endered them of much less
irco and value than identi
fy the same laws possessed
! the older territories. By
iter congressional acts, some
mes even by executive proc
unations, and more often by
tdes and regulations prepared
nd adopted, by some or all
f the numerous United States
ureaus engaged in public ac
vities in Alaska and which
ave or are assumed to have
je force and effect of the
nited States statutes, the or
jnic laws of Alaska are ren
ted less effective and in
line instances practically re- i
Baled, though not mentioned
i the Acts of Congress cre
ting the bureaus,
the enabling act of 1912 made
Iiska a potential state. But the
cial limitations which had to
inserted in the act to insure
passage have not been re
ved in the years since elapsed.
|NY laws forbidden
ALASKA LEGISLATURE
Che national government's
t to Alaska of a legislative
iy falls fai short of fulfilling
ritorial aspirations for home
e, since Congress has specifi
ly forbidden the Territorial
[islature to enact certain kinds
laws. Among these specific
ihibitious are the following:
It may not pass any law in
rfcring with the primary
sposal of the soil; .... it
ay not authorize bonded in
btedness or the creation of
iy debt by the territory or
unicipalities thereof; ... it
By not create or assume any
dehtcducss for the actual
lining expenses of the terri
riul government in excess of
v actual income of the terri- j
ry for a given year; it may 1
t levy any tux for territorial
rposes in excess of one per
stum upon the assessed val
lion of property, nor within
> incorporated towns (for .
vn purposes) in excess of
0 per rentum; it muy not
is any law providing for the 1
mation of county govern- ;
ni within the territory
bout the affirmative ap
ivul of Congress: it may not
tor, amend, modify, or re
il” the "game" and "fish”
,as passed by Congress and
force In Alaska,
he Organic Act also extends
ilaska limitations imposed in
■parutc act of 1C86 prohibit
pnssugo of local or special
s by legislatures of the ter
ries.
elegato Wickersham had
tlie senate committee In
rge of the so called Alaska
ic rule bill that he consid
1 the sumptuary provisions
tiling territorial expendi
>s and taxes) an insult to his
Rtitucnts and that he expect
them to be repealed “when
igress learns to have confi
ce in the integrity of the
pie of Alaska.” However,
provisions remain to this
HING INTERESTS
JGHT TO EVADE TAX
he Organic Act had been in
led to be even more restric
Onc of the most interesting
t.aclcs in Congress during
consideration was the effort
le by the fishing interests to
t the power of the legisla
t to tax them. This effort and
unforseen result arc describ- ^
by Jeannette Paddock Nich-!
in her admirable book
ska: a Study of Its Admin
tiion. Exploitation and In
itial Development During Its
•t Half Century Under the
e of the United States.
They secured upon the floor
the House the insertion of
Jause including among »
>se laws which the legisla
e was forbidden to “alier,
icnd. modify, and repeal”’
asures rcl ting to game and
it . . . These precautions
nt for naught, however, as
1 as taxation of the fisheries
s concerned: for in the in
table committee of confer
-e of the two houses on the
bill as amended by the Senate,
the House c o*i f e r e e s put
through a “ joker", following
the clause above referred to:
“Provided further, that this
provision shall not operate to
prevent the legislature from
imposing other and additional
taxes or licenses.” The joker
was in the bill to stay, and al
though it is the only clause
giving the legislature author
ity over the fisheries, it has
served to empower that body
to use the industry as the
chief mainstay of the terri
torial treasury.
The main question of debate
when territorial government,
and not statehood, was at stake
was the old, old issue between
home rule and big business.
Their lobby was asking: “Would
big business be required to pay
the costs of home rule, and to
suffer under the jurisdiction of
the local legislature?” The Or
ganic Act, as presented to the
62nd Congress, was carefully
drawn to quiet their concern.
Expenditures and taxes were to
be limited in the manner already
described; non-residents were to
be taxed no higher than resi
dents; county organization was
prohibited, and indebtedness
was carefully hedged about to
preclude extravagance. These
restrictions were explained as
due to the (act that it was not a
question of what was right for
Alaska to have, but, as Delegate
Wickersham put it, of what the
particular interests “will let
Congicss puss (or us, because
they are in a position to defeat
the bill if they determine to do
so.”
TAX SYSTEM ALSO
WAS MAKESHIFT
Such is the genesis of the
charter under which Alasku's
territorial government f u n c
tions. It is underlain by, and in
corporates by reference, oven
older and less satisfactory scraps
und pieces of congressional leg
islation. The earlier Organic Act
of 1864, according to the Nichols
account:
was evolved from a composite
of honest intentions, ignor
ance, stupidity, indifference,
and q u n s i-expedicncy. The
Senate debated it at some
length on five consecutive
duys in January of 1884; and
on May 18 following the
House adopted the measure
precisely as it came to them,
after about two hours desul
tory discussion.
The act as passed was a com
promise bill drown in the Senate
Commitlee on 'territories to pro
vide a simple, temporary form
of government without meeting
any constitutional stumps.”
Similarly, Alaska’s tax sys
tem stems from a time when the
territory had no local govern
ment, no representation in Con
gress, no legislature and no
means of assessing or collecting
an equitable tax. It was moti
vated by a desire on the part of
Congress in 1898 to legalize the
liquor traffic in an area in which
absolute prohibition had been
the law, though far from the
practice. Taxes were levied upon
the residents in general, accord
ing to the business in which they
were engaged, whether it was
billiards or boarding houses,
meat marketing or taxidermy.
The fisheries were taxed accosd
ing to their output, for example,
four cents for each case of can
ned salmon and ten cents for
each barrel of salted salmon.
The gold mines were taxed by
•he number of stamps in opera
tion, three dollars per stamp.
This system of licensing all bus.
nesses on the same principle as
saloons adapted itself readily to
Alaska, because of her lack of
the usual organization for levy
ing ordinary taxes. There was
some justification for such a tax
system in that day. But it has
been retained, with some modi
fications, to date.
the disadvantages of territorialism
here is an old Aleut saying which was current in Alaska
at the time of Russian occupation: "God is h:gh and the
r far away.” It was paraphrased in 1904 by the Nome
'Ret in complaining bitterly’ of official neglect of Alaska
as: “God is afar off and it is a long way to Washington.”
Forty-two years later the saying still has point as applied to
Alaska’s territorial form of government.
Alaska is so far removed from Washington, and has so
many unique requirements, that
it is almost fantastic to expect
good local government in the
Territory to stem from the na
tional capital. Yet, under the
territorial system, that appar
ently is the expectation. It has
never been fulfilled. The his
tory, as someone has said, is one
of
how Congress occasionally
and hastily fashioned a few
legislative garments for Alas
ka .. . how those clothes were
never cut to fit, how Alaska
tore them out in the seams
and wore them out at the el
bows, with Congress too busy
to mend.
Aside from the relationship
which it creates between the
territory and Congress, in the
one case, and between Alaska
and the federal bureaus in the
other, there are other and seri
ous disadvantages to territorial
ism. One of these was discov
ered as long ago as 1921 by
Alaska's then Attorney General,
John Rustgard. He had sought
to obtain for Alaska the same
privileges afforded Residents of
the states in the matter of using
foreign ships. In brief, the law
provides that merchandise ship
ped from one American point
to another over the Canadian
railroads may be shipped in a
British bottom over the water
part of the route, us on the Great
Lakes.
ALASKA WAS VICTIM
OF DISCRIMINATION
The Attorney General took the
position that a section of the
Jones Act which denies this
same privilege to the people
of Alaska in utilizing more eco
nomical Canadian transporta
tion is unconstitutional in that
it discriminates against Alaska
in matters of interstate com
i merce. The court held that Con
gress not only has the right to
discriminate against Alaska in
this manner but could, if It saw
fit, close every port in the terri
tory. The Supreme Court sus
tained this position. Comment
ing on the decision, Ru.stgard
suggested a remedy.
The blow is a severe one,
and there is no remedy for it
except to give to Alaska a
state government in which
event the people will have
tiie same protection against
discriminatory legislation as
is accorded people of the
states. The decision of the Su
preme Court is the best argu
ment in support of a demand
for state government.
Alaska's present Attorney
General, Ralph Rivers, recently
summed up some of the more
important legal disadvantages
of territorial status as follows:
Alaskans cannot elect their
Governor or Secretary . . .
The Alaska Legislature can
not alter the number of Rep
resentatives or Senator* in the
Territorial Legislature as in
creased population or shifts
in population might warrant
. . . Alaskans cannot have a
delegate in the United States
Senate . . . Pt)c legislature
cannot create courts either
with original jurisdiction or
appellate powers . . . Alaska
cannot control Its fisheries
and wildlife, excepting as in
cidental to taxation. The legis
lature cannot pass a local or
specie! law no matter how
necessary in a particular case.
Municipal corporations cannot
bond themselves in excess of
10 per cent of the taxable
value of property . . . and can
not levy a tax in excess of two j
per cent . . . The territory
cannot levy a tax for terri
torial purposes in excess of
one tier cent . . . and assess
ments for the purpose of taxa
tioa on property must be ac
cording to the "actual value
thereof.-’ which restriction im
poses an almost insurmount
able obstacle to any reason
able property taxation pro
gram within the usual consti
tutional restriction*. The ter
ritory cannot bond itself no
ma'ter how great the need
might become, unless Congress
would pass a law allowing it.
Al'hough money from 1 cerse
taxes on trades ar.d occupa
tions imposed by Congress . ..
goes to the municipalities . . .
or to the Alaska Fund . . . the
disbursement of the Alas
ka Fund, under the law, by
the U.S. Treasury, is absolute
ly arbitrary . . . The President
is directed to submit territori
al laws to Congress so that it
may disapprove any law en
acted by the Territorial Legis
lature. This is a useless indig
nity because Congress, with
its plenary power over terri
tories, can pass special laws
ior Alaska in derogation of
our local enactments at any
time. All of these restrictions
could be abolished by grant
ing statehood.
The faults of the territorial
form of government were so
glaringly revealed during the
debates upon statehood for Ok
lahoma, New Mexico and Ari
zona in the early 1900's that
Governor Brady of Alaska, for
one, proposed that Alaska
should remain unorganized until
ready for statehood. This, of
course, was an extreme view,
which not many Alaskans
shared. Bad as it is, territorial
status undoubtedly is justified
as a temporary expedient, as a
step toward statehood. No one
ever intended it should continue
as long as it has in Alaska.
MANY PRESIDENTS
FAVOnED STATEHOOD
The history of the territorial
expansion and political develop
ment of the United States is one
of the advance of urea after area
from territorial status to state
hood. This has been the logical
development for any substantial
American area.
It would seem to 1m? a logical
development tit this time far the
two areas, Alaska and Hawaii,
which have the advanced and
special position of being "Incor
porated territories and which
have developed the general
problems common to American
territories in their progression
toward full self-government and
inclusion in the family of slates.
There Is no dnv.bt ‘>ut what
Secretary Seward had eventual
statehood in mind when he con
cluded the arrangements for
Alaska’s annexation. In a
lengthy and learned speech in
support of ratification of the
treaty of purchase of Alaska.
Senator Charles Sumner also
specifically dedicated Alaska to
future statehood In the Union
and made a prophetic appeal fo
the Senate on behalf of the tide
of Americans to follow into
Alaska in the futurci Other*
prominent on the national scene
since that time, including Pres
idents Theodore Roosevelt.
Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Har
rv S. Truman, have spoken of
statehood a* Alaska's destiny.
The late James Wickcrsham.
who was Alaska's Delegate to
Congress longer than any other
man. looked forward to the time
when Alaska
will emerge from the chrysa
lis of territorial darkness^
adopt a state constitution and
attain final home rule as the
sovereign state of Alaska.
MANY KNEW LITTLE:
MORE CARED LITTLE
On the other hand, there has
been no lack of persons of oppo
site view, though it is fair to
say these have always been the
men who knew the least about
Alaska, and cared even less than
that. During the period of total
national neglect of Alaska from
1867 to 1884, the Congressional
attitude toward the new posses
sion was expressed by Repre
sentative Price of Iowa, who
said.
Now that we have got it
and cannot give it away or
lose it, I hope we will keep it
under military rule and get
along with as little expense as
possible.
Every session of Congress
from 1868 to 1884 saw at least
one bill for providing tempo
rary government for Alaska in
troduced in the national legis
Isture. None was passed. Most
died in committee or were killed
by “objection.” The difficulty
was a lack of information and
interest to pass legislation for a
region which gave no congress
man a constituency. The history
since that time lias been hardly
less unhappy.
ECONOMIC GROWTH
DELAYED BY STATUS
Alaska spent 45 years in pain
ully acquiring the political sta
tus commonly accorded- to our
territories after a comparatively
brief and uneventful novitiate.
Alaska belonged to the United
State s 17 years before it had any
legal government whatsoever.
Sixteen more years passed be
fore Congress determined what
laws should guide her people in
their daily conduct. Another six
years elapsed before the terri
tory was permitted an official
representative at the national
capital, and an equal and addi
tional length of time before the
people were permitted to take
any part in making the local
laws under which they were
governed. Since the territory
was given a legislature, 34 more
years have passed into history
with relatively little improve
ment in Alaska's governmental
status.
That for which Alaskans have
been struggling since IHI2 has
not been political recognition,
as such. It has been economic de
velopment. Vet, for economic de
velopment Alasku Ik almost to
tally dependent upon the action
of Congress. And the favorable
action of Congress has been
found to be all but impossible
without statehood. If this view
lx- acrepted and it is difficult
to place any other interpretation
on the events- Aluska's politi
cal struggle must licgin anew,
the fight for home rule must re
commence, and Alaska should
begin now to equip he'■self for
entrance into the sisterhood of
strftes as one of the greatest.
STATEHOOD MOVE
BEGAN IN 1915
The statehood movement in
Aluskn already has many yoors,
and the long efforts of many
good men, behind it. Cries for
statehood began to be heard
throughout the territory In 1915,
as many people came to realize
that in no other way could they
hope to throw off the shackles
of colonialism with which Alas
ka was continually being bur
den ed. The second Territorial
Legislature saw introduction of
a statehood bill by Senator O. P.
Hubbard, who the following
year became the first president
of the first Alaska Statehood
Club, organized at Valdez on
February 16, 1916.
A bill for statehood was also
introduced in Congress by Dele
gate Wickersham in 1916, caus
ing the newspapers of the Unit
ed Slates to take up the ques
tion of admitting Alaska, while
of course the press of the terri
tory devoted much editorial
space to the issue. Delegate
Wickersham’* bill came to
naught. Far from being inter
ested in Riving Alaska more
self-government, the federal gov
ernment at that time was busily
engaged in trying to take back
what few privileges had been ac
corded the Territory by the Or
ganic Act of 1912.
PEOPLE HOLD FATE
IN THEIH OWN HANDS
Delegate Wickorsham was suc
ceeded by Delegate Dimond,
who throughout his dozen years
in Washington, while winning
many new advantages for Alas
ka as a territory, made state
hood for Alaska a continuing
and ultimate aim. Now Delegate
Bartlett is continuing the long
struggle to bring Alaska's state
hood aspirations prominently to
the attention of the Congress
and the nation. Whether he, or
whether some successor as Dele
gate. will succeed in gaining ad
mission for Alaska depends pri
! family upon how vigorously and
insistently the people of the teT
' ritory show their desire for such
I a step.