IS HOOVER SINCERE
Are the New Regulations for
the Purpose of Conserving
Fish or for Conserving the
Investments of His Friends
Every person on the seacoast of
Alaska is directly interested in our
fisheries. We are today discussing
the effect which the new fishery
laws will have upon this important
industry. Everywhere I go, the
question conies, “How do you think
the new law will work.”
The bill proposed by Mr. Hoover
and Henry O’Malley, the fish com
missioner, was effectively killed in
both the Senate and the House at
Washington. These bills merely pro
posed to legalize the reserves which
Mr. Hoover had created at the direcc
request of the San Francisco packers
operating in the coveted red salmon
district. In this way, Mr. Hoover
sought to protect himself against the
lawsuit which Dan Sutherland had
brought to test the right of Mr.
Hoover to create these reserves and
to parcel out all the fishery rights,
to deprive the little fellow from his
right of fishery, and to give these
large areas to the favored few.
The bill then proposed by Con
gressman White sought to give Mr.
Hoover’s department full power to
do as he pleased with the fishing
rights in Alaska. But in spite of
the great power of the fish trust
ably assisted by Mr. Hoover, Dan
Sutherland compelled the adoption
of the following clause: “Provided,
That every such regulation made by
the Secretary of Commerce shall be
of general application within the
particular area to which it applies,
and that no exclusive or several
right of fishery shall be granted
therein, nor shall any citizen of the
United States be denied the right to
take, prepare, cure, or preserve fish
or shellfish in any area of the water?
of Alaska where fishing is per
mitted by the Secretary of Com
merce.”
This is the clause that caused the
fish trust and Mr. Hoover to seek
to defeat the new White Bill. This
is the clause that caused R. E. Rob
ertson, attorney for the fish trust
in Alaska, to telegraph to different
Chambers of Commerce to take ac
tion “to kill the bill.”
And now Mr. Hoover wires to
Governor Scott C. Bone that he wants
to “secure the advice and co-opera
tion” of the various elements of the
industry and the public at large in
Alaska by “creating a board” which
will devise upon methods and griev
ances “and will not only reinforce
constructive work but will give full
voice of the Alaskan people, and
make impossible the deliberate mis
representation which has been cur
rent.”
To secure this end, Mr. Hoover
informs Governor Bone that “such a
board should embrace the member
ship of the Territorial Fish Commis
sion . . . and that such a board
should function under your chairman
ship in order that we bring the gov
ernment of Alaska another step
closer to her own people.”
In addition to this board, Gover
nor Bone will appoint two other per
sons, and in an interview, he said
that the other two will not repre
sent the extreme advocates or critics
in Alaska. This means that a couple
of bankers or perhaps a member
from the Chamber of Commerce of
Ketchikan or Juneau will be placed
on the “board of advisers to bring
Washington, D. C. closer to the peo
ple of Alaska.
The theme of all interviews given
by Mr. Hoover or Scott C. Bone to
the public is this: “to bring the
question of Alaskan fisheries direct
ly before the people of the Terri
tory.” The pretense of these men is
that the people of Alaska are sup
porting their fishery policy. Let us
examine it.
In 1923 Mr. Hoover wrote to Gov
ernor Bone that he was ready to
support any “fair” bill which the
Alaska legislature might propose.
The legislature then adopted unani
mously a proposed bill which had
been almost entirely drawn by the
fish packers themselves in 1919.
The only changes which were made
were first, the elimination of perpet
ual trap licenses; and second, the
identical clause now included in the
White Fish Bill, to-wit: prohibiting
the granting of exclusive rights of
fishery.
And yet Mr. Hoover, who pre
tends that the present fish bill is
“exactly” what he has fought for
all these years, introduced his own
bill, the entire purpose of which was
to legalize his unlawful fishery re
serves promulgated by him in the
exact language of the Alaska Pack
ers’ Association n their San Fran
cisco meeting. You can answer for
yourself whose servant is Herber*
Hoover? He enacted into law by
his dicta the exact demands of
the fish trust; he ignored the pro
posed law of the Alaska legislature
which is in essence the same thing
vh:ch was finally passed by Con
gress; he now says that the White
h sh Hill is the precise bill for which
he has been working all these years.
There is hypocracy someplace, Mr.
Hoover.
Here • is the second test of Mr.
Hoover: “The Territorial Fish Com
mission must be a part of the ad
visory board in order that we may
have co-ordination and that such a
board should function under your
chairmanship” to bring the govern
ment of Alaska “another step closer
to her own people.”
The Territorial Fish Commission
as it is at present constituted in an
unlawful body. The law says that
this commission shall be appointed
by the governor with the approval
of the senate. The terms of the mem
bers expired March 30, 1923. The
Senate did not adjourn until April
30, 15)23; but Governor Bone did not
appoint the commission until in
May of 1923. Why? Because he
knew that the Senate would not con
firm these men who are now serving.
Why, because these appointments
have been made with the sole purpose
of pleasing the Cannery and Trap
interests.
How can this Commission bring
about “co-ordination” between the
Bureau of Fisheries in Washington,
and the people of Alaska? One of
the first things that the next legisla
ture will do will be to pass a law
making this Commission elective by
the people of Alaska. Will Mr.
Hoover then look to it for “co-ordi
nation?” or will he devise another
scheme to please our governor “from
New York?”
“Function under your chairman
ship,” Mr. Hoover says to our gov
ernor from New York, “to bring
the government of Alaska another
step closer to her own people.” In
the last primary election when the
people of Alaska were expressing
their preference for Governor, Scott
C. Bone got exactly five votes. Those
five votes represent the precise re
lation of this governor from New
York and the people of Alaska.
Governor Scott C. Bone was sent
to Alaska as the man most suitable
to advance the schemes of Secretary
Albert Fall, of Teapot Dome fame.
He learned his politics in the days
of Jay Gould, of the Northern Pacific
and the Union Pacific. He believes
that the resources of Alaska, both
the timber and the fish, should be
given to somebody, no matter to
whom, but to somebody so that it
could be sold. In the matter of
fisheries, he supported the reserves
of Mr. Hoover. In the matter of
timber, he supported Mr. Fall in the
effort to transfer the Forestry De
partment to the Interior Department.
Probably two others will be ap
pointed on the “Advisory Board,” and
the “gentleman from New York,”
says that the persons will not repre
sent either cannery or the workei ’s
interests. As for the cannery and
tiap interests, they are pleased at
this proposal because the commission
is already theirs. Mr. Heckman is a
large cannery man, is the inventor of
the deadly floating trap, and accord
ing to Calvin Hazlett, the nice boy
that Mr. Bone appointed on the com
mission to please George Hazlett,
dominates the commission.
We shall see who the other two
will be. The cannerymen dominate
the banks of Alaska as well as the
Chambers of Commerce. Where then
will the two men come from who
would not represent cannery and trap
interests? The “Gentleman From
New York” will soon let us know.