Indianapolis Times, Volume 47, Number 268, Indianapolis, Marion County, 17 January 1936 — Page 18

PAGE 18

The Indianapolis Times (A ftCRIrPS.HOWARD NEWSPAPER! HOT W. HOWARD Preuldent LUnWELL PENNY Editor EARL I). BAKER Builne*! Manager

B ■ Oir l.loht and tht People Wilt l-'init Their Own Way

Member of United I’rea*. Rcripps* Hownrd Newspaper Alliance. Newspaper Enterprtae Aaaoclation, Newspaper Information Sertlce and Audit Bureau of Circulations. Owned and pu'bllabed dally (except Sunday) by The Indianapolis Times Publishing: Cos.. '.114-220 W. Maryland-at. Indianapolis. Ind. Prlra in Marlon County. 3 cent* • ropy: delirared by carrier. 12 cents a week. Mall subscription rates In Indians. $3 a year: out-s-'de of Indiana, 66 cent* a month. Phone KI ley SMI

* FRIDAY. JANUARY 17. 1938. THE HAUPTMANN REPRIEVE "ITERY few who followed Bruno Hauptmann’s trial ™ disagreed with the Jury's verdict of guilt, but the confusing developments of the last few days have raised some doubts in the minds of some people. Because he shares in tho.se doubts or because he wants to exhaust every opportunity to clear up doubto in the minds of others, Gov. Hoffman of New Jersey has granted the condemned man a 30-day reprieve. In that time the courts and the state's parole bear' may examine any new evidence that is brought forward. If Hauptmann is guilty, as most people believe him to be, this respite will not frustrate the ends of Justice. Indeed, under the laws of New Jersey, it is not within the Governor’s powers to defeat the operations of orderly judicial processes. He has only the power to postpone for a maximum of 90 days the execution of a death sentence. And it is his stern duty to exercise that power when in his judgment it might conceivably result in preventing what might—too late—be proved a mistake. Some, who can not possibly know as much about the case as Gov. Hoffman does, will find fault with what he has done. But we are not the keepers of Gov. Hoffman's conscience. And we are glad his responsibility is not ours. NEUTRALITY: FORWARD OR BACKWARD? CONGRESS, in framing a permanent neutrality law. seems anxious to have its apple and eat it, too—to achieve perfect neutrality yet insist on upholding “freedom of the seas.” President McKinley, in 1898, and Congress by Joint resolution in 1904, defined ‘‘freedom of the seas" as "the principle of the exemption of all private property at sea, not contraband of war, from capture or destruction by belligerent powers.” Later on Secretary of State Root was to accept this definition, but he held that it was important that agreement should be reached as to what constituted contraband. For he recognized—as we found out in the World War—that contraband lists might include practically everything. This tendency, says Charles Warren, assistant attorney general in the Wilson Administration, might well deprive any rule regarding property on the high seas almost entirely of its effect. Which, of course, is very true. So patent a truth Is it, and so potent, that Rep. Maury Maverick of Texas makes it an important part of his neutrality bill. He would embargo “any munitions of war, or article declared to be contraband of war by it, or by any foreign nation with which such belligerent foreign nation is engaged in armed conflict.” Thus narrowed down, like the angels which danced on the head of a pin, our “freedom of the seas” would be small indeed. About all we could export would be the hot air confined in otherwise empty holds. Like it or not, contraband is not what we, ourselves, choose to put on our list as such, but ' what the other fellow with a big navy writes down on his. a m n AS for international war, it existed before the World War. So did neutral rights. But they were smashed right and left by both sides in that struggle—so much so that President Wilson might have called Britain to terms had he not felt Germany to be the greater offender. Congress should look forward, not backward. It can stick to the ancient doctrine of freedom of the seas, with all it implies, or set up a modern new doctrine of neutrality. No neutrality law can make us immune from attack, or from being dragged into a conflict. But we can materially narrow down the chances. Voluntarily we can give up some of our so-called rights in time of world conflict, or we can go along as we did before and plunge over the precipice with the rest. There can be no question, however, of our abandoning our neutral rights, a popular notion to the contrary notwithstanding. We can give up some of them, even many’ of them, but we will still have many more left. And whatever we decide to retain, that must we be prepared to defend. Mighty nations fighting for their lives are scant respecters of others’ “rights.” If by violating such rights they believe they can win. they will do so. Thomas Jefferson was a great pacifist. He gave us our first neutrality plan. Yet we were drawn into two wars with Europe—undeclared one with Franoe and a regular one with Britain—in his day. Which brings us back to Congress. Its Job is to eliminate all possible dangerous practices in world war times in order to afford us maximum security. But, we repeat, what rights we retain we must defend. To think otherwise would be to live in a fool's paradise. As witness China. DON’T READ HISTORY! MESSRS. FLETCHER, Knox, Fish, Beck and other Republicans should get what joy they can from the New Deal Congress’ clash with the Supreme Court. They should not read history. For a cursory glance back through the years will remind them that it is their party that has had to battle out ir.ost of the issues in which the legislative and the executive branches have clashed with the judiciary. Since the Republican Party was born there have been five major engagements with the high court. In each of these, it happened, the Republicans were on the firing line. 'The first was when Chief Justice Taney of Maryland in his majority Dred Scott decision ruled against Congress' right to forbid slavery in the new territories. In IM3 a Republican Congress abolished slavery there anyway, and that unhappy decision was erased by the best blood of the North and South. The second was in the McGardle case, when the high court threatened to block Congress’ will to pass the Reconstruction laws. This time the Republican Congress quietly stripped the court of Jurisdiction. The third was when the Rupiame Court tried to defeat the Republican Congress’ pian to finance the Civil War debts with paper money by declaring the Mal Tender Act unconstitutional. There happened to be two eourt vacancies, so Republican President

Bradley, and the decision was gently and speedily reversed. The fourth was in 1895 when a divided Supreme Court declared the Income tax law unconstitutional. In 1909 a Republican Congress initiated the Sixteenth Amendment, permitting the government to levy taxes on incomes. The fifth was in 1922 when the Supreme Court, in an 8-to-l decision, knocked out the second Child Labor Law, a law that had been supported by overwhelming majorities and by such Republicans as Senators Lodge and Curtis and Speaker Longworth. How strong was the feeling in the 1924 Republican Congress may be judged by the fact that 30 resolutions were introduced calling for constitutional amendments. That after the intervening 12 years there are still lacking 12 states to undo this wrong against children only indicates the need for speeding up the amending processes. MR. FARLEY’S DEBTS rpESTIVE Democrats who gathered round the Jack--U son Day banquet tables ate up what had appeared to be an undigestible party deficit. And Chairman Farley’s successful auctioning of the party convention to Philadelphia for $200,000 left the Democratic National Committee with a substantial operating surplus. We trust that John J. Raskob now will lose no time In making the committee pay its debt to him, which windfall he probably will turn over to the American Liberty League to be used in lambasting the Democratic Administration. We trust also that the American Telephone and Telegraph Cos. will lose no time in demanding that the committee pay its long-overdue $41,000 phone bill. Indeed, knowing what the telephone company usually does when the average subscriber gets $2.50 behind on his phone bill, it is hard to understand why the A. T. & T. hasn't long since disconnected Mr. Farley’s line. STATE’S RIGHTS FARMING \\/ r E make bold to attempt to gild the lily of the minority justices’ dissent to the AAA decision. The majority’s ruling, as we read it, is more a definition of agriculture than an Interpretation of the Constitution. It first declares that the growing of crops Is a local enterprise. From that premise it advances to the assertion that the welfare of agriculture, therefore, is a matter of concern of the various localities and states where the crops are grown. Thence to the conclusion that what is a matter of local welfare is not a matter of national welfare, and since the Constitution gives to Congress jurisdiction only over matters relating to national welfare, Congress therefore has no jurisdiction over agriculture. It is true that when the Constitution was drafted a century and a half ago, agriculture was primarily a local operation. The Founding Father sat down to a meal which included: Bread baked in his own ovens, out of flour ground in the water mill down the creek, out of wheat grown on his own farm; meat cured in his own smokehouse, butchered from his own herds which had been fattened on his own grain; wine from his own cellar, crushed out of grapes from his own vineyard. But Mr. Justice Roberts and his colleagues of the Supreme Court majority sit down in Washington, D. C., to a breakfast of orange juice crushed from Florida oranges; bacon from an lowa hog cured in a Chicago packing house, toast from bread made of Dakota wheat which had been stored in a Duluth granary and ground Into flour at Buffalo, and eggs fresh from a Maryland farm. Less fortunate Washingtonians breakfast on cold storage eggs shipped across the continent. Yes, agriculture was primarily a local industry in 1787, when the bulk of a farmer’s commerce was made up of such transactions as swapping with the village shoemaker, a side of ribs for a pair of shoes. But even then the welfare of agriculture was a matter of vital national concern, for the young republic built its wealth on the exports of farm products to Europe. In 1932, there was a revival of the local swapping type of agricultural commerce, when neither villagers nor farmers could get money for the products . of their labor and had to swap with each other to keep alive, when wheat was burned in Kansas furnaces because it was cheaper than coal. And in 1932, the breadlines and the bankruptcies of business houses and the closing of factories and banks in tile cities attested to the fact that agriculture’s welfare, or rather lack of welfare, was a matter of vital national concern. Ten-cent corn in lowa and 25-cent wheat in the Dakotas caused a shrinkage in- farm purchasing power, a consequent shrinkage in city pay rolls, and changed industrial profits to industrial losses. Farm foreclosures and dwindling of farm values resulted In such a shrinkage of the assets of banks and insurance companies that even the billions which Mr. Hoover’s RFC pumped into those financial institutions failed to prevent what finally happened. In 1933, the Roosevelt Administration launched a farm recovery program, and for two and one-half years agriculture’s welfare and the national welfare steadily improved. It is fortunate for the country that the Supreme Court majority did not hand down its definition of agriculture in 1932 or 1933. Or is it? Maybe even life-appointed judges in those dark days might have recognized that something greater than the power of a county sheriff in Mississippi was required to keep an insurance company in another state hundreds of miles away from going to the wall. A WOMAN’S VIEWPOINT By Mrs. Walter Ferguson HOWARD BRUBAKER of The New Yorker expresses a faint surprise that the new British Who's Who lists Dr. Dafoe and not Mama Dionne. It’s just one of those things, Mr. Brubaker, which have embittered our sex, and which apparently we shall always have to endure. Even those who have never borne quintuplets, but are ready to call it a pretty good day s work when they bring forth one, suffer the same slight—and without comment from editorial writers. We are so accustomed to it, in fact, that we were gratified to find it was Dr. Dafoe who had been numbered among the great. We had expected it would be Papa Dionne. That's the way it generally goes. We have the children; the men take the glory. Nothing turns a man’s head like fatherhood. Papa Dionne, of course, can not be included in the general category. Throughout the entire business of getting the quintuplets presented to the world, he has shown truly remarkable modesty, considering hi* sex. No doubt that’s because he has lived ail his life in the backwoods, where there’s. nothing uncommon in having one’s house littered with babies. I daresay if the same thing had happened to any American man he would have popped with pride. A recent telegram I saw from the new father of twin sons to the new father of one daughter, tells the whole story. It read, “Who’s the better man now?” Not only the number but the sex of the child, you see, adds jubilation to the male cry of triumph. We have to confess that it’s irritating, Mr. Brubaker. For what’s fair about men taking the glory m i in U only undortUmg U*y Unit they can't icoonoMl

THS INDIANAPOLIS TIMES

Squaring The Circle With McCREADY HUSTON

“TTERE is some junk you might be able to use,” writes Guy Rich. It seems he and some others were having a party and, for lack of something better to do, decided to select an All-America columnist team. I wouldn’t call It junk. Anything that stimulates discussion of the value of the men who help form public opinion is the opposite of junk. Well, here is the selection. Perhaps Mr. Rich has started something that will spread beyond Indiana. # # u "• IGHT Half Back—Broun. He is a vicious blocker, a deadly tackier, adept in knocking down passes. Quarter Back—Winchell. Is a wonder at diagnosing plays before they start. Left Half Back—Gibbons (out for the last semester). The greatest (men field runner in the country. Full Back—Runyon. One of the best plungers of all time. Center—Rice. Has never made a bad pass. Steadies the whole team. Guard—Wiegand. Exceptionally strong, stubborn; good on defense. Guard—Deleted by the censor who will explain later. Left Tackle—Mclntyre. Also captain. Right Tackle —Brisbane. May have one more season in him. Left End—Pegler. For cutting down enemy plays has no equal. Also expert in blocking punts. The only one for the position. Right End—Bugs Baer. Substitute—Woollcott. Can play any position. nun 'T'HE only one of the All-America selections of Mr. Rich and friends who may not be known to our readers is William G. Wiegand. He writes “Down the Spillway” in the New Orleans Item. I would make one or two changes in line-up and I believe my readers will concur. In the first place I would jerk Gibbons, who is not eligible, and would replace him with Joe Williams, who probably is the ace of them all. It is the left half back who carries the ball and who has to be versatile. He is the key man on any team, whether it is using the Warner or the Rockne system. Joe has been out of the game for a few weeks on account of illness but he will be back soon. He should be the first choice on anybody’s All-America. tt a tt TN the place of the guard whose *■ name I struck out of Mr. Rich’s list pqj-tly through modesty and partly because my doctors forbid me to play football, I would put in Frank Graham, of the New York Sun. Frank is small and light and would make a good running guard. To spell him while he was resting I would nominate H. I. Phillips. u tt A ND now for the coach. Since an All-America team of columnists can not be coached by a ghost I can not nominate Eugene Field or Bert Leston Taylor. Don Marquis has retired from the game and that eliminates him. So for head coach I would choose Franklin P. Adams. And for assistant I would name a woman whom you haven’t read because she is not syndicated. She is Florence Fisher Parry of the Pittsburgh Press, who, day in and day out, writes one of the outstanding columns in American journalism, reviews motion pictures and manages a large and flourishing photographic studio. OTHER OPINION On Constitutional Change [Rep. Amlie, Wisconsin Progressive.! It is almost certain that the Roosevelt Administration will be forced to bring out some sort of a constitutional amendment designed to legalize that which the Supreme Court has declared illegal but going no farther. An amendment of this kind would not give the Congress the power necessary to solve the economic problems of the country. Such an amendment, like the Roosevelt policies generally, might promise much, produce little and merely prevent any fundamental change. Such an amendment would be inadequate' and in the long run productive of more harm than good. If the great struggle to modernize the Constitution of the United States is to be launched, we must be on guard to see that it is not just another Roosevelt slogan—halfhearted compromise, or sham battle. tt a * On Government Debts [Gay Green, in Harper*] (Internal debts of a government may be likened to the cdh tract ual obligations of an old-fashioned family to its separate members, where the family must continue to live and produce and consume as a unit. Certain members, for one reason or another, are able to make loans to the family as a whole, and these loam must be paid back out of the production of the family as a whole. But in theory at least it makes no difference how large are the debts, since the wealth and standard of living of the family will depend upon what ali its members can produce, regardless of which particular members have a right to the greater share. The real welfare of the family—or the nation—can be measured only in terms of goods and services pro-

f - -r—; ; * r - y? ■■■■

The Hoosier Forum 1 wholly disapprove of what you say—and will defend to the death your right to say it. — Voltaire.

(Times readers are invited to expiess their views in these columns, religious controversies excluded. Make your letters short, so all can have a chance. Limit them to 250 words or less. Your letter must be sianed . but names will be withheld on reauesi ) tt tt it OUTLINES ‘STAMP SCRIP’ TO PAY BONUS By David Horn Unfortunately for the “smart Alec” who Is more anxious to deride prejudicially a suggestion before digesting it, the idea I am about to offer has already been tested and proven feasible. (Read Dr. Irving Fisher’s “Stamp Scrip.”) All there is to it is to issue a species of promisory notes ultimately redeemable in money on a contingent basis. Assume each has a face value of sl. The government pays them out and for each note the government sells to the general public 52 two-cent “redemption stamps” for $1.04. On the back of each note there are 52 dated spaces, each space representing specific Wednesday (or other day) of each week. The notes are to circulate the same as money and for each Wednesday of the year a stamp must be affixed on the back. In order that each may try to “dodge” the payment of the tax he (and especially “she”) will be anxious to get rid of each of those certificates any time before Wednesday or between Wednesdays, so no tax stamp need be attached. On a given future date the government should redeem each certificate with money to every holder presenting them, provided that it has 52 stamps affixed on the back. A note without any stamps will be void. If it has less than 52 stamps the goverment should pay the holder 2 cents for each stamp affixed. The money realized by the government from the sale of stamps will actually have paid the bonus. The beauty of it (to use an American word) is that in a German town where this idea worked (until the impudent politicians stopped it) each certificate changed hands more than 20 times a month. On this basis, if the government paid out two billion dollars worth of scrip, it will have consummated in a year’s time about 480 billion dollars worth of business among the people. It will have received from the people $1.04 for every dollar’s worth of scrip, which will be more than sufficient to retire the scrip without leaving the government in the “hole.” # tt tt BLAMES CONGRESSMEN FOR COURT’S EFFECT By George Gould Hlno Chief Justice Hughes 6nce said that the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. If the chief justice is right, then the meaning of the Constitution is not a matter of indisputable face, but strictly a matter of opinion. And the Constitution could be as

Questions and Answers

Inclose s 3-eent stamp lor reply when addressing any question of fact or information to The Indianapolis Times Homo Service Bureau, 1013 Thirteenthst, N. W., Washington, D. C. Legal and medical advice can not be given, nor can extended research he undertaken. Q —ln what year, was Paul’s conversion on the way to Damascus? A—The date is variously estimated from 30 to 36 A. D. Q —Are foreigners in the United States compelled to become American citizens after a prolonged residence ir this country? A—No. Q —What were the scores of 'he football games between the University of Hawaii and the University of Denver in 1933 and 1934? A—On Dec. 15. 1934, Hawaii defeated Denver in Honolulu by 36 to 14; on Nov. 11, 1933, Hawaii defeated Denver 7 to 6 at Denver. Q— Are Ethiopia and Abyssinia the same country? A—Yes; but the former is *.>ow correct. Q —What is dogmatism? A—Boldness and positiveness of spirit, manner and expression con*

‘TO THE ATTACK!’

easily changed in effect on many momentous questions as could the Republican majority of the Supreme Court who are now interpreting it. When Congress has the constitutional power to enlarge the Supreme Court and yet submits to the will of the opposing political party, as expressed by a divided vote of 6 to 3 on the AAA, we can not escape the conclusion that Congress believes: 1. That the meaning of the Constitution is a matter of indisputable fact. 2. That the votes of the Supreme Court majority are in no wise influenced by partisan politics. 3. That the testimony of the Republic chief justice was incorrect. In view of these facts it seems somewhat cowardly for Congress to confess that the people have the right to pack Congress with representatives to do their will, but not the Supreme Court—that is sacred. t an REPLIES TO CRITIC OF HIS VIEWS By Martin R. Kuehn, Richmond In The Times last Thursday, one A. G. A. modestly and respectfully takes me to task for a communication that appeared under the caption, “Advances Mrs. Coolidge as G. O. P. Candidate.” I regret that A. G. A. got the impression that the writer profited from the depression, that the writer is “one of those men who never felt the depression,” that “the G. O. P. will never do this because the men who cause these depressions are at the head of it.”< I appreciate A. G. A.’s plight. He and I are in the same boat—with 40 million other dumb clucks, like me. Do you want to know who caused the depression, A. G. A.? I did— Mr. Martin R. Kuehn of Richmond —pardon the personal reference.. I did it. I killed Cock Robin. Maybe that’s news to you. You’re surprised? No, I’m not a Republican. So, can’t be at the head of the G. O. P. I’m not even a Liberty Leaguer. Net even a Crusader. I’m not a utility baron either. I wear corduroy pants. I used to wear $24 silk shirts. I never owned an automobile, but I remember the time I spent $25 taking a girl to a football game. I’m the dumb cluck that caused the depression, A. G. A. After the World War ended, I invested SIOO in German marks —expecting to reap SBOO in return. If J. P. Morgan could find a way of merging all the cash in the United States into one big pot, and to be increased by moi'e printed money so that every “dumb cluck” like me would get in cold cash SIO,OOO, how long would it last. How long A. G. A.? As long as “dumb clucks” insist on being “dumb clucks” there will be frightful economic suffering. True, I read in A. G. A.’s comment

the habit of asserting theories or views uncompromisingly. Q—ls “The” officially a part of the name of the city in Netherlands called “The Hague?” A—Yes. Q—What was the population of Detroit in 1930 and 1933? A—ln 1930 it was 1,568,662 and in 1933 the estimate was 1,166,100. Q—When was Tennessee admitted to the union as a state? A—June 1, 1796. Q—What does southpaw mean? A—lt is frequently used in baseball for a left-handed pitcher. Q —What character did Stepia Fetchit play in “Steamboat "Round the Bend,” in which Will Rogeis starred? A—Jonah. Q —ls Christmas a national holiday in the United States. A—There are no national holidays in the United Btates, but Christmas is universally observed as a holiday in all the states, territories and possessions. Q—Who is president of the American Liberty League? A I ms, at t &Kn„u ir ■ nwiigmuii tiimußPi %

a genuine undertone of regret, frustration, suffering. And I believe he sincerely believes Mr. Roosevelt is going to make the economic system under which men have to struggle for a living, over. I believe nothing of the kind. I believe he may disappoint A. G. A. I believe that it will be just as hard to make a living as ever. And.l believe Mr. Roosevelt knows that. it u a SUGGESTS USE FOR AAA TAX By E. F. According to the Supreme Court, the AAA is unconstitutional. I understand the money collected and. paid to the farmer is illegal, but I do not understand what right the miller and packer have to this money when they admit the tax was paid by the consumer. , If we complained about the high price of pork the butcher said it was caused by the processing tax which the packer added. A few weeks ago the increased price of bread was blamed on the processing tax. Recently Slebel C. Harris, member of a leading grain , commission firm, said “Before making sales without the processing tax included, millers will want to be absolutely satisfied they are on firm ground.” In newspapers, all articles and radio broadcasts, every one admitted the tax always has been paid by the consumer. Since the supreme Court rules the money can not be used for the purpose it was meant, I can not see what claim the miller and the packer have to the money. It seems to me the proper place for it would be in the United States Treasury as it would be impossible to return it to the rightful owners, the consumers. AULD LANG SYNE BY MARY WARD A little cup at four today. Little smiles, a raisin cake, Past joys recalled in conversant way— All of which felicity make— The rain eschewed its drear lament. Snow flurries were gay to see Fluttering by in soft descent— While some old-time friends sipped tea. DAILY THOUGHTS Have respect unto the covenant; for the dark places of the earth are full of the habitations of cruelty.—Psalm lxxiv, 20. MAN’S inhumanity to man makes countless thousands mourn Burns.

SIDE GLANCES

j, i BRaWil ¥/i BW'f m w % K flr m gSL iffITCL yili WmC * L*- / fr E Sti/ mSr&effimZ /Iwllffll f ■■■FCp'J sijf ~ (Iwßi fe PMH4 tttfttna. me. t. m.wc.u.l mt. ore.' BO

‘’Tins is only fi&tr.i£C€ .

-JAN. 17, 1936"

Your... Health By DR. MORRIS FISHBEIX

TDECAUSE of its value in preven- ■*-* tion of scurvy, vitamin C is rated one of the most important substances to be found in foods. Any one can ward off scurvy, which heralds its coming by a period of pains like those of mild infection or rheumatic conditions, by taking regularly a small amount of vitamin C. You must remember, in doing so, that this is the most easily destroyed of all vitamins. Fresh or raw fruits and vegetables are more certain to contain this vitamin than other products treated in various ways. To secure the proper amount of vitamin C, take, each day, either an ounce of orange, grapefruit, or lemon juice; a pint of milk, or an average portion of canned tomatoes, raw cabbage, or onions. Just for safety’s sake, it might be wiser to have several of these foods, or to take fresh berries, apples, bananas, peaches, green peas, or pineapple, which are also rich in this vitamin. Incidentally, many fruit juices, fruits, and vegetables can now be canned and preserved in such way that they retain their vitamin C value. t a IF your baby is fed artificially on pasteurized milk mixtures, it should have extra orange juice to protect It from vitamin C deficiency. A half teaspoonful of orange juice is sufficient at first; but the amount should be increased steadily so that by the time baby is 5 or 6 months old, he is getting the juice of an entire orange. When orange juice isn’t available for the tot, the juice of cabbage, turnips, or carrots, of strawberries and similar fruits, and particularly of tomatoes, will do as well. Exceptional care must be taken that prospective mothers, nursing babies, babies that are fed artificially, and people who are sick get the amount of vitamin C which they require. There are, by the way, chemical tests by which you can learn whether your body contains enough vitamin C. It has never been shown that an excess of this vitamin will do one any harm.

TODAY'S SCIENCE BY DAVID DIETZ

GOLD is now being mined at the highest rate in the history of the world, Dr. Adolph Knopf, professor of geology at Yale University, reports. The world’s output for 1934 reached 27,475,000 ounces, he says. This was worth $960,000,000. He points out, however, that we must be careful in comparing this figure with that for previous years because of President Roosevelt’s decree of 1934 which raised the price of gold from $20.67 an ounce to $35. “From 1890 onward, the world’s annual output mounted steadily till 1915, when it attained $470,000,000,” Prof. Knopf writes in the current issue of The Scentific Monthly. “Although it reached a peak in that year, the increase during the previous 10 years had been small. In other words, essentially an equilibrium between resources and production had been established. u u "'T'HE World War then caused the JL purchasing power of gold to diminish. Everything the miner used increased in price, but the price of his gold remained the same. Consequently, the world's production soon began to dwindle. In the United States it dwindled steadily from the all-time peak of $101,000,000 to $45,000,000 in 1927 and world production declined to $320,000,000. almost exactly proportional to the decline in the purchasing power of the dollar.” “The low point of the world s output of gold was reached in 1922, Prof. Knopf says, but it has been increasing continuously since. “In the last few years, after so many countries went off the gold, standard, production has been accelerated,” he says. “The world price of gold is determined in the London market, and is now the highest in the history of gold, 14 shillings per ounce.” Prof. Knopf states that in recent years, most of the world’s gold has been produced by three countries, South Africa, the United States and Canada. But in 1934, Russia forged ahead to second place and Canada dropped back to fourth.

By George Clark