but TWO were caught, Mr. O’Malley would appear
to be satisfied if ONE went into the creek. That
is his idea of 50 per cent escapement.
-x
EFFICIENCY AND CHEAPNESS
C. T. Gardner, who recently returned from Se
attle, told the Juneau Chamber of Commerce
that the canners who are now using fibre or pa
per boxes, are threatening the prosperity of Alas
ka lumber mills (and of course loggers of whom
Mr. Gardner is one). —Juneau Empire.
iteaucuon oi Losts
The reason of course for this contemplated
change is the reduction of costs. The idea is
growing among cannerymen that wood fibre box
es will save them a lot of money.
It Makes a Difference
Mr. Gardner, now a candidate for the Repub
lican nomination for the Senate, is a stronger de
fender of the fish trap system of catching fish, be
cause he says it is more efficient and CHEAPER.
Efficiency and cheapness being the basis of
his support of fish traps, why should Mr. Gardner
now become alarmed at the proposal of the can
neries to use fibre boxes.
IS HERRING USED FOR FERTILIZER
Formerly this was admitted. Then it was
denied. What does the following quotation from
The Pacific Fisherman mean?
A bill designed to promoit tne use oi tood
fisli for reduction purposes in Alaska was in
troduced in Congress by Dan Sutherland, de
legate from the Territory. * * * While herring
operators h^ve been watching the situation
closely, they feel inasmuch as congress de
clined to act on the previous measure, there
is little liklihood it would destroy the indus
try at this time. This is particularly true as
the present administration is dedicated to
“farm relief” and the Sutherland measure,
by cutting off an important source of fish
meal, would undoubtedly increase the cost of
that increasingly vital commodity to the
farmer.”
A Letter to Hon. Tom D. McKeown Replying
To His Speech Before Congress <
-x
Ketchikan, Alaska
Feb. 10, 1930
Hon. Tom D. McKeown,
Washington, D. C
Dear Mr. McKeown:
.. ALASKA .FISHERIES: Your
Address of Jan. 25, 1930.
. “I should not have taken part
in that matter except for the
fact of my high regard and per
sonal friendship for Mr. Henry
O’Malley who is the head of that
department, and my personal
knowledge of his conscientious
performance of his duty in Alas
ka.”
Your high regard for Mr.
O’Malley should rather lead you
to scrutinize his conduct in view
of the charges. My experience
in fidelity bonding business
v hen I had to do with the sure
ty of the honesty of thousands
of persons in all walks of life is
this—the greater the trust, the
greater the necessity for scru
tiny. It is the fellow in high of
fice having the absolute confi
dence of his Board of Directors
j.nd whose administration is not
audited that later wrecks the in
stitution. So much for your
first “reason.”
“My personal knowledge of
his conscientious performance
of his duty.”
As a matter of fact your
speech indicates that you do not
know ANYTHING about Mr.
O’Malley’s conscientious perfor
mance of his duty EXCEPT
what Mr. O’Malley tells you,
and considering his self-inter
est, you should apply the rules
of evidence in this regard as you
would in a court of law or equity
The Task of O’Malley
The job of administering the
fisheries of Alaska is not diffi
cult as you claim. It is like the
slave question—difficult only for
those who would compromise.
After Lincoln issued his procla
mation, the rest was easy. It is
like the difficulty of standing
an egg on end—easy when you
know how. It is like the Gordi
an knot, easy for the right per
son. The length of the coast
line as you suggest does not
make the job harder if you
start with the right principle.
Justice
There is such a thing as
iustice.
You as a man of influence and
one who has expressed himself
erroneously, owe it to the 5,000
natives of Southeast Alaska to
take the time to inform your
self and if our FACTS are strong
enough, you should have the
courage to expose Mr. O’Malley
in spite of your confessed per
sonal friendship. Isn’t that so?
' The Matter of Making the
Regulations
Mr. O’Malley makes the regu