heard by a United States Com
missioner at Craig, Alaska, on
August 1G, 1929. Morison plead
ed guilty and was fined $300.
There was no question what
ever as to the guilt of Morrison
in tnis case as his boat was ap
prehended well inside of one of
the three markers defining the
closed zone 500 yards outside the
mouth of Sal lory Creek. In some
cases a third marker is not
erected to show the closed limit
of fishing, but in this particular
case it so happens that, in addi
tion to the usual two markers
on either side of the stream
mouth, there was a third mark
er on a small island just off
shore. There was no doubt what
ever that the boat was fishing
in closed waters, as it was ap
prehended inside of this island.
The markers which are put
500 yards on each side of the
mouth of a stream show that
fishing is prohibited within 500
yards IN ALL DIRECTIONS from
!.hc mouth of the stream. Pos
sibly in times past some tem
porary employe of the Bureau of
Fisheries may have misinter
preted his instructions in enforc
ing the regulations. There is
now generally a correct under
standing of the limits of the
deadline to which fishermen ap
proach. It is unfortunate that
frequently they are prone to take
every possible advantage of the
regulations and go as close to
Lie line as they dare. In so doing
they often invade the closed
zones and as a result suffer the
penalties of the law and regula
tions.
In handling cases where vio
lators of the fishery laws and re
gulations are apprehended by
wardens of the Bureau of Fish
eries, the Department of Just
u e has given them the option of
pleading guilty and paying a
fine or of having the case go to
trial. In the latter event con
siderable delay naturally re
sults and the boat and fishing
gear are tied up. This may cause
Lhe fishermen to lose much or
even all of the balance of the
fishing season. As a result they
generally elect to plead guilty
and pay the line so that they
may continue to operate. This
is lenient treatment so far as
violators of the law are concern
ed, and I feel that a continu
ance of this policy is fully justi
fied.
Very truly yours,
E. F. Morgan,
Acting Secretary ot Commerce.
August 12, 1930
E. F. Morgan,
Acting Secretary of Commerce,
Washington D. C.
Dear Sir:
I see that we can never
meet in our discussion of the
“prosecution” for alleged viola
tions of the Alaska Fishery Laws
because you are concerned that
“the advocacy of oilier less ef
fective procedure in reality
amounts to the favoring of vio
lations of these laws and regu
lations, for it is considered
certain that the number of such
infractions would increase
greatly if the present policy of
the Department cf Justice were
modified along the line desired
by you”(Your letter of July 15,
1930); while I am concerned
with the matter of dealing out
simple justice.
Let me review again the oc
casion of our correspondence.
Your own agent designated the
open and restricted areas and a
Native named Morrison fished
accordingly. Then another of
your agents, superior in rank to
the first arrested Morrison for
fishing in the area designated
as open and legal by your first
agent. Morrison offered to stand
trial in the Justice Court which
has been given jurisdiction by
our Congress and in which he
could have had an immediate
trial. Your agent (not the De
partment of Justice behind
whom you now seek to hide) re
fused to entertain the offer and
told the poor Indian that unless
he entered a plea of guilty and
paid a fine of $250 the boat
would be seized under the ad
miralty provisions.
Your agent was not concern
ed in having the guilt or inno
cence of the poor fellow ascer
tained in a court which had
been given jurisdiction by Con
gress. He wanted a conviction
just as you do and regardless
of the man's innocence.
The District Court was sitting
in Juneau four hundred miles
from the home of the accused.
Lawyers are expensive at that
distance. Even the matter of
attending personally and with
witnesses is greater than any
laborer can stand. On top of that
the fishing season here is so
short that even if Morrison won
he would suffer far more than
$250, or $500, from the loss of
his fishing season alone, to say
nothing of the cost of his de
fence.
The result is this--you have
made a criminal out of a man
innocent of any crime, because
under the circumstances he
must choose to plead guilty and
pay the $250 fine.
I am not defending crime.
Those who deliberately commit
crime find no comfort in me. I
am asking that the officers of
the Government quit a prac
tice that amounts to blackmail
and give American citizens a
chance to go into a court au
thorized by Congress to try them
in every instance where the
citizen so wishes.
Trial by Ordeal
The procedure which you ap
prove is like the ancient test by
“ordeal” for the result is that
the accused always loses. There
was a time when a man who said
he was innocent had to prove
his innocence by plunging his