arate the sheep from the goats and let statehood stand on its own merits and not on pressure and lobbyist groups.

Mr. O'BRIEN. We are flattered with the weight you put on our judgment.

Mr. MCLEAN. I give full credit to Congress.

Mr. UTT. In 1949 you did pass usch a territorial tax, did you not? Mr. MCLEAN. A real property tax; yes.

Mr. UTT. Was that repealed at the very next session because of the difficulties you found in collecting the tax, or was it repealed because of the pressures you found from the industries that were without the taxing area at the present time?

Mr. MCLEAN. I could not answer that question, as to what motive the legislature had in repealing it. I suppose you would find all phases of it added in there, and you could not point to any one reason why they repealed it. It was repealed, however.

Mr. UTT. In a very great hurry.

Mr. MCLEAN. Well, it was almost a political issue, too. You would have to admit that.

Mr. UTT. Yes. And politics suggests pressures.

Mr. McLEAN. Possibly.

Mr. BARTLETT. When was the tax repealed, Mr. McLean?

Mr. MCLEAN. Either 1951 or 1953, I have forgotten which.

Mr. BARTLETT. Could you supply for the record the exact date of repeal? I think we ought to know how long it was in effect. Mr. MCLEAN. No; I could not.

Mr. BARTLETT. Could you do that any time later and inform the committee?

Mr. MCLEAN. I could in the written report I intended to submit to the committee go into that aspect briefly.

Mr. BARTLETT. We will be happy to have you do that. The reason I ask that question particularly as to the date of repeal is because I am wondering how much experience was gained during the time the law was in effect as to the cost of collection, realizing, of course, that during a shorter period the administration costs would likely be higher than when the program had been in effect for a long while.

Can you tell us how many cents out of the dollar collected went for administrative burden, cost of collection, in other words?

Mr. MCLEAN. Referring to real property tax?

Mr. BARTLETT. Referring to real property tax.

Mr. McLEAN. I cannot now, but will include it, if you wish, in the

written statement.

Mr. BARTLETT. I believe you suggested-and you will correct me if I am wrong--that the cost of collection might have been larger than the intake.

Mr. MCLEAN. That is right, Mr. Bartlett. That is a feeling I had based upon information I received from those who were active in the assessing of this real property and in analyzing how much revenue would be received from it.

Mr. BARTLETT. In that connection, I would like to suggest to my colleagues when the territorial witneses are heard perhaps we ought to invite Mr. Carl Dewey, tax commissioner for Alaska, to appear before us and give us precise data on some of these questions.

71196-56-pt. 4-4

Mr. McLean, if I remember correctly, you said you were for immediate statehood until 1953 and then formed the conclusion that statehood ought to come at some later date because you felt industry, particularly in this section of Alaska, was on the downgrade.

Mr. McLEAN. I did to some extent base my conclusion on that, Mr. Bartlett, not only in southeastern Alaska but in westward Alaska as well. I was thinking of Alaska as an entire single unit. I grant you, Mr. Bartlett, too, that in 1953 there was the erection of the Ketchikan pulp plant, but at the same time we had mining properties that had hoped to begin operation in the northern part of southeastern Alaska which had to close down.

Mr. BARTLETT. Which properties were those?

Mr. McLEAN. I was thinking of properties such as the one at Hawk Inlet, the Alaska Admiralty Gold Mining Co.

Mr. BARTLETT. How many men did that employ?

Mr. McLEAN. They had as many, I suppose, as 40 or 50 men. Mr. BARTLETT. The committee discovered, as it has gone about the Territory, that which it already knew, of course, that the gold mining industry is in a very bad way not only in Alaska but throughout the Nation, for obvious reasons.

How many men were put to work as a consequence of the building of the Ketchikan pulp mill?

Mr. McLEAN. I do not know how many were engaged in the construction end of it, Mr. Bartlett, but quite a few, as no doubt we would realize, as well as working in the pulp mill itself, and in the woods nearby.

Mr. BARTLETT. Would it be safe to say some hundreds of men are employed in the mill and in the logging operations?

Mr. McLEAN. It would be.

Mr. BARTLETT. Is it correct to state that quite recently the Forest Service advertised and an arrangement was entered into in respect to a large supply of timber for another pulp mill for southeastern Alaska?

Mr. MCLEAN. Yes, in the Juneau area the corporation has bid and obtained some kind of a right to timber in the northern part of southeastern Alaska conditioned upon an erection of a pulp mill within a 6- or 8-year period. I have forgotten which.

Mr. BARTLETT. Do the prospects seem good, so far as you know, that the company will go ahead and build that mill?

Mr. MCLEAN. I am told if it is economically feasible they will. There is no absolute guarantee. There is only a token deposit, you might say, which is peanuts compared to the amount at stake. It is typical of many mining companies and, I would say, industries in the States now, who have earnings and wish to expend them in exploration work. I think the committee has probably encountered a few in their travel over the Territory, men from different corporations who are up here just looking around for good properties to sort of buy and tie up, you might say, waiting a rainy day of business in the States. Mr. BARTLETT. Certainly that is true.

Mr. MCLEAN. Particularly the oil business.

Mr. BARTLETT. But let us go back to the second proposed pulp mill. It is not likely, is it, the Forest Service would grant this contract to this large block of timber unless the Service were convinced that the organizers were serious about their intentions of going ahead?

Mr. McLEAN. I am sure, Mr. Bartlett, that the Forest Service evaluated it as a bona fide gesture on the part of the corporation. But by the terms of the contract, as I read it when it was analyzed in the newspaper, it was just a matter of forfeiting a deposit on the timber which, as I say, did not amount to very much, if it does not look economically feasible for them 6 years hence or 8 years, whenever the time comes. It is a matter of business.

Mr. BARTLETT. I think I read in the paper after arriving here yesterday that the Forest Service is preparing to offer a third block of timber for a third mill at Sitka. Is that your understanding?

Mr. MCLEAN. I think it is. And I think the same will be true in that instance as it was in the one we have just spoken of. I think, further, that whether or not those corporations go ahead with their plans is dependent largely upon whether or not we can open up this country, get accessible routes in here besides the one we have now, that is, the water route.

Mr. BARTLETT. I commend your statement about the roads, Mr. McLean, but I did not know the pulp companies had a primary interest in transportation by roads. I thought they were depending on the waterways.

Mr. MCLEAN. Not for their products. It is true they float their products and will probably float them out of here too, unless there is a railroad facility. But the men who work here, the supplies that come in to those men, all these services that go with handling and working with such a development have to have speedy and accessible routes of communication with these plants.

Mr. BARTLETT. We can say at least then, Mr. McLean, that during the last few years there has been built and is now operating in southeastern Alaska the most modern pulp mill in the world. And the prospects are reasonably good, according to what I have read in the newspapers while I have been away from here at least, for the construction of two other plants. Would you agree with that?

Mr. MCLEAN. I think the prospects-I would not know, Mr. Bartlett, whether they are reasonably good or not. I would be inclined to agree with you there and I am hopeful to that end. But I do not think that we should urgently push the statehood cause and get it here ahead of the actual construction of those pulp mills. I want to see them first.

As you will recall, Mr. Bartlett, 20 years ago and 30 years ago, and even 40 years ago there were headlines in the Alaskan papers and the papers in the States when Zellerbach and some of those other big concerns had pledged themselves to build a pulp mill in Alaska, all to be within the next 2 or 3 years. We in southeastern particularly, Mrs. Pfost and gentlemen, have seen so many headlines that these are going to come that we are almost calloused to them. We want to see them first.

Mr. BARTLETT. I understand your position exactly, Mr. McLean. Now there is a very valuable network of salmon shore establishments on Bristol Bay. Are they taxed, the canneries on Bristol Bay? Mr. MCLEAN. I do not know whether they are in a district or not, Mr. Bartlett. I do not recall. I have not studied it. I think Mr. Dewey could probably answer that question better than I could.

Mr. BARTLETT. Would you say that the majority of salmon canneries lie outside of municipalities or within or without school

districts?

Mr. McLEAN. I should have the impression they are within the taxing districts, but I have no authority or anything to support that observation.

Mr. BARTLETT. As I understand it, you yourself did not make the argument against statehood on the base of noncontiguity. Your argument is that industry ought to come first, and you merely suggest that as another reason why some people are opposed to statehood?

Mr. McLEAN. I did not understand the question.

Mr. BARTLETT. Do you think noncontiguity is a substantial argument against statehood on a personal basis?

Mr. MCLEAN. Only in reference to the talk I gave this morning here with respect to the reluctance on the part of British Columbia to permit or to aid us in building access roads to the southeastern Alaska towns. I think if we once overcome that, there should be no objection on the basis of not adjoining the States.

Mr. BARTLETT. But right now you think that on account of the fact British Columbia will not join with us in a road program that that does offer an argument against statehood?

Mr. McCLEAN. It offers an argument, a serious one.

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. McLean, would you tell the committee in your personal opinion what the majority view of Alaskans is as to immediate statehood?

Mr. McLEAN. I know there was an election in 1946, and I think the referendum carried the question,"Are you for statehood?".

Mr. BARTLETT. I think, to save you

Mr. MCLEAN. Anyway, the message carried 5 percent at that time, as I recall.

Mr. BARTLETT. I think the committee has had that on the record before. If you just give us your opinion as to how Alaskans would vote today. It is a personal expression, I realize.

Mr. MCLEAN. Frankly, I do not know, Mr. Bartlett. I would guess it would be about the same. I believe it would carry but I do not think there would be any tremendous majority in it if it were a referendum at the regular election time.

Mr. BARTLETT. I see. Now you heard Mr. O'Brien mention this morning the possibility of an omnibus bill short of statehood but incorporating many of the features that might be found in a statehood bill. What would be your opinion relating to that?

Mr. McLEAN. By "omnibus bill," I presume you mean a bill

Mr. BARTLETT. Let me state it in these terms to make it a little bit clearer for you, Mr. McLean. As I have understood Mr. O'Brien, it would be a bill to modernize the organic act and to give the Territory certain grants. For example, there might be found in such a bill a conveyance of public lands to the Territory. I have a separate bill in now to give the Territory 20 million acres. There might be a provision for the grant of tidelands. There might be a provision for an elective governor. There might or might not be a provision in regard to tax exemptions. I suppose the committee will want to investigate the constitutional aspect of that a bit more, but let us assume that would be in. And then undoubtedly there would be other changes in the organic act to give us more home rule. I, for one, would

feel that such a bill would be less than complete if it would not include a proviso for the transfer of the control of fisheries. What would you think of such a legislative proposal?

Mr. McLEAN. It is difficult for me to answer that because I really have not given it much study and thought. It strikes me as being a good idea. At least it is something new and may be a step ahead. And I feel that hardly anything that will improve conditions heregive us, as you seek, more representation in Congress and, as I urgently seek, more industry, I am for it. But I do not know, without really studying it and analyzing it and giving it a little thought.

Mr. O'BRIEN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BARTLETT. Surely.

Mr. O'BRIEN. I am quite interested in your reaction, too, because this idea not only is new to you, it is new to me. It is an idea that has dawned on me since I have been up here, frankly, and I have found with some of the people in areas where there is considerable sentiment for immediate statehood, that they rather like the idea but did not want to say so because they feared that they might be settling for something less than their main goal. And you have indicated or stated that you are opposed to immediate statehood at this time. And I would think that the best prospects for an omnibus bill would lie in the fact that it would be acceptable to both schools of thought in Alaska, the immediate statehood people and those who would prefer to wait. I understand perfectly your answer to Mr. Bartlett's question, because you are, in effect, being asked to pass judgment on a bill you have not even seen. You do not know what would be in it. But in general terms, the thought I had was that here is a Territory that needs help, needs certain things. All of the people are agreed on many of these things. Let us put them in an omnibus bill and work on it, not just throw a few ideas into a pot and let them melt. Then go to the congressional leaders who make those decisions to a great extent at least they decide to a great extent what we may or may not vote on-and say, "Here, you will not grant statehood to Alaska, will you give them this much so they can go through a prestatehood status?" In the hope of many, a stage which would be very brief; in the hope of those who are realists, a stage which could be somewhat lengthy. So, Mr. Bartlett is not asking you to pass judgment upon a complete bill, but upon the germ of an idea, if you will.

I gather from your response that you think that might fit in with your view that you must get industry and other things here before you are ready for statehood.

Mr. MCLEAN. Certainly if it is improving conditions up here I would go along with the thinking you describe, Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. SISK. Mr. Chairman, this will come in the manner of a request. First, let me ask, do you have access to figures as to the gross income of the Territory of Alaska?

Mr. MCLEAN. The total of taxes?

Mr. SISK. With relation to taxes. The total gross income of the Territory of Alaska?

Mr. MCLEAN. No, I do not, not with me.

Mr. SISK. You can gain access to those figures?

Mr. McLEAN. I think I could.

Mr. SISK. They are available, are they?