PALMER, ALASKA
Dorothy M* Bell, Editor
Published every week at Palmer, Alaska for the Matanuska Valley Ranters' Cooperating
Association fbr the purpose <5f giving news of the Associations T7ork, Problems and
Accomplishments as well as News of general interest to the Valley.
SUBSCRIPTION RATE $1.75 per year
10^ a copy
• THE PENALTY FOP * LIVING IN ALASKA"
Travelogues, magazine stories and Newspaper articles tend to portray to residents of
the States that Alaska is About the nearest approach to Utopia yet to be found on the
face of the earth. It doesn’t take much to kindle the'spark of the age-old American
pioneer spirit and the result is a trek toward Alaska. Parallel with this interest
in settlement in the northland is an awakenod interest and deep concern on the part
of Washington D.C; for the welfare of Alaska. Recent legislation in regard to Agri
cultural Research, Extensive Geological'Surveys—etc. indicate that active interest
on the part of our national governmen t.
However, along \7ith this and in direct opposition to it, we have very evident discrim
ination as for example will be found in the following —
1. the travel tax of 15$ has been removed on travellers to foreign countries—but not
to'Alaska or Hawaii (see page 11)
2. the recent increase off freight rates on the all too high shipping costs.
3. the special rates allowed to special interests.
Let us elucidate on each of these.
The travel tax of 15$ in all probability will, be removed in due time as Delegate
Bartlett has very definitely called the situation to the attention of Congress. A3 it
now stands, we agree with Bartlett that it is a discrimination against Alaska.
The increase in shipping rates above rates that were all ready too high is something
different. Two years ago a delegation of Congressmen visited Alaska and several 'ex
pressed themselves as being opposed to the high freight rates in and to Alaska, At
several different times different Congressmen of this party were known to express
themselves regarding these high rates. Yet what has happened? Rather than a re
duction as we had hoped—we get a higher rate. If these rates were uniformly imposed,
the discrimination vrauld not be quite so evident—but special interests have been
favored.
Quoting from a release given out by the Attorney General of Alaska, we present the
following facts and figures: (This article is necessarily cut, due to lack of space)
"Regarding discriminations mentioned, I submit as follows:
(a) The new specific rates are prejudicial to year-around Alaska resident's and tend
not to -correct but‘enhance the inequities which have existed in previous rate struct
ures in said trade. -
‘ Under the contr cts approved by the Commission, capital costs'are virtually elim
inated. The Commission will charter all rtecessary vessels at $1.00 per year and will
assume all risks and hull insurance costs, both on the government-owned ships and the
fev; privately-owned ships which are involved. It was the intention of Congress in
permitting this arrangement to provide for the lowest possible freight charges by <
limiting the'costs which the shippers of freight shohld bear to the carriers* out-of
pocket costs. On the basis of 1946 operating expense, f/hich does not include the
fourth quarter during which thd ships'were not running, private operation wo uld have ■
resulted in a net loss 6f $144,000.00. As to stoppages similar to the 1946 fourth- u
ruarter maritime strike, same improvement could be postulated from the'national labor'
legislation now pending'in Congress. Notwithstanding stoppages in 1946, the new rates,
had they been in effect, would'hav6 caused an increase of revenue during that year
in ah approximate amount of $4,331,000.00. --This fact alone would justify'our
strong objections even though the new rate structure were non-discriminatory, which
it isn’t,
'(b) Specific items in the new tariff showing discrimination against year-around
Alaska residents are as follows:
(l) Canned salmon'moving from Kodiak to Seattle will pay $12.00 per ton or $5.00
more than in 1941t while general freight northbound will pay $27.00 per ton or $10.50
more than in 1941. No justification has ever been advanced by the carriers for such
discrimination. There is no justification. It is simply a case of collusion between
the Seattle transportation companies and the canned salmon industry. The "ease of
handling" argument does not explain a rate of $14.60 per ton in favor of seasonal
shippers v;hose servicing requires the year-around capital costs of a freighter to be
incurred for a movement extending over slightly more than one-third of the year.
Neither does the "value of cargo" argument explain such spr ad. There are extremely
, iftont. on page 7