THE NOME NUGGET
Published Monday, Wednesday and Friday by The
NOME PUBLISHING CO.
Nome, Alaska
Telephone: Main 125 P. O. Box 6i«
$1.50 PER MONTH S16.00 A YEAH
W. A. and EMILY BOUCHER.Editor*
Entered as second class matter October 14. 1943, at the postoftir*.
at Nome, Alaska, under the Act of March 3, 1879.
Monday, March 17, 1947
ST. PATRICK’S DAY
A Tough Problem
(By Barnet Nover)
FIFTY YYEARS AGO, a very short time in the life of
nations, Great Britain’s world position appeared to be
as impregnable as the Rock of Gibraltar.
Queen Victoria was then still on the throne of an em-,
pire upon which, as Englishmen proudly proclaimed,
the sun never set and which took in a fourth of the land
surface of the earth. In those days, Great Britain was
the world’s banker, the greatest of all trading nations,
the mistress of the seas.
Yet even then, in what looked like the heyday of Bri-,
tain’s grandeur, a few preceptive individuals who, look- j
ing behind the facade of wealth and power, detected
signs of debility and decay.
One of these individuals was Brooks Adams, younger
brother of Henry Adams and scion of a family that had
given two Presidents to the United States.
Writing at the end of the last century, Brooks Adams
declared categorically that England’s supremacy had
ended. But he warned his fellow Americans, in language
that is amazingly contemporaneous, that this fact con
cerned them very greatly.
“The United States,” he said, “must shortly bear the
burden England has borne, must assume the responsi
bilities and perform the tasks which have within human
memory fallen to the share of England, and must be
equipped accordingly. Such a proposition may well occa
sion anxiety, since few Americans can feel confident
that the antiquated administrative machinery we have
inherited from the last century is adapted to meet such
a strain.”
Adams was fully aware that Americans, having lived
for a century in a state of untroubled isolation, would
hesitate long before assuming the responsibilities that i
fate had thrust upon them. He pointed out, however,1
that:
“Timidity never yet averted disaster, while safety
comes from an intelligent appreciation of situations as
they arise, and from preparations for emergencies.
Questions of domestic administration can be relegated
to the future of which they appertain; for the moment ;
our foreign relations, which will brook no delay, may
well absorb our attention, for they involve peace and
war. For nearly 100 years England has acted as the con
taining power, or balance wheel, of the world; but if
England is really losing her vitality, she can no longer
be relied upon to perform that function and until a new
equilibrium can be attained each community must fight
for itself in every corner of the globe.”
The process of decay in Britain’s imperial power, which
Brooks Adams noted half a century ago, has not reached
a stage which we can ignore only to our immense peril.
The action of the Labor government in asking the
United States to take up the financial burden which
Great Britain has been carrying in Greece is only one
of numberless signs of declining British vitality.
Indeed, it is precisely because the men in the Krem
lin have been fully aware of Britain’s weakened state
that Russia has done all in her power to accelerate the
devolution of the British empire.
Russia’s target has not been Great Britain alone, how
ever. Her target has been the capitalistic west of which
Great Briatin, even in her decline, is still an important
factor but whose most important unit is the* United
States.
The problem that now confronts us is the most serious
and the most disturbing that has faced us in a gicat j
many years.
It is not a problem that is easy of solution. It cannot be
solved simply by attempting to shore up Britain s rick
ety structure in Greece or elsewhere. Nor is it enough
to depend alone on our financial and economic might to
maintain that balance of power which we must perpet
uate if there is to be peace in the world. Rich and strong
as we are we are not rich and strong enough for th it.
Xor is it within our power or in our interests to tak
over the British empire. Yet a policy of aloofness and
indifference, a policy of letting nature take its course
would be equally ruinous to us.
In Greece and anywhere else, where circumstances
demand that we intervene to prevent a bad situation
from developing into a dangerous one, we must, ahove all,
pursue an American policy. We cannot bolster the bal-i
nee of power merely by supporting reactionary and[
feudal elements whom, in the Middle East, Greece and
elsewhere, Britain has only too often backed up. Thej
only foreign policy which the United States can afford
to pursue anywhere in the world is a democratic policy.
To insure our interests we must first of all be true to
ourselves.
One Man’s Opinion By Walter kiernan |
Mr. Truman put a novel twist on the “good neighbor j
policy by becoming one. ... It was an uphill battle but
the fellow who was billed as an understudy has begun
to run away with the play. ... I hear that when they
asked Harry if he wasn’t afraid to get close to an active:
volcano he said “Not after what I’ve been through at
home.” . . . He’s so popular in Mexico today that if the
Democrats don’t watch out, Jorges Pasquel will be bid
ding for him.... Meanwhile Harold Stassen is in Europe
building a background of foreign affairs for the Repub-!!
lican nomination race—If he doesn’t win he can write
a book. . . . The Authors league is always open to those
who can’t make the Republican league.
- ,1
Sen. Robert A. Taft, (Rep.) of Ohio outlines the Re
publican program in Congress: “We must correct four
teen years of confusion and unfilled promises. We must
complete the transition from war to peace. We must
modify control so as to release the productive energies
of industry, labor and agriculture.” j
PUTTING ON HIS OLD GRAY' SPRING BONNET
THAT’S THAT By bruce gustin
i
- <
It is certain now that there is
one way the federal government
can prevent strike paralysis of the
nation. In case of a strike threat
against an essential industry, the
President can order federal seiz
ure. And the federal courts, by in
junction, can prohibit the strike.
Under the United States supreme
court ruling in the John L. Lewis
case, employees of an industry
!>
which has been taken over by the
government has a right to injunc
tive relief in a dispute with its own
employees.
The seizure powers of the Pres -
dent were granted to cope with
wartime emergencies and are soon
to expire. But in the Supreme
Court decision, upholding con
i tempt of court convictions of
Lewis and his United Mine Work
*rs. Congress had a blueprint to
guide it in enacting permanent
anti-strike legislation.
Congressman Bartley (Rep.) of
New Jersey, chairman of the
House labor committee, has the
right idea. “We must now give the
attorney general or the President
the power to use an injunction
where the public welfare is af
fected,” he says. “The Supreme
oart decision was based only on
j case where the miners were
o:'K ng for the government. We
must enact legislation covering all
workers, whether they are work
ing for the government or not, so
long as their striking would affect
the public welfae.”
The Supreme Court decision in
the Lewis case removed much of
the uncertainty about what Con
giess can do to protect the public
interest in industrial disputes
which endanger the economic wel
fare of the whole nation. Congress
Knows now that the Norris-La
CJuardia act, limiting the use of in
junctions in labor controversies,
ioes not apply to the federal gov
ernment as it does to private em
ployers.
There is a warning to other ar
ogant, power-crazed labor leaders
n the spanking administered to
l^ewis by the Supreme Court. No
ndividual, or organization, can ar
-ogate to himself or itself the
power to decide what the law is
ind defy the courts. Chief Justice
Hinson made that very plain when
ie said in the majority opinion:
“The interests of orderly gov
'rnment demand respect and com
pliance be given to orders issued
py the courts. One who defies the
public authority and wilfully re
uses his obedience does so at his
peril.”
The chief justice declared that
Lewis and his uhion “deliberately
-efused obedience and determined
lor themselves the validity of the
injunction) order.” He branded
the course taken by the union “a
serious threat to orderly constitu
tional government.” That clearly
is what it was.
This Supreme Court decision
means the finish of Lewis. Tne il
lusion that he was omnipotent, •
. . •. i i i i i
uoove me law, so miginjr ne tuuiu
defy the United States govern
ment, has been blasted. The $700,
000 fine which the Supreme Court
has decreed the Mine Workers
union must pay for following him
blindly in contemptuous defiance
jf the government should be
enough to open the eyes of a lot of
his followers. Lewis’ influence as
a labor leader has not been de
stroyed. But confidence in his lead
ership has been shaken.
President Patterson of United
Air Lines said in address that the
recent rush of air chashes has
“aroused the people and Congress
to the need for improved electron
ic landing devices at airports.”
Failure of the civil areonautics ad
ministration to utilize available
equipment of this character has
provoked considerable criticism.
Read Admiral Reeves, commander
of the naval air transport service,
was quoted nearly two months ago
as saying the navy and army had
130 ground-con trolled approach
radar sets in storage and that these
could have been borrowed by the
CAA.
The expense of these ground
controlled approacn radar sets
which make blind landings safe is
one of the excuses given for failure
to use them more extensively.
They cost about $112,000. But that
is less than the cost of a serious
crash. And it is reported that the
new models, instead of requiring
five radar operators, need only one
to handle the landing of an air
plane.