The Nome Nugget
Published Monday, Wednesday
and rrlday by The
NOME PUBLISHING CO.
Nome. Alaska
Telephone: Main 125
P. O. Box 618
$1.80 PER MOUTH
$16.00 A YEAR
A. BOUCHER. .EditorPublisher
EMILY BOUCHER. Society Editor
Entered as second class matter
October 14, 1943, at the Dostoffice
at Nome, Alaska, unde, the Ac
of March 3, 1879.
Friday, April 27, 1945
TIME FOR DISCUSSION
(Anchorage Times)
The American people,
being now in the mood for
debate, might keep right on
with a discussion of the
part they should like to see
this country take in the in
ternational security organ
ization which the Dumbar
ton Oaks conferees have
christened the United Na-j
tional.
It would be a good thing
both for the sake of the i
people and of the public'
servants who will finally!
make the direct decision
on our participation. There
are some divergent opin
ions to be reconciled be
fore we can hope to take
our place in this United
Nations organization. The,
sooner they are tackled
and threshed out, the soon- <
er the government can pro- j
ceed in the assurance that
it is backed by unity and
good will.
Some questions have al
ready presented them
selves: Should the Consti
tution be amended to give
treaty-ratifying power to a
simple majority of both
branches of Congress, in
stead of to the present two
thirds majority of the Sen
ate? How much authority
should the permanent
American member of the
United Nations security
council be given? Would
the use of American troops
in an international armed
action against an aggressor
require a formal American
declaration of war, or
would it be regarded sim
ply as a “punitive action”?
These are only a start.
And there would probably
be plenty of acrimonious
name-calling in these and
later discussions. But a lot
of bitterness might be
avoided if, before the dis
cussions started, responsi
ble spokesmen for various
schools of thought would
define some terms heard
frequently now.
For instance, what pre
cisely does the Dumbarton
Oaks agreement mean by
“peace-loving states,” to
which membership in the
United Nations is limited?
Does “peace-loving” refer
to popular sentiment or
present government pol
icy? Does “state” mean the
people organized under a
government, or the gov
ernment itself?
And what is the “sover
eignty” which some Amer
icans insist must not be
sacrificed to any interna
tional organization? Is it
the sovereignty that our
own states have sacrificed
to the union in defense,
foreign relations, and a
host of other matters? Or
is it “the power that de
termines and administers
the government,” held, ac
cording to dictionary defi
nition, “in the body of en
franchised citizens”?
And what is meant by
the people who say “We
believe in America first.”
First in what? First for
what?
Lasting peace is every
American’s hope. Its pres
ervation is his concern.
The best way to that pres
ervation will not be found
in cryptic credos, vague
warnings, enthus i a s t i c
generalities.
We must know what we
are talking about before
we try to make intelligent
recommendations. And for
that we need some explicit
definitions from spokes
from several shades of
American opinion.
CONGRESS PASSES
FEDERAL RESERVE
LEGISLATION
WASHINGTON, April 26—<£>)
—The Senate today passed and
sent to the House legislation
dropping the required gold re
serves in Federal Reserve banks
to twenty-five per cent of their
deposits and notes in circulation.
The passage of the measure was
by voice.
Under the present law banks
must maintain gold reserves equal
to forty percent of their notes in
circulation and thirty-five percent
of their deposits. The Senate re
jected by voice vote the amend
ment which would have increased
the price of gold to fifty-six dol
lars an ounce offered by Senator
Johnson, Democrat of Colorado.
The United States purchased
Alaska from Russia in 1867 for
$7,200,000.
5PPAKIN6 OP BLACK MARKETS i
AHEAD
IV GEORGE 1 BENSON
\ftmUUMtxPUntlnff College
■t ftarcp.
NATIONAL INCOME
How well a man lives is a mat- :
ter that depends largely upon his j
income and how he divides it. If
he earns $40 a week ($2,000 a
year) and spends every bit of it
on himself, he can live about as
well as anybody until some un
foreseen calamity hits him. If he
has a wife and ^ild and an aged
parent to support, each individual
must subsist on about $10 a week.
How well the people of any na
tion live is a similar matter. It de
pends upon the national income
and how it is divided. Just like
family income, national income
changes from year to year and it
is not always divided the same
way. National income is the grand
total of what everybody in the
nation earns. It includes all
wages, salaries, farm yields, in
terest, rents, profits and divi
dends.
I How About Now?
The United States Department
of Commerce keeps track of our
national income figures pretty
well, year by year. Already we
know that the income of all
Americans totaled 160.8 billion
dollars in 1944 and that workers
got 72 per cent of it, or 116 bil
lion dollars. By “workers”, I
mean people who draw wages and
small clerical salaries. Corporation
profits that year ran just under
ten billion dollars or 6 per ceni.
There is a popular notion that
people who work don’t get very
much of the fruits of their toil.
Not long ago somebody repeated
a 50-year-old piece of political
propaganda to me, believing it ev
ery word. He said, “Here in
America 2 per cent of the people
have 90 per cent of the wealth.” |
There is not much to say about'
this statement: It is not true. It
has never been nearly true.
Official Figures
Last year the national income
dollar went like this: 72 cents to
American workers, 6 cents to cor
porations, 8 cents to small busi
nesses in the form of profit, 7
cents to farmers as return on
what they produced and another
' 7 cents to landowners and stock
holders in the form of rents and
dividends, and to money lenders
in the form of interest. Of course
j all years aren’t alike but they
j vary less than you might think.
National income bobbs up and
! down but people who work always
get most of it. Back in 1939, which
[ was a typical pre-war year, our
national income was not half as
high as last year’s; 70.8 billion
dollars to be exact. Then, workers
got 68 per cent of it, and 6 per
cent was corporaiton profit; not
much change in how the income
was divided, but less than half as
much actual money for every
body.
Ancient History
Back in 1929, the year Hoover
succeeded Coolidge as President,
national income was 83.3 billion
dollars; bigger then, that in 1939.
Corporation profits were higher
then: 9 per cent as against 6 per
cent in recent years. But wage
earners and office help were
getting 64 per cent of the national
income, even then. In 1932 (the
depression) wages and salaries
• • -• - 0*
took 79 per cent and still some
working people went hungry.
Any fair analysis of national in
come figures over a period of
years leads to this oservation:
workers, laborers and clerical
people, get more money with the
slightly smaller percentage of a
big national income than with the
I bigger percentage of a small na
| tional income. The moral is per
I fectly clear. We will all fare bet
ter working together for a big
1 national income than by wrang
ling about who gets most of it,
I and then having a small one.
I
Brigham Young, Mormon leader
who died in 1877, was survived by
17 wives and 47 children.