TIIK 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.
Monday, March 3, 1947
T1h‘ Iii«£ Problem
(Daily Alaska Empire)
WITH THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION nwlv
halfway mark, little or nothing has been done on the
prime problem facing the Territory this year—a hu^e
proposed budget for the next biennium with anticipated
revenues so far short of raising the money it is ridiculous.
Indications are that several existing taxes will be in
creased. But even then, the anticipated revenues would
be far short. On the other hand, little attention seems to
be given to cutting down on expenditures. Indeed, from
the many bills now introduced and yet to be introduced
asking for appropriations in addition to those contained
in the huge budget, one would think that the legislators
are completely unaware of the serious problem they face
Another serious problem that has been touched on
only briefly is the effect upon the Territory’s economy
of the additional burden on our educational, health and
welfare facilities in caring for large numbers of Indians,
Eskimos or Aleuts, formerly cared for by the Federal
government. In the educational field, the problem is
most severe. Commissioner of Education James C. Ryan
attempted during a recent trip to Washington to talk
the Office of Indian Affairs into paying tuition to the
Territorial schools for those of native blood enjoying
the Territorial facilities. In spite of the fact that tuition
is paid in all of the States, nothing apparently could be
done for Alaska. This problem is so serious that it should
warrant special investigation. This is one reason for
much of the Territory’s additional expense.
Needless to say, unless some means of reducing the
budget to a figure approaching the $6,000,000 mark, the
unhappy taxpayer is going to get it in the neck.
A year ago, during a special session, a bill was passed
establishing the so-called sales tax of one per cent for
the purpose of raising funds to aid our returning veter
ans. This tax will continue until March 31, 1949. While
the average Alaskan realizes the good purpose for which
his pennies go daily under the law, nevertheless it is an
additional burden on his pocketbook, which will be get
ting thinner as the days go by. A much-heralded cut in
his Federal income tax probably will not materialize
this year for the wage earner. The average Alaskan will
most likely continue to pay 20 per cent of what he earns
to the Federal government.
If a Territorial income tax, which probably will be
proposed during this session unless proposed expendi
tures are greatly reduced, becomes law this will add to
an already heavy burden. It has been reported that a bill
will be introduced specifying that the taxpayer pay an
additional tax of at least 10 per cent of what he pays the
Federal government to the Territory. This would take
another two per cent of his income. Some would have
you believe that this Territorial income tax could be
simply deducted from the Federal tax, which is not at
all true. It is true that a large part of such a tax could
be used by large corporations and businesses to reduce
the Federal tax. Little opposition is to be expected from
them. But Alaskan wage earners may feel different.
A Campaign Worth Waging
(Anchorage Daily Times)
THE JONES ACT has become a subject of daily con
versations throughout Alaska. It has been found obnox
ious for it discriminates against the Territory in the
matter of shipping.
People in all walks of life have learned that this act
prevents Canadian ships from calling at Alaskan ports.
They have learned that it is a deterrent in the develop
ment of trade and commerce between Prince Rupert, B.
C., and Alaskan ports.
Section 27 of the Act is the target for criticism in the
north country. This section sets for the obnoxious pro
hibition. It declarcs'that none other than an American
vessel can carry freight originating in the United St L s
from a Canadian port to the Territory. It is disci min
tory in that it does not forbid the moving of the jm 1
freight from the same port to any other port on th > wo
coast of continental United States.
Thus Section 27 was an effective piece of legisiaii-w
designed especially for the purpose of shutting out C <
nodian shipping from Alaska commerce. The law also
prohibits Canadian lines from carrying freight between
two American ports, thus shutting out this competition
irorn Seattle shipments heading north.
The Jones Act did not have this discriminatory clause
against Alaska in its original draft. The bill was intro
duced and passed in the House without it. The infamous
section was written into the bill as an amendment while
the measure was pending before a Senate committee.
Probably only a half dozen Senators were aware of its
insertion at the time the bill won Senate approval and
went back to the House for concurrence.
Blame for this amendment has been heaped by Alas
kans on Seattle. They have been rather open in voicing,
their disapproval and citing it as one of the “raw deals’'
they have gotten from that trading center. This conclu
sion has resulted from the fact that a lobbyist employed
by the West Coast ship operators succeeded in havingt
the amendment placed in the bill. i
The law was passed in 1920 without consultation with
Alaska’s Delegate Dan Southerland. When he discov
ered what had been done he introduced, in 1922, a bill
in Congress to remove Section 27. His bill was lost ;n
the shuffle and further attempts toward the same have
failed throughout the 27 years that have passed.
Today there are new endeavors being made to obtain
an amendment that will remove this objectionable fea
ture from the Jones Act. Some optimism prevails in cer-i
tain quarters that it will be accomplished.
From the Alaskan point of view, a change in the law
would permit the development of regular trade a id
commerce between Prince Rupert and Alaska. It would
permit the movement of freight from Minneapolis, Chi
cago and other points of the nation to Prince Rupert by
rail, thence north by water.
This is seen as one method of lowering living costs be-|
cause the rail tariff to Prince Rupert from the East is;
the same as to Seattle or Portland. At the same time, the'
water haul would be considerably shortened.
Alaska is brave in fighting for this amendment and
the odds are stacked against them. Politically impotent
for lack of Senate representation or even one Congress
man with a vote, they will be opposed vigorously by the
powerful lobby of the American railroads, as well as
the American steamship operators. The railroads as well
as the steamship men will resist this move. It would
throw a lot of business to the Canadian railroads as well
as the Canadian steamship lines.
Despite these odds, Alaskans are serious in their en
I deavors to rid their commerce of this obnoxious discrim
| ination. The campaign may endure many years, but it is
( certainly worth fighting.
M\w&
By GEOROE S BENSON
mi Harding Coll»g«
Saaicy. ArharaM
- ^
PATTERN FOR PROSPERITY
| Switzerland is a small country
without seacoast, without natural
resources, without enough fields to
produce her necessary food. The
non-homogeneous people—one part
speaking German, another French,
and a third, Italian—add to her do
mestic difficulties.
Under these conditions Switzer-1
land should naturally be expected
i to be one of the very poorest na
tions in Europe. On the contrary.
however, Switzerland had before
the war, and has yet, the highest
per capita wealth in Europe. This
little country pays the best wages
known in Europe anJ maintains
the best living conditions for her
workers. Why.' How"'
A Way and A Will
Why should a peopl» with the
least possibilities come out with
the highest average wealth, high
est wages, and best living condi
tions? Simply because Switzerland
as the right formula ror piosperity
plu the will to mane the f irmula
a ark. Switzerland <s proof to the
varld that any nation can have
prosperity. There- are just three
i luirements:
1. Switzerland ?ias a real repub
■, hrough which the citizens re
e ve to themselves real individual
vedom. Nearly all laws touching
in' I ves of the people are made
» illy ,n districts called “cantons,”
co ‘responding roughly to our
‘ s. Even the amount of income
ax to be paid by the people of
. i canton is decided locally. Po
litically responsibility is a reality.
And real freedom of individual op
po tunity exists.
Ownership Pays Out
2. Switzerland has the right type
A economy. All industry is pri- ,
vately owned and operated. Indi
vidual ownership of property is
encouraged and protected. A high
percentage of people own their
own homes and their farms. Thrift
is encouraged by both the local
and national governments.
3. Switzerland has equal respon
sibility placed by law upon both
labor and capital. Industrial peace
is encouraged, both by local and
national government. Ii dustrial
cooperation prevails throughout
the nation.
Switzerland is living proof that
these three conditions will bring
prosperity to any country, regard
less of the quantity of its natural
resources. The Swiss do not put
the eye of aggression on their
neighbors, in a search for "living
room.” Content with the v own
mountains, they have found that
the resources of individual iree
dom, sane economy, and hard
work can give them all they want.
These moral resources the Swiss
can call their own.
Retain the Formual
France, adjoining, with plenty
of natural resources and abundant
fertile fields, should now be the
most prosperous country in Eu
rope. Instead she is one of the
poorest. Her socialistic form of
government, her nationalization of
industry, and her industrial chaos
have made prosperity impossible,
despite natural resources. France
hasn’t the right formula.
America, for 150 years has had
the right formula. In our own
land we have achieved the highest
wages, and the best general living
standards ever known. We ha^e
had the natural resources. 3ut
more important, we have treasur
ed these same moral resources
that have made the Swiss great.
We have had freedom of oppor
tunity. We have made the formula
work. Shall we keep the formula
and keep prosperity, or desert the
formula and revert to mediocrity
for everybody?
Firms Receive
Tax Refunds
WASHINGTON, (/P)_The Boe
ing Aircraft Co., with refunds to
taling $2,984,434, topped the list
of tax refunds made in the Wash
ington state and Alaska by the in
ternal revenue bureau in the year
ended last June 30.
The list was made public today
by the House committee on execu
tive expenditures, as provided by
law. Other refunds included:
N. J. Bovard, Juneau, $9,449; H.
E. Carter, Port Yukon. $4,996;
Henry J. Emard, Anchorage, $34,
086; Sibyl T. Ferris, Ketchikan,
$11,044; George Hanley, Fair
banks, $4,569; Healy River Coal
| Corp.; Anchorage, $8,361 excess
profits; R. B. Kri/.e, Fairbanks.
, $4,342.