The latter being a separate action and through a
separate process.
Under the regulations in the Alaska Fisheries,
any person might be arrested by any petty fish
warden or official, and without trial his boat may
be seized and action in admiralty in rem started.
It has been done. Such blackmailing has been
most severely condemned by resolutions adopted
by the Alaska Native Brotherhood and it brought
the wrath of an imported, power-bloated district
aitorney upon one of its members. It is and was
a. crime to protest the legalized black-mail prac
tised by the district attorneys, the U. S. Commis
sioners and the Bureau of Fisheries. Fishermen
have been told: “If you plead guilty to the charge
of illegal fishing, we will let you off with a fine of
$400. If not, we will keep your boat tied up and
confiscate it.” More than one fisherman has
plead guilty to a violation of the law when he
was no more guilty of a law violation than you
e.i. • blc u sprout angelic wings. That is an un
disi_ ’table fact.
New, Delegate Wickersham introduced in
Congu :s H. R. 497, a bill to prevent seizure of any
boat, tender, trap or other fishing gear until the
owners or operators had been found guilty of
violating the law. Nothing more than Congress
has provided in liquor transportation cases. It
is a fair bill—it is a bill for the protection of
Alaska citizens. It is a matter of simple justice.
Comes now Peter E. Olson, secretary of the
Alaska Fishermen’s Union who opposed this bill
on the ground that it will set up extra-judicial
powers, extia law enforcing machinery, extra
courts, and last but not least—IT WILL TAKE
TOO MUCH POWER FROM THE BUREAU OF
IISHERIES. Again, we see the fine Italian hand
of the United States Commissioner of Fisheries.
Jealous of the power given him, afraid that it will
be taken from him—preferring rather to be
a tyrannical czar than to see that the resident
Alaskans are secured the simple protection of the
laws of the land—the simple protection of the
Constitution of the United States.
Every organization should support this law.
Democrat, Republican, Chamber of Commerce,
fraternal organization—anything organized with
a name. In simple justice to the citizens of Alas
ka, it should receive united support of Alaskans.
And those leaders of the Democratic party
which drew up such a scholarly platform, a plat
form which repudiates the present fisheries ad
ministration and regulation, which demands local
control—if their platform means anything —
other than political expediency, they will give
every support to the Delegate in his effort to se
cure to Alaska fishermen, simple justice. Their
silence gives consent to the present system of
legalized black-mail. Their silence makes a lie of
their platform. Their silence is a repudiation of
their own platform before election. The voters are
aware of their painful silence. Some of the poli
tical candidates will make considerable campaign
ammunition of this bill. It is somebody’s funeral!
Debunking The Lomen System
By C. L. Andrews
-V
Editor, Alaska Fisherman
Petersburg, Alaska
Dear sir:
In reference to the situation
of the native reindeer in the
hands of the Lomen Corpora
tion, I shall say as follows:
As is well known, in Decem
ber 1929, I began an effort to got
the deer in the Golovin, Teller,
end Buckland herds, owned by
natives, and which had been
taken by the Lomen Corpora
tions and held for the past ten
years or more. After six months
placing the matter before the
Interior Department, giving the
history of the native reindeer in
those herds, and asking that
the native deer so held be taken
out of the Lomen herds, return
ed to the owners, enough land
he given the owners at their
homes on which to keep their
reindeer, and that an account
ing be made of the manner of
handling said deer, of the costs
of the herds, how apportioned,
and how collected, also a butch
ering account for each year
where native deer were concern
ed in the Lomen herds, a special
representative of the Secretary
was sent to Alaska to investi
gate as to the truth of my state
ments.
The representative, Mr. Saw
yer, went in August of 1930, and
xeturned to Washington where
ne reported to the Secretary.
Ihe Secretary referred the re
port to a Committee on reindeer
who held a hearing on the mat
ter in February and March* 11)31.
The Committee issued hear
ings of the nine meetings, but
did not include in them the
statements that I made con
cerning the situation, nor did it
include the report of Mr. Saw
yer.
A law had been passed for
leasing the grazing lands, and
examiners for the Land Office
had examined the lands of the
Seward Peninsula, where the
herds above mentioned are situ
ated. The law provided th^t na
tives should have preference on
the lands they occupied. The