enjoyed by the citizens of the
states.
All Alaskans, like other Amer
icans, probably can agree in prin
ciple that statehood would be
a good thing. As Alaska’s then
Delegate to Congress, Anthony
J. “Tony” Dimond, put the is
sue a few years ago,
Unless we are willing to
ebandon our historic 'positions,
we are bound to demand state
hood at the earliest possible
time. The whole form and
fabric of our free government
is based upon the assumption
that people can govern them
selves in better fashion than
they can be governed by any
one else. And as a result it
follows that the largest posr
sible powers of self-govern
ment should be exercised by
every community and by ev
ery political subdivision, leav
ing only to the supreme gov
ernmental authority that part 1
of the government which af- I
fects the whole state, or the
whole nation, and thus can
not be exercised by local com
munities or political subdivi
sions.
In Alaska we have often
complained of the long-range
government from Washington,
which in many respects is the
only kind of government pos
sible under our territorial sta
tus. We have talked dispara
gingly about “bureaus” and
“bureaucrats” and have de
nounced the ineptitude of both.
Therefore, I suggest that the
people of Alaska should, and
do, ardently desire statehood
unless economic or other con
siderations still prevent the
accomplishment of that ambi
tion. We all know that we can
do a better job in taking care
of our own affairs than can
be done by some secretary of
a department, or chief of an
agency, or head of a bureau,
whose office is in Washington,
D.C., and who necessarily is
lacking intimate, first-hand
knowledge of a country so far
away from Washington as
lssks
In fact, unless we have a
firm belief in the principle
of local self-government, a be
lief that we are eager to trans
mute into action, there is no
reason why we should not join
with the many people of the
world who have yielded to the
seductive ease and the person
al lack of responsibility for
government involved in a dic
tatorship.
So the question really is,
whether Alaska is ready for
statehood. To form an intelli
gent answer to this question we
need first to examine statehood,
to find out what it is and what
its advantages and Responsibili
ties are, and to determine where
in it differs from the territori
al form of government in effect
in Alaska.
HOW A TERRITORY DIFFERS FROM A STATE
THE TERRITORIAL plan of government was devised for
regions under the sovereignty of the United States to
which Congress felt itself compelled to allow a measure of
self-government, but to which it was unwilling at once to
grant full membership in the Union. The status of territory
has always been regarded as a sort of governmental adoles
cence from which, with increasing population, the area
•would eventually grow into
adult statehood. When a terri
tory has acquired about 60,000;
people, it has usually been re-j
garded as of age. Every sta e |
west of the Alleghenies, except j
Texas and California, passed j
through this stage of develop
ment.
COURTS UNCERTAIN
WHAT CLAUSE MEANS
Since the whole theory of
territorial government was based
on the assumption that the peri
od of territorial tutelage would
be short, and would be followed
by statehood, not too much time
or effort was ever expended by
Congress in perfecting it. As
applied to the continental area,
the ill consequences of any im
perfections in the territorial
system could only be temporary, j
What is this system, and how,
well adapted is it to provide
government on a more or less
permanent basis to such an area
as Alaska?
The fundamental law of the
land has very little to say on!
the subject of the relationship
of American territories to the
Union. The only indication of
the intention of the makers of
the Constitution is in Article IV,
Section 3, which reads: “The
Congress shall have power to
dispose of and make all needful
rules and regulations respect
ing the territory or other prop
erty belonging to the United •
Stales.” The rest of the instru- j
meiit seems to postulate, both in!
spirit and in wording, a group of;
states and nothing else.
Since the time of the annexa-1
tion of Louisiana in the early j
180()'s the interpretation of this:
clause has vexed the nation. The!
Supreme Court has answered!
that the power to govern all the
areas not admitted to statehood :
resides in Congress. The extent;
of this congressional authority j
was a subject of contention be
fore the courts all during the
last century and is not yet en
tirely settled.
Territories such as Alaska and
Hawaii are sometimes classified
as “incorporated” territories as
distinguished from such “unin
corporated” possesions as the
Virgin Islands. American Samoa
and Guam. The term refers to
the fact that territories like |
Alaska and Hawaii have been
ircorpprated into the Union, that I
ii, brought entirely under the
protection of the Constitution.
The treaty with Russia providing
for annexation of Alaska de
clared that:
T’. c inhabitants of the ceded
territory . . . shall be admit
ted to the enjoyment of all
the right, advantages, and im
munities of citizens of the
United States; and shall be
maintained and protected in
the full enjoymeht of their
liberty, property, and religion.
Of course, the people of
Alaska are to this day conspic
uously denied one of the rights
and advantages which citizens
of the United States hold most
dear. This is the right, through
the ballot to control in some
measure the functioning of the
national government. It is obvi
ous, but not often appreciated
by those who do not reside in
the territories, that American
citizens participate in determin
ing the policies of the national
federation only through the me
dium -of the states. The Presi
dent is selected by an electoral
college composed of members
from each state. The Senate is
made up of two members from
each state. The House of Rep
resentatives is apportioned ac
cording to the population of the j
states.
PEOPLE DENIED
MANY BASIC RIGHTS
An amendment to the Consti
tution must be approved by
a two-thirds vote of both houses
of Congress—houses chosen by
the states—and approved by the
legislatures of or conventions in
three-fourths of the states. From
beginning to end, the reins
which guide the progress of the
national government lead only
from ihe states and citizens of the
states. The territories and pos
sesions are out of it.
Apparently it was inconceiv
able to the founding fathers that
Americans anywhere or of any
era should exist for long un
der a form of government in
which the benefits of suffrage
and representation are denied
them.
It is true that Alaska sends
a Delegate to Congress. But this
representative has no vote. His
influence, if any, is personal. It
is also true that both of the
major political parties grant rep
resentation to the territories in
their nominating conventions.
But this results in only indirect,
indefinite power. As for any
share in the formal, legal con
trol of the federal government,
such as the citizens of the states
have, the people of Alaska have
no more than the bears in the
hills, the salmon in the sea, the
trees in the forest or indeed the
stones in the field.
Not only are territories in
ferior to the states in that they
exercise no influence over the
federal government but also in
that the federal government has
much more authority over the
territories than over the states;
first, from the general theory
of the federation itself; and, sec
ond, from the interpretation
which the courts have put upon
the constitutional restrictions on
Congress.
FINAL AUTHORITY
RESTS WITH STATES
It is fundamental in the con
stitutional theory of the Ameri
can federation that the states
are sovereign in certain fields;
that they have certain inherent
powers, certain authority which
is neither granted nor delegated
to them. The federal govern
ment, on the other hand, has
only the powers specially dele
gated to it, such as the powers
to declare war, to levy taxes, to
regulate commerce between the
states, and to coin money. All
governmental powers not grant
ed to the national government
are, according to the Tenth
Amendment, reserved “to the
states or to the people.”
The theory of federal power
does not apply to the territories.
They are not sovereign. They
have no inherent powers. Any
authority which they have is
delegated to them by Congress.
One of the prime teste of sov
ereignty of an area is its ability
to change its form of govern
ment. States can do this at will,
except only as limited by the
federal constitutional provision
that they shall have a republican
form of government. But the ter
ritories have governments hand
ed to them by Congress. All gov
ernmental powers over the ter
ritories are in Congress. The
Congress allots what authority
it wishes to whatever agencies
it desires to set up in a territory
such as Alaska.
Nor are there any limitations
upon the legislative powers of
Congress, as respects territories,
save (hose imposed upon it by the
Contitution, which in this re
spect are slight indeed. All
“those powers reserved to the
states" by the Constitution re
pose, in the case of Alaska, in
the federal government. From
time to time, and especially in
the Organic Act of 1912, Con
gress has granted certain local
and territorial legislative pow
ers to the people of Alaska. This
grant of powers is not absolute.
Congress may legislate — and
does continue to do so — in pure
ly local and territorial matters.
U. S. ALSO EXERTS
AUTHORITY LOCALLY
The acts of Congress take pre
cedence over and repeal acts of
the Territorial Legislature in
conflict therewith. At any time
Congress may increase or de
crease its grant of powers to
the Territorial Legislature. Al
though some mentally resource
ful • “constitutional lawyers”
have sought to maintain the op
posite, it is no doubt true that
Congress could entirely with
draw this grant of power. Any
law passed by the Territorial
Legislature is subject to veto by
the Governor of the Territory, a
federal official, and laws may
be passed ov6r his veto only by
a two-thirds vote in each house
of the legislature. Any law of
the legislature may be rendered
void by a specific action of Con
gress. Otherwise, it is for the
courts to decide upon the legali
ty of territorial legislation if and
when it is challenged.
The power of the national gov
ernment over the territories dif
fers from the power of the na
tional government over the states
not only ns to the establishment
of local government but also as
to the regulation of the social
and personal relations of the
ALASKA STATEHOOD ISSUES
AND FACTS IN BRIEF
(Continued from Page 1)
20. Territorial impotence is costing Alaska vast sums annu
ally in congressional appropriations rightfully hers and
which will be obtained with statehood.
21. Statehood would obtain for Alaska the benefits of the
Federal Highway Aid act, amounting to $12,000,000 to $14.
000,000 annually in road grants for a state outlay of $2,000,000.
22. The gift of natural wealth to Alaska proposed in the
Bartlett-McCarran statehood bill is generous beyond the gift
made to any existing state.
23. Statehood would bring release of many of the reserva
tions and withdrawals of land and resources made through
the years by the federal government.
24. Portions of the large national forest reserves should
pass with statehood to Alaska and result in development of
a type not now possible.
25. With statehood, complete control over the fisheries will
pass to Alaska.
26. The Native Indian, Eskimo and Aleut residents of Alas
ka are a permanent concern of the^federal government, which
will continue to provide for their welfare on exactly the
same basis after statehood as at present.
27 There are numerous anti-statehood arguments. These
deserve study.
28. There have been numerous evidences that the peoplt
of Alaska do favor statehood. The October referendum wil
give them an opportunity to formally declare this attitude
29. A vote in favor-of statehood in the October referendun
does not mean Alaska would forthwith become a state. I
would merely be an indication to Congress that the peoplf
of the territory desire that the long process toward statehooi
be commenced. Hawaii voted overwhelmingly in favor 0
statehood six years ago, and yet Congress has not responds
to that mandate.
30. A vote for statehood in the October referendum doe
not commit Alaska unalterably to statehood or begin]
process which the people of Alaska cannot stop later shoUl
they desire to do so. Full control over whether the territorj
becomes a state remains firmly in the hands of the peoplf
of Alaska until after a state constitution is ratified by popu
lar vote.
31 A vote against statehood in the October referenda
will kill all hopes for statehood for many years to come ari
react against Alaska’s interests in other ways as well.
32. The forces which are opposing statehood today havd.
fought every extension of self-government to Alaska al
through the years. They are the people who look upon Alas
ka as just a place to extract from, and who believe in puttinj
nothing back.
33. Statehood for Alaska probably is inevitable. With every
year of delay, the many faults which statehood is designed
to cure will become progressively worse. Therefore, this is
the time to take the first step.
people. Over them in the terri
tories Congress has also that
power which in our federal plan
we have alloted to the states.
The chief additional power in
dealing with the local affairs of
the territories is what is known
as “the police power of the
states.” This is the power to
make laws concerning the pri
vate affairs of individuals, con
cerning property, contracts, pub
lic safety, public health, public
morals, and the general welfare
of the community. As Judge
Morrow of the Circuit Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
once declared, in a decision re
specting Alaska,
The United States having
rightfully acquired the terri
tories and being the only gov
ernment which can impose
laws upon them has the entire
dominion and sovereignty, na
tional and municipal, federal
and state ... It may legislate
in accordance with the spe
cial needs of each locality and
vary its regulations to meet
conditions and circumstances
of the people. Whether the sub
' ject elsewhere would be a
matter of local police regula
tion, or within state control
under some other power, is
immaterial to consider.
RIGHTS OF STATE
VERSUS ALASKA'S
And so, while congressional
acts regulating the speed of au
tomobiles, the making of con
tracts, or the closing of shops on
Sunday within the state of Oreg
on would be unconstitutional as
invading the functions of the
state government, yet the same
laws for Alaska would be en
i tirely within the rightful pow
ers of Congress.
As to the rights of individual
Citizens, however, except for thf
right to take a hand in control
ling national affairs, people it
Alaska are not inferior to thos
of the states. The humblest new
born child in Fairbanks coul<
no more have the plentitude o'
his privileges of American citi
zenship taken from him that
could the governor of NeW
York.
In terms of political rights th<
differences between Alaska anc
the State of California are these
Over Alaska, Congress has poW
ers of local regulation, unt*
stricted by many of the usua
curbs, while it has no ?uC'
power over California; Congresi
could give to the people of Alas
ka any type of govcrnmeti
which congressmen, in their wM
dom, thought approoriate, whili
the people of California them
selves determine their owl
mode of govemm;ent, subject
only to the constitutional Pr0
vision that it be republican
form: the people of Alaska caI
have no share in the control o
the federal government, even a
respects their own area, whu
the people of California exet
cise such control through votira
representation in Congress
through choice of the elector,
who select the President an
through their powers of amen,
ing the Constitution: for a|Tie!"'.
ments to the Alaska Organic A
Alaskans must depend on
oral government, while the Pc
pie of California, without refe
ence elsewhere, may c^a1^
their laws and their state con-’
tution in the manner present*!
in that document; any laW