STATEMENTS OF JULES RADINSKY AND ERNEST HARDING,

KODIAK, ALASKA

Mr. HARDING. My name is Ernest Harding. I have lived in Kodiak for approximately 3 years and am working as local insurance agent here at the present time.

Mr. RADINSKY. My name is Jules Radinsky, a resident of Alaska for the past 6 years. This is my home.

I would like to present our few words on behalf on perhaps the most important subject that has been brought up today, and that is the subject of statehood.

I am sure by this time that the committee has heard considerable on the subject of statehood, and from the very generous remarks made by Congresswoman Pfost, Congressmen O'Brien, Sisk, and Utt, we feel we definitely have friends who are, let us say, sympathetic in the cause of what is going on in Alaska.

In every instance that testimony has been given here, in most of the instances, I might say that in order to promote the basic welfare, economy, and social growth of Alaska, the testimony that you have heard could and would be overcome by the granting of statehood to Alaska.

If you look through the record you will find-and a would like to quote from the decision handed down by Judge McCarrey, which will be a part of the record. I believe Congressman Utt or Dr. Taylor requested it, and I would just like to read one little portion of it.

Municipal corporations have no inherent power of taxation. On the contrary, they possess with respect thereto only such power as has been granted to them by the Constitution or statutes. Thus the Alaska municipal corporation is controlled by Congress.

In every instance that we attempt to do something in Alaska we are crippled by the enabling act or the organic act, which controls every movement of every decision of our powers by the will of Congress.

That is not really as bad as it may sound, only that it would be impossible for the Congressmen to intelligently, and the Interior Department to intelligently, dispense true justice when they are not here on the spot to cope with the problems we have every day. We believe that in order for the true spirit of democracy to prevail the citizens of Alaska should have the power to vote, should have the power to set up a form of government to control themselves.

We know that we have been offered appeasement by such suggestions as elective governor, the possibility of consideration of Commonwealth.

Before I go any further, I am going to ask Mr. Harding to comment on our feelings in regard to commonwealth.

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Harding.

Mr. HARDING. About 21 years ago the subject of Commonwealth was brought to hand, and they were going to pattern it similar to what Puerto Rico has. There is a tremendous difference in the two areas, as you know. As Mr. O'Brien stated, Kodiak Island is about the size of Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico has a population of roughly 2 million, where Kodiak Island has about 10,000 people. Quite a difference right there.

Puerto Rico has no natural potential for industries, where in Alaska we have unlimited natural potential as far as industry is concerned. Another item that has come up under this commonwealth was taxes, tax moratorium. Before Puerto Rico was granted commonwealth there was no tax collected from that area. From Alaska there

is rough $56 million in taxes collected each year.

To make it brief, everything that has been presented to us in the way of commonwealth, every statement has been an assumption, nothing concrete or definite has been given to us or put forward to us. They say tax moratorium. The thing that comes to my mind, is the Federal Government willing to let loose of $56 million?

Another item: The lack of taxes in Puerto Rico was partially to introduce industry into the area. I think that Alaska can entice industry under its own merits. If there be any tax moratorium to be given, it should be locally and not on a Federal basis. I think we have a tremendous potential in this area.

Another thing is that the commonwealth item seems to be sponsored by a minority group, where the majority of the people in the Territory believe in statehood. I think the majority should win out, not the minority.

Mr. RADINSKY. I think in every instance where commonwealth has offered a candidate for any active elective office in the Territory of Alaska it is found that he has been the lowest polling candidate, for either the Democrat or Republican has exceeded by four times the amount of votes that was ever garnered by any commonwealth candidate, which I think is indicative of the feeling of the people of Alaska that commonwealth is not the answer.

As Congressman O'Brien stated, Alaskans are not looking for a handout. It is true that the amount of effort that is put into the local needs by Alaskans we feel has been greater also, Congressman O'Brien, than that which is prevalent stateside.

The opposition to statehood has seemed to be the absentee ownership. I think it is obvious that absentee ownership objects to statehood because they enjoy a rather tax-free situation as it is today, where, under statehood, with the controls normally considered State privileges, they would be taxable for much of the property that they hold.

In covering the point, for instance, of our fisheries, as you have heard testified, with the State fisheries commission much of the burden would be overcome, much of the injustice would be overcome by State-controlled fisheries.

On our mining, one of the things that has been detrimental to the promotion of small mining is the fact that without any State mining office to work in hand with the Federal offices patents can be held for a lifetime on land where no promotion is possible merely by the reason of the fact there is no State law to govern it.

Our roads: We realize that all States suffer from the lack of roads. However, by representation in Congress and the Senate Alaska would share equally as well as any of the other States have.

In regard to mental health, I think it is unnecessary for me to go into that. It has been expressed here that the methods of handling our mental cases are inhuman. That, too, would be overcome by statehood.

In our fisheries, the need for State fisheries is important because our people would be on the ground floor. Negotiations have gone on between the Canadians and the Americans. However, you will find those negotiations that the fisheries of British Columbia are the representing factor for the Canadian Government, where Alaska is handled by a Federal agency, not by local people but by Federal agency who feel they know our problems.

Because of the fact we do not have statehood we are unable to gain the confidence of a lot of the Federal employees because there. are discriminatory practices that take place. If a Federal employee in the Territory of Alaska declares himself an Alaskan resident, he loses some rights which others do not; therefore, we lose a percentage of the help we could get because of the fact that these people are afraid they will be discriminated against if they declare themselves as Alaska residents.

Alaska is ready for statehood. It is ready for statehood because we are willing to pay the price. As you have stated we have with all the things that the people of Kodiak and the other communities of Alaska have handled themselves, where normally stateside they don't consider handling them. We know that we are going to have to pay the price to get what we want, and we want statehood.

There isn't much more that I can add. I would be very happy to answer any questions.

One thing that seems to bother a lot of the congressional delegation is the fact that Alaska has a small population. In those instances, we would like them to look back in the record and find out how many people were in the State of Nevada when it became a part of this Union. As a matter of fact, the story goes-and I think there is some proof to it-they counted some 7,000 military in order to get up to what was considered the required number of people necessary to request entrance into the Union.

We feel if we were to become a State that immigration to the Territory of Alaska would increase. We have a great potential for farming. It is said, where are we going to get the farmers? With two Senators, presumably two Senators and a Congressman, Alaska could offer a special immigration bill and bring to this great Territory some of the peoples of the northern countries of Europe who have made farms out of rock and who would think that farming in Alaska was a very simple process.

With the great potential of our oil, mining, farming, cattle, Alaska could stand on its own with any of the great States of the Union.

We sincerely hope that when you go back to Washington that you will foster in the Congress of the United States the needs of Alaska, and in fostering those we give you our assurance, give us statehood and you have covered our needs.

Thank you very much.

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. O'BRIEN. I would like to make an observation here, if I may. The thought occurred to me while you gentlemen were testifying that this committee here or the committee we represent has more power over your affairs than any elective official in your Territory, certainly in your community.

The thought also has occurred to me that this committee has that power because we have primary control over legislation affecting so many of your activities. And because of the way we operate in Washington, as chairman of this particular subcommittee I have some jurisdiction over what bills may even be considered, brought up before the committee for hearings. And still I live more than 4,000 miles from your community, engrossed in my own problems in my own district. And to me that just does not seem to be American government by the widest stretch of the imagination.

I think that thought has come home to so many of us as we have been on this trip. It is a responsibility we don't want, but we have it, and we are going to have it until you get statehood.

You spoke of an elective Governor. I think that would be just one more voice in the wilderness. And you spoke of the tax moratorium. I think I might describe that as just another opiate to put statehood to sleep, because Congress is not going to grant a tax moratorium, in my opinion. You would have too much opposition from the people in the States, and I doubt if it is constitutional. So it would be a great mistake, I think, to be dragged down in your efforts by a suggestion such as a tax moratorium or commonwealth or any of the other roses that are cast in the path. Statehood is the answer in my very humble opinion.

That is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BARTLETT. Mrs. Pfost?

Mrs. Prost. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. I would like to associate myself with the remarks made by our chairman, Mr. O'Brien. Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Sisk?

Mr. SISK. I have no questions of the gentlemen. I would like to state this: This is my first opportunity to visit the land of Alaska, but I was a strong advocate of statehood in the last session and I have always believed, for the very reasons set forth so ably by our chairman, that we are so remote and we have so many problems of our own, that to me it is a shame that we be delegated the task, the obligation, and responsibility of passing laws for an area where, in my case, I had never even seen.

I wish to commend the chairman on his statement, which certainly is in line with my thinking.

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Utt?

Mr. UTT. Mr. Chairman, there are 1 or 2 items I would like to get in the record. One of them is with reference to your lack of ability to tax. You have the authority, the Territorial legislature has the authority to levy ad valorem tax on territory outside the municipalities. Is that not right?

Mr. RADINSKY. Yes; that is correct.

Mr. UTT. And in 1949 you did pass legislation enacting such a tax? Mr. RADINSKY. Yes.

Mr. UTT. We have been charged at several places with being so far away we are absolutely vulnerable to nonresidential pressure. Was it nonresidential pressure that caused that law to be removed before a single dollar was collected?

Mr. RADINSKY. Yes, sir.

Mr. UTT. And if you become a State, will you be able to withstand that nonresidential pressure in your legislature and make an equitable tax system on privately held property outside of municipalities?

Mr. RADINSKY. Without a doubt, sir.

Mr. UTT. You would elect legislators that will stand on that platform of equitably taxing patented land that is outside of the municipalities?

Mr. RADINSKY. That is the consensus of opinion of every legislature in the last 10 years.

Mr. UTT. But still they did repeal the one act they did pass.

Mr. RADINSKY. Yes.

Mr. UTT. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BARTLETT. Dr. Taylor?

Mr. TAYLOR. I think, Mr. Chairman, the people in the room today would be interested in knowing that Mr. Radinsky and Mr. Harding are the 136th and the 137th witnesses who have appeared before this subcommittee since we arrived here 2 weeks ago. Of those 137 witnesses 1 has availed himself of the opportunity to come before the group and express opposition to statehood. Only one. Everyone else has had that opportunity, but only one gentleman appeared. We know there are others, but for one reason or another they have not appeared before us.

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. McFarland?

Mr. MCFARLAND. No questions.

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Radinsky and Mr. Harding, I have many questions, so I am not going to embark on the asking of a single one. Anyway, I don't have to after what Mr. O'Brien and my other colleagues have said.

Thank you very much.

Mr. RADINSKY. I would like to make one statement, if I may, in answer to Mr. O'Brien's remarks. I don't think there is a true citizen of Alaska that will accept anything but first-class citizenship in the United States of America.

Mr. BARTLETT. I want to thank all of you for coming. We have had a most helpful hearing.

The hearing is concluded.

(Whereupon, at 12:45 p. m., the subcommittee adjourned to reconvene at the call of the Chair.)