shall we accept the candidate favorable to the
big packers who advocate the policy that no
further regulations should be placed on our
fisheries and thus permit 75 per cent of our
wealth in fisheries (speaking now of that part
of the industry that can be handled by the local
population, towit, the catching of the fish) to
be garnered by foreign interests?
TYRANTS OF ALASKA
This is the proper name for each of the 33
Bureaus that today govern Alaska. A pcculia:
thing about the government of Alaska by Bureaus
is this; the American people, from the Presi
dent down to the humblest citizen, seem to
think that this condition is all right, and as
for the heads of the many Bureaus— each such
head believes sincerely that he was foreordained
for his own work. However good his intention
might have been when such head arrived here,
he soon becomes intolerant of criticism, and he
believes himself the repository of all of the
wisdom of the ages.
None of the Bureaus in Alaska is more
arrogant than the Forestry Department. Their
power is absolute, and very often is exercised
to gratify the over-lord’s desire for personal
spite. There is a rising tide of sentiment in
Alaska against the present heads of the Forestry
Department. To offset this, the Department
is making a big noise about getting pulp mills
to come to Alaska. This activity is either born
of pretense or ignorance of the simplest rules
of business.
The reason the pulp mills are being built in
Canada and elsewhere except Alaska is because
production is cheaper. The paper men know
conditions better than anybody else in the world,
not excepting the Bureau of the Forestry
Department in Alaska, and they will not come
to Alaska until the market conditions both as to
supply and demand compel them to come If
they come any sooner, it will be because of
some premium which the paper people will
have from the government
The paper trust is well satisfied with the
present regulations, so they say, but you don’t
see them establishing their plants in Alaska, do
you? They are satisfied because they are not
themselves ready to come to Alaska having
better access to Canada, and because the present
regulations are keeping out the smaller concerns.
When the Paper Trust gets ready to come to
Alaska, there will be no difficulty about the
regulations— they will b$ changed to suit
LET US BE HONEST
The KetcHikan Commercial Club political
machine is backing the Ketchikan Chronicle
because Edward G. Morrissey is their efficient
tool. Business men need not get sore because
we call the Commercial Club a political machine.
That is what it is. It is being run by a closed
corporation of J. C. Barber, H. C. Strong, J. R.
Heckman, H. C. Nunan. He is their tool and
efficient mouthpiece.
l ne other day, the tUftronicle retused to
accept an advertisement from a little woman,
for more than five years a citizen of Ketchikan,
once in better circumstances and now struggling
to make an honest living and just two jumps
ahead of the wolf, because she represented what
Morrissey called “a mail order house.”
The lady then went to the “First City News.”
The advertisement was accepted and printed.
Then Ed Morrissey took the printed advertise
ment around and showed it to different business
men and said in substance: “This ad. was
offered to me, but I refused it because it is
against the policy of my paper to help mail
order houses* But the ‘First City News’ printed
it. Look, here it is. (Shows the paper) Do
you want to support a paper like that?”
It was only a few days later that the self
same Edward G. Morrissey was sent to Seattle,
fare paid by the Ketchikan Commercial Club
to fight for an increased tax on halibut sold in
Prince Rupert, and while there, the self-same
Edward G. Morrissey bought himself a complete
outfit, tailor made, slick, spick and span, from
soup to nuts.
Let us be honest about it, and end this
hypocrisy.
“JUST AS A MATTER OF EDUCATION”
This is the title of an editorial of the
Democratic Daily press of Juneau. In that
editorial we were told that “If the bill (intro
duced by Mr. Sulzer 8 years ago in Congress)
had been enacted into a law the Legislature
of 1923 could have adopted fisheries legislation
and it could have been amended in 1925.”
Then we are reminded that Dan Sutherland and
“those that train with him” fought against the
Sulzer bill.
This editorial tries to make citizens believe
that Sutherland and his friends were totally
wrong in so doing.
“Just as a matter of education” if the Sulzei?
fish bill had been adopted, the Cannery Trust
would have been satisfied to let Alaska handle
her own fishery matters. Why? Because there
wniW have been nothing left to regulate,