Tom Gatiney of Nome
Reactionary—Poses As Friend Of Labor
And As A Progressive
In a special number of the Nome
Nugget, Tom Gaffney’s picture ap
pears as “The Father of The Ah
Mail Subsidy Bill.” Since Tom >s
also running for election to th^
Territorial Senate as a Democrat,
we will now inquire into nls record
to see if he is either the said “Fath
er of the Air Mail” bill, the friend
of labor or even of decent gdyern
1X1 tJ III.
Tom Gaffney introduced a bill to
provide for air mail subsidy tu
Nome (House Bill No. 49).
It was withdrawn by the Ways
and Means Committee WITHOUT
protest from its “father”—a sort
of consent abortion—because of
malformation, if you can call n
that from the very poor structure
in which it was presented. The bill
nad almost two pages of “Where
as-s” and appeared to be a resolu
tion rather than a serious bill.
Gaffney was looking out for ser
vice from “Nome to some point on
the Alaska Railroad” whereas the
Committee bill provided for ser
vice between “Nome and Nenana
and touching at Candle, or Keewa
lik, Unalkleet, and Ruby.”
Jn Gaffney’s own account of his
“difficulties” in getting the bill
passed, he says, “It should be borne
in mind and I want to impress this
statement on the minds of your
readers; that the passage of the
airplane mail subsidy met with
stubborn determined opposition
After a long seige in the House
from which I despaired at times
that it would emerge, it finally
passed and was sent to the Sen
ate; only to be held In a commit
tee from which even the untiring
efforts of Senator Tom Jenson
seemed unable to pry it loose, al
though I must say his assistance
was of tremendous value."
The bill was introduced on April
7th, amended by substituting a
complete new bill because of the
crass ignorance of its "father."
The report speaks for itself and
w\] show just what the stubborn,
determined resistance" amounted
to.
Here is the report:
“We, your Committee on
Ways and Means, to whom was
referred House Bill No. 49.
have had the same under con
sideration, and we respectfully
teport the same back to the
House with the recommenda
tion that the Committee Sub
stitute herewith be adopted
tor the original and THAT IT
HO PASS.”
Signed by H. H. Ross. Chairman,
Concurred in by William L. Paul,
R. N. Sundquist, F. B. Johnston.
Ben Grier, Thos. S. Scott. Ralpn
Lomen, Charles Benjamin, Commit
tee.
This Is an UNANIMOUS report
t°r the Subsidy Bill, and comprises
ONE HALF the House of Repre
sentatives.
On April 25th, the bill passed by
a vote of 14-2.
On May 4th, the Bill passed the
Senate.
WAS THERE OPPOSITION?
The only opposition was on the
argument that SUBSIDIES ARb;
WRONG IN PRINCIPLE. And
when you come to think about it,
why should the Territory use the
people's tax-money for the special
benefit of a private business whetn
er an airplane service or a tele
pb°ne service?
It. is human nature for the Nome
people to rejoice that it is their
company that gets the money. Bui
argue it out. If it is right for one
a’rplane or transportation company
to get a subsidy, it is right for any
and all others to get subsidies.
Where will it end if not. in the bank
ruptcy of all? And what becomes
of our Organic Act which prohibits
a’ds for private companies?
Gaffney must have his subsid>
but when it came to subsidizing a
f°st steamship service from Juneau
to Prince Rupert. Gaffney voted
“NO.’' Why the discrimination?
Why a subsidy for Nome and noi
fur southeastern Alaska, especia1
lv when the money was to be taken
f om the Division’s share of the
road money?
GAFFNEY ON MINOR’S
DELINQUENCY
By his vote, Batchelor Tom Gaff
nev indicates that he doe3 not be
lieve that persons who contribute
to the delinquency of a minor child
should be punished.
Prior to 1927. IT WAS NOT A
CRTME to contribute to the delia
riuency of a minor child. To cure
th’s situation and to protect the chil
d en of Alaska. William L. Paul
introduced No. 78—a copy of the
Oregon act. On final passage, 1i
passed by a vote of 15-1, Gaffney
be:ng the only vote in opposition
Gaffney fchinks it is no crime ana
should not be made such to cop