to marker” as the warden ex
plains it, but on catching the
boat ol' Mr. Morrison’s OUTSIDE
the line, he arrested him and by
methods akin to BLACKMAIL
forces a plea of guilty and puts
the great United States Govern
ment in the position of stripping
a citizen of his entire earning
even in a case where the local
warden himself believes no law
was violated.
..It seems to us that this pro
test is so well founded that you
must by its force lend our poor
people the aid of yorv powovful
influence.
Yours respectfully,
William L. Paul,
E. F. Morgan,
Acting Secretary of Commerce,
Washington, D. C.
Dear Sir:
Re: Your Letter of March ~th
Last
Either you did not read my
letter of Feb. 25th or else some
body else dictated the reply and
you simply signed without read
ing it. In either case, your treat
ment of the case is with the
same indifference with which
our complaints have usually
been handled.
You talk about the guilt of the
accused E. Morrison as if that
were a fact and not a result of
your blackmailing policy. Of
course the record shows that
Morrison plead guilty, but that
he did so to avoid a heavier
penalty which he would have
suffered if he had stood on his
rights because of the unfair
practices of your department.
In the first place, under the
policy of Warden Cloudy, Morri
son was clearly outside of the
restricted area. But under the
Timmis ruling, Morrison was in
side. Cloudy however, being the
local warden had instructed the
fishermen and Morrison had fol
lowed his instructions. Then
Timmis the overlord came along
and insisted on his interpreta
tions under which Morrison was
guilty.
When Morrison insisted on a
trial, the district warm a told
him that the case would have
to be tried before the district
Court which of course ^\aud en
tail the loss of his e^ n/c season
and even if Mcrr' on won, he
would lose his 'tire season.
What we aie kicking about is
this—where a defendant is ac
cused and believes he is inno
cent and demands a trial, why
not try him in the nearest com
missioner’s court where the
fact could be determined with
in one day? In the Morrison
case, your agent told him that
he would be tried in the district
court which was then sitting in
Juneau about 400 miles away in
which case following the prac
tice of the district attorney, the
case would be continued to the
Ketchikan term in which dis
trict the case properly belongs.
How would you like to be so
treated? Congress provided
that these charges might be
tried in commissioner’s courts
so that tire accused could have
a speedy trial. But your agents
only allow the accused to come
into the commissioner’s court
provided the accused agrees to
plead guilty. This is unjust and
you are one of those who are re
sponsible.
Yours truly,
William L. Paul
Department of Commerce
Office of the Secretary
Washington, July 15, 1930
Mr William L. Paul,
Alaska Native Brotherhood,
Ketchikan, Alaska
Dear Sir:
The receipt is acknowledged of
your letter without date, just re
ceived, in which you protest in
ri gard to the method pursued in
enforcing the Alaska fishery
laws and regulations.
As to your complaint that vio
lations of the Alaska fishery laws
should be tried in U. S. Com
missioner’s court instead oi' re
ceiving action in the District
Court, you are informed that the
procedure followed is that of the
Department of Justice, and in
the opinion of the Department
of Commerce is a distinctive de
terrent to violations of the fish
ery laws and regulations.
The advocacy of other less ef
fective procedure in reality
amounts to the favoring of vio
lations of these laws and regu
lations for it is considered cer
tain that the number of such
infractions would increase
greatly if the present policy of
tire Department of Justice were
modified along the line desired
by you.
Yours v^ry truly,
E. F. Morgan,
Acting Secretary of Commerce.
Washington, D. C.,
March 7, 1930
Mr. William L. Paul,
Alaska Native Brotherhood,
Ketchikan, Alaska
Dear Sir:
. . The receipt is acknowledged of
your letter of the 25th ultimo
with inclosure of document voic
ing a protest against the en
forcement of the Alaska fishery
laws and regulations in respect
to closed waters off the mouths
of streams.
In the specified case to which
you call attention, the records
show that on August 13, 1929,
Warden Harry E Timmis, who
was patrolling on the Bureau of
Fisheries vessel “Petrel,” dis
covered the power boat “Dixie”
fishing within the closed area
off the mouth of Saltery Creek
about one-quarter mile south of
Hydaburg, Alaska. This boat
was operated by Edward Morri
son who was accompanied by a
crew of two men. The case was