CLAXTON MISREPRESENTS AUTHORSHIP AND CIRCULATES CRAGIN FINDINGS AMONG ENEMIES OF FATHER DUNCAN

While the Cragin report was treated as a confidential communication insofar as Father Duncan, his friends, and the public were concerned, information in regard to it was freely given to enemies who were attempting to destroy his work.

On March 4, 1919, Commissioner of Education Claxton, erroneously attributing the authorship of the Cragin report to the Solicitor for the Department of the Interior, said in a letter to Gen. R. H. Pratt:

In 1915 the office of Solicitor for the Department of the Interior made a prolonged and minute study of the history, development, and status of the Metlakatla colony, and the solicitor rendered to the Secretary of the Interior an exhaustive legal opinion thereon.

That Claxton was in close touch with Cragin and that he knew this opinion was not rendered by the Solicitor for the Department of the Interior is shown by statements in documents already quoted in this section.

For activities of Claxton in connection with the delivery of the letter from Secretary Lane to Father Duncan, dated June 26, 1915, ordering him to cooperate with the Bureau plotters or seek a home elsewhere, and the posting of seizure notices on buildings of Father Duncan and his mission.

THE HONORABLE JAMES M. BECK'S OPINION

The erroneous contentions of the Cragin report are thus exposed in an opinion of Hon. James M. Beck, formerly Solicitor General of the United States, quoted at length elsewhere [p. 18482]:

*

It would be difficult for any fair-minded man * * 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.

The Cragin brief argues that Duncan and his Indian converts never intended that the property, which they had erected with the sweat of their brow, should belong to them, if the Government ordered them at any moment to vacate. This portion of the brief is so tortuous and disingenuous and its reasoning is so strained as to justify the doubt whether it was written in good faith. In this respect, it is a monument of special pleading, and the inference of prejudice is not unreasonable.

It would be a travesty both on language and on the spirit of justice to say that the power of the Secretary of the Interior to regulate this Christian mission, whose occupancy of the Annette Islands had been authorized by Congress, includes the power to terminate the occupancy and confiscate all the property which the Christian mission had erected with their own money and toil. This is not regulation, but destruction. It is not the regulation of the use of the property, but the seizure of such property. I am loath to believe that any court of justice would sustain such an act as regulation.

THE HONORABLE FRED DENNETT'S OPINION

In an opinion on the merits of the Metlakahtla case, Hon. Fred Dennett, formerly Commissioner of the General Land Office, states [p. 18491]:

Can the theory be soberly advanced that the Government intended to confiscate the buildings, after asking Father Duncan and the members of his mission to erect them? Such a proposition does not seem to have the elements of good faith.

It would be the height of absurdity to presume for a minute that Congress issued an invitation to the Metlakahtlans to make the settlement, and impliedly gave the Secretary of the Interior the authority to issue rules which must upset the object of the legislation. Can anyone imagine that Congress told the Metlakahtlans to go ahead, settle and build homes, etc., and then suggested to the Secretary that he promptly seize the buildings, destroy them, nullify the purpose for which they were built, and ruin the community of New Metlakahtla?

Such action on the part of the Secretary of the Interior would be unreasonable and contrary to the intent of Congress.

THE HONORABLE JAMES W. WITTEN'S OPINION

The illegality of the seizures of the property of Father Duncan and of the Metlakahtla Christian Mission, based on the Cragin opinion, is fully shown in an opinion by the Honorable James W. Witten, a recognized authority on laws relating to public lands [p 18497].

SECTION 41. BUREAU OF EDUCATION FORCES FATHER DUNCAN TO STOP OPERATING HIS INDUSTRIES

Bureau of Education deprives Metlakahtlans of means of livelihood. Market conditions compel temporary closing of canneries in Alaska. Bureau plotters thwart plans of Father Duncan to meet problems of unemployment. Natives petition Father Duncan to operate cannery and sawmill. Father Duncan plans to operate cannery to prevent destitution among natives. Renewed attempts by Bureau plotters to prevent Father Duncan from operating his cannery. Bureau of Education uses subterfuge to prevent Father Duncan from operating his cannery until schemes to seize industries completed

BUREAU OF EDUCATION DEPRIVES METLAKAHTLANS OF MEANS OF

LIVELIHOOD

After Father Duncan's water-power pipe line was seized by the Bureau of Education on June 22, 1914, and before Cragin had filed his so-called legal opinion on April 27, 1915, the Bureau agents, by means of a subterfuge further prevented Father Duncan from proceeding with the operation of his industries until they could induce the Secretary of the Interior to authorize the seizure of this property. Furthermore, the Bureau of Education left these dependent people without means of support and made no immediate effort whatever to furnish them with remunerative employment from which they could procure food for themselves and their families.

Nor was there any very material change in this situation after the Bureau of Education had administered affairs at Metlakatla for many years, as was frankly admitted 8 years later by one of the Bureau's own industrial directors who, on March 14, 1923, wrote as follows to George L. Boyle, an agent of the Department of the Interior:

It seems to me, and not only to me, but to others with whom I have talked. that the Bureau of Education is falling down, in that they have not supplied some industry that will give these natives work. It is absolutely useless to spend $20,000 a year of the Government's money, as we are now doing, telling them how to live, teaching them to work, and not supplying any means of labor.

MARKET CONDITIONS COMPEL TEMPORARY CLOSING OF CANNERIES IN ALASKA

Because of the unusually bad market conditions, a number of canneries in Alaska were forced to suspend operations in 1913 and 1914. Being unable to dispose of the pack of salmon already on hand, or to proceed with further production without heavy financial loss, Father Duncan was compelled to adopt a similar policy.

In addition to these difficulties, the operation of the cannery in 1914 was impossible because of the seizure by the Bureau of Education of Father Duncan's water-power pipe line constructed and used by him to operate his industries.

BUREAU PLOTTERS THWART PLANS OF FATHER DUNCAN TO MEET PROBLEMS OF UNEMPLOYMENT

To provide employment for the natives when the cannery was necessarily idle, Father Duncan developed plans for various village improvements, road building, and clearing of the land to lay out small farms for them to use for their own benefit, for all of which he offered to pay the natives full wages. Further to provide work during the hard times resulting from the depressed financial conditions then general in Alaska, Father Duncan proposed to pay the natives for labor expended in repairing their homes.

When this solution for the temporary lack of employment at Metlakahtla was provided, Marsden and his fellow troublemakers undertook to checkmate Father Duncan in his beneficent plans, and by means of plausible misrepresentations and deceptions they induced a number of the natives to refuse to work.

NATIVES PETITION FATHER DUNCAN TO OPERATE CANNERY AND SAWMILL

Finding themselves in a lamentable situation because of the continued interference by the Bureau plotters, 53 of the natives, all adult males, and more than five-sevenths of them heads of dependent families, turned to their ever-faithful friend and shepherd, Father Duncan, on March 1, 1915, before the seizure of the cannery and sawmill, and presented to him their petition, saying:

We, the workingmen and residents of Metlakahtla, under this petition you will find our names, asking you to operate cannery and sawmill as usual.

FATHER DUNCAN PLANS TO OPERATE CANNERY TO PREVENT DESTITUTION AMONG NATIVES

Yielding to the needs and desires of his people, Father Duncan decided to operate the cannery in 1915, regardless of the financial loss to him that might result. He, accordingly, made full preparations to operate the cannery, and made large outlays of money for tin and other materials necessary for the season's canning.

With the natives facing destitution and petitioning Father Duncan to operate the cannery, it was inconceivable to him that the Bureau of Education would willfully cause the natives to suffer by withholding from him his water-power pipe line, which had been arbitrarily seized without the slightest justification in fact or law, and without any semblance of legal process.

RENEWED ATTEMPTS BY BUREAU PLOTTERS TO PREVENT FATHER DUNCAN FROM OPERATING HIS CANNERY

No sooner had Father Duncan's plans become known to the plotters than efforts were put forth by them to thwart him in his benevolent purposes.

Within a few days after the natives presented their petition to Father Duncan, Charles D. Jones, the Bureau's teacher and representative at Metlakahtla, in his letter on March 10, 1915, called the situation to the attention of William G. Beattie, superintendent of the schools of the southeastern district of Alaska.

On the following day, Edmund Verney, who had only shortly before been elected mayor of Metlakahtla under the new rules and regulations, at an election illegally ordered and dominated by Jones, wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Interior in which he said:

There is only one obstacle to our unity and happiness now and that is Mr. William Duncan. * * At the present time he is going ahead without paying any attention to this new arrangement [under the new rules and regulations]. He is starting up his business and has commenced to repair the saw mill, pipe line, and cannery. What we want to know is how shall we proceed in this matter?

This letter of Verney, a brother-in-law of Marsden, was doubtless written at the suggestion of Jones and Marsden, who were on the ground and were vigorously engaged in stirring up trouble.

That he might refute any false and surreptitious charges concocted by the plotters to deceive and mislead the officials of the Government at Washington, Father Duncan, on February 2, 1915, wrote to the Secretary of the Interior as follows:

May I respectfully ask you kindly to send me a copy of any report which has reached you accusing me of interfering with the work which the Government has ordered on Annette Island or with the Government agents. To this letter Father Duncan received no reply.

On March 15, 1915, Father Duncan telegraphed to the Secretary of the Interior:

Time arrived operate sawmill and cannery. Many needy people applying for work. Require water power. Present water power insufficient run mill and serve village simultaneously. Ordered foreman use pipe line 8 hours daily, village use it 16. Jones objects and thus stops enterprises. Says he has full control pipe line. Has he full control if so our operations must

cease.

This telegram was ignored and never answered.

On March 22, 1915, Beattie telegraphed as follows to W. T. Lopp, Chief of the Bureau's Alaska Division:

Verney, Metlakahtla mayor, wires: "Murchison others with avowed purpose disregard reserve laws trying have Duncan operate cannery, saw mill. Serious trouble. Inform Department ask Duncan suspend operations till Secretary comes."

He does not say in what point regulations being disregarded. In my opinion only way preserve quiet Metlakahtla is for Secretary direct Duncan and council do nothing regarding industries till Secretary's visit.

So anxious were these schemers to prevent Father Duncan from holding the allegiance of his followers by operating his industries to give them work, and so expeditious and urgent were their efforts to gain control, that a command soon came from Washington which put an end to his efforts, caused the cannery and sawmill to remain idle, and forced many of the Metlakahtlans to leave their reserve and seek employment elsewhere.

BUREAU OF EDUCATION USES SUBTERFUGE TO PREVENT FATHER DUNCAN FROM OPERATING HIS CANNERY UNTIL SCHEMES TO SEIZE INDUSTRIES

COMPLETED

In the midst of his preparations to operate his cannery, Father Duncan received a telegram stating that the Commissioner of Education was writing him a letter and forbidding him to proceed until this letter was received.

This letter was never written.

The telegram and a letter from a subsequent Commissioner of Education, which exposed the trick resorted to by the plotters to prevent Father Duncan from operating his cannery, will now be presented.

Commissioner education has wired me as follows: "Am writing you and Duncan fully regarding industries Metlakahtla; instruct Duncan and council nothing to be done regarding industries until letters received." You are requested to comply with these instructions.

12:20 p. m.

BEATTIE, District Superintendent Schools.

The letter that Claxton pretended he was writing to Father Duncan was never sent, as is disclosed by the following excerpt from a letter of John J. Tigert, Commissioner of Education, to attorneys representing Dr. Henry S. Wellcome, dated December 14, 1923:

So far as the records show, no reply was made to the communication dated Metlakahtla, Alaska, February 2, 1915, from Wm. Duncan to the Secretary of the Interior, nor does it appear that the Commissioner of Education wrote the letter to which reference is made in telegram, March 24, 1915, from the Commissioner of Education to W. G. Beattie, Juneau, Alaska.

In Father Duncan's letter of July 31, 1915, to the Commissioner of Education, he said:

You would, of course, notice while here that the cannery work and sawmill business are suspended in obedience to your telegram of March 24, which reached me through Mr. Beattie. Unfortunately the telegram reached me a little too late for we had already begun preparing boats and nets for fishermen, and thus over $700 was spent in wages and so forth fruitlessly, and the timber at the sawmill is rotting, and the machinery and material for cannery purposes deteriorating for not being used. Worse than all that over 150