can get a stretch of land. If they do have such a stretch and such equipment, they can't go back far enough to get it.

Before the pulp mill came into the picture the spruce mill was encouraging all hand loggers to take and go out and log and they take the logs. They will do it now. The pulp mill is supplying the spruce mill with lots of logs they can't use, and any peeler logs, they go to the plywood factory in Juneau.

If I am not mistaken, it was last fall there were three fishermen here in town and they went into a place down here and they had a sign on the board "Loggers." They took and told them to come back Monday morning and they would go out on a job. They came back Monday morning and the guy says: "That is out. We can't give you a job. The pulp mill has got 10 men being shipped from Seattle up here to work in the pulp mill." And this guy told them, he said, “You fellows are fishermen anyhow. We don't want fishermen."

So far as fishermen are concerned, they can't get a job, and he is discriminated against because he is a fisherman.

One more thing and it is the last one.

I would like to know why when the pulp mill put in the dams out out at Ward's Cove there wasn't a ladder put in there so the fish could get up in them lakes to spawn. That wasn't done. But at our meeting last night it was explained that somebody wrote them a letter and stated there wasn't a fish stream and no fish ever went up there to spawn. That come up in our meeting last night with the Advisory Board of the Alaska Department of Fisheries. That was news to me. I didn't even know that letter existed.

That is all.

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much.

Mrs. Pfost?

Mrs. PFOST. No questions.

Mr. BARTLETT. Judge Chenoweth?

Mr. CHENOWETH. I think I will reserve my time.

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Sisk?

Mr. SISK. I have no questions.

Mr. BARTLETT. We thank you, Mr. McCall, and you will have the privilege of submitting a written statement.

The committee will take a short recess.

(A short recess was taken.)

Mr. BARTLETT. The committee will be in order.

Mr. Force.

STATEMENT OF D. FORCE, DISTRICT COMMANDER, SOUTHEASTERN DISTRICT OF THE AMERICAN LEGION, KETCHIKAN, ALASKA

Mr. FORCE. I am D. Force. I am a special agent with the New York Life. My residence here in Ketchikan is 1245 Water Street. If I may be permitted, I would like to make my statement in two parts.

My primary reason for being here is that the American Legion, Department of Alaska, has passed a resolution regarding playground areas, and as district commander for the southeastern district of the American Legion, I have been asked to present this resolution. So

for the first part of my statement I will read the resolution, and I have a personal statement following that if I may.

Whereas the American Legion has ever been interested in the safety, recreational opportunities and the development of good citizenship of the youth of America; and

Whereas existing playgrounds and recreational areas in the Territory of Alaska are pitifully few in number resulting in a situation where children are found playing in the streets of the towns, and on the roadbeds of suburban highways and access roads; a situation which indicates that the present policies of our Federal agencies responsible for opening up for settlement new tracts of virgin land do not adequately provide recreational facilities for the future increase in the child population of the Territory of Alaska; and

Whereas it has been conclusively proved that in the few stateside communities where facilities for wholesome outdoor recreation have been abundantly provided, a lessening of the problems of juvenile delinquency has been observed, and Whereas, common sense dictates that the most feasible time to make adequate provision for future recreational needs is when new highways and access roads are in the planning stage, it being obviously too late and too costly to provide these areas after all homesites along a given highway have been leased and subsequently patented by pioneering families: Therefore, be it

Resolved, That the American Legion, Department of Alsaka, incorporated, in convention assembled September 1 through 5, 1955, most forcefully recommend that the United States Department of Agriculture, and the United States Department of the Interior, through their respective agencies having control of public lands be directed and authorized by congressional legislation to set aside many more and frequently placed playgrounds and recreational areas than is now the practice whenever and wherever new tracts of virgin land are opened up for settlement in the Territory of Alaska.

This resolution was originated in Ketchikan, Post 3, American Legion, and after being duly passed it was presented at the Department of Alaska Convention, where it was also duly passed, and is a matter of the record of that convention.

It seems, as is indicated in the resolution, the need is for legislation. I might point out that the Bureau of Land Management of the Department of the Interior has a definite policy that provides for recreational areas and special use areas for those purposes. I think that those of you who have anything to do with Government recognize that policies can change with changes of administration. It is the desire of the American Legion that such policies be replaced by legislation which requires that such land be set aside.

It also seems that one of the problems which exists and which I have no answer for at this stage of the game is that one of the basic things is we haven't the money for the facilities to develop these areas even that exist, and many of them do exist within the Ketchikan area. For example, the only place on the road system in the Ketchikan area that has picnic tables I may be wrong, but it seems to me of my knowledge that the only place that has picnic tables is Ward Lake which was developed by the CCC way back when and has since been kept up in very, very good shape and very good manner by the Forest Service. No complaint there. But when we do have sunny daysand we do have them-people flock to the various beaches and one thing and another and there aren't facilities of that type developed at all.

I don't know whether legislation which would permit the putting aside of such land could also include some money for the development or whether that is a problem which is strictly local. I leave that to you. It exists as a problem and we would like to have your consideration of it.

The interesting thing about this resolution is that it originated in southeastern Alaska where that problem does not exist as greatly as it does in the interior. Up there there have been actually times when areas have been opened up and by the time the Bureau of Land Management and other agencies get to it the entire lake, for example, might be completely surrounded by homesites and one thing and another, with no access available to the lake by the public.

The problem does exist, as I have indicated, down here, I can't very well speak for the Anchorage area or the area up there, but down here the policy exists which is tending to alleviate the problem, but the problem then becomes one of making the policy a permanent thing.

I would like to, if I might, speaking now as an individual and not as a member of the American Legion, because the American Legion has gone on record many years for favoring statehood, no ifs, ands, or buts about it I have a personal opinion which I would like to express for the record, because in following the hearings and the publicity on the committee hearings nobody had followed through on this particular line of thought.

I point out that in 1948 when I first came to the Territory I was afraid I wouldn't get here in time. I thought we would have statehood. No Johnny-come-lately now, I am beginning to think my children may not enjoy statehood for the reason it looks further away now than it ever was then.

I was like to point out something which may or may not be worthy of some thought. There are some great differences within the Territory of Alaska, and I would point out, as Senator Ellis said, most of those who oppose statehood are older folks who have made theirs and are happy and one thing and another.

I am opposed to statehood at present, and neither have I made it or am I older folk.

There are some existing differences within the Territory that are worthy of mention. Let's take a look at them.

Geographically there is a tremendous difference between southeastern Alaska and westward. By southeastern I mean a line, if you wish, to come down where we border with that straight line on the map, come straight down through and hit the ocean [indicating].

No. 1. Southeastern Alaska was literally stolen from Canada. When the boundaries were put in it was done in such a manner that British Columbia and the Yukon Territory had no access to the sea at all with the exception of Fraser River. It was a very shrewd move. I am not opposed to it. But believe me, while we in southeastern, relatively speaking, were stolen from Canada, the entire Territory, relatively speaking, was stolen from Russia.

No. 2. There is a tremendous difference in the economies. You have found that many, many times. Our economy down here is primarily fisheries and timber. The primary economy of the interior and westward Alaska is that of the military.

I speak not as an authority, but I would preface my remarks with this remark: I served for 6 years as field executive for the Boy Scouts of America in the Territory of Alaska, 3 years in Fairbanks where I had the entire interior, and 3 years down in southeastern Alaska where I had the bottom half of the first judicial division. The westward has a military economy. There is very little in common, but one of

the things that is in common is the mining which is dormant practically throughout the entire Territory.

One of the things growing in common is tourism, and it is growing and we are glad to see that.

One of the things I would like to mention is something that I mentioned to the colonel a moment ago. We have had a $60 million plant built in southeastern Alaska. It was of such newsworthy impact that it rated a full page in Time magazine. I have seen in the Fairbanks Daily New Miner when a $200 million congressional appropriation for military construction at Eielson Air Force Base rated a paragraph. That is a great discrepancy in thinking. So much money goes in up there and so little of it is touchable on a tax basis it really makes a difference.

There is a third difficulty, and that is in the population. I feel in southeastern Alaska most of the people, a big majority of the people are Alaskans by choice. I feel in the interior of Alaska at least close to a majority, if not half of the people up there, are up there because they are forced to be through military service or Government service. It makes a great deal of difference in your thinking.

In addition to that, down here as our pulp and our timber industries begin to develop we are having more and more year-round employment, something that doesn't exist in the interior and probably never will exist in the interior to any great extent.

Fourth, I would like to mention the geopolitical division. We had an interesting situation, and it exists yet, in which in Ketchikan, which I believe is the third largest town in the Territory, we had one representative in the legislature, a senator. We didn't even have a member in the house of representatives.

Here is what has happened: In the Senate you have three divisions to westward. So they have three-fourths of the representation in the Senate and we have one-fourth. In the house of representatives, because of this difference in population, they have the majority in the house of representatives also. So you have the intriguing situation where westward Alaska, which does not have an economy which can be taxed, is coming to our senate and taxing southeastern Alaska which has the economy and which is taxable. That is just all there is to it. It doesn't make me a Republican or a Democrat, it makes me a realist and makes me an Alaskan from southeastern Alaska because that difference exists.

One of the things which I have begun to think is feasible and a possibility is that southeastern Alaska, with 2 or 3 more of these big major industries, could very well support statehood on its own. Nobody talks about it very loud, but the fact still remains that we have the stable economy when that has happened, we have the stable population, we have the year-round industry.

What connects the two? I insist it is merely sentiment. It is merely sentiment that keeps the two entirely together. If westward Alaska by its own initiative and its own ability can build itself up to where it can be a State, it still will have the privilege of being bigger than Texas. But we down here, I think, are going to be ready for statehood far sooner than those up to the westward.

That concludes what I had to say.

Mrs. PrOST. Thank you very much for a very comprehensive statement and a most refreshing one.

I interpret your testimony to be a recommendation for statehood for southeastern Alaska before all of Alaska receives statehood. Mr. FORCE. You interpret it right.

Mrs. PFOST. That is all.

Mr. SISK. That, in essence, then, would mean that eventually there would be two States?

Mr. FORCE. That is quite possible, yes.

Mr. SISK. In other words, if southeastern Alaska became a State and then at some future date the balance became a State, it probably would always be a proposition of actual division and having 2 States in preference to 1 single State of Alaska?

Mr. FORCE. That is right. I would add, if I might, there was a Governor of Alaska who had intended that there be four States out of the Territory of Alaska. It is quite some time in the past. Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chenoweth?

Mr. CHENOWETH. What is the relative population of the two areas in comparison with each other?

Mr. FORCE. I cannot say. I think that this statement is in order, though: That of the 10 largest cities or villages, if you wish, in Alaska, 6 of them are in southeastern Alaska.

Mr. CHENOWETH. Six out of ten?

Mr. FORCE. Yes.

Mr. CHENOWETH. You have four judicial districts in Alaska?
Mr. FORCE. Yes.

Mr. CHENOWETH. Four Federal judges?

Mr. FORCE. That is right.

Mr. CHENOWETH. How long have you been living in Alaska now? Mr. FORCE. Since 1948.

Mr. CHENOWETH. Are you pretty well satisfied?

Mr. FORCE. I will never leave. As far as I am concerned that is the old country down there.

Mr. CHENOWETH. Do you feel the Federal Government is taking pretty good care of their obligations here in Alaska or not?

Mr. FORCE. I feel that the Federal Government is taking good care of its obligations. I believe that some of the problems that have to be solved prior to statehood are ones we, as Alaskans, have to solve, not to be solved for us by the Federal Government.

Mr. CHENOWETH. You recognize there are serious substantial economic problems involved in statehood whether for southeastern Alaska or the whole Territory.

Mr. FORCE. I recognize that.

Mr. CHENOWETH. I can see you have given a great deal of study to the matter and I commend you on your interest.

Mr. FORCE. Thank you.

Mr. BARTLETT. I would like to say there was a partition proposal made in connection with statehood a couple of years ago, and there was almost unanimous declaration against any separation of Alaska, which came from all parts of the Territory. I thought the sentiment against that was rather overwhelming.

Mr. FORCE. I believe, Delegate Bartlett, as long as it is done on a straight population basis some of it might always be against it with the sort of population there is up here. I think if a sample were taken since the last legislature there might be some change, and there may be a continuing change.