [476] suppose you have divided duties or responsibilities, and in that regard I want to ask, do you presently engage in research, historical research? A Yes, sir, I do. Would you estimate for us the percentage of time you devote to historical research? A Perhaps 50 per cent of my time. Q The other is related to administering the depart- ment and teaching? A Yes, sir. Q Are you the author of any historical publications? A Yes, sir, some 30 publications, most of which are concerned with the history of the North Pacific and the Arctic. . ; I see. To what professional societies do you belong, Dr. Hunt? A I belong to the Alaska Historical Society. I belong to the Society for the History of Discoveries. Also, the Hakluyt Society which is concerned primarily with dis- covery and exploration, and the American Historical Association. Q How long, roughly, have you engaged in historical research? A Well, professionally, since the mid-fifties. As a history buff, for as long as I could read. Q I’m sorry, I didn’t hear you. A As a history buff, I said, as long as I could read. Q I see. Are you familiar and trained in the cus- tomary procedures and techniques used by professional historians? [477] A Yes, sir. Q Could you describe briefly for the Court what those traditional procedures and techniques are? A Very similar to those you would be familiar with as a lawyer. Preeedence and does intense investigation of sources of materials he can find. The most important thing, of course, is to find that source material, that document, whether it be a graphic document or a Will or testiment or a personal narrative which describes an event. 96 Q All right, sir, will you now tell us generally what studies you have made of Cook Inlet? THE COURT: Counsel, may I suggest with an ex- pert witness I think it’s better procedure when in your mind you have completed the qualifications of a witness that you move the Court to accept the witness as an expert in X field or whatever it is you feel you qualified him in so that the record is clear as to exactly what his expertise is in your mind and how he is received by the Court. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, thank you, your Honor, for that, -and I move at this time that he be admitted as an expert in cartographic history, and particularly that of Cook Inlet. THE COURT: Did you wish to respond? MR. CHARNEY: We think that we do not object to his qualifications as a cartographic historian. The ques- tions on cross will go to the—more - the weight of his testimony. [478] THE COURT: The nicest may so show you have now. been qualified in the field that you named. MR. PHILLIPS: I have a few more questions. May I pursue those for just a moment? BY MR. PHILLIPS: Now, Dr. Hunt, tell us the studies you have made of Cook Inlet. I mean at this point to tell us about them generally. A I thought the best in preparation— THE COURT: Excuse me. This room is large, and like most courtrooms, it’s been designed without accoustics in mind, so would you speak up? I think they’re having difficulty hearing you, and I am, too. — THE WITNESS: fm sorry. I began by considering the knowledge of the North Pacific prior to the discovery period in the 1740’s, because I think it’s important to know what the explorers were looking for, and I have tried to look at every map as well as every supporting written document, published document concerned with the history of the exploration, discovery exploration and development ~ 97 of the Cook Inlet Region, especially as expressed in the cartographic evidence. | BY MR. PHILLIPS: Q’ Over what period of time, and where did you un- dertake this research? | A I began particularly—particular investigation for the purpose of this case, in March of last year and in- itially made [479] my investigations in the resources of the University of Alaska archives and the library. Later, I went to the National Archives, went to the Stevenson Collection of Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, went to the New York Public Library, went to the Harvard University Library, and also the Library—the extensive holdings of the University of Washington Library. Q Now, finally, before we come .to your conclusions or opinions, and by the way, I suppose of further ques- tioning, I would like for you to tell the Court if you can what significance is there to the cartographic history of ‘Cook Inlet or any particular region, for that matter? A Well, for the historian, sir, the cartographic ma- terial is a document, a historical document which records the current state of knowledge about the area, the cur- rent state of understanding of its importance, what is happening there. It is as much a document for a his- ' torian as any other piece of material would be. Q I see. Did you arrive at certain conclusions or opin- ions as a result of this research? A Yes, sir, I did. Q Now, based on your training, experience, and those studies, do you have an opinion as to whether or not there has been a historical exercise of authority over | Cook Inlet by those people who have inhabited its shores? [480] A Yes, sir, I have. - Q . What is that opinion? o * _* * ' [482] THE WITNESS: Sir, my opinion is that there has been a historical exercise of control over Cook Inlet and its shores. 98 BY MR. PHILLIPS: Q Do you have an opinion, based upon your training, ience and studies, as to whether from a historical standpoint there has been such continuity of exercise of authority as to have developed into a usage? A Yes. [483] Q What is that opinion, sir? A I believe there has been such a continued exercise of authority as to have ripened into a usage. Q All right, sir, do you have an opinion, based upon your training, experience, and these studies, as to whether from a historical standpoint Cook Inlet has been vital to the interests of those who have inhabited its shores? [484] THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. BY MR. PHILLIPS: Q What i is that opinion, sir? A My opinion is that the Cook Inlet region 1 bes been vital to the interests of the Alaska region. Q All right. Now, Dr. Hunt, I want you to explain to this court in detail the facts and reasons, how you have arrived at these conclusions. Will you do so? A May:I refer to my exhibits? Q If you please, sir, and when you do so, Dr. Hunt, it would be helpful, if I may suggest this with the Court’s approval, to refer to these various charts by their exhibit number. I believe you, placed the same exhibit ' numbers on these charts— A Yes, sir. Q —as of other charts, copies of which are in evi- dence; is that correct, sir? ‘A That is right, sir. Q All right. Now, one or in preliminary questions. These charts are original charts in the main or in the whole? A No, those that I was able to acquire from my own collection and the University of Alaska collection are originals. Others are photocopies. C—O 99 Q Isee. Who-owns these maps?- [485] A Well, the first one you see there, I own, and several others, specifically five of them, are owned by the University of Alaska Library. Q All right. Now, with this explanation, will you proceed to give your reasons for these conclusions, using these charts and referring to them by exhibit number as you have indicated? A For purposes of my study of the historical carto- graphy of Cook Inlet, I thought it best to go back to the period of time preceding the actual discovery of Cook Inlet, because I think it’s very significant throughout the period of discovery and subsequently that those naviga- tors who sought out and navigated into Cook Inlet were looking at Cook Inlet and they were looking for some- thing else as well. They were [486] looking for a legendary, as it turned out to be, passageway that would bring ships across continent, across the top of North America, and so provide for the English in particular, who had been denied the opportunities of the Spanish and Portugese, of a quick, short, controlled way to the east. This would provide the English with a trunk to the Eng- lish and Portugese hegemony over Asia and enable them to compete more effectively. So, I began to look at maps and the first exhibit here is GI, a map published in Amsterdam in 1709, which shows one version of the state of the knowledge at that time, in 1709, is representative of the knowledge of the early 18th century, and also its preceding 17th and 16th centuries as ‘well. You will. notice that western North America was not very well known in 1709. California is shown as an island. In the North Pacific where we would expect to find Alaska, we find a vacuum on the maps, dots, in other ways depending upon the tendency of the cartographer. Very often the cartographer would put the title cartouche there to cover his embarrassment that he doesn’t really know what is there, but we see here a little land called “Ami” and one of the many names used for what cartog- | = . 100 raphers who had the best scientific information available at the time used for land ies that may have existed in the North Pacific. Now, the importance of the Thais of this land, and [487] the importance of the uncertainty about the actual geography of this region was not related initially to the resources of the region itself. The Spanish, for example, out of hand, claimed sovereignty over all Pacific lands. They, of course, had established their control over Spanish America. * * * Which of those maps and charts that you have on the board there relate themselves to background or to the early days? A The first two. Q Those being exhibit what? A Second exhibit is GJ. Q So, and would you put that aside for the Tmoment? A Yes. Q Now, you have on the other stand what exhibit, sir? A Exhibit GK. Q Would you tell the Court what that exhibit reflects? [488] A It reflects the first cartographic representa- tion of what it was Bering, on his historic voyage in 1741 was supposed to have discovered of Alaska. The importance of it to me, if I may— Q If you will, please. A -—say something is that it shows that Bering and the Russians weren’t really all that clear about what they discovered and it showed the persistence of a belief in the region of Cook Inlet that there was the entry or the exit for the northwest passage that would provide the short way to the Indies by way of northern Europe. Q Was there at that time a name given to this region which we now know as Cook Inlet? A Not at this time, no. Q All right, sir, do you find anything else significant on this chart? _ 101 A’ Only that the area which we know today as the Northwest, the lower northwest Washington-Oregon, is represented by a body of water, a huge body of water which, of course, never existed, indicating that although there was some difficulty in knowing at first what the discoveries of Bering had proved, there was a good deal more difficulty about the geographical conception of the rest of the American west’ which, of course, up to that time had not been explored. All right, will you go to the next exhibit, please, ~ and this [489] exhibit is what? A Exhibit GL, the lower portion here. Q And what significance, if any, do you find on that chart? A Well, the significance of the activities represented on this chart, of course, have to do with the hotel that I am staying in. This is the draftsman’s conception of the survey made of Cook Inlet in 1778 by Captain James Cook, and of course, it represents the first ac- curate, or reasonably accurate, survey of the waters of Cook Inlet, and it represents the first recorded intrusion. There may have been others earlier, but the first recorded intrusion of anybody of a western nation to Cook Inlet. Q Was it at that time that Cook Inlet was named? A Cook Inlet was not named by Cook. It was named by Vancouver subsequently for Cook. He, himself, search- ed it carefully, because he considered it a potential northwest passageway. He thought of it as a river. He tasted the water, found it not so brackish. He looked at the— THE WITNESS: He used the best scientific aids he had with him, and I should point out not just because I am on Cook Inlet and a fan, but James Cook is gen- erally recognized as the greatest navigator of al! time, but he was mistaken in one sense. [490] When he re- ferred to this as a river, he was sure it was a river because of this tasting, because of the configuration of the shoreline, because of the debris in the matter, the merkiness of the water. He sent small boats up into Knik and investigated a little bit in Turnagain Arm; 102 not important, but interesting, I think, that Captain Bligh headed the boat party that investigated Knik Inlet there, and of course, Captain Bligh later became famous for the Bounty mutiny. But, he took possession of this area in the manner customary at that time. He landed a small boat at Possession Point. Some of his men went ashore. They raised the flag, turned some turf, had three Indians as witnesses to the event, all of them, including the Indians, had a drink of porter to celebrate this. BY MR. PHILLIPS: Q A drink of what? A Porter, to celebrate this exercise of sovereignty over the inlet and the land adjacent to it. Subsequent to this, more investigation was made, of course. Q All right, sir, does that complete your telling the Court what is indicative about this Exhibit GL? A Yes, sir. Q And what is the next exhibit? A The next two exhibits, GM and GN, represent voyages of Captains Portlock and Dixon, who sailed in company. Soon after the return of Captain Cook’s ships to England, and of [491] course, because when Captain Cook and his men encountered the natives of Cook Inlet, they discovered that they were very wealthy, wealthy not only in the resources of the land, but the resources of the sea, and also wealthy in having in their possession in the form of “harrow” the most valuable fur, I guess, that has ever hit the market that of the sea otter, which of course, they took from Cook Inlet. Cook’s sailors did a little bit of trading there, incidentally. They were amazed to find that the natives of Cook inlet had Russian trading beads which indicated an earlier Kropean con- tact, either directly or indirectly. Q These two exhibits, Exhibits GN and GM, what else do they reflect of significance to you az 113 of course, does penetrate into the interior of Alaska, our only railroad, by way of the [508] Kenai Peninsula. Q What does HH show with reference to Cook Inlet? A It shows Cook Inlet as the terminal point of a proposed railway that would reach the Yukon. [520] ROBERT N. DeARMOND being first duly sworn upon oath, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. CRANSTON: Dr. DeArmond, what is your address? 42 Calhoun Avenue, Juneau. What is your occupation? I have two occupations. One is editor of the Alaska Journal, a quarterly magazine of Alaska history and arts, and I am also employed by the State of Alaska in the State Library as a researcher in the historical library division. Q How long have you been editor of the Alaska Journal? A Since it was founded just over a year ago. Q And could you tell us a little bit about what that journal is? What is the type of material published in that journal? A Principally historical materials relating to Alaska in both Russian and American periods. Also some ma- terial on the arts particularly the native arts of Alaska. Q And could you tell us about how many people are on the editorial staff of this journal? [521] A Three. Q And are you one of those individuals? A I am one of the three. The other two are con- cerned principally with the art end of it. Q What, then, would be your primary responsibility? A The historical material? PO PO a 114 Q Now, you stated you were employed by the State Historic Library in Juneau; is that correct? A That is correct. Q And what is your occupation there? A Researcher is the title, and mostly in historical research questions that come in from not only Alaska, but outside Alaska on Alaska history questions. Q How long have you had the position of researcher with the State Historical Library? A About five years. Q And could you tell about how much time you spend during a day doing this sort of research? A It varies from day to day, but it amounts to about 20 hours a week. Q And generally what is the subject matter of your research? A Well, the whole history of the State of Alaska. We get questions on all subjects, maritime history, min- ing history, legislative history, almost any variety of subject, because they come from all kinds of people doing all kinds of historical [522] work. Q All right, in addition to your activities with the State Historical Library, have you done any other work in the subject matter of Alaska history? A Oh, I have been writing and editing Alaska his- tory, yes, for very nearly 40 years now. Q And does this—have these activities involved re- search, historical research? A Yes. Q Are you a member of any professional societies? A Yes, a number of them. The Alaska Historical Society, the Pacific Northwest History Association, the American Association for State and Local History, West- ern Histroy Association. Possibly others. Q Have you ever had any positions in these societies as a director or otherwise? A I was a member of the board of directors of the Alaska Historical Society for three years. 115 Q Now, you stated you have been engaged in research of Alaska history for approximately 45 years. Can you tell briefly what some of the research projects that you have engaged in during that period of time have been? A One was a study of the discovery of gold and de- velopment of gold mining in the Gastineau Channe! area that resulted in the founding of the cities of Juneau and Douglas and their [523] early mining history that was published in book form under the title of “Founding of Juneau.” A study of place names in approximately that same area which was published under the title, “Some Names Around Juneau,” a study of geographic names. I served as a consultant to the State Department on a special project that produced the Alaska Dictionary of Placenames in 1967. During the period 1958 to ’57, I was an administrative assistant and research assistant to the Governor of the Alaska, V. Franklin Selman, and I produced a number of studies, one of which was given an award of merit for state and local history. It was a study of Alaskan legislative procedures to attempt to create the office of a legislative governor in Alaska, and covered a period from 1916 to 1953. Q You indicated, Mr. DeArmond, that you had pub- lished a book concerning the history of Juneau. Do you have any other publications? A A good many newspaper and magazine articles in the historical field, Alaska Life magazine which was published from about 1935 to 1950. A series of news- paper columns on historical subjects which ran in four daily Alaska papers during the late forties and early 1950’s. Publications in Alaska Sportsman’s magazine which is now Alaska Magazine and has been in continu- ous publication since 1935. I have published articles in that since 1937 on an intermittent basis. And for a number [524] of years was editor of that magazine and wrote a section each month on Alaska history titled, “This Month in Alaska History.” Q Now, in this experience with Alaska history, have you determined the sources which should be researched in order to find or determine Alaska history? 116 A Well, Alaska Historical Library was founded by an act of Congress in 1900 and has probably the largest collection of purely Alaskan materials under any one roof in the United States. It has most of the published material on Alaska. Its manuscripts holdings are rather small. It hasn’t been active in the field of gathering manuscript material. Q Are there any other sources that you consider relevant to research in Alaska history? A The library, and particularly the manuscript col- lections of the University of Alaska, they have a much more extensive manuscript collection in various fields, and the National Archives in Washington, D.C. has, of course, large holdings of original materials, ships’ logs, reports of army officers, navy officers, reports of various government officials and the branch of the National Archives, the Federal Record Center at Sand Point, a suburb of Seattle, Washington, also has large Alaska holdings of original source material. MR. CRANSTON: Your Honor, at this time I would submit Mr. DeArmond as an expert in Alaska history and an expert in the research necessary to determine Alaska history. [525] MR. CHARNEY: No objection. THE COURT: Aill right, the Court so declares Mr. DeArmond to be an expert in the subjects named. You may continue. BY MR. CRANSTON: Q Now, Mr. DeArmond, for the purposes of your testifying here today, have you made a research study of the Cook Inlet area? A Yes, I have. Q And with regard to that study, what were the general subject areas which you researched? A When I was first asked to undertake this study by the office of the Attorney General in March 1968, I was left pretty much on my own as to what areas to cover. It was a matter of discovery, finding what ma- terial was available on the Cook Inlet area. In my. 117 studies, I pretty much narrowed it down to the fields of the fur trade which was the first big business in the Cook Inlet area and had the most records; the fishing industry which came third in point of time, but second in point of importance to the fur trade in the early years, and then surpassed the fur trade in economic importance; the mining industry which started before the fishing industry, but reached its magnitude, and the shipping on Cook Inlet. Q Now, with regard to the research which you did in the subject what sources did you research? What was the source of your research material? In other words, files locations. [526] A The Alaska Historical Library in Juneau, first of all, since I was living in Juneau and it was readily accessible and I was most familiar with it, having used that collection for—since 1930. Secondly, the University of Alaska Archives at College in the Uni- versity Library. I spent a portion of the summer of 1968 there. The National Archives in Washington, and the Library of Congress, principally in the National Archives, and I spent two months there, six weeks in 1968 and two weeks in early 1969. And incidentally, in traveling back and forth to and from Washington, stopped in Seattle at the Federal Records Center and searched that material. Q Do you consider that the sources which you re- searched were—those were all the sources necessary to complete the project concerning Cook Inlet? A They were all that were available to me. I don’t read Russian. I would like to have made a trip to - Moscow or Leningrad and researched Russian source material, but that wasn’t feasible. Q Over what period of time did you do this research? A Over a period of approximately two years, start- ing in March 1968. Q And ending, I would take it, in 1970; is that cor- rect? A Right. 118 Q You have any idea of the number of hours you may have spent on this project? [527] A Well, I would estimate that it would amount to about six months of 40 hours a week labor, although this wasn’t continuous. It was intermittent. Other jobs that I had, other duties intervened so it wasn’t a continu- ous effort. Q Now, Mr. DeArmond, I will show you what has been marked for identification as Exhibit HV, which is described as Historic Development of the Cook Inlet Basin. This exhibit consists of a base map with two overlays, and I would ask you just to take a minute, please, and examine this exhibit. A Yes, I am somewhat familiar with it. I have seen a rough of it before the final preparation. Q Now, I would ask you if the placement of the symbols on that exhibit which are identified as a red triangle indicating Russian settlements, a green circle indicating trading posts, a blue square indicating settle ments, a concentric circle indicating fur farms, an octa- gon representing maritime boardings, a green line indi- cating overland routes, a symbol in the form of a can indicating canneries, a symbol in the form of a railroad track indicating a railroad, a symbol in the form of an ax and hammer indicating mining activities, [528] and oil drilling apparatus indicating oil drilling activity. I would ask you if the placement of those symbols on that map depict graphically the results of the research which you have just described? A Yes, they do. Q All right. Now, Mr. DeArmond, we are now look- ing at the base map which the legend indicates, it is to 1867, and would you describe the activity represented by the symbols on that map, and again the description being based on the historic research which you have just de- scribed. A The four triangles on here represent Russian trad- ing posts founded by Russian companies. The three of them, the lower three here, at least prior to 1799 when the Russian-American Company was founded. The first “ 119 two, one at English Bay as it is now known, the other at Kasilof, founded in 1786 by two rival trading com- panies. And at that time, until 1799, all of the Russian fur trade was in the hands of individuals or very small company of three or four men with one small vessel. . The third one at Kenai was founded in 1791 by the same company that founded the one at Kasilof and I was not able in my studies to discover why they founded — two so close together. I think that they found that Kasilof was untenable because of the poor harbor and difficulty in entering the rather shallow river there, but I couldn’t find any testimony to that effect. All I really know about Kasilof [529] after its founding was that it apparently had been abandoned sometime before 1867 when the Americans took over. This four, this one was known as St. Paul and both its location and its actuality are in some doubt. It was reported by several authorities, but I have found no history of it. It was very close to the present Indian village of Tyonek. It may have been founded and quickly abandoned, or for some other rea- son, perhaps it never was founded at all, perhaps it was only a plan to found it. The three, English Bay, Kasilof and Kenai—Kenai especially—remained viable communi- ties for some purpose ever since the founding of those posts Q Now, did your research disclose the reason for the settlement of the Russian posts as you have just de scribed them? A They were for the purpose of gathering furs pro- duced by the aboriginal inhabitants, which in this area were a mixture of Aleuts and Eskimos, and were—and in the upper inlet here some Amabaskin people. * 2 * * [585] @Q Mr. DeArmond, could you—you were speak- ing on the first map on Exhibit HV, and would you please state what time period or the duration of the four Rus- sian settlements which you have been discussing was? [586] THE WITNESS: The most southerly of the settlements marked on this map, Alexandrovski, under 120 . the Russian name, or English Bay as we call it today, was founded in 1786. Kasilof, known to the Russians as Fort St. George, was founded that same year, 1786. The one at Kenai, Fort St. Nicholas, was founded in 1791. The most northerly, Fort St. Paul, I have not been able to [537] establish the date on it or its duration. English Bay continued until the American occupation after which the site was occupied by American fur com- panies.. KaSilof, Fort St. George, was abandoned some date after its founding and I can’t give you that date. I was unable to find it. Fort St. Nicholas at Kenai was continued in operation until the transfer to the United States of 1867 and was then occupied both as a fur trading post and as an army base or post of the United States Army in 1868. BY MR. CRANSTON: Q Now, Mr. DeArmond, could you telt the Court what the historical purpose of these trading posts was; what was their main activity based upon? , 2 * * * [538] THE WITNESS: These three Russian posts, and perhaps the fourth, were established to participate in the fur trade, and at that time, at the time they have their establishment, that existed almost solely in the sea otter trade. The sea otter was the fur [539] that brought the Russians to Alaska. Sea otters were~discovered in Alaska by the Bering expedition in 1741. It was a naval exploration, scientific expedition, and was~ not looking for furs, but the crew members secured some sea otter furs and started an immediate fur rush to Alaska which began in 1745, and it followed the Aleutian Chain. Land- ing first at Attu, it followed the Chain down to the Alaska Peninsula, eastward to Cook Inlet in the 1780's. The sea otter is a marine mammal living practically its whole life in the ocean. It does not come ashore to breed as the fur seal does, but occasionally comes to shore for rest, apparently after storms, but is found— THE COURT: It is no longer responsive, counsel. Objection is sustained. 121 MR. CHARNEY: I objected. BY MR. CRANSTON: Q Could you indicate, Mr. DeArmond, what the rela- tionship of the sea otter to the trading posts in Cook Inlet was? A Well, the sea otter were found in all parts of Cook Inlet as far north as approximately Kalgin Island or . Kenai, approximately up to here. These were the most northerly sea otter hunters as far as I have been able to learn, but they were under the—all of the most southerly parts of the bay. Q All right. Now, Mr. DeArmond, we have the first overlay to Exhibit HV which is intended to be repre- sentative of the time period 1867 through 1900. Taking each symbol in the order [540] set forth on the legend, would you explain to the Court a brief history relative to those symbols as they are placed? We will start with the trading posts. A These green dots represent American trading posts that were either taken over from the Russians by an American company or were established after the transfer in 1867. Again, looking geographically, Cape Douglas on the cape of the same name was established by the Alaska Commercial Company. I was unable to find the exact date, but it was at least as early as 1878. Cape Douglas was a prime sea otter hunting area, the center of a number of villages in this area. On the west side, the same location as the old Russian fort at English Bay was taken over by the Americans by at least two different American companies succes- sively, first Tittle & Company, and then Alaska Commer- cial Company. That was based primarily on the sea otter trade. Seldovia, there were also two different com- panies, the Alaska Commercial Company and the North- western Commercial Company—Northern Commercial Company, excuse me, both of which were interested pri- marily in the fur trade, and to a large extent, in sea otter trade. 122. This was at Anchor Point. It was a very short-lived station, and I don’t know why, it seemed to have lasted only a couple of years in the late 1890’s, perhaps it was based [541] on some coal and gold mining that took place there. I am unable to determine that. On the west side of the inlet at Oliamna was Alaska Commercial Company’s station partly for the sea otter trade. The sea otter hunting was carried on along this part of the inlet. Q You referred to this part of the inlet. Would you indicate— A The western part off Augustine Island, and also handled some of the largest trade from the inland area, from the Iliamna-Bristol Bay area [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386414_0462%3A01. Public record. Not legal advice.