THE NOME NUGGET
Published Monday, Wednesday and Friday by The
NOME PUBLISHING CO.
Nome, Alaska
Telephone: Main 125 P. O. Box 61H
SI.50 PER MONTH $16.00 A YEAH
W. A. and EMILY BOUCHER. Editors
Entered as second class matter October 14. 1943, at the postoffic*
at Nome. Alaska, under the Act of March 3, 1879.
Wednesday, January 8, 1947
Hunting Headlines Or Communists?
(The Denver Post)
ERNIE ADAMSON, chief counsel for the House com
mittee on un-American activities, warns that there is a
Communist “conspiracy” fomenting revolution in the
United States. There is nothing hair-raising in this dis
closure, for the Communists have long stood exposed as
a conspiracy and not, as they profess, a political party.
The Communist objective of revolution scarcely needs
further documentation, although it would be of great
importance to learn further of the depth to which these
conspirators have been able to penetrate national life
and to know more of the guises in which they masquer
ade.
'More interesting than the warning itsell,, however, is
the person who uttered it. This marks the second time
in recent weeks that Adamson has presented himself as
spokesman of the un-American activities committee. In
the earlier instance Adamson announced to the press
that Elliott Roosevelt would be called on the Congres
sional carpet for his foolish blurts in Moscow. This ab
rogation of power in the hands of a Congressional em
ployee raises serious questions.
There is not only the question of propriety; there is
also a doubt as to the soundness of such a procedure.
When the Kilgore war investigating committee was
debating whether to send its probers to Germany, Sec
retary of State James Byrnes—once a Senator himself
—was strongly opposed to the idea. One of the points he
scored dealt with the irresponsibility of Congressional
investigators. Too often, he indicated, they were more
interested in the publicity they might gain themselves
than in the object of their inquiry. The secretary was
most outspoken against committee gumshoes, no more
than employees of Congress, who pop off in print on
official matters.
Adamson of the un-American activities committee of
fers a good case in point. Not only is it improper for him
to be speaking with the self-assumed authority of Con
gross but it is most unwise. The committee which em
ploys him has a grave mission to perform in exposing
totalitarian dangers to democracy. It should proceed
with a judicial objectivity. Its findings should have a
substantial and thoughtfully considered quality which
will command public acceptance.
1 he un-American activities committee has an imme
diate task of overcoming the suspicion raised in the pub
lic mind under the chairmanship of Martin Dies. The
Dies committee made some solid contributions to a na
tional understanding of the Communist conspiracy, but
it undid its own good work by the sensation-mongering
and irresponsible actions of its leading members.
Through its leaders’ shotgun blasts at sincere and pa
triotic liberals with whom Dies et al were in political
disagreement the committee lost the broad public back
ing necessary to its success.
The current committee should learn from that bad
precedent and button Mr. Adamson up. The headlines
are not as important as the quarry.
Only One Way
(The Rocky Mountani News)
IN THE ARGUMENT over whether high prices are
the fault of capital or labor, profits or wages, we should
.not forget the real original culprit—war.
lAny government that fights a major war has to spend
a whale of a lot more money than it can collect in taxes.
It makes up the difference by printing money or by bor
EVERYBODY W/.Nii iO GET INTO THE ACT
rowing it. Either method is bound to cause inflation.
The United States made up the difference in World
War II by borrowing on a tremendous scale. The results
are seen in the national debt. On that subject, the com
mittee on public debt policy has just issued some inter
esting figures. For instance:
After the revolutionary war our national debt was
$19 per capita—that is, for each man, woman and child.
It was $15 per capita after the war of 1812. It rose to $78
per capita after the Civil War, $240 after World War I,
and $1981 after World War II.
In 1917, the year before we got into World War I, our
national debt was only 3 per cent of our national income.
It mounted to 41 per cent of national income during that
war, fell to 22 per cent in the 1920’s—but now is almost
200 per cent. The national income is large this year, but
the national debt is nearly twice as large.
II you pay a tederal income tax, you pay part ot the
cost of operating the federal government. But, though
you may not realize it, that is by no means all you pay.
The cost of government helps to make prices high.
One reason is that the corporations are really tax col
lectors for Uncle Sam. Of each $5 of gross profit a cor
poration earns by selling its products, it must pay the
U. S. Treasury nearly $2 in corporate income taxes—
$2 that, otherwise, it might have shared with its cus
tomers through lower prices, its employees through
higher wages, and its stockholders through larger divi
dends.
The only way all groups can have higher living stand
ards is by making the national income bigger. The only
way to increase the national income is to produce more
wealth. And the only way to produce more wealth is to
work.
Dairen Gives Acid Test
To U. S. And Reds
- *
(By Barnet Nover)
In the Sino-Russian treaty of
“alliance and friendship” conclud
ed at Moscow on Aug. 14, 1945, a
long and important section deals
with the future status of Dairen,
| Manchuria’s principal port and
major railroad terminus.
Dairen had been part of the
Russian leasehold in south Man
| churia which the imperialistic
j Russia of the czars had extracted
from the dying Chinese empire at
I the end of the last century.
Following Russia’s defeat in the
Russo-Japanese war of 1904-05,
Dairen and the Kwantung penin
sula on which it is located were
taken over by the Japanese who
remained in control until shortly
| before the end of the second World
War, having, in the meantime, ex
tended her authority over all of
Manchuria.
At the time it was concluded,
the Sino-Russian treaty of 1945
was hailed as, by and large, a
hopeful and constructive develop
ment, one that would consolidate
peace in a highly disturbed part of
the world.
The treaty pledged both nations
to work together “in close and
friendly co-operation” with each
other, to respect each other’s sov
ereignty and to refrain from inter
| feing in each other’s internal af
' fais.
Russia, for her part, agreed to
i evacuate Manchuria and to recog
j nize that vast and rich region as
under Chinese sovereignty. She al
so pledged to render China "mor
al support and assistance with mil
itary equipment and other mater. *
ul resources.” This support, said
Foreign Minister Molotov of rUs. |
sia, in a letter that was made part
of the treaty, would be “given ful
ly to the national government as
the central government of China.”
In return for this pledge of
friendship, China made a number
of important concessions to Rus
sia concessions which restored to
Russia many of the imperialistic
rights and privileges which she
had secured in the days of the
czars.
In the first place. Russia was $
given joint control and ownership
of the Chinese Eastern and South
Manchurian railways. Secondly,
Russia was to share with China
"utilization” of Port Arthur as a
naval base. And. thirdly. Russia
was to be given free port rights in
Dairen.
With regard to these free port
rights the treaty provisions are
specific and clear. They provide
that certain piers and warehous^
are to be set aside in the port for
the use of the Soviet Union, that
goods arriving at Dairen from
Russia or from abroad for trans
shipment to Russia over the Man
churian railways should be allow
ed in free of duty and that the
chief of the port should be a Sov
iet citizen.
The treaty made it very clear
that Russia was not to have ex
clusive control over Dairen. On
the contrary, it was proclaimed,
“a free port open to trade and
shipping of all countries.” It was
also stipulated that “administra
tion in Dairen will be exercised by
China.”
These provisions, as are true of
so many other provisions of the
1945 treaty, have been honored
Russia, only in the breach. Indeed,
despite the boast made by Stalin.
Molotov and other Russian leaders
that Russia has evacuated her
troops from China, there are sev
eral times as many Russian troops
in Dairen as there are American
troops, including U. S. Marines, in
north China. And the refusal by
the Soviet authorities to permit a
naval vessel to remain in Dairen
harbor and their refusal to permit
American citizens to take up resi
dence there makes it clear that, in
Russian eyes, Dairen is as much
of a Russian base as is Port Ar
thur where the Chinese have not
even had a look in so far.
At a time when the international
skies are lifting because of a se
ries of friendly gestures made by
Soviet leaders at the council of^
foreign ministers, and the N. U.
general assembly and the security
council, Russia’s equivocal role in
China causes misgivings.
Russia’s maneuvering in the Far
East from the very moment the
war in the Pacific ended have
enormously complicated the Chi
nese problem. She looted Man
churia as though that region had
been the domain of an enemy na
tion rather than part of the terri
tory, as she herself recognized, of
an allied power. What the Rus
sians could not loot they frequent
ly destroyed.
Russia engineered the evacua
tion of her troops in such a way
as to permit the Chinese Commun
ists to take possession of much of
Manchuria. And while her propa
gandists have beat the drum un
ceasingly about the presence of
| American troops in China, de
manding daily that they be with
drawn, Russia has not only kept
sisable forces in Dairen and Port
Arthur but is in a position, through
her co-ownership and control of
the major railroad system to mow
%