WHAT DID HOOVER LEARN?
We had a long visit with Mr.
Hoover last summer. The visit last
ed one hour and a quarter, and was
arranged through the courtesy of
Admiral Rodman. The Admiral is
very well acquainted with Alaska
for he was formerly stationed at
Sitka at the same time our good
friend Lieut. Emmons, retired, was
there.
Mr. Hoover came with the party to
Alaska in order to find out how he
could justify his infamous reserve
system. He came committed to the
reserve system and the trap system,
and therefore he learned nothing but
what he wished to learn.
We were warned that he was a
bright, smart man, quick to get the
gist of things, that he knew a whole
lot about fisheries and to be careful.
We found him to be devoid of ideas,
with no plan for the fisheries of
Alaska, with no knowledge of even
the rudiments of fishing appliances,
without information concerning the
fishing population of Alaska, with
no solution for the great question of
which he is credited with being a
master. Mr. Hoover is today what
he has made himself; an anglicized
American, used to autocratic power,
suspicious of the common person,
spoiled by the public who have
praised him and still trust him be
cause several years ago, he fed a
million people.
As we drew away from Metlakatla,
we told him the problem of the In
dian and that it could be solved in
two ways, to-wit: in keeping with
the traditional American way of re
serving everything for the Indian,
the other way being to solve it for
the benefit of all citizens. If our
problems were solved in the first
way, the way it has been solved by
those British immigrants who in
habit the Annette Islands and who
are fully satisfied with that method,
Southeastern Alaska, at least, would
be one big reservation. Every creek
would be reserved for the Indian
family that had held the creek for
generations. “If you would give us
that reserve, Mr. Hoover,” we said,
“each of us would be worth $100,
000.”
“But the Natives thru the Alaska
Native Brotherhood are trying to
solve the question for the benefit of
all citizens because the native Al
askan is a citizen. As such, our
solution then is very simple—abolish
all traps.”
“But by so doing,” Mr. Hoover
said, “the canneries would not be
able to get up their packs. How
about that?”
We answered him: “We do not
want the canneries to pack all the
fish they are planning to pack. They
are planning to pack more fish than
there are fish in the water. One
canneryman told me that he had
orders to pack 30,000 more cases
than there was fish in his district.
You must admit, Mr. Hoover, that
conservation means curtailment and
restriction. That is what we are
kicking about. The traps are catch
ing all the fish, and the cannery
man is never satisfied, but wants
to pack the last fish that swims.”
Then Mr. Hoover saw his chance
to slip his dagger into the opening
of our argument for he said: “Well,
if that is true, then why did you
Alaskans holler and abuse me when
I cut down the number of canner
ies by executive order out West? ’
Our aswer was this: “We did not
yell just because you reduced the
number of canneries but because in
the same order in which you re
duced the pack, you also gave into
the hands of the canneryman the
absolute control of the gear so that
I, a little fellow, must crawl on my
hands and knees to beg for my gear
license to enable me to earn my
living. And you can see, Mr. Hoover,
that you have put me in the hands
and control and mercy of the can
neryman. Now let us see what hap
pens when your conservation mea
sure begins to operate. You made
an exception in the matter of gear
and an Indian can fish regardless. All
right. If that order of yours is a
conservation measure, as you say it
is, then each cannery can fill its
pack easily with the gear which you
have allotted to it; otherwise it is
not a conservation measure. Now,
an Indian comes along and using
the privilege to fish which you have
extended to him, although he has al
ways had this right, he comes to the
canneryman with about five thous
and fish and offers it for sale. ‘No,
I don’t want your fish’, the cannery
man says. ‘Mr. Hoover has cut
down my pack and allotted me my
gear and with what he has given
me I can easily fill my pack and so
I don’t need your fish.’ Then Mr.
Indian will say, ‘You know me. I
work hard. I owe you money. I
have family and children. If you
don’t buy my fish I can’t pay you.’
And being touched with this appeal
the canneryman will say, ‘All right
then, I don’t want your fish but you
can throw it on the dock and I’ll
give you four cents apiece.’ The
Indian is then forced to sell his fish
worth thirty cents for four cents on
account of your conservation mea
sure.”
Then Mr. Hoover said, “The Bu
reau of Fisheries cannot protect the
streams and enforce the law because
the people up here will not convict.”
Our answer was “That is only
true because the Bureau is so inef
ficient that the officials don t know
a good case when they see one. I
defended a man accused by this Bu
reau, and the principal witness was
ten miles away when the alleged
crime was committed. In another
case, the alleged criminal was inside
the ‘dead line’ about three feet and
when the law was consulted, we found
he had a right to be inside still an
other 100 yards. In another case,
the Bureau prosecuted an Indian for
throwing away a dozen dogsalmon
and when we tried the case, we
found the warden was himself help
ing to throw away the fish because
he found that the Petersburg Pack
ing Company refused to buy dog
salmon. On the other hand, the Bu
reau refused to prosecute the Pet
ersburg cannery although that can
nery threw away over 20,000 fresh
salmon on or about August 13th,
1921 in full view of over 40 wit
nesses.”
The next statement from Hr. Hoo
ver was in the form of a solution of
the trap question and showed that
while he wanted to be fair to the
resident fishermen, still he did not
want to abolish the traps. “Couldn’t
we place a tax on trapfish so that
the canneries would be obliged to give
preference to the seiners.”
“That cannot be done. It is not
practical. The only use a tax could
be would be to make trap fishing
prohibitive. Abolish the fish trap
and conservation would be accomp
lished for the trap is 100 percent
efficient, and we are obliged to say
that any fishing device that is 100
per cent efficient, must be abolished
if the fish are to be conserved. The
trap works day and night. It never