THE NOME NUGGET
Published Monday, Wednesday and Friday by The
NOME PUBLISHING CO.
Nome. Alaska
Telephone: Main 125 P. O. Box 618
$1.50 PER MONTH $16.00 A YEAR
W. A. and EMILY BOUCHER..Editors
Entered as second class matter October 14, 1943, at the postoffice at
Nome, Alaska, under the Act of March 3, 1879.
Friday, February 1, 1946
•
THE PACIFIC BASES
(Seattle Post-Intelligencer)
Rep. Bertrand W. Gearhart of California has ex
pressed apprehension that the recent appeasement of
Soviet Russia at the expense—and to the detriment
of the American occupation of Japan has ominous impli
cations with respect to the future status of other Pa
cific areas.
The American navy has classified 23 Pacific islands,
including many of Japanese sovereignty before the re
cent war, as essential to American defense in the Pa
cific.
But more than five months have elapsed since the end
of the Pacific war, and the American government has
made no move to establish American sovereignty over
these islands and in fact has been mysteriously silent
about whatever policy it intends to pursue respecting
them.
Representative Gearhart wonders if this inaction and
silence portends further appeasement of Russia.
He says:
“Russia is showing an inordinate interest in interna
tional trusteeship for the former Japanese mandated j
islands.”
The record of Russian success in the promotion of her j
interests is certainly not one to be dismissed lightly.
In Europe, the major Russian interest has been to
bolshevize her neighbors—and that has been largely
achieved, in consequence of abject appeasement and su
pine yielding by America and Britain.
Moreover, observes Mr. Gearhart:
*
I
“At the recent Moscow Munich, we yielded more of |
the things Russia needs to bolshevize the world.
“Appeasement of the Soviets has been more clearly
than ever defined as our only known state department
policy.
“What is more logical than to expect that this same
policy will be applied to the Pacific bases?”
There is something more than speculation or sus
picion to support this expectation.
Russia has already taken over the strategic Kuriles,
lock, stock and barrel—and with full sovereignty.
Russian forces are in sole and permanent occupation
of me whole of Sakhalin, previously occupied jointly
with Japan.
Permanent and powerful Russian air bases are in pro
cess of establishment on the vital Spitzenbergen Pe
ninsula, dominating the shortest airways across the
Arctic.
Russia confidently expects and blandly intends sole
occupying authority, if not ultimate sovereignty, in
Hokkaido, northernmost of the main Japanese islands—
that having been her main purpose promoted at the
Moscow conference.
Thus, there has been no obscurity about Russian in
tentions or procrastination in her pursuit of them.
Having achieved much through appeasement, Russia
may be expected to seek more in the same manner—
with the Pacific islands as her next objective.
There is indeed abundant reason for the apprehen
sions of Representative Gearhart, and for his conclu
sion that:
“The silence of the state department, the inactivity of
the house naval and foreign affairs committees, are
ominous.”
WITIMS FC* A FACT-FlHOCR
_ __ —
STATE OF THE UNION
(Seattle Post-Intelligencer)
President Truman’s report on “the state of the union”
to the Congress was made at a critical time in the na
tion’s affairs, and it reflects the great anxiety of the
American people over the critical state of their affairs.
Of course there were other urgent matters for the
President’s attention, but the blotting out of the na
tion’s productive life by strikes is the thing that most
immediately concerns and worries and frightens the
American people.
Mr. Truman’s hopeful expressions about the pros
pects for attaining permanent international peace
through the United Nations Organization are interest
ing—although not very convincing in the light of the
news from Iran and Korea and Palestine and Greece
and other disturbed places of the earth where there
seems to be neither peace nor peaceful intention.
But with the nation facing industrial stagnation and
universal unemployment and actual food famine, all
because of the spreading wave of strikes, it is the strike
“situation” that compels major attention.
President Truman knows what national danger there
is in this problem of strikes, as he indicated when he
said in his report to Congress that continued strikes are
putting a brake on the nation’s reconversion from war
to peace.
But the regrettable thing is that the President does
not seem to know what to do about this dangerous situa
tion—or if he does know, he isn’t doing it.
There is a very simple and fair, efficient and honest,
solution to the problem.
What the country needs and all it needs to have free
dom from strikes is a federal system of arbitration, un
der which there will be not only a finding of facts as
President Truman now proposes but binding decisions
according to the facts.
There should be adequate and competent and impar
tial courts to administer the federal system of labor
management arbitration, including a supreme court of
arbitration having the authority and integrity of the
Supreme Court of the United States.
Until we have such a system, the only means of pre
serving industrial peace in the country, we will always
have strikts—which are disruptive and destructive, and
only bring about agreement through exhaustion.
It would be a wonderful thing if President Truman
would propose to Congress a program of legislation that
would not only end the present wave of strikes but
make all future strikes unnecessary and impossible.
But surely the Congress should not continue to sit
back and do nothing about the strikes that are wrecking
the country, simply because the President proposes
I nothing that will correct the situation.
SOLONS' OWN
ATOM BOMB
WASHINGTON — Despite its
general public unpopularity, there
is NO doubt about the effective
ness of the filibuster in shaping
legislation.
It has been recognized as such
for a century. As a matter of fact,
as far back as 1853 there is a re
corded use of the word <it comes
from a Dutch word meaning free
booter or buccaneer) in its politi
cal sense in Congress. One worthy
member whose opponents were
using delaying tactics in blocking
a vote on legislation, charged them
with “filibustering against the
United States.”
However, the filibuster is like
the atomic bomb. The threat of
its devastating result is almost as
effective as the use of the weapon
itself.
Roland Young, in his book, “This
Is Congress,” records an instance
in 1938 when a House-passed
amendment to the Food, Drug and
Cosmetic act, regarding whisky,
was thrown out in conference
merely because the late Senator
Copeland of New York told the-'
conferees that “some of the most
able filibusters in the Senate were
so opposed to it that he could not
accept it.”
This also is an example of
where the filibuster (or threat of
it) had direct bearing on House
legislation. A filibuster itself is
impossible in the House simply
because debate there is limited.
Why, it may well be asked, do
Senators so fear a filibuster, if it
is recognized as a practical legis
lative weapon?
1—Because it does and even re
cently has upset the apple-cart of
a legislative program which a ma
jority of the Senators were eager
to get action on.
The last great filibuster — the
one on the anti-lynching bill in
1938—lasted 29 days. This meant
than for 29 days, even though the
Senate was in session, not one
piece of important legislation could
be considered.
In that instance, the anti-lynch
bill proponents finally had to give
up. The filibusters won. Why?
Because they were blockilng con
sideration of the then vitally im
portant $250,000,000 emergency
relief appropriation bill, as well
as the government reorganization
bill which the administration was
eager to get passed.
2—There is the secondary rea
son that frequent use, or misuse,
of the fillbifcter might lead to fur
ther curb on unlimited debate in
the Senate.
While numerous Senators might
be mad as hops at the southern
Senators for launching a filibuster
against Senator Dennis Chavez’s
bill for establishing a statutory
Fair Employment Practice Com
mission at a time when Congress
has been criticized for diliatory
tactics, there are very few who
would like to see anything done
about it.
Why? Because they real’ze that
if the tables were turned, that is,
if they were in a minority on some
proposed bill vitally important to
their state or section, further lim
itations on debate would make
th' " - . l v? I
a': ow it.