« AnteriorContinuar »
Government properties. We have a problem which is under negotiation at the present time which illustrates a hardship that is imposed by limitation of Federal sharing in local government when mutual benefit is received. One of our biggest Federal installations inside the city limits is the Alaska Railroad general offices, repair shops, and terminal yards. There is no question but that the Alaska Railroad is one of our biggest economic assets. For years
it has had to provide some of its own municipal-type services by its own personnel, because of the recognized inability of Anchorage's finances to provide such services adequately. However, during the past year the railroad has recognized that Anchorage is now capable of providing fire protection to its properties that lie within the terminal reserve. They were spending an estimated $90,000 per year for fire protection service, of which part was also considered as watchmen services. The officials decided that by abolishing their own fire department that they would have a net reduction in operating costs of $60,000 per year. After negotiation with city officials, the railroad recognized that by augmenting city forces for a portion of their present cost of fire-fighting that the fire-fighting facilities could be performed more economically for both parties. They offered to enter into a contract for $30,000 per year to pay for this service. This would result in a net $30,000 saving to the railroad.
The proposal was to be cleared with the Department of the Interior, and the Solicitor replied that the Government could not pay anything for fire protection for property lying within the city limits, and that the city would have to furnish this protection without cost to the Government. The city council has tentatively agreed to proceed with the furnishing of fire-protection services in order to permit the railroad to save $60,000 per year, assuming that the city receives nothing for performing this service. However, we are requesting payment for the service on a $30,000 per year basis, and we will request special legislation to permit such payment, if present Federal regulations make it necessary to do so. The city has never questioned its obligation to service all of the governmental facilities within the city without cost other than the Alaska Railroad. The reason for the exception to the Alaska Railroad is that it is considered a proprietary function of a semi-governmental nature and is in business on a self-sustaining basis. Should the city be required to provide the service at a lower cost to the railroad than it has always provided for itself out of operating expenses, some reimbursement should be made to the city for such service. This is also an example of many of the frustrations that occur when Federal governmental officials at the local level recognize the merits of the city's proposals but are prevented from carrying out a practical and equitable solution because of restraints imposed by general regulations of the Federal Government which never apply to all situations. There is no question but that these general regulations are modified constantly in like situations in the States because of congressional representation of the people involved. In Alaska we do not have this benefit. We have nothing but praise for the sincere, courageous, and exceptionally hard work performed by our Delegate, Bob Bartlett, on behalf of all of Alaska, but our Delegate's lack of voting power very often prohibits results at the Federal departmental levels in Washington. In the past there have been many instances
where the city of Anchorage and other communities have remained an unheard voice in the wilderness.
Now is the time to introduce our testimony on statehood. Since this is a political policy matter, we have a very capable representative of the city government to speak on behalf of the city council in regard to this subject and other subjects of a policy nature. I would like to introduce our very able mayor, Maynard L. Taylor, Jr.
Mr. BARTLETT. We welcome the very able mayor of Anchorage.
STATEMENT OF MAYNARD L. TAYLOR, JR., MAYOR, ANCHORAGE,
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. O'Brien and members of the committee, I have been very fortunate being assigned a subject, two subjects. One subject, of course, is very close to the people of Anchorage and more close to the entire Territory of Alaska. The other subject is a subject which is very close to the people of Anchorage and close to the people of the entire third judicial division. The first subject, of course, is statehood. I have a prepared text, and I realize that you people have been subjected to testimony on statehood for years. There is little that we can add to what has been said before, and for the record, I would like to read just a couple of excerpts from the prepared statement.
Because of the restrictions of the Organic Act even the power of cities has been limited by congressional action and can only be extended, expanded or changed by an act of Congress. This means that in Alaska even a true form of municipal government, which has long been recognized as the grassroots of democracy, is not possible.
There are many things which a city government desires to do of a local government nature that are ordinarily done by stateside cities, but which we cannot do until Alaska becomes a State. The same is true for fringe areas of cities where there is no true local government permitted under the national regulations.
Those are the excerpts that I would like to point out in regard to the statehood subject.
The second subject is, of course, our judicial system, and I would like to also read some excerpts from the prepared statement and call your attention specifically to the graph which is inclosed showing a 10-year period of cases pending and cases closed. Before I start I would like to call to your attention the fact that though the efficiency of the Third Judicial Court has increased tremendously over a period of 10 years the cases pending are increasing so rapidly that there is no forseeable answer other than a second judicial judge.
There is only one court facility to serve the entire Third Judicial Division, and this court is headquartered in the Federal Building here in Anchorage. Since the court handles criminal, civil and bankruptcy cases, hearings on liquor, beer, and wine applications and any other court matters assigned to the court in the interpretation of Federal and Territorial laws, the single court has become greatly overburdened with work and is building up an increasing backlog of cases pending.
The city of Anchorage has recognized the need for relief of the court's workload and heartily endorses the establishment of additional
court facilities outlined by Judge McCarrey's report. We would like to submit to you copies of the report from Judge McCarrey and urge this committee to initiate legislation which would make this enlargement and improvement possible.
As Alaska grows and Anchorage grows, it should be self-evident that the work of the courts will grow in proportion. Court efficiency is well established by this report, but it is humanly impossible under single court operation to meet the judicial responsibilities of the Federal Government. Even if statehood is granted to Alaska, a Federal court system would still have to carry the burden for several years before State courts could be completely organized and, thereby, assume some of the workloads that the Federal courts are now carrying that normally are State court responsibilities. It is our belief that the 2 Federal courts would still be necessary; but should statehood relieve the Federal court to such an extent that only 1 court again becomes necessary, then I am sure that the State of Alaska would be in a position to lease the new Federal court facility for State court purposes. We need the help of this committee to solve our court problem.
(The full statement submitted by Mr. Taylor follows:)
STATEMENT OF MAYNARD L. TAYLOR, JR., MAYOR OF ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
ALASKA STATEHOOD AND ENLARGING FEDERAL COURT AT ANCHORAGE
Many of the problems that have been presented to this committee by the various city officials and many of the problems that will be presented by others in your committee hearings have become problems of Federal Government because Alaska is a Territory. Territorial status means direct Federal control, Federal restraint, and lack of true representation of Alaska's population within the framework of Federal Government. Because of the restrictions of the organic act, even the power of cities has been limited by congressional action and can only be extended, expanded, or changed by an act of Congress. This means that in Alaska even á true form of municipal government, which has long been recognized as the grass roots of democracy, is not possible. As Anchorage grows in size, we are required to meet more complex problems of serving our citizens in a greater concentrated area, and yet it is impossible to meet the problems because to do so will require presentation after presentation of minor local problems to the Congress of the United States which, in turn, would naturally regard them as insignificant because they are of no national interest.
Alaska cities should have the privilege of home-rule government in order to meet changing times, changing trends, and a changing population. We believe that these local governmental problems would be transferred from the congressional responsibility to local responsibility under statehood. With statehood would come home rule for Alaska and Alaskan cities. Cities could formulate and organize their own governments to meet public local needs by the adopticn of home-rule charters to govern the operation of incorporated cities. If changes are necessary and become evident to the voters of the city, they, by their own option, can make these changes. It appears unreasonable that the city of Anchorage should have to go to Congress every few years and request enabling legislation to permit the city to expand its debt limits to meet its ever-growing needs of building community facilities to take care of the people that live and make their livelihood within Anchorage. It does not appear reasonable that residents of cities in Alaska should pay Federal taxes on gasoline and Federal income taxes, and yet not get equal treatment in distribution of Federal-aid road funds on the same basis as people who reside in other cities within the States or our Nation.
It does not appear reasonable that we should be "a voice in the wilderness" when it comes to our dealings and negotiations with Federal bureaus, whose officials locally will agree that special consideration should be given in the local situation, but such consideration could only be given with a change in regulations, and a change in regulations cannot be accomplished simply because Alaska has no voice in the making of Federal policies.
Statehood granted to Alaska would soon erase the frustrations that now exist between the United States citizens who reside in Alaska as they, time and time
again, realize their citizenship is without rights of franchise. Statehood would eliminate these types of complaints with the result that Anchorage and other Alaskan cities could truly be represented in Washington when these governmental problems arise. There are many things which a city government desires to do of à local government nature that are ordinarily done by stateside cities, but which we cannot do until Alaska becomes a State. The same is true for fringe areas of cities where there is no true local government permitted under the national regulations. Alaska, as a State, could solve many of its problems within its own Territorial legislature under true home-ruie principles, but now they are hampered by the organic act and the many Federal laws that are applicable only to the Territory of Alaska.
Mr. Chairman, if you examine records of the various congressional hearings that have been held in Alaska, I am sure that you will find many of the problems presented to these committees would not be presented to congressional committees when Alaska becomes a State. We would still have requests for Federal projects; we would still be seeking Federal aid; we would be doing everything that is done in congressional hearings in other States, but we would not be bothering congressional committees or the Congress itself with minor problems, which are really of no concern to the Nation but only to local government interests. The city council has on numerous occasions endorsed statehood for Alaska, and I want to again present such an endorsement to this committee.
I have one more serious deficiency to present to this committee because, under existing Federal laws, there is only one court system to serve Alaska's populationthat is the system of Federal courts.
There is only one court facility to serve the entire Third Judicial Division, and this court is headquartered in the Federal building here in Anchorage. Since the court handles criminal, civil, and bankruptcy cases, hearings on liquor, beer, and wine applications, and any other court matters assigned to the court in the interpretation of Federal and †erritorial laws, the single court has become greatly overburdened with work and is building up an increasing backlog of cases pending. For example, in 1945 there were 213 civil cases pending at the beginning of the year, 336 filed during the year, 302 cases closed, which left a balance of 247 civil cases pending. At the end of 10 years this caseload shows that at the end of 1954 there were 1,499 civil cases pending and for the first 8 months of 1955, 835 cases have been filed, 713 cases closed with 1,621 cases still pending, During the same period the records indicate a tremendous increase in the amount of work produced by the court not only in civil cases, but in criminal cases and all other activities that are handled by the court. This is best illustrated in the attached chart showing the comparison of the gradual increase in the number of civil cases closed each year since 1945 and yet the increasing number of cases pending each year. For a number of years, it has been requested that a second court be established in Anchorage to prevent the situation that now exists and to correct the problem before it reached the proportions that it now takes. Justice in both criminal and civil cases should not be postponed for indefinite periods of time, even as much as 2 or 3 years, but they should be acted upon at the time, The rendering out of the justice of the crime committed should be done expeditiously and effectively.
The Honorable Judge J. L. McCarrey has recognized this situation since taking office in 1953, and he has sought relief from the Attorney General's office who has also recognized the growing problem in Anchorage. In order to establish a second court in Anchorage, it will require not only appropriations for the materials and operation of the court, but will also require appropriations for the construction of a new court facility. Judge McCarrey has prepared a comprehensive report on the activities of the Third Judicial Division Court, and he has had prepared tentative plans of court expansion. The city of Anchorage has recognized the need for relief of the court's workload and heartily endorses the establishment of additional court facilities as outlined by Judge McCarrey's report. We would like to submit to you copies of the report from Judge McCarrey and urge this committee to initiate legislation which would make this enlargement and improvement possible. As Alaska grows and Anchorage grows, it should be self-evident that the work of the courts will grow in proportion. Court efficiency is well established by this report, but it is humaniy impossible under singlecourt operation to meet the judicial responsibilities of the Federal Government. Even if statehood is granted to Alaska, a Federal court system would still have to carry the burden for several years before State courts could be completely organized and, thereby, assume some of the workload that the Federal courts
are now carrying that normally are State court responsibilities. It is our belief that the 2 Federal courts would still be necessary but should statehood relieve the Federal court to such an extent that only 1 court again becomes necessary, then I am sure that the State of Alaska would be in a position to lease the new Federal court facility for State court purposes. We need the help of this committee to solve our court problem.
Mr. BARTLETT. Mayor Taylor, we are grateful to you for coming before the committee.
We propose to take a short recess now, and at its conclusion the witnesses who have appeared will, we hope, be available for questioning. I am wondering if you would have time to remain.
Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, I will.
Mr. BARTLETT. Then I suggest we go ahead and conclude your testimony before we take a recess.
Mr. SHANNON. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I would like to summarize this presentation by first quoting from a speech made in Fairbanks, Alaska, on August 30, 1955, by Brig. Gen. T. Alan Bennett, Commanding General of the 11th Air Division of the Air Force at Ladd Air Force Base, Fairbanks, because I believe his statement would be equally applicable to Anchorage with its numerous Federal installations. He is quoted as follows:
There has been too much talk about how dependent the city of Fairbanks is on the military. It is a known fact that we employ a large number of people of this community in one phase of the activity or another. The combined incomes