The Meaning Of The Controller Bill
By Dan A. Sutherland, Delegate to Congress
The CONTROLLER BILL, so-call
ed, that was introduced at the 1927
session of the Alaska Territorial
Legislature provided for control of
Territorial affairs by officials to be
selected by the people of Alaska.
It was essentially a step in the
advancement toward self-govern
ment. It proposed to restore to the
people of Alaska a voice in the ad
ministration of their government.
The fundamental right of the
Alaska people to select, their own
administrators has been withheld
from them by their legislative re
presentatives since the Organic
Act was first given to them by Con
gress. At first it. was a matter of
expediency to place the responsi
bility for administration of Terri
torial affairs with an oganization
composed principally of Federal offi
cials. Entering upon Territorial
government it seemed to be the ex
pedient and the convenient thing to
accept the services of appointed
Federal officials. The Organic Act:;
of all the Territories contain pro
visions that are intended to keep the
local government separate and dis
tinct from the federal government.
The constitution of virtually every
State in the Union provides that
Federal officials sbav’ not have any
part in the State government, and
this inhibition extends to United
States Senators and Representative's
in Congress. In n'l other Territor
ies of the United States the spirit
of the laws of Congress seems to
have been followed by their legisla
tors for promptly at their first legis
lative sessions thev set up the ma
chinery for conducing their Terr -
torial business, and 1 believe in the
case of every Territory the officials
selected were free and independent
of any connection with Federal ad
ministration.
It appears from inspection of the
session laws of all past Territories
that the natural thing to do was to
establish a government organization
that was responsible to the people
only, either by popular election or
selection by the legislators.
Doubtless the members of the
first session of the Alaska Legisla
ture believed that the imposition of
Territorial duties upon Federal of
ficials was a matter of economy, in
as much as office rentals would, to a
certain extent be saved, but with
the gradual expansion of admini3
trative work and the requirement
of more official’s and clerks, this
saving in rentals is a very minoi
item of expense.
The Federal officials thus esconc
ed in Territorial power are perfect
ly willing to continue in this service
and to receive compensation for it.
In fact these Federal officials are
greatly averse to relinquishing the
powers they now enjoy. They are
more than reluctant to yield up
these powers; they do not propose
to do so without a contest such as
that witnessed at the last session.
The defeat of the CONTROLLER
BILL came about through the ef
forts of Federal officials to perpet
uate themselves in Territorial of
fices. It is my purpose to show
herein that the efforts of Federal
officials to perpetuate their tenure ol
control of Territorial affairs is a
repetition of Territorial history.
The history of the early Ameri
can territories is, in considerable
part, the story of the friction be
tween the people or their represent
atives and the officials appointed
from Washington, D. C., who insist
ed upon retaining certain power!
that should have been exercised bi
the citizens of the new Territory.
The road upon which self-govern
nient in the early Territories ad
vanced was a rough one indeed, an<
its milestones mark the occasion
when their people received trans
fers of governmental powers fror
Federal officials to themselves.
The early Territories were ruled
by Governors and Judges until such
time as legislatures were authorized
by Congress. The powers of the
early Legislatures were greatly lim
ited, and Federal officials exercised
autocratic powers. In many cases
these powers were usurped without
authority of law.
The Ordinance of 17X7 (the first
of the Organic Acts) authorized the
Governor and Judges to adopt such
laws of the original States as they
deemed best suited to the circum
stances of the district, and these
laws were to remain in force until
disapproved by Congress. It was
found that many of the laws of the
States were not adapted to the
Territory, and so the Governor and
the Judges took it upon themselves
to enact laws. This system evident
ly met with the approval of Con
gress. for on May S. 1792, Congress
enacted “That the laws of the Ter
ritory Northwest of the River Ohio
that have been or hereafter may
be enacted by the Governor and
Judges * * * and that the Governor
and Judges are authorized to re
peal the laws made by them.”
The Territory south of the river
Ohio was the first to organize a
legislature, and this legislature was
the first to elect a Delegate to Con
gress. Considerable debate arose
in the House, when his credentials
! were presented upon the propriety
of admitting such a “nondescript
member,” but he was finally given
i a seat with the right of debating
but not voting, and the status of
5 Delegates in Congress has remained
p the same to the present day.
The Ordinance of 1787 provided
that when the Territory had 5.000
free male residents it could have a
1 • general assembly of its own. The
3 Governor was given absolute veto
power to convene, prorogue and dis
i solve the assembly.
The first restriction on these pow