STUDYING STATEHOOD—Shov/n at his typewriter preparing this report on Alaskan State
hood is the author. George Sundborg, former Juneau newspaperman. Also shown, left to right,
are Mrs. Sundborg. Sarah, Stephen, George Jr., Rosemary and Pierre.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
THIS investigation of the issues involved in statehood for
Alaska owes much to the helpful assistance extended by
many persons both within and without the Territory and
within and without the government.
Particular thanks are due to Delegate E. L. “Bob” Bartlett
and his secretary, Mary Lee Council, for arranging inter
views in Washington with officials of the federal agencies
which are now attempting as best they can to provide Alaska
government by remote control. Joseph T. Flakne, Chief of
the Alaska branch of the Division of Territories and Island
Possessions, was similarly helpful.
Luther Evans, Librarian of Congress, and Robert C. Gooch,
Chief of the General Reference and Bibliography Division
of the Library of Congress, made valuable reference material
available.
Counsel and information on specific phases of inquiry
were extended by Paul Fishinger of the Office of Indian Af
fairs, Chicago, and L. F. Kneipp, Assistant Chief of the U. S.
Forest Service, Washington, D. C.
One of the most fruitful areas of inquiry proved to be the
state governments and historical societies of various of the
states which as territories faced problems in some respects
similar to those which Alaska faces today. Particular mention
in this department should be made of the assistance rendered
by the Hon. Sidney P. Osborn, Governor of Arizona; The
Hon. John J. Dempsey, Governor of New Mexico; The Hon.
Walter S. Goodland, Governor of Wisconsin; Herbert M.
Peet, Executive Secretary of the Governor’s Advisory Com
mission of the State of Washington; Mrs. Anne McDonnell,
Assistant Librarian of the Historical Society of Montana;
Emil J. N. Ott, Jr., Executive Secretary of the California
Division of Fish and Game; Milo Moore, Director of the State
of Washington Department of Fisheries; Arnie J. Suomela,
Master Fish Warden of the Fish Commission of Oregon; F. G.
Wilson, Superintendent of the Conservation Department of
the State of Wisconsin; Mulford Winsor, Director of the De
partment of Library and Archives of the State of Arizona,
and V. J. Jaeger, Director of the New Mexico State Planning
Board.
Valuable suggestions were made by Frank Bane, Secretary,
and Lynton K. Caldwell, Director of Research and Publica
tion of the Council of State Governments, Chicago.
Much has been drawn from the writings and labors of Dis
trict Judge Anthony J. “Tony” Dimond, of Anchorage, who
served so long and so effectively as Alaska’s Delegate to
Congress, and who came away from Washington convinced
that statehood is the answer to Alaska’s desperate govern
mental problem.
Territorial officials responded promptly and wholeheart
edly when called upon for information or assistance. Particu
lar acknowledgment is due to Governor Ernest Gruening
and Attorney General Ralph J. Rivers.
Finally, thanks are expressed to Mrs. Evangeline Atwood,
President, and J. L. McCarrey, Jr., Secretary-Treasurer of
the Alaska Statehood Association, for perfecting the arrange
ments under which this study was made, and for constant,
unstinting and unselfish assistance in the course- of its
preparation. GEORGE SUNDBORG,
July, 1946.
suiting the wishes of these
highly organized combina
tions. The effect of their in
terference has been constantly
evident in the home rule
movement.
The most perplexing type of
influence at Washington was
that of the lobby, which was
of two kinds chiefly, the com
mercial and the sectional. In
the former, not less than six
large corporations . . . were
represented, all eager to be
heard on questions of interest
to them . . . The Alaska lobby
then acquired the characteris
tics it has retained to the pres
ent time . . . The . . . members
are seldom all-year-round resi
dents of Alaska, but they are
always pecuniarily interested,
and often carry credentials
from one chamber of com
merce or another ... In addi
tion to these lobbyists there
were the chamber of com
merce interests of the Pacific
Coast, to which their northern
customers made frequent ap
peals wherein Alaskan asso
ciations of a like character
joined.
SAME GROUP FOUGHT
MOVE FOR TERRITORY
It has been said that in addi
tion to the absentee corporate
interests the only group which
opposes statehood in Alaska is
“the sourpuss branch of the
sourdough family.” While this
undoubtedly is too harsh a dic
tum, a spectacle for wonder is
the manner in which some Alas
kans have always reflected, as
from a mirror, the attitudes of
their out-of-territory associa
tions. It is a little difficult now
to understand how anyone could
have opposed the organization of
territorial government. At the
time this forward step was be
ing offered in the early 1900’s,
the home rule movement took
the form of debates, held first at
Skagway, then at other Pan
handle towns and Nome, on the
subject: “Resolved that a terri
torial form of government will
be beneficial to Alaska.” It is
recorded that:
If a debate were held at a
meeting of a commercial club,
the verdict was often nega
tive; if at a public mass meet
ing, more frequently affirma
tive.
A few years later when a con
gressional committee visited
Alaska to judge the sentiment
for territorial government,
The Juneau Chamber of
Commerce took a vote upon
territorial government in the
presence of the junketers. It
resulted in a tie, broken by
the chairman in opposition to
organization.
There are always “good sound
men” about to point out a rea
son why this is not the time to
take a forward step. If their cau
| tious counsels had prevailed,
| men would still be wearing the
skins of animals and huddling
in caves. * ,
Several years ago, then Dele
gate Dimond foresaw the align
ment of forces which would oc
cur when statehood became an
issue before the people of Alas
ka. At that time he issued the
warning:
Nor should we Alaskans be
deflected from carrying out
our own considered judgment
by the shortsighted, and, in
many cases, the not entirely
unselfish af-guments which are
bound to be made against the
proposal for statehood by those
who, on account of circum
stances or position, have no
really vital interest in the de
velopment of Alaska. Such
persons are largely included
in two categories: first, those
who, although owning and op
erating considerable property
in Alaska, do not reside in the
Territory and, therefore, are
quite naturally only desirous
of speedily getting as much
out of Alaska as they can law
fully obtain, and second, those
who represent various agencies
of the federal government, few
of them really residents of,
Alaska, and who equally nat
urally are more concerned
with maintaining their own
authority and power than they
are in building the State of
Alaska as an abode for the
future citizens of the Terri
tory.
Every change upon every
possible argument and ob
jection to statehood will be
rung by individuals or groups
of the two classes and by their
representatives in Alaska who
are so closely asociated with
them economically or socially
as to be subject to their con
trol or influence. We should
take care to guard ourselves
against being unduly swayed
by the arguments of those who
really have no concern for
Alaska but who in opposing
statehood are simply trying
[ to maintain their own position
or status of authority or for
profit.
This is not to argue that there
do not exist in Alaska many per
sons of sincere conviction who
are opposed to statehood. This
would hardly be a democracy if
all thought alike
PEOPLE APPROVE
STATEHOOD IDEA
There seem to he abundant evi
dences, however, that the peo
ple of Alaska do favor statehood.
In electing Delegates to Con
gress the people of Alaska have,
over the past 20 years, consist
ently chosen candidates who an
nounced themselves as in
of statehood, and have ]
these men in preference tr?
ers who were opposed 0r°^
were silent or half-hearted
the statehood issue. The t
torial Legislature has ad8
memorials requesting statel!
and statehood planks have h
included in the party pia(f
of political conventions °!
congressional group which vi
ed Alaska last year reported
During the committee’s J
to Alaska much was said™
cerning statehood for the T
ritory and many outstandf
citizens announced ftiemseh
as being in favor of it. p '
ascertained that a majority
the citizens of Alaska
an unlimited faith in its <
ture and strongly favor sta
hood at an early date.
Tony Dimond has said that
I firmly believe that wh
they understand what is j
volved, 90 per cent of the re;
ly permanent residents
Alaska will demand stateho
so forcefully as not to be j
nied.
The decision rests with
people of Alaska. The Dep
ment of the Interior has j
on record with the states
that “statehood is the only {
of self-government appropi
to Alaska, and Alaska is eq
ped for statehood.” But the
partment of the interior cai
make Alaska a state. Press
Truman has announced he wi
welcome Alaska’s entry into
Union as a state whenever
Territory is ready for the i
FAULTS OF PRESENT
SYSTEM ON INCREASE
But the President of the I
ed States has not the powe
make Alaska a state. Cong
however forcefully it migh
inclined in that direction, ea
make Alaska a state. Only
people of Alaska can do tha
Taking a long view, statel
for Alaska probably is in
able. The question, therefol
one of whether the imme
future—the next five yean
the time. That is the qua
which the people of Alaska
answer by their votes in
ber’s election. It seems cm
that all of the many faults wl
statehood is designed to
will become progressively w
until Alaska is admitted to
standing in the Union,
then, would seem to be none
early for Alaska to begin n
ing progress toward the
mate goal.
Copies of this Statehood Report
In booklet form with beautiful cover
Will be on sale soon Throughout Alaska
Watch for them at your favorite dealer’s.
So much material of permanent value was gathered
together in compiling this report, that it was felt many
citizens will want a copy or two to preserve. Libraries,
schools and public agencies will desire the material
for reference.
While the primary purpose of this report is to inform
Alaskans about Statehood before the referendum on
that matter October 8, this report has material of inter
est to all who live in Alaska.
Material in this report is not copyrighted. It may be
reprinted if credit is given to the author and the Alaska
Statehood association.
If you have not joined the Statehood club in your
community, why not do so at once? You will thereby
become a sponsor of this Statehood Study and a Pioneer
in Better Government in Alaska.
The Alaska Statehood Association