THE REPEAL OF THE
ALASKA BONE DRY LAW
By H. H. ROSS
(Representative Fourth Division)
The Bill to repeal the Alaska Bone
Dry Law that was introduced by N.
0. Hardy, the Democratic member
from the First Division, produced
one of the most amusing incidents
of the Session.
It was amusing for the presump
tion that the Legislature could di
rently repeal an Act of Congress
made after the creation of the Leg
islature and for the b iasco that the
public hearing produced in the at
tempt to secure its passage.
Hearings were held by the Com
mittee of the Whole House on two
days at which several witnesses ap
peared. First Mr. Faulkner who ad
mitted he was a lawyer, who thought
the lawr should be repealed because
at preset.t, he said, a man might be
arrested for bootlegging, could not
tell under which law he might be
prosecuted. This made it too haid
on the bootlegger. As for the
power of the Legislature to iepeu.1
the law, altho there w-as some doubt,
still he thought they could, but he
had not studied the question. Any
way the law ought to be repealed
so Doctors would prescribe liquor
in case of sickness.
The next witness, Mr. Tom Mar
quam, also a lawyer, had about the
same story as to the power of the
Legislature to repeal the lawT and
was even more emphatic in his be
lief that it did not give a fail
shake to the bootlegger, also he
knew7 a case where they had looked
all over town for some good liquor
for a man who was dying.
The next witness was Mr. Emery
Valentine who wanted the law re
pealed but from his evidence it did
not appear that it was necessary to
repeal it in order to get plenty of
liquor for people in case of sick
ness.
Dr. Borland appeared and told
how he had given Prohibition Direc
tor A. G. Means some whiskey when
he was very low with pneumonia
and “he recovered and is now a
well man.” The manner in which
the Doctor said this has left some
doubt in the minds of the hearers
as to his meaning. They do not
know whether he meant to convey
the impression that it was the whis
key that saved his fife or to ex
press astonishment at his recovery.
When questioned by Representative
Ross as to the therapeutic (healing)
value of alcohol, he admitted that
Doctors had had a questionnaire sent
out and that only half of them had
claimed that it had any value as a
medicine, but he was not so inter
ested in having the law repealed for
the purpose of getting liquor for
medicinal use but in order to be
able to get pure alcohol “as a pre
servative.” He admitted that there
was a good deal of doubt among
Doctors as to whether alcohol had
any value as a medicine.
On the second day of the hearing
Mr. Shoup, the District Attorney for
the First Division, appeared and said
that no Court would recognize the
power of the Legislature to repeal
the law.
Attorney General John Kustgard
also said that the Legislature had
no power to repeal the law, and re
viewing the evidence given the day
before, said that in reference to the
answers of Dr. Borland as to the
value of alcohol as a medicine, that
for several years alcohol was r.ot
on the list as having value as a
medicine.
Dr. De Vighne had been asked to
appear by Mr. Hardy and had been
in the rear end of the room, but
when lie heard Attorney General
Kustgard speaking about the ques
tions that had been asked Dr. Bor
land as to the value of alcohol as
a medicine, he quietly left the hall,
so when Mr. Hardy, Director Gen
eral of the Booze Forces, asked for
him a few minutes late, he had
gone.
On the final vote the Bill was de
feated by a vote of ten to six, as
follows: Yeas—Grier, Hardy, Moody,
Murray, Sheldon and Wilcox. Nays
—Elliot, Ferguson, Grant, Jensen,
Nylen, Paul, Ross, Sherman, Sund
quist and Watson.
In spite of the fact that the Leg
islature had been informed that they
had no power to repeal that Act of
Congress, Mr. Hardy then introduced
a Bill to submit the question to the
voters at the next election. This
Bill was defeated by a vote of
eight to eight as follows: Yeas—
Elliot, Grier, Hardy, Moody, Murray,
Sheldon, Watson and Wilcox. Nays—
Ferguson, Grant, Jensen, Nylen,
Paul, Ross, Sherman and Sundquist.
The introduction of these Bills
was for no other purpose than
to make an issue at the next elec
tion, an issue on a question over
which we have no control, and thus
sidetrack the questions which are
really the issues.
The real issue at all elections is
taxation. The question being wheth
er or not the people are going to
allow the non-resident exploiters to
export millions from our resources
without making an adequate return
to the Territory in the form of taxes.
H. H. ROSS,
Representative Fourth Division.
WHEN THE SHOE PINCHES
When a “small” man raves and
rants against what he calls the in
justice of the courts, he is promptly
termed a “Bolshevik” by the “re
spectable” people of society of whom
the Packers form a large part.
But please note how little re
spect these same “respectable peo
ple” have for the courts when the
shoe pinches them. The following
is an editorial from the Pacific Fish
erman, June issue, entitled “A Legal
Lynching.”
“The May issue of Fishing Gazette
in a leading article under the above
title calls attention to the incarcera
tion (imprisonment) of fourteen Bos
ton wholesale fishmerchants in a
Massachusetts prison, in company
with the riff-raff (fishermen) of
humanity, for terms of five to ten
months at hard labor. The article
says, in part, “the ‘crime’ for which
they were sentenced is one that is
subject to different interpretations
in different states. Elsewhere, the
acts which brought these men into
conflict with the law would be re
garded as legitimate business prac
tice.
“The men indicted and sentenced
by a Massachusetts court in the so
WILLIAM L. PAUL
Lawyer
No. 35 Dock Street
Ketchikan — Alaska
ENTERPRISE MACHINE WORKS, Inc.
Ketchikan, Alaska
Machinists, Blacksmiths, Welders
Phone 199
J. L. PECK & COMPANY
FUNERAL DIRECTORS AND EMBALMERS
Ketchikan Phone Green 171 Alaska