About the same time the following correspondence between officials of the Bureau of Education took place. The Chief of the Alaska Division, in a letter to Charles D. Jones, agent of the Bureau of Education at Metlakahtla, dated January 20, 1916, said: * * I enclose herewith two offers for leasing the cannery. Please do not make the terms of these offers known to the natives or any one else. * I have not told Mr. Verney [mayor of Metlakahtla for the term expiring Jan. 1, 1936], who is here, of its terms * * ** doing; putting them off till auditing time. I couldn't do otherwise. I couldn't give them their subscriptions back. I keep the store funds down to almost nothing paying its own accounts. Well, the 28th of January will soon be here. Then what? They have a fixed amount, viz: $13,000, and it's in W. M. in Seattle. They don't know of any transfer." Letter from Charles W. Hawkesworth, superintendent of schools of southeastern district of Alaska, to Chief of Alaska Division of Bureau of Education, Jan. 23, 1921: "We haven't gone far enough with the work here at Hydaburg to tell much about the audit. There is a demand for money from the cannery fund. It seems that most of the people feel that the cannery fund was not to be touched unless the cannery was to run. I don't know how they thought the work on the cannery building was going to be paid for if not from the cannery fund. I have told different ones that there is one treasury for the Iydaburg Trading Co. The company has the 3 industries, store, mill, and cannery, and all the money is kept in one amount though the books show the work of each independent account. Stock has been issued in the store for all the subscribers to the cannery and that has been used for the whole business. "As things are now cash is short here as it is at all the other stores and it is simply impossible to pay back the amounts paid into the cannery fund. It was over this cannery fund that Barrows wrote his resignation. I have him coached now, so that he sees the whole situation from another viewpoint and he will continue with the business." Letter from Chief of Alaska Division of Bureau of Education to Will A. Barrows, agent of Bureau of Education at Hydaburg, Jan. 24, 1921: "I have your letter of Dec. 31 I regret indeed that you are confronted with * a number of complications. You ask what is going to be done about the cannery, and state that a number of the subscribers to the cannery stock think that the money which they subscribed is here in the Washington Mutual Savings Bank. * "Since the transfer of the cannery fund has been made, it is now necessary for Mr. Hawkesworth and this office to meet the issue squarely, show them the dates of transfer and the uses to which this money has been put. "I suppose the major part of it has really gone into the expenses in connection with the store building and the cannery building, and possibly the payment of the salary of Mr. Cloudy. "Superintendent Hawkesworth will probably be able to call their attention to the fact that if this transfer had not been made, the Hydaburg Trading Co.'s finances would have been very seriously embarrassed and that it would not have been able to extend the credit which it has given the people since last March. * "It is also important to call their attention to the fact that even with the use of this fund for the store, in these critical times the board of directors and manager of the Hydaburg Trading Co. may have very serious difficulties in tiding the company over during this present year. Superintendent Hawkesworth has wired that you were considering quitting before the end of the year. I sincerely hope that you will stick it out not only until the end of the year but an additional year. I believe that Superintendent Hawkesworth and this office can relieve you of some of the worries which you have had in connection with the blame attached to this transfer of funds." Letter from Charles W. Hawkesworth, superintendent of schools of the southeastern district of Alaska, to Chief of Alaska Division of Bureau of Education. Feb. 23, 1921: "By the time the first public meeting was held it became evident that the whole cannery matter was very serious. Practically everyone there insists that the money was subscribed for a cannery. Absolutely for a cannery and for nothing else even though stock was written in the Hydaburg Trading Co., nevertheless, it was for the cannery that they subscribed, and since the cannery has not been started they still feel that the money still must either be returned to them or else a cannery started this year. * * "At the first meeting I tried my best to have the people see that the one business had to handle the entire funds of the company and that their cannery money kept the store safe, James Edenso. Luke Frank, and Richard Nix replied. Each in the same general line, and they represented the others, 'We put our money in for a cannery; we were taking a chance to either make or lose. Had we lost, it would have been all right; we wouldn't have made any kick at all, because we knew we were taking a chance, but we didn't put our money into a store.' "Under these conditions there was but one other course open-to look to the future to consider a small cannery for this season. And that is what I proposed The people said. 'We have no more money; our money is all lost.' What can we do? I didn't want to start them chasing any more reinbows Frainbows1: surely Hydaburg has had enough of them already with the amount of machinery now piled up around that town-machinery that cost good money and hasn't brought in a cent, and there isn't an immediate prospect of it doing so, either * But with the business at Hydaburg as big as it is. and with the changes in men in charge as we have had them, during the last few years, and some of them. men lacking in good business judgment. it is no wonder that the people themselves have arrived at that stage of development when they doubt the action of the leaders sent to them." The Chief of the Alaska Division wrote to the district superintendent of schools, on February 24, 1916, as follows: * I also instructed you and Jones [agent of Bureau of Education at Metlakahtla] not to make known the terms of Harris' proposal. The reason I did not instruct you to use your discretion in the matter was that I feared the Secretary would insist on a cannery being operated by the natives * On March 22, 1916, the Honorable William C. Redfield, Secretary of Commerce, wrote to the Secretary of the Interior the following in regard to the fisheries of Annette Islands Reserve: We are advised * ** that a contract has been made, of what nature we do not know, whereby another interest is to have a beneficial part in these fisheries * * * If it shall be a result of this lease that any private individual shall by reason of the reservation made become a beneficiary of that reservation in a way not open to other private individuals, then we must object. The policy of this Department has been without exception to refuse all special and monopolistic privileges. Earnest protest is made from many sources against the granting of a special privilege to Mr. Harris, with which protests we are in full accord. We recognize the importance of doing everything in the power of the Government to assist the natives on Annette Island. We desire to cooperate in that work. To do it in such a way, however, as to provide a private monopoly for an individual would be in our judgment a mistake. Certainly it is a condition which this Department cannot approve. On March 23, 1916, the day following, the Honorable William C. Redfield, Secretary of Commerce, again wrote to the Secretary of the Interior, as follows: It is respectfully represented that the control of the fisheries of Alaska lies in the powers of the Department of Commerce; that the right does not exist on the part of any other department to lease fishing rights or to make contracts regulating them in whole or part or permitting modifications of regulations concerning them. The Department of Commerce believes that it cannot relinquish its obligation under the law to take proper steps from time to time as may be in its judgment necessary to conserve fish by limiting fishing or prohibiting it entirely. This Department desires in the broadest spirit of helpfulness to cooperate with you on behalf of the Metlakahtlans. Whatever it can do to that effect will be gladly done. It cannot, however, approve the making of a lease regarding fishing privileges on the part of another department when by law the duty in such matters is placed upon this Department. It cannot regard with favor the making of a lease which grants exclusive privileges to an American citizen under a proclamation which limits those privileges to the Metlakahtlans. It disapproves a monopoly such as is herein proposed, and it respectfully suggests that if any lease is to be made to Mr. Harris or any other individual in Alaska of fishing privileges that lease must be made and executed by the Department of Commerce. Its officers could not recognize in operation the validity of the proposed lease. The supreme Court of the United States declared in the case of Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. United States (248 U. S. 78) the operation of a fish trap in the waters of Annette Islands by any person, other than a beneficiary named in the act which created the reserve, to be unlawful and affirmed an injunction forbidding such trespasses. Notwithstanding vigorous and insistent protests made to the Secretary of the Interior by the Secretary of Commerce, resulting in a written assurance that this violation of the law would not be consummated, and regardless of the injunction sustained by the Supreme Court of the United States against such a violation of the law, yet, under the administration of Annette Islands Reserve by the Bureau of Education, such violations of the laws have persistently continued, and 1. The Metlakahtlans are still deprived of their exclusive rights. conferred upon them by Congress to use the fisheries and operate canneries, and they are not allowed in any manner to take fish from the waters of their reserve except for their own domestic use and sale to the Department of the Interior lessees, who for 15 years have been given and enjoyed the exclusive privilege of operating fish traps and a complete monopoly of these fisheries. 2. The natives employed in the cannery were for a number of years grievously "sweated" under "Chinese" labor contracts; and, in the industrial affairs of Metlakahtla, members of Father Duncan's Mission Church have been discriminated against and blacklisted until many of them have been forced to seek work elsewhere in order to earn their daily bread. Some of the documents here quoted, the action of the Department of the Interior in depriving the Metlakahtlans of their fishery rights, and the placing of these fisheries in the possession of outside commercial interests are further dealt with in this chapter-section 10, Bureau of Education arrogates to itself power to set aside an act of Congress with disastrous effects. The illegal seizure of Father Duncan's water power pipe line and his cannery by the Bureau of Education, and the placing of this private property in the possession of outside commercial fishing and cannery interests to operate for their own profit are disclosed in chapter IV: Invasions and Seizures, and chapter VII: Spoils. SECTION 6. LEGAL AUTHORITIES SUPPORT THE CASE Opinion of Hon. James M. Beck, formerly Solicitor General of the United States. Opinion of Hon. Fred Dennett, formerly Commissioner of the General Land Office. Opinion of Hon. James W. Witten, formerly of the Office of the Solicitor for the Department of the Interior. The rights of Father Duncan and his mission and the rights of the members of his mission colony on Annette Islands, and the illegal invasion of those rights are fully presented in the brief on the law in the Metlakahtla case. OPINION OF HON. JAMES M. BECK, FORMERLY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES In an opinion on the Metlakahtla case by the Honorable James M. Beck, formerly Solicitor General of the United States and a recognized authority on constitutional law, the statement is made that It would be difficult for any fair-minded man, who will lay aside the barren technicalities of the law, to justify in the forum of conscience the act of the Interior Department in forcibly depriving a missionary and his converts of valuable property, to the construction of which the Government had not contributed a penny and which was, in all respects, the lawful property of those who had expended their money and labor upon it. The great commandment, "Thou shalt not steal", the most famous moral statement of property rights. fairly implies that that which a man has constructed with his own money and labor is his property and remains his property until he in some way voluntarily divests himself of it. I do not question the broad powers of the Secretary of the Interior to make rules and regulations that are reasonably incidental to this great purpose of Congress. It is familiar law and, unless we are to substitute bureaucratic tyranny for representative government it must be the law, that department regulations must be administrative in character, must not be unreasonable and must not modify or subvert the statute, nor be destructive of rights which Congress has conferred. (U. S. v. Morehead, 243 U. S. 607; Williamson v. U. S., 207 U. S. 425.) OPINION OF HON. FRED DENNETT, FORMERLY COMMISSIONER OF THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE Hon. Fred Dennett, formerly Commissioner of the General Land Office, with large experience in dealing with questions relating to public lands, states: I may add that the facts, as I understand them, portray a most astounding and unparalleled situation; surely the responsible officers of the Government must have been deplorably deceived and misled. OPINION OF HON. JAMES W. WITTEN, FORMERLY OF THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR In a discussion of the legal questions involved in the seizures, Hon. James W. Witten, who was for 11 years an attorney in the office of the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior and for 20 years the chief law officer of the General Land Office, states: It would be difficult, indeed, to find an instance showing a more flagrant violation of the absolute prohibition of our Constitution, which solemnly declares that no person can "be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law", than the Secretary's action in this case, or a precedent more dangerous to the liberties and property of our people. Surely such actions can never be upheld where justice is justly administered. The several opinions just quoted are set forth at length elsewhere in this report. SECTION 7. RESPONSIBLE MEN DEMAND INVESTIGATION (Statement by Bishop P. T. Rowe, of Alaska. Attention called to situation by Charles H. Black, Frederick T. Fischer, and others. Independent investigations) STATEMENT BY BISHOP P. T. ROWE, OF ALASKA Bishop P. T. Rowe, of Alaska, on January 11, 1921, wrote to one of the trustees of the estate of William Duncan the following in regard to the situation at Metlakahtla: I am not suprised much by the telegram of the Secretary of the Interior. Behind it I can see the "fine Italian hand" of Lopp and Marsden. The Secretary is to blame only insofar that he fails to get acquainted with the wishes of the large majority of the people. He hears and knows but one side. The question is, How to get this "other side" before him? ** * I believe, with you, that a grave injustice has been done Mr. Duncan. So I will be prepared to join you and the Metlakahtla people in "carrying the war to Africa. * If the Secretary, as an agent of the Government, has any right or reason to assume authority of possession over a building constructed by the will, labor, and money of the people of Metlakahtla, it has the same in regard to their houses the same, in fact, over the property of the church, the individuals everywhere in Alaska, where such is upon the public domain, and yet I would make a pretty big fight were such a position taken in regard to our property. ***It is simply unthinkable. But through the machinations of the Bureau of Education, petty agents, aided by Marsden, they have "put it over" on the people of Metlakahtla and we must raise such a protest as will compel some all-round fair consideration and justice. ATTENTION CALLED TO SITUATION BY CHARLES H. BLACK, FREDERICK T. FISCHER, AND OTHERS You may ask how I became interested in this case and why I am assisting in presenting it. Permit me to explain: First. My attention was called to the situation by Mr. Charles H. Black, a prominent member of the Baptist Church. He was one of Seattle's great commercial forces, a true philanthropist and an indefatigable, fundamental religious worker and teacher. Other gentlemen of similar distinction and commercial power, such as Mr. Frederick T. Fischer, all of whom had known William Duncan personally, and had intimate knowledge of his work and his native people for many years, urged consideration of this matter. These gentlemen and others prominent in various religious bodies of Seattle, as well as in her commercial organizations, who had similar knowledge of the state of affairs at Metlakahtla, insisted that the case be investigated. Second. Dr. Henry S. Wellcome was presented to me as one who had volunteered to give his services, and had become vitally interested in investigating the alleged intrigue and conspiracy. He had been urged and encouraged to pursue this matter by the friends of Father Duncan and his mission throughout America and elsewhere. He had become deeply interested in Father Duncan and the Metlakahtla work many years previously, and had continuously been an ardent supporter of the mission. The magnitude of the case and the importance of the work raised the question of Dr. Wellcome's motives and interest. Upon investigation it was found that he was absolutely unselfish, genuinely altruistic, and that he was working solely for the establishment of a principle, the exposure of an almost indescribable injustice, and the righting of a cruel and grievous wrong. A thorough investigation of Dr. Wellcome convinced me of his high character, of his Christian integrity, of his sense of justice, and of his fearless defense of the truth.18 The unselfish devotion and eminent services of Henry S. Wellcome to the advancement of civilization and the cause of humanity are 18 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF DR. HENRY S. WELLCOME (Compiled from authoritative records) Henry S. Wellcome, Kt., LL. D. (Edinburgh), F. R. S. (England), was born in Wisconsin; son of Rev. S. C. and Mary Curtis Wellcome. Awarded Royal Humane Society Medal for life saving, 1885. Governing director of the Wellcome Foundation. Founder of the Wellcome Research Institution, London (1931). Founder and director of the Wellcome Historical Medical Museum, London (1913). Founder of the Wellcome Bureau of Scientific Research, London (1913). Placed services of the bureau and staff, which were utilized by the war office, at the disposal of the British Government during the World War. The following institutions of the founder are affiliated to the Bureau of Scientific Research: The Museum of Medical Science (including tropical medicine and hygiene), London (1914); the Physiological Research Laboratories, Langley Court, Beckenham, Kent, England (1894); the Chemical Research Laboratories, London (1896): and the Entomological Research Laboratories at Wisley, Surrey, England (1915). Founder of the Wellcome Tropical Research Laboratories, Gordon Memorial College, Khartoum, Anglo-Egyptian Sudan (1901), with an auxiliary floating research laboratory on the Upper Nile and its tributaries (1906). Instituted a special commission to secure improvements in design and construction of field ambulances, London (1914). Constructed, equipped, and supplied for the British Army Medical Service, a field chemical and medical bacteriological motor research laboratory used in Egypt and Palestine during the Great War. Personally conducted archaeological and ethnological explorations in the upper Nile regions of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan in 1901; resumed and continued these explorations in and after 1910; discovered a number of previously unknown Ethiopian archaeological sites, conducting excavations and researches at 4 of these. Pioneer in aerial photography in surveying, excavating, and recording archaeological sites. (See Encyclopaedia Britannica.) Founded Lady Stanley Maternity Hospital (1927), also the Wellcome Medical Dispensary (1905), Uganda, Central Africa, both being under the control of the medical |