vene nsti Hele y as ion, eral Now that is a very strong statement to make. I fully realize that some one would want to know how I can justify it. In considering the autonomy of a new country, many factors enter into it, and they must be given very serious consideration and the conclusions arrived at from a practical standpoint rather than a sentimental one. The fact is well known that I am very sentimental so far as Alaska is concerned, because I might have left it long ago. I am sometimes referred to as an absentee landlord and, therefore, one which should not have the privilege of appearing before your committee to say what should be done and what should not be done for the welfare of Alaska. I have no interest elsewhere, and I have been in business in Alaska, starting in Nome in 1909, and have had offices in all four divisions of Alaska. I have had an opportunity to study it. I know its people. I know its industry. I know its tremendous potential wealth. And no one in this room will challenge me when I say there is no one here with a greater interest for the welfare of Alaska than I have. However, in considering the subject of statehood, I am rather convinced no noncontiguous territory should ever be made a State under the United States. It is not we don't wish to be on a equal basis, but I think as a Commonwealth we would be considered on the same basis or level as any State. I have known Governor Muñoz-Marín of Puerto Rico for many years. I have communicated with him to ascertain whether or not the people of Puerto Rico felt they were inferior to the other citizens of the United States or if they were rated as second class. He said they do not. I have asked him for the benefits that have been derived in Puerto Rico by Commonwealth. Now we all know that taxes are essential and necessary in a country. The advocates of statehood are sometimes almost seditious in their statements when they cover the field of taxation without representation. They have some very exaggerated ideas on that. But under Commonwealth, if they wished full representation, full control of their fiscal affairs, under Commonwealth they will pay no Federal income tax as such, no tax whatever to the Federal Government in lieu of the present personal income tax. That has resulted in tremendous benefits to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. At one time I dabbled in the tuna industry, and I know that San Pedro is the tuna capital of the United States. Today, however, some of the big canning companies in California are erecting large canneries in Puerto Rico. The fish is caught in the Pacific off the Mexican coast in the Galapago Islands, transported through the canal to Puerto Rico, and there it is canned under the American flag, and the Atlantic seaboard is provided with tuna, and the canning companies pay no Federal income tax, are not assessed 52 percent of their profit as a corporation. So from a standpoint of the fiscal operation I approve Commonwealth. From another standpoint I approve commonwealth, and that is, this is the first time that detached segments of the United States have been considered eligible for statehood. We are now considering Alaska and Hawaii. Surely no one is opposed to statehood in principle. But once we take the detached noncontiguous territories of the United States and incorporate them under statehood, we have opened the gate from which we can never retreat-once a State, always a State. Then the next step-I am looking 50 years-Guam, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, which might change its status from a Commonwealth to a State, which could be done. But she can never revert from a State back to Commonwealth. Commonwealth is a step toward our future autonomy. Once we get detached segments of the United States under statehood, each of which will elect two United States Senators, we do not know how far that will go, nor how it will affect the future complexion of the United States Senate to consider all foreign treaties and pass on them. We may have States where the majority of the population are not of our race, not of our thinking, and do not have our psychology. There will be a psychological difference. I don't know but what some day 50 years from now Formosa may be a State of the United States, and neither does anyone else in the room know how far that will go when you admit noncontiguous territories. Mr. ABBOTT. On that point. You are not unaware, of course, of the distinction between the status of Hawaii and Alaska, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and some other areas. We have today only two incorporated Territories under the flag, and they are Hawaii and Alaska. The Supreme Court decisions suggest, and gentlemen of rather eminent legal and judicial stature have held, and hold, that the incorporation of a Territory, as is the case with Alaska and Hawaii, is merely a step, a transitional step, in that area becoming a State. There are those who argue there is only one direction you can go with a Territory-I am sure Delegate Bartlett has developed this on several occasions, and it has been included in the debate on statehood, of course. Further, it appears there is a constitutional question as to whether or not Alaska and Hawaii could, as some argue, go back to a lesser status than that which they now have, that of an incorporated Territory. This is a question, I am sure, that has not been fully resolved, but on the face of the record made to date, whether or not Congress could thrust upon Alaska, for example, a lesser status seems to be pretty firmly answered in the negative. Whether or not a majority of the people in the Territory could elect to reduce their own status. is perhaps not as firmly answered in the negative. The opinions which have been developed at the committee's request, including an attorney general of Hawaii opinion, and I believe with rather substantial backing in the Department of Justice, would hold that even if the people in the Territory wanted to revert, as it is viewed by Justice, I believe, they could not do so. It is a question that has not been finally resolved. It appears it would take a Supreme Court decision if the issue is squarely raised. Mr. LOMEN. I certainly appreciate the legal status, Mr. Abbott, of which I know very little. I regret exceedingly that my father, who occupied that bench there for a number of years, is not here to give legal advice free, gratis, for nothing. Now when I get it from you for nothing I doubly appreciate it." However, in spite of those difficulties, I am here to state what I would like to see accomplished for Alaska, and it is not to reduce Alaska that I have in mind. have State, Fuam, om a never is a ents two nor ate not gy. me es, go Se, to S. d t. 3. And while I am on the subject of commonwealth, maybe I can extend it a little further, Let us assume that statehood is the only choice we have, or not statehood. Then I say, as we did with Florida, as we did with the Louisiana Purchase, as we did with the Oregon Territory, and as we did with the Washington Territory, we partitioned them when they became States. We reduced their area. So I will join the statehood group for the moment, and then for the benefit of statehood, when and if, I propose a partition, and I propose that that area north of the Yukon River, Yukon, and Porcupine, with a cutoff some place into Bristol Bay, everything north of that line would be out of the State of Alaska for the present time. Mr. BARTLETT. Could I interrupt there? Mr. LOMEN. Yes. Mr. BARTLETT. What would you have that classified as, the area north of the Yukon-as a territory? Mr. LOMEN. I have advocated, and I have before me a pamphlet which many of you have seen. It is called, A Suggestion for the Reorganization of Alaska in Anticipation of Statehood. That was prepared by Grant Jackson and myself. I think it has some arguments in it in favor of the partition of the vast Territory. Now, the Territory of Alaska is equal to Washington or California, Texas, and Delaware in size. That is a very large area to be supervised by a State, which-I don't know the population of Alaska. It changes so rapidly. We have 128,000, 1 figure, and it goes to 155,000, and including the Army I don't know where it stops. But the 1950 census, which is now antiquated except for the second division-the density of population in the first division was 82 per 100 square miles. The second division, which is where we are now is 8.4 people living in each 100 square miles. The third division had 41.9, and the fourth division had 11.6. Now the area of the first division is only 34,000 miles, plus, of the third division, 142,000. The fourth division has a land area of 247,000 square miles. The State of Texas has 265,000 plus. Now when we talk of statehood we must consider this vast area, which is unpopulated, 8.4 per 100 square miles in the second division, and that figure has not changed much since the 1950 census. I would say that the State-let's assume it will be a State for legal reasons. I would still favor the other. Let's assume it would be a State. That vast portion of Alaska, with such a limited population, is going to be a tremendous burden, and the statehood people would be better off if they could leave our portion of Alaska as is and then let it eventually, when and if it is ever qualified for statehood, join the State of Alaska. And that should be provided in the statehood bill. Otherwise, we would have two States. Texas had the privilege of becoming five States when they entered our Union, and it is a very fortunate thing that they have never decided to take advantage of it. So we would have one State of Alaska eventually. I am not going to take more time. I would like to talk longer, but I know this committee knows much more about it than I do, and our very good friend, Mr. Abbott, has given us the legal position which confronts me and which probably eliminates many of my arguments. However, the people who make the laws are sitting here, and there are ways of making the concession to grant to us an autonomy that is best for our economy and by which we will lose none of our patriotic spirit and patriotic citizens from the United States. I certainly don't want to become a citizen of a foreign country, but I know we will have every consideration, and this group knows how to accomplish what they think should be done for us. These are the doctors and we are the patients. Mr. DAWSON. you did not fully answer the question as to what would become of this Territory up here. Would it continue as a Territory or would you have some plan worked out where it might be in the commonwealth status? Mr. LOMEN. This little pamphlet suggests it become a district, which, according to Mr. Abbott's interpretation of the law, might be impossible. Mr. DAWSON. Under that theory, would that make you exempt from Federal income tax up in this area? Mr. LOMEN. It probably would. Mr. DAWSON. Then my answer to that would be that all the people from Fairbanks and other parts of Alaska would flock up here to establish their businesses to get away from Federal income taxes, and then you would become so big you would necessarily have to be a State. Mr. LOMEN. My answer to that: Las Vegas is still getting the gamblers but not getting the population. Mrs. GREEN. May I say both Mr. McNees and Mr. Lomen have referred to the fact of noncontiguous territory. I would like to make this statement for the record: When my own State of Oregon came in in 1859 it was noncontiguous to the United States. That is also true, I think, with Mr. Utt's State of California: It was a noncontiguous Territory. So it is not the first time. It does not set a precedent. Mr. LOMEN. It was within the continental United States, with the potential of absorbtion. I do not recall my geography well enough, nor my history well enough, to know who was contiguous to California. Spain to California. And what was contiguous to Oregon? Only Canada. Mrs. GREEN. Unoccupied territory. Mr. LOMEN. What bounded it on the south and east? Mr. UTT. May I correct the record. California was never a Territory. Mrs. GREEN. I beg your pardon. I might also say, as far as closeness to the United States, in 1955, with our telephone and telegraph and airplanes, it seems to me that the Territory of Alaska is much closer to Washington and to the United States than the Territory of Oregon was in 1859 when it took weeks for transportation or transportation of messages, either one. Mr. LOMEN. Mrs. Green, no one is more aware of that than I am. It took me 29 days by dog team to reach Fairbanks. Mr. ABBOTT. Öne gentleman who opposed the admission of Oregon into the Union was perhaps a more enthusiastic opponent than he was a geographer, since he observed that because it would take 405 days to make a round trip from Oregon that the people elected from there would either never get to Washington or never get home. Others have guessed before on the effects of distance from the 48 States to the seat of government. Mr. LOMEN. May I inject for Mrs. Green, particularly, my wife's mother and father arrived in Oregon in a covered wagon. Mr. O'BRIEN. May the Chair comment on something that strikes him. We have had two witnesses and they have disagreed on statehood. I cannot help but admire the calmness and the reasoning with which people of diverse views here present the subject. It is quite a contrast from some of the things we see in Washington. I may say to Mr. Lomen, whether we agree with you or not, you are in very distinguished company in the opposition to statehood, not particularly for Alaska. I have before me a statement by a man named Daniel Webster in 1845, when he told the Senate in opposition to the entry of Texas: A very dangerous tendency of doubtful consequence to enlarge the boundaries of this Government. There must be some limit to the extent of our territory if we are to make our institutions permanent. The Government is very likely to be endangered, in my opinion, by a further enlargement of its already vast territorial surface. Josiah Quincy, of Massachusetts, in 1819, opposed the admission of Alabama, saying: You have no authority to throw the rights and properties of the people into the hotchpotch with the wild men on the Missouri. So you see you are in very distinguished company this morning. Mr. LOMEN. Mr. O'Brien, I think there is no one better versed in differences of opinion than the members of this committee, because I have had the privilege of sitting in the gallery of the House when you were most courteous to the opposition, but you could have killed him. Mr. BARTLETT. A question or two, if I may, Mr. Chairman. Mr. O'BRIEN. Mr. Bartlett. Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Lomen, you are aware, of course, that the establishment of Commonwealth status in Puerto Rico brought no Federal tax benefits at all, are you not? Mr. LOMEN. I know that. Mr. BARTLETT. The truth is that Mr. LOMEN. Or did it bring any penalty. Mr. BARTLETT. The truth is, though, that no income tax ever applied to Puerto Rico. Commonwealth didn't cause any difference in the Federal tax situation in Puerto Rico at all. Is that correct? Mr. LOMEN. I think that is correct. But may I inject at this point, though, that the present Governor of Hawaii and the Governor of Alaska, I think, are asking for a 20-year tax vacation, and that is not an argument in favor of statehood. Mr. BARTLETT. No; the Governor of Hawaii did not make the request. The Governor of Alaska did. I saw nothing from the Governor of Hawaii. Mr. LOMEN. He declined? Mr. BARTLETT. He takes no position so far as I know. Mr. Lomen, you are aware of the fact that even under Commonwealth status, Puerto Rico remains under the control and authority of the United States Congress and tomorrow all these tax concessions could be ended by the Congress if it so willed. In fact, one Senator |