the federal officials are given con
trol by the Legislature. It may be
only a job as tax collector or fore
man on the road. It may be en
dorsement for a federal office or
deputysliip. But the important feat
ure is that all such appointments
have gone to men who have advo
cated greater power and greater ap
propriations for those same officials
or in other ways supported th-3
minority party. It. is not uncom
mon that one elected to represent
one policy, after he has changed
his position and turned a deaf ear
to the expectations and demands of
his constituents, goes home with an
appointment in his pocket. There
are many others who, after the ses
sion is ended, complain they had
been secretly promised something
but have been deceived.
Before I go farther I wish to
state that I do not believe that anv
federal official at Juneau ever des
cended to influencing legislation by
such unholy means. But neither is
this necessary. There are plenty of
those at the Capital during legisla
five sessions who succeed in mak
ing legislators believe they are rep
resenting officials with appoint
ments to distribute.
Here, then, in my opinion, do we
find the causes why reason makes
such faint appeal to so many of the
legislators. About half of them
line up against every progressive
measure. “Who is back of the bill? ’
seems to be the sole question of
importance. The interesting fact
is that the federal officials have
never been back of any of the meas
ure's T have heretofore mentioned.
That was enough to defeat them.
The Governor recommended the
compilation of the statutes, but that
measure was wrecked by the insisl
ance of some of the reactionary
group to have the Governor take
charge of the work—something
which, by the way, the Governor
neither requested nor desired. It
was only the overgrown fawning
impulse that asserted itself, and
possibly the hope that some friends
might be appointed by the Gover
nor to take charge of the work and
receive the money appropriated.
One of the most shameless but
instructive of the fawning impulse
was made during the session of
1925. Several resolutions were then
introduced complimenting the
President of the United States upon
the wisdom he had displayed in se
lecting the present governor for the
office of chief executive of the Terri
tory. The Legislature divided ap
proximately fifty-fifty on the sub
ject. Those who favored the reso
lutions proclaimed openly that they
did so in order to show the new Gov
ernor who his friends were. In the
name of decency, what has personal
friendship to do with the duties of
;i legislator? What has it to do
with the duties of a governor?
Those who opposed the resolutions
did so because they considered the
friendship of the Governor a per
sonal and not a public affair, that a
legislator in his public activities
should not be guided by the person
al sentiment's or feelings of the
chief executive, but solely by his
own judgment of right or wrong,
that they would not assume that the
Governor would be swayed in his
discharge of public functions by his
personal feelings of friendship or
animosity towards any person, any
more than would they themselves
permit themselves to be so influenc
ed, and that the resolutions were,
therefore, a reflection upon the in
tegrity of, and not a compliment to.
the Governor. The exhibition by
the proponents of those resolutions
at that time of abject servility for
avowedly unholy ends was nauseat
ing. They insisted upon just smea>
ing themselves over the Governor,
and the only fault I find with th >
latter in connection with the matter
is that he did not then and there pin
the boot to the slimy things.
The perniciousness of this condi
tion has been so obvious for many
years that every session since 1919
earnest and thoughtful members of
the Legislature have been trying to
relieve the lawmakers, as far as
possible from any pressure of fed
eral officials Even Governor, Riggs at
the close of his term announced in a
iongthy interview published in the
Juneau “Empire’ ’that the present
system was impractical and indefen
sible and that the governor’s office
would be more effective if relieved
of territorial functions. I predict
the present Governor will come to
the same conclusion before long.
While I have carefully refrain
ed from taking any part in the con
troversy over this subject, I have
become fully persuaded that, if the
Legislature in the future is going
to bo more responsive to the wish
and the will of the public, the sev
ora nee between the territorial treas
ury and the federal officials must be
made absolute and complete. This
severance, as I have already pointed
out. was designed by Congress when
the Organic Act was passed, but in
violation of the law the Legislature
has insisted upon endowing federal
officials with complete control of
the territorial treasury and power
of appointing all officers, function
aries and servants of the Territory.
The Attorney General is the only
territorial officer who has been
made answerable to the public, but
his hands have been tied by recent
legislation so thoroughly that he
cannot act except with the permis
sion of federal officials. His posi
tion has become an anomaly. He
has neither been given leg’s to stand
on nor wings to fly with; “he is
neither bird nor beast, but only a
crawling thing.”
In passing T might say that there
has never been a legislative session
but that the reactionary bloc has
aimed at doing away with the elec
tion of the Attorney General and en
deavored to make that office appoin
tive and on attach of the Governor’s
(Continued On Page 5)