THE NOME NUGGET
^Published Monday, Wednesday and Friday by The
NOME PUBLISHING CO.
Nome, Alaska
__ \
Telephone: Main 125 P. o. Box 618
81.50 PER MONTH $18.00 A YEAR
W. A. and EMILY BOUCHER...Editor*
Entered as second class matter October 14, 1943, at the postoffice
at Nome, Alaska, under the Act of March 3, 1879.
Friday, July 4. 1947
GOP Choice: Cut Taxes For Next
Year, Or Play Politics
REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS can give the people
a tax cut, effective Jan. 1 next. If they want to.
They have let the President’s veto stand, and may do
nothing but talk about it, and thereby keep alive an is
sue.
No doubt about it, it’s a good issue—to get votes. The
Republicans tried to give a tax cut to 49 million income
tax payers, effective July 1. The President vetoed it,
and the House sustained the veto. To voters who read
on the run, and haven’t followed the nuances of what
has happened, it looks as though the Republicans are on
the side of the taxpayer, and the Democrats against.
But the full truth may spread. It will show that the
Republicans, by their blunders and politics-playing
strategy, are largely responsible for this impasse. They
made their first big mistake by failing to do their duty
under the reorganization law, which required Congress
within three weeks after it convened, to fix an over-all
ceiling on government spending for the next fiscal year.
The Republicans haven’t yet fixed that ceiling,, and
they control both houses of Congress. They are still
flouting the law, still shirking their responsibility.
Their second mistake was in trying to make the tax
cut retroactive to Jan. 1 last.
Their third was in delaying action five months and
grudgingly compromising—too late—on the July 1 date.
All the time there were plenty of Democrats who would
have gone along, had the GOP been willing to make the
tax cut effective at the start of the next calendar year.
The Republicans chose instead to try to embarrass
the President. To those who know the score, it would
appear the Republicans, themselves, cannot be unem
barrassed by what has happened.
It is still not too late to end tax uncertainty, and as
sure taxpayers that their burdens next year will be
lower. If Congressional leaders will bring out the same
tax bill, with only one change to make the effective date
Jan. 1 next it would attract much Democratic support
and probably would be passed. .
Our guess is that the President would sign the bill.
His principal objection to the vetoed bill—and a good
one, too—was that it did not leave enough surplus for
retirement of public debt.
That objection would not apply to the new bill. In the
unlikely event that a vote to override became necessary,
plenty of Democrats would help the Republicans do the
job.
The New Labor Law
(Rocky Mountain News)
The Senate, overriding President Truman’s veto,
made law of the Taft-Hartley labor bill. And the Su
preme Court upheld the socalled anti-Petrillo Act.
Thus one day brought two events of profound signifi
cance to the future of labor relations in the United
States.
It marked, we think, the end of a long era in which
organized labor, pampered, protected and made power
ful by an indulgent government, has had the upper
hand and has behaved with far too little consideration
for public welfare and its own best interests.
It marked, we hope, the beginning of a new and bet
ter era.
The union leaders who are breathing fire and threat
ening defiance of the new Taft-Hartley Act would do
well to pause, think, and ask themselves whether it is
not time to change the tactics that brought about the
inevitable passage of this law.
If they want a timely example of the lack of wisdom
in these tactics there is James C. Petrillo, boss of the
musicians’ union. His is an autstanding symbol of arro
gance, of dictatorial methods, of restrictive practices,
of abuse of power. Eminent labor lawyers advised him
to defy a law intended to curb his activities. The Su
preme court, they said, would never let Copgress do
that to him.
But the Supreme Court spoke for itself. Mr. Petrillo
now must face trial and the authority of Congress is
sustained. That’s thought food for the union lawyers
who—just as the Liberty Leagues 58 famous lawyers
did with the Wagner Act. in 1935—are taking it upon
themselves to declare the Taft-Hartley Act unconstitu
tional.
Employers, too, would do well to think soberly tocn''
There should be no gloating over the enactment of this
new law. Above all, there should be no effort to take
undue advantage of its provisions. And who try to use
it as a union-busting instrument will learn quickly that
the American people—strongly as they demanded cor
rective legislation—will rally with equal strength in
defence of labor’s essential rights and demand new re
straints on the power of predatory managements.
Congress must be vigilant in watching the operation
of the law and prompt to correct defects,, inj’istices and
wrongs if they appear. The promise has been made that
responsible, conscientious unionism is not to be hurt or
weakened. That promise must be kept.
Upon President Truman, who found no good in it and
who called it unworkable, falls chief responsibility for
enforcement and administration of this law. He could
insure its failure, if he were so disposed.
We trust and believe he will seek to give it a fair trial
and a fair opportunity to succeed in its associated pur
poses. That is his duty, now that his judgment of the
Taft-Hartley bill has been overruled by majorities of
68 to 25 in the Senate and 331 to 83 in the House. If man
agement, labor and government accept in good faith the
proclaimed intention of the law, it can be made to work
as a program for industrial peace and sound, continuing
national prosperity.
0
By GEORGE 3 BENSON
President ef Harding College
Searcy. Arkansas
- V
WHO OWNS BUSINESS?
“Who owns American corpora
tions?” That was the leading sen
tence of an Associated Press story
released recently. Point of this
story was that the people own
business. Stockholders of five big
companies in representative fields
added together number l,684,8uB,
or enough people to make the
fourth largest city of the United
States. That is correct, the people
do own our corporations. It is
right for people to 6wn our busi
ness.
I have often contended that in
America you have the people own
ing the wealth and resources of a
j nation in much more direct and
I complete manner than you could
j ever have under any of the &ociaI
| istic dream Utopias. This is ihe
[ straight answer to the Commnnis
I tic dodge that the people aro th.*
i state, to wl)ich must be added the
fact that in totalitarian countries
the state owns the people. In
‘ America the people, in a very real
way, own the wealth and resourc
er of the nation.
"Vested” Interests
If you were to combine the pop
ulations of Nevada, Wyoming, and
Delaware, according to the Asso
ciated Press story, you would still
•
have as many people as own the
American Telephone and Tele
graph Company. A city composed
of the 700,000 A. T. & T. stock
holders would be the tenth largest
in the country. Moreover it is sig
nificant that this corporation’s.
stockholders far outrank in num
ber its 500,000 workers.
This is generally true of Amer
ican corporations, and when you
add the stockholders to the em
ployees, you strengthen your pic
ture of America as a place where
the masses have “vested” interest
in the wealth of the nation. The
stockholders of the richest rail
road in the land, the Pennsyl
vania, outnumber the employees
almost four to three. They live in
every state of the Union, and on
the average own 60 shares repre
senting an individual investment
of about $1,200.
We're All Dependent
We think of General Motors,
biggest automobile manufacturers,
as having a lot of employees. Yet,
except for a brief period at the
peak of armament work during
the war, General Motors’ stock
holders have outnumbered em
ployees for 17 years. More than a
third of General Motors individu
al stockholders have holding of
10 shares or fewer. No single per
son owns more than 1.5 per cent
of all General Motors stock.
While it is remembered that
sometimes large blocks of stock
will be owned by other companies,
it must be kept in mind that these
companies in turn have many
stockholders. Notable also is the
fact that many educational, char
itable. and religious institutions,
as well as non-profit associations
and foundations, are on the rolls
of “big” business. No one knows
just how many persons may be
dependent upon the successful op
erations of our corporations. In
the truest sense, all of us are,
either directly or indirectly.
Economic Freedom
Some Communist is likely to
say at this point that he cherishes
the prospect of all these “soul
less” corporations being owned
by, and operated for, the state. If
it’s revenue he has in mind, we
recall that only once during the
six-year period from 1935 to 1941
did tax receipts collected by Uncle
Sam from individuals exceed that
from corporations. Many other
costs of the state are borne by this
people’s business. Besides various
excise taxes, we would have to
add also much of what is called
“income taxes” of individuals.
Most of the nation’s wealth has
its source in the enterprise of a
carefully conducted business. Nat
ural resources must first feel the
hands of the men at the wheels of
machines. I cannot imagine why
any free American would wish to
trade what we have in this coun
try for any part of the vague eco
nomic systems that have produced
only failure. Not only have these
other systems failed to produce
real blessings for their people in
the form of higher living stand
ards, but they have brought slav
ery instead of economic freedom.
Warn Prospective
Settlers About
Alaska Conditions
(By Ross Cunningham)
(^Associate Editor, Seattle Times*
’ ANCHORAGE, —1The~e is one
th:n«i that cannot be overempha
sised to prospective Alaska set
tlers:
“Don’t come here unless you
know what you are going to do
and where you will live.”
Anchorage’s ball park is the
best illustration of this point. Peo
ple are sleeping there in sleeping
bags. The boom that struck An
chorage at the outset of the war
is still booming—its population is
up from a pre-war period to 13,000
Boats, trains, airplanes and auto
mobiles are pouring hundreds
more persons into the city.
The Alaska housing authority,
a Territorial agency, calls the sit
uation “terrific” and reports there
is no relief in sight because the
building industry has “priced it
self out of the home building mar
ket.” It cites that a standard two
story home will cost from $11,500
to $15,000.
“Home builders must compete,
not only with the tremendous
army program, but also with an
unprecedented amount of com
mercial and industrial construc
tion, * the Authority reports.
And s^jli people come and write
for information on coming. The
Alaska Development Board re
ports it has had 6,000 inquiries
from prospective settlers since
March, 1945.
During April and May, 1947,
1,500 vehicles loaded with settlers
and their paraphernalia drove in
to Alaska over the cross-Canada