The Daily Alaska empire., 1933-05-30

IO lllE GOllOl LII l 1llG G1IIlkJ lC.
 In an editorial appearing in The Empire on Saturday, you said my discussion of the bill now pend- ing in Congress for the purpose of transferring control of the fisher iss to the Territory sounded like a legal argument for client on trial before jury, and not like a broad minded citizen addressing fellow members of the Chamber of Commerce.
 I know that yoT did not mean to say that would assume an atti- tuda of insincerity in advancing the cause of client, when would otherwise be public spirited and broad minded; that I have two standards of conduct,-one to guide me as an attorney, and a different one for use in dealing with my fellow members of the Chamber of Commerce in matters where my clients interests are not involved.
 You, MT. Editor, know that I have no such double stan dard; but there may be some read CTS of the paper who might think such an implication was intended I, myself know it was not How ever, for the benefit of those who might have misunderstood you, am going to ask you to publish this letter
 First, permit me to say that I make no secret of the fact that I have clients who will be seriously affected if their burden of taxes is increased. I also feel, that while they have long been silent on the subject of their tax burden, never theless those who belong to the class which pays 80 per cent of the cost of the administration of the afafirs of the Territory have a right to be heard either through attorney or otherwise, upon im- portant matter which so vitally af- fleets them.
 You say in your editorials that the problem of raising the addi- tional sum of from $600000 to $1,- 0,000, each biennium, is a mere detail, and that the important consideration is the local control of natural resources,-the measure of home rule involved.
 I have a great deal of respect for the Empire and for its Editor, for his opinions, his judgment, and his courage. He has always been a consistent advocate of such measures as the one under dis cussion, and I have always ad- mired him and respected his at titude. I consider him one of my best friends. I have the same ad- miration for Delegate Dimond, and l think I know him well enough to know he would not have asked the Chamber of Commerce for its opinion of this bill if he had felt that the economic side of the ques- tion was a mere detail. He knows that Chambers of Commerce can not consider the political aspect of the bill, and therefore I am sure that what he wants is consider ation of the economic question in volved and nothing else. That is why he asked the Chamber for its opinion.
 While my clients interests are, of course, involved in this ques- tion, their interests are identical with those of every member of every Chamber of Commerce in Alaska. The sole question before the Chamber of Commerce, and the only one it can consider, and the one Delegate Dimond must want it to consider, is the question of find ing the source of the additional revenue required to administer the fisheries and game laws,
 The amount now expended by the Federal Government We know bO OC PP1OAliildOCly 9OOO,OuU O yNoi You say this can be reduced;-- but how much can it be reduced? Even if it is reduced 50 per cent, where are we to get the additional $250,000 a year?
 You refer in your editorial to the figures given by me to the Chamber to show the increased cost of some of the present Ter ritorial Bureaus and of the schools.
 The purpose I had in mind in quoting these figures was sug- gested by your statement that the Territory could immediately begin to cut the cost of administering the fisheries and game laws, if given control over them. The thought occurred to me that we have on the one hand only your statement that this can be done, while on the other hand we have the Territory's actual experience in dealing with similar expendi-