STATEMENT OF WILLIAM A. EGAN, ALASKA'S "TENNESSEE PLAN" SENATOR-ELECT, VALDEZ, ALASKA

Mr. EGAN. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I would like at this time to express my appreciation for the privilege and honor of testifying here. I would also like to express my personal appreciation at this time and I feel that it is the appreciation of the vast majority of the people of Alaska-to the Secretary of the Interior, the Honorable Fred Seaton, for the constructive approach his Department is now making toward the question of statehood for Alaska.

My name is William A. Egan. I was born in Alaska. My business is that of a merchant at Valdez, Alaska.

During the course of the several statehood hearings of past years, the record has become replete with practically every argument pro and con on the subject. It is not my intention to burden the time of the committee members in a lengthy discourse covering my opinions and the rehashing of the bulk of the permanent record.

My experience in government in Alaska has included several terms as a member of the Alaska Legislature. In recollecting my first experience in Territorial government in the year 1941 I cannot help but review in my mind the time when I first read the provisions of the treaty concerning the cession of Russian possessions in North America to the United States of America. The provisions of that treaty greatly influenced my decision to draft a bill calling for a referendum on the question of statehood for Alaska. It seemed to me back in 1941 that the time had come to give an opportunity for the people of Alaska to officially voice their opinion as to their desire for statehood.

The provisions of the treaty with Russia, which was concluded on March 30, 1867, and proclaimed by the United States on June 20, 1867, ceded that geographic area known as Alaska from Russia to the United States of America.

My first reading of the treaty occurred when I was in high school in the Territory of Alaska.

Now, in pursuing the record of previous hearings on statehood, one finds that there has been considerable dispute as to whether or not Alaska was truly ever guaranteed statehood status as its rightful heritage. It has long been my contention that a careful study of the treaty of cession can sufficiently answer the question.

Article 3 of the treaty states:

The inhabitants of the ceded territory, according to their choice, reserving their natural allegiance, may return to Russia within 3 years, but if they should prefer to remain in the ceded territory, they, with the exception of the uncivilized native tribes, shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United States, and shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property and religion. The uncivilized tribes will be subject to such laws and regulations as the United States may, from time to time, adopt in regard to aboriginal tribes of that country.

That statement is the entire text of article 3 of the treaty of cession. The language which is pertinent to any hearing on legislation seekag to admit Alaska as one of the States of the Union of the United States is the specific assertion that

They *** shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States.

It is my judgment, when I first read it, and it is now, that that specific wording, appearing in article 3 of the treaty of cession was no accidental terminology. That part of the sentence was inserted because the great men of that time, including the Secretary of State, William Henry Seward, meant to leave no doubt that Alaska's destiny was to one day become one of the States in the American Union.

This judgment is strengthened more thoroughly when one recalls the phraseology used in section 2 of article 4 of the Constitution of the United States:

The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.

It is readily discerned that the wording in this section of our Federal Constitution relative to the guaranties to citizens of the several States, is strikingly similar to the wording of article 3 of the treaty with Russia, with one exception. In article 3 of the treaty of cession, the word "rights" is additional strengthening language to the express phraseology of the constitutional provision.

It would be difficult to avoid the conclusion that Secretary Seward and others wanted to make crystal clear that the Government of the United States envisioned the day when the American citizens of Alaska would petition for full partnership as a State of the Union. Secretary Seward was endowed with the farsighted facility for perceiving the potential strategic importance of Alaska and the future economic and cultural contribution Alaska would make to the national well-being. These conclusions become all the more logical when one notes that Seward's great friend from Massachusetts, Senator Charles Sumner, in a lengthy and learned speech on the floor of the Senate supporting ratification of the treaty that ceded Alaska to the United States from Russia, specifically dedicated Alaska to future statehood in the Union.

Thus, as a layman, as an Alaskan, and as an American citizen, my conviction is that there is a wealth of recorded evidence to sustain the reasoning of these citizens who maintain that statehood for Alaska was long ago officially committed as the ultimate heritage for the geographic area now constituting the Territory of Alaska.

Statements have been presented in various hearings, purporting an indication that admittance of Alaska to the Union would tend to weaken the sovereign power of other States of the Union, and would lend acceleration toward Federal encroachment upon individual sovereign States rights. To me no premise could be more fallacious than that. When a people has lived for decade after decade in an area where the long arm of Federal jurisdiction has had the final determination over most important decisions; when a people have had to plead with a "hat in hand approach" over a seemingly unending period of time in order that they might gain some necessary consideration, then that area can surely not be expected, if taken into the Union, to lend its small effort toward diluting the natural separation of sovereignty between the Federal Government and the governments of the many States. Such separation of sovereign powers is one of the chief reasons why our United States of America has maintained itself as the greatest, the most benevolent and the most respected Nation on the face of the earth. It is difficult, indeed, for me to

90122-57-13

visualize that any other area under the American flag could be more cognizant than Alaska of the basic principles set forth by our forefathers, of the solemn responsibilities that will be ours when statehood becomes an achieved fact.

We know that the Congress of the United States will consider the merits of statehood legislation in light of its relation to the basic principles of self-government as set forth in the Constitution of the United States.

On the other hand, we recognize that there are some areas where various members of the Congress have some doubt as to our ability to shoulder the responsibilities of statehood.

The people of Alaska have met all the tests. They have signified on several different occasions their eagerness, readiness, and willingness to assume these responsibilities.

The government within the Territory has met the fiscal responsibilities forthrightly. A provision in the organic act, or congressional constitution for the Territory of Alaska, has prohibited the Territorial government from assuming any indebtedness. A recent provision enacted by the Congress would permit bonded indebtedness for capital expenditures up to $20 million. Up to this time none of the permissive indebtedness has been encumbered. Notwithstanding this provision against indebtedness, the Territorial government has provided the citizens of Alaska with practically every human government service that the sovereign States make available to their residents. At the same time, the Territory has been forced to meet all capital expenditure outlays with immediate full cash withdrawals from its general treasury.

The Territory has met the test of readiness for statehood in providing an excellent public school system within Alaska. It has met the test by providing a school of higher learning, the University of Alaska, which is recognized as one of the finest schools of its kind in America. It has met the test by providing funds for road construction, construction of airfields, improvement of boat harbors, and so forth. It has met the test by providing a sound, progressive social welfare and health program.

It has met the test by providing a Territorial department of fisheries which will have had adequate experience in assuming the management, proper utilization, and perpetuation of that resource upon the attainment of statehood.

It has met the test of providing a Territorial department of mines. It has met the test by providing for a Territorial department of lands.

It has met the test by providing for the Alaska Resources Development Board, which is assembling extensive research material for resource development.

It has met the test in many other particulars. All of this, while land area available for the Territory constitutes only about 1 percent of the total land area. All this while the management of our important resources remains under almost total Federal domination.

The historic examples of other areas, particularly in the West, that became States of the Union point up vividly that there was no extensive economic development in those areas until after statehood became a fact. It is my conviction that the people in a given area are more likely to have the ability and on-the-spot vigor for more properly managing and promoting the development, utilization, and perpetua

tion of its resources generally than under almost total Federal jurisdiction. By this I do not mean to be unduly critical. Having resided in a Federal area all of my lifetime, I am certainly aware that the vast majority of Federal officers are well intentioned. It has long been my feeling, though, that in the Federal Government there is too long a chain of command. It is oftentimes years before an unsatisfactory Federal regulation that carries the force of law can be changed. Our experience has been that the Congress itself will act more quickly to remedy an inequity than will a regulatory agency of the Government.

The resources article of the constitution for the proposed State of Alaska provides, in my opinion, more than adequate provisions for the maximum utilization and perpetuation of resources of any nature existent within the confines of the new State.

An important consideration that I feel is often overlooked in the consideration of statehood legislation, is the psychological impact admitting Alaska will have on the age-old fallacious concept that Alaska is the land of perpetual ice and snow. Believe me this is a very important aspect that in the past has caused no end of misconception about the possibilities of Alaska's progress. The fact that the entire Nation will immediately be cognizant that Alaska is actually an integral part of the United States, and not a far-off, frozen-land area, cannot help but accelerate a general interest in the area and aid immensely in the possibilities for stable economic development.

We have found across the country and even among the citizenry here in Washington, D. C., a general unbelievable lack of factual impressions as to climatic conditions, et cetera.

Most citizens appear thunderstruck when they learn that agricultural development has progressed to the point where it is relatively an important consideration in the economy of Alaska.

There are so many unseen ways in which the very act of admission can produce the impetus for economic progress, that I am certain even those of us who have presented our impressions of the possibilities to you, will be overwhelmed with the advancement within Alaska in one decade following Alaska's admission to the Union.

Now I certainly do not intend to say that on the day after statehood legislation would be enacted for Alaska that a huge change would occur. I do feel, however, that within one decade following the advent of statehood there will have been a major change in the Territorial progress from all aspects.

Congress itself, through the statements of various Members, have remonstrated that Alaska get its house in order. Members of Congress and of agencies of the Federal Government, urged a basic tax program, the levying of additional gasoline taxes, et cetera. We have complied with all such requests, Alaska is ready.

In some debates on this subject of statehood for Alaska it has been stated that the Alaskans could assume their full status as American citizens by merely removing their residence to one of the 48 States of the Union. In answer to that, let me say that the vast percentage of the population of Alaska are Americans who came there from the many States of the Union. They love Alaska. They have transplanted their roots there. They have reared and are rearing their children there. They have their homes there. They have their businesses there. Their hearts are bent in anticipation for full partnership with each and every one of you. They are fervently loyal to their

beloved United States of America. We are confident that this 85th Congress will vote them their rightful heritage. The Nation will quickly become aware that such action was the Nation's gain. That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. O'BRIEN. I just have one question in connection with this whole. question of statehood.

The statisticians have suggested to us that within our lifetime, and certainly within the lifetime of our children, the population of this country will go to 220 million or 230 million people. I wonder if you believe that in our search for population elbow room, the Territory of Alaska as a State could be developed to a point where it could with its own resources-and I am including agriculture-take care of a population of as many as 10 million. Would you think that would be reasonably possible?

Mr. EGAN. Mr. Chairman, as to any specific figure in population, I would hesitate to say. But I certainly feel that Alaska, on the basis of geological reports and other reports relative to the known resources in the area, could eventually support a population of several million inhabitants.

Mr. O'BRIEN. Several million?

Mr. EGAN. Yes.

Mr. O'BRIEN. That would include agriculture?

Mr. EGAN. That would. I believe that agriculture is in its infancy in Alaska at the present time. Each year there is more interest, and each year there is more produced in the line of agriculture in the Territory.

I believe that had there not been such a prevalent misconception existing as to the climatic conditions in Alaska, agriculture would have previously progressed many, many times, over what it is now in Alaska.

Mr. O'BRIEN. That is all the questions I have.

The gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, I would congratulate Mr. Egan on his statement. It is a well-prepared, well-thought-out statement. Of course, I can say it echoes my sentiments, and I will reserve any rights to question.

Mr. O'BRIEN. Dr. Miller.

Dr. MILLER. I appreciate the statement you made, Senator. think it is a good statement, except it does not satisfy me as to how the new State would get along in an economic way. It disturbs me a little.

I think you are right that you have made a lot of progress in the Territory in certain things.

I noticed the Governor, in his testimony yesterday, mentioned the fact that for many years Alaska had been neglected, that we only passed 2 bills over a period of 17 years that had anything to do with Alaska; that at one time they could not purchase property, or acquire property, or get married legally, and could not transfer property. That is not true now, is it? You can get married legally in Alaska? Mr. EGAN. We can get what?

Dr. MILLER. Get married legally now in Alaska?

Mr. EGAN. We can now; yes. I hope.

Dr. MILLER. One of his arguments for statehood-he said even the lovelorn had no place to get married. I wonder whether that had been corrected.