ARGUMENT AGAINST SUTHER
LAND
(Continued from Page 3)
This is no longer true in the Un
ited States Senate, who heretofore
have taken the lead m throw
ing out of their party those Sen
ators who were elected by the
people as Republicans but yet who
did not “Rubber stamp” the opin
ions coming from the White House.
Young LaFollette is now a regular
Republican altho he occupies the
same position as did his famous
father.
If it is necessary to break with
President Coolidge in order to
keep faith - with the People of
Alaska, our Delegate must have
the courage to do so. Of course,
Sutherland has not had a break
with President Coolidge. But yet,
while we are not in the confidence
of either Sutherland or of Coolidge
everyone recognizes the fact that
Mr. Coolidge has been led into
supporting the Fish Trust and
their friends and in some cases
supporting men unfit morally to
hold any office under the govern
ment.
It seems to us that no Delegate
who is truly representing the bona
fide people of Alaska could support
the policies of Herbert Hoover.
As for Mr. Coolidge, the most
that can be said is that he has
been mislead by false information.
“Sutherland is not Fighting For
But Against”
The fourth charge is that Suther
land is fighting some one and not
for some one, and that he has
used different ones to further his
game.
This charge is really directed
against the SINCERITY of Suth
erland, an argument that will not
go .very far with those who have
tested him in private life. We
believe that the mistakes that
Sutherland has made are really
to his credit and to the discredit
of those who benefited by his
ntistakes. We ihear the charge
everywhere that “Sutherland; is
fighting against Judge Reed and
United States Attorney Shoup be
cause of a personal grudge, and
that he is not fighting for some
one else”.
What is the basis of Suther
land’s fight on Reed. Simply this,
that Judge Reed (and Shoup as
well) owes his present appoint
ment to Sutherland; but that when
Reed was once secure in his pres
ent office, he appointed Edward
G- Morrissey to the most important
office in his control notwithstanding
the fact that Reed knew that
Sutherland and Morrissey were bit
ter personal and political enemies.
To say nothing of the moral issues
involved, this act of Reed’s was
ungrateful and a direct slap at
his benefactor. Is not this the
reason friendships are always
broken? When you have broken
with your best friend, has it not
been because of a betrayal of
that friendship either by hurting
you directly or by helping some
one else to do the same thing?
Dan Sutherland had a right to
expect that Judge Reed would
not insult him in that manner.
People overlook what Judge Reed
has done because he has been a
capable judge on the bench. And
yet, the appointment of Morrissey
to the Commissionership at Ketchi
kan has had an influence on the
morals of the community which
brought about the protests by the
Women’s Council of Ketchikan
by abatement proceedings by As
sistant United States Attorney
Charles H. Miller in spite of the
hindrances thrown in his way by
Mr. Shoup and the displeasure
of Judge Reed and the protests
of the 100 Indian mothers in
Ketchikan. It is well known that
the appointment was made at the
request of the people who profit
from the immoral conditions that
have prevailed in Ketchikan and
which caused the Reverend Van
Marter to deliver a sermon entitled
“Shall the law be enforced or
shall the Assistant United States
Attorney be fired”.
The Assistant United States At
torney was fired, Van Marter is
now on the bandwagon of Morris
sey, and the immoral houses are
still in the same place, and the
United States Attorney doing noth
ing which of course has been his
policy from the beginning.
On' the whole^ we cannot see
that any of the charges against
Sutherland are controlling. He has
worked consistently for the best
interests of Alaskans. He has not
been perfect and has acted at
times like a human being. Perhaps
we would not have conducted our
selves just as he has done, but
there he is with all his good
and bad points. They cannot be
separated- Do Alaskans wish to
tell the United States Congress
that Sutherland has misrepresented
us in fighting against the policies
of Herbert Hoover, against Frank
Foster and Judge Ritchie?
Can any human being condemn
him for resenting the return which
Thomas M Reed and Arthur Shoup
have .given Sutherland as the re
sult of the offices which they got
thru his efforts?
This is a National Question
The real question before Alas
kans is this, HERBERT HOOVER or
DAN SUTHERLAND, which is
right? It will make no difference
to the people of the United States
if a man were to be elected on
Sutherland’s platform, so long as
Sutherland is a candidate, his de
feat will be taken to mean that
HOOVER is right and Sutherland
wrong, and thus the fight against
the tyranny imposed upon Alaska
by Cannery interests assisted by
Herbert Hoover w^ill receive a
set back.
Wrangell Bakery
Next to
Skating Rink
Wrangell, Alaska
FOREST J. HUNT
KODAKS, BOOK STORE AND NEWSSTAND
DEVELOPING AND PRINTING PROMPTLY AND
PROPERLY DONE
Mail orders carefully executed.