nor of Alaska in the fisheries reser
vation incident of 1923 is clearly
in point.
The one person who could have
obtained standing in court to ques
tion the validity of these reserva
tions orders as well as the legality
of. the obnoxious regulations pro
mulgated by the Secretary of Com
merce, was the Attorney General of
Alaska. But such action would
have been and was considered in
the nature of an. attack on the
Bureaus, and the bureaucrats who,
by legislative authority, controlled
the actions of the Attorney General,
would not ,of course, consent to
any action that questioned bureau
cratic power. An appeal was tak
en to the legislature and that body
instructed the Attorney General by
resolution to bring suit for in
junction against the Bureau in the
courts, but here the Bureau power
interposed to protect the Bureaus,
and the Governor vetoed the resolu
tion. Three members of the Senate
stood with Bureaucrats and against
the people of the Territory and sus
tained the Governor’s veto. Some
will say that the Attorney General
should have advisors in instituting
action for the people, but I would
say that such advisors should not
be members of the organizations
against which he would institute
suit. His advisors in all matters
affecting his office should be rep
resentatives of the people, respon
sible to the people and in •sympathy
with their cause. He should not be
controlled or dominated by Bureau
crats who are not responsible to the
people nor in sympathy with the
people in their efforts to develop
their ideals of free government. If
a board of control is to dictate the
actions of the Attorney General, let
it be a board selected by the voters
of the Territory and not by Bureaus
at Washington.
That Federal officials are deter
mined to suppress the efforts of the
Alaska people to recover some of
the ground they have lost by the
Indifference of legislators to the
necessity for a strong local admin
istration of government is evidenc
ed in tlieir endeavors to manipulate
legislative assemblies to that end.
The solicitous care for the new
members of the legislature, as well
as for, the old members who re
joice in doing their bidding, that
is always displayed by the Bureau
crats at Juneau does not blind the
eyes of those independent spirits
who feel that the cause of their
constituents is of paramount import
ance. They luiow just what is be
hind the scenes and are clearly a
ware that there is purpose in the
petting that weak members receive
from the Bureaucrats. They are
luring these men from the cause of
the neighbors who reposed confid
ence in them, for the sole purpose
of perpetuating Bureau control over
Territorial affairs, and unless the
people of Alaska awaken to the sit
uation and correct it, that control
will become a fixed policy even
tlKugli it may be at variance with
the fundamental principles of self
government.
I would say that one method for
correcting some of the abuses that
are practiced by Federal officials
would be to release the Attorney
General from the cords with which
past legislatures bound him and
give him an opportunity to take
flagrant violations of law by Federal
officials into court. Why should
legislators, or for that matter, why
should Federal officials fear the lib
eration of the Attorney General and
his entrance into courts in the in
terest of the people? Do these
legislators and Federal Officials
fear the courts? If the Attorney
Geneial loses his suits, it is to be
presumed that he was in error, but
on the other hand, if he wins his
suit.,, he must be right. Therefore,
what is the objection to having the
laws interpreted by the courts?
The answer is that autocratic pow
er does not want to yield to courts
or legislatures or even to the man
dates of Congress when yielding
might curtail this autocratic power.
The only step made by the last
legislature toward releasing the At
torney General from the hampering
conditions that surround him was
promptly rendered null and void by
Federal officials. The legislature
passed a measure to confer quo
warranto powers upon the Attor
ney General, but the veto power
made short shift of the law.
‘‘The writ of quo warranto is a writ
to try the right of one holding an
office and cannot be maintained ex
cept at the instance of the govern
ment. It is not a remedy to deter
mint dispute between private per
sons and a corporation, but it is to
determine by what right the cor
poration exercise wrongfully or il
legally a franchise.” We might well
inquire what objection can there be
to the exercise of this, power by the
Attorney General of Alaska when
no private individual can exercise
it? There is no reason except the
determination of Federal officials
that there shall be no curtailment
of the illegal powers, that they now
exercise. If they exercise no il
legal powers what harm can the At
torney General do them?
The sequence to the action of the
last legislative session and the ac
Lions of Federal officials in frustrat
ing the efforts made by some mem
hers to straighten out the Territorial
administration is seen in the action
taken in the court of the First
Division by private individuals to
rectify the situation after the legis
lature refused to do so. It is cer
tainly a commentary on the tangl
ed conditions in which the Federal
officials have placed the Territorial
administration with the acquiesence
of the legislature, to see Judge
Wickersham, at his own expense,
and without assistance, attempting
by process of law to correct abuses
of the Organic Act that have been
persisted in by our legislatures even
after he and the present and past
Attorneys General had advised re
peatedly as to the illegality of cer
tain acts and practices of the legis
Contlnued on Page 7