THE ARGUMENT AGAINST SUTHERLAND.
Let us examine candidly, the
argument against the reelection
of Dan Sutherland to Congress,
If Sutherland is not the proper
person to send to Congress, or if
he has outlived his usefulness,
the people of Alaska should send
some one else.
The charges are
First; that he has done nothing
for Alaska.
Second; that he has not been
able to secure jobs for his friends;
Third; that he has antagonized
the Administration;
Fourth; tiha|k *he is fighjting
AGAINST the appointment of cer
tain men to federal jobs in Alaska
rather than for somebody else.
Students of Alaskan history
know that ever since Alaska has
been permitted to send a Delegate
to Congress tre Delegate has jus
tified his pres-ence there by PRE
VENTING certain legislation rather
than by procuring it- This
was largely true of James Wicker
sham, by which we do not mean
to belittle his procuring of the
Alaska Railroad.
As we see it the greatest service
which James Wickersham perform
ed for Alaska was his BLOCKING
of the infamous ALEXANDER
FISH BILL? when single handed,
he talked the bill to death. By
this bill the Wilson administration
proposed to give title to the trap
sites so much desired by the or
ganized cannerymen. If this bill
passed, then the cannerymen would
have been glad to let Alaska do
anything else that remained to be
done. TITLE TO TRAPSITES IS
THE GOAL OF CANNERY POL
ITICS TODAY just as it has always
been since the act of 1906 was
passed.
When Sutherland went to Con
gress, the fight became intense for
the reason that cannerymen began
to admit generally that the fish
of Alaska were being depleted al
tho for many years they had
denied this fact and were supported
in their denial by the Bureau of
Fisheries.
The Alaska Packers first went
to Secretary Wallace and asked
that he create a “bird reserve’'
in western Alaska, w'hidh would
become automatically a FISH re
serve. The Packers were not really
after a bird reserve, and so Secre
tary Wallace refused their request.
They then went to Herbert
Hoover. He created the FISH
RESERVES of Western {Alaska
(as a mere “temporary Device”
so he said) and fixed it so that
fishermen with a few exceptions
had to go to Cannerymen for per
mits to fish for Hoover allotted
the fishing permits to the canner
ies. Furthermore, Ho'over created
the fishing areas in the EXACT
language of the resolutions adopt
ed Iby the Packers in their San
Francisco meeting.
This act on the part of Mr.
Hoover was unlawful as he well
knew, for while he answered his
critics by saying- that the reserves
were “mere temporary” devices,
yet in December of 1924 Mr. Hoov
er had a bill introduced in Con
gress LEGALIZING his .reserve
orders (see HR 2714).
In the fight that followed^ it
was DAN SUTHERLAND who ’had
Congress to provide in the law that
“No exclusive or several right of
fishery shall be granted, permitted,
or recognized in the Territorial
waters of Alaska by the Secretary
of Commerce.” Thus Congress des
troyed the hope of the Alaska Pack
ers Association, and so Herbert
Hoover’s “temporary devices” came
to an end by an Act of Congress.
This is the fight for which Her
bert Hoover and his friends are
now punasbing Dan /Sutherland.
Is there any fisherman who would
wis'h Sutherlamd tq have acted
differently and thus secured the
support of Herbert Hoover?
Are we now to join in the howl
to defeat rim ,when he has incurred
the enmity of powerful interests
BECAUSE he was faithful to the
people of Alaska, and did not take
his orders from San Francisco
in EXACT language as Hoover
did?
“He has not gotten jobs for us.”
The second charge against Suth
erland is the result of his attitude
on the first charge- In the fight
for federal appointments, Herbert
Hoover has indicated whom his
friend care- The one which in
dicates Mr. Hoover’s friends most
clearly and about which no one
can argue is that of Frank Foster
of Cordova. Foster denies that he
was “kicked” out of the Valdez
Hotel after having been seen com
ing from the bed room of: a well
known woman at three o’clock in
the morning. Fos/ter’-s 'Objection
(he is Judge Ritchie’s appointee
to the position of United States
Attorney) is merely technical, that
is all. He was not literally “kick
ed” out, but he HAD TO GET
OUT all right because of the cir
cumstances above related.
The point about the administra
tion’s support of Foster is not so
much his immorality, but the fact
that Foster’s appointment was de
sired by the cannery interests; that
Judge Ritchie conceded that appoint
ment to them; that Congressman A.
M. Free did likewise; and to the ad
ministration at Washington, re
presented by Herbert Hoover,morals
do not cut any figure where jobs
are needed by friends of friends
As for the appointment of Judge
Thomas M. Reed and United States
Attorney Shoup, while they are men
of goodcharacter as the term is com
monly understood, their claim to of
fice is due to the fact that the poli
tical faction identified with the can
nery and mining interests want
them in office. Judge Reed has com
mitted acts for which we believe
he is genuinely sorry, but he was
warned, and being of full legal age,
he must take the full responsibility
for certain immoral conditions
which have resulted therefrom.
We now speak of his appointment
of V- A. Paine as United States
Commissioner at Juneau, and Ed
ward G. Morrissey as Commissioner
to Ketchikan. These Commission
ers, either by their active support
of good character as the term is com
ance^ have encouraged lawlessness
How can anyone fail to lay the re
sponsibility at the door of the
MAN who appointed them?
As a matter of logic, is it a valid
argument against Sutherland that
he has failed to get jobs for his
friends. What does it sound like?
’’Sutherland has not been able to