and effort of many influential packers would be
directed toward that end, if they were given
the slightest reason to believe that they were
recognized by Alaskans as of importance to the
economic life of the Territory and entitled to
fair treatment.
“In a chance discussion of this matter yester
day with a well-known packer, he said, ‘Well I
suppose this decision (wherein the Supreme
Court of the United States ruled that a graduated
tax imposed by the Territory was within the
power of Alaska) will be accepted in Alaska
as permission to tax us out of existence.”*
This editorial expression of the Seattle Weekly
and quotation from the “well-known” cannery
man is the basest libel on the Alaska people.
It is without the slighest foundation of fact to
stand on. We challenge that paper or any one
else to cite a single example where capital of
any kind has been treated unfairly.
' The trouble with the cannerymen, or indeed
iWith capital in Alaska generally, is this; they
want the tight to say just how they shall be
*treMtcd. In every instance, this means that they
shall not 1t>e taxed at all or nearly so. It
% as also rpeant that they are to be permitted
to operate regardless of the future. In salmon,
it has meant that these cannery superintendents
have personally sent their fishermen into the
creeks in utter disregard of the law; in other
cases, these same cannerymen have purchased
unlawfully caught fish knowing' them to be so
caught; in other cases these cannerymen have
directed their trapmen to fish the traps when
it was unlawful so to do; in other cases, these
cannerymen have constructed traps in unlawful
places or in such a way that the traps could be
operated unlawfully; in other cases, these same
“well-known” cannerymen have knowingly canned
putrid fish. And because we Alaskans protest
against these conditions, we are branded as being
“anti-capital” and other such names.
There is no doubt in our minds but that
territorial control of our fisheries is the only
right solution of the fish question. It is also
the ultimate solution. It will come because it
is right.
But territorial control also means that the
fish traps will be abolished. It will be because
it must be. It is recognized by every practical
fisherman as the sole and direct cause of the
depletion ^ of ourr salmon streams. That is what
the “well-known” canneryman means when he
says„ that Alaska :s not disposed to treat the
cannerymen fairly. If the people of Alaska
would promise to stand for the fish trap and
to support the movement to give the trap owners
fitle to their trap-sites, the cannerymen would
at once say that we are “reasonable” and “show
the right attitude” toward capital.
This cannot be done. The fishing industry
must be governed for the benefit of the future
generations of Alaska’s citizens. Two things
must be considered; the continuation of the
cannery system, this being essential to turn our
fisheries into money; then the preservation of
our fish AND our population. This last cannot
be considered separately.
CAN KETCHIKAN BECOME A JOBBING
CENTER
Behind all the propaganda to “patronize the
home merchant’’ is the desire to build up .our
own communities. This is right. But in order
to do that, we must have the statesman-like co
operation of the local merchant himself. He
must make it possible for citizens of the town
and nearby towns to trade with him, or those
who advocate “trading at home” will convict
themselves of being mere tools of the rich.
We have in mind how not to conduct business
if we would make a jobbing center of Ketchikan.
The same rule is true for other places like
Juneau, Anchorage and Fairbanks.
A friend of ours sent in an order for a spool
of Crochet Thread to a Ketchikan merchant.
In due course, the thread came, an imported
make, priced at fifty cents. The neighbors then
laughed at the purchaser and said: “Why we
never buy at Ketchikan. When we have to send
away, we send to Sears, Roebuck. You can
get three spools of thread as good as that from
them for twenty-seven cents.”
Conditions in Ketchikan cannot be right when
staple articles of food cost from five to ten
cents more per unit here than in Juneau, 250
miles further from the buying point
WHAT IS MASS VOTING
In an editorial of the Juneau paper, the
Indians are informed that it will appeal to the
white people to vote as white people until such
time as the Indian learns to vote as a unit and
not as a race.
When will that time come, and how will we
know that it has comePSuppose for instance in
the next election the Indians should all vote
for the candidates of the Juneau Empire, what
then? Will the Empire tell the world that
Alaska^s going to the dogs? Or will the Empire
immediately join the Republican party and oppose
candidates supported by Indians?
The public will not be fooled. It is not the
mass voting of the Indians that the Empire
objects to. It is merely because the mass is not
on the side of the Empire,