lamation projects in the State of
Arizona because when Mon
tana’s turn comes they expect
reciprocal generosity. And they
get it. But when this process is
all completed and we come to
the territories, then the mem
bers of Congress become states
men and announce vigorously:
"This spending must stop; we
have got to start balancing the
budget.” Alaskans have seen
this happen through the years.
Whenever an economy wave is
on, it is the territories which get
pinched the most. Through the
years Alaska has been denied
vast sums which, under the
yardstick applied to the states,
would have been hers. And these
are appropriations desperately
needed to build up the country.
Numerous examples might be
cited of the discriminations
Alaska suffers for lack of voting
representation in Congress.
1. Probably the outstanding
example is the Federal Highway
Aid Act. This applies to all the
states. Various calculations have
been made of the sums Alaska
would receive annually under
this act. If only half the land
area of the territory were used
as a basis for calculation, Alas
ka would have received some
$12,000,000 to $14,000,000 an-,
nually from the federal govern-J
ment for road purposes. To be
conservative let us say the
amount would have been $10,
000,000 a year. Transfer of the
Alaska Road Commission to the
Interior Department took place
about 1930. If the Federal Aid
Highway Act had been effective
since that time Alaska would
have received a minimum of
$160,000,000. By comparison, we
have received from the Interior
Department during that period
a total of $25,511,773. Of this
amount. $2,198,805 came from
the Alaska fund, which is really
territorial tax money. So we
have received one federal dol
la . for roads where under the
Federal Highway Act, which ap
plies to all the states, we would
have received more than six.
Even admitting that Public
Roads Administration construc
tion would not result in the
same mileage of road, dollar for
dollar, as that of the Alaska
Road Commission, it is obvious
that we would have been infi
nitely better off with respect to
roads than we now are. If there
is one point on which all of us
probably agree, no matter what
position we take with respect to
statehood, it is that the develop
ment of a pioneer country is in
direct ratio to expansion of its
roads.
PUBLIC DOMAIN
ACT EXCLUDED ALASKA
2. Late in the 1930’s an appro
priation bill carried $200,000,
000 for roads on the public do
main. Despite all the efforts of
the Alaska Delegate, the bene
fits of this appropriation were
limited to the states. Judge Di
mond was able to have the ter
ritories included in the bill in a
Senate amendment, but the
amendment was lost in confer
ence, and so once more Alaska
was discriminated against by
reason of its territorial status.
Had Alaska been a state it could
not have been left out of the
bill.
3. Under the formula cover
ing forest highway allotments,
for the three-year postwar pe
riod, Alaska’s share should be
$2,213,928 per year. Alaska was
arbitrarily cut in this act to $1,
500,000 a year, and the differ
ence distributed among several
of the states. For no other rea
son than that it is defenseless,
Alaska thus is being deprived of
a total of $2,141,784. This is not
an act of economy. The money,
belonging to Alaska by every
right, is being given to the
states.
4. With respect to appropria
tions for education of the In
dians and Eskimos of Alaska, as
compared with the Indians of the
States, ‘Alaska is placed on a
somewhat lower basis with re
spect to expenditures. Congress
recognizes its obligation to treat
the Natives of Alaska the same
as the Natives of the states, but
when it comes to the practical
application of this 'principle,
Alaska is subject to some dis
crimination just because it is a
territory and for no other rea
son whatever.
5. Alaska’s Commissioner of
Education recently has had to
travel all the way to Washing
ton, and return without assur
ances, to beg Congress to auth
orize payment of tuition for Na
tive children attending territori
al schools, notwithstanding the
fact that Oklahoma and other
states have long admitted In
dians to their schools under a
tuition contract with the federal
government. Thus the states se
cure almost automatically an
advantageous arrangement over
which Alaska must engage in a
long range battle, which may or
may not turn out favorably for
the territory.
ADAMS ACT FUNDS;
ALASKA'S SHARE CUT
6. Alaska has never had its
share of appropriations for agri
cultural development. A good
example is the Adams Act,
passed in 1906, and providing
for support of agricultural ex
periment stations. For 30 years
it was not extended to Alaska;
then it was in 1936. But how?
Instead of getting our share ac
cording to the formula specified
in the act, which would have
yielded $90,000 a year, Alaska
received in the first year $5000;
in the second year $7500, and
there has been a progressive for
mula by which in the next year,
1947, we will receive $37,500,
and then $45,000 thereafter. In
other words, Alaska is never
going to get more than half, as
long as it is a territory.
7. In the late 1930’s Delegate
Dimond was finally successful in
obtaining enactment of a bill au
thorizing appropriations for
Alaska under the Smith-Lever
act having to do with the De
partment of Agriculture. The
authorization provided that the
appropriations should be in
creased each year until they
reached a certain figure and
then should remain at that fig
ure. But the Appropriations
Committee of the House did not
take the authorization act at j
its face value. They have in
creased the appropriations at a
lower level than called for by
the act. Last year the House re
ported the bill out with no in
crease whatever; in the Senate,
Delegate Bartlett had the full
amount restored, but in confer
ence it was cut in two and the
same thing occurred this year.
This is because the chairman
of the subcommittee handling
this bill takes a very dim view of
the possibilities of agriculture
in Alaska. If Alaska had voting
representation in Congress,
which might possibly include
membership on the Appropria
tions Committee of the House,
and much more likely would in
clude representation on the Ap
propriations Committee of the
Senate, there would be no doubt
whatever that the intent of that
authorization act would be lived
up to.
8. When the act creating the
Reconstruction Finance Corpora
tion was first passed it covered
only the states. Later it was nec
essary for Alaska’s Delegate to
institute special legislation to
embrace the territories.
9. The act providing for guar
antee of bank deposits in like
manner was limited to the states.
Delegate Dimond did his best—
which, as Alaskans know, was
a great deal—to have the terri
tories included and to that end
appeared before the House Com
mittee on Banking and Curren
cy and the Senate committee al
so. He was assured that his views
would have careful considera
tion, but when the bill was re
ported out and passed the terri
tories were still on the outside.
Later the act was amended and
then it was only by offering an
amendment on the floor of the
House that the territories were
brought in. The chairman of
the committee was still not sym
pathetic, but he did not oppose
the amendment, and so it was
adopted. There was no sound
reason to leave the territories
out in the first place, and the
only excuse was that they were
territories and had no political
standing.
PULP AND PAPER
DEVELOPMENT HURT
10. Years have been allowed to
elapse without amendment of
the act of Congress which gives
the Secretary of Agriculture the
final decision on stumpage rates
in Southeast Alaska, noth with
standing the protestations of
pulp and paper interests that
they will not start operations in
Alaska until an appeal to the
courts from such a decision is
allowed, as it is elsewhere.
11. The case of the Anchorage
bond issue is in point in this
regard. In any of the states, the
community which pays the bills
has the right to determine how
much money it should borrow.
In Alaska, such a community
must appeal all the way to Wash
ington for special legislation
from Congress, and endure seem
ingly endless delays, before it
can engage in a program of bet
terment involving a bond issue.
Rejecting the earnest request of
Anchorage for permission to is
sue bonds in the amount the
community considers reasonable
and necessary, Congress has just
reduced the authorization by
one-third, reportedly because an
eastern congressman, who knew
nothing about Anchorage or
Alaska, felt the original amount
too large. This is a discrimina
tion against Alaska which is
special and extremely recent, in
fact contemporary.
12. Two great areas set apart
for more than a generation as
Mount McKinley National Park
and Glacier Bay National Monu
ment have remained almost
wholly undeveloped because
Congress has repeatedly failed
to pass appropriations requested
for them. Nothing similar has
happened in any state.
There is another type of dis
advantage which Alaska suffers
because it is voteless in Con
gress. All of the above are dis
criminations on the part of the
Congress itself. There is also a
long list of discriminations prac
ticed against Alaska by the ex
ecutive bureaus and agencies of
the federal government. None
of the following discriminations
could conceivably be practiced
against a state with two Sena
tors and one Representative
wielding the leverage of a vote
on all congressional matters, in
cluding the power of life and
death over most administrative
agencies.
EVEN WAR INSURANCE
OMITTED ALASKA
13. Perhaps the worst example
of the disability under which
the territories labor is that of
the executive order providing
for war damage insurance during
the recent conflict. As originally
promulgated by the Chairman of
the RFC under executive au
thority, the losses which might
be suffered by the citizens of the
United States through war dam
age could be paid only on prop
erty located in the states. For
example, if the enemy had
dropped a bomb on Omaha the
sufferers, under the order,
would be compensated for their
losses, but if at that time a simi
lar bomb had been dropped on
Juneau no compensation could
have been paid. Judge Dimond,
who was then Delegate, terms
this the “most outrageous exam
ple of discrimination against
citizens of the United States who
live in the Territories that I
have ever known, and I have
known of a good many.” Fortu
nately, the Delegates from Alas
ka and Hawaii took the matter
up with Secretary of the Interi
or Ickes, who viewed the sub
ject just as they did, and he
brought it up at a cabinet meet
ing. Although there was consid
erable objection expressed to
bringing the territories within
the scope of this beneficial or
der, President Roosevelt finally
directed Chairman Jones of the
RFC to revise his order so as to
embrace the territories and the
citizens of the territories.
14. Several years ago a con
siderable amount of money had
accumulated in the treasury
which on the basis of the law
should have been allocated to
Alaska for construction of for
est highways. These allocations
were not made, for the reason
that the man in the Department
of Agriculture who had the final
voice in this matter had once
made a trip to Alaska and did
not believe roads should be
built there. That was that, and
his decision was final despite
the protests of Judge Dimond.
That official would never have
acted as he did had we voting
members of Congress who could
have taken the floor of the two
houses not only to express an
opinion about this high-handed
procedure but to vote against
the department’s general appro
priation.
FREIGHT RATE MOVE
ALMOST SUCCEEDED
15. Last November a certain
highly placed member of the U.
S. Maritime Commission at
tempted to throw Alaska over
board by trying to force War
Shipping Administration ships
back into private operation with
a doubling of freight rates,with
out allowing a period for stabili
zation after the war. This was
prevented only by the most
strenuous efforts on the part, of
the Attorney General of Alaska
and the Alaska Development
Board. If Alaska were a state
and had been a state through
these years, it is highly unlikely
the steamship companies would
have gotten away with the exe
crable service and high rates to
which Alaskans have been sub
ject.
16. Failure of the Wage Sta
bilization Board and the War
Shipping Administration to ex
pedite authorization of the re
cent maritime wage settlement
permitted a tieup of Alaska ports
and resulted in the unloading of
rotten cargo into the bay. Noth
ing similar occurred in any port
in the states.
17. Adminstrative res
ervations of land made for war
time purposes are still in effect
in dozens of cases, including the
withdrawal of all land along the
Alaska Highway. If Alaska had
the influence over the Interior
Department which votes in Con
gress would confer, these reser
vations would have been vacat
ed long since and reopened to
settlement.
18. Lacking influence in Wash
ington, Alaska witnessed long
delay in the location of a region
al office of the Veterans Admin
istration in the territory, al
though there were many press
ing reasons why Alaska should
be given such an office.
19. Alaska’s Governor was
obliged to engage in a long
struggle to obtain overseas credit
toward discharge for Alaska
boys who served in the Aleu
tians, though soldiers from the
states obtained such credit au
tomatically.
ALASKANS DON'S SIT
ON FISHING BOARD
20. On the International Fish
eries Commission dealing with
halibut caught off the coast of
the two nations, but chiefly off
the coast of Alaska, no Alaskan
has ever been appointed, though
there has been a nice balancing
of appointments from British
Columbia and the State of Wash
ington, whose fisheries are in
volved to lesser extent.
Such examples could be r
ed almost without end.
The Legislative Refer.
Service of the Library of A1
gress reports that, aside fiJ
the Federal Highway Aid a
there are three other re„",
appropriations measures ft,
which Alaska has been d!
pletely excluded. These are I
Mineral Lands Leasing
ceipts Act of February 25 jgl
the Flood Control Act of j
28, 1938. and the Act of Aue
29, 1935, having to do with
cost of administering state j
est lands. Delegate Bartlett n
has before Congress a bill
cure the mineral lands leas
act omission, and hopes for
actment at the next session
As Governor Ernest Gruen
has said,
It is a fact, of course, th
by superhuman effort, i
fighting like the devil, we a
able to overcome some of the
discriminations, but it mea
using all kinds of energi
and efforts which should
utilized in helping Alaska
move forward, not fighti
merely to hold our grout
TO my mind, the intangibj
are all-important — the gri
advantages that would au
matically accrue to Alasl
when, as a state, it has ti
Senators and a Representati
with a vote.
Discrimination against Ala
is found first in what seems
be the eternal struggle to h
the territories included in i
money bills, and, second,
certainly equally as import
in receiving for the territo
just appropriations. Then tl
are the discriminations wl
are not confined to the langi
of the law but which are t(
discovered almost daily in
application of the law, to a
tain degree in Congress
more notably in the exccu
departments.
FUNDS FOR ALASKA
TOO OFTEN A SOP
Delegate Bartlett has Ifl
struggling in Washington E
Alaska’s behalf for almost*
years. His testimony on m
point is as follows:
My observation after sa?»
ing here since January 1ST
is that all too frequently w'f
is given us in the way
money is given us as a sop
it were and not because t
are entitled to it or becar
its expenditure would refli
advancement of the nation
interest.
Some might argue, in f
have argued, that Alaska’s d
gation to Congress would be
small to affect, by its votes,
national decision in any mat
Alaska, these people point <
would have only two votes
of 98 or 100 in the Senate i
one out of 436 or so in
House. Yet anyone acquain
with the life of our national g
emment, as distinguished fr
its mere form, knows that a v
in Congress is the most decis
force and the most convinc
argument an area can poss
That congressional respect
Alaska’s needs would mater
ize automatically with state!*
is indicated by the example
the present states. Nevi
Wyoming, Delaware and »
mont have never had more t
two votes apiece in the See
and one in the House; yet tl
interests have never suffer®
Congress. So it would be *
Alaska, which would have
actly the same represent
immediately upon admissio
HOW ALASKA GOT ITS GOVERNMENT
A LMOST half a century of struggle by the people of Ala*
was crowned with success in 1912 when Congress PaS
an act giving the territory a legislature. This is Alas
Organic Act, the basis of the present territorial govern^
Even in the hour of victory, the then Delegate, James «
ersham, who had been prominent in the fight for home r*
spoke with misgivings about
A 1 a s k a’s new governmental
charter.
Alas, the end %is not yet.
While the people* of Alaska
have an elective delegate in
the House of Representatives
to speak for them, and an
elective legislature to pass
laws for their local necessi
ties, these representatives and
powers are not constituti
representative powers, bu
congressional, and 'here*
subject to change by Cong'
by later acts passed by
body in conflict with }
And thus without repealing
even directly mentioning
amending the organic in'” h
Alaska territory, Congress