THE ALASKA FISHERMAN
Published the 15 of each month at Ketchikan, Alaska
WILLIAM L. PAUL, ATTORNEY FOR THE
ALASKA NATIVE BROTHERHOOD
Entered as second * class matter at the Post Office at
KETCHIKAN, ALASKA
gUDSCRPTlON PRICE $2.00 FOR TWELVE ISSUES
GUli PLATFORM;
ALASKA FOR ALASKANS.
FULL TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT.
ABOLISHMENT OF ALL TRAPS.
COMPETENT CHRISTIAN CITIZENSHIP.
SUPPOSE WE CORRECTED THIS
SITUATION
The enemies of Dan Sutherland are now say
ing this: “The fact that none of the nominations
for public office in Alaska as made by Dan
Sutherland have been endorsed by the President
of the United States shows that Sutherland
has no influence or standing in Washington.”
Then these enemies argue: ‘‘We should send
a man to Washington who can get the plums
for his friends.”
One such newspaper then goes on to say that
the federal nominations so far are fine, but the
names of Jack McBride for Customs Collector
and Frank H. Foster as District Attorney for
the Third Division should also be sent in to
the Senate at once. Alaskans know why Foster
was kicked out of the Valdez hotel.
Suppose the first paragraph of this article
were true, does it follow that the people of
Alaska should change their Delegate in Wash
ington?
The people of Alaska will certainly say “No.”
It is well known that Sutherland has antag^
ftnized the Cannery over-lords of Alaska. With
the aid of Herbert Hoover, these cannery men
parcelled out the fisheries of Alaska exactly
as if it were their private property. In this
they had the co-operation of Herbert Hoover.
Indeed, it could not have been done without
his support.
In the fight against this un-American principle
I)an Sutherland proved that the fish reserves
of 1921 were created in the exact language and
boundaries as adopted at the meeting of the
Alaska Packers Association held in San Fran
cisco. Sutherland argued from this that Mr.
Hoover had allowed himself to become the tool
of the Alaska packers.
The next move in the fight was the fight to
get Congress to pass a law which would really
save our fisheries. Mr. Hoover, who had always
said that the fish reserves created by him were
mere “temporary devices” made necessary until
Congress should pass an adequate law, had
submitted to the Committee of Congress a
proposed bill which MERELY LEGALIZED
THE RESERVES which he said were “temporary
devices.” This it seemed to us showed either
his ignorance or his lack of sincerity. Certainly
it showed that he was willing to adopt the
policies advocated not by the people of Alaska,
but by the packers,
Mr. Hoover’s bill was rejected by Congress,
and in spite of his opposition, the bill proposed
by Dan Sutherland was adopted. The meat of
the bill was this: Congress now by law prohibits
the very thing that Mr. Hoover had been doing,
thus, “There shall be no exclusive or several
right of fishery granted therein, nor shall any
citizen of the United States be denied the right
to take, tc-, fish in any area of the waters of
Alaska where fishing is permitted.”
In order for Sutherland to get the suppdrt
of the Hoover administration, he would have
to adopt Mr. Hoover’s program. From the
Alaskan viewpoint, this is impossible; for Mr.
Hoover’s program was nothing less than the
creation of private fishing preserves for the
big packers. This means strangulation.
The Hoover policies also mean that Suther
land would have to support Mr. Hoover’s friends
in Alaska. But these friends are the creatures
of the big packers who have adopted policies
that mean the death of the little fellow whether
fisherman or packer. These friends are, with
the packers themselves, the advocates of the de
structive and destroying fish trap. In many
cases, too, these friends are the tools of the
corrupt political machine that exists in Alaska,
and the friends or protectors of the bootlegger.
Not all are such, but so many of them are that
the classification is true.
What would we gain if Sutherland so conduct
ed himself as to have Mr. Hoover and others
endorse his candidates for public patronage?
It would simply mean that Sutherland must
align himself with the enemies of the common
folk of Alaska.
The people of Alaska will show in the next
primary election that Sutherland has their
endorsement. We would rather have Suther
land in office as a Delegate without patronage
than to have the kind of a delegate that would
sell out to the big packers and thus get their
friends in office. The issues are clear; Alaska
for Alaskans working for the principle that as
much of the value of her enormous resources
shall stay in Alaska as is possible. In contrast.