you state that you will make it
your aim to work to establish the
friendliest relations with the
Federal agencies in Alaska.
That has always been the poli
cy of others also; it is only when
they refuse to reason, or listen
to our petitions that we have
had to carry our claims and pe
titions to the National Capital.
You state as an established law
that Alaska has the legislative
authority to put “further re
strictions upon the fisheries” in
cluding that of abolishing traps.
That is where you may be said
to be ahead of your opponent
Mr. Wickersham whose platform
is also clear enough—Home rule
for Fisheries. According to what
you say further: that you will do
nothing more than what is in
your platform, this opens an in
teresting side of your platform.
You claim that Alaska has the
authority to abolish traps, yet
you are proposing to see that
“traps and trap owners are pro
tected in such ownership
against all interference except
by the Government,” and you
propose to lease traps for fixed
periods. We understand that
this is now the case—as to leas
ing.
So far as we have seen and
heard about traps, it has been
my impression that Alaska has
no power to abolish traps now.
but that if they are able to get
Home Rule for Fisheries the peo
ple of the Territory may then
deal with it as they see fit after
a thorough and careful investi
gation.
Those that do know better—
and we shall ask them if the
right you refer to has been con
ferred by the decision you refer
to and whether they were aware
of that authority—may perhaps
be excused for merely asking for
and making it their platform to
get Home Rule for fisheries first.
After proclaiming that Alaska
has the authority to abolish
traps then you would discourage
such a course of action as would
make the abolishment of traps a
possibility and work for the con
tinuation of the traps by the
method proposed in yin- nlat
form. We are be'ng driven to
poverty by traps. Dan Suther
land in his speech showed how
the traps had greatly accelerat
ed the “Declining Population”
as he described in his speech.
Other industries are not opened
yet in Alaska and the traps es
pecially have greatly reduced
the population that Alaska might
have had, but who are still being
driven out not because the “busi
ness” was too much interfered
with by private individuals or
the legislature or anybody else,
but because of the traps. Cana
da with less fish production is
said to support a greater popu
lation without traps than does
Alaska which produces more fish
and where traps are still permit
ted. You are further said to try
to justify traps because the fish
are fresh as they come from the
traps.
Your record as to the school
question while Attorney General
are naturally those of the strict
opinions as regards the law
in the questions. Your letter
answered the legal aspect of my
second question, but not that of
the last phrase which I consider
the more important. Fortun
ately the United States makes
no exceptions in law, but as De
legate there will be many things,
offices, etc., which will come thru
your office and concerning which
you have not spoken.
To allay any questions of our
sincerity, let me assure you and
any others who may be interest
ed, that when any reference is
made to any officials, the A. N. B.
insists upon the very best pos
sible and that no exceptions are
made for its membership, but
will insist that all measure up to
the standard.
We, as with many Alaskans,
ask for Home Rule and naturally
resent anyone who would dis
courage that policy wherever it
is at all feasible. So with your
plank regarding that of fish
traps.
You ask that I be "as assidu
ous in circulating my answers
to your questions as you have
been in circulating the stories
you refer to.” I cannot do your
letter sufficient justice if I try to
write it, and include it in my
own letters, so I have sent one
copy to the ALASKAN for pub
lication and another to William
I'aul whom you charge with cer
tain things and which it is not
my place to answer.
As to your plank on water
front I do not exactly see just
wliat you mean. Clearly, the
United States has full and ex
clusive authority over the navig
ab’e waters of the United States
and that it has operated thru
the War Department. It seems
to be understood that their right
to navigable waters is well es
tablished even in the States.
Paul has given you the benefit
of the doubt in many stories
circulated about you. You have
presumed that he is to blame for
every story referring to you.
Why? He supported you, even
after suspecting that you had
betrayed the confidence of your
colleagues.
Your friends are making a lot
of noise about Wickersham and
Paul “betraying the trust of the
people of Alaska” when they
tried to have a bill introduced
in Congress very similar to that
in your platform. In fact, it
seems to have been copied from
that particular bill. That seems
to have been the only method at
the time when the trap interests
were even more powerful than
they are now. There was no one
to be “stirring against industrial
institutions for the sake of get
Continued on page 15