LEGISLATIVE  ASSEMBLY FOR ALASKA.                       59
Opponents of Territorial government have always set up a straw dummy to throw bricks at. They have pointed to the awful expense and general impracticability of county government in so sparsely settled a Territory as Alaska. It would be difficult to find a man who has ever advocated county organization in Alaska. The sole demand has always been for a local legislature and the demand has always been made with full knowledge of the fact that Alaska legislatures would be composed of no better material than State legislatures— that is to say, an Alaska legislature would contain more cheap men than bright ones, more self-seeking curbstone politicians than capable legislators, nearly as many grafters as honest men. That is the way State legislatures are made up, but nobody seriously urges their abolition on that account. Long experience in self-government has taught the American people that legislators are generally as good as their average constituents, and that government by the people is a little better than government by monarchs and viceroys.
[Editorial, Seward Gateway, Seward, Oct. 2, 1909.] ALASKA,  THE BED-HAIRED BOY.
The attitude taken by President Taft in regard to a Territorial form of government for Alaska is a sore disappointment to the bona fide residents of the Territory, who have been praying for relief from the present system, under which Alaska has been misruled. Assuming that the Chief Executive will adhere to his expressed policy in this regard, all hope for relief under the present administration is useless waste of energy, for without the powerful aid of the President Alaska has not enough friends in Congress to pass legislation.
The President favors government of Alaska by a commission of Washington officials. The idea is repugnant to American citizens. It implies a want of confidence in the people of Alaska to govern their own affairs. It is un-American in principle. Such a form of rule merits the most caustic criticism of the inhabitants of the Territory. And we doubt not that it will get it if attempted.
It is an unfortunate state of affairs to thus be placed on a par with the semicivilized people. The citizenship of Alaska may be said, without boasting, to be composed of the most progressive, the most self-reliant, the most intelligent of any in any State or Territory in the Union, if we may be permitted to place ourselves within this Union for purposes of comparison. The' people in Alaska are pioneers, engaged in throwing into the channels of commerce the great resources of the Territory. They are hewing out homes in a great country for future generations. They are qualified in every respect for the full duties of citizenship. For the President to deny them this, their heritage, subject them to taxation without representation, compel them to be governed by a commission composed of officials who have no material interest in the country, and who will undoubtedly inflict upon us all sorts of theories of government, is not an encouraging prospect. Alaska is the red-haired boy in the Nation's family.
[Alaska Daily Dispatch, Juneau, Oct. 20, 1909.] ALL  IN  FAVOK OF  HOME  RULE.
Fairbanks, October 20.— At a mass meeting held here, which was attended by 500 residents, resolutions in favor of home rule were unanimously adopted. It was the sense of the meeting that Fairbanks and the Tanana Valley would do all in their power to secure support for the Wickersham Territorial bill, as the best measure now before Congress for any form of local government. All the papers in the Tanana Valley favor the plan, by which Alaska shall be governed by Alaskans, and the sentiment of the people is overwhelmingly in favor of franchise rights.
Many favor an out and out form of Territorial government, but have been persuaded that Congress at this time would not consider anything other than a modified form, and they have pledged themselves to support this.