The Alaska daily empire., 1920-12-17


 writer in a recent magazine speaks of the con servation policy of the country the most states manlike thing the late Col Roosevelt put over, and the writer directs particular attention to the glorious rlahner in which he saved for the people the natural resources of Alaska
 The conservation policy, far as it has effected Alaska was the thing Col. Roosevelt ever fost- cred Conservation has delayed development of this Territory for score years if indeed, it has not prevented it from reaching the highest possible point in development It has caused thousands to waste best years of lifetime, and it has pre- vented many other thousands from bettering their conditions And in addition to that it has impaired Nation.
 It is contended by conservationiss that Alaska s resources should not pass out of the possession of the Federal Government because they belong to all the people of the country and not to the people of Alaska alone
 That is statement based on truth that amounts to faacy.1 The natural of Alaska belong the people of the whole Nation, of course. So did natural of the Northwest Territory which was ceded to the Federal Government by Vr- ginia. So did the which the Nation ac- quired through the Louisiana purchase, and those which we gained with the Oregon explorations, and those which secured from Mexico All the re- sources of the Nation except those of the original thirteen and those Texas originally belonged to the Federal Government The original States were C1ealZeu states Wlln not only uOlHlHlOH oNcT "il within their boundaries but owners of the unap- propriated resources when they united under the Constitution, and the Lone Star State was an in dependent nation and into the Union through
 re5ularly made and ratified treaty which permitted the State to retain the ownership of her unappro rIated lands and resources.
 But the National government never gained any thing directly through this ownership National prof when the Federal government parted title to tte iands and permitted their acquisition by private persons The National profits followei when great States, made up of prosperous land own ing citizens, into being making markets the products of the older States paying their share Of the Federal taxes furnishing soldiers and sailors to fight their countrys battles, bearing their snare of ali the National burdens and adding the achieve ments wealth and glory of the Republic. Only iii that way the people of the country a whole able to translate their ownership of the natural re sources of the common country into checking counts-except of they left the older State and moved to the frontiers where they became part of the developing commonwoalths on the Weserl. Border.
 In fact Texas, none of whose lands and natura resources belonged to the National government all has been just valuable people of the Nation as whole any similar great il natural resources containing large population anG undergoing great development The fact that tho Federal government owned any of her resource all has detracted penny from the advantage. and profits of the annexation That is because Ma tional profits there through the de yeopment of Texas resources, and development come through private ownership of the soil and ohe resources.
 Undeveoped resources owned by the Federal gov ernment constitute liability and an asset They are constant drain the Federal treasury which is fed from the taxes paid by the people of the whole country. In Alaska the Federal ownership of the resources is costing the people of the whole country for roads and other necessities This is an expense most of which the people of the Ter rory would be bearing if the had not been locked up fifteen years ago. and kept locked uT through the years that followed as result of tho conservation sentiment fostered by Clifford Pinchot and others. If the Government had permitted people rn appropriate the Of Alaska they did the other Territories not only would Aaskans Sw be paying for many of the things for which the people of the Nation taxed. but there would be a very much larger stream of revenues flowing from ths Territory into the Federal treasury, and there would be a market in the North for a very much greater quantity of the products of factory, forge and farm in the States By not parting with their ownership in the of Alaska the people of States wasting opportunities and losing sums o money.
 To lock up is waste not conservation