THE NOME NUGGET
Published Monday, Wednesday and Friday by The
NOME PUBLISHING CO.
Nome, Alaska
Telephone: Main 125 P. O. Box 61*
$1.50 PER MONTH $16.00 A YEAH
W. A. and EMILY BOUCHER.Editor*
Entered as second class matter October 14, 1943, at the postoft''**
at Nome, Alaska, under the Act of March 3, 1879.
Wednesday, March 12, 1947
Deciding The Two-Term Issue
(Anchorage Daily Times)
THERE WAS SOMETHING STRANGE in the way:
that the House of Representatives decided the question
of limiting a President’s term of office. The matter at
hand was not a partisan issue, yet the voting was strict
ly along party lines. Or rather, it was the familiar divi
sion of Northern and Western Democrats against their
Southern colleague and the Republicans.
The Republican-Southern Democrat coalition wa: ■
primarily an anti-Roosevelt bloc during the late Presi
dent’s administrations. Much the same feeling seems to
have inspired the division of votes which approved th.
resolution calling for a two-term limit.
This two-term limit has to do with the future. Yet Mr.
Roosevelt’s name came up frequently during the debate.
It was invoked by both sides. Those opposing the limita
tion said the people had decided the issue by electing;
President Roosevelt four times. Those favoring it said
that Mr. Roosevelt had broken an unwritten law by
running a third time, and that this shattered precedent
should be restored and bolstered by Constitutional
amendment.
However, the legislators were also able to discuss the
question in a more constructive and realistic manner.
And both sides put forward some telling arguments.
The pros held that unlimited tenure of office invites
an over-concentration of power, sets up an irresponsible
bureaucracy, and stifles the normal growth of Presiden
tial timber within the party in control.
The antis said that a two-term limit would be impos
ing this generation’s will upon future generations who
might find it necessary, in an emergency, to continue a
President in office beyond two terms. They held that it
was more democratic to allow the voters to choose whom
they pleased for President.
There are certainly dangers and advantages in both
views. It is not hard to imagine a time of national crisis,
such as war, arising near the end of a President’s second
term in which the people would prefer to keep the man
at the helm.
But a power-hungry man in the White House might
manufacture issues and emergencies designed to keep
himself in office. And since a Presidential nomination
is not often a direct expression of popular will, a strong
man backed by a strong machine might continue in of
fice indefinitely.
The question is not one of electing another Franklin
D. Roosevelt to the Presidency—though one might think
so from the looks of the House vote. The question is one
of trying to foresee the most dangerous eventualities
under both the present and the proposed systems. * '
It is doubtful that the people made the final decision
when they elected Mr. Roosevelt four times. The essen
tial issue was not a tradition and a precedent. The es
sential issue was Franklin D. Roosevelt and the complex
circumstances of the particular time.
We should like to see the Senate pass this resolution
and let the people act upon it, in the form of a Constitu-1
tional amendment, through their state legislatures.
Then the question of a two-term limit could be decided
democratically on its own merits, free from the emotion
al distractions of personalities and political campaigns.
It Might Happen Here j
(Rocky Mountain News)
AMERICANS CANNOT AFFORD to be complacent
as they read of the codl crisis in Britain. There is no as
ITS A COLD WORLD__
* vbtkkci '
ir. ance that it can’t happen here.
Only a few weeks ago one man was threatening to
bring the same sort of catastrophe upon this country.!
For all we know, he may undertake on March 31, to shut
down the coal mines again and carry through the threat.
In the industrial heart of England and Wales all fac
tories were closed and millions of workers were idle. In
other sections the use of fuel and power was drastically
restricted. Homes, stores, offices, restaurants were for-t
bidden to use electric current five hours a day. The cold:
was bitter and suffering was intense.
Britain’s crisis was due to a combination of bad cir
cumstances—a rundown and inefficient mining indus
try, a shortage of mine labor, a war-tom transportation
system, the worst winter weather in 50 years.
Jt is hard to see how the Labor government can fairly!
be blamed for the situation, except as it failed to ration
fuel and power sooner, but that government may fall
and the British experiment in Socialism may end, if the
coal crisis continues long.
America’s danger has a different cause. Laws and pol
icies of our government have helped a few men to gain
dictatorial power over key unions and monopoly power
over vital commodities.
The boldest, most ruthless of these men is John L.
Lewis. Earlier this winter he used his power for three
weeks to stop the mining of coal. A few more weeks
md the people of the United States would have been r
straits as desperate as those of the people of Britain to
day.
Lewis ordered the miners back to. work last December
because President Truman, standing firmly against sur
render or compromise, resorted to federal court injunc
tion to protect the country. But what Lewis granted was1
only a reprieve, good until March 31. And he appealed
to the U. S. Supreme Court to hold that the President
has no legal right to protect the country by the means
he used.
Three months have gone. Meanwhile, Lewis and the
mine owners are making no effort to negotiate a new
contract and so to avert another strike on April 1. They
are waiting on the court.
Meanwhile, Congress cannot know what new laws it
may be necessary to write in order to make certain that
America can prevent a crisis as damaging as Britain’s.
By GEORGE 3 BENSON
Resident of Harding College
Searcy. Arkansas
II
- <
PUT ON A LID
If you aren’t a deadbeat and you
expect to stay out of bankruptcy
and you want a decent credit rec
ord, the chances are that you pay
your expenses pretty much as you
go. When emergencies arise, you
watch your budget so that you
spend as little as possible. It’s a
j good old American custom to live
j within income. That’s a practice
i that makes for sturdy citizenship
and for community stability.
But here we are, all of us to
gether as a nation, very much
wanting to cut our taxes but very
leery about reducing budget ex
penditures. The national budget,
you know, represents what we do
with your tax money. It is fine to
shout hooray when taxes are cut,
but it will make more sense if we
first learn to whittle down our
alarming budget without frowning.
A good strong lid on government
-pending is the only sane route to
tax reductions.
A Halt To Spending
The President has proposed a
budget of $37,500,000,000 which
Congress is currently reviewing.
Sentiment exists in Congress for a
ceilling on federal spending much
lower than the budget recommend
ed by the President. Congress, as
soon as possible, should place a
limit of $30,000,000,000 above
which federal spending may not go.
Ultimately, a budget of $20,000,
000,000 ought to be adequate to
run our federal machinery.
Most citizens claim little com
prehension of these astronomical
figures. Twenty billions may seem
more like measurements character
istic of distances to the stars. But
the figure is dollars. This proposed
peace-time expenditure program
of $37,500,000,000 is $9,330,000,000
more than we spent for non-de
fence items in 1946, not counting
interest on the national debt. Mere
ly this increase in peace-time ex
penditures, excluding debt inter
est, is equal to the entire federal
budget for the fiscal year of 1939.
To Get Taxes Down
Burdens on the nation’s econ
omy from federal taxation are es
timated to be ten times as high as
they were ten years ago. Tax relief
is desperately needed now as a
stimulant to the whole economy.
But in the face of our huge war
debt which calls for the earliest
possible retirement, the only way
we can have tax relief and debt re
lief too is to limit federal spending.
Th is astronomical budget means
that almost $300 is asked from ev
ery living American. It is estim
ated that such a budget would cost
the average family $1,000 in taxes
this year. Budget in hand, your
pencil will show you in short or
der that we have no better way to
get out from under our tax bur
dens than to limit our spend ng.
We may cut out taxes without pay
ing any attention to federal spend
ing, but the outcome will be dificit
spending and added debt.
You're Paying Salaries
Senator Byrd says there has
been very little reduction in war
expanded personnel of govern
ment. Not counting the various
war agencies, Senator Byrd points
to constantly increasing personnel
totals. These jumped nearly 300,
000 since V-J Day. Moneywise,
this tendency is graphically shown
by the request of the Department
of Commerce for $261,000,000 in
1948. This is an increase of 600 per
cent over the $39,000,000 this de
partment spent in 1932.
Budget reductions reviewed by
Congressional committees have
suggested elimination of about
one-half million federal payrollers.
This is all too few. To bring the
number of civilian employees of
the government down to the swol
len figure of 1939 we must lay off
1,500,000. (We’d still have 900,000
eating from the public breadbas
ket). This would be a most logical
way to avoid an annual expendi
ture of more than five billion dol
lars. This could be money saved.
It’s out of your pockets and mine.