Government Ownership and the Alaska Railroad.
By Arthur G. Thompson, in The Anchorage Times
--V
It has often been said that
“government ownership is a
factor involved in the considei
ation of the Alaska railroad
question by Congress. It is ar
gued that the group of senators
and congressmen who are op
posed to the government en
gaging in business in compe •
i n with private enterpii' -.
are opposed to the Alaska rail
road in principle, and must,
logically be expected to be un
favorable to its continued oper
ation by the government.
Tile question of government
ownership was debated earn
estly in the last session of Con
gress upon the consideration of
the legislation proposed for
“Muscle Shoals.” This $135,000,
000 war-time project on the
Tennessee River in Alabama,
built by the government during
the war to furnish power for
making munitions and nitrate
for fertilizer, has been a major
problem before Congress for
the past ten years. Henry Ford
cnce made an effort to buy it,
and other private interests
have sought to acquire it. At
the last session of Congress
passed a bill providing for the
leasing of the nitrate plant and
the sale of the surplus power
to private interests by the Gov
ernment. The bill was vetoed
by the President, and those op
posed tc government ownership
were able to prevent its pass
age over the President’s veto.
The position of the administra
tion on this question was clearly
set forth in the President’s ve
to message: “I am firmly oppos
ed to the government entering
into any business the major pur
pose of which is comnetition
with our citizens.,” said the
President.
Conceding for pur present
purpose that this statement is
politically and economically
sound, does it apply to the Alas
ka Railroad? What is the sit
uation? The government is the
. wner of 98 per cent of the
land and nearly all of the re
sources which the railroad was
built to develop. It owns t:u.
ccal, the oil, the timber, the
water power and most of the
vast deposits of mineral for
-which Alaska is famous. It as
sum.es jurisdiction over fish and
under takes to supervise the
game.
I fprivate enterprise will not
build railroads in Alaska to de
velop the government’s proper
ty, to make these resources
available, who will say that the
government was not justified in
doing so?
Has the government “entered
into business the major purpose
cf which is competition with
our citizens? Can opponents
of government ownership point
to any thriving business in Alas
ka which has had to meet the
competition of the railroad?
It is true that steamers at one
time, discharged freight and
passengers at Anchorage, but I
doubt if the steamship compan
ies would answer that they weie
driven out by the railroad com
petition.
The opponents cf government
ownership will find no enemies
in the the situation in Alaska
which will give them comfort,
nor can they find arguments
from the operation of the rail
road by the government which
can be used against the prin
ciple of government ownership.
If the government should
abandon its $70,000,000 invest
ment in Alaska, as suggested by
rep a tor Howell in his letter to
the Pioneers, it will not be done
as a concession to the oppon
ents of government ownership.
The proposition of the opera
tion of the railroad by the gov
ernment is really much simpler
than it would be if the ques
tion of “government ownership”
were involved. Clearly, it re
solves itself into an answer to
the question, “Is Alaska worth
the railroad?”
-x
ALASKAN REINDEER COUNCIL
X
In the February 29, 1924 is
sue of the Ketchikan Chronicle,
appeared a story under the cap
tion “Natives Will be Driven Out
Says Education Chief,” from
which we quote the opening
paragraph :
“In the opinion of William T.
Lopp, superintendent of the
Alaska Division Bureau of Edu •
cation, says the Cordova Time ,
the time is fast approaching
when the encroachment of pri
vate enterprises on the Seward
Peninsula will soon drive the
natives out of that district. The
reindeer situation in certain dis
tricts of the Seward Peninsula,
at the present time is very simi
ilar to the cattle days in the
states when controversies over
land arose. There are no land
or grazing laws in the north and
regardless of the natives’ prior
rights to the land they and
their herds are being slowly
crowded out.”
In the hearings held before
the Senate Committee, looking
into the reindeer situation, it
was stated by Senator Kendrick
that the testimony and state
ments made before the commit
tee showed that conditions in
the reindeer country was simi
lar to the early days of the cat
tle country. For thoee who do
not understand this statement,