A SURE LIVING
-x
“ I am going to fish and get sockeye salmon
regardless of the laws. If I am arrested, the gov
ernment can put me in jail and during that time
it will have to see to it that my family is fed.”
Thus spoke a man who for the past several years
has been a decent, law-abiding citizen. Unable
now to earn a living, he will invite the Bureau o^
Fisheries to send him to jail in order that his
loved ones may eat.
Does this make you feel like being proud that
you are Alaskans and living in a land of plenty ?
-x
GOING BROKE
-X
Kake cannery, operated by Libby, McNeill &
Libby, has 120 men employed. Two of these men
were employed from Ketchikan and two from
Juneau. The company has put up 1,200 cases of
king salmon or approximately 500,000 pounds, and
Alaska’s share in the employment is four men.
The population of Kake is absolutely depend
ent upon the fisheries for their living. The four
general merchandise stores in Kake are entirely
dependent upon the people of Kake for their
trade. Said one of the merchants recently: “Our
people are going broke. They have no money. We
are unable to make any money on our goods. We
are going broke with our customers. It is only a
matter of time when we will give all of our goods
away on credit or we must just close our doors.”
The people of Kake are not any different from
the several other native villages. These people
usually spend their money in Ketchikan, Wran
gell, Petersburg, Juneau and Sitka. They will not
have any money to spend this fall and winter. And
on top of that, those natives moving to the main
line towns will, become charges that the Red Cross
and others will have to look after.
TRADING A HOME
-X
The Juneau business men have adopted a
resolution in which they ask for the application of
ordinance governing peddlers in the capital city.
The business men do not want the competition
which the several peddlers give them. It takes
trade away from them and it is hurting their
business. The argument is set forth that these
non-resident peddlers do not pay taxes and there
fore do not help maintain city government.
There is not one single argument that the
business men bring up in opposition to the ped
dlers that the fishermen have not raised against
the salmon trap business. The business men of
Juneau have argued that it is right and proper
for the salmon trap to operate in Alaska so we
take their argument and apply it to the peddler
and point out that it is right and proper for any
nan to canvas from house to house soliciting
business. If the business men are consistent, they
will agree that contention is correct. If they would
be fair and not so selfish, viewing the problem
fairly, they will agree that the non-resident trap
owner is unfair competition and steps should be
taken to eliminate it.
But so long as they refuse to recognize the
unfairness of the trap system they cannot hops
for sympathy in their fight against the peddlers.
And question is raised whether any city has the
power to discriminate through taxation against
the itinerant peddler.
-x
Two-thirds of the Republican Appointees in
Juneau entered the Democratic primaries to nomi
nate Tony Dimond- to the victors belong the
spoils.
Attorney General Rustgard’s charges of con
spiracy to appoint him to a $10,000 a year salary
ctid not sit well with the President so now Lester
Gore of Ketchikan is Judge at Nome.
Protection of Fish in Alaska
H. E. 6483 Minority Views
By Hon. Sirovich and Hon. James Wickersham
The undersigned members of
the Committee on Merchant
Marine, Radio and Fisheries are
unable to approve the bill (H. R.
6483) to provide for the protec
tion of fish by requiring reports
on the location of canneries in
Alaska, and prohibiting certain"
salmon unlawfully caught from
being brought Into the United
-X
States, and for other purposes,
and report thereon with a re
commendation that it do not
pass.
On December 21, 1931, Mr.
Welch of California introduced
the following bill, which was re
ferred to the Committee on Mer
chant Marine, Radio and Fish
eries and ordered to be printed.
The body of the bill with amend
ments, reads as follows:
That the act entitled “An a:t
for the protection of the fisheries
of Alaska, and for other pur
poses,” approved June 0, 1924
(U. S. C., title 48, secs. 221—228),
is amended by adding at the end
thereof the following new sec