AN INTERVIEW WITH CARL
STRONG
Carl Strong is a character and
represents the most powerful inter
ests not only in Ketchikan but also
on the Pacific Coast. He is a man
of very strong dislikes and perhaps
very strong likes as well, but we
are only acquainted with his dis
likes. However, we do not want our
readers to think that in this fight
we have undertaken against the
policies he advocates, we have any
thing against the man personally.
He represents a system, and if the
day ever comes when he becomes a
convert to the “better way,” we
will not be the last to commend
him.
Heretofore we attacked his incon
sistency in that he appeared on his
own accord before the Committee
of Congress and opposed the repeal
of section 27 of the Jones Act, which
prohibits a British vessel from car
rying’ freight from a Canadian port
to an Alaskan port if the freight
originated in American territory.
This discrimination applies only to
Alaska and as a consequence the
American town of Hyder has a
splendid weekly service by Cana
dian steamers which are not per
mitted to carry a pound of freight
from Seattle if it be destined to
the American side of the line. His
inconsistency lay in the fact that
altho he opposed the repeal of this
discrimination, yet he himself slipped
tens of thousands of cases of his
canned goods in the very channels
which he said should be prohibited.
The columns of this paper are
open to every one. Thinking that
Mr. Strong would like to put his
views before the citizens of Alaska
we approached him and invited him
to write an article promising to
print it as written. We were cut
off short with a “No, 1 won’t,” and
then followed a flood of abouse
wherein we learned just what we
are. “I am surprised, Paul, that a
man of your ability should so per
vert your intelligence that you seek
to tear down all that I have tried
to do. You could be a power in this
community and help build it up just
as I have done. Instead of that,
you and other politicians have made
a mark of me. That is all the
thanks I get. I worked hard. 1
came to this country a poor man.
1 labored and saved, and I have
built this community up to what it
is and I have never hurt anybody.
I had nothing when I came here,
but by work and saving I have suc
ceeded in building up this place. No,
sir. I won’t write an article foi
you.”
We then asked him, “But don’t
you think it would be the wise thing
for you to write an article and place
before the public these views in a
way that would do you credit? \z
is only by laying all the facts be
fore the public that we can get the
truth.”
“No,” he said, “I cannot under
stand how a man like you would de
liberately attack me and make state
ments that you must know are not
true.” 1 at once interjected, “No,
Mr. Strong. You can question my
judgment, or my knowledge of facts,
hut you cannot attack my honesty or
sincerity. And as evidence of my
desire to be fair, T again ask you to
submit in a single article your en
tire program.”
But again with the set of that
determined jaw of his, he said “No”
and passed on to view the incoming
of the vast fleet of halibut boats
that now come to his dock refuting
by their very coming in increasing
numbers his statement that fisher
men will not come to Ketchikan un
less an embargo was placed on
Prince Rupert. Mr. Strong’s plan
was to compel the halibut men and
other fishermen to come to Ketchi
kan by passing a law thru Congress
forbidding their selling fish in
Prince Rupert. We advocated a free
open and competitive market. Who
was right?
There is no difference in the end
which we seek to attain, to-wit, the
upbuilding of a bigger and greater
Ketchikan. But we maintain that
there is a difference in the purpose
for which citizens wish it. We wish
to attain it only if the greatest
measure of prosperity and wealth
is distributed among the men who
actually create the wealth, that is,
the men who fish and toil, facing
the uncertainties of storm and perils
of the deep. When that object is
attained, then, we say, let those
who hold real estate, middle men,
and others add to their wealth.
As the most necessary step in this
direction we insist that all traps
must be abolished, for by so doing
we will then distribute among the
real producers of wealth the re
wards of their labor. Also we wilt
then remove the greatest cause of
the depletion of our fisheries.
is it true tnat ivir. strong has
hurt nobody? His traps caught hun
dreds of thousands of salmon yearly.
He embodies and represents the
spirit of nearly all Ketchikan can
nervmen who continually plan to
BUY NO FISH FROM SEINERS.
These men would be the last to ad
mit driving our resident population
away, but they do this very thing
and also destroy our fishing streams
for fish cannot get past a trap that
is correctly placed.
It is reported that the Apex-El
Nido mine at Lisianiski Inlet on
Chichagof Island is producing about
$1,000 a day working on ore that
runs about $100 a ton.
HERRING
The so-called radical position on
the herring industry is well expressed
in the following letter from C. B.
Ferguson, of Craig, Alaska, to Gov
ernor Parks.
His Excellency,
George A. Parks,
Juneau, Alaska.
My Dear Governor:
I am afraid I did not make plain
to you in letter of August 1st, that
it is a disastrous waste to make any
herring- into fertilizer. The wanton
methods were only cited to show the
criminal incompetency, and utter in
difference of the trustees of our
fisheries of our interests, or the pre
servation of a national asset of
priceless value. In view of the fact
these herring are the natural feed
of our salmon from the time they
leave the creeks until their life is
completed, the stupidity and eco
nomic folly of allowing this prac
tice to continue, is only too apparent.
towards the close ot the last ses
sion of the Legislature, the crime
of making fertilizer of our herring
was discussed at some length in the
House, and there was practically
unanimous approval to pass a law
taxing fertilizer so made, $20 per
ton, or prohibitive, but it was found
probable that the predatory interests
would muster enough strength in the
Senate to defeat it, and failing that,
our “Conservative” Governor would
veto it. So the matter was dropped.
1 trust you will believe we are
not unduly prejudiced—without cause
—against the Bureau of Fisheries,
but intimate contact with their man
agement and policy for the past 25
pears warrants the general belief
they are hopeless. Unless we in
sist on a general re-organization of
the whole rotten, idiotic system, ele
mentary reasoning will show that
our fisheries, and our whole eco
nomic and social system is doomed.
You will lincl that not a single prac
tical constructive or protective idea,
or a single helpful act on their part
as trustees of our estate, has ever
eminated from that source in all
that time. Quite the contrary. Their
record is a record of appalling
waste, progressive decrease, and be
trayal of trust. The mere fact that
a non-descript weakling, to put it
mildly, like O’Malley, ever respon
sive to the “Master’s” voice, exer
cises despotic powers over our live
lihood and destinies, is revolting to
every American instinct. We cannot
retain our self-respect, let alone our
future welfare, if we allow this sys
tem to continue.
You will find that traps have
been outlawed in about every prog
ressive state, on account of their
destructiveness to the fisheries. The
Bureau of Fisheries has for years
fought the use of traps on the