The Daily Alaska empire., 1940-08-29
Arguments For and Against
 Territorial Liquor Control
AGAINST ByR. J. SCHOETTLER

The liquor referendum require! us, as voters, to manifest whether we want the Territory to go into the liquor business under the mon opoly control system or continue the sale of liquor under the pres ent Alaska Trade System A mum Der of my personal friends and local citizens have requested me tc present my views briefly in oppo- sition to the measure.
 There are 23 systems being tried out in the States at the present time. They range from virtual die tatorship, on down through various | forms of commissioner control. Some are elected, some are appointed tthe terms of office are from one year to about six years, and the salaries range from $4,000 a year on up. The Territorial referendum denies the voter the privilege of selecting any particular system.
 What to Expect
 When similar propositions were proposed in the various states, the electorate was apprized of the plan and had some inkling of what to respect. Certainly some very def sinite plan prompted the writing Cf this referendum and the voter was .entitied to be informed of h c plan.
 The proponents of Territorial control claim 1t will bring greater revenue to the Territory. I say it won't, and I base my calculations ron the best examples of economic control in typical state monopoly systems. In 1888 the net earnings of Idaho were $l l20 per capita; in New Hampshire 90 cents per capita; in Oregon $125 per capital; in Utah Sl40 per capita; and ,u Washington, regarded as the model monopoly state, on gross sales of almost SIT, ,3oO,00o the net earnings per capita on population esti- mated at l,563,o were only $240
 Under our own present system of licensing and excise taxes, Alaska for the period of 1887 through 1889 on an annual sale of approximately S4, 800 900 earned $3.67 per capita annually.
 Alaska Difficulties
 How do the advocates for Terri torial control reconcile their state ments of greater income for the Territory under a monopolistic con- trol, when it is freely admitted that the setting up and supervising of the business will entail costly equipment, warehouses, and a pay roll of clerks, agents, etc; that to avoid duplication of freight rates i it will be necessary to establish central warehouse in Seattle with all its necessary and expensive ma chinery and equipment. Maintain ing Seattle payroll for people we do not know Or whose interests are not ours will not be very agreeable The organic act prohibits the Territory from receiving merchan- disc on consignment or other terms of credit; hence, it will be neces- sary to pay cash on all stocks which will require approximately a mil lion dollars. The interest on this amount must be added to the cost of goods sold.
 The entry of the Territory into the liquor business would deprive Juneau of nearly one-fifth of it's revenue. There is just one answer to that and personally I am of the opinion that taxes are high enough Why should Juneau citi- zens shoulder an extra burden to maintain subsidized payroll either in Seattle or Alaska so that a few may have soft jobs.
 Political Plum
 What about the small communi- ties? If the Washington system is adopted one mercant will be given the exclusive franchise for the sale of liquor The one that picks this political plum will become the po- litical whip of the community and thereby hasten the day when his competitors will be driven out oi business.
 What about the unemployment that will confront approximately 1,500 families. and the 300 or more buildings that will be left vacanl , if the referendum should pass. Un- der the new system a very smal percentage of these workers coult ,, be employed by the Territory ant I believe the average Alaskan woult
 prefer to earn his livelihood unde
 the present system than to be at
 tacffed to a patronage payroll ant ; give lip service to political boss Letter from Gregory
 Permit me to quote from a let
 ter received August 6, 194O iron
 Admiral L. E. Gregory, Chairman
 of the Washington State Liquo
 Control Board T have gone int
 considerable detail in describing ou y monopoly operation in order t, ] point out the reasons why I fee that system used in this stat
 would not be economically feasible : in Alaska. The very large distance