The Alaska daily empire., 1918-10-09

tho nature of an official document of the organiza- tion The circular says ill part;
 Judge Wckersham, not protesting to be prohibtonist, but recognizing that the
 will of the people is supreme in all matters
 of public policy, immediately following the
 dry vote in 1916, introduced in Congress
 and secured the passage, in record breaking
 tme of a prohibition law for Alaska that
 is conceded 10 be of the best
 written He stands for the permanenee of
 that law and its absolute enforcement In
 direct contrast, his opponent, Mir. Sulzer,
 claiming to be a prohibitonist, has, during
 his incumbency of Judge Wickershams gress home rule bill that provides for the possible repeal of the prohibition law through resubmission by the Legislature
 Another excerpt from this interesting document is as follows:
 ''The committee privileges and elec-
 tons, delegred by Congress to pass upon the
 merits of contested election cases has de-
 cided that the action of the Democratic ma chine bosses in willfully depriving Judge
 wickersham of the seat in Congress to
 which he elected by the people of Alaska in 1916 illegal and unwarranted'
 And the circular concludes with the rather dignifed quotation of "homely old adage, as the errand" meaning, presumably, to classify Wicker sham as the man" and Suzer as the boy
 
 When the fair sex themselves in poli- ties chivalry suggests that they be given credit for the best of intentions It Will be dlfncult 10 looW those promptings in this instance It will be re- membered that Mrs Hatcher came into public notice first in Alaska when she sumped the Territory iii behalf of the dry law, and when later she arro- gated to herself the credit for the passage of that measure She may have for the prohibition law in some sections; but it is not too much say that her methods of campaigning had the very opposite effect in other communities that she visited And to the credit for the passage of the law, it may well be given where 1t rightfully be- longs ito the sourdoughs and roughnecks of Alaska who had determined to put the saloon out of busi- ;and they would have done this without the sstance of this lady politician.
 Mrs Hatcher next made her appearance on the scene in the role of supporter of Maloney as candidate for the nomination for Delegate in opposi- ton to MT. Sulzer. It was openly charged that she was actuaed more by desire to aid Wickersham than to have Maloney elected Delegate Mrs. Hatch CTS interference not taken kindly, and Maloney was overwhelmingly defeated Since then the lady has not been heard of in public, and it was thought the rebuke handed to her for her attempt to drag the w. c. T. U. into a political fight had been effective Now she comes out in the open in support of Wick ersham, although, she admits, he does not profess to be a prohibtionist
 One of two things is certain: Either Mrs. Hatch CT is not sincere in her attitude i'll politics, and is being used instrument by willy politician, or she is woefully ignorant of the first principles of con stitutional government Her main quarrel against Delegate Sulzer s she that he introduced in Congress home rule bill that provides for the possi ble repeal of the prohibition law"
 The Alaska prohibition law was passed by the United States Congress because the Alaska enabling act does not allow the Territory to control the liquor traffic. When the bill first discussed in Congress great protest went up from residents of Alaska against the enactment of the law without giving them chance to approve or reject it. IT memory serves correctly James Wckersham, who was then Dele gate, secured the posponement of the vote on the measure until the people of Alaska could pass upon it by referendum vote. This done at the in stance of his constituents, and perfectly proper The bill might eventually have been passed by Con gress even without the consent of the people of Alaska
 Now the home rule bill of Delegate Sulzer pro vides for the enlargement of the power of the Terri tory in many things The right to control the liquor traffic is which is exercised by every State in the Union and exercised by the Territories prior to Statehood It is obligation that can not be shirked left to the federal government until such times as the Nation takes up that duty by constitutional amendment. It is quite unlikely that Alaska ever will be wet again; but it should not be forgotten that this question is which pertains to the people of Alaska alone. No at Washington has moral right to force objectionable legislation upon self governing people no matter how meritorious it may be.
 It may be of interest to Mrs Hatcher to know that Wickersham, when Delegate, introduced Statehood bill for Alaska It Is not probable that it intro duced in good faith as it was not expected to pass But had it passed, the State of Alaska, like every other States in the Union, would determine it's own course the liquor question, just it would the suffrage question the tax question its criminal code. It would have reuqired the procedure to overturn the dry law under the Wickersham bill as under the Suzer bill
 There duties and responsibilities which self government imposes that not be shirked just there rights and privileges that are to be joyed. When Alaska undertakes complete self-gov crnment it will assume these responsibilities and not rely paternal government centered thousands of miles away. Delegate Sulzer's home rule bill is meritorous And he any other man. in the drawing up of legislation for Alaska, would be assuming much he to relnqush any of these rights or any of these obligations in behalf of the Territory.
 The fact that Mrs IIatcher's letter is printed under the name of the Alaska Woman's Christian Tenn perance Union suggests the natural query as to whether the funds of that organization are being limo itiRu1 ap1i