Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!
Sign up free
Editorial
October 31, 1949
The Daily Alaska Empire
Juneau, Juneau County, Alaska
What is this article about?
An editorial responds to a reader's query about the Alaska Development Bill, relaying Delegate E.L. Bartlett's strong opposition. He calls it an unrealistic dream, predicts it won't pass the Bureau of the Budget or survive a presidential veto, and warns it would hinder Alaska's development by at least five years.
OCR Quality
95%
Excellent
Full Text
ALASKA DEVELOPMENT BILL
In the same mail as the above prospector's letter,
another was received asking "Why do you not tackle
that Alaska Development Bill again and give us more
information? You practically condemned it once and
then folded up like a clam."
All right brother, here is why we have not gone
into the subject again. We were told by several very
high officials to "lay low" for a time as the proposal
as first made public was only a very rough draft of
the proposed act.
We took their word and again we are going to let
Delegate E. L. Bartlett tell you something about that
billion dollars for creation of an Alaska Development
Corporation. He is now traveling with the group investigating the fish traps problem and is due in
Juneau within a few days and he will tell you something about it. It is reported that today the Delegate
will appear before the Chamber of Commerce at Anchorage and state his position in opposition to the
Alaska Development Bill in its present form.
Last week, in Seattle, Delegate Bartlett appeared
before the Alaska Division of the Seattle Chamber of
Commerce and declared that the plan put forth by the
Interior Department was the "darnest dream anyone
ever dreamed on Capitol Hill," meaning Capitol Hill
in Washington, D. C.
According to our Delegate the bill would never
pass the Bureau of the Budget in its present or any
similar form. The Delegate said "that means the
President would veto it if by chance it should pass
both houses of Congress."
The Delegate further declared the measure would
set Alaska back at least five years if it is ever introduced in Congress.
Now you have it brother, your answer to your
question.
In the same mail as the above prospector's letter,
another was received asking "Why do you not tackle
that Alaska Development Bill again and give us more
information? You practically condemned it once and
then folded up like a clam."
All right brother, here is why we have not gone
into the subject again. We were told by several very
high officials to "lay low" for a time as the proposal
as first made public was only a very rough draft of
the proposed act.
We took their word and again we are going to let
Delegate E. L. Bartlett tell you something about that
billion dollars for creation of an Alaska Development
Corporation. He is now traveling with the group investigating the fish traps problem and is due in
Juneau within a few days and he will tell you something about it. It is reported that today the Delegate
will appear before the Chamber of Commerce at Anchorage and state his position in opposition to the
Alaska Development Bill in its present form.
Last week, in Seattle, Delegate Bartlett appeared
before the Alaska Division of the Seattle Chamber of
Commerce and declared that the plan put forth by the
Interior Department was the "darnest dream anyone
ever dreamed on Capitol Hill," meaning Capitol Hill
in Washington, D. C.
According to our Delegate the bill would never
pass the Bureau of the Budget in its present or any
similar form. The Delegate said "that means the
President would veto it if by chance it should pass
both houses of Congress."
The Delegate further declared the measure would
set Alaska back at least five years if it is ever introduced in Congress.
Now you have it brother, your answer to your
question.
What sub-type of article is it?
Economic Policy
Partisan Politics
What keywords are associated?
Alaska Development Bill
Delegate Bartlett
Opposition
Interior Department
Budget Veto
Alaska Progress
What entities or persons were involved?
Delegate E. L. Bartlett
Interior Department
Bureau Of The Budget
President
Chamber Of Commerce
Editorial Details
Primary Topic
Opposition To The Alaska Development Bill
Stance / Tone
Critical Opposition
Key Figures
Delegate E. L. Bartlett
Interior Department
Bureau Of The Budget
President
Chamber Of Commerce
Key Arguments
The Bill As First Proposed Was Only A Rough Draft
Delegate Bartlett Opposes The Bill In Its Present Form
The Plan Is Described As The 'Darnest Dream Anyone Ever Dreamed On Capitol Hill'
The Bill Would Not Pass The Bureau Of The Budget
The President Would Veto It If It Passed Congress
The Measure Would Set Alaska Back At Least Five Years