Alaska Legislature could
pended or abolished by
or ess, while the laws of the
fornia Legislature are not
* t to national review ex
the courts as to their
.titutionahty; finally, Alas
ka’s chief executive, the Gov
ernor, possessing veto power
over acts of the Territorial Leg
islature, is appointed by the
President, while the people of
California elect their Governor
from among their own number.
the arguments against statehood
-jERE are few who would contend that territorial status
is preferable to statehood. There have been some, how
who have taken the corollary position that statehood
Alaska is not to be desired.
-obably the most complete and fervent exposition of the
.statehood viewpoint which is available in organized
en form is a report which
made three years ago by the
slative Committee of the Ju
Chamber of Commerce. At
ime, this report was adopt
3y only the narrowest of
ijns when submitted to a
’ of the membership. Last
a greatly modified attitude,
ie whole favoring statehood,
taken by the committee,
,e members remained the
with a single exception,
this later report was en
•d by a much more repre
tive vote of the whole
iber. So it would be unfair
-e the earlier report as em
ing the point of view of this
cular organization today;
t is not unfair to cite it as
11 considered and carefully
ired statement of the argu
s against statehood,
r the purpose of allowing
lood opponents a fair pre
tion of their arguments, un
ed by the statements of
whose attitude may differ
ie question, pertinent ex
from the 1943 report of
egislative Committee of the
iu Chamber of Commerce
ere set forth;
Dng with the privileges
tatehood) there would be
►risibilities. The ones your
nittee believes should
mature consideration are
; connected with the costs
peration of the proposed
and whether the economy
ie territory, as at present
tituted could, without un
hardship, take on the add
inancial burden of state
io costs (of the present ter
ial government) would all
inue under statehood. In
lion, we would necessari
ave to set up state courts
t The cost of four courts
S on actual District Court
records . . . would be
,000 per year. This rep
ots cost of the courts, in
ing all operations, mar
3, commissioner, operation
ails, etc. . . .
ROES of revenue
■ STATE UNCERTAIN
is certain that the costs
dministering a state gov
aent would greatly exceed
cost of the territorial ad
stration, and it is impos
' to see at this time any
tional sources of revenue
;h would be available to
People of Alaska, if it
: made a state. . . .
the state took over com
- control of the fisheries,
ould not affect the reve
trom the fisheries, which
So entirely to the terri
hut it would require ad
nal apppropriations from
funds as the state was
to raise by taxation,
uriting to nearly $700,000
ar.
might well be that if
*ca were made a state, the
lcial task of providing
education, health facili
. hospitalization, etc., of
ydaska Natives would de
® upon the new state. . .
c°st_ of this care, based on
°Priations recently made
the fiscal year 1943
“ $1,909,800. . . If Alaska
Tiade a state, it is very
■y that Congress might
‘nue to care for the In
aUd to continue the large
^Priations now deemed
-sary for their welfare,
‘-here is no assurance of
a) vastly more com
^d and expensive govern
,i maintain now com
. 1° the earlier territories.
Ll 'Were no governmental
rK.activities then as now,
half or more of the
>rial revenues. . • •
The vast natural resources
about which we have heard so
much and know so little will
not stimulate settlement nor
produce tax revenue unless
someone finds them and de
velops them. They might ex
ist, as heralded. We do not
presume to know, but we can
find no reason to believe that
statehood, with higher taxes
inevitable, would encourage
development. If taxes were ex
cessive, the reverse would
likely be true.
We believe the prevalent
idea that the rapid settlement
and development of territor
ies, now states, was due to
statehood has no foundation.
. . . People change residence
and capital moves from place
to place for many reasons, but
not for the reason that a state
is preferable to a territory.
'ONLY CONJECTURE
ON OTHER RESOURCES'
We have now and would
have under statehood, two ma
jor industries which largely
influence our economic devel
opment. The commercial fish
eries are now very well stabil
ized and may not be greatly
enlarged unless or until means
are found to profitably take
and market the several varie
ties of the less desirable food
fishes. . . It is impossible to
say at the present time just
what will be the future of
gold. . . From all accounts,
there is no immediate pros
pect of development of major
forest products, and of other
natural resources there is only
conjecture. . . .
Although under the existing
law our present delegate (Di
mond) has no vote, he has
very ably represented the ter
ritory in Congress for many
years and we have not suf
fered from lack of an able rep
resentative at the nation’s cap
ital. We would undoubtedly
have the right (under state
hood) to elect our own Gov
ernor and judges and other of
ficials, but we do not believe
the people of the territory, as
a whole, are of the opinion
that we have suffered any
great hardships because these
officials are appointed and not
elected. . . .
Even if we took over the
administration of the forests,
with again a very consider
able cost of administration,
we would have gained noth
ing, for we cannot say that
the national forest reserves
could be administered any
more efficiently or fairly than
under the present law and by
the present administration of
the Forest Service. . . .
The federal government
now" has about one-half of the
entire area of the territory in
reserves of one form or an
other. This committee feels
that it would be unwise to dis
turb the present system of for
est reserves. . . If (other) res
ervations are continued, and
there is no assurance that they
would not be, the new state
would be deprived of all jur
isdiction over them. In many
of these reservations, mining,
prospecting, settlement and
development have been made
impossible.
INDIAN RIGHTS
CALLED THREAT
Another serious question is
the current agitation for turn
ing over to the exclusive use
of the Indians along the coast
the most valuable fisheries
under asserted ancient tribal
rights. . . ft (the claims) are
successful, it would deprive
the federal government, under
the present state of affairs,
and the state, if Alaska were
created one, from exercising
any regulation whatsoever
over most of the area in South
eastern Alaska where salmon
fishing is now caried on. This
also applies to the game in
those areas. . . .
We should certainly acquire
no additional sources of reve
nue while at the same time re
quiring a greatly increased
budget. This could only be at
tained by very drastic in
creases of present taxes and
by the levy of additional taxes.
Any legislature of the terri
tory at the present time, or
the legislature of the State of
Alaska, would be very reluc
tant to materially increase the
burden of taxation so long as
it can be avoided. This is so
because of the heavy tax de
mands of the federal govern
ment, which we know must
and will continue for genera
tions. . . .
We are still in the position
of having to discover and de
velop additional natural re
sources before we can assimi
late any considerable number
of new residents who would
in turn have to build up tax
able accumulations of Wealth
before there will be any addi
tional tax sources.
Whether there will be an
influx of population after the
war, is again speculation; but
if there is depression in the
states, or some millions of
men are out of employment,
as seems very likely during
the years of readjustment fol
lowing the war when ten or
twelve million men are dis
charged from the armed forces
and ten or fifteen million
others are released from war
production, it may well be
that there would be an influx
of population here, but far
from being a desirable thing,
it may place an additional fi
nancial burden on the terri
torial government. . . .
We-feel we must not over
look some mention of the care
of the insane. This duty and
the expense involved would
surely be transferred to the
State of Alaska. . . The appro
priation for the care of Alaska
insane for the present fiscal
year is $273,000. This cost
would be the same under
statehood. . . .
COST OF ALASKA
ROADS WOULD RISE
All of the present states of
the Union are contiguous one
to the other. Alaska would be
a non contiguous state, and
on account of its geographical
position, it would be deprived
of certain revenues which are
obtained in every other state
through gasoline taxes. . . .
The Public Roads Adminis
tration builds roads in nation
al forests and their vicinity,
but after these roads are built,
where the national forests are
within states, the cost of main
tenance after the first two
years must be borne by the
state . . . Therefore, the cost of
maintenance of the system of
public roads within the na
tional forests, which would
have to be borne by the State
of Alaska, would be approxi
mately $150,000 a year, for
the present system of roads.
This would increase, of course,
as more roads are built. . .
Regular appropriations for the
Alaska Road Commission ave
rage about $750,000 a year. . .
This would naturally be
abolished under statehood and
in its place we would probably
have aid from the Federal
Highway Act. . . These appro
priations, however, are match
ed funds and the states are
called upon to supplement the
appropriations made by the
federal government. . . If
Alaska were to become a state
now, with land reservations
unchanged and about 98% of
the public domain under the
control of the United States
and if the Federal Highway
Act were applied to the new
state, its proportion of con
tribution to the funds appro
priated for road building
would increase with any in
crease in the public domain
over which it would be given
jurisdiction, and the larger
the amount that came under
the jurisdiction of the state,
the larger would be its re
quired contribution. . . The
standards required under the
Federal Highway Act are very
much higher than those re
quired by the Alaska Road
Commission, so that whatever
roads should be built . . .
would be several times more
expensive per mile to build.
We n'eglected to mention j
the capital investment of the
federal government in the fa- I
cilities for caring for the Na
tives. . . Unless all this prop
erty were given by the federal
government to the new state,
we should face the necessity
of an expenditure of over $2,
000,000 for its acquisition. . . .
TIME IS CALLED
INOPPORTUNE
Those who think through
the problem . . . and base
their calculations upon human
experience rather than on
speculation, and place on one
side the possible benefits to
be derived, and, on the other
side, the probable disadvan
tage and the vastly increased
bucden of* taxation, they will
be forced to the conclusion
that the present is an inoppor
tune time to change the form
of government in the terri
tory. , . .
The above, which in length is
about half of the Juneau Cham
ber of Commerce Legislative
Committee’s report, which was;
printed and given considerable I
circulation at the time, is pre-j
sented as a fair summary of that
report. All of the points made
in the report are made above. |
In the interests of conserving
space, excess verbiage has been
eliminated. None of the lan
guage of the original report has
been changed. It is, of course,
with apologies to the Juneau
Chamber of Commerce and to
its present Legislative Commit-1
tee, that the matter is quoted at1
all.
There are other points which
might be raised against state
hood. These include the follow
ing:
1. Alaska is too remote from
the rest of the nation to develop
interests and problems of the
same nature as exist in the 48
states.
2. Territorial status is one of
governmental adolescence. As
was maintained by a congres
sional subcommittee only last
year, Alaskans have not grown
up to the point of showing will
ingness to accept a proper share
of the cost and responsibility of
maintaining desirable govern
mental services.
i
TERRITORY UNIQUE;
STATEHOOD ISN'T
3. The federal government,
through its many agencies, now
takes an interest in Alaska mat
ters and spends much money in
the territory, which it would
not do if Alaska were a state.
4. The matter of being some
thing a little bit special—of be
ing one of only two or three ter
ritories instead -of one of 49 or
50 states—brings Alaska extra
attention in other ways and has
advertising value.
5. The present Organic Act
gives us control over most of
our domestic affairs, while
friendly congressmen manage
pretty well to look after our
larger interests.
6. Restrictions in the Organic
Act prohibiting special legisla
tion. territorial bond issues and
other indebtedness, and limit
ing tax rates, are desirable as
safeguards against taxing busi
hess to a burdensome extent and
thereby discouraging the advent
of new capital and payrolls.
7. After almost 80 years un
der the American flag, the white
population of Alaska totals only
something like 40,000. Many of
these do not consider Alaska as
a place of permanent abode. The
population is not large enough
for statehood.
8. There are some features of
the statehood enabling acis
which have been introduced in
Congress which are not suffi
ciently clear or sufficiently ad
vantageous.
THESE ARGUMENTS
DESERVE AN ANSWER
There are fields in which men
are legitimately entitled to dif
fer. Many of the arguments
made in the two sections above
fall in these fields. It is argu
able, for instance, that Alaska's
economy is not sufficiently di
versified, its population suffi
ciently large or its experience
in exercising governmental re
sponsibility sufficiently broad to
make statehood desirable at the
time.
In addition to these arguments
which are debatable, there are
others which can be automati
cally proved to be false. All thot
is required to disprove them,
and thus clear the field for a
discussion of the real issues, is
an examination of the 'acts
about the allegations. Unfortu
nately, there are among the ar
guments which have been made
against statehood some whicn
belong in the second category,
as for instance that having to
do with the care of the native
population.
All these arguments require
careful consideration. They will
be examined and elaborated
upon in this study, to the end
that the real issues may be con
sidered on their merits.
THE CHIEF ADVANTAGE OF STATEHOOD
THE DIFFERENCE between a territory and a state is in
■ the rights of each as a political entity. In an age of ever
increasing federal control, it is undeniable that Alaska suf
fers dcutely from the lack of any control whatsoever over
Congress and the administrative agencies of government.
This disadvantage is a matter of daily concern to Alaska’s
Delegate to Congress, to her Governor and indeed to all who
have to go through the bewild
ering and frustrating process of
trying to obtain from a preoccu
pied national government the
attention which would be Alas
ka’s as a matter of course were
she a state.
As the present Delegate, E. L.
“Bob" Bartlett puts it:
All it would take to con
vert the most uncompromising
foe of statehood into an enthu
siastic supporter would be to
have tmn come *o Washington
and take over the Delegate’s
job for a week.
Judge Dimond,- whose twelve
year experience in Washington
as Delegate preceding Bartlett
should qualify him to speak on
the subject, says:
The political advantages of
statehood, inevitably embrac
ing economic benefits, as com
pared with territorial status
are simply immense. Alaska
at the present time has no
vote in the Congress of the
United States. That is the out
standing fact which should be
remembered every day by
every citizen of Alaska. When
statehood comes, Alaska will
have two voting members in
the United States Senate and
at least one in the House of
Representatives, more in the
House when population shall
warrant. With statehood, Alas
ka is no longer a beggar at the
national table but a recog
nized member of the house
hold, eligible to share in a31
the benefits and all the re
sponsibilities of the nation.
At present, what we desire
for Alaska of the national gov
ernment we must ask for re
spectfully, almost with “hat .
in hand”, but when statehood
comes we shall have the digni
fied and powerful position of
an equal among equals. The
results of this improved status,
as affects all types of legisla
tion, are incalculable. To have
that place alone will be more
than worth all the additional
the support of state govern
taxes which we must pay for
ment.
ECONOMY ECGINS
ON TERRITORIES
Simply because it is a terri
tory, Alaska 1 >ses vast sums in
appropriation^ every year. It i >
well known that in general, un
der the prucij e which is" known
as “log rolt'ng,” members c£
Congress simply do not slash
each other’s appropriations. The
delegation from Montana, let us
say, is going to supt rt the rec