Alaska Statehood
A Special Supplement
Compiled and Printed by the Alaska Statehood Association
The Facts and the Issues
Foreword
-HE ALASKA STATEHOOD Association was organized in
November, 1945. Its members are Alaskans of all sections
■ the Territory, of all shades of political belief and—sur
•isingly enough—of the widest imaginable range of convic
Qn on the subject of statehood. Some of our members favor
atehood for Alaska unqualifiedly. Others are just as firmly
>posed. All, however, agree on the importance of getting
e facts about statehood—whatever they may be—before the
;ople of Alaska. At the general election in October of this
:ar all of us will be called upon to answer the question:
i.re you in favor of statehood for Alaska?"
Shortly after its organization, and while chapters were
.11 in the process of formation at Fairbanks, Palmer, Sitka,
ichorage, Seward, Kodiak, Juneau, Wrangell, Ketchikan
d Valdez, a meeting of the Association’s Central Commit
; was held in Juneau. It was decided at that time to spon
t a research study on Alaska statehood. We sought a quali
d person to conduct the study and were fortunate in ob
ning the services of George Sundborg, who was then in
chorage.
Hr. Sundborg was a newspaperman at Juneau for three
irs. He was later a research worker for the Alaska office
the National Resources Planning Board and for the U. S.
ite Department. He served as Assistant United States Di
tor of the North Pacific Study, a joint enterprise with
nada dealing with resource development and governmen
administration in Alaska and northwestern Canada. More
ently he has written the book, “Opportunity in Alaska,”
ich, published by the MacMillan Company in October of
t5, has been widely praised for its objectivity and fairness.
■. Sundborg’s acquaintance with both Territorial and Fed
il government activities as they concern Alaska has been
ig and intimate.
When Mr. Sundborg was engaged to make a study of the
tehood issue, no strictures were laid upon him as to what
i Association would like the study to show. We simply
ive him his head,” so to speak, to explore the subject and
arrive at the conclusions indicated by the facts,
rhis is Mr. Sundborg’s report. It is being sent to you, and
all the voters of Alaska, to help you to answer intelligently
; question: “Are you in favor of Statehood for Alaska?”
is sent to you without comment or recommendation by
s Association other than that it is our hope you will read
carefully and find in it enlightenment on the important and
toric issue facing the people of Alaska.
—ALASKA STATEHOOD ASSOCIATION.
THE STATEHOOD ISSUE
LL AMERICANS probably agree in principle on the de
k sirability of self-government and the largest possible
asure of home rule. At any rate, the principle, which
med a cornerstone at the founding of our nation, has never
!n renounced.
'he form which self-government and home rule have taken
the United States is statehood. Immediately upon winning
ir independence, the thirteen
ie*'ican colonies became states.
tehood has been the goal
successful goal—of a11 the
ericans who since that time
e Pushed the frontier from
Alleghenies to the Pacific.
eems that Americans no soon
Sot their feet upon the.
i^Pd than they wanted to
*e the ground into a state.
Process, insofar as the con
kntal area between Canada;
Mexico is concerned, wasj
Pteted in 1912.
r,ot since February 14, 1912,
rn Arizona became the 48th
e’ has there been an addi
‘ lo the Union. Statehood
at the water’s edge. It
Ped despite the fact that
r'-u'eds of thousands of Ameri
cans, presumably with exactly
the same ideas about self-gov
ernment and home rule, live in
the non-contiguous areas of
Alaska and Hawaii. There seems
little doubt but that both Alas
ka and Hawaii would have been
admitted to statehood long since
if only they touched at some
point an already existing state.
IDEALOGICAL BARRIER
SUBJECT TO ATTACK
An ideological barrier seems
somehow to have been erected
against the admission as states
of areas outside the continent or
not contiguous with already ex
isting states. This idea has been
hallowed by time, but it is now
being challenged. Just why it
By George Sundborg
Index to this section
Subject page
Foreword-1
The Statehood Issue- 1
(Beginning of Text)
Statehood Summarized-1
Territory vs. State- 2
The Arguments Against
Statehood_3
The Chief Advantage of
Statehood-:-3
How Alaska Got its
Government_ 4
The Disadvantages of
Territorialism _ 5
How Much Territorial
Government is Enough?.. 6
The Procedure for Becom
ing a State —- 6
The Population Question.... 6
How Much Will it Cost?— 7
Highway Development
Under Statehood-8
Federal Powers, Resources
and Responsibilities that
Would Go to the New
State - 8
History Repeats Itself- 9
Acknowledgements -10
should exist is a little difficult
to explain on a rational basis.
Paraphrasing a report made to
Congress early this year by a
subcommittee of the Committee
on Territories, which investi
gated the problem of admitting
Hawaii to the Union:
Modem inventions have an
nihilated distance. Juneau to
day is closer to the American
mainland in time than the cit
ies of Boston and New York
were to the capital in the early
days of the nation. Alaska is
closer to the seat of the gov
ernment today than all but
the immediately adjacent
states were when Washington
first became the capital of the
United States. With efficient
and seven-hour service for
and rapid communication by
cable, radio, or telephone,
mail or passenger planes,
Alaska can no longer be char
acterized as isolated.
Alaska does not touch any
existing state. Yet there exist
within the Union, as parts of
states, several areas of non-con
tiguous territory. In addition to
islands off the coasts and in the
Great Lakes, these include two
portions of the North American
mainland separated entirely, as.
is Alaska, by intervening Cana
dian territory. One is the part
of Minnesota lying north of
Lake of the Woods. The other
is the peninsular portion of
Washington, containing the vil
lage of Point Roberts, which
is cut off by the 49th parallel
and Boundary Bay from the
rest of the state.
SELF-GOVERNMENT
STILL DESIRABLE GOAL
At one time Congress consid
ered seriously, and apparently
without mental reservations, a
proposal to annex all of Alaska
as a county of the State of
Washington. If parts of states
may be non-contiguous with the
rest of the nation, why may not
entire states?
The question is being asked
ever more persistently. Vigorous
statehood movements exist in
Hawaii and Alaska. To many
residents of these territories it
seem logical that they should
be admitted to the same privi
leges of self-government and of
participation in national affairs
Continued on Page 2
Alaska Statehood Issues
and Facts in Brief
The information developed in the course of this study may
be summarized very briefly as follows:
1. The territorial form of government has many inhere*t
disadvantages and was never intended to continue for long.
2. A territory is inferior to a state in that it exercises no
influence over the federal government, while the federal
government has much more authority over a territory than
over a state.
3. Self-government generally, is preferable to government
by others, and home rule superior to government from a
distance.
4. Alaska is so far removed from Washington, and has so
many unique requirements, that it is fantastic to expect
under the territorial form that good local government will
stem from the national capital.
5. The congressional grant of legislative powers to Alaska
has been wholly inadequate to permit the fiscal affairs of the
territory to be placed on a sound basis.
6. The territory’s grant of powers, as to have a legislature
or a Delegate in Congress, may be taken away at any time.
Alaska has no inherent powers.
7. Other specific disadvantages of the territorial form of
government are that laws passed by the legislature may be
vetoed by the Governor or nullified by Congress, the Gov
ernor is a federal appointee, and the authority given the
legislature is so restricted as to make real self-government
impossible.
8. Lacking a vote in Congress and an equal standing with
the states, Alaska now suffers many discriminations which
can be ended only by statehood.
9. The vote in Congress, the chief advantage of statehood,
would be of immense benefit to Alaska. It alone would be
worth the additional cost of statehood.
10. There is no sound reason in this day of rapid transpor
tation and communication why a non-contiguous area should
not become a state, if it possesses the other qualifications.
11. Alaska already has served a territorial apprenticeship
longer than any but four states in all our history and has
belonged to the United States, without statehood, longer
than all but five possessions in all our history.
12. The mere mechanics of statehood, even if Congress
should act immediately to enable Alaska’s admission, prob
ably would consume about three years. Many states required
much longer.
13. The population of Alaska is larger than that of many
states at time of admission and is sufficient now to support
a state government. It has been growing steadily ever since
1929. The experience of the other states has been that state
hood itself attracts new population and wealth to an area.
14. Because of the stream of new people coming to the
Territory, a state formed now could reflect in its constitution
and institutions the point of view of the people who really
know Alaska, whereas in a few years this might no longer
be possible.
15. No state regrets, or ever did regret, taking the step
from territorial status to statehood.
16. There is nothing necessarily or inherently costly about
the state form of gQvernment as compared with the terri
torial one.
17. The argument of excessive cost was made against state
hood in virtually every territory and has been used repeat
edly to thwart governmental reforms in Alaska. Subsequent
events in every case demonstrate that the argument has no
merit at all.
18. The additional expense of statehood would be $1,000,
000 to $2,000,000 a year, a cost which Alaska would have no
difficulty in meeting.
19. Whatever statehood costs, Alaska should get far more
back, not merely in the abstract, but in simple financial and
economic returns. —Continued on Page 2