Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Chairman, Subcommittee on Territories and Insular Affairs, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: As chairman of the Committee on Revision of the Laws of the Judicial Conference of the United States I have examined the bill, S. 49, to provide statehood for Hawaii and Alaska, which your subcommittee is about to consider, and I have found three matters each of a somewhat technical character, which I believe require amendment, as well as a few typographical errors. I am writing to call these matters to your attention and I enclose a draft of proposed amendments which will, I believe, correct each item. I. The first results from the exclusion of Palmyra Island from the new State of Hawaii. This exclusion is unquestionably appropriate, since Palmyra is so remote from the main body of the Hawaiian Islands, but it calls for additional legislation to fix the judicial status of Palmyra after statehood has detached it from its present status as a part of the Territory of Hawaii. You will recall that a number of Pacific Islands, including Midway, Johnston, Kingman Reef, Howland, and Baker Islands, have heretofore been specially provided for in this connection in two ways, first, in section 91 of title 28, United States Code, by specifically including them in the Federal Judicial District of Hawaii, so that the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii will have venue jurisdiction over them, and second, in the act of June 15, 1950 (48 U. S. C. Sec. 644a), by specifically extending the jurisdiction of that court over these islands and providing that the law which shall be applicable thereon shall be the maritime law of the United States which would be applicable on board a merchant vessel or other vessel belonging to the United States on the high seas. I would suggest, therefore, that it is not only appropriate, but indeed necessary, from and after the admission of Hawaii as a State to include Palmyra Island in these existing provisions for the outlying Pacific Islands, inasmuch as Palmyra will then cease to be under the jurisdiction of the Hawaiian State courts, or subject to the laws of that State. This can readily be accomplished, as proposed in the enclosed amendments, by adding subsections (i) and (j) to section 112 of S. 49 making the necessary amendments to section 91 of title 28 and to the act of June 15, 1950, to insert Palmyra Island therein. II. The fourth paragraph of section 202 of S. 49 provides that in case of a tie vote in the election of delegates to the constitutional convention of Alaska lots shall be drawn under the supervision of "the clerk of the District Court for the Territory of Alaska." This provision is ambiguous in view of the fact that the District Court for the Territory of Alaska is divided into 4 divisions, corresponding to the 4 judicial divisions into which the Territory is divided, and the court has a separate clerk in and for each division. Under section 202 the election of delegates is to be conducted in accordance with the existing election laws of Alaska. Those laws provide that the votes shall be canvassed in the office of the Governor at Juneau which is in the First Judicial Division. It is, therefore, clear, I believe, that it is the intention of the bill that if lots have to be drawn to resolve a tie vote they shall be drawn under the supervision of the clerk of the district court at Juneau. To avoid ambiguity I suggest that the fourth paragraph of section 202 be amended by inserting the phrase "first judicial division" after the title of the court as proposed in the enclosed amendments. III. In section 214 of S. 49 there appears to be an unintentional, although somewhat serious, error or ambiguity in draftsmanship. This was discovered by the Department of Justice and called to the attention of Senator Cordon last year but unfortunately too late to be corrected in the bill as passed by the Senate at that time. It has, therefore, not been corrected in S. 49. The subject has to do with the enforcement after the Territory becomes a State of judgments and decrees which have been rendered by the present district court for the Territory. Section 214 now provides that all causes "pending" in the district court of the Territory at the time of the admission to statehood which are of such a nature as to be within the jurisdiction of a regular United States district court shall be transferred to the new United States district court for the district of Alaska. All other causes pending in the present district court shall be transferred to the appropriate State court. Section 215 provides that jurisdiction of all cases "pending or determined" in the present district court and not transferred to the new United States district court pursuant to section 214 shall devolve upon and be exercised by the State courts. Reading the two sections together it would appear that all cases which have been determined by the present district court of the Territory at the time of statehood, as distinguished from those cases which are then pending, would have to be transferred to the State courts regardless of whether they were in their nature Federal or local cases. A serious question cannot help but arise concerning the status of injunctions, judgments, and the like which have previously been determined and which resulted from cases of a Federal as distinguished from a local character. A National Labor Relations Board injunction, an injunction or judgment rendered in a true diversity case, or a judgment in a case arising under Federal law, are examples of the type of action truly Federal which would nevertheless have to be transferred to the State court for enforcement under the language of sections 214 and 215 as they now stand. The present holder of a final judgment issued after trial on a Federal question could not, under the present sections, have his judgment registered in the Federal district court in another State as authorized by title 28, United States Code, section 1963. The National Labor Relations Board under the National Labor Relations Act would be relegated to the State court for contempt or other enforcement proceedings of decrees rendered by the district court for the Territory of Alaska prior to statehood. This defect in draftsmanship is doubtless to be explained by the fact that judgments requiring subsequent enforcement are far more numerous in cases of a local nature such as decrees for specific performance, alimony awards, child custody cases, etc. However, there are undoubtedly certain types of Federal cases also, notably decrees for injunction, which require enforcement after the final determination of the case and these should certainly be transferred to the new Federal district court and not to the State courts for their enforcement. This error or ambiguity can easily be corrected by amending the first and second sentences of section 214 to add the words "or determined" after the word "pending" near the beginning of each sentence and by adding to the end of the first sentence the following language "and enforcement in the same manner as is now provided by law with reference to the judgments and decrees in existing United States district courts." These are the amendments which were suggested by the Department of Justice to the Senate committee last year. They are included in the enclosed amendments and I am satisfied that they would be effective to accomplish the desired result. IV. There are four typographical errors which should be corrected and all of which relate to references to section numbers in the bill. On page 11, line 2, "4" should be "104." I trust that these suggestions may be of assistance to you. ALBERT B. MARIS. AMENDMENTS TO S. 49 1. Amend section 112, page 20, line 16, by striking out the period at the end of subsection (h) thereof and inserting a semicolon and the following: "(i) section 91 of title 28, United States Code, as heretofore amended, is further amended by inserting after 'Kure Island,' and before 'Baker Island' the words 'Palmyra Island,'; and "(j) the Act of June 15, 1950 (ch. 253, 64 Stat. 217, 48 U. S. C. § 644a), is amended by inserting after 'Kure Island,' and before 'Baker Island' the words 'Palmyra Island,'." 2. Amend the fourth paragraph of section 202, page 26, line 10, by inserting after "District Court for the Territory of Alaska" and before "to determine which" the words ", first judicial division,". 3. Amend section 214 as follows: (a) In the first sentence of section 214, page 53, line 24, after "All causes pending" and before "in the District Court for" insert "or determined", and at the end of the sentence, page 54, line 5, strike out the period and insert "and enforcement in the same manner as is now provided by law with reference to the judgments and decrees in existing United States district courts." (b) In the second sentence of section 214, page 54, line 6, after "pending" and before "in the District Court for the Territory of Alaska" insert "or determined". (Whereupon, at 4:12 p. m., the hearing was recessed, subject to the call of the Chair.) APPENDIX APPENDIX A To: Senator Jackson, Subcommittee Chairman. Subject: Congressional Inquiries Into Statehood for Alaska and Hawaii. SUMMARY OF CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS OF STATEHOOD FOR HAWAII 1935-55 I. THE 1935 CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION The first hearings on statehood were conducted in Hawaii in 1935 by a committee of the House. The committee held hearings for 12 days and heard 105 witnesses, 90 of whom favored statehood, and collected 343 pages of testimony. (Hearings before the subcommittee of the Committee on the Territories on H. R. 3034, 74th Cong.), Territory of Hawaii to be a modern unit of the American commonwealth, with a "political, social, and economic structure of the highest type." (Hearings on H. R. 3034, 74th Cong., 1st sess., p. 329.) By the close margin of 3 to 2 the bill failed to be reported favorably to the full committee, since the majority felt that further study was necessary. (See Summary, hearings on H. R. 3034, pp. 301–304.) II. THE 1937 CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION In 1937 the joint committee appointed to visit Hawaii held public hearings for 17 days, and visited industrial, social, educational, and military establishments on the 5 major islands. Residents on all islands visited were publicly urged to appear and express their views. The committee heard 66 witnesses, 47 of whom favored statehood, and collected nearly 700 pages of testimony. (Hearings before the Joint Committee on Hawaii, 75th Cong., 2d sess.) In its report (S. Doc. 151, 75th Cong., 3d sess.), the committee said: "Hawaii has fulfilled every requirement for statehood heretofore exacted for Territories.” (S. Doc. 151, p. 94.) The committee recommended that a statehood plebiscite be held to ascertain the wishes of the people, and that further study be made due to the disturbed condition of international affairs (S. Doc. 151, p. 95). The Territorial legislature authorized a plebiscite to be held in 1940. By a majority of more than 2 to 1, the people of Hawaii voted in favor of statehood. Ďuring the war years Hawaii held its statehood aspirations in abeyance. III. THE 1946 CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION In 1946, a third congressional investigation was held in Hawaii. The committee publicly invited the people to appear before them to present their views on statehood and upon any other matter relating to the welfare of the Territory. The group held hearings for 12 days on the 5 major islands, and heard 107 witnesses, 91 of whom favored statehood. Recorded were 908 pages of testimony, including 35 written statements and exhibits relating to social, economic, and political life. (Hearings before the subcommittee of the Committee on the Territories, House of Representatives, 79th Cong., 2d sess.) The subcommittee submitted a unanimous report (H. Rept. 1620, 79th Cong., 2d sess.) in which it recommended that "since: "1. The people of the Territory of Hawaii have demonstrated beyond question not only their loyalty and patriotism but also their desire to assume the responsiblities of statehood; and since 171 "2. The policy of the United States Government is one of self-determination; that peoples be allowed to choose freely their form of political status; and since "3. Hawaii's strategic location in the Pacific plays so large a part in our country's international position in this area; and since “4. The Congress of the United States has through a series of acts and committee reports indicated to the people of the Territory that Hawaii would be admitted into the Union when qualified; and since "5. The Territory of Hawaii now meets the necessary requirements for statehood: "It is the recommendation of this subcommittee that the Committee on Territories give immediate consideration to legislation to admit Hawaii to statehood." IV. THE 1947 CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION The House Committee on Public Lands met in Washington, D. C., in March 1947, to consider H. R. 49, and 11 other bills granting statehood to Hawaii. The committee held hearings for 13 days and heard 35 witnesses, all of whom favored immediate statehood. Opposition to the bill consisted of 3 communications, 1 of which was printed in the record. The committee collected 310 pages of testimony. (Hearings before the Committee on Public Lands, House of Representatives, 80th Cong., 1st sess., on H. R. 49.) Several Federal departments were requested by the committee to submit reports on Hawaii's statehood bill. The administration endorsed the bill, and the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy offered no objection to the enactment of H. R. 49. Fleet Adm. Chester W. Nimitz, testifying as a private citizen, stated, "from a military and naval standpoint, I can see no objection to these islands achieving statehood.' Maj. Gen. Charles D. Herron, United States Army (retired), former commander of the Hawaiian Department, testified that the people of Hawaii "have long since shown themselves to be wise and fully worthy of full citizenship." Many Members of the 80th Congress testified or presented statements for the record supporting the bill. Whereas the 1946 hearings in Hawaii stressed the readiness of the people of the islands to meet the responsibilities of statehood, the testimony submitted in Washington in 1947 related largely to national aspects, such as national defense, trade relations, and foreign affairs. Hawaii's position at the crossroads of the Pacific was viewed as a reason for statehood. For the second time in 2 years a committee of Congress unanimously recommended statehood. The 1947 committee report (H. Rept. 194, 80th Cong., 1st sess.), drew particular attention to the following: "The strategic location in the mid-Pacific of Hawaii's modern community of a half million loyal American citizens, with its modern facilities for transportation, communication, and defense, is of immeasurable value to the Nation; "The granting of statehood to Hawaii at this time will be an actual demonstration of the purposes of the United States in granting self-determination to the peoples of the world; "The joint committee of the 75th Congress appointed in 1937, after thorough investigation in the islands, found 'that Hawaii has fulfilled every requirement for statehood heretofore exacted of Territories'; and "The subcommittee appointed in the 79th Congress unanimously recommended that immediate consideration for legislation looking to the admission of Hawaii to statehood be undertaken." The findings and conclusions of the 1947 congressional hearings on the question of statehood for Hawaii were based on its own investigation and the investigations of two previous congressional committees. In June 1947, a Hawaii statehood bill passed the House by a vote of 196 to 133; Congress adjourned before further action was taken. V. THE 1948 CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION During 1948 three separate investigations on the subject of statehood for Hawaii were held: 1. In January the chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Territories and Insular Affairs, Hon. Guy Cordon, of Oregon, went to Ha aii at the direction of the full committee in connection with H. R. 49, the Hawaiian statehood bill before the 80th Congress. Of Public hearings on statehood were held for 16 days on the major islands. the 231 witnesses testifying, 215 favored statehood and 16 opposed it. (Hearings before the Subcommittee on Territories and Insular Affairs of the Committee on Public Lands, 80th Cong., 2d sess.) Special study was given to the Territory's judicial system, the degree to whhich the racial melting pot works, the economic stability of the Territory, and the extent of the menace of communism and bloc voting. The report held that: (1) The courts of the Territory are functioning satisfactorily. (2) Democracy has creditably proved itself in Hawaii. (3) The financial condition of the Territory appears sound. (4) Though the extent of Communist success in Hawaii is not definitely known, the total number of Communists being fewer than 100, ample protection against the infiltration of Communist doctrines in the formation of a State constitution exist, since approval must be given both by the electorate of Hawaii and by the President of the United States. (COMMITTEE NOTE.-By committee amendment to the present bill, this function of safeguarding the State constitution rests with the Congress, in accordance with the principles of the Federal Constitution.) (5) Election records of Hawaii for 48 years do not support the contention of bloc voting, and there is little chance that the pattern of political behavior will undergo any drastic changes under State government. The chairman recommended that the bill be favorably reported to the Senate with a recommendation for immediate action. It was later decided by the Senate committee to hold further hearings in Washington, D. C., to determine national interest. 2. On April 15, the Senate subcommittee met in Washington, heard 8 witnesses, none in opposition, and collected 53 pages of testimony. On May 8, the committee decided to take no action on its subcommittee's favorable report on statehood, and authorized the chairman to arrange a trip to Hawaii for committee members wishing to study the matter on the ground. 3. From November 1 to 12, the chairman of the committee, Senator Hugh Butler, conducted in Hawaii, an investigation of Communist activities in the Territory. In all, 77 confidential interviews were made a matter of record, and more than 100 other witnesses interviewed. A report of the investigation was made in June 1949; in summary, the report recommended: (1) That statehood for Hawaii be deferred indefinitely, until communism in the Territory may be brought under effective control; (2) That the Territorial government of Hawaii be encouraged to take positive steps within the scope of its authority to suppress unlawful communistic activities; (3) That the executive branch of the Federal Government, through the Department of Justice, take immediate steps to prosecute lawless communism in the Territory, and to protect from force and violence those who honestly seek to support and strengthen orderly constitutional government; (4) That Congress take cognizance of the very serious economic problems which confront Hawaii as a result of the activities of the Communist-dominated ILWU and immediately enact remedial legislation. VI. THE 1949 CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION On March 3 and 8, the Subcommittee on Territorial and Insular Possessions of the House Public Lands Committee held hearings in Washington, with the voluminous record already amassed before it. Five witnesses testified, none in opposition, though two communications in opposition to the legislation were received and made part of the record. The Committee on Public Lands on March 10, in reporting favorably on the bill, as amended, and recommending that it pass, concluded, in part, as follows: 1. The Territory is not only self-supporting, but pays more Federal income tax than any 1 of 12 States. 2. Had Hawaii been a State, it hardly would have been subjected to the indignities which befell it in World War II. 3. There is no area under United States jurisdiction where a great complexity of races lives so harmoniously. 4. Both major political parties in the United States included a recommendation of statehood for Hawaii in their party platforms of 1948. |