HOW MUCH TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT
IS ENOUGH?
HOW LONG an apprenticeship should an area serve before
it is adjudged ready for statehood? This question is a
little difficult to answer, though we may draw some conclu
sions from the examples afforded by the history of the
present states.
The area of the 13 original states of the Union, as will be
recalled, extended as far west as to include the land embraced
in the present states of Wiscon
sin and Illinois. Out of this area,
12 more states were ultimately
formed, in addition to the origi
nal 13. The other 23 states of
the Union were formed from
the rest of the continental area
westward to the Pacific Ocean.
One of these, Texas, which had
been an independent republic,
was admitted as a state upon an
nexation. Another, California,
never had a territorial form of
government, but was granted
statehood from an unorganized
status within two years after an
nexation. The tabulation which
follows shows all the states out
side the area of the 13 original
colonies ranked according to
years elapsed betwen annexation
and statehood, with Alaska in
terpolated as of 1946.
State Years Elapsed
Texas 0
California 2
Louisiana 9
Oregon 13
Nevada 16
Missouri 18
Florida 26
Arkansas 33
Washington 43
I6wa 43
Idaho 44
Utah 48
Minnesota 55
Kansas 58
Nebraska 64
Arizona 64
New Mexico 67
Colorado 73
ALASKA 79
Montana 86
North Dakota 86
South Dakota 86
Wyoming 87
Oklahoma 104
It is seen that Alaska already
has belonged to the United
States longer than any state at
the time of its admission, with
the exception of Montana, the
Dakotas, Wyoming and Okla
homa. These were all formed of
territory contained in the Louisi
ana Purchase, and at the time of
annexation were so remote from
the national life of that era that
settlement, or even exploration,
did not reach them until many
years later. Having served more
than three-quarters of a century
under the American flag, Alas
ka would seem to be entitled—
at least morally entitled — to
statehood.
COURT DEFINED
STATUS OF ALASKA
Alaska was granted territori
al government in its present
form in 1912. It did, however,
possess some of the aspects of a
territory before that time. The
first Organic Act was passed in
1884. If organization as a terri
tory should be considered as
dating from that time, Alaska
by 1946 has already been a ter
ritory for a longer period of
time than any other area in all
the history of the republic.
The legal status of Alaska
among the non-contiguous pos
sessions of the United States
was considered settled by the
Supreme Court in 1905. At that
time, Hawaii and the possessions
which had recently been ac
quired from Spain (Puerto Rico
and the Philippines) were de
clared to be “unincorporated”
territories, appurtenant to, and
dependencies of, the United
States, but not a part of the
United States. On the other
hand, Alaska, was placed by the
court along with Oklahoma, Ari
zona and New Mexico in the
class of incorporated territories.
The reasoning was that the
treaty with Russia concerning
Alaska manifested an intention
to admit the inhabitants of the
ceded territory to the enjoyment
of citizenship and expressed the
purpose to incorporate the ter
ritory into the United States.
These decisions gave Alaska the
proud title of “territory” in the
place of the name of ‘“district”
with which she had been bur
dened since 1884.
Even if 1912 be considered asi
the date of organization of ter-:
ritorial government in Alaska,
the territory by 1946 has been
an organized territory longer
than any but four states in our
history. The following tabula
tion ranks the states outside the
area of the 13 original states ac
cording to years which elapsed
between organization as terri
tories and admittance to state
hood, with Alaska interpolated
as of 1946.
State Years Elapsed
Florida )
California ) No territorial gov
ernment
Texas )
Kansas 7
Louisiana 8
Iowa 8
Minnesota 9
Missouri 9
Oregon 11
Nebraska 13
Nevada 14
Colorado 15
Arkansas 17
Oklahoma 17
Wyoming 21
Montana 25
Idaho 27
North Dakota 28
South Dakota 28
ALASKA 34
Washington 36
Utah 46
Arizona 49
New Mexico 62
Other considerations being fa
vorable, it is obvious that Alaska
fulfills the qualifications for
statehood in the matter of time
served in apprenticeship.
THE PROCEDURE FOR BECOMING A STATE
TWO BILLS to provide statehood for Alaska have been
l ■ introduced in Congress within the past year. Delegate
Bartlett’s bill was given the number H.R. 3898 in the 1st
Session of the 79th Congress. Later Senator McCarran of
Nevada introduced an identical bill in the Senate. It was
given the number S. 1788 in the 2nd Session of the 79th Con
gress. While it is not known as this report is written exactly
what statehood legislation will
be before the 80th Congress,
there is every likelihood that a
measure closely resembling in its
essentials the Bartlett-McCarran
bill will be introduced. This bill
sets forth the procedure which
would be followed in admitting
Alaska as a state.
First, of course, the bill would
have to be passed by both houses
of Congress and signed by the
President. Within 30 days after
its approval the Governor of
Alaska would issue a proclama
tion ordering an election of
delegates to a constitutional
convention. Candidates would
be given a period for filing; pri
maries and then a general elec
tion would be held. The bill pro
vides that the primaries could
not be held earlier than two
months after the Governor’s
proclamation or the general
election earlier than five months
after the proclamation. The con
vention would convene on the
first Tuesday following the 90th
day after the general election.
The session to draft a constitu
tion then would continue for not
to exceed 75 days. Another
election, this time for ratifica
tion of the proposed constitution,
would be held 75 to 100 days
after adjournment. After can
vass of the ratification vote, if
it is found to be favorable, the
Governor would certify the re
sults to the President. The Pres
ident, after a study of the arti
cles of the proposed state con
stitution to determine whether
they met the requirements laid
down by the Federal Constitu
tion and by Congress’ Alaska
statehood act, would so certify
to the Governor. Within 30 days
after such notification the Gov
ernor would issue a proclama
tion calling for an election of
state officers and a Representa
tive and two Senators to serve
in the national Congress.
STATEHOOD IS NOT
ONE-DAY ACHIEVEMENT
Again a period would be al
lowed for filing and for primary
and general elections. The final
election would be held from two
to six months after the election
proclamation. After the custom
ary canvass, the Governor
would certify the election re
sults to the President. There
upon the President would issue
a proclamation admitting Alaska
to the Union. Then, and not un
til then, would Alaska become
a state.
Through some such process
have passed* most of the states.
The complicated procedure is
recited here to emphasize the
fact that the process is a long
one. Statehood cannot be
achieved in a day, or even in a
year. A study of the provisions
of the BarfJett-McCarran bill in
dicates that the mere mechanics
of statehood would consume
more than 15 months and 'pos
sibly as long as three years.
That is, the mechanics would
consume that length of time
after the passage of enabling
legislation by Congress.
Alaska’s Territorial Legisla
ture has provided that the peo
ple of Alaska will record their
preference for or against state
hood at the general election to
i be held in the territory in Oc
tober of this year,
r It needs to be emphasized that
I a vote in favor of statehood in
the October referendum does
not mean Alaska would forth
with become a stale.
Far from it. Congress would
still have to pass an enabling
act and the people of Alaska
would still have to go through
the long procedure outlined
above. There is no assurance
how soon Congress would, or in
deed whether it ever would, act
favorably in carrying out the
mandate of the people of Alaska.
HAWAII VOTED AND
IS STILL WAITING
It should be noted in this re
gard that in 1940 the people of
Hawaii voted overwhelmingly
in favor of statehood in an elec
tion identical with that which
Alaska will hold in October.
Yet Congress has not acted, six
years later, even to start Hawaii
on the road to statehood. The
Territorial Legislature since has
renewed Hawaii’s plea. The Ha
waiian Delegate has worked un
ceasingly for statehood. The
Secretary of the Interior, whose
department has jurisdiction over
the territories, has issued a state
ment endorsing statehood for
Hawaii. A Gallup Poll taken in
the states indicates that two
thirds of the people are in favor
of extending statehood to Ha
waii. Finally, a subcommittee of
the Committee on Territories
has visited the Islands, made a
thorough study of the matter
and recommended in the strong
est language
that the Committee on Terri
tories give immediate consid
eration to legislation to admit
Hawaii to statehood.
And yet Congress has not
acted.
Arizona and New Mexico,
both admitted in 1912, are the
only states which have joined
the Union in the past 50 years.
The people of both pressed their
appeal for admission energeti
cally over a long term of years.
Alaska, even after it votes on
statehood and even though the
vote should be overwhelmingly
in favor, must be prepared to
, suffer similar delays and disap
pointments. The question which
every Alaskan should ask him
self before going to the polls in
October is not, “Is Alaska ready
for statehood now?’’ but rather,
“Am I in favor of statehood in
principle, and if so, might Alas
ka be ready for statehood with
in the foreseeable future?”
Those who are best in a posi
tion to judge the temper of the
national government are agreed
that a negative vote in October,
or anything less than decisive
approval, will bury all hopes
of statehood for many years to
come. It also seems clear that
such a result, signifying Alas
ka’s unwillingness to assume the
responsibilities of adult state
hood after so many years of ter-1
ritorial tutelage, would create in
Congress and throughout the na
tion a distinctly unsympathetic
attitude toward Alaska’s needs
and problems, whatever they
may be in the future .
UNFAVORABLE VOTE
WILL INJURE ALASKA
So the second fact which
needs to be emphasized is that
a vote against statehood in the
October referendum will kill all
hopes for statehood for many
years to come and react against
Alaska’s interests in other ways
as well.
To most residents of the
states it is inconceivable that
Alaskans should not be in favor
of statehood. Every state, with
out a single exception, has had
a happy experience in advanc
ing from territorial to statehood
status. Every state has profited,
not only through satisfaction of
the natural craving of the peo
ple for self-government but also
because of the material benefits
which have flowed to the states
as a result. In specific terms
these benefits have been the en
ticement of population and
wealth, the development of na
tural resources and the creation
of a more highly organized so
! ciety with its concomitants of
| improved educational facilities,
j more and better highways and
I all the blessings associated with
an advanced stage of civiliza
tion. No one has ever heard of
the area which regretted the
step to statehood, or yearned for
a return to territorial status.
A third fact which needs to be
emphasized is that a vote for
statehood in the October refer
endum does not commit Alaska
unalterably to statehood or be
gin a process in that direction
which the people of Alaska will
not have abundant opportunity
to stop later should they so de
sire.
The statehood enabling act, as
has been noted, would proviA,
for election of the delegates t
a constitutional convention, ji
Alaskans decide they do not life]
the provisions of the particub!
enabling act which Congre!
provides, they may elect del!
gates who are opposed to. it
provisions, or even to statehooi
under any terms. These dele
gates then could refuse at th
constitutional c o n v e n tion t
draft a constitution. That is on
way in which the process t(
ward statehood could be stopped
CONSTITUTION ALSO
SUBMITTED TO VOTE
The enabling act would als
provide that the people of th
territory must approve the pr<
posed state constitution at a
election held after the convei
tion. If they do not approve, th
statehood process stops con
pletely.
In any event, full control ovt
whether the territory becomes
state remains firmly in the hant
of the people of Alaska unt
after the election on ratificatio
of the state constitution. At bes
that is an event some years i
the future. Fears that Alasl
might be rushed into statehoc
soon after the October refere
dum, and before the peop
know as much about it as th<
would like to, are groundles
It couldn’t possibly happen.
It follows from the above th
arguments about particular pi
visions of, or omissions fror
the Bartlett or McCarran stal
hood bills are beside the poi
at this time. Both bills have no
lapsed, with the adjournment
Congress, before the Octob
referendum. It is also idle
speculate now on what the Als
ka state constitution might co
tain, or to base an attitude t
ward statehood upon that. The
are matters for the future, ai
over them Alaskans will ha
j control.
j What is at issue in the Octob
I referendum is the general de?
j ability of statehood and the gJ
j oral willingness of Alaskans tl
! assume the responsibilities it
I self-government.
[ ONLY FIRST STEP
TOWARD EQUALITY
To sum up, hy a favorabl
vote in October, Alaska woui
place one foot firmly on the fir:
rung of the ladder leading t<
ward eventual statehood. Then
after it is for Alaska to make il
choice whether to remain on tl
first step, whether to step bac
off the ladder entirely, <
whether to climb toward equa
ity among the sisterhood (
states.
THE POPULATION QUESTION
ONE OF THE arguments advanced most frequently agains
statehood for Alaska is to the effect that the populatioi
of the territory is too sparse. It was made in the case o
many of the territories of the West which have subsequent!
become states. Opponents to the admission of Arizona, fo
instance, argued strongly that the population was too smal
to support a state government, and was in addition illiterat
and unfit to assume the respon
sibilities of government.
The argument is not new even
in Alaska. It was used to oppose
the granting of an elective Dele
gate to Congress. President Mc
Kinley in 1899 thought Alaska’s
area too vast and population too
scattered and transitory to make
an elective legislative body
wise. In an address at the Alas
ka-Yukon-Pacific Exposition in
Seattle ten years later, President
Taft declared himself opposed
to a bill which had been drawn
by the Alaska Delegate provid
ing for a legislative assembly
and home rule. These he felt
should not be considered seri
ously until the territory’s popu
lation had “increased in size
and stability.”
The 1940 Census recorded an
Alaska population of 72,524. A
signs indicate a substantial 11
crease since that time. Estimatf
presented last spring at a heal
ing before the U. S. Maritini
Commission on Alaska rates »
dicated the territory’s popu«
tion had grown to 85,000. T"
Attorney General has mentione
90,000 as the probable figure
It is a little difficult to tel
just how large the population 0
any given state was at the tin1
of admission, unless admissk
should have occurred in a ceD
sus year. Assuming that Alas*
might be admitted before 19’
the tabulation which folio'*
shows how the territory ran
with the states in the populat'd
recorded for each in the 1*
census before admission.
Admitted
Stale
Oklahoma 1907
New Mexico 1912
Utah 1896
Arizona 1912
Kansas 1861
South Dakota 1889
Texas 1845
Last Census First Census
Before Admission After Aclmiss’
790,391
327,301
210,779
204,354
107,206
98,268
1.657,155
360,350
276,749
334,162
364,399
348,600
212,592