WILLIAM L. PAUL WRITES
FROM WASHINGTON, D. C.
THE LITERACY TEST
From all that I can learn,
the Literacy Test for Alaska
voters is having “tough sled
ding” in the House, with every
indication of having a “tough
er” time in the Senate.
The reasons for this are
numerous.
The fact that it was endors
ed by the Committee on Ter
ritories means very little. The
liberal and fairminded men of
all parties soon learned the
real purpose of the bill and
the consequence of its passage.
Chairman Curry has given it
his hearty support and “can
not understand” why it cannot
pass by “unanimous consent-”
If there were some way by
which the Fish Trust could
introduce a bill without seem
ing to back it, this bill would
have a chance. But the can
nery men are political ostriches.
Many Congressmen have re
ceived letters from managers
of “The great Atlantic and Pa
cific Tea Company,” of which
there are about 1200, urging
the passage of this bill. The
reaction comes quickly when
they learn that this is but an
other name for the “A. & P
Products Corporation,” with a
half dozen canneries in Alaska.
Another obstacle to the pas
sage of the bill comes from the
friends of prohibition who
have learned that the so-called
illiterate vote in Alaska is
really the backbone of the en
forcement crowd.
The main weakness of the
bill is the character and past
history of the bunch advocat
ing it. The two names that
appeared most prominently are
J. J. Connors, Mayor of Jun
eau and John W. Troy, editor
of the Empire.
The lovers of decent govern
ment here cannot reconcile
Troy’s personal habits with his
desire for “good government.”
And there is something in that.
Suppose for instance all the
natives now called illiterate
and so “dangerous” to Alaska
should get drunk on every oc
casion, fall down off their
chairs in prominent hotels,
would they then be entitled to
be called “Civilized” and re
spectable members of society?
These matters all seem like
small matters, and yet this
Congress is in earnest on the
prohibition question, and as
long as the Natives of Alaska
vote “en mass’ and “en bloc”
for prohibition and other enforce
ment laws, Tony Dimond, Tom
Donohue, John Troy and J-J.
Connors and the Fish Trust
will fail.
Washington, D. C., June 5.
—The world of politics was
astounded to learn that I’res
ident Cooliage had withdrawn
the names of Ritchie, Reed and
Shoup from the consideration
of the Senate.
The reason was this: that
the Senate would otherwise
have been forced, by virtue of
the “hearings,” to reject these
names.
It would be a great insult
to the Senate to sa ythat they
were forced to accept the views
of Dan Sutherland, as his
enemies charge; and would al
so concede Sutherland a pow
er of inuuence heretofore deni
ed him.
1 he truth is simply this and
is so accepted here in Wash
ington: some of the charges
made against these men by
John W. Frame last year were
proven sufficiently to make it
impossible to confirm i their
nominations.
Before discussing the matter
further, it is also accepted
here that nothing further will
be done concerning nomina
tions until next winter
If the controlled press of
Alaska had told “all the news
that is fit to print,” as they
advertise, Alaskans would have
been informed last March that
the names would be rejected.
Several reasons are assigned
for the action of the judicial
committee in refusing confir
mation.
-4s to Judge Ritchie, the con
trolling reason seems to have
been his wet attitude toward
the 18th amendment. The
strongest proof of this was
his appointment of Frank
Foster to the office of U. S.
District Attorney. In the hear
ing on this matter, Ritchie ad
mitted that he knew of several
“escapades” of Foster, especial
ly the one that occurred in
that certain Valdez Hotel
when the management had to
ask him to “please leave.”
In this hearing Ritchie said
that “there is nobody in the
Third Division (excepting him
self) fit or qualified for the
office of Judge.” A base sland
er by a colossal egotist!
Reed And Shoup
The cases of Reed and Shoup
must be linked together, al
though the committee seemed
to regard each case quite dif
ferently. There were two ser
ious counts against each man
arising from the same circum
stances although the part each
played was different
Arthur G. Shoup was con
demned with Reed for conspir
acy with Governor Bone and
George Sexton to violate a law
of Alaska, to-wit the election
of John W. Frame as Nation
al Committeeman. While each
man tried to justify his action,
the Senators were not convinc
ed that laws could be set aside,
especially by those charged
with their enforcement. Sen
ators really regard and re
spect the will of the people
when expressed. This is the
very basis of their own claim
to recognition.
Shoup made a very poor
showing in the matter of the
appointment of Edward G.
Morrissey to be United States
Commissioner at Ketchikan.
His defense was that “the best
citizens of Ketchikan had en
dorsed Morrissey.” On cross
examination by Sutherland,
Shoup admitted that J. R
Heckman, one of those includ
ed by him as of the “better
element” had a large amount
of profitable business selling
expensive petticoats and other
unmentionables t o “painted
ladies.”
He admitted that J. R Beegle
wrote a lot of fire insurance
for them and thru the Miners
and Merchants Bank acted as
collection agent for owners of
houses on the creek. And so
it went with everyone of the
“better element” who had en
dorsed Morrissey. In each the
great mass of records gathered