“ABOUT PROTECTING THE
ANCIENT RIGHTS OF
INDIANS”
“Whatever Congress does in the
future relative to the fisheries in
Alaska, it should be remembered that
the Indian and his rights must be
protected.”—Hastings, Neb. Tribune.
The effort by special interests in
Alaska is to make it appear that
Indians are trying to hog all the
fishing rights in Alaska as in “an
cient times.”
We are asked: “What are the In
dians’ rights in the premises? Of
what use did the Indians make of
the fisheries before the coming of
the white man? The Indians had
the right to catch all the fish they
required for food for themselves
and their always too numerous dogs.
That is all.”
Let us put it another way- The
Indians had the right of subsisting
off the country. This they did by
killing all they needed of fish and
game.
“It is absurd to contend that the
salmon traps interfere in the slight
est degree with the rights of In
dians.”
The fact is that in scores of
streams, due directly to the fish
trap, no fish now ascends.
“The Indians want a fishing mon
opoly that will permit them to make
enough money in two or three months
to live as white men for twelve
months. They want, in other words,
three months of work and nine
months of idleness.”
Is this any different than the
canneryman and trap owner? Neither
of these work over three months,
but each must make his 100 per
cent on the capital invested. Is it
any more right for capital to make
enough profit during the three
months operation to cover the 12
months including the nine months
idleness, than for a laboring man,
be he Indian or White man ?
Or perhaps the trap interests can
show us what there is to do in
Alaska during the winter months so
that our people will not be in “idle
ness.” Do not the cannerymen and
trap men crowd the boats going
south and coming north every .spring
and fall?
Items like these are very common
in the press:
J. R. Heckman is going to the
states (sometimes California, some
times Florida) to spend the winter.
All we ask is that the cause of
depletion of our fisheries, to-wit:
the fish trap, be abolished and give
every man or woman who wants to
fish, the chance to earn his bread
and butter, not to spend in Cali
fornia or Washington, but here in
Alaska, to raise children to fill our
public schools, to pay taxes here,
build and maintain homes here, pat
ronize local merchants.
It can be done and will be done
because it is right.
SALMON PRICES
Since our earliest recollection of
salmon prices, which dates back to
the year 1902, the subject of salmon
prices has been one of great contro
versy, fishermen demanding more
and the salmon packers refusing it,
on the ground that any increase
would bankrupt them. This was
true even in the early days when
fish were so plentiful that the pack
ers paid their fishermen per diem
and not per fish, for the reason that
fishermen could be hired at $2.50
a day to catch all the salmon need
ed. Some times deliveries of 10.
000 and 15,000 sockeye salmon were
made per day by fishermen whose
total per diem wage was $12.50.
Then came the era when the pack
ers paid fishermen l-2c each for
humpbacks and 6c each for sock
eyes. Last summer humpbacks sold
at Ketchikan, Alaska, at Sc each,
and sockeyes at 35c each.
On the West Coast, Prince of
Wales Island, and on *he Portland
Canal, where one or two canneries
have full control of the district, 1he
price paid was only 3c. But from
the earliest times until now the can
nerymen have always protested that
any increase of price would bank
rupt them. It is therefore interest
ing to follow the price these same
cannerymen are paying on Puget
Sound for the same species of sal
mon, and so we reprint from the
Bellingham Herald of December 31,
1924, the following item:
“Indicating that prices of raw
fish at the traps will be high in
1925—supposed to be the big ‘pink’
year—W. A. Lowman, head of the
Crest Canning Company, yesterday
announced that he had closed con
tracts for the whole catch of his
company’s traps at the following
prices: Sockeyes, 80 cents; cohoes
or silvers, 50 cents; dog salmon, 30
cents; humpbacks, 20 cents; spring
salmon, 10 cents per pound at the
traps. Buyers of cannery fish will
pay the state fish tax in addition.
“Mr. Lowman’s companies operate
a number of traps, but will sell the
catch and will not operate a can
nery here. Mr. Lowman believes
that his contract practically fixes
the price to be paid for the vari
ous grades of fish on Puget Sound
in 1925.”
McMillan Bros, of Bellingham, who
have heretofore operated the small
floating cannery “The Retriever,”
have purchased the schooner Sophie
Christenson, and will continue to
operate as the Westward Packing
Company.
HENDERSON VS. ROCCATI
Pei sontalities Indulged
In his defense of the Towner
Sterling education bill, Lester D.
Henderson replies to Father Roccati
and says in part, the Americaniza
tion program is the “inauguration of
a more complete program of physical
education in the public schools, pro
vision for better training for teach
ers, and a fairer equalization of
educational opportunity so that the
boy and girl in the isolated and less
wealthy portions of the states may
have an opportunity to secure what
is the birthright of every American
child, a complete and liberal educa
tion.”
Further on he says: “Is it un
American for it (the United States)
to assist the states in removing one
of our greatest national menaces,
illiteracy ?”
This sounds very different from
the Henderson that proposed and
lobbied for a bill in the legislature
of 1921 whose avowed purpose was
to exclude Indians or their descend
ants from the public schools for
which they were taxed, and which
provided an increase of $1000 in
his salary to compensate him for
the additional heavy burdens this
policy would entail.
It is the duty of the state to care
for all its children equally and to
provide for their education, to care
for the orphans, and to elevate the
unfortunate youngsters, for they
will be, in time, the future state.
In view of the slur which the Ju
neau Empire has recently cast upon
the missionaries and their interest
in the Indians of the district we re
print the following* from its issue of
April 10th, 1923. Bear in mind that
the men referred to, with few ex
ceptions, are still the missionaries
of Southeastern Alaska.
WELCOME TO THE PRESBYTERY
Juneau is this week host to the
Alaska Presbytery. The guests in
clude all the clergymen of the Pres
byterian Church in Southeastern Al
aska. And this is not a slight honor
to this town. The Presbyterian
Church has done a great work in
Southeastern Alaska, especially
among the Indians, and it is doing
more and more each year. Most of
the clergymen who are here have
devoted many years of unceasing
toil in this section of the country,
and several of them have .spent the
better part of a life-time here. They
have devoted these years without
thought of self for the benefit of
others. Their rewards will be the
consciousness that their work has
borne fruit, that Alaska and the
country are better because of what
they have done.