The Meaning Of The Controller Bill
By Dan A. Sutherland, Delegate to Congress
( Continued From Last Month )
The results of the persistent ef
forts of past legislatures to exalt
Federal officials and disparage those
selected by the people is best shown
in the way they have muzzled our
Attorney General.
The people of Alaska are not
generally aware of the fact that
their one elective official, the At
torney General, whose principal
duty as defined in the law is de
fense of the rights of the Territory
and its people, is absolutely power
less to perform any of the duties of
his- office except by permission of
the Governor, the Secretary, (lie
Treasurer, or by any two of these
officials. He is thus completely
muzziea, ana even though he might
be disposed to question buroaucra
tic; supremacy through the courts,
he cannot do so.
Chapter 25, Session Laws of 1921,
entitled: “An Act to provide for
the institution and maintenance b\
the Territory, or in its name, of
various proceedings before courts
of Justice and other tribunals and
officers, to protect the rights or
prdniote the interests of the people
ft»f the Territory.”
This is a very high sounding
title, and all through the Act Ihe
rights of the people are played up
to the nth degree, but a perusal of
the Act will clearly show that the
dear people of the Territory out of
all this high flown phraseology re
ceived nothing beyond the privilege
of:, watching the bureaucrats insti
tue court proceedings against them
selves, a performance for which the
people have watched and will con
tinue to watch in vain.
Section 1 of the Act confers pow
er on the Attorney General and
the;n transfers the powers to the
Federal officials.
Section 1: ‘“Whenever the con
s< itut tonality or validity of anj
statute is seriously in d»i>ubt, and
tlie enforcement of such statute at
fc'cts tlie Territory or a considerabb
portion of its people or important
industries therein, suits or actipm
may by the Attorney General be in
stituted in the name of the Terri
tory in any court to determine the
constitut ionality or validity of sucli
lao. And such proceedings may
bo hail for that purpose either by
means »:>f suits to restrain, or by
means of action to compel, the en
forcement of such law, or by any
other appropriate proceeding that
"ill bring the question at issue
fairly before the court. Or the At
I’1"
P<)se institute or defend actions 01
suits for private individuals or cor
porations, and at the expense ol
the Territory whenever the import
mice of the questions involved tc
the inhabitants of the Territor>
shall warrant it; HUT NO SUCH
PROCEEDING SHALL BE INSTI
TUTED 011 MAINTAINED IN THU
NAME OF THE TERRITORY OR
AT ITS EXPENSE EXCEPT WITH
TEE APPROVAL OF THE COVER
NOR, SECRETARY AND TREAS
l TIER OR ANY TWO OF THEM
IN THE MANNER HEREINAFTER
PROVIDED.’’
Two of the officials in whose care
the Attorney General is placed by
this statute are in no way respon
sible to the people of the Territory
for their actions but they are res
ponsible to Federal Bureaus for the
positions they hold and the third
member, the Treasurer is largely
responsible to the Governor for his
official acts. These officials would
not act in the interest of the people
to institute suit in their behalf il
the Bureau's were involved and ir
nine cases out of ten the Bureaus
would be involved. Under this law
the Attorney General could not
question the legality of any bureau
cratic policy, no matter how ad
versely the people of the Territory
might be affected thereby, unless in
structed to do so by Bureaucrat?
and these Bureaucrats are not go
ing to so instruct him as the per
alty for doing so would probably
be the loss of their jobs. Back cl
all the Bureau regulations that are
imposed on the people of Alaska
are the laws of Congress. Very oft
en the Bureaus stretch the powers
given them by law and sometimes
assume autocratic powers which
Congress never intended they should
exercise. When the exercise of such
powers becomes irksome and intol
erable to the people, where does
their redress lie? Through the
channel provided by the Constitu
tion,—the courts? The legislature
of 1921 in this same chapter 25,
provided that the Attorney General
should “protect the interests of the
Territory and its people before the
United States Shipping Board, the
Interstate Commerce Commission,
or any other Bureau, Board, Com
mittee, Commission or officer of the
United States or any of the States
of the Unjtm.”
These are very broad powers in
deed, but then the legislature plac
ed Bureaucratic guards between the
Attorney General and the Bureaus,
Courts and Commissions who arc
there to see to it that he shall not
pass to defend the rights of the
people as provided for in he Act.
As an illustration of the perni
cious effect of placing the right of
the people to access to the courts,
through the medium of the Attor-'
ney General, in the control of offi
cials who are not responsible to the
voters, the attitude of the Gover