who can and DOES put WHITE PEOPLE
LN JAIL—and no one can be so OE
JSIOXIOUS as an Indian with a little
authority,—and in fact an Indian govern
ment. ’ ’
We too share Harry Morton Sheeny’s
righteous indignation at that half-breed
Mayor altho we never knew before that
William Hanlon came of such lowly or
igin. Harry’s editorial, however, was
written before Hanlon declared for Mar
quam and assured everybody in Juneau
that all of Sitka would follow his lead and
thus became a FALSE PPOPHET. If
Harry had waited awhile, he could have
copied columns of praise for this same
“half-breed mayor” from the leading
daily paper of Juneau.
Alia men again, have we white folk
got to submit to Harry’s second charge,
towit, that Sitka has an Indian Chief of
Police who can and HOES put us white
folk in jail0? We must protest that this
is too much. It is “obnoxious” again us
ing Mr. Sheeney Cohan’s words.
It is time to put an end to this tyranny.
The causes that impelled Thomas Jeffer
son to write the immortal Declaration of
Independence are as nothing compared
to these wrongs suffered by the people
of Sitka and now revealed by the former
superintendent of the Pioneer’s Home.
“O sole mio!” Are we obliged to endure
such tyranny. Perhaps! Then we will
end this article with words from Harry’s
editorial, our own words fall short, “And
the white people have to grin and bear it!”
“Take The Fisheries Out of Politics”
“The big point for the people of Alaska
to realize is that the fish production of
the waters of the Territory is not a local
but a national question in that the United
States and the whole world is interested
in keeping up the supply. ’’Ketchikan
Chronicle.
That is where . the Chronicle is wrong.
The Bureau of Fisheries believes in this
principle and therefore our fisheries are
now being run for the benefit of outside
interests. The fish are being conserved
by placing 100% of the burden on the
residents of Alaska. Their rights cannot
be considered because Alaska’s fisheries
is not a local but a national question, as
Henry O’Malley says, and now the Chron
icle says it is a world question.
The fisheries of Alaska is a local ques
tion. They must be saved primarily for
Alaskans, people who live here, work
here, and invest here. This great resource
must be harnessed to build up Alaska.
It must be used so that people, popula
tion can stay in Alaska, so that towns can
be built, industry and merchants sup
ported.
There is something wrong when Mr.
(lias. Burchardt can say, as he did, that
during 1926, the canneries which he rep
resent spent $500,000 in Alaska (where
all his operations are carried on, cover
ing labor and raw material) while over
$1,500,000 was spent in Seattle.
Is it this condition that the Chronicle
and Henry O’Malley wish to perpetuate?
Won’t it be funny if the Hearst interests
do build a pulp plant near Juneau and
then have to read the Juneau Empire in
the light of its denunciation of the same
Hearst papers for “slandering Alaska'?”
Emery Valentine
The limits to which some men went in
the recent campaign are past understand
ing. At the public meeting in Ketchikan,
Alaska, on the Friday preceeding the
general election, the Hon. James Wicker
sham exhibited the original “Valentine
affidavit” which was transmitted to Mr.
Wickersham with a letter from Mr. Val
entine, the letter also being exhibited to
the public, and containing a reiteration of
the charges in the affidavit.
“Hearst May Become Alaska
Manufacturer”
Juneau seems to be glad to announce
that Mr. Hearst may become an Alaska
manufacturer of pulp. It would be rath
er funny now if that bunch at Juneau
woud have to eat their words of denun
ciation recently directly against Mr.
Hearst. Rather we expect that they will
for the reason that the motive of the
Juneau “herders” is “for revenue only.”