The Cordova daily times., 1921-06-09


 l legislature there was much discus | sion as to the effect that a certain clause in the Jones bill would have on transportation affairs in Alaska. The concensus of opinion was that | it would be detrimental to the inter- ests of the shippers and the people who pay the bills. In accordance with the idea the attorney general was authorized to bring a test case to determine the validity of the clause that prohibits the shipping of goods from American ports over Canadian lines into Alaska.
 The Juneau Commercial Associa- tion directed their executive commit tee to arrange for an order or goods from one of the eastern states to be shipped from Seattle on one of the Canadian steamers. This they are arranging to do. The United States customs officials have instructions to seize and confiscate any shipment which may be made in the manner referred to. If this be done the at- torney general would then step in and bring legal action that would have the effect of testing the con- stitutionality of the bill. In an inter- view on this important subject At torney General John Rustgard says: 'The principle involved in the fight upon the Alaska clause in the Jones shipping bill is far-reaching and most vital to Alaska and Hawaii. It is not southeastern Alaska alone that is involved, it is all of. Alaska 1 The equal right with Seattle to ship in foreign vessels is only a small fringe of that principle, the protec- 1 tion of which we invoke
 "The question is whether or not congress is subject to any constitu- tional limitations in dealing with an incorporated territory" such as Alaska and Hawaii or such as the older territories, which are now states. This is the first time in the history of the country that congress has undertaken to discriminate against territory which has been incorporated into the United States
 Section g of article 1 of the con- stitution says: No preference shall be given by any regulation of con- merce or revenue to ports of one state over the ports of another' If this does not apply to the incor- porated territories, and if preference by this regulation of commerce which we complain of may be given to the ports Of the states over the ports of the territories, it is evidence that by force of the same logic revenue pref erence may also be given. To con- cede that this can be done is to con- cede that congress may enact laws charging a special duty on merchant disc imported into Alaska. It con- cedes more; it comedies that no part of Section g or article 1 of the con- stitution protects Alaska or Hawaii.
 That same section provides that mo tax or duty shall be levied on articles exported from any state" If this does not apply as we'll to an in- corporated territory. it is obvious that congress may levy an export tax on goods shipped out of Alaska as well as a tax on goods shipped into Alaska. In spite of the fact that the constitution has been ex- pressly extended to Alaska, it is now contended by the government in Washington that the limitation upon the power of congress, as expressed in that document, is imperative to protect the people of Alaska and Ha- waii.
 Personally, I think the question was settled in our favor in the so- called "insular cases" involving the status of the possessions acquired from Spain in 1898, and in a subse- Ouent case which was annao1od fron,