The port of Whittier is a real thorn in the side of such commercial ports as Seward and Valdez. If the freight which is going through the port of Whittier were unloaded in Valdez and Seward, both of these towns would show a very jarvaggressive and healthy economy, which would be an asset to the Territory.

At the present time Alaska Steamship is working on the sea train project. In order for a sea train to prove a profitable operation, it will have to haul all of the freight. The sea train services which operate on the east coast of the United States have full londs both ways. It might be well to ask those carriers •f they would have a profitable operation if they had a revenue haul only one way. Canned salmon has always represented the biggest southbound haul, but this is falling off each year. Also the amount of canned salmon hauled from the railbelt area is negligible. If the United States Government is going to underwrite the sea train service, I believe that a more thorough investigation -hould be made, to see if the advantages will offset the harm done by hamstringing commercial ports, such as Valdez, and Seward.

I he sen Train Service has been promoted primarily by the Alaskan Railroad. As you can see, it will be to their advantage. The Alaska Railroad over the life of its operation, has never been able to operate on its own revenues (average over the years). They have always used tactics which wouldn't have been allowed had they been a privately owned company. For example, they will raise and lower their rates at will. Before the Richardson Highway was kept open during the winter months, the railroad would raise their rates as soon as the road closed ata the fall, and lower the rates in the spring. Last year they lowered their rates to secure a lumber haul which was destined for Big Delta. How it is possible to haul 465 miles by rail from Seward to Fairbanks, and haul by truck 110 miles mouth to Big Delta, cheaper than a trucker can haul from Valdez to Big Delta, a distance of 265 miles? The same thing has happened on steel.

Sevend, I would like to call to your attention on concentration of Government agencies in the Anchorage area.

The Army and Air Force both maintain large bases for operation and supply here The main offices and shops of the Alaska Railroad are located there. The Division offices of the Alaska Road Commission, Third Division Courts, and merous others,

In the case of an attack, it would seem that the Anchorage area would be target number one,

Therefore, in the interest of national defense, I believe that the agencies should be better dispersed.

The money's appropriated by Congress for the Alaska publie works are greatly appreciated. These appropriations have made it possible for the betterment of the cities of the Territory For example, Valdez, as well as many of the smaller towns, have made great strides toward such things as sewer and water sy stems, hospitals, schools, and fire protection.

I believe that two of the great needs of the Territory are a mental health institution, and a large salmon hatchery. If these were located in Valdez, or some other small coastal town west of the Gulf of Alaska, it would help the general economy and welfare of the Territory. More economically stable communities are better than 1 or 2 prosperous towns.

The Territory could use assistance in furthering the development of new Industries such as copper mining, cheap hydroelectric power as could be developed at Woods Canyon.

The Territorial sponsored Alaska Development Board has done some good, but they haven't gone far enough.

I thank you for this opportunity to present my views, and if I can be of assistance to you, please feel that your request will be welcome 1, and immediately taken care of to the best of my ability.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM A EGAN, VALDEZ MERCHANT

Mr. Chairman, it is my opinion that statehood for Alaska is the outstanding goal that we must work for if our Territory is ever to achieve the development of available natural resources. One shocking example is the manner in which our great salmon resource has been depleted under Federal stewardship. It cannot be emphasized too strongly that Alaskans, nearly a decade ago, went to the polls and voted nearly 8 to 1, from Ketchikan to Point Barrow, for the abolition of the fishtrap from Territorial waters. Why did our residents vote overwhelmingly for the abolishment of this type of gear? Because it had become

too evident that the same situation was developing in regard to the salmon fisheries of Alaska has had developed previously in Puget Sound and in the waters of British Columbia. The salmon fisheries management of Puget Sound and British Columbia did away with the trap type of fishing long ago with the result that their fishery has gradually and steadily improved. At the same time, under the management that refuses to recognize the devastating effect of the strategically located fishtrap, our great salmon industry has been on a steady, tragic decline. From a pack of some 8 million cases of salmon in 1939, the Territory will be extremely fortunate to pack a total of 2,225,000 cases of salmon in 1955.

Why is a fish trap so devastating? The fish-trap site is chosen by those few who have the good fortune to be endowed with capital enough to construct such a type of gear. It is chosen after careful studies have shown that runs of salmon, year after year, in a given area generally follow some part of the shoreline in their trek to the bays and streams to spawn and die. The site is usually situated off some rocky point, prior to the time when the salmon split up their great numbers to head for the individual streams where they were born. Thus, it is my contention that, very likely, some fish traps far away from the eventual spawning grounds, could and do catch in some certain few days' periods of each year, almost the entire run of salmon that would be heading to some particular unknown stream where they would have spawned.

Properly regulated seining gear could not possibly wipe out the perpetuation of our great salmon resource as the fish trap has done. But how can seining gear or any other type of gear be properly regulated when such an unfair situation exists? Moreover, how can we expect the proper psychological reasoning toward regulatory measures from our seine and gill-net fishermen when they know that away out on some rocky point, a big, effective stationary type of gear is catching the cream of the run prior to the time the salmon reach the “inside bays.”

The question might well be asked: "If all this story of the devastation of the fish trap to the salmon industry is true, why would the salmon industry as such oppose the elimination of this type of gear? Wouldn't it be to their advantage also to eliminate this menace?"

The answer, as I see it, goes back to the greed of man. Moreover, packing Alaska's salmon is not the only interest of many of the big Alaska packers. Some of them can fall back on packing peaches in California or corn in Iowa, etc. In addition, equitable tax laws being what they have to be, there is no doubt that when a time like this comes and drastic measures have to be taken, considerable tax writeoffs have to be allowed. It does not appear to me that the really big Alaska salmon packers are hurt too badly because of the salmon industry debacle of the past few years. Drastic measures had to be taken in our own Prince William Sound area. We have been subjected to a complete closure for the past 2 years of our once tremendously lucrative pink- and chum-salmon resource. Latest reports are that Prince William Sound will be opened for pinks and chums during the 1956 season. We have heard not one statement, however, indicating that fishing by means of fish traps will be eliminated during that season. If the Territory of Alaska had control of its commercial fisheries, there would be no fish traps in operation on Prince William Sound in 1956. Nor would there be fish traps operating in any waters of the Territory. When the day comes to pass that fish traps are eliminated, then, on that day the fishermen of Alaska will have respect for any reasonable regulation of other types of gear. It is my firm conviction, judging from past experience, that statehood for Alaska is the only answer in attempting to solve this question of perpetuating this great natural resource. Right here is one of the main answers to those who would attempt to confuse the issue of statehood for Alaska. In a relatively few years the State of Alaska would have rebuilt its salmon fishery to the point where the present rate of taxation on the industry could be appreciably cut and still bring into the State treasury several millions of dollars more than is being received today.

MENTAL HEALTH LEGISLATION

All Alaskans are tremendously interested in the Mental Health Act presently before Congress. Many of us have had the sad experience of sitting as jurors in United States Commissioner's Court while trial of one of our fellow citizens was being held. This Federal court trial of a person believed to have mental difficulties is revolting to all that we Americans have cherished and held dear down these many years. Early enactment in the next session of Congress of

legislation that will remedy this situation would, in our opinion, be one of your finest achievements as United States Congressmen. We also believe it is merely fundamental that a modern mental health institution be constructed here in the Territory.

BOAT HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS

Boat harbor and harbor improvement projects is a subject that is of general importance throughout the Territory. With our thousands of miles of coastline, this sort of development is basic if we are to progress. Appropriations for this type of project are merely investments by our Federal Government in the future advancement of Alaskan industry. We are alarmed at the great time lags between authorizations for these projects and the actual appropriations. For instance, $115,000 was authorized in 1953 for harbor improvement at Valdez. Funds to carry out this authorization have not been appropriated as yet. This project is of immense importance to this area and we could be grateful if, as Representatives in the Congress, you could push for this appropriation for next year. There are many things for which we are grateful to you as Congressmen and to our Delegate, Bob Bartlett. Prior to 1949 the main highway artery to Alaska's great interior, the Richardson Highway with its coastal terminus at Valdez, was closed to traffic during the winter months. In other words, the United States Government spent millions of dollars over the years in constructing a fine highway and then allowed it to remain completely closed for from 6 to 7 months every year. During the winter of 1949-50, through a combination of circumstances the highway was kept open to traffic for the first time. Winter maintenance did not prove to be the tremendously costly venture that some "experts" had predicted. The highway has been open on a year-round basis ever since and tonnage figures on freight hauled over the highway during the winter months completely justify this operation. Winter freighting over the highway has completely changed the economic makeup of the entire area. We trust that this successful operation has proven to Congress that the comparatively little additional costs in maintenance has paid for itself many times over.

ALASKA PUBLIC WORKS ACT

High on the list of items for which we are grateful to the Congress is the Alaska Public Works Act. It is almost impossible for a stranger to visualize how much these public work projects have meant to Alaskans. In our own town of Valdez we have voted to bond ourselves for the following projects: Sewer system, water system, hospital, school, and street improvements. The sewer system has been completed. The water system is just being completed. Our hospital is in the process of construction and next year our new school will be constructed. If the Congress, realizing what wonderful results have thus far been achieved, continues the program we will undoubtedly have our street improvements in 1957. Our share of the costs of the program is being borne by a 2 percent local sales tax that was imposed by an overwhelming vote of our citizens to defray the costs of the various projects.

GOVERNMENT HEADQUARTERS

In 1940 Valdez was and had been for many years court headquarters for the Third Judicial Division. In December of that year our Federal building burned and court headquarters were moved to Anchorage. Since that time, mainly because of the National Defense Act of 1940, which strictly restricted the public buildings program, Valdez has been without proper building facilities for the Federal agencies located here. For example, the United States commissioner has her office in her home. Very important records relative to lands and all recorded deeds and commissioner's court cases are housed in the home which could burn at any time and destroy valuable and priceless records. The post office is housed in a ramshackle frame building that would not give pride to a community in the remotest outlying area.

The Alaska Road Commission headquarters and all their records and equipment are housed in another frame building that could easily be destroyed in a raging fire at any time. It is our understanding that the Public Buildings Administration has Valdez on their list for a new Federal building that will house all these agencies under one roof, in a fireproof structure. We note that some appropriations for public buildings have been made recently and we would be deeply appreciative if your committee members would investigate and aid us

in attaining an appropriation for this very necessary structure at the earliest possible time. There is no other incorporated town in Alaska that is in such need of a proper Federal facility.

Valdez, very properly, is headquarters for the Alaska Road Commission (a Federal agency) in this district. Quite often we hear rumors that there are those who would move this headquarters from Valdez to a point up the Richardson Highway. We submit that any such move would not be consistent with good business procedure from the standpoint of economy or efficiency. Valdez, regardless of how anyone might attempt to change its geographic location, will always remain the shortest route from the coast to the interior. It will always remain as the point of supply for this district. It would not be in the best interests of good government to move district headquarters of a road agency away from its point of supply. Another very important item is that Glenallen, which would be the location of district headquarters if and when those who are for this move are successful, has proven to be an area where it is tremendously expensive to construct Government buildings due to an extensive permafrost condition. If and when any such move is in the offing there would be no other alternative but for the people of Valdez to take vigorous action in forestalling any such move. With transportation and communications facilities being what they are today in this area, we can see no good reason for any attempt to remove the Alaska Road Commission headquarters from Valdez. We trust that if this subject should ever be brought to the attention of your committee that you will give the people of Valdez an opportunity to be heard on the subject.

SEA TRAIN OPERATIONS

Another subject that commands our attention is the subject of sea trains for Alaska. It is very hard to get official information as to plans of the Interior Department on this subject. Every once in awhile, however, a news article will appear that would indicate the sea train idea is being pursued actively by the Department of the Interior in conjunction with various ocean-going freight carriers. Where the millions of dollars are coming from to finance the venture has never been made entirely clear. Special ships would be constructed that would carry rail freight cars and truck vans to their designated Alaskan ports where they would be very quickly unloaded and on their way to their destination. If this were strictly a private venture we could have no quarrel with the proposal. It is our understanding, however, that most of the financing would come out of Uncle Sam's pocket. Repayment of these funds would, of necessity, cover a long period of time. It was our understanding that a committee of Congress was going to hold hearings on the subject in Alaska this summer. These hearings were not held. Alaska is completely without oceangoing passenger service. Financial reasons were cited as being the cause of the curtailment of ship passenger service to the Territory. We submit that if many millions of dollars are going to be spent by the Federal Government to finance this sea-train idea, some committee of Congress should investigate the matter thoroughly as to whether or not it would be more advantageous to Alaska and to our Government to partially finance a resumption of passenger ship service to the Territory. The fact is that we already have an efficient ocean-going freight service to the Territory. We do not have a single passenger ship in operation from the States across the Gulf of Alaska.

MILITARY INSTALLATIONS

We realize yours is not the Armed Services Committee, but, as Members of Congress we would like to call to your attention the fact that this port, Valdez, is the northernmost all-year-round port in the Territory. It is the port that would bear a great deal of the burden if war were thrust upon us. There is not one antiaircraft gun in the mountains surrounding this port. There are no defense installations here whatsoever. As laymen we realize the military has some sort of plan. Also as laymen, we know that war alters the best of plans. We believe that a thorough investigation should be made into this problem. It is possible that a small military installation here could prove of the greatest strategic importance in the event of the outbreak of hostilities at any future time.

I want to personally thank the committee for coming to Valdez. We hope that you will enjoy your stay in this area and that you will have pleasant memories of your visit here.

ALASKA, 1955

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1955

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRITORIAL AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,
Cordova, Alaska.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3: 25 p. m., in Elks Hall, Hon. Gracie Pfost presiding.

Mrs. Prost. The Subcommittee on Territorial and Insular Affairs will now come to order.

I want to say to you people of Cordova that we of the committee are most happy to be here this afternoon. We are sorry that the heavens turned loose and sort of dampened the outside, but from the moment we landed at the airstrip we knew that it certainly had not dampened the friendliness nor the spirits of the people of Cordova. We were very disappointed that the weather did not permit us to go over to Valdez and that it was necessary for us to descend upon you a couple or 3 hours earlier than our schedule called for, but nonetheless you have certainly made up for it by taking us about and making us feel really welcome and at home.

I would like to introduce to you the members of the committee and the staff members who are here with us this afternoon.

I will begin on my left with Mr. Sid McFarland, who is our engineering consultant of the full Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs; Congressman Utt of California; Congressman Dawson of Utah. I am sure the gentleman to my right needs no introduction, Delegate Bartlett of your own Territory of Alaska; and Dr. Taylor, who is the Territories consultant on our committee. We also have with us Mr. Veley, our reporter.

I understand that you people have a great many problems, that in the late thirties the Kennecott copper mines closed down and you were supposed to just wither on the vine after that. But instead you have progressed with your local industries and fishing, and I understand you have expanded fishing here in the community. We saw such evidence as we came in from the airport today as the new Alaska Publice Works School and the new 20-bed hospital. You are to be congratulated upon the expansion and growth you have made in the face of many downward turns.

One of your major problems naturally is statehood. It is one we have heard a great deal about not only in Washington, D. C., but since arriving in the Territory of Alaska.

On behalf of the committee members I might say I doubt we could have lived with Bob Bartlett very much longer in the Congress had we not agreed to come to Alaska and look first hand into some of your