THE NOME NUGGET
Published Monday, Wednesday and Friday by The
NOME PUBLISHING CO.
Nome. Alaska
Telephone: Main 125 P. O. Box 613
#1.50 PER MONTH $16.00 A YEAR
W. A. and EMILY EOUCHER.Editors
Entered as second class matter October 14. 1943. at the postoffice at
Nome, Alaska, under the Act of March 3, 1879.
Monday, October 7, 1946
Alaska Statehood Election
daps 30-Year Dehate Tuesday
(By C. D. WATKINS)
Alaska, purchased from Russia in 1867 and made a
Territory in 1912, will vote Tuesday on whether it
wants to enter the Union as the 49th or 50th state.
The voters will answer the question: “Are you in fa
vor of Statehood for Alaska
The question has been on Alaskan tongues for thirty
years. During those years the proposal has gradually
been gaining adherents from the ranks of those who be
lieved statehood would prove too costly for the Terri
tory.
Alaska is now operated by the Federal Government
with a Legislature to enact local laws and meet local
problems but always subject to the approval of Con
gress. It is represented in Congress by one non-voting
Delegate.
A territories subcommittee of the House visited Ha
waii and Alaska last summer and recommended ap
proval of Statehood for Hawaii but withheld approval
of a similar step for Alaska.
But the full committee did not act on the report and
when the next Congress opens bills will be introduced
to provide Statehood for Alaska if the voters approve
it. Hawaii voted overwhelmingly in 1940 in favor of
Statehood, and bills will be introduced to give it State
hood regardless of how Alaska votes.
Even in such bills are enacted by Congress, it is a
slow process to get new states admitted. It would take
probably three years for each Territory to adopt a pro
posed state constitution. It would then have to be ap
proved by the voters.
Alaskans in favor of Statehood have carried on an in
tensive campaign and have received the support of Sec
retary Krug of the Interior Department.
President Truman last year urged Statehood for Ha
waii and said he would be glad to welcome Alaska into
the Union.
Delegate Bartlett of Alaska and former Delegate
Wickersham and Dimond waged an unceasing fight for
Statehood.
“All it would take in my opinion to convert the most
uncompromising foe of tSatehood into an enthusiastic
supporter would be for him to come to Washington and
take over the Delegate’s job for a week,” Bartlett said
“It is inconceivable to me that any area, and particu
larly one which is more than twice the size of Texas
and which is possessed of a wealth of resources, should
remain permanently under the Stars and Stripes in a
condition of political servitude.”
Proponents of Statehood for Alaska say the addition
al cost of Statehood for the Territory would amount to
only between $1,000,000 and $2,000,000 annually. They
declare that as a State Alaska would get at least $10,
000,000 in roads funds under the federal highway aid
law, have much public land turned over to the new
State, have control of its own fisheries which furnish
millions of dollars worth of canned fish each year, its
mining, some of its forests and sole its own transporta
tion problems.
In addition, Alaska as a State would share in all fed
eral iad progrems now enjoyed by the States but denied
in full to the territories.
The present expense of operating the Territorial gov
ernment is set by Delegate Bartlett at $2,750,000 a year.
This is met through small miscellaneous taxes, without
imposing a property tax, income tax or other forms of
revenue raising usually raised in most of the States.
Bartlett said the only new expenses Statehood would
This is Alaska’s share, as a Territory, in the
| Federal Aid Law
; bring to the Territory would be those now met by the
federal government—the cost of a judiciary, a police
system, care of the insane and the conservation of fish,
fur and game.
The Territory now is expecting an influx of peoph
who wish to settle in Alaska, and the proponents say
that it would be easier for a State to control the incom
ing residents than for the Territory to do it. They point
| out that the Terriory now has 85,000 residents and that
before the war its exports amounted to $28,000,000 an
nually.
The proponents charge that the proposed Statehood is
being fought by absentee interests, which they assert
have fought “every extension of self government to
Alaska.”
They assert that such interests center in Washington
State and Seattle.
Secretary Krug during his recent trip to Alaska asked
at each of many meetings if those in his audience favor
ed Statehood. In ech instance there were affirmative
replies and no opposition until finally a Texan said he
was against statehood for the Territory.
“Texas would oppose Statehood for Alaska,” he said,
| “because it would give the Union a State bigger than
Texas. Make it two or three States and we will favor it.”
The proponents assert that Statehood will immedi
ately attract settlers to the new State, that it will give it
an opportunity to develop its own agriculture and pro
duce an incentive for the population to develop its great
natural resources.
In Congress does approve Statehood for Alaska am
Hawaii, they will be the first new States since 1912,
when New Mexico and Arizona became States.
This Election
The term “blanket ballot,” as the name implies,;
means that all the voters participate in the selection of
candidates to be voted upon at the General Election. In
various parts of the United States this system has been
used satisfactorily with commission forms of govern
ment where those who receive the highest number of j
votes participate in the regular elections. Many persons
do not wish to divulge party preferences, therefore this
system has been brought to a vote of the people in this
general election.
You will also receive a statehood ballot and a ballot
listing the names of qualified candidates in this election, i
Vote your true convictions. The eyes of the officials of
the 48 states are upon Alaska, and this particular elec
tion will show whether or not Alaska is ready for self
government.
The polls will be open at 8:00 a.m. and will remain
open until 7:00 p.m., tomorrow, October 8, 1946.
Vote as you will, but VOTE!
__ _ •
«r-n-7^ NEWS LETTER
wlmsmmcm m
Secretary to E. L. (Bob) Bartlett, Delegate to Congress from Alaska
CANOL PROJECT
Charges that the Joint Chiefs of
Staff authorized continuation of
the Canol project after military
plans for large-scale attacks on
Japan from the Aleutians had
I been abandoned were made by
members of the Senate War In
vestigating Committee this week
in concluding hearings on the ojJ
project.
Files previously marked secret
were opened for the hearings. One
fact revealed that in October,
1943, the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
composed of Admiral Ernest Kingr
Admiral William D. Leahy, Gen
eral George C. Marshall and Gen
1 eral H. H. Arnold, ruled for com
pletion of the project at the apst
| of an additional 30 million dolla^.
when in September, one month
before, it had been decided by the
same men “to withdraw all pos
sible forces from Alaska and con
centrate them elsewhere.”
Admiral King, until December,
1945, a member of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, was the only witness in
the recent hearings before the
Senate committee. His appearance
was made principally to ask re
traction by the committee of crit
icism directed at him as a mem-,
ber of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in
i a report printed by the committee
early in September. The Admiral
particularly took exception to
what he termed an inference that
he knowingly went against the
! views of the then-Navy Secretary
Frank Knox, in joining with other
members of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff in agreeing to completion
hte Canol project. Admiral King
testified he never knew Secretary
Knox had, in company with Don
ald M. Nelson, then head of the
War Production Board, and Har
old L. Ickes, then Petroleum Ad
ministrator for War, condemned
completion of Canol.
In cross examination, the Ad
miral denied ever seeing a report
filed in February, 1943, by the Uj*
S. naval attache at Ottawa stress
ing that leading geologists regard
ed Canol as “completely unjusti
fied” and “doomed to fail.”
The concluding hearings fol
lowed a committee report filed in
September which embraced the
opinion of committee members
that Canol was a “glaring exam
ple” of “enormous waste of man
power and critically short materi
als” and was “waste of a type tha^t
if accomplished by a saboteur
would have resulted in execu
tion.” t
The September report contin
ued, in part, as follows:
“Ultimately more than $133,
000,000 were spent; thousands of
tons of materials and large num
bers of items of construction
equipment, most of which were ,
critically needed elsewhere, were
used; and the work of a consider
able labor force over a period of
two years was utilized. . . .
“Procurement of additional
funds for the Canol project was
concealed by the War Department
by incorporating such funds as
part of a general item in an ap
propriation act for military ex
penditures. Even the clerk of the
Senate Appropriations Commit-1
tee was not able to obtain for the
fhen Senator Harry S. Truman,
chairman of this committee and a
member of the Appropriations
Committee, a secret breakdown
of the proposed expenditures,
since no copy of those expendi
tures had been left with the Ap
propriations Committee ....
“General Somervell insisted
upon continuing the Canol pro
ject. The war is now over, and the
veil of military secrecy has been
lifted. ... ^
“The refinery operations of this
project were closed down on April
5, 1945. Up to that time the Canol
project had produced 23,417 bar
rels of aviation gasoline, or the
equivalent of one-quarter of a