putable that it has also
>d up the process of' re
e development in the
, It is past time that the
a storehouse should be un
d. Statehood is a way—
ibly the best way—to do it.
statehood, Alaska will it
receive control of a large
of the wealth which has
!g been held in reserve.
o turnover
TATE OF ALASKA
> Bartlett-McCarran state
bill provides that the fed
jovernment will turn over
> State of Alaska all vacant
unappropriated lands, in
ig lands reserved or with
a from entry, except for
allowing:
and actually used by the
nited States or a federal
jency for some govern
ental purpose,
and and adjacent waters
;served for the use or
rnefit of native Indians,
ikimos or Aleuts.
:ctions 16 and 36 in each
wnship, reserved for sup
>rt of common schools in
e state; and Section 33 in
ich township, reserved for
ppdrt of the University
Alaska.
ount McKinley National
irk.
lacier Bay National Mon
nent.
ie naval petroleum re
rve in northern Alaska,
he Pribilof Islands.
1 of the Aleutian Islands
est of 172° west longitude
quired for military pur
ises.
h these specific exceptions,
; vacant and unappropriat
leral lands within Alaska’s
rs would become the prop
if the new state. The sec
;et aside for support of the
s and the university
, to all intents and purpos
ong to the state also. They
copied from the lands con
in the outfight gift be
of a provision reserving
from sale or settlement,
tate would be permitted
ct lieu lands to replace any
of the specified sections
settlement with a view to
tead entry had already
made.
part of the Aleutian chain
might be withheld for
ry purposes is that west
ukta Passage. Among the
? east of the 172nd meridi
tich would become state
are Umnak, Akutan, Un
and Unimak.
VNDS GO TO
I OF ALASKA
re are several rather sig
lt omissions from the lands
the bill would withhold
the state. Apparently the
1 government would turn
to the state the area now
ed in Katmai National
nent. The large petroleum
es now held by the federal
iment in addition to the
reserve of northern Alas
ild also become state prop
tl, some 200,000,000 acres
I—more than half of all
—would be turned over
new state to become its
y to do with as it pleased,
oke, the many withdraw
restrictions which have
1 to delay development
i this area would be ended,
s is an enormous gift of
al wealth to the state. It is
• than was the grant to any
e present states. Montana
liven 5,860,645 acres out of j
>1 state area of 94,000.000,
The gross area of the grant j
izona was 8,239,000 acres'
f total area of 72,931,840 j
Even today, 73 per cent;
izona’s area remains in fed-!
•wnership. The federal gov
ent owns 44 per cent of the
area of New Mexico and 92
snt of Nevada.
- grant of natural wealth
mplated by the authors of
Martlet t-McCarran bill,
i. incidentally, foil ow s
■ Dimond's previous bill in
text, has been noted. It |
Iso been noted that this bill j
lot been passed, nor have1
pgs on it been held in con- j
ional committees. As to ex-1
actly how much of land and oth
er resources Congress would be
disposed to grant to Alaska when
a statehood enabling act is ac
tually passed, the simple fact
is that no one can say at this
time. It might fairly be accept
ed as a principle, however, that
Congress would be no less gen
erous to Alaska than it has been
to other states. There is no rea
son why Alaska should be unique
among all states, for instance,
in that the fisheries would not
be placed under state control,
as some have contended. If Con
gress should attempt to with
hold the fisheries, or make a spe
cial case out of Alaska in some
other respect, Alaskans need not
accept the gift of statehood, and
undoubtedly would reject it at
their election on ratification of
the state constitution.
U.S. FOREST LAND
IS SPECIAL PROBLEM
A special situation unique to
Alaska has to do with the sta
tus of national forest land. The
two national forests in Alaska
contain 20,850,000 acres and em
brace, virtually in toto, all the
land in two of the most promis
ing areas, Southeastern Alaska
and Prince William Sound.
The difference between Alas
ka and any of the states in this
regard is that there the national
forest reserves are intermingled
with other forested land, either
public domain or privately
owned, to which the individual
can obtain title. In Southeastern
Alaska there is no other avail
able land. It is all in the na
tional forests. On Prince Wil
liam Sound the entire coastal
area, which is most choice from
the standpoint, for instance, of
tourist development, is in re
serve and cannot be obtained
by purchase or otherwise. It is
true that such of this land as is
classified as agricultural in char
acter is subject to entry, but
practically none of it is. It is
true that the prospective inves
tor in tourist lodges and camps
could get a permit to use some
of this land, but these permits
are good only for 15 years and
can be revoked at any time. The
fact is that tourist development
has not taken place under this
system.
Alaska might well ask the fed
eral government to include in
its grant of lands to the new
state substantial areas from the
forest reserves. Such a grant
would serve two purposes: it
would promise the new state a
valuable source of revenue
through sale of land and timber,
and it would open to private
ownership and development
areas now held completely in
federal control.
HOW STATES HANDLED
GRANTS OF LAND
A precedent respecting na
tional forest areas was estab
lished at the time of admission
of Arizona and New Mexico. By
act of Congress the two states
were granted sections 2. 16, 32
and 36 in each township, but
with the provision that where
such sections occurred withir
the limits of an established na
tional forest, they would con
tinue to be administered as parts
of the national forest, with a part
of gross national forest receipts
being paid to the state annually,
in proportion to the national
forest area comprised by the
granted sections. Subsequent ac
tion by the two states has dif
fered markedly. Arizona 'pretty
largely has allowed the granted
sections to continue in their ori
ginal status, and has accepted
the annual payment from the
Forest Service. New Mexico, on
the other hand, rather generally
has traded the granted sections
for sections of public domain
outside the national forests, ei
ther for sale or for management
as grazing properties by the
state.
The situation in these states,
however, di f f e r s materially
from that which will prevail in
Alaska. It is for this reason that
outright grant of some of the
national forest area to the State
of Alaska is suggested.
The proposed Alaska state
hood enabling act provides with
respect to the fisheries and with
respect to fur and game, as fol
lows:
All of the property of the
United States situated in the
Territory of Alaska used in
connection with the conserva
tion and protection of the fish
eries and of the fur and game
of Alaska, except technical
and research plants and es
tablishments and appurtenant
■property, are hereby trans
ferred and conveyed to the
State of Alaska. The State of
Alaska shall possess and ex
ercise the same jurisdiction
and control over the fisheries
and the fur and game of Alas
ka as are possessed and ex
ercised within their respective
territorial limits including ad
jacent waters, by the several
states.
This bill is not even before
Congress at the present time, let
alone enacted into law, but it
probably furnishes a reliable
guide to the kind of fishery ar
rangement which would be pro
vided with statehood.
FISHERIES CONTROL
BY STATE DETAILED
It has been seen that the ter
ritory exercises over the fisher
ies only such controls as are in
volved in the taxing power. The
federal government, as is well
known, now regulates the fish
eries- of Alaska. It establishes
seasons, restricts gear, designates
closed areas and promulgates all
the numerous regulations in
volved in managing this impor
tant resource. The federal gov
ernment performs no such func
tion with respect to the fisher
ies of the states, and would cease
to exercise such powers in Alas
ka with the coming of statehood.
The states possessing substan
tial fisheries were admitted to
the Union so long ago that all of
the surrounding circumstances
were quite different from what
they are in the case of Alaska.
In the era in which Washington,
Oregon and California became
states, for instance, the federal
government did not exercise any
effective regulatory control over
the fisheries. Each of the states
assumed jurisdiction over all
fisheries, commercial and sport,
in her waters out to a distance
of three nautical miles. Each of
the states, through its legislative
body, exercises control over all
fishery resources within these
waters. The federal government
as regards fisheries has only such
jurisdiction as might be granted
it by the state legislature.
In the state of Washington at
the present time the U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service maintains
hatcheries for the protection of
sport and food fish in several
areas. It also maintains a propa
gation system to take care of
salmon ascending the Columbia
River to Grand Coulee Dam. In
Oregon, the federal agency has
conducted fisheries research stu
dies and surveys designed to be
beneficial to the state in the
administration of the fishery of
the Columbia River. Salmon
hatcheries formerly maintained
on Oregon tributaries of the Col
umbia and on the Rogue River
are no longer in operation. In
California, the Fish and Wildlife
Service carries on a function
which is entirely advisory. In
the case of the salmon and sar
dine fisheries, this agency is
making investigations in co-op
eration with the state.
STATES HAVE CONTROL
TO 3-MILE LIMIT
Complete regulatory powers
over the fisheries in each state
and offshore for three nautical
miles reside in the states them
selves. This extends to the con
trolling of gear, the limiting of
catches, the designation of open
seasons, the regulating of the
amount of fish which may be
used in reduction processes, and
all related matters.
Alaska, with statehood, will
assume similar all-inclusive au
thority over her fisheries.
Authoriiy over game and
fur also will pass lo the new
stale. The federal govern
ernment will retain jurisdic
tion over such matters only in
national park and national
monument areas and as re
spects migratory waterfowl.
It has been asked whether the
Alaska Railroad would pass to
the state. There is no reason to
believe there would be any
change in the status of the rail
road, unless the new state
should wish to take it over and
operate it as a state venture. The
proposed enabling act is silent
on the subject, except to say that
all property in the actual posses
sion of and used by the United
States shall remain in federal
control.
Another permanent concern of
the federal government is the
Native population. The welfare
of the Natives, in Alaska as in
the states, is a peculiar claim up
on the federal government. This1
responsibility in Alaska will not
be lessened or materially affect
ed by statehood. As a matter of
policy, if not strictly of treaty
stipulation, the Native races of
Alaska, Indian, Eskimo and Ale
ut, have always been treated and
considered by the federal gov
ernment just the same as the In
dians of the states, in that their
support and care is a federal and
not a state obligation.
With apologies for laboring a
point should be self-evident, the
following information is given
j with respect to the provision
made by the federal government
for Indians in Arizona and New
Mexico before and since state
hood. :gljf
STATEHOOD AIDS
INDIAN GROUPS
Arizona had 29,201 and New
Mexico about 20,000 Indians at
time of admission in 1912. The
Office of Indian Affairs has pro
vided the following record show
ing total federal expenditures by
the Indian Service in Arizona
and New Mexico in the years
preceding and following state
hood:
BEFORE
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1900
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
AFTER
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
STATEHOOD
$660,091.95
293.331.64
529,988.85
533,438.32
632,081.18
604,143.31
618.729.10
801,583.36
666,446.97
795,982.58
738.382.65
869.045.27
STATEHOOD
$ 709,414.24
786,022.94
1,024,945.18
854,303.96
920.576.05
834.762.06
978.915.10
1,173,857.69
1,422,341 49
1,244,234.75
3,365,792.09
1,575,816.15
It will be seen from the above
that, far from decreasing, feder
al expenditures for Indians in
these states actually increased
considerably after statehood. In
1940 Arizona had 55,076 and
New Mexico 34.510 Indians. Ex-j
penditures by the federal gov
ernment on behalf of Indians n
the two states totaled $10,851,
934 in that year. Since 1912, 1he
year of admission of the two
states, the Indian population has
increased 82 per cent; federal
expenditures for Indians have in
creased 1150 per cent.
Inquiry submitted to state of
ficials in Arizona brought the
reply that:
After statehood the Indians
were provided for on the same
basis as in territorial days.
New Mexico officials report:
The now state never did
take over any of the Indian
Department’s activities.
Montana, which upon admis
sion had 11,871 Indians, reports:
The state has never at any
time provided money for the
support or aid of the Indian
population of Montana. These
people are under the jurisdic
tion of the federal govern
ment. All trials concerning
Indians are held in federal
courts. The laws and regu
lations relating to the Indians
are the same in any state or
territory.
NO GUARANTEE
OF U.S. SPENDING
The evidence on this point,
that the Natives of Alaska wilt
continue after statehood to be a
federal responsibility, apparent
ly is conclusive.
It has been complained that
there is no guarantee in the pro
posed statehood bill as to how
much money of the Office of In
dian Affairs will spend in Alas
ka after statehood, with the im
plication that some such assur
ance ought to be incorporate d
in the bill. Obviously, that can
not be done, first because the
Congress which provides t< r
Alaska’s admission cannot bind
future Congresses in the matter
of appropriations, and second,
changing conditions might also
invalidate any guarantee or com
mitment.
The third point might be add
ed that the statehood etmbling
act should not be expected to,
and cannot possibly, cover every
matter about which some Ci,u
tious Alaskan might entertain a
doubt. It would be a strange
statehood enabling act in dec it
which went into such matter, as
how much should be paid for
the tuition of Eskimo children,
what percentage basis should
apply in admitting Alaska to
the Federal Highway Act, just
what constitutes an Indian res
ervation, whether rent might ire
charged state agencies for the
use of federal buildings, what
should become of proceeds from
the seal rookeries,' how aborigi
nal rights might be disposed of,
and who gets the boats find
bunkhouses used by the federal
government in enforcement of
the fishery and game laws. These
are matters for separate legis
lation or for administrative ac
tion within the framework of
existing laws.
HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF
EXCURSIONS into history sometimes serve to illuminate
“ the perplexing problems of a later day. A careful rend
ing of the history of Alaska will show that the forces which
have consistently fought every extension of self-government
to Alaska are the absentee interests. They fought each of
the Organic Acts; they fought the appointment of a Delegate;
they fought the creation of a legislature, and they are, cf
course, fighting statehood. tnC|
people who look upon Alaska as |
just a place to extract from, and j
who believe in putting nothing;
back, are all against statehood.
It is not difficult to under- j
stand why this should be so.
Those who profit under an in
ferior form of government nat
urally are not anxious to see an ;
improvement. Particularly to j
be feared by them is any change
which would place the reins of
government in the hands of the
people.
As Dr. Nichols points out in
her carefully documented his
tory of the development of Alas
ka’s territorial government;
Partisanship in Alaska, and I
inevitably the home rule move- i
ment also, have long been sen- i
sitive to corporate influence.
The conditions of Alaska's ec
onomic and political history,
her routes of commerce, and
the distribution of her re
sources have always been s _uh
as to foster the growth of
monopolies. Therefore it has
naturally followed that the
keynote of Alaska's history
has been her natural re
sources and the attempts made
by individuals and corpora
tions to obtain a free hand in
their exploitation . . . The
interests long opposed heme
rule on the grounds of exces
sive taxation . . .
Like the canning and trans
portation companies, Seattle
business soon acquired a vest
ed interest in Alaska which
demanded the closest possible
attention to the policy of Con
gress and the administration as
affecting that interest. Insig
nificant and few indeed would
be the Alaskan issues which
could be settled without con