The Alaska daily empire. [volume] (Juneau, Alaska) 1912-1926, 1924-03-14
Sutherland Does Not Deny
that Attempt to Keep Rob-
etson Home Was Politics.
MAYOR COLDSTEIN Is
ATTACKED BY DAN
Representative in Congress
Says Mayor Plays in Hands
of Canneries for Division.

Virtually admitting by refusal to
deny, that politics was behind the
suit to prevent the City of Juneau
from joining other Alaska munici-
palities in sending former Mayor
Robertson to present their request
for the division of Alaska and other
matters to Congress and various
branches of the government. Dele
gate Dan Sutherland has written a
letter to Mayor l. Goldstein, in
which he exhibits violent state of
temper, berates the Mayor and at
tempts to eductea him IN the ethics
of politics.
The Delegate declares that the
movement for the division of the
Territory is in the interest of the
Exploiting cannery INTERESTS and
accuses Mayor Godstein of playing
into their hands by sending "their
attorney as lobbyist to Washing
tion," ostensibly to sever this com
munity from all connections with
its poor relations in the northern
section"
He says Mr.. Robertson was really
sent to Washington to lobby for the
cannery interests.
In the first place the City Coun-
ell voted unanimously to make the
appropriation to send Mr. Robertson
to Washington and the Mayor, who
presides and votes only when there
is tie, did not vote on it at all.
In the next place. Mr.. Robertson
does not represent Juneau only. but
his expenses were contributed to
by Skagway, Haines and Petersburg.
none of which are cannery towns
and all of which he represents.
Further, Mr.. Robertson represents
the people in many other matters
than Territorial division, including
the proposal to dredge the Gastineau
Channel and to dig a canal at Hawk
Inlet. particularly for the purpose of
helping the fishermen-not the can
neries.
People For Division
Perhaps never did the people of
Juneau speak with such unanimity
on a public question as they did
when the question of the division of
the Territory was presented to them
last November. Certainly never be-
fore was there greater exhibition
of cooperation among the various
communities of Southeastern Alaska
than on this question which was
submitted to a referendum by the
municipal Councils of all the incor-
porated towns of the First Division
save only Sitka.
In Juneau the vote in favor of
division was 401 to "a. and across
the channel at Douglas it was SO
to 10. making the vote of Gastineau
Channel asa to "a. At Ketchikan
there was a similarity of opinion.
That greatest fishing town in Alaska
voted for division by AL to 80. At
Wrangell there was so much interest
taken in the question that 35 more
votes were cast than at the last
Territorial election, the vote being
1879 for division to Z against. Peters
burg, another fishing town, voted for
division by rs to 3. At Skagway,
where there is no cannery, the vote
was 65 to in favor of division,
and at Haines where the large can
merry interests have no foothold the
vote was unanimously in favor of
division, making a total vote in the
various municipalities in favor OF
Territorial division of 1850 to 80.
Therefore. il any movement in
the First Division of Alaska may be
said to have THE PEOPLE behind
it it is the movement for Territorial
division.
In the next place. the large can
merry interests. those like the Alaska
Packers Association, the Pacific
American Fisheries and Libby, Nc
Neil and Libby are opposed to di-
vision. and do not hesitate to say
so.
When the convention met at Ju-
neau to prepare the petition of the
various municipalities of the First
Division asking for the division of