Indianapolis Times, Volume 48, Number 22, Indianapolis, Marion County, 6 April 1936 — Page 11

Travel Safety by ROBERT D. POTTER (Copyright, 1938, by Bclnce Bervice) (Heywood Broun Is on Vacation.) "WASHINGTON, April 6.—On some sunny Sunday afternoon last summer did you ever peer out of your family car to see an airliner rushing by far overhead? And did you think: "I'm glad I’m safe here in my car instead of 8000 feet up?” The thought may have been comforting at the moment but. in reality, the paying passengers on that airliner—and all scheduled airline travel—were safer in 1935 than the drivers of America’s motor cars. Only railroad passengers were safer. Yes. riding in an airplane as a paying passenger on a scheduled flight last year was safer than riding In your automobile! If you are reading this you, naturally, were not killed last year by a motor vehicle accident, but plenty of other people were —more than 36,000 altogether and some 20,000 of them automobile occupants. Here are how the death figures for airline motor vehicles and railroad transportation shape up for 1935: \ The foreign and domestic airlines of the United States traveled 360,559,431 passenger miles and killed 15 passengers. The result is 24,037,290 passenger miles per passenger fatality. The motor vehicles of America traveled 379,979,800,000 occupant miles and killed 20,070 occupants; and thus traveled 18,932,725 occupant miles per occupant fatality. The nation's railroad trains last year traveled 18.500,000,000 passenger miles and killed 18 passengers. The result is 1,027,780,000 passenger miles per passenger fatality. n n Airplane Safety Surprising A PASSENGER or occupant mile, it should be explained, is one passenger or one occupant carried one mile. The railroads with a century of experience behind them and all manner of safety checks and controls not available or practical for automobiles and aircraft may be expected to show—as they and superiority in safety to passenger travel. The surprising thing to many people will be the discovery that scheduled airplane travel was safer, last year, than was motoring. Because of the widely different conditions of motor vehicle operation in city and country it is fairest to the motor car and truck death picture to break it into two parts; rural and city driving and deaths. Os the motor vehicle death total of 36,100 persons in 1935, some 14,770 of them lost their lives in cities and towns and 21,330 in rural sections. The following table splits these deaths into rural and city and also pedestrian and motor vehicle occupant: City Rural Total Deaths 14,700 21,330 Pedestrian Deaths .... 10,010 6,020 Occupant Deaths .... 4,760 15,310 Concentrate on the occupant deaths only. And recall that the occupant mileage for city travel is 192,153,800.000 miles and for rural travel it is 187,826,000.000 miles. nun Separate Treatment Required DIVIDE city travel by city occupant deaths and rural travel by rural occupant deaths and you have: Rural occupant miles per occupant death, 12,268,000 miles. City occupant miles per occupant death, 40,368,000 miles. Scheduled airline travel, remember, came out to 24,037,290 passenger miles per passenger fatality. In any comparison between airplane, the motor car and the railroad train as a means of transportation two aspects must be separated: 1. The safety of the device for the occupants using it, and 2. The efficiency of the transportation device—a sociological efficiency as it might be called —in terms of the number of all persons killed for a given travel unit; say 1,000,000 miles. The two points are quite distinct and require separate treatment. The figures already cited refer, of course, only to the first problem Tomorrow's article will discuss the efficiency aspects of the airplane, motor car and railroad train as instruments of death.

New Yorkers Pull Punches on F. D. R. BY RAYMOND CLAPPER NEW YORK, April 6.—This sounds slightly incredible and you don't have to believe it, but this correspondent has spent two days among the money changers and tories in thus former capital of the United States without once hearing President Roosevelt referred to in language which could not be repealed in the most respectable family news-

paper Are the tories merely pausing for hreath? Or are they coming to the conclusion that Roosevelt is going to be on their necks four’ years more and that they might as wetfl make the best of it? Os course it is not possible for one reporter to hear everything that some ten million people in the metropolitan area said about the Administration over a two-day period. Furthermore it is weil known that all Washington correspondents are under the spell of the magic charmer and no longer see with the hard, cynical

perspective which has long been the pride of our noble craft. So you will have to take these observations for what they are worth, if anything. * a a HERE we have a tory editor. He wants to know whether Roosevelt, in his second term, is likely to be more or less conservative than he has been in his first term. A big advertising man. His business is better than it has been since 1929. Then why is he opposed to Roosevelt? He answers: "If I were thinking only two years ahead of course I would be for Roosevelt. But I'm looking 5 or 10 years ahead. Business is a gamble. It s the prospect of big rewards that leads men to r.,k capital, their reputations and their futures. That's what leads men to dig up new ideas, to invent new things, to start new businesses. The penalty of failure is heavy* So unless the rewards of success are great, where is the new blood that builds industry and business coming from?” This business man is about to advertise anew car with the slogan: "Relax and enjoy the more abundant life.” Another man is a leader in the utility industry. He says discussions are on now to decide whether the industry shall make anew court test of TVA. His talk is much milder than that of his lawyers in court. He recognizes that undeveloped water power is social waste, that the industry can not win by opposing development of it. He recognizes that the government must logically undertake the Job. His objection is chiefly to the building of competing distribution systems by the government. He thinks the government will fail in retail distribution because of politics and inefficiency. But if the government insists, let it condemn private facilities and buy them at prices fixed by impartial arbiters, even if it takes a constitutional amendment to do it. * * * IT is easy to read too much into conversations with tired business men. But it does seem as if there are any number of them who are tired of the prolonged exchange of Bronx cheers between the tories and the New Dealers and who would respond to overtures from officials who did not attempt to put them In stripes before trying the case,

CO-OPS—CONSUMERS IN BUSINESS ******n n n n n n n u Movement Gains Firm Hold in U. S., Dealing in Millions Annually

Swffpin* growth of the co-operative movement in the United States, to the point where annual basinets of the*co-ops totals hundreds of millions of dollars, is told by Bertram B. Fowler, noted magazine writer, in a series of sis stories, of which this is the first. BY BERTRAM B. FOWLER (Copyright, 1936, by NBA Service. Inc.) r J"'HE co-ops have taken hold in America. What is a co-op? A co-op is a group of consumers banded together to run a business for themselves. It may be a gas station. It may be a grocery store, or a feed warehouse, or a milk distribution plant. But in every case the idea is the same. These men go into business to sell themselves whatever they need. They run the business through their own appointed managers and at the the end of the year divide the profits among themselves. From Massachusetts to California a chain of co-op-erative enterprises is springing up. In factory towns and rural communities the co-op signs are appearing. Co-op gas stations are dotting the West. In many states they are

challenging the big distributors for the markets. Co-op tires are grinding out the miles on United States highways. In the cars are co-op batteries. The tanks are full of co-op gas and the crank cases with, co-op oil. A few figures will show the magnitude of this rapidly growing movement. For the consumer co-operatives as a whole, it is figured that there are now about 6000 in the country, with a membership of 1,800,000. Last year they did a total business estimated at $365,000,000. Among these are about 2000 coop gas and oil station groups, with more than 500,000 members. It is estimated that these groups are turning back in patronage dividends about $8,000,000 a year and the number of trucks operated by them rims into the thousands. n n n SOME of the most powerful farm organizations have taken up consumer co-operation as the major item on their programs. They are welding their memberships into cohesive co-operative organizations. One of the biggest fertilizer factories in the United States is controlled by a co-operative group. Its feed mills range from the little hammer mills scattered through Ohio, Indiana, Michigan and Illinois, to the big modern plants owned in Buffalo. There are co-op insurance companies. There are co-operative credit banks W’ith millions of dollars on deposit and so banked that these funds can be used only for co-operative purposes. nun THERE are four big oil-t lending plants scattered through the West, serving thousands of co-

WASHINGTON, April 6.—The Rust brothers, inventors of the revolutionary cotton-picking machine, have refused to sell one of their machines to the Argentine government. It had been ordered by Gov. Castells of the Chaco province, which is speeding cotton cultivation in competition with the United States. The Rust brothers have been willing to forego profits on their invention in order that it may not help competition abroad, also may not throw too many Southern tenant farmers out of work. Note—Argentine cotton fields’ chief need is labor or labor-saving machinery. p v MRS. ROOSEVELT caused great consternation to the French government the other day. In her daily column, written shortly after Hitler had remilitarized the Rhineland, she discussed the moves for peaceable settlement of the matter and said: “No one denies that the Versailles Treaty was unjust in many ways and that revisions should be made. It is quite evident, however, that Germany has ignored the agreements under the Locarno Pacts, but it seems more profitable to talk this over than to fight it out again to an unsatisfactory finish and to have another peace built on revenge and fears.” Since bitter opposition to treaty revision is the keynote of the French policy tow’ard Germany, the French embassy, horrified, cabled the exact text to the French Foreign Office in Paris. To what extent was Mrs. Roosevelt speaking for herself? To what extent was she voicing the views of her husband? That is the burning question which neither the embassy nor the foreign office yet has been able to answer. THE inside of the JapaneseRussian row, according to confidential cables received here,

Clapper

i '*■” i 1 ' ■ ■ ■■■'- > ■ - 1 \\ * / Tb # M I^#

Washington Merry-Go-Round BY DREW PEARSON and ROBERT S. ALLEN

BENNY

The Indianapolis Times

op members. They own their tank cars on the railroads, their fleets of tank trucks on the roads. Yes, the co-ops have very definitely come to America. The idea of consumer co-opera-tion was born in Rochdale, England, more than 90 years ago. At that time 28 poor weavers, weary of listening to political promises, desperate over their own poverty and misery, decided to do something about it themselves rather than wait for the state to act. They saved their money for a year. At the end of that time they had $l4O. They put this into a stock of those commodities which all must buy. They rented a store, and the idea of consumer co-operation was born. n n n THESE weavers laid down certain revolutionary rules. They threw overboard the old stock voting system in favor of more democratic rule. No matter how many shares of stock a member might own, he could have but one vote. The second rule was just as startling. Capital was to have no share in the profits. Capital, like labor, was put on a fixed wage. Shares should always sell at par and draw the legal rate of interest. What to do with profits caused a third rule to be drawn up. It is this rule, more than anything else, that has been responsible for the phenomenal growth of consumer co-operation during the last few years. They decided that the man who spent his money over the counter made the profit possible. Therefore, all profits must be given back to the consumer members in ratio to their purchases for the year. They called this a patronage dividend. In other words, profits vanished. What looked like profits were but the unexpended portions of the consumer’s dollar and must go back to him.

is that it springs from the same cause as the revolt of the young army officers in Tokyo last month. The younger military demand war with Russia. They have provoked attacks on the Mongol border without orders from or the knowledge of Tokyo. Even many of the older officers maintain that war with Russia has been postponed too long, that every month of delay sees the Red army stronger, more difficult to conquer. The Japanese prefer to have

Study Housing Scripps-Howard Xeicspuper Alliance WASHINGTON, April 6. Proposals for further Federal aid to housing wefe being fashioned today for submission to President Roosevelt on his return to Washington. In his absence, a group of executive officials and legislators met the other day at the office of the National Emergency Council and took action to meet a situation which they described as “serious.” Harold L. Ickes. Secretary of the Interior and Public Works Administrator, named two subcommittees from among those present. One subcommittee is to get behind a national plan for low-cost housing and slum clearance, such as the Wagner - Ellenbogen Bill calls for. Its members are Senator Robert Wagner (D., N. Y.), Rep. Henry Ellenbogen (D„ Pa.), Col. Horatio B. Hackett. deputy public works administrator: Dr. Ernest M. Fisher, of the Federal Housing Administration, and a representative to be named from the Federal Reserve Board. The other committee has the duty of seeking means of stimulating the building of individual homes by private capital.

MONDAY, APRIL 6, 1936

Hf JjL— > T —r J 1 J ir - Mil—Jc i .... BHI wg & : :IBIBBBShI'< JPP j# _ m W i tamiiiMnn,

Typifying the beginning and growth of co-op movements are the pictures of the two buildings shown here, the one at the right being the “warehouse” of a consumer group in Plummer, Minn., at its start and the one above showing the large central ex* change of the Farmers’ Union in St. Paul, Minn.

That was 90 years ago. Since then the British co-operative movement has grown into thousands of modern stores. These stores have set up their two big wholesale houses, one in Scotland, one in England. These wholesalers in turn have moved back toward production. nun nnHEY own more than 150 sacA tories and mills. They buy their own wheat in Canada, handle it through their own elevators, grind it in theiv own mills, bake it in their own bakeries, and deliver it to the consumer in their own trucks. The co-operative movement has become the largest single business in Great Britain. Its banking business is second only to that of the Bank of England. Half of the families of England and Scotland are members of co-op societies. And the idea is spreading faster every day. The idea moved to Sweden, where practically every commodity was controlled in price by a monopoly. Since 1918 the Swedish co-operatives have broken or brought into control every trust in Sweden. There consumer co-operation is fast becoming the national economic order. It sets the prices for rr.ost commodities. And it is run by the people themselves. The Swedes call it economic democracy. It went Denmark and remade that little country. Finland imported it and became a democratic commonwealth, even before she came from under Russian rule. Today no less an authority than

war break first in Europe, so Russia will be occupied on both fronts. But failing this, the younger generation is willing to take on the Soviets single-handed. This is why trouole in the Far East is so responsive to trouble in the Mediterranean or the Rhineland. * tt tt NEW DEALERS are anything but joyful over the Republican campaign text that the solution of agricultural surpluses is their wider use in industry. Col. Frank Knox has sonorously labeled this “chemurgy.” But New Dealers regard it as part of a secret G. O. P. plot to wreck their new farm program. They charge that the du Ponts, other chemical firms which contribute to the Liberty League also are behind the plan. They wdll have to pay more for their agricultural materials if the New Deal crop restriction plan succeeds. There is no doubt that industrial uses for farm products can be developed greatly, but New Dealers claim that it never can take up the old crop surpluses. In fact, they say, Agriculture Department scientists have been exploring this under Republican Presidents for years. Also Chester Davis, administrator, can not forget that his four years of manufacturing wallboard from Illinois corn stalks ended in flat failure. tt tt tt BEFORE President Roosevelt left for his fishing trip he had before him a carefully worked-out report indicating that the disastrous floods along the upper Ohio River would not be repeated in the lower Mississippi. Though the Mississippi will rise considerably, it has been four feet below its average level, and about nine feet below its flood stage. This, according to Weather Bureau reports, will be sufficient to handle the extra water from flooding Mississippi tributaries. ♦Copyright. 1936. by United Feature Syndicate. Inc.)

11im,l i no

the president of the Bank of Finland gives co-operation the major share of the credit for banishing the depression from Finland. n an VTOW it has come to America. There have been co-opera-tives in America before. The history of American business is strewn with their wreckage. But this latest co-op activity is based squarely on the success of the movement in Great Britain and Scandinavia. American farmers have taken hold of the idea, and, encouraged by their initial success, are pushing on, doing more and more things co-opera-tively. Millions of them are beginning to talk about economic democracy, about anew economic order which they are building themselves. The movement can not be laughed off. American business must face the challenge of the co-ops squarely and not attempt to mir mize their importance if private business hopes to meet the issue. For the co-ops represent a revo-

TWO END PLAYS IN ONE

Today’s Contract Problem South is playing the contract at four hearts, doubled. It looks as if declarer must lose at least one trick in each suit. Can the contract be made? 487 * 2 VA 9 7 4 A 6 4 10 6 3 2 A A 10 3 jq 4 9 6 5 ¥ Void c VQ 10 5 4 ♦KQIO 8 ” fc 2 752 S 493 4QJB Dealer 14 9 5 4 4 KQ J VKJB63 ♦ J 4 4A K 7 All vul. Opener—+ K. Solution in next issue. 30

Solution to Previous Contract Problem BY WM. E. M’KENNEY American Bridge League Secretary 'T'HE major tournaments of the A- country might be referred to as the “gatherings of the clan.” While the younger players predominate, and, by the way, win most of the trophies, you generally will find a good number of the old-timers playing or visiting. At the Eastern tournament held recently in New York City, all w r arriors of the Lenz-Culbertson match were present. I often have wondered just what W’ould have been the outcome of that match had Com. Winfield Liggett Jr. played all the w-ay through. He entered the match when it was about two-thirds over and cut the Culbertson lead several thousand points. Besides being a fine player, the commander always was considered a perfect partner. Here is one of his interesting hands taken

lution in buying habits. The people are discovering that they can run business for themselves, can govern and control it democratically. And, what is more to the point, that they can save the profits for themselves. u u TN doing all these things, the co-ops are forcing certain changes upon American business. The co-op idea is taking hold. It may mean that the people through their co-operative organizations are going to capture the major part of the retail business of the nation. Or it may mean that they are going to force American business to reform along co-operative lines. In any event, the co-ops have come to work deep and far-reach-ing changes. One can not evade figures. And the figures of coop gains are being written up for all to see. Next—How the co-ops have gone into the filling station business, selling their own gas and oil and paying back profits as dividends to consumers.

4 A J VKJ 8 2 4QB 5 2 4K109 4KQ1071 jq 14 86 4 ? 2 w r ¥Q 10 5 ¥9 w 4 J 6 ♦AIO74S 4 Q 6 5 2 4 J 8 4 Dealer 4 9 5 If A 7 6 4 3 4K 9 3 4A 7 3 Rubber —E. & W. vul. South West North East IV 14 3 V Pass 4 ts Pass Pass Pass Opening lead — 4 K. 80

from a recent rubber match. He had to employ two end-plays to make his contract. The opening lead of the king of spades, of course, marked West with the queen. The trick was won in dummy with the ace and a small heart played. This was won with the ace. A heart was returned and West showed out, discarding a spade. Declarer went up with the king in dummy and, rather than start one of the minor suits himself, he led the jack of spades and threw West into the lead. Now, it was immaterial w-hich suit West led; it was going to cost him a trick. He chose to play a small club. Dummy’s nine was played and w r hen East went up with the queen, declarer won with the ace. South then finessed the ten of clubs and cashed the king of clubs. With the club suit cleared, declarer made his second end-play with a heart, throwing East into the lead. East was forced to return a diamond and declarer played the king. West won with the ace, and declarer had a finessing position in diamonds which, of course, held and the contract w r as made. (Copyright, 1936, NEA Service, Inc.)

By J. Carver Pusey

Second Section

Entered as Second-Class Matter at Poatoffice. Indianapolis. Ind.

Washington MNEYwnne Westbrook Pegler is en route to the United • States from Europe. His column will be resumed in a few days. April 6.—lt isn’t considered good form to ask why Congress is going to appropriate more than a billion dollars this year for the Army and the Navy. And any one who suggests economy or budget-balancing in that direction is sure to be called un-American and Communistic. The Senate Army bill appropriates $384,699,619 for military purposes and Roosevelt's budget estimates $620,184,077 for the Navy. If you're still impolite enough to ask why, the Navy can give you a more definite answer than the Army, which seems rather vague as to whom it is

going to fight. The Navy is sure that it’s going to fight the Japanese sooner or later. That idea is shared by some officials in other quarters. Nobody seems to know how either the Japanese or the American Navy could cross the Pacific and wage successful combat so far away from home—but the Navy, at least, has a goal. The Army obviously isn't expanding for battle with Canada or Mexico. No one seriously contends that a foreign foe can break through the Navy and land troops on our shores. And you can’t get any high

Army official to admit that the Army is being built up from 118,000 to 150,000 men and hundreds of new planes each year—to invade foreign territory That's what makes it all so mysterious. tt n u They're Scared of Somebody TNSIDE the congressional Committees on Military A Affairs, when these matters are up, there's only a vague psychology of war—with an unknown foe in some unknown territory—and a vague fear of the “reds.” Someone suggests the Japanese are a long way off and someone else hastens to assure him that the Japanese are smart and might pop in on us by way of Alaska. Another Representative or Senator suggests that “conditions are pretty bad now and we re likely to need that Army at home.” Committee sessions seem dominated by the belief of certain members and certain Army officers that the nation is menaced by a Bolshevik revolution. Copeland of New York, in Senate debate last \ear, emphasized possibility of “internal trouble” and Gen’ MacArthur, chief of staff who drove out the 1932 bonus army, was always stressing preparation for the necessity of American soldiers subduing American citizens. i Army manuals give instructions on how to attack mobs and in recent years troops have been concentrated nearer industrial centers. All this means, of course that the Army is preparing against strikes and serious labor troubles. Perhaps because it has nothing better to do. n n n Sticking to an Old Idea TNSTEAD of building up a small, mobile, mechanized force for quick action in any necessary area, the Army sticks to the theory of immediatelv mobilizing the mass man power of the nation in event of hostilities. Mobilization plans calls for an Army of 4,000,000. The peace-time Army is scattered over the country now with the idea that it can serve as a skeleton for a vast force and you’d have a hard time pulling it together. War plans call for an officers’ reserve corps and an enlisted men’s reserve corps. You’ll be interested to know that the former has about 120,000 members and the latter about 6000. And next year youre likely to discover that the Army needs a lot more than $384,000,000.

Gen. Johnson Says—

WASHINGTON, April 6.—ln the growing disregard for treaties and public promises, what substitute, except force, is there to preserve peace? From the “scrap of paper” incident 20 years ago, straight through the disregard of the Locarno Treaty, there is not one single international agreement designed to substitute promises for armed threat that has not been broken by one or more great powers. Other agreements receive no greater respect. The debt settlements with us were broken without so much as the bat of an eye toward the thing formerly called national honor. The scratch of pens on new concordats is drowned by the sound of tearing up the old ones. The basic purpose of the Treaty of Versailles—the only tangible fruit of the World War—was to remove the threat to the peace of Europe of a Germany of overwhelming military strength. That purpose seems completely frustrated, and if there is any suasion short of competitive armament to replace it, it has not been suggested. a a a IT is fairly well established that when England concentrated her naval strength in the Mediterranean she intended to stop Mussolini—only to find that she could not rely on France. When Hitler rushed off the reservation, France was confronted with a situation under which she had sworn to fight —only to find that she, in turn, couldn’t rely on England. The futile London Naval Treaty promises so little, and is so full of “escapes’’ from that, as to be just one more pitiful demonstration of the dawning truth that even the most peaceful nations are willing to trust to nothing but their own armed strength. Peace—in commerce, private life, politics and diplomacy, in the home, the nation and the world—rests wholly on faith in promises. If that goes, there is no hope on any horizon but for continuous and unending force. (Copyright, 1936, by United Feature Syndicate, Inc.)

Times Books

ONE of the most interesting puzzles of the American Revolution is the case of that eminent British soldier, Sir William Howe. Howe came over in 1776 to crush the revolt, leading one of the largest armies Britain had ever sent overseas and aided by a huge fleet commanded by his brother, Lord Richard Howe. He failed miserably and went home in 1778, discredited What happened? Was he simply a fearful incompetent? Did he, as some historians charge, actually refuse to try to win, because of sympathy for the Americans? Did he dull his wits by drinking and carousing? a a a T ROYER S. ANDERSON examines the evidence in "The Command of the Howe Brothers” ( Oxford Press; $3.50), and concludes that none of these charges will hold water. Howe, he says, was a conscientious, able general, by the standards of his day. The only trouble waa that he had an almost impossible task to perform. He had to w’hip Washington's army, occupy the rebellious districts, re-establish the royal government, and do it all with enough gentleness and tact to leave the beaten colonists willing to come back again into the fold. No genius, Howe failed—but Mr. Anderson finds no reason to believe that any of the other British generals then available would have done any better. The job was just too tough. tßy Bruce Cattonj*-

tsttak. -vc :£jjg§H

Rodney Dutcher