Reindeer Purchase Appropriation
Suffers Setback In The House
I
OFFICE OF A. J. DIMOND
Delegate from Alaska
(Special to the Nugget)
—
When the item in the Interior
Department appropriation bill
providing $1,070,000 for the pur
chase of all reindeer and rein
deer equipment in Alaska owned
by others than natives was taken
up by the House on March 15,
objection was raised against the;
bill on a point of order and the!
entire item was stricken from i
the bill. Efforts made by support:
ers of the item when the bill
was under consideration the fol
lowing day to have it inserted
as an amendment, revised to
avoid the vulnerability that had
Jet it fall under the axe the day
before, were without avail. The
amendment was rejected by a |
vote of 151 to 113.
Background for the appropria
tion goes back for a number of
years to the time when conflicts
■began to arise between the orig
inal Eskimo owners of the rein-1
deer and others who later ac
quired herds in the Territory ov
er reindeer ownership and range
rights. The conflicts grew in pro
portion to the increase in the sizej
and in the number of herds. Var
ious solutions to effect a perman
ent settlement of the constantly
growing problems were consider
ed by Congressional committees!
charged with the welfare of the!
Eskimos and other natives of Al
aska. Study of the record of the
testimony on the subject shows
general agreement that, in view
of the fact that the reindeer had
originally been brought to Alas
ka for the benefit of the natives
1o replace a subsistence that had
been1 lost to them by inroads
made by the white man on the
whales, walrus, caribou, and oth
er indigenous game from which
the Eskimos had obtained a liv
ing, the natives were entitled to
firstjcqnisideration in any plan.
Delegate Dimond took the
stand that the best course to fol
low to find a permanent solution
was to purchase all of the rein
deer and reindeer equipment for
the natives that had been acquir
ed by others. He held such action
to ultimately place many natives
on a self-sufficient basis would,
in addition to the benefits pro
vided for the natives, actually
prove to be a definite economy
in Government expenditures. At
present the Federal Government
js spending in excess of $1,000,000
a year on the welfare of the nat
ives of Alaska.
In carrying out this plan. Dele
gate Dimond introduced a bill in
the House in 1936 to authorize
the Secretary of the Interior to
purchase, or acquire by power;
of eminent domain, all the rein- j
deer and reindeer equipment in !
Alaska not owned by natives for
distribution among the natives.
Assurance that the settlement
would be permanent was guaran
teed by a stipulation prohibiting
ownership of live reindeer for
more than1 30 days by other than
natives after the general pur- i
chase was made. As a safeguard
in the expenditures of the mon
ey authorized for such purchase
this bill carried a provision that
not more than $3 per head should
•be paid for the deer. As finally
enacted in 1937, minor amend
ments were made in the legisla
tion, including removal of the $3
per head price limitation, but in
general it followed the text and
purpose of the original bill he
sponored.
In 1938 when an appropriation
for the purchase was under con
• sideration of the House Commit
tee on Appropriations, the Com
mittee rejected it on the ground
that additional investigation
should be made to determine the
economic desirability of making
the purchase. A special commit
tee, the members of which were
appointed jointly by the chair
man of the House Committee on
Appropriations and the chairman
of the Senate Committee on Ap
propriations, was officially desig
nated and went to Alaska to
make the necessary study of the
matter. The special joint com
mittee unanimously reported in
favor of the purchase of the deer
and equipment for the natives.
When the House Committee on
Appropriations reported the In
l terior Department appropriation
1 bill to the Ho'use on March 8, it
contained the item providing
$820,000 for purchase of reindeer
and necessary equipment, and
$250,000 for new construction
and maintenance of buildings,
corrals, fences, and other facil
ities. Provision was in the bill
that “not exceeding $4 per head
shall be paid for reindeer pur
chased from nonnative owners."
When the reindeer item was
reached in the bill by the House
on March 15, objection was rais
ed against it on the “point of
order” that it contained legisla-1
tion. Although “legislation” ic I
AGAIN HITLER MARCHES EASTWARD
j Top map shows Central Europe up to the momentous March 12, 1938
j when he declared Austria to be a German province. Further “drans
nach osten (march to the east), is seen with Hitler's eyes on the
Ukraine (lower map), with the downfall of Czechoslovakia.
GERMANYS OF WILHELM AND HITLER
N£Wt»N* ?s.1V»
*ED BY MiTlfC *
S5S2WR??**‘~**’ v
These maps give a vivid comparison between the Germany of Bis
mark (top), and the nation of Adolph Hitler. The legends tell the
story of gains in area and population. In 1914 Wilhelm’s continental
Germany measured 208,780 square miles with a population of
60,000,000. Hitler’s Germany now extends over 244,263 square miles
with a population of 85,600,00.
often contained in appropriation
bills which are enacted, House
rules make the appropriation
item subject to cancellation if ob
jection is made on that point.
Probably through unadvertence,
twelve words of authorization as
to the method by which the Sec
retary of the Interior could make
the purchase were incorporated
in the item by the Committee,
when writing the bill, and the re
ult'ing phrase was sufficient to
be defined as legislation. The en
tire item was stricken from the
bill on this account when the
paint of order was raised.
On March 16, when the bill
was open for amendments. Repre
ssntative Johnson of Oklahoma,
offered the item—-minus the twel
vs words of “legislation”—Tor in j
sertion as an amendment. Debate
that followed on the proposed
amendment was spirited. Both
Tdes emphasized the desire for
Government economy as the mo
tivating factor in defense of the
stands taken.
Representative Colmer of Mis
sissippi, opposing the item said,
“This is purely a Santa Claus
proposition.” And referred to
the proposed purchase as being
for the purpose of buying an un
profitable enterprise from white
owners, he continued, “They
came down here to Washington
to get the government to pull
their chestnuts out of the fire.”
Supporting the amendment, Rep
resentative Scrugham of Nevada
cracked back, “The object of the
appropriation is not, as has been
claimed in some quarters ,to take
care of somebody who failed in
business. The point at issue is
whether or not the Government
is morally obligated to do some
thing to preserve these reindeer
for the benefit of the Eskimo pop
uiation. They are the source of
livelihood for a considerable part
of the native people of Alaska.”
He argued that besides being an
economy to make the natives self
supporting, the purchase was nee
essary to protect the consider
able investment the Government
already has in the reindeer.
Representative Hobbs of Ala
i bama, opponent of the measure,
put himself on record as oppos
I ing any initial expense at this
time for the natives to acquire
deer. Admitting that “The Es
kimos are entitled to considera
tion, but so are taxpayers,’’ he
did not attempt to answer the
arguments that the reindeer pur
chases would result in large ev
entual savings to the Govern
ment.
, That at least some of the opposi
tion arguments were colored by
fear of political repercussions in
the home districts was brought.
to light when one of the mem- j
bers said, “My predecessor in
this Congress, Mr. Goodwin, was
very instrumental in protecting
the seal herds on the Pribilof Is
lands, a fact which was very sue
cessfully used against him tin
some of his campaigns for re
election.”
Delegate Dimond told the
House that he was "not any more
anxious than any other Mtmber1
of Congress or any other citizen !
of the United States to spend thej
money of the Government, but
unless this item is kept in the!
bill, the Eskimos of Alaska and !
the people of the United States!
are sure to lose a very valuable
resource, because unless the rein
deer are herded and taken care
of, unless the industry is admin
istered for the Eskimos, and prm
ripally by the Eskimos, but to
some extent by the federal Gov
ernment, I know that in 20 years
there will not be enough rein
deer left in Alaska to fill this
Hall of Congress.”
The Delegate hopes to have the
item inserted as an amendment
in the bill when it is in the
Senate.
Write to your friends and rela
tives on the ‘Outside’, using Sour
ough Stationery. They’ll get a big
kick out of it.
__ APRIL 1939
S M T W T F S
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30.
EUROPE’S BIG PUZZLE: WHERE WILL HITLER MOVE NEXT?
_n
With the obliteraton of Czechosl ovakia from Europe’s map. the next question was: “where will
Hitler turn next?” Rumblings ha ve been heard in the ' mosaic" states that they might meet the
same fate as Czechoslovakia. The rich Ckraine was believed the apple of Hitler’s eye, and he
might even turn westward towar d Alsace-Lorraine. That he might strike at the Polish corridor
a»»d Danzig, was another fear.
TENTATIVE LINEUP: GERMANY VS. REST OF EUROPE
r-—H
m) i V / / w. 4
i
This map shows how Great Britain is endeavoring to line up most of Continental Europe into a
“Stop Hitler” Bloc, raising a theoretical fence around the new Reich and Hungary, which seems
certain to be swayed by Hitler’s voice. Rumania is the focal point, with both Germany and Eng
land engaged in a battle of order blanks for her rich trade. Nations England hopes to pull into
line are indicated by diagonal shading; those which presumably will stand with Germany in
vertical shading. Adsorption of Mcmel by Germany was seen as the next Nazi expaasion move.