Indianapolis Times, Volume 44, Number 292, Indianapolis, Marion County, 17 April 1933 — Page 4

PAGE 4

The Indianapolis Times (A SCRIPTS. HOWARD MTWBP.\rER ) ROY W. HOWARD President TAT.OOTT POWELL Editor ARL D. Baker Business Manager Phone—Riley 5551

S?4_- -*■ •'*' ■' - • *">. Give Hyht and ‘.hr. People Will find Their Oicn Way

Member of I'nherl Preen, S' rl|i|H - Howard Newspaper Alliance, Newspaper Enter- : Association, Newspaper Information Service and Audit Bureau of Circu'ations. Owned and published daily (except Sunday) by The Indianapolis Times Publishing Cos.. 214-220 'Vest Maryland street, Indianapolis, Ind. Price tu Marion county, 2 cents a copy; elsewhere, 3 cents—delivered by carrier. 12 cents a week. Mai! subscription rates in Indiana. ?3 a year; outside of Indiana, 65 cents a month.

- MONDAY. APRIL 17. 1933. DRY lIANG-OVER JJROGRESS toward prohibition repeal is not rapid enough. For one reason or another, the states are not making ratification the quick, clean-cut process it ought to be. In several states the fault is clearly with the Governors or leaders of the legislatures, lor the most part, these officials are Democrats. Thus the country is presented with the picture of a victorious party lagging at the very moment it should be carrying out its election pledge. Already there is much speculation in Washington regarding the false position in which the President is put by this inaction of certain of his parly associates in southern and western states. Mr. Roosevelt has shown himself during the last month to be a stickler on the subject of party pledges. On the national side he is making good on the platform planks in short order—even when that means offending powerful organized minorities, as In the case of the veterans' cut and other budget economies. So the question now is asked whether the President will intercede with the slow-moving state Governors and leaders of his party. One group of advisers takes the position that he is overloaded with national duties and has no further responsibility for ending prohibition, now that repeal has been presented to the states and the federal beer law passed. This group adds that the President should not offend dry senators who arc anxious to delay repeal. But another, and apparently larger, group insists that the party pledge will not be carried out until repeal is a fact, and that the President, as party leader, not only can, but should, press Democratic Governors and state leaders for prompt ratification. We do not know' the President’s disposition in this matter. But w f e arc inclined to think that he will not stand on ceremony once he decides that a direct public appeal from him is necessary to expedite repeal. Even the irreconcilable drys should understand by this time that the twilight period of enforcement, which began with congressional submission of the repeal amendment and which will run until the states have acted, is exceedingly harmful for the country. By common agreement, the worst aspect of national prohibition was the lawlessness it inspired. Now that the public generally anticipates repeal, there is even less respect for the prohibition law. This creates chaos in enforcement. And it multiplies the disrespect for others. The morale of the nation suffers from this compound of law defiance and hypocrisy. The sooner we get rid of the prohibition hangover, the better.

NOT DEMOCRACY NOW we realize, as we have not for some time, what a difference it makes who is President of the United States. This should cause us to look with new concern on our antiquated, broken-down system of electing Presidents. We make it difficult, if not impossible, for a man to seek the presidency without the help of one of the old parties, with their manipulated nominating conventions. We disfranchise minority voters in every state, and even count the ballots they cast for the man they oppose. We deny the presidency to a man receiving the plurality of the nation's votes unless it happens that a sufficient number of these disfranchised votes have been counted for him in a way to give him electoral votes. We make the place in which votes were cast count more than the total number cast. These faults would be corrected by the Norns-Lea amendment to the Constitution abolishing the electoral college and the unit rule of apportioning electoral votes. The amendment will be adopted as enthusiastically as was that ending lame duck sessions of congress as soon as the American people become fully aware of the inherent weakness of the existing system. It offends the sense of fair play, to say the very least, to realize that in 1912 an electoral college vote for Wilson represented only 14,500 popular votes while an electoral college vote for Taft represented 435,000 popular votes; that in 1928 A1 Smith had 172.602 popular votes for every electoral college vote he obtained, while Hoover had 48,180; that in 1932 Roosevelt's electoral votes represented 48,351 voters each while Hoover's represented 267,149. There has not been a presidential election since that of Cleveland in which the result would have been changed if the Norris-Lea plan of counting votes had been substituted for the electoral college. But twice in our history the result would have been changed, and the possibility recurs every four years. Correction of the glaring faults of our electoral system will give the country new confidence in its institutions, the voter new reason for participating in the most important function of a citizen. It will give an independent candidate assurance of fair treatment. BERNARD SHAW IN AMERICA THOSE who went to the Metropolitan opera house in New York expecting Bernard Shaw to put on a performance rivaling the circus in Madison Square Garden must have been disappointed greatly. Those who went to hear what Mr. Shaw thinks about the present world and the United States in particular were rewarded richly. If Mr. Shaw is at times a clown, he also Is one of the keenest thinkers of the last three generations. Graham Wallace once said that Mr. Shaw was intellectually the most astute and useful member of the famous Fabian^o-

clety. His rapler-like observations were a bright light permeating the dialectical fog. There have been frequent allegations that Mr. Shaw's radicalism has long been on the wane and that he has become a doddering apologist for Fascist reaction. There was no evidence of this in his New York address. He denounced the evils of old-line capitalism as vigorously as he did forty years ago. He expressed an amiable receptivity to the Communism which, as a Fabian, he repudiated in his younger days. If Mr. Shaw extolled enlightened dictatorship, that is no proof of Shavian eccentricity or of capitulation to Bourbonism. It is merely a measure of the general deciir.p of democratic Institutions before the bar of realistic liberal opinion of the world. The futility and inadequacy of government by debating societies in our complex and dynamic civilization has been amply and dangerously demonstrated time and again throughout the world in the last quarter of a century. If one desires competent representative government it can be secured only by adopting the British plan, which makes the cabinet the executive and also a responsible committee of the parliament. Otherwise, we must be prepared either to tolerate strong executive leadership or else collapse in the face of the pressing need for decisive action. So far, President Roosevelt has been in closer harmony with public opinion and the popular will than any legislators who have sought to deride or impede him. Mr. Shaw certainly put his finger on the major evils of contemporary economic society: (1) The piratical and irresponsible leadership of speculative finance; (2) the short-sighted orgy of foreign investments and the export of American capital; (3) the ignoring of economic fundamentals and the interests of the consuming wastes by our financial overlords; (4) the inadequate income allowed to laborers and farmers who must buy the goods, the sale of which alone can supply the dynamics of capitalism; (5) the breakdown of old-line capitalism through the failure of its custodians to supply even enlightened self-interest in its support and perpetuation; and (6) the idiotic resort to force in the settlement of international complications. Mr. Shaw was equally sane and realistic in urging Americans to work out their own brand of radicalism and liberalism in terms of their own peculiar evolution, institutions, and currents of thought, instead of merely importing and parroting some foreign cult, no matter how well the latter may seem to work elsewhere. If most of his speech was a rebuke and arraignment of 100 per cent Americans, this section well may be referred to American worshippers of the cult of Moscow pure and defiled. Perhaps the most humorous item in Mr. Shaw’s address was one as unconscious as his reference to Mr. Roosevelt’s campaign baby. He asserted that the Academy of Political Science, under whose auspices he spoke, was consciously devoted to the destruction of the American Constitution. The academy is an excellent organization, but it always has been conducted by men most notably devoted to defending our constitutional system. Imagine Elihu Root, Charles Evans Hughes, Ogden L. Mills, Thomas W. Lamont, Jackson E. Reynolds/ William L. Ransom, George A. Plimpton, W. Randolph Burgess and Adolph Lewisohn engaged in obliterating our venerable instrument of government! There was nothing new in Mr. Shaw’s address. He has uttered the same sentiments many times before. They have been said, time and time again, by American liberals and radicals. Yet his appearance was significant and gratifying. He attracted unique popular attention to important truisms. He brought them to many millions of Americans in his vast radio audience. And the newspapers published his speech in full. He showed himself capable of being a man of good taste and of deep seriousness of thought. His short visit to New York was an event which will reverberate for good during many months to come.

GETTING OUT OF THE RUT IT is quite a time since the papers have contained any better reading than those stories telling about the new recruits in President Roosevelt's “conservation corps” and the attitude which they are displaying in their new calling. One such lad. who had been out of a job ever since he left high school, and whose father had also been out of work for two years, expressed himself as follows: “It isn’t the job. It isn’t the money. It’s getting away from the dreary rut. We couldn’t do anything. We had no clothes to go to school. We can't go out with friends with no money. We can’t go out with girls without money. “For a year I just sat around. It wasn't good for my body or my mind. Getting out in the air away from failure will let me come back with all bets off. I can start all over again.” Somehow it does one a lot of good to read that. KINDERGARTEN TARIFF LESSON FARM hands in the cotton belt, says the department of agriculture, earn, when they can get work, an average of 55 cents a day, without board —the lowest wages in thirtythree years. Who can say—with the cotton selling at 5 and 6 cents a pound—that the planters are to blame for these slave wages? Not many years ago. cotton sold for 15 cents. 20 cents, and even higher than 3C cents a pound. Then the cotton field wage scale ranged from $3 to $5 a day. with board. The price of cotton started down when the Fordney-McCumber tariff placed a restraining hand on international trade, and it hit bottom when the Smoot-Hawiey law forced the cottonless nations of Europe virtually to close their ports to American products. Os every five rows of cotton grown in the United States, two rows are consumed in the United States. The other three rows must be sold abroad, or heaped on top of the growing surplus that drives down the price of the two rows sold in the domestic market. Our tariffs were raised “to protect the Ajnerican wage scale.” Workers in the southern cotton fields well might ask: “To protect what American wage scale?” m

CUMBERSOME 'T'HE spectacle of the United States sitting as the court of impeachment in the Judge Harold Louderback case seems to be sufficient reason for the proposed change in Impeachment procedure. The only thing the senate can do is to separate Judge Louderback, or any other federal official, from his job. So, why should the entire senate give up its time for hours upon end? Why should a stream of witnesses be called before the whole body of ninety-six? Why should not some simpler method be used for unseating an unworthy federal office holder? Subject, of course, to senate review and a senate vote, it is a committee of that body which decides in the first place the fitness of a man to become a federal judge. It is just as reasonable that a senate committee should decide, in the first place, whether a federal judge should be separated from his job. The senate well might re-examine its cumbersome impeachment rules. \YE MUST DIPORT, TOO SECRETARY OF COMMERCE DANIEL C. ROPER has performed a public service by reminding us that imports as well as exports are essential to any trade recovery. Pointing out that we have no right to expect foreign nations to give more generous treatment to our exports than we give to theirs, Roper said: “It is fundamental that we can not sell goods to other nations without permitting them to sell goods to us. This means a mutually profitable exchange of surpluses.” This is fundamental, to be sure—but it is a fact that we have lost sight of in the last few years. Os course, it doesn’t follow that we must let foreign nations tell us how high our tariff rates are to be. But it does mean that we must be ready to buy, as well as ready to sell, if international trade is to revive. House of commons passes a bill that fresh drinking water must be available wherever meals are served. Better pass an amendment that it must be labeled, so Englishmen will know what it is. The sun W'ill be colder during the next few years, predicts the Smithsonian institution. Yes, and so will the look of bankers asked for loans on suburban allotments. Nobody need be surprised at the way President Roosevelt threw out the first ball to open the season at Washington. We’ve known ever since March 4 that he had plenty of speed. If you want to kiss the Blarney Stone you must do it at your own risk, Irish court rules. American courts made that ruling about chorus girls years ago. Nov; comes the happier days when leatherlunged citizens can sometimes get anew deal by simply yelling “Take ’im out!” London paper facetiously suggests that England cede Bernard Shaw to the United States in payment of her war debt. Judging from the hullabaloo we made about his visit, he seems to be good for the interest.^ Diplomat suggests France pay up in one lump sum. She probably will refuse to pay at all, and we can lump it. Will Hays says experience has proved that vulgarity in the movies doesn't pay. Which may explain why so many companies are on the rocks. Many a big shot has turned out to be just a blank cartridge.

M.E.TracySays:

EUROPE is in a ferment of political theories, with Communism, Fascism, and democracy fighting a three-w'ay battle, with anew kind of tyranny manifesting Itself in repression, and with race hatred rising to the surface. Minority rights, which were supposed to constitute one of the w'ar aims, virtually have disappeared in Russia, Italy and Germany. Not since the time of Napoleon have so many Europeans been denied free speech, a free press, or freedom of conscience. As far as domestic problems go, it is none of our business, but when it comes to disarmament palavers, economic conferences, debt revision, and similar International activities, we have the right to take stock of what is going on. We have the right to ask whether these newfangled governments will or can keep their pledges, or whether they are not steering the world straight toward revolution. For the moment, it looks as though they were bringing order out of chaos, but at what a price, and for what purpose? Are we to assume that 200.000,000 Europeans have thrown off one kind of despotism only to be enslaved by another? tt tt tt EVEN in this country, there are those who look upon political liberty as dead and who envision some kind of a castiron rule as the only thing which will keep the electric lights going and the radio turned on. Maybe they are right. Maybe what our forefathers fought to gain and what we have taught our children to hold sacred is just bunk. Maybe France, England and our own country will find it necessary to follow Lenin or 11 Duce. On the other hand, another storm may be in the making, brought on by the same kind of demagogery, albeit in a different guise, that produced the last one. Edouard Herriot, former premier of France, thinks this is a poor time to talk about peace plans, and though he confines his argument largely to the queer things Hitler is doing, it is applicable to some other regimes. We Americans could do worse than watch our step. The cry for relief is making strange bedfellows and leading to even stranger upheavals. tt tt tt JUST now Hitler and Mussolini are honeyhug. with England apparently inclined to trail along, while France shivers at the thought of possible isolation. Ostensibly this new basis of co-operation is for the purpose of giving Europe peace, but one need not be a wizard of diplomacy to suspect that other bugs lie hidden in the sawdust. History belies human experience if we can make genuine peace by destroying battleships at the command of dictators and oppressors, or teach the universal brotherhood of man by outlawing war while we revive religious intolerance, race prejudice and political discrimination. Tyranny is no better today than it was 300 years ago. nor will people endure it with any more complacency. Again, I say it is none of our business what kind of a government Europeans want or allow tp be imposed on them, but it is our business to keep out of entanglements with a scheme of things which can't last and which operates on the theory that whatever is necessary to retain gow e? is rigjit.

THE INDIANAPOLIS TIMES

(Times readers are invited to express their vietes in these columns. Make your letters short, so all can have a chance. Limit them to ~50 words or less.) By John E. Bayless. The skip election law for cities and towns of Indiana is causing so much commotion among politicians and some who desire to be candidates that they are fighting in the courts. This law was passed by a legislature duly elected by the voters of Indiana and they voted for what they wanted and they should be heard. They are the people who pay the bills and not the politicians, who are parasites on the public, looking to their own selfish ends and not for the public good, so we can see clearly that It is the rule of the politicians that has brought us to the dilemma that we are in at this time. There was a time when we had the state election in October and the national election in November, and it took about seventy-five years to get a legislature chosen that had the grit to change the state election day to the national election day, thus saving the expense of one election. The next step to be taken is to make all offices four-year terms only, that there be no appointive offices, and every candidate must be straight and upright in every particular. He must be moral and of good repute before the world, standing straight on both feet, four-square to the world. The greatest need at this time is for men and women who at all times are ready to stand up for right, justice and truth. I stand for the skip election because it is for the benefit of all. By C. S. G. Any one interested in the reaction of women to the re-ehtrance of beer in the social life ought to visit the cases and restaurants where the beverage is sold. At one place I

THE nature of all of us is determined largely by the nature of our parents. What the child inherits, as is pointed out by Professoi Michael F. Guyer, is not a series of finished traits or characteristics, but a multitude of substances called genes, which interact with one another to produce certain traits in the organism. In the cells from which the body grows are contained constituents called chromosomes, in which are carried the mechanisms for hereditary characteristics. Every cell in the body gets some portion of this initial force. One set of chromosomes comes from the father and one set from the mother. This is fortunate, because the chances are that if some particular gene from one parent is defective, it is likely to be offset by a normal gene from the other parent. In certain instances, however, dominance is incomplete, and in

THE best human interest story of the week comes from New York, where a 60-year-old woman from the middlewest has discovered that she has writing ability and can sell everything she produces. Expressing regret that she did not begin sooner, she is a philosopher when she adds, “I guess they were not wasted years, because I was living and storing up experiences that they tell me now are invaluable.” It is probable that but for those years of living she would not be writing at all. Talent and hard work are necessary, but a knowledge of life that includes the fundamental experiences is the essential inspiration for any kind of literary achievement. There are entirely too many people writing nowadays who have nothing at all to say. And it can make no difference how well they say it, for it remains in the end not worth, putting down on j^aper.

Now for a Job of Face Lifting!

: : The Message Center : :

Nature of Parents Determines Our Nature —i== BY DR. MORRIS FISHBEIN

: : A Woman’s Viewpoint : : BY MRS. WALTER FERGUSON ■

Thanks Due Cox By Indianapolis Citizen. Judge Cox has taken a very worthy stand in his reorganization of three bank receiverships in his court. Had they gone along as they were, the remaining assets no .doubt would have been dissipated entirely. The depositors of these three banks should extend a vote of hearty thanks to Judge Cox. But who is looking after the interests of the Meyer-Kiser bank depositors? The three liquidating agents of the Meyer-Kiser are all former officers of the bank. It is said that each of the three is receiving $6,000 a year, or a total of SIB,OOO. If any statement of the progress . of this liquidation has been published in any of the papers. I have failed to see it. Asa general principle, do you think it at all desirable for the ■officials, under whose management a given corporation has failed, to be In charge of the “liquidation” of the said corporation? If their methods were not successful before the failure, what magical change may be expected in their methods after the failure? Judge Cox found that under existing conditions one receiver to a bank was too many; what do you think of one bank having three receivers? visited, at noon, approximately three-fourths of the occupants of the some twenty-five tables were women and girls and, with two tables excepted, all were engaged in beer drinking. Strange as it may seem, on some four or five tables, occupied by men, there were only two with beer bottles on them. At another restaurant the same proportion was in evidence—women were doing

Editor Journal of the American .Medical Association and of Hygeia, the Health Magazine. such cases the defective gene may dominate. This happiness, for instance, in the case of inheritance of certain forms of degeneration of the eyes or of disturbances of the nervous system. When two defective genes are combined, the results may be feeblemindedness, various forms of insanity, lack of pigmentation, etc. In other instances, however, the traits concerned may be considered beneficial, as for example blue eyes, fair skin, blond hair and similar characteristics. When it is realized that so many different chromosomes enter into a combination and that so many variations of their relationships may occur, it is not at all surprising that several children in one family vary greatly.

I AM glad, too, that Ettie Stephens Prichard, widow, mother, fiction writer, is from the interior. I hope she confines her efforts to that region. For I believe that I express the opinion of a good many readers when I say that the public is a little tired of stories about sophisticated Manhattanites. Questions and Answers Q —Are American Indians citizens of the United States? A—They were made citizens by an act of congress. Q —ls a guard stationed at the grave of Calvin Collidge? A—No. Q—Does the racing car of Sir Malcolm Campbells have brakes? A-Yes.

most of the drinking, and in many cases most of the smoking. Actually this doesn't mean a thing, but I cite the incidents to show that wet sentiment is not altogether confined to the “he men.” It proved to me that most women (and by that designation I mean those who like the bright lights and all that goes with them) have no separate morals from their male brethren, although sometimes conventions make them assume a standard they in reality do not feel. Neither is this a criticism of the women’s beer drinking ability, although I believe ( on the word of a woman friend) that beer swigging and cocktail gargling are due to the same reason that so many of the fair sex consume cigarets by the pack when in public—they wish to appear sophisticates! And that is no sin. Men and women with Victorian complexes on the wet and dry subject easily can get an eyeful about it by visiting some of the places where beer is dispensed. They’d be surprised.

So They Say

The unpardonable sin is to quit—to give up hope of salvation.— Bishop Warren Lincoln Rogers of Cleveland. Whosoever refuses to speak of Socialism, and sees in Socialism only Marxist trickery, has not realized the deepest meaning of nationalism. Captain Hermann William Goerring of Germany. Anybody who adopted the humble attitude who once was considered neurotic.—Thomas L. Sheridan, former New York state senator. Anti-semitism is cruel, but most of all it is cowardly—John Haynes Holmes.

The chances in the combinations are tremendous. Moreover, there come to be tendencies to perpetuate such differences, so that constant novelty is being introduced in the development of various types of people. Finally, it now Is well-established that the environment of the individual may play a considerable part in modifying his hereditary characteristics. Our present knowledge of the mechanism of constitution and inheritance leads to the view that a child is neither the sole expression of its inheritance nor the mere chance of its environment. Professor Guyer points out that these must work hand in hand. Dormant capacities must have the proper environment to develop them, but no environment can develop a special capacity unless there is some degree of aptitude present at birth.

All the fluffy blah-blah of the upper stratum of urban society of drinking parties and ultra-smart conversations that, get nowhere except to the inevitable bedroom episode, have been done to death. They are irritating to the folks who are scrambling around trying to find a couple of potatoes for supper. I for one should not regret the passing into oblivion of a good many fiction producers who consider promiscuous sex affairs the ultimate in “living” and who seem to believe that the consumption of quantities of bad gin is the alpha and omega of “experience.” Folk lore is the only living literature. And the United States has a tremendous amount of such material in every section of its vast territory. The need is great today for writers who can catch the rhythm of that undercurrent of struggle, slow, persistent, powerful, that a nation is ■undergoing in search, pi its soui* ,

.'APRIL 17, 1033

It Seems to Me = BY HEYWOOD BROUN =

MANY people probably liked Mr. Shaw’s lecture better than I did. Some drew their satisfaction out of witnessing an extraordinary feat in endurance, and there always was the undeniable charm of the man. But it was precisely that last quality which did so much to make the evening a disappointment. Shaw is, of course, a serious person, it is not his fault that some of his most profound observations have been greeted as if they were extravagantly humorous sallies. But, for all that, his Metropolitan Opera House address, in spite of its length, was a lazy performance. George Bernard Shaw did not bear down more than once or twice. He was content to coast along on charm. In so far as a structural idea could be found in his discourse, it was based on the premise that democracy has been proved a political failure and must give way to dictatorship. o a a With Reservations HE recommended the dictatorship of Stalin and then quickly modified that by remarking, “Perhaps I shouldn't use the word, but let us say under the leadership.” I don't know just whose feelings the speaker was trying to spare. If he had been strictly orthodox, hehe might have phrased it as “the dictatorship of the proletariat under the leadership of Stalin.” The difficulty of following the arguments of Mr. Shaw lay in the fact that he straddled so many political and economic problems. Thus, although he professed a great enthusiasm for Russian Communism, he expressed complete dissent with one of its most fundamental features. He advised Americans to create for themselves anew Constitution and anew state, but added, 'Don’t bother so much about Karl Marx.” He then presented Stalin as a man who had broken with the Marxian tradition and who said, “Russia is large enough for me, and I will work for the salvation of Russia, and let the other countries look out for themselves.” The only trouble with that is that the Russian leader never has said anything of the sort, and I hardly think he woud be inclined to thank Mr. Shaw for findertaking to introduce him with, “I think Mr. Stalin means to say.” tt tt tt Not Terse or Accurate AND George Bernard Shaw was equally Inaccurate in his picture of American constitutional government. Sometimes he erred in interpretation, which is debatable, and again in plains facts, concerning which there can be 'no argument. He fell into the conventional American habit of cussing our congress for the ills of the nation, and spoke of Herbert Hoover as a practical man of affairs who had been thwarted by the senate and the house when a slump came “late during his term of office.” But the fact is that the slump began before Mr. Hoover had been in office a year, and that he had received hearty congressional support until late in his term. Nor did Mr. Shaw seem partic-r ularly familiar with present-day conditions when he spoke of the present administration, and said: “Mr. President Roosevelt is appealing to you, practically, at the present time, to get rid of your confounded Constitution, and give him. the power to govern the country. Perhaps he hopes he will be able to govern it. He won’t as long as congress is there to prevent him . . . “You will get nothing from him. In his four years, if he had to go on under the Constitution, with the usual rotten congress and all the rest of it, he inevitably will be as great a disappointment as Mr. Hoover.” tt n tt Right to Guess IT was at this point that hundreds of listeners began to call up the National Broadcasting Cos., and ask that Mr. Shaw should be shut off the air. That was very foolish. They much more sensibly would have asked that George Bernard Shaw be compelled to read the newspapers w'hich have been printed in the last six weeks. If President Roosevelt were intent upon the creation of a Socialist state he would find it necessary to obtain a very considerable amount of ripping and tearing in the Constiution, but as far as his announced goes I can see no particular provisions which stand in his way. Certainly there is no present reason for complaint about congressional interference. Indeed, the amount of power which lies in President Roosevelt’s own hands at the moment bulks up very considerably when compared even to that possessed by either Stalin or Mussolini—Mr. Shaw’s friends. As for the “rotten congress,’’ I think that any birdseye vtew of American history will show that its ability has matched up with that of the average American President and that on certain occasions it has been a bulwark of protection against executive inepitude. When an inefficient President begins to complain that he could have done this or that fine thing but for congress, he is fooling nobody but the American boobs and George Bernard Shaw. (Copyright. 1933. by The Times) Yearning BY MERRIE PAT VANCIL I want to smell the sea again And hear the deafning boom Os breakers bursting on the beach,. And see the fuchsia bloom. I want to feel the sharp salt spray, And know the kelp's bright red. The rusty tangled mass o’ weed Like blood that Ireland’s bled. Since Ireland’s lost her liberty And I have been away, I've never found in any land A place like Bantry Bay. No islands are there Is this world Could stand by Bantry's own, And half the beauty of them show, When Bantry Bay Is blown. For then the waves break high and white Upon the yellow clay Os tiny Islands bathed in foarrt i yi&y put In Bantrjr Bay.