THE NOME NUGGET
Published Monday, Wednesday and Friday by The
NOME PUBLISHING CO.
Nome. Alaska
Telephone: Main 125 P* O- B°x 618
SI.50 PER MONTH S16.P0 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.
Wednesday, June 26, 1946
SOLUTION FOR ALASKA
SEN. WARREN G. MAGNUSON has arrived at what
may prove a happy solution of the peculiar and
pressing problem which confronts both Alaska ship
operators and Alaska residents.
The ship operators assert, no doubt with complete
justification, that they cannot continue to serve the
Northern Territory without a sharp increase in rates.
Alaska residents protest, on the other hand—and
with equal soundness—that the rates are already too
high and that, unless they are reduced, more and more
of their business will be diverted to Canada.
Senator Magnuson would remedy the situation by
authorizing the maritime commission to construct ships
especially designed for the Alaska trade—or to remodel
existing ships—and sell them at the same low rate at
which the government is disposing of its surplus war
built merchant fleet.
Something of this sort is essential, as the ships
which the government built for overseas trade are not
adaptable to Alaskan service.
It is true that such a construction subsidy has
never before been provided for coastal or intercoastal
steamship operations, but, as Senator Magnuson pointed
out in the course of a senate debate, the Alaskan trade
“is somewhat in a twilight zone between our foreign
competition and purely intercoastal operations.*'
Senator Magnuson summed up his case during the
debate in the following words:
“The three steamship companies operating to
Alaska used their own ships during the war. Their
combined fleet consisted of 23 ships, nine of which
were sunk.
“All the ships are now old. The youngest ship
is 17 years old and the average age 25 years. Of
the ships which will be subject to disposal by the mari
time commission . . . none are adaptable to the Alaska
trade. . . .
“All the amendment proposes to do—and it is
limited to the Alaska trade—is to make it permissible
for the maritime commission, upon a showing by the
Alaskan operators, to construct or alter a ship which
is suitable and adaptable to the Alaskan trade and
sell it to those operators under the same terms and
conditions as are prescribed with reference to other
operators and to other ships which will be disposed of ..
“The Alaskan situation is a difficult one. If the
Alaskan operators should be fequired to construct
new ships at present construction costs—and new
ships must be constructed because of the deterioration
which has taken place in the Alaskan fleet by loss
during the war or to the pounding which the ships re
ceived—it would probably be necessary to increase
the freight rates to Alaska from 80 to 90 or possibly,
M per cent.
“According to prewar figures, there are approxi
mately 60,000 people in Alaska. In 1940 the water
freight rate to Alaska amounted to more than 8 million
dollars. It can readily be seen how much this amounts
to per person.”
Senator Magnuson furnished ample justification
for the proposed subsidy when he observed that the
Alaska operators are not engaged purely in intercoastal
traffic.
“They are in foreign competition,” he said. “In
addition, the United States built a large port at Prince
Rupert, a supply depot. That will be turned over to
Canada. From Prince Rupert cargoes can be barged
to Alaska through the inland passage. Unless some
relief is provided our shipping will be completely elimi
-- «smw CdPVCfiT_1
j
nated from the Alaskan trade/'
He demonstrated that this was no imaginary spec-|
tre he was conjuring when he cited figures to show that
before the war, in 1940, one-third of the total freight
transported to Alaska was carried by the Canadian
Pacific and Canadian National railroads.
Offered as an amendment to the bill providing;
for the disposal of surplus merchant vessels, Senator
Magnuson’s plan was rejected on the floor of the senate.
But there is good reason to believe it might get a more
favorable reception if it were reintroduced as an in
dependent measure. (Seattle Post Intelligencer)
FRIENDLY’ RUSSIA
The American people are being urged daily, usually
by radio “commentators,” to remain on a friendly
basis with Russia. The implication is that there are
Americans who are not doing right by Ivan. Unless
Americans accept Ivan’s promises of cooperation in
world affairs in good faith, all efforts toward world
peace will fail and another war is in prospect, it is
daily asserted by these fellow travelers.
Americans are to assume blindly that Russia has
America’s interests at heart, in spite of the fact that
Stalin has refused to go along with other nations in
a single instance. The four-power conference (not the
present) in Paris resulted in a stalemate because Rus
sia could not have its own way in matters of the gravest
importance concerning the future of Europe.
Russian determination to control all of Europe is
becoming more apparent as the days go by. Russia
intends to maintain control of the large part of Ger
many which it now occupies, as well as Austria. The
United States, with no interest in the matter except
to see the world at peace, is caught up in a mess not of
its own making.
Russia hopes to make its Communistic form of gov
ernment so powerful that other nations will have no
alternative to joining with Russia against free nations
such as the United States. Sooner or later Ameri
can diplomats will be forced to admit this fact pub
licly, as they now do privately. In the meantime,
Russia will continue to go its own way, with no thought
of world peace or the welfare of other nations.
• (Anchorage Daily Times)
THERE’S just one answer to the question, “is price
control creating black markets?’. Certainly it is—
just as traffic laws “create” traffic violations. In
some States, driving a car ninety miles an hour is not
illegal. But where there’s a speed law, a speed limit,
to protect othef motorists, doing ninety is a traffic vio
lation. Similarly, our price laws, or price limits, set
up to protect America’s pocketbook and America’s ec
onomy make overcharging a violation.
f
STRIKE—AT WHOM?
Financial reports make interest
ing reading to people who know
even a little bit about what they
mean. To some, they look drab
because they are printed maij^ly
in figures; many students never
have learned to enjoy studying
figures. Just the same, dull old
numerals tell the truth in a 41
mantic way to those who love
cold facts of struggle and adven
ture.
Late in May it was my good
fortune to have with me an an
nal report of one of America’s
largest corporations when I had to
spend three hours on a day train.
In the back of my mind as I rode
along, was a lurking fear that I
might reach home a day (maybe
a week> late because of labor
troubles, just then coiling to
strike. My dread threw a bright
light on the figures in hand.
Division of Wealth
The company about which 1^
was reading plays an important
part in the lives of more than a
quarter of a million people: 100,
000 employees and 150,000 stock
holders. Two out of every five
of these people drew wages while
three out of five received divi
dends. The average share owner
got less than $500 a year. The
average employee took home more
than $2,500 a year.
Daily newspapers for days had
reported threats of strikes in
plants of the firm I was studying,
also on the lines of the railroad I
was riding, and in many other in
dustries. Question: If all the em
ployees of all the companies strike
for what they want and get it,
who will pay the difference? How
will they pay it? These questions*
have answers and they’re not
secrets.
Enter Apple Conductor
The train stopped for a few
minutes under the sheds of a big
town station and a railway news
boy came through with fresh^bf
ternoon papers. On page one, un
der Washington date-line, a wire
story told how OPA would grant
higher prices on automobiles.
Nearby was another item about^a
10 per cent boost in shoe prices.
Then I remembered that bread
and milk and meat all had gone
up recently.
Whether you ride or walk or
only eat, the price gains catch
you. Wages are inside the cost of
every manufactured thing, and
the consumer pays. It is too ob
vious to deserve proof. Not long
ago officialdom was sounding off
freely about how wages in Detrok'
could be boosted without charg
ing higher prices for automobiles
but it didn’t work out that way.
Why?
Strikes Are Weapons
It is because strikes are not
tools. The official theory was
right: Wages can go up witlx^t
boosting prices but production
has to be increased if it happens,
and strikes don’t increase produc
tion. Sudden wage increases of 18
to 30 per cent have to come from
somewhere, but where? A stock