sian Czar’s government denied virtually all rights
to woman. The husband was legally the head of
the family, and his wife was obliged to follow him
wherever he might go. The peasant woman was
not entitled to a share of land in her own right.
Wife beatings were common. She was always un
der the unlimited authority of some one, either
her father or her husband.
Lenine, however, said: “We do not leave one
trace of the old tsarist laws which placed women
in a subordinate and humiliating position,” and
such was the fact.
One may comb the facts from end to end
without finding any evidence of discrimination be
tween the sexes, EXCEPT certain protective legis
lation for women employed in industry. The
peasant woman is now entitled to her own equal
share of land which she brings to her husband
when she is married and takes away when she is
divorced.
It remains for enlightened Alaska to deny wo -
men their share of property earned by the joint
efforts of the partnership called marriage. The
fact that the women might have cooked and ad
ministered to the tired body of the gold digging
man makes no difference. She does her part of
the agreement whether she goes with the man or
remains away with his consent.
THE THREE COMMISSIONERS
■-x->
Probably in the name of Democracy, President
Hoover has appointed three commissioners to re
commend steps for improving governmental af
fairs in Alaska.
It will be very surprising if these three repre
sentatives of Bureaucratic government recom
mended anything leading to true American gov
ernment “of the people, for the people, by the peo
ple.”
“It is harmony with that recent act of the De
partment of the Interior which transferred re
sponsibility for the reindeer herds of Alaska from
the Office of Bureau of Education, in Washing
ton. to that of the Governor of Alaska,” says the
announcement.
Perhaps it is. .But that move was a mistake
and not in the best interest of the Natives of Alas
ka, and in time will give forth the stench of
another “Teapot Dome” affair. The tendency of
this transfer is to “Lomenize” Alaska.
President Hoover would do well to make the
elected offices of the Territory (the Treasurer, the
Auditor, and the Commissione rof Education) his
advisors. This would be in line of Americanizing
the country, and their recommendations would
have the backing of the people of Alaska instead
of their distrust and suspicions.
An “Emergency” Does Exist — 4 Letter to
Stewart Edward White
Ketchikan, Alaska
May 24, 1930
Stewart Edward White,
Burlingame, Calif.
Dear Mr. White:
Let me refer to the subject of
the brown bear first, because my
interest in them can be disposed
of in a few words. You made the
statement that Alaska was cre
ating an open season on brown
bear. My exception is no quibble
as you suggest, because from
your several articles your praise
goes to the Bureaus in Washing
ton and your strictures go to
Alaska Every word that a writ
er with the public which you
have utters in praise of the Bu
reaus fastens their chains upon
us more tightly. I felt that you.
should have been consistent and
should have placed the blame
where it belong.s it' the credit
belongs in Washington, why not
the strictures? That was the
entire point of my letter. I am
not in touch with the brown
bear controversy and choose not
to be drawn into it.
It is quite different with the
fisheries.
I have supposed that your ar
ticles would not be printed unless
you praised Mr. Hoover and Mr.
O’Malley, the United States
Commissioner of Fisheries; and
so I was willing to overlook your
very evident ignorance of the
history of the fishery controver
sy. But if I am mistaken in
that supposition, and if you are
planning other articles on Alas
ka, you should either study that
phase of the question or else
somebody should educate you. I
will grant that on the basis of
my letter to the Post, our differ
ence seems to be a mere matter
of opinion in which of course we
are privileged to differ. But my
opinion, at least is founded on
years of experience in Alaska, an
intimate knowledge of the sub
ject matter, and an extended and
continuous contact with the Bu
reau of Fisheries antedating Mr.
O’Malley’s reign.
My conclusion that the Bureau
is fundamentally wrong in their
administration of our fisheries
is not mere opinion, but a con
clusion that is borne of facts and