and leave it under Federal domination, rather than to make it a part of the State, to be withdrawn or perhaps withdrawn later?

Mr. CHILSON. I will answer that as best as I can. You realize my limitations. I have never been there, and Secretary Seaton is not available here today.

In the first place, if we may use the word "partition”—it is not a good word, but we will use it for convenience.

If the partition in this land north and west of that line were not included within the State, you have the problem of 2 governments, government by the State in one area and government by the Federal Government in the other area, 2 sets of governments.

The area north and west of this line is vast. It is very sparsely populated. There are very few communities. And yet at the same time there are some evidences that it has sizable natural resources, which perhaps the State of Alaska is entitled to in connection with its total development.

Thirdly, by handling the matter this way, we are doing nothing more than has been done in some 25 States of the Union at the present time, either by statute or constitution, which is the matter of ceding exclusive jurisdiction over areas of the States whenever it becomes a military withdrawal. And so, looking at the whole picture, we feel that the entire area should be included within the State, and that a happier solution is this matter of making the withdrawal if and when the President determines it is necessary, and then to have the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Government attach at that time. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, how much of the land percentagewise north and west of this land presently belongs to the United States Government?

Mr. CHILSON. Ninety-nine percent, I think, would be a close estimate.

Mr. ROGERS. Well now, as I understand it, in view of the right or burden that is placed upon this land by your amendment, the State of Alaska as such would be prohibited from taking any of the land north and west of that line in choosing any land that is given to her as a State when she obtains statehood?

Mr. CHILSON. I do not so understand it, Mr. Congressman. Now, I may be wrong, but it was our intent that the State of Alaska still had the right to make selections north and west of this line. Of course, in making such selections, they will realize that the President may impose a special national defense withdrawal on all or a portion of it, or it may be possible that that withdrawal would take place before they made the selection.

Mr. ROGERS. Now, Mr. Secretary, in that regard, suppose that the President at the time withdraws the entire section allocated here and says, "Now, I think it is best to withdraw this whole situation in view of world affairs, and I will release this a little bit at a time, when it looks like this thing is not as bad as it has been in the past." Now, under those circumstances, do you anticipate that if that withdrawal is made, the State of Alaska still has her right to take her lands in that section that is set aside?

Mr. CHILSON. Yes, I so understand, with one condition, however: That in order to make that selection, they first have to obtain the approval of the President or his designated representative.

One of our amendments so provides, that no selection hereundershall be made in the area north and west of the line described in section 10 without approval of the President or his designated representative.

Mr. ROGERS. Now, how much land do you in the Department of Interior think that Alaska should have as a State?

Mr. CHILSON. You mean under the selections?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes, sir, under the selections.

Mr. CHILSON. The Department of Interior is perfectly willing to go along with H. R. 50 in that respect, which I think totals 103,500,000

acres.

Mr. ROGERS. Now, assuming, then, that Alaska has that, suppose she took 50 percent of that north and west of this imaginary line. How much would that leave vested in the Federal Government i the area?

Mr. CHILSON. I will have to do a little arithmetic. North and west of this line, there are 166,774,000 acres. Now, if they took, we will say, 50 million off of that, it would leave roughly 117 million, of which 99 percent of it is Federal.

Mr. ROGERS. In other words, you would still have about two-thirds of the land north and west of that line vested in the Federal Government, and the national resources would also be vested in the Federal Government, of course, would it not?

Mr. CHILSON. That is right.

Mr. ROGERS. So Alaska would not get control of the national resources of two-thirds of the property under any circumstance, if it was given to her as a State?

Mr. CHILSON. Of course, on the public lands that are not selected by the State, the disposition of the minerals which will continue to be disposed of under Federal law, just the same as on public lands in the continental United States. So, so far as saying that Alaska gets the minerals, that may not probably be quite accurate. They would get the benefit of the development and use of that resource within the State of Alaska.

Mr. ROGERS. But they would get the benefit of that, even if it was not a part of the State of Alaska, would they not?

Mr. CHILSON. No. I do not believe so, Mr. Congressman. Not to the same extent that they would get it if it were part of the State.

Mr. ROGERS. Let me ask you this, Mr. Secretary. Actually, would it not be a detriment to the United States, because the national resources, under your plan, would fall into an intrastate category rather than an interstate category.

Mr. CHILSON. Perhaps I do not follow that. Would you say it again?

Mr. ROGERS. Well, if they were all produced within the confines of the State of Alaska, which would take in all of the land mass, and produced and disposed of within the confines of that State, the rules in Alaska would apply. However, if the line was drawn, and only that part of the land mass south and east of that line was the State of Alaska, then you would subject the operations to the rules of interstate commerce; the same as if we in Texas were shipping into Oklahoma or Kansas.

Mr. CHILSON. Well, I do not know as I can answer that question, Mr. Congressman. You would have one portion of the area under

territorial government. You would have the other area under State government.

As to the matter of the rules of interstate commerce, and that sort of thing, as between the two areas, frankly, I am not prepared to

answer.

Mr. ROGERS. Well, I can appreciate your situation there, because it is a very technical situation, and one that I think has been given too little attention in this entire Hawaiian and Alaskan statehood problem. But I merely point it up for the purpose of the record at this point because I do think it is important and it ought to be studied

more.

Now, let us go on with that part of this mass north and west of this line that is withdrawn. And as I understand it, you contemplate permitting the laws of the State of Alaska to apply to all of that territory, subject only to what might be in conflict with the Federal law or with any act of Congress concerning any particular activities?

Now, am I correct in that?

Mr. CHILSON. This is what our proposed amendments do, we think: They adopt the State law in areas established under Federal jurisdiction pusuant to our proposed section 10 as the Federal law insofar as it is not inconsistent with laws passed by Congress or is not inconsistent with the operation and use of the withdrawals.

Mr. ROGERS. Now, another question, Mr. Secretary. Do you anticipate, or has there been any discussion in the Department, with relation to a payment or grant to the State of Alaska in lieu of taxes for the Federal Government holding all that land north and west of this particular line?

Mr. CHILSON. No. There has not. And may I just refer to the fact that 99 percent of it is Federal property, which would not be subject to tax in any event.

Secondly, if I am not mistaken, and I may be, I am under the impression that there will be-I am wrong about that. I was thinking about land taxes, and so on. There are none now. However, there may be when the State comes into effect.

Mr. ROGERS. I think we should anticipate that Alaska is going to pass some tax laws up there as a State and is going to insist that the Federal Government pay her at least a grant in lieu of that land that is kept off the tax rolls. And I think they would be in good stead to do it, if they are going to follow the pattern that has been set by other States.

Mr. CHILSON. Mr. Congressman, may I say that I understand that it is because of this large ownership, Federal ownership, of lands within the present Territory, that we go along with and approve the large grants of land under the act, the 103 million acres, in recognition of that fact, and also in recognition of the fact that a lot of the best lands, more desirable, have already been withdrawn into national forests and so on.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Secretary, do you not think this: that any anticipated withdrawal of land in this particular area-it could be presupposed that the cities would be a part of that withdrawn area?

Mr. CHILSON. Frankly, I cannot answer that. I am not familiar enough with matters of defense and the purpose of these withdrawals to know whether or not that was true. It may or may not, I would think.

Mr. ROGERS. If such was the case or if any private lands were withdrawn, of course this would open the door to a request by the State of Alaska for grants in aid to the schools or to the municipal corporations, because you did take property off of the tax rolls, would it not?

Mr. CHILSON. Well, if there was an acquisition of title or the use of the lands for military purposes, of course just compensation would have to be paid the property owners. What that might do to the economy, I doubt if we could anticipate at this time. I mean, it might be the taking of an entire community, in which event you would have evacuation and the payment of just compensation for all primary

owners.

Mr. ROGERS. Of course, that would not be just a burden on the land without changing titles or ownership.

Mr. CHILSON. I can well conceive where a withdrawal would include also a municipality and yet at the same time would not interfere with municipal life at all.

Mr. ASPINALL. Subsection (c) states that:

The exclusive jurisdiction so established shall extend to all lands within the exterior boundaries of each such withdrawal, and shall remain in effect with respect to any particular tract or parcel of land only so long as such tract or parcel remains within the exterior boundaries of such a withdrawal.

You do not visualize that with these withdrawal orders they shall leave little islands of municipalities sitting around within an area withdrawn?

Mr. CHILSON. No; not if the withdrawal is in the area, I do not assume that you would leave Nome, for example, if you were going to take in the surrounding area, and also the water adjacent. But I do visualize that Nome could proceed with the enforcement of its ordinances and its law and carry on its municipal law.

Mr. ROGERS. Now, Mr. Secretary, what relationship does this have to the McKay line?

Mr. CHILSON. Well, I am new in Government, as you know, and I am not familiar with the McKay line. Perhaps someone else can answer that.

Mr. LAUSI (Anthony J. Lausi, Director, Office of Territories, Department of Interior). It is the same line.

Mr. ROGERS. It is the same line. Well, the reason that I asked the question is this, and this is certainly no reflection on anyone, because I give everyone the right to do everything they want done in the best legal way they can, but it looks to me like it is sugar-coating the pill, and that this new theory of letting Alaska have the whole Territory as a State could get us into some very dire consequencies.

Now with reference to the prevalence of State and local laws over these communities as withdrawn-and may I say that I anticipate that the executive branch of the Government will withdraw this entire area for defense purposes, and frankly, I think they should, under the present situation; but suppose that is done. Now you would have certain building codes in Nome, we will say. Suppose that the Federal Government decided they wanted to build some houses there, and perhaps on private property, and the building code required one thing and the Federal Government decided they did not want to do it that way. Now which one would prevail insofar as building those houses are concerned?

Mr. LAUSI. Can I just make a guess? Frankly, I do not know. But I would think that unless the military necessity of that building required a departure from the Nome building code, they would comply with the Nome building code. If the purpose was such that they could not comply-suppose they were going to have to build a fort, for example, in a residence A zone-I assume then that the use of the withdrawal would be paramount.

Mr. ROGERS. Well, but what I am getting at is this, Mr. Secretary: That the final determination of that would be the military, would it not?

Mr. CHILSON. I would think, under these amendments, that would be a judicial determination.

Mr. ROGERS. By what code?

Mr. CHILSON. If it is in the withdrawn area, by the Federal district court of Alaska.

Just a moment. We would like the committee to have all the informed opinion. Mine in that respect is not too good.

May we have Mr. Dechert speak to that?

Mr. DECHERT (Robert Dechert, General Counsel, Department of Defense). I am Robert Dechert, newly appointed General Counsel of the Department of Defense.

I think this question, sir, is answered by paragraph 5 at the foot of page 2 of the mimeographed sheet. It is d (5) under new section 10. This is the section which, in effect, says:

All the existing functions of the municipal government—

and so on

remain in force even though one of these withdrawals takes place, provided— and I think the proviso is the situation to which the Congressman is addressing his attention that any law or ordinance which is inconsistent with the full operation and use of any withdrawal established under this section shall be operative during the existence of such withdrawal.

And I think the Congressman's question was: Who has the final word as to whether the Nome building code under these circumstances might be inconsistent?

I would think that the final word was with the President of the United States, if we were withdrawing it for a military purpose; subject always to the point that if he acts without any basis whatever you can apply to the district court in Alaska for an injunction against it, I suppose.

Mr. ROGERS. Well, but the point is that this paragraph (5) does not mean anything, because the proviso destroys it, does it not?

Mr. DECHERT. That assumes, sir, that the President might act without any basis whatsoever. I think that is an assumption that none of us can make. If it were ever done, I think there is a remedy against it. There is a remedy against fraud or utter violation of duty even on the part of the President. But I think we cannot assume anybody would take that. I think you cannot write out that proviso, sir, unless you have that assumption.

Mr. ROGERS. But we are put into the same political philosophy, are we not, sir, that whatever the Federal Government decides to do, if it enters a field, it takes over that entire field, and there is nothing that