Mr. HINCHEY. I did not. It is a good question. It is a good question. I do not have the entire information on the construction of the Canso causeway in Nova Scotia. It is one-quarter of a mile shorter than ours, and the rock is a little closer, I would say somewhat closer, than the rock that we will require to put in our causeway, and it is a little heavier rock per cubic foot, which makes a difference, and it is Canadian money that did the job. But I have estimated between 25 and 30 million dollars for this causeway, with all the trimmings. I would like to have that figure contested by engineers and see what their thinking is, too. Mrs. ProST. I wanted to ask Mr. Hinchey, do you find any local opposition to the Knik Arm Causeway?

Mr. HINCHEY. I have one contender, a very qualified engineer, who stipulates that as far as he is concerned there is only one thing that he could object to, and that is the quality of the rock that would be obtained in the immediate area for the fill. He is a dear friend of mine, and I don't know that he is not needling me to more action. But he is the only contender.

Mrs. PrOST. Do you find any opposition to the highway system that you recommend to send through the town of McGrath, Bristol Bay and on to None?

Mr. HINCHEY. I find rather than that very much interest by the local road-building group, the Alaska Road Commission. It seems that before the administration in Washington changed there were specific plans which presently are in what you call File 13 plans to build a road from the present Willow Road at Willow over the headwaters of many streams and into the McGrath area, from there to Naknek and Bristol Bay, and from there on to Nome. I have seen, off the record, those drawings and plans.

Now, the reason that these people are not adverse to this road problem is that in getting to one place on Susitna River chiefly, that is known as Old Susitna Station, where there is some bedrock to cross with the span bridge. They can cross all of the streams except one, which has already been crossed. It is cheaper to cross with 1 bridge instead of 8 or 10.

Mrs. PrOST. Do you have any idea at this time what the construction of that road will cost together with the bridges?

Mr. HINCHEY. I have included in my thinking that the Alaska Road Commission might like to put about a million and a half dollars of their money into the construction of the causeway, because it has often been said that some road miles cost a million dollars. This causeway is exactly a mile and a half long, and were they to surface the causeway and pave it, it could be worth a million and a half.

Mr. ABBOTT. Mr. Hinchey, on page 3 of your statement, you make the statement:

The Alaska Railroad could be rerouted over a more direct route to Fairbanks into the Northland.

Is there a more direct route between Anchorage and Fairbanks than the one that the railroad presently follows?

Mr. HINCHEY. I can answe: that question specifically this way: Colonel Mears was an aggressive and progressive individual

Mr. ABBOTT. Who is he?

Mr. HINCHEY. He was the colonel in charge of the Alaska Railroad as is Mr. Whitman. He asked this same Mr. Anderson, who is

71498-56-pt. 2- -19

presently today the track's roads engineer, to give him an estimate of how much material it would take and how much it would cost to cross at this particular point [indicating]. At that time, as you can probably realize, the economy would never have paid the cost of crossing, if it cost 15 or 20 million, on that standard of cost, because there wan't enough saving to be acquired. There is a 30-mile difference between the direct route to the Pitman section line and the present route up the Matanuska-Knik Arm on this side, crossing the Matanuska River and the Knik River on bridges and making a rather right-angle turn to the west before the railroad continues to the north. One of these maps should show you that.

Mr. ABROTT. You heard the testimony, perhaps, of Mr. Whitman, which is actually repetitious of that which is contained in appropriation measures over the years, that $164 million had been directly pumped into the Alaska Railroad by the Congress.

Mr. HINCHEY. Right.

Mr. ABBOTT. Do you have any idea what it would cost to reroute the Alaska Railroad?

Mr. HINCHEY. There is a figure in this area floating about of $500,000 a mile. But I got a letter from a qualified engineer, who is presently in Washington and who is interrogating engineering factors, and he is going to compile this particular brief for me. And in his letter he stated that it should not cost by all reasonable estimates over $100,000 a mile over this particular roadbed.

Mr. ABBOTT. Translated into total cost, what would that be? Mr. HINCHEY. Thirty miles. It would be about 30 miles. You see it is 52 miles by the present route.

Mr. ABBOTT. You are just proposing this cutoff?

Mr. HINCHEY. Just the cutoff.

Mr. ABBOTT. Then with that, accompanying that, the Alaska Railroad could quite likely suffer a net profit over present operations? Mr. HINCHEY. Yes.

Mr. ABBOTT. That would result from the difference in mileage and the type of terrain over which it crosses?

Mr. HINCHEY. That is not entirely the whole thing. The Alaska Railroad spends many thousands of dollars a year to maintain the south run. As you realize, the south run is presently in a snow belt. Whittier had 90 feet of snow last winter, and it is a hard terminal to maintain, although it is an ice-free port, as the military demanded it should be. But the passes coming in from Seward and over the run are rather hard to maintain. The maintenance costs are far less per mile in the north field from Anchorage north because there is very little snow. It is a railroad climate.

Mr. ABBOTT. Without prolonging this, if the military pulled out tomorrow, would you nevertheless recommend this?

Mr. HINCHEY. Very definitely and in spite of that.

Mr. ABBOTT. Would you particularly recommend it if the military pulled out?

Mr. HINCHEY. Very, very definitely, sir. You see, we have no civil economy to speak of. We have fisheries, we have timber, we have had mining, we have had venture capital, but presently we do

not.

Mr. ABBOTT. From your presentation-perhaps the question I asked was leading because, from the form of your presentation it

would complement the military with existing military installations. But in the absence of military installations, on your approach to it, it would appear it was your position it would then be dictated.

Mr. HINCHEY. The reason I predict it should be built now is because it is timely to be built at this present time and never has been before. The question came up in the testimony yesterday, Why did you spend the money in Whittier? It was too premature. But there has been many millions of dollars, over $300 million, spent in western Alaska area for military installations, and the basic cornerstone has not ever been applied to low cost transportation.

Mr. ABBOTT. Has any thought been given to making this a toll section to help retire the cost?

Mr. HINCHEY. Quite a little, sir, but I am afraid it won't amortize it as fast as other amortizations will. You see this project can be amortized in savings to civilian and military, and mostly the military. Mr. ABBOTT. I believe that is all.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. UTT. I would like to make a motion that hearings be held here tomorrow and that the chairman be authorized to sit as a committee of one and take testimony and propound such questions as he desires.

Mr. DAWSON. Second.

Mr. O'BRIEN. The motion has been made and seconded. All in favor say "aye."

The "ayes" bave it and it is so ordered.

Mr. ABBOTT. The record should show, Mr. Chairman, that the motion carried unanimously.

Mr. O'BRIEN. I might explain we had hoped to proceed much more rapidly than we did. It is not the fault of the witnesses; we just had too many witnesses. And Anchorage is by far the largest population center. As much as the chairman would like to see the territory that will be covered tomorrow, I have developed an affection for Anchorage and I am going to stay here tomorrow while the other very distinguished members go out and have hearings elsewhere.

If it is agreeable, the hour of 6:17 having arrived, I think that we will conclude with one very brief witness, a gentleman from Homer. I might explain that we were to have gone to Homer Sunday, but because of travel conditions, flying conditions, I believe we will not be able to go to Homer. So we would like to have the gentleman from Homer, if he is here, Mr. Smith, testify briefly.

As for other people from Anchorage who care to testify, we will have another hearing at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. I hope we can conclude by noon.

Mr. ABBOTT. It might be pointed out, Mr. Chairman, that the Air Force transportation which will be used by the committee is a C-54 aircraft, and that because of the distance going east over open waters, it will be necessary to use that C-54, and it would be impossible or at least a calculated risk too great to take to go in.

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Hinchey, I want you to know my failure to ask any questions should not be taken as lack of interest in your presentation.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. O'BRIEN. I will say to Mr. Hinchey that the committee realizes that you poured a great deal of your energy and thought and civic

concern into this program and that the committee will give it most earnest consideration. Our only regret is that we didn't have the opportunity to hear you earlier in the day when we could have battered you a bit with some questions.

Mr. HINCHEY. You will get all of the answers in the brief, sir, and I hope I am welcome when I come to Washington with the brief, as I told you last year, to hand-carry it through Congress, the survey begun, and get the money on the second trip, and 21⁄2 years from now drop the first rocks in.

Mr. O'BRIEN. Miracles have happened.

Mr. HINCHEY. That is a miracle, but I am planning on it. (Discussion off the record.)

Mr. O'BRIEN. Is Mr. Smith here?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. BARTLETT. I should say, Mr. Chairman, as Mr. Smith approaches, that he did not at all request the opportunity to appear, although I know he has talked on behalf of Homer for a long time. But I suggested to Mr. Smith we would like to have him up here so we could express personally our regret for the decision made that we could not put into Homer on account of the size of the aircraft. Mr. SMITH. Being it is a gravel field.

Mr. O'BRIEN. I hope you will convey to the good people of Homer our sincere regrets.

Mr. SMITH. I will, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. O'BRIEN. Proceed with your statement.

STATEMENT OF MR. SMITH, HOMER, ALASKA

Mr. SMITH. As long as I am here and have this opportunity, the next time you hear in the House of Cook Inlet interim report by the district engineers, which includes this particular boat-harbor project at Homer, as is on this map, you will maybe consider it with favor. We have this past winter locally subscriptions put in the bank of about $5,500 of the townspeople's money, half from business and half from fishermen, to use in some direction toward that boat harbor, either to start scratching out a little puddle for ourselves or for appurtenances which will be required if this run which was reported by the district engineers in that report becomes a reality.

Mr. O'BRIEN. I assure you, Mr. Smith, if we see that report, we will be most sympathetic and we will remember you are the man who permitted us to have our dinner by 6:30.

Mr. SMITH. Thanks a lot.

Mr. BARTLETT. I have certain statements handed to me with request that they be placed in the record. I have a statement from Charles Jones, a wonderful oldtimer, who was born in Texas 82 years ago, who is for statehood now, and his wife, Eleanor Jones.

I also have a statement from Irene E. Ryan, graduate mining engineer of the University of New Mexico. Likewise a statement from Joseph M. Czaplinski.

Without objection, the several communications will be made a part of the record, and the hearing will now adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

(The statements referred to follow:)

STATEHOOD Now! PROGRESS DEMANDS IT

This demand is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.

Alaskans long have desired the right of the measures set forth in the preamble of the Constitution of the United States, "To assume among the powers of the other States, equal station to which they are entitled.'

To this end a constitutional convention has been called; delegates to this convention have been elected, by the people of Alaska.

These delegates will, together, plan and shape a constitution fitting and applicable to the needs of the State of Alaska, and the tremendous development that will follow as our potential is explored, not exploited.

We welcome new enterprises and industries, and the thousands of new people who will come, build their homes and live among us.

Our thriving cities are a demonstration of the caliber of the people who are working and praying for statehood.

Foreign countries receive aid, encouragement and advice without asking from official Washington, D. C., in their attempt of self-government. We, too, would appreciate a crumb of consideration in our struggle for a right, long withheld. ELEANOR JONES.

FOR STATEHOOD NOW

I was born in Texas, 82 years ago.

I have lived in Alaska 20 years.

I have lived in the interior as a driller at different times, and in Skagway, Haines, and Palmer in construction work.

I own a home in Anchorage and other property in the vicinity of Anchorage.
Great changes have come to Alaska; I have watched our cities grow.
Alaska has outgrown the Organic Act, and government by long range.

The 22d legislature proved that outside interests are crippling Alaska's development.

I was doorman in the Senate that session. We must have home rule and government.

Statehood is the answer.

CHARLES G. JONES,
Anchorage, Alaska,

STATEMENT OF IRENE E. RYAN

Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee of the United States Congress, my name is Mrs. John E. (Irene) Ryan. I am a member of the Territorial legislature having served in the house during the last session. I am a registered engineer, a housewife, and a mother. We have made Anchorage, Alaska, our home for the past 14 years. I am pleading today for statehood for Alaska.

"Mother may I go out to swim

Yes, my darling daughter,

Hang your clothes on a hickory limb,

But don't go near the water."

This nonsense verse from childhood days points up the relationship and situation of the people of Alaska under the Federal Government. On the one hand we are urged to develop our country, on the other hand you, the Congress of the United States, retain to yourselves the tools with which we can accomplish that development. The previous cycles of interest and immigration from the States to this land have all ebbed, taking away from our storehouse of resources without leaving any development or social improvement in the Territory anywhere comparable to the total wealth that has been poured into the United States economy.

A conservation policy that locks tight the doors is not the answer. Nor is the granting of special privileges and protection to pressure groups. To compound the difficulties encountered in pioneering and building homes and industries where natural conditions of terrain and climate are difficult the Alaskan citizen is