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
S1.50 PER MONTH $16.00 A YEAR
Entered as second class matter October 14, 1943, at the postoffice
at Nome, Alaska, under the Act of March 3, 1879.
— ■ — ■" ' ■■ ■ -■■■ — .. ■ -- '
Monday, June 7, 1948.
~--*»--- • — —. - -... .1
ZEALOUS BUT UNIFORMED
WAS EXPECTED, leaders of organized labor
led in urging compulsory sickness insurance up
on the National Health Assembly recently held in
Washington. The situation was ready made for such
<3 .propaganda move. President Truman, who is an
advocate of compulsory sickness insurance ,called
the conference, and in his address bespoke its adop
tion.
However, the championship of this system by a
number of labor people noes not carry as much
weight as on most issues. There is almost no com
pulsory sickness insurance in the United States or
Canada. Experience with it has been mostly Euro
pean. Hence American labor has practically no first
hand knowledge of this governmental program and
is not commonly posted on its drawbacks. Labor
here, for instance, is little aware of the many vol
umes that have been written on the problem of
malingering or feigning sickness in order to obtain
cash payments. !
There are ,though, some labor leaders who know |
the handicaps of the system—particularly the men
who have had experience with sickness insurance
in their unions. They have observed a number of
their members claiming sickness so as to receive
cash payments, especially in times of unemploy-;
ment. They have seen union sickness funds depleted.
While a few unions have been forced to djop their
own sickness insurance. As labor becomes better j
informed on this subject we may expect its zeal
to cool.
TO UNITE EUROPE
Unity or catastrophe is the choice before Europe,
according to Winston Churchill. A host of Euro-'
peans agree with this blunt appraisal—and are do-j
ing something about it. One hopeful grass?roots|
effort is represented by the gathering in The Hague
in the early part of May of 700 delegates to the
Congress of Europe.
It has no governmental sponsorship. It was organ
ized by a number of groups like the European Par
liamentary Union and leaders like Count Couden
hove-Kalergi who have long labored for European
unity. Possibly because non^Socialists like Mr. Chur
chill (the keynoter) and Edouard Herriot and Paul
van Zeeland are prominent in the project the So
cialists have officially frowned upon the meeting.
But many Socialists are attending, and there is evi
dence of wide popular support throughout west
ern Europe. This kind of unofficial action, this
kind of popular support, are essential to the success
and extension of governmental steps, such as the
Brussels five-power "Western Union" pact.
At The Hague the chief division appears to be
not between the left and right but between all-out
federationists and those who would go a little fur
ther than an organization resembling the Pan Am
erican Union. Proposed constitutions for a United
States of Europe—providing for common citizen
ship, currency, and defense forces—will be ad
vanced, threshed over, and improved. Theorists
and practical politicians will help one another to
find clearer views of what has to be done.
Some of the obvious stumbling blocks are the
old problems on nationalism—suspicion of "foreign
ers" vested economic interests which resist free
trade; vested political interests which preffer anar
chy to loss of power; plus plain apathy. It will be
TIME TO STAND ON HIS OWN FEET
necessary to break some of these eggs to make
the omelet of United Europe. But Hitler made quite
a start with the egg-breaking business. And many
Europeans have noticed the kind of unity another
totalitarian system imposes. Stalin may prove one
of the principle creators of European union.
Ihe aspiring people meeting at The Hague will
have other special and very practical problems.
What is to be done about Germany? Mr. Churchill
is urging his old French comrades to find a new
fellowship with the western Germans and to allow
them a full economic share in the life of Europe.
There is, too, behind everything, the question of
Russia and the United States. How close should be
the ties of Europe with the United States?
Europe is glad to have economic help from Amer
ica. Many Europeans also are genuinely devoted to
the ideals of freedom which America upholds. But
a majority of Europeans are desperately concerned
lest their homes become a battlefield for war be
tween Russia and the United States. And a majority
for one reason or another do not accept completely
orthodox American views of democracy or capital
ism.
For such reasons they prefer a Europe politically
independent of Russia and the United States alike.
This fact is likely to color even the preliminary
steps toward European union. It is not, it seems
to us, a reason for withholding American support
for that movement. If the choice is, as Mr. Churchill
says, unity or catastrophe. Moreover, there is good
reason to believe that a united Europe would be a
great boon to the United States. Not only should
it be a more effective check upon Communism than
today'-s Europe; it should be a prosperous customer
add friendly neighbor.
(The Christian Science Monitor
RUSSIANS FUG GERMAN STATE
jgERLIN REPORTS in the Socialist press say Rus
sian preparations for setting up an eastern Ger
many state have advanced to the point of mass
producing an "East-Germany" flag. The official
"Sozial Demokrat" reported the flags were being
manufactured in textile factories in Saxony in an
I ticipation of a proclamation of an eastern Germany
government.
This preparation was proceeding, the newspaper
claimed, while Russian propaganda was assail
ing the United States and Great Britain of "separat
ist" actions in plotting the creation of a western
Germany government. According to the "Sozial
Demokrat," the Russian zone flag is red, black and
white—but mostly red. "Production of the flag mod
els," the newspaper said, "was undertaken under
special precautions of secrecy. All who worked on
it were sworn to silence. In addition ,they were told
the product was for export."
$
\LOOXTJVG
I AHEAD
Fir GEORGES. BENSON
^ President—Warding College
B Sea reg. Arkam s
I -
JUST ROUTINE TACTICS
What about the power of the
lie? When a person is sworn
to tell lies under the necessity
of advancing his own purposqg,
then it is very difficult for an
honest man to know how to deal
with that person. This is not a
matter of “viewpoint” I am talk
ing about. I refer to the use of
the lie in the dealings of men.
I mean lack of integrity, as op
posed to the truth and honesty.
The “good” Communist is sworn
to lie. (Unfortunately all the liars
are not in Russia, nor even in the
Communist Party in this country.
Life would be much more sim
ple if they were.) However, am
ong our so-called liberals, and
even the fellow-travelers, there
are those who are waking up to
the fact that disdain for plain
old honesty and integrity is one
of the chief characteristics of Com
munism. I know only one an
swer to the problem of the lie,
that is: the truth.
Morality Needed
If there were only one Com
munist in the world, folks with
truth in their lives could isolate
him easily enough. But when you
admit the tactics of lying into in
ternational relationships, things be
gin to get complicated. It is in
deed a real problem to deal with
nations which lack moral integ
rity, and my sympathies go out
to our statesmen who have to
meet the Communists on inter
national issues.
To illustrate. Shortly after Pres
ident Truman’s message to Con
gress on European recovery, the
Moscow radio announced: “The
essence of the Marshall Plan is
war.” Marshall, the radio said,
was out chiefly to assist Ameri
can monopolies. Mr. Marshall was
called the intimate friend of Wall
Street big wigs.” It seems that
to represent Secretary of State
Marshall as imperialist, monopo
list, oppressor, warmonger is just
routine Communist tactics.
Nothing on Merit
Secretary Marshall is not an
imperialist, and he is not try
ing to conduct a program in Eur
ope in the interest of American
monopolies, and so on, which
fact everyone knows. Even the
i Russians who were saying those
I things knew the statement bwere
[ untrue. Their method of defeat
l ing the Marshall Plan at that
i time was to misrepresent it They
1 didn’t dare criticise it on it' mer
' its.
These statements were designed
of course, for the American pub
j lie. To the American public this
particular incident was perhaps
of little importance in itself. How
ever, it is useful in demonstrat
| ing the tactics used by Commun
ists in America for several dec
ades. These men knew at the
start it would not be easy to un
dermine the American way of
1 life. They realized their best meth
i od was to cause dissension and
i friction among groups in America.
See The Methods
The Communists apparently de
cided that the easiest way to cre
ate this friction would be to set
labor and .industry against each
other. To this end they begin
picking out American industrial
ists and calling them profiteers
and capitalists, disinterested in