traps guard the entrance to
Kasaan Bay, which traps catch
u /er ONE MILLION fish that are
seeking the headwaters of Kasa
an Bay. When I appealed to
Mr. O’Malley against this in
justice he said that he felt he
should leave the lines where
they were because there wan a
poor trapowner named Miller
who would be wiped out. I see
Mrs. Miller in town on occasion
and she manages to keep her
fur coat glossy I just got a
letter from a native in Kasaan
asking me to try and get help
for a poor woman named Mrs.
Williams who is destitute be
cause her children cannot catch
enough fish to feed thir immedi
ate families to say nothing of
her. The writer tells me that
the woman was left a widow
with “absolutely nothing and no
means of support whatsoever.”
Since her husband’s death, she
has gone through life that is
beyond human expression.”
I could go on almost indefinitely
and prove that Mr. O’Malley is
not deserving of your confidence
and is defenseless. He places
’he dead-line always at the
point where the fish school and
thus practically prohibits our
fishing because we cannot catch
fish anywhere else. If the fish
school 200 yards fr<>m the creek,
the line is placed 300 yards from
the creek. If the fish school
one mile from the creek, the line
is placed just beyond that point.
So that it is the basest decep
tion for Mr. O’Malley to show
you on the map what a small
area is closed. A bay like Rocky
Bay (Etoline Island) is effectiv
;v, i. e. 100 per cent closed by a
line 100 yards from the creek. A
bay like Red Fish (Baranof Is
land) is effectively closed by a
line 500 yards. McHenry Inlet
(Etoline Island) is effectively
Closed by a line 500 yards from
1 he head of the bay.
Long Distance Government
“I know the evils of long-dis
tance government” you say. “But
here is a department of the Gov
ernment which I claim is effi
cient, which I claim is protect
ing the property of Alaska as
well as the property of the peo
ple of the United States.”
Mr. McKeown Bureaus are
all the same, and long distance
government is exactly the
same. You should be ashamed
to defend such a Bureau since
you claim personal knowledge
of what bureaucratic govern
ment means.
II. R. 2394, Hearing Jan. 17, 1922
You should read this hearing
in which the witnesses were
Bishop Rowe the Episcopal
Bishop of Alaska, William L.
Paul, and Charles Ferguson, for
you need the kind of informa
tion that is contained therein.
You referred to the Yakuts
situation as being satisfactory.
That is true to a large degree.
Whatever abuse that exists there
is due largely to Libby, McNeil
& Libby wh<> use this unFa;r
practice—it puts its hired men
on the ground while the rivers
are still frozen and these men
hold the best places for their
set-nets by putting their nets in
place on the ice. In this wav,
the natives are forced to take
inferior places simply because
they cannot afford to sit and
watch their places in competi
tion with the hired men of this
great Chicago corporation.
What we are trying to do is to
get Henry O’Malley to give the
rest of us the same favorable
consideration which NATURE
1 as forced him to give the Yaku
tat fishermen. These men earn
ed according to the figures giv
en you by the Bureau of Fisher
ies almost $1,000 each. We could
get along on that, but certainly
not on the meager earnings now
possible under Mr. O’Malley’s
rules. I know the natives side
of that story too, Mr. McKeown,
and there is no credit due Mr.
O’Malley for he has and is mak
ing it just as hard for the na
tives there as he can. For ex
ample, he has closed Dry Bay
to commercial fishing this year
to May 15 th and prevents our
fishermen from catching the
king salmon till they get into
the river. Of course this would
meet with your approval. But
after that date, the district is
(.pen end the Chicago company
has special hydroplane boats
that go up the river and catch
the very same fish before they
get into the lake so that the ef
fect of Mr. O’Malley’s regulation
“in the interest of conservation”
is that the Natives and others
are prohibited from catching
salmon which are later caught
by the great corporation of Chi
cago.
Who Wrote the Letter
On page 2498 of the Congres
sional Record you quote a letter
which in turn quotes from the
report of the Hon. S. L Howe..
Provincial Secretary of British
Columbia. I merely ask who
wrote for this reason—he as
sumes that the fishermen would
cbject if the B. C. regulations as
applied to seines were also the
law of Alaska. I would say this
—the Natives of Alaska for
whom I am spokesman, and the
other local fishermen whose con
fidence I have, would not ob
ject if the entire policy of the
fishery officials of British Co
lumbia were adopted and applied
as they are in British Columbia.
We do not advocate fishing of
f:.ny sort without regulation.
We know what the ultimate
regulation will be, but until that
time comes, we ask that the bur
dens of regulation be fairly dis
tributed. Our condition is now
like the Children of Israel for
Henry O’Malley is forcing us to
“make bricks without straw.”
The very figures of the Bureau
of Fisheries prove this for they