WHY SEN. TONY DIM
SHOULD BE DEFEATED
Tony Dimond is up for re
election to the Alaska Senate
from the Third Division, and
we believe if the electors of
that Division know what his
record in the last two legis
lative sessions has been they
will not vote to return him.
The reasons why he should
not be returned are as follows:
1st- Tony Dimond does not
represent the people who elect
him. He is the retained at
torney for the Alaska Packers
Association and the Booth
Fisheries Company, which hold
very large fishing interests in
the Third Division.
2nd. Tony Dimond is a some
what popular man in the Third
Division and he capitalizes that
popularity for the benefit of
his clients, the Alaska Packers
Association and the Booth
Fisheries Company, by having
the people elect him to the
Alaska Senate ostensibly to
serve them but in reality to
serve his clients, the canning
corporations before mentioned.
3rd. It is just as impossible
for Tony Dimond to serve both
his constituents and his clients,
the canning companies, at the
same time, as it would be for
him to serve both God and
Mammon. A representative to
the legislature cannot have two
masters and therefore Mr. Di
mond has clung consistently to
one master—tne nsning in
terests, during his past term
of service. He will continue
to cling to that master if he
is re-elected, and the money
retainer from the companies
continues and it surely will
continue if Tony is elected.
4th. Tony Dimond is of much
more value to the fishing in
terests as a member of the
Alaska Senate than as an or
dinary lawyer under retainer.
In fact Tony Dimond’s month
ly checque form the big can
ning companies is largely de
pendent on his election to the
Alaska Senate by the people of
the Third Division, as his ser
vices to the packing interests
as a legislator working for
them are of much more import
ance than his services as a
lawyer before the court would
be.
5th. In every measure before
the last two legislatures where
a contest arose between the
cannery interests and the peo
ple of the Territory, Tony
Dimond worked openly and
brazenly for the interest of his
clients who pay his salary.
bth. When in 1923 it was
proposed that the Attorney
General of Alaska should test
the validity of Secretary Hoov
er’s plan of dividing up the
fishing grounds among the big
packing corporations and deny
ing others the right to catch
or pack salmon, Mr. Tony Di
mond fought the measure most
viciously in the interest of his
clients who were the principal
beneficiaries of Mr. Hoover’s
scheme. In fact Tony Dimond’s
clients were the originators of
the scheme and Tony, the elect
ed representative of the people
was fighting against the best
interests and wefare of his
constituents, because he was re
ceiving money from the pack
ing corporations. This just and
equitable proposal of testing
the reservations system in the
courts was the method provid
ed by the constitution of the
United States for adjustment of
the grievences of the people,
but Tony Dimond knew that
his clients, the packing com
panies, have always opposed
any action in court that might
tend to settle the fishing rights
of the public and hence his
bitter fight against the meas
ure. ine complete record ol
Tony’s fight against this meas
ure is found in the Senate
Journal of 1923. The measure
passed the legislature but Gov
ernor Bone vetoed it and Tony
Dimond and two other Sen
ators voted to sustain the veto
and the fishing population of
the Territory was denied its
day in court. And thus Tony
Dimond earned his salary from
the packing corporations while
drawing a salary from the peo
ple also supposedly for caring
for their interests as their
elected representative.
7th. In the 1925 session of
the legislature it was proposed
that the trap interests should
pay taxes in proportion to the
number of fish caught and thus
the little hand traps in Cook
Inlet, owned by local men who
elected Tony Dimond to the
Senate, that now pay just the
same tax as the larger traps,
would pay only a nominal tax
while the tax on large and
successful traps would be in
creased. ?■?
Mr. Dimond’s clients are the
owners of many large traps
which take great numbers of
salmon and therefore Tony
worked for his clients and
against his constituents- He
fought the measure even though
it was passed almost unan
imously. It was however killed
by Governor Bone’s pocket veto.
The record of Tony’s fight
against this bill is ifound in the
Senate Journal for 1925.
We could recite many more
cases to show Tony Dimond’s
devotion to the cause of his
clients and his rejection of the
cause of the people who elect
ed him, but the two instances
set forth above serve to il
lustrate Tony’s subserviency to
the private interests that em
ploy him while he pretends to
represent the people in the
Alaska Senate.
Mr. Dimond simply double
crosses his contituents and re
ceives money from the pack
ing interests for doing so. Can
the people of the Third Divi
sion afford to continue him in
legislative office when they
know from the official record
that his first concern is for his
private employers?
DR. L. P. DAWES
Physician and Surgeon
First National Bank
Building
Phone 2602 June&u
SHELBY C. SHURICK
Physician and? Surgeon
Upstairs over U. S. Custom's
Hours: 1 to 4 and 6:30 to 8
Sunday by appointment only
Telephone 57