The daily Alaskan., 1915-02-26
DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW

Elsewhere in this issue Of the Daily Alaskan appears a communl- cation signed subscriber" levi dently penned some time ago, but which has just been brought to our notice) in which We are taken se- yerelv to task for reproducing an editorial article from the Cleveland Leader in our issue of Feb. 5th, under the caption of "An Feel the Burden" and in which was discus sed in a very impartial manner, to our way of thinking, the questions of administrative extravaganza, as well as the rate Of compensation of government employees.
 The article in question had no reference to conditions in any par ticular department of the govern ment nor to the employees in any specified locality; neither was 1t intended as criticism Of the present administration any more than it was a warning for those who will have the guidance of pub lie affairs in the future
 In replying 10 the strictures oL our correspondent, who, it is plain ly evident, is neither of the pro Ietariat nor of any of the other revenue producing classes, We de, sire tC draw his attention to the fact that personal recriminauon and denunciation in the argument o any question by the advocate ot it's merits is not convincing proof oi the righteousness of his cause, to the person of ordinary intelligence and furthermore that any depart meut of the public service, whether t be federal, state or civic, that fears either a discussion of its merits or criticism of its methods through the columns of the newspa- pers, whether they be published in the state of Ohio or the wilds ot the territory of Alaska, is probably deserving of scrutiny by the people who furnish the money to pay for it's up-keep. subscriber" says:
 If the Daily Alaskan would
 omit some Of the putrid hypo-
 crlsys emanating from the dis
 tOried mind of the editor of
 the Cleveland Leader, such as,
 Ali Feel the Burden" and
 print instead some facts like
 he following, they would
 serve their subscribers @
 better and show more respect
 for their intelligence: July
 IT, 1873, John ". Grice was
 appointed a 8atchman in the
 postoffice department at a
 salary of s72O & year. On the
 l4th of this month, fl years
 later, he was dismissed from
 the government service, on aC-
 count of incapacity due to his
 advanced years. In all that
 time he had never received one
 penny of promotion, but on the
 contrary had for some years
 been subjected to a reduction in
 pay. He had saved no money,
 having been singularly thrift
 less in the management of his
 murificent stipend of S6O per
 month, and now he Is an object
 Of public charity"
 Will, our correspondent kindly inform us why the pitlful story of John Grice's fl years of incom' potency and lack of ambition ir ;he City of Washington, D. C., ap, peals more to the intelligence" oi our subscribers than does an up, to-date editorial, discussing the live issues of the day, by one ol the foremost newspaper writers oi America, even though that writer be resident of and the paper he represents published in the state oi Ohio? Or why John Grice, gov ernment employe, should receive more for his services than John Doe who works alongside of him for q private individual or corporation and at similar employment?
 When Grice accepted the position in 1873, his salary of S60 per mont was equal n purchasing power tc enc of S100 or more per month at the present time. That he held it for fl years without making an eff, fort So better his condition Is proof