William A. Egan

President, Alaska Constitutional Convention

To the Delegates of the Convention

February 5, 1956

Governor Heintzleman, other distinguished guests, fellow Alaskans and delegates. In prefacing my remarks this afternoon, it would seem fitting and proper that the Preamble to Alaska’s State Constitution be presented to all Alaskans. Ladies and Gentlemen, the Preamble:

"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."

There are those in Alaska who still say, "What great difference does it make that I, an American citizen, cannot cast my vote for the President and Vice-President of the United States? What great difference does it make that we are represented by one hard-working, vote-less delegate in Congress - a delegate who cannot vote even in committee, on any subject even though that subject might relate solely to the detriment or welfare of our great Territory. What great difference does it make that acts of our Territorial Legislature are governed mainly by two acts of Congress - one dated July 30, 1886, and the other dated August 24, 1912?"

Well, to me, and I know to most of you, it makes a great deal of difference. We want to cast our ballot for our choice for President of the United States every four years. We want to cast our ballot at regular intervals for two United States Senators and for a voting Representative in the United States Congress from the great State of Alaska, in order that we have our proper representation as to the welfare of our nation - and that in order that the tremendous natural resources available to our nation in Alaska can be properly unfolded and utilized. Then, too, we want to vote for representatives to a state government that is not thwarted by a combination of two laws - one of which was enacted specifically for the Territory almost 70 years ago and the other, one which was enacted by the federal Congress almost 44 years ago.

Alaska's fight for the fullest measure of self-government did not have its inception in the time of most of us who are here this afternoon. Alaska was purchased by the United States from Russia on October 18, 1867, at a cost of less than two cents an acre. Alaska has served more than 88 years under the yoke of federal domination. We are now in our 43rd year of having been an organized territory. No other state in the Union had to endure even half this period of time under territorial status before admittance to the Union. During these years, despite federal obstacles placed in the way of development of its natural resources, Alaska has produced more than 400 times the value of the original 7 1/2 million dollars purchase price from these natural resources.

In 1898, the Congress of the United States enacted legislation making it possible to file on a homestead in Alaska, - but only on surveyed lands and there were no surveyed lands in Alaska in those days. This act set the people of Alaska afire with indignation and the cry for some sort of representation rose to one of crescendo proportions. Mass meetings were held in various populated areas of the Territory. Eastern papers picked up the story and Alaska's cause received some attention in Congress. In 1906, after 25 years of petition, Alaska was permitted to elect a vote-less delegate to the national Congress. Persistent citizens kept hammering away and on August 24, 1912, the Congress granted incorporated territorial status to Alaska, with the right to have its own legislative assembly, subject to the restrictions contained in the Acts of Congress of 1886 and 1912. The first territorial legislature convened at the capital city of Juneau in 1913.

Ever since that time, Alaskans who were intimately familiar with the intensive handicaps placed upon industrial development of the territory by antiquated federal bureaucratic red tape, have continued the battle for a fuller measure of self-government with statehood as the ultimate goal. For more than a decade, dedicated Alaskans have carried a direct fight for the inherent right of our citizens to full citizenship as set forth in the Constitution of the United States. In 1946, at a referendum election, Alaskans voted by a majority of 3 to 2 for statehood for our great territory. In these past few years, increasing numbers of Alaskans who had been lukewarm toward statehood, or who had been non-committal, have joined forces in this greatest of common causes. Today, many opponents of statehood admit privately that another referendum on the question would reveal that a majority of from 4-1 to 6-1 now favor immediate statehood for Alaska.

The arguments against admission of Alaska into the Union are identical with those that were advanced against the admission of nearly all the twenty-nine states that were territories prior to their admission into the Union. Alaska has more population than one-third of the states of the Union had at the time of their admission. There are those who will say that our population is relatively smaller in proportion to the total population of the United States than that of those earlier states at the time when they were admitted. The fact is that there were at least five states which had not only less population than Alaska has now, but even less population in relation to the national total.

Distance from the national capital and non-contiguity to the mainland are often advanced in the course of congressional debate as reasons why Alaska should not become a state. Measured in the only true perspective, that of time required to journey between the proposed state and the national capital, Alaska is much nearer Washington today than were most all the states at the time of their admission to the Union. Today one flies from Fairbanks to Washington, D. C., in approximately 20 hours, and even less time, depending on the type of aircraft one secures passage on. Instantaneous communication by telephone adds a factor not in existence when previous states were admitted. All of our principal cities are linked with the national telephone system.

To say that Alaska lacks the resources to support a state is fantastic. Many of the states now in the Union would be happy indeed, if they could be endowed with Alaska's natural resources. Even though our resources are in their present state of underdevelopment, mainly because of the federal territorial-status yoke, our economy is amply able to support statehood. A prime example of federal bungling in the handling of our great resources is our commercial fishery. It is my very firm conviction that, in the immediate years following the advent of statehood to Alaska, our fisheries conservation problem will be solved. With local control of our fisheries, the annual pack of salmon taken from territorial waters will quickly take an upturn because conservation policies would then be laid down by Alaskans intimately familiar with the problem. In a few years' time, with no additional increase in tax on the industry, our state treasury would be additionally benefited with several millions of dollars each biennium. It is quite likely that with the rebuilding of our fisheries, which have become so depleted under the yoke of federal stewardship, this increase in revenue to the state treasury could be accomplished and allow for a reasonable decrease in the tax now levied on the industry by the territory. This question would take a considerable length of time for explanation, but it is one of such extreme importance when we are discussing the subject of statehood for Alaska that I do not believe any argument relative to the question could have much merit if it were not brought home to all our citizens that the solving of the problem of perpetuation of our great fisheries resource can only be accomplished with the right to fully govern ourselves. There are those who say that statehood would “open the door to the poorhouse.” They cite such matters as the recent mental health act, which carried a direct appropriation for construction of facilities by the federal government. To me, these people have missed the point altogether. The compelling reason for insisting upon the direct appropriation is just another example why we need statehood so desperately. The federal government has withheld care of our mentally ill from Alaska over the years. With no appreciable drain on its treasury, the territory could have provided the facilities from the beginning, together with the sympathetic, expert care which means so much to the ultimate recovery of these patients. Other United States Territories cared for their mentally ill from the inception of Territorial status and were thus enabled to gradually build up their facilities.

To those who say, “this is not 1900 - this is 1956,” we repeat that no great industrial expansion came to any of our other twenty-nine territories until after their admittance to the Union of the United States. To this end, there is no difference between 1900 and 1956.

To those who say, ‘no one is holding us forcibly in territorial status - we can move out if we choose,” we say, “no, no one is forcibly holding us here. But, we have built our homes here; we are rearing our children here; a great many of us will die here. We never intend to live anywhere else. We love our great United States of America and our hearts belong to our great Territory of Alaska, and we will never have a true peace of mind until we are taken in full membership as one of the great states of the Union.”

In affixing our signatures to this document we did so with the knowledge that each word had been subject to free and lengthy debate in committee and on the floor of this constitutional convention.

I say to each and every Alaskan: If it had been your good fortune, as it has been mine, to have witnessed the abilities, the diligence, the devotion to duty, of these delegates who have drafted the proposed constitution for the State of Alaska in carrying out the task that had been cut out for them, you would say of their labors, “Well done!"

We have just completed the task for which we were sent here. Your delegates to Alaska's Constitutional Convention have now given to you, the people of Alaska, the proposed constitution for the State of Alaska. We know that you will judge with great care the end result that has been accomplished here. We are exceedingly gratified that none other than the President of the United States, the Honorable Dwight D. Eisenhower, indicated in his message received here yesterday, that the eyes of the Congress of the United States and the eyes of the people of the United States will be upon you on Ratification Day, April 24th, 1956.