What About Alaska?

Every young territory dreams about statehood. For Alaska, no longer young but still vigorous, the dream seemed practically a fact last summer. Both party platforms were pledged to fulfillment of her territorial longing. The Democrats were vociferous in championing her admission, and the Republicans promised an "enabling act" to prepare for early action.

Well might the northern land have considered statehood not only a patent right, but one owed her for some time. Her citizens pay in excess of twenty million dollars a year without the privilege of even sending a voting senator to represent them in Washington. Moreover, Alaska has footed the cost of most of her own internal improvements. The Federal Government has given her little but military installations, while Alaska has poured over three billion dollars of raw materials into U.S. factories.

In the past, opponents of Alaska equality have pointed to her sparse population as a prohibition. While the Territory is not so well populated as many state, she has well over the Constitutional minimum, and more than Nevada.

Others opposing her statehood have said that Alaska, as a state, would require Federal aid, and could not be entirely self-supporting for several years. Of course, they overlook the fact that since the thirteen colonies, self-sufficiency has never before been an entrance requirement, and that many present states would be hard-pressed to remain solvent if denied Federal aid.

In his State of the Union speech last Monday, President Eiscohower, while vowing early admission for Hawaii, failed to mention Alaska even in connection with an "enabling act." Hawaii, of course, is Republican, while Alaska has always been a Democratic domain. But pairing states for admission has been a practice since the Missomi Compromise. Anyway you cut admission of Hawaii without consideration for Alaska, it's still political baloney.