THE NOME NUGGET
Published Monday, Wednesday and Friday by The
NOME PUBLISHING CO.
Nome. Alaska
Telephone: Main 125 P. O. Box 61H
$1.50 PER MONTH $16.00 A YEAR
W. A. and EMILY BOUCHER.Editors
-- - --
Entered as second class matter October 14, 1943, at the postoffic«»
at Nome, Alaska, under the Act of March 3, 1879.
Wednesday, January 29, 1947
American Sea Power; Force For Peace
(Seattle Post-Intelligencer)
In a recent debate in the House of Commons, a Labor
member of parliament, W. G. Cove, observed that Brit
ish sea power has been supplanted by the American
naval establishment as a dominant force in the world
and that Britain is thus precluded from “solving” its em
pire problems by the traditional use of power politics.
“We have lost the command of the sea and America
now has the biggest fleet the world has even seen,” said
Mr. Cove. “The greatest factor in holding the British
Empire together was sea power, but this has slipped
from us and we have not the power to hold the empire
together on the basis of power politics.”
This raised the question by a conservative member if
the implication was intended that American sea power
endangered Britain’s position in India, to which Mr.
Cove replied:
“I am not saying anything of the kind. I am just point
ing out the stark, naked fact that this war has resulted
in a depletion of power as far as Britain is concerned.”
Mr. Cove is unquestionably right, insofar as the rela
tive naval establishments of Britain and America
emerged from the war, although there has also been a
serious depletion of American sea power since the war, a
fact attested by Admiral Nimitz when he said recently
that the American navy has been reduced by demobil
ization to one-sixth of its wartime striking power.
Nevertheless, American sea power is still the strong
est in the world—and if the American government and
people have the slightest comprehension of their vital
interest they will keep it that way.
For, as Mr. Cove acknowledged, the world’s biggest
navy does not offer a danger as long as it is an American
instrument, and the world’s biggest and best air force!
would not endanger any nation as long as it is in Ameri
can hands—and a combination of the two would be the j
greatest force for world peace ever created.
The American nation demonstrated in the last war!
that it was capable of producing the biggest navy and
the biggest air force in the world, and did exactly that—
thus winning the war and restoring peace, or at least an
opportunity for the attainment of peace.
But it still remains for the American nation to dem
onstrate its comprehension of the relation between an
invincible navy and air force and permanent peace. In
deed the demobilization has proceeded in an exactly op
posite direction—as it did most disastrously after the
First World War.
It is not enough to have been able to build naval and
air forces sufficient to win our past wars. We should be
more concerned about being able to win any future war
in which we may become involved, and especially about'
keeping out of future wars if possible.
Find Middle Ground; China s Challenge
(The Denver Post)
"There will never be a minute when China's destiny is not of
acute concern to the United States and a healthy world."
—Senator Arthur H. Vandenburg (Rep.) of Michigan.
Gen. George C. Marshall in leaving Nanking to take
over as American secretary of state has left the Chinese
with a suggestion for the only possible solution, outside
of a bloody fight to the finish, to their interecine warfare.
“The salvation of the situation as I see it,” said Mar
shall in his report on 13 months of futile attempts to
achieve a peace in China, “would be the assumption of
leadership by the liberals in the government and in the
minority parties, a splendid group of men, but who as
yet lack the political power to exercise a controlling in
fluence.” ,
Marshall sees little prospect of the individuals behind
the two poles of Chinese political thought the diehai ci
Communists on the far left, the Kuomintang reaction
aries to the far right—reconciling their views to the ex
tent of agreeing on a program for China s future.
But he sees, and many others with him, a middle
ground between the extremes where liberals of various
shades, imbued with an honest desire to strive for Chi
na’s welfare, can meet, resolve their differences in the
national interest, and set out on the monumental task of
making the republic of China more than a member by
courtesy of the Big Five powers.
Such a coalition of liberals is no mere Chinese pipe
dream. A nucleus already is present in the People’s
league, an organization of intellectuals (many with
American and European educations) which has joined
Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist regime in accepting the
new constitution, but as a vocal and critical minority.
There are many potential recruits to the cause from
both Communist and Nationalist camps among individ
uals who are neither flaming revolutionaries nor hide
bound reactionaries.
Their logical rallying point is the constitution adopted
last month by a national assembly which the Commun
ists boycotted. Although loosely written and*containing
a number of provisions objectionable to liberals, the
constitution at least provides the Chinese body politic
with a code of government for the first time in its mod
ern history. It is the starting point.
General Marshall’s recommendation of a liberal coali
tion does not differ basically from Senator Vandcnberg’s
proposal that the United States shift its China policy to
encourage the non-Communist coalition backing the
constitution. Vandenberg certainly did not mean the
United States should support the warlords and vested
interests of China’s extreme right. The American people
would hardly stand for that. But it is altogether likely
that a coalition striving to improve China’s lot would
win ungrudingly the material assistance needed to lay
a sound politico-economic groundwork.
An American policy of this nature, of course, is open
to the possibility of Russian opposition. Yet these are
the facts: Russia has pledged in agreements with both
China and the western Allies that she will continue to
recognize the Nationlist regime, and Marshall has stated
he found no evidence of direct Russian support of the
Chinese Communists.
In the long run the opportunity to bring harmony out
of Chinese chaos would seem to justify the risk of a pos
sible friction with Russia, especially in a situation
where the alternative to early settlement is danger to
the future welfare of all Asia.
In the statements of Marshall and Vandenberg the
prospect of American aid is being held out to the Chi
nese people. The next'move, at this stage of the game, is
up to the Chinese themselves.
KELP \oUtt -; t u. w.x .i-ic: tilKUlLS
Thai’s That
by biiUtL uudiiW
The United Slates Senate
a remarkable demonstration re
cently of American unanumty on
foreign policy. Within fiuy-uve
minutes after it received nes.auu
Truman’s nomination or oc,i..4
Marshall to succeed James *•.
Byrnes, resigned, as secretaiy oi
state, that nomination was con
firmed unanimously and wunout
debate. It took tne foreign rela
tions committee only twelve min
utes to recommend confirmation.
Any country which thinks the Ke
publican Congress does not see eye
to eye with this nation’s Demo
cratic President on foreign poncy
is kidding itself.
Communists are trying frantic
ally to find some comfort in tne
state department change. The Lon
don Daily Worker headlined "Ti Li
man Sacks Byrnes” and said that
in the "new Republican setup the
fact is that ‘Jimmy’ is regarded as
an old Roosevelt man.” That, oi
course, is what many Communists
would like to think. But deep
down in their hearts, they must
know that Truman did NOT fire
Byrnes and that whether Republi
cans regarded Byrnes as "an old
Roosevelt man” had nothing to do
with the change. One thing the
Communists can be certain if is
that Gen. Marshall will adhere to
the policy of "patience and firm
ness” toward Soviet Russia which
| the American people have indors
ed with unprecedented unanimity.
President Truman could hardly
have picked a better man than
Marshall to step into Byrnes’
shoes. As army chief of staff aur
, mg the war, Marshall sat in on the
most important conferences at
which both war and postwar poli
cies of the Allies were discussed.
He has a personal knowledge of
the various Allied agreements. He
has the confidence of the American
pubiic as well as of Congressional
icaue.s. And he probably under
stanas the Russians as well as any
boay in this country.
Organized labor, it seems, is
againsi “government by injunc
tion,” only when that means in
junctions against unions. In Mil
waukee the CIO Auto Workers
union , tried to get an injunction
against the Wisconsin employment
relations board to prevent it from
holding an election to determine
the bargaining agency for employ
ees of the strike-bound Allis-Chal
mers plant. But a federal court
held the state board had authority
under state laws to order the elec
tion.
The tow.n and country planning
bill which the British Labor gov
ernment is preparing to adopt
would be a long step toward land
nationalization. Under the pro
posed measure, no new building
could be constructed withoyt gov
ernmental permission. The theory
is that in the reconstruction of old
towns and the development of new
ones and industries all buildings
will be located “in the right
places.” In other words, govern
ment knows best although the gov
ernment is composed of men who,
as individuals, are not supposed to
know where buildings should be
erected.
WASHINGTON, (/P), The House
passed today a measure to keep
taxes on liquor, jewelry, furs, cos
metics and other specially-taxed
items at their wartime levels.
Republican leaders decided to
keep these taxes unchanged and|
aim for a 20 per cent cut in indi
vidual income taxes.