The Daily Alaska empire., 1941-03-20

StrumentS.
 PASSED-HB. 93, by Shattuck, to reduce the bounty on coyotes from $20 to $17.50.
 PASSED-H.B. 97, by Lander, for blanket primary
 PASSED-H.B. 92, by Shattuck, to appropriate $6,372 for Minnie Fields for caring for indigent children. Territory, namely Anchorage" said he was in favor of the National Guard but against this armory busi- ness"
 Harvey Smith said the attitude of the House toward the bill was a re- velation to him of how effective lob- bying could be. saying that when the Legislature convened 50 days ago there wasn't a member who would even introduce the bill.
 Speaking of the manner in which the National Guards formation, was authorized, Smith declared heatedly: Somebody got his chestnuts in the fire, and I'm not going to be party to pulling them out"
 Rep. Frank Gordon said he won dered sometimes at the flop that members make. They may not have been out the night before, they may net have had anything to do with the lobbyists, but their votes are sometimes surprising"
 a0 Nome Rush
 Davis spoke of this great rush to establish a National Guard unit at Nome particularly for the purpose of getting the votes of the members of that. Division for this bill' He said he was afraid that if the, bill became law, the Board of Adminis ration might have the same pres sure put upon it' and that the Ter ritory's inadequate revenues would be used to build armories, leaving the Pioneers Home the Public Welfare activities and ether parts of the Territorial Government to come back with deficiencies.
 But the most devastating argu- ment against the bill was that of Allen Shattuck, who read from a prepared speech, in part as fellows;
 "The subject of the construction of armories is much older than this bill It dates back at least to a time tefore the primary election year ago. When the matter was brought to the fore at that time there was no discussion about the schools, about the roads, about landing fields, about the mining industry, about the fishing industry, but only about armories and where to get the money to finance them. At the close of last week, there still seemed to be but che interest, and that was for ar- mories at any cost, and whether we could produce enough revenue to finance them. The schools, the so- cial welfare program and other heavy burdens have not even been discussed by the main proponents of this bill, at least in my presence.
 "The basic argument in favor of armories is that we need them for the training of men for defense of the Territory, and yet. notwithstand- ing this need. we are informed that unless concrete buildings costing $100000 each are provided, the Guard will be disbanded. This simply does not make sense. I have not found anyone who has any definite know ledge leading to this conclusion.
 If there is any danger of this happening, the responsibility for it will not be on the Legislature but with those in authority for their failure to present true picture of Alaska, taking into account the vast area, the sparse population, and the limited tax sources If these things were stressed sufficiently, I am ab- solutely sure that our government, being a fair government, would not expect us to jeopardize our future by doing anything that might, at the moment, seem desirable.
 Our government and it's agencies are top heavy now. Let's not keep adding to them until the whole thing falls down upon our heads.
 T believe it is desirable to have National Guard units in Alaska. I am in favor of appropriating such a sum of money, within the limits of cur ability, as seems reasonable to provide leased or rented armor- ies together with the necessary con- tingent operating expenses"
 Comparing Alaska with the States on a population basis, he said that if we were to show equal cooperation in the national defense effort we would have only l34 men in our National Guard and that we would build CT percent of one armory.