An Open Letter to Hon. Robert P.
Lamont, Secretary of Commerce
-x
Secretary oi Commerce,
Hon. Robert P. Lamont,
Washington, D. C.
My dear Secretary:
You will find in your files a
great deal of matter against me
in the form of criticisms of Se
cretary Hoover and the Bureau
of Fisheries. I dcn’o believe you
will find any reference to Mr.
Hoover since he became Presi
dent.
But you will not find a single
thing to indicate that I have
been wrong in anything that I
have said.
All that my people in Alaska
(and there are over 5,000 of us
banded together in the ALASKA
NATIVE BROTHERHOOD) ask
for is a FAIR hearing. This
Henry O’Malley as Fish Commis
sioner has never given us, and as
you know, tl:e law makes tire Se
cretary of Commerce responsible
for the sins of the Bureau of
lisheries—when Mr. Hoover was
Secretary it was Mr. Hoover, and
since you became the Secretary,
you are the one. Mr. Hoover’s
attitude to this .department
that has the power of life and
death, was much the same as
yours appears to be, namely,
leave it to Henry O’Malley.
My contention is this—that
v.hen a group of citizens feel
they have a grievance, especially
against a Bureau that has the
extraordinary powers of the
Fisheries Bureau, they have un
der our Constitution a right to
be heard.
WE HAVE NEVER BEEN HEARD
When Henry O’Malley was
passing thru Ketchikan on his
boat, the Brant, the secretary of
the seiner’s association, consist
ing almost entirely of Alaska
natives numbering about tnirty
boats and employing over one
hundred seiners having an av
erage family of three, invited
Mr. O’Malley to our meeting SO
THAT WE COULD DISCUSS
THE FISHING REGULATIONS
V/ITH HIM, particularly the
“Hcok-off” rule; but Mr. O’Mal
ley refused to come and depart
ed from town while we were
gathered in a meeting waiting
for him. His only message to us
was this:—“If you are going to
talk to me about the rule against
the* hook-off,’ it is no use any
way because I won’t change it.”
Still we are entitled to our day
in court.
The injustice of the rule
cg.inst “holding a hook” with
cur seines is this—the fish trap
is nothing but a hook which op
erates 24 hours a day and which
has an automatic tiap which can
be lifted and cleaned of fisn
without disturbing the HOOK
OFF which is made by the LEAD
to the shore.
Henry O’Malley permits the
trap io use the “Hook-off,” but
forbids it to us with our form of
moveable gear.
The situation is this—virtual
ly every bay that is suitable to
our form of gear for catching
fish has been closed by Henry
O’Malley under the plea of “con
servation.” This has driven us
into the open channels and wat
ers where salmon do not school
and hence our gear is a failure
To force the salmon to school,
our people make one end of their
net fast to the shore, (either by
tying it, anchoring it, or merely
holding it). Because our gear
does not have a trap which can
collect me nsn, we nave to pick
up our net with what fish it con
tains every half hour. A hook
cff usually lasts a half hour, but
since we have to pick up our
nets, the entire operation lasts
about three hours, during which
time our gear is actually fishing
only half an hour. Contrast this
with the 24-hour service of the
trap using the very same hook
ofi device, which Mr. O’Malley
permits.
I have been light in every
charge I have made against,
Henry O’Malley and the Bureau
of Fisheries. All I want is a
chance to prove it before an im
partial judge.
Take the matter of closing the
Ghilkcot River.
This is one of our ancient fish
ing grounds, and yet Mr. O’Mal
ley has closed that small river
to a point SIXTEEN MILES from
its mouth. The cnly gear that is
practical in that locality is the
gillnet. Because of that unjust
regulation, our gill nets are not
effective, because 16 miles below
the mouth forces us into clear,
phosphorescent waters except
in times of heavy rains when the
Katzehin River discolors the
water. I call your attention to
the fact that Henry O’Malley
permits fishing WITHIN the
streams around Yakutat even
tho it is contrary to law, and he
permits it on the grounds that
it is the only practical fishing
method. We think that the real
reason is that the great firm of
Libby, McNeil & Libby wish it
done. But in the Chilkoot dis
trict. But in the Chilkoot dis
miles below the river’s mouth.
We have asked him to move the
line to a point seven miles from