the San Francisco Chronicle, and associates and th6
iZellerbachs for the lease of timber tracts to enable
them to enter the pulp and paper business in Alaska."
—Juneau Empire.
As usual the Juneau Empire only tells a part of
the story- Mr. Olts did not and does not oppose pulp
development. In his Wrangell speech (part of which
was reported by the Wrangell Sentinel), Mr. Olts
warned the people that while every encouragement
should be given pulp development, yet the resources
of this country must not be given away without full
knowledge of the contract. He drew out of his experi
ence in pulp towns that the people therein have no lib
erties, the townsites being pulp owned. He spoke of
the cheap labor that is always used by these companies
the usual rate being $2.40 per day and said that only
the lowest class of foreigners would or could work
for that wage.
FORESTRY BUREAU DISCRIMINATION
We cull attention to tlie discrimination of the Forest
ry Department, ileal Alaska loggers have to pay $1.50
to $2.00 per thousand for logs. But the great pulp
companies are given a price of ONLY SIXTY CENTS.
Is it fair?
As usual the Bureau favors the non-resident.
And yet those of us who protest this discrimina
tion are branded “nolshevik3” often by the resident
mill-men themselves.
FAVORITISM
“I a in opposed to the lickspittle favoritism of the
Forestry Department which has refused to build a
much needed commercial road from Craig-Klawock to
Kasaan Bay, and yet built a fine road for JUNEAU
DUCK-HUNTERS on their private reserve between
Hamilton and Big Johns Bays, in Rocky Pass.
“Let us have commercial roads to the Hyder
Mines/’
WILLIAM L. PAUL
BARTLEY HOWARD
The general expression heard about Howard ift
“Poor Bartley!"
He was over-whelmingly defeated in his own
home Division while he was spending his time elec
tioneering in the First Division.
He had a hard time explaining why he voted
against the Controller Bill. He should have consider
ed the wishes of the People when he cast his vote
against the Home Rule Bill.
In his speech against the Home Rule Bill, he said,
“I would have favored the bill if the Governor had
been in the Board of Control, and if the Attorney Gen
eral were out of it.”
Then when the bill came to him in that very form,
he refused to allow the Senate to even consider it.
We only wish JOHN W. DUNN were answering to
ithe people for his vote against the same bill. When
he voted against the bill, he said, ‘‘I would be glad to
go before the people on that issue.”
TOM GAFFNEY, the Irishman who voted against,
the Home Rule Bill R next.
THOMAS M. GAFFNEY
Alaska’s Sir Edward Carson, with apologies to
Thomas Moore, the Irish poet
Tom made the principal speech against the Home
Rule Bill in the last Eegislature).
‘The Harp that once through labor’s halls.
The cause of labor plead,
Is now as deaf to labor’3 call,
As though that cause were dead.
So sleep the pride of former days,
So glory’s thrill is O'er,
And hearts that once heat high for praise,
Now feel that pul3e no more.”
“The Harp who love of freedom boast3
Has wandered far away,
And joined the plutocratic hosts,
To get whate’re he may.
No more along Nome’s golden beach,
Will labor’s woes be told.
Nor Federation doctrine preach,
its standards to uphold.”
“The Harp who once sang loud for Strong,
Now wears the brand of Troy,
Now sings the plutocratic song.
But not in notes of joy,
Farewell and once again farewell,
The Harp of halcyon days,
The bureaucratic choru3 swell,
With autocratic lays.”
Editor’s Note:—Sir Edward Carson was one of
the strongest opponents of Home Rule for Ireland.
He represented in parliament what is known in Eng
land as a “rotten borough” or a very small constituency
usually controlled by some lord or squire, quite simi
lar to Lomen’s control of Nome. It is reasonable
to believe that Gaffney’s change of heart on the home
rule question wa3 brought about by the Lomen influence
to which he owed his election to the leglalftturo.