Senator CORDON. The chairman suggests that we cannot commit the Department of Justice, because if we do that we have to have a formal report from the Department of Justice. We have the opinion of the lawyer who made the suggestion, and that is as far as we can go. Senator ANDERSON. I am willing to accept that modification. I did not mean to say the Department of Justice. I am willing to modify it to read "Mr. Barney." At least, Mr. Barney spoke what apparently is in the minds of the committee.

Senator CORDON. I suggest again, Clint, in order that the language used in the report may be of most value to a court in construing the legal effect of this admission act, a statement with respect to the purpose of the committee and the committee's views should be the committee's view and not Mr. Barney's or anybody else's. That is the reason that it has validity when the court considers it. I am sure you would agree.

Senator ANDERSON. I fully agree with that.

Senator DANIEL. I second the motion.

Senator CORDON. Without objection, that will be done.

With respect to the language on page 2 of the suggestion, were this a matter of first consideration I would raise some question about it, but it has been adjudicated, and I am willing that it should go in as the suggestion has been made here.

Senator DANIEL. Under this motion by Senator Anderson, the chairman will have the authority to make any changes that he deems necessary.

Senator CORDON. I assure you the chairman is not going to make the changes. He would not have written it that way in the first place, but it has been included in an admission statute and it has been construed, and it is the construction that moves me to adopt it rather than the language. I am very frank to say that.

Mr. Bennett?

Mr. BENNETT. As I said earlier, the first paragraph that he suggested definitely is our recommendation from the Department. We have been over that with Secretary Lewis. It so happened that Mr. Barney, being from Oklahoma, chose language from the Oklahoma Enabling Act; whereas Secretary Lewis would have preferred the language from the Arizona Enabling Act, but they amount to the same thing.

At any rate, that part of it very definitely is our recommendation. The second paragraph, I have my reservations on, because that has not been cleared in our Department. As I understand it, there are certain material differences in the status of the natives of Alaska, either through practice or law, from those of the reservation Indians in the United States. For example, in Alaska the natives, ever since the 1884 possessory rights statute, have freely transferred their property, their possessory rights. There are no restictions on that what

soever.

Senator CORDON. Do you mean they have transferred them to persons not within their classes?

Mr. BENNETT. Absolutely. They have freely dealt in their possessory rights under the 1884 Possessory Act. I am not too certain that this language is wholly appropriate to the natives of Alaska, inasmuch as I think their status is not on all-fours with the reservation Indians in the United States.

Senator ANDERSON. The final draft of this is to go to the printer sometime tonight, so we will have it tomorrow morning when we meet. My motion was, I thought, sufficiently wide so that the chairman, after having a look at it, could decide for himself whether this goes in or out.

I would like to be guided not only by his judgment but by the recommendations made to him by the Department of the Interior, if he feels the language should be in.

Mr. BENNETT. I will doublecheck that this afternoon, early, and try to report on it.

Delegate BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, to revert, I now have factual information for you on that paragraph, which I won't attempt to describe particularly on account of the many drafts we have here, but which purports to transfer property to the new State.

Senator CORDON. That is on page 9 of the committee print.
Delegate BARTLETT. Where it says:

Block 19, and the structures and improvements thereon, and the interests of the United States in blocks C and 7, and the structures and improvements thereon, in the city of Juneau, are hereby granted to the State of Alaska.

Block 19 and the structures and improvements constitute the Federal Building. The interests of the United States in blocks C and 7 have to do with the Federal jail and the land upon which it is located. Senator CORDON. What is the objection that Governor Heintzleman raised to it? That is what I want to know. I do not know whether the jail ought to go or whether the Federal buildings ought to go. I do not know what they are or why they should be transferred.

Senator ANDERSON. Who owns the place where the Senate and the House meet?

Delegate BARTLETT. The Federal Government owns it.

Senator ANDERSON. That ought to be transferred to the State. Does this transfer it to the State?

Delegate BARTLETT. It does, but Governor Heintzleman the other day told the committee that, since the erection of a new Territorial Building, there are only a few Territorial offices left in the older building designated as the Federal and Territorial Building. But, Senator Anderson, you made a pertinent point there

Senator ANDERSON. The legislature has to have a place to meet, and they are meeting in this building. There is not any reason why it should not be transferred to the State of Alaska. The Government has no use for a meetinghouse for the Senate and the House of Representatives in Federal property.

Delegate BARTLETT. The point that Governor Heintzleman made was that the building is principally occupied by regular Federal offices, the need for which would continue after statehood, but there is that very important point as to legislative space.

Senator JACKSON. Even some of the Federal offices in the Territorial legislative building will probably be less than they are at the moment. Senator ANDERSON. Certainly. At the beginning, the Fish and Wildlife Service has to administer all the things that we hope eventually the State of Alaska will administer, to a great degree at least. I think it might be desirable, if you wish, to put some language in here that expresses the pious hope that the State of Alaska will not kick out the Federal agencies the first day. I see no objection to that. But

I cannot imagine transferring the building that has the place for the Senate and House to the Federal Government and making the State build a brand new capitol to house those offices the first thing.

We recognize the State is going to have financial problems. I do not know why you should suddenly thrust this financial burden on the State of Alaska if it becomes established. I do think they would be reasonable in allowing these Federal agencies to remain.

Is the Forest Service now in that building?

Delegate BARTLETT. It is.

Senator ANDERSON. I think we ought to put in the report a declaration that, since it is difficult to divide up this Federal building equitably, we hope the State of Alaska, once created, will continue to allow the Federal Forest Service to continue to use its headquarters for a while, and as these agencies shift in their responsibilities or the Federal Government acquires new lands, it may build its own buildings subsequently.

Delegate BARTLETT. You see, not only would the Fish and Wildlife Service be substantially through, but the Alaska Road Commission occupies much space in the building

Senator ANDERSON. That becomes the State highway department. Delegate BARTLETT. Then additionally, Senator Anderson, the building houses the Territorial museum, which takes up half of one entire floor, almost.

Senator ANDERSON. I am familiar with that fact, and you would not throw that out.

Delegate BARTLETT. There is a difference between this and a regular Territorial building, because it was designated as the Federal and Territorial Building.

Senator CORDON. Why need we argue about that?

Senator ANDERSON. Let's let it go.

Senator CORDON. The question was raised by the Governor. We have considered it. The committee is of the view that it is proper to leave the language as it is, so we will leave it as it is.

Yesterday I had to leave at 11 o'clock, and the committee went forward until noon, or thereabouts, and considered succeeding sections down to, I understand, line 7 on page 15. The question arose in the minds of the committee with respect to paragraph (f), which provides in substance that if the Congress fails to take action with respect to approving or disapproving the constitution within 60 legislative days after it is referred to the Congress, the constitution shall be deemed to be approved; that is to say, legislation by nonaction.

Senator ANDERSON. In the Hawaiian bill, we required positive approval. We should do the same in both.

Senator CORDON. There is no objection to that. Did we go any further than that yesterday?

Delegate BARTLETT. No.

Senator CORDON. We have in paragraph (c):

The Congress shall within 60 legislative days after receipt thereof approve or disapprove said constitution.

So that will need to be considered when we use the other language. Senator ANDERSON. Also in lines 18 and 19 on page 14.

Mr. SLAUGHTER. It crops up at several places.

Senator ANDERSON. Shall we take each outcrop?

Mr. SLAUGHTER. Each outcrop will have to be changed.

Senator JACKSON. We will just direct the staff to make the appropriate changes to carry out the intent of the committee.

Senator ČORDON. I think we have gone over those pretty carefully. Who can tell me how far we went yesterday?

Mr. COULTER. That is as far as we went.

Senator CORDON. We are ready to take up where we left off yesterday, on page 15, line 13, which reads:

(g) When said new constitution as provided for in subsection (e) of this section, shall have been duly ratified by the people of said Territory, as aforesaid, by a majority of the legal votes cast at an election held pursuant to this section, a certified copy of the same shall be submitted by the Governor of the Territory of Alaska through the President of the United States to the Congress for approval, together with a statement of the votes cast thereon; thereafter the procedure shall be as prescribed in subsections (c) through (f) of this section.

It would occur to me that (g) should have been inserted at a point previously; (d) has to do with the contingency of ratification, submitted by the Governor to the Congress.

Senator DANIEL. It certainly should come ahead of (f); should it not?

Senator CORDON. Yes. It seems to me that there is repetition there in (d) and (g).

Will you note that, gentlemen?

Mr. SLAUGHTER. (g) is intended, apparently, to deal with the situation where a new constitution is prepared and submitted after the original constitution has been turned down by Congress.

Senator CORDON. Let's see, now.

When said new constitution as provided for in subsection (e) of this section * **

That is not repetition. I see. (e) provides for what happens in case of disapproval. That is all right. I am in error. Thank you, Mr. Slaughter.

Senator DANIEL. (f) can be eliminated completely, can it not, with (c) providing as it does?

Senator CORDON. That is right. (f) and lines 7 and 8 on page 14 will be reviewed to conform with the provisions of the Hawaiian statehood bill.

Now we are down to section 7 (a), in line 23, page 15:

The constitutional convention shall by ordinance provide that in case of ratification of the constitution by the people and in case the Congress of the United States shal approve

and we have some language there that will come out, "or fail within the prescribed time to disapprove"

the same, an election shall be held at the time named in the proclamation of the Governor of said Territory hereinbefore provided,at which election officers for a full State government, including a governor, members of the State legislature, one Representative and two Senators in the Congress of the United States to be elected at large from said State, and such other officers as the constitution shall prescribe, shall be chosen by the qualified voters of Alaska.

Is that a usual provision in these admission statutes? Is that not left for the State itself to take care of?

Senator JACKSON. It is not a State at that point.
Why should you say "Alaska"?

Senator CORDON. It is a State, because we have approved it.

Senator JACKSON. But have all the conditions been complied with at that point?

Mr. SLAUGHTER. It is not a State until it has been admitted by Presidential Proclamation, and the election of these officers takes place before admission.

Senator DANIEL. You have the formal Admission Act yet to come. Mr. SLAUGHTER. By the qualified voters of Alaska, without specifying how you determine it.

Senator JACKSON. How do you determine the qualified voters? Senator CORDON. Let's go on from line 10:

Unless the constitutional convention shall by ordinance otherwise provide, such election, and an antecedent primary election, shall be held, and the returns thereof made, canvassed, and certified by the canvassing board, in the same manner, as nearly as practicable, as is now prescribed by law for the nomination, filing, and election, and canvass and certification of election of Territorial officers and members of the Territorial legislature. When such State and other officers and members of the State legislature and a Representative and Senators in the Congress of the United States shall be so elected and the returns thereof made, canvassed, and certified as herein provided, the Governor of said Territory shall certify the result of said election to the President of the United States, who shall thereupon immediately issue his proclamation announcing the result of said election so ascertained, and upon the issuance of said proclamation by the President of the United States the State of Alaska shall be deemed admitted by Congress into the Union, by virtue of this Act, on an equal footing with each of the other States of the Union, and the Representative and Senators from said State in the Congress of the United States so elected and certified shall thereupon be entitled to seats in the House of Representatives and Senate of the United States and to all of the rights and privileges of Representatives and Senators therein. Until the issuance of said proclamation by the President of the United States and until said State is so admitted into the Union and said officers are elected and qualified under the provisions of the Constitution, all of the officers of said Territory, including the Delegate in Congress from said Territory, shall continue to discharge the duties of said respective offices in and for said Territory.

My attention is called to that capital "C" for "Constitution," as to whether that is proper. The question is which constitution you are talking about

*** until said State is so admitted into the Union and said officers are elected and qualified under the provisions of the Constitution. ***

Senator DANIEL. That is the Constitution of the United States. Senator CORDON. I think the "C" belongs that way, a capital.

Upon admission of Alaska as a State as herein provided and upon election and qualification of the officers of the State government formed in pursuance of and in accordance with the provisions of said constitution, said officers shall forthwith proceed to exercise all of the duties and functions of their respective offices; and all of the Territorial laws in force in the Territory of Alaska at the time of admission of said State into the Union shall be and continue in full force and effect throughout said State except as modified or changed by this Act, ***

Wherein is there any difference between "modified" and "changed"? *** except as modified or changed by this Act, or by the constitution of the State, or as thereafter modified or changed by the legislature of the State.

All the Territorial laws in force in the Territory of Alaska, to the extent that those laws are with respect to internal affairs of Alaska, that would be proper; but what about laws with respect to land and that sort of thing, special acts for that Territory but not in any wise for the business of housekeeping or government of the area?