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 S16.00 A YEAR
Entered as second class matter October 14. 1943, at the postoffice
at Nome. Alaska, under the Act of March 3, 1879.
Wednesday, May 5, 1948
CALCULATED RISK
(Cincinnati Enquirer)
The American government's top-echelon decis
ion to stand firm at Berlin and to use force if nec
essary to maintain its supply lines into the German
capital city is the most risky step in a long series.
But it is a risk which has been calculated carefully,
we may be certain. It entails the risk of an incident
which conceivably could precipitate war. But it
involves that risk at a time when we know thfe So
viet Union is trying for cheap victories, when it is
not looking or a showdown by force.
Berlin is still the hub of Germany. Outright con
trol of Berlin would give an immense advantage to
the Russians. Controlling Berlin and all surround
ing territory of their zone, The Russians would be
able to organize a German Communist party, under
some other name, which would spread its tenacles
through all the three Western ocupied zones. In
this sense, an American retreat from Berlin would
be something akin to an abandonment of West
ern Germany.
Psychologically, the evacuation of Berlin by the
Western Allies would be a disaster to Europe. It
would be a signal to the Scandinavian states, and to
Italy and Turkey, for example, that the Western
democracies are pulling out of Europe. It would
be their cue to make the best terms they could
with Moscow. And the terms would be harsh.
We cannot ignore the extreme gravity of this
friction at Berlin. But grave though the risk may be,
it is not nearly so grave as the alternate risk—
which is the risk of a Sovietized European Contin
ent. Such a combination of the Soviet Union and
Communized European nations would be more than
we could match from our resources of manpower
and productive capacity in the Western Hemi
sphere.
What your government is doing can be stated
simply. It is taking a calculated risk of war in the
near future—a war we could win ultimately—in
order to avoid the far larger and more sinister risk
of a different sort of war 10 years from now—a war
we could possibly not win.
The alternatives may not be quite that sharply
defined. All sorts of things can happen. But from
what we know of the Nazi threat to the world in the
1930s, it is clear that a firm policy by France and
Britain in 1935 would have deflated the world su
premacy ambitions of Adolf Hitler.
Our position is not so different now. Replacing
Britain and France as the primary source of democ
ratic strength, we face a different dictatorship, but
also one bent on world power. Firmness now holds
a reasonable promise of saving the world from the
utter catastrophe, a decade from now, which is
spelled out all too plainly in the patern of Soviet
expansion westward.
This is the sort of risk which calls for courage and
foresight. Those are qualities the American people
have in abundance, once the issues are made
clear.
•
THE TORCH STILL BURNS
Pierre de la Motte-Piquet, a French visitor to the
United States, is a grandson of one of the members
of the French committee which 70 years ago raised
funds to make a gift of the Statue of Liberty to the
STILL RADIOACTIVE
United States. Now he asks indignantly that the
statue be returned to France. Why? Citing the
"scandalous incident" of the recent "arrest" of Mme
Joliot-Curie when she arrived in America, M. de
(la Motte-Piquet declares:
The police methods adopted recently by your
government are scarcely different from those which
exist in the kingdom of the Bolsheviks whom you
Americans try to imitate with less openness and
more awkwardness.
A
Granted that the detention of a distinguished
Nobel Prize winner by the immigration authorities
at Ellis Island for apparently no better reason than
that her husband is a Communist was a piece of
bungling stupidity. Granted that this was but one of
a mounting series of inexcusable incidents of offi
cial timidity attempting to "protect" Americans
from possibly unorthodox thinking by a sort of tin
curtain. Granted that this is the outcome of a pop
ular near hysteria that clouds the ideals for which
the Statue of Liberty stands.
Yet has M. de la Motte-Piquet missed the point
that his letter of outraged protest was published by
a conservative New York newspaper? Has he
missed the point that Mme Joliet-Curie was released
and allowed to continue with her lecture tour in the
United States as American newspapers quickly and
hotly attacked the action of the immigration auth
orities? Does he hontstly find this proof of the effec
tive liberty of press and opinion in the United
States "scarcely different" from what he would
find in the "kingdom of the Bolsheviks"?
There are too many unfortunate instances of Am
ericans acting—in the words of a London Times
correspont—like "a panicky old lady." But so long
as free protest and courageous faith in free speech
find expression in the United States, the visitor will
discover the undimmed light of Liberty's torch
reaching even to Ellis Island.
By GEORGES BENSON
Resident mi Harding College
Searcy. Arkansas
A STEP TOWARD
SOCIALISM
Dr. Robert A. Millikan, one
I of the world’s most distinguished
scientists and Nobel Prize winner.
; has referred to current proposals
for federal aid to education as
“another of those efforts to clear
out the cockroaches by burning
the house down." That if right.
More federal aid might bring in
creased teachers’ salaries, which
all of us want. But I stand in con
stant amazement that so many
folks in the education profession
are blind to the tremedous dan
gers of federal aid.
Not to be outdone by those
clamoring for money to be routed
via Washington for public school j
college and university adminis
trators recently climbed on the
band wagon and put in for their
share. At a major conference of
higher education in Chicago*, Dr.
Alonzo Myers of New York Uni
versity proposed a catch-all pro
gram that would call for expend
itures dwarfing those in public
school bills now in Congress.
Among other tilings, this pro
gram would set up an “Educa
tional Reconstrustion Finance
Corporation.” As a government
project, this bureau would no
doubt take bookkeeping lessons
i from RFC and TV A. Both of
these have tucked away millions
of wasted tax dollars. Experts
have said that it will be imposs
ible RFC ever to account for all
its funds. After this ERFC, we
can expect other RFCs for any
group that has enough power and
votes to get the ear of Congress.
Not to be outdone in the scram
ble, educators from several pri
! vate colleges (not state-supported)
i fought strenuously at the above
mentioned conference for federal
aid. Their impelling motives went
like this: in any disposal of fed
i eral funds, we must not be neg
| lected! In other words, as long
as Washington is throwing the
money around, you have nothing
to lose to ask for your share.
To me, all these things look like
poor Americanism. Is this a gen
eration that runs to Washington
and Congress to receive cure for
every -ill that besets the commun
ity? If our local people (states
and communities* haven’t got the
backbone to take adequate care
, of their educational problems,
! then for sure more money from
I the federal government will not
remedy the situation. And that
goes for Arkansas, too.
i But the nub of it is: local com
munities have done plenty, still
j are doing things about local and
state needs in education. I have
no patience with those who hal
low the internal propaganda ma
chine in Russia and call it edu
cation. We have done more to ed
J ucate our youth than any Com
munist country ever will be able
| to do—under Communism. There
is nothing radically wrong with
American education. But there
will be — if we hand over control
to Washington.
Another thing. Our states are
steadily creating surpluses and
are improving their financial cir
cumstances. Not so the federal
government. Ever increasing fin
ancial burdens assumed by the
federal government leave little
hope of even cutting down on the
$260 billion national debt. Why,
then, must we pay toll by send
ing our educational dollars
! through wasteful Washington and
[back? Viewed in that light, “fed
eral aid” is no help at all..
Education is one of the big
gest enterprises in America. When
| we give-over to the, federal gov
ernment the pursestrings for lo
| cal education‘then we have taken
I the long step toward Socialism.
What we must do is get the fed
eral government off the necks of
taxpayers. Then the states can
, collect more taxes and there is
no rime or reason left to get ed
ucation expenses from Washing
ton. We must draw the line on
this dangerous trend. Let’s have
no so-called “fedral aid.”