Evening Republican, Volume 21, Number 142, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 24 June 1918 — MARSHALL NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY [ARTICLE]

MARSHALL NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY

REFERENCES TO NONPARTIJ SANSHIP IN KEYNOTE SPEECH. Washington, June 22.—Capitol Hill has had more amusement since the newspapers gave to the public a synopsis of the campaign-opening . speech of Vice President Marshall than it has had since the outbreak of the war. The Vice President is well liked, personally here, hut no one but hirdself takes him seriously. As a propagandist of nonpartisonship he is a standing joke even with Democrats in Congress. His nonpartisanship, like that of the President, extends only to the election of Democrats to office. As one Republican senator put it th me: “Wherever there has been an opening Mr. Wilson has gone out of his way to urge the election of Democrats to office, as he did in Indiana, New Jersey and Wisconsin. You will . notice he has lately urged the Democrats of Michigan to nominate Ford, no doubt hoping Ford might pull away some Republican votes. But it should not be forgotten that Mr. Ford long since ceased to pose as a Republican, and in the last campaign openly supported Wilson. He appointed to the Federal Trade Commission°Victor Murdock, under the pretense that Victor is a Republican, and by appointing him he had fulfilled the law which requires the com- , mission shall not have more than three members from any one party, but Mr. Murdock, like Mr. Ford, supported Mr. Wilson in 1916. “It is arrant nonsonse for either the President or the Vice President to set up as an apostle of nonpartisanship. Their . record is against them. Mr. Marshall stumped Wisconsin in favor of an out-and-out Democrat, against a loyal supporter of the war who happened to be a Republican.” I asked one of the House Democratic leaders what he thought of the keynote speech of the Vice President. “Oh,” he said, “when keynote sounders vfere made they skipped the Vice President. He will never set a river on fire, and is not more likely to make Republicans leave their party and vote for one of ours than he is to set fire to the river. It is one of the misfortunes of our party that at this time so many of our campaign orators feel it incumbent on them to talk nonpartisanship in one breath and in the next to charge that every man who does not in all things agree with the President is an unamerican American; is, in sort, an enemy of the country. The record shows that every movement to strengthen our navy and army, to put every necessary power in the hands of the President; in fact every measure to support the war not only received the cordial support of the Republicans in Congress, but the cordial indorsement of that party throughout the country, and it is wropg to Undertake to stir up strife at this time just to bolster up some man’s political aspirations. In this the Vice President, I am sorry to say, has been among the chief of sinners.” “How about his plaintive wail to ‘Stand by the Commander in chief?’ ” I asked. “Oh, that phrase is being badly overworked just now. The constitution says the President shall be commander in chief of the army and the navy. That is, he can appoint officers and in a general way direct them, but he is not, and never has been, the active commander in chief during a war. But the use of this phrase at this time arises from a confusion of ideas in the minds of many people, especially those who claim to be campaign orators. He is the commander in chief of the army, but not of the civil government. There he is only, according to the constitution, the executive of our will, administering the government and executing the laws as we make them. “But even as commander in chief of the army, no man is bound to say all that he does is wise or the best. We are still permitted to have our own views. We may, and can, stand by the war and yet condemn a thousands movements and actions of those having direct control over the movement of the armies. The people may differ with us as to what is best in the way of raising and equiping armies or of replenishing the treasury without forfeiting their right to be called true and loyal citizens. “We have an illustration, a very marked illustration, of how things go wrong when the people blindly trust. By the press reports we are assured that the government has been robbed , of millions and millions in the loose method of contracting for and purchasing of supplies, and other needs of the government. These things would not have been possible had Congress assumed an oversight of the war expenses. After all, Democrats will ask and will receive the votes of the rank and file of the party, as the Republicans will of their party, and all this is perfectly right and proper. Parties we have and ought to have. A government without parties is and must be autocratic. Then, if we have parties the people will divide, and all the wailing and crying for nonpartisonship is arrant nonsense.” He further said that he was a candidate for renomination, expected to be nominated, and would make his canvass as a Democrat who had endeavored to do his duty to the country, and would have no complaints to make against his ’Republican opponent if he should rap as a Republican and ask support because he believes Republican ideas and policies are best for the country at large. It may be said that members of Congress are not surprised at the recent developments as to graft of huge dimensions in contracts for the government, for, as some of them

'have said, it could hardly he other- ■ wise because of the lack of* business j methods and the absence z of any | seeming of business ability in hun- . dreds of those engaged in making contracts for the government and in buying supplies. A member of the House committee on military affairs said to me: “The placing of contracts or the buying of supplies amounting to millions of dollars was frequently placed in the hands of men who had never displayed any marked business ability or even superficial knowledge of the market value of the articles they were, purchasing. Take the one instance of the Bureau of Public Informations, of which George Creel in the manager. He asked for more than $2,000,000, and we have given him $1,250,000. He is to disburse this large sum at his own sweet will, yet in all his life he has never • displayed any capacity for handling sums of even ordinary dimensions. We would be foolish to expect anything else than that a large portion of this money will be wasted. So it goes in almost all departments, and especially in the outside ’ bureaus. In the shipyards thousands of workingmen are getting from $8 to $lO a day who six months ago would have jumped at the opportunity to work for less than half that amount. Here in this city young girls, without experience, are receiving form SIOO to $l5O a month as stenographers and typewriters. The cost-plus plan of making contracts is costing the people many millions. It was never heard of under any other administration.” The attitude of the administration toward Gen. Leonard Wood is still the subject of much conversation inside and outside of Congress. The administration has assigned no reason for this treatment, and has left the door open for the people to find a reason, and they are not slow in doing so, and the reasons they assign are not at all complimentary to the administration. It is a known fact that Gen. Wood was a firm and persistent advocate of preparedness, and gave an illustration of the good of preparedness by conducting a camp of instruction. Preparedness was one of the things the administration fought tooth-and-nail. Another reason is given that has its basis in politics. Two years ago, Gen. Wood was frequently mentioned as a possible candidate of the Republicans for President. To send him to France and there permit him to win fame would almost assuredly make him the Republican candidate in 1920 and political history tells that a military candidate has never been defeated in this country.