The daily Nome industrial worker., 1916-02-23
y docs not mention.

Try docs not mention. That alternative is to take the | fisheries of Alaska and place them | Tn exactly the same position towards | the territory as the fisheries of the state occupy in regard to the states As 1t is now, the Department of, Commerce is held responsible as the Secretary very correctly says. for, the development of that industry and division of taxation necessar- l fly means a divided control without any possible share in that responsi-. bility. i'' @@ T a ''+f Al +i,tf ' The trouble with tie matter is not so much the alienation of right | to tax fisheries by the legislature, but the actual alienation of contro,i of ali the industrial activities of the capneries on the part of the Terri- tory. AS we see it. the matter of taxation is only Q relatively small l mater The matter of responsible ] control is the vital matter. 5 ] That could be better handled may be by the legislature. There are, certainly good grounds for believing that the alliance between the De- partment of Commerce and the can nery men is altogether too close for the real good Of the territory and for the derivation of popular bene- fit from the exploitation of this principle resource.
 ] It is quite evident that what is the concern of the department is that the Territory is indirectly exercising l control over the ectivity of these eh- ploitative corporations in the fishir.s industres, and ttat control is regard ed as properly and only properly vested in the Department of Com merce. There is always bureau cratic jealousy in matters involving dual control when government le- comes a bureaucracy, and the ttoub- le hereln arises not from any action of the legislature, or any action on the part of Congress 8, but from tle ract ,ha, .he resources of this colr. try arc SD C! ,nriNely dominated y bureaus at Washington D. c.
 Seer 1tary Redfield is exceedingly jealous for the prosperity of the in- dustry, and views with alarm any thing that may tend to mcke that industry possibly unprofitable. He has no concern as to how that in dustry is conducted with reference to Alaska, nor it's relation to the up keep of the country's development as whole.
 As far as we can gather from his statement his concern is solely with the prosperity of the fishing indus try which is vested in his depari- ment and it's effect upon the pros- perity of Alaska is apparently q question outside his sphere, ana with which bureaucratically he has naught to do.
 It is proper to observe that in all likelihood tho opposition to Red fields plans upon the part of legls- lative bodies in Alaska proceeds from a similar self centered motive. They view with alarm the possibility of being denied source of consi- derable revenue, and the prosperity of the industry or the prosperity or the country as affected by that in dustry is matter of only indirect concern.
 This .s quite clear because of the
 fact that the outcry is much greater
 against this inhibition against terri
 torial taxation than it has ever neen
 manifested in regard to the prohiei- tion of territorial or legislative con
 trol over the industry itseiI.
 We believe that the claim is CT rect which has been made by those connected with tho fishing industry : that a taxable effort is made agains ; the fishing industry in order to save . the mining industry from simila : taxation, and in effect 1t is reall! f when sifted down rivalry of anta j, gonistic interests Tn the field Q f Ecapital
 Withal it is quite clear also tha e the people of Alaska have been ant - are able to exercise 6 control owe E Ithe mining industry which isi abSo .lIlutely denied them over the 'fishinl |. l.tindustry ,a and as far as tho legfsla