THE NOME NUGGET
Published Monday, Wednesday and Friday by The
.NOME PUBLISHING CO.
Nome, Alaska
Telephone: Main 125 P. O. Box 618
,W A. and EMILY BOUCHER ..Editors
*1.50 PER MON’Hl *16.00 A YEAR
Entered as second class matter October 14, 19-|3. at the postoffice
at Nome, Alaska, under the Act of March 3, 1879.
Monday, January 26, 1948
The Little Assembly And The U. S.
(Rocky Mountain News)
THE UNITED NATIONS Little Assembly was
launched recently at Lake Success. It is the most hope
ful development of the international organization since
the U. N. began to function two years ago.
Like the parent body, the offspring is handicapped. It
has no independent power. It can only recommend.
Nevertheless its potential influence is exceedingly great,
because it can educate and mold world opinion. And
that, in the end, usually is the highest seat of authority
in foreign affairs.
Whether this year-round interim committee of the
U. N. Assembly grows strong, or languishes into the
limbo of so many ineffective international committees of
noble purpose, depends upon its members. That means
Russia and her satellites, who have started out by boy
cotting the Little Assembly.
It also means the United States, who fathered this re
form and whose continued leadership is essential to its
success.
Finally it means those small nations who hold the
balance of power between the Soviet and the democratic
blocs; especially those who souted loudly for the crea
tion of this body but who get jittery when ever a Rus
sian frowns.
As for the Soviet government, there is no present rea
son for believing it will co-operate. Its boycott policy,
stated in such violent terms by Vishinsky when the re
cent Assembly meeting voted to establish this interim
body, has just been reaffirmed by the Soviet U. N.
delegation.
United States strategy is not so clear. The general as
sumption that the state department would continue to
force the fight for a functioning United Nations, as Sec
retary Marshall and his aides did at the assembly ses
sion last fall, may prove premature.
At least the American delegation is inspiring press re
ports that it will go slow and avoid giving offense to'
Moscow, in the hope of eventual Soviet co-operation.
To criticize this reported strategy before it becomes
official, and without seeing how it is applied, would be!
unfair. If it works out simply as an effort to leave the:
door open for any change of heart by Stalin—however;
improbable that may be—it is legitimate.
But if the practical effect is any wobbling or weak
ness by the United States in defense of the U. N. Char
ter against Soviet aggression in the Balkans, the Far
East and elsewhere, it will be a shameful ami disastrous
retreat.
Civilian Aid For The Army
(Bv Clarke Beach)
WASHINGTON, (/P)—Army men have found a new
way to make friends and obtain the help of civilians.
They are encouraging civilians to criticize and advise
them. It’s done through Army advisory committees,
which have been formed in 425 communities and now
comprise 6,500 Army-minded men and women.
When they haven’t any complaints or suggestions, the
committees assist local army commanders to get their
obs done. They help in recruiting, take part in local
military celebrations and make studies to determine
important facts about public opinion.
They are now giving valuable assistance to the army
in the reburial of the war dead. The committees help to
arrange burial services, drawing in various members of
the community so that the family and friends of the
dead soldier will feel that their neighbors and fellow
citizens sympathize with them in their loss.
These Army advisory committees had their origin
STICKY STORY
i _ _._ •
early in 1946, when Maj. Gen. Manton S. Eddy, then
commanding general of the unit which is now the Second
Army Area (P., Ohio, Ind., Ky., W. Va., Va., Md.), or
ganized various civilian committees in cities in his area.
Eddy’s purpose was to obtain civilian assistance in
recruiting, but he found the direct link with the com
munity so valuable in many ways that the Army depart
ment has taken up the program on a nationwide scale.
The committees give spokesmen of the communities
a continuing contact with the army commanders so that
differences with the military can be anticipated or
quickly straightened out.
For instance, when the chimneys of an ordnance plant
near Charleston, W. Va., were spreading soot on the
town, a word from the advisory committee brought
prompt corrective measures.
The army, often asks the committees to make studies
and give reports on how the local folks feel about the
army’s work in recruiting, in control of venereal dis
ease and in curbing immorality involving military per
sonnel. The committees are asked to comment on the
behavior of soldiers in their towns and to make sugges
tions as to how they might become more agreeable to
the residents.
Committee members are not expected to follow the1
army’s policy opinions, according to Maj. William H.
Haller, Jr., chief of the community relations unit.
As an example, he relates that several months ago
Gen. Courtney H. Hodges, commander of the First
Army, received letters from the dean of women at the
University of Rochester and from a Wilmington, Del.,
educator. Both asked to be relieved of service on army
advisory committees because they were opposed to uni
versal military training, which is now an established
army objective.
Gen. Hodges replied to both of them personally that
there was no reason why they should not think what
they pleased about universal military training and ex
press their views to the committee. He urged them ta
continue to serve, and they did.
Whv Was Landis Fired?
WE DON’T KNOW why President Truman fired
James M. Landis a head of the Civil Aeronautic Board.
But we do know that Mr. Truman often has complain
ed of the difficulties, in these times, of persuading com
petent men to leave civilian life and take thankless,
comparatively low-paid government posts.
In a number of such posts, induing membership on
the Federal Trade Commission and chairmanship of the
Securities and Exchange Commission, Mr. Landis has
been a fine public servant. The President hay have good
reasons for not reappointing Mr. Landis to the CAB
chairmanship. He has, of course, the right to name
someone else for that place, subject to Senate approval.
But, with the government so greatly needing good
men, and finding them so hard to get, we think Mr. Tru
man owes thb public—as well as Mr. Landis—an ex
planation of why he has let a good man go.
■ ^
WAGE-HOUR FIXING
Thurman Sensing, who directs
research for the Southern States
I n d u strial Council, Nashville,
Tenn., is a man who speaks with
wisdom. Sometime ago Mr. Sen
sing released comments on our
wage and hour law, in which he
predicted there would be contin
ut*i agitation to fix minimum
wages at higher figures. I think
it is true, as Mr. Sensing suggests,
that few people understand the
implications of wage and hour fix
ing by the government.
In recent years, partly the af
termath of a controlled war econ
omy the federal government has
exercised the power it has as
sumed to tell both workers and
investors what they may expect to
have in return for their efforts.
This is done in many ways in ad
dition to the wage and hour law.
It is done through taxes, as well
as through use of “wage formu
las.” It is done when labor bar
gains with government. Inasmuch
as the government does these
things, government therefore con
trols the economy.
Real Guarantee
Says Mr. Sensing: “The whole
system of democracy is directly
opposed to any sort of planned
economy. . . . Deny it though we
may, the fixing of wages by legis
lative action can be ragarded as
nothing else than part and parcel
of planned economy. If the gov
ernment is allowed to assume the
power to fix minimum wages and
maximum hours, there is nothing
to keep the government from re
versing this process and fixing
maximum wages and minimum
hours.”
With that, democracy flies com
pletely out the window, Mr. Sen
sing declares. Everybody, he says
should have a living wage—o
more—if he earns it. “But no on*
who believes in democracy wil
argue that a person should have
certain wage whether he earns i
or not. Productivity comes firs
not wages. The only real guarar
tee behind a wage in a democrac
is the productivity of the perso
who receives the wage.”
False Promises
These words are so logical ar
the reasoning so plain that I wool
like to continue with Mr. Sei
sing’s comments. Suppose an er
ployer couldn’t pay the minimu
wages set up, and had to clo
down. There are two choices f
the government: “either the bu:
ness must be taken over . . . ai
workers paid without any refe
ence to the earnings of the bu
ness; or the workers go on rel
and are issued a dole at the e
pense of the general public.”
The first would be state soci
i m. which the people of Amer
would never indorse willingly
rnowingly. “Socialism never 1
end never will bring the peopli
strong government and a h
standard of living.” Mr. Sens
cites state socialism in Englai
“Promising them greater prod
tion, it has brought decrea
production; promising them
higher standard of living, it
brought them a lower standard
living; promising they happin
it has brought them misery.”
Whence Prosperity?
The other alternative, says
Sensing would bring a great b
of unemployed. “They are un
ployed simply because the law
the land have made it unprofit