The Meaning Of The Controller Bill
By Dan A. Sutherland, Delegate to Congress
( Continued From Last Month )
A review of the Acts of Congress
pertaining to the Territories, or ol
the Acts, Resolutions and Memorials
of the Territorial Legislatures, will
surely convince one that the issue
now before the people of Alaska re
garding the participation of Federal
Officials in affairs that are strictly
territorial is a very old one indeed,
and one is also convinced that Alas
ka is now passing through the same
controversy that other Territories
have passed through. The historic
record, however, shows this differ
ence between Alaska and tli0 other
territories: The legislators of form
er Territories seemed to direct their
efforts toward restricting and cur
tailing the power of federal officials
and to strengthening their own self
government. In Alaska there are
legislators who persist in maintain
ing the power of these officials in
controlling our local affairs. In
fact since the first legislative session,
there has been no movment made
to strengthen our Territorial admin
istration but has been thwarted by
our legislators.
The history of the struggle to
separate the state or territorial units
from the control of representatives
of the central government is written
in the many of the Acts of Congr ss
for the Territories.
Section Eleven of thC; Alaska Or
ganic Act which provides that “no
person holding a commission or ap
pointment under the United States
shall he a member of the legisla
ture, or shall hold any office under
the Government of said Territory”
was written into the Organic Acts of
the old territories to prevent usurp
ation of powers by Federal officials
and not for the purpose of limiting
legislative powers. Congress did
not conceive it to be possible that a
self governing unit of the United
States would be disposed to have
its administrative officials selected
tor it by the central government.
But Congress did know something
ot the unlimited desires for more
powers which all bureaucrats pos
ses, and that their federal powers
would be exercised tc gain Territor
ial power.
Tt was for the purpose of keeping
Federal Officials out of territorial
affairs and to prevent legislators
from appropriating public funds for
their own benefit, that James A. Gar
field, a member of Congress from
Ohio, on January, 8, 1873, placed in
our statutes the following provision:
“That no law of any Territorial Le
gislature shall be made or enforced
by which any officer of a Territory
or the officers or members of any
Territorial Legislature shall be paid
any compensation other than that
provided bv the law of the United
States.” Surely that language !*
clear enough to be understood by
anyone, and yet the letter and spirit
of that law has been constantly vio
lated by our local legislators. This
disregard or, perhaps, contempt for
the laws of Congress that places in
hibitions on local legislative auth
ority. inhibitions that are certainly
for the public good, has fastened
itself upon our legislators to such
an extent that this contempt has
become a challange to those who
would follow the spirit of the Or
ganic Act, and it is my opinion
that the challange has been accept
ed, and it now remains for us to see
what view the people of the Terri
tory take of the question.
The pernicious effect of what was
recently called "establishing *a lia
son with ■Washington” by allowing
officers of the United States to mix
in State and Territorial afTairs was
clearly understood by American
statesmen of the past.
I cannot convey to the people of
Alaska any more convincing appeal
for the restoration of our adminis
tration of Territorial government to
the same status of other Territor
*es>—the exact status in which Con
gress intended it should be when the
Home Rule Act was passed,—than
by here quoting an Executive Order
of President Grant, given on Jan
uary 17th, 1873, and after reading
it I am sure they will agree with
President Grant that the interlock
ing administration we have built up
in Alaska since 1913 “is not in har
mony with the genius of the (Am
erican) Government;”
“Whereas it has been brought
to the notice of the President
of the United States that many
ycisunb nuuung civil oince oy
appointment from him,or other
wise under the Constitution and
laws of t.he United States, while
holding such Federal positions,
accept offices under the authority
of- the States and Territories in
which they reside, or of Munic
ipal Corporation's under the
Charters and ordinances of such
Corporations, thereby assuming
the duties of the State Terri
torial or Municipal office at the
same time they are charged
with the duties of the civil of
fice held under Federal author
ity; and
vv uereus u is neneveci tnat,
with few exceptions, the holding
of two such offices by the same
person is incompatible with a
due and faithful discharge of
the duties of either office; that
it frequently gives rise to great
inconvenience and often results
in detriment to the public ser
vice; and moreover is not in
harmony with the genius of
the Government.
“In view of the premises
therefore, the President has