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 postoffiee
at Nome, Alaska, under the Act of March 3, 1879.
Monday, December 8, 1947
He Has Tm On The Spot
(The Denver Post)
PRESIDENT TRUMAN has asked Congress for au
thorization to apply to inflation brakes more severe in
some ways than the economic controls used during the
recent war.
In view of the President’s statement, made only a
month ago, to the effect that rationing and rent controls
are methods employed by a police state, his message to
the special session of Congress is puzzling to say the
least.
In addition to rationing and rent control authority,
the President is asking for power to impose price and
wage ceilings where necessary, to allocate scarce com
modities, to prevent the building of large inventories of
scarce commodities, to regulate speculative commodity
trading, to check consumer and bank credits, to
strengthen export controls, to allocate transportation
facilities and to induce livestock and poultry growers to
cut down on their use of grain feeds.
Every form of inflationary control which has been
mentioned recently—from the united automobile work
ers’ demand for a return of rationing and price controls
to the suggestion of some of the more erudite economists
for restriction on bank credits—was contained in the
amazing omnibus request from the White House.
The President’s assurance that he does not anticipate
that some of the authority he is asking would have to be
used except in rare instances does not fully explain the
breadth of the program he is sponsoring.
In the time which has elapsed since the “police state”
remark, there have been no new inflationary influences
at work which, conceivably, could make the President
decide that our economic situation has .become so much
worse that even police state methods may be needed.
Within the month, however, he has received warn
ings, from the Harriman committee on European recov
ery, that inflation should be considered a threat to do
mestic well-being and is certain to become a stronger'
threat yet as foreign aid is stepped up.
There is no doubt that President Truman also has
been receiving increasingly persistent advice that the
principal issue in the 1948 campaign is likely to be the
cost of living.
Under the circumstances, it may not be so surprising,
after all, that even such a stanch supporter of free econ
omy as the President has found it advisable to ask for
full power to deal with living costs and even to ask for
more authority that he probably expects Congress to
give him.
At the moment, the President has put himself in a
highly strategic position. If Congress does not come
forth with the grants of power requested, there will be
no difficulty in fixing the blame for any additional infla
tion which may come either from domestic influences
or the diversion of billions of dollars worth of goods to
Europe.
A strategic comeback would be for Congress to grant
the President all the controls he is asking on the theory
that if you give a man enough rope he will hang himself.
It would be difficult, however, for Republican members
of Congress to reconcile any such grant with their tra
ditional stand against a managed economy.
It is significant that the President’s address to Con
gress dealt but briefly with European relief. The big
tussle on that issue will come not in the preliminary
event but in the main bout over the Marshall plan.
The President has pushed the living cost problem into
the center of the arena and he has the Congress in a Bad
spot right from the opening gong.
“WHY DID THE CHICKENS CROSS THE ROAD?”
LEFT
. A
No Cut-Rate Solution For European Aid
(By Palmer Hoyt)
RARELY, IF EVER, has there been such unanimity
of agreement as existed in Congress at the opening of
the special session on European aid. Rarely, either, has
a Congress set to its tasks with such a thoroughness of
information available to guide its decisions. These two
observations are closely related, *for it is the weight of
detailed exidence on Europe’s needs which has produced
this general understanding of the problem and its solu
tion. . '
There is no room for doubt that Congress will pass
legislation to meet both the immediate emergency and
the long-term requirements of European recovery.
Whatever disagreement exists bears not upon the need
for European aid but upon “how much” and “on what
terms.” No doubt, on those questions there will be stren
uous debate.
On both of these points, Congress may well ponder
the sober and hardheaded recommendations of the Har
riman committee.
First, as to how much aid we should give, Secretary
Harriman’s fact-finders have established that the
United States simply does not have goods available to
meet the full extent of Europe’s requests. They have
recommended that the Paris program be cut by one bil
lion to one and one-half billion dollars for the first year
and by up to 5 billion dollars over the four years. The
over-all cost, they said, should be held to between 12
and 17 billion dollars for the four-year period. This com
pares with the Paris request contemplating between 16
and 19 billion dollars from the United States. Possibly
other savings may be made, but such efforts must not
be allowed to compromise the objective. If there is any
“water” in the program, it should be wrung out; but it
must be recognized there is no cut-rate solution to the
problem.
Secondly, as to the terms of our aid, the Harriman re
port sets forth a sensible outline. Politically, there
should be no “strings” attached other than that the par
ticipating countries should “continue to follow demo
cratic principles.” The committee wisely refused to
grant any merit to the suggestions of Harold Stassen
and others “to let socialization of industry in any coun
try be a berrier to American aid.” Such interference in
the internal affairs of other nations would be fatal to
the program.
Economically, the Harriman committee would re
quire that the participants “take all practicable steps”
to reach the production goals they set for themselves in
i Paris. Further, they should, by vigorous budget balanc
I ing, taxation and retrenchment, get their own financial
situations in order. The emphasis here is that Europe
! will be expected to do everything within its capabilities
to help itself. It must be borne in mind that real recov
ery must come from within Europe, lacking which any
i aid which we might give would justify the critics who
call this program “Operation Rat
hole.”
Lending urgency to the program
is the ominous background of
Communist-fostered civil strife in
i France and Italy. It is only a mild
1 preview of what will come if the
, recovery program fails. Without
j thinking, the Moscow puppets of
those countries may be insuring
their own ultimate defeat by fur
ther impressing Congress with the
real and pressing nature of the
European crisis.
Cascading events of recent
weeks have conclusively shown
that international Communism is
working desperately to consolidate
its hold in eastern Europe.
i The resistance to Communism
has already been smothered in
Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. In Hun
gary, last summer, the Commun
ist gained control, and have been
liquidating opposition leaders ever
since. Those who have avoided li
quidation have done so only by
flight. In Romania, Juliu Maniu,
aged Peasant leader and several
j times premier, and eighteen code
fendants have been convicted on
patently trumped-up charges of
treason—the name by which Com
munists condemn any opponent.
In Romania, also the non-Com
munist foreign minister. Georgi
Tatarescu, has resigned and been
replaced by Anna Pauker, long
time women Communist leader
and official in the Comintern. And
in Poland, the flight ot^Stanislaw
Mikolajczyk prefaced the dissolu
tion of his Peasant party as an ac
tive body of opposition to the gov
ernment, when pro-Communist
, leaders took command.
Now, from Czechoslovakia,
! comes further news of Commun
i ist efforts to assume complete con
trol. As in all these countries, the
Communist party is a minority
] group. In Slovakia, the southern
half of the country, they polled
only 30 per cent of the total vote
while the Slovak Democrats got
162 per cent. Yet now five Com
munist members of the Slovak
board of trustees have resigned,
and demand resignation of the re
mainder, who are anti-Commun
ists. If communist premier Cle
ment Gottwald appoints a new
board, it will be a Communist
controlled board, and another sec
tor of eastern Europe will have
been made free from democracy,
i Communism is making its big
fight for control in these countries
now, for obviously it wants no
wavering from eastern Europe
(when the plan for European re
j construction finally swings into
! action. But if the Marshall plan
• succeeds, there is good reason to
, believe that Europe will watch,
and that Communism will lose.
Thai’s That
By BRUCE GUSTIN
Rationing and price-fixing are
police state methods. That’s what
President Truman said recently.
And he was absolutely right. But
now he is asking Congress to give
him authority to impose police
state methods on the American
people. He wants power to insti
tute rationing, to impose price ceil
ings and to control wages. Resort
to these police state methods, he
argues, is necessary to hold down
the cost of living. His “cure” is
worse than the disease.
During the war, the American
people submitted to police state
controls as a matter of necessity.
They allowed bureaucratic dicta
tors to tell them what and how
much they could eat, and to fix
price and wage ceilings. The war
is over. But the President wants to
fasten another yoke of regimenta