The Ketchikan miner., 1907-03-16
WHAT WILL IT COST?

inc he unmistakably emphatic aec- larati on of the people in its favor, as voiced at the first delegate election, has been set over for the new con- gress to deal with, it should prompt the friends of the proposed measure to even greater strenuosity 1t its De- half to the end that when the new congress meets next December the op- position may have been minimized to such an extent that it will be prae- tically diyested of its power and in- uaence at the national capital. This, assuming from The Miners own standpoint, that territorial oragniza- tion, or some other form of local self government is desirable, and that 1t is earnestly desired by very consid' erable majority of the people of Alaska. With this purpose in view, and assuming further that all. with out exception, are sincerely desirous of doing that which, in their honest opinion. will best promote the gen. eral prosperity and future welfare of the district, the disposition should be not to engage in acrimonious dis cussion, but rather to reason amieahly one with another to the end that harmonious action looking 10 the gen. eral public good may result. While it is scarcely possible that all may emerge from such an effort at the specialization of public sentiment of the same mind, certainly little if any thing is to be gained to the cause of local self-government by discussing the question in other than a spirit Of friendly tolera,ion. These remarks are based by The Miner on disposi- tion to be just and tolerant with those who show a disposition to be equally so in the discussion of question of so much importance to all concerned, assuming for the time being at least, that those ho differ with it are equally honest in their views and desires.
 It is not denied, other than by im- plication, that the people of Alaska are fully as well, if not better, quali- fed for the exercise of the rights and privileges of local self-goyern- ment than were those of any of the territories of the United States at the time of their organization. Neither is it denied that. with one exception only. it has larger population than had any of the others, or that, though of vast extent, the means of travel and communication are better than in most of the territories even for many years after their organization. What then. are the grounds upon which the opposition to self-govern- ment for Alaska is based?
 In the light of the history of the territories heretofore organized it cannot consistently be claimed that her population is not sufficient, be- cause she has a larger number of people residing and doing business within her borders that had any other territory at the time it was given an organic act. with the single exception of Hawaii. more than two-thirds of whose population is made up of non- English speaking people. Nor can it be truthfully said that the district is deficient in developed resources, be- cause those are equal almost, if not quite, in productive value to those of all the other territories combined at the time of their organization. h the light of history, the plea of i'm practicability on account of the widely separated settlements and sections of the district must fall to the ground. because the plea is not nearly so applicable to Alaska as it was to many of the territories when organized, but in the case of none of which it was not permitted to stand as bar to the right of the people to govern themselves.
 It follows. therefore. that there is no plea that the opponents to terri torial organization put forth that is worthy of consideration other than the proposition that it will entail upon the people burden of taxation too grievious to be borne Notwithstand- ing no facts or figures have been presented in support of that proposi- tion, and that The Miner regards it as an ill-founded fear only, it never theless appears to be the principal, if not only, objection upon which the so-called business interests base their objection to home rule. It may be that the objection from this source rests upon deeper and more signif- cant foundation, but of that it is not the present purpose of this jour- nal to inquire. It proposes, as far as the limited ability of its editorial writer will permit, to discuss here and now the question of taxation and financial ability of the people to pay, from the only standpoint they them selves present.
 In order to arrive at fair con- clusion as to the burdens" of taxa