The Governor of the Territory of Alaska did not sign the Alaska Bar Act of Chapter 196 of the year of 1955 and it became law without his signature. Pay particular attention to the Section 4 of this act, which states that no judge in a court of record will be a member of the Alaska Bar Association. Of course we know that today all of the judges, justices and magistrates are all members of the bar association. Isn't this a conflict of interest to be a member of bar and be a judge, justice or magistrate. The prosecutors are of the Executive Branch and the judges, justices and magistrates are supposed to be of the Judicial Branch. Here we have members of a private corporation in the capacity of purported public officers of two branches in a court room to administer justice.

Just because an entity known as the "State of Alaska" came along in 1959 does not change the fact that the grant of power, i.e. be it legal or illegal, was from Territory of Alaksa for the Alaska Bar Association. Did that change the nature of the Alaska Bar Association to make it an instrumentality of the State of Alaska? I think not. In the case of Jackson v. Gallet 39 Idaho 382, 228 P 1068. we see the discussion of Idaho state bar and state of Idaho. This is the same problem with the private Federal Reserve as used in our money system, it isn't of the government, but just has a nice sounding name.

"Now, it will not do to say that the Idaho state bar and the state of Idaho are synonymous terms. In other words, the Idaho state bar or its commission cannot be construed to be an administrative board of the state and may not function as an administrative board or commission of the state. The language of the act will warrant no such interpretation. There is therefore no merit in the contention that the Idaho state bar is an administrative board of the state of Idaho."

Here are a couple of very interesting quotes from the cases cited within the opinion of the Attorney General of the Territory of Alaska. This is a "delegation police power" to a Board of Governors and Commission with absolutely no input from the people of Alaska. See In Re Scott 53 Nev. 24, 292 P. 291

"This contention furnished the most popular criticism of the members of the profession opposed to the law. As hereinabove stated, the membership, character, and conduct of those entering and engaging in the legal profession has, since the inception of our state government, been regarded as the proper subject of legislative regulation and control; the right to follow any of the common industrial occupations of life does not extend to the pursuit of professions or vocations of such a nature as to require peculiar skill or supervision for the public welfare. In the adoption and approval of the legislation under review, the legislature evidently considered that the time had come in the administration of the law that attorneys and counselors at law, who constitute an integral and indispensable unit in the administration of justice, should be organized as a body politic, with delegation police power subject to the control of the supreme court and the legislature for the benefit of the public welfare in a matter of great public concern." [Emphasis added]

We can see how from the opinion of Jackson v. Gallet 39 Idaho 382, 228 P 1068., which succinctly states the truth on the evils of a bar association or any corporation functioning as a governmental agency.

In conclusion, there seems to be no good reason for the selection between lawyers as a class and members of any other calling as a class and the enactment of special legislation essentially conferring upon lawyers as a class corporate powers and independent action to the exclusion of control by general legislative enactment. To uphold legislation of the character before us would make possible the incorporation and independent action of the members of any other class, calling or occupation, and instead of a representative democracy we would have independent action by incorporated individuals composed of different [***24] callings, occupations [*396] or conditions answerable to themselves, governed by boards and commissions until we would become a government made up of classes amenable to only such by-laws, rules or regulations that in their judgment would be conducive to their best interests. These various classes so incorporated under provisions similar to the one involved would pay into the treasury fees and disburse the same in their own discretion and independently of legislative control. If this law can be sustained upon the theory that it is not unconstitutional for the various reasons herein suggested, then no reason exists why like legislation cannot be enacted for the benefit of bricklayers, agriculturists, bankers or any other profession or calling and all members of such classes, by legislative enactment, may be compelled to accept membership in such corporations in order to practice their profession or follow the calling of their choice. [Emphasis added]

Jackson v. Gallet 39 Idaho 382, 228 P 1068. and Re Edwards 45 Idaho 676, 266 P. 665. are two cases to read for a greater unstanding of the evils of a bar association or corporation.