The Alaska daily empire., 1921-05-07
GOVERNOR VETOES kETCH|KAN FISH H HATCHERY ITEM
Declares Appropriation to Be Expended by Specified h.
 dividual Unprecedented.
INTENDS NO REFLECTION
Riggs Makes Clear Veto Does Not Imply Lack of Conh-
 dence in Hecklnan.

The item of $10,000 for fish hatchery and experimental station' at Ketchikan, Alaska, carried on the general appropriations act of the Territorial Legislature was this morning disapproved by Gov. Riggs who at that time signed the meas ure and transferred it to the Sec retary of the Territory. The item specified that the money be ex- pended under the direction of J. R. Heckman"
 Gov. Riggs explained fully his reasons for not approving the item this morning and also stated that he take the step as it had been planned by the Territorial Fish Commission to establish such station at Ket. chikan as soon as could be done without interference to the Com missions full program and when i funds were available for the pur- pose.
 Action Unprecedented.
 Gov. Riggs said
 ''The appropriation "For the estab- lishment and maintenance of fish hatchery and experiment. station at Ketchikan, Alaska, to be expended under the. direction of J R. Heckman, was not approved for the following reasons:
 "G) The Legislature has already law creating Fish Commission, bound by oaths of office, and has specified how money appropriated shall be expended under their di- rection. There is no law authorizing money to- be expended by an indi vidual, not an officer of the ter rtorial government and one who is not even remotely connected with the government through the medium of board or a commission. The action seems to be unprecedented.
 "(2) By specifying in law an individual by name, the Legislature assumes executive functions, which is contrary to our system of gov ernment.
 Danger Pointed Out.
 "(3) The precedent, if once es- tablshed, could easily result in practically all of the territorial ap- propriations being subjected to un- restrained expenditure by individ- pals who are not bound in any way, either by law or regulation and who gre responsible to no one. 
 "(4 Should hatchery be estab- lished in accordance with the word ing of the act, there is nothing to show that the Territory would own it or that it could in the future main tain the plant should maintenance thereof be discontinued. The Act does not even provide that the hatch cry is a territorial institution
 ''In refusing approval of this item l in no way reflect upon MT. Heck man. I consider him most able man and one who has the interest of the Territory and of Ketchikan at heart, which he has shown by his continued investments in the Terri tory The Fish Commission has con suited him throughout and given him it's entire confidence l should have been glad to have had him as a member of the Commission and so advised him at the last meeting Of the Commission, but he did not de sire appointment.
 Hatchery Approved. As to the establishment of hatch cry at Ketchikan, the Commission has long discussed this possibility and it is one of the approved prof ects when sufficient funds are made available or had the Legislature des- ;gnated Ketchikan as site for a hatchery to be established as are other hatcheries in the Territory, the item would have stood approved.
 'I have been guided to take this action only through my desire to see orderly government continued"