MASTER'S THESIS M-1800

CLINES, Jr., Carroll V. ALASKA'S PRESS AND THE BATTLE FOR STATEHOOD.

The American University, M.A., 1969 Journalism

University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan

Carroll V. Glines, Jr. 1969 ©.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ALASKA'S PRESS AND THE BATTLE FOR STATEHOOD

by

Carroll V. Glines

Submitted to the Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of The American University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts

Journalism

Signatures of Committ

Chairman Z

Dean of the College

Date ; ^ Date: y . n ( > 9

AMERICAN UNiVtKbii LIBRARY 1969 APR 11 1969 The American University Washington, D.C. WASHINGTON. D ^ PREFACE

Alaska is the largest of the fifty states in size, yet has fewer people living there than reside in Rhode Island, the smallest state. It is a land of mystery and stark con­ trasts and for all practical purposes is as much an island as is the State of Hawaii.

Alaska lies mostly above the 60th parallel where the massive North American and Asian continents nearly touch each other before they flow apart to edge the widening expanses of the Pacific Ocean. No railroad connects the forty-ninth state with the "Lower 48." The Alaska Highway, still an unimproved clay and gravel surfaced country road, cannot be considered an adequate surface artery connecting Alaskan communities either with their Canadian neighbors or other American communities.

Sea transportation, augmented by air transportation, remains the primary method of commerce. It is estimated that

about 99 per cent of the state's imports and exports are water-

transported, leaving only one per cent to be shipped by air

or over the Alaska Highway.

The remoteness of Alaska, coupled with its severe win­

ter climate, has contributed to its slow growth and limited

population. However, it is a land of unbelievably rich Ill mineral resources waiting to be tapped. As the needs of man increase to that point in time when it will be economically feasible, these resources will be exploited and that time comes closer and closer.

As this thesis is being written, however, Alaska is a huge but still sparsely populated land. Of the approximately

275.000 residents, about 125,000 live in the Anchorage area, another 50,000 around Fairbanks, about 12,000 at Ketchikan,

11.000 in the Juneau and 9,000 in the Sitka areas in Southeast

Alaska. There are approximately 7,000 persons living at Kodiak, a fishing community on Kodiak Island.

Alaska's only daily newspapers are published in these cities. Anchorage in South Central Alaska and Fairbanks in

North Central Alaska publish two each; the Anchorage Daily

Times and Anchorage Daily News ; the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner and Jessen's Daily. The other cities publish one each: the

Ketchikan Daily News; Juneau Daily Alaska Empire ; the Sitka

Sentinel and the Kodiak Mirror. Although the Anchorage and

Fairbanks papers are distributed throughout Alaska, the prob­ lem of great distances accessible only by airplane has isolated many Alaskans from access to a daily newspaper.

It is only since 1924 that Alaskans have had radio stations available and television was not introduced until 1953. IV

The vast geographic size of Alaska presents coverage problems

of topography and distance which have prevented the rapid growth of commercial broadcasting. However, the remoteness

of Alaska has created in its people a thirst for news and

information that is seldom found anywhere else in America. e Thus, the journalism media have always been welcome but have

not always lasted because the small populations could not

sustain them economically.

Alaskans, as a group of Americans, are hardy souls.

They have to be to survive the rigors of the weather and the hardships of the modern pioneer who must pay dearly for his

luxuries and endure exorbitant costs for his necessities. In

addition to his rugged personality, he is fiercely independent

and resents laws, taxes and absentee government that tend to

make his life more difficult. While wanting to be left alone

on the one hand, he wants desperately to be included in the

community of man on the other and fights for the rights accorded

to other citizens of the United States.

The Alaskan resident has had a long history of fighting

for his rights and the purpose of this study is to chronicle

his struggle to have the vast area in which he lives designated

a state so that he and his neighbors could enjoy the privileges

of self-government that are supposed to be the birthright of V all Americans. This study will also trace the role^pf Alaskan journalists in the struggle for statehood and attempt to deter­ mine how influential they were in determining the outcome.

The objective of this thesis is to compile the first historical study of the battle to acquire statehood for Alaska, coupled with the story of Alaskan journalism and its battle for men's minds. While many books have been written about

Alaska, never, to this writer's knowledge, has anyone attempted a study of the one subject in conjunction with the other.

Primary investigation methods employed for this study have been person-to-person interviews and correspondence with persons directly involved in the statehood issue. The news­ paper and magazine files in the Historical Library and Museum in Juneau, Alaska, were researched. Visits were made to news­ paper offices in Sitka, Juneau, Nome, Kodiak, Fairbanks and

Anchorage to obtain clippings and advice on sources of infor­ mation. All the research data used in this thesis is listed in the bibliography and was utilized by the author.

There are 7 chapters included in this thesis. Chapter I traces the history of Alaskan government from the time of its purchase from Russia in 1867 until the enactment of the first law that placed the government of Alaska in the hands of civil­ ian authorities. VI

chapter II continues the governmental history of Alaska through the years of trial and error until 1960, the beginning of a decade of hope and promise.

Chapter III traces the history of journalism in Alaska from the days of the first English language newspapers through the years of World War II when a total of four commercial radio

stations were in operation.

In Chapter IV, the revival of the idea of self-government

in the form of statehood is traced with emphasis on the roles played by the various newspaper editors through their personal efforts to influence the movement as well as their editorials designed to influence their readers. In this chapter, the reader will see the forces that were operating against state­ hood and the reasons for this opposition.

Chapter V reviews the significant events regarding state­ hood at the turn of the decade into the 1950's. The battle

intensifies and journalists become more active as statehood

opponents propose that Alaska become a Commonwealth like Puerto

Rico or be partitioned so that only a fraction of the area would become a state.

In Chapter VI, the thesis traces the drafting of a state

constitution and press reaction to the idea of a constitutional

convention when statehood seemed as remote as ever. The entrance vil of a concerned American, Mr. George H. Lehleitner, on the

scene and the influence of his "Tennessee Plan" are also

studied. The chapter ends with the completion of the statehood process as President Eisenhower signs the proclamation that made the admittance of Alaska to the Union of States official.

Chapter VII summarizes the role of journalists and

journalism in the long struggle for self-government. The rea­

sons for the opposition to statehood are reviewed along with

the evidence to show the influence exerted by the press in

achieving the goal. The thesis closes with conclusions and recommendations of the author. ACKNOWLE DGMENTS

The author received valuable assistance from many sources during a two-year military tour in Alaska. The three men most heavily involved in the battle to win statehood status for the

Territory of Alaska— Mr. Robert B. Atwood, Mr. C. W. Snedden and Mr. George H. Lehleitner— were most generous of their time and answered many vital questions by letter which only they could answer. The author is grateful for their help and advice.

In addition to the information furnished by the editors of the daily newspapers in Alaska, the author is indebted for the research assistance provided by Mr. Richard Engen, Mrs. Phyl­ lis Nottingham and Mrs. Margaret Leibowitz of the Libraries

Division of the Alaska Department of Education in Juneau, Alaska.

Mr. Alvin O. Bramstedt, President of Midnight Sun Broad­ casters, Inc., and Mr. August G. Hiebert, President of Northern

Television, Inc., contributed valuable background information concerning the roles played by prominent individuals on both sides of the issue. In addition, they provided interesting sidelights on radio and television broadcasting during the pio­ neering days of the electronic industry in Alaska and confirmed the author's findings in regard to the role played by these media in the statehood drama. IX

The author recognizes with special gratitude the advice and counsel given by Professor H. D. Crawford of the Depart­ ment of Communication during the research and writing of this thesis. He gave continual encouragement and guidance above and beyond that normally given by busy faculty members to stu­ dents, especially those in absentia. TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Preface...... il

Acknowledgments...... viii

CHAPTER

I. SEWARD'S FOLLY AND THE STRUGGLE FOR LAW AND

ORDER ...... 1

II. THE YEARS OF PROMISE AND DESPERATION .... 13

III. THE RISE OF ALASKAN JOURNALISM ...... 25 A IV. THE BATTLE FOR STATEHOOD INTENSIFIES .... 37

V. NEW DECADE — NEW H O P E ...... 55

VI. A CONSTITUTION WITHOUT A S T A T E ...... 75

VII. SUMMARY OF THE ROLE OF JOURNALISTS AND

JOURNALISM IN THE LONG STRUGGLE...... 96

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 109 CHAPTER I

SEWARD'S POLLY AND THE STRUGGLE FOR LAW AND ORDER

At eight o'clock on the evening of June 30, 1958,

Senator Richard Neuberger, presiding over the United States

Senate, uttered five words; "So the bill has passed." Those words, following six days of debate over the issue upon which a vote had just been tallied, marked the end of a long struggle by a small group of Americans for the privilege of self-government.

The issue had been a simple one; Should the Territory of Alaska be admitted to the Union as the forty-ninth state?

The five words had answered the question and another star was added to the United States flag. The struggle to do it had been going on for 91 years.

The 211,000 Alaskans who would now enjoy the benefits and privileges of statehood were jubilant. An open telephone line flashed the news to Alaska and the word quickly spread.

Bonfires were lit froitT Pt. Barrow on the north to Ketchikan in the south— 1340 miles away. Schools and stores closed, sirens wailed and church bells rang. In Fairbanks, a balloon drifted skyward towing aloft a huge golden star. Fireworks were set off as Aleut, Indian, Eskimo and white men, women and children danced in the streets of towns and villages all over Alaska.

The victory that was being celebrated in Alaska that day had been the result of the work of a relatively few men of vision, persistence and patience. Lawyers, businessmen, politicians and journalists had united in a bi-partisan effdft to win the right of self-government that had been guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States, but yet had been denied them by historical circumstances.

The battle for this basic principle actually began on

March 30, 1867, when Secretary of State William Henry Seward

signed the document which transferred ownership of the 586,400

square miles of Alaska from Russia to the United States. At

4 o ’clock that morning, Baron Edward de Stoeckel, Russian

Minister to the United States, affixed his signature to the

Treaty of Cession of Russian America to the United States under which the United States agreed to pay $7,200,000 in gold to

Russia. In return, Russia ceded to the United States all her possessions on the North American continent. The treaty was ratified by the Senate on April 9, 1867, with a vote of 37

"For" and 2 "Against." It passed the House on July 14, 1868—

113 to 43— and was signed by President Andrew Johnson on

July 27, 1868. The Emporer of Russia, Czar Nicholas, had ratified the treaty for his nation on May 10, 1868, and the agreement was thus complete.

As it was to be in trying to gain the status of state­ hood nine decades later, the decision to purchase Alaska from

Russia had met with great opposition in the other states.

Many newspapers of the period through editorial and cartoon lampooned and ridiculed the purchase of "Seward's Icebox." The

New York World editorialized that "Russia has sold us a sucked orange. The New York Daily Tribune believed that "We simply obtain by the treaty the nominal possession of impossible des­ erts of snow, vast tracts of dwarf timbers, frozen rivers [and] 2 inaccessible mountain ranges. ..." To the New York Herald,

Alaska was . . a n ice house, a worthless desert with which to enable the Secretary of State to cover up the mortification and defeats he has suffered with the shipwrecked Southern pol­ icy of Andrew Johnson. . . .

Generally, the newspapers of the Pacific Coast favored the purchase while the Eastern papers were nearly all against

^Editorial in the New York World, April 1, 1867. 2 Editorial in the [New York] Daily Tribune, April 11, 1857.

^Editorial in the [New York] Herald, April 9, 1867. it. The Portland Daily Oregonian told its readers that "The pur­

chase by our government of the Russian North American Posses­

sions is the most valuable acquisition of territory obtained by 4 the United States since the cession of California." The Chi­

cago Evening Journal believed that "the acquisition of Russian

America by the United States has the promise of future good.

. . . The paltry sum of $7,000,000 for a country nearly eight

times as large as this state (Illinois) and 400 miles of coast,

shows Russia has some ulterior object to gain. . . .

The press, divided in its stand about the future worth of

Alaska, was expressing the division of sentiment among the peo­

ple's representatives in Congress. The minority report of the

House Committee on Foreign Relations had, several weeks ear­

lier, concluded that "the possession of the country is of no

value . . . to the United States . . . that it will be a source

of weakness instead of power, and a constant annual expense

for which there will be no adequate return. . . .

In spite of the criticism about "Icebergia," the purchase

^Editorial in the Portland Daily Oregonian, April 2, 1867. ^Editorial in the Chicago Evening Journal, April 1, 1867.

^United States Congress, House of Representatives, Report 37 (undated). 40th Congress, 2d Session (Washington: Government Printing Office, undated). of Alaska was officially complete when Treasury Warrant Draft

No. 9759 was issued to Baron de Stoeckel on August 1, 1868, and the entire issue of whether the United States should or should not purchase Alaska became academic. What now became important was what the people of the United States would do with the

"Great Land" they had acquired.

Actually, possession of Alaska had been taken before the purchase treaty was ratified by the House of Representatives.

On October 18, 1867, the Russian flag was lowered at Sitka and the American flag raised in its place. The Russian eagle had given place to the Stars and Stripes and the national colors presided over an area one-fifth the size of what would later be referred to as the "Lower 48" by all Alaskans.

Once the sale and possession were a fact, the next log­ ical step was government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." However, this ideological goal was far in the future. There were to be seventeen years of no civil govern­ ment followed by a half century of inept attempts at government by civilian authorities. As it had done so many times before and during the settlement of the Great West, the military stepped into the breach to maintain law and order until congress could authorize a proper civilian government.

For the first decade under the American flag (1867-1877), * officers and men of the U.S. Army performed the roles of

administrators in the new territory, often without any direc­

tion from the War Department and only a vague idea of what

their duties were. They had two important missions to perform,

however, which were understood: (1) preserve the peace between

the many Indian tribes and the white settlers that began to

drift northward; and (2) to enforce the Indian trade and inter­

course laws that had evolved over the years while the West and

Northwest were being settled.

Because of the vast land area of Alaska, the isolated

clusters of population, and the lack of a communication system

or roads, the job of policing Alaska was an extremely diffi­

cult, if not impossible, task. There were no courts to try

suspected law-breakers and no jails. Since there was no judi­

cial system, the Army did not have the legal authority that

would have prevailed had there been a civil government. How­

ever, by establishing small garrisons at Kenai, Kodiak, Sitka,

Tongass, Wrangell, and on the islands of St. Paul and St. George

in the Bering Sea, it was found that the major Indian tribes

could be persuaded to maintain a semblance of peace most of

the time. Life at these remote posts lacked practically all

the comforts of life south of the Canadian border and boredom

was the major morale problem for the U.S. troops. All communication with these outlying garrisons was solely by water, which made the transfer of news and supplies a diffi­ cult and tedious process.

Despite the handicaps of civilian resentment over mili­ tary rule, the smoldering hostility of the natives, the dual problems of transportation and communication and the lack of congressional understanding and support, the Army did a com­ mendable job of accomplishing its mission. For reasons of economy, however, the various garrisons were withdrawn toward the end of the first ten years until only the posts at Sitka and Wrangell remained.

In 1877, President Rutherford B. Hayes recalled all remaining troops from Alaska. As a result, the Alaskan Indi­ ans, aided by some renegade white men, reverted to lawless­ ness. Since there was now no police force available and no civil government had yet been promulgated, the American set­ tlers lived in constant fear of their lives. During that period, no one could acquire title to land, make a legal will, own ^Jjomestead, or transfer it, stake a mining claim or even get married legally. No settler could seek redress for griev­ ances except through his own acts. Worst of all, no crime could be punished.

In the spring of 1879, groups of Indian braves began 8 converging on Sitka, the capital city, in great numbers. The few white settlers, too quarrelsome to unite against this pos­ sible threat to their common safety, appealed to Washington for help. No replies came in the weeks following. Outnumbered, short of weapons and fearful of their lives, the frightened settlers sent a request for assistance to Captain H. Holmes

A'Court, skipper of HMS Osprey, then located at the nearest

British military post on Vancouver Island. A'Court immediately responded by setting sail for Sitka, arriving on March 1, 1879.

Surprised by this sudden show of force, the Indians under the leadership of their chief Katlean, more commonly known as Sitka

Jack, quickly disappeared. Captain A 'Court promised to remain until an American warship arrived.

On April 3, 1879, the U.S.S. Alaska dropped anchor in

Sitka harbor and Captain A'Court returned to his station on

Vancouver Island. There were 300 well-armed men aboard the

Alaska but its captain had no authority to do any more than make a show of force until the Indian threat was gone. His orders did not permit him to establish a garrison at Sitka.

On June 14, 1884, the U.S.S. Jamestown, commanded by

Commander Lester A. Beardslee, arrived to relieve the Alaska.

Beardslee's orders were to "restore harmonious relations between settler and native, and in the admitted absence of law and government, to use his own discretion in all emer- 7 gencies that might arise." Secretary of the Navy R. W.

Thompson, who believed that Congress would establish civil

authority in its next session, told Beardslee that the Navy had full confidence in his "wisdom, capacity and discretion

. . . to dispose of such matters as might require his inter­

vention.

These brief instructions constituted the beginning of

the five-year rule over Alaska by the U.S. Navy. From 1879 to 1884, the commanders of the naval vessels stationed at

Sitka were the only governmental authorities present. However,

they could not do what Congress refused to do to provide a

satisfactory system of law and justice. The inhabitants, white and Indian, had no legal rights of any kind and the only punish­ ment of violations of federal law occurred when the naval offi­ cers on the scene took it upon themselves to act on their own authority and volition.

Commander Beardslee was the first to attempt to establish municipal government at Sitka, but his efforts were doomed when

7 Ernest Gruening, The State of Alaska (New York: Random House, 1954), p. 39. 0 Ibid., p. 40. 10 the first elected council members resigned in disgust after ten weeks in office. The Navy was forced again to assume the responsibility for town government as well as law enforcement.

As Beardslee later remarked, "It was frequently necessary . . . that acts be performed by us which could not be justified by 9 any law except the natural law by which might became right."

The Navy continued its attempts at maintaining peace and order but the discovery of gold in the Cassiar District of

Northern British Columbia and later at Juneau, future capital of

Alaska, made the job more difficult. The sudden establishment of boom towns, the appearance of missionaries who established schools, the growth of the canning industry, and the steady stream of newcomers to Alaska in search of fortune created a demand for a more adequate, responsive and responsible form of government. In July 1881, the miners at Juneau invited other towns in Alaska to send delegates to a convention to elect a person to represent them in Congress. This elected delegate, the local customs collector, M. D. Ball, was not allowed to take his seat when he arrived in Washington. However, his presence provoked interest and in the next few years he was

^Ibid., p. 42. 11 able to help focus attention on Alaska and its growing problems,

After two years of delays and debates, a committee of the U.S. Senate reported favorably on a bill sponsored by Indi­ ana Senator Benjamin Harrison. Known as the Harrison Bill or the Organic Act of 1884, it designated Alaska as a "civil and judicial district," a geographical term unique in the history of American government. Although primarily designed to provide for an administration of justice rather than granting legis­ lative privileges to the territory, the bill did place the government of Alaska solely in the hands of a civil government.

The Harrison Bill became law when President Chester A.

Arthur signed it on May 17, 1884. Thus, the Navy ended its reign, and rule by military dictum was replaced by a governor, a district attorney, a clerk of court, four court judges for

Sitka, Juneau, Wrangell, and Unalaska, a marshal and four dep­ uties . The general laws of the State of Oregon were declared to be the law of the district but the Act prohibited a legis­ lative assembly and a delegate to Congress.

While the bill was being debated in the Senate, its pro­ ponents had apologized for it. Even its sponsor. Senator

Harrison, admitted that:

It is a mere shift; it is a mere expedient; it is a mere beginning ii. what we believe to be 12

the right direction toward giving a civil government and education to Alaska. I hope more will follow, but the committee in con­ sidering this matter adjudged what they believed to be the probable limit of the generosity of the Senate.10

As limiting and ineffective as the Organic Act of

1884 would prove to be, it was a start toward self-government for Alaska. It was to be many years, however, before the voices of its citizens would be heard and heeded in far away Washington, D.C.

^^Congressional Record, January 23, 1884 (Washington; Government Printing Office, 1884), p. 597. CHAPTER II

THE YEARS OF PROMISE AND DESPERATION

The first governor of Alaska, appointed by President

Arthur on July 4, 1884, was John H. Kinkead, a former Repub­ lican governor of Nevada. In his first and only report to the President, he noted some of the weaknesses in the Organic

Act of 1884, and concluded that "Although the Organic Law does not permit a legislature, some sort of legal authority should be authorized. . . ."^

Kinkead's successor was Alfred P. Swineford, a news­ paper publisher from Michigan. A Democratic appointee of

President Cleveland, Swineford became an outspoken critic of the Organic Act and argued for territorial government. "The

Organic Act," he told Congress, "cannot be construed as being in harmony with the fundamentals of free, representative gov- 2 ernment, rather is it executive absolution." The next three governors were not so outspoken and although they recognized

^Alaska Governor's Report, 1887 (Washington: Govern­ ment Printing Office, 1888), p. 641. 2 United States Congress, House of Representatives, House Executive Document part 5. 39th Congress, 1st Session (Washington; Government Printing Office, undated). 14 the need for effective laws and self-government, accepted the

situation thrust upon Alaskans without comment.

The economy of Alaska, such as it was during the period

1867-1897, was largely based on the fur and fishing industries.

The population in the 1890 census was estimated to be 32,000 with only 4,300 of this total being white. Alaska was a far-

off, unknown, worthless land to most Americans. That is, until

a magic four-letter word changed its destiny. The word was

g o l d :

Although the Gold Rush of '98 has become a part of

American legend, the story of the discovery of the precious

yellow metal can be traced to John Muir, a naturalist, who had

come to Alaska in 1879 to study glaciers. Muir believed that

the geology of the area around Glacier Bay was such that high-

grade gold might be found there. Two Sitka miners, Joe Juneau

and Dick Harris, believed him and found rich placer ground at

the campsite, which is now Juneau, Alaska's capital city. The

rich strike attracted many miners to the area. Some pushed

northward to the interior of Alaska and western Canada. By 1894,

about a thousand men were panning for gold along the banks of

the Yukon River. Most of them were finding it, at least enough

traces of it to keep them in Alaska fighting the climate and the

isolation looking for that big strike. Each year more adventurers 15

drifted northward attracted by the "get rich quick" promise

that finding gold gave them.

Then came the Klondike discovery. On August 17j 1896,

George Carmack's Indian wife, Kate, discovered gold while washing out a frying pan on Bonanza Creek. When the S.S.

Portland docked in Seattle eleven months later with the gold

dust purchased from those who cashed in on Carmack's find,

the newspapers of the world spread the "Ton of Gold" story which began the Klondike legend. The "Gold Rush of ’98" was a stampede as hundreds of people rushed northward to seek their fortunes.

Gold was later discovered on the Seward Peninsula and there was a rush to Nome. Then gold was found along the chena

River, and the town of Fairbanks, now Alaska's second largest city, was founded. The lure of gold did not bring only miners, however, to Alaska. A lawless element, sensing rare oppor­ tunities to achieve fortunes in other ways than panning for them, followed the honest, hard-working adventurers. It has been estimated that "at least 200,000 people started for the

Klondike and a fourth of the number arrived.

^Clarence c. Hulley, Alaska ; Past and Present (Port­ land, Oregon; Binfords and Mort, 1958), p. 256. 16

As the population increased so did crimes. While the

Canadians enforced their laws strictly, Alaska was a land 4 without policing or effective government. It was inevitable that the demand for law and order would eventually be heard in

Washington. A new criminal code for Alaska was passed by the

Congress in 1899, along with a system of taxation.

In 1906, Congress finally passed a bill establishing the

"Territory of Alaska" and permitting the election of a single voteless delegate to represent the Alaskan people on Capitol

Hill. By this time, however, the gold fever had subsided and national interest in Alaska had petered out. The population in Alaska had risen by only 764 people between the 1900 and

1910 censuses. What interest there was centered on fishing and the mining of copper and coal rather than gold.

While the population had leveled off at approximately

64,000 in 1910, demand for a system of self-government for those who intended to remain in Alaska increased. The "outside" min­ ing and fishing interests were exploiting the sea and the land and leaving nothing behind in the way of taxes. Without a vote

in Congress, no political pressure could be brought to bear.

4 Skagway, a landing point for gold-seekers and Alaska's largest town at the time, was completely controlled by an out­ law named "Soapy Smith" during 1898. 17

Yet, the Congress recognized the right of self-government on the local level and passed the second Organic Act on August 24,

1912. This bill provided a bicameral house consisting of eight senators and sixteen representatives to be elected from the four judicial divisions. However, the legislature was forbidden to "alter, modify or repeal" measures relating to game and fish or to legislate on saloons or gambling. In addition, power was especially reserved by Congress to repeal any act of the terri- 5 torial legislature. As the Valdez Prospector editorialized, the Second Organic Act was notable "for what the territorial legislators cannot do, rather than for what they can do. "^

In spite of the severe restrictions on its powers, the first legislature enacted a number of progressive bills within its scope of authority. The first bill, passed gave women the right to vote and much labor legislation followed. Laws on compulsory education, mine safety, bank operation, health, and even anti-pollution were enacted, proving the pent-up desires of Alaskans for the regulation of their lives for the common good.

It was the attempt to establish a revenue system for the

5 > United States Congress, House of Representatives, Report 163, 62d Congress, 1st Session, August 21, 1911 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1911). ^Editorial in the Valdez [Alaska] Prospector, September 21, 1912. 18

Territory that caused the greatest resistance, not from the

Alaskans themselves, but from the absentee interests, espe­ cially the canning industry, that were exploiting the land's resources. The limitations imposed by the Act of 1912, when tested in the courts by those affected, were paramount and made it impossible for the legislature to obtain sufficient funds for governmental expenses.

The restrictions on the territorial legislature had not been eased when Woodrow Wilson became President in 1913. How­ ever, the Wilson administration was aware of the difficulties of government being experienced by Alaskans. In his first

State of the Union message to Congress, President Wilson said:

A duty faces us with regard to Alaska which seems to me very pressing and very imperative; perhaps, I should say a double duty, for it concerns both the political and the material development of the terri­ tory.

.... The people of Alaska should be given the full territorial form of government, and Alaska, as a storehouse, should be unlocked. One key is a sys­ tem of railways. These the Government should itself build and administer, and the ports and terminals it should itself control in the interest of all who wish to use them for the service and development of the country and its people.

But the construction of railways is only the first step. It is only thrusting in the key to the store­ house and throwing back the lock and opening the door. . . . We must use the resources of the country, not lock them up. 19

He would. President Wilson added, suggest to Congress from time to time how this should be done for the policy would have to "be worked out by well-considered stages, not upon 7 theory, but upon lines of practical expediency."

In spite of the Presidential promise, little was done during the eight-year Wilson administration to give Alaska

"the full territorial form of government." Only three meas­ ures of any significance were enacted by the several con­ gresses— a bill for the construction of the Alaska Railroad, authorization for coal mining through a federal leasing system

and the granting of land for educational purposes.

During the Harding administration, hearings were held

to try to unravel the large number of overlapping, cumbersome

and confusing federal agencies that were becoming intertwined

in the government of Alaska. As Franklin K. Lane, Secretary

of the Interior under President Wilson, had remarked, "there was a government of the forests, a government of the fisheries,

one of the reindeer and natives, another of the cables and

telegraphs," He added that there was a government "for certain

public lands and forests" and another "for other lands and

7 Congressional Record, 63rd Congress, 2d Session, December 2, 1913 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1913), p. 45. 20

O forests." The hearings disclosed that thirty-eight federal bureaus were operating in Alaska "over-lapping each other, and 9 often in conflict with each other in jurisdiction." One mem­ ber of the committee. Representative Albert Johnson of Washing­ ton, the ranking Republican, commented :

From 1906 to 1920 we had not only inflicted on Alaska, our last frontier, a policy of restriction and reservation absolutely prohibitive to its devel­ opment, but, as if to make up for our lack of interest and action, we extravagantly and unwisely inflicted upon her a multiplicity of governmental agencies without any centralized responsible head, which, administered from Washington at a distance of from four to six thousand miles by different departments, bureaus and divisions, caused jeal­ ousy and confusion and resulted in inefficiency and waste.10

The years between the Armistice of 1918 and the depres­ sion of the 1930's did not bring any growth in Alaska. While the states expanded their highway systems with the aid of fed­ eral funds, Alaska was denied this assistance under the Fed­ eral Highway Act; other types of financial aid to the states did not include the Territory of Alaska. Again, the cries of neglect and discrimination were raised by Alaskans but again

Q United States Department of the Interior, "Red Tape in the Government of Alaska." Reprinted in Hearings on H . R . 5694, 67th Congress, 1st Session, 1921 (Washington: Govern­ ment Printing Office, 1921), pp. 110-142. 9 Supplemental Hearings on H.R. 5694, p. 129. 10 Hearings on H.R. 5694, op. cit., p. 3. 21 they were of little avail. Most people over the nation did not seem to understand or care.

The residents of the Territory, estimated at not more than 60,000, tried to attract national attention to their need for some real degree of self-government, in an effort to needle the government, Valdez residents advocated annexation to Canada, There was mention of attempting a movement for commonwealth status and partitioning the Territory so that the populous areas might be allowed some form of representa­ tive government.

In spite of the lack of progress in a political sense, there were advances which helped stabilize the population. The

Alaska Railroad connecting Seward and Fairbanks was completed in 1923; the first intra-Alaska airline service began the next year; and the first highway was completed by the Army in 1927 between Fairbanks and Valdez. Advances were made in education with the establishment of a territorial college near Fairbanks which later became the University of Alaska.

Improved transportation and educational facilities did not bring more people to Alaska. The demand for the release from absentee government was continued by many of those who chose to stay and fight the elements and the hardships.

Governors appointed by the Presidents came and went. The 22 voteless delegates elected to represent Alaskan interests in

Washington remained powerless to persuade the enactment of

constructive legislation to remedy the ills of absentee govern­ ment. However, President Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed

John Weir Troy, owner and editor of newspapers in Juneau and

Skagway, as governor in 1933. In his first report, written

on September 29, 1933, Troy noted: "My few months' experience

as Governor of Alaska has confirmed a lifelong conviction that

whenever possible, Alaska should govern herself. Her laws

should be made by her own legislature and executed by her own

officials.

The promise of a New Deal for Alaskans brightened dur­

ing the Roosevelt administration. The price of gold was

increased from $20.67 to $35 an ounce and the value of Alas­

ka's gold leaped upward. Other mining interests were suddenly

stimulated by New Deal pump priming measures. The economy of

Alaska was quickened by projects of the Public Works and Work

Projects Administrations. But these measures still did not

bring the cherished dream of self-government to Alaskans. Even

the threat of war did not change the semi-territorial status.

^^As quoted in ^airbankW Daily News-Miner, June 30, 1958, p. 8. 23

When war finally did come, and with it thousands of soldiers,

sailors and airmen and the towns needed-to support them, still

nothing was done. If anything, the federal presence was

enhanced by the influx of the military and the pressure of war

caused the issue of self-government to be shelved "for the

duration."

The threat to Alaska, brought about by the bombing of

Dutch Harbor by the Japanese in June 1942, had sparked a tre­

mendous increase in recognition of the strategic location of

Alaska with respect to the contiguous United States. When

Japanese forces occupied Kiska and Attu Islands in the Aleu­

tians, the nation realized that, for the first time since

1814, a belligerent nation occupied U.S. territory. The gravity

of the situation spurred unprecedented military construction

programs that were to be of lasting value to the future of

Alaska. The war brought Alaska its first real airfields,

radio range stations, a road construction program, housing and

utilities. In the course of the war, 300,000 uniformed Ameri­

cans were stationed in Alaska. Many of them took a liking to

its challenges and opportunities, made up their minds to return

after the war, and did so. When the war was finally over and

Alaska had reached the historic "four score and seven years"

after its purchase from the Russians, there was a new surge of 24

interest in self-government. Government by consent of the governed became more than just an idle term to the 128,000

Alaskans who had chosen the last frontier as their home by

1960. CHAPTER III

THE RISE OF ALASKAN JOURNALISM

During the years of trial and struggle to bring self- government to Alaska, the hopes and fears of Alaskans had been reflected in their newspapers and magazines. Cut off from the world by distance and poor communications facilities, educated

Alaskans hungered for news and continually sought a medium of communication to give their towns and villages some form of cohesion. The printing press was the only solution to the prob­ lem during the early days.

The pioneer journalists of Alaska who played such a vital role in providing the medium of communication from its earliest days were frontiersmen first and journalists afterward. Most of them were young men attracted by the lure of adventure and fortune. All of them followed their dreams. Most never realized them. A few drifted into journalism accidentally and followed

the tide of humanity that ebbed and flowed through the huge area that was literally the last United States frontier on the North

American continent.

The first newspaper in English was begun before Alaska was purchased from Russia. In 1866, John J. Harrington, a 2 6 manager on the Western Union Telegraph Company's project to lay a cable from Alaska to Siberia, started to publish the

Esquimaux, a tabloid. Printed for the benefit of workers on the project, the Esquimaux first appeared on Sunday, October 14,

1866. Harrington published ten monthly editions at Libbysville,

Port Clarence, Russian America, which is now the town of Teller,

Alaska. Two editions were published in San Francisco in Octo­ ber 1867, The reason for this was that the cable project was abandoned because the first Atlantic cable to be successful had started operation. Harrington had sent the manuscript for

the last issue there to be printed as a final gesture for the proj ect.

Historians cannot determine the first newspaper to be published in Alaska after the purchase of Alaska from Russia

in 1867. One report states that a weekly paper, the Alaska

Times, was established in Sitka, May 1, 1868, and continued

until 1870.^ However, some doubt is engendered by a statement

in the first issue of the Sitka Times, dated September 19, 1868,

in which an introductory editorial states; "Today we present

the Sitka Times to the citizens of Sitka and the world at

United States Bureau of the Census, Tenth census of the United States ; 1880. Vol. VIII (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1881), p. 426. 27 large. It is the first attempt ever made to publish a paper in this vast land of Alaska." Unfortunately, no copies of the original issue of the Alaska Times can be located today.

In the years following, other newspapers appeared in southeastern Alaska at Sitka, Juneau, Douglas, Wrangell, and

Skagway. It was not until 1894, however, that a newspaper was published outside of the "panhandle." In that year the

Reverend Jules L. Prévost, an Episcopalian missionary, and

Gordon C. Betties, trader and explorer, established the Yukon

Press at Fort Adams which was located at the junction of the

Tanana and Yukon Rivers. Shortly afterward, gold was discov­ ered in the Klondike and thus began what has become known as

"the era of goldstrike journalism. "

As the hordes of goldseekers flocked northward to the

Klondike, then spilled down the Yukon and eventually to Nome where new strikes were made, newspapers were born in every

small trading center and placer mining village along the way.

These periodicals, often compiled under the most primitive of conditions, varied from hand-written sheets posted on a cabin

door to the four-page weeklies produced on an ancient hand press

that had been laboriously lugged to Alaska from "outside."

There was at least one press that used dogs walking a treadmill 28

2 to provide the power. There were many handicaps besides printing equipment in those days. The paper supply was extremely limited, experi­ enced reporters were practically nonexistent, and national news was often weeks late in coming to the editor's attention. In spite of these handicaps, the newspapers serving the conglom­ erate population played a prominent role in reporting local news and editorializing on the major conflicts and issues of the day.

The Yukon Press, previously mentioned, was the pioneer newspaper along the famed Yukon River gold trail. Since the

Episcopalian missionary owned the printing press, it was inev­

itable that what appeared in it would reflect religious over­

tones. The first issue, dated January 1, 1894, proclaimed

its purpose and aims and provides an insight into the spirit

of the times:

The object of this publication is to promote man's religious, moral and mental faculties, and to develop the great resources of the Valley. First of all, the religious and moral items and callings will have a humble place between*its covers, in hopes that they may be food to nurture the higher aspirations of those who with ruddy health or

2 Charles J. Keim and S. Dean Olson, "Newspapering in Largest State Proves Hard to Research," Publisher's Auxiliary, July 2, 1966, p. 16. 29

haggard form toil "in the fierce race for wealth." Such other items of interest which will be con­ tinually inserted we hope will be of such value as to make this sheet worthy of preservation. At heart we shall have to view the whole region of the Yukon and all items of information, whether of mining, agriculture, or any other industry will be gladly accepted and given for the benefit of our readers and the development of the country. The greater portion of the paper will be devoted for this purpose having especially in view the mining industry. Agriculture being still in its infancy we deem it unnecessary at present to reserve much space for this subject, but we shall do all within our power to make it an object to create interest in the development of this branch of industry, believing that with encouragement the people of the valley will pay more attention to agricultural pursuits.3

As the rush to seek gold continued, new towns were born while old ones died. The towns and their papers followed the gold-seekers. During the period from 1865-1924, over 200

newspapers and magazines were founded, but many lasted only

a few issues as towns lost their populations and the would-be 4 journalists joined the move to other locations. Typical of

this population shift was Eagle City, forty miles from the

Klondike at American Creek. In the fall of 1898, this gold

rush town had a population of 1300, which by the end of the

year had dropped to 400. On September 15, 1899, there were

3 Editorial in the Yukon Press, January 1, 1894, p. 1. 4 Keim and Olson, 0 £. cit., p. 16. 30 less than 40 people in the town.^

There is no doubt that the dearth of communication with the rest of the world forced Alaskans to focus their attention on local matters. One pioneer, Gordon Betties, described how most news was received:

We got most of our news by "mukluk telegraph wireless" meaning that the old sourdoughs, wearing mukluks or moccasins, brought news back from the hills. And there were the days when we found out who was president of the United States a year after elections and we received a letter one year and answered it the next.

There is very little evidence that early Alaskan news­ paper editors took a stand or even mentioned the issue of self- government. While much news was published with an editorial slant which reflected an attitude of disdain for absentee gov­ ernment, little can be found in any copies of the early peri­ odicals to show any effort to unite and seek any form of government above the local level. One notable exception is the Alaskan-Yukon Magazine, which began publication as the

Alaskan Monthly in Juneau on April 1, 1906, In an article by-lined "By an Alaskan," there was evidence of an awakening

Dora Elizabeth McLean, "Early Newspapers on the Upper Yukon Watershed: 1894-1907" (unpublished Master's thesis. The University of Alaska, College, Alaska, 1963), p. 41.

^Item in The Seattle Sunday Times, July 11, 1937. 31 desire to have some form of legislative power by and for

Alaskans. The article quoted President Taft as saying that

"I do not believe in a legislative assembly for Alaska," and noted that his objection was because of Alaska's "shifting population, and diverse and conflicting interests in a coun­ try of so vast an area."

The anonymous writer took issue with the President's stand:

. . . Alaska has had a permanent population ever since the United States acquired the territory. This permanent population, now represented by many commun­ ities, consists of at least 35,000 white settlers, and they are American citizens. They do not wear breech clouts and live half naked in the jungle; nor do they live a life of languorous leisure in a leprous land. These American citizens are a type of the best man­ hood of our country. They know that Alaska is a great country, destined to have a large population. They know that Alaska has agricultural resources that will support a population of more than a million. They have made their homes in Alaska, and have built schools and churches. All of their property inter­ ests are in Alaska. Their life work is in the coun­ try. If some of them have acquired the privilege of spending a winter in Southern California or Florida, that is not evidence of a shifting population. If prospectors explore a new region and discover valuable resources that add to the wealth of the nation, are they to be deprived of constitutional prerogatives because in the search for a competence they shift their habitat? Is not such a shifting population more valuable than a shiftless herd of human spawn that never can become an integral part of the United States?

. . . If the residents of Alaska desire self- government they ought to have it. Our form of government and all precedent establish their indu­ bitable right to a legislature, if they want it.?

The first sign of an awakening public concern about statehood among newspapermen occurred in 1915 when many people began to realize that the days and years of ineffective absen­

tee government had to end. 0. P. Hubbard, a territorial Sen­

ator from Valdez, introduced a "memorial" asking Congress to grant statehood. Hubbard's enthusiasm was contagious and per

suaded John W. Frame to establish a Sunday newspaper. The

Forty-Ninth Star, for the sole purpose of promoting statehood.

An organization, the Alaska Statehood Club, was formed in 1916

with the announced purpose "to agitate, educate and organize"

for self-government in the form of statehood.

Once the idea of statehood began to inflame the resi­

dent Alaskans, the opposing forces, represented by the fishing

industry, united to defeat the movement. The motive of the

opposition rested on the principle of taxation because the

absentee fishing industry paid no taxes in Alaska yet took

millions of dollars worth of seafood from Alaskan waters. "The

Fish Trust" became the enemy and The Forty-Ninth Star editori­

alized:

^Alaskan-Yukon Magazine, Vol. VIII, No. 5 (August, 1909), pp. 470-471. 33

The people of Alaska are today at the parting of the ways. They must either fight to make this a mighty, northern state, or turn it over to the Seattle Arctic Club for a sheep pasture— the people of Alaska to be the lambs. But the men who should be loathed and despised most of all by true Alaskans, are those who live in Alaska and claim to be Alaskans and then serve these Seattle and California exploiters of Alaska as servile tools for the crumbs they get out of it.8

Unfortunately for Alaskans, the early voice of state­ hood died in 1917 when The Forty-Ninth Star moved to Anchorage and merged with the Anchorage Weekly Democrat. World War I brought a loss of population that continued for about a dec­ ade. However, in 1923, President Harding journeyed to Alaska, the first President ever to visit the Alaska mainland. He drove the golden spike that marked completion of the government-owned Alaska Railroad and commented on July 28,

1923, that "Alaska is destined for ultimate statehood" and added that "If the Finns owned Alaska they would, in three generations, make it one of the foremost states of modern times."

Harding's optimism was too premature and the newspapers of the day do not show that his words sparked a renewal of interest in a statehood movement. While the golden years of

Q The Forty-Ninth Star [Valdez, Alaska], March, 1916. 34 the Twenties had brought prosperity to the forty-eight states,

Alaska was standing still economically,

Journalistically, however, there was some progress dur­ ing the late Teens and Twenties. The Associated Press reached

Alaska through the government-owned Alaska Communications Sys­ tem and Nome was the first town to receive the AP wire service.

"At the start we sent small pony reports of about 500 words to

dailies and about the same number of words to weeklies, " accord­

ing to the former AP bureau chief in Seattle, Mur 1 in Spencer.

"This was highly skeletonized— the thes, ands, buts, etc., were 9 left out— and they had to fill them in on the other end. "

Thus, the miracle of electronics was beginning to draw Alaskans

together. The combination of wire service and newspapers ena­

bled residents to learn what was going on in other parts of the

Territory as well as in the "outside" almost as soon as it hap­

pened.

Coincidentally with the beginning of AP wire service was

the introduction of commercial radio. In 1924, Station KPQD,

Anchorage, became the first commercial radio station to begin

broadcasting in Alaska and remained the only one until 1935.

9 Keim and Olson, op. cit., p. 17. 35

At that time Station KINY began operation in Juneau, Alaska.

Little is known of the early operations of either of these

stations but pioneer Alaskans interviewed are certain that

the programming did not include editorializing and there is

no evidence that the owners were ever involved in trying to

influence the quest for statehood or that their announcers

ever affected the battle in any way.

The third radio station. Station KFAR, Fairbanks, began

operation in 1939. Owned by Mr. A. E. "Cap" Lathrop, a boat

captain who started the first cartage business in Anchorage

and later became a wealthy entrepreneur by supplying the gold

mine operators along the Yukon with equipment, the station

quickly became a major communications medium north of the

Alaskan Range.

In southeastern Alaska, the fourth radio station, KTKN

in Ketchikan, signed on in 1942. Thus, when World War II

began, only four commercial radio stations were in operation

in the territory. None of them was connected with a stateside

network and all programs were either live from the local studio

or had been pre-recorded and mailed to the station for play.

There were no teletype news services available so announcers

would transpose to paper the Trans-Radio Press sent to Alaska

by short-wave. As a result, most Alaskans remained relatively 36 isolated from current entertainment and news happenings on the eve of hostilities— hostilities that enabled an enemy to occupy American soil for the first time since 1814. No more commercial radio stations were established until 1948. The idea of statehood was not a vital subject as far as radio journalism was concerned. CHAPTER IV

THE BATTLE FOR STATEHOOD INTENSIFIES

World War II had brought a profound change to Alaska.

Between 1941 and 1948, the American government spent over one

and a quarter billion dollars building airfields, military

installations and the famed ALCAN highway. The Japanese attack

on Dutch Harbor and the occupation of the islands of Kiska and

Attu in June 1942, focused attention on Alaska like nothing

else could. Thousands of Americans "discovered" the Last

Frontier as they came north to defend it. Hundreds of them

returned to develop it after the war.

While the urgency of war quieted the plea for self-

government for Alaskans for the most part, at least one Alas­

kan businessman and newspaper publisher became interested in

the possibility of statehood and began to inquire about the

mechanics of acquiring it and the potential value to Alaskans

should the Territory join the fellowship of states. His name

was Robert B. Atwood, owner and publisher of the Anchorage

Daily Times.

Atwood answered the author ' s query about the origin of

his interest, "It was when Senator Pat Me Carr an of Nevada and 38

Senator William Langer of North Dakota, introduced a bill to provide for statehood for Alaska," he said. "Because Senator

MeCarran's name was on the bill, I assumed it would be bad for

Alaska. Anything he proposed in that era seemed to be bad for

Alaska."

Atwood wrote to both men and both replied, McCarran's

answer was a one-paragraph statement saying that he was going

to see that the bill was passed. Danger's three-page reply

gave a number of arguments in favor of statehood. "This brought

me to the realization that I knew nothing about statehood and

what it would do for Alaska," Atwood said. "So I undertook

studies and the more I studied, the stronger I was for it from

then on.

It was fortuitous that the publisher of Alaska's largest

circulation newspaper in the Territory's largest city, should

become interested in the question of statehood. In researching

the history of Alaska for a series of editorials he was writing,

Atwood was particularly impressed by a book entitled "Alaska:

A History of its Administration, Exploitation, and Industrial

Development During its First Half-Century under the Rule of the

United States," written in 1924 by Jeannette P. Nichols. He

^Letter to the author dated July 24, 1968, p. 3 39

studied the problems other territories had experienced before becoming states and found that there were many historical

parallels. Sparse populations, a native culture, rich mineral

potential and a slowly growing economy forced by the white

settlers seeking to derive a living by exploiting the resources had been similar in the formation of almost all of the western

states.

Atwood inquired about public support for Alaskan state­ hood, He told the author:

Virtually the entire "establishment" in Alaska was against it. Every newspaper opposed it. Every radio station opposed it. All the politicians, with very few exceptions, were opposed to it. Business leaders, bankers, civic workers, ministers and leaders in every other category were opposed to it. It was a rare occasion when you found anyone was for it.

The Anchorage Daily Times was in a very lonesome position when it undertook to explain the attractions of statehood and what it might do for Alaska. The newspaper was enticed into a stronger and stronger position in favor of statehood as it presented the arguments and became the target of all sorts of brickbats, epithets and invective from people in high places.2

Puzzled by the negative reaction in some quarters,

Atwood wondered why anyone in America would be against self-

government. He soon found that the reasons were selfishly

2 Ibid., p. 4. 40 economic. The opposition to the idea of statehood centered on the absentee mining and fishing interests that feared state­ hood would mean taxation and regulation which, in turn, would mean less profits. The issue became clear to Atwood. As.pub­ lisher of a widely-read newspaper and an influence in Alaskan politics, he became determined to do something about it. And thus began a sixteen-year crusade that was to prove once again that the American press could be an invaluable weapon in a righteous battle for the right of self-government— a right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. Atwood's personal desire for statehood was assisted by the changing economy brought about by the sudden influx of

thousands of military personnel into the Territory. Wartime prosperity had given Alaska an economic'lift that helped

revive the idea of statehood in the minds of several influen­

tial congressmen. In the Seventy-eighth and Seventy-ninth

Congresses, statehood proposals were introduced in both the

U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives. The 1944 plat­

forms of both major political parties included statements

favoring statehood for Alaska and Hawaii. And even Secretary

of the Interior Harold I. Ickes, who had violently opposed

statehood for Alaska, finally endorsed it in 1945. However,

he doubted that action on the statehood bills in Congress 41 would be favorably considered and suggested interim legisla­ tion to prepare the way for statehood that would speed the development of her resources, decrease "outpostism," and

"give the people of Alaska their rightful voting voice in 3 the Congress of the United States."

Even though there was no optimism in Washington, state­ hood advocates in Alaska organized after World War II and began to stir public interest in the subject with vigor. In

November 1945, the Alaska Statehood Association was organized at Anchorage by Mrs. Robert B. Atwood "for the purpose of studying the statehood problem." Chapters were established in all the main towns in the Territory. A five-dollar assess­ ment fee was collected from each member to make possible the hiring of a researcher to collect data on the duties and prob­ lems of statehood. Mr. George Sundborg was hired to do the research and the report he wrote was distributed to every news­ paper in the Territory. Later, the report was given wide cir- 4 culation in pamphlet form.

The territorial legislature authorized submission of the statehood issue by referendum to the voters of Alaska in

3 New York Times, August 12, 1945, 4 2 ;1. 4 George Sundborg, Statehood for Alaska, Alaska State­ hood Association (Anchorage, Alaska, 1946), 56 pp. 42 a general election in October 1946. The Sundborg report, biased in favor of statehood, may have influenced the vote considerably. The Alaskans voted in favor of statehood by a

three-to-two margin^ 9,630 for statehood, and 6,822 against.

The expression of the majority of voting Alaskans in

this referendum was not convincing. However, legislation was

introduced in the Eightieth Congress by Delegate E. L. Bartlett

on the strength of this outcome, but the bill died without any

action having been taken on it by the House.

Although the bill was dead, the statehood movement was

very much alive. A subcommittee had come to Alaska to convene

hearings on the issue in 1947 and to determine the true senti­

ment for and against the issues involved. Proponents of state­

hood believed that the potential of Alaska could never be fully

realized as long as it was a Territory. Those opposed still

feared that statehood status would mean increased taxes and

regulation of their respective business enterprises.

Two more statehood bills were introduced in Congress

during 1949 and opposition to the idea of statehood shifted

its theme. Instead of being against statehood, opposition

forces modified their stand to one of "Statehood eventually—

but not now." On March 3, 1950, one of the statehood bills

reached the floor of the House for a vote. While disappointing 43 in the margin of victory (196-146), a milestone had been reached in the self-government issue in spite of the oppo­ sition. It now remained for the proponents of statehood to fight the forces in the Senate who saw the admission of

Alaska and Hawaii to the Union as a distinct threat because

"Each new State lessens the power and influence of States 5 already represented in the Senate."

After lengthy hearings in the spring of 1950, a report of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular

Affairs recommended changes and finally reported formally on the statehood bill; approval of the Senate was then asked. It was not to be forthcoming.

While the struggle had been going on in the Committee rooms in Washington, Alaskan forces were aligning themselves into three camps. There were those who believed that Alaska should have statehood immediately and others who thought that statehood should come eventually but not then. The third faction, a definite minority, thought that Alaska would never be ready for statehood. Most of the Alaskan press opposed

^"The Question of New States for Our Federal Union," Congressiona1 Digest, 29:265, November, 1950. 44 statehood at first. The two most influential of these were the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, and the Daily Alaska Empire of Juneau, supposedly representing conservative views which were anti-statehood. The only newspapers actively supporting statehood at this time were the Anchorage Daily Times and the

Ketchikan Chronicle.

As the battle lines were being more firmly drawn, another Alaskan, an ex-journalist, who had already entered the fray years before, emerged as a powerful force favoring statehood. His name was Dr. Ernest Gruening.

A native New Yorker and a graduate of the Harvard School of Medicine, Gruening had been editor of the Boston Traveler, the Boston Journal, the New York Daily Tribune, the New York

Post and The Nation, before being appointed in 1934 as Director of the Division of Territory and Island Possessions, a branch of the Department of the Interior, He was appointed Governor of Alaska by President Roosevelt in 1939 and almost immediately began a crusade for statehood that would not cease until the battle had been won.

Gruening, a man of great ability and energy, had definite

views on taxation. Soon after appointment, he employed a group

of tax experts to draw up a program of taxation to bring ade­

quate revenue to the Territory without being burdensome to the 45 people. Immediately, the well-paid lobbyists of the absentee salmon and mining interests aligned themselves against the governor and vigorously opposed his efforts. Gruening later wrote of the situation:

They [the absentee interests] were violently opposed to any taxation that would lessen their profits or in any way interfere with their desire to take as much from Alaska as quickly as possible. At that time, whole categories of businesses paid no taxes whatever to the Territory. These included banks, newspapers, radio stations, filling stations and garages, logging operations, motion picture theaters, bus, air and steamship lines, lighterage companies, light and power companies, construction companies and building contractors, etc. The tax on the great bounty derived from our abundant fish­ ing resources by the absentee interests which proc­ essed them them was negligible. So were the taxes on mining operations. No property taxes were levied outside of municipalities. The thousands of non-residents who came up from "down below" every Spring to fish, engage in placer mining or construction and went back in the Fall well-heeled, often to the extent of thousands of dollars for their season's work, paid only a $5.00 so-called "school tax." The wealth of Alaska was being drained off and next to nothing was staying there for its needs. It was clear that whatever might be the future of Alaska, revenues were required to take care of the Territory's public services— education, health, highways, municipal functions, etc. ®

Governor Gruening did not exaggerate the need for funds. In 1949, he called the Legislature into "extraordinary"

g Ernest Gruening, The Battle for Alaska Statehood (College, Alaska: The University of Alaska Press, 1967), p. 1. 46 session because of the critical condition of the territorial treasury. On December 31, 1948, the cash balance was a piti­ ful $6,289.40. At the same time, the Auditor of Alaska was holding 700 claims against the Territory exceeding three quar- 7 ters of a million dollars.

In addition to his plea to the legislature to enact basic tax laws which were within their jurisdiction, Gruening added that "we should give thought to the morrow and to the day after." He was referring to the possibility of statehood which he felt "would put an end to the many legislative and fiscal discriminations which Alaska has suffered and continues to suffer and enable Alaska to move forward as never before. "

He ended his plea with the warning that "across the Bering

Strait, another way of life, which contrasts wholly with

American ideals of freedom, is strongly entrenched and active 8 in pursuit of its goals."

The editorial views of Alaska's newspapers between 1945

and 1950 reflect the attitudes of the various segments of the

Territory's widely-scattered population. In the southern-most

city, Ketchikan, the Chronicle stated its position on the

7 Territory of Alaska, Message of the Governor to the XIX Territorial Legislature, Extraordinary Session (Juneau, Alaska: January 11, 1949), p. 3. ®Ibid., p. 12. 47 question with an editorial entitled "Again We Get the Run-

Around Because We Lack Influence" which complained that Alaska was being neglected by the federal government because the

forty-eight states were going to get more dams and flood con­

trol projects compared to no projects in Alaska. "If any

further evidence were needed that Alaska should become a state

as soon as possible and get two votes in the U.S. Senate and

one in the House," the editor wrote, "it can be found in the

government's plans for improvement of transportation facilities

in the state.

In an editorial dated February 14, 1946, the editor

reflected that “there were dozens if not hundreds of questions

to be answered" concerning statehood and acknowledged that

"the major one, of course, is cost." The editorial concluded

that "We believe Alaskans are progressive enough that if they

can be shown how little more it would cost to be free of fed­

eral bureaucratic dictation and handle their own affairs, they

would be for it.

In October 1946, the people of Alaska had voted for

statehood in a referendum. However, the vote was not a

9 Editorial in Alaska Chronicle, January 4, 1946, p. 5.

^^Ibid., February 14, 1956, p. 5. 48 healthy majority by any measure. The Alaska Weekly, published in Seattle, reversed its former stand and aligned itself on

the side of statehood with an editorial under the title of

"The Battle Just Beginning":

. . . Now that the people of the Territory have expressed themselves, we view the picture in an entirely different light. Our position now is to do everything in our power to help in the battle ahead, for the fight for statehood is only now begun. The interests opposed to statehood may be now expected to redouble their efforts and the going in Congress will not be easy.

. . . After having had the fullest opportunity to judge the issue, the voters went to the polls and registered their wish for statehood by a substantial majority.

. . . So far as we are concerned that settles it. We are for statehood with everything we have to offer the cause.

The statehood opposition forces were led by A. E. "Cap"

Lathrop, of Fairbanks, who became a millionaire in Alaska,

Carl Lomen, mine owner and operator of a lighterage business

in Nome, also a millionaire, and W. c. Arnold, managing direc­

tor of the Alaska Salmon Industry, Inc., an organization of

fish canning companies. Governor Gruening, when asked to com­

ment on the reasons why Lathrop and Lomen were against state­

hood, replied:

^^Editorial in The Alaska Weekly, October 11, 1945, p. 4, 49

Cap Lathrop owns five theaters, two each in Anchorage and Fairbanks and one in Cordova. They pay no territorial taxes whatever, only a hundred- dollar license fee which is turned over to the municipality. He owns two banks, one in Fairbanks and one in Cordova. They pay no territorial taxes whatever, only a $250 license fee which goes to the municipality. He owns two newspapers and two radio stations. They pay no territorial taxes whatever. He has a coal monopoly in the North, operating the Healy River Coal Company. His territorial tax is less than one cent a ton, and he can and does fix the price at any figure he wants. His other enter­ prises— the Olympia Brewing Company— is taxed slightly but the taxes are passed on to the pub­ lic.

The Lomens have made a fortune out of their lighterage monopoly, which is unregulated, and which pays no taxes whatever.

Lathrop and Lomen have been active in lobbying against a basic tax program which they know will either precede statehood or be an inevitable conse­ quence of it.

According to Robert B. Atwood, the most active opposi­ tion came from W. C. Arnold because the organization he repre­ sented was "the only group that was organized and spent money 13 to fight statehood. " Arnold represented the opposition at all statehood hearings and hired the writers, artists, and statisticians to prepare elaborate presentations and documents

12 From an article by Frank L. Kluckhorn, reporter and foreign correspondent. American Mercury, 58:555-52, May, 1949, 13 Interview, July 25, 1967. 50 designed to negate the efforts of Atwood and the others who were convinced of the merits of statehood.

As historians look back on the Alaska statehood issue, they will no doubt record that it was an issue that decided many elections in the territorial legislature after 1946. The question dominated all political discussion and separated those who preferred to cling to the loose, unfettered way of terri­ torial government with severe Congress-imposed limitations versus those who looked forward to a more progressive Alaska

enjoying full status as a state. The issue was not confined

to political party lines.

Probably the greatest single assistance given the state­ hood cause was the Alaska Statehood Association, formed largely

through the leadership of Mrs. Robert B. Atwood, wife of the

Anchorage Daily Times publisher. A voluntary citizens' asso­

ciation, it met its expenditures through the $5.00 dues of its

membership and donations. Its most notable contribution was

the previously mentioned publication entitled Statehood for

Alaska; The Issues Involved and the Facts About the Issues,

authored by George Sundborg. William L. Baker, editor of the

Ketchikan Chronicle, printed it as a supplement in his news­

paper. Virtually all other newspaper editors in Alaska— even

those opposed to statehood— also ran the study in full, the 51 costs in sevjeral instances being borne by the Association.

Robert B. Atwood recalled that the supplement was actually distributed by every newspaper in Alaska. "Even the

Juneau Empire, the Fairbanks News-Miner and many other papers that were adamantly opposed to statehood accepted the supple­ ment and distributed it as part of their papers," he said.

"It was one of the first indications that the statehood move­ ment was reaching such proportions that even the opponents 14 could not afford to ignore it."

When the first congressional hearings were held in 1947, proponents of statehood flew to Washington to testify. Thirty- one persons presented their views and much evidence was intro­ duced to persuade the Committee, chaired by Fred L. Crawford

(R, Michigan) to endorse statehood. In his testimony, Atwood entered an article in the record written by George Gallup, director of the American Institute of Public Opinion, showing that "a large majority of the American voting public would like to see Alaska admitted as a forty-ninth State of the United

States." Sixty-four per cent of those polled were in favor;

12 per cent were opposed; 24 per cent were undecided. The article concluded that "American voters favor having Alaska

^^Ibid. 52 join the United States as a State mainly because (1) it is vital to the defense of the Nation, and (2) it deserves equal 15 representation in the body of States."

The testimony before the Committee was not all pro­ statehood. Most vocal of the opposition was Herbert L.

Faulkner, attorney from Juneau and corporate counsel for a number of packers and other absentee corporations operating in Alaska. In two appearances which consume sixty-nine pages of the official record, Faulkner stated that, "I do not relish very much appearing here before this Committee on the question of statehood, because I am afraid I am on the unpopular side. . . .

Only one other anti-statehood witness was heard. His name was Richard F . Lewis, a resident of Piedmont, California, who owned property in Alaska. He attempted to show that state­ hood would increase the cost of government by $5.8 million per year which the people of Alaska could not afford. "If Congress will liberalize the laws governing the acquisition of land and

United States Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Public Lands, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Territorial and Insular Possessions, 80th Congress, 1st Session, April 16-24, 1947 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1947), p. 349. 15 Ibid., p. 73 53 cutting of timber," he said, "and if the Alaskans are allowed

to elect their Governor, the urge for statehood will be

greatly reduced. At some future date, when the population

has increased, Alaska will doubtless become a State, but the 17 time for that has not yet arrived."

Further hearings by four members of the subcommittee

took place in Alaska during the summer of 1947. Again, the

preponderance of the testimony was in favor of statehood but

a vocal minority was also heard. In summary, the latter were

for statehood "eventually but not now." The end result was

that the committee reported favorably on the bill. The meas­

ure died, however, in the Rules committee.

The fight for Alaska statehood, neglected by the State­

side press before, now began to attract national attention.

Articles appeared in many newspapers and magazines supporting

the movement. Randolph A. Hearst, Associate Editor of the

Oakland, California Post-Enquirer, editorialized that "the only

serious question I can see is, 'where on the flag should we put

the new star?'"^®

^^Ibid., p. 187.

^®Ibid., p. 440. 54

President Truman added the power of his support to the statehood issue with a unique message to Congress on May 21,

1948, devoted wholly to Alaska. In it, he urged Congress to take various steps to insure the success of the movement and state his belief that it would be "the most important action 19 the government can take." This support helped the statehood cause considerably but not enough to bring the pending bill to a vote.

Alaskans were not deterred by congressional inaction.

In 1949, their territorial legislature created the Alaskan

Statehood Committee and appropriated $80,000 for it to use in promoting statehood legislation and making studies which would tend to prove that Alaskans were ready to shed their colonial status. Thus, statehood became an official part of the terri­ torial program and transferred the initiative from volunteer hands to the territorial government.

As the end of the decade was reached, it began to look as if there was a glimmer of hope that Alaska might become the forty-ninth state. But there were to be many more disappoint­ ments before that day would arrive.

19 Ernest Gruening, The Battle for Alaska Statehood (College, Alaska: The University of Alaska Press, 1967), p. 43. CHAPTER V

NEW DECADE — NEW HOPE

The turn of the decade into 1950 brought new hope for statehood for Alaska. The lone Delegate from Alaska to the

Congress, E. L. "Bob" Bartlett, had introduced still another statehood bill in the House at the beginning of the 81st con­ gress. Only one day's hearing was given to it on the ground that the previous year's hearing on an almost identical bill would suffice. On March 3, 1950, the bill was passed in the

House of Representatives by a vote of 185 to 145, with 100 congressmen not voting.

Senate hearings began on a happier note for Alaskans.

A Gallup poll now noted that 80 per cent of the public were for statehood, 8 per cent were against and 11 per cent had no opin­ ion. With both developments lending encouragement, fifty-five witnesses chartered an airplane to take them to Washington to testify formally before the Senate Committee.

The hearings began on April 24th, 1950, and lasted one week. The pro-statehood witnesses included a Catholic priest, a federal judge, an Air Force general, an airline owner, a number of businessmen and representatives of civic, union and 56 professional organizations. Two newspapermen, William L. Baker, editor and publisher of the Ketchikan Chronicle, and Robert B.

Atwood, editor and publisher of the Anchorage Daily Times, also testified. Baker cited an interesting variety of examples of how territorial status disadvantaged Alaska. Atwood, who by this time had devoted several years to the study, gave an in-depth historical account that compared long-range rule of the Czars when Alaska was Russian America to long-range rule

from Washington under territorial status.

Atwood's testimony had far-reaching effects. He had pre­ viously documented his thoughts in a series of editorials pub­

lished in his paper between March 24 and April 15, 1950. Drawn

principally from a manuscript entitled "83 Years of Neglect"

prepared in 1945 by his wife Evangeline, the editorials repre­

sented the first truly objective treatise on the subject made

available to the public through a newspaper. The last editorial,

published a few days before his departure for Washington, gave

a hopeful summing up and is quoted here in part:

Going to Washington on special missions is far from new in Alaska history.

Prom 1867 until 1884 delegations were sent there repeatedly. Miners held meetings and took up collec­ tions to finance the trips. Their request was a simple one, but most difficult to achieve. They wanted some sort of government. Alaska had none. Over and over again, Alaskans financed delegations who went to Washington for the purpose of requesting 57

"any sort of civil government." They weren't ask­ ing for statehood, or even territorial status. They asked merely that some sort of law and order be established in the north.

After 17 years of effort, Alaskans won their first victory. Congress created a district court, although it provided few laws for it to enforce. More delegations were sent to Washington in per­ sistent efforts to obtain further government in Alaska.

In 1906 Congress created the office of Delegate to Congress so that Alaskans would have a "mouth­ piece" in Washington to express their needs. Despite continual refusals, Alaskans kept plead­ ing for more authority in government and in 1912 the territorial legislature was created.

Each accomplishment was preceded by trips to Washington similar to the flight this week in behalf of statehood. Each request made by Alaskans was opposed by interests which could profit more abundantly with scant government, scant regulation and scant taxation.

Every time Alaskans asked for more power to govern themselves they were told, by the same powerful groups, that they were "not ready" for such responsibility. The fisheries and the mining corporations, with headquarters in the States, always told Congress of the migratory nature of Alaska's population, and the lack of resources to finance government.

The arguments heard today against statehood were used effectively in opposing any form of civil government from 1867 until 1884. They were used to oppose the creation of the seat of the Delegate to Congress until 1906. They were used to oppose the establishment of the legislature until 1912. And they were used in 1916 to oppose the first statehood movement. 58

Today the Alaskans going to Washington for state­ hood face the same arguments presented by the same ^ powerful influences.

If there is optimism that today's mission will be successful, it is supported by the historical fact that everything Alaska has won toward governing itself has been won through persistent hard work and the gradual overcoming of the fallacious arguments of the opposition.

Throughout the years. Congress has heard most fre­ quently from men who had an axe to grind. They have succeeded in perpetuating Alaska as a private colony for special interests, or in a state of "deep freeze" with its resources unavailable for development.

The statehood movement represents the common people of Alaska and the general public welfare. The resi­ dents of the territory have become aware of their plight as "hewers of wood and carriers of water." They know that under the present political setup the great advances of the American civilization will continue to leave them on the periphery of development, as it has for 83 years.

This fact is so widely known and recognized that 50 Alaskans have voluntarily taken time off from their employment and, at their own expense, are going to Washington on the same mission as their forefathers in the Nineteenth Century — better government.1

Another Alaskan who testified was Mrs. Mildred Hermann, an attorney from Juneau, one of the Territory's two women lawyers. As Secretary of the Alaska Statehood Commission, she addressed herself to the question: "Can Alaska support statehood?" Using a carefully prepared array of revenue and

^Editorial in the Anchorage Daily Times, April 15, 1950, p. 4. 59 cost statistics, she pointed out that "in the past year,

Alaska has put its tax system and its finances in order and,

in doing so, it has anticipated statehood. Today we may talk

in terms of a sound, existing tax structure, not something that we are going to do in the future, but what we have 2 already done in the past."

In response to questioning as to whether the relatively

few people residing in the vast Alaskan area could afford all the things they hoped for under statehood, Mrs. Hermann made

a characteristic Alaskan reply which was widely quoted;

If we cannot buy steak, we will eat beans. We will fit the pattern to the cloth. If we cannot make the kind of a dress we want, we will make one that will cover us anyway, and we are perfectly willing to pull in our belts and do without some things for the purpose of statehood.^

The testimony was not all pro-statehood. W. C. Arnold,

managing director of the Alaska Salmon Industry, Inc., testi­

fied at great length in opposition to Alaska's admission to

the Union as he had done previously. Although representing

the powerful salmon lobby of Seattle, he centered his argument

on the percentage of the total land area that would be retained

2 Gruening, 0£. cit., p. 47.

^Ibid. 60 by the federal government under statehood. He said, "Under

the bill Alaska would be a state in name only, for the federal

government still would retain over 99 per cent of the land area

with little or no prospect that its release to State control

or State taxation would take place. By the bill, Alaska

would be relegated to the status of a mendicant State; a poor 4 and distant relative, so to speak."

The Senate Committee studied the House bill and the tes­

timony presented for almost two months and then reported favor­

ably. However, the advent of the Korean War apparently caused

the bill to be shelved. It died with the 81st Congress.

Since the House had already expressed its approval of

statehood, and the bill had died in the Senate, action was

begun in the upper house to revive the issue in the 82d Congress

and the bill carried the names of nineteen Senators as co­

authors. When it was brought to the floor of the Senate, how­

ever, the measure was recommitted to the Committee by the very

close vote of 45 for return to committee and 44 against.

The election of Dwight d . Eisenhower as President in

1952, was hailed as a good omen for statehood. While president

^Ibid.3 p. 59. 61 of Columbia University, he had given a speech in which he said,

"Quick admission of Alaska and Hawaii to statehood will show the world that 'America practices what it preaches, ' " and added that he hoped "congress would approve the legislation 5 then before it. " However, in his State of the Union address on February 2, 1953, President Eisenhower endorsed statehood for Hawaii but failed to mention Alaska. This change in presi­ dential attitude was believed to be politically inspired since

it was predicted that Hawaii would elect a Republican delega­

tion if admitted, while Alaska would go Democratic.

Such a change of heart on the part of the new President

seemed to strengthen statehood sentiment in Alaska. The Alaskan press now became more solidly aligned on one side or the other.

Although no editors admitted editorially that they were against

statehood per se, the two factions were still divided between

"Statehood now" advocates and "Statehood someday but not now"

proponents. A study of the editorial positions of the Terri­

tory's major newspapers and one magazine reveals the following

pattern;

^Ibid., p. 59. 62

Newspagejç Statehoo^_Now StaJbehood^JLarbe^

Ketchikan Daily News X Ketchikan Chronicle X Juneau Daily Alaska Empire X Juneau Independent X Anchorage Daily News X Anchorage Daily Times X Fairbanks Daily News-Miner X Kodiak Mirror X Jessen's Weekly X

Magazine

The Alaska Sportsman

One of the most interesting editorial changes of mind

regarding statehood had occurred in Fairbanks. The Daily

News-Miner, formerly owned by Austin E. "cap" Lathrop who

was strongly against statehood, had been sold in August 1950,

after Lathrop's death. The editor, William C. Strand, had

vigorously opposed statehood under the policies set by Lathrop

with many excellent editorials but decided to return to the

"South 48" in February 1951.

The purchaser of the Daily News-Miner was C. W. Snedden

who hired John J. Ryan to replace Strand. The anti-statehood

stand of the Daily News-Miner continued for the next three

% years. Snedden explained the reasons for his original oppo­

sition and why he changed his mind: 63

When I took over the paper from "Cap" Austin E, Lathrop in 1950, I inherited several file drawers of very valid arguments against statehood, and it was about three years before I began to question the validity of the arguments. At that time, Fair­ banks was undoubtedly the center of hard-core opposition to statehood in Alaska, due in large part to Cap Lathrop's high personal prestige and the fact he kept his newspaper and radio stations continually pointing out the folly of any attempt to make Alaska a state.

What really got me thinking seriously about the merits of statehood was participating as a member of Fairbanks' first Municipal Utilities Board in the sale of revenue bonds to finance a new elec­ trical generating plant in Fairbanks. I really thought the bonding houses were being facetious with us when they started quoting interest rates around 6% at a time when many issues were going for less than 2%. It was the first time that I saw graphically the high costs we were being assessed because the entire territory was at the whim of a few Congressmen and, particularly, the Secretary of the Interior— all located about 4,000 miles away, and invariably all woefully uninformed about what conditions were up here.

In the fall of 1953, I started a comprehensive effort to gather up all the information I could regarding the merits of Alaska statehood, both pro and con. The day after Christmas I sent my editor, John J. Ryan, upstairs to a vacant apartment in our building and told him I did not want to see him again before February— and at that time I expected two comprehensive briefs: one, setting forth the merits of statehood, and one, setting forth the merits of remaining a territory.

It was only about two weeks before Jack Ryan came back down to report that I probably was going to have to get someone else to write the "con" side of the question. The more he delved into the sub­ ject, the more he became convinced that statehood was the only way Alaska and Alaskans could progress, 64

I sent him back to concentrate upon the negative side— a task which he later told me was impossible for him by then. Result was that Jack did write two rather imposing and comprehensive briefs, and we then studied them jointly and discussed them for several days. Following that we made up a special little four-page section of the newspaper stating the reasons why the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner was now becoming an advocate of statehoodT^

The conversion of the second largest newspaper in

Alaska to a statehood proponent was welcomed by the other pro­ statehood publishers. The Juneau Independent, a daily that had begun publishing in September 1952, printed an editorial entitled "Welcome to the Fold" shortly after the editorial switch of the Daily News-Miner became known throughout the

Territory. The editorial noted that "there are not very many newspapers in this Territory which still take an editorial position against statehood. The ranks were thinned further last week when the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner ran a front 7 page editorial headed "Statehood-NOW."

The initial Daily News-Miner editorial was followed by many more. On April 9, 1954, Snedden published a collec­ tion of his editorials endorsing statehood in a special six- page section which he circulated throughout the Territory and

^Letter from C. W, Snedden to George H. Lehleitner, May 7, 1964, pp. 2-3. 7 Editorial in the Juneau Independent, March 11, 1954. 55 mailed to many editors in the 48 states. His editorial on

the front page of this special issue deserves repeating here because it probably summarized the feelings of most Alaskans

at the time and is a classic example of the American journalist

crying out for justice:

This newspaper was published by the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner . . . more directly, by some 60 employees of that concern. There is nothing par­ ticularly remarkable about this newspaper, except one thing: Every single member of this newspaper's staff was born under the American flag, yet, not one member of this staff has the rights of an American citizen.

We have published this newspaper in the interests of Statehood for Alaska. Not all Alaskans want State­ hood, but our sincere estimate is that at least three- fourths of them want it.

This newspaper is published in the best traditions of American journalism, and it very closely resembles newspapers published in United States cities of cor­ responding size. In fact, most of us who worked on this edition learned journalism in the United States.

But it doesn't matter where we were born, or where we learned our profession, we, as Alaskans, can never enjoy the rights our founding fathers preserved for American citizens.

You who live in the United States and read this newspaper are fortunate. You have the precious rights of an American citizen. We, who have published this paper, do not have these rights. We printed editorials in support of Ike for President, Some of us bet on the outcome of that election, and some of us won our bets and collected money. It was a thrilling election, and the right man won, in the opinion of most members of our staff. But we could contribute nothing to his victory, because not one of us can vote for the man we want to be President. 6 6

We Alaskans have a man in Congress who represents us, but he doesn't do as much good as he would like to, because he has no vote, congress makes decisions that vitally affect the life and welfare of every Alaskan, but we Alaskans have no voting voice in Con­ gress. Furthermore, we breathlessly watched the teletypes to find out whom Ike had appointed to be our governor.

The members of this newspaper staff are in a boat with some 180,000 other Alaskans. All of us are disfranchised, helpless Americans.

Many senators, congressmen and ordinary people will oppose us in our campaign to achieve Statehood. Prob­ ably, we will be defeated in this quest for our Rights. Some will say that we are living too far from the con­ tinental limits of the United States; others will say that we do not have enough people living in our vast territory; still others will say that we are not fi­ nancially able to become a state. Alaskans deny each one of these charges, and we have facts and figures to prove that we are right.

But, basically, people who hurl these charges against Statehood for Alaska are evading the real question.

More than 180,000 Alaskans are living in a bondage similar to that which England designed for the 13 American colonies before they revolted. Haven't we read in our history books about taxation without representation, an absence of home rule, and an appoint­ ive governor? Isn't it American to yearn to resort to the ballot box when you are in opposition to the men who guide your destinies?

The real question involved in Alaska Statehood is this:

When will fortunate citizens of the United States stop clutching their precious Rights selfishly to their breasts, and pass them on to 180,000 loyal Americans in Alaska?8

Q Editorial in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, April 9,1954, 67

Snedden acknowledged that the special issue was a milestone event. "From that date on," he wrote the author,

"we were in the statehood fight, and the majority of my time 9 was spent working on various aspects of it." viewing his change of editorial heart in retrospect and developments afterward, it appears that the years 1953 and 1954 marked the turning point in the statehood battle. While the fight to achieve statehood had been going on since the end of World

War II, Alaska had been slowly growing in population. The

1950 census showed that more than 128,600 people resided in

Alaska, an increase of 56,000 over 1940.

Coincident with the population increase, the number of radio stations also increased. By 1953, there were ten radio stations on the air. Still there is no evidence that their owners took a notable active interest in the statehood issue other than to have their news directors cover any events con­ nected therewith purely for their news value.

The year 1953 marked a milestone in broadcasting, how­ ever, as television was introduced to Alaska. Stations KTVA-

TV and KENI-TV, both located in Anchorage and owned by a number of businessmen stockholders who were opposed to statehood, were

9 Letter from C. W. Snedden to the author, September 27, 1968, p. 2. 68 licensed and began operations. Again, however, there is no evidence that this media took any aggressive action to influ­ ence the statehood issue either way.

In the summer of 1953, Senator Hugh Butler, Chairman of the Senate's Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, con­ sented to hearings on the combined bills for statehood for both Alaska and Hawaii. Stating that he was opposed to state­ hood for Alaska, he was persuaded to hold his hearings in

Alaska and announced that he was doing it so he could hear testimony from the "little people" of the Territory.

Senator Butler and his committee met with the "little people" in Ketchikan, Juneau, Fairbanks, and Anchorage and

found, to his surprise, that 130 persons wanted to testify for

statehood and only ten against. The minority view was expressed

as an editorial in the Ketchikan Daily News and was introduced

for the record by Lester Gore, an attorney:

We ' re against statehood for Alaska at the present time. . . , Statehood at this time would mean far too heavy a tax burden without corresponding benefits. . . . Rather than statehood now, with its additional burdens, would it not be far better to enlist the aid of the present Republican administration for removal of antiquated, conflicting, frustrating and overlapping bureau regulations in order to invite and encourage development of our resources with the results of a permanent and stable popula­ tion and economy.10

^^Gruening, op. cit., p. 60 69

The arguments against statehood were the same as before. The arguments in favor of it were best expressed at

this time by August G. Hiebert, Anchorage broadcaster and president of the Anchorage chamber of Commerce and the only

individual in Alaskan electronic journalism to step forward

to express his views publicly. He told the committee;

It is now more evident than ever before that Alaska will not come into its place in the sun until various departments of the Federal Govern­ ment relinquish or surrender some of the life- and-death power they hold over Alaska's economic de ve 1 opmen t.

In the Matanuska Valley are coal deposits which industry wants to develop but they are tied up in reserves. Deposits of strategic and critical minerals remain undeveloped while government pur­ chase contracts for hundreds of billions of dol­ lars are granted companies operating in the wilds of Canada, Africa, and South America. Tourist lodges do not go up in the national forests and elsewhere because the best sites usually are located on withdrawn land, or the leases and regu­ lations governing their use are so stringent and limited that investment money cannot be obtained.

The preceding are but a few of the manmade prob­ lems confronting development. We feel that many of these obstacles can be overcome by granting Alaska statehood n o w .H

After further hearings in Washington, Senator Butler

reported the combined bills favorably. However, at this time.

^^Ibid., p. 66. 70

Senator A. S. "Mike" Monroriey of Oklahoma, suggested that

Alaska and Hawaii forget the idea of statehood and allow the territories to become commonwealths, like Puerto Rico, rather than states. The commonwealth proposal was quickly defeated by a vote of 60 to 24. The combined statehood bill was passed by a 57-28 vote and sent to the House. Unfortunately, the

House failed to act and the bill died without further action.

The next proposal to be advanced by the opponents of statehood was the partitioning of Alaska which met violent reaction from statehood enthusiasts. A "Little Man's Club," organized in Anchorage after Senator Butler had said he wanted to hear from the "little people," quickly gathered their forces and began to fight back. They reorganized into "Opera­ tion Statehood" and a number of the members flew to Washington to express their disapproval of the partitioning idea. This proposal died in committee because no one who favored the idea could agree as to where the boundaries for a partitioned Alaska

should be drawn.

The idea of partitioning Alaska as a means to make state­ hood more acceptable to Congress was not new. The first sug­

gestion for a division of this vast area had come from the

Skagway Chamber of Commerce in 1899. In an editorial in the

Anchorage Daily News, the history of the partitioning idea was 71 traced and it was noted that Judge James Wicker sham, the man who had introduced the first Alaska statehood bill in Congress, had earlier advocated a division of Alaska into four terri­ tories to be admitted to statehood as they became ready.

There was a lapse in interest in this idea until 1923 when Representative Frank Foster of Cordova introduced a memorial in the territorial legislature to make the southern portions of Alaska a separate territory with Seward as its capital. The memorial failed to pass but the idea was revived

again by President Warren G. Harding. In a speech at Seattle

on July 27, 1923, just after his return from Alaska, he said:

Alaska is destined for statehood. In a very few years we can well set off the panhandle and a large block of the Southeastern part as a state. This region now contains easily 90 per cent of the white population and of the developed resources. It would be the greatest single impetus we could possibly give to the right kind of development.^^

Just as the commonwealth idea had not gained acceptance,

so the partitioning of Alaska had been rejected. Again, the

opponents had failed to divert the pro-statehood movement from

its affirmed goal.

The 83rd Congress came and went and Alaskans had made no

measurable headway. Eight statehood bills were introduced into

12 Editorial in the Anchorage Daily News, May 7, 1954. 72 the 84th Congress but while they won early committee approvals

in both the House and Senate, neither chamber allowed them to make any further headway to a vote,

During the time of the 83rd and 84th Congresses, edi­

torial positions among the Territory's newspapers did not

change. The most vociferous newspapers against statehood were

the Juneau Daily Alaska Empire, the Anchorage Daily News, and

The Alaska Weekly, published in Seattle. The opposing posi­

tion of the Anchorage Daily News on the question was clearly

stated in an editorial published in June 1954. Taking issue

with an editorial entitled "Statehood Bunk" in the Anchorage

Daily Times, the editor gave his editorial the same title and

bitterly criticized the Times editor for blaming the Interior

Department for blocking Alaska statehood legislation. "To

blame Interior Department officials," the News editorial

stated, "for all the obstacles, before the present statehood

bill in Congress is a kind of recklessness that borders on

partisan insanity." The editorial continued:

. . . The Times editor is perfectly privileged to rant and rave in his anger. He can blame anyone, those who oppose statehood in Alaska, government officials and agencies, members of Congress, and other newspapers for not joining him in his passion. But if he wants to be accepted as a responsible spokesman and champion of Alaska statehood, he will have to learn the meaning of moderation when he speaks out. 73

He described his June 2 editorial perfectly when he headlined it "Statehood Bunk. "13

The Ketchikan Daily News, also opposed to statehood at the time, tried to cast doubts as to the majority feelings of Alaskans on the issue;

We believe that if the statehood issue were squarely presented to the people of Alaska, the majority vote would not be in favor of statehood.

. . . If one is to look at the roster of this statehood committee, little can be expected from it that will be of benefit to the people of the Territory, of that you may rest assured.14

The Juneau Daily Alaska Empire, the most influential anti-statehood paper in the Territory, continued to reiterate its objection to the arguments being set forth by the propo­ nents. An editorial stated;

The arguments that statehood is necessary for the defense of Alaska; for the development of Alaska; to bring more people to Alaska; that with­ out statehood Alaskans are second-class citizens — all have been heard many times before. And they don't mean a thing. We don't believe the people who expound them believe them. They are so easily torn apart, so completely without foun­ dation in fact.15

The Petersburg Press, a small weekly published in

13 Editorial in the Anchorage Daily News, June 11, 1954. 14 Editorial in the Ketchikan Daily News, April 17, 1953. 15 Editorial in the Daily [Juneau] Alaska Empire, April 17, 1953. 74 southeastern Alaska, reflected its growing impatience over the issue in an editorial dated April 10, 1953:

It is high time that the question be discussed generally for the purpose of gleaning facts instead of being kicked about on a political issue. All of us agree that statehood is desirable. It is the "when" over which the disagreement a r i s e s .

Observers of the Washington scene, however, were more circumspect. In an article appearing in the Pacific Pali­

sades Post, the issue was viewed differently. The author com­ mented:

This reporter discovered in Washington (what informed Alaskans already know) that statehood does not entirely hinge on Alaska's "right to be a state" . . . on its "people's preference" . . . or in the "ability to finance state government," but also on important political implications. Right now the "word" I heard going around in Washington's Republican "cloak rooms" on Alaska statehood can be summed down in one sentence: The Republicans fear that statehood may bring Washington two Democratic senators and one Demo­ cratic representative. On the determination of that question, probably more than any other, it seems to this reporter, the fate of Alaska's statehood rests today.

The author may have been right. As the 84th Congress

closed its books, statehood for Alaska seemed as far away as

ever.

^^Editorial in the Petersburg [Alaska] Press, April 10, 1953.

1 7 John Morley, "Alaska Statehood Hinges on Political Lineup," Pacific Palisades Post [Santa Monica, California], June 24, 1953. CHAPTER VI

A CONSTITUTION WITHOUT A STATE

The defeats suffered by the statehood movement in Con­ gress did not discourage Alaskans. Realizing that there was

still not enough sympathy in Washington because there wasn't

enough pressure from the people in the Territory, the pro­ ponents of statehood took a different tack. Led by publishers

Robert B. Atwood in Anchorage and C. W. Snedden in Fairbanks, a new, more aggressive idea was formulated. Why couldn't

Alaskans, acting on their own volition,.draft a constitution

for their proposed state? By this action, they could prove to

Congress that the residents of the Territory were in earnest.

The idea was spread by news releases from the Statehood Com­ mittee and enhanced by strong editorials in the Anchorage Daily

Times and the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner.

By the time the territorial legislature met in Juneau

in January 1955, the elected senators and representatives had

sniffed the political winds. House Bill No. 1 provided for a

Constitutional Convention that would draft a constitution for

the state that Alaskans hoped to bring into being and appro­

priated $300,000 for its expenses. The vote was overwhelming 76 in favor of this action. Only one representative voted against the bill; the vote in the Senate was unanimous.

Fifty-five delegates were to be chosen by the electorate and the election was held on September 13, 1955. The delegates assembled at the University of Alaska on November 9. The list of delegates included a cross-section of Alaskan interests, including lawyers, bush pilots, merchants, miners, clergymen, and businessmen. Only one person with any newspaper background was elected; however, he was the only one who had chosen to run.

He was George Sundborg who had served as executive assistant to

Governor Gruening and general manager of the Alaska Development

Board. Active editors of newspapers throughout the state had no doubt believed that they had to remain aloof from this polit­ ical issue and should not run for even this kind of ad hoc public office.

Adverse comments to the expenditure of over a quarter million dollars of territorial funds for the convention by the opposition newspapers had been published. The Ketchikan Daily

News editorialized that it "is a waste of money to hold a

Constitutional Convention in Alaska at this time. It will not aid statehood any and will merely duplicate a cost to the Terri­

tory that the federal government is prepared to d o . "^

^Editorial in the Ketchikan Daily News, February 5, 1955, 77

In a later edition, the same editor stated:

Naturally, every American citizen and every Alaskan is for statehood for Alaska. The only question involved is whether Alaska is ready and able to support the cost of statehood.

. . . How much better it would be . . . if all the legislators would try to find ways to encour­ age new industries to come to Alaska to develop its great potential of natural resources. . . .

. . . We are for statehood when it is shown that we definitely can assume such burdens as statehood will impose, and not become beggars of alms from the federal government in Washington for our very existence.

. . . The present proposed territorial convention will in no way aid the cause of statehood and those who tell you it will are dealing out so much "hog- wash. "2

The two other territorial newspapers that were against statehood— the Juneau Daily Alaska Empire and the Anchorage

Daily News— added their editorial voices to that of the Ketchi­ kan paper. The former urged that only the best people be sent to the Constitutional Convention and pleaded that "The Conven­ tion should not be used as a flag-waving venture to impose upon Congress the longing for statehood now on the part of the 3 very vocal statehooders."

2 Editorial in the Ketchikan Daily News, February 18, 1955 3 Editorial in the Daily [Juneau] Alaska Empire, April 29, 1955. 78

The Anchorage Daily News became stronger in its stand for "statehood eventually but not now." In an editorial dated

April 24, 1955, the idea of commonwealth was pushed instead of statehood because of the tax burden. Three weeks later, the

News urged that the Constitutional Convention be called off.

The Ketchikan Daily News continued its vociferous oppo­ sition to the statehood movement as the weeks wore on. "As we see it, immediate statehood for Alaska would only end in bank­ ruptcy with the future of the Territory mortgaged for genera- 4 tions to come, " remained the main theme.

By September, as the election drew near, the editor hoped that those attending the convention "will write a con­

stitution that will be a credit to Alaska and its people. We

sincerely hope for the best but we are also prepared for the worst.

Six days later, the longest editorial ever run up to

that date appeared, in which the editor seemed to accept the

inevitable. "Since you are stuck with the $300,000 or more

cost of the convention," he told his readers, "you just as

^Editorial in the Ketchikan Daily News, May 18, 1955. 5 Editorial in the Ketchikan Daily News, September 6, 1955. 79 well should make the most of it and pick your own candidates

tomorrow.

Jessen's Weekly, a small but respected tabloid pub­

lished in Fairbanks, remained more objective in its editorial

approach but, nevertheless, was in favor of statehood. In Jan­

uary, the editor had thought that the commonwealth idea "is

not to be lightly regarded as of no importance" but conceded 7 that "we don't know enough about it." By June, he seemed

neutral and expressed the opinion that "there can be no let­

down in our struggle for a political status that will give

us the rights and privileges of a nation to which we contribute 8 so greatly." Two days after the election, however, his pro­

statehood stand became clear; "Those benighted outsiders who

oppose statehood for Alaska on cultural grounds in the belief

that we are all a group of ignorant savages living in igloos

and feeding on blubber should glimpse a Jessen's Weekly now

and then to improve their perspective. Jessen's, of course, 9 is a reflection of contemporary life in the Territory."

^Editorial in the Ketchikan Daily News, September 12, 1955. ^Editorial in Jessen's Weekly [Fairbanks, Alaska], January 27, 1955.

®Ibid., June 2, 1955.

^Ibid., September 15, 1955. 80

A month later, any doubts about Jessen's editorial stand were completely dispelled as the University of Alaska hastily prepared for the newly-elected delegates to assemble.

"It is high time," an editorial said, "that we become a state and enter upon a new political era. The replacement of the

Russian flag by the Stars and Stripes was a historic occasion but that was 88 years ago. It is time for another Alaska Day when statehood shall come into full flower.

The Alaska Sportsman, a prominent monthly magazine

appealing to the hunter and fisherman, had been against state­ hood from the beginning. However, probably recognizing that

many of his readers were strong proponents of statehood, the

editor couched his opposition in careful language. Following

is an excerpt which was an attempt to show that the desire

for statehood was by no means universal:

It would be a great boon to Alaska and Alaskans if they could have a voting representative and two voting senators in the United States Congress and could elect their own governor. Alaska, with its comparatively small population of 95,000 whites and 30,000 Indians, Eskimos and Aleuts, would then have as great legislative power in the Senate as has New York with its population of fourteen mil­ lion persons.

In order to change its status of one delegate without a vote to three voting congressmen, Alaska

^^Editorial in Jessen's Weekly [Fairbanks, Alaska], October 13, 1955. 81

would have to become a state — and there ' s the rub 1 To become a state, Alaska would necessarily take on grown-up responsibilities which well might bankrupt it or make necessary an increase in taxes large enough to drive out most of its population.

Nearly all Alaskans want Alaska to become a state eventually. They want statehood not only in order to have more power in the halls of Congress, but for sentimental reasons as well as to join in full part­ nership with the 48 states of the Union. But most Alaskans fear that the cost to Alaska in its present undeveloped condition would outweigh the advantages.

There is no sound basis for the claim that state­ hood would be of benefit to Alaska and the Union militarily. What can help Alaska most are more industries, and the only bright outlook in this field is the possibility that pulp manufacturers, seeking virgin forests, may find the timber in the Alaska National forests economically attractive. They will not if Alaska becomes a state.11

The delegates to the convention were duly chosen and the Constitutional Convention convened on November 9, 1955, as scheduled. On February 5, 1956, the fifty-five men and women affixed their signatures to the constitution for the proposed State of Alaska. The preamble read;

We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land, in order to secure and transmit to succeeding generations our heritage of political, civil and religious liberty within the Union of States, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the State of Alaska."

^^Editorial in The Alaska Sportsman, January, 1951, p. 5. 82

Simply and directly worded, it was hailed by political scientists as "one of the best, if not the best, state con- 12 stitutions ever written."

Besides drafting the constitution, the convention dele­ gates took another step which was to have far-reaching conse­ quences on the eventual outcome. The step was the adoption of the "Tennessee Plan"— a scheme to attract public attention to the statehood issue by electing two U.S. Senators and a

Representative even though Alaska was not a member of the Union of States.

The idea was the inspired recommendation of George H.

Lehleitner, a New Orleans businessman who had become interested

in statehood for Hawaii as a result of World War II service in the U.S. Navy. Acting entirely on his own as a private citizen, he was influenced by a book written by Clarence Streit which

advocated a "Union of the Free" whose overwheIming strength would discourage— or, if necessary, crush by force— any future would-be Hitlers. Seeing Hawaii's 400,000 loyal citizens with

no voting representation in the Congress and whose governor was

a political appointee appalled him. He vowed that he would do

12 Ernest Gruening, The Battle for Alaska Statehood (College, Alaska : The University of Alaska Press, 1967), p. 71 83 his part to give almost half a million U.S. citizens "the 13 prime essentials that properly belong to free men."

When a new attempt to secure statehood for both Hawaii and Alaska failed in the House of Representatives in May 1956,

Lehleitner felt that a grave injustice had been done.

"I will always remember this as the absolute low point in our statehood struggle, " he said. "It was the first time that the House had defeated a statehood bill. Previously, on four occasions, it had passed separate bills for these terri- 14 tories."

It was at this time that Lehleitner conceived the idea of the Tennessee Plan. In researching American history, he discovered that a number of territories had departed from the conventional procedures for seeking admission to the Union as states. The first of these had been an area lying west of the

Carolines. Its people, envious that the area to the north—

Kentucky— had obtained statehood in 1792 and frustrated in

their own attempts, called a constitutional convention, drafted a constitution and elected two "Senators. " These two men went to Washington to lobby for their cause and brought back statehood for Tennessee in 1795.

13 Letter from George H. Lehleitner to Congressman Jim Wright, September 12, 1963, p. 1. 14,. . _ _ Ibid., p. 3. 84

Similar persuasive measures were subsequently tried by Michigan, Iowa, California, Minnesota, Oregon, and Kansas.

However, few Americans knew of this intriguing bit of history.

Hawaii rejected Lehleitner's idea in 1951 on the grounds that an aggressive action of this kind might prove offensive to some of Hawaii's congressional friends. In addition, in those early years they optimistically believed 15 that statehood was just around the corner. Lehleitner then decided to concentrate his efforts on Alaska and was invited to Fairbanks to present his ideas to the convention. He described a "dividend" which he obtained as a result of his

first trip to the Territory in August 1955 :

In Fairbanks, the Convention site, I met Bill Snedden, publisher of that city's Daily News-Miner, an outstanding newspaper, from which would flow the Convention news that would be channeled to smaller Alaska papers and to all of the national wire services. Mr. Snedden was fascinated with the historical background of the "Tennessee Plan" and pledged his support . . . which, I might add, was given without stint. He was to subsequently prove to be a tower of vital strength. . . . The News-Miner's wholehearted support was doubly important as Alaska's largest newspaper, published in Anchorage, refused to endorse the proposal, while that city's second-largest daily, as well as that published in Juneau, were both violently anti­ statehood, and hence "anti-Tennessee Plan" as well.

^^Ibid., p. 4. 85

The invitation to address the Constitutional Con­ vention found me back in Fairbanks in January, 1956. Meanwhile, however, I felt it essential to be able to assure the delegates that if Alaskans decided to use the "Tennessee Plan" this action would not be offen­ sive to their established friends in the congress.

. . . I drafted the presentation I planned placing before the Convention and in December, 1955, sent copies of the same to a representative cross-section of Alaska's time-tested friends in both the House and Senate. In my cover letter I pointed out the understandable concern Alaskans could be expected to have over the possibility of their Congressional friends taking offense at Alaska ' s aggressiveness in using the "Tennessee Plan" and asked that they frankly state their personal feelings on the matter.^®

The booklet that Lehleitner prepared contained an inter­ esting recapitulation of how Tennessee and the other states had obtained statehood from territorial status and ended with some cogent arguments as to why Alaska should follow in their historic wake. Basically, he felt that three main developments could be anticipated as a result:

1. Such a newsworthy action would surely capture the headlines . . . and this is a prerequisite if the story of Alaska and its entitlement to statehood is to be gotten across to stateside Americans.

2. The drama of such an action would, I believe, cause Alaska's Senators and Congressman-elect to be much sought after for appearances on national TV and radio programs, and there would be articles in broadly read magazines. Here would be further opportunities

^^Ibid., p. 5. 86

to tell Alaska's story, and to enlist the essential element of militant public support which, to date, has been lacking.

3, This story, told broadly and effectively, will make it clear not only to Americans, but to other peoples as well, that Uncle Sam, the leader of the Free World, would himself be guilty of colonialism were Congress to continue territorialism in Alaska and Hawaii against the express wishes of the people of those areas. . . .17

Lehleitner added that perhaps the single most positive benefit might be that Alaska would have three "super-lobbyists" to plead her cause in Washington. He concluded by saying;

In its very essence the Tennessee Plan is a forthright petition to the Government for the redress of a monstrous grievance. Because the grievance is stubborn, the petition for its correction must be vigorous and dramatic. For these reasons the Tennes­ see Plan has succeeded in the past. I firmly believe that it can succeed again— for Alaska.!®

The convention adopted the Tennessee Plan along with the new constitution and provided that at the territorial primary election in April 1956, the people would vote on the acceptance of the constitution as well as the scheme to elect two senators and a representative. If so, these men would be chosen at the Territory's 1956 general election.

17 George H. Lehleitner, The Tennessee Plan ; How the Bold Became States (Pamphlet published in New Orleans, Louisiana, 1956), pp. 14-15. Iff Ibid., p. 16. 87

In spite of mild opposition the constitution and the

Tennessee Plan carried. In November, Ernest Gruening and

William A. Egan were elected senators and Ralph J. Rivers as representative; all of these men were Democrats. E. L. "Bob"

Bartlett chose to run as Territorial Delegate again and was elected.

The three men proceeded to Washington to be present at the opening of the 85th Congress but were not admitted to the floor as had been done in the case of Tennessee. The resultant publicity engendered much sympathy in the Nation's press for the three elected representatives of the people of Alaska who were not allowed to represent their constituents in the hallowed halls of the Capitol.

As previously mentioned. President Eisenhower, at first sympathetic to the cause of statehood for both Alaska and Hawaii, had reversed his stand. By 1956, he supported Hawaii's bid for admission but not Alaska's. The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner editorialized:

President Eisenhower, at a recent news conference, discussed Alaska with reporters. His words, reported in a dispatch from our nation's capital yesterday, reflect shocking ignorance concerning Alaska on the part of the President.

The President, in discussing Alaska Statehood, told reporters that Alaska has only a small popula­ tion which is concentrated in the Southeast part 88

of the Territory. He went on to say that there are very few people in the vast remainder of Alaska, and furthermore, this area is vital to U.S. defense. He indicated that possibly some way could be worked out to grant statehood to this popular corner in Southeastern Alaska.

All of which is most puzzling to us. Alaska's population isn't centered in the Southeastern Area. AlasTca's heavily populated region is the railbelt, which extends from Seward in South Central Alaska to Fairbanks, which is close to the Arctic Circle.

There are some 80,000 people living in the Anchorage, Palmer, Seward, Kenai region, and that is a greater population by far than all of Southeastern Alaska. In addition, there are some 45,000 people living in the Fairbanks-Big Delta and Interior Alaska region. We aren't mentioning Kodiak, Nome or other centers far from Southeastern Alaska.

There once was a time when Alaska ' s population was centered in the Southeastern region, but that time was about 25 years ago. Southeastern Alaska is quite healthy economically and growing steadily in population but it has been outstripped in growth by the railbelt region.

We wonder who has been advising the President concerning Alaska.19

In spite of this lack of presidential support, hearings were held by both the Senate and the House beginning in the spring of 1957. C. W. Snedden, publisher of the Fairbanks

Daily News-Miner, by now a militant statehood supporter, testi­ fied before the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs

19 Gruening, op. cit., p. 94. 89

He made an excellent statement analyzing some of the handi­ caps which Alaskans encountered because of their territorial status and added that "the territorial form of government is un-American, undemocratic, stifling to free enterprise, and damaging to the morale of the people who are being adminis­ tered." Concluding his remarks, he said: "The second-class

American citizens of Alaska ask that you put an end to this neglect now and that you give us a fighting chance to prove our worth and our ability to develop our great Territory as a State in a sound economic climate."20

While the hearings and the arguments were being carried on through the first and second sessions of the 85th Congress, editorial opinion remained divided in Alaska. The Juneau

Daily Alaska Empire continued on the theme that "statehood would bankrupt everyone in Alaska" but added a new idea of a tax moratorium which had not been brought up elsewhere. "We

intend to work vigorously to bring statehood to Alaska," the

editor wrote, "through a 20-year moratorium on excise and

federal income taxes, through corridors for Canada so that

Alaska can in turn take its rightful place in supporting the

economy and our share of federal government responsibilities in

20 Gruening, op. cit., p. 96. 90

Washington. In due time^ as a giant the size of Alaskaj we will carry our share of government when the Democrats and

Republicans arrive at a 20-year tax moratorium.

The bitterness of the Empire ' s editor showed through when he commented later that Alaskans "realize that statehood would cost them at least two and a half times as much in taxes

as it cost them now. Few could afford it except some people

on the government payroll and they couldn't afford it if they

couldn't get their hands on an extra voucher and turn it in

for extra expenses marking it 'official' without explaining

how it was spent.

The editor of The Alaska Sportsman magazine continued

his opposition on a milder basis but on the same "we can't

afford it" theme. "Alaskans agree that it is unlikely that

Alaska will be made a state in the near future, " he asserted.

"There are many who feel, like most Congressmen, that Alaska

cannot support statehood, " he added, "because it has so very

few year-around producing industries and that taxation to main­

tain it would be so great that it would discourage private

enterprise and thus prevent population growth of the huge.

21 Editorial in the Daily [Juneau] Alaska Empire, June 11, 1956, p. 4. 22 Editorial in the Daily [Juneau] Alaska Empire, October 14, 1956, p. 6. 91 very sparsely settled area."^^

The following month, the Sportsman's editor lamented that "in considering statehood for Alaska, the last thing that seems to be discussed is the cost. " He cited labor and population statistics and concluded that "the workers and industries of Alaska may be called upon to pay as much as

$28,000,000 a year to cover the costs of state government in

Alaska in addition to the other taxes they pay. That's more than $1,000 a year each for the average number of wage earners in industry."^4

While the press remained divided in Alaska, the legis­ lative wheels were grinding in Washington but seemingly without any forward progress. Eleven statehood bills were introduced during the 85th Congress, They were promptly approved by the respective committees concerned but the House Rules Committee stopped them. There was no action for ten months.

Representative Clair Engle (D) of California, chairman of the House Interior Committee, chafed at the delay and dis­ covered that, under House rules, statehood legislation was

"privileged" and could be brought to the floor without the

23 Editorial in The Alaska Sportsman, May, 1956, p. 7.

^^Editorial in The Alaska Sportsman, June, 1956, p. 7. 92 approval of the Rules Committee. This was done but the matter was to be debated before a vote.

Meanwhile, unexpected assistance for the statehood movement was obtained from a female member of the fourth estate.

The writer was not associated with the newspaper or magazine

industry; rather, she was a novelist. Her name was Edna Ferber.

Miss Ferber had become interested in Alaska and had made

several trips there to obtain background on the country and its

people. When completed, the novel was entitled Ice Palace which made a strong case, in fiction form, for statehood.25

Senator Gruening later explained the results of her literary

efforts :

Some of the literary critics felt it was not up to her best work but one of them referred to it quite correctly as "the Uncle Tom's Cabin for Alaskan statehood." Thousands who would never have been interested in any of our pro-statehood non-fiction magazine articles . . . did read novels.

In the closing weeks of the statehood drive, scores of people asked me whether I had read "Ice Palace." It was called to the attention of many Congressmen by readers who were also their constituents. I have no doubt that it changed quite a few votes.26

25 Edna Ferber, Ice Palace (Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, 1958). 2 6 Gruening, op. cit., pp. 102-103. 93

By the late spring of 1958, the debate on the House floor seemed to indicate that passage of the bill was likely.

However, opponents kept delaying passage by insisting on amendments. Accordingly, the Alaska Statehood Bill, H.R.

7999, was amended to provide for a referendum vote of the people on three propositions before Alaska could become a state. These propositions required that Alaskans indicate that they (1) want immediate statehood; (2) accept the bound­ aries of the state; and (3) accept conditions as to transfer of public lands to the state and power of the President to withdraw certain military lands in emergency.

Debate on these points continued but the bill was finally brought to a vote. The House passed the bill on

May 28, 1958, by a vote of 210 to 166, with 51 representatives not voting.

The statehood bill was not to be rubber-stamped in the

Senate, however. Robert B. Atwood, writing in State Government magazine, explained the reasons for senatorial opposition:

In the Senate the road to success was found sprinkled with hurdles, many of them formidable. Party concerns appeared. Republicans held that Democrats were pressing Alaska statehood and had no intention of acting on Hawaii. This made some Republicans reluctant to help the Alaska measure.

Additionally, some Republicans expressed fear that there were "no Republicans" in Alaska. The 94

three in the "Tennessee Plan" delegation were Democrats, as was the Delegate to Congress.

The situation was complicated further by the fact that the Senate bill was, in the minds of its sponsors, fetter than the House bill. They preferred to act on their own measure. If they did, however, it was certain that no bill would result, as the two chambers would never agree in conference.^ ^

The hero of the impasse in the Senate was Secretary of

the Interior Fred A. Seaton, an important proponent of state­ hood for both Alaska and Hawaii. An Eisenhower appointee, he

first won over the President and then persuaded many opposing

senators that they should forego action on their own bill and

accept the House bill. He was also successful in allaying the

fears of Republicans that their party was nonexistent in

Alaska.

The debate went on in the Senate for a week. By June 30,

various attempts to defeat the bill by southern senators were

overturned, including a motion to give commonwealth status to

Alaska which had been long advocated by Senator A. S. "Mike"

Monroney of Oklahoma. That evening, when it came time for the

final vote, several senators who had sought to defeat or side­

track the bill by amendments, switched to support it. The final

27 Robert B. Atwood, "Alaska's Struggle for Statehood," State Government, Autumn, 1958, pp. 207-208. 95 vote was 64 for statehood, 20 against and 12 not voting. The bill was signed by President Eisenhower on July 7, 1958.

Alaskans flocked to the polls on August 26, and ran up the largest vote count in their history. They overwhelmingly approved the three referendum propositions by a five-to-one majority.

On January 3, 1959, President Eisenhower completed the statehood process. With Vice President Richard M. Nixon,

Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn and the newly-elected Alaska congressional delegation— Senators E. L. Bartlett and Ernest

Gruening and Representative Ralph J. Rivers— and a number, of prominent Alaskan business and political leaders looking on, he signed the proclamation that made Alaska our forty-ninth state. CHAPTER VII

SUMMARY OF THE ROLE OF JOURNALISTS AND JOURNALISM

IN THE LONG STRUGGLE

With the stroke of his pen. President Eisenhower had taken the final step and declared that "the procedural require­ ment imposed by the Congress on the state of Alaska to entitle that state to admission into the union have been complied with in all respects and that admission of the state of Alaska into the union on an equal footing with the other states of the union is now accomplished." The boundaries of the United States were thus pushed 1500 miles to the west, within 55 miles of the

Russian mainland. Only three miles separate Russian-held Big

Diomede Island from Little Diomede Island, a part of the new

state.

Admission of Alaska culminated a 42-year statehood drive

and brought into the Union a resource-rich region more than

twice the size of Texas. It became the first non-contiguous

state and the first to join the Union since 1912 when New Mexico

and Arizona were admitted.

With an estimated 211,000 population in 1959— smallest

of any state— Alaska added a new ingredient to the natioi's 97 politics. Three electoral votes were available in future presidential elections but, more important, two senatorial votes were added which could have an influence on future legislation. However, only one representative was added in the House.

Politically, the new state became solidly Democratic.

Both U.S. Senators, the Representative and the first Governor,

William A. Egan, were democrats, a situation that remained until 1966 when a Republican Governor was elected.

By Admission Day, all opposition to statehood had ceased. The Juneau Daily Alaska Empire, most vocal of the opposition newspapers, carried no editorials on the subject but headlined the issue describing the various ceremonies of the day before in 144-pt. type. The headline, with strange

irony, read; "WE DOOD ITl"

Notwithstanding the short memory of this editor in

regard to his own opposing stanà in the matter, the press had played an important role in the 42-year drive by Alaskans to

seek admission to the Union. The opposition to statehood had been formidable but had been overcome eventually by the hard work of several hundred individual Alaskans. However, Alaska's

pro-statehood journalists deserve the major share of the credit

for the victory by keeping the issue before the people and the 98

Congress.

Opposition to statehood had centered on several argu­ ments; (1) Alaska was unable to assume the financial burdens of statehood; (2) its sparse population and weak economic base would prohibit any growth, and (3) that as a state, Alaska would lose many benefits it had as a Territory. The fear of excessive taxation by a state government seemed to be the main reason that the mining, lumber and canning interests fought the idea of statehood so vigorously.

On the side of the opposition were many persons with large financial holdings who had grown rich by exploiting the factors of remoteness and high costs of transportation and took advantage of the no-tax situation. One of the most influ­ ential of these was Austin E. "Cap" Lathrop who, until his death in 1950, controlled the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, the chief newspaper of interior Alaska. This powerful voice took the position that statehood might be desirable eventually but not at the time it became a strong issue.

The irony of the situation was that Alaskans had no real voice in the matter. Even though a referendum in 1946 showed that the majority of voting Alaskans wanted statehood, the issue had to be settled in Washington by men who probably had never seen Alaska. As throughout her history, the fate of Alaska 99 had to be decided in remote capitals many miles removed.

Those who were opposed to the admission of Alaska based their stand on political terms in that there was concern that a few thousand Alaskans would have two U.S. Senators whose votes would be on a par with older states with hundreds of thousands of constituents. Thus, those for statehood had to overcome these fears and prejudices in order to accomplish their objec­ tives.

Did Alaska's press influence the outcome of the battle?

The answer is not easy to ascertain because the scope of this study would not permit a sampling of Alaskan voters or U.S.

Senators and Representatives to ask why they voted on the issue as they did.

However, there is much evidence to show that the pub­

lishers of Alaska's two largest circulation newspapers— the

Anchorage Daily Times and Fairbanks Daily News-Miner— deserve the largest share of the credit for bringing the issue to the minds of Alaskans, keeping the issue alive through the years of disappointment and seeing the battle through to a success­

ful conclusion. The former deserves the full credit for being

the first editor to present the idea to the public; the latter

for winning support among the U.S. Senators and Representatives who had the ultimate power of decision in their hands. 100

Their many editorials aimed at convincing Alaskans that statehood was desirable plus their untiring efforts to gain the support of a preponderance of U.S. Senators and Repre­ sentatives had a profound, though unmeasurable, influence on the outcome. Both vigorously supported the activities of the pro-statehood groups, both made a number of trips to Washing­ ton and both spent untold sums from their own pockets to carry on the crusade. When public interest lagged or the various state­ hood measures bogged down in Congress, they gave much space in their respective papers to reporting the lack of progress of the bills and then editorialized at length on the reasons for failure, the forces at work fighting against the movement and what Alaskans should do to right the wrongs that had been per­ petrated against them by the latest disappointing news. Thus, the two men whose message could be conveyed to the greatest number of Alaskans did their utmost to keep the issue alive and keep opposing viewpoints inside Alaska to a minimum, with a combined circulation of about 40,000, more than all other newspapers in the state combined, their pro-statehood edito­ rial views and news coverage reached a sizeable segment of the population of Alaska. By mailing extra copies to "Outside" editors, congressmen and influential citizens, they garnered addi­ tional support where it really counted— in the nation's capital. 101

Eventually, newspapers in all forty-eight states favored having Alaska as an equal partner with only a few taking an opposing view. The outcome was, perhaps, inevitable in spite of minority congressional opposition. The people had spoken through the medium of their newspapers and their elected rep­ resentatives responded.

Both publishers are reluctant to take the credit for the eventual results of their efforts. When queried, Atwood replied :

. . . The statehood movement grew in spite of persistent and consistent opposition from most of the controlling interests in Alaska — the leaders in political and social and civic affairs, business leaders, political leaders, and the powerful absentee interests who dictated the course of much of the economic life of the Territory.

The statehood movement grew among people — little people who had no particular status. It grew all around the big shots who controlled things. It became so big and so overwhelming that the big shots had to admit it had substance and was going somewhere. The more enlightened of the big shots were first to change their stand and join in a movement which was obviously good for Alaska.

I know these things because I was so deeply involved. Being the first to take a stand for statehood, I found myself the target for everyone. As the movement gained in power and status, I was less and less the target and more and more the catalyst trying to get others to do more to win statehood. The further statehood went, the more in the background I got. And that's the way I 102

liked it.^

While Atwood was becoming more and more the "catalyst" after 1953, Snedden had been roused to intense personal activ­ ity after he had been won over to the pro-statehood side.

During the four-year period 1954-58, he made numerous speeches on the merits of statehood to civic groups and various organi­ zations of the publishing business in Alaska and throughout the forty-eight states. He outlined his activities to further the cause.

I concentrated a great deal of attention on editors — all types of periodicals in addition to newspapers.

Probably our most potent forward steps were gained through the wonderful help and coopera­ tion we received from three individuals : Walker Stone, editor-in-chief of the Scripps-Howard newspapers; William R. Hearst, Jr., editor-in- chief of the Hearst publications; Henry Luce, publisher of Time-Life-Fortune. I talked with all of these gentlemen and received more than whole-hearted cooperation. "Enthusiastic coop­ eration" would be more accurate. All sent top staff people to Alaska to gather material for factual stories and editorials.

Another effective means was contributing editorials endorsing statehood to the three largest services in the country which supply "canned editorials" used extensively by weekly newspapers and small dailies. In this connec­ tion, it was amazing to me how much of an

^Letter from Robert B. Atwood to the author, July 24, 1968, p. 8. 103

impression it made on Congressmen and Senators when I would call at their offices and show them clippings of editorials from newspapers in their home districts.

I spent a great deal of time in Washington during 1956, 1957 and the first half of 1958 — probably a total of between 25 and 30 months during this period. I worked closely with Secretary of the Interior Fred A. Seaton and Theodore F. "Ted" Stevens, a young attorney in his office, and, to a slightly lesser degree with the then Alaska Delegate to Congress, E. L. "Bob" Bartlett. A great deal of the time was spent in’ personal contacts with Congress­ men and Senators. We set up a card file of every Congressman and every Senator in three categories: "for Alaska," "undecided," "against Alaska." In the second two categories, a great deal of "practical politics" was involved. Secretary Seaton saw that the Interior Depart­ ment did not neglect the home districts of key Congressmen and Senators. We also secured excellent cooperation from other branches of the Federal government, due almost entirely to the efforts of Fred Seaton. Without Fred Seaton, Alaska would not be a state today. The same can also be said as regards Ted Stevens.%

A footnote to history was added when Snedden revealed how Alaska obtained the real estate containing the federal

territorial capitol in Juneau. When Theodore F. Stevens

drew up the final draft of the Alaska statehood bill, he

asked Snedden what the new state would do for a state capitol

building. As a result of the convention, Stevens incorporated

2 Letter from C. W. Snedden to the author, September 27, 1968, p. 3. 104 in the bill a legal description of the boundaries of the real estate containing the territorial capitol building which was to be transferred to the new state without charge. Both thought the language would be questioned by some congressman or senator but it never was. The end result was that after

the bill was passed, congressmen and senators realized that

they had given away the Alaska Federal Building and the new

state had a ready-made capitol building. A new building to house federal offices was built a few years later.

Snedden paid a tribute to the American press for its

role in the statehood struggle in an editorial published after

the final Senate vote that admitted the forty-ninth state to

the Union. He wrote:

Statehood for Alaska fought an uphill fight all the way. It was not easy to overcome the inertia of a situation in which no state had been admitted since 1912 and surmount all the other difficulties confronting Alaska.

The instrument which got the idea across, God bless it, was the American press. Newspapers all across the nation plugged Alaska statehood effec­ tively and consistently. The press swung public opinion behind the issue. Then it kept up the campaign until Congressional opinion, too, was won to the justice of statehood.

Without detracting from the priceless contribu­ tions made by many others, two men deserve mention by name for their special devotion to our cause. They are William Randolph Hearst, Jr., editor-in- chief of the Hearst Newspapers, and Walker Stone, 105

editorial chief of the Scripps-Howard newspapers.

The grateful thanks of all Alaska is extended on this day of victory to the press of the United States.3

Research by the author revealed that the press of the forty-eight states did, indeed, help Alaskans in their crusade.

Leading newspapers in each state published editorials favor- ing statehood for Alaska as early as 1951. National magazines joined in the fight and by 1954, it was difficult to find any periodical that editorially opposed adding Alaska to the Union.

Extensive research by the Alaska Statehood Committee, which collected clippings on the subject, found only four newsapers in the entire United States expressing doubt about the advis- 4 ability of admitting Alaska. Thus, it can be concluded that

Alaskan journalists played a major role in persuading the people of the Territory that statehood was desirable. In carry­ ing their crusade to ^the "Outside, " they enlisted the aid of their colleagues whose voices were eventually heard where it counted most— in Washington, D.C.

The most adamant opposition came from a few senators and

^Editorial in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, June 30,1958, p. 18. 4 From newspaper insert published in Anchorage, Alaska, by The Alaska Statehood Committee, an official agency of the terri­ torial government. Undated. 106

representatives who were against admission of Alaska for

purely political reasons. Mr. George H. Lehleitner, the

New Orleans businessman who had proposed the highly success­

ful Tennessee Plan, answered the author's query about why most

of this opposition came from the South this way:

The root cause for that opposition was the fear that the entry of Alaska and Hawaii as states would, in all probability, result in their sending to Wash­ ington Senators and Representatives who were liberally inclined and, hence, who could be expected to vote "against" the South in Civil Rights issues. The greatest single fear was that such Senators would vote for the imposition of cloture in the Senate and thus would pose a threat to the conservative bloc which had so effectively prevented the imposition of cloture up to that time. I might add that subsequent events have shown this fear to be well founded1

The real reason most Southern Congressmen opposed the admission of Alaska and Hawaii was never admitted. Instead, the gentlemen who felt that way, publicly opposed statehood on the grounds that non-contiguous states were impractical or because they professed to see a Communist threat inherent in those areas. How­ ever, because I was a Southerner, most of them were not reluctant to tell me privately the basis for their opposition. Of course, there were some exceptions to the rule : men such as Senators Russell B. Long, Estes Kefauver and Spessard Holland were among the most dedi­ cated of Congressional supporters of statehood and an equally dedicated group in the House managed to uphold the real honor of the South on this subject.

However, I think that perhaps the biggest single stumbling block to statehood was not so much the out­ right opposition it encountered in the House and Sen­ ate but was, instead, the absence of aggressive pursuit of statehood by so many peoples who lived in the terri­ tories. While their Delegates to the Congress were, in every instance, earnest seekers of statehood, many 107

members of Congress were not too sure that the people of Alaska and Hawaii genuinely wanted this status, and as a consequence, they (the members of Congress who so believed) did not themselves aggressively support the issue in C o n g r e s s . 3

Lehleitner credits publishers Atwood and Snedden with being the "prime movers of the cause." He also gives credit to Senators Gruening and Bartlett of Alaska and the large group of lawmakers who were not only sympathetic to the cause but worked actively in behalf of Alaskan statehood. In a letter to Congressman James c. Wright, Jr. of Texas, Lehleit­ ner reluctantly told him of his own part in the battle which covered twelve years and cost him over one hundred thousand dollars in expenses which were not tax deductible nor was he reimbursed. His unselfish efforts do not go unrecognized.

Described as "the father of Alaskan statehood, " he modestly disclaims such a title but Congressman Wright says, "the fact is that he did play the central role in bringing statehood not only to Alaska, but to Hawaii as well.

The credit for the final victory of statehood should actually go to many people and no one person can rightfully claim full credit. It took the combined efforts of many

^Letter from George H. Lehleitner to the author, April 4, 1958, pp. 1-2.

^Jim Wright, You and Your Congressman (New York: Coward-McCann, 1955), p. 210. 108 people using the democratic processes over a 91-year period to have the will of the majority become the law of the land. But it also took a medium of communication to bring the issue to the people, to sustain the matter in the public mind and move the elected representatives of the people to appropriate legis­ lative action. That medium in the fight for Alaskan statehood was the newspaper. It deserves to be remembered as well as the men who gave it life and strength. Without it Alaska's people might still be seeking the right to govern themselves. BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. BOOKS

Adams, Ben. Alaska; The Big Land. New York: Hill and Wang, 1959.

. The Last Frontier. New York : Hill and Wang, 1961.

Denison, B. W. and Associates. Alaska Today. Caldwell, Idaho : The Canton Printers, Ltd., 1950.

Ferber, Edna. Ice Palace. Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Co., 1958 .

Gruening, Ernest (ed.). An Alaska Reader. New York: Meredith Press, 1966.

______. The Battle for Alaska Statehood. College, Alaska: The University of Alaska press, 1967.

. The State of Alaska. New York: Random House, 1954.

Hilscher, Herb and Miriam. Alaska, U.S.A. Boston: Little, Brown & Company, 1959.

Hulley, Clarence C. Alaska, 1741-1953. Portland, Oregon : Binfords and Mort, 1953.

______. Alaska : Past and Present. Portland, Oregon: Binfords and Mort, 1958.

Kursh, Harry. This Is Alaska. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1961.

Latham, Edward (ed.). Statehood for Hawaii and Alaska. New York: The H. W, Wilson Co., 1953. 110

Nichols, Jeanette P. Alaska ; A History of Its Adminis­ tration, Exploitation and Industrial Development During Its First Half Century Under the Role of the United States. Cleveland; Russell and Co., 1924.

______. History of Alaska Under Rule of United States. Cleveland: The Arthur H. Clark Company, 1924.

Potter, Jean, Alaska Under Arms. New York: The Mac­ Millan Company, 1942.

. The Flying North. New York: The MacMillan Com­ pany, 1947.

Rogers, George W. The Future of Alaska : Economic Conse­ quences of Statehood. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1962.

Shiels, Archie W. The Purchase of Alaska. College, Alaska; University of Alaska Press, 1967.

Tompkins, Stuart Ramsey. Alaska : Promyshlennik and Sourdough. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1945.

Wickersham, James. Old Yukon : Tales, Trails and Trials. Washington, D.C. : Washington Law Book Co., 1938.

Wright, Jim. You and Your Congressman. New York: Coward-McCann, 1965.

B. GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS

Alaska Governor ' s Report, 1887 . Washington: Government Printing Office, 1888.

Territory of Alaska, Alaska Statehood Committee. "A Report of Two Years of Achievement, " Statehood for Alaska. Juneau, Alaska: February, 1951.

______. Facts About Alaska Statehood. Juneau, Alaska: 1949, Ill

Newspaper insert quoting newspapers throughout the United States, undated.

Territory of Alaska. Message of the Governor to the XIX Territorial Legislature Extraordinary Session. Juneau, Alaska : January 11, 1949.

United States Bureau of the Census. Tenth Census of the United States ; 1880. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1881.

United States Congress. Congressional Record, December 2, 1913. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1913.

______. Congressional Record, January 23, 1884. Washing­ ton: Government Printing Office, 1884.

United States Congress, House of Representatives. An Act To Provide for the Admission of the State of Alaska into the Union, Public Law 85-508, 85th Congress, 2d Session, on H.R. 7999, July 7, 1958. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1958.

United States Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Public Lands. Hearings before Subcommittee, 67th Congress, 1st Session, on H.R. 5694. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1921.

______. Hearings before Subcommittee on Territorial and Insular Possessions, 80th Congress, 1st Session, April 16-24, 1947. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1947.

United States Congress, House of Representatives. House Executive Document part 5. 39th Congress, 1st Session. Washington; Government Printing Office, undated.

______. Report 37. 40th Congress, 2d Session, undated. Washington: Government Printing Office, undated.

. Report 163. 62d Congress, 1st Session, August 21, 1911. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1911. 112

United States Congress, Senate, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Alaska Statehood and Elective Governorship. Hearings, 83rd Congress, 1st Session, August, 1953.

______. Alaska Statehood. Hearings, 83rd Congress, 2d Session, January-February, 1954. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1954.

United States Department of the Interior. Red Tape in the Government of Alaska. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1921.

C . PERIODICALS

The Alaska Sportsman, January, 1950-December, 1958.

Atwood, Robert B . "Alaska ' s Struggle for Statehood, " State Government, Autumn, 1958, pp. 202-08.

Gruening, Ernest. "Why Alaska Needs Statehood, " State Govern­ ment, XXI (February, 1948), 27-32.

Huber, Ernest. "Statehood, Let's Have It Now," Alaska Life, IV (January, 1941), 5-7.

Kluckhorn, Frank L. "Alaska Today, " American Mercury, 68:555-62, May, 1949.

Lowney, Paul B. "What Congress Thinks of Statehood for Alaska," Alaska Life, IX (May, 1946), 16-28.

Manders, John E. "Statehood for Alaska," Alaska Life, IX (September, 1946), 8-9.

Monroney, A. S. "Let's Keep It Forty-Eight, " Colliers, March 4, 1955, pp. 11-13.

"President Does Not Favor Home Rule," Alaskan-Yukon Maga­ zine, VIII (August, 1903), 470-71. 113

"The Question of New States for Our Federal Union," congres­ sional Digest, 29:265, November, 1950.

Rivers, Ralph J. "Transition to Statehood," Alaska Life, IX (May, 1946), 17-29.

Smith, A. R. "Washington Runaround: Alaskan Statehood," The Reporter, December 2 7, 1956, pp. 31-3 5.

"Statehood, Should We Have It Now?" Alaska Life, IV (March, 1941), p. 2.

Wickstrom, J. E. "But Are We Ready for Statehood?" Alaska Life, IV (May, 1941), pp. 6-8.

D. PAMPHLETS

Lehleitner, George H. The Tennessee Plan: How the Bold Became States (New Orleans, Louisiana : By the Author), 1956.

Sundborg, George. Statehood for Alaska. Alaska Statehood Association. Anchorage, Alaska: August, 1946.

E. THESES

Doyle, John Cummings. "A Legislative and Political History of the Alaska Statehood Movement." Unpublished Master's thesis. University of Texas, Austin, 1951.

Lucchetti, Lynn Louise. "Commercial Broadcasting in Alaska, 1924-1956." Unpublished Master's thesis, San Fran­ cisco State College, San Francisco, 1967.

McLean, Dora E. "Early Newspapers on the Upper Yukon Water­ shed: 1894-1907." Unpublished Master's thesis. The University of Alaska, College, 1963. 114

F . NEWSPAPERS

The Alaska Weekly [Seattle, Washington], October 11, 1946.

Anchor-qe Daily News, January, 1952-December, 1959.

Anchorage Daily Times, January, 1950-January, 1960.

Chicago Evening Journal, April 1, 1867.

Daily [Juneau] Alaska Empire, January, 1950-December, 1959.

[Fairbanks, Alaska] Daily News-Miner, January, 1948-January, 1960.

The Forty-Ninth Star [Valdez, Alaska], March, 1916.

Jessen's Weekly [Fairbanks, Alaska], January, 1950-December, 1958.

Juneau Independent, January, 1950-July, 1956.

Keim, Charles J. and Olson, Dean S. "Newspapering in Largest State Proves Hard to Research," Publisher's Auxiliary [Washington, D.C.], July 2, 1966, pp. 16- 17.

Ketchikan Chronicle, January-December, 1946.

Ketchikan Daily News, January, 1950-December, 1958.

Morley, John. "Alaska Statehood Hinges on Political Lineup," Pacific Palisades Post [Santa Monica, California], June 24, 1953.

[New York] Daily Tribune, April 11, 1867.

[New York] Herald, April 9, 1867.

New York Times, August 12, 1945.

New York World, April 1, 1867. 115

Petersburg [Alaska] Press, January, 1950-December, 1958.

Portland Daily Oregonian, April 2, 1867.

The Seattle Sunday Times, July 11, 1937.

Yukon Press [Port Adams, Alaska], January 1, 1894.

Valdez [Alaska] Prospector, September 21, 1912.