poor and needy is unquestioned. The
duty of states to make provisions
for the care and maintenance of
those who, through misfortune or
disease, are urable to take care of
themselves, has been too long recog
nized and established to admit of
question. But that duty of the gov
ernment extends equally and in the
same degree to all the people irre
spective of creed and color.
The conclusion seems irresistible
that a tax levied expressly for the
purposes of the two legislative acts
here under investigation would be
illegal and as such void and incol
lectible. Inasmuch as no separate
tax has been levied for these pur
poses, but appropriations are made
by the Legislature out of the general
fund of the treasury of the Terri
tory to pay for the administration of
the Acts in question these appropri
ations must be treated as illegal
and disbursement thereof could be
enjoyed at the instance of a tax
payer.
1 he contention is sometimes heard
that while the principles which I
have called attention to in the fore
going are applicable to all races
generally an exception may be en
forced as against or in favor of
Indians upon the theory that the
Indians are wards of the Federal
Government and as such may be
subjected to different treatment.
It is true that expressions are
fourd in many judicial decisions
lending color to such a position. For
some two hundred years or more
we have entered into treaties with
Indian tribes as with foreign na
tions; we have purchased their lands
subject to certain obligations as
sumed to the various tribes, and
by virtue of these treaties and con
tracts with Indians throughout the
ce:‘.tunes the aborigines have secured
from us special consideration, special
privileges and immunities, until we
have acquired the habit of thinking
of Indians as enjoying* special privi
leges and immunities under our gov
ernment irrespective of our treaty
obligation to them. This habit of
thought is responsible for many mis
leadii g expressions in legal docm
merits. In Alaska the government
had no treaty relation with the
natives. The latter became subject
from the very beginning of Ameri
can occupation, to the white man’s
laws. A distinction in the treat
ment of the natives, however, may
have been justified because the Fed
eral Government undertook to care
for them. That government sup
plied them with schools, with hos
pitals and medical attendance, and to
a limited extent cared for the needy.
But by the Act of June 2, 192*4,
Congress provided: “That all non
citizen Indians born within the Ter
ritorial limits of the United States
Be, and they are hereby, declared
to be citizens of the United States:
Provided, that the granting of such
citizenship shall not in any manner
impair or otherwise affect the right
of an Indian to tribal or other
properties.”
This indicates very clearly that
Corgress considered the period of
tutelage of this part of our pop
ulation to be at an end, and that
the natives are not only entitled
“to the full and equal benefit of
all laws,” but “shall be subject to
like punishment, pains, penalties,
taxes, licenses, and exactions of ev
ery kind, and to no other.”
Whatever may have been the case
in the past I am unable to reach
any other conclusion than that at
the present time under recent Con
gressional enactments, the native
Indian population of Alaska is en
titled to exactly the same treat
ment and the same rights and im
munities as are all others.
1 he government has no authority
to expend public funds as a bounty
to help individuals. Nor do the acts
here in question undertake to do so.
Only when funds are so disbursed
for the purpose of taking care of
those in actual need and who are
unable to take care of themselves is
such purpose regarded by the courts
as public and not private. As long
as and when the Federal Govern
ment takes care of destitute natives
the obligation of the Territory to do
so does not exist. Natives so cared
for are not in “need” of aid from
the Territory. That need must be
established before the benefits ac
crue to anybody of any race under
the Acts here in question. The vice
lies in the fact that those laws
undertake to disburse public funds
for the benefit of only one-half of
our population to the exclusion of
the other half on account of race
and color and not on account of
difference in needs or conditions, and
this notwithstanding the fact that
all are equally bound to contribute
to those funds so used. I am un
able to find this consistent with the
fundamental principles of our gov
ernment.
Respectfully submitted,
JOHN RUSTGARD.
Attorney General.
MR. FREE’S MANIFESTO
Following are extracts from Con
gressman Arthur M. Free’s article
which was printed in the Cordova
Daily Times, August 3, 1925:
“Capital must be encouraged other
wise the Territory will deteriorate
for 1 can see nothing for the poor
man except, perhaps, as an employee
of big capital,” stated Congressman
A. M. Free of San Jose, Calif., who
arrived in Cordova yesterday after
noon.
Big Canneries Co-operate
“Thus far on our trip alonff the
Alaskan Coast, we have found the
Alaska Packers Association and the
Pacific American Fisheries living
up to the law in word and in spirit.
“I have come to believe if it had
been entirely lawful, under the con
servation system, it would have been
much better if the fisheries depart
ment were given the absolute right
to say how many canneries there
should be and the kind of gear per
mitted them.”
Voting System, Crime
“The attitude of groups of natives
and of the Territorial government
itself is hound to retard the develop
ment of Alaska. And in trying to
embarrass in every way those who
want to come in and help. But the
worst crime in Alaska is the voting
system. There should be a bill
passed making it a law that those
who can not read or write be re
strained from going to the polls. You
have 1,800 natives in the Territory
who can neither read nor write, yet,
it is these very ones who decide the
fate of your elections, and they arc
dictated either by a medicine man
or a priest.
No Washington Voice
“The election laws in Alaska must
he changed if the country is to go
ahead, and only the intelligent pop
ulation must vote. As it is now, the
intelligent people of the Territory
have no voice at Washington. Only
the natives have a voice speaking
for them at Washington. The mer
chants, the Chambers of Commerce
and the many civic organizations,
should express their views on leg
islature and appointments. The ci
tizenry of Alaska should be heard at
Washington and we want to hear it,
hut unfortunately, whether it is a
matter of modesty or not, I do not
know, but we seldom hear from
Alaska’s intelligent citizenry.
Welcomes Expressions
“Cheap Indian lawyers are ex
pressing’ the will of Alaska today,
and the very intelligent and delight
ful people, are having no voice as
far as the policies of Alaska are
concerned. The departments at Wash
ington, the President and Congress,
would welcome an expression of in
telligence from the citizenry of Alas
ka on its problems.
“I am utterly astounded to find
the high type of people I have met
as citizens of Alaska. They would
reflect credit to any city in the
United States, yet they have no ex
pression at Washington.”
The milk dealers of Ketchikan
think that not enough milk is drunk
in that city and wonder why. They
might try reducing the price to
something less than 25 cents a quart.