Indianapolis Times, Volume 46, Number 142, Indianapolis, Marion County, 24 October 1934 — Page 14

PAGE 14

The Indianapolis Times (A *rR!PF-HOWAJn XF.WSPAPFRi ROT W. HOWARD Rrfiid^nt TALCOTT POWELL E<l!tor EAKL D. BAKER Busin*** Munazer Phnn* Rll*y 5551

Momber vs rnlte<i Pr**. K r npps • llovrn r<3 Newspaper Allianz, Newspaper Enterprise A*ociatL>n. Newspaper !nf'~'r?ria*|f'n Kfrrl<-e n<l Audit Bureau of Circulations Owned and published daily lexfept Sunday) by The Indianapolis Times i’ubb-bln* Cotniany. 2H-220 West Maryland street, tndianapolt*. led. I’rlr# in Marlon connty 2 r*na a copy: elsewhere. 3 rnt*—dl:eered hr carrier. 12 cent* a week. Mall subscription rafe§ in Indian*. SS a Tear: outside of Indiana, d.l cents a month. *

ll*'** Give Light and the People TTiU I tan Their Own Way

WEDNESDAY. OCT 21. 1934

JAPAN DEMANDS JAPAN is going to kick over the Washington ** naval treaty. Dispatches from the London naval meeting seem to agree as to that. Indeed this has been the theme of Tokio statements for many months. And still it is hard to believe. It is such a foolish thing for Japan to do from her own point of view. If Japan kills that limitation treaty she will force an armament race. Os all nations Japan least can afford such a race. Great Britain and the United States are bigger, stronger and richer than Japan. In a needless spending orgy Japan can not possibly win. The reasons she gives for her new policy are just as difficult to understand as her motives. She explains that she wants equality m defensive armament, and that therefore the 5-5-3 ratio for Britain, the United States and Japan—established by the Washington treaty —must be tom up. She is right m demanding equality in defense. But she is wrong in stating that it is necessary to destroy the treaty to get it. She has it already. The 5-5-3 ratio to which Japan originally agreed was not pulled out of a hat as an accidental figure: nor was it Axed to assure American and British superiority and Japanese inferiority. It was arrived at for the express purpose of creating a stalemate in which each of the three powers would be secure from attack In its own waters. As long as that ratio is maintained it is impossible for either Britain or the United States to attack Japan because of the great distances from their naval bases. In fact Japan with a three-ratio is in much stronger position to protect her mainland and possessions, than are either Britain or the United States with their five-ratios. And that is the test of a so-called defensive navy. The Japanese admirals have their tongues in their cheeks when they talk about dividing up craft as defensive and offensive. That is one of those half-truths which is not true. A navy operates as a unit, and craft which may be used for defensive purposes at one time may be used for attack at another time. If Japan really wishes a defensive force it can be achieved only by some such overall balance of navies as worked out in the Washington and London treaties. Os course there is nothing sacred about the particular 5-5-3 ratio. Perhaps conditions have changed sufficiently during the decade to merit slight shifts in the ratios to maintain the balance originally established But that is quite different from attempting, as Japan apparently is trying, to destroy the balance Japan has a legal right to denounce the naval treaty But she should stop at least long enough to realize that, once it is broken, it will not be easy to put together again A GO-AHEAD SIGNAL REPORTS that the new NRA has decided to modify attempts to control industrial production cause laissez faire advocates to throw their hats into the air and hail a ‘retreat” in planned economy. But national planning has gained much ground since even most of the rugged individualists have stopped objecting to government brakes on production of natural resources such as oil, coal and lumber. It is high time to lift the lid from most industries. other than natural resources, to permit an attack upon the depression from the consumption angle. But this does not mean that henceforth the working of ‘‘natural economic laws” will make everything rosy in industry. It should be remembered that the production controls in NRA codes were not clamped down arbitrarily by a regimenting government bureaucracy. Most of them were inserted at the insistence of the industries, themselves. Faced with glutted markets and sagging prices, the industries demanded this protection. Wisely. NRA agreed to these restrictions to enable industry # to restore the balance between production and consumption. In the interim, the surpluses of goods have largely disappeared. Now, it is a logical step to permit Rider play of Competitive forces so that industry can take advantage of technological improvements and work toward more efficient production and lower prices to consumers. But the same conditions that made production control necessary at the beginning of the Blue Eagle era may arise again. Unless the wage-hour and collective bargaining provisions of the codes are enforced strictly, there is danger of another destructive price war and markets overflowing with sweat-shop goods. This is not a simple problem. There is no single solution either all black or all white. 9 RELIEF SHOWDOWN ■JkJ’ORE than half of the forty-eight state governments today are making no effective contribution to the support of their needy citizens. A dozen states contribute less than 5 per cent. The average state contribution is now about 12 per cent, and the average of local subdivisions about 15 per cent. Already the relief burden of the federal government has become heavier than it can long sustain, and the delinquency of the majority of states threatens to cause a breakdown in the co-operation now being extended by a responsible minority. Unless the federal government forces the hand of the delinquents, the few states that are still helping to carry the load hardly can be blamed if they too abdicate their responsibilities. Under the Hoover regime, the national administration was slow to admit that it owed any responsibility to the unemployed. Today many state and local governments seem to^as-

sume that the federal government should do the whole job. The depression was. and still is. national. There was, ana still is, a wide disparity in the wealth of the individual states and a disproportion in the percentage of destitute persons within the various states. But there is no excuse for the states that are now shirking. The task of feeding, clothing and creating employment for the Jobless is so tremendous it cam not be handled successfully without equitable co-operation. An estimated 5,000,000 families may be on relief this winter. So that no person shall be hungry or naked, the federal emergency relief administration has thus ; far refrained from penalizing the delinquent states. But the time soon may come when the FERA will be forced to discriminate against sta‘es that have the ability but not the willingness to help shoulder the burden. Such drastic action may arouse the people within the states. Then evasion of state responsibility will no longer be politically expedient. JUST BEYOND HIS NOSE SECRETARY OF TREASURY MORGENTHAU told reporters recently he had not made up his mind whether federal liquor taxes are too high. Lying on the front of his desk were sheets revealing the results of “Activities of Investigators, Alcohol Tax Unit, For Week Ending Oct. 6, 1934.” These results were: 236 stills seized, capacity 33,797 gallons. 12,221 gallons spirits seized. 412,515 gallons mash seized. Fifty-nine autos and trucks seized, Value of property seized, $73,947. Arrests, 443. The figures do not show any great variation between “wet” and “dry” states. There were twenty stills seized in “tvet” Kentucky and fourteen in ‘‘dry’’ Tennessee. With such weekly reports on the edge of his desk, Secretary Morgenthau should not have to-look far beyond the end of his nose to see that taxes are creating sufficient margin in prices to make bootlegging still profitable. GIVE! AGAIN the President has appealed to us to support our local charities. All over the nation community chest and similar joint organizational drives are under way—the ‘‘1934 mobilization for human needs.” There has been a great deal of criticism of government relief. From the beginning of the depression certain groups have insisted that relief should remain on a personal voluntary basis. Well, the opportunity still remains for personal relief and for support of the numerous character-building agencies which exist in every community and whose good works are well known. Many of these institutions will go under unless citizens fortunate enough to have incomes during the depression support their organized philanthropies. The federal government is doing its share. Some of the state and local governments can and should contribute more to official relief. But when that is done, the need for the private agencies will still exist. That need can not be met unless the employed and especially the well-to-do give and give liberally. A ‘TOUGH KID’ CRIES npHERE is something both humorous and grimly appalling about the story of that 9-year-old New York boy who was arrested with a burglar’s kit in his possession and was accused of breaking into a store. This lad talked the lingo of gangland. He told the- police, ‘‘Gimme the works—it won’t do you no good.” They gave him ice cream, instead of the works, and he said: “I'm tough, and I don't go for that squealing stuff.” When he succeeded in getting the police off on a false trail, he chortled, “That was just, a run-around for you guys.” Finally, to be sure, they brought in the young toughy’s mother, and he broke down and wept like any other kid in a jam. But this juvenile bravado, his very obvious effort to pattern himself after the desperadoes of the underworld—don’t they constitute a terrifying indictment of the kind of material some children are given for models, these days? UNLUCKY IN HISTORY Field marshal Alexander von KLUCK, who died in Berlin the other day at the age of 88. will go down in history with about as melancholy a claim to fame as any military man could have. It was Von Kluck who commanded the right flank army when Germany swept through Belgium into France in 1914. The great invasion seemed irresistible, for a time —then, suddenly, something went wrong, the right flank had to retire precipitately, and that long series of scattered fights known as the battle of the Marne resulted in a shattering German defeat. Von Kluck was the man on the spot in all this. The defeat was not his fault. Moltke, then the commander-in-chief, anust take that responsibility. But Von Kluck's name is the name one remembers in connection with it. As long as military history is studied, he will be known as the man who was beaten at the Marne. Speaking of relief, it seems that someone should remember the sad plight of the corn borer, without a meal in sight. Louisiana is headed for Hitlerism, warns a legislator, but it's to be hoped that Huey Long stops short of the mustache. There seems to be a silver lining even to a drought. Boston reports say that there will be a cranberry shortage this year. Poor relief is being placed on a higher plane in Cleveland. Deciding that the needy should have only the best, county officials have bought twelve Grecian urns for special cuspidor services at the courthouse at a cost of only S6OO. Wonder if we could get some of that grass which Mr. Hoover said would grow in American streets to use as an old-fashioned book marker in Mr. Hoover’s new book? Upton Sinclair pronounces it “Eepic,’* to distinguish it from the poetic term, and others will agree there’s no rhyme nor reason to the plan A k

Liberal Viewpoint —BY DR. HARRY ELMER BARNES

THE death of General Alexander von Kluck brines to mind the major blunder of the World war Just twenty years ago. Von Kluck had victory within his gTasp —a victory which would almost certainly have meant a German triumph in the war—when it was snatched from him by bungling and incompetent meddling on the part of the German high command. The Germans had counted on winning the war through a quick and smashing victory against France, after which the German armies were to be withdrawn and hurled against Russia. This was the Schlieffen plan, perfected in 1905 and immediately thereafter. In 1912-13, it finally was decided to go through Belgium, whatever the diplomatic and military cost, since it was believed impossible to crush Russia in the east, even if most of the German forces were hurled against the Slavic giant. Secretary of state. Von Jagow, had argued against this on the ground that it might bring England into the war. but he was overruled. The Schlieffen plan worked perfectly in 1914, in spite of a blunder by General von Bulow, which prevented the annihilation of the French armies later in August, 1914. General von Kluck would have taken Paris and fatally crippled both the French and English armies had it not been for an order to retreat issued from German headquarters. With Hindenburg smashing the Russian in the east, the war would have been Germany’s before snowfall. a it a THE primary responsibility was that of the kaiser. He retained Von Moltke as chief-of-staff against the advice of his ablest military men. This was due in part to intoxication over a name and partly to the kaiser’s personal loyalty to Von Moltke. The latter was the nephew of the great field marshal who had won the Franco-Prussian war. Von Moltke was a name to conjure with in Germany, though the younger Von Moltke had given no proof whatever of possessing any of the military genius of his illustrious uncle. In the summer of 1914. his physical condition, if nothing else, would have dictated his honorable retirement even before war broke out. He had taken the “cure” at the health baths three times that spring. Admiral von Tirpitz once told me that during the consultations of the crisis of July, 1914, Von Moltke could not get out of his chair unassisted. Yet it was this mediocre soldier and sick man to whom the kaiser entrusted the destinies of Germany in 1914. This is the chief responsibility of the kaiser for losing the war. When he failed to put an able and aggressive general in control of the German armies, he headed himself toward Doom. a a a MOLTKE was too feeble and confused to keep up with the rapidly moving events of the surprising German advance. Alarmed lest disaster might follow too rapid and extensive progress of the German armies in France, he sent out Lieutenant-Colonel Hentsch as his representative with plenary powers to order a retreat if he deemed it desirable. Hentsch never had seen service on the field of battle. He became confused and, terrified at the sight of carnage, ordered a retreat when the Germans might have advanced into Paris alriost unopposed. The so-called “taxicab army” already had been repulsed. The French were in flight and the British had prepared to recall their army and transport it to Bordeaux. The famous first battle of the Marne was won for France, not by Joffre or the taxicab army, but by the kaiser, Von Moltke and Hentsch. It is pure conjecture as to what the world would be like if Von Kluck had kept on going west and Germany had won the war. German militarism -would have been vindicated and would have been in the saddle. Perhaps a coalition would have been formed against it and another bloody war waged ere this. It is doubtful, however, if things would have been much worse than they are now in Europe. The calamity of a smashing German victory was averted by the incompetence of Von Moltke, but on its heels came the calamity with which we have to reckon bitterly today, the “knockout blow” of the allies, the Treaty of Versailles and the European anarchy and Fascism, which menaces us twenty years after Von Kluck’s hand was stayed by the German high command.

Capital Capers BY GEORGE ABELL

PRESIDENT JUSTO of Argentina has sent back to the Argentine embassy his close friend. Adolfo de Urquiza, who again will rule this winter as arbiter of elegance in diplomatic circles. Friends of kings and presidents, Adolfo is known here as the last word in etiquet. He decides who shall sit by whom and why. Decorated by King Alfonso XIII of Spain (who admired his cocktails at Biarritz), he dedicated pages of his etiquet book—“ Ceremonial Publico”—to that monarch. When Adolfo arrived here last week friends noted that the erstwhile 250-pound arbiter of elegance is much slimmer. "Yes.” beamed Adolfo, “I have reduced. I now weigh 198 pounds—no more, no less.” He wore smart black oxfords made in Argentina (for which he paid 30 pesos), reported that Argentina is one of the most economic places in the world to live, presented calf-skin pocket books to his friends, announced that Washington’s cocktail and etiquet program for this winter is most promising. a an THE wedding of the German ambassador’s daughter, Fraulein Gertraud Luther, and Herr Gerrit von Haeften, third secretary of the German embassy, was a gala event. Arrayed in silk hats and morning coats, the entire diplomatic corps attended en masse—both the church ceremony and the big reception at the embassy afterwards. Noted among the diplomats: Sir Ronald Lindsay, the broadshouldered British ambassador (whose coats never fit), carrying a lady's sable neckpiece which he found in the church. At first, some observers thought Sir Ronald —a bizarre dresser—was wearing the fur. The French ambassador, M. de Laboulaye, arrived late, wearing a black tie and looking decidedly funereal. Herr Doktor Luther, the plump German ambassador, was the saddest figure in the world as he trudged down the aisle after the wedding. It brought tears to one's eyes. His chin rested on his chest, his look was fixed in Napoleonic revery on the floor. Signor Augusto Rosso, the Italian ambassador, was immaculate in his well cut morning coat. He might have proved an object lesson to Minister Arcaya of Venezuela, who came wearing—of all things—a bright blue tie. General Friedrich von Boetticher, the German military attache, appeared in his fieldgray uniform, sparkling with medals, merry as if he were celebrating the birthday of Frederick the Great—his idol. sou DELICIOUSLY iced and dry was the champagne served at the German reception. The old German embassy walls seemed to expand under pressure of the crowd, which swelled to huge proportion. The rose colored ballroom with its twinkling chandeliers had been cleared of furniture, and here guests gathered in groups to have tea and eat sandwiches from a buffet. Egyptian Minister Ratib Bey. wearing his monocle and white waistcoat was a cheerful figure. He is one of the few men who really can keep a monocle in his eye and make it seem natural. Fred Nano, the former Rumanian counselor, never mastered the art. He looked : like a poor imitation of Sir Austen Chamberlain. Incidentally Ratib Bey's daughter, Mile. Nehail. will be voted one of the most attractive members of the young diplomatic set. She wore a brown ensemble, brown velvet hat and crimson scarf, and her complexion is <&s one diplomat said) “ravissante." The Hungarian miners who went back on strike should have known there was a white man in the coal heap.

. THE INDIANAPOLIS TIMES

4?. > • ■ ■-■.. • . ' ■ ;; < 0 ~d.o.ai-

The Message Center

(Times readers are invited to express their vietCß in these columns. Make your letters short, so alt car, have a chance, l.imit them to 850 words or less.) n a a DEATH OF LIBERTY IN AMERICA RECORDED By Harley I. Newton. America was once prosperous and people could get employment and they never realized that the time would come in the good old U. S. A., Christian enlightened America, the land of opportunity, “the land of the free and the home of the brave,” that 23,000.000 persons would one day be as the serfs of Russia or the peons of Mexico. They were taught, and believed, that George Waashington and his revolutionary arm “brought forth upon this continent anew nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal,” and that the Constitution gave us a “new birth of freedom,” when it was established and ordained to promote the general welfare, and “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” But today all this teaching appears to be lost, and ail the suffering and all the tears shed by the widows and orphans of the soldiers of the revolutionary and subsequent wars, were in vain, and the principles that Washington and Lincoln fought for were trifles. Our liberties are being taken away. Patrick Henry, the Colonial orator, said, "Give me liberty or give me death.” The citizens of that period were in unison with that declaration but now our liberties are gone, and 23,000,000 persons say, “Give us your meager dole, else we starve.” When honor is gone, all is gone, and in losing our liberties, we have lost our honor. To prove that our rights are gone, let us refer to the first amendment of the Constitution. It says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abolishing the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the people to peaceably assemble, and petition the government for redress or grievances.” What about our boasted freedom of speech? Just start making a speech in one of the large cities, telling of present conditions, and immediately the speaker will be arrested and cast into prison as a dangerous person. Eugene V. Debs was sent to the penitentiary and disfranchised for making speeches and telling people the truth during the World war. Then there were the soldiers sent to France to fight to make the world safe for democracy. While there, they endured the horrors of a living hell. The miserable remnants of a once glorious manhood, maimed and gassed, they returned home to their native land and peaceably assembled and went to Washington to “humbly petition the government for redress of grievances.’” Did this “government of the people, by the people and for the people,” hear their cry for Justice? Indeed it did, and the chief executive called the army and had it attack the former defenders and rout and disperse them, proving that American citizens have not the right to peaceably assemble and petition

THE NEW SLOGAN

Doubts Reliability of Literary Digest Poll

By G. Olvev. Just a word concerning the recent Literary Digest poll. On Saturday night I attended a meeting in Noblesville of approximate--500 persons in which the speaker conducted a poll. He first asked how many of those present had received a ballot from the Literary Digest in the poll last spring. Practically everyone of the 500 raised hands signifying their receipt of that ballot. Next he asked, how many had received a ballot in the most recent poll of the Digest. Not a single hand went up. The speaker* insisted that he really wished to know if anyone present had received a ballot on the last poll, and again not a hand went up. I have always received a ballot from the Literary Digest on each of its polls, but I did not

for redress of grievances. These are facts, and they are causing the fire of patriotism to die in American hearts. a a a BRANDS DEMOCRATS VETERANS’ FOES By William B. Rosebrock. The promising Democrats are at it again. “Faith will be kept.” A Democrat in the United States senate and a solid Democratic delegation from Indiana in the congress is the veterans’ best bet for justice. All very pretty in so many words. But what are the facts? Senator Frederick Van Nuvs promised’ the same thing and deceived all who supported him. Administration man, if you please, right or wrong. I ask. in the name of justice, how a candidate of the Democratic party can appeal to the veterans for votes after the treatment received from the present administration? Sherman Minton knows the exact words of the President he pledges to support. Here are the words: “No person, because he wore a uniform, thereafter must be placed in a special class of beneficiaries over and above ail other citizens.” Do you believe that an awakened American public stands for this kind of treatment for its defenders? “To care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphans,” said Abraham Lincoln. And again. “War veterans have a greater claim upon us than any other class of our citizens”— Theodore Roosevelt. Do you stand for this, Mr. Minton? Senator Arthur R. Robinson does and his party also. a a a HE D OUTLAW SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM By a Tim?* Reader. Another Times reader and Noah H. Litle, aided and abetted by an ex-Republican, come to the defense of socialism in such a manner as to indicate that they have a very bad case of socialitis. Mr. Litle wants to explain what socialism is, so he quotes from Webster’s dictionary. “Socialism is a theory of society.” says Mr. W’ebster, and that is all there is to socialism. It is a theory and nothing else. These writers who are trying to explain what socialism really is should read up on the Russian experiment in socialism. The experiment in Russia has already cost from 10,000.000 to 15,000.000 lives in

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

even know a poll was being conducted this time until I read the results in the daily papers. I have talked with many who have had the same experience, although the papers stated that the ballots had been sent to the same persons in both polls. If the speaker’s experiment at this meeting is to be accepted as any sort of criterion it would seem to indicate that the ballots on the Literary Digest’s most recent pool were returned only by bankers and such groups as are known to be quite hostile to the new deal and the policies of the President. It is difficult to understand how the opinions of 65,000 bankers and captains of industry can reflect the true attitude of 40,000,000 of voters who have been genuinely benefitted by the New Deal.

only seventeen years of trying to convert the Russians to Socialist theories, so I believe it would be far better for we Americans to profit by their example and outlaw both socialism and communism. These poor deluded writers who have renounced their American heritage for a mere theory of something better have nothing substantial on which to base their arguments. I have lived under the Constitution of the United States for fortythree years and I know that one of the worst problems has been the horde of immigrants who wanted to share our liberty and prosperity. This all is clear to every thinking person. A Russian of the Jewish race with whom I worked told me that conditions in this country during the depression are far better than those in the old country in ordinary times. The United States still has a hard time to keep out foreigners. Russia guards her frontiers to keep her people at home so they will not miss any of the joys of socialism—starvation and slavery. I am a poor man but it takes more than a little depression to make a cowardly traitor of me. Long live the United States and confusion to all Socialists. a a a BELIEVES ERROR EXISTS IN NEW DEAL POLL By a Times Reader. You state in part: “In March and April, the Literary Digest sent questionnaires to 65.000 persons, asking whether they approved the Roosevelt administration acts and policies, and in August and September repeated the same question to the same persons.” - My wife and I and two other persons I know received these questionnaires in March and April, and w T e all voted in favor of the New Deal. None of us received the August and September questionnaires and had we received it we would,

Daily Thought

That which is crooked can not be made straight, and that which is wanting can not be numbered.— Ecclesiastes, 1:15. BE certain that he who has betrayed thee once will betray thee again.—Lavater. v

OCT. 24, 1934

| of course, have voted in favor of the New Deal. Naturally, the question that enters my mind is whether or not the Digest eliminated some of those who voted in favor intentionally for political purposes, but not knowing of its political affiliations, I only wonder. At any rate, my conclusion is that the second poll Is at least partly wrong, and it might be that if the Digest were checked up on, a large number might be found who did not receive the second questionnaire. I believe the truth has been distorted somewhere. a a a NEW DEAL POLL HELD LACKING By A Times Reader. Your editorial regarding the Literary Digest poll on the New Deal seems logical and well expressed, especially when contrasted with one of the same day in a city Republican paper, which pretends to see a strong swing back to the old order, and election of a group of Republican representatives elected from Indiana. While the poll of 15,000,000 undertaken earlier in the year should give us a fairly accurate index as to the sentiment of the people, it is quite doubtful if any such significance can be given to 43-100 of 1 per cent of that number, or the 65,000 polled in this last count. And as only about 10 per cent of persons polled vote, according to all past records, this would give us the sentiments of approximately 6,500 persons throughout the country, certainly too small a number to make any accurate and far reaching deductions from, especially when the basis for selecting the names is not given. Most of us will be somewhat skeptical about so pronounced a swing away from the administration in so short a time. But even if there is significance to be attached to the poll, which I doubt, there Is no reason to feel the public favors a return to the old order of the Republican party. Judging from the nominees in Mississippi, California and Massachusetts, it would be just as logical to assume the people are dissatisfied because they feel the New Deal has not gone far enough, and want something more liberal.

So They Say

The sooner business is back in the hands of business men, the sooner will business begin to function.—Senator James J. Davis, Republican, Pennsylvania. For all our sacrifices of blood and treasure for European nations, we have neither the thanks nor appreciation of any nation.—Senator J. Hamilton Lewis, Democrat, Illinois.

DIARY

BY MAID A L. STECKLEMAN With the wistful, haunting fragrance Os a red, red rose in bloom You lie among the fragments of a half Forgotten tune. The key is lost, the pages gray, The bloom Is red dust and decay— Tarnished, dreams that once were goldidols crumbling, deep in mold.