The Alaska citizen., 1917-09-03

| you took 10 be an oath Of residence or declaration amounting to dec. laration of intention? A Amounting to a declaration. yes. sir
 e. Amounting to what we know as our first papers?
 A Yes. sir
 Q. And that's as far as you ever went?
 A. Yes, sir
 Q. If, as matter or fact, you ever signed an oath that might be termed an oath of allegiance, would il be similar to your preliminary statement of residence? A l don't know, l took it to be that At the time We signed this 1t was with the understanding no- | body was bound by it. O. As far as being Il Canadian citizen?
 A As far as being Canadian citizen, because there was some law in regard to the posting of it. in which there wasn't time 10 perfect citizenship
 Q. Before you became q full citi- zen that had to be done?
 A Yes, sir.
 o. And there was nothing done by you further after that time that you signed this oath or statement at the time?
 A Never was. Q. And those being the circum- stances, that's the reason you an swered as you did that you never signed the oath of allegiance, believ- ing that came as a final climax upon your acceptance as citizen? A. Yes, sir, that's the idea l an Swered on,
 Q. Now il seems MT. Pratt has opened up the question about your editorial policy of knocking-lll ask you a few questions upon that which attempted before but they were ex- cluded State what the facts were about your ever having knocked the railroad building, or knocking Mears on the Engineering commission-l don't know what Mir Pratt is talk ing about, maybe you do?
 A. don't remember, but there was a telegram came to the paper some thing about MT. Mears' operations up in the other divisions, I don't re- member what it was. l can look up the files to see what it was; it was not our knocking I have had talks with MT. Riggs and l assured him at all times I was always with the railroad commission in connection with the furtherance of their work. Just before l went Outside I had an hour and halfs conversation and gave him the assurances at the time.
 n Now the nrnnpaitinD the armory proposition what posi- tion did you take on that?
 A. l took the attitude it was not necessary for the purchase of an armory building at any great price for the drilling of troops that we would have in this country. Our pro rata of enlistments in here was so small that at any time they did get them nicely trained they couldn't get officers in here to drill them for service and they would take them Outside for that purpose to some cantonment station.
 O. In regard to the financial end of it, what was the cause of your opposition? (Objection etc).
 A. Well, it was too much money to spend in the first place. and then the method which they Were adopt ing at that time to pull off the deal didn't suit me for the simple reason it looked like a forced policy. IL was my impression they intended to go to the people and insist that they put down certain amounts. Lots of people couldn't afford to take it, and by not taking that amount il might be considered disloyalty, and l didn't think 1t was putting it in the proper light. Lots of people spoke to me about it, and I took the position or action l did after talking it over and their views of it.
 O. What about this five-dollar prop osition of dispostng of tickets, what was the purpose of opposing that? (Object1on).
 A. The same opposition occurred 1 tn tbot that did tp the pt thar. they 1