are trying to do anyway and to
wonder what would there be left
if Alaskans literally followed out his
ideas.
Listen to what he says: “I can
see nothing for the poor man ex
cept perhaps, as an employee of big
capital,” a sort of peon is really
what the worthy Congressman has
in mind.
He wants Alaskans to encourage
Capital, by which he means that
Capital should have its own way,
lay down its own conditions.
“Thus far on our trip along the
Alaskan coast, we have found the
American Packers Association and
the Pacific American Fisheries (Mr,
Free was having a free ride on the
latter’s palatial steamer), living up
to the law in work and in spirit, but
other canneries were violating,” etc.
It might have been different if Mr.
Free had been viewing Alaska from
the deck of the other fellows’ craft.
Ah, but oyster soup, mock turtle, at
tentive servants, yes, even Mr. Free
must feel quite different to the dis
penser of hot soups, coffee, buns
and nice clean beds uninhabited with
bed-bugs.
Mr. Free went on with his speech
and revealed how he would run the
fisheries if he had had his own
way; “If it has been entirely lawful,
it would have been much better if
the fisheries department were given
the absolute right to say how many
canneries there should be and the
kind of gear permitted them,” and
he should have added that the kind
dispenses of free soups, coffee
and nuts to Mr. Free would not
have suffered in the least. These
large companies that try to obey the
law (while Mr. Free is on board)
understand very well that they will
be repaid in some way and some
time for giving free trips to Con
gressmen and Fish Commissioners.
Of course, we do not mean that Mr.
Free could be influenced, but the
P. A. F. thought it was worth tak
ing a chance.
“I have been utterly surprised at
the intelligence and high type of
people I have met in Alaska and yet
they have never come to Washing
ton to express their opinion on Alas
ka affairs. This has been left for
Paul and his type to do.”
Mr. Free was speaking to the rep
resentative of “high type” of Alas
kans when he uttered the foregoing
words. We are listing below a com
plete list of these “intelligent” folk
who have won the admiration of the
worthy Congressman.
George C. Hazlet, Guggenheim
candidate for Governor, former can
nery man and member of both par
ties; E. F. Medley, attorney for
canneries; W. E. Brown, steamship
agent; H. I. O’Neill, cannery sup
plies; W. W. Council, cannery sur
[>con, leading Democrat; Frank Fos
ter, cannery and steamship attorney;
rl om Donohoe, cannery attorney and
Democratic national committeeman;
Chas. Foysten, hardware and can
nery supplies; K. G. Robinson, can
nery insurance agent; Otto Elfstrom,
cannery owner; Fred Long, drug
supplies; H. G. Steel, editor press
subsidized by canners; Joe White,
cannery man; Thos. S. Scott, cannery
owner; J. Laurie, merchant; William
Liebe, cannery butcher; John Muller,
cannery stockholder; John Coin, su
perintendent Carlysle Packing Co.;
Chas. Wright, cannerman; S. A.
Baker, Agent Bureau of Fisheries;
Fred and Alex Sigurdson, canner
men; Gus Neilson, eanneryman; Lt.
Tattersal, U. S. N.; C. Cederholm,
eanneryman; J. W. Parks, cannery
man; E. B. Hanley, eanneryman; P.
W. Lee, eanneryman; R. E. Davis,
P. A. F. superintendent; L. Utness,
eanneryman; William Gilbert, can
nery superintendent; William Furs
man, Bureau of Fisheries; Herben
White, eanneryman; Gerald Free, and
Floyd Free, sons of the Congress
man; besides these “Intelligent and
high type” people, there were pres
ent a grocerman, a furrier, the U. S.
Commissioner, a dentist, a painter
and a minister.
That is the trouble with Congress
men who junket to Alaska as free
guests of large cannery interests
who are vitally interested in color
ing the views of such men. Out of
the 31) men who listened to the wis
dom of Mr. Free, 30 were owners
or employees of cannery men or
their attorneys, and no doubt they
applauded the sentiment that the
“better element” should be the ones
to go to Washington and not to
leave it to “Paul and his kind of
cheap Indian lawyers.” (By way
of parenthesis we might say that
since Mr. Free was admitted to the
bar of California in 1903, he has
made his living in the practice of
law less than one year.)
Mr. Free deplores the amount of
money which the United States is
spending in Alaska. Well, so long
as Alaska is managed at Washing
ton, 4,000 miles away, just so long
will our Government be expensive.
Give us Home Rule, Mr. Free, and
we will relieve you from all future
worry. Do for us what the United
States did for California and let us
run our own business. This we as
sure you, will not be done from the
deck of the Pacific American Fish
eries boat.
A woman tried to commit suicide
by drinking a large bottle of iodine.
She said there was a stain on her
character. That’s neither here nor
there, but she certainly has a stain
on her interior now.—Wrangell Sen
tinel.
BEFORE “COURTEOUS”
Wc understand fully that it is
hopeless to try and overtake the
deliberate lies and misrepresenta
tions which have been published by
Congressman A. M. Free, whose
chief purpose in coming to Alaska
is becoming apparent to every one
who reads. Mr. Free is of that
type of Congressman who are in
Congress to serve a particular big
interest. He made this statement at
Anchorage: “The argument put up
at Washington by Paul (meaning
William L.) and others from Alaska
that canneries are not wanted in
the Territory is a big mistake in
my judgment as well as many other
members of Congress. The business
of attacking industry never develops
a country.”
That statement is a deliberate lie.
No one in Alaska, much less
William L. Paul and his friends,
have ever made the statement that
the canneries are not wanted in this
Territory. The whole fight being
conducted by Dan Sutherland and his
iollowers, among whom is numbered
Mr. Paul, is for a system which will
guarantee that there will be fish
lor canneries to pack a hundred
years from now. The whole trouble
is this: Ihose in charge of canneries
would kill the goose that lays the
golden egg by canning every fish
that swims in the water. That is
the basis of the fight against the
trap system. Traps catch all the
fish. Therefore we say traps must
be abolished.
LES MAJESTE
The cannerymen have it in their
power to conserve their own busi
ness, and to see that the fishery
laws are obeyed. A few are co
operating with the enforcement offi
cers, but others are not, which leads
the Ketchikan Chronicle to make the
following- statement as descriptive of
its attitude, following- the closed sea
son beginning August 18th and 22d:
“It is a notorious fact that some
of the owners of traps and seines
eonti i ued to fish afterwards, that
the canneries took these fish and
operated their plants. And in doing
so, the canneries knew full well
what they were doing. * * *
“These people in the fisheries may
be willing to show their greed. They
may be willing to disregard the fu
ture of the industry but the rank
and file of the population, depending
upon the fisheries for their perma
nent support, are not going to sit
by in silence and permit such a con
dition.”