Was Henry O’Malley aware of this fact? Did
he purposely put the line at 58-40 to protect the
Eldred Rock Trap?
This trap belongs to the Alaska Consolidated
Canneries, alias the Bank of California. The
nearest cannery was at Tee Harbor. It burned
last August 3rd. The watchman at the Eldred
Trap was withdrawn but the trap was not
closed. When the storms came that destroyed
the Eldred Rock trap, fishermen in that dis
trict estimate that at least 150,00 salmon were
destroyed with the trap; about 900,000 pounds
of salmon.
The annual pack of the Haines Packing Co.,
owned by small local capital, is 10,000 cases, and
requires about 150,000 salmon to fill the entire
pack. This 1 cannery has been closed by that
order of O’Malley’s which closes fishing at 58-40
for that cannery is supplied entirely by native
Indian fishermen. All this in the interest of
conservation (of the Eldred Rock Trap). The
waste of this one trap was enough to put up the
entire pack of the small cannery at Haines.
“It Appears Somebody Did Lie”
So begins an editorial in the Ketchikan Alaska
Chronicle in their issue of April 28, 1925.
Across the entire front page, the headline
reads, “GRAND JURY REFUTES SUTHER
LAND,” and in subheading says, “Statements
Made by Sutherland, Paul and Hunt” were
“Solely for Political and Spiteful Purposes”;
“Officials Held To Be Working Faithfully for
Law Enforcement”.
We print the Grand Jury report elsewhere.
Let us go on with the editorial, “It appears
somebody did lie.”
“The grand jury of the United States district
court, which completed its labors yesterday,
brought in a report in which it emphatically
stated Ketchikan is not a town of lawlessness
and corruption as stated by Delegate Dan Suth
erland in a communication which he published
in the Congressional Record, and as reiterated
by Senator Forest J. Hunt and Representative
William L. Paul in the halls of the legislature
at Juneau.
“Instructed by Judge T. M. Reed, presiding
over the court, to investigate, to see if the laws
were or are being flagrantly violated, the grand
jury went about its work with a will and at the
conclusion found that there was utterly and ab
solutely no foundation for the charges of the
Alaska representative in the national congress.
Further, the grand jury even went so far as to
conclude that these statements by Delegate
Sutherland and Messrs. Hunt and Paul were
‘solely for political and spiteful purposes.’
“For that statement the grand jury is to be
commended. They hit the nail on the head and
they had the courage to place the blame where
the blame belonged.”
And so the editorial ended.
Two days after the Grand Jury had made its
report and after this editorial was published in
the Ketchikan and Juneau papers, the Ketchikan
Alaska Chronicle printed the following news
item—not on the first page, or with large scare
lines, but on the last page in rather smaller type,
and in the Juneau Empire, not at all: “TWO
INJURED IN SHOOTING HERE TODAY.”
Also, “Mrs. Tiny Walker and Mrs. Ruth Bland
Shot by Man in Early Morning.”
“Hamilton told the police this morning that
the two women had robbed him of two $20 gold
pieces while guests at a farewell party given
on board his house boat last evening.”
The Ketchikan Chronicle was thoughtful
enough to add:
“Police officers assert that Hamilton was per
fectly sober with no evidence of having indulged
in any intoxicating beverage.”
We should have thought that the whitewash
just applied by the Grand Jury would have been
enough to prove that no intoxicating liquor
could have been imbibed by Mr. Hamilton.
The editorial “It appears somebody did lie”
was printed on April 28. The shooting occurred
on and was reported April 30.
We agree with the title of the editorial, for
in truth “IT APPEARS SOMEBODY DID LIE.”
The Juneau Empire is pressing for a full Terri
torial form of government. If reports are to be
credited it would appear that part of the last Ter
ritorial government wras full all the time.—An
chorage Alaskan.
Seattle cannot help thinking that Alaska exists
for Seattle and all government should shape
itself for the edification of Seattle.
The problem of building a greater Alaska is
very simple. “Alaska for Alaskans” is the
slogan.
One Hundred Per Cent Americans
“With malice toward none and charity for all.”
Those who claim to be 100% Americans have
given themselves a hard job, for the ideals of
the perfect citizen are as high as the perfect
Christian. We claim for ourselves “freedom of
religion.” Are we ready to grant the same lib
erty to others? We claim that this is a country
of “law and order.” Are we advocating that
we take the law “into our own hands?”