THE NOME NUGGET
Published Monday, Wednesday and Friday by The
NOME PUBLISHING CO.
Nome. Alaska
• i i ■—■■ i .i.-i —i - i .. ■' .
Telephone: Main 125 t*. O. Box 618,
•1.50 PER MONTH 516.00 A YEAR
■ II - . .
W. A. and EMILY BOUCHER.Editors
Entered as second class matter October 14, 1943, at the postoff^
at Nome, Alaska, under the Act of March 3, 1879.
——■———^— I ■ II ■ ■■ ■ M .
I
Monday, July 14, 1947
, I
i
A Bill Of Goods In Richmond !
(Anchorage Daily Times)
AN EDITORIAL OPPOSING statehood for Alaska,
and urging, instead, more federal control over the Ter
ritory, was published recently by the Richmond, Va.,
Times-Dispatch. It was reprinted more recently by the
Juneau Empire, apparently in keeping with a policy to!
oppose statehood only indirectly by publishing those!
things unfavorable to it.
The Richmond editorial is a rare document. It is rare
because few, if any, of the great newspapers of the na
tion have seen fit to oppose statehood for Alaska. It is
rare, too, because the thoughts expressed wore all the
badges of the thinking of H. L. Faulkner, Juneau lawyer
who appeared before the Congressional committee at
recent statehood hearings.
The Richmond newspaper claimed that Rep. Law
rence Smith of Wisconsin was sold a “bill of goods”
when he proposed to Congress a seven-point program
for the safeguarding of Alaska. Three of the seven points
pertained to non-military aspects of Alaskan develop
ment and the Richmond newspaper selected these three
for its editorial discussion.
Representative Smith cited as essential to the nation
that (1) there should be a campaign to increase the civ
ilian population of Alaska, (2) rail and truck facilities
be improved and (3) statehood for Alaska is essential
for national defense purposes.
There is general unanimity among Alaskans con
cerned with the development of the Territory, that
these three points are elementary in any development
program. They are supported by the President of the
United States, Secretary of the Interior, War Depart
ment, and other agencies concerned. The Chambers of
Commerce of Alaska are almost unanimous, as are civic
clubs and a great majority of Alaska residents, as evi
denced by the statehood referendum last October.
Only a select few, most of whom represent special in
terests, refuse to recognize the facts. Only these die
hard seek to confuse the issue and perpetuate the sta
tus-quo in business and in government.
It is clear that the Alaska point of view, like the na
tional interests, parallels the thoughts expressed in such
a succinct and commendable manner by Representative
Smith.
The Richmond newspaper declared that migration to
Alaska is unfeasible because the fisheries are already
fully developed, mining is crippled under present eco
nomic conditions, and there is nothing for additional
residents to do for a livipg.
The newspaper’s opposition to rail and road improve
ments was rather ambiguous. It was based on the con
tention that the only existing line, The Aldska Railroad,
is in deplorable condition and the terrain of the Terri
tory would not permit construction of a road along the
coast from Ketchikan north.
As for statehood, the newspaper recited Mr. Faulk
ner’s ridiculous figure that it would cost Alaska $15,
359,614 a year over present Territorial governmental
costs, and that the Territory cannot afford it.
The newspaper pictured Alaska as “drying up” as
business died and residents left due to confiscatory tax
ation.
Statements in the editorial are so notably similar to
those made by Mr. Faulkner before Congress, that it is
almost safe to say he wrote it.
This, to Alaskans, is highly important. Mr. Faulkner
is the attorney for a long list of fisheries, mining and
other corporations which constitute that influential
group known as “absentee Alaskans.” His clients form
the same powers that (1) opposed any form of civil gov
ernment for Alaska during the first 17 years after its
purchase, (2) opposed enactment of the first Organic
Act in 1884, (3) opposed creation of the office of Dele
gate to Congress in 1906, (4) enactment of the second
Organic Act in 1912 under which Alaska was allowed to
have its own legislature, (5) favored the infamous and
discriminatory amendment in Section 27 of the Jones
Act in 1920.
Indeed, Mr. Faulkner represents the opposition oi
historic standing in Alaska’s 80 years of continuous con
stant struggle for self-government. It is the same oppo
sition against which Alaska must struggle to achieve its
destiny as a full-fledged state with the loval sovereign
ty necessary before this vast northland can become the
vital part of the United States essential to defense and
beneficial to its economy.
It is a pity that a great newspaper in the great city of
Richmond would be so blind as to seek perpetuation of
the step-child existence of Alaska. In Richmond Patrick
Henry made his famous speech in 1775 ending “give me
liberty or give me death.” In Richmond the Viginia
Session Convention was held in 1861. Agents of the king
failed to sell that city a bill of goods in 1775 and the peo
ple there were willing to brave a war of secession in
1861 whey they were convinced they were being op
pressed.
Alaskans can be confident that a brief study of the
background and present problems of Alaska would be
sufficient to enlighten the Richmond newspaper on
statehood, roads and .the population. It is unfortunate
that the “agent of the king” was allowed to “sell a bill
of goods” and use the editorial column for a most dis
torted and speculative bit of propaganda designed to
prolong the 80 years of struggle for self-government.
THAT’S THAT By bruce gustin
Believe it or .not, the federal j
government finished the fiscal!
year which ended two weeks ago
with a surplus estimated at three
fourths of a billion dollars. That:
was the first time in seven; eet.|
years that the treasury ended a
year in the black. Considering the
fact thal federal revenues this last
year amounted to the astronomi
cal figure of 42 and one-half hil- (
lion dollars, this three-fourths bil
lion-dollar surplus is nothing .to
bring out. That the federal gov-|
ernment in peacetime should be j
spending 41 and three-fourths bil-1
lion dollars in a twelve-month pe- j
riod is scandalous. During the j
most profligate spending of the
new deal, federal expenditures did
not exceed 9 billions. There is no
reason why national government
should cost three times as much
now as before the war.
Russia swallowed Latvia, Es
tonia and Lithuania and destroyed
the sovereignty of those states.
She imposed her political will
upon Poland, Romania, Bulgaria,
Hungary Austria and Yugoslavia.
She went the limit in meddling in
their internal affairs. But now
Foreign Minister Molotov has
turned down the British and
French plan for European rehabil
itation on the ground it would
“enable foreign powers to impose
their will on other states and con
stitute interference with their sov
ereignty.”
How drafting a reconstruction
plan for European countries and
specifying the extent to which
each can help in its own rehabili
tation would constitute “interfer-’
ence with their sovereignty/’ is
something nobody but the Rus
sians can figure out. The bitter
fact must be that the Soviet gov
ernment does not want any speedy
rehabilitation of Europe. While
hunger and distress are rampant,
the Russians think the chances are
better for the spread of Comfnun
ism. Most of all, they are against
this rehabilitation move because it
would be financed largely by the
United States and they don’t want
European peoples to find out how
much better American capitalism
works than Communist totalitari
anism does.
Stubbornness on both sides ex
plains the wool bill veto. Propon
ents of the measure insisted upon
including a provision which they
knew the President would not ac
cept and which was wholly un
necessary. The President made a
mountain out of a molehill by in
terpreting this part of the bill as
“a blow to our leadership in world
affairs” and “a first step” on the
road to economic isolationism.
The controversial provision
would have given the President
discretionary power to impose im
port fees or quotas on foreign
wool. It did not require him to
take such action. It merely permit
ted him to do so. Even proponents
of the bill did not expect he would
take such steps. But because he
has this power with respect to a
score or more agricultural proj
ects, they insisted upon it. All that
was sought—price support for
wool and authority for the Com
modity Credit corporation to dis
pose of wool it now holds and will
acquire in the future—could have
been had without the import fee
and quota provision. Now Con
gress is in process of passing the
bill without the disputed section
and in a form President Truman
, will accept. It might better have
done that in the first place.
1 The A. F. of L. Clothing Work
ers union paper, Advance, is pre
paring to publish, as a challenge
| to the constitutionality of the Taft
: Hartley bill, a list of Senators
! “who performed a hatchet job on
j American workingmen and wo
men” by passing this measure
1 over President Truman’s veto. An
i Associated Press dispatch states
| that such a list “comes under pro
j visions of the labor bill prohibit
ing union political activity and
banning printing of lists of Con
gressional voting records in union
i newspapers.’* The bill doesn’t do
any such thing.
The new labor law says “it is
unlawful for any national bank,
or any corporation organized by
authority of any law of Congress,
to make a contribution or expendi
ture in connection with any elec
i tion to any political office” or in
; connection with any campaign. It
provides penalties for any corpo
ration or labor organization which
makes any contribution or expen
diture in violation of this section.
But the interpretation that this
prohibits union newspapers from
publishing a list showing how
' members of Congress have voted
i is utterly fantastic. If such were
] the intent of the act, it would be
plainly unconstitutional as viola
1 tive of freedom of the press.
1 Senator Arthur Capper (Repub
lican of Kansas) says “Washington
today is uneasy. It feels tensions.
! It senses tremors abroad. These
tremors may portend a world
earthquake in the making.”
t _
Italy has two other leaning
towers besides that at Pisa, the
163-foot Garisenda and the 320
foot Asinelli at Bologna.