TH 3 NOME NUGGET
Published Monday, Wednesday and Friday by The
NOME PUBLISHING CO.
Nome. Alaska
Telephone’ Main 125 P. O. Box 613
$1.50 PER MONTH $16.00 A YEAR
W. A. and F.MILY BOUCHER.Editors
Entered as second class matter October 14, 1943, at the postoffice at
Nome, Alaska, under the Act of March 3, 1879.
Friday, March 1, 1946
A DAY S PAY FOR . . .
(By A. P. PECK)
A screwy individual, speaking from the juvenile
standpoint, is one who does not conform, in one way or
another, with the rest of the crowd- So, from the same
standpoint, James F. Lincoln, of Cleveland, Ohio, is
probably one of the screwiest of individuals in industry
today. And all Mr. Lincoln is doing is operating a busi
ness on the basis of paying his employees what they are
worth.
Such an industrial plan of operation must be too
' simple. It goes against all the ideas of the efficiency
experts, the union demagogues, the big-domed statisti
cians, and the brain-trust (but not trusting) Govern
ment analysts who would regulate everything for the
greatest good to the clamorous few.
But Mr. Lincoln’s industrial philosophy works, ror
some 20 years his employees in the electrical welding
equipment business have had these advantages over
other workers: No worker has been laid off because of
lack of work; no reduction has been in individual wage
rates; every employee has received a steady income;
there has been no labor trouble that has resulted in the
loss of a single hour of time; wages have increased
steadily; more jobs have been created. And while all
this has been going on, the price of Lincoln’s products
has decreased more than 50 percent.
It must be all wrong. Lincoln is operating on the basis
of free enterprise. He is doing things the way our fore
fathers wanted them to be done. He is doing things the
American way and getting them done. But he is doing
them the simple way—the way in which labor unions
say they shouldn’t be done. He is paying each worker
what he is worth. And the result is that his workers pro
duce more for less money. Simple, isn’t it? Of course
it is—it’s too simple. What will work for a single com
pany could work for the entire country. What could
work for the entire country would work for the whole
world. But Lincoln’s plan is too elementary. It leaves
out of the picture the run-everything boys, the big
brains, the economic experts. Seemingly, all too few
people want to work for what they are worth. That’s
too little pay! And in that last three sentences lies the
crux of labor troubles and the problems that face indus
try today. The sooner we return to the fundamentals,
the basics of the American way, the sooner labor unions
and the run-everything boys will have to take a back
seat and the sooner industry will be able to solve its
own problems.
SHARE-THE-PATENTS
(Scientific American)
The share-everything groups are at it again. Now it
is agitation to share-the-patents. Self-appointed saviors |
of the small business man would force licensing of pat- i
ents in order, they say, to avoid monopolies. Here is
another of those dangers to American business which
seems credible on the surface but carries a real threat
when studied carefully. The 17-year exclusive rights to
an invention, granted by our patent laws, is one of the
greatest incentives to competitive industry; destroy
that exclusive right and you destroy competition. In
dustry—big and small—is built on patents, not on mo
nopoly. To force a licensing system on patent holders
is to force a sharing of property by those whose dili
gence produced it, with those who were too lazy or lack
ing in imitative to produce for themselves.
I
iiSTeMme Post
■ ■■■■ . ■ ' J
If
I_____ _
I
A large number of physicists have grown tired of
the atom and have begun playing with a potentially
much more powerful force, the cosmic ray. These sav
ants can be depended to put the world out of its misery
ere long.
NEWS LETTER
By MARY LEE COUNCIL
Secretary to E. L. (Bob) Bartlett, Delegate to Congress from Alaska
- <s
FISH TRAP
REGULATIONS
While not purporting to endorse
the means or the precise objec
tives of the proposed amendments
to fish regulations, Delegate Bart
lett, participating in the public
hearing which commenced on
February 21 at the Interior De
partment, stated his belief that
the salmon industry could not
only survive but remain in a
healthy condition under the pro
posed regulations.
The amendments propose to
limit the number of traps owned
or controlled within fishing areas
of Alaska by any individual, firm,
association or corporation to
twenty in 1946 and to a maximum
of ten in 1950.
Delegate Bartlett urged that the
controls of the Alaska fishery
should be turned over to the Ter- j
ritorial government which special
interests prevented at the time the
organic act was written. He also 1
stated that the hearings on the
proposed amendments should
have been held in Alaska, since,
by holding them in Washington,
“only the interest of the govern
ment was served.” Portions of
Delegate Bartlet’s statement fol-:
low:
“The method here proposed
does seek, from an approach never
attempted before, to diversify
control of the great fishery re
source of Alaska, although I am
not prepared to say I believe this ,
method promises an ideal or even
approximately an ideal solution.
I do not.
“It is highly likely, and, indeed, j
. !
almost certain, that if the matter
were to be put to a vote tomorrow
Alaskans would vote to abolish
the fish trap.
“The fish trap is an efficient
instrument. So far as T know, that
is the only statement that can be
made about it which will not pro
voke argument.
“It is also an instrument of spe
cial privilege.
“It is also an instrument tend
ing to promote and. in fact, pro
moting monopoly. The law under
which the Alaska fishery is oper
ating was enacted, in part at least,
with the very opposite objective
in view. It was hoped it would put
a brake on monopolistic control.1
But the result was quite the con-1
trary.
“The argument will be made
that any disturbance of the exist
ing situation will be disruptive to
the industry, will imperil an in
vestment running to the scores of
millions of dollars, will diminish
rather than increase employment
and will be ruinous to the Terri- :
torial government which depends
so largely upon tax revenues from
the industry for sustenace.
“If these regulations are adop-1
ted, and upheld, only time will
give the answer to those argu
ments. My belief is that they will
be proved wrong. I think the in
dustry could not only survive but j
remain in a very healthy condi-1
tion. I think employment would
increase rather than diminish. I
think more money realized from
the resource would remain to be
spent in Alaska rather than else
where. I think the Territorial
treasury would be in better, not
worse, shape.
"The representation that restric
tive action on the industry by
government would be inimical to
our free enterprise scarcely com
ports with the facts. No other
commercial operation, possibly, is
so dependent upon government.
Free enterprise, as the term is
commonly used, ended when gov
ernment first stepped in with reg
ulatory devices.
"Many industries in this coun
try remain in good financial po
sition and are highly prosperous
although they do not control their
sources of supply. I suspect the
same would be true of the salmon
industry if control of every last
trap and every other piece of gear
were in other hands. Contracts
could be made—and would be
made— to insure a continuing
flow of fish during the packing
season.
‘‘I especially desire to endorse
that section of the proposed regu
lations which would give resident
Alaskans a preferential status.
They are clearly entitled to it.
The Territory’s development will
be speeded if they are given it.
And most praiseworthy -of all is
the provision making it possible
for communities and cooperatives
to become premit holders. That
would represent true progress.
‘‘A while ago I stated the pro*
posed regulations do not provide
an ideal solution. Allow me to
elaborate on that. The solution is
obvious. The control of the Alaska
fishery should be turned over to
the Territorial government of
Alaska. As *\ve all know, it was
intended this should be done when
our organic act was written. But
special interests prevented the
realization of this policy, which
would have been in harmony with
what had been in other places and
in earlier times. The people of >
Alaska would protect the fishery "
and, in my judgment, would make
more money available for con
servation of the resource than the
federal government does. ... I
hope the Interior Department, ev
ery other federal department hav
ing an interest, the Congress, and,
assuredly, the canned salmon in
dustry will join with me in bring
ing this about.”
REVENUE
BOND BILL
The Senate has passed Delegate
Bartlett’s revenue bond bill, and
the measure will now go to the 4
President for final action.
The measure authorizes munic
ipalities and public utility districts
in Alaska to issue revenue bonds
upon a majority vote of the quali
fied electors in the municipality
or district concerned.
HOUSING
Presenting Alaska’s urgent need
for housing, Delegate Bartlett met
recently with National Housing
Administrator Wilson Wyatt.
Alaska and other territories are
included in pending legislation ^
generally designed to expedite
construction of homes.
VISITORS
George W. Folta of Juneau is
in Washington on official business
and has visited the Delegate’s of
fice. Mr. Folta is Counsel at Large
for the Interior Department in the
Territory. He had a reunion with
his son, Lt. Commander George
Folta, Jr., USN, who is stationed
in Annapolis for post-graduate
work following submarine service
in the Pacific.
Louis C. Peters of Juneau called
on Delegate Bartlett during his