THE NOME NUGGET
Published Monday, Wednesday and Friday by The
NOME PUBLISHING CO.
Nome. Alaska
Telephone: Main 125 P. O. Box 618
$1.50 PER MONTH $16.00 A YEAR
W. A. and EMILY BOUCHER.Editors;
I
— . ■ ■■■■ 1' ■ . .. ■■■■■ # ■■ i
Entered as second class matter October 14, 1943, at the pokoffic*
at Nome. Alaska, under the Act of March 3, 1879.
— — -»
Monday, July 21, 1947
’__ ______»_ __ _ _ _ _ •
In Agreement For Once !
(The Alaska Weekly)
WE HAVE NOTICED two editorials recently in Alas
ka papers, both of which we found more than ordinarily
interesting. One was in the Juneau Empire, giving Re
gional Forester Frank Heintzleman all the credit for the
work he has done for the past 25 or 30 years in trying to
promote a pulp and paper industry in Alaska, and the!
other in the Ketchikan Chronicle according the credit
for the apparently successful consummation to the Alas
ka Development Board. Strangely enough we agree
with both of them:
Said the “Empire” in part:
“Regional Forester B. Frank Heintzleman is coming
close to accomplishing what he set out to do some 25 or
30 years ago—bring the pulp and paper industry into
Southeast Alaska. Time after time lie has almost made1
the grade, only to have some n^w obstacle thrown in the1
path.
According to yesterday s news irom wasnington, tne
only barrier now is the claims of Alaska Indians to the
land involved. An attempt to settle this problem is being
made. Congress now has before it a proposed resolution
which would clear the way for the signing of contracts
with pulp investors this year. The resolution proposes
that receipts from the sale of the disputed land would
be held in a special fund until the question of land and j
timber rights are settled by further legislation.”
Because of space limitation we also quote but a por
tion of the Chronicle’s able editorial:
‘‘It is time, The Chronicle believes, to pat the Alaska
Development Board on the back for taking the initiative j
in going after a new paper industry, at least one unit of i
which seems well assured for the Thomas Bay area.
A little over a year ago the board sensed that the time
was ripe to interest outside capital in producing news
print in Alaska. The nation’s newspapers were crying
for more print but neither American nor Canadian mills'
were willing and ready to answer the demand.
The development board and Manager Henry Clark
decided that the existing paper industry wasn’t going
to go out of its way to come to Alaska with new mills
because the existing shortage was bidding up the price
and these mills enjoyed a fine profit without putting out
new capital against a somewhat risky future. So the de
velopment board took the bull by the horns and went
after the newspaper publishers who lacked print but
had plenty of money with which to build their own
news print mills.
The success of the Southland plant in Alabama has
been known for some time in newspaper row. That mill,
started merely to assure southern publishers of a steady
supply even though it lost money, has paid almost from
the start. Recently when its officers decided to double
capacity, banks in Alabama and Texas quickly supplied
financial backing at reasonable rates, demonstrating
that the paper industry had proved its stability. So, con
cluded the Alaska Development Board and the news
paper publishers of 11 western states who were con
sulted, the same thing might work in Alaska.”
It begins to laak as though we rr>ay have a pulp indus
try in Alaska. For this fact which means more to the
Territory than any development in many years, we have
both the untiring and persistent efforts of Frank Heint
zleman and the constructive work of the Alaska Devel
opment Board to thank. Frank Heintzleman has done a
job in this respect which should earn him the gratitude
of every Alaskan, and the Alaska Development Board,
if it had only this job to its credit, would have paid its
way a thousand fold.
HALF THE WOHUTS A STAfiC—
-——————B^MI
VK WO*
CMH*
m
We chance to have personal knowledge that some of
the more important Pacific coast newspaper publishers
who are interested in Alaska pulp are disposed to forget
the cheaper labor, the lower taxes of Canada and the
cheaper pine of the southern states in favor of what
Alaska may mean to the Pacific Northwest in the long
range. They are, however, still concerned over the abor
iginal claims with which the great crusader Ickes fur
nished William L. Paul, Jr., of Juneau a livelihood so
long as he can get away with it.
The resolution which provides that the receipts from
disputed lands will be held in a special fund until the
rights of the Natives have been determined is eminently
fair. No one who merely sought justice could offer any
possible objection to it. It has the backing of the Depart
ment of Agriculture and of the Department of the Inte
rior and is being opposed only by those who would ex
ploit the Natives. Alaskan forests are of no value to
anyone . . . Natives, the United States, or Alaska—
without exploitation based on conservation through
utilization.
Congress, all the members of which should, for their
own sake and the sake of theii* constituents, be interest
ed in the development of Alaska, should not delay the
passage of this resolution.
We cannot refrain, in closing this editorial, from
again quoting from the Ketchikan Chronicle and joining
with that publication in paying our respects to the late
unlamented Territorial legislature:
“We think, too, that it is time to pay just respects to
those noble legislators who though the development
board should die. For a few thousand dollars in promo
tion, Alaska stands to attract an industry that can pro
duce 1,000,000 tons of newsprint per year worth, at
present prices, about $92,000,000. That is more than
all the fish, fur, gold and timber were worth that Alas
ka has produced in any single year in the past. On the
cornerstone of the first big paper mill should be graven
the names of those men of little wisdom who let their
hatred for the governor and his dreams of a better Alas
ka becloud their judgment and betray their constituents
at home.”
THAT’S THAT By bruce gustin
Because of a provision in the
new law permitting unions to be
sued for damages for breach of
contract, the CIO steelworkers
have decided not to sign contracts
which include a no-strike clause.
AFL unions have been advised to
follow the same policy. That is#a
mistake. One of the strong argu
ments for an employer to contract
with a union is that it will give
him assurance there will be no
strike interruption of operations
during the life of the agreement.
The plea that unions cannot pre
vent unauthorized or “wildcat”
strikes is not at all convincing.
Of course President Green of
the AFL and President Murray of
the CIO and other top labor lead
ers turned down suggestions for a
general strike in protest against
enactment of the Taft-Hartley
bill. As loyal Americans, they
could not take any other course.
For organized labor to call a gen
eral strike, as some hot-heads sug
gested, until the new law is re
pealed, would have been outright
rebellion against the government.
And it would have become union
suicide. Men like Green and Mur
day have not worked their way to
to top of the union movement in
this country to engineer its de
struction.
Senator Taft’s blast at univer
sal military training did him no
credit. It is his privilege, of
course, to oppose this proposal.
But his argument that it calls for
“the same military setup which
we went to war to abolish in Ger
many and Japan” is asinine. The
American people have been fed
a lot of nonsensical propaganda.
But they understand they went to
war because the Japs attacked the
United States at Pearl Harbor and
Germany then declared war on us.
Henry Wallace flops around
like a chicken whose head has
been cut off. He’s for one thing
today, and something else tomor
row. He has been advocating ap
peasement to Russia in Europe,
Now, he is warning that Russian
domination of Europe would be a
“disaster.” He has been fighting
the Truman doctrine which calls ’
for stopping Russian aggression in
Europe. And now, in effect, he is
saying that Russian aggression in
Europe must be halted. One can’t
help wondering if he really knows
what he does want.
When President Truman veto
ed the 4-billion-dollar tax reduc
tion1 bill he said the measure rep
resented “the wrong kind of tax
reduction, at the wrong time.”
That the proposed tax-cutting
bill would encounter a Presiden
tial veto was taken for granted.
Even if the change in time met
one of Truman’s objections, he is
still committed to the theory that
the measure calls for “the wrong
kind of tax reduction.” But the
idea of making the tax reduction
effective six months later than
originally proposed appealed to
many Democrats.
The President’s complaint that
the tax cut proposed was “the
wrong kind” was based on the ar
gument that it would give more
relief to the people in the high in
come brackets than to low-income
groups who need it most. While
the cuts ranged from 30 per cent
for the low-income brackets to
10.5 per cent on the largest in
comes, the savings in dollars nat
urally would be largest for those
in the upper brackets. They pay
the most taxes. When taxes were
increased, they were hit hardest.
In any reduction on a percentage
basis, high income groups are
bound to get the most relief.
Even if President Truman were
correct in his stand that Congress
was proposing the "wrong kind”
of tax relief, what did he offer in
the way of tax reduction? Abso
lutely nothing. "The time for tax
reduction,” he said in his veto
message, “will come when general
inflationary pressures have ceased
and the structure of prices is on
a more stable basis than now pre
vails.” Which reminds one of that
“prosperity - is - just - around-the
corner” talk heard during the de
pression.
There should be no argument
about whether we should reduce
taxes or the national debt. Both
can be cut. Republican adminis
trations, after World War I, slash
ed both taxes and debt. Fred Rog
ers Fairchild, professor emeritus
of economics, of Yale, recently de
clared in the Tax foundation’s Tax
Review that “in the third year af
ter the end of the war, a tax load
is proposed which is seven times
the amount collected in 1940.” He
warned that taxation at ihis level
"discourages thrift and saving,
dries up investment and weakens
the motives that lead men into
business ventures.” Of course he
is right. The need for tax relief *
is critical.