Indianapolis Times, Volume 46, Number 14, Indianapolis, Marion County, 28 May 1934 — Page 10

PAGE 10

rhe Indianapolis Times (A SCRIPPS-HOWAKD NEWSPAPER) ROY W. HOWARD President rALC’OTT POWELL Editor EARL D. BAKER Business Manager Phone RI ley 5551

Members of United Press, Seripps - Howard Newspaper Alliance, Newspaper Enterprise Association. Newspaper Information Service ami Audit Bureau of Circulations. Owned and published daily (except Sunday) by The Indianapolis Times Publishing Company. 214-220 West Maryland street. Indiarapolis. Ind. Price in Marion county. 2 cents a copy: elsewhere, 3 cents—delivered by carrier. 12 cents a week. Mail subscription rates in Indiana. S3 a year; outside of Indiana, 65 cents a month.

MtH’ P* 3 - Haw+JiD Siue Light and the People Will Find Their Own Way

MONDAY, MAY 28. 1934. THE STRIKE NOBODY WON ONE hears a good deal of discussion over who really won the Real Silk strike. Frankly, we don't know. The settlement by the national labor board did not go to the fundamental issues of the dispute. It meiely postponed decision by finding that the election at the mill would stand until October. Common sense is all that is needed to see that if the election was fair and binding its results should stand for the duration of the NRA. If. on the other hand, the vote was unfair and unjust it should not be allowed to stand for a single day. The management of Real Silk has stubbornly maintained that it never would “recognize” the Full Fashioned Hosiery Workers Union. Yet it did sign the joint Settlement with this union, thus recognizing )he organization’s right to negotiate for the employes in this single instance. That was a sop to the strikers. Striking union members claimed the right fully and permanently to represent the knitters. The national labor board did not grant this, but merely deferred further discussion for five months. The decision was distinctly a flabby one. Members of the board should have had the courage either to stand by Real Silk management or by the strikers. / It did serve the useful purpose of terminating a strike which was showing signs of becoming dangerously like the industrial warfare in Minneapolis and Toledo. For this the community may be thankful. There is some reason to believe that the administration is anxious to keep the labor clauses of the national industrial recovery act out of court. Perhaps that is why the labrtr board temporized with Real Silk. While we can not tell you who “won” the strike we do know who lost it. The stockholders of Real Silk were distinct losers because of the curtailment of production at the busy season and because of the evil publicity the strike brought to their product throughout the ranks of organized labor in the nation. . The strikers lost because the wages they ■might have earned while they w T ere out are now gone forever. Indianapolis lost because a big pay roll temporarily disappeared from the gross purchasing power of the city and because one of its big industries was crippled. Strikes are like a fire without insurance—purely destructive. As in a conflagration they a tendency to spread. Usually they are Rarted and„. kept going by a few stubborn, willful or ignorant men, who are as dangerous as pyromaniacs. These incendiaries may be on the side of either capital or labor. In the case of Real Silk we believe that the fault lay with the stiff-necked and arrogant attitude of the mill’s management. The strikers were ready and willing to negotiate a settlement from the instant the knitters walked out. The management merely parroted: “We won’t deal with any outside union.” The strikes in Toledo and Minneapolis show the stupid and dangerous lengths to which industrial, warfare may go. Indianapolis wants no tragic performances of that type. After all, labor and capital both have equal stakes in the welfare of the community. Patience and tolerance on both sides can iron out their differences. Indianapolis is justly proud of the fact that its population is 85 per cent native born American. Let us try, in the future, to settle our industrial grievances like real Americans around a conference table instead of by abortive strikes in which every one loses. Such a procedure would be the best possible thing for the city and would show the rest of the nation that at least one community knows how to use common sense in these trying times of shift and change. THE STRIKE BILL r I ''HE rewritten Wagner labor disputes bill is weak. The avowed purpose was to clarify the labor provisions of NIRA and to increase the powers of the temporary national labor board. The new bill does neither. In fact it limits Section 7-A of the NIRA and it very seriously reduces the powers granted to the existing labor board by the President in his executive orders. Doubtless it •would be going too far at this time to say that the bill would be better dead than enacted into law—there is still opportunity to amend and strengthen it. But in its present form the measure is wholly inadequate to preserve industrial peace between the 'warring factions of capital and labor. Any attempt to gloss over the disappointing fact would be a disservice to all concerned—which means the entire nation. Senator Wagner is not to blame. He fought ably over a period of many months for a strong measure. But he and his bill from the beginning u T ere caught between opposing camps. On one side have been the anti-labor employers, trying to destroy existing legal rights of workers. On another side has been short-sighted labor leadership trying to create a vested interest for the American Federation of Labor. And adding to the confusion has been the effort of Secretary Perkins to tie the hew labor board to the labor department—a department which has been misused for par tisan political purposes too often in the past. About the only merits of the present bill are it* enforcement provisions wtven specified unfair labor practices are involved and its grant of discriminatory power to the board of determine conflicting claims of so-called ma-

jority and minority unions and of craft and industrial unions, according to the merits of individual cases. But that is not enough. Amendments are needed. At least four are essential, in our judgment: 1. Make the new board entirely independent of th.e labor department and all other political agencies and influences. 2. Make the personnel of the new board entirely nonpartisan and representative of the public, like other independent governmental agencies, instead of partly representative of capital and labor. 3. Limit the period in which the board may hold up decisions, thus preventing long delay as a method of strike-breaking. 4. Give the new board jurisdiction—which the President gave to the old board—over all industrial disputes and all conflicts threatening the industrial peace of the country. Compulsoiy arbitration is desired by neither capital nor labor, and is properly avoided by the bill. But at least compulsory hearings by a national labor tribunal are essential to air just grievances, and nonpartisan findings as to facts by such a tribunal are required before the public and the government can fix responsibility. The present bill would not permit this. It would limit the board’s jurisdiction to cases involving collective bargaining disputes and unfair labor practices, except when both parties requested arbitration. Thus in the vast majority of disputes and strikes—those over wages, hours and working conditions—the board would be completely useless. It is time the anti-labor employers, the A. F. of L., Administrator Johnson, Secretary Perkins and others stop trying to curtail the freedom and power of the proposed labor tribunal. Secretary Perkins’ department conciliators and General Johnson’s compliance and industrial boards have been unable to preserve industrial peace. That job can be done only by an independent board with complete jurisdiction and unquestioned prestige. And unless that job of preserving fair and orderly labor relations is done; the chances for American prosperity are very slight. WHERE THE MONEY GOES SENATOR REED SMOOT once dryly remarked that in his three decades of public life he had observed that each year the cost of government was higher than the year before, and it mattered not whether Democrats or Republicans were in power. Certain cynical commentators labeled this the “Smoot law of government,” and held it to be as irrevocable as Newton’s law of gravitation. We do not subscribe to this fatalistic philosophy, nor do we join in the blind assaults on “bureaucracy” that have become so popular. We hold that a large-scale bureaucracy is indispensable to adequate government in this modern era, and that taxpayers should be concerned not so much with the cost of bureaucracy as with the services it performs. Efficiency is the vital test. The number of employes of our federal, state and local governments, according to a new national industrial conference board study, increased from 2,618,000 in 1922 to 3.122,000 in 1932, a rise of 19.3 per cent, about one and one-half times the population increase for the same ten-year period. In 1932, there were 952,419 on the federal pay roll. That was the decade of the old deal, and in the services performed by the bureaucracy our taxpayers received insufficient returns for their money. Since the advent of the new' deal, there has been no diminution in the size of the federal bureaucracy. But there has been a tremendous increase in its efficiency, due to the abolition of useless offices and functions, and the creation of new agencies, supplying needed services. Yet there remains in many of the older agencies opportunity for more economies. The Roosevelt administration stopped too soon its organization reforms. In 1932 our federal, state and local governments spent s6,Boo,ooo,ooo—about $900,000,000 more than the total income that year of all manufacturing of the country; about three times the income of all agriculture; about one and a half billion more than the income of all trade. State and local governments spend the bulk of tax money, and it is from them that the people must exact more economies and more efficiency. Multiple tax districts should be abolished. Counties, laid out to accommodate a horse-and-wagon civilization, should be consolidated to serve our automobile civilization. In many states, all county governments might well be abolished, and their functions performed by the states with more efficiency and at less cost. Our costly and inefficient school system needs to be overhauled and centralized, not only to save taxes, but to provide more adequate training to handicapped rural students. A wholesale reorganization is long overdue. DELAYING JUSTICE ENEMIES of the Wheeler-Howard Indian rights bill apparently hope to win by delaying action in the house committee. Every day's respite they win jeopardizes its passage by the present congress. The original bill has. been re-drafted to meet reasonable objections. The plan for a special court of Indian affairs has been dropped; so has that for compulsory tribal inheritance of forest and grazing lands. It is still a fine measure, and one gathering increasing support in the Indian country. The measure as it stands would stop the legal looting of the Indian nation by halting further allotments, forbidding the sale of Indian lands to whites, appropriating $2,000,000 a year for new land purchases, providing a $10,000,000 loan fund to finance Indian farmers. Indians would be permitted to organize for corporate action. An Indian civil service would be set up, and $250,000 would be appropriated to educate young Indians along special lines. Sustained yield practices in Indian 1 forests would be made mandatory. The two main principles of the original measure—the conservation of Indian wealth and Indian selfhelp—are intact. * President Roosevelt, Secretary Ickes, Indian Commissioner Collier and the chairmen of both Indian affairs committees are eager to offer this legal life-line to a desperate, exploited race. Congress should act. Uncle Sam hasn’t mailed out his bills yet for payments on the war debts. Probably thinking how to word his apology first. Detroit police, orders their chief, may chew tobacco while on duty, but not gum. Gum chewing is unbecoming an officer.

Liberal Viewpoint BY DR. HARRY ELMER BARNES WHATEVER one thinks of the philosophy or accuracy of the Darrow report on the NRA and fair competition, it has certainly stirred healthy controversy with respect to the new deal as has no other document submitted during the Roosevelt administration. There is little in the report which has not been said time and again by well informed and sane commentators. But Mr. Darrow’s personality and language have given color to his observations and have directed national attention to the issues which he raises. Where there is so much smoke there certainly must be a little fire. That Mr. Darrow puts his finger so forcefully upon some of the sore spots in the NRA may be suspected from the violent language and devious tactics of General Johnson and Donald Richberg. They have far excelled Mr. Rand and Dr. Wirt in dragging red herrings and throwing dust. Nor can this be excused as the hasty rage which might follow a surprise attack. The general and his counsel have had the Darrow report to study for many days and have had plenty of opportunity to consider their language. Some of Mr. Darrow’s critics have been inclined to brush away the report on the ground that it is the work of an old man losing his grip upon realities. It will be well to recall that Mr. Darrow is a year younger than Justice Brandeis and that he is ten years younger than Judge Holmes was when he was writing some of his best decisions. an tt T HAD the pleasure of a visit with Mr. DarA row in Washington after he had submitted the report and found his customary mental agility and his remarkable capacity for going to the heart of social and economic issues entirely unimpaired. It will not avail much to accuse Mr. Darrow of any violent personal animus against the NRA. To my personal knowledge, his sympathy and friendly sentiments were originally all with Mr. Roosevelt and the new deal. It would have pleased him greatly to have been able to find that the NRA was working admirably in the interests of the American public. Perhaps the most amazing thing about the report is that Donald Richberg allowed himself to sink to the level of carelessly hurling epithets. He has himself quite justly resented being called a Socialist by our American Bourbons. But he now allows himself to denounce Darrow as a philosophical anarchist. He charges the report with being contradictory, but what could be more contradictory than to label a man who warmly recommends • the socialization of industry and the extension of state activity an anarchist? It has been contended that the report is superficial and that the material was gathered unscientifically. From the long summaries which I have read in the metropolitan papers, I see little justification for this charge. And, after all, the major issue is the accuracy of the report, and this can only be determined by careful analysis and not by a volley of verbal brickbats. a a a TO my mind the chief importance of the report is the fact that it has clearly called attention to the alternatives which face the United States if the new deal proves a failure. General Johnson has been willing to admit this and rightly points out that Fascism or Communism stares us in the face if the new deal does not move on to ultimate success. The fact that Mr. Darrow is rather skeptical of the possible success of the new deal only should encourage its friends to demonstrate that his pessimism is unjustified. This result will ne achieved, if at all, by laboring to improve the new deal and not by calling Mr. Darrow names. The crux of the whole debate, as well as of the NRA, is the question as to whether competition can be civilized and exploited in the permanent interest of mankind. Mr. Darrow doubts it and says: “All competition is savage, wolfish and relentless; and can be nothing else.”

Capital Capers

BY GEORGE ABELL

DYNAMIC Doris Stevens, noted “women’s rights” leader, gave a cocktail party the other day at the Mayflower. The affair was in celebration of the senate foreign relations committee’s action in reporting out favorably the treaty guaranteeing equal nationality rights to women. Miss Stevens, dressed in cobault blue with one of those smart white collars which make a woman look both business-like and attractive, hovered like a presiding genius over the dry Martinis and the political chit-chat. “She was wonderful in Montevidio,” whispered an admirer. “She is wonderful in Washington,” added another. Miss Stevens paid small attention to compliments (at least, apparently). She was busy discussing Secretary of State Hull. Every one at the party felt “so grateful” to Mr. Hull for the wonderful way he helped push the treaty through the senate committee. “Os course,” said one woman, “Mr. Hull didn't do so very much for us at Montevideo, but he’s redeemed himself.” The ears of Cordell Hull must have burned a bright red at some of the remarks. u a tt Madame de laboulaye, wife of the French ambassador, was a guest at the cocktail party. She w’asn't at Montevideo, but she is “sympathetique” to the good cause. Soulful-eyed, fascinating Mme. de Echegary, Russian wife of the Spanish diplomat, was another guest. She listened politely to all the opinions and said little. The pink rose on her broad picture hat was more convincing than a hundred arguments. Mr. Echegaray himself looked a trifle ill at ease. Occasionally he felt in the pockets of his gray flannel coat and started to remove his meerschaum pipe. Should he smoke his pipe and start a real discussion? Finally, he reluctantly relinquished the pipe and listened to the feminine words which erupted in brilliant sparks from all sides of the table. Miss Fanny Bunand-Sevastos, niece of Emil Bourdel, celebrated French sculptor, dressed in Prussian blue, talked with Baron Struve of the German embassy and the erudite Jonathan Mitchell of the New Republic. The life of the party was the ebullient Minister of Ecuador, Mr. Alfaro, who is interested in women’s rights, West Point, boundary disputes, pate-de-foies-gras, Mexican art and how to reduce a waistline without dieting. a a a SENATOR KEY PITTMAN of Nevada, chairman of the senate foreign relations committee, was the toast of the hour. The delightful Mr. Pittman obligingly posed yesterday on the steps of the Capitol with Miss Stevens and Miss Bunand-Sevastos. “I insist on having the Capitol of the United States in the background,” insisted Mr. Pittman, severely regarding photographers who had their own ideas about grouping subjects. He posed magnificently while cameras clicked. a tt GUESTS at the Stevens cocktail party recalled an amusing incident of the fight at Montevidio recently for women’s rights. Lovely Marguerita Mendoza, of the Mexican delegation of the Inter-American Commission of Women, arrived at the Parque hotel and registered: , “Senora Mendoza and husband.” A perturbed hotel manager sought out Dr. Mendoza and asked for an explanation. “Well,” argued Mendoza, “my wife is here as a delegate. If I were here on a professional mission of my own, I should register: ‘Senor Mendoza and wife.’ ” Unconvinced, the manager appealed to the city council for a ruling. They decided that the entry in the hotel register should be changed to ead; “Senor Mendoza and wife,”

_■ THE INDIAN APOLISTMES

" \ . , _ JS& ? i 'tr y - • , . ... : • v ' ' • v-V*

‘The Message Center

(Times readers are invited to express their views in these columns. Make your letters sftort, so all cahare a chance. Limit them to 250 words or less.) DECLARES CONDITIONS GOOD AT REAL SILK By a Real Silk Former Employe. I was at one time an employe at Real Silk and I never before or since have found better working conditions than I had there. There never was a time that a cross word was spoken to me by any one in authority. There is not a more sanitary mill to be found. Regarding the E. M. B. A., of which I was a member and proud to say it—the hospital department where first aid was given the sick and injured was surely worth the small amount paid. Each E. M. B. A. member was given free medical attention for himself and family. I know, because members of my family received medical attention free of charge. I am not opposed to union labor, but I am certainly opposed to agitators and destroyers of property. I have often times remarked, “if not satisfied with working conditions, quit.” Since leaving the Real Silk, I have engaged in business for myself and I have had my share of grief with troublesome help. o at “DEAD OR ALIVE” ARTICLES LAUDED. By C. E. A. I wish to thank you for the articles that have appeared in your paper recently givihg the stories of the lives and unhappy endings of some of our most dangerous criminals. These articles will, no doubt, have a great influence on the lives of many who have been thinking about becoming Dillingers, particularly the younger generation. Unfortunately, these younger persons have grown up in an unusual era of war and crime and their thoughts! have been greatly influenced in the wrong direction. a a a VOICES PRAISE OF DR. GOUTHEY By One of God's Children. I get slightly “mad” every time I hear a sarcastic remark concerning Dr. Gouthey now speaking at Gadle tabernacle. Just a few words to offset the devil. I hate the devil, arid any time I can fight him, I find a real blessing. I would rather be “cussed” now and take heed than suffer worse later. I try my best and stand pat with Dr. Gouthey in trying to kill the poisonous doctrines of our time. "Cussing” is mild to what is ahead. Dr. Gouthey is strong in the faith, courageous enough to dig to the core and if I may say so, I feel as if it will be more tolerable for the “cussing preacher,” if this is a sin, than for the atheists and blasphemers he curses, in that last day. The Bible tells me that whosoever hath not believed is damned already. Is it too far-reaching to say that perhaps God has sent His last warning? This man, so bold, so hard against sin, and yet so soft to sinners who have gone astray; this man who weeps with young people who weep, is it too much to say he Ls God’s last warning? It won’t harm any one to hear Dr. Gouthey,

THE OVAL BECOMES A MAGNET

Envisions Day of Plenty for All

By W. Williams. With all the wonderful progress in the art of obtaining life from nature, what do we find? We have three classes—the lower class, the middle class, and then comes big business. We find in the lower class ten or twelve millions of persons willing and able to feed twice the population of the country living in daily fear of losing home, 'arm and everything, because Mother Nature is too kind. Just above the lower class we find a mass of harried business and professional persons fighting a losing battle hurled in everswelling numbers into the welter of lost hope and poverty below'. In big business we find a bunch of fakers, takers, gamblers, speculators, holdup men, kept women, preachers of Mammon, teachers of tripe, sellers of stolen goods, and politicians, robbing, cheating, lying, double-crossing whoever they may, including each other, fighting like demons over stolen goods, selling body and soul, man-

PLEA FOR AID OF GENIUSES Bv Hiram Lackey. To Paul Wysong, my friend and collaborator, I wish to express my thanks for many helpful suggestions and criticisms. I do not wish to offer to the world any thoughts which have not been subjected to the acid tests of logic and truth. I have a profound admiration for a master of English and the brilliant mind of a genius. It is natural for us to admire in others those qualities which we do not possess in ourselves. When a lover of the finer things reflects on the life of a literary genius, such as Riley, Poe or Shelly, his sense of gratitude will cause him to wish that it had been his privilege to have made the pathway of life a little more pleasant for our great public benefactors who have so guilelessly striven to arouse a latent artistic appreciation. Is there a more noble way to express this longing than to search for the geniuses of our own times, protect them from their weaknesses, and encourage them to give their corresponding strength to the world? For wherever we find great strength in a man, we are apt to find a corresponding weakness. Here is where Christian charity is needed. Shall we allow these “besetting sins” to ruin our geniuses and thus rob the world of the things that are fine and worthwhile? Is our mad rush after wealth and pleasure worthy of all of our time? What we accomplish in life is not measured so much by the degree of our activity as it is by the radiating betterment of the objects upon which our activity is centered. Let us forsake the petty things. It is a sublime privilege to know a poetical genius and to make an intimate study of his strength and weakness; to watch him pierce the mystic screen and catch music and poetry from the other world, and to study that modesty of true greatness which results from contacting this unseen, immeasurable power which works through but is apart from ourselves. Considering how artistic genius has blest the world, it is no stretch of imagination to call such interest our duty. How easy it is for the foolish among us to re-enact the

" l wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it — Voltaire.

hood and God-given brain for the leavings from the tables of dives above. We have mountains of food we can net eat, and mountains of clothes we can not wear ,and also mountains of homes we can not live in. Awake! Shake off the stupor of the ox cart age. Brush away ancient cobwebs that blind your vision. Break the mental chains that bind you to the past. High on the horizon stands the sun of the new day—the day of plenty for all, joy for all, beauty for all, security for all. Don’t stand like gibbering fools before the very gates of paradise begging Gabriel for a chance to earn the core of Eve’s apple. Enter boldly; it is yours. You reared it with the tools born in your brain. Now have brains enough to make it yours, so that man, woman and child may spend their allotted years' eating their meat, bread and honey, drinking milk and wine in peace, security and contentment.

tragedy of Emerson’s mistake when he called the immortal Poe, his contemporary, the “jingle man.” ASSERTS CRITICISM OF REAL SILK TRUE Bv an Ex-Seamer I was employed at Real Silk more than six years and although I haven’t worked there for three years I still • keep in contact with many friends employed there. I was in a position to observe closely and I wish to state that all of the letters telling of the unfairness of the E. M. B. A. the high penalty on defective work, low wages, the partiality and littleness shown by department heads are absolutely true. I observed much unfairness and I want to cite one case in particular and this is only one of many. A girl handicapped by deafness was discharged after six years at Real Silk. The employe’s representative in the E. M. B. A. knew quite well that the girl was not to blame but could he keep her from being discharged? No. That shows that a company union is for the protection of the employer and not the employe. The woman employe on the executive board knows quite as well as the employe’s representative that they can do very little for the employes but their jobs would be gone if they dared breathe it. e a a REPLIES TO CRITICS OF MOTION PICTURES Bv a Reader. This is in reply to a contributor to the Message Center who writes that he is ashamed to be seen at the movies. He need not be if he will but exercise a little common sense and select a picture that might possibly come up to his expectations. Surely, if this person wished to read a book he would not just read any book but would select one to his liking. This is not by any means a defense of course, vulgar or inferior pictures, but a plea for stronger support of clean, wholesome and elevating screen entertainment. Unless it is the purpose of this man to find fault he should not go to a movie “as a good American seeing Paris,” in other wprds, just to any old picture and then condemn them all to the lower regions, but look for one such as the beautiful

MAY 1 28, 1934

“Little Women,” then go and see it. This is the only way to better things in this world of ours. Too many who view with alarm are unwilling to encourage good entertainment by their support when it is offered them. a a a ODD JOBS KEEP THIS MAN GOING Fredrick O. Rusher What is going to become of the young men of today? Many thousands of them are out of work. Their minds and bodies are idle. Charity is doing all it can for their families. What they want is a chance to earn a living. Our noble President has provided a means for men with families—a small salary, but batter than none at all. Young men are loafing. Some of them are scheming to get money, no matter how. Some of them are turning criminal. We read about it frequently in papers. I am one of the unemployed. I am doing odd jobs for a living. Some days are good and others bad, but I am holding my own, just the same. I have a great many friends whom I work for occasionally I am thankful for all the odd work that has been given me. Very few young men have nerve enough to canvass, tut I feel it is better to do that than depend on charity, or go hungry. It keeps the mind clear and the thoughts pure. No crime can enter therein. I am not the type of man who wants to be idle. I am too ambitious to loaf. As long as I can find temporary employment I will try to make myself worthy of my hire. My sympathy goes out to the young men who are not working. I wish they had the courage that I have, and don’t think I am boasting. I have made many friends, and I hope to hold them. My advice to the young men is make up your mind to find odd jobs, and help our President fight this depression. If I can do it, you can do it. Help life the burden of charity; let it become more available to families with small children.

So They Say

There is no waste ih the world comparable to the w r aste of human effort and human experience.— President Nicholas Murray Butler of Columbia university. SONG BY HARRIETT SCOTT OLINICH My love was shining gold today. It choked my throat and stabbed my heart. It gave me hands tuned to your touch, Gave yea my soul to rend apart. My love was loath to let you know Its anguish and its muted pain. I gave you glances, shy and swift, And held love’s music c.ose in rein. I spoke of violets, far blue sky; Remarked the passing of the time. Said spring was lovelier this year; I told you where I wished to dine. And then you took my hands in yours With quiet ease; my chatter died. A heart can be a leaping flame, And love can open portals wide.