Indianapolis Times, Volume 48, Number 64, Indianapolis, Marion County, 25 May 1936 — Page 9

ft Seems to Me HEwIIHWN CTAMFORD, Conn., May 25.—We are asked to rejoice because our written Constitution is extremely difficult to amend and because it is being most rigidly construed by the present majority of the Supreme Court. Many have said that these factors constitute our chief defense against' Fascism in America. I hold precisely the opposite opinion. It

seems to me that we are already living under a form of Fascism. The picture is far from complete, but the drift is definite. I quite agree with the New York Daily News in its editorial comment: “Said Mr. Justice Sutherland delivering the Supreme Court's opinion outlawing the Guffey Coal Act, ‘The Constitution itself is in every real sense a law.’ To which we would add. ‘The Supreme Court is in every real sense a lawmaker. In fact, THE lawmaker’.” Congress has passed a considerable amount of legislation

Heywoo'" Broun

which, whether adequate or not, aimed to protect the right of collective bargaining and thus indirectly stimulate the growth of the trade-union movement. The court has indicated that it will invalidate practically all such legislation. You may say that this Is not by conscious design, but the fact remains that the labor movement has been vitally hurt and that the necessary first step in the establishment of Fascism is the destruction of labor organization. a u tt A Psychological Background MOREOVER, Fascism must lay a psychological background for itself as well as a factual one. This the Supreme Court is doing. In addition to tossing out specific statutes brought before them various members of the court have indulged in long declaratory opinions rebuking the Congress and the chief executive, who are directly responsible to the people. In effect they have said, “We are protecting you against these wild, irresponsible fellows who are the product of popular election.’’ It is not a partisan issue, because many of the laws which have been contemptously tossed aside had Republican as well as Democratic support. The effect has been to make people distrust popular government. If you think that I am exaggerating let me quote fi">m the column of a journalist who falls completely nto the pit, although she sincerely believes that she is the arch foe of Fascism in every form. Writing in the New York Herald Tribune, Dorothy Thompson admits that our elected representatives are hamstrung by the rigidities of our written Constitution, but then she proceeds to justify a reluctance to pass any amendment in regard to social welfare, saying, “The government which asks such a chance must be prepared to guarantee to the people that the administration of the more far-reaching laws thus made possible shall be conducted by a body of highly trained, competent, permanent officials who are not subjected to whims, caprice or political group pressure.” If that is not the very core of Fascist philosophy, what is it? No wonder Sinclair Lewis gave his novel the ironic title “It Can’t Happen Here.” Miss Thompson goes on to say, "The American people fear changes of the Constitution, they fear extension of the power of government, because they have no confidence in the ability, seriousness, competence or common honesty of government.” a tt Direct or Indirect? BUT in speaking of the Supreme Court, Miss Thompson says, “The Supreme Court enjoys a prestige which no other branch of our government has. That prestige is chiefly moral. The American people believe that whatever their individual faults and deflciences may be, the nine justices of the Supreme Court are incorruptible. They believe that they are honest. They know that they are appointed for life and do not depend for their positions upon flattering or bribing an electorate, nor base their decisions upon the number of votes which will thereby be delivered.” In other words, important issues must not be left to the direct decision of the voters or they may choose a Shipstead. Indirect selection will get you a Pierce Butler. Coal Industry Sick, Needs Special Care BY RAYMOND CLAPPER WASHINGTON, May 25.—Speaking at Los Angeles, Alfred P. Sloan, president of General Motors, says that industries which "have followed the practice of lowering the cost of goods and services are the ones which show the smallest amount of unemployment and have therefore made the most progress toward recovery.” The reverse, he says, also is true, that industries which have held up prices are still the most depressed. Figures assembled by Dr. Leon Henderson in the NRA division of Research and Planning support Sloan's analysis: (1929-1933) Drop in Drop in Man Hours Prices Worked. Industry. Percentage Percentage Aluminum 12 61 Cement 1* 63 Agricultural Implements ... 8 72 Brick, Terra Cotta, Tile 1 78 Lumber 10 62 Iron and Steel 9 47 Petroleum 56 20 Meat 42 14 Agricultural Commodities ...63 6 Rayon 53 0 •Rise. These figures strengthen the Brookings thesis that recovery and prosperity will be fostered by hammering down prices to real competitive levels and breaking up monopolistic rigidities. But from this some argue that price “stabilization" sought under the Guffey Act for the bituminous industry is undesirable. The difference is that coal is one of the sick industries. It must be treated on an entirely different basis from a vigorous, healthy one like the automobile industry. Automobiles can take care of themselves. Coal can not. The proof is that, despite the fact that Justice Sutherland says coal mining is a local affair and none of the Federal government’s business, it has been the government's business for years. 0 IT IS a sick industry, and the industrial contagion which has afflicted it doesn’t politely stop when it comes to a state line. Would anybody seriously expect the Federal government to sit down on its hand if a bubonic plague started sweeping the country? Why should it be compelled to fold its hands in face of industrial malady? The situation has come to the point where the Important question now isn't whether the Guffey bill is the perfect solution. The issue is whether the courts will permit any solution at all to be attempted. And tucked away in the voluminous opinion of Justice Sutherland was something that escaped the attention of almost every one except Arthur Krock of the New York Times—a bold step further in the seizure of power by the Supreme Court. Justice Sutherland did not stop with saying what he thought the writers of the Constitution might have said about the Guffey Act. He also undertook to state that Congress didn’t mean what it said when it separated the price-fixing from the labor provisions of the act. No question of constitutionality was Involved here. Merely a question of whether Congress meant to say what it did. More than once in the Guffey Act Congress said that if either the labor or the price-fixing provisions alone were thrown out, the other part should stand.

SMOKING OUT THE CANDIDATES

Senator Vandenberg Would Return Relief Problems to States

This is the first of a series of articles, “Smoking Out the Candidates,” written by Frazier Hunt, world-famous reporter, for NEA Service and The Indianapolis Times, in which are presented the answers of Republican presidential possibilities to the same ten questions on the vital issues of the day. non BY FRAZIER HUNT (Copyright. 1936, by NEA Service. Inc.) pjow do the various Republican candidates really feel about the vital issues that face America? I set out to find the answer. From Washington, D. C., to Topeka, Kas., I trailed the out-and-out candidates, as well as the men who are being seriously mentioned for the Republican nomination. To each I handed a list of the ten most important and far-reaching questions of the day. Gov. Landon I found in the Kansas State Capitol; Col.

Frank Knox in his newspaper office in Chicago; Senators Vandenberg and Borah, Keynoter Steiwer, and Dark Horse Wadsworth, though hard pressed by legislative duties of a Congress in session during a torrid election year, received me, graciously enough, in the nation's capital. Senator Vandenberg was the first man to come up to bat. To me the whole thing was something like a ball game. I had ten pitches to throw at him. He could strike out, bunt, foul, let it go by or get a hit. I will have to admit that some of these ten questions broke mean. There were all sorts of curves and spit-balls and in-shoots and fast ones in the bunch. But Senator Vandenberg didn’t miss

Hunt,

a single one. He stepped right into each and swung hard. When I tossed him the tough No. 2 about relief he connected fast. “Federal funds,” he answered, “should be allocated to the states and then each state should be left to decide for itself what kind of relief it wants to administer. . . . The entire Federal bureaucracy in connection with

relief and social reform (disguised as relief) should be wiped out.” Certainly he didn’t foul on question No. 3, either. “Old-age pensions should be a joint Fed-eral-state responsibility on a matching basis; and the Federal contribution should increase beyond the present meager limit just as rapidly as the public credit will permit.” a a tt BUT read the questions hurled at the Senator from Michigan yourself and see how you would score him on balls, strikes and hits. Just as an example of his courage it might be recalled that he had the plain nerve to vote against the cash payment of the veterans’ bonus in the face of the bitter threats of one of the most powerful organized minority groups in history. Maybe it was because Senator Vandenberg had been for a quarter of a century a real, dyed-in-the-wool newspaper man that we hit it off so well together. I had a feeling that even successful politics could never mean half so much to him as his old Grand Rapids Herald had meant. And that’s saying a good deal because he was brought up from childhood to worship at the shrine of the Republican Party. He became an editor in 1906, and until 1928 when he was appointed to serve out the term of Senator Woodbridge N. Ferris and then duly elected to the Senate, Arthur Vandenberg worked his 12 hours a day for the profit and glory of the Grand Rapids Herald. Everybody concerned, including the editor," made a comfortable fortune from its successful operation. When he became Senator he sold his interests and gave his full time to his new job. “I always say that I have no hobby but work,” the Senator explained to me, “But I’ll have to amend that a little. I do like to travel. I’ve made 17 trips to Europe. I suppose you’d pretty near call that a hobby.” Today at 52 Senator Vandenberg is a keen-eyed, sturdy, hardworking pubic servant who isn't

LET'S EXPLORE YOUR MIND BY DR. ALBERT EDWARD WIGGAM

S \ k \j-j- M 1 “ M SOUR. FELLOW--1 mV k WTEWKJT IN HlfAp NE6ORNO—*9UV OR NOT STALL" )\ )\%J 'NENTTOCOLLE66ooyouaXee* /) \vLJ3LQt| oußKAuee WTuuwwt. n I HEOIDNOT6O? n°=? v -/k

II AGREE in the main with this statement attributed to Alfred Adler, Viennese psychologist, although I hardly believe the learned doctor means they always go head over heels at sight as they do in the movies, where between five seconds and five minutes completes the circuit—from which they often get a short circuit and blow a fuse later on—but people are attracted or repelled by each other well-nigh instantaneously. First impressions go deep and are hard to eradicate. a tt 2 IN a stimulating discussion of “Leadership to Insure Collaboration” in business, E. J. Roethlisberger of the Harvard School of Business, suggests that a man is interested in comparing his wages with those of his fellow-workers not because of his interest in his fellows, but because it shows where he stands with the company both in an . economic and social way and it even

The Indianapolis Times

the least bit afraid to talk out loud. He still has the sweeping imagination and the driving energy of his youth. If you're interested in knowing his political views just read his answers to these ten questions and you’ll find out. tt tt IDo you favor balancing the budget? If so, do you advocate reducing relief expenditures or increasing taxes? If by taxes, what kind? I favor balancing the budget at the earliest possible moment. It can largely be done by reducing needless expenditures and by demobilizing bureaucracy. But additional taxes also will be necessary until we have paid the enormous Roosevelt deficit. I favor taxes levied on the basis of capacity to pay, rather than taxes on production or consumption. In other words, I favor an extension of the income tax theory as the basis for additional revenues. tt tt 2 Should relief be by direct cash payments or as wages? Should relief be paid for and administered by the Federal government or by the states, or both? The relief problem should be returned to the states. The entire Federal bureaucracy in connection with relief and social reform (disguised as relief) should be wiped out. This, by the way, will itself make a large contribution toward a balanced budget. The Federal government must accept responsibility for providing the basic funds to meet the basic subsistence relief problem. But the Federal funds should be allocated to the states and then each state should be left to decide for itself what kind of relief it wants to administer. If it wants to match the Federal funds on a liberal basis, each state can do so and thus create for itself a more liberal relief program. But the decision and the responsibility for administration should be left absolutely with each

reflects back on the social position of his wife and family. Any change in either his wages or those of his fellows alters the social standing all around. a a a 3 BOTH. The eollege man sends his son because of his belief that it benefited him and because of his rich memories. The non-college man, I think, sends his for three reasons: First, because of his feeling of inferiority for not having a college education himself—an inferiority rarely justified; second, he usually—for the previous reason—exaggerates the social value of college; and third, he is impressed with its economic value. Even when the non-college man scoffs at college ne is usually—at least in many cases I know of personally—trying to compensate for his feeling of inferiority —which usually he should not have. Next—Which Have Better Memories—Men or Women?

MONDAY, MAY 25, 1930

/ \ / / V / Senator Arthur Hendrick Vandenberg

state where it can be policed by neighborhood opinion. a tt 3 How should the problem of permanent unemployment and care of the aged and unemployed be handled? To whatever extent there is permanent unemployment, it will have to be met in the same fashion as indicated in my answer to the second question. Old-age pensions should be a joint Federal-state responsibility on a matching basis; and the federal contribution should increase beyond the present meager limit just as rapidly as the public credit will permit. a a tt 4 Do you favor further devaluation of the dollar or stabilization at present gold content? Do you believe in any form of currency change, currency inflation or credit inflation, a return to the gold standard, the remonetization of silver or a managed currency? I most emphatically do not believe in currency inflation or credit inflation, or in the remonetization of silver or in a managed currency. I do not favor the further devaluation of the dollar. I do favor stablization at the earliest possible moment. I should say that the stabilization necessarily must be tied to gold in some practical fashion. The silver question is primarily

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

TXTASHINGTON, May 25.—Ex- ’ ’ actly what took place in the Supreme Court during the 68 days of secret deliberation on the Guffey coal case, of course no one but the nine justices knows. But attorneys who followed this and other New Deal cases closely say there is considerable external evidence of what happened behind the scenes before the three opinions in the Guffey case saw the light of day. This is what they think it was: At the start the court apparently split 3-3-3. That is, three justices wanted to hold the law valid, three to rule it out entirely, and three to invalidate the labor sections, but approve the pricecontrol provisions. The last was the position taken by Chief Justice Hughes in his individual opinion. But a 3-3-3 division would have stalemated the case and allowed the divergent lower court decisions to remain in force. It would have created widespread confusion and chaos. In Kentucky, for example, a Federal Court upheld the entire act. But in the District of Columbia only the price-fixing provisions were ruled valid. Perhaps even more important, the prestige of the court was at stake. A deadlock would have played directly into the hands of its critics, who claim that the justices’ economic and political views, not law, determine their rulings. So, according to the analyzers, there ensued some horse trading among the six justices who favored some kind of decree against the act. The three justices who wanted to toss out the entire law proposed tempering their stand, to the extent of not rendering final judgment on the price-fixing sections, but merely holding them illegal in this specific instance because they were wrapped up with the unconstitutional labor provisions. tt BY this concession, two of the thref justices who favored *the price-fixing features presumably were induced to go along with the three die-hards. Iff confirmation of this theory the legalists cite three points: First: Justice Sutherland’s majority opinion shows signs of being a “patchwork” decision; that is, more than one pen had a hand in writing it. fecund; Sutherland, in one por-

an international question and can not be handled on any other basis. a a SDo you favor any program whose aim is to control or fix wages, working hours or a shorter work week? I favor laws to prevent child labor. I favor minimum wage laws. I favor collective bargaining laws. I doubt whether it is practical or feasible to go beyond this point in attempting to fix wages or working hours by statute. tt it 6 Do you favor an amendment to the Constitution authorizing the Federal government to deal with economic and social problems, national in scope, or of limiting the courts as to their right to declare laws of Congress unconstitutional? I do not see the need for a constitutional amendment dealing with economic and social problems. I emphatically oppose any limitation upon the right of the courts to pass upon the constitutionality of acts of Congress. a tt it 7 Do you favor modification or suspension of the anti-trust laws to enable business men to get together: (a) To agree on trade practices; (b) To agree on labor relations; (c) To agree on control of production; (and) To attempt to fix prices? I favor the rigid enforcement of

tion of his opinion, says specifically that he will pass on the constitutionality of the price-fix-ing sections later in his decision. Yet when he finally reaches this part of the law he withholds final judgment, saying, “The pricefixing provisions of the code are thus disposed of without coming to the question of their constitutionality ...” Finally: The great length of time it took the court to act upon the case—6B days—one of the longest periods of chamber debate in recent court history. DURING the House debate on the Frazier-Lemke inflation bill, Tom Blanton, stridentvoiced congressman from the Texas Panhandle, was discussing the measure with a group of colleagues in the Democratic cloakroom. “I signed the petition to force the bill out of committee,” Blanton said. “But I am not going to

GRIN AND BEAR IT + + by Lichty

> ~ -

“Dat’B a good luck charm me mudder, give me to wear.”

the Sherman law and the Clayton act. and the preservation by law, so far as possible, of free competition and fair trade practices. But I think voluntary trade associations should be permitted to agree upon “fair trade practices” (so long as this does not include price-fixing) at least to the extent that approval of such agreements by some government body (like the Federal Trade Commission) establishes a presumption that the agreement is not illegal. This is rather clumsily stated, but I think you will see what I am trying briefly to say. a a tt 8 What is your remedy for the farmer? Do you favor the curtailment of production, industrial or agricultural? The farmer’s primary need is to have the complete possession of his own domestic market. I would exclude all competitive agricultural imports. I do not believe in the philosophy of artificial scarcity. I think our problem is underconsumption rather than overproduction. I expect some day that the basic principle of the McNary - Haugen “equalization fee” will effectually supply the final necessity in restoring agriculture to parity. I think the farmer is entitled to his cost of production and a fair profit. tt tt tt 9 Are you in favor of the policy of making reciprocal trade treaties to encourage foreign trade or reduce tariff walls? I do not favor the existing reciprocal tariff treaty law. It is palpably unconstitutional. It is economically unsound. It is persistently dangerous. I favor a rigid application of the rule that our tariffs shall equalize the cost of production at home and abroad. I favor a constant courageous use of the Tariff Commission and the “elastic clause” to keep the tariff at this legitimate point. This will avoid the necessity for congressional tariff revision. I am a congenital tariff protectionist. I have already indicated that so far as agriculture is concerned. I would entirely exclude competitive imports. tt u -| /\ Do you favor a policy of JLv/ public power development; the continuance of expansion of TVA, and control of utilities through the utilities holding company act? Asa general proposition. I am opposed to government ownership and management of business in any competitive field. This includes power. But wherever power is developed as a by-product to some other primary Federal function (as for instance in the case of flood control dams) I favor rigid public control of utilities. Abstractly, I dislike all holding companies, but I believe they are necessary in some instances, and I believe that if we were to extinguish them arbitrarily we could easily do great damage to investment values in the United States. I should be perfectly willing, however, to prohibit the expansion or the increase of holding companies. In the final analysis, I believe that America must maintain decentralized community business and decentralized community life. Next—Senator William E. Borah.

vote for it. It’s a dishonest bill. It’ll bankrupt the country. I’d rather be defeated than vote for such a dangerous measure.” A little while later Blanton obtained permission to address the House on the issue. “I want to do something for the farmer,” he orated. “For 50 years I have seen them growing poorer and poorer. Th time has come when we should do something for the farmers and I am going to give them my vote on this bill. I do not care what it may cost me in my district.” At this point the official stenographic report read: “Laughter.” But as revised by Blanton it now reads: “Laughter and Applause.” a a Government econo mists plan to ascertain how war veterans spend their bonus money. They will begin their study soon after the first batch of bonds and checks goes into the mails June 15. (Copyright, 1936, by United Feature Syndicate. Inc.)

Second Section

Entered as Second-Class Matter at Fostoffice. Indtanapollg, Ind.

Tdashington rodneyldutcher (Westbrook Pegler’s Column Will Be Resumed Tomorrow.) May 25.—The conservative United States Supreme Court majority has burned its bridges and assured a bitter-end struggle to curb the powers which it has assumed over congressional legislation. If Roosevelt is re-elected, his battle with the six justices who have shown themselves grimly opposed to the New Deal is likely to be the most spectacular feature cf his second term.

That at least is the opinion of his most influential advisers following the decision against the Guffey Coal Control Act, with its obvious inference that the Wagner Labor Relations Act is as good as dead and the social security and other legislation in grave peril. The New Dealers still are hopeful that voluntary retirements or other causes will enable Roosevelt to fill vacancies in a manner which would change the court's complexion. That, coupled with a fear of

dragging the constitutional issue mto the political campaign, is why the real battle between the New Deal and the court is likely not to come before election. Some of Roosevelt’s friends would like him to take a courageous stand and boldly attack the court during the campaign. But the inside betting is on the probability that he will be more cautious. a A Larger Court Trou can mark it down as a strong possibility A that some time within the next year there will be more than nine justices. By a simple act of Congress the President would be enabled to appoint three or four additional members of the court and to choose men who would be more likely to line up with Justices Stone, Brandeis and Cardozo than with Hughes, Roberts, Mcßeynolds, Sutherland, Van Devanter and Butler. Chief Justice Hughes, in the opinion of many lawyers of varying political beliefs, specifically challenged the Administration to make Constitutional amendment a campaign issue when he pointed out that the people had the power to amend the Constitution if they wanted to give Congress the power to regulate industries and the relations of employers and employes. Leaving aside political aspects, it can be seen readily that the court majority has imperiled its position by declaring industrial production to be a local matter with which the Federal government can not interfere, because regulation is a prerogative of the states. a tt Ignoring the States IN the case of a demoralized industry which tho Guffey Act was expected to cure, the court opposed its dictum to 80 per cent of the industry, a.i the miners—and inferentially the rest of organized labor, both houses of Congress, the President and— Perhaps, most significantly, the seven states which filed briefs in support of the coal stabilization act, with the assertion that they themselves could not deal effectively with the problems of the bituminous coal industry. The states were Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Washington, and Kentucky. They denied the contention of plaintiffs that their constitutional rights would be invaded by the act and asserted that Federal regulations was essential. 'I he court's decision leaves the Federal government powerless to remedy a situation which tha states chiefly involved have said they themselves were powerless to meet. (Copyright. 1936. by NEA Service. Inc.) New Books THE PUBLIC LIBRARY PRESENTS— ’ MISS Rose Macaulay in PERSONAL PLEASURES • Macmillan; $2 50) displays the sense of humor we have learned to expect from her. These little essays record the countless minor, pleasant sensations that go together to make contentment. She openly enjoys “Showing Off,” where others might hesitate or be too priggish to confess such weakness. She also gets pleasure from “Parties” and “Not Going to Parties,” from “Bed: Getting Into It” and “Not Getting Out of It,” and from the radio, electric fans, auctions, and turtles in Hyde Park; and she means many other blessings which we, perhaps, are inclined to take for granted and not count as blessings at all. a it IMPASSIONED PYGMIES (Doubleday-Doran; $2.50); by John Keith Winter, a young English novelist, is a clever story about modern sophisticates, living in a squabbling group on an island in the Mediterranean. The group, with the character Marius as its center, is disturbingly like that of D. H. Lawrence and his biographers. Saul, the older son of Marius, who is the pivot of the novel, is an interesting and likable character whose emotional attractions and repulsions are portrayed with skill. Indeed, the whole story is to b® read with pleasure, tinged with a teasing curiosity as to the identity of the various characters portrayed. , tt a WHILE the destiny of Abyssinia troubles the world, readers will be glad to turn to THE REAL ABYSSINIA (Lippincott; $4), written by a man who lived there and, subsequently, visited it many tines. The picture drawn by C. F. Rey is one of contrasts. The fertile, healthful plateau is surrounded by almost impassable lands burdened with oppressive heat. The people, warlike by nature and training, are unable to keep order among themselves or to protect themselves against outsiders. From long experience, they are suspicious of foreigners, yet they treat friendly visitors with hospitality. Partially penetrated by western civilization, the country stands—as one observer remarked—with one leg in the League of Nations and the other in the Middle Ages. Mr. Rey writes in an honest attempt to understand and explain the predicament of a people that he knows. a m VIC HURLEY, young, romantic, wanted to be a planter in the Tropics and wear a white suit. Accordingly SOUTHEAST OF ZAMBOANGA (Dutton; $3) finds him alone in the interior of Mindanao in the Philippine coconut country, fighting seven-inch centipedes, cobras, dysentery, and malaria, with the green creeping menace of the jungle always imminent. After a year he was “licked” as far as solitary life in the jungle went. He was. however, not through with the Tropics. The next seven years, spent as an executive with American rubber and coconut companies in Zamboanga and Manilla, gave him a right to the title, “An Old Timer.” MEN IN SUN HELMETS (Dutton; $2.50) brings us the record of this tropic service deluxe. A collector of “other men’s stories,” he relates them here with a charming eclat. Together with the earlier account, this book forms a continuous record of eight years of life on an island that is “still not a white man's country." The reader is strong minded who can read thesa vivid books without glancing furtively about at the . flighty rustling.sound. Just try Itl ,

jfk *<*

Rodney Dutcher