GEORGE W. EDMONDS
Fish Expert From Philadelphia
While reading the last Fish Hear
ing held in Washington last Janu
ary and February, 1 ran across the
following statement by the Hon.
George W. Edmonds, representative
from Philadelphia, which deserves to
be printed. Page 16; Mr. Edmonds:
“I have been in Alaska and I know
something about the fisheries there,
and I have studied them from the
Bureau of Fisheries reports, and I
have been able to keep in touch with
them, and I think that a general
authorization, backed up by a good
department, and I think we have a
good department today; will proba
bly fill the bill as well as trying
to go to work and specifically detail
the size of the nets, the length of
the nets—if the mouth of the stream
is 3 miles, then the net can be GOO
feet long; if it is 4 miles, then it
can be 400 feet long, etc. I do not
se how you can do it.”
If our fisheries question were not
so serious, we could laugh at the
supreme ignorance and self-assur
ance of this know-it-all who learned
all there was to learn by one visit
to Alaska on an excursion boat in
the year 190G; and then studied
“Bureau of Fisheries reports.”
The incident this latest exhibition
of Mr. Edmond’s “know1 edge” re
minds me of was this: I went to
his office and we began to talk
about gear, traps, gill-nets, pound
nets, stakenets, driftnets, floating
traps, pile tiaps. He got all tangled
up as 1 began to talk rapidly about
the different gear, going quickly
from one kind to the other. And
since he was trying to defend the
trap system, he thought he would
change the subject by attacking the
seine, so he said:
‘ Why, the seines are worse than
the traps. When I was in Alaska,
the seines were so thick in the bay,
that our steamer couid not get tnru
them. Finally we had to simply
plow our way thru cutting the
seines.”
1 said, “Why, Mr. Edmonds, I
don’t know a single place where
you can even see the fishing grounds
from a steamer travelling thru
southeastern Alaska. When were
you in Alaska?”
“In 1906.”
“Now where was this place that
you saw the seines?” I inquired.
He answered, “At Port Essing
ton.”
Ha! Ha!
Port Essington is in British Col
umbia, and what he saw were gill
nets, not seines—quite different.
But a little mistake like that did not
phase him, for when I called him,
he said, “Oh well, the conditions in
Alaska are just the same.”
LAWYER AS WITNESS
Attorney McCord Begins Testi
mony With “I Do Not
Know”
In the last healing* on fisheries,
E. S. McCord opposed the provision
of the Sutherland bill that would
abolish traps in all narrow bays and
channels and said:
“Now, I do not know what is the
percentage of traps that would be
eliminated absolutely by the act it
self, and not left to the discretion
of the Secretary of Commerce, or
the Bureau of Fisheries, but I had
it investigated to some extent. I
had it investigated two years ago
when the bill was contemplated and
my recollection is that it was 75 per
cent. 1 would like to ask Mr. O’Mal
ley if he has any records in his of
fice, or whether he knows how many
of these traps would oe eliminated
by this provision?”
(Note: you would think now that
O’lVialiey thru his Bureau of Fish
eries having dozens and dozens of
employees here in Alaska could give
an answer to this question which
has been before Congress for two
years).
Mr. O’Malley. We made a tenta
tive (whatever that means)) exami
nation of it a year ago; and as I
recall it now, it looked to us that
it would eliminate between 50 and
GO per cent of the traps.
Mr. Sutherland. You own 23 traps
in western Alaska. Mr. Shields, your
superintendent, said that under that
bill G would be eliminated—25 pei
cent—and you own a majority of
traps in western Alaska.
Mr. McCord. I tlo Not know about
that.
(Note: It takes a donkey engine
to get the truth out of these big
cannery men or their lawyers).
THE PRIMARY ELECTION
LAW
There is nothing- which has done
more to clear up the political at
mosphere of Alaska and give the
voters a fair chance than the direct
primary.
During- the days of Shackleford
and other political bosses the nom
inations for office were dictated by
one man, or at most by two or three
men. It made little difference for
whom people voted at the caucus. The
proxies for the convention were
bought and sold like fish on the
dock.
Shackleford always knew where
and how to smite the rock that gave
forth the sweet water at election
time. Before every convention he
managed to find $15,000 or $20,000
for political purposes, and when the
convention opened he had the prox
ies in the hands of himself and his
lieutenants, no matter for whom the
delegates had been instructed.
In 1916 the Republicans of Ket
chikan elected seven delegates for
the Seward convention. All were in
structed for Wicker sham, because at
that time it was only a question be
tween Wickersham or some man
named by Shackleford, and the lat
ter was in bad odor in Ketchikan.
The proxies were given to John
Davis with the idea that he would go
to Seward and vote the Ketchikan
proxies. He did not get to Seward,
but he turned the proxies over to
Faulkner.
Petersburg the same summer elect
ed three delegates instructed for
Wickersham. The proxies were duly
executed and turned over to a man
who agreed to give them to a certain
friend of Wickersham. But they
never reached him. They turned up
in the pockets of Mr. Faulkner.
Seventy-five Wickersham proxies
were sent out from Fairbanks with
one Lloyd. He was met at Chitina
by a Shackleford agent and was
walked into the Shackleford camp.
And so it went, year after year,
until the liberal element in the legis
lature put over the primary law. It
disarmed the boss.
The next year Shackleford left
the country. We still have Tom Don
hooe, but he has no party. He has
only an “organization.”
The entire Democratic ticket is
bent on abolishing the primary law
and driving the country back into the
corrupt practices of the Shackleford
days.
The entire standpat ticket has ex
actly the same platform though they
do not dare to announce it in public.
It is evident that the battle for
a free ticket must be fought at the
primary election. If the Republican
standpatters’ should carry their tick
et through it is immaterial who is
elected for the legislature in the
fall.
The contest would at that time be
between men representing identical
ideas—political corruption and boss
ism.
Let the people be on guard.
-
Candy, Cigars, Ice Cream
Fruit, Soft Drinks
BEN SIMPSON
Metlakatla, Alaska
v
—
For Supplies of
Merchandise and Lumber
Consult
METLAKATLA
COMMERCIAL CO.
V*-/