would be fair virtually all the
way.
I figured before I got the log
that the Brant would arrive at
Anan Creek at 7 p.m., showing
that my estimate of her speed
is very nearly correct since the
Brant arrived there at 7:05 p.m.
So that I figured that the Brant
would arnve at Pt. Alexander
(entrance of Wrangell Narrows)
going at normal speed at 1 a.m.
July 4tli.
. . Bear in mind that O’Malley
says he hurried away from Ket
chikan because he wished to
make Wrangell Narrows. When
did he enter Wrangell Narrows?
He was under “slow bell” at 11
p.m., which would put him just
in front of the town of Wrangell
in line of Woronofski Pt., fully
19 knots from the Narrows. But
even under slow bell, he would
arrive at Pt. Alexander Light
at 3 a.m., which I take it is the
meaning of Capt. Hunter’s entry
“3 a m. full ahead.”
What was the condition of the
tide at 3 a.m.?
. .The tide was ebbing and at the
strongest stage of the ebb tide,
so strong that the waters run
ning south thru the Narrows
resemble a river. Low tide that
morning was 4:36 a.m., on a
minus 1.4 tide.
Hunter’s log now says the
Brant was running full speed
r.head bucking probably a 5
knot ebbing tide. This would
bring him to the worst point in
the channel at extreme low tide.
What does Mr. O’Malley mean
when he says he was hurrying to
catch the tide at the Narrows?
He actually arrived there at the
very worst stage of the tide ev
en after he had slowed down for
four hours under “slow bell.”
Was it NECESSARY for him
to inspect the weir at Anan
Creek?
Was that duty more important
than the meeting at which 35
boat owners, employers of 150
men to whom some 500 women
and children were looking for
their bread and butter, were try
ing to exercise their right of pe
tition to an officer of the United
States Government, a right guar
anteed under the Constitution of
the United States?
He inspected the weir! ! What
aid he find? What importance
was it? I maintain that even if
the President of the United
States had been on the Brant
and he wished to “inspect” a
fish weir, the President’s curios
ity should give way and be sub
ordinate to the rights of the 35
operators who gathered together
to protest a regulation which
struck at their very right to earn
a living—a property right in
deed; to protest a regulation
which was so flagrantly wrong
and indefensible that Mr. O'Mal
ley himself rescinded it in his re
gulations for 1930, which act of
rescinding is used by his sup
porters in Congress as a proof of
his “fairness” and “desire to be
fair.” That defense is like the
burglar who, when caught red
handed, in his crime should seek
to escape punishment by offering
to restore the goods.
I think you should inquire of
Mr. O’Malley concerning the ab
sence of log entries from 8 p.m.,
of July 3rd to 5:43 a.m., July 4th
taking in the distance from An
an Creek to Mitkof Pt., or about
70 knots (80 statute miles).
I don’t believe the log book is
silent on that.
.. If it is right, there must have
been collusion between Hunter
and O’Malley because it is con
trary to the practice of naviga
tion. I am very sure that the
Lighthouse Service will tell you
that every light in the Narrows
is noted by the navigator, and
should be noted; that Lemesurier
Pt., Neal Light on Vanks, Pt.
Alexander, are lights that are
noted even by amateurs.
The only period in which
Hunter fails to mark the usual
log book entries is from Ship Is
land to Mitkof Pt., covering the
only area in which we are inter
ested, and the only area involved
in O’Malley’s excuse for not at
tending our meeting of protest
Every other area is minutely not
ed in the leg book.
A fair hearing by you, Mr. La
mont, under conditions wherein
our poor people could testify
would readily convince you and
every other reasonable man that
we, the Natives of Alaska, have
been wronged by Henry O’Mal
ley; that we are the object of his
studied discriminations; that
O’Malley’s c efenses are but af
terthoughts or red herring which
seek to take your attention from
his crimes by calling attention
to my political sins, those sins
themselves born amidst the tra
vail and hunger of my people
driven from their ancient fish
ing grounds, all in the name of
“conservation” and Robert P.
Lamont.
Formerly I believed Mr. Hoov
er responsible for these crimes
and said so. But those crimes
continue and in your name. I am
forced to revise my conclusion
about Mr. Hoover because I can
not believe that two men of such
preeminence would knowingly be
a party to the persecution of my
people. These conditions must
spring out of the deception prac
ticed upon you by Henry O’Mal
ley.
And so I pray for relief.
Yours respectfully,
William L. Paul,
Grand President, Alaska Native
Brotherhood.
-x
Confidence is the companion
of success.
No man can grow by letting
others make his decisions.
-x
Dig for facts—don’t jump at
conclusions.