sIif ornia
I afro
sUisiana
ashington
i,aska
Issouri
yonil11®
orida
wa ,
3lorado
“rth'Dakota
rkansas
ebraska
regon
evada
nPQOta
1850
1890
1812
1889
1821
1890
1845
1846
1876
1889
1889
1836
1867
1859
1864
1858
76,556
75,116
72,524
66,586
54.477
43,112
39.864
39,159
36.909
30.388
28,841
13,294
6,857
6,077
92,597
88,548
153,407
357,232
140,455
62,555
87,445
192.214
194,327
142,924
190,983
97,574
122,993
52;462
42,491
172,023
,-Hon Alaska is seen
Sit In middle o( Ms
‘the states outside the area
original colonies. It is cer
iat half a dozen states—
® Florida, Missouri, Ne
Or’egon and Wyoming—
d smaller population at
,f admission than Alaska
in be noted in the table
that in many cases a very
increase occurred in the
in which admission took
Much of this was due to
ieral wave of western mi
! which was in progress
ing this period. But some
ndoubtedly can be attrib
rectly to statehood, which
case of Arizona and some
states, itself had a very
e influence on the growth
ulation. According to the
a Department of Library
■chives,
psychological effect of
onferring of statehood
0 focus the eyes of the
1 upon the new common
i and to cause a consid
tide of immigration to
he decade of admission
i’s population increased
ireent. Something similar
id in Nevada, which the
of 1860 showed as having
lation of 6,857. Popula
on admission in 1864 was
lere between this figure
e 42,491 enumerated in
t is arguable that the in
population of Nevada
) over 1860 was one of
ect and inescapable ef
the coming of statehood,
nting upon this, former
e Dimond pointed out
suggestion has been
that the people of Ne
ever regretted their
, and it seems certain
t the present time, when
a has a population of
■7, according to the 1940
3, any citizen of that
who advised that the
should go back to terri
status would be consid
i fit subject for inquir
mental competence.
Jr ordinary circumstanc
ly seems likely that A1
Id become a state befo
•55. By that time Alas
have a population
100.000. That is the o
^ith continuation of t
growth which has p
smee 1929. If Alaska
Pxt decade fulfills t
promise which ma
or her, the populati
c substantially great'
'e" 100,000, as has be
s more people than liv
y of our greatest states
,e °‘ Iheir admission. It
•or example, than lived
"Ia- By 1955, Alaska w
mu under the Americ
**hodt statohood long
*y other 'possession in i
n '’ vvith a single exet
exception is Ok
homa, which as part of the
Louisiana Purchase was unin
habited and unknown at the
time of annexation, and which
did not become a state until 104
years later.
EASIER TO BUILD
FOR NEW CITIZENS
What will happen to Alaska’s
population in the future is, of
course, a matter for conjecture.
Most people expect it to show a
steady increase. This was the
trend all through the 1930’s. It
is not generally known that ever
since 1914 the Bureau, of the
Census has made an annual
July 1 population estimate for
every state and territory. Popu
lation has not been estimated
since 1941 because of the insuf
ficiency of data on wartime
changes.
The most recent estimates for
Alaska are as follows:
1930 60,271
1931 61.596
1932 62,921
In every single year since
1930 the increase has exceeded
1,000.
Statehood at the earliest pos
sible moment, in view of this
continued trend, has been sug
gested as desirable by former
Delegate Dimond for the reason
that
STATE SHOULD CONTROL
FLOW OF IMMIGRANTS
Under a state government
managed by the people of
Alaska, it will be much easier
and much more advantageous
to everyone to aid, and in a
measure control, the stream
of new people who are likely
to come to Alaska for perma
nent residence at the earliest
■practicable moment. There
fore, I am confident that in
providing statehood for Alas
ka we are building not only
for ourselves but a sound
economy for posterity.
It should also be noted that
Alaska’s resources are so great
and her economy such that dur
ing normal years prior to the
war the territory’s exports ex
ceeded imports by an average of
some $28,000,000 annually. This
has a large bearing on Alaska’s
ability to be self-supporting not
withstanding smallness of popu
lation in relation to geographi
cal extent. Furthermore, at least
20,000 seasonal workers not
counted in the census are trans
ported each year to and from
Alaska, which movement cre
ates an enlarged summer popu
lation quite properly susceptible
to taxation in support of state
hood.
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
64,245
65,570
66,894
68,219
69,544
70.868
72,193
73,517
74,842
HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?
>T of the doubts which Alaskans entertain as to the
ability of statehood come down to the question of
^ additional costs of state government might be. We
amiliar with the attempt which has been made to
^statehood as an extravagance or a luxury which
i.C,Pleasant to have but which, because of its great
' S^a COuld not afford.
Parsene^ of population, this argument of excessive
0en trotted out many times during the long fight
Alaska. Fre
lnkedUVt° argUments have
efore °Sether’ as they
j . °ngressional com
m I897 l
lan for iu ,Louis Sloss,
i0ciation He ^laska Pack
” who according
1
to the Jeannette Nichols ac
count:
expressed tear lest most of
the devices suggested to help
, Alaska should hinder her. He
said that as long as Alaska
lacked means of communica
tion and a stable population,
territorial government must
remain impracticable . . . The
only kind of delegate he
would favor was an appointed
one, and he was decidedly
averse to the inauguration of
a property tax.
RUIN PREDICTED
FOR ALASKA INDUSTRY
In 1902, when it appeared
Congress might enact a bill giv
ing Alaska territorial govern
ment, Joseph McDonald, super
intendent of the Treadwell
Mines, urged those with business
interests at stake to
inform Congress of Alaska’s
true nature: first, that she
lacks a settled population, en
gaged in diversified produc
tive industries, which make
the burdens of local govern
ment bear equally upon the
people; second, that her only
industries are mining and fish
ing, which largely carry the
tranpsortation burden, and can
not afford additional taxes;
third, that as the whole inter
est of the fisheries is to es
cape the burdens of govern
ment as far as possible, the
only industry left to meet ex
penses is mining, which is yet
in a formative state; fourth,
that the shifting nature of
Alaska’s population will re
sult in the filling of the offices
by men without permanent in
terest in the region, and they
are the ones desirous of se
curing territorial government;
fifth, that territorial govern
ment must greatly retard the
future development of the
country.
In 1907, Alaska’s highly un
popular Governor W. B. Hog
gatt estimated the cost of terri
torial government would be so
great as to bring ruin to Alaska
industry. Such ruin, did not, of
course, materialize with the
coming of territorial organiza
tion five years later.
By such means, every step of
Alaska’s progress toward self
government has been retarded.
The argument delayed for many
years Alaska’s representation in
Congress by a Delegate. It de
layed organization as a terri
tory, and it delayed the granting
of a territorial legislature. It has
been used recently to oppose
overhauling of Alaska’s vastly
outmoded txation system. Now
it is being used as an argument
against statehood.
It is interesting to find on
looking into the matter that all
of the arguments which are be
ing made today against state
hood for Alaska were also made
years ago in the case of each of
the states most recently admit
ted. All of these arguments were
refuted by history.
ARIZONA MET SAME
FINANCIAL OBSTACLES
Because of its many parallels
to conditions in Alaska today,
the statehood experience of Ari
zona, last of the states to be ad
mitted, probably will prove in
structive to Alaskans. Inquiry
has been made of the Governor
of Arizona as to this experience
and has brought the following
reply:
Arizona's resources, al
though developed only to a
minor extent, were real: but
its public revenue was alto
gether unequal to the build
ing of roads, to securing the
various things the desire for
which moved the territory's
people to seek self-govern
ment.
ARIZONA REVENUES
SHOWED BIG GAIN
No great perspicacity was
required to discover that the
reason for this lack of public
funds was inherent in the ter
ritorial revenue system. Tax
es were, as a matter of fact,
quite low—a condition, other
things being equal, usually
deemed to be highly desir
able—but these other things,
such for instance as taxes,
were not equal. The reason
was that by means of defec
tive laws relating to the sub
ject, corporate property —
meaning specifically the prop
erty of mining, railroad, ex
press, telegraph and telephone,
and private car line compa
nies—constituting by far the
territory's major wealth, was
assessed on a basis represent
ing only an insignificant frac
tion of its value . . .
When victory finally came
to the forces which fer so long
had been struggling for state
hood (and it is pertinent to
mention that internal opposi
tion to this movement cent*
ered to a large extent in the
interests responsible for the
prevailing unequal and in
adequate taxation), the prob
lem described was attacked.
A few figures will serve to
illustrate the result. In 1911
—the year immediately pre
ceding statehood—all proper
ty in the territory was val
ued at less than $100,000.
000. Mining property com
prised 19.3 9; of the total and
railroad property 19.1%. In
1914, when the state’s new
tax system became fairly op
erative, the assessed valuation
was $407,000,000, of which
36% was mining property and
22.14% railroad property, a
readjustment rendered still
more conspicuous by fairly
adequate assessments of the
property of express compa
nies, private car lines, and
telephone and telegraph com
panies. The territorial levy of
90 cents on each $100 of valu
ation in 1911 was reduced in
1914 to 44)i cents, and there
was a proportionate reduction
in county levies, while the to
tal revenue of $881,000 for
territorial purposes in 1911
grew to $1,806,000 in 1914 . . .
The state experienced no
difficulty in supporting its gov
ernment, while at the^ same
time greatly strengthening its
educational system, providing
free text books, constructing
highways and giving services
to the people which previous
ly had been unknown. The
equalization of taxes made
possible a sufficient revenue
without undue burden . . .
and the taxpayer was begin
ning to receive the benefit of
many services . . . not realized
under territorial government.
The arguments against
statehood, which were used in
Arizona, were insuffiency of
population and prohibitive
cost of supporting govern
ment. Subsequent events dem
onstrated that the arguments
had no merit at all. It was
i well understood at the time
they were advanced that op
| position to statehood, within
Arizona, was confined to in
dustrialists who desired the
status quo and to a few poli
ticians whose views were
formed in Washington.
STATEHOOD COST
48 CENTS APIECE
Unlike Alaska, the territorial
government of Arizona derived
its chief support from a proper
ty tax. State officials estimate
that prior to statehood the av
| erage taxpayer, other than the
| corporations referred to, paid
' $3.10 for the support of the ter
ritorial government, while after
statehood in 1914 he paid S3.56.
The per capita cost cf statehood,
in other words, was 46 cents a
year.
New Mexico, admitted as a
state in the same year as Arizo
na, reports that there was no
great increase in governmental
expenses from 1912 to 1916. The
territorial budget amounted to
about $5,000,000 annually. Gov
ernmental expenses have, of
course, increased progressively
with the growth of population
and the addition of government
al services until they now total
$31,000,000 a year, which fig
ure includes, however, the con
tributions made by the federal
government to the state and its
various subdivisions. New Mexi
co now has a population of 532,
000. Per capita tax collections
by the state in 1944 were actual
ly $1.41 less than were those of
the territorial government in
1911.
Montana had a real and per
sonal property tax of two mills
to meet territorial expenses.
This tax levy after statehood re
mained at two mills.
These examples should serve
to demonstrate that there is
nothing necessarily or inherent
ly costly about the state form of
government as compared with
the territorial one.
PEOPLE COULD USE
PUBLIC CREDIT
Statehood would give Alaska
the power to incur a debt, which
it is unable to do under the ter
ritorial Organic Act. There is
nothing frightening about 3 debt.
In 1945, with a single exception,
every state in the Union bf*i
one. Such debts are incurred lor
the purpose of financing im
provements which would be im
possible otherwise. A state del t
is incurred on the theory that it
is more equitable to charge im
provements to the people who1
enjoy them than it is to require
their ancestors to store up fur ns
for such improvements in ad
vance .
Alaska, for example, might
wish to launch itself on a high
way improvement program cost
ing $10,000,000. To do so, the
territory would have to tax ds
people in advance and build up
a fund, over a long period of
years, since the territory is re
quired to remain always on a
cash basis. If such a program
could ever be undertaken, many
who contributed to the fund
would be dead and buried be
fore the roads were built.
If Alaska were a state, on
the other hand, it would have
authority, if its people voted 1o
do so, to borrow the 810,000,000
in advance, build the roads
when they are needed, and ic
tire the debt as the roads are
used, by collecting taxes from
the people actually living in the
state at the time the benefits of
the expenditure are enjoyed. It
has been found advantageous
for states, like individuals or
corporations, sometimes to incur
debts.
It might be argued that the
debt which would be incurred
by a state of sparse popula
tion would be enormous. In
this connection it is interest
ing to note that the only state
which did not have an out
standing debt in 1945 was Ne
vada, the state with the small
est and sparsest population.
The largest stale, Texas, had
the second smallest per capita
debt.
Just what additional burdens
of government would have to toe
assumed by Alaska with the
coming of statehood? Judge Di
mond, who has made a study
of this problem, lists them as
follows:
COURT, POLICE AND
INSANE OBLIGATIONS
Federal supported agencies
which the state of Alaska
must take over are primarily
the judiciary, the police sys
tem (now virtually limited to
U.S. Marshals and their
deputies), the care of the in
sane and the conservation
and protection (but not the
technical or research features)
of fish and of fur and game.
There may be a few others
but the money involved with
respect to such others would
be insignificant.
The only other additional ex
penses which come to mind are:
1. the part of the budget of the
offices of Governor and Secre
tary of Alaska not already borne
by the territorial government,
2. the expenses of regular bien
nial sessions of the legislature,
and 3. the costs of eventually
constructing and maintaining a
state capitol building.
The expenses of the Legisla
ture, of the offices of the Gov
ernor and Secretary, and of care
of the insane are known.
The expenses of the part of
the fish and game work which
the state would take over must
be estimated. It seems fair to
assume that these expenses
would run higher than about
half of the amount now spent in
Alaska for fish and game pur
poses by the federal government
(the rest being technical and re
search expenses which would
continue to be borne by the fed
eral government).
U.S. WOULD RETAIN
SOME POLICE DUTIES
Just how extensive the judi
cial and police systems of the
state should be is a matter best
left to the constitutional con
vention and the state legislature
to decide. We might fairly as
sume, however, that expenses
for these purposes would be no
greater than those now incurred
in Alaska by the federal gov
! ernment. As a matter of fact,
they could probably be less, for
the federal judiciary and police