The Daily Alaska empire., 1938-01-21
THE ALASKA PLAN

The hurredy drawn and widely heralded Alaska plan has been presented to Congress summary of the report appearing in yesterdays Empire The suggested plan was transmitted by the President in keeping with the resolution passed the last regular session asking the Chief Executive to submit such a program. The work prepared under the direction of the National Resources Committee of which Secre- tary Harold L. Ickes of the Interior Department is Chairman and actually drawn by the Alaska Re- Committee of which Carl L. Alsberg of Cali forna was chairman end which also included Paul w Gordon in charge of Alaska affairs in the Division of Territories and Island Possessons B. F. Heintzle man. Regional Forester and member of the Alaska Planning Council Charles Mckinley of Oregon and George F. Yantis of Washington state
 In considering the report members of Congress,
 like every else, will have to accept obvious fact. The plan gotten together in hurry in order to be ready for the session of Congress and the result proves it. As the committee which prepared the report honestly states much essential information still lacking for Alaska that it would not have been able to set up an adequate plan even if the necessary time had been available"
 The committee goes on to explain further: This task, have just explained, ought to be entrusted to a permanent Alaska planning agency the member ship of which reflects Territorial and national in- terests Therefore, it would appear that the Alaska Planning Council, composed of Alaska men, who also have the duty of protecting Federal interests the natural and logical group to draw up long time development plan for Alaska which would mean something to the Territory, for it must be admitted that the hastily drawn plan which was offered to Congr7-s yesterday is of practical value to the krerriory As ~,-.c. of fact if put into operation it probably would prove more detrimental to Alaska than beneficial However, it might be of value in drafting an adequate plan it does contain some features which are mertorous such the sugges- tions for roads air service expansion and per- haps revision of the taxation system.
 But on the whole the supmtJeu pan is not an Alaska development program. Its very tone is anti development study of the complete report reveals that the committee of the theory that Alaska should be kept as reserve for future needs. At the very beginning of the report find this statement from Henry A. Wallace. Secretary of Agriculture member of the National Resources Committee:
 Fortunately the federal government is in control of the greater part of Alaska. An uncontrolled ex- poltatlon of the resources can be prevented Since most of the resources owned by the Federal gov ernment there is no necessity for rapid liquidation of investment as is the case in most parts of the continental United States where resources are in private ownership If Alaska should be regarded primarily great reservoir of resources available for future use it would as if that balance which should be major feature of sound planning would best be realized In Alaska the rapid development policies dominant in the United States should be sbalanced by a policy of preservation I think the report does not sufficiently emphasize this point of view
 Alaskans will not agree with Secretary Wallace particularly his last sentence for study the report reveals that the conservation point of view has been over-emphasized rather than not sufficiently empha sized as MT Wallace suggests For example we find this in the report
 has the national interest does not demand forced de- velopment of Alaska There is no pressure of popu- latlon, lack of raw materials trade in the United States that demand exceptional measures. Further more the committee has reached the conclusion that { the economy of Alaska cannot be based on farming the usual basis for settlement of new countries"
 There obviously, is anti Alaska development slant The committee apparently not consider ing the development of the Territory part of the United States. Rather appeared to be considering development of the United States and how Alaska would fit into the picture foster that development In other words Alaska was being played as the ace m the hole in general planning program for con- tnental United States. If there was need for the ace it might be used If not needed just keep { it in reserve for further reference
 Everyone will admit that the economy of Alaska IS not based on agriculture. Then why did the com smttee consider Alaska development from that basis? Why did it not consider the economy based on min- erals resources timber pulp and paper furs fish, cries and the industries which actually make up the Alaska base?
 The only apparent conclusion is found in those words of Secretary Wallace again fortunately the Federal government is in greater part of Alaska"
 Indeed it is. And the point glean from the committees report is that it urges upon the President and Congress to keep it that way Of course. we all know. including Secretary Wallace and the Ma