The weekly Alaska citizen., 1919-10-20
THRU A BISHOPS EYES.
After receiving and entertaining visit


 .,'.o of al! kinds, showing them over the .ountry, letting them get glimpse of our natural resources and possibilities both ln mineral and agricultural, it remains for churchman, in fact none less than the Bish- op of Alaska, Peter Trimble Rowe, to dis cover that there are no prospects ot farm ing in the interior. We take it that he made the discovery as he is quoted to that ef- feet in an article appearing in a recent is- sue of the Anchorage Times, reprint of which appears in The Citizen this morning.
 The Times writer declares: "Of pros poets of farming in the interior, the bishop says there are none visible. The Matan- uska section will eventually be good agri- cultural country. But he cannot see any thing in prospect for the Tanana section. The government station at Fairbanks has done some good things but if the cost is taken into consideration, it would appear at once at what price this is done and that on the choicest section of land in the re- zion. You cannot do farming on an exten- sive scale, if it must be done under glass. '
 Of all those who have been in Fair banks during the past summer, Bishop Rowe, if he has been correctly quoted, is the first to see no prospects of farming in the interior. In fact, almost without eX ception, the one thing that has been most impressive to the visitor in the Panama valley region has been the variety of crops grown and the extent to which the agricul- tural industry has been developed.
 Judging from the statements accredit- ed to the churchman he could hardly have visited the immediate vicinity of Fair banks. If he had, he could not have hon. estly given voice to the views published in the Times article.
 "You cannot do farming on an exten- sive scale, if it must be done under glass, '' is quoted as a direct statement from the bishop. No one will dispute the correctness of the assertion, but greenhouses in the interior comprise only fraction of the farming that is being carried on success fully every year. There inst enough ready money in the district to spare to enable local farmers to buy, ship into Fairbanks and install glass over the area that is un- der cultivation.
 That Bishop Rowe should regard the interior agricultural industry in such a light is a matter of concern to the entire district. He has been in the North long time. He is familiar with Alaskan condi- tions as few men, either of church of layity, are. His views on the country are given general credence and prominence in Out side communities If his statement as re- ported in the Times should be made in cer- tain circles in the states, they would be re- garded as unquestionable authority and would produce impressions that years of effort would do no more than eradicate.
 Be it far from us to criticise church. man, especially one so prominent as Bish- op Rowe. But the article appearing in the Times the more strongly convinces us that the shoemaker should stick to his last. The criticism, by inference it may be, but none the less criticism, of the government agri- cultural experimental station at Fairbanks is entirely uncalled for. Can he prove that its cost is excessive9 True, the monetary returns so far received may not even pay interest on the investment. But it has by experimentation developed hardier grains and other plants that can and are being successfully grown today giving as- surance that the ultimate returns will be a ten-fold justification of the establishment and continuation of not only the Fairbanks station but all the others in Alaska. It is regrettable that the bishop felt it part of his clerical duty to propound the futility