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.
Friday, January 9, 1948
Why Odds Are Against A New War
(By John L. Springer—(/P)Newsfeatures Writer)
IF ANYBODY is betting on chances of war on a basis
of past performances, the odds now are against it.
There are mose examples in American history of
serious international arguments having been settled
peacefully than there are of those that culminated in
war.
As against six declared wars in which the United
States has been engaged since the Revolution, there
have been ten “times of tension” which ended calmly.
War talk has been prevalent during much of the coun
try’s existence.
The colonies had barely got going as a united govern
ment when it looked as though they might have to bare
muscles against France. That was in the 1790’s, when
the revolutionary French government tried to get
America to take its side in its conflict with half a dozen
European powers and Britain.
When the U. S. refused to intervene the French began
to hit at American shipping and demanded a loan as ap
peasement. All America took up the cry of Charles
Cotesworth Pinckney, ambassador to France: “Millions
for defense, but not one cent for tribute.”
Gen. Washington was beckoned from retirement to
command the hastily forming army, American seamen
armed their merchant ships and there were numerous
skirmishes at sea.
War clouds grew blacker and even his bitterest po
litical enemies announced their support of President
John Adams’ foreign policy. Abruptly, in 1799, the new
French dictator Bonaparte offered a peace treaty.
There was another close call in 1846 after the Demo-'
crats had elected James K. Polk President on a virtual
war platform sloganized as “Fifty-Four Forty or Fight.”
Under the terms of the Louisiana Purchase, the U. S.
claimed it had rights to all northwest territory right up
to the 50° 40' latitude at the Alaska border. The British
had long maintained a counter-claim, and when discus
sions got nowhere war talk began to mount. Finally,
however, an agreement was reached putting the Oregon
boundary at the forty-ninth parallel, its present border.
America had three other brushes with the British. In
1863, John Bull grew apoplectic over the “wanton in
sult” given by U. S. Marines who stopped a British
steamer carrying two Confederate envoys on their way
to Europe. President Lincoln hastily put an end to the
war-like noises by releasing the envoys.
Also during the Civil War the British built and
loudly applauded the successes of the famed Confeder
ate cruiser Alabama and other vessels which preyed on
Union shipping. Northern hot-heads were all for taking
on the British too. And the feeling was reciprocated
Throughout the early part of the Civil War Britain and
France both appeared eager to step in the struggle
against the “up-start Yankees.” Historians say the
Northern victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, how
ever, convinced them they were backing a losing cause.
In 1895, when Britain allegedly violated the Monroe
Doctrine in the Venezuela-British Guiana boundary dis
pute which had been going on for more than half a cen
tury, President Cleveland accused her of “willful ag
gression.” He threatened to “resist by every means” any
British appropriation of mineral-rich lands which the
U. S. regarded as Venezuela. In that case a “get tough”
policy paid off because the British public, recoiling from
the “unthinkable horror” of war, put pressure on their
government to arbitrate.
Waving the big stick helped produce peace in several
other delicate situations.
(When Napoleon III tried to set up a French empire in
- for ..
Jtefense
'but, i
iOTONECEKf
for _' - J
Tribute^'!
• I
Mexico during the Civil War and was slow in removing
his troops Union veterans oiled their-guns for action.
Napoleon, sick of the whole Mexican business anyway,
ordered the army home.
Twice a show of strength averted what might have
developed into out-and-out shooting with Germany. In
1889, when a German consul hoisted his flag on Samoa
—over which the U. S. had joint claims as a protector- j
ate—and when German sailors trampled the American
flag in the streets, President Cleveland rushed warships
to the scene.
The willingness of the U. S. to intervene in a matter
involving a remote little island—plus a hurricane which j
put both naval forces out of effective action—are be
lieved to be factors which led the German Chancellor
Bismarck.to agree to a joint protectorate over Samoa
by U. S., Germany and Britain.
Thirteen years later Theodore Roosevelt saw red
when German warships blockaded Venezuelan ports to
enforce a claims settlement.
T. R. charged the Germans with trying to get some
control over the approaches to the Panama Canal, then
building, and he ordered Adm. Dewey to be ready for|
action on an hour’s notice. Roosevelt then demanded
arbitration at the threat of war. The German emperor!
backed down hurriedly.
There had been tense moments in 1891, too, when a
Chilean mob killed two American sailors in Valparaiso
and injured several others. This argument was settled
when the Chilean government apologized and paid
$75,000.
Relations with Mexico were strained during World
War I. In 1914 the U. S. intervened against the new rev
olutionary government there and the navy even held
Vera Cruz for several months 'But that did not develop
into declared war, nor did the crisis in 1916 when Pres
ident Wilson sent troops under Gen. Pershing to search
out the bandit Pancho Villa who had raided the town
of Columbus, N. M.
Bookies trying to establish odds on war or peace
would not find the whole answer in what happened in
the past, however. It’s always easier to figure what
made the last war “inevitable” than to tell whfct the cur
rent situation really portends.
I
Special Session Argument
(Fairbanks Daily News-Miner)
ACCORDING to reports from the First Division
pressue is mounting to have the Governor call a special
session of the legislature to doctor the Territory’s fi-i
nancial ills. There also is, in the same division, some vo
cal opposition to such action. Rumblings of the same ar
gument have been heard here.
For reasons not hard to determine, the debate rages
mostly over whether it is worthwhile to spend $50,000
for a special session, considering that the session would
be managed by the same legislators who failed to bal
ance the budget at the regular session. That may be r
fine talking point, but as a point of action it lacks any
positive bearing on the problerm
Those who advance the “pounding sand in a rathole’
theory assume that the Territory’s lack of money is do
ing to the schools, the health and welfare departments.
Their assumption is that the people of Alaska need to
undergo the tortures of an empty treasury just so they
will be more careful what kind of legislators they send
to the 1949 session.
Those who favor the special session do not consider
the political medicine worth what
it would cost, even if the curative
special session does mean an ex
penditure of $50,000 out of a treas
ury that is practically extinct.
These sources believe the legisla
tors have been taught the error of
their ways and that they can pro
duce a balanced budget this time.
In evaluating these two stands
it is necessary to know that the
majority o/ the 40 legislators
voted to balance the budget. It is
also necessary to know that part
of the opposition to the income
tax bill was based upon claims
that the bill itself was not proper
ly drawn. These facts diminish
somewhat the impression that
the legislature was opposed to the
idea of an income tax.
Editorial Bylines
Canada Does Her Part
While there is much discussion
of the United States’ aid to Eu
rope, not so much attention has
been given to what Canada has
done.
Canada has loaned a total of
$1,850,000,000 to European coun
tries. In terms of relative popula
tion that is equivalent to a United
States outlay of $20,350,000,000.
In terms of national income, it is
roughly equivalent to an Ameri
can outlay of $27,750,000,000.
To the world’s need in war or
peace, Canada makes a bold and
sacrificial contribution. But she
does it quietly, without fanfare.
It is a sturdy and noble people
that we have to the north of us.
Canadians are a bulwark of de
mocracy and decency. We are for
tunate in our neighbors.
—Jack Foster
And No Back Talk
One of President Truman’s
Christmas gifts is a short-wave
radio transmitter, no bigger than
a cigarette case, developed by sci
entists at the National Bureau of
Standards.
So now, Mr. Truman is equip
ped to go on the air whenever he
pleases, day or night. And his
vest-pocket broadcasting station
has an advantage which, we sus
pect, he may appreciate more than
most peoole would. It is a one
way device. He can speak into it,
but he hears nothing in return.
Plenty of times the President
must wish that he could talk to the
American people without so many
of them talking right back at him.
For that purpose, however, his
tiny transmitter has restricted
usefulness. Its range is only about
200 feet.
200 Feet.—Rocky Mountain News.
Money Talks In Russia
The Voice of America reports
the Russia people started to run
on banks when they learned some
thing was about to happen to the
ruble. Those who could, appar- ^
ently withdrew their savings and
started buying goods.
After 20 years or so of trying to *
make intellectual robots out of
the Russians, it must come as a
profound shock to Soviet leaders
to discover that, in a crisis, the
Russians, behave like people. And
to add humiliation to the shock,
they appear to be acting like—of
all people—capitalistic people.
—Lee Casey
The General Was Careless
Let us accept the explanation of
General Graham, personal ohysi
cian to President Truman, that he
turned his money over to his
broker to invest as the broker saw
fit. And that he didn’t know that
grain had been bought for hi* ac
count until the speculation issue
was raised, at which tim« he „
promptly told the broker to sell
all of his commodity holdings, win