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 ..v.Editors
$1.50 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.
Wednesday, May 19, 1948
A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT
(Anchorage Times)
WHEN IT COMES to censorship there are few
people under the American flag better qualified to
talk about it than those Alaskans who lived in the
territory during World War II.
The House Rules Committee of Congress has ap
proved a proposal to impose censorship on certain
information and to punish a reporter who violates
that censorship with a $1,000 fine and a year's im
prisonment. The author of this piece of legislation
is Rep. Clare Hoffman of Michigan.
The bill would permit a congressional committee
to demand any confidential information from the
administration and at the same time, a majority
vote could classify any information a committee
possessed as confidential.
Alaskans could give, the lawmakers some good;
advice, based on their experience during the war:
when they were under the so-called "voluntary" j
censorship. i
HERE IN THE TERRITORY the Alaskans found'
their magazines and newspapers mailed to them
from the states, impregnated with holes cut by cen
sors who deemed various stories and pictures a
threat to the national security.
Thus stories and pictures circulated generally,
throughout the nation, were withheld from the peo
ple of Alaska. No sane reason has ever been given
for this ridiculous application of any program for
protecting the security of the nation and its armed
forces.
Letters written or sent by Alaskans were some
times hardly more than paper streamers when the
censors had gone through them.
Territorial newspapers had the unique experience
of battling with censors who sought to have them
edit or suppress news stories published generally
in the states and sent to them by the Associated
Press.
The experience of Alaskans with censorship was
anything but pleasast. They saw the awful deci
sions made by small-fry men who were too ignorant
and indifferent of the public welfare to use discre
tion .Second lieutenants found their responsibilities
were lighter and fewer questions were asked by
their superiorr when stories were banned than when
they were published.
MR. HOFFMAN'S BILL, if passed, would set a
dangerous precedent of concealment that is out of
place in a democracy. Every Congress, unfortun
ately, has its share of stupid, bigoted, and "kept"
members. This power of censorship would apply
to them, if enough were on one committee to exer
cise it, as well as to the responsible statesmen.
9
The main gripe of thecongressmen seems to be
that newspapers carry stories on their secret ses
sions. The information gets to the newspapers from
the Congressmen themselves. Insteal of compelling
their own members to "shut up" they seek to gag
THE NOT-SO-HOLLOW SHELL
own*#.
r r
a*.
the press with a threat of a heavy fine and prison
sentence.
'‘The press," says Mr. Hoffman, "has no all-in
clusive right and privilege of disclosing information
that is detrimental to the country." It might be an
swered that Congress has no all-isclusive right and
privilege to withhold information from the country
at the caprice of some of its members.
We trust that the whole House will make short
work of Mr. Hoffman's would-be legal sanction of
further secrecy and irresponsibility in government.
There is no reason to expect the Congressmen
would handle the responsibility any more effec
tively than did the second-lieutenants during World
War II.
i
i
POLICING THE WORLD
(Cincinnati Enquirer)
Although the phrase is not heard so often nowa
days, the stock argument of isolationists was that we
shouldn't try to "police the world." In that form, it
was an unassailable argument. We should not try
to do what we could not possibly do. In the changed
conditions of today, we have great numbers of
troops overseas. They literally are policing parts
of the world, in pursuance of agreements among
the Allied Powers.
Clarifying the nation's policy on this matter some-]
what, President Truman declared recently that Am
erican troops would not be sent abroad to keep the
peace in Palestine or anywhere else, except as part
of a United Nations police force. As a corollary of
that doctrine, Mr. Truman added that the United
States is ready to supply its share of armed forces
for any peace-keeping force the UN may establish.
This is sound policy. It insures against our being
drawn into quixotic attempts to manage a troubled
world. It insures against our rushisg into adventures
which would invite criticisih abroad on the ground
that we were committing aggression .Yet it leaves
the way open to give full support to the UN, if any
when it undertakes to use armed force to keep the
peace.
Clearly Mr. Truman's dictum does not mean that
we shall never send troops abroad for any purpose
whatever, save in the UN police force. We already
have many units overseas, on occupation duty. And
we always have the right to dispose our forces as
may be necessary for our own national security.
.LOOKING
f AHEAD
F«r GEORGES. BENSON
^ Prtfldott—Ha rdi»0 Colltft
B Starry. Ark an sat
"AID" OR WASTE?
Suppose your doctor should say,
afier having drained off about
hive Quarts of your blood:
“Why, my poor man, you look
anemic. I’m sorry for you. Out
of my well-known generosity I
am going to give you a half-pint
of blood.” You wouldn’t consider
his reasoning to make good sense.
Yet, the backers of federal aid
to- education, arguing that “poor
er” states are not able to support
de mate educational programs
within their borders, fall back on
that sort of thinking.
For the federal government to
take from Arkansas $98 million
a year in income taxes and then
offer back $6 million in “aid”
because of Arkansas’ poverty, just
doesn’t make sense. If the federal
government would eliminate its
present wasteful spending and re
duce income taxes by only 10
per cent, that alone would be
orth more to the “poorer” states
than passing back to them this
proposed “aid.”
Operation: Wasteful
It must ba remembered that
Washington has no money to give
anybody. The federal government
can hand out only that which it
collects. It can only tax the states
to get money with which to “aid”
the states. We should remember,
moreover, that such aid will al
ways be weighted with bureau
crats and political hangers-on, to
be paid for by the same states
that get the “aid.” The local way
is not only the responsible way,
it is also the economical way. •
The federal government has no
record for the economical opera
tion of anything. Should our pub
lic school system become federal
ly controlled, I would definitely
expect it to become very waste
ful in operation. (Most of our
Indians are educated in federal
schools. The cost per student is
several times greater than in our
regular public schools.) A fed
erally operated school system
would show the same waste and
inefficiency that is typical of fed
eral operations in general.
How to Become Poorer
We have a nteional debt so
monstrous already that there is
mounting concern whether we
shall be able to meet present ob
ligations and maintain economic
stability. Therefore, I look upon
federal economy and efficiency as
an issue of prime importance. The
same thinking that begs for fed
eral aid to education can be al
lowed to wreck the government
by adding financial burden upon
financial burden, when the treas
ury has more debt than anything
else.
As an Arkansas citizen, I am
fully aware of our own educa
tional problems, in one of these
“poorest” states. Yet, we have
trippled our per capita income
since 1939. Scores of new indus
tries have been started in the
state, and our agriculture is pros
perous. We can support an ade
quate school system. What Ar
kansas needs most is a sui'able
reorganization of an outmoded
system, not federal aid as a crutch
for all present weaknesses.
A Real Need
•
As a citizen, you surely know
that the day will never come when
the dreamers cannot dream up