Senator MONRONEY. I think it would depend upon the progress that they had made, whether we felt that the state of the world and our past experience with them in self-government would be strong enough-I am speaking only personally-to overcome the fear I have of offshore areas as full States.

Senator BIBLE. That is not based entirely upon an over-representation concept?

Senator MONRONEY. I am glad you came back to that because, as I tried to say in my statement, within our united land mass the lack of population of a Territory, I think, was not too important in the matter of statehood. We were filling in the pattern of our historic boundaries. It was predestined when we reached the Pacific Ocean and when we set the line on the north for our boundary with Canada, and as we set it in the south with Mexico, that all of that contiguous area would become States. It would have been futile and useless to draw hard lines on the basis of population. Certainly we should have taken in those States.

My own State of Oklahoma, which is the 46th State, perhaps did not have an adequate amount of population, if we are going to look only at that. But it was the filling in of this checkerboard. At the same time, the boundaries were there and were fixed. We were merely filling in the pattern.

Here we depart from the historic concept of sound, solid boundaries, and no enclave of foreign power or blue water, and we are asked to go 2,000 miles across international water to accept the 49th State of Hawaii, or 1,500 miles across the soverign land of Canada or, as the distinguished chairman says, 500 miles up the inland passage, which is international water, I believe, is it not, Mr. Chairman?

Senator JACKSON. Yes.

Senator MONRONEY. It is all international water or soverign territory of other countries that will divide us. Therefore, I say the point of noncontiguity plus overrepresentation of the offshore areas becomes important, while population was not so important then.

I also said in my statement that it is my understanding that the areas that were taken in at that time, small though their population was, enjoyed a stronger ratio of their population to the then population of the other States of the Union than either Hawaii or Alaska today enjoys in relationship to the present population of the 48 States. So the condition under which they receive statehood, if you would put it on that basis, which I do not, still would give credit to the territories that were brought in.

Senator BIBLE. I think I have nothing further, Mr. Chairman.

Senator JACKSON. Senator Monroney, I want to thank you for the very scholarly way in which you presented your case. I may not necessarily agree with your arguments, but I do want to say you have done a good job in going into this subject.

Senator MONRONEY. Thank you for your courtesy in letting me appear today instead of next week.

Senator JACKSON. If there are any additional insertions you wish to include in the record, they may be submitted.

Senator MONRONEY. I should like to get the editorials from the Anchorage paper, because I detect a rather inquisitive desire on the part of a good many people in these two areas to know a little bit more about commonwealth.

Senator JACKSON. Thank you, Senator Monroney.

Senator Fulbright, we will be happy to hear any statement you may care to make at this time.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I have a short statement, if I may read it.

Senator JACKSON. Yes.

STATEMENT OF HON. J. W. FULBRIGHT, UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

Senator FULBRIGHT. The proposal to grant statehood to Alaska and Hawaii has recently, quite understandably, received a great deal of support in many quarters. I say "understandably" for a very good reason, for it seems to me that the proponents of this measure have suddenly made it seem that there are only two possibilities: to continue Hawaii and Alaska as Territories, or to make them States. Confronted with these choices, it is hardly remarkable that statehood has become fashionable.

But let us look at the from-Territory-to-State picture in the proper focus. It is much as if we were assuming that when one is lying down, the only way to help him is to stand him up, when, plainly, the first step is to sit him up. It is this orderly progression toward statehoodwith the sitting-up stage coming next-that we should be considering. Some will say that it has been considered, and that consideration is still going on. I incline to doubt it.

There was a time, and not so long ago, when commonwealth status for Alaska and Hawaii was seriously debated in the Congress and was a recognizable issue among the more responsible members of the national electorate. What has happened to this question?

Amid all the conflicting considerations-Should Hawaii be admitted to statehood without Alaska? Should Alaska become a State and not Hawaii? Are either ready now for statehood?-the emphasis has been on statehood, pro and con. Through reiteration, and I might say adroit reiteration, of the statehood theme, we have all but lost sight of the alternative. Commonwealth has been obscured. A valiant effort to rescue it from obscurity has been made by the junior Senator from Oklahoma. Senator Monroney has set forth in an article in the March 4 issue of Collier's magazine the positive values of commonwealth status for Alaska and Hawaii. I can recommend that article as a most praiseworthy attempt to get this distorted picture into focus; I think it is particularly valuable because it points up the fact that there is an alternative, that the question is not simply one of State-or-Territory, take-it-or-leave-it.

If we take this step-if we make Hawaii and Alaska commonwealths-it may be said, of course, that we have compromised the issue. If that were the case, I might attempt to argue the positive benefits of compromise. However, this is no compromise, even though commonwealth status may seem to land in the middle ground where compromise lives.

No; despite the predominance of the statehood question, the proposal for commonwealth status is fully able to stand on its own as an issue for our consideration. I would not be as positive about it as I feel if I did not say I think this is the question for our consideration.

Residents of Hawaii and Alaska argue, with merit, that they are in much the same position as the American colonies were before the Declaration of Independence, with most of the responsibilities but few of the benefits of belonging. As commonwealths-raising and retaining all their own tax revenues, governing themselves and operating the majority of their internal affairs-Alaska and Hawaii would have full opportunity to develop their lands. As States, they would be plunged pell-mell into a system of living and government that demands that they now have, at the moment of statehood, a fully developed system, ready to be assimilated.

I do not say that Alaska and Hawaii should never be States, only that they advance toward statehood in an orderly progression, giving each party to the merger full opportunity to determine the effects of a revolutionary step. Welcoming Hawaii and Alaska to statehood is hardly the same as the relatively minor problems faced in bringing in the Western States in the recent past, as bringing in other States distant from the eastern seaboard, including my own, shortly before that. International waters divide us from Hawaii. A great land mass stretches between our Northwest States and Alaska. Even in this time of rapid transportation and communication, it is a fact not lightly to be dismissed that Hawaii and Alaska are not right next door. Our States are now contiguous, and there is an entirely new concept, one that demands not only a new and searching investigation but experiment, in joining ourselves to distant areas.

Perhaps too much has been said in debates on other issues about precedent, but it is still a fact that setting one is no small matter, particularly when the logical alternative to statehood is at hand.

Further, I hope it is not futile to argue that there is a great deal to be said for proceeding from one step to the next, for advancing surely and in good order toward a distant goal.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator JACKSON. Might I just ask one or two questions?

Do you premise your position primarily on the fact that the two areas in question, Hawaii and Alaska, being noncontinguous, that therefore they should not be admitted as States?

Senator FULBRIGHT. At this time?

Senator JACKSON. Now or at a future time.

Senator FULBRIGHT. I said specifically that I do not say they should never become states. However if one will look at what happens in the rest of the world, I would say that a move toward making them States is against the trends in other areas. Take the British Commonwealth. Instead of moving toward the incorporation into the Empire for the last 50 years it has been all in the other direction. The same is true with the French. It is a matter of effective administration that is preferable.

The only country that is moving to acquire and dominate other areas is Russia, and I do not quite see that they are justified or that we would be justified in accepting that particular way of enlarging our borders at this time.

I did not say that never should it be done. I think that we have great difficulty today right here in Washington in being wise enough to solve the problems of the 48 States we have. I do not know that there is any great excess or surplus of wisdom here today. I think

it is a very difficult job that should be undertaken to acquire further and more diverse areas.

Senator JACKSON. Historically, when you put a commonwealth label on an area, it is the last status that exists prior to the granting of complete freedom. Historically, that has been the concept. When you set up a commonwealth you lay the foundation to eventually grant complete freedom to the country. That has been our historical position in the Philippines. I am wondering if the impression might not be created that we are laying a foundation to provide for the independence of Alaska and Hawaii.

Senator FULBRIGHT. It could be. They are not quite large enough I think to stand complete independence. The Philippines is a little larger. However, if you feel so strongly about Hawaii, why was not the Philippines made a State?

Senator JACKSON. I think it is an entirely different contract. First of all when we took over the Philippines we made it very clear that they would be given their independence. You had a people, a nationality that existed in the area. The area was not built up by immigration; whereas, in the Hawaiian group and Alaska you had a very small indigenous population, and the bulk of the people came from America and, therefore, they were essentially American. They had an entirely different background in law in the Philippines. It is essentially Spanish.

Senator FULBRIGHT. I did not understand that the bulk of the people in the Hawaii Islands came from America. I am misinformed, if that is true.

Senator JACKSON. No, I think you are correct in that.
Senator FULBRIGHT. I thought you stated that.

Senator JACKSON. I am probably in error as far as Hawaii is concerned, because you had a number of oriental people who came to the states and went back to Hawaii. There was originally a large Caucasian population, however, at the turn of the century that came in from this country and from England in the case of Hawaii.

Senator FULBRIGHT. I thought it was a minority even today and has always been a minority.

Senator JACKSON. It is a minority of Caucasian. It is a mixed race of people. In the case of Alaska, however, there is no question that virtually all of the nonindigenous people have come from the States.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Is the majority of the total population people from the United States?

Senator JACKSON. Yes.

Senator FULBRIGHT. I did not know that..

Senator JACKSON. Delegate Bartlett?

Delegate BARTLETT. The latest official Bureau of the Census estimate gives the civilian population of Alaska at about 171,000 and of that number about 35,000 constitute the so-called native races, Eskimos and Indians.

Senator FULBRIGHT. How many from the United States are living in Alaska?

Delegate BARTLETT. Practically all of the difference between 171,000 and 35,000. The number of foreign born is not great. You have a few, Senator Fulbright, Alaskans of the second and third generation. Outside of that all come from the States.

Senator JACKSON. I would say, too, Senator, and I am sure you agree with me, that in all of the States that have come in some States more than others you had a substantial indigenous population. The Indian population in many States was substantial. It varied according to States.

Senator FULBRIGHT. All others were contiguous States. You do not deny that this is setting a new precedent in going beyond our immediate shores to incorporate foreign areas into our country. Now, an analogy of that is that the French have tried to do that in the case of North Africa and it has not been a glowing success. In fact, it is sometimes the source of a great deal of trouble. If you assume that Americans are smarter than anybody else, I suppose we will handle it better, but I do not quite see that we are justified in doing that. It is a departure, I would say. There is no doubt about that. I must say that to be logical about it, if you do this to solve the difficulties of Hawaii, why should we not incorporate Okinawa and Formosa. That might solve that problem to bring those in as States. I do not see where you are going to stop if you adopt this policy. I do not believe the country has considered it sufficiently in that light to be behind this move.

Senator JACKSON. Actually in the case of Alaska the distance between the State of Washington and Alaska is not great. It is a relatively short distance.

Senator FULBRIGHT. It is only a little hop beyond that to Okinawa. It is only a few hours.

Senator JACKSON. I am talking about actual miles.

Senator FULBRIGHT. They run that Northwest Airline route. Senator JACKSON. It is 650 miles which is a relatively short distance. I mean it was short in 1898. It is not very far by boat. Senator FULBRIGHT. But it has changed. It is different.

Senator JACKSON. When you grant commonwealth status is it not true historically that it is the condition precedent to granting of independence and freedom?

Senator FULBRIGHT. It is because the tendency among western civilized countries is for the breaking up of their empires into states. That is precisely what happened to the British Empire. That is the trend.

Senator JACKSON. Should this legislation be geared to the idea that Alaska would eventually become an independent country and not geared to the idea that it will come into the union?

Senator FULBRIGHT. That would depend. I do not know whether it would ever attract sufficient population to sustain itself as an independent country. I do not know whether it will to even sustain itself as a State. At least it ought to prove that it can develop more than it has up to now, it seems to me, before it is admitted as a fullfledged State with all the responsibility of being a State and participating in decisions that effect all the 48 States and this whole nation. One of the major items, as you know, is the giving to Alaska 2 Senators, which is a very important step, giving the 2 of these 4 Senators is giving them a very large segment of power.

Senator JACKSON. That problem actually is no different than the problems posed in the past.

Senator FULBRIGHT. It is different in the sense that the circumstances are different and have never occurred before. We have never gone beyond our own borders to do this.