Indianapolis Times, Indianapolis, Marion County, 28 December 1936 — Page 10

The Indianapolis Times (A SCRIPPS-ROWARD NEWSPAPER)

ROY W. HOWARD LUDWELL DENNY EARL D. BAKER President Business Manages

Price in Marion County, 3 cents a copy; delivered by carrier, 12 cents a week,

Mail subscription rates in Indiana, $3 a year; outside of Indiana, cents a month,

dB RIley 5551

Give Lioht ana the Peopie Will Pind Thetr Own Way

Owned ana published dally (except Sunday) by The Indianapolis Times Publishing ©o., 214 Ww, Maryland -st.

Member of United Press, Scripps - Howard NewsPaper Alliance, NEA Service, and Audit Bureau of Circulations.

MONDAY, DECEMBER 28, 1936

“PEACE WITHOUT VICTORY” Po you remember when Woodrow Wilson went to Europe saying the Treaty of Versailles should be “a peace without victory”? Do you remember how scornfully the political leaders our victorious European allies rejected Wilson's proposal that vanquished Germany not be looted of her colonies ? And do you remember how through the first post-war vears a liberal democratic government in ‘Germany attempted the impossible task of reconstructing the economic life of a country that had been robbed of natural resources subjected to heavy annual war indemnities, and how,

of

and

through those years, the allied powers refused to help alle- |

Viate Germany's distress ? You will not have to reach so far back in your memory to recall what has happened since Germany's democratic government fell; the rise of Hitler and dictatorship; rearmament in Central Europe; re-occupation of the Rhineland; one Hitler ultimatum after another; the disappearance of all semhlance of collective security in Europe and the reappearance of the old pull-and-haul diplomacy, with alliances shifting overnight, feverish negotiations everywhere, and tremors of fear running through the capitals which a few years ago were so complacent about Germany’s distress under a government with which they could have dealt rationally and helpfully. And now we see France, in a desperate last-minute effort to stave off disaster, offering to give back Germany’s old colonies—asking only that Germany in return stop threatening war and start co-operating for peace. And betore 1t 1s all over we may see a chastened Britain also wishing to let bygones be bygones. Europe's rulers in 1918 and 1919 thought Woodrow Wilson was an impractical idealist, and that they were the realists. What do Europe's rulers think now?

PETER VAN HORN PETER VAN HORN, president of the National Federation of Textiles, who was killed in a Florida auto accident, earned his country’s esteem as a pioneer in tolerance and liberalism among his fellows of business. Instead of joining the smear-Roosevelt campaign in full cry last summer, he issued a statement rebuking that movement and expressing “contempt and shame” for the savage hate it engendered. When the fight was over, Mr. Van Horn did his bit in urging business men to bury the hatchet and co-operate for the building of a better and sounder America. Today American business appears to have caught his One business group after another is meeting and passing resolutions more liberal and co-operative with the New Deal than one would have dreamed possible.

spirit.

A REAL INVENTION JNVENTOR John Hays Hammond Jr. has patented a device to filter the voices of screen and radio performers and remove unpleasant qualities. “Editing for voice recording,” he calls the process. The world has been waiting for that invention. its use become general without delay. Now, Mr. Hammond, invent us something to filter the bunk out of political speeches. Do that before the next ampaign begins, and we'll nominate you for Public Benefactor No. 1.

May

YEAR END’S GRIM MESSAGE {ROM Europe and from Asia come warnings that any incident or accident might, at any time, plunge mankind once more into bloody conflict. To make the picture all the more somber, those waging the battle for peace are aware of the almost hopeless nature of their task. From his sick bed in Rome, Pope Pius XI, against his doctor's orders, addressed the world in one of the most carnest pleas for peace ever heard.

From Buenos Aires the American Secretary of State,

Cordell Hull, likewise warned listeners in every land that “We must destroy war or war will destray us. Instruments ol destruction which have been invented,” he added, ‘are so devastating in their effects that compromise is no longer possible.” The principal nations of the world continue to prepare, day and night, for what they are convinced is inevitable, Never in peace time have the great powers spent more for armaments. Some, like Germany, have already spent so much that civilians lack sufficient food. Such nations will soon have to make use of their burdensome weapons or scrap them in a right-about-face move for peace. And the

terrible thing about it is no dictator feels he can afford to |

back down. He is too afraid of losing prestige. There is an old saying that takes two to make a quarrel. Unfortunately that does not held true in the case of war. One aggressive nation has, and can again, set a ‘continent on fire, however unwilling the others may be to fight. The tragedy is that while the vast majority of the in-

habitants of this globe yearn for peace, there seems so little

that is practical they can do ahout it. It is the handful of aggressors, not those who want peace, who seem able to call the turn. The time will come when this will cease to be true. But that will be after the savage that lingers is burned out of us by the fires of further strife. Some day those who want peace simply will not permit international outlaws to operate. But that time is not yet, We are not sufficiently civilized. Which is a sad commentary to have to make at the end of Anno Domini 1936. Right in the middle of the season of peace on earth and good will to man. Meanwhile, as war threatens across the Atlantic and across the Pacific, we in America can thank God we are not a part of Europe or of Asia. The Americas are not threatening attack. The Americas are not threatened by attack.

To keep our own peace, we have only to keep our heads, our

Jnterests and our beings, at home. : a

WN

MY ADVICE AND GO BACK WHERE YOU CAME EROM !

Fair Enough By Westbrook Pegler

Let's Attend to Our Unfinished Business While We Have British Over Barrel, Mr. Pegler Advises.

EW YORK, Dec. 28.—Our friends, the British, seem eager to forget the embarrassing matter of the ex-King’s crush on the wife of a loyal subject and brother officer but there remains some unfinished business which might as well as attended to while we have them over a barrel. This business concerns us because, for lack of any more dignified explanation of a ribald mishap, they have blamed the United States on two counts. First, it was a gang of immoral American gents and ladies, described as pushful, who seduced an innocent boy of 42 and corrupted his sense of duty. Second, after the British King and Emperor had flouted the minimum British requirements of common decency and cricket and given them not an English gentleman but a rounder for a national ideal, it was the American press which compelled his abdication by printing current history according to its duty under the franchise. It is odd that they should have been so resentful toward us for the loss of a ruler so easily and thoroughly “debauched,” but that is their story and they are, as the saying goes, stuck with it. And now, having presented the indictment, our friends, the British, desire to stamp it “proven,” and close the case.

Mr. Pegler

= " ” S to the first count, there is some truth, for the late monarch as Prince and King undoubtedly did show a distinct preference for the company of an idle and luxurious set of internationalists from these shores whose reputation was not of the beston their own home grounds. However, he had his pick of the country when he was here and of all the Americans who have gone to England in his time. And the friends he did pick were his election and an indication of his social taste. They didn’t pick him because that Just can't be done. A king or crown prince may not be able to avoid meeting an undesirable character once, but it is his prerogative to cross off people who offend his principles. He needn't see them again unless he wants to. So, if he did select a group of friends whose ideals were alien to England that meant that he found them congenial and that he was their kind. That their ideals were alien to England because they were low does not necessarily follow, however. = u zn HE fact is that the sort of Americans whom Edward preferred always try desperately to be British in manners, customs and speech as well as ideals. He liked speed, and fast English society needs no les-

| sons from any one, including the Egyptians Bulgarians

and Turks. The most ingenious smut singers come from the night clubs of London and the King, as Prince of Wales, was winning many an all-night pubcrawl when the miners of the bleak, black principality whose name he bore were eating acorns and clay. It is hard to appreciate the suddenly discovered character of a great popular leader and social reformer in which the late King's defenders dressed him up when tne crisis came. True, he did make a tour of the coal mines, after 20 years of destitution in that region, and it seems that he was so startled and touched that he exclaimed, “Something must be done about this.” But if that is the entire text of the new deal which he was planning to introduce, the excitement over his disturbing intentions seems vastly out of proportion.

The Hoosier Forum

I wholly disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it—Voltaire.

QUESTIONS SANENESS OF CHANGING CONSTITUTION

By a Reader In view of the sad experience our state governments have had in junking their constitutions by adding so many amendments that the

constitutions became meaningless and new ones had to be written, it seems to me the height of folly for our national government to embark upon the same course. Yes, there is no denying the fact that we are faced with embarking on just such a course unless the Supreme Court abrogates the policy of “strict interpretation” established in 1803. The question today is not: Should the Supreme Court have the power of court veto, but rather, is it possible under the present economic situation for the court to continue to exercise this power? Whether one believed in the principles of the AAA or not, there is no denying the lesson it taught. No one will deny that the government will pass more laws which may go the same way as the AAA. For a law to be enforced two years; for millions of dollars to be collected in taxes from that law; then for the Supreme Court to declare that law unconstitutional is just too loose business for the modern business man to endure. Of course, the argument will be advanced that the Supreme Court can not render a decision on laws until there is an appeal. And that is the whole crux of the situation. Modern business can not and will not tolerate such delay. They demand some assurance that laws are constitutional before they are enforced. This leaves only two courses open to Congress: either they must load the constitution with amendments to assure that their laws will be constitutional, or they must Testrict the dictatorial power which the Supreme Court has established under the principle of strict interpretation. ® » Ww

SEES EDWARD'S FOREIGN POLICY BACK OF ABDICATION By an Observer

Along with the hint that there was more than romance involved: in King Edward's abdication, comes the news that Britain has suddenly stiffened her foreign policy, and the statement from Anthony Eden that Britain would no longer tolerate scrapping of international agreements (hitting at Germany). In view of these developments, it seems to me that the only plausible solution to the more-than-romance implication is that parliament was as ‘much worried about Edward's diplomatic activitie§ as it was by his romance. In this respect, it might be mentioned that Bdward, before and after becoming King, went out of his way to express his friendship for Germany, As Prince of Wales, he traveled in Germany and allowed the German press to quote him as being in sympathy with the

General Hugh Johnson Says —

Syphilis and Gonorrhea

ASHINGTON, Dec. 28.—One of the most important conferences is coming to close—SurRo neral Purvan's convention to vontrel venereal ses. Destroyers of new-born babies’ eyes, the greatest contributors to insane asylums, surgical wards for

"J VENTY yerrs ago this plece could not have been printed

if it went no further ut “social

HERE a Pls Ame

Ravage Like Pestilences of Middle Ages Because of Benighted Bigotry, Ignorance and Stupidity of Human Race.

favored hy ho church—whispered in the shadow of death: he

less it moves.” ® ® =

JrORTUNSTRLY the famous “freedom of the press” is asserting itself as strongly against the eontrol of bigotry as against political domination. A

(Times readers are invited to express their views in these columns, religious controversies excluded. Make your leiter short, so all can have a chance. Letters must be signed, but names will be withheld on request.)

purposes of Hitler. Later, at his first court function, he raised a diplomatic furore by holding a waiting line of diplomats over-long while he renewed acquaintance with a German representative. Of course, it remains for history to tell how much of a hand Edward, as Prince and King, hed in the shaping of a British foreign policy which allowed Germany to build a navy, rearm and reoccupy the Rhine—in fact, to scrap all treaties and promises and to build the most powerful fighting machine in the world. To me it seems more than a mere coincidence that Parliament should, at the same time it changes its King, also change its foreign policy—especially its policy toward Germany. ” ”n un BELIEVES CHECK SYSTEM SHOULD APPLY TO COURT By L. L. Patton, Crawfordsville

So much has been made of our legislative-executive-judicial system as being a check-upon-check system that I can not see how the “check-upon-check” believers can object to some sort of a check upon the Supreme Court. Some time ago, I made a suggestion, through an article in the Hoosier Forum of a “constitutional court” composed of nine eminent lawyers to serve in the Attorney General's office to advise on the constitutionality of laws before ‘hey were enacted. I received letters complaining that such court would tend to intimidate the Supreme Court in passing its judgments. It seems to me that is exactly what we want. If 1v is a good policy for the Supreme Court to hold

CHILD'S PRAYER

BY MRS. BERTHA BIERLEIN I get your picture out and hug it tight, I talk to you with great delight. But, daddy dear, you do not hear, For you, the one I love, are not near.

Each night I kneel down beside my bed and pray That God will send you back home to stay. Never again will you want to roam Away from Mother, me and home.

DAILY THOUGHT

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.—Psalms 14:1, No one is so thoro hly superstitious as the gutless ain. Li and death to him are haunted Rrounds, filled with goblin forms of vague and shadowy dread — Mrs. Stoue.

“

Life,

the threat of veto over the President and Congress, then I can not see why it would not be a good policy to have something to hold over the head of the Supreme Court. Furthermore, it seems to me that most of the criticism of the Supreme Court comes from the fact that we have no yardstick to measure the justice of its decisions. The “advices” of the constitutional court would serve admirably as such a yardstick. It would take from the “nine old men’ much of the air of dictatorship ‘with which the public has come to regard them. I would like to remind the sticklers for precedence, that for the office of Attorney General to “advise” on the constitutionality of laws is older than the precedent of the Supreme Court passing on a law. In fact, I believe much of the fighting between our Presidents and our Supreme Courts has been due to the fact that the advisory capacity of the Attorney General's office established by our first Congress, has never been developed.

2: on ”n CRITICS ARE ESSENTIAL BUT OFTEN WRONG By William Lemon Those die-hards of the recent election say the country is going to the bow-wows and fail to see the return to prosperity. I admit that critics are essential to show up the weak points in any administration, but most of our administration critics are merely showing up themselves, They fail to see the progress of the first four years—Social Secur-

ity Act, Child Labor Act and the L

elimination of chickenless pots, empty garages and over-populated poor houses. Their theory of minority rule has long been abolished in our country, although Spain today is fighting to maintain it. Criticism is oné of the inherent weaknesses of the human race— its either too hot or too cold, or, in the case of prohibition, too wet or too dry. Liberal papers, such as The Indianapolis Times, and radio, have been great factors in educating the public, which in the ancient horse-and-buggy days followed in the footsteps of their fathers. We have a few left who think that “what was good enough for pappy is good enough for me.” If the die-hards wish to help preserve the remains of their “Grand Old Party” I would advise them to send a few donations to their national chairman to help wipe out their million-dollar deficit, and help him balance his budget. » ” = OPEN LETTER ON USE OF MOTOR CAR By a Disgusted Taxpayer An open letter to Gov. McNutt: Why is a Packard automobile, belonging to the State of Indiana and bearing license number 125-634, allowed to take high school students to and from a party at the Marott Hotel on the night of Nov. 20, 1936, and on numerous occasions has called for a student at Shertridge High School fo take him home?

It Seems to Me

By Heywood Broun

Already Sore at Reviewers, Prospective Novelist Is Seeking Some Ideas for Story and Title,

EW YORK, Dec 28.—I think I'll write myself a novel for New Year's. Everybody ought to write a novel every four or five years or so just for the fun of it. And then sometimes you can get one published

and very occasionally one gets read. I think it was Henry Mencken who said that practically anybody might write one good novel. Under

that dispensation I have a right to try, because out of three former attempts nothing nicked the target. Not that I didn't believe in the books myself, all of them, but we didn't even carry Maine or Vermont, Indeed, the people of the Unit= ed States rolled up a terrific man= date against my writing novels, And the licking grew progressively worse. The first book I wrote sold almost 8000 copies, and that is really a moral victory for the first novel. It was my intention then to serve one more year in the galleys and then retire from active newspaper work. I say active advisedly, because this was before I became a regular columnist. It was easy to draw a pretty picture. The second book was to attract 20,000 readers, and then, by an orderly progression, the third would get me 40,000. Far from the made ding crowd I would sit on the lower part of my back and indorse royalty checks. Occasionally T would take a brisk walk as far as the swimming pool and then return for cocktails and contemplation. But the second novel sold less than 4000 copies, and the third didn't reach 8000. I feared that if I tried another I would have to pay to publish it, and so I retired as an author and became a newspaper columnist.

Mr. Broun

\d ” ”

UT since that day a lot of books and water have gone under the bridge. Even a burnt child no longer dreads the fire after his wounds have healed. Many of the critics who said my books were terrible are now out of print. And so are the books. The book reviewers of today may be a brighter crowd than the old gang ot assassins who drove me into exile. Of course, I don't know for certain because I haven't tried them. As far as I'm concerned, all critics, whether dramatic or literary, are guilty until proved innocent. They constitute a stiff-necked crew, and my imagination is so lively that already I am a little sore at what they are going to say about the book which as yet I have not written. The trouble with me—that is, one of the troubles with me—as a novelist is that IT am wholly incapable of describing anything. The hero will be five or six feet tall, but I couldn't tell vou whether he is a blond or a brunet, and still less would I know anything about the color of his eyes. The reader ought to supply all those details.

” ” ”

EROINES are even tougher. You can get by with a rather vague sketch of the man in the story, but if you are going to have a pretty girl—and I suppose you must have a pretty girl—the captious reader will want to know why she is pretty. How can I tell? The rules for beauty are ill defined, and it ought to be enough just to say that she is good looking. Already I've taken a strong dislike to the heroine. She promises to make so much trouble for me that I may leave her out. The same goes for the hero. Unless he will proms ise to behave himself and take direction easily, he, too, may be omitted. In fact. I may not write the novel at all, just to get square with that smug young man and that prissy girl who seems to him so beautiful.

The Washington Merry-Go-Round

Fight on Unemployment Relief Will Be One of Most Bitter Ever Waged Over That Controversial Issue When Congress Convenes Jan, 5.

By Drew Pearson and Robert S. Allen

tions to carry the WPA through to June 30, 1937, the end of the current fiscal year. The attack will be three-sided. One barrage will come from the conservative forces pressi vigorously for a tapering off of relief expenditures. nting to booming industrial activity, they contend that private

business is Pheorbing large numbers of unemployed, and insist that the t make good his promise