Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!

Sign up free
Page thumbnail for The Daily Alaska Empire
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.

Clipping

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.

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

Are you sure?