horn in, arid if he did, it was special
ly provided that he was to get no
fee.
Many hearings were held on this
bill. The attack was made by cor
poration attorneys Faulkner and Rob
ertson of Juneau, representing the
big canneries and mines, supported
by their representatives in the legis
lature. The defense was made by
William L. Paul, with the great ad
vantage, we claim, on the side of the
defense for the reason the proposed
law was based on justice, its form
was approved by the American Fed
eration for Labor Legislation, it has
been tried out on the Alaska Rail
road, and is the law on the interstate
railroads. All statistics were sup
ported by official records compiled
by the United States Bureau for
Labor Statistics.
Nevertheless, the bill was defeated
bj the defection of Senator Ayers of
Nome. He proposed the extension
of the present rotten law to cover
all industries. Those who fought
the model bill supported the move
ment of Senator Ayers.
The two great defects still remain,
to wit; there is no guarantee that the
claimant will get his money and the
company is still allowed to comprom
ise and bargain for a release.
The law can be defeated by bank
ruptcy. In that case, the unfortunate
can have his choice, take nothing or
take a very small sum to settle. No
company is under supervision of the
Territory; the unfortunate are left
to bargain as best he or she can,
with the astute lawyers of the big
corporation; or compelled to insure.
To the business man who is afraid
of the premium rate we can say that
the rate for a good law will be less
than #at present for the reason that
the profit percent will be squeezed
out of the rate. Compulsory insur
ance will eliminate the cost of se
curing the business. These two fea
tures will amount to about thirty
per cent of the cost. Instead of
paying nearly eight per cent, the
mines will pay about five; the can
nery rate will remain nearly what it
is now with the probability of a re
duction.
The workmen of the Third Divi
sion should elect men pledged to
support this bill. Senator Chamber
lain is against such a bill. He should
be defeated. Foster, Murray, Price
and Staser are reactionaries posing
as progressives.
Promoting Bolshevism
Speaking English as “she is spoke”
in the United States and Alaska,
we shall say that Bolshevism is dan
gerous to our American institutions.
In that term many now include ideas
like “direct action,” “mob rule”,
and other ideas which are abhorrent.
The causes of Bolshevism are not
where the so-called “better class”
thinks they are. They are not in
the laboring classes, or in the “radi
cal” class. The causes are to be
found in the high places of the land,
among governors, judges, commercial
clubs, “leading citizens.”
Wrongs are committed and sus
tained because the “respectable class”
has the money to hire the slickest
lawyers. Injustice remains to grow
and fester the sore sports of the
earth. Each successful resistence of
a just claim adds to the unrest.
Sometimes when the injured person
takes the law into his own hand, the
“good and respectable citizen” pro
tests against such direct action and
says, “the courts are made to settle
disputes. Leave it to the Court. This
is a land ruled by law.”
Then when the appeal is taken to
the court, the upper class defends by
invoking the statute of limitations,
or the statute of Frauds, or points
out that the plaintiff has not com
plied with some technicality of the
law. In other words, the “respect
able” defendant seeks to win his case
without permitting the court to go
into the merits of the dispute. To
illustrate, a claim for compensation
for the death of a son killed in the
Alaska Juneau mine was made by a
mother. Defendant’s attorney, H. L.
Faulkner, demurred to the complaint
or. the ground that the claim was
not made within 120 days after the
accident and hence under the law, the
bereaved mother had no right of ac
tion.
The issue of “government by law
and not by man” was put up to Scott
C. Bone, Governor of Alaska by the
last legislature and the governor
promptly promoted the cause of Bol
shevism. Today, Herbert Hoover
governs Alaska through a system of
reserves the details of which were
made by the Alaska Packers Associa
tion at San Francisco. The protest
of Alaska’s representatives were all
without avail. Therefore the legisla
ture directed the Attorney General
to test the authority of Mr. Hoover
in the courts. The resolution passed
both the Senate and the House, but
when laid before Governor Bone, he
vetoed it on the ground that such a
test in the courts would be an in
sult to President Harding who was
about to visit Alaska.
Of all empty excuses, could you
find one more empty of reason or
more full of pretense? Can anyone
suppose tdat Mr. Harding would con
sider that any citizen, or any state
had insulted him by an appeal to the
courts of our land to settle a point
of law? Ye shades of John Mar
shall who firmly established the pres
tige of the United States Supreme
Court! How he must have turned
in his grave when he heard the gov
ernor of a great territory tell the
world that an appeal to the court
designed for the very purpose of
settling such disputes, would be an
insult to the President of the United
States. “A slap in the face” would
it be? Then we say “slap away.”
We do not agree that such an action
would be considered an insult, but
if we should have a President with
views so narrow, or a nature so ty
rannical, then we say it is time for
all citizens to invoke the power of
the courts and slap.
The true reason was concealed.
Governor Scott C. Bone has not
changed. He still serves the big in
terests that gave him his job. He
approves of the big fish reserves be
cause the fish trusts want the re
serve. When the issue of abolishing
the fish trap comes up, you will find
him again with the fish trust in
supporting the trap. He tells us that
the reserve is invoked to span the
time when a new law for our fisher
ies can be passed. But you can
not find that either Mr. Bone or
Mr. Hoover, nor any member of the
Bureau of Fisheries has ever pro
posed a fisheries law that was not
written and endorsed by the fish
trust.
The matter of fish control, or of
a fair fisheries law, or of the pre
servation of our fisheries is a simple
thing. It can be done.
How would the friends of the eigh
teenth amendment like it if the boot
leggers and liquor interests were to
appoint all the prohibition officers?
Neither do we, who have to suffer,
like it when the fish trust appoints
the officers of law enforcement for
fishery matters. Give us a new deck
and ditch the marked cards.