1950 minded the King that the United States, unlike Britain and France, has so far not made any attempts on the independ- ence and sovereignty of the islands and that none was now intended. He point- ed out, however, that it was not surpris- ing that Hawaiil’s people, especially the merchants and landed proprietors, should see the great commercial and other advantages to be derived from union with the United States. In an un- veiled reference to the evils of colonial- ism, he pointedly advised the King of Hawaii that “the Government of the United States can have no colonies” and that “whatever territory is added is an integral part of the whole, and subject to the same national constitution and laws.” The British and #rench Ministers in Washington, acting under instructions from their home governmcnts, made representations to the Secretary of State. Secretary of State Marcy politely in- formed the British, and through them the French, that the United States had the same desire as the British and the French in regard to the continued independence of the Hawaiian Islands. He pointed out, however, that if inde- pendence became impractical and the Hawaiian Government might be in dan- ger of falling into other hands, it was highly probable that the United States would be disposed to admit the Hawaiian Islands to the Union. The Secretary of State made it plain that the United States would resist strenuously any at- tempt by any other power to obtain pos- session of the islands. The United States, although fully cog- nizant of the value of the Hawaiian Is- lands to American security and com- merce in the Pacific, nevertheless did not press for annexation. It was not until after the Hawaiian King, faced with trouble and revolution, had ordered his Minister of Foreign Relations to as- ecrtain the views of the United States in relation to annexation, that the acqui- sition of the Hawaiian Islands received serious consideration by our Govern- ment. In May 1854 our Commissioner in Ha- waii requested and received instructions from the Secretary of State to open dis- cussions with representatives of the King on the matter of annexation. Three months later, on August 7, 1854, the American Commissioner to the Kingdom of Hawail advised the Secretary of State: I have succeeded in arranging the terms of a treaty of annexation with the Minister of Foreign Relations, which meets the ap- proval of the crown prince and cabinet. But it is not yet signed, and I am unable to give you assurance that it will be immediately completed. * * ° The great difficulty I had to encounter was the inveterate prejudice of the Hawaiian authorities against a territorial form of gov- ernment, which could not be overcome. Finding it impossible to provide otherwise, I finally consented to agree to the edmission of the islands as a State, as soon as it could be done in conformity with the principles and requirements of the Federal Constitu- tion, leaving the laws, so far as they are re- publican and consistent with such Constitu- tion, in full force and effect in the meantime, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Article II of the treaty which was fi- nally agreed upon on August 19, 1854, in Hawail, provides as follows: The Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands shall be incorporated into the American Union as a State, enjoying the same degree of s0v- ereignty as other States, and admitted as such as soon as can be done in consistency with the principles and requirements of the Federal Constitution, to all rights, privi- leges, and immunities of a State as aforesaid, on a perfect equality with the other States of the Union. I cite this incident of history to show that statehood for Hawaii is not new. It goes back 100 years to the earliest days of organized government in Hawaii and to the very infancy of our own Republic. Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yleld 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico in order that I may ask him a@ question. The distinguished gentleman from New Mexico, who was formerly Governor of New Mexico, is chairman of the sub- committee which recently conducted hearings extending over a period 07 about 6 or 7 weeks throughout the Southwest Pacific, including the trust territories. I wish to ask the gentleman this ques- tion, for the benefit of the Members: In all of the contacts that the gentle- man made in the Hawaiian Islands, in American Samoa, the trust territory, American Guam, the Philippines, and in conference with our officials and Chinese officials in Hong Kong, and in conference with the general staff in Tokyo, including conferences with General MacArthur, and all the points between Tokyo back to San Francisco, did the gentleman from New Mexico get the distinct impression from the standpoint of national defense and from the standpoint of the defense of our international relationships and of opposing the Russian philosophy that the Territories of Hawaii and Alaska should be granted statehood at this time? Mr. MILES. Yes, I did. Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. MARSHALL]. Mr. BONNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MARSHALL. I yield. Mr. BONNER. I have listened to all these “Me, too” endorsements to this proposal. I lstened to the remarks of the gentlewoman which I thought ought to be stricken from the record because I know that nobody feels that way con- cerning the citizenship of the American people who live in Alaska. I would like somebody to explain this “me, too” busi- ness. What benefits will they enjoy more than they are enjoying today, other than having two Senators and Representatives in the House? We have not kept any- thing from them, have we? Mr. MARSHALL. If the gentleman will permit me, I will attempt to answer some of these things in part. It seems to me, after listening to the debate that some Members are concerned as to what we, ourselves, might be giving up in our own particular districts if we grant state- hood to Alaska so that Alaska can have representation in both bodies of the Congress. 2757 I want to point out to the Members of the House that my State will be giving up a distinction, if Alaska comes into the Union as a sister State. We are now the most northern State in the United States. When Alaska comes into the Union we will be giving up that particular dis- tinction. Our State came into the Union in 1858. The Territory of Alaska has great re- sources, more known resources than our State had at that time. The Territory of Alaska has more people than our State had at that time. The Territory of Alaska fs closer to Washington than Minnesota was at that time. The gentleman has asked me what benefits would accrue to Alaska by coming into the United States. One of the things that we are doing is to provide for a unified country. We are providing for citizenship that will put their shoul- dacrs to the wheel and become c part of this great Nation. As a matter of de- fense, the figures of history show that no country is stronger than their civilian population in time of war. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota {Mr. MAr- SHALL] has expired. Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman two additional minutes. Mr. MARSHALL I thank the gen- tleman from Michigan very much. The pcople of France are more guilty of the failure of France in the last war than the armies of France were. The people of Alaska will put up resistance in Alaska to invasion, as a matter of na- tional defense, when they can feel that they are a part of this great country. We are talking about the development of the country. I am sure most of the Members of this House are believers in the fact that local subdivisions have a greater knowledge of their problems than we do here in Washington. This will put in their hands the means whereby they can develop their country to a greater extent than we can hope to do from here. Now, we were talking about Govern- ment bureaus awhile ago. We have some very fine Government people. They are shifted around. It is natural that they are. The people in Alaska, in setting up their government, provide a stable government. They provide a govern- ment whereby they will have their rep- resentative and that they will have a way of coming to Washington. Right here I would like to pay a com- pliment to the Delegate from Alaska. He is an excellent gentleman. It has been a pleasure to know him and to work with him. I would like to see him, when he sits in that chair, have a right to cast his vote the same as any other individual Member of this House. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota has again expired. Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Horrman]. Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, over the years the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. CriwFrorp] and I have almost always voted the same way,
2758 It just breaks my heart to desert him at this particular time. We all have our hobbies, and we all have our foolish moments. I get up sometimes in the morning at 3 o’clock and come back at 8 o'clock, just to go up the river and throw a little chunk of lead and a little piece of bright metal tied on a line into the river to see if some fish is foolish enough to hit it. The gentle- man from Michigan [Mr. Crawrorp] said he had traveled up and down across and all over Alaska. With all due re- spect, I would make the same remark about him that my good wife makes about me: “You are just nuts about fishing.” Now he may be just nuts about this Territory stuff. He is very ex- cited about it and very enthusiastic about it. I cannot understand why, though I know he is a great sugar man. Hawaii is a sugar territory. He has always been, as I have been, an isolationist. Now he wants to take in Alaska and Ha- wali. He has been against United Na- tions; is he nov’ for One World? We are pledged by the Republican platform to make Puerto Rico a State. The next thing he will want the Virgin Islands and possibly Guam made States. That will give us 10 additional Senators from the 5 new States. Those 5 new States, com- paratively speaking, will have 10 Sena- tors out of 106, or one-tenth of the voting strength of the Senate. That ratio would be all out of proportion if we con- sider the population of the other States. Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Cox]. Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, it is diffi- cult for me to take seriously distinguished gentlemen who take this floor and advo- cate statehood for Alaska and Hawail. In listening to them I wonder whether I am a simpleton or just being taken for one. The fundamental objection, Mr. Chair- man, to the admission of Alaska or any of the other like possessions to stule- hood is that they are not contiguous territory. Alaska and Hawaii have been tied together. To admit one means to admit the other, which means the ulti- mate admission of every island in the world over which the American flag files. Mr, Chairman, I am told that if there is a strictly controlled Communist com- munity in any part of the world, it is Hawaii. Harry Bridges holds the whole island in the palm of his hand, and the admission of Hawaii would mean the ad- mission of a Communist State, and the putting of two followers of Stalin in the Senate. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Georgia has expired. Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the Delegate from Hawaii [Mr. FARRINGTON] such time as he may re- quire, to the extent of the time left at my disposal, to answer the statement just made by the gentleman from Georgia. The CHAIRMAN. The Delegate from Hawaii is recognized for 17 minutes. Mr. FARRINGTON. Mr. Chairman, the statement just made by the gentle- man from Georgia is completely and ab- solutely false. The record of the people CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE of Hawaii during World War II, the record of our own Government, the record of the last election, the record of the last legislature, and particularly the special session which was called to save the people of Hawaii in that crisis when you here refused to do anything, is the complete answer to the gentleman’s statement. I want to say to you that the welfare of this country ts in just as safe hands when it is in the hands of the peo- ple of Hawali as it is when it is in the hands of the people of Georgia, and I think in many respects their regarc for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is a lot more serious and more effective than is that of the people of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to par- ticipate in the debate on the question of whether Alaska should be admitted to the Union as a State, but I do want you to know that I am sincerely in favor of it. I know that the vote on this question is going to have a vita] and important bearing on whether we admit Hawaii into the Union as a State. I recognize that many of the arguments that have been made against Alaska will be made against Hawaii. The gentlemen from the large States say to you that if you admit Hawaii and Alaska into the Union we will each have 2 Members in the United States Senate. Now, Alaska and Hawaii did not ask for 2 Members in the United States Senate. That is determined by the form of gov- ernment under which we live. You know from reading your American history that that determination was made by the founders of this country. Those gentle- men, particularly the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from Call- fornia, have not told you that New York has 10 percent of the membership of this House, some 45 Members, and that Cali- fornia has some 23. That is the complete and final answer to that. Let me point out to you also that in this country today there are 13 States with 2 or less Representatives in the House—7 of the Mountain States, 2 Mid- dle Western States, North and South Dakota, and 4 Eastern States—Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Delaware. We are in +: proximately the same category as those people. If it is wrong to give Alaska and Hawali repre- sentation on the basis of area or as a particular community, why do you not cut down their representation or why do you not increase tne representation of New York, California, and those States in the Senate of the United States? You cannot measure the importance of this problem in terms of the East or the Middle West or the West alone. You have to look at it from the standpoint of its influence on the people of the Pacific. I regret it is impossible for me to charter the Lurline and take the whole membership of the House to Hawaii tomorrow because I know if it were possible for me to do that 90 per- cent of the membership would come back roaring in favor of the admission of Hawaii into the Union. We have done it repeatedly, and even the gentleman from New York, who participated in the inquiry under the chairmanship of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Lar- CADE], came back with the committee MARCH 3 and recommended immediate considera- tion for statehood for Hawaii. Is not that true? Mr. DELANEY. I did not recommend that Hawaii be admitted, merely that this body have an opportunity to pass on it. Mr. FARRINGTON. Of course, the gentleman did. He saw it was a ques- tion that was going to have to be settled. Mr. CANFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. FARRINGTON. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey. Mr. CANFIELD. Have there not been many times during recent months that the people of Hawaii have felt that they were absolutely forsaken by the Presi- dent of the United Statcs and the Amer- ican Congress and the people on the mainland. Mr. FARRINGTON. I may say that the pcople of Hawaii have a wholesome respect for the right to vote. If we had a vote for President, if we had vot- ing representation in ihe United States Senate and voting representation in the House, we would many, many times be better off. I do not know anyone in this House who would trade his status as the Representative of a State for that of a representative of a Territory. Mr. McDONOUGH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. FARRINGTON. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. McDONOUGH. The gentleman referred to the opposition that was heard from California and New York State. I do not think the gentleman from Cali- fornia LMr. JoHNnson] had any inten- tion of expressing the sentiment of the whole California delegation, and I do not think he did. As a matter of fact, I want the gentleman from Hawaii to know that Iam supporting admission of Alaska and Hawaii into the Union. I think that is true of other Members of the California delegation. I wish the gentleman would clarify the point when he mentions Cali- fornia. Mr. FARRINGTON. I am aware of that, and I am delighted to know that the Representative from Stockton does not speak for the rest of the State. Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. FARRINGTON. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. CRAWFORD. The gentleman pointed out words to this effect: In granting statehood to these Territories “we will be assuming some new obliga- tions with these people coming back on us.” Will the gentleman tell this body the contribution the Territory of Hawaii makes to the Federal Treasury? Mr. FARRINGTON. The people of the Territory of Hawaii have been pay- ing the same taxes that the people of the States have been paying since 1900. On June 30, 1940, they had paid a total of more than $1,000,000,000 into the Fed- eral Treasury. Hawail normally pays more than 10 or 15 States into the Fed- eral Treasury, and we make no com- plaint about it. On a per capita basis our payments run higher than do that of something like 30 or 36 States. Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the whole eco-
1950 nomic fabric of Hawaii from A to Z is Just as sound as the economic fabric of the United States, and anybody who will study the question should be willing to admit it. Mr. KERR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. FARRINGTON. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina. ‘Mr. KERR. When Hawaii became a part of the Union, it was an independent republic, was it not? Mr, FARRINGTON. That is correct. Mr. KERR. And we had a general agreement with them, when they came under our flag, that as soon as they be- came sufficiently identified with our in- stitutions we would make them a State of this Union. Mr. FARRINGTON. That is abso- Jutely right, and I am glad the gentle- man pointed that out, because that is at the core of this whole argument. We have been led to believe for years that when we met the qualification for state- hood, we would be given statehood. Now, all of these islands that you talk about in all parts of the world are not in that status. They have got to be in- tegrated into the country first: possi- bly given a period of tutelage as a Ter- ritory. We are not voting for that at the present time. We are voting on the question whether two Territorics, prom- ised statehood by implication, at least, should be taken into the Union at this time. In the face of the situation that confronts us in the Pacific today, how can we follow any course other than that recommended by the gentleman from Michigan, to integrate all parts of our country as tightly as possibly by admit- ting Alaska and Hawali to the Union as States. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. FARRINGTON. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. JOHNSON. Obviously, a Terri- tory that has over 535,000 people is en- tirely in a different status than a com- munity of only 100,000 people. You have 10 times the assessable property in Hawaii that you have in Alaska. Mr. FARRINGTON. Let me say that my opinion is that as soon as Alaska is released from the shackles of Terri- torial government it will begin to pros- per and its population will begin to in- crease. That is the point of this whole thing. We want to open up this area, this great empire, to American enter- prise. How can you Republicans justi- fy your opposition to this, in the face of your attacks on bureaucracy? We are not taking anything away from the States; we are trying to take something onto ourselves. Mr. BONNER. Mr. the Delegate yield? Mr. FARRINGTON. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina. Mr. BONNER. I do not know a finer man in the Hcuse of Representatives, and I do not think that I have enjoyed the company of a finer man than the Delegate from Hawail. I likewise think the same of the Delegate from Alaska. The gentleman just made a statement that interests me. By opening up and becoming a State, take Alaska, for in- Chairman, will CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE stance, just what does that do toward developing it? Do you not have the same privileges, other than voting that the States have? Do you not have the same benefits that we prescribe to the States with respect to roads and with respect to other Federal aid? Do they not enjoy that now? Mr. FARRINGTON. I would like to have the Delegate from Alaska answer that question, because that applies par- ticularly to his Territory. Mr. BONNER. I had the pleasure of being in Hawaii with the Delegate from Hawaii. They are grand, fine people there. But, it really personally hurts me to feel as I do about taking Hawaii in as a State, and I want this to go into the ReEcorp to show my position and my feel- ing toward the Delegate from Hawaii, whom I greatly admire. Mr. FARRINGTON. I thank the gen- tleman. Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, if the Delegate will yield, I would like to say to the gentleman from North Carolina it is precisely because we do not have the same benefits as the people in the States, by reason of acts of omission and com- mission, that the people outside have. We think statehood is the only answer. For instance, we are not under the Fed- eral Highway Aid Act. Mr. BONNER’ Wait a minute. We spent a tremendous amount of money when I was on the Roads Committee of the House appropriating money to build the Alcan Highway. Mr. BARTLETT. That was a war measure, together with a great many other military appurtenances that were built during the war. But, I am talking year in and year out. The only highway aid acts extended to Alaska are those that apply to the national forests. Pub- lic domain roads are built under the aus- pices of the Department of the Interior. Uniformly through the years we had only maintenance moncy. We are receiving somewhat more money now, merely be- cause of military needs. Mr. BONNER. Do we not apply it in public works funds, road construction? Do not the same divisions apply in Alaska as would apply to the States? Mr. BARTLETT. No; they do not. Mr. BONNER Just what is the dif- ference? Mr. BARTLETT. The acts simply do not apply to us. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the Delegate from Hawali has expired. Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yleld 2 minutes to the gentleman from Montana [Mr. MANSFIELD]. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I dare say that many previous Congresses have heard the same arguments when other Territories were being considered for admission into the Union. I should like to speak today in behalf of the ad- mission of Alaska, because, coming from the Northwest, we have close ties with the Territory, and we are well aware of the problems which confront the people of that area, I do not want to see the citizens of Alaska or Hawaii continue to occupy a second-rate status. I want to see them become full-fledged American citizens and have all the rights and priv- ileges and the representation the rest of 2759 us in the Union have. I want to see Alaska become a State, because then I think something definite will really be done about the def2nse of that huge ter- ritory. If you will look at the map, you will see that it is possible on a clear day to look across the Bering Strait for 54 miles and see Siberia. If you will look at the map you will notice the close proximity of Little Diomede and Big Diomede Is- lands. You will see two islands owned respectively by this country and the U. S. 8. R., less than 3 miles apart. If you think the U. 5S. 8. R. is not looking into the Territory of Alaska, you are mistaken. I think the best thing we could pos- sibly do in our own national security would be to give Alaska statehood and full representation in the House and Senate, to the end that its defenses can be brought up to date and the security of this Nation become more secure as a result. The time to give Alaska a fair deal is now; the way to do it is to admit Alaska to the Union. Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Javits]. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, as a Representative from the great State of New York, from this side of the aisle, I favor heartily the admission of Alaska and Hawaii to statehood. Mr. Chairman, all we are really doing is recognizing the modern effectiveness of the alr age, which puts Hawaii and Alaska within reach of the eastern sea- board of the United States about as eas- ily as the golden coast of California. We are just being modern in finally admit- ting these two Territories as States. The period of tutelage should now be ended for these two Territories, and they should be given an equality of status with the sister States of the United States. Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yleld 13 minutes to the distinguished Delegate from Alaska. Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from MTlinois [Mr. Pricer] went to the heart of all this when he said that if the kind of argumen.i made here today against Alaska statehood had pre- vatled in the past our western border would be at the Mississippi. That is right, because every argument used here today against Alaska has been precisely the same kind of argument used against the Western Territories. Those argu- ments did not prevail. Those Territorics became States. They prospered and they grew. I cannot prove to you that the population of those arcas is greater now than it would have been under territorial status. I cannot prove to you that busi- ness {fs better in the West than it would have been if we had not admitted those areas as States. I cannot prove to you that industrial development there has been because of statehood. But one thing is sure, and that is that those developments did come and that growth of population did come. I submit that was so because it is in harmony with the American genius of government to govern best when all local controls are applied that can be applied under our s:stem of government. That was
2760 done In the case of the West. The West has grown and prospered to the glory and benefit of the Union. Those benefits will accrue likewise if you admit Alaska as a State. Those benefits will accrue not only to Alaska, but to the entire Union. It was said a while ago that there is doubt whether there is an intention to defend Alaska. I believe there is. I would say there had better be, because once these air fields in Alaska are seized by an enemy, the entire United States will be endangered Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. will the gentleman yield? Mr. BARTLETT. I yield. Mr. MANSFIELD. Will the gentleman tell the Members of this body just how far it is by air from Fairbanks to Chi- cago? Mr. BARTLETT. The distance, as I recali it, is just under 2,000 miles. Mr. MANSFIELD. And from Chicago to Washington is about 600 miles more, so that in effect from Fairbanks to Washington it is something in the vicin- ity of 2,600 or 2,700 miles, which is just nothing at all in this day and age. Mr. BARTLETT. That is correct. Bombing planes from airfields in Alaska could reach any industrial point of con- sequence in the United States, bomb that city and return to the airport in Alaska. Mr. CANFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BARTLETT. I yield. Mr. CANFIELD. I am terribly con- cerned about the apparent failure of our Nation's peace efforts, and over what some people describe as the inevitability of war. I am concerned about our de- fenses in Alaska. I wonder if perchance the Delegate from Alaska has discussed the question of statehood with the top echelons of our defense establishments. Has he perhaps some word from the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Johnson, on this very issue? Mr. BARTLETT. Iam glad that point has been raised. Yes, of course I have; most recently in a telephone conversa- tion with Secretary Johnson. I asked him to express to me the attitude of the Department of National Defense on statehood. His reply, as well as I can recall it, was that the Department of Nationa] Defense stands squarely behind the administration’s program with re- spect to statehood for Alaska. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BARTLETT. I yield. Mr. COOLEY. Did anybody from the War Department come before the com- mittee and give that as an official report? Mr. BARTLETT. No. Mr. COOLEY. Isit not rather strange that the committee did not call upon the National Defense arm of Government to give an opinion concerning a matter which now seems to be of very vital im- portance, so far as our national defense is concerned? Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BARTLETT. I yield. Mr. MANSFIELD. May I point out to the gentleman from North Carolina that the commander in chief of the armed Chairman, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE services has come out for statehood for Alaska as well as both parties. Mr. BARTLETT. Yes; and he has done so repeatedly. Mr. COOLEY. Commander in Chief of what? Mr. MANSFIELD. Of the armed serv- ices—the President of the United States. Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BARTLETT. I yield. Mr. CRAWFORD. The gentleman will recall that in connection with the hear- ings on statehood for Hawaii my pri- mary approach was on that very point, and they did so state, and it is shown in the record. Mr. BARTLETT. In that connection I want to say that I had no knowledge whatsoever on the question of statehood for Hawaii until the hearings, and I must say that I was converted to that proposi- tion within 15 minutes after Admiral Nimitz testified. Mr. COOLEY. The gentleman was very easily converted, was he not? Mr, BARTLETT. Yes, after Admiral Nimitz had spoken, I think anybody would have been. Mr. COOLEY. May I ask the gentle- man a question which I think is a fair one. Does not the gentleman believe that Members of Congress could make every single, solitary argument in favor of statchood for Puerto Rico that you can make in favor of statehood for Alaska? Mr. BARTLETT. Of course not, of course not Mr. COOLEY. What argument can be made in favor of statehood for Alaska that cannot be made for Puerto Rico? Mr. PETERSON. But the organic act is different. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BARTLETT. I yield. Mr. MANSFIELD. I would like to call to the attention of the House a state- ment by Gen, H. H. Arnold: Upon Alaska ou. future may well rest What, then, would be better, what would insure greater provision for our future than to recornize that most important area and make it a State equal to our other 48 States? Mr. BARTLETT. I thank the gentle- man. Mr. KEEFE. Mr. Chairman, will the genticman yield? Mr. BARTLETT. I yield. Mr. KEEFE. One of the most potent arguments that I have not heard raised in behalf of the gentleman’s position ought to be presented in this Recorp. That is that this vast Territory of Alaska was purchased for about $7,200,000 in 1867, and that the claim was made by Mr. Molotov at the San Francisco Con- ference that that was a fraud perpe- trated by the Czarist Government of Russia, and he indicated that the pres- ent authorities of Russia considered that that purchase, then made of Czarist Russia, would ultimately be attacked as being a fraud; and the argument is made by very sound people that the surest way to defeat any such contention would be to place Alaska squarely within the circle of the other 48 States. MARCH 3 Mr. BARTLETT. I am grateful to the gentleman for his contribution. Mr, JENSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BARTLETT. I yield. Mr. JENSEN. The gentleman knows that I have had the privilege of visiting in Alaska. I found there a very patriotic people—just as patriotic as any people in the United States. The thing that I want to bring to the attention of the House is this one fact: That today Alaska is the Achilles heel of our national-defense program. I think all will admit that. We have got warmongers running loose all over the world, including warmongers right here in our own Nation, who would like to see another war. The folks who are so op- posed to making a State of Alaska will be mighty happy, if war comes, and God forbid, that the people of Alaska will hold the enemy off until we on the main- land can get a little better preparcd. I am satisfied that sometime war is com- ing. It may not be for years and years, and I hope never; but, without doubt, it will come, and we on the mainland are going to thank God that the people of Alaska feel that they are well enough thought of by the people of the United States that they will fight to the last munute to keep the war away from the mainland. Mr. BARTLETT. I thank the gentle- man. I want to say, in connection with na- tional defense, that I cannot prove that national defense would be improved by statehood for Alaska, but I know it 1s the case. I could not prove that the one Representative and two Senators would vote for defense measures, but of course they would This House should know that one postwar building season in Alaska was entirely lost because of lack of attention to these matters The House should know that it was only in the closing hours of the last session that provision was made for military construction in Alaska. If we had two voting Senators and one voting Repre- sentative in this House, certainly the defense picture would have been mate- rially changed. Mr. WICKERSHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BARTLETT. I yield. Mr. WICKERSHAM. I am in favor of this bill. I went to Alaska on a mis- sion some months ago. My cousin had the privilege of being the delegate from Alaska for many years. I believe Alaska will make one of the outstanding States of the Nation. Mr. BARTLETT. man. Mr. Chairman, in the history of Alaska, already long, this is a day which will be remembered. We Alaskans now and for the first time are given opportunity to seek our rightful place in the Union to which we owe allegiance through birth and conviction. Alaska statehood aspirations are not new. They reach back through the years, but never before has there been oppor- tunity for this House to pass upon the granting of statehood. It is a propost- tion not only of local but of national sig- I thank the gentle-
1950 nificance. As such, it has deserved and has received, I know, your closest atten- tion and most earnest consideration. The other day I addressed a letter to each Member of the House in forward- ing a pamphlet giving information about statehood for Alaska. In that letter I was so bold as to state that I cannot believe there is any objection to state- hood of sufficient merit to influence any Member of this House to vote against statehood. That statement was made out of a profound belief that it consti- tutes no more or no less than the simple truth. Alaska comes before this House today seeking statehood under the same terms and the same conditions which applied to the western territories entering the Union before us. We ask for no special favors. Give us statehood, and we will give you—and before lonz—a mighty State whose population will grow constantly, whose business and industry will develop in harmony with the resources upon which they will be based. And those resources, I do not have to remind you, constitute a vital addition to the real wealth of this country. If in its wisdom the House today should reject this bill—something I do not for one moment believe will occur—Alaska will struggle on, will continue to exist as an American Territory in one fashion or another. But let me say here, and em- phatically, that it will remain dormant and the great day of awakening will only be again postponed. If, on the other hand, the House today should pass H. R. 331 and the other body should act similarly, the road will have been cleared of the windfalls which now block it and at long last Alaska will be able to shift to high gear. We Alaska statehood advocates do not try to represent to you or to anyone else that statehood would be a cure-all. Cer- tainly we do not maintain that under statehood all vexing problems would im- mediately disappear and that all would be sweetness and light. No, indeed. We realize that there would be difficulties ahead, as there have been in every new State—and perhaps in some of the older States as well. But we do submit that statehood would help more than any other one thing and, above all other things, would enable us to take our right- ful place under the American system of government. We do not so assert merely out of a hopeful belief and without evi- dence to support our view. We call upon American history for confirmation. That history shows that almost uniformly progress of all types reached a certain point under Territorial status and then stopped almost completely. Under the stimulus of statehood the existing im- pediments were removed and develop- ment came. There is no reason whatso- ever why that should not be so in the case of Alaska. In fact, the record tends to indicate that the handcuffs which were placed on Alaska, governmentally speak- ing, were locked much tighter than in the case of other Territories. And the opening of those handcuffs, which can only be brought about by statehood, ought to, and in fact would, enable the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE pioneer hands of those in Alaska now and those who will go there to carve a mighty new State for this Union from our last western frontier. Next month—on March 30 to be exact—it will be 83 years since the treaty of purchase of Alaska from Russia was concluded. It is significant to note that in a speech ratifying the treaty, Senator Charles Sumner specifically dedicated Alaska to future statehood in the Union. I have said that Alaska, above all other Territories in the history of the United States, has been hampered by the type of government it has suffered from rather than enjoyed. Let the record speak: Purchase from Russia was made in 1867. Seventecn years passed before there was any legal government whatsoever. At one time the might and power and dignity of the United States in Alaska was represented in the person of a Treasury Department official who was supplied with a rowboat to visit different sections of the district, none of which could be reached by means other than water Sixteen more years were to elapse before Congress enacted a code of Jaws applicable to the Territory. It was not until 1906 that the people of Alaska were permitted to send a Dele- gair to Congress. S.x additional years were to pass be- foie the organic act became effcctive. Judge W.ckersham—then Delegate Wick- ersham—was the author of the organic act. When it was finally signed by President Taft in August of 1912 he was far from satisfied with the results of his authorship. For the bill, in its progress through the two Houses of Congress, had been so cruelly mauled, so savagely set upon that it had become merely a cari- cature of what was intended to be a doc- ument of home rule grants to a Territory of the United States of America. Believe me, these omissions with re- spect to granting Alaska the rights which should have been hers as a Territory, plus some very deliberate commissions, have joined to make it almost incredibly diffi- cult for the American citizens there to fashion a real homeland, American style. If there is one principle we are all ready to agree upon it is that American democ- racy thrives only under a situation where local government is given every last grant of self-rule constitutionally per- missible—but in Ala:ka that rule has been uniformly violated. We have been set upon by the very Government to which we hold allegiance, and we have been fair prey for predatory interests against whom we had no proper protec- tion. So discouraged was Delegate Wicker- sham with the organic act which was taken from his hands in clay so soft that it had been broken and shattered on its subsequent journey that he immediately realized that it would not suffice. His conclusions on this issue, after some preliminary and fruitless attempts to secure correction, resulted in his in- troducing the first statehood bill in the Congress of the United States in March 1916. That was not the date marking the 2761 first statehood aspirations within Alaska, but it was the date those aspirations first had formal expression. The laments of Alaskans, always fight- ing against discriminations imposed upon them, were long ago given expression by a rhymester when he wrote: Sitting on my coldest glacier, with my feet in Bering Sea, I am thinking cold and lonely, of the way you've treated me. Three and thirty years of silence! ten thousand sleeping nights I've been praying for your coming, for the dawn of civil rights When you took me, young and trusting, from the growling, Russian bear, Loud you -wore before the Nation I should have the Eagle's care. Never yet has wing of Engle cast a shadow on my peaks, But I’ve watched the flight of buzzards, and I've felt their busy beaks The 10,000 nights referred to in the rhyme have now become almost 30,090 nights We arc still waiting. Our long vigil will be over if H. R. 331 should pass this House now and should be accepted by the other body We have been often told in the past— we are told now—Why don’t you wait with your statehood plea until you are really rcady for statehood? Why don’t you let the Federal Government do things for you which you need before attempting to support a State government? You need many things. We will give them to you and then it will be time to ask for statchood. There was a time when we used to go along with that theory. There was a time, we believed, that if we only waited all good things would come to pass. We were rather naive in that belief because the record was quite clear and showed conclusively that it was all a dream of a never-never land that was not to be. To do part of the job, it would have been necessary for the Federal Govern- ment to have liberalized existing legis- lation relating to Alaska. It would have been necessary to allow Alaskans to have more and more local autonomy. That has never been done. There has not been one major amendment to the or- ganic act since 1912 in the direction of increased home rule. Every Delegate in Congress since then, Republican and Democrat alike, has sought to enlarge in necessary ways, the boundaries of self-rule, but uniformly without success. Even comparatively minor amendments have been difficult to secure. A first-class illustration of this is to be found in the organic act’s language relating to tax- ing powers vested in the Territorial gov- ernment. The organic act provided that tax assessments shall be according to the actual value thereof. Largely as a con- sequence of that language, no general property-tax law was enacted by the Ter- ritorial legislature until last year. That was principally because the mind of man was not agile enough to devise a means whereby all the huge acreage of mining land in Alaska could be assessed at its actual value. In 1948—36 years after the organic act became law—the Con- gress passed a revisionary bill permitting the Territorial legislature to tax mining Through
2762 land at a flat value per acre. If 36 years is required for amendment of that char- acter, how long will be needed for a real home-rule amendment? Another example: Back in 1899, be- fore there was any Territorial govern- ment, the Congress empowered clerks of the district court in Alaska to collect certain taxes from business enterprises. That was done simply because there were no Territorial officials to collect what were, in effect, local taxes. The money so raised was deposited in the Treasury of the United States and annually ap- propriated by Congress, according to a percentage formula, for roads, schools, and care of the indigent. Obviously, this temporary expedient should have been abandoned with the establishment of the Teriitoual government in 1913. After all, these were purely local taxes which were being collected, and a judicial offi- cer such as a clerk of the court should scarcely have been burdened with tax- collecting duties, nor should the judges of the district court have been required to pass upon indigent claims. One would believe it would be simple, indeed, to change this. But it was not. Even with refcrence to such a small matter, one regarding which there was very litula controvcrsy, i, was not until 1949 that the law was changed. Alaska, with its 586,000 square miles, has at this time less than 3,000 mules of roads. Alaska has never been under any of the Federal Highway Aid Acts except those pertaining to roads within national forest The vast public domain is al- most without roads. Until recently, practically nothing was done in the way of agricultural experi- mentation to match that which is pyo- ceeding across Bering Strait in Soviet Asia. Let me admit—freely and grate- fully—that now and for sevcral years past, the appropriations for and in be- half of Alaska have been substantial as compared with years gone by. In some categorics—particularly for defense— they have been too small. But judged against the past, they have been almost astronomical. However—and this must be underlined—they are being made solely because of national defense re- quirements and are, in my opinion at least, altogether unrelated to what might be termed norma! development of the arca You should know, if you already do not have the information that in Alaska the Federal Government, in ordinary times, has adopted a policy certainly not in harmony with a sound development program. Up until the time the war started, Federal expenditures in Alaska were in the aggregate so small as to serve no useful purpose whatsoever in creating industry and expanding popu- lation. The services performed by the National Government were by way of being on a caretaker basis. The aggre- gate expenditure in the Territory each year was not enormously larger than the amount produced from Alaska each year in income taxes. Obviously, a frontier land can never develop under such a policy. And Alaska did not develop. The stimulus which now is being felt thcre comes about admittedly by reason of the substantially largcr expenditures CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE which are being made on account of the world situation. It is probably safe to say that 95 cents out of each Federal dollar spent in Alaska now is, if not directly for military purposes, so closely related as to be part and parcel of the general plan. Of course, this has brought people into Alaska. Of course, it has caused business to expand. Of course, it has started some industrial development, even if on a very small scale. But—and this is of vital impor- tance—if the need for making defense expenditures were to end tomorrow, would there be any more hope of secur- ing development funds for Alaska than there was 1n years gone by? He who would answer that question in the affirm- ative would be a brave soul, indeed, and his reply would run counter to the ex- perience of history and the practices of men, If Alaska were to remain under territorial status it would return once more to the seat of central government in a beggar’s role and in beggar’s clothes. In such a state it would remain as neglect and indifference reasserted themselves. It was because Alaskans, who have long studied all of these things, realized they could never obtain true home rule as a Territory and could never hope for needed Federal appropriations as a mat- ter of mght that the move for statehood cry‘tallized in the early part of the last decade. That movement found as its leader a man whose name will always occupy a shining chapter in Alaska his- tory—Anthony J. Dimond, then Delegate in Congress and now a judge of the Dis- trict Court in Alaska. It was he who started anew the long fight to achieve for Alaska the status of a State and it was around him that informed and grow- ing public opinion lodged. It has ex- panded mightily since then. In 1946 the first statehood referendum was con- ducted, and statehood was endorsed. So, Alaskans want statehood. They have so said in a democratic way through the casting of secret ballots. They have thereby «sserted their willingness to pay whatever increased taxes statehood might demand. They are willing to do so for the benefits which would accrue to them and thus to Alaska through the possession of sovereign rights now denied them. Another question then arises: Even if Alaskans want statehood, even if they are ready to assume its obligations and re- sponsibilities along with its benefits, would the Nation enjoy benefits equal to those of Alaska, or are there objections from the national viewpoint so serious that the demands from the Territory should be ignored? First, let us examine the situation from the purely material- istic point of view. No one would be pre- pared to say in 1950 that the United States made any mistake whatsoever in purchasing Alaska. It has proved to be an exceedingly good bargain. The price paid to Russia was $7,200,000. Since then, natural resources valued at ap- proximately $3,000,000,000 have been shipped from Alaska to the United States as increments to the national wealth of this country. And those who are not im- pressed by the number of residents in Alaska cannot say that Alaskans have not been good customers. Since 18607 MARCH 3 they have purchased from the United States proper goods valued in excess of $2,000,000,000. If we Alaskans under State government could manage our own affairs as do the people of the several States, we can—again relying upon his- torical records which prove what hap- pened in similar instances in other places—look forward to a notable gain in this two-way and mutually profitable trade. Give us the key—and that key is statehood—to unlock our treasures, and we shall make this rich and great coun- try of ours even richer and greater. Ob- jections can never be made to Alaska’s claim to statehood on the basis that it is a land without resources, of barren Arctic wastes. Three-fourths of the Territory lies in the Temperate Zone. It has the last great timber stands in the United States. It has land suitable for agri- culture and for grazing. It has mineral deposits, already discovered and poten- tial, of unknown worth. It has hydro- electric possibilities which American in- dustry will have to resort to. It has all these things and more. It has that which is needed to make a prosperous State of the Union. But it is noncontiguous. That has been cited as a reason for not granting statehood. It is said, and correctly, that no border of Alaska touches upon any State When Louisiana was admitted, it likewise was noncontiguous. It was 210 mules from Louisiana to Tennessee, the nearest State. And when California was admitted, the next State was Texas, 470 miles distant. The airplane of today, flying at 250 or 300 miles an hour, covers the distance from any point in Alaska to Washington, D. C., in a mere fraction of the time it was required to go from Louisiana or California to the closest State by then existing means of trans- portation at the time they were admit- ted. So noncontiguity certainly cannot be claimed to be valid with respect to Alaska if it were not considered valid in earlier times in our history. If it had so been considered, Louisiana and Cali- fornia would never have been admitted when they were. The argument then for contiguity was infinitely stronger and more persuasive than it ought to be in 1950 when man’s ingenuity and inventive skill have shattered dista +e. It has been said that if Alaska and Hawaii were to become States now the bars would be taken down and the way would be paved for statehoci for Puerto Rico, Guam, and, in fact, all the islands of the sea. This contention is singularly lacking in merit. So far as Alaska is concerned, the answer is that in adopt- ing une Organic Act of 1912—deficient though it may be—the Congress then and there evaluated the political future of Alaska and determined that after serv- ing an appropriate period in school it should receive its diploma and become a full-fledged State. Hawaii was likewise singled out for future statehood. Both Alaska and Hawaii are organized Terri- tories. As such, they are integral parts of the Union. They have been incorpo- rated. That is to say, long ago their fu- ture status was passed upon and the de- c.sion made Not so with respect to the urico. porated territory of Puerto Rico and to Guam ard ovher porsessions. The
1950 act of incorporation means that the Ter- Titory becomes an integral part of the Union. That, Puerto Rico is not at this time. Nor is any area except Alaska and Hawaii. So we do not establish any precedent with these two Territories. We merely move to carry out a policy which in the case of Alaska was expressed in 1912, the date of incorporation. There is additional evidence on this score. Even before Congress acted, the Supreme Court had found Alaska to be a part of the United States. This is set forth in that very admirable volume, Alaska Under Rule of the United States, by Jeannette Paddock Nichols: In the first place, the legal status of Alaska among the noncontiguous possessions of the United States had been finally settled by the Supreme Court in 1905. Since 1900 that body had been delivering a series of opin- jons, popularly termed the “insular cases,” which developed certain distinctions as be- tween the legal status of Hawaii and of the possessions acquired from Spain (Puerto Rico and the Philippines) and that of the older Territories on the continent, Alaska, Okla- homa, Arizona, and New Mexico. The new possessions were declared to be unincorpo- rated Territories, appurtenant to, and de- pendencies of, the United States, but not a part of the United States; in .egislating for them Congress was declared to be bound only by the fundamental parts of the Consti- tution which automatically extend to all Territories of the United States as soon as they cease to be foreign territories: The for- mal portions of the Constitution, on the other hand, were to apply to them only when Congress so directed. The older Ter- ritories were declared to be incorporated Territories; in legislating for them Congress was bound by all the limitations in the Con- stitution which were not clearly inappli- cable. In this connection the Supreme Court reserved the right to determine from time to time what parts of the Constitution are fun- damental and what formal: and in the latter class were placed, one after another, provi- sions involving the interpretation of the term “United States” in reference to uni- formity in taxation, clauses concerned with citizenship, and the requirements of the sixth amendment to the Constitution re- garding the use of grand and petit juries in the prosecution of crime. In every Alaska case the Court placed that region in the class of incorporated Territo- ries. For example, although taxes imposed in Puerto Rico need not be uniform with those imposed throughout the United States (de- cision of May 27, 1901, in Downes v. Bidwell (182 U. 8, 244) those imposed in Alaska must share in that untformity. For by a decision of May 31, 1904, in Binns v. United States (194 U 8., 486) the Supreme Court dccided that although the rule of uniformity of taxes applied to Alaska, license fees im- posed on certain Hnes of business by the Alaska penal code must be deemed local taxes, Imposed under the plenary power of Congress over the Territories, for the purpose of defraying the expense of ‘he territorial government. And again, although the provi- sions of the sixth amendment did not apply to Hawaii or the Philippines (decisions of June 1, 1908, and May 81, 1904) in the cases of Hawaii v. Mankichi (190 U. 8., 197) and Dorr v. United States (195 U.S., 188) they did apply to Alaska. For, by a decision of April 10, 1905, in Rasmussen v. United States (197 U. 8., 516) the Supreme Court declared that section 171 of the Alaska Code (81 Stat. L., 858) insofar as it provided that in trials for misdemeanors six persons should constitute ® legal jury, was unconstitutional and void, under the fifth and sixth amendments. The reasons for these differences in classi- fication were given by the Supreme Court, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE as follows: The treaty with Russia, concern. ing Alaska, instead of exhibiting, as did that with Spain concerning the Philippine Is- lands, the determination to reserve the ques- tion of the status of the acquired Territory for ulterior action by Congress, manifested a@ contrary intention to admit the inhabi- tants of the ceded Territory to the enjoy- ment of citizenship, and expressed the pur- pose to incorporate the Territory into the United States. Therefore, under the treaty with Russia ceding Alaska and the subse- quent legislation of Congress, Alaska had been incorporated into the United States and the Constitution was applicable to her. These decisions gave Alaska the proud title of Territory in the place of the name of district with which she had been burdened since 1884; and they took her, though a noncontiguous area, out of her association with the dependencies acquired from the Spanish War, into a class again peculiar to herself. Like Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma, she was to bear thhe name of Ter- ritory and bask in the effulgence of the Con- stitution; but unlike them, she yet remained destitute of delegate and local legislature. So, it becomes apparent that to act affirmatively with reference to the Alaska and Hawaii statehood bills would not be to open the statehood gate to any other area anywhere. There is another argument which has been urged against Alaska statehood. It is said that 100,000 people ought not to have the same voice in the Senate of the United States as the people of such great and populous States as New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and California, I can give no more effective answer to this than by quoting the Chicago Journal of Commerce, which editorially commented upon the opposition of the City Club of Chicago to statehood, because of Senate representation. Said the Chicago Jour- nal of Commerce: In view of the existing disparity propor- tional representation in the Senate is already precluded. It was never intended by the founding fathers. Way back in 1790, for ex- ample, Virginia, with a population of 747,610, was granted the same senatorial represen- tation as Delaware with 59,096, and Tennessee with 35,601. It is the House, not the Sen- ate, which 1s intended as the Chamber with proportional representation. Alaska’s population has now passed 92,000. That of Nevada is 174,000. New York's is 14,393,000. Both numerically and percent- agewise, the gap between the State of New York and Nevada is many times greater than between the State of Nevaca and the Territory of Alaska. The potential population of Alaska is con- siderable. It boas}s of more than a half million square miles, rich with timber, furs, and gold. Its fisheries and canning indus- tries are extrcmely important. With the in- crease in air transport, Alaska will move ever closer to the present 48 States, in hours and economic ties. Certain well-entrenched business interests also oppose Alaska statehood. They're doing nicely right now, thank you, and they don’t want things changed. But, from the stand- point of over-all economic welfare and of common justice, Alaska (and Hawall) state- hood should be conferred by Congress. And the sooner the better. Frankly, I think the debate on this issue comes a bit too late to be used against Alaska. As the Journal of Com- merce says, proportional representation in the Senate is not possible under the Constitution. If it is desired to amend the Constitution, that is something else 2763 again. But no one to my knowledge has seriously urged it. In view of what has happened in the United States in the last 160 years, one is entitled to suggest that the founding fathers did not do too badly in setting up our governmental structure. It would seem that some rather praiseworthy accomplishments have occurred under that Government, and that lack of proportional representa- tion in the Senate of the United States has never been detrimental to the best interests of our Nation. That is an old, old story. It is dis- cussed and debated and worried over almost every time a new State is created. Oklahoma is the only State which came into the Union in recent history with a rather sizable population. It had around one and one-half million people upon admission. Hawaii is the only other Ter- ritory having a substantial population before gaining statehood. It might be contended that the only tried and true means of increasing population in a Territory is to grant statehood. That could be said, for ex- ample, in the case of Illinois itself. If those who represented the more populous States in that day took the same attitude the city club of Chicago does now, surely statehood would not have come to Illinois when it did. Illinois at the time of admission had 63,211 people. Some historians suggest the census takers at that moment were unusually active and to swell the figures to the greatest pos- sible extent counted in those immigrants who were merely passing through Illinois for the West. Virginia then had 1,065,366 citizens, Pennsylvania 1,049,458, and New York 1,372,812. So it might be sug- gested that a considerable disparity existed between the population of Illinois and all of the other great States named. Notwithstanding, Tllinois was admitted, and he would be a hazardous soul, in- deed, who would claim now that that action was unwise. The population of California today ranks it as one of the greatest of the States. But it was not so in 1850 when California first came into the Union as a State. Then each of its citizens, through having two Senators, had what the proponents of proportional representation in the upper body would describe as a voice out of all proportion to their numbers. California then had 92,527 residents. But Virginia’s popula- tion was 1,421,661, Pennsylvania’s 2,311,- 186, and New York’s 3,097,394. Even so, with two Senators representing only 92,527 people from California, the Union maintained itself. Oregon's population was only 52,465 when it achieved state- hood in 1859. By that time Virginia's population had increased to 1,596,318, Pennsylvania’s to 2,906,215, and New York’s to 3,880,735. But Oregon’s plea for admission was just; Oregon was ad- mitted, and Oregon has become a sub- stantial and a great State of these United States. So it goes The argument of population lack ought not to be used against Alaska now. If ours was the first Territory numerically inferior, then it would be different. Instead, in that respect we occupy not a unique position but one that is, in fact, massive with tra- dition and fn conformity with the ex- periences of our past. Here again the
2764 question might be asked, “What comes first, the chicken or the egg?” Generally speaking, history demonstrates in con- clusive fashion that the granting of statehood itself is the one great and significant act which makes for growth and population. In asking you to pass H.R. 331, the Alaskans who are for statehood desire to remind you that their Territory with a population of 100,000—an increase of 39 percent over the 1940 population—at this time has more citizens than did 16 previous territories. They were Ver- mont, Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, Tlinois, Missouri, Arkansas, Florida, California, Oregon, Nevada, Idaho, and Wyoming. If proportional representation would have prevailed in the Senate, it certainly would have prevailed when our Govern- ment was founded, when the Thirteen Original States joined to organize the Union. There were wide disparities in population even then. Virginia had 747,610 people as against only 68,825 for Rhode Island and only 59,094 for Dela- ware. Pennsylvania with 434,373 people was given the same voice in the Senate as New Hampshire with 141,885. It was away back in 1905 when in de- bating admission of Oklahoma Senator Bate quoted President Washington as having written: Among the privileges, benefits and ad- vantages thus secured to the inhabitants of the territory south of the river Ohio appears to be the right of forming a permanent con- stitution and state government and of ad- mission as a state by its delegates into the Congress of the United States on an equal footing with the original states in all re- aspects whatever, when it should have there- jn 60,000 free inhabitants, provided the con- stitution and government so to be formed shall be Republican and in conformity with the principles contained in the articles of said ordinance. Elaborating, Senator Bate added: That is, President Washington says that all that is necessary is to conform to the Ordinance of 1787 but he went further and recognized the right of forming a permanent constitution and admission into the union as something that must be done but being done gave to the people of the territory the right to be put on an equal footing with the original states in oll respects whatso- ever. The question of statehood should not be settled upon a political basis. Politics should not be allowed to count in a de- cision in which national interests are involved. The platforms of both great Political parties of this country have statehood planks. At the moment Alaska happens to be Democratic. It has had a Democratic administration since 1932. From 1908 until 1932 it had Republican Delegates and Governors. It is not fixed in alle- giance to any political party but main- tains a healthy two-party system. Advocates of Alaska statehood are cer- tainly not confined to either party. For example, the Alaska Statehood Commit- tee, created by action of the last Terri- torial legislature, has, as its chairman, Robert B. Atwood, prominent Republi- can and a newspaper publisher of An- chorage. The committee’s secretary is Mrs. Mildred R. Hermann, a practicing CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE ttorney and a Republican of Juneau. till another Republican member is the Reverend Percy Ipalook, an Eskimo from Wales in northwestern Alaska. A dis- tinguished Democratic member is Frank Peratrovich, well-known businessman of Klawock and a member of the Territorial senate, An advisory member of the committee is Hon. Anthony J. Dimond, who, despite his presence on the Fed- eral bench, remains an earnest and effec- tive advocate of statehood. Still an- other advisory member is Alaska’s Gov- ernor, Hon. Ernest Gruening. Ap- pointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, Governor Gruening is foremost in the ranks of the champions of statehood and very probably is one of the few men in the history of American Government who is doing his very best to talk himself out of a job by making it possible for Alaskans to elect their own Governor under statehood. Other members of the Alaska State- hood Committee are: Wiliam L, Baker, editor and publisher of Ketchikan; Vic- tor C. Rivers, Anchorage engineer and architect and a member of the Territo- rial senate; Stanley J. McCutcheon, An- chorage attorney, head of an air line and member of the Territorial house of rep- resentatives; Warren A. Taylor, Fair- banks attorney and member of the Ter- ritorial house of representatives; An- drew Nerland, member of the Territorial senate and a leading businessman of Fairbanks; Howard Lyng of Nome, mem- ber of the Territorial senate, and Lee Bettinger, mayor of Kodiak and a lead- ing businessman there. ‘ At this critical juncture of human events it might well be urged that even if Alaskans were entirely disinterested in statehood now, statehood should be granted them nonetheless for compelling national reasons having to do with se- curity. I have never heard a clearer exposi- tion of why Alaska statehood should be granted for national reasons, as con- trasted with local ones, than was given from the well of this House last Thurs- day by the gentleman from Montana | Mr. MANSFIELD]. He said what needed to be said on this subject when he declared: But why is it to our interest in the contl- nental United States that statehood for Alaska be granted as soon as possible? Be- cause only through statehood can Alaska be developed to the point that it can sup- port economically the subsidiary measures of the defense mechanism which is neces- sary in this area for the protection of the whole United States. Only through state- hood can Alaska develop the conditions nec- essary for sound logistics to supply our de- Tense bastions. The saying that “in union there its strength” is not so trite as to be without meaning The very nature of union is such that common advantage is derived. It would be a mistake for those of us here in the States to consider only the advantages we can give to Alaska out of our beneficence. There are mutual advantages to be gained, and not the least of these is that the secu- rity of Alaska, dependent largely on state- hood, is vital to the security of the entire Nation. The main Alaska coast at its closest point to Asia is less than 60 miles from Siberia. Little Diomede Island, under the American flag, is less than 3 miles MarcH 3 from Soviet Big Diomede Island. No point in the world today is of more stra- tegic significance than is Alaska, If Alaska had two United States Senators and a Representative in the Congress there would be a voting strength in be- half of adequate security measures for that region, and thus for the United States, that simply does not exist now. To build up Alaska so its population will increase, so that its business will ex- pand, and so its industry will grow, will be to strengthen our defensive position. Then, and only then, will it be unnec- essary for our armed forces to ship from the United States proper practically everything they need. There will be a local economy upon which they could depend to a greater extent and they no longer will be forced to exist in a sort of vacuum, as has unhappily been the case. Only a few days ago the Secre- tary of National Defense, the Honorable Louis Johnson, said to me, when I queried him about statehood, that the Depart- ment of National Defense stands squarely behind the administration’s program. At other times in the past statehood has been granted primarily not because of local desires or needs but because the Nation’s interests demanded such action. I submit that that is the case in Alaska now. I submit further that the case we in Alaska have made for statehood is compelling and ought to be accepted; but even if that were not so, our defense needs, insofar as they relate to Alaska, can be properly realized only with the granting of statehood. The prospect of granting statehood to Alaska does not frighten the New York Times published in the biggest city in the biggest State, numerically, in the Union. On the contrary, the Times spe- cifically endorsed Alaska and Hawali statehood in an editorial which appeared in that newspaper last Sunday: Firry STaTEes The question of Alaskan and Hawaiian statehood is due to come before the House again this week. A bill to give statehood to Hawall passed the House in 1947, and ever since then there has been considerable talk, but no action. It seems to be indisputable that the bulk of the population of both ter- ritorles wishes them to becomes States; the platforms of both major parties endorse the idea, differing only in degree of 1mmediacy; and the historical development of the United States assuredly leads in this direc- tion. Although Alaska’s population is only about 100,000 (of whom approximately two- thirds were born in the United States), there are more people in the area today than there were in at least a dozen of the continental Territories at the time they became States of the Union. As for Hawail, its 520,000 in- habitants are far more heterogeneous than those of Alask.; but even at that, almost 90 percent are American citizens, and the House report accompanying the statehood bill ob- serves: “Certainly there is no area under United States jurisdiction where a greater complexity of races lives so harmoniously.” The major objection in recent years to bringing either of these areas into the Union is the fact that they are not contiguous to the continental United States. Alaska is separated from this country by 870 miles of Canadian territory; Hawali is 2,400 miles distant from the nearest point on the Ameri- can mainland. This consideration would surely have been important in another era, But both Territcrics are less than 24 hours’
1950 flight from New York today; and thus, they are actually far nearer in travel time than New York was to Boston when the Union was founded. With the annihilation of distance there has likewise been annihilated the argument, based on distance, against state- hood for these two areas otherwise fully qualified to be Integral parts of the Union. Likewise, the Washington Post on February 28 endorsed Alaska statehood in a most persuasive editorial: ALASKA’S CHANCE Statehood for Alaska and Hawaii is at last scheduled for a vote in the House in two bills to be called up this week This newspaper has commented several times on the eminent justification for bringing Hawaii into the Union, the case has in no way diminished. Alaska's petition seems to us equally justified. If anything, the importance of statehood of Alaska has been increased by the Territory's strategic position in the national defense. Alaska’s military significance is as an air base—for the United States or for an invad- ing enemy. Let troops defending airfields there amount to only a corporal’s guard. Although Congress has voted money for the military housing necessary to increase troop strength, it still has not appropriated funds for the vital radar-warning screen. Much of this neglect may be attributed to the fact that Aluska has only one nonvoting Delegate in Congress. The Territory is still thought of as a remote and icy wilderness instead of as the strategic prize it is. If Alaska is to become a really stable bastion of defense, then it must be settled and developed. There is much reason to believe that absentee Federal direction has hindered rather than helped economic and population growth. For example, Alaska’s fisheries have been dangerously depleted un- der Federal control. Also, Alaska’s road development has been slow because she has not received help under the Federal High- way Aid Act. Yet Alaska has continued to grow to the point where her population now exceeds 100,000. This is more than the population of 12 States at the time they entered the Union. Even considering Alaska’s great area, her population per square mile is greater than that of such States as Nevada, Minnesota, and Oregon at the time they were admitted. Moreover, she is closely linked with the re- mainder of the United States by air and the Alaska highway. She has had 35 years’ ex- perience in self-government as a Territory. Her educational system is well established. The House Public Lands Committee, after broad investigation, has concluded that she should be able to support herself financially under statehood. Alaska has been a United States possession for 83 years. During this period her tre- mendous resources—timber, minerals, pow- er—and her great capacity for settling Amer- icans in new homes have scarcely been tapped. On these grounds alone statehood for Alaska would be a wise and just invest- ment. Much more than this, it has now become a necessary factor in the defense of the United States. Today 100,000 Americans in Alaska await your verdict on H. R. 331. Our fate isin your hands. But it is not alto- gether alone our fate which you are con- sidering. It is a fate which is inter- twined with the welfare of the entire Nation. The American citizens who live in Alaska come from every State in the Union. They seek justice at your hands. They are tired and weary of discrimina- tion, hurt, and neglect. They do not think it proper for them to live under the American flag and to have all gen- eral laws, including those relating to XCVI——174 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE taxes, apply to them without having any right to join in the making of those laws. They are weary of being stepchildren. They want to come home. They ask that you open the door to receive them so that they may live in this Union mansion of ours on terms of complete equality and tiust. They inform you through me that they, as America’s last pioneers, need a new tool in the fashioning of the great north- western peninsula. They need state- hood. They need it for their own sakes. They need it for the children who will come after them. They need it for the other Americans who will join them. They need it so Alaska may be set up as a great defense bastion against any enemy from Asia. They need it so all the people of the world may know that American democ- racy practices what it preaches, that it is positive, not negative. They need it particularly so that the hundreds of inillions who live in the area bordering the Pacific Ocean will be told as they could be in no other fashion that our form of government is dynamic, vig- orous, and the best form of government yet devised by man. Percentage of votes cast in 1948 clection as compared with 1940 census—by States and Territories, votes for Senators and Dele- gates : Population | Votes cast | Per- Btuto 1910 148 | cent Colorado____-. 222... 1, 123, 206 510, 121 45 Delawure _.. 266, 505 141, 362 53 Georgia 8, 123, 723 302, 604 12 Illinois. 7,807,241 | 8, GOO, 285 49 Maine.. 847, 220 223, 256 26 Massachusetts. 4, 316, 721 2, O55, 70s 48 Michigan... 5, 256, 106 | 2, 062, 087 3y Minnesota... - =-| 2,782,700 | 1,220, 250 44 Mississippi. --] 2, 183, 706 141, 478 7 Montana... 559, 466 221, 003 40 New Jersey _. 4,160,165 | 1, X60, S82 4h North Carolin 4, 671, 623 764, 550 21 Oregon... 1, 089, 684 408, 570 46 South Dakota... 2... 642, U6 242, 443 38 Virginia. 2,677, 773 $86, VOR 14 Texas. 6, 414, d24 1, 061, 563 17 Alaska 72, 24 22, 308 31 Tawal 423, 430 100, 645 24 Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota |Mr. Burpick]. Mr. BURDICK. Mr. Chairman, I think I have had quite an experience with Territories. The State which I have the honor of representing today, North Dakota, has in its time belonged to 22 States and Territories of this Union. When Patrick Henry made his speech, “Give me liberty or give me death,” North Dakota belonged to Vir- ginia, and we had an awful time getting away from her. It was not until 1787, when Virginia gave up its rights to the Northwest Territory. We then belonged to the Northwest Territory, the area north of the Ohio River. In turn, we belonged to Ohio, with its capital at Chillicothe; and then Vincennes, Ind.; and then Dearborn, Ill; and then De- troit, Mich.; and then Madison, Wis.; and then St. Paul, Minn.; and during this entire progress of North Dakota across the continent the same arguments were made when it was proposed that she be admitted as a State that are made 2765 here this afternoon. The same argu- ments were used against us in 1787 that are used here this afternoon against Alaska. Then, when you get through with the eastern side of North Dakota, you have to start on the west side of the Missouri River. There we belonged to all those States from Louisiana clear through to the Dominion of Canada. Up to the time of our statehood in 1889 it was ale ways Said, on the occasion of every move we made to seek admission to the Union, that we were not ready for statehood, that we had everything under Territorial Status that we could have as a State. You have seen here this afternoon Alaska represented by a brilliant man, Hawali represented by an equally brilliant man. They are allowed to take part in the de- bate, but vote they may not. Is that a free government? Woulc statehood change that? It certainly would. If the argument used here against the admission of Alaska had prevailed in the past, we would have no great Western States today. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Dakota has ex- Ppired. Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time. The CHAIRMAN. The_ gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 2 minutes. Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Cox] a while ago made an observation to the effect that either he was fooled or those advocating the approval of this measure were fooled. I wish to ask the gentle- man from Georgia, if he is on the floor, what he thinks about the great public- opinion polls that have been taken on this question throughout the United States. Perhaps all of the people of this coun- try are fooled on this question; perhaps all of the people making up the vast ma- jority of the affirmative side in those polls were fooled. Can any man argue that the people, those out through the' hinterland down to the grass roots, would: deny these rights to these great people! of Hawaii and Alaska? There is such a thing as public opinion in this country; and, thank God, now’ and then it operates. That public opin-' ion, according to the information that comes to this Nation’s Capital, which,’ incidentally, has become the capital of the world, shows that our people are not’ only willing but anxious for these two Territories to have statehood. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CRAWFORD. I decline to yield t the gentleman. People ask, “What could you have un< der statehood that you do not have under; a Territorial status?” Let me ask tha other 434 Members of this House, “Would: you have your State revert to a Terri torial status?” Of course, you would not, because you know good and well that under a Territorial status the people do not have the protections that they have with their voting representatives in the Congress of the United States. Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr, Evins].
2766 Mr. EVINS. Mr. Chairman, I have lis- tened to the arguments in debate both pro and con on this matter and have studied the subject considerably. I am firmly convinced that the time has come when we should admit Alaska into the Union. The question of statehood for Alaska has been pending for a consider- able period of time—a time which has permitted every Member of the Congress to become thoroughly acquainted with the factors involved in extending the status of statehood to one of our largest and certainly one of our most strategic Territories. It is not my purpose to look at the question that is before us today from the point of view of what statehood would mean to the people of Alaska. However, I wish to confine my remarks to a much more important aspect of this question— the question of providing defenses for our Nation and the unquestionably and undeniable strategic position which Alaska occupies in relation to our global defenses and outposts. In other words, what statehood for Alaska would mean to the United States. We should make Alaska a fortification of defense for America. In this connection, I beg the indul- gence of the membership of the House to repeat two statements of two of our most able military leaders and pioneers in air powcr. Many years ago the late Billy Mitchell, one of the greatest pioneers in air power that this country has ever produced, stated: “He who holds Alaska holds the world.” At a later time and following the com- plete fulfillment of the prophesies and predictions of General Mitchell, the late General Arnold said, “Upon Alaska our future may well rest.” Yes, in our world today Alaska is of great importance. What could insure greater provision for our future than to recognize the truth of the facts as stated by these eminent military men? Let us fortify Alaska against any pos- sible aggression. Alaska may well hold the key to our future security and we should thus make of this Territory an arsenal and a bulwark of democracy. This can truly be accomplished through statehood, and I fear only through state- hood. The question properly arises as to whether we can adequately prepare our dGefenses—which are acknowledgedly so vital in Alaska—unless we admit the Ter- ritory into the constitutional Union as a State. I repeat, I believe that we can- not. Resettlement will not materially grow further for Alaska as a Territory. AS a State, Alaska will be settled, developed, and grow into a bulwark of defense. GI's and others will settle there under the incentive of American statehood. Alaska, Mr. Chairman, constitutes so vital a bulwark in the defense of our country that I hesitate to dwell upon the possibilities or the consequences of our failure to insure its complete and impregnable defense. The Territory of Alaska is the closest point under the United States flag to Soviet Russia. It is strategically located in relation to the island of Formosa which now has become so critical in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE light of recent global disturbances. I do not have the figures to quote at this point—and I think they may be some- what unnecessary because they are so well known to all of us—but the air hours lying between Alaska and Soviet Russia and its satellite territories are virtually negligible—certainly, they cannot afford any degree of comfort. Alaska today can readily be reached by all means of transportation—land., sea and air. We have already built the Alcan Highway to Alaska—a needed network of defense. The presence of this high- way and the expense to which we went in effecting 1ts construction certainly in- dicates that road transportation to Alaska was and is of the utmost im- portance. Thus we have already made the Terri- tory of Alaska as contiguous, in a sense, to our country as California is contig- uous to my own State of Tennessee— by highway. By air, Alaska is only a negligible number of hours distance. Therefore, we cannot longer argue that Alaska 1s isolated—having a foreign point of view and lacking in a common in- terest with the 48 States. That is no longer true. The people of Alaska have proved themselves through 87 years in the status of a possession of the United States— 39 of which years have been in the status of Territory—to be loyal American citi- zens. They enjoy, shall we say, the same penalties as continental American citi- zens—income taxes, excise taxes and such. The citizens of Alaska have fought through three wars of this country. The population of Alaska while still smali—totaling approximately 100,000 today—has been swelled by many loyal and pioneering citizens of continental United States who have settled there and who have helped to promote its economic interest—and therefore the economic in- terest of the entire United States. The last territories to be admitted into the Union were Arizona and New Mcx- ico—in the year 1912, I believe. It was argued at that time that the populations of those Territories were too small for the granting of complete and full state- hood. But how does that argument stand now? Statehood has been a major factor in the growth and development of those former Territories—I think no one will gainsay that statement. Alaska with a population of approximately 100,- 000 today fs every bit as important and vital—vital and important to the defense of our country. Mr. Chairman, under the conditions prevailing today in our international re- lations we are called upon to exercise foresight in our national interest and safety—and bring Alaska into full state- hood. Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Youn]. Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that Alaska will become the forty- ninth State of our Union. I will vote in favor of this resolution and I hope it will pass well nigh unanimously. Mr. Chairman, purchase of the vast Territory of Alaska from Russia in 1867 for only $7,200,000, was termed by the then opponents of Government spending, MarcuH 3 as Seward’s folly.” William H. Seward was United States Secretary of State, who negotiated the purchase. Russia, during the darkest days of our Civil War, was friendly to the Union, and opposed contemplated recognition of the con- federacy by the Emperor Louis Bona- parte, of France, and by the English Government. To emphasize that friendship, and as a belligerent gesture against Great Brit- ain and France, whose governments threatened to intervene in the War Be- tween the States on the side of the South, the Czar sent his war fleet to New York and up the Potomac to our Capital. Britain and France backed down. The purchase price for Alaska was considered liberal at that time by our officials to compensate Russia for the expense of the long voyage and prolonged stay in Ameri- can waters of its war fleet. The wheel of fortune has revolved. Czarist Russia proved our mightiest fricnd at a time of threatened national disunity. Communist Russia is presently our bitterest, most feared, enemy, and ‘s preparing to wage war against us. With the Soviet Union threatening the peace of the world as an aggressor nation, the fact that Alaska is but a few miles from Soviet territory and only minutes away as war planes travel, is an import- ant argument for the admission of Alas- ka into statchood now. We must keep in mind that two world wars are two too many. We must do all things within our power to prevent war and maintain peace for all time. Very thorough plans should be made to rebuild Alaskan defenses and to man World War II air bases in Alaska by additional ground forces. In fact, ad- mission of Alaska to statehood will serve notice upon the Communists of Russia that we realize the importance of Alaska in the defense of this Nation against dictatorship aggression, that we propose to build our defenses in Alaska to a strength sufficient to repel any attack from the Soviet Union and that this forty-ninth State will no longer be a vulnerable spot for the defense of the United States. A dictator fears and respects force. To the argument that admission of Alaska to statehood would give two votes in the United States Senate for a popu- lation of somewhat more than 100,000, those of us who favor immediate admis- sion of this frontier Territory assert that a glance back over the years will demon- strate that some of our greatest Sena- tors have come from States of small pop- ulations. One example would be Senator Norris, of Nebraska; others could be Sen- ators McNary, of Oregon; and Key Pitt- man, of Nevada. There are many others. A present example would be Senator Jo- SEPH C. O’MAHONEY, of Wyoming. Truly, one cannot say that the votes of Sena- tors from States such as Ohio have been more noticeably in the Nation’s interest than have those from Nebraska, Nevada, Colorado, and other States of small pop- ulation. It is my earnest hope that during the present session of this Congress both branches of this Congress will vote af- firmatively for admission of Alaska and Hawaii as States in the Union.
1950 The Soviet press describes Alaska as “Soviet territory in the hands of an alien power.” The article states that “This Territory was sold without authority by the corrupt Czarist regime.” This is just another item indicative that President Truman’s strong forcign policy is sound. Furthermore, it gives force to arguments advanced by many Congressmen that we must strengthen our Army and Air Force in Alaska. Also, while on the subject, would not granting Alaska statehood be a good answer to the absurd Russian claims? Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Louisiana | Mr. Boces]. Mr. BOGGS of Louisiana Mr. Chair- man, I reiterate the statements made by the gentlemen who have just preceded me. I trust that both Alaska and Hawaii will be admitted to the great communi- ty of States of the United States. Mr. PETERSON Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentleman from Idaho |Mr. WuITE]. Mr. WHITE of Idaho. Mr Chairman, having pioneered in the West, I am sure that Alaska is just as capable of sup- porting its population as Sweden, Nor- way, and Finland. 1 shall vote for this bill. Mr. PETERSON Mr Chairman, I yield the balance of the time on this side to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. LaRCADE |. Mr. LARCADE. Mr. Chairman, due to the tact I have so many problems con- fronting my district and State, I try to refrain from appearing on the floor very often on legislation other than that affecting my district and State; however, in this instance I find that I have a duty to perform due to the fact I was a mem- ber of both of the committees which had to do with making the investigation for statehood for Alaska and Hawail. I want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that Alaska is our last and our first frontier. Billy Mitchell said: “He who holds Alaska holds the world.” If Billy Mitchell had not been court-martialed the United States would have been 25 years ahead in air power. I think that there are issues that are most important in this matter which have been lost sight of. One is that brought out by the gentleman from Wis- consin | Mr. KEEre], which is a threat to our national defense and that has been alluded to by those who have preceded me Iam sorry, Mr. Chairman, that appar- ently very few Members of the House have read the Life magazine issue of February 27, 1950, wherein the national defense story of Alaska is more vividly given than can be translated into words at this time. As has been pointed out, Sovict Russia is only 54 miles across the Bering Strait from Alaska. Bombers can cross that distance in 10 or 15 minutes, and a photograph in Life magazine shows the location of nine Russian air bases directly opposite Alaska. If you should be able to secure a copy of this Life magazine I invite your at- tention to a comparison of the military strength of the Soviet Union and that of the United States. The national income of the Soviet Union is $65,000,000,000, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE and of the United States $222,000,000,- 000. The military share of that income in Russia is 25 percent, in the United States 6 percent. Comparing our Air Force with Rus- sia’s air force, combat planes, Russia, 9,000; United States, 3,300. Transport and others, Russia, 8,000; United States, 5,600. Annual production of planes, 7,000 in Russia; 1,200 in the United States. The Army: Russia 2,600,000, United States 640,000. Russia, infantry and air- borne divisions, 125; United States, 9. Armored divisions: Russia, 30; United States, 1. Navy: Submarines, Russia, 270; United States, 74. Surface vessels: States, 164 Mr. CRAWFCRD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all Mem- bers may be permitted to extend their remarks at this point in the REcorp on the bill under consideration. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman trom Michigan? There was no objection. Mr. ASPINALL Mr. Chairmen, it has sometimes been said that Alaska should not ever be admitted to the Union be- cause it. is noncontiguous territory, sepa- rated from the United States by foreign land and foreign waters. There is noth- ing in the Constitution which limits Territories eligible for statehood to those within the continental limits, as that phrase is customarily used. There was a time when an objection of noncontiguity might have had some merits as being in reality an objection to remoteness, but even on that basis, the objection now lacks substance. The major cities of Alaska are now linked to the States by air, road, and radio, so that they are for practical purposes closer to the States than New York or Boston were to the Capital in the early days of the United States. Alaska 1s linked to the United States by three regularly scheduled air carriers operating through the gateways of Min- neapolis, Chicago, and Seattle. Addi- tional service is under consideration by the Civil Aeronautics Board at the pres- ent time. Alaskans are asking that an Alaskan carrier be given a certificate to fly between the States and Alaska, point- ing to the demonstrated success of local carriers within the Territory. Much of Alaska’s development is directly due to the activities of the bush pilots, civilian fliers operating their own private planes, who carry passengers and cargo to all parts of the Territory in all kinds of weather, and reaching areas otherwise inaccessible during the winter. Per capita, Alaskans fly 30 times as much as continental Americans. Alaska is also linked to the United States by overland route, via the Alaska Highway. It is now possible to drive from Washington, D. C., and to reach Fairbanks or Anchorage in a few days. Motorist facilities in the form of accom- modations, gas stations, and so forth, are being built along the highway and some 7,000 or 8,000 cars traveled along it last year. With the granting of statehood thousands more will move along the Russia, 127; United 2767 highway, and this is no reason why the large motor caravans now moving goods by truck for East and West along the central highways, should not in few years be moving north to the metropolitan of Alaska, growing larger year by year. There is now a good system of highways in the Territory, it is improving annu- ally. The Alaska Railroad furnishes a modern service along 500 miles through the heart of the Territory from Seward and Whittier through Anchorage to Fairbanks, With enactment of statehood a very serious restraint upon Alaska’s development, which now exists, should be removed. It is a provision in the Jones Act, enacted in 1920, under which mer- chandise originating in the Svates can- not be shipped to a port in Alaska from the States via Canadian rail and Cana- dian vessel nor from a port in Alaska to the States via Canadian vessel and Ca- nadian rail, although merchandise trav- eling from a point in the States to an- other point in the States may be carried on a Canadian vessel and rail as part of a through haul. This discriminatory provision applies to Alaska alone. It would disappear upon statehood, leaving Alaska subject to the coastwise shipping Jaws only, which are likewise applicable to the States. A great impetus would be given to the development of Alaskan industry as a consequence of the appli- cation of the automatic removal of this discriminatory provision to Alaska. It thus appears that although Alaska is linked adequately to the United States to demonstrate the lack of merit of any objection to statehood on the grounds of distance, Alaska does suffer from dis- criminatory treatment and inadequacy of transportation facilities in terms of their potential contribution to Alaska’s devel- opment. These evils can be cured only by statehood. Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Mr. Chair- man, I rise to speak my fidelity to the pledge of the Democratic Party in the national platform upon which I was elected, the pledge to give to the people of Alaska the dignity of statehood. Many States have been admitted into the Union during the span of my life- time. Many new stars have come to add new beauty to that fleld of blue in the flag of our country. The admission of each new State has added to the strength of our Republic. The debate in the Coneress in opposition to statehood bills may have been waged in sincerity and with heated ardor, but I do not know of anyone now who would turn the legis- lative clock back and take from any of the States admitted in my lifetime the statehood given them and which they have justified by their good deeds and the service in this Congress of able Rep- resentatives and Senators. It will be the same with Alaska, and it is a very happy day in my life that I am here to cast my vote for Alaskan statehood. As I have sat here in this Chamber during the course of the brilliant debate which has been going on I have been thinking of the many fine young men and women, repre- senting all the States of the Union, who went to Alaska and the Aleutian Islands in the period of the recent war. Many of our young men were killed or died of exposure in those days of peril and of
2768 hardship. In voting for this bill I am voting to make the land where rest their bodies a sovereign State of the Republic for which they gave their lives. My vote for statehood for Alaska I cast with the thought that it is something in the spirit, if not indeed the nature, of a memorial to these young heroes; some of whom were the comrades and the warm friends of my own son Lorence in the rugged and perilous months before the Jap attack on Dutch Harbor and until the islands had been cleared of the en- emy and all Alaska girded for any hos- tile onslaught. The bodies of many of our flyers, lost in the icy waters or in the crevasses of the mountains, were never recovered. With the passage of this bill, and its enactment, the place where their unfound bodies repose will be part of a sovereign State of the Union. It may be only a sentiment, Mr. Chair- man, but to me when Alaska ts admitted, her star on that field of blue will stand as a vital memorial to the Unknown Sol- dier of the Alaska-Aleutian campaign. The CHAIRMAN. All time has cx- pired. The Clerk will read the bill for amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That all that part of the United States now embraced within the Territory of Alaska, including a distance of one marine league from the Hne of const, shall become the State of Alaska as herein- after provided, but not beyond the interna- tional boundary of the United States. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word and ask unani- mous consent to proceed for three addi- tional minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the requcst of the gentleman from North Carolina? There was no objection. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, on ac- count of my great admiration of and affection for the two delegates from the Territories of Alaska and Hawali, and I do hold them both in very high esteem, and likewise on account of my admira- tion and great respect for the Governors of Alaska and Hawaii, I am somewhat reluctant to oppose them on the issue here involved, that of granting state- hood to the Territories which they have so well and faithfully served. Mr. Chairman, I shall always remem- ber the warm and cordial reception which was accorded me on the occasion of my visits both to Alaska and to Hawali. The friendliness and the genuine hospitality of the people of both Territories made a great and lasting impression upon me. I frankly do not believe that either Alaska or Hawaii is now ready for state- hood. If the pending measures are fi- nally approved, Alaska and Hawaii will become States of the American Union, It is easy to see, if this is done, that by the same persuasive arguments we may next month or next year be called upon to grant statehood to Puerto Rico and even perhaps to the Virgin Islands, or we might even be asked to grant state- hood to the Islands of Guam and Oki- nawa. If we could shuffle around the populations of the world to suit our own selves, we might be able to solve the per- plexing problems which now confront us. Alaska is a vast area, twice the size of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE great State of Texas; it is sparsely set- tled; it is tough and rugged country; and its population is perhaps only eighty or eighty-five thousand people. Approxi- mately 30 percent of the population are Indians or Eskimos, living on the Yukon, and in the frigid North, beyond the Arctic Circle and on the shores of the Arctic Ocean. There in that cold Territory Mount McKinley lifts its snow-capped head 20,000 feet into the air and above the clouds. It is the largest peak in this part of the world, and its beauty is superb, but it stands in loneliness, far removed from the noises of — modern civilization Puerto Rico, on the other hand, pre- sents an entirely different picture. If all of the people of this world were brought into the United States, and all of the factories and mines of this great country were taken out, we would then have a situation here comparable with that which exists in Puerto Rico. More than 650 persons per square mile and all depend almost entirely upon the products of agriculture. I mention Pucrto Rico because it has been men- tioned along with Alaska and Hawaii in connection with local self-government and ultimate statehood. All three were mentioned in the Democratic platform of 1940. This bill which provides state- hood for Alaska is only the beginning. On more than one occasion Political plat- forms have contained pious pronounce- ments about self-government and state- hood for the Territories, including Puerto Rico. We are now playing politics; yes, perhaps we are playing with the very destiny of our Nation and with the fu- ture of this great Union. Both political parties have been playing politics with this issue and they have magnified it out of all proportion. Why should we play politics with an issue so important? Where on earth has there ever been a situation comparable with the situation now presented? Imagine forty or fifty thousand white men, women, and thirty or forty thousand Eskimos or Indians in a Territory twice the size of Texas, ask- ing for all of the privileges and blessings of statehood, and asking for the privilege of equal representation with the great States of this Union in the Senate of the United States. Those of you who are now advocating and urging statehood for Alaska are unwilling to say on the floor of this House that you would vote to give statehood to Puerto Rico or to the Virgin Islands, or to others who are today living under our flag. Puerto Rico is under the Stars and Stripes, and in Puerto Rico they sing ‘“‘The Star-Spangled Banner.” Yes, Puerto Rico, too, is standing in line for statehood. Are you willing to go all the way or do you want just what you are asking for and no more? Look at the Democratic platform of 1940 and then explain why Puerto Rico has been left out. Look at both party platforms in 1944 and give us the reasons for making the distinction. In the 1944 Republican platform is this lau.guage about Puerto Rico: Statehood is a logical aspiration of the people of Puerto Rico, who were made citi- zens of the United States by Congress in 1917, Legislation affecting Puerto Rico, insofar as feasible, should be in harmony with the real- ization of that aspiration. MarcH 3 There you have it, two great political parties putting platform planks before the people of the country, holding out the hope of statehood to the crowded people of Puerto Rico, where they have more than 650 human beings per square mile and are restricted in their economy to that of an agricultural state. How can we be consistent if we deny statehood to Puerto Rico? They are distressed. They need the help of this great country. They are entitled to the same considera- tion because they are under the same flag and subjected to the same burdens as are the people of Alaska and Hawail. If you vote for this, just bear in mind that this is the opening wedge. You will fill the United States Senate with Scna- tors from Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto R:co, the Virgin Islands, Guam, or the other islands of the Pacific. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. COOLEY. I yield to the gentle- man from Montana. Mr. MANSFIELD. Is it the gentle- man’s contention that Puerto R’co should be added to Hawaii and Alaska? Mr. COOLEY. No, my contention is clearly not that. Mr. MANSFIELD. The gentleman is against them all? Mr. COOLEY. My contention is that they should remain in the same status they are now. I am unwilling to grant statelhood to Alaska or Hawaii, or Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands. Mr. MANSFILLD. Will the gentle- man recognize this difference, that Ha- waii was annexed on the basis of a volun- tary movement on the part of the Ha- wailans, that we bought Alaska, and that Puerto Rico was conquered? Mr. COOLEY. I know all about that history. We bought and paid for Alaska. If we were to withdraw our men and our employees from Alaska today they could not carry on. If we were to turn over to them now the Alaskan Railroad and give it to them free of charge, they could not operate it 1 week. It is the most ex- pensive railroad in the world to operate. The maintenance is exorbitant. Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. COOLEY. I yield to the gentle- man from Colorado. Mr. ASPINALL. Was the gentleman from North Carolina a member of the platform committee of the Democratic Party in 1948? Mr. COOLEY. No; I was not. Mr. ASPINALL. I wish to state that the gentleman from Colorado was a member. I dislike the statements the gentleman makes regarding the politi- cal situation. Mr. COOLEY. What is it that the gen- tleman objects to? I read the words from the platform. I reiterate, regard- less of what the gentleman says, this is a political proposition. Nobody can justify granting statehood to Alaska on any basis. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina has ex- pired. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for two additional minutes.
1950 The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from North Carolina? There ‘vas no objection. Mr. JENSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. COOLEY. man from Iowa. Mr. JENSEN. The gentleman knows that he and I get along fine, generally speaking. Mr. COOLEY. Absolutely. Mr. JENSEN. We do differ in mat- ters of great importance, and we have on several occasions. May I ask the gen- tleman if he does not feel the conditions we face today should not have bearing on this matter regardless of whether it was in the Democratic or the Republican platform? Mr. COOLEY. From the national de- fense standpoint? Mr. JENSEN Yes. Mr. COOLEY. No. Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. will the gentleman yield? Mr. COOLEY. I yield to the gentle- man from Mississippi. Mr. ABERNETHY. Will the gentle- man tell the House whether or not any type of defense has been requested by the Department of Defense tor Alaska which has been denied or has not ‘een provided? Mr. JENSEN. That is not the gues- tion. Mr. COOLEY. In answer tn the ques- tion of the gentleman from Mississippi I can only say that I am not aware of the fact that any type of detense which has been requested has been denied. Certainly every man and women in this House appreciates the great mmportance of Alaska in the defense program of thus Nation. In providing adequute defense and in our great desire to protect the integrity of our Territory, we are usually influenced and guided by those in charge of our defense program. Pray tell me why our defense would be impioved by merely granting statehood to Alaska? Would statehood give strength to Alaska and make the Territory stronger? Wouid statehood improve the econumy of the Territory or increase its population? The gentleman from Iowa made a state- ment here a moment ago to the cffect that Alaska, if granted statehood, would fight for America; that its manhood would stand and defend the great main- land and afford us opportunity to pre- pare for another gigantic war. Alaska, without the aid of the Federal Govern- ment does not have manpower, machin- ery, or military equipment enough to dc- fend this mainland even for 1 hour. Mr, JENSEN. That is the reason for statehood. Mr. COOLEY. Giving them state- hood and the dignity of two Senators and a Congressman will not strengthen our military defenses in that great Ter- ritory. Mr. JENSEN. We would get more peo- ple up there if we passed this bill. Mr. COOLEY. What is it about state- hood which has an inherent attraction for people? The Territory has been un- der the flag for about 83 years and now it has the population of only about 83,000 people. At that rate it will take about I yield to the gentle- Chairman, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE 200 more years before they will have as many people in Alaska as I now have in my own congressional district. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. COOLEY. I yield to the gentle- man from California. Mr. JOHNSON. May I point out that during the entire time from 1940 to 1946 Alaska gave 3,564 inductees to the serv- ice? They have two National Guard units there. It is very well known they could not possibly defend Alaska. Fur- thermore the problem is strictly a na- tional problem. We will defend any of our Territories whether they are States or not. Mr. COOLEY. Of course, we will de- fend Alaska with all the might of this ercat Nation and with all of the military forces at our command. All of this talk about adding strength to our military might and to our national defense by passing a Federal law which grants state- hood to Alaska 1s nothing more nor less than ‘‘tommyrot.” Where our flag is there we shall be also, and the world cer- tainly should now know that the ereat might and powcr and all of the rich re- sources of America will protect the peo- ple that live under our flag. Have we, for the moment, forgotten Pearl Har- bor? Hawail was not then a State, but when the attack came at Pearl Harbor the might and power of this gigantic Nation were aroused and boys from every State rallied to the flag and to the de- fense of that outpost. Why do not we look this 1ssue square in the face and settle it on its merits? Let us forget the sully and sentimental appeals and stand forthright in behalf of our own thinking ? I know a little something about the Territory of Alaska. I have traveled in every part of that great Territory. I ac- companicd Mr. Krug, the Secretary of the Interior, on his first inspection trip in 1946 and I went from one part of it to the other, even to Point Barrow on the Arctic Ocean. I ate bear meat with the Eskimos and I saw the caribou and the reindeer; the snowdrifts and the landslides; and I visited the fertile val- leys and lofty peaks. I met genial and friendly people and I tried to learn some- thing about their problems, I know that from Ladd Field, in Fairbanks; more than 9,000 American planes piloted by Russian pilots took off under secret orders for destinations unknown to us— but across the Bering Sea, and I know full well that some day some of those same planes might come back again to Fairbanks. If they do, I do not want them to be met by the National Guard of Alaska but rather by all of the might and force which our military men may muster. Alaska is not ready for statehood. We are told that of its entire population only about 22,000 are eligible to vote. In the plebiscite only about 16,000 did vote and of the 16,000 voting, 40 percent did not want statehood for the Terri- tory. But, even if all of them wanted it, is that a sound argument why the Representatives of these 48 great States should grant it? In the acquisition of Alaska maybe Russia does think we per- petrated a fraud and bought it for a song. What do we care about what Rus- 2769 sia thinks. We know that Russia knows that we will defend every inch of that Territory with every instrumentality at our command. Mr. Chairman, this bill should be de- feated. Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the further reading of the bill be dispensed with, that it be printed in the Recorp at this point, and open to amendment. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida? There was no objection. The remainder of the bill is as follows: Sec. 2. All citizens of the United States who are qualified to vote for representatives of the Territorial Legislature of Alaska are hereby authorized to vote for and choose delegates, having the same qualifications, to form a constitutional convention in sald Territory. The convention shall consist of 26 delegates apportioned among the several judicial divisions of Alaska as follows: First judicial division, 8 delegates; second judicial division, 4 delegates; third judicial division, 8 dclegates, fourth judicial division, 5 dele- gates; and 1 delegate to be chosen at large from the entire Territory. The Governor of Alaska shall, within 30 days after the approval of this act, issue a proclamation ordering an election of such delegates to be held at a time designated in the proclamation within 8 months after the approval of this act, and providing also for preceding primary election and for filings by independent or nonparty candidates, which proclamation shall be issued at lenst 2 months prior to the time of holding said pri- mary election and 5 months before the date of election of such delegates. The nomina- tion, filing, and election of such delegates shall be conducted, the returns made, tho results ascertained, and the certificates of persons elected to such convention issued in the same manner, as nearly as is practicable as is proscribed by the laws regulating nomi- nations and elections of members of the Territorial Legislature of Alaska. Src. 3 The delegates to the convention so elected shall mect at the capital of said Ter- ritory on the first Tuesday following the ninetteth day after their election, for a ses- sion of not to exceed 75 days, and after or- ganization shall declare on behalf of the people of the proposed State that they adopt the Constitution of the United States, where- upon the said convention shall form a con- stitution and State government for the pro- posed State The constitution shall be republican in form, shall make no distinction in civil or political rights on account of race or color, and shall not be repugnant to the Constitu- tion of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Said convention shall provide, by ordinance, ir- 1evocable without the consent of the United States and the people of said State: First. That perfect freedom of religious worship shall be secured, and that no inhab- itant of said State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship. Second. That said State and {ts people do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to any lands or other prop- erty, the title to which is retained in or ceded to the United States by the provisions of this act and to all lands lying within its bound- aries owned or held by any Indians, Aleuts, or Eskimos hereinafter called natives, the right or title to which shall have been ac- quired through or from the United States or any prior sovereignty, and that until the title of the United States or of such natives shall have been disposed of or extinguished the same shall be and remain subject to the
2770 disposition and under the absolute jurisdic- tion and control of the Congress of the United States; that no taxes shall be imposed by the State upon lands or property therein be- longing to or which may hereafter be ac- quired by the United States or reserved for its use; but nothing herein, or in the ordi- nance herein provided for, shall preclude the said State from taxing, as other lands and other property are taxed, any lands and other property owned or held by any native out- side of a native reservation unless otherwise prohibited by Congress. Third. That the debts and Nabilities of said Territory of Alaska shall be assumed and paid by said State and all debts owed to said Territory of Alaska shall be collected by said State. Fourth That provision shall be made for the establishment and maintenance of a sys- tem of public schools which shall be open to all children of snid State and free from sectarian control. Fifth. That all provisions of this act re- serving rights or powers to the United States, as well as those prescribing the terms or con- ditions of the grants of lands or other prop- erty herein made to said State, are consented to fully by said State and its people Sixth. That the lands and other property belonging to citizens of the United States residing without said State shall never be taxed at a higher rate then the lands and other property belonging to residents thereof. Sec. 4. The State of Alaska and its political subdivisions, respectively, shall have and re- tnin title to all property, real and personal, title to which is now In the Territory of Alaska or any of the subdivisions. The United Stutes shall retain title to all prop- erty, real and personal, to which it now nas title, including public lands, except as pro- vided in section 5 hereof. Sec. 6. Sections Nos. 2, 16, 32, and 36 in each township in the State of Alaska are hereby granted to the said State for the support of its common schools, and section 33 in each township in the Tanana Valley between parallels 64 and 65 north latitude and between the one hundred and forty- fifth and one hundred and fifty-second de- grees of west longitude (meridian of Green- wich) are granted to said State for the sup- port of an agricultural college and schoo] of mines: Provided, That where settlement with a view to homestead entry has been made upon any part of the sections granted here- by before the survey thereof in the field, or where the same may have been sold or other- wiso appropriated by or under the authority of any act of Congress, or are subject to any unextinguished native rights, or are wanting or fractional in quality, other lands may be sclected and appropriated in lieu thereof in the manner provided by the act of February 28, 1891 (26 Stat. 796; 43 U.S C, sec. 851). The right of lieu selection under the act of February 28, 1891, supra, shall be applicable only to lands within the same land district as the sections granted hereby: Provided further, That the State may not select in any one township land which together with land previously acquired under this section will exceed 60 percent of the surveyed area of such township. The grant of sections 2, 16, 32, 36, and 33 made above shall be subject to the act of January 25, 1927 (44 Stat. 1026), as amended May 2, 1932 (47 Stat. 140; 43 U. S. C., sec. 870). Subsection (c) of section 1 of the said act of January 25, 1927, aos amended, is hereby further amended by deleting the words ‘‘and all lands in the Territory of Alaska are excluded froin the provisions of this Act”. The grants of sections 2, 16, 32, and 36 to said State, within national forests now existing or proclaimed, shall not vest the title to suld sections in said State until the part of said national forests embracing any of sald sections is restored to the public do- main; but said granted scctions shall be ad- ministered as a part of suid fure.t. At the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE close of each fiscal year there shall be paid by the Secretary of the Treasury to the State such proportion of the moneys received dur- ing the fiscal year from said national forests as the area of the lands granted by this section, whether surveyed or unsurveyed, bears to the total area of said national for- ests, the areas of said sections when un- surveyed to be determined by the Secre- tary of the Interior by protraction or other- wise. Block 32, and the structures and improve- ments thereon, in the city of Juneau are granted to the State of Alaska to use for a dwelling for the Governor, for a State mu- seum, and for park and recreational pur- poses: Provided, That if at any time for a period of 8 years none of the said block is used for any of the specified purposes, the block shall revert to the United States as a part of the public domain. The following grants of land are hereby made for internal {!mprovements: For legislative, executive, and judicial pub- lic buildings heretofore erected in said Ter- ritory or to be hereafter erected in the pro- posed State, 800,000 acres; for insane asy- Jums, 100,000 acres; for penitentiaries, 100,- 000 acres, tor schools and asylums for the deaf, dumb, and the blind, 100,090 acres, for normal schools, 200,000 acres; for State charitable, penal, and reformatory institu- tions, 100,000 acres; for homes for pioneer residents, 100,000 acres. All the property of the United States situated in the Territory of Alaska used in connection with the conservation and pro- tection of the fisheries and of the tur and game of Alaska is hereby transferred and conveyed to the State of Alaska. The State of Alaska shall possess and exercise the same jurisdiction and control over the fisheries and the fur and game of Alaska as are pos- sessed and exercised by the several States within their respective territorial limits, in- cluding adjacent waters. Grants previously made to the Territory of Alaska are hercby confirmed and transferred to the State of Alaska, upon its admission, No grants, other than those specified in this act, shall be made to the State of Alaska by reason of its becoming or being a State, ex- cept by subsequent legislation. The schools and colleges provided for in this section shall forever remain under the exclusive control of the State, and no part of the proceeds arising 1rom the sale or dis- posal of any lands granted herein for edu- cational purposes shall be used for the sup- port of any sectarian or denominational schoul, college, or university Five percent of the proceeds of sales of public lands lying within said State which shall be sold by the United States subsequent to the admission of said State into the Union, after deducting all the expenses inci- dent to such sales, shall be paid to the sald State to be used for the support of the com- mon schools within said State. Sec. 6 After a constitution and State gov- ernment have been formed in compliance with the provisions of this act, the conven- tion forming the same shall provide by ordi- nance for submitting said constitution, for ratification or rejection, to the people of said proposed State at an election to be held at a date to be fixed by said convention, which shall be not less than 75 nor more than 100 Gays from the date of its adjournment, at which election the citizens of said proposed State who are qualified to vote for members of the Territorial Legislature of Alaska shall vote directly for or against the proposed constitution and for or against any provisions separately submitted. The returns of said election shall be made to the Governor of Alaska, who shall cause the same to be canvassed by the canvassing board of the Territory of Alaska in the man- ner now provided by law for the canvass of votes cust in general Territorial elections, and if a majority of the voies cast on that MarcH 8 question shall be for the constitution, the Governor of the Territory of Alaska shall certify the result to the President of the United States, together with a statement of the votes cast thereon and upon separate articles and propositions, together with a copy of said constitution, articles, proposi- tions, and ordinances, If the constitution and government of said proposed State are republican in form, and if all the provisions of the act have been complied with in the formation thereof, it shall be the duty of the President of the United States to certify said facts to the Governor of said Territory, who shall within 30 days after receipt of such notification from the President of the United States issue a proclamation for the election of all State and other officers pro- vided for in said constitution including members of State legislature, said election to take place not earlier than 2 months nor later than 6 months after the date of issu- ance of said proclamation by the Governor. Sc. 7. (a) The constitutional convention shail by ordinance provide that in case of ratification of the constitution by the peo- ple and in case the President of the United States approves the same, an election shall be held at the time named in the proclaina- tion of the Governor of satd Territory here- inbefore provided, at which election officers for a full State government, including a Governor, members of the State legislature, one Representative and two Senators in the Congress of the United States to be elected at large from said State, and such other omMccrs as the constitution shall prescribe, shall be chosen by the qualified voters of Alaska. Unless the constitutional conven- tion shall by ordinance otherwise provide, such election, and an antecedent primary election, shall be held, and the returns there- of made, canvassed, and certified by the canvassing board, in the same manner, as nearly as practicable, as is now prescribed by law for the nomination, filing, and elec. tion, and canvass and certification of elec- tion of Territorial officers and members of the Territorial legislature. When such State and other officers and members of the Stute legislature and ec Representative and Sena- tors in the Congress of the United States shall be so elected and the returns thereof made, canvassed, and certified as herein provided, the Governor of said Territory shall certify the result of said election to the President of the United States, who shall thereupon immediately issue his proclama- tion announcing the result of said election so ascertained, and upon the issuance of said proclamation by the President of the United States the State of Alaska shall be dcemed admitted by Congress into the Union by virtue of this act, on an equal footing with each of the other States of the Union, and the Representative and Senators from said State in the Coneress of the United States so elected and certified shall there- upon be entitled to seats in the House of Representatives and Senate of the United States and to all of the rights and privileges of Representatives and Senators therein. Until the issuance of said proclamation by the President of the United States and un- til said State 1s so admitted into the Union and said officers are elected and qualificd under the provisions of the Constitution, all of the officers of said Territory, includ- ing the Delegate in Congress from said Ter- ritory, shall continue to discharge the duties of said respective offices in and for said Territory. Upon admission of Alaska as a State as herein provided and upon election and quali- fication of the officers of the State govern- ment formed in pursuance of and in ac- cordance with the provisions of said consti- tution, said officers shall forthwith proceed to exercise all of the duties and functions of their respective offices; and all of the laws in force in the Territory of Alaska at the time of admission of said State into
1950 the Union shall be and continue in full force and effect throughout said State ex- cept as modified or changed by this act, or by the constitution of the State, or as there- after modified or changed by the legislature of the State. All of the laws of the United States not locally inapplicable shall have the same force and effect within said State as elsewhere within the United States. (b) Subsection (a) of section 2 of the act of November 15, 1941 (55 Stat. 761, 762), 1s hereby amended to read as follows: “Each State other than Alaska shall be entitled, in the Seventy-eighth and in each Congress thereafter until the taking effect of a reapportionment under a subsequent stat- ute or such section 22, as amended by this act, to the number of Representatives shown jn the stntement transmitted to the Con- gress on January 8, 1941, based upon the method known as the method of equal pro- portions, no State to receive less than one Member; and the State of Alaska shall be entitled to one Representative from the time of its admission into the Union until the taking eflect of such a reapportionment ” Sec 8. The sum of $100,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is hereby au- thorized to be appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury of the United Statcs not otherwise appropriated, for defraying the ex- penses of the elections provided for in this act and of the convention, and for the pay- ment of the members aud Officers and em- ployees thereof under the same rules and regulations and at the same rutes as are now provided by law for the payment of the Ter- ritorial Legislature of the Territory of Alaska, and the disbursements of the money appro- priated by this section shall be made by the secretary of the Territory of Alaska Sec. 9. Nothing in this act shall affect the establishment, or the right, ownership, and authority of the United States in Mount Mc- Kinley National Park, as now or hereaiter constituted; but exclusive jurisdiction, in all cases, shall be exercised by the United States for the national park, as now or here- after constituted; saving, however, to the State of Alaska the right to serve civil or criminal process within the limits of the aforesaid park in suits or prosecutions for or on account of rights acquired, obligations incurred, or crimes committed in said State, but outside of said park; and saving further to the said State the right to tax persons and corporations, their franchises and property on the lands included in said park; and sav- ing also to the persons residing now or here- after in such area the right to vote at all elections held within the respective political subdivisions of their residence in which the park ts situated. Sec 10 Said State when admitted as pro- vided herein shall constitute one jJudictal dis- trict, to be known as the “district of Alaska” Mount McKinley National Park shall also constitute a part of said judicial district, and the district court in and for said district shall have jurisdiction over all offenses com- mitted within the boundaries of said park. All fugitives from justice taking refuge 1n suid park shall be subject to the same laws as refugees from justice found in the State of Alaska. The United States District Court for the District of Alaska shall hold one term at Juneau, one term at Anchorage, one term at Fairbanks, and one term at Nome each year, and special terms may be held at such times and places in said district as the Judge thercof may deem expedient. The sald dis- trict shall, for Judicial purposes, until other- wise provided, be attached to the ninth judi- cial circuit There shall be appointed tor said district one district judge, one United States attorney, and such assistant United States attorneys, not exceeding four in num- ber, as the Attorney General of the United States may determine, and one United States marshal with such number of deputies as may be designated by the Attorney General of the United States. There shall be ap- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE pointed one clerk for said district, who shall Keep offices at Juneau, Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Nome, and at such other places as may be designated by the district court, and such number of deputies and assistants and other employees as may be designated by the Attor- ney General of the United States. The regu- lar and special terms of said court shall be held at the times designated by the judge thereof, and the judge is authorized to sum- mon grand juries whenever the public busi- ness shall require. The district court tor said district, and the judge thereof, shall pos- sess the same powers and jurisdiction and perform the same duties as are held, excr- cised, and performed by other district courts and judges of district courts of the United States, and shall be governed by the same laws and regulations. Tho United States attorney and assistant United States attorneys, the United States marshal and the deputy United States mar- shals, the clerk und his deputies, assistants and employees, the stenographers of the dis- trict court of said district, and all other officers and persons performing dutics in the administration of justice therein, shall sever- ally possess the powers and perform the du- ties lawfully required to be performed by similar officers in other districts of the United States, and shall, for the services they may perform, receive the same fees and compensa- tion with allowances now prescribed by law for the officers performing similar service for the United States in other districts of the United States No person shall be eligible for appointment as United States district judge, United States attorney, United States marshal, or clerk of the District Court for the District of Alaska unless such person shall have been a bona fide resident of Aluska at least 3 years imme- diately prior to date of appointment. Sec. 11. No writ, action, indictment, cause, or proceeding pending in the District Court for the Territory of Alaska on the date when said Territory shall become a State, and no case pending in an appellate court upon ap- peal from the District Court for the Terri- tory of Alaska at the time said Territory shall become a State, shall abate by the admission of the State of Alaska into the Union, but the same shall be transferred and proceeded with as hereinafter provided. All civil causes of action and all criminal offenses which shall have arisen or been com- mitted prior to the admission of said State, but as to which no suit, action, or prosecu- tion shall be pending at the date of such ad- mission, shall be subject to prosecution in the uppropriate State courts or in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska in like manner, to the same extent, and with like right of appellate review, as if said State had been created and said courts had been established prior to the accrual of said causes of action or the commission of such offenses; and such of said criminal offenses as shall have been committed against the laws of the Territory shall be tried and punished by the appropriate courts of said State, and such as shall have been committed against the laws of the United States shall be tried and punished in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska. Src. 12 All appeals and writs of error taken from the District Court for the Territory of Alaska to the Supreme Court of the United States or the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, previous to the admission of Alaska as a State, shall be pros- ecuted to final determination as though this act had been passed. All cases in which final judgment has been rendered in such district court, and in which appeals or writs of error might be had except for the admission of such State, mey still be sued out, taken and pros- ecuted to the Supreme Court of the United States or the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit under the pro- visions of then existing law, and there held and determined in like manner; and in either 2771 case, the Supreme Court of the United States, or the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, in the event of reversal, shall remand the said cause to either the State supreme court or other final appellate court of said State, or the United States district court for eaid district, as the case may require: Provided, That the time allowed by existing law for ap- peals and writs of error from the district court for said Territory shall not be enlarged thereby, and all appeals and writs of error not cued out from the final judgments of said court at the time of the admission of such State shall be taken within 6 months from such time. Src. 13 All causes pending in the District Court for the Territory of Alaska at the time of the admission of Alaska as a State which are of such nature as to be within the juris- diction of a district court of the United States shall be transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Alaska for final disposition All other causes pending in the district for the Territory of Alaska at the time of the admission of Alaska as uo State shall be transferred to the appro- priate State court of Alaska. All final judg- ments and decrees rendered upon such trans- ferred cases in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska may be re- viewed by the Supreme Court of the United States or by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals in the same manner as is now pro- vided by law with reference to the judements and decrees in existing United States district courts. Sec 14 Jurisdiction of all cases pending or determined in the District Court for the Territory of Alaska not transferred to tho United States District Court for the District of Alaska shall devolve upon and be exer- cised by the courts of original jurisdiction created by said State, which shall be deemod to be the successor of the District Court for the Torritory of Alaska with respect to cases not so transferred and, as such, shall take and retain custody of all records, dockets, journals, and files of such courts pertaining to such cases. The files and papers in all cases so transferred to the United States district court, together with a transcript of all book entries to complete the record in such particular cases so transferred, shall be in like manner transferred to said district court. Src. 15. All cases pending in the District Court for the Territory of Alaska at the time said Territory becomes a State not trans- ferred to the United States Dtstrict Court for the District of Alaska shall be proceeded with and determined by the courts created by said State, with the right to prosecute appeals or writs of error to the appellate courts created by said State, and also with the same right to prosecute appeals or writs of error from the final determination in said causes made by the court of last reeort created by such State to the Supreme Court of the United States, as now provided by law for appeals and writs of error from the court of last resort of u State to the Supreme Court of the United States. Src. 16. All acts or parts of acts in con- flict with the provisions of this act, whether passed by the legisluture of raid Territory or by Congress, are hereby repcated The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the first committee smendment. The Clerk read as follows: Committee amendment Peve 4. after line 10, insert a new paragraph, reading as follows “Third. That authority is granted to and acknowledged in the United States for the exercise by the Congrees of the United States of the power of exclusive legislation as pro- vided by article I, section 8, clause 17, of the Constitution of the United States in all cases whatsoever over such tracts or parcels of land as are now owncd by the United States
2772 and held for military, air, naval, or coest guard purposes, whether reserved or ac- quired by purchase, condemnation, donation, or exchange; saving, however, to the State of Alaska the right to serve civil or criminal process within the Iimits of the aforesaid reservations in suits or prosecutions for or on account of rights acquired, obligations incurred, or crimes committed in said State, but outside of said reservation; and the Legislative Assembly is authorized and di- rected to enact any law necessary and proper to give effect to this article; and.” Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention to enter into this debate. I am going to vote for the bill granting statehood to Alaska, as well as for the bill granting statehood to Hawaii. But in view of the argument made by my friend, the gentleman from North Carolina, I could not restrain myself when he said there were absolutely no grounds at all for admitting either of these possessions of ours into the Union, possessions where American citizens live. As my friend was arguing, my mind went back to the early days of our con- stitutional government, when the United States of America was composed of 13 States. Of course they were members by sov- ereign choice, because they had sover- eignty before the Union itself was estab- lished. As my friend argued further I saw in my mind’s eye this great Nation of ours of 48 States extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. The question arose ii. my mind: How were all these States admitted to the Union? If my memory serves me correctly, the an- swer is that it had to be by act of Con- gress. I went back in memory to the debates when those territories were be- ing admitted to the Union as States, when bills were pending in this body. In those bygone decades, the very same arguments were made then as was made by my good friend, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Cootry]. Every argument in favor of the admission of those territories to the Union as States applied then as it does now. American citizens lived in those territories. They progressed to the point where they could be admitted as States into the Union. You can go right down the line of States and name any one of the States which were admitted after the Thirteen Orginal States formed the Union and substan- tially the same arguments were made then as are being made now. And if those arguments had prevailed, such as are being made here today, not one of them would be States in the Union today. So it seems to me the argument of my friend falls to the ground. Now, he says this is just politics. Why, the conduct of government itself is poli- tics. Ours is a political institution. It is a school of political science. When the Republican Party and the Demo- cratic Party put into their platforms the statement that they stand for admission into the Union of these Territories, it is politics in its wholesome sense and in its constructive sense, and not in any way in a sinister sense. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE As I say, Mr. Chairman, I intended to remain silent, except for my vote on this proposition. But my conscience would not permit me to remain silent in view of the argu- ment that my friend, the gentleman from North Carolina, made when he said that there is no reason at all why these Territories should be admitted into the Union as States. My mind went back, thinking of the debates in bygone days against the ad- mission of States into the Union, when the same kind of arguments were made as my distinguished friend from North Carolina has maae. Mr. BOGGS of Louisiana. Mr. Chair- man, will the gentleman yield? Mr. McCORMACK. I yield. Mr. BOGGS of Louisiana. The gen- tleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coo.ey] said that Alaska could not de- fend itself. Could any State in the Union standing alone defend itself? Mr. COOLEY. I did not make that statement, except in answer to a state- ment which had been made to show how ridiculous the question was. Mr. McCORMACK. One of the pro- visions of the Constitution is that the Federal Government has to guarantee to every State a republican form of govern- ment. That is in the Constitution. I think that answers that question. On the question of national defense, you look over a map of the world, and Alaska today and for many generations to come, if an emergency should arise, is probably the most important place in the world, and is certainly of vital im- portance to the United States of America. Mr. MURDOCK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. McCORMACK. I yield. Mr.MURDOCK. The founders of this Government in 1787 wrote the funda- mental law, and they provided that the great West should grow into common- wealths, and when they were of suffi- cient growth they should be admitted on terms of equality with the Original Thirteen States. That generous policy made America the greatest colonizing power in the world. What we are doing today to admit Alaska is to carry out the historic policy of this Government, so that when our children and our chil- dren’s children shall move to the West they will have new States on terms of equality with the old Original Thirteen. Mr. McCORMACK. The gentleman is absolutely correct. Furthermore, the smoke screen of Puerto Rico should not be used for in- flammatory purposes. We are consider- ing these two Territories upon their merits today. Puerto Rico is a question of tomorrow, and some future Congress will have to meet that problem. As I listened to my very dear friend, my mind went back to yesterday when he was fighting to put through a bill, when there was a great deal of opposi- tion on this floor. As chairman of this committee he expected us to support him, and I did support him, and others did. There is no more able man in this House, and I commend him, and I ad- mire him very much. I value his friend- ship, but I reserve the right to disagree Marcu 8 with him when he makes arguments like he did today; but yesterday, when he was fighting with his back to the wall, expecting defeat as a matter of fact, those of us rallied to his support and helped him put through his bill. I won- der how he would feel if the chairman of the committee had taken the floor yes- terday in opposition to his bill. He prob- ably would not like it. Mr. COOLEY. The effect of the gen- tleman’s argument is that, regardless of my convictions, I should follow the lead- ership of the chairman of this commit- tee. Mr. McCORMACK. On the argument you made in your own time you should have done so, because you failed to rec- ognize any merit in either of these cases. You said there was no right. I think my friend has gone to the extreme, made the most wcak and fallacious argument that, as chairman of a responsible committce, he could make. And rather than to take the floor in opposition to this bill he should eithcr have remained silent or he should have followed the leadership of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. PE- TERSON]. I hope this bill will pass, and I hope the Hawaiian statehood bill will pass. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. McCormack] has again expired. Mr. CANFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last two words. Mr. Chairman, I think the able and well-intentioned gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. CooLey! is just as much in error about this statehood bill this afternoon as he was when he led the fight to jam through the potato bill last year. I am for this bill, first, because I think the people of Alaska want and have earned statehood; and also because I be- lieve a resounding and preponderating vote for the bill this afternoon will cause the Kremlin to take pause. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that I have done a very sinful thing. On yesterday I had a very pleas- ant argument with the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina. He made some very fine arguments defend- ing the premise that promises of the United States were sacred and should be fulfilled. He has changed his mind, ap- parently, because he is not holding to the same line of argument in debate to- day which he used on yesterday so effec- tively. I am, therefore, afraid that per- haps in my own ambition to protect the interests of my State I may have tripped somewhere along the line and said some things which took him off of the great statesmanlike manner in which he usually acquits himself. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MARSHALL TI yield. Mr. COOLEY. The gentleman knows that the platform did contain Puerto Rico. Is the gentleman willing to state on the floor as a Member of Congress that he will vote to carry out the plat- form pledge and give statehood to Puerto Rico
1950 Mr. MARSHALL. The gentleman ts doing as he did yesterday, attempting to put words in my mouth. We are dis- cussing statehood for Alaska now, not Puerto Rico. Mr. COOLEY. I know, but statehood for Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico were all contained in the 1940 platform. Mr. MARSHALL. But the _ point brought out and emphasized so force- fully by the gentleman yesterday when we were talking about the responsibilities of the Federal Government and the Con- gress was that each should live up to its promises. We certainly have promised time and time again to the Territory of Alaska that it would be considered for statehood. Mr. COOLEY. But the gentleman from North Carolina has never made any such promise. Mr. MANSFIELD. Iam glad the gen- tleman from Iowa brought to the atten- tion of the gentleman from North Caro- lina the argument that he made yester- day. If the Government should keep its promise in a situation like that under discussion yesterday, certainly it should keep its promise made in its Constitution. Mr. MARSHALL. Of course, the pro- gram under consideration today does not involve any question of pork barrel. Mr. COOLEY. Yesterday we were dealing with signed contracts. Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pro forma amendment. Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask someone who happens to have the Recorp in his pocket to read the language showing that the platform of either the major parties stated that they stood for state- hood for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Mr. COOLEY. I just sent the plat- form back to the cloak room. I read the section. I can get it again if the gentle- man wants it. Mr. CRAWFORD. They stated that they advocated improvement for the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico in the matter of their own local government. What did the Congress do? The Con- gress provided that the Puerto Ricans could elect their own governor and the Honorable Mufioz Marin, who is now visiting in this city, is the first governor elected by the Puerto Ricans. You did carry out your platform pledge. I still challenge anyone to read from the plat- form of either party where cither the Virgin Islands or Puerto Rico were prom- ised statehood under the platform com- mitments. This is a smoke screen thrown up here for the purpose of defeating this bill. When we get to the proposition of giving other areas statehood, the bills will have to come to this floor according to the constitutional provision. We might as well get this fact fixed in our minds. Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the committee amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. PETERSON. I take this time in order to suggest a method of procedure. The bill has been considered read for amendment and is open to amendment at any point. There are several commit- tee amendments pending. I suggest that CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE it would be good procedure to dispose of the committee amendments first in an orderly fashion. We will know then how the bill stands and other amendments can be offered accordingly. I believe that by following this procedure we will get through more quickly. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment. The committee amendment was agreed Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, the next committee amendments are on pages 4, 5, 6, and 7, and are merely cor- rective of section numbers. I ask that they be considered en bloc. The Clerk read as follows: Page 5, line 3, change the word “third” to the word “fourth.” Page 5, line 8, change the word “fourth” to the word “fifth.” Page 5, linc 12, change the word “fifth” to the word “sixth.” Page 5, line 17, change the word “sixth” to the word “seventh.” The committee amendments were agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will re- port the next committee amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Page 6, line 15, after the word “sold”, in- sert “or may be included in a military or other reservation of the United States.” The committee amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will re- port the next committee amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Committee amendment: Page 8, line 8, after the word “of’’, insert ‘vacated, unap- propriated, unreserved public.” The committee amendment was agreed to. Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Mr. Chair- man, a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. I notice the Clerk is reading an amendment on page 8. I have an amendment to offer on page 6. When will my amendment be in order? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair may state to the gentleman from Nebraska that the bill has been considered as read and: open to amendment at any point, with the committee amendments to be acted on first. The gentleman will be recognized to offer his amendment after the commit- tee amendments have been disposed of. The Clerk will report the next com- mittee amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Committee amendment: Page 8, Hine 20, after the word “acres.” insert “Lands granted for the foregoing purposes will not be taken from lands included within a military or other reservation of the United States. The selections provided for in this paragraph shall be made in accordance with the pro- cedure prescribed in Revised Statutes 2379 (48 U. 8. C. 857).” The committee amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other committee amendments? Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I have two committee amendments which I offer, 2773 The Clerk read as follows: Committee amendment offered by Mr. PETERSON: Page 138, lines 19 through 25, and on page 14, lines 1 through 7, delete all exist- ing language and insert in lieu thereof the following: “(b) Upon admission of the proposed State into the Union the House of Representatives shall be composed of 436 Members until the expiration of the Eighty-second Congress.” Mr. RICH. Mr. Chairman, will the the gentleman yield? Mr. PETERSON. I yield to the gentleman. Mr. RICH. You are increasing the number of Members of Congress now? Mr. PETERSON. By one. The Dele- gate from Alaska becomes a Member un- til the Eighty-second Congress when this statehood proposition takes effect and until the next apportionment. That is what has been done in times past. Mr. RICH. What does the committee expect to do when we come to Hawaii? Does it expect to increase the number again? Mr. PETERSON. Yes; the member- ship will be increased by two. Mr. RICH. And when we come to the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico? Mr. PETERSON. We have not come to them. Mr. RICH. You are starting out to in- crease the membership. The first thing you know you are going to get 500 or 600 Members in here. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida. The committee amendment was agreed to. Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer a committee amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Committee amendment offered by Mr. PETERSON: Page 16, strike out lines 8 to 12 inclusive and the words ‘“‘the United States.” in line 13. Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, this has been unanimously approved by the committee and was done at the sugges- tion of the United States Court so that the clerk might come under the general code. When we started working on this bill the code made certain changes, This will make the clerk for that area come under the general code. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. PETErson]. The committee amendment was agreed to. Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Mr. Chair- man, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Minter of Nebraska: On page 6, line 4, strike out “Sec- tions numbered 2, 16, 32, and 36” and insert “Even numbered sections.” Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Mr. Chair- man, may I offer the other amendments at this time and ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc? The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Nebraska? There was no objection. The Clerk read as follcws: Amendment offered by My. Muiuuer of Nebraska:
2774 On page 7, line 4, strike out “sections 2, 16, 82, 36” and insert “even numbered sections.” On page 7, Hine 11, strike out “sections 2, 16, 32, and 36” and insert “even numbered sections.” Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Mr. Chair- man, my amendments are quite clear, In the bill we have before us we pro- pose to give the sections numbered 2, 16, 32, and 36 in each township to the new State. That is 4 sections out of each 36. Today the Federal Government owns and controls 98 percent of the Territory of Alaska. My amendment gives half of the land to the State. I offered this amendment in the Com- mittee and it was turned down, partly because, I think, our good friend, the Delegate from Alaska, Mr. BaRTLETT, had felt that it would not be approved by the Department of the Interior, and I understand it does not have their ap- proval. But, I submit to you, my colleagues, that if a new State is to be formed, it ought to be granted sufficient territory in order to conduct its affairs. The aver- age amount of land owned in the 12 Western States by the Federal Govern- ment is about 50 percent. In one or two States they own up to 80 percent of the land. Here we have a new State. Of course, it is vast in territory, one-fifth the size of the United States that we propose to take in as a new State. But, if we are going to bring it in, let us not make it a hollow mockery and give them something which they think they are going to have and yet we do not give to them. I submit that they at least should have half of the land, the even numbered sections, in each township. There are 36 sections in a township. Let us give them half of that land so that they may be able to endure and grow. At the present time the Department of the In- terior so tightens down the Territory that they are unable to develop. I know, Mr. Chairman, there is prob- ably a message to be delivered to the House at this time, and I presume the Committee will rise temporarily. I sub- mit to my colleagues that the legislation that is going to be presented to us.in the message will be of some assistance to Alaska, because Alaska’s steamship line may be tied up in strikes and absolutely paralyze this great Territory. Ihope that when the legislation does come before us, that is now to be presented in a mes- sage from the President, that my col- leagues will be men and not mice. This House has had a bill before it that pro- vides for seizure but the leadership has not brought it up for consideration, The times demand courageous action Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committce do now rise. The motion was agreed to. Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. Srxes, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H. R. 831) to provide for the admission of Alaska into the Union, had come to no resolution thereon. MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT A message in writing from the Presi- dent of the United States was communi- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE cated to the House by Mr. Hawkes, one of his secretaries, THE COAL SHORTAGE—MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 492) The SPEAKER laid before the House the following message from the President of the United States, which was read, and, together with the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Education and Labor and ordered to be printed: To the Congress of the United States: I wish to report to the Congress on the emergency confronting the Nation as a result of a shortage of coal, and to recom- mend legislative action. Since February 6, 1950, the production of bituminous coal has been dangerously curtailed. By now, stocks of coal are almost exhausted, and many parts of our country face crisis conditions. The an- thracite coal which is being produced, and the trickle of soft coal output, to- gether have been enough to stave off human suffering. But the lack of normal production of soft coal is bringing many basic industries to a halt. A variety of emergency measures have been taken in recent days and weeks. Transportation and utility services have been cut down. Available supplies in many localities have been redistributed in order to meet the most urgent needs. Other steps have been taken by States and cities, by industries and by suppliers, to conserve the dwindling stocks of coal. These efforts have stretched our na- tional stock pile, but they cannot add toit. Within a very few days we shall be virtually out of soft coal. The danger to the national health and safcty is real and immediate. It requires action at once. The immediate reason for the curtail- ment of bituminous coal production is a dispute between most of the mine op- erators and the principal union of mine workers, the United Mine Workers of America, over the terms and conditions of employment in the mines. The previous contract between the union and the operators expired June 30, 1949. In subsequent months, the mines operated intermittently, while negotia- tions for a new contract were under way. But these negotiations failed to produce agreement, and the miners went on strike on February 6, 1950. On January 31, in an effort to avert this situation, I asked the operators and the union to agree to continue produc- tion, in the national interest, for 70 days, while a fact-finding board reviewed the issues and recommended fair and rea- sonable terms for settlement of the dis- pute. While this request was accepted by the operators, it was rejected by the union, Thereafter, when negotiations were broken off and the strike occurred, I es- tablished a board of inquiry under the Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947. It was this board’s duty, under the law, to find the facts and to report them, but not to meke recommendations. The board reported to me on Febru- ary 11. It found that during all the months of negotiation, neither side had bargained freely and effectively on the essential issues in dispute. The board MarcH 8 also expressed a conviction which de- serves emphasis today. The board con- cluded that— The obligation entrusted to the operators and to the union, as the agent of the em- ployees, to serve in a joint stewardship of these vital resources must be met. The health and, safety of the Nation demand this. On the basis of the board’s findings, along with the other evidence available, the Attorney General on February 11, at my direction, requested the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to enjoin the union from con- tinuing the strike and to order both par- ties to bargain in good faith. That same day, the court issued a temporary re- straining order to accomplish these pur- poses. As a result, the parties renewed bar- gaining negotiations on February 15. The Board of Inquiry was reconvened and met repeatedly with the parties, in cooperation with the Director of the Fed- eral Mediation and Conciliation Service, in an effort to bring about agreement, But while negotiations have continued, the miners have not returned to work. On February 20, the Attorney General started proceedings against the union, charging that it had not obeyed the or- der enjoining the continuance of the strike, and that it was therefore in con- tempt of court. This action was taken in light of the fact that the work stop- page was Still under way 9 days after the court’s order. On March 2, the court found that the union was not in con- tempt. It is evident that the order of the court has not brought forth production. The mines are still shut down. Events since the issuance of the court’s order on February 11 give us no assurance that court action under present Jaw can, in fact, end the work stoppage in time to avert exhaustion of our coal supplies. The Nation’s welfare requires that soft-coal production be resumcd at once, in order to prevent human suffering and disastrous economic dislocation. Since the union and the operators have failed to resume production, and since recourse to the court has so far proved ineffec- tive, it is now my plain duty to propose further action. Therefore, I recom- mend that the Congress enact legisla- tion authorizing the Government to take over the coal mines and operate them temporarily as a public service. The parties are continuing their nego- tiations, and I earnestly hope that they will reach agreement before it actually becomes necessary for the Government to take possession of the mines. But we can wait no longer to prepare ourselves with the necessary legislative authority. I am submitting at this time a draft of legislation to accomplish this purpose. I earnestly request that the Congress con- sider this proposal and enact the needed legislation as quickly as possible. In requesting this legislation, it is my purpose and intention to restore the pro- duction of badly needed coal. During the period of Government possession of the mines, the owners should receive fair and just compensation for the use of their property, and the miners should receive fair and just compensation for their work. The proposed legislation would
1950 authorize the establishment of impartial boards to make recommendations con- cerning fair and just compensation for the use of the property of the mine own- ers and for the work of the mine employ- ees. Iam not requesting this legislation as a means of settling the issues in dispute between the operators and the unton. They will have to settle their differences through their own collective bargaining, just as though Government operation were not in effect. I do not propose to substitute the Government’s representa- tives for the private operators at the bar- gaining table. It will not be our purpose to establish wages, hours, or working con- ditions which would bind either the oper- ators or the miners upon resumption of private operations. When the country can be assured of sufficient supplies of coal, the Govern- ment will have no need to continue pub- lic operation and the mines will be promptly returned to private hands. I have stressed these essential elements in the plan for Government operation, so that there will be no misunderstanding of the legislation I am recommending. The draft bill which I propose for con- sidcration is necessarily quite general, so that the Government may adapt the details of its operations to changing cir- cumstances. But while the legislative language can best be framed in general terms, there should be no mistaking the contemplated relationships of the Gov- ernment with the operators and the min- ers during the period of public operation. There are other issues in this emer- gency than the Nation’s urgent need for coal This crisis raises vital questions for the future of the coal industry. We have arrived at the present impasse because both the operators and the union have failed, month after month, to make the efforts in genuine bargaining which could result in a mutually satisfactory settlement. They have been unwilling or unable to lay aside their charges and countercharges, moderate their fixed po- sitions and undertake serious negotia- tion in a spirit of accommodation and mutual understanding. They have 2een unwilling or unable to do so despite the country’s desperate need, despite the growing distress of the idle miners and their families and the economic losses incurred by idle facili- ties, despite uhe competitive advantage which their long dispute 1s giving to other fuels Fortunately, this dangerous break- down in the normal course of labor-man- agement relations does not characterize most industries in this country. On the contrary, collective bargaining has gen- erally produced sustained production and riutual benefits, without these serious consequences for the public and this need for extreme governmental action. But the coal industry has failed sig- nally to solve its own problems in the field of labor-management relations. The current failure is only the latest of a series which stretches back over many years, recurring with disheartening regu- larity. We can only assume that if this industry continues as it has been going, we shall be faccd repeatedly with situa- tions of tris kind. We shall be forced CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE every so often into governmental ac- tion of one kind or another—action which cannot solve the underlying prob- lems or remedy the failures of the pri- vate parties, but which is necessary to shield the public from their conse- quences, These recurrent break-downs between labor and management in the coal in- dustry are only symptoms of profound and long-standing economic and social difficulties in which the industry has be- come involved. We can hope to work toward real solutions of the unstable re- lations between labor and management in the coal mines, only if we come to grips with the problems which foster insta- bility. I further recommend, therefore, that the Congress establish a commission of inquiry, including members from the Congress, the executive branch, and the public, to make a thorough study of the coal industry, in terms of economic, so- cial, and national security objectives, The draft of legislation which I am sub- mitting at this time does not include provisions for establishing such @ com- mission. However, I expect to submit a draft of legislation for that purpose to the Congress at an early date. Management in this industry is con- fronted by declining markets, severe competition, and the high cost of effi- cient, modern cqu.pment Labor faces arduous work, a harsh physical environ- ment, an uncertain work year, and the prospect of fewer jobs The Nation needs an assured supply of coal at all times, and readily available reserves to buttress our national security. It is essential that the Commission ex- amine carefully and factually each one of these conditions, probing the realities behind them and taking stock of our national needs and resources, human, and material. We should then be able to determine what kinds of actions and what sorts of policics on the part of Gov- ernment, management, and labor, will restore the coal industry to economic health and provide a stable environment for constructive relationships between the operators and their employees. This is the real challenge of the pres- ent situation. It is a test of our ability to find a way to achieve adequate pro- duction of a raw material basic to our national life, while preserving the funda- mental values of our free institutions. Both our friends and our detractors in the rest of the world are watching to see how our democratic society will meet this challenge. The coal industry is a sick industry. Temporary seizure by the Government, though it may be necessary under pres- ent circumstances, cannot produce a cure. I am recommending seizure au- thority because I believe we now have no alternative. But I urge that it be ac- companied by a positive and constructive effort to get at the root of the trouble. This is in the interest of the men who work the mines. It is equally in the in- terest of their employers. Above all, it is in the interest of the American people. I urge the Congress, therefore, to act immediately on legislation to authorize the Government to take possession of and operate the mines, and then to turn 2775 its attention to legislation locking to- ward a solution of the basic difficulties of the coal industry. Harry S. TRUMAN. THE WHITE Hovse, March 3, 1950. STATEHOOD FOR ALASKA Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further con- sideration of the bill (H. R. 331) to pro- vide for the admission of Alaska into the Union. The motion was agreed to. Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill H. R 331, with Mr. SIKEs in the chair Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pending amend- ment. With reference to that amendment, I have no feeling one way or the other, but the amendment was proposed in the committee and the committee voted not to include it. Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Mr. Chair- man, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PETERSON. I yield. Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Is it the considered judgment of the chairman of the committee that the new State of Alaska can carry on the function of a State with only 12 percent of the land allocated to her as a State? Mr. PETERSON. Primarily, we are concerned with what we have done for other States. “Whether we should do more than that would be for the Con- gress to determine. Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. There were several States that came in which got all of their land. None of it was re- tained by the Federal Government. Now we have the Interior Department, which will strangle the new State of Alaska by retaining control of all but 12 percent of the land. Mr. PETERSON. I agree with the gentleman that much of the land should pass into private ownership. But permit me to state that the only Statcs which re- tained their public land were the Re- public, later the State of Texas, and the Original Thirteen Colonies. Personally, I do not care one way or the other. Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. I have had a number of letters from people in Alaska indicating that the citizens there thought that when they came in as a new State they would get all of the land. In fact, they would not have voted for Statehood if they had understood we were only go- ing to allow them to have 12 percent of their land. Mr. PETERSON. I yield to the dis- tinguished Delegate from Alaska. Mr. BARTLETT. I would like to say to the gentleman from N-braska that I have a very sympathetic interezt in the amendment which he proposes Aciu- ally, Alaska would like to get half of the public land. I was in Alaska last sum- mer and no one talked to me about this particular provision in the statehood bill. As the gentleman knows, there were strong representations made that, the executive branch of Government woula
2776 oppose this provision strongly. There- fore, because I thought the new State could subsist on four sections, I agreed to go along with that provision. Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PETERSON. I yield. Mr.CRAWFORD. May I ask the gen- tleman this question: Does not the lan- guage in the bill, as the committee has reported it, treat Alaska just like other western States when they were taken in? Mr. BARTLETT. The language of the bill treats Alaska as the last three Ter- ritories admitted were treated. Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Oh, I take exception to that. All of the land was given to the State of Nebraska, and the State itself put that land out to home- stead. Mr. BARTLETT. western States. Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. That may be true of the last three, but it is the gen- eral history of the admission of western States that when they came in they had all the land to use for homestead pur- poses. That is one reason why the States grew and prospered, and their population increased. Mr. ANGELL. When the State of Oregon was admitted in 1859, she had only two sections of land, 16 and 36. We have got along fairly well, we have increased our population rapidly, more so than any State in the Union since the war. Mr. WHITE of Idaho. will the gentleman yield? Mr. PETERSON. I yield. Mr. WHITE of Idaho. The gentle- man from Nebraska remembers, I am sure, the great celebration in his own State of the first homestead patent ob- tained under the homestead patent law. That was in his State of Nebraska. Was it held by the State of Nebraska or by the Federal Government? Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. No; the State held it. Mr. WHITE of Idaho. Was not the celebration of the signing of that famous homestead in the gentleman’s State a Federal celebration? Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. No; it was a State celebration. Mr. RICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PETERSON. I yield. Mr. RICH. May I ask the Delegate from Alaska whether he wants the people of Alaska to administer the land of their own State? Mr. BARTLETT. I think we ought to have a part of it and I think the Federal Government ought to retain a part to use for future settlement. PROGRAM FOR WEEK OF MARCH 6 Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pro forma amend- ment. Mr. Chairman, I take this time in order to inquire of the majority leader as to the program for next week, in view of the fact that a very considerable number of Members are here and many questions have arisen in their minds as to the pro- gram, particularly in view of the message that was just received from the White House. I said the last three Mr. Chairman, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. McCORMACK. I should be very glad to announce the program for next week at this time. Monday: This is Consent Calendar day. There is strong probability that mine-seizure legislation may come up under suspension. I have received infor- mation that the Senate committee might meet this afternoon to consider legisla- tion, and that the Senate might mect to- morrow. I do not want any inference to be drawn that I know what will happen for I do not; but the information I have received is that the other body is going to try to give it immediate consideration. Monday, of course, being Consent Cal- endar day is the only day that legisla- tion could be considered under a su- spension of the rules, and such a measure could not come up for 2 weeks unless by unanimous consent or by a rule from the Committee on Rules. So the probability is that that legislation may be consid- ered on Monday, and I use the word “probability” because that is the strong- est that I can use at the present time. Then there will be the Hawaiian state- hood bill, assuming, of course, that the Alaskan bill passes. That will be the next order of business under the rules of the House. Tuesday: Tuesday the Private Cal- endar will be called and we will call up for consideration *he conference report on the bill H. R. 4406, the Yugoslavia claims bill. The conference report is ready also on the oleomargarine bill, and on H. R. 87, the postal scrvice military bill. Wednesday is Calendar Wednesday. On Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday we will consider the following bills: H. R. 3105, dealing with vocational education in the Virgin Islands; H. R. 874, the li- brary service demonstration bill; and H. R. 7058, amending the laws relating to the United States Military and Naval Academics. Any further program will be an- nounced later. If there is any change, it will be announced as early as possible to advise the leadership on tke other side of the House. Conference reports, of course, other than those I have men- tioned, are in order for consideration at any time. These announcements are al- ways made as early as possible for the benefit of the leadership of the House as well as the membership. Mr. HALLECK. DoI understand that it is the purpose of the majority leader to adjourn over to Monday? Mr.McCORMACK. Yes; it is my pur- pose to ask that when we adjourn today we adjourn over until Monday. Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Mr. Chair- man, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HALLECK. I yield. Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. Do I un- derstand the gentleman from Massachu- setts to mean that if the Alaska state- hood bill docs not pass that the Hawaiian statehood bill will not come before the House? Why, I prefer to proceed upon the assumption that the House is going to pass the Alaska statehood bill. In the event it does not pass the Alaska statehood bill, what then? Mr. PETERSON. We do not want to assume that. Marcu 8 Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. ing the majority leader. Mr. McCORMACK. I would prefer not to cross that bridge at the present time. Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. It might make some difference as to votes. Mr. McCORMACK. The gentleman does not mean that. Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. I would consider it as holdiag a club over us— either pass the Alaskan bill or the Ha- walian bill is not to be considered. Mr. McCORMACK. The gentleman from Massachusetts has diligently kept an agreement that he made, and the House has been very kind and has en- abled me to do it. I am keeping my agreements. Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. The gen- tleman always does. Mr. McCORMACK. No matter how uncomfortable or embarrassing it might be. We will cross that bridge when we come to it. Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. The gen- tleman does not want to state whether the Hawaii statehood bill will come up if the Alaska statehood bill is defeated? Mr. McCORMACK. Ihave every con- fidence that the majority of the House will pass the Alaska bill. The gentleman heard my speech today in which my po- sition was very clearly stated. Mr. MILLER of Nebraska. The gen- tleman realizes he has not answered the question. Mr. McCORMACK. Of course, the gentleman from Massachusetts has not answered the question, I state that frankly, because I have not come to that bridge as yet. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana has expired. Mr. HUBER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, it is with a great deal of reluctance that I shall oppose Alaska statehood, even though I have a warm personal friendship with Delegate Bart- LETT and others. One of the things that particularly interested me during debate on this measure was the statement made by the gentleman from Iowa I[Mr. JEn- sEN] when he said that war with Russia is inevitable. Now, I hope and pray that war with Russia or any other country is not inevitable and the United States will never engage in another war with any country. Certainly irresponsible statements of that kind made on the floor of this House will not prevent war but will lead to war. Mr. JENSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HUBER. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa. Mr. JENSEN. I think possibly I was repeating the words of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gen- tleman from Missouri [Mr. Cannon] who has made that remark on several occasions. My remarks, may I say, were contingent upon whether we stop these warmongers who are traveling all over the world, in our country as well as in other parts of the world. Mr. HUBER. I hope that no commit- tee chairman or any Member of the House will ever again get up on the floor I am ask-
1950 and make the statement that war is in- evitable. Certainly if we say it is inev- itable it is bound to happen. Thought is persuasion, I cannot see why we should go thou- sands of miles to Alaska and worry about statehood for those good Americans when we leave hundreds of thousands of good Americans right in our own back yard, in the District of Columbia, without the right of franchise. I think we ought to start at home before we begin somewhere else. Iam also concerned about the minerals and other valuable deposits in Alaska and whether it might be again like the tideland oil situation in California and Texas. I believe these deposits should be held in trust for the American people. Referring to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. CooLey], I do not agree with him on a great many occasions, but if the majority leader is going to muzzle him, I wonder how he can muzzle the gentleman from Mississippi [{Mr. Rankin], and a few other chairmen of committees. Why should we not be concerned more with the citizens of the District of Co- lumbia and give them all the rights of citizenship. If we are going to do it, let us do it in the District of Columbia; let us do it right here at home. Let us not continuc to disenfranchise these peo- ple in the American Capital, and at the same time grant statehood to other re- mote sections. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, [ move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, this amendment points up one of the weaknesses in this bill. In other words, there is not enough taxa- ble property in the Territory of Atacka so that they can raise enough moncy to operate a State government. Let us think what we are doing here. I want to emphasize, like my colleague from New York did, that when we once take this step we cannot rescind it. Here we have a proposed State that from one end to the other is as far as from here to Los Angeles, or as far as from here to Seattle. The total value of assessable property in Alaska, according to Moody's 1950 Government Municipals Book on this problem, is $110,000,000. It must be obvious to anybody who will think that that is not enough of a basis to conduct a State government, in an area as ex- pansive and as diversified as Alaska js. I am confident that if we grant state- hood to Alaska they will be back in 5 years and ask the Federal Government to subsidize their State government. Now, I want to make another point, and that is this: As far as I am con- cerned, I am passing on this bill as the facts are today, not on the hopes for the future. Today there are only 22,309 voters in that area. It was said here several times by various speakers that we have had this debate or one like it many times in the historic past. We have not had a situation that compares to this, and I make that statement ad- visedly. For every Alaskan voter there are 1,582 people in the United States. That small a proportion of people asking for statehood never occurred in any other case in United States history. The nearest to it was when Wyoming came CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE in. That ratio was 1 to 1,006. Most of them were down way below a ratio of 1 to 265, as between the population of the Territory under consideration and the Union. Here we are giving this small group containing only 22,309 voters the greatest power we ever gave to a pro- portionate group in the history of the United States. You all know the serious implications that could have in a treaty proposal and in many other situations. I have tried to emphasize, as others have, and I think everybody in the room must know it, that we have no animus toward Alaska or its people or its Dele- gate. I want to see them come into the Union when they prove that they are big enough and strong enough to run a State government. National defense has nothing to do with statehood in Alaska. We will al- ways defend Territories, whether incor- porated or unincorporated, no matter what part of the world they are in, and we will do the same for Alaska. When Hawaii was attacked at Pearl Harbor, everyone said “We have bcen attacked.” I emphasize “we.” Whether they have a State government or local government would not add one iota to the defense to what we, who have the responsibility of appropriating the money, will give to Alaska. An attack on Alaska is an at- tack on the United States. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman yield? Mr. JOHNSON. I yield to the gentle- man from North Carolina. Mr. COOLEY. If statehood will bring so many blessings to Alaska, is it not rather strange that 40 percent of the Alaskans are not willing to accept state- hood? Mr. JOHNSON. That is a very good point, a point that we should emphasize. We would certainly force down the throats of 40 percent of the population something that they do not want, espe- cially when they have not enough popu- lation, considering the great area they have to administer, to run a State gov- ernment. To get the statehood asked for Alaska’s people should have more unity on the issue than the plebiscite showed. I believe honestly that that small tax base is entirely too small to support a State government. Let us try to decide this matter on the basis of what is best for the United States of America, what is best for us and for Alaska. I am confident that, if you ap- proach it from that point of view and eliminate politics of every kind and sit down by yourself, you will realize that Alaska is not yet today fit for statehood. That is the way I hope you will vote. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. JOHNSON. I yield to the gentle- man from Montana. Mr. MANSFIELD. The gentleman be- lieves in democratic procedures, does he not? Mr. JOHNSON. Of course. does that have to do with this? Mr. MANSFIELD. The gentleman is talking about the fact that 40 percent of the people are against statehood, Mr, JOHNSON. Let me point out to the gentleman that one voter in Alaska has 180 times as much influence as one will What 2777 voter in California. That clearly ‘s an undemocratic situation. When a small group of 95,000 people can nullify the influence of 10,000,000 people—Califor- nia’s population—that certainly cannot be described as a democratic process. It is whittling away representative govern- ment to the extent that States—if Alaska comes in—with 5 percent of the national population could nullify a treaty which all the other States might want. Do not try to tell me that is a democratic proc- ess. It might be a Democratic—Party— process. Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pro forma amendment, and ask unanimous consent that I may revise and extend the re- marks I make on this bill this afternoon. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan? There was no objection. Mr. BREHM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CRAWFORD. I yield to the gen- tleman from Ohio. Mr. BREHM. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that events during the past 30 minutes have done much to discount the idea that the Taft-Hartley law is the slave-labor law which it has been espoused to be. If the Taft-Hartley law were a Slave-labor law the miners— thank God they are not—would be in the mines chained to their machines. How- ever, it so happens that they could not even get a contempt citation under the Taft-Hartley law. The President has now asked for a seizure bill. It seems to me that is the most potent argument for repealing the Taft-Hartley Act, not because it is a slave-Jabor law but be- cause it is so ineffective that at a time when the health, safety, and welfare of the United States is at stake this law will not work to get one lump of coal out of the ground. This incident should stop all talk about the Taft-Hartley Act being a slave-labor law. In a time of crisis it was ineffective. Some argue that if it had been enforced sooner it would have proved effective. In my opinion it would work any time, late or early, if it were effective. Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, the committee gave long and serious con- sideration to the amount of land which should be granted to Alaska under this statehood bill. It was certainly the judgment of the committee by a majority that the sections stated in the bill would be ample and sufficient for the new State. Therefore, I shall not support the amend- ment offered by the gentleman from Ne- braska. At some future time, if the Con- gress and the people of Alaska find that the language should be changed, provi- sion can be made for additional acreage, which no doubt will be made. Mr. Chairman, I wish to address some remarks specifically to the gentleman from California [Mr. JoHNSON]. He has argued the great disproportion in the number of voters in Alaska as compared with the United States. At the same time he would leave the thought in the minds of the listeners that he is in favor of statehood at some future time. The speciousness of his argument is the fact that the population of the