2 THE NOME NUGGET Monday, December 1. 1947
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 . 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.
Monday, December 1,1947
More Than A Miracle
CHANCELLOR LEOPOLD FIGL of Austria has call
ed upon his people to set aside one day of this month for
prayer, and has given them two. definite objectives for
their devotions.
He first asked that they pray or a just and speedy
peace treaty—to be agreed upon at the meeting of Big
Four foreign ministers in London. Then, he asked them
that they pray for rain.
The first request is an important one to Austria, and
very difficult of fulfillment. It calls for agreement be
tween the British, French, Russians and Americans on
all phases of the peace; for decisions that will guide the
political and economic future of Austria. The second re
quest is much simpler. It calls only for a miracle.
A Surprise In Store
9 (The Denver Post)'
ONE OF THESE DAYS the people of Russia are go
ing to learn that the assembly of the United Nations has
voted to set up a “little assembly.”
The reason for creating this new U. N. agency, of
course, was to provide an interim body which could deal
with world problems without being balked at every
turn by the veto power which Russia wields in the U. N.
security council.
The government-controlled press and radio in Russia
has not yet told the people about the U. N. action. Even
though Russia will boycott the “little assembly” by re
fusing to take part in its deliberations, the Soviet peo
ple eventually will have to be told of the U. N. action.
It would be embarrassing to Soviet leaders to have to
admit suddenly to their people that the use of the veto
in international affairs has so aroused the non-Com
munist world that a xeto-proof U. N. agency has been
established.
The Russian people have been hand-fed for some time
on the idea that all the world, except the “imperialistic
and Fascistic” United States, is following the Soviet
lead in shaping world policies.
The Soviet hierachy, therefore, is holding back the
news of the “little assembly” until the Russian people
have been properly prepared for it through propaganda.
When the propagandists get through, the “little assem-,
bly” action, which was a terrific rebuff to Soviet for
eign policy by a majority of the nations, will be made to
look to the Russian people like an unimportant incident j
engineered by Wall Street.
This is the twentieth century—not the fourteenth—j
yet, unbelievable as it may seem, millions of persons in
the largest country in the world have no knowledge of
what happens any place except what their leaders want
them to know.
Government founded on such complete control of
men’s minds possesses a fatal weakness'which makes it
only a matter of time before it is forced to abandon its
system of mental slavery or collapses under the weight
of its own errors.
Power To Tax Is Power To Destroy
(Rocky Mountain News)
TO HIS RECOMMENDATION against taxing any
American’s income more than 50 per cent in peacetime,
Harold Stassen coupled a proposal to assess all fortunes,
above an unnamed exemption, 1 VL» per cent a year.
Mr. Stassen is trying to get at those fortunes made up
of tax-exempt bonds, bank deposits and money in the
mattress—capital—which takes little risk and pays lit
tle or no federal tax. Such so-called idle fortunes, he
thinks, should be tapped to help pay the cost of govern
WHERE SPARKS FLN__
TKU*AHv(£i|
) coH&nss
■ At v *
COK\fOlS
'U>
ment. It is an understandable objective.
What Mr. Stassen is proposing, however, is a capital
levy which would require a constitutional amendment.
Although V/t per cent seems mild, voters might well
hesitate to approve the principle of giving Congress
power to tax what a citizen owns. They have a too re
cent and painful memory of what happened after Con
gress was given power to tax what a citizen earns.
When the income-tax amendment was being debated,
people thought of it in terms of a small levy. It was not
even imagined that the time would come when the gov
ernment would take as much as 86 cents out of the dol
lar, as it does now—and the top rate has been higher.
If the people then had suspected that Congress some
day would take more than half a man’s income, we think
the amendment never would have been approved. A
capital levy might start at 1% per cent, but where
would it stop? If it went the way of the income tax, all
private property soon would be in government hands.
A taxpayer can enjoy a little gentle nostalgia by read
ing the rates in the income tax lax of Oct. 3, 1913, the
first measure passed after the income tax amendment
became effective.
Exemptions then were $3999 for a single person,
$4000 for a married couple. (Exemptions now are $500
and $1000). The regular rate on income above the ex
emption was 1 per .cent. (Bottom bracket rate is now 19
per cent). For large incomes, there was an “additional
tax,” what is now a surtax. Here were the rates:
More than $20,000, not over $50,000—1 per cent (now
it’s 54 per cent to 68 per cent).
More than $50,000, not over $7 ",000—2 per cent
(now, 72 per cent to 77 per cent).
More than $75,000, not over $100,000—3 per cent
(now, 77 per cent to 83 per cent).
More than 100,000, not over $250,000—4 per cent
(now, 83 per cent to 86.45 per cent).
More than $250,000 not over $500,000—5 per cent
(now, 86.45 per cent).
More than $500,000—6 percent (now, 86.45 percent).
Taxes have to be higher now, but, in view of what
Congress has done with power to tax what you earn,
how many will be willing to give Congress also the
power to tax what they own? Not many, we think.
By GEORGE 3 BENSON
President of Harding College
Searcy. Arkansas
A._
NEED FOR UNITY
The United Nations is a young
organization. It was formed about
two years ago and now comprises
55 nations. Dufing the past year, I
it is said, the different divisions
•
have held a total of 1,911 meet
ings. The chief avowed purposes
are to bring peace to the world
and to prevent starvation as an
aftermath of the war. Great sums
of money have been used to pro
j vide food for peoples that are con
sidered destitute.
At first it was thought that 1946
| would be the criitcal year and ev
ery effort was made to get peo
ple through that yea^ Now, we
are approaching the winter of
1947. Some reports say there will
| be more hunger this winter than
last. From various countries in
Europe the reports show no im
provement. These countries are
not getting to their feet so they
1 can stand up and solve their own
problems. And they are not sure
what attitude they should take
toward the United Nations.
Certain Objectives
We are also much nearer to an
other war than we were two years
ago, or even one year ago. Natu:
| ally, then, people have a right to
ask why the efforts of the United
Nations do not meet with greater
success. It would seem there is
enough power and strength in 55
nations to help this muddied
world get somewhere. And surely
enough money has been spent to
help those hungry nations to beg’n
feeding themselves.
The answer is not hard to find.
The United Nations has not dem
I onstrated real unity of purpose.
Even the leaders among the 55
I nations have worked at cross pur
poses. Each nation has been intent
upon achieving certain objectives
of its own. This is as true of the
“Big Four” as it is of the smaller
nations. Therefore, despite the
1,911 meetings and the hundreds
of millions of dollars spent, the
situation has grown worse rather
than better.
No Cross Purposes
It is my hope that in some way
j the United Nations may find unity
I of purpose and intention. The
most I can get out of this present
situation, however, is an import
ant lesson for our own country.
What is the application? In Amer
ica we have found a good measure
of unity, historically speaking.
Though we are made up of states
and other kinds of groups, we
have shown appreciation for the
same fundamentals of democratic
living.
What is true of the United Na
tions as a whole is true of nations
individually. If we are going to
continue to be a prosperous and
healthy republic, we too must
have unity of purpose. Workers,
managers, industrialists, farmers
educators—we must all keep our
purposes controlled in the direc
tion of full unity. If one group
wants to destroy the capitalist, and
another wants to destroy labor
unions, these are at cross pur
j poses
Three Goals
If one group wants to eliminate
private ownership of property,
and another group wants to pre
| <erve Constitutional government,
i these also are working at cross
purposes. If we have everybody
working at cross purposes, then
conditions in our country will
; grow worse reather than better. It
is imperative that the entire nation
be united on fundamentals. It is
I necessary that all groups work
for certain goals.
Right now, I would like to sug
gest three goals we can all achieve
together. First, economy in gov
ernment spending so rigid the
public can see that money is be
ing saved. Second, a program of
maximum productivity that can
attract the enthusiasm of capital,
management, labor, agriculture.
Third, a rededication of all our
groups to preserve individual free
dom for the entire nation. With
this kind of unity right now, in
1947, no one need fear the future
prosperity and well-being of our
nation.