« PreviousContinue »
What about that, Mr. Slaughter?
Mr. SLAUGHTER. That is a problem. Presumably the word "Territorial" here is intended to mean that set of laws which has to do with the operation of the Territory as a territory, as distinguished from that set of laws which has to do with the public lands and other activities which, in the continental United States or within a State, fall within the sphere of Congress. But there is some question as to whether it is clearly spelled out here.
For example, even in the strict sense of Territorial laws having to do with the Territory itself as such, they consist partly of laws enacted by the legislature and partly of laws enacted by the Congress, because up until 1912 the Congress dealt with Alaska the same as it did with the District of Columbia, and passed a criminal code and other laws for Alaska, many of which are still in force.
Senator CORDON. Perhaps I should have read the last sentence:
All of the laws of the United States shall have the same force and effect within said State as elsewhere within the United States.
I am inclined to believe that that term “Territorial laws" was intended to mean laws passed by the Territorial legislature. Do you think it was limited to that?
Mr. SLAUGHTER. If it is limited to that and it might well be construed as limited to that—the question is raised, then, what is the status of the laws that were passed by the Congress, such as the criminal code for Alaska, applicable in Alaska at the time of its admission ?
Senator CORDON. Is that not taken care of further along in the bill specifically?
Senator DANIEL. And by the last sentence of this paragraph.
Mr. SLAUGHTER. If you read them as being included in the clause "laws of the United States," it would seem that the bill was trying to say what it of course cannot constitutionally say: that those types of laws will continue in force until the Congress changes them.
Senator CORDON. That is it exactly. It appears to me that that reference to Territorial laws is intended to go only to laws passed by the Territorial legislature.
Mr. SLAUGHTER. It looks that way, Senator.
Senator CORDON. Can we get a better terminology for that, Mr. Slaughter?
Mr. SLAUGHTER. We can try.
Mr. SLAUGHTER. Just about the same as this. The problem in Hawaii is not as acute as in Alaska.
Senator JACKSON. There would be a constitutional question if you tried to continue Federal law in the State.
Mr. SLAUGHTER. Yes, except Federal law applies with respect to subjects within the jurisdiction of the Federal court.
Senator DANIEL. What would be the effect of just taking out the word "Territorial” and then say, "except as modified by this act, or by the constitution of the State, or as thereafter modified by the legislature of the State or acts of Congress."
Senator CORDON. I do not know whether there are, but there may be acts passed by the Congress which have effect specifically only in the Territory of Alaska. I do not know.
Mr. SLAUGHTER. Yes, there are.
Senator DANIEL. Taking out the word “Territorial,” you would apply those laws, then. You do not want to continue them in effect until Congress changes them?
Senator CORDON. That is right. We want to leave them in effect if we know they should be left in effect. I just do not know what they are. I doubt that a law passed by Congress should be left to the discretion or the power of a State legislature to amend or appeal. I think we ought to do it.
Delegate BARTLETT. Let me ask this question. I am not a lawyer. I am thinking of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. Section 20 thereof has a unique discrimination against Alaska. In the paragraph we are discussing, would that remain in force and effect until altered by Congress?
Senator ANDERSON. If you are going to get into all these technical questions, we will never finish with this bill. I wish you would leave the question open, as was suggested. If we need to change it, we will change it.
Senator DANIEL. Unless you would say that those laws were modified and changed by this act admitting the Territory under a new status as a State.
Senator CORDON. That would not appear to me to be a matter that would be reached by the equal footing
clause; and if it is not, the provisions of that act, unless we changed them here, would remain in effect. The only way in which we could justify the conclusion that the Act of Admission ipso facto repealed it would be that the provision was unconstitutional because it was not in accordance with the provision that the State should be on the same footing with the other States.
Senator ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, do you not think if we actually passed a bill creating the State of Alaska, and discriminations of this nature showed up, the Congress would move pretty rapidly to take care of them by law? I think they would. I think they would pretty quickly take care of it.
Senator CORDON. I wish we could take care of all of them.
Senator ANDERSON. We cannot take care of every possible contingency which arises.
Senator DANIEL. If this is the way we have it in the Hawaiian statehood bill, why not leave it the way it is?
Senator CORDON. Territorial laws. We will explain it as being the laws passed by the Territorial legislature, and let her ride. We will clean up afterwards.
We are down to (b), line 7, page 18:
The State of Alaska upon its admission into the Union shall be entitled to one Representative until the taking effect of the next reapportionment, and such Representative shall be in addition to the membership of the House of Representatives as now prescribed by law: Provided, That such temporary increase in the membership of the House of Representatives shall not affect the basis of apportionment established by the Act of November 15, 1954 (55 Stat. 761; 2 U. S. C., sec. 2a), for the Eighty-third Congress and each Congress thereafter.
Tell me exactly what that means.
Senator ANDERSON. That is good law. I know a man who participated in the drafting of the cited provision. The Committee on Census, of which I had the pleasure of being a member, changed the system from major fractions to equal proportions at that time, and
that is a long story. This simply means that the membership of the House automatically adjustas itself after each census to 435. This says that it will go to 436 if Alaska comes in, and 438 is Hawaii comes in with 2. They will stay there until the Census of 1960 has been proclaimed and completed, and then automatically the whole thing will be readjusted at that time.
Senator CORDON. That is good.
The sum of $200,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is hereby authorized to be appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, for defraying the expenses of the elections provided for in this Act and the expenses of the convention.
That is an odd thing, is it not? Is that a provision that is generally found in admission statutes ?
Delegate BARTLETT. Yes. Mr. ŠLAUGHTER. Quite often. Senator CORDON. All right. The delegates shall receive for their services, in addition to mileage at the rate of 20 cents a mile each way, the sum of $1,000 each, payable in four equal installments on and after the first, twentieth, fortieth, and sixtieth days of the convention, excluding Sundays and holidays
I suppose I was thinking about those cases where the constitution had already been adopted prior to admission.
The disbursements of the money so appropriated shall be made by the Secretary of the Territory of Alaska. The Territorial legislature is hereby authorized to appropriate such sum as it may deem advisable for the payment of additional compensation to said delegates and for defraying their expenses and for such other purposes as it may deem necessary.
Section 9, line 19, page 19: The care and treatment of the mentally ill of Alaska shall be assumed by the State of Alaska : Provided, That the Federal Government shall continue to care for and treat the mentally ill of Alaska who are receiving such care and treatment in an institution at the expense of the Federal Government at the time Alaska is admitted to the Union.
Senator ANDERSON. That is done, Mr. Chairman, on the theory that if a person has become institutionalized and has been moved down into the United States proper prior to the time Alaska comes in, the new State should not have to assume the responsibility for those people.
Senator JACKSON. All the mentally ill in Alaska are now cared for in the States; is that correct?
Senator ANDERSON. Yes. They are out of the Territory.
Senator Jackson. Under a contract arrangement with private hospital organizations.
Senator CORDON. Section 10 (a): Nothing in this Act shall affect the establishment, or the right, ownership, and authority of the United States in Mount McKinley National Park, as now or hereafter constituted; but exclusive jurisdiction, in all cases, shall be exercised by the United States for the national park, as now or hereafter constituted; saving, however, to the State of Alaska the right to serve civil or criminal process within the limits of the aforesaid park in suits or prosecutions for or on account of rights acquired, obligations incurred, or crimes committed in said State, but outside of said park; and saving further to the said State the right to tax persons and corporations, their franchises and property on the lands included in said park; and saving also to the persons residing now or hereafter in
such area the right to vote at all elections held within the respective political subdivisions of their residence in which the park is situated.
Mr. FRENCH. That language is different from the provision respecting the Hawaii National Park in S. 49, Senator.
Senator JACKSON. It is my understanding that heretofore we have granted more or less concurrent jurisdiction to the States of our national parks. Why are we giving the Federal Government exclusive jurisdiction?
Mr. SLAUGHTER. In general, Senator, the national parks are under exclusive jurisdiction, not concurrent jurisdiction.
Senator ANDERSON. Is that true of Yosemite?
Mr. SLAUGHTER. It is recognized that not all-Grand Canyon, I know, is not under exclusive jurisdiction, but the majority of the national parks are.
Senator JACKSON. I know that does not apply to Olympic National Park.
Senator CORDON. Senator Daniel, I want to hear from you on this subject.
Senator DANIEL. As you know, last year I had the task of looking that question up with reference to all the national parks, and made a brief. I do not know whether it was put in the record or not. It is true that most of the national parks are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, with certain exceptions. In many of those parks we have given the States the right to the income from concessions, the right to maybe tax in some instances,
Senator JACKSON. That is covered here.
Senator DANIEL. Yes. In other words, the exceptions to exclusive jurisdiction are stated along the lines that you have this exception to jurisdiction here in section 10 (a). There is no general rule that applies to all the parks, because in some of them the States have been given more jurisdiction and more rights than in others.
Senator ANDERSON. But you have made a more exhaustive study of this than the other members of this committee have had a chance to do. Is it your opinion that this provision is proper, or should it be altered?
Senator DANIEL. I would say it is in line with what we have in the majority of the national parks.
Senator JACKSON. Let's leave it as is.
Senator DANIEL. If you want to give them some more rights later on, the Congress can do it as it did in some of the national parks by special cession.
Senator CORDON. There are a number of matters that should be under local jurisdiction.
Senator JACKSON. As they run into those problems, we can deal with it by appropriate legislation.
Senator CORDON. Line 9, page 20:
(b) Notwithstanding the admission of the State of Alaska into the Union, authority is reserved in the United States, subject to the proviso hereinafter set forth, for the exercise by the Congress of the United States of exclusive legisla
tion, as provided by article 1 of section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution of the United States, in all cases whatsoever over such tracts or parcels of land as are now owned by the United States and held for military, naval, Air Force, or Coast Guard purposes, whether title to such lands was acquired by cession and transfer to the United States by the Territory of Alaska and set aside by Executive order by the President or the Governor of Alaska for the use of the United States, or acquired by the United States by purchase, condemnation, donation, exchange, or otherwise
I think that is a general clause that is well understood. Provided, That (i) the State of Alaska shall always have the right to serve civil or criminal process within the said tracts or parcels of land in suits or prosecutions for or on account of rights acquired, obligations incurred, or crimes committed within the said State but outside of the said tracts of lands; (ii) the reservation of authority in the United States for the exercise by the Congress of the United States of the power of exclusive legislation over the lands aforesaid shall not operate to prevent such lands from being within the territorial boundaries and a part of the State of Alaska, and such power of exclusive legislation shall vest and remain in the United States only so long as the land is owned and used for the purposes aforesaid ; and (iii) unless and until the Congress shall have enacted laws preempting or inconsistent therewith, * * *.
Mr. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that in the Hawaii bill the committee adopted a provision which accomplishes the same thing as this but clarifies a good deal of the language, including the language which you are reading now.
Senator CORDON. I am stumbling over the present language. Read the language in the Hawaiian bill quickly for us.
Mr. SLAUGHTER. S. 49 provides:
Notwithstanding the admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union, authority is reserved in the United States, subject to the proviso hereinafter set forth, for the exercise by the Congress of the United States of the power of exclusive legislation, as provided by article I, section 8, clause 17, of the Constitution of the United States, in all cases whatsoever over such tracts or parcels of land as, immediately prior to the admission of said State, are owned by the United States and held for military, naval, Air Force, or Coast Guard purposes, whether such lands were acquired by cession and transfer to the United States by the Republic of Hawaii and set aside by act of Congress or by Executive order or proclamation of the President or the Governor of Hawaii for the use of the United States, or were acquired by the United States by purchase, condemnation, donation, exchange, or otherwise : Provided: (i) That the State of Hawaii shall always have the right to serve civil or criminal process within the said tracts or parcels of land in suits or prosecutions for or on account of rights acquired, obligations incurred, or crimes committed within the said State but outside of the said tracts or parcels of land; (ii) that the reservation of authority in the United States for the exercise by the Congress of the United States of the power of exclusive legislation over the lands aforesaid shall not operate to prevent such lands from being a part of the State of Hawaii, or to prevent the said State from exercising over or upon such lands, concurrently with the United States, any jurisdiction whatsoever which it would have in the absence of such reservation of authority and which is consistent with the laws hereafter enacted by the Congress pursuant to such reservation of authority;
Senator CORDON. I want to reread that.
Do you agree with me that that reservation actually gives concurrent authority for legislation?
Mr. SLAUGHTER. The intention, Senator, is that Congress is to have the power to impose exclusive jurisdiction, but unless and until it does so by subsequent legislation, there is concurrent jurisdiction.
Senator CORDON. Using this lovely language here, until Congress preempts the field.