| Front Page | Time Line | Museum Sugestions | Museum Standards | References |
Introduction
The stirrings of the Aleut Independence Movement picked up momentum after the Aleuts returned to the Pribilof Islands in 1944 from their internment at Funter Bay near Juneau, Alaska, during World War II. After seeing how other Natives lived on the Alaska mainland and the Aleuts themselves having worked for cash wages instead of store credit in Juneau during their internment, the Pribilof Aleuts were even more determined to gain their freedom. In the years following the war, the Pribilof Aleuts became even more resentful of the federal government's control over nearly every aspect of their lives.
While under Russian rule, the Aleuts were considered to one of the civilized tribes and had been made Russian subjects. In the 1867 purchase treaty, the Treaty of Cession, ownership of Alaska passed from Russia to the United States for a purchase price of over $7 million. The Russian government expected American law to protect the rights of Russian citizens who chose to remain in Alaska, as well as the rights of the civilized tribes (Torrey 1983). The purchase treaty provided that all Russian subjects were to automatically become United States citizens with the exception of what were termed the "uncivilized tribes" (Jones 1980). However, the purchase treaty itself did not specify who were the civilized or uncivilized tribes. United States officials assumed that all Alaska natives were uncivilized (Jones 1980).
In 1870, The Alaska Commercial Company (ACC) was awarded a private twenty- year lease of the fur seal industry in the Pribilof Islands (Jones 1980). In this same year, the Act to Prevent the Extermination of Fur Seals went into effect which established the Pribilof Islands as a permanent government reservation. In the terms of the ACC private lease, the federal treasury was to receive from the company an annual rent of $55,000 and royalties of $2.625 on every seal taken (Jones 1980). The company was to provide for the Aleuts' comfort, maintenance, education, and protection (Jones 1980).
While the ACC had a monopoly on trade, the U. S. government retained the authority to regulate the seals and the Aleut sealers (Jones 1980). Along with exclusive rights to the fur seals, the ACC was required to observe conservation regulations which included a 100,000 annual limit on seal harvests (Jones 1980). They were to provide for the physical and moral well-being of the Aleuts by paying sealers a wage of which the company was to determine the amount. They were to establish schools and furnish supplies, such as cordwood, salted bacon, and salt and barrels for preserving seal meat (Jones 1980). The company itself added two more obligations: rent-free houses and free medical care for the Aleuts (Jones 1980). With a harvest of 100,000 seals a year selling at an average price of $14.6734 each, the Alaska Commercial Company made an estimated gross of $20 million and a net of $18 million during the twenty years of its lease. The U.S. government received from the ACC a gross of $6 million and a net of over $5 million (Jones 1980).
The majority of the Aleuts' income, about eighty percent, came from sealing; the rest from foxing and occasional labor for the company and the government. The company paid the Aleuts a competitive wage, and they had an economic status similar to other American workers at the time (Jones 1980). However, economic well-being means more than physical survival and wage labor. It means enjoying certain basic rights that were denied the Aleuts. (Jones 1980)
Supported by the Treasury agents, the Aleuts on the Pribilof Islands were forced by the ACC to move out of their barabaras (which were then destroyed) into wood frame houses (Jones 1980). The company at first paid the Aleuts' wages into a community fund which was distributed by the Aleut chief and priest according to the classifications which they themselves set forth. Soon, however, Treasury agents claimed to be concerned about favoritism in the chief's and priest's classifications, so they took over assigning work classifications. In reality the Treasury agents wanted the power to manipulate work classifications as a means of controlling the Aleuts' work behavior, which meant having the power to lower a worker's class and wage as coercion. (Jones 1980)
Treasury agents also violated the Aleuts' freedom in the use of their money. Instead of paying wages directly to the Aleuts, the company deposited the money with its cashier and designated the amount of credit that was due each hunter. When a hunter needed money, he had to give his passbook to the cashier upon which he received silver in payment. Agents soon placed restrictions on the amount of money a sealer could withdraw, claiming the need to stretch the Aleuts' wages until the next sealing division. (Jones 1980)
Treasury agents fined the Aleuts, put them in irons, threatened them with exile, and in some cases, banished them from the islands if they refused to work (Jones 1980). The following is an account from the daily log of a St. Paul Treasury agent that illustrates this,
Yesterday ordered men to go to H.W.P. (Halfway Point) early this AM, if good water, if not good water on foot across the island and pick up wood in piles. This ASI the men did not go so I called Antone (the chief) and ordered him to get them off at once. I waited an hour and they did not start nor did Antone report. So I rang the bell and called the people together at the shop. . . I then asked Martin Nederazoff if he was ready to go after wood and obey my order, and he said "no"; I fined him $15 . . .I then stood them in a line on the floor and told them they had to obey me or I would fine them every dollar they had… and the end would be they would have to leave the island… (Pribilof Islands Daily Log, St. Paul, October 12, 1888, quoted in Jones 1980).
The government also restricted the Aleuts' movements to and from the islands. In theory, Aleuts were not confined to the islands, and the company offered them free passage on its boats. However, in reality, Aleuts could not leave or return to the islands without official permission. Treasury agents also began removing elected chiefs from office, replacing them with substitutes whom the agents felt they could more easily control. They wanted chiefs who would encourage their people to work, not chiefs who incited and joined their people in rebellion (Jones 1980).
The Treasury agents punished behavior as trivial as what they called "sauciness." One agent wrote, "Mr. Redpath (company manager) reported that Peter Krukoff was saucy to him. Peter was ordered to do some work and report to me" (Pribilof Islands Daily Log, St. Paul, October 25, 1888, quoted in Jones 1980). The Treasury agents were self-appointed morality police, threatening punishment for what they viewed as immoral deeds, "…She acknowledged she was bad…I got her to understand that she had got to do better if she remained upon this island, that this made three times her name appeared on the books…She laughed at me…I reached for the handcuffs and told her unless she was civil, I would iron her at once…(Pribilof Islands Daily Log, St. Paul, February 8, 1889, quoted in Jones 1980).
The Treasury agents interfered in the Aleuts' private lives, even extending their power to choice of marriage partners. One agent wrote, "Alex Galaktinoff…goes to St. George to find a wife and with the distinct understanding that he is to find one before returning. If he gets married he is to return next spring - if not he is to seal over there" (Pribilof Islands Daily Log, St. Paul, September 1, 1889, quoted in Jones 1980). Agents also coerced the Aleuts in regard to education. Aleuts began to increasingly resist sending their children to the American schools for fear that if their children learned English, they would forget their Russian and in turn would have weakened ties to the Russian Orthodox Church. Parents and children were both punished if the children did not go to school (Jones 1980).
On the fourth day after, he, Mr. McIntyre (Treasury agent), took him (a father who refused to send his son to the American school) from his house, put handcuffs on, and lodged him in the cellar of the company's house, a very cold, damp place, and kept him four days on bread and water, and during all this time the son had been confined in a dark closet in the company's house and kept on bread and water" (Seal Fisheries, H. Exec. Doc. No. 83, p 133, quoted in Jones 1980).
In 1890, a twenty-year lease was awarded to the North American Commercial Company for exclusive rights to the fur seal industry in the Pribilof Islands. Where the Alaska Commercial Company had voluntarily provided support for widows, orphans, and the infirm; medical care; and rent-free houses, the North American Commercial Company was now required by the Treasury Department to provide these things (Jones 1980). The annual rent was increased from $55,000 to $60,000 and the royalty to the government was raised from $2.625 per skin to $7.625. In addition, the government was to set the Aleuts' pay scale instead of the company (Jones 1980).
By 1890, there was a dramatic decrease in the seal population (Torrey 1983). This prompted the U.S. government to set low seal quotas each year during the North American Commercial Company's lease (Jones 1980). The company was allowed a total of only 339,180 seals in contrast to the nearly two million seals that were taken by the Alaska Commercial Company. In spite of this, the North American Commercial Company profited over five and one-half million dollars in the twenty-year period (Jones 1980). The government lost a net of nearly two and one-half million dollars over the twenty years (Jones 1980).
In the early 1890s, due to the decreased seal harvests, the Aleuts were living in severe poverty (Jones 1980). Even though the government had raised their sealing rate from 40 to 50 cents a skin, this could not compensate for income lost from decreased seal harvests (Jones 1980). From 1890 to 1894, the Pribilof Aleuts' average annual income from all sources was substantially lower that of other United States production workers (Jones 1980).
In 1894, the Treasury Department requested and was granted a Congressional relief appropriation for the Pribilof Aleuts, so Congress began appropriating $19,500 each year (except for one) in the second lease period. This relief appropriation was intended to be a poverty reduction measure. At first, it was used as a wage supplement to pay the Aleuts for labor for which they had previously not been paid. Agents opened accounts for each sealer and credited sealers' accounts with the amounts earned doing labor for the government. However, few years later, this system was replaced by one where the appropriation as well as sealing wages were distributed as charity (Jones 1980). In doing this, the government could manipulate the quantity and quality of supplies and keep costs of in-kind payments at a bare minimum (Jones 1980). Managers could more easily reduce costs by manipulating supplies rather than cash wages. Payments of in-kind were based on need instead of labor, depriving the Aleuts of their status as wage earners (Jones 1980). In addition to this, the Aleuts were now classified as "wards of the government" (Torrey 1983:107).
In 1903, the Commerce and Labor Department was created and was assigned administrative responsibility for the Pribilofs (Jones 1980). In 1909, the Bureau of Fisheries was established within the Department of Commerce and Labor and began Management of the Pribilofs (Jones 1980). Obligatory labor, interference in the Aleuts' political system, and exile of Aleuts were now officially condoned, and agents were told the Pribilof operation was to remain secret. "No information regarding the seals or as to any other matter pertaining to the seal islands is to be given out by you or by any of the assistant agents. All applications for such information should be referred to the department" (Appendix A to Hearings, 1911, pp.41-42, quoted in Jones 1980). Instructions such as this to the Treasury agents remained in effect until after World War II (Jones 1980).
The 1910 Fur Seal Act ended the private lease system, and the Department of Commerce and Labor became solely responsible for the Pribilof program. The Department and its Bureau of Fisheries were responsible for regulating the seal harvests and protecting the herd, as well as for harvesting and marketing the skins. The Act provided for the welfare of Aleuts and it required the Department to pay Aleut sealers fair compensation for their labor. However, the Act did not give any standards for determining what was to be considered fair compensation (Jones 1980). The Aleuts received no cash payments except for small amounts for occasional labor for the naval radio station on St. Paul (Jones 1980). This shortage of cash meant that the Pribilof Aleuts would not be able to afford to leave the islands to seek employment elsewhere or to visit relatives in the Aleutians (Johnson 1978).
In 1911, Pribilof students, mainly from St. Paul since vessels did not call very often at St. George, began to attend high school at Chemawa Indian School in Oregon (Jones 1980). However, this education plan backfired, because some Chemawa students did not want to return to the islands. As a result, the Chemawa school program was terminated in the early 1920s (Jones 1980). Also in 1911, the North Pacific Fur Seal Convention, or International Fur Seal Treaty, was signed by Canada, Russia, Japan, and the U.S. to stop the killing of fur seals on the high seas for fifteen years (Richards 1979). The seal harvest on American and Russian islands was to be carefully controlled, and the Canadians and Japanese agreed to stop killing the seals in return for fifteen percent of American and Russian harvests (Richards 1979). In order to restore the fur seal herd, the U.S. government suspended fur seal harvesting on the Pribilof Islands beginning in 1911 for a five-year period, except for subsistence hunting by Aleuts (Johnson 1978).
In 1914, the Pribilof Aleuts were granted legal right to residence on the Pribilof Islands, the lands that had been their home for nearly 130 years. They were also granted the right to be the sole harvesters of the seals (Johnson 1978). In 1916, the Pribilof Aleuts petitioned the Commissioner of Fisheries in Washington, D.C., demanding "the freedom to speak Aleut when they desired; the hiring of Aleut men from the Aleutian chain instead of 'white people' for assisting in the future seal harvests; the freedom to re-open the church school; and that the agent also refrain from the drinking of intoxicating liquors if it must be prohibited to the Aleuts" (quoted in Johnson 1978). The Commissioner firmly rejected the Aleuts' appeal (Jones 1980).
In 1924, the Indian Citizen Act was passed by Congress giving citizenship to all Natives in the United States (Johnson 1978). However, the Act had no bearing in the Pribilofs, because Bureau officials continued to believe that their Aleut wards were noncitizens (Jones 1980).
After the passage of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, the community of St. Paul adopted a constitution and elected a council, formalizing for the first time leadership of St. Paul in 1936 (Johnson 1978). The community of St. Paul elected Gabe Stepetin as president of the first Community Council (Richards 1979). Mamant Emanoff, John Misikin, Peter Kochergin, and Elary Gromoff were elected as Community Council members (Torrey 1983). The influence of the council was restricted by the Fisheries and because of this the Community Council was unable to perform its duties in the way envisioned by the IRA council (Torrey 1983). The St. Paul Community Council was inactive during World War II but was reorganized after the people returned from Funter Bay. Elary Gromoff was elected vice-president and Gabe Stepetin was re-elected president, an office he was re-elected to until 1956 (Torrey 1983). In 1940, responsibility for the Pribilofs was transferred to the newly created Fish and Wildlife Service (a merger of the Bureau of Fisheries and Bureau of Biological Survey) in the Department of Interior (Jones 1980).
On June 16, 1941, a military transport, the U.S.S. Delaroff, arrived unannounced at St. Paul. The residents were told they were being evacuated, and that they could only take with them what they could pack in one bag (Johnson 1978). They were transported to Funter Bay on Admiralty Island near Juneau. St. Paul residents were housed in a deserted salmon cannery and St. George residents housed at an abandoned gold mine across the bay (Johnson 1978). The Japanese bombed Dutch Harbor and Unalaska and landed on Kiska and Attu in 1942. The Pribilof Aleuts were kept in their internment camps throughout the duration of the war. However, in the summer of 1943, the U.S. government sent a crew of Pribilof Aleuts to St. Paul from Funter Bay for the seal harvest, because seal oil was needed to make TNT and other explosives (Johnson 1978). Once again the seal harvest was deemed more important than the well-being of the Pribilof Aleuts. The Pribilof Aleuts did not return home until 1944. The St. Paul Aleuts found their island littered with military equipment, their homes ransacked, and items stolen from their church by the U.S. military.
The Pribilofs became a voting precinct in 1948 (Johnson 1978). This was also the year that Pribilof Aleuts joined the Alaska Native Brotherhood, a coalition of natives organized in 1912 by Tlingits of Southeast Alaska (Johnson 1978). The Brotherhood hired lawyers in Washington, D.C., for the Pribilof Aleuts and for the first time Pribilof Aleuts had their interests represented by people who spoke the language of the government (Johnson 1978).
In 1949, a government task force, appointed by the Department of the Interior, was sent to evaluate "living conditions and human problems" of Bering Sea native communities. In October of 1949, this task force visited St. Paul Island. They met with community leaders, the local residents, the doctor, teachers, and the Treasury agent. They inspected the hospital, school, commissary, and recreation hall (USDI 1949).
The task force was told by the doctor that the diet of the Aleuts was too low in protein and too high in carbohydrates and that the Aleuts supplemented their diet with hunting and fishing. Upon learning that Aleut homes were being inspected each week, one of the task force members said, "When I heard about the inspection, it was rather repugnant to me. It just seemed that it shouldn't be. If I lived here, I wouldn't want a doctor to come in and tell me that I had to have my home inspected every week." Another task force member suggested, "If you are going to inspect one of them, in order to keep down the feeling of discrimination or favoritism I should say that every home on the island should be inspected regardless of race or creed" (USDI 1949).
Treasury agent Olson was questioned about the charge that fresh milk was only being provided to the white employees, which he claimed was untrue. He was questioned heavily about the charge that no fresh beef, or very little beef, was distributed to the Aleuts when a steer was butchered on the island. After sidestepping the question several times, Olson finally admitted the unequal distribution of fresh meat. The task force found that not all of the homes had running water and those people who did have it had to put it in themselves (USDI 1949).
Chairman Dawber noted that "…in spite of the fact that the United States Congress is obligated under the law to take care of these people, I think the question of responsibilities also begins to enter now that they are demanding rights, and I don't think you are going to solve this food problem until you have arrived at the place where these people are going to be put on the same basis as all other citizens in which they will be properly compensated for their labor, and then be free to buy what they need, where they want it" (USDI 1949). Chairman Dawber also felt that the psychological impact of what happened to the Pribilof Aleuts in Funter Bay during World War II was a vitally important matter for the task force to keep in mind as they dealt with conditions on St. Paul Island. Among the recommendations made by the task force were (USDI 1949):
The residents of St. Paul should vote on and accept the proposed Corporate Charter of the Aleut Community of St. Paul Island, and the related Constitution and Bylaws, provided for under the Indian Reorganization Act of June 1934.
A change from the system of Government issues plus compensation to a plan of total compensation (cash wages) for services rendered.
Greater consideration should be given to the training of the natives for some of the positions that were being filled by white employees.
Students should be encouraged to seek education beyond what the school on the island offered, and those who received higher education should be encouraged to return to the island for employment.
The task force claimed that although servitude had previously existed, there was no servitude existing on St. Paul at this time. The Alaska Native Brotherhood called the task force a "white wash" (Tundra Times 21 June 1965).
In 1950, the Pribilof Aleuts were given cash wages with civil service benefits instead of store rations and small annual bonuses (Richards 1979). They were also given disability insurance, annual vacation, sick leave, and retirement benefits (Johnson 1978).
In 1951, on behalf of the Pribilof Aleuts, Iliodor Merculief, President of the Aleut Community Council of St. Paul, with the help of Gabriel Stepetin, Terenty Philemonoff, Sr., and Alexander Melovidov, filed suit with the Indian Claims Commission against the United States government for maltreatment between the years 1870 and 1946 (Johnson 1978:43) (Torrey 1983). The claim asked for damages for lack of decent wages, housing, food, and other fair compensation. The suit was not settled until 1978, twenty-seven years later, when the Claims Commission decided for the Pribilof Aleuts and against the U.S. government to the tune of $11 million (Richards 1979).
In 1955, the Public Health Service assumed responsibility for health care in the Pribilof Islands (Johnson 1978). In 1962, the State of Alaska took over the operation of the schools in the Pribilofs, and Aleut workers began to be paid by the federal civil service wage scale (Bowman 1965:11) (Johnson 1978:22). In November 1962, the Tundra Times reported that the Aleuts of St. Paul voiced strong opposition to the wage plan. Rev. Deacon Smile Gromoff, president of the St. Paul community, argued that the people were "pushed into approving it" and that the wage plan would result in increased welfare. In the article, Gromoff relayed the frustration of the community,
Under the new plan, some of the workers will work for only three full months of the year and be on relief the remaining seven months….To some people we may be nothing, and be taken for granted but to our government and state, we are very important people as long as the Lord provides us with fur seals…The pay in the new plan looks good on paper but by the time we are charged for food, rent, fuel, electricity, water, garbage, gas, a 35 cents handling charge, our paychecks will shrink to mere savings.
The administration of the Pribilof program in laying off half of the workers is trying to save money. Still the government is going to lose money because those unemployed will have to draw welfare.
Supposedly under the new plan all Aleut workers were to have top priority over non-residents in getting jobs if - and it is a big if - if the Aleut employee were qualified for the job.
And the Aleuts are better qualified to supervise catching of fur seals. Without us, who would want to go out and catch the seals. Catching seals has been our heritage, passed down to us from our ancestors.
We feel we are the victims of one of the most short sighted and destructive policies ever in the history of the Pribilofs. (1 November 1962)
In 1964, a campaign was begun by the Tundra Times to expose to the public that the "Aleuts of the Pribilof Islands are today living in servitude to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service" (quoted in Johnson 1978). The newspaper reported,
In a letter to the editor of the Tundra Times, Gromoff said,The restrictions on visitors to the Pribilofs are almost beyond belief considering the fact that the islands are not of military strategic importance. Visitors are captive of the airline that services the islands. . . A regulation requires that all visitors be kept in direct observation by airline personnel while they are on the islands.
[Due to the 1962 wage plan]. . . the Pribilovians. . . are charged for everything - for food and fuel to leasing of their own homes-and since their expense continue through out the year, their income does not begin to cover their expenses. . . [They are] having to live on a combination of wages, 'rocking chair' compensation, and welfare. . . [They are] getting deeper and deeper into debt. (11 November 1964).
They are laying off more workmen this winter. The work force is not enough to fill the many jobs that are to be done. What are they, the administration, trying to prove by saving money when these islands yield tremendous amount of wealth to our United States of America? Is this the thanks we get from Uncle Sam by his trying to increase welfare and poverty on two very rich islands? What the government spends on us is a drop in the bucket when, since the time the Aleuts began to harvest seals they were paid in cents, while others get very rich. (7 December 1964)The Tundra Times reported again in December 1964,
The Priblovians, after working decades for the government, were finally given Civil Service status and paid wages instead of services. However, they were given only a portion of seniority-that of credit toward retirement. Since they were not given full seniority-as many years credit as years worked-they are not given full and equal right of citizens.
It is true that the Aleuts on the Pribilofs, comparatively speaking are in a better economic situation than other areas of Alaska. Their status, we feel, is like that of slaves of wealthy plantation owners who live in comfortable surroundings with plenty of food, but who have little or no control over their own destiny (21 December 1964)
Tundra Times editor, Howard Rock, interviewed Pribilof Program Director C. Howard Baltzo, who told the editor, "They are just as primitive as you can imagine… And all Natives, I guess, are weak when it comes to visualization and imagination. So they are handicapped, but we are trying to be as human about it as we can-about the whole thing-and yet realistic paternalism will never get us anywhere" (quoted in Richards 1979). St. Paul resident Tikhon Stepetin wrote to the Tundra Times editor in rebuttal to Baltzo's statement,
We are not so primitive that we cannot put pen to paper and reprimand anyone for speaking of us without truth or due respect. . . If Mr. Baltzo had said some Natives, I would still have been a little resentful, yes, but also understanding, for every human personality is, to some extent, lacking in both of these factors, as he proves even of himself by insinuating this to be his opinion of all Natives. Although lacking in visualization, it is quite the contrary in the question of his imagination, don't you agree?
Mr. Baltzo stated that he had met with our Community Council and I am certain that at these times our community representatives had put forward suggestions for the betterment of the Community, and for the speeding of progress and prosperity. If these were not met with his halfway approval and cooperation, I'm sure they were at least met with his complete admiration and envy of our "visualization and imagination." (Tundra Times 18 January 1965).
In another letter to the editor of the Tundra Times in 1965, Tikhon Stepetin commended Howard Rock for his newspaper's role in exposing to the public the injustices experienced by the Pribilof Aleuts at the hands of the U.S. government. Stepetin also conveyed the emotion felt at being treated as just another cog in the wheel of the seal harvest. He wrote,
Since the first arrival of The Russians to Alaskan waters, we have lived in secondary consideration to the fur seal and have been used, and thought of, as nothing more than a tool to help others derive profitable gain from its lustrous coat…no tool has been more abused. No people connected with an industry so profitable has gained so little profit, or has been treated with so little respect, or has endured it with so little dispute.
It is true that we need help in many ways, and apparently certain people are, or are attempting, to help us; but we on the Islands have yet to see signs of it. We have received nothing more than what was long overdue-our common rights and privileges. I see no one to praise or thank but ourselves for these great strides taken in progress and prosperity. Will not any people progress if given proper rights under a Democratic government? (1 February 1965).
On February 11, 1965, a resolution was adopted by a Democratic-controlled Alaska House of Representatives which asked for an investigation by the Department of the Interior into charges of servitude on the Pribilof Islands (Richards 1979). It also requested Federal legislation to guarantee the civil rights of Pribilof Aleuts, and on February 25 the Alaska State Senate unanimously approved the Pribilof servitude resolution (Richards 1979). In March of 1965, Willard Bowman, Executive Director State Commission for Human Rights, visited St. Paul Island to review conditions on the island and investigate the charges of servitude. He recommended a full review of the charges by a Pribilof commission to begin no later than May 1965 and that members of the commission be chosen from Alaska's Native population (Bowman 1965; Richards 1979). In May 1965, a special commission was appointed to review the Pribilof servitude charges.
The special commission, appointed by Governor Eagan, visited the islands during June 9 to 15, 1965. In September 1965, the commission's report on the economic and social conditions on the Pribilof Islands came out. The report stated, "…the Commission finds that "servitude"… is not to be found on the Pribilof Islands. The dissatisfaction and grievances that do exist are partly carryover from conditions that did prevail prior to 1962-and even in more extreme form prior to 1950-partly the result of conditions that now require further positive remedial actions." The commission felt that the main dissatisfaction on the islands was that only half of the male labor force was employed throughout the year. It recommended that ways be found to develop off-season employment for men and women, such as in constructing a harbor at St. Paul, crafts projects, and tourism. The commission also recommended that employment prior to 1950 be credited toward Federal Civil Service Retirement. The Coast Guard and Weather Bureau were directed to review their employee requirements and employ some Pribilof residents. The commission addressed the housing shortage on St. Paul and the destruction of houses and forced relocation to St. Paul of St. George residents.
In June 1965, after the special commission had visited St. Paul, the Tundra Times again reported on the servitude in the Pribilof Islands, "Are the people of the Pribilof Islands living in servitude? Not in the strict sense of the word but many carry-over bonds of servitude remain on the islands." The people still could not own their own land, they depended almost entirely on the government for employment, and everyone going to or from the islands had to have a pass. Gabe Stepetin is quoted as saying, "I do not consider myself free as you and other people in Alaska." Smile Gromoff, who was forced to resign as president of St. Paul after his 1962 article for the paper, voiced the feelings of the Pribilof Aleuts, "We are in servitude." Father Michael Lestenkof said, "The only way I became free is by becoming a priest." He further explained that the church owned its land which made him more free than the people he ministered to. The newspaper accused the five-member commission of skirting the question of servitude in meetings on both St. Paul and St. George Islands.
In June of 1965, Alaska Senator E.L. "Bob" Bartlett introduced the Fur Seal Bill in the U.S. Senate (Richards 1979). Part of the bill dealt with the Fur Seal Convention of 1964. Nicolai Melovidov, Acting President of the Aleut Community Council on St. Paul, sent a petition to Senator Bartlett concerning retirement benefits for men who retired prior to 1950 (Tundra Times 11 March 1966). A portion of the petition stated, "Whereas prior to 1950 the older men who retired were not given retirement benefits. These men stayed alive by getting food from the head of household with whom they lived and from the small monthly income given them by the canteen, years of service should take priority over the other factors in considering retirement benefits." Bartlett's bill allowed for reforms in the government administration of the Pribilof Islands, and it called for private ownership by Pribilof Island Aleuts of land, houses, and property on the islands (Richards 1979). Regulation of travel to the islands would be abolished, and Pribilof Aleuts who worked in the seal industry before 1950, before wages were paid to Aleut employees, would receive credit toward civil service retirement (Richards 1979). The bill allowed a town site to be established and a municipality to be created under Alaska law (Richards 1979). The Pribilof Aleuts were extended full rights, duties, benefits, and responsibilities as citizens of the United States and Alaska (Richards 1979).
In 1970, authority to manage the seal harvest was granted to the Department of Commerce, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries (Johnson 1978). In 1971, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) gave legal recognition of land ownership by Alaska Natives and provided monetary compensation for lands taken away. ANCSA created village corporations to receive the majority of the benefits. Methods were set up for allocation of rights to select land for ownership and to receive money based on the number of shareholders each village corporation had. The people of St. Paul incorporated the Tanadgusix (TDX) Corporation and the people of St. George incorporated the Tanaq Corporation (Torrey1983).
The regional corporation for the Aleuts, including those living in the Pribilofs, was organized in 1972 and called the Aleut Corporation. The Aleut League, a non-profit organization which worked with the Aleut Corporation, was organized in that same year (Torrey 1983).
In July 1973, the local corporation for the village of St. Paul, the TDX Corporation, held its first meeting. The people of St. Paul elected a Board of Directors for their corporation and Agafon Krukoff, Jr. became the first president. A year later, Mike Zacharof was elected President; and Victor Merculief became the land planner for the Corporation. Larry Merculieff returned to St. Paul to become their business manager (Torrey 1983).
In 1978, the 1951 lawsuit filed against the U.S. government for maltreatment was finally settled when the U.S. Indian Claims Commission decided in favor of the Pribilof Aleuts against the U. S. government. The Aleuts were awarded an $11.2 million settlement; however, they settled for $8.6 million (Richards 1979). The amount of the award was computed by balancing the value of what the Claims Commission deemed would have been fair compensation against what was actually paid the Aleuts in wages, goods and services (Johnson 1978).
Millions of dollars were reaped from the seal monopolies held by the Government and its lease-holders from 1870 to 1946 (Tundra Times 21 June 1978). When asked who was responsible for this effort and seeing that justice was finally done, Patrick Pletnikoff, Executive Director of the Aleutian-Pribilof islands Association, said, "Illiodor Merculief, for his wisdom and his integrity, and for his belief that his people were not served right, and for his courage to stand up to his Government under very difficult conditions" (Tundra Times 21 June 1978).
Beginning in 1979, the leaders of St. Paul and St. George begin to work with the National Marine Fisheries Service to plan a ten year phase-out of the federal government's presence in the Pribilof Islands (Torrey 1983). In 1980, animal protectionists began lobbying Congress to cut the Pribilof budget entirely and terminate the International Fur Seal Treaty (Torrey 1983). In 1981, The Alaska Congressional Delegation contacted the Pribilof leaders to inform them that there were only eight Senators that were in support of the renewal out of a total of seventeen on the committee (Torrey 1983). Larry Merculief, president of the Tanadgusix Corporation, and the corporation attorney and chief lobbyist, Tony Smith, went to Washington to try and save the treaty. They were successful and the Senate voted to ratify the interim convention for another four years, through 1984 (Torrey 1983).
The House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee voted in 1981 to cut the Pribilof budget one hundred percent. If this effort had succeeded, the Pribilofs would have lost seventy three percent of its wage base and its funds for all critical services, such as bulk home heating fuel purchase, delivery and supply, power plant operations and marine transportation beginning October 1981. Five million dollars in the President's budget, originally set to go towards changing the name of Mt. McKinley to Mt. Denali, was reallocated through the efforts of Larry Merculieff, to the Pribilof Islands Program. Merculieff had secured permission from the Alaska Federation of Natives and Ahtna and Doyon Corporations for the reallocation of the funds (Torrey 1983).
In 1984, the Federal government ended its commercial sealing operation on St. Paul. A trust fund was set up to help the Pribilof Aleuts' economic transition from a wholly government-subsidized industry to a private development (MacLeish 1997).
From our look back to the years before the Aleut Independence Movement rose in full force in the Pribilof Islands, we can see how it was set in motion long before the charges of servitude against the United States were brought to the forefront in the 1960s. Following the Alaska purchase from the Russians, the injustices against Pribilof Islands Aleuts continued, this time committed by the United States government which interfered in the Pribilof Aleuts' freedom and coerced them with threats of imprisonment or banishment from the islands. In the years following World War II, the Pribilof Aleuts became even more resentful of the federal government's control over nearly every aspect of their lives, and by the 1960s, the Aleut Independence Movement was traveling full speed ahead.
Even after the independence movement, the Pribilof Aleuts had to continue to fight the federal government for the next two decades, and they were successful. The new generation of leaders had developed a sophistication in dealing with the federal government and had learned how to work and compete in a corporate world in less than half a generation (Torrey 1983). The current Aleut leaders persist in their work to keep St. Paul a viable community, and they continue to look toward its economic future.
Researching a topic of this importance takes more than one week of research. The Aleut Independence Movement was set in motion long before the 1960s. Starting with the Alaska purchase treaty of 1867 between Russia and the United States, and following the injustices to the Pribilof Aleuts that went on year after year, is a good way to convey to the "why" of the movement and to get an emotional reaction from a museum audience. Contrast what the Aleut people say they went through with what the Treasury agents claimed. Quotes from the leaders of the independence movement would be an excellent way to convey the emotion of the movement to a museum audience. Photographs of Aleut leaders, St. Paul, and the people from the time period of the movement will put a face on these happenings and make the events more personal for a museum audience. Interviewing St. Paul residents who lived during the time period of the movement and using printed versions or audio tapes of their comments for the display is another excellent way to brings the emotion of the events to life.
Three excellent sources, which I used extensively, are "Slaves of the Harvest" by Barbara Boyle Torrey, "A Century of Servitude" by Dorothy K. Jones, and the Tundra Times articles that I listed in my May 2002 report. I found a few government reports and a couple of obscure books. The treasury agent log books from the late 1800s are a good source for Treasury agent attitude and injustices of that period. Allison Young has copies of these log books which were given to A/PIA by Lydia Black. I am sure there are more sources, but due to the short time period of my research, I did not run across them.