Imágenes de páginas
[ocr errors]

endum. It was frightening, but it was my responsibility. I do not believe in referendums on everything that comes up.

Miss STUART. Would you be against a referendum for Alaska? Mr. O'BRIEN. To have a referendum at this time, yes; but I think it would be a further excuse for the undue delay in statehood.

Miss STUART. Is it not possible that it would even help the proponents of statehood to get their point across by getting more than 10,000 people?

Mrs. GREEN. Mr. Chairman

Mr. O'BRIEN. No; I do not. I think if your legislature provided for a referendum the opponents of statehood in Congress would use that as another excuse for some more years of delay.

Mrs. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, may I state my complete agreement with your statement. I feel it is delaying tactics. I feel it is an expensive procedure, and I personally would oppose it.

Miss STUART. Thank you, Mrs. Green. However, I do believe it is wiser to get your compass direction before you start rushing somewhere, and I do know there are people who disagree with it. There are some people who want Territory, some who want Commonwealth, some who want statehood divided, some who want statehood intact; and I think everyone of them has a right to express their opinion by a yote on those questions which have not all come up in other referendums on statehood in general.

Mr. O'Brien. May the Chair say, while it is evident that some of the members of the committee disagree, we do not disagree with your right to do what you are doing. You have a perfect right as a citizen to go out and get as many signatures as you can. So please do not misunderstand the committee.

Miss STUART. I just read a little book which said if every individual would take an interest in their government and do their best on everything that concerns them, that possibly it would become government of the people rather than government of the minority or pressure groups. That is what I try to do.

Mr. Dawson. I would like to add a word to what the chairman has said. I think the lady should be commended for coming up and making a statement of this type. Even though we may not agree with you, you are certainly espousing a cause which is rather unpopular, and you are to be commended for coming before the committee and presenting these views even though some may not agree with them. Mr. BARTLETT. That goes for me too, Alice. Miss Stuart. Thank you. Mr. O'BRIEN. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. O'Brien. Back on the record. Mr. ABBOTT. Mr. Humphrey. State your full name, please.


Mr. HUMPHREY. My name is William Hunphrey. I live in Fairbanks

, Alaska. I am presently majoring in accounting at the University of Washington and hope eventually to go to law school there. There are two different things I want to speak about. First is the matter of statehood, the way I think would be easiest

to get it.

I believe that the Democrats and Republicans alike should unite on support of statehood for Hawaii first before Alaska statehood and not make a partisan issue of it. For this reason

Mr. O'BRIEN. Why do you select Hawaii first? Mr. HUMPHREY. Why? Because the administration endorses it. There is not so much-I'm afraid if Alaska is either joined with Hawaii or passes before Hawaii it would be vetoed by the President and there wouldn't be enough votes in Congress to override the veto.

Mr. O'BRIEN. Do you realize that at the recent session the debate indicated there was more opposition to Hawaii? Certainly there were greater attacks on statehood for Hawaii than for Alaska.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I still feel if the northern Democrats and Republicans would unite in supporting Hawaiian statehood it would pass, and Alaska statehood would be indirectly benefited in this way. All arguments, including those of national defense, would be answered by the admission of Hawaii.

Mr. O'BRIEN. Would that not be true if it were reversed? Would not Hawaii get in if Alaska got statehood?

Mr. HUMPHREY. That would possibly be true, but you have to think about getting enough votes for overriding Eisenhower's veto.

Mr. O'BRIEN. That is an important point. Ofhand I cannot think of an immediate answer to that.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Another reason, too. I feel also, if the Republicans and Democrats do join together in voting for statehood that the southern Democrats would not appreciate it very well and might cause some harm on the voting coalition of the southern Democrats and Republicans. The southern Democrats, in retaliation against Republicans voting for Hawaii statehood, would support northern Democrats and would have enough votes in Congress along with the liberal Republicans to get Alaska statehood passed by itself even over President Eisenhower's veto.

Mr. Urt. I would like to know upon what grounds you base the fact the President would veto an Alaska statehood bill.

Mr. HUMPHREY. It has been hinted and rumored he has opposed it on the grounds of national defense.

Mr. Uit. I do not know of any flat statement the administration would veto such a bill.

Mr. HUMPHREY. But there has been no active support of Alaska statehood from the administration. I happen to be a Republican myself. There has not been active support for Alaska statehood by the administration as there was before Eisenhower was President. For some reason, not openly, they are quietly trying to smother Alaska statehood.

Mr. O'BRIEN. Of course, that occurred before the present administration, that smothering process.

Mr. HUMPHREY. The administration right now, I say, is quietly trying to smother the Alaska statehood bill, I believe.

Mr. O'Brien. Then you suggest that the Republicans and the Democrats get together, which is quite an accomplishment to start with, and we support statehood for Hawaii on the assumption that if Hawaii gets in Alaska will have to come in?

Mr. HUMPHREY. I believe it would not have to come in, but it will come in, not only for the moral reason that if Hawaii has statehood Alaska should have also, but it will break up the coalition of conserva

[ocr errors]


tive Republicans and southern Democrats. I am sure every southern Democrat will vote for Alaska statehood if Hawaii comes in as a State, because I really don't see how they could work longer with the Eisenhower administration and forgive them for supporting the successful admission of Hawaii as a State with the high colored population, which is well known in the South where white supremacy comes from.

(Discussion off the record.) Mr. O'BRIEN. We did not get statehood under a Democratic President either.

Mr. HUMPHREY. That was because of the southern Democrat coalition with the Republicans.

Mr. Dawson. They are still there.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I mean, I have tried to bring out that I don't
think they would support the Eisenhower administration in opposing
Alaska statehood after Hawaii comes in.

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, strictly in an individual capacity, you understand, I am not prepared to say on the spur of the moment that I want to dispute any of Mr. Humphrey's statements or to quarrel with his proposed strategy, reserving a right to do either at a later date, of course.

Mr. Dawson. I want to say I agree with him, too. I think the powers that be know what they are doing, but if we could vote on these issues separately both of them would get in a lot easier and a lot quicker.

Mr. O'BRIEN. I think that is probably true. It is a question of whether the chicken or the egg will come first, though, Mr. Dawson. I would be perfectly willing to vote separately if we could vote first on Alaska.

Mr. Dawson. That would be up to the people who control the
Congress to decide which bill is going to come up first. The Demo-
crats control the Congress, let us vote out each separately and let the
Rules Committee decide which one is going to come first. Leave it
up to them.

Mr. O'BRIEN. What has been the history of a separate statehood
Mr. Dawson. Counsel could probably explain that.

Mr. Abbott. Those who take a dim view of it feel that the Houses alternate in passing bills. The Alaska statehood bill has passed the

A majority of the Senators in the United States Senate today, a very slight majority, voted for the joint Alaska and Hawaii statehood biil in the s3d Congress.

There is one avenue of approach, perhaps a last remaining combination, that has been observed that Hawaii statehood has been approved under a Democratic President with a Democratic Congress, under a Democratic President with a Republican Congress, under a Republican President with a Republican Congress, and the only remaining combination--and the one that presently exists-is that of a Republican President and a Democratic Congress. One additional possible approach to the House Rules Committee might be sought, and that is to take both bills, in two separate bills, and seek what might be called a joint rule, or a "consecutive resolution," so that you would devote 4 hours of debate to Alaska, at which time you would vote, and included in the same resolution, devote 4 hours debate to

House once.

Hawaii, so there would be assurance that members would have an opportunity to express themselves in the same general period, with assurance that both would be offered to them.

The statute books and the precedents have been explored at great length to determine what might be the most logical way to present the two statehood bills.

Did you have another point you wish to make?

Mr. HUMPHREY. Regarding what I feel is the wasting of Government money on Federal contracts.

I was employed for about 2 weeks this year beginning I think-I don't have a calendar with me-beginning the Monday following the 18th of August and ending Saturday before last, and working for the Tuttle Engineering Corp. They have a contract with the Corps of Engineers here and in Anchorage. I don't know whether it is negotiated or bid type contract, but it is to do almost all of the surveying for them, field surveying.

We understand that the Government has to pay Tuttle so much money for each employee, and Tuttle passes the money on to the employee and collects a profit, which is all right.

Tuttle is not union like most of the other contractors.

I went to work for Tuttle this last time. Although I was taken into and required to work in not only Ladd Air Force Base but even restricted areas, I was not given a pass of any kind, security pass of any kind. I could just as well have been a Russian spy. I could have gone in, have made drawings from memory or found out vital defense information. There was no security check whatsoever as is

. run on Federal employees. I think the same is true of other employees.

Also, as far as working is concerned, they worked on the bases, were paid to work about 9 hours a day but worked, particularly where I worked, about 4 hours out of the day. At other times they just sit in the car or play baseball on the baseball diamond Saturday afternoon. Saturday afternoon before Labor Day they played baseball for about an hour, and then I saw a football game.

We were told we were going to work on Labor Day. I think-I am not sure though-there is a requirement that the contractors are supposed to pay their employees double time, but I was so informed we were not to get double time. I am not saying this was an issue or not, but I wanted to take Labor Day off to be with my parents. The following morning I was called rather that night I was called on the telephone and told I was done. I asked why and they said I was too lazy and incompetent. I don't know whether that is true or not.

The point I am trying to get across is that Congress should more closely investigate and supervise the money being appropriated for defense projects up here. There might be quite a bit of boondoggery. I don't know. You hear of all of this money spent on defense contracts up here. As far as employment of military labor at places like Aniak-is that Aniak, Bob?

Mr. BARTLETT. It might be one of them. I have not heard of that particular one.


[ocr errors]

Mr. HUMPHREY. Some Air Force base in southwestern Alaska. Also military stevedoring at Whittier. I think that should be stopped also.



Mr. O'Brien. Thank you very much, Mr. Humphrey. h

I might say that this concludes

Mr. ABBOTT. One item, Mr. Chairman, a letter from a Mrs.
Carrighar, which may presage a written statement to follow, to be
made a part of the record at this time, expressing her views briefly.
There may be others. With that observation it is suggested that
October 15 be set as the cutoff date for submission of any written
statements, either commenting on testimony given orally, or addi-
tional written statements by individuals who may wish to submit
them directly to the committee. Simply address them to the House
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, United States Congress,
Washington 25, D. C.
(The letter referred to follows:)

FAIRBANKS, September 14, 1955.
Mr. George ABBOTT,
Congressional Subcommittee on Territories and Insular Possessions,

Nordale Hotel, Fairbanks, Alaska.
Dear Sir: Recently a conference was held in Fairbanks to discuss the health,
education, and welfare of Alaskas natives.

Sixty-one persons attended for 3 days. Except for special-interest groups from Fairbanks, such as the chamber of commerce delegates, these persons were there because of their personal interest in the natives. Those from out of town had paid their own plane fares to attend. They were welfare workers, physicians, nurses, traders, missionaries, people who have had daily contact with native problems. Among these professionals there was virtual unanimity as to what should be done.

Their opinions, as expressed on the floor and in the resolutions, differed greatly from those of the chamber of commerce representatives. You doubtless will hear the chamber of commerce arguments, chiefly the proposal that more of the natives be moved to large cities like Fairbanks--that they be enticed to move, that is, through the placement of schools. The conference as a whole opposed this plan. May I come and explain briefly the reasons why? They are based on the temperament and present development of the natives, traits you will not have time to observe on your brief trip through Alaska.

I have lived for 7 years among the Eskimos, have written extensively about them in the Saturday Evening Post, and am now preparing a book about them, What I hope to present to your committee, however, are not my own opinions but those of the majority of delegates to the conference, at which I was a member of the resolutions committee.

We have been told that the Bureau of Indian Affairs will soon present new plans to Congress involving the Alaska natives, and we hope that your consideration of these plans will not be based on a one-sided picture. Sincerely yours,

SALLY CARRIGHAR. Mr. O'BRIEN. I might say I think we have had 10 or 11 hours of hearings here. I am sure the other members of the committee agree with me that they have been most instructive. The witnesses have been very cooperative, and I am sure from what we have heard here and learned here we can all approach the problems of Alaska in a better way than we have in the past.

I would like to place in the record the gratitude of the committee to the Carpenters Union No. 1243 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America for permitting us to use this hall for our hearings.

The committee will now stand adjourned subject to call of the Chair. (The following statement was subsequently submitted for inclusion

in the record:)

« AnteriorContinuar »