does seem to be a reasonable
prospect of getting out of Haiti
if Mr. Hoover does not weaken;
but if there is another substan
tial achievement to put to the
credit of his administration, it is
hard to think what it is.
What is the explanation of this
political bankruptcy? To our
mind it is a double one. Partly
the situation is due to the de
fects of Mr. Hoover’s own mind
and character. Partly it indi
cates the hollowness of the po
litical system that he represents.
During the whole of Mr. Hoov
er’s public life, he has shown an
incorrigible tendency to substi
tute words for action, to become
a hero by publicity, not by deeds.
The disappointed millions who
today still worship their image
of the Hoover of the far-off days
of Belgian relief might well re
member the blistering words
with which Mr. Leffingwell greet
ed Mr. Hoover's appointment as
food controller on our entrance
into the war. Never, perhaps,
has any other person had a per
sonal publicity machine as pow
erful and effective as the one
that made Herbert Hoover presi
dent of the United States. Laud
ed as a great engineer with a
broad knowledge of economic
facts and a deep understanding
of economic principles, he has
displayed consistently a con
tempt for facts and an ignorance
or indifference in respect to prin
ciples that would have disgraced
a sophomore.
. .When Mr. Hoover entered the
White House we were bound
head on for a business smash
due to insane stock speculation.
The facts were notorious; even
at that time it was not too late to
avoid *the worst effects of the
speculation mania; the machin
ery of control was at hand in the
Federal Reserve System; inform
ed and conservative men in the
banking world itself had been
urging its us. No more lmperi
tive duty could have confronted
an intelligent and economically
minded president than to help
put backbone into a weak Feder
al Reserve Board. For eight
wild months the president did
nothing, and then the catastro
phe came. We do not say that
President Hoover could have pre
vented that disaster. We do say
that he did not lift a finger to
prevent it, though he had,by vir
tue of his position and reputa
tion and reputation, a unique
opportunity and responsibility.
We are now in the seventh
month of business depression
consequent on that smash. What
has been the contribution of the
administration during that peri
od? First, a series of spectacular
and enormously advertised con
ferences with business leaders
out of which was to come an im
possible stimulation of construc
tion that would have been eco
nomically unsound if it could
have been brought about. Second
a deliberate suppression of the
facts of depression and unem
ployment, and a deliberate at
tempt to persuade the countrj
that things were going well. Give
the president full credit for be
lieving that that is the way t(
make them go well, his theory
and his action are still those o
the publicity man, not of th<
economist and statesman; the^
bring scant comfort to the em
barrassed business man or th<
desperate worker out of a job. Or
May 1 the president announcet
“While the crash only took placi
six months ago, I am convince<
we have passed the worst, an(
with continued united effort, wi
shall rapidly recover.” Two day
later the stock market croshei
again. And for the future? l
commission, sometime, to stud;
the economic forces behim
booms and depressions; but i
will not be appointed “until th
present slight disorder has com
pletely subsided and a prope
perspective is afforded.” Wha
bosh!
..The same weakness, disregard
of facts, neglect of sound prin
ciples, and lack of leader snip,
combined with the same blatant
and hollow publicity that have
marked the president's handling
of the business of the business
situation, have characterized al
so his treatment of disarmament,
farm relief, the tariff, taxation,
prohibition, and all the other is
sues he has touched. But then
to crown the story, he appoints
as chairman of the national
committee of his party, his per
sonal fiiend, a power lobbyist
who speculates with lobby funds,
and when it is all made public,
the president, for some mysteri
ous reason, does not dare to kick
him out.
. .It is not pleasant thus to criti
cize the Chief Executive, but it
is necessary; for President Hoov
er is only the perfect example of
a bad system of government tnal
the American people ought no
longer to tolerate. It is a system
of government by publicity, and
bluff, not by reasoned policies
grounded in an honest study of
facts. It is a system of expedi
ents and compromises based on
no moral, political, or economic
principles. It creates no genuine
political issues; it carries no real
process of public education. Both
old Parties alike are of that sys
tem, and both alike are bank
rupt. We need today a new po
litical group, respectful of facts,
brought together on real issues,
holding real principles, ready to
go out and fight for them and to
suffer defeat for them if neces
sary. It is our only alternative
to government by ballyhoo.
-x
REPLY TO STEWART EDWARD
WHITE’S ARTICLES IN POST
By William L. Paul,
Continued from last week.
I would here call your atten
tion to the fact that the fishery
laws declare that “it shall be un
lawful to fish for, take or kill”
salmon from Saturday night at
6 o’clock until the Monday morn
following at 6 o’clock, and yei
Mr. O’Malley allows the canner
ies to brail their fish traps on
Sunday. Tell me, how can this be
done without “killing” the sal
mon in plain violation of the
very fishery law that gives him
his great power. If he enforced
this law, it would allow some
measure of real conservation. I
have long felt that Mr. O’Malley
does not understand that “con
servation” means reduction of
the total catch, considering that
he charges that Alaska is over
fished.
Let me point out but one of
many closed areas which illus
trates what I mean. O’Malley
closed Tenakee Inlet and forced
out five traps besides all the
seiners (natives of Alaska). The
seiners gave up, according to
O’Malley’s own figures, about
300,000 salmon, nor could the
seiner go elsewhere to catch s
portion of that salmon. But the
fish traps merely moved outside
Tenakee Inlet and discovered
trap sites that were even more
■ effective than their former lo
■ cations inside the Inlet. The re
> suit is that ostensibly the trap*
r gave up 180,000 salmon, but ir
: fact they recovered the entir<
5 180,000 and part of the 30,00(
r given up by the Natives of Alas
- ka, who become O’Malley’s ve
s hide for conserving fish. Man;
l such places exist, as Saginav
1 Bay, Kasaan Bay, Hetta Inlet
i Nutqua, Salmon Bay and dozen
1 of other places. While the Na
1 tives of Kake are excluded fron
; Saginaw Bay, the two traps a
s j the entrance take annually j
1 million salmon. Singularly th
1 first “dead-line” was so place<
7 that the northshore trap caugh
I no fish. However, “in the inter
tjests of conservation” I suppos«
5 the line was moved so that a trai
- could be placed in such a posi
r tion that its reputed catch is on
t million annually. But why go on
{you claim to have had an inti
I mate experience covering nin
years in Alaska and to have talk
ed with hundreds of witnesses, so
you must know all about this. If
you don’t, then you had no busi
ness writing such an article for
'The Saturday Evening Post.
(3). Spacing oi llsh traps. In
!t,he southern district of South
! eastern Alaska, the traps are re
quired to be one mile apart. In
| the Icy Strait District, the in
| tcrvals must be one and one-half
miles. Can you or anybody else
give a sensible reason for this?
The two areas are identical in all
I their problems. What was the
j difference? Simply this—that in
Icy Straits, Henry O’Malley was
dealing with a bare half dozen
companies and it was not diffi
cult to “adjust” the traps ac
cording to the new regulations.
In the southern district, there
were too many companies and so
one mile was used.
But what about the result?
Have you found anybody who
lias had the least practical ex
perience who would say that
there was any decrease in the
trap catch? I would like to know
his name if there is.
What was the real purpose of
this regulation?
Simply this—that the compan
ies no longer had to build “dum
*my” traps to safe-guard the real
'fisher. With the former rule of
1800 feet between traps, every
canneryman would build a trap
on each side of the real fisher,
raid trap a “dummy” because it
was not built to catch fish but
to keep competitors away from
the real fisner. I have known
cases where the employees of the
cannery would throw salmon in
I to the dummy trap so that they
could say that they brailed fish
from it. With Mr. O Malley’s
help, no such device is needed.
But was there any decrease in
the trap catch? Absolutely none!
Fewer traps caught the same
number of fish. The wider spac
I mg of traps is not a conservation
j measure because it affected no
j decrease in the number of trap
| caught fish.
I (4). Curtailment of seines,
gill-nets and trolls. The argu
ment defending the fish trap is
based on “efficiency,” as if effi
ciency were an end in itself. We
must grant that the fish trap is
the most effective device now in
use, except the weir on the Kar
luk. But why decrease the inef
ficiency of the seine and other
movable gear? The seine is lim
ited to ten fathoms in depth.
You might say that is deep
enough. The trouble is ten fath
oms hung straight would be all
right, but we have to purse which
reduces the depth to about one
third. The fish trap however,
drops its lead down to the bot
tom. The limit of the seine’s
250 fathoms, (1500 feet)—plenty
long enough, the swivel-chair
fishermen would say—but the ef
fectiveness of the seine is deter
mined by its diameter, in such
a case, of course, it is only 500
, feet. All of this is done to de
' crease the efficiency of the seine
, ibut why not decrease the effi
. ciency of the trap? Mr. O’Mal
. ley may say tnat he has limited
. the floating trap to 900 foot lead
L j However, this limitation wa*
;! placed thereon because of the
)! protests of the pile trap owner*
. who could not build their trap*
. in waters having greater dept!
f than 100 feet. That is why the
j | limitatio nof 900 feet is placet
on all floaters where the dept!
»i
5 is 100 feet. Otherwise there is ne
. limitation.
l . .What I have said about the
t limitations placed on seines ap
i plies also to all gill-nets ant
5 trolls—namely that they are al
1 discriminatory and unfair ant
t should be removed unless a cor
- responding limitation is placee
!, on traps.
3 Now for my proposals whicl
- are“ fundamentally sound.”
e * My proposals are not origina
?iwith me. I propose first that al
- J shad recognize that the UNr
s 'OF CONSERVATION is the sal
mon stream. By this I mean
Mat we shall recognize that ev
ery stream has its own capacity
of spawning area, and that over
spawning is just as bad for the
industry as under-spawning.
This being so, every fish not
reeded in keeping up the run
should be caught for utilization.
How shall this be done? It shall
be done by creating districts of
such length that a district ward
en can cover it in one day. Un
der him shall be placed stream
watchmen to guard the “dead
line.” Fishing shall then be pro
hibited until an adequate supply
of salmon shall have ascended
the stream. The dead-line
should be so placed that enough
salmon shall be protected for
• planting” the stream and all ov
er that shall be caught if requir
ed. This might mean that today
the deadline would be at the
mouth of the stream; tomorrow,
500 yards away; the day follow
ing, one mile away; etc. In oth
er words, we would have a mov
able deadline placed in relation
to the contents of the stream.
This idea is the basic idea of
the Canadian reglations. Per
haps unknown to you, you copied
the idea and announced that it
was your original idea (page 173,
Saturday Evening Post of De
cember 14, 1929).
The trouble with your idea is
that it is not complete. That is
the reason why I believe it is
the result of your own investiga
lions. Your idea does not con
template the variations of the
runs of the same species of sal
mon, nor the variations of the
different species. If you would
add my idea of the movable
deadline, your proposal would be
complete. I am surprised, how
ever, to read that you “have not
yet met a fish man who offered
any fundamental objections.” It
is certainly fundamental not to
permit a sufficient escapement of
the different runs of the same
species to say nothing of the
early and late species
The ALASKA NATIVE BRO
THERHOOD will perhaps be
credited with having a small
amount of brains now that yon
have endorsed their resolution
of 1928, as well as their resolu
tion of 1929. I would be surpris
ed if in your talks with the Bu
reau of Fisheries they did not
tell you that we had proposed re
gulations based on very startling
differences of principle from
theirs. I say, “I would be sur
prised.” No, I would not, for that
is another matter which shows
their stupidity—they have made
no study of this question. They
have no library or place where
proposals of this kind are kept
In fact, theys seem to think that
by ignoring proposals of this
kind, they are answering the
conservation question.
But after all, I have been sim
ply dealing with the surface o!
the problem, still not with the
“fundamentals” of our fisheries
When Congress legislates, it doe:
so with its mind on the “funda
mental” law of the land, namely
the Constitution. This Consti
tution, the unwritten one we cal
, “Common Law.” It is all base<
; on principles as distinguishe<
i from the mechanics of the law
; The principle is easy to state
; but having the principle in mind
l the details should conform to th
! principle, and when tested by th
l yardstick of the fundamenta
l law, its mechanics should b
> changed until they too conform
J Fisheries differ from all othe
> business in this, that efficienc;
. is not an end in itself; for then
l is a principle that has stood th
i test of centuries and which find
l its first expression in Magn:
. Charta wherein it is stated tha
1 “there shall be no fixed engine
for catching fish.” This is mere
i ly the way those English baron
expressed the law.
1 The law was but the result o
1 the ancient struggle between th
[■upper and lower fishermer
- which Is this—that I, a lowe
fisherman shall not be permitted!
to catch all the fish and thus de
prive you, an upper fisherman,
of your share, but that my gear
shall be so regulated that there
shall be no escapement for you,
an upper fisherman. That is why
those Barons prohibited “fixed
! engines” for catching fish,
(another name for fish traps);
that is why, today, the British
1 regulations and the Irish regula
tions require that in what few
'traps they do have, there shall
I be a free passage in the lead of
the trap so that boats and fish
|may pass through; that even as!
I to the movable gear some part
| of the gear shall always be held
;in the hand.
Tell me, Mr. White, what is
Alaska but a (saltwater) stream?
And why should the trap owner
| at Cape Spencer or at Cape Cha
' con or along Chatham Straits be
allowed to catch all the fish to
the detriment of the “upper”
fishermen, say at Wrangell, the
Taku or the Chilkat?
In conclusion (I intend to add
a postscript because I find I fail
ed to note two strictures in your
letter) I wish to say that the
handling of the fishery prob
lems of Alaska is mere child’s
play in this—that it is in no
sense of the word difficult. I can
do it. I have been right on this
question for twenty-five years.
In every movement to conserve
our fisheries, I have anticipated
the evil result itself, and have
teen years in advance of the Bu
reau of Fisheries. I hope to live
to see the day when the Bureau
will publish regulations embody
ing my proposals.
The first objective should be
to prohibit all fish traps.
The regulations which this-'
proposal would put into force
would follow naturally, namely
removal of restrictions as to sea
ison, length and depth of seines,
gill-nets, and trolls and other
such regulations. i
The trouble with O’Malley
must be this—he doesn’t have a
scientific mind, a mind that can
recognize facts, correlate these
facts, and he lacks courage to
deal with the problem merely as
a problem, but rather he consid
ers the facts as he knows they
will please or displease his real
advisors among the big packers.
I would like to be fish commis
sioner for Alaska. With that
eventuality, there would dawn an
era of prosperity, harmony and
contentment among the resi
dents of Alaska, the fishermen,
the business men, the canners
chemselves, for I would guaran
tee the resource, and those who
now fight me would marvel that
they could have been so dumb.
If you come to Alaska again,
call me up.. I shall be glad to
exchange views, for I recognize
Ln you the possibilities of a valu
able friend, one who is in the
position to correct the system if
you could find the facts.
Yours very sincerely,
William L. Paul.
Grand President
Alaska Native Brotherhood.
P. S. You stated, “I cannot find
that in my article I mentioned
the Alaska Indians in any way.”
See page 17, Saturday Evening
Post of December 14, 1929 under
title “Getting ready for the run.”
In that same paragraph you
state that “for the local custom
is to get by liH winter, if possible,
in order to bring the full accu
mulation of engine trouble for
FREE fixing at the cannery.” In
your letter to me, you again re
peat this statement.
There is not a single cannery
in Southeast Alaska that repairs
any fisherman’s engine “free.”
They simply do not do it, not ev
en under the pressure of compe
tition. I would challenge your
statement. Further, every can
nery furnishing “free” oil or gear
pays the fishermen a lower price
for the fish he brings in.
“To judge by my correspond
ence, which includes many let
ters of commendation of my ar
ticles, in many cases from Gov
ernment officials, and only one
other besides yourself in opposi
tion” you state, that of course, I
do not speak for the people of
Alaska.
I will not back down, but will
repeat, that my views truly in
terpret the overwhelming senti
ment of the people of Alaska
who are affected by fishery leg
islation.
For my part I have heard doz
ens of people discuss your ar
ticles and these wholly condemn
your praise of Henry O’Malley,
but praise your own proposal as
far as it goes. As for the Gov
ernment officials, who is there
outside of the Bureau of Fisher
ies, whose opinion is worth a
continental. Don’t overlook the
fact that the employees of the
Bureaus in Alaska all belong to
one association called the Asso
tion of Federal Employees. As
for the federal employees of the
complimented you, they only
prove that they are a brainless
lot, for, by and large, your ar
ticles are a severe condemnation
of the reign of Henry O’Malley
in this—the things you point out
( et your Drugs, Medical Supplies and Sundries at
People’s Drug Co.
DAHL and SKEI, Owners.
Prescriptions filled by Graduate Pharmacist }
LARGEST
FLEET
Leave Seattle SB
Petersburg
May 27 June 2
Alameda
Northwestern.June June 19
Pass. & Freight to S.E. & W. Alaska
Phone 15 Petersburg, Alaska