The Daily Alaska empire., 1933-05-24
SOMETHING TO BE REMEMBERED.

SOMETHING TO BE REMEMBERED.
 Yesterday the Executive Committee of the Cham Der of Commerce by three to two vote with two members absent adopted motion to recommend that the Chamber tomorrow endorse Delegate D- monds bill to turn to the Territory the control of it's own fur and game resources. That action we believe was in strict accord with every tradition and principal of American Government
 The same committee, however, by another three to two vote adopted another motion to recommend to the Chamber that it do not endorse or support the Delegates bill to turn to Alaska the admin istraton and regulation of the fisheries resources of the Territory And that action, we further be- lieve was contrary to the dearest principles and inherited traditions of Americans.
 Without being critical of the latter action, we do believe it is representative of the viewpoint of the Chamber of Commerce as whole or of the community generally. Not once, but on many occasions where that has been question at issue, a vast majority of Alaskans, and of the residents of Juneau have recorded themselves unswervingly and internationally for Territorial control and ad- minisration of all the natural resources of the Territory Delegate Dimond is making an honest effort to obtain just that Admittedly there is a strong chance for him to succeed If he gets the backing of the Territory's business men as well as other groups such as resident fishermen and other workers, that chance is bound to be greatly en- hanced The opposition of the local Chamber, if it decides to oppose him, will be a severe blow but not necessarily fatal one.
 The majority of the Executive Committee mem bers present yesterday who voted against the fish cries transfer measure at least some of them, were guided in that position solely by fear that the cost of administration would be prohibitive. Most if not all, of them in hearty accord with the principle of home rule" which is the founda- tion stone of the proposal. That fear is largely chimercal It has been fed upon accounts of large expenditures made by the United States Bureau of Fisheries since 1926. They were large, in fact, larger than needed It is wellknown to most people who have studied the matter, who are familiar with the avenues of expenditure, that great part of them could and should be eliminated The opera ton and maintenance of fleet of vessels, all of them fine efficient ships built from public funds during the heydey of national prosperity when the money of taxpayers expended with expansive and careless gestures is sample That of expense alone could be reduced by many thousands of dollars annually. The practice of hiring in Seattle and Portland and elsewhere transporting them to Bristol Bay and the Alaska Peninsula and other remote areas could and should be eliminated with con- sequent saving of other thousands of dollars. Ex pensive wers are constructed in many streams in every district of Alaska each year. Most of them serve ullle except purposes coulu pe eliminated. And there are other ways of economical administration that are not used that would naturally be brought into play under local control Economy, fear of added tax burdens. is a weak to advance for opposition to transfer of control from Washington to Alaska, one that ought not to prevail.
 The compelling reasons for local administration and regulations of fisheries, of game and fur and all other natural resources of the Territory succntly stated last month by Gov. Troy shortly after his inauguration. In commenting the two Dimond measures, the Governor, in a statement given the Associated Press at solicitation said in part:
 The objection to the present conditions
 is that the laws affecting fish and game
 in Alaska administered by people who
 are not directly concerned with their admin
 lstraton.
 When the people of Alaska control their
 resources they will consider the best
 interest of the people and the Territory at
 all times.
 That, we contend is the crux of the whole mat ter Do Alaskans want to control their own re- sources for their best interests? or do they by people and organizations who are not directly affected by concerned with the effects of that administration? There is no reasonable person who will argue for the latter proposition Then certainly no vague indefinite arguments about peanut econ omes ought to be permitted to the Chamber from active and ardently supporting both of the Dimond bills.