Mail Tribune 100

Feb. 12, 1917


The senate Saturday passed the Rogue River fish bill, which has been a bone of contention all during the session and demoralized legislation. As soon as the session opened, the senate ordered House Bill Nos. 284 and 306 called from the committee, and the consideration of these bills be made a special order of business for 11 o'clock.

When House Bill No. 248 was put on its final passage Senator I. S. Smith of Coos county opened the debate with a lengthy statement as to the conditions existing at the mouth of the river. He criticized Mr. Macleay for stating before the committee several nights ago that those who favored the bill had never been down to the mouth of the river and were not familiar with conditions there.

"I have crossed the Rogue river a number of times and can speak from personal knowledges. The difficulties there are long standing," Senator Smith stated. He recited the controversy from the time R. D. Hume commenced operations up to the present time. "The commercial organizations are back of this bill." The court docket was cited showing the many violations that have taken place and the country was constantly in turmoil. He asked how it could be figured that Mr. Macleay was being driven out of business when his own admission before the committee proved that his cannery employed three fourths of the gill netters who would be directly benefited through the passage of the bill.

Senator Von der Hellen spoke briefly calling attention to the value of the Rogue river as a tourist asset and he hoped that he would have the support of his colleagues in passing the bill.

Senator Garland of Linn county said he was very much in favor of the bill. The Rogue river is the chief attraction the people of Southern Oregon have and he stated that he hoped the bill would receive a big vote.

Senator Olson stated that the Rogue river issue was an old fight back again. Previous sessions this issue had taken up one-third of the time of the session and the legislation had, he thought, given the people all the restrictions they desired. He did not want to be accused of being under the influence of Macleay, but wanted it understood that he was only fighting the bill because he did not want to see capital driven out.

Share This Story