Published once a week at Palmer, Alaska for the Matanuska Valley Farmers'
Cooperating Association for the purpose of giving news of the Associations
work, problems and accomplishments.
DIP PALMER VOTER? SHOOT SANTA CLAUSE?
During the recent political campaign, one of the most prominent candidates stated
that his opponents would probably win because "no one ever shoots Santa Clause", he
evidently believed that Palmer people would cast their votes for the dominant poli
tical party because they had received quite a large sum of .money from the Territory
to develop the new air field, however his fears proved to be groundless because the
Palmer people voted just the opposite to his predictions.* This may prove something
and again it may not, however it still does seem a little bit queer that the one
town in the Territory that has benefited more than any other in the period that the
political party has been in power, that was indicated by the speaker, was defeated
by quite a large margin in Tuesdays election in Palmer.
The recent addition to the list of benefits, the 25 new houses being built by the
Tlaska Housing Authority, was also evidently forgotten. Perhaps other things in
fluenced the voters besides the benefits mentioned.
One thing that may have had a large effect was the unfortunate issue raised on the
business license tax on farmers. This bungle was promoted by one of the best bunglers
who ever bungled anything, he nay be right part of the time but we will bet that he
will take the wrong side if it is at all possible on any proposition offered to him.
This man's blunder probably did more harm to the party that gave him the office that
he holds, than all of the good things that the same party has done for the people of
the Matanuska Valley. His removal from office would be a good project for the con
sideration of the officials who appointed him just as soon as possible.
One thing that distinguishes the Alaskan voter from most voters in the States is his
independence as regards to political parties. Any candidate that thinks that he can
slide into office in Alaska just because he belongs to some political party is just
fooling himself, or those who' think that they can make the grade because they have
influential friends likewise.
One reason that the two most successful candidates, for the Territorial Legislature,
got such a large vote was because they are known to be independents, and 'will con
sider the merits of a proposition and vote for or against it, purely on the grounds
of its desirability rather than its sponsorship by their party. Generally speaking
this system applies to both policical party's in Alaska. r.re like to believe that
this justifies the belief that many people up here have, when a person comes to
Alaska that he breaks with alot of the old traditions that he has been obeying, with
out question, in the states.
Outside of Juneau and Anchorage there isn't much respect shown for anyone just be
cause he has money or position, one man 'is just as good as another as long as he be
haves himself and doesn't bother others unnecessarily. This is because most of us
didn't have but a few dollars when we arrived in Alaska and that made us all members
of a brotherhood that has a mighty influence on our lives up here. Lets keep it
that way, lets be different even though we have to shoot "Santa Clause" once in a
while.
CRR
COOPERATIVES IN SWEDEN
(From Co-operator)
Cooperatives have perhaps made greater progress in Sweden than in any other country.
Sweden was one of the first countries to turn to the cooperative movement as an al
ternative to both business monopolies and government ownership.
Recently a young cooperator from Sweden visiting this country, Hans Thunnel, was
asked what patronage refunds the co-ops pay in Sweden.
We think that it is significant that this young cooperator tried to play down the im
portance of the patronage refund when discussing the cooperatives in his country. In
answer to the question that was asked him he replied: "As a result of long years of
cooperatives education, members look to their cooperative for service, not primarily
for patronage refunds. They support them as cheap insurance against monopoly. They
support them as a restraint on monopoly greed and high prices. They know the co-ops
pay indirect refunds^ too great to measure, by raising members * standard of living.