41 Remember Them When . .
“There’s Jack and BUI, Tern and Mike, Bob, Joe and all the rest. I
i remember them when they weren't old eaoack to tie their own shoes. Ant j
i now look M them! They’re e*tn better men than 1 tkonght they’d be. Old
j Santa will never forget them—nor will the rest of the world. The p re sen)
they are giving os la far better than anything I could ever do for them.’’
Alaska Statehood ;
Explained By Lyng
A_
(Editor’s Note:—Mr. Lyng has
served three terms in the Alaska
Legislature; was speaker of the
House of Representatives in the
1939 session, and is now serving
his second four-year term as a
member of Alaska’s Board of
Public Welfare.)
Two bills requesting statehood
for Alaska are now before the
national Congress—one in the
Senate, sponsored by Senators
Langer of North Dakota and Mc
Carran of Nevada, the other in
troduced into the House of Rep
resentatives by Alaska’s Dele
gate to Congress, Anthony J. Di
mond.
The state legislature of Nevada
some months ago sent a resolu
tion to the national Congress urg
ing statehood for Alaska. Just
recently at Salt Lake City, Utah,
where Republican delegates from
11 western states assembled in
convention, one of the resolutions
formulated urged the immediate
granting of statehood for Alaska.
Other representative groups up
and down the Pacific Coast are
actively pressing for statehood
for Alaska, and their represen
tatives in the national Congress
have evidenced a sympathetic
and cooperative concern in the
matter.
It would seem then, that the
time has come for the residents
of the Territory to give to this
question of statehood the serious
thought that it deserves, for no
matter how many enthusiastic
and well moaning advocates in
the states espouse the cause of
statehood for Alaska, in the final
analysis it will depend largely t
upon the attitude of the people ;
of Alaska themselves.
It is unthinkable to me—a na- j
tive son of Alaska—that the peo- <
pie of this great Territory of ours J
will be so indifferent concerning i j
this most vital question, that they I
will permit those who oppose, |
statehood—a numerically small 1 g
group—to steal all the thunder ;
and make all the noise on the <
subject. For if this happens, Con- <
gress may well hesitate, upon the j
grounds that we do not know J J
ourselves what we want.
It must be recognized that if jj
the people of Alaska desire state- |
hood, and I believe they do, this I s
is the most opportune time to «
come out strong for it. Never be- *
fore has the Territory been so ! j
spotlighted by national attention §
—never before has public interest §
been focused upon Alaska as at e
present. These conditions and £
this opportunity may never come jjj
again in the life time of the pres- |
ent generation. s
It is then a most serious ques- J
tion and deserves every citizen’s ^
serious consideration and active ^
participation, for it involves not {
only your own destiny but also £
the destiny of your children and j
your children’s children. 4
In discussing statehood with |
various persons, it is well to con
sider the background from which
their statements emanate. There !
is reason to believe that repre
sentatives of large corporations
will propagandize against and
try to defeat the proposition, as
they fear any upset of conditions
under which they are prospering.
Also they contemplate with dis
taste any new taxes a state gov
ernment might levy. Corpora
tions in Alaska, especially those
operating under absentee owner
ship. believe they can fare bet-:
ter dealing with bureaus rather
than with Alaskans.
There is also reason to suspect
that office holders under the j
present system might be opposed
to statehood for fear that the
the change to a state government
would abolish their jobs. Intense
opposition can be expected from
the many Federal Bureaus, who
really run Alaska, for with state
hood they will lose much of their
powers.
It should be relatively easy for
the great majority of Alaskans to
agree about statehood for Alaska.
The whole form and fabric of
our American system of free
government is based upon the as
9
I
|
Caterpillar
| Diesel Tractors And
| Engines!
i —
| iHerry (Christmas atth |
| j\ Happy Netu Hear |
| Northern Commercial 1
1 Company |
jjf IN NOME . . . PHONE MAIN 22 jl
I DISTRIBUTORS IN ALASKA AND YUKON TERRITORY |
^ i ..
sumption that people can govern
! themselves better than they can
be governed by anyone else. It
is also axiomatic of the American
system that the largest possible
powers of self-government should
be exercised by every commun
ity and political subdivision, leav
ing to the supreme government
al authority only that part of
i the government that effects the
1 whole state, or the whole nation.
The people of Alaska have been
and are, thoroughly imbued with
' the principle of local self-govern
t ment. AJaskans are as truly
American as the people of any
state in the Union, and this in
cludes the native Indians, Aleuts
and Eskimos. They are all equally
devoted and loyal to our govern
! ment and to the high principles
on which it is established.
I
One of the main arguments, on
the part of those who oppose I
statehood for Alaska is lack of j
population. This does not appear !
to be logical because Alaska, 1940 I
census, has a population of 71,911, •
which is greater than that of 10 :
i states when they were taken into !
i the Union. The population of
! these 10 states at the time of their
; admission, all less than Alaska’s
I population, were:
j Colorado .. 39,864
‘ Delaware . 59,096
Illinois . _...55,211
Missouri . 66,586
Nevada . 42,491 \
Ohio ...45,365
Oregon .. 52,465
Rhode Island .68,285
Tennessee . ,...35*691
Wyoming ..62,555
i I think it is agreed by all that
Alaska’s population, other than
the armed services, greatly ex
ceeds the census figures of 1940
—those in a position to make a
reliable estimate place it in ex
cess of 100,000. If this be so, we
can add four more states to the
above listed 10, who had less
than Alaska’s present population
when admitted to statehood:
Georgia ---
Kentucky - _73,6TI
Louisiana _ 76,554
Mississippi .. _...75,444
If anyone concludes that Alas
ka is not ready for statehood be
cause of lack of population, how
do they account for the admission
to the Union of 14 states with less
population, and of which none
even approached Alaska at the
time of admission in production
of wealth, or in Alaska's record
over the years of always having
an enormous balance of trade in
her favor.
The term "Balance of Trade"
simply means the difference be
tween what is shipped out of the
country and what is brought in
—exports and imports. It is the
difference between them, espe
cially that difference by which,
exports exceed imports, that
very specifically measures atro
phied potential power to support
additional population in the Ter
ritory under the present system.
During the 30-year period end
ing in 1933, exports exceeded im
ports by over 600 million dollars
—an average of 32 million dol
lars per year. In 1936 the figure
jumped to 37 million, but has
been somewhat less the past sev
eral years. Since the major pro
ducts of the Territory are fish
and gold under our present econ
omy, and because the total pro
duction is marketed in the states
and the major portion of the
monetary returns remain in the
states, Alaska’s imports must nec
essarily be restricted and her
population down.
Self-sufficiency of locality has
always been a large factor in ac
complishing settlement by the
pioneer and his family. In other
early American pioneering this
occurred not only in his power
to endure privation, but also La
his genius to achieve his needs,
(Continued on Pafe Eighteen)