Indianapolis Times, Indianapolis, Marion County, 8 July 1937 — Page 16

di 3 rg eT S | Indianapolis (A SCRIPPS-HOWARD NEWSPAPER)

ROY W. HOWARD LUDWELL DENNY MARK FERREE President Editor : Business Manager

Owned and published Price in Marion Coundaily (except Sunday) by ty, 3 cents a copy; deliv The Indianapolis Times ered by carrier, 12 cents Publishing Co. 214 W. a week. Maryland St. Mail subscription rates in Indiana, $3 a year; outside of Indiana, 65 cénts a month.

Member of United Press, Scripps - Howard Newspaper Alliance, NEA Service, and Audit Bureau of Circuldtions. ED RIley 5551

Give Light and the People Will Find Their Own Way

THURSDAY, JULY 8, 1937

UP TO LABOR JURISDICTIONAL strike is not a battle between capital and labor. It is between labor and labor. Wages, hours and working conditions are not involved. The employer and the public are the “bystanders.” The employer already has agreed to collective bargaining. He has signed up. He has recognized labor's right to organize. But, nevertheless, his operation is stopped by a fight in which he is not a party. And the public, which should be the beneficiary of orderly capital-labor relationship, finds itself also in the line of fire of a labor civil war. The jurisdictional strike therefore is one of the greatest dangers to the labor movement. Labor's position becomes indefensible. It can’t blame capital for a situation labor itself has created. Not being able to blame the employer, and rubbing the public the wrong way as it has, it cannot enlist public opinion, the final force in any labor dispute. Wise labor leaders long have sensed the harm to their cause that inheres in the jurisdictional strike. In the past such strikes have been between crafts. For example, the Carpenters and Joiners of America get into a scrap with the International Association of Structural Iron Workers over which group shall do the window trim. Once, windows were all wood and glass. Then came steel. Hence, the inter-union row for the work. And while the two crafts are fighting it out, the whole construction halts. The employer, though he has a contract with labor, has to “take it"—and of such stuff are Girdlers made. = » » . = = ” UCH racketeering arose out of this. For the labor leader who could start and then stop one of those juris- © dictional strikes could feather his nest, the employer frequently being willing to kick in with whatever it took to keep his investment from eating itself up.

But that kind of jurisdictional dispute was chickenfeed compared with what is now looming up. For that was confined within one labor movement, the craft.

Now, we have the craft, and the industrial, fighting each other for power. The next phase promises to develop a mass production on jurisdictional strikes. The phase is already appearing. And unless labor itself can prevent its spread the “plague on both your houses”. idea recently expressed by the President will become the battle-cry of a beleaguered public and the labor movement, as such, will go down the sink.

We think that would be just about the worst thing that could happen to the country. For the alternative would be fascism-vigilantism, or whatever you care to call it. All the hordes of rugged individualists would first seek to capitalize the trend, and then would discover that individualism, along with labor, was being routed down the same road that Mussolini took to dispose of the same problem. : » » ” = " n HERE is how it is happening here: Over the Fourth of July week-end the teamsters of Philadelphia and environs suddenly imposed partial paralysis on a community of three million people. The issue was not one of better wages, hours or working conditions. It was one of whether the A. F. of L. or the C. I. 0. sho-'d control bakery drivers. It developed a general trucking strike that immediately threatened a milk famine for the babies, a food shortage for the adults, bankruptcy for the farmers seeking to deliver their produce, and danger to the lives of citzens desiring to go their customary ways. It was a blow at the heart of an intricate organism, the modern Jnunicipality. And what was it all about? labor of bakery trucking. Contracts were violated. Industry for the time being stopped. That Mayor Wilson was able to force an agreement by a ballot which should determine who should win was fortunate, but incidental to the larger prospect of similar affairs developing throughout the nation. What might have happened had not the labor leaders sensed the danger is far from pleasant to contemplate. With labor organization split as it is, a rash of like occurrences seems probable as the “next phase.” And because of the seriousness of the prospect we hear Miss Perkins belatedly deploring the sit-down strike, President Roosevelt putting the curse on “both your houses,” Secretary Roper appealing for order, Gov. Earle urging inviolability of contracts and warning the labor movement to “stamp out those communists.” In the present scene labor is at the crossroads. It is now a matter of self-control. If, after all that has already happened, jurisdictional strikes between the A. F. of L. and the C. I. O. are to spread, then labor unionism may be of a “few days and full of trouble.” If, on the other hand, labor can get together, function under the guarantees of the Wagner act, bargain collectively, reach agreements and then keep them, the greatest forward stride in the history of our complex and fast-moving civilization toward a better distribution of wealth and a better general economy will have been taken. It is up to labor,

A' JUDGE SPEAKS ON SAFETY TO other judges, and to traffic violators who appear before our courts, we commend the frank statement by Municipal Judge Charles Karabell that traffic safety is the responsibility of the courts. “The laws are more than adequate . . . but if judges in cities and towns throughout the state don’t go after drunken drivers and other traffic offenders with full use of the power of the courts, we never will be able to stop unnecessary killing and maiming on the streets and highways,” he said. “It is a pity even to think that judges must be forced to exercise strict enforcement in traffic laws by a State Legislature when they should on their own responsibility do everything within their power to check the mounting traffic toll.”

Who should control the

| third—ana all will become

3 HELL WITH

[nowreevention!] oe \ A WE WANT |

“SPAIN!

glo NN

> 4 & lhe - SSS .

we vy, SENS ay

cman OTe RN 3 [gabe a TO a

Tie gk A= xa

Washington

By Raymond Clapper Opening Senate Court Debate Dull. Although Historic, Says Observer; Even Boy Scouts Were Disappointed.

VV ASHINGTON, July 8.—If you had been in the Senate gallery to see history in the making when debate opened on the Supreme Court hill, you probably wouldnt have been very much impressed. It was an historic occasion all right, for the best guessing here is that the Hatch court-en-largement bill thus offered to the Senate will get through, but as an event it was unimpressive, as historic occasions often are. Perhaps we are always expecting history to wear a high hat when as a matter of fact it is frequently caught in its shirtsleeves. For instance, Warren Harding signed the document ending the war with Germany while he was on a Fourth of July golfing party in New Jersey. Pausing in the living room of his host's country house, Mr. Harding signed his name, said “that’s that,” and made for the golf course. That's how the World War ended so far as we were concerned. When it was about to begin, the advance signal was to hand the German Ambassador to Washington, Von Bernstorff, his passports and start him home. News of that event was given to the outside world through a reporter who was told about it by an important official as the two met by chance in the lavatory of the White House executive offices. While not quite as informal as that on this his-tory-making occasion, the Senate failed by several notches to come up to its self-cenferred reputation as the greatest deliberative body in the world. It was too bad, because the gallery was full of Boy Scouts, here on their jamboree, expecting-a grand a day of high, wide oratory such as the great colnDouglas debates were supposed to have been.

= = » HE Boy Scouts saw no cool, masterful orators, spraying the Senate with immortal words. The

Majority Leader, Senator Robinson (D. Ark.) was so excited when he opened the debate that he forgot to park his cigar in the cloakroom, and as he spoke he caught himself striking a match, which is frowned upon almost as severely as striking a Senator. The Boy Scouts also observed the Senate in a struggle with its conscience, as to whether to skip work in order to attend the All-Star baseball game. Some thought business should come before pleasure and that the Senate should continue its great debate without regard to the ball game. Others thought the Senate needed the relaxation of an afternoon in the open air. Finally the Senate compromised this issue by deciding to meet two hours early. As to the Court proposal itself, there seemed to be considerable confusion. Senator Hatch (D. N. M.), who signed the Judiciary Committee report denouncing the Roosevelt Court Bill as a violation of “every sacred tradition of democracy,” explained that his compromise bill would add the six justices one at a time instead of all at once. It seems to be a violation of democracy to add six members at once, but not if you add them one a year,

= » =

HE great disappointment was Borah. Expectant silence swept over the Senate chamber when the veteran watchdog of the Constitution, the nearest thing we have to Daniel Webster, rose. He made one questioning thrust. But he led, unfortunately, with his chin. Whereupon Senator Barkley of Kentucky, who sometimes can be almost as tough as Harlan County, reminded the Senate that when Borah was leading the fight against the confirmation of Charles Evans Hughes as chief justice, and was complaining about the Supreme Court exercising legislative powers, he was asked whether he would be willing to amend the Constitution to prevent it. Borah’s reply on that occasion, as Senator Barkley reminded the Senate, was: “No. I would amend the court.”

Mr. Clapper

The Hoosier Forum

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

PROTEST CONDUCT OF POLICEMAN By LiF. I W. RJ. K, C. T. M., and

At 18th and Harding Sts. on the southeast corner there is a stop sign that cannot be seen at night.

One night recently a sedan ran past the sign and struck a coupe. None of the occupants was injured and the loss was covered by insurance.

A policeman in civilian clothes was passing just as the accident occurred. He got out of his car, grabbed the driver of the sedan. This driver was just 16 years old. The policeman said, in effect, “You young kids aren't fit to drive on the streets. I ought to knock your teeth out.” To which the boy replied, “Pardon me, sir, but I'm a minor.” The policeman replied, “Pardon me, but I'm a policeman.” He continued to talk to the boy in a sarcastic manner.

The boy was arrested and the police car arrived to take him away. While the boy was being put into the car, another car ran past the same stop sign, struck a coupe and glanced off into a new, large car. The driver who drove through this time got out, looked at his own car and drove away. This man committed the same offense as the youth who had been arrested, and he also left the scene of the accident. The policeman who was so insistent on enforcing the law in the first case, did nothing about the second. Why should one person be arrested while another goes free for the same violation? How about our merit system?

MORRISSEY ORDERS CASE INVESTIGATED By Chief Morrissey Investigation into the conduct of the officer in the case mentioned and the visibility of the stop sign has been turned over to Capt. Lewis Johnson of the Traffic Department. If the facts as stated by the complaining parties are true, the conduct is strictly not that becoming an officer. ” = =

SAYS TOWNSEND FORGOT MERIT SYSTEM PLEDGES

By Taxpayer

Governor Townsend ran for office on a platform supporting extension of the merit system in state government. So did members of the Legislature, Democrats and Republicans alike. The Governor's efforts have been to undermine, rather than to extend, the principle of merit in our State Government. And the Legislature did nothing to redeem its pledge. So much for Indiana. On June 2, President Roosevelt sent a message to Congress urging that all but policy-forming positions in the executive branch of the Federal Government be placed under the merit system. How co-operative Congress intends to be toward that worthy program is shown by amendments it tacked onto the independ-ent-offices appropriation bill providing that all appointments of attorneys and experts for the Social Security Board with salaries of more than $5000 must be confirmed by the Senate. When he was forced to sign this

General Hugh Johnson Says—

Profit Tax Prevents Return of Prosperity, Says Former NRA Head: Decries 'Distribution of Poverty’ as Blocking Industrial Expansion.

ASHINGTON, D. C, July 8—This column got a lot of dead-cat letters because of a recent piece suggesting that we can’t tax enough away from

the upper two-thirds of all income classes to give to the lower third an income of $2400 a year without destroying our system.

Most of these letters say that the lower third are just as much entitled to their share of national income as the upper two-thirds whether they earn it or not and, therefore, any such piece as mine is just greed and selfishness talking.

All right, let's take that one right on the chin. Greed and selfishness are the prime movers of the capitalist and profit machine. They are the engine which keeps millions of men planning and working to produce something they can sell to get money for themselves and their families. Without that the profit system won’t work. Men work harder, or plan better than other men in an effort to get more money than other men. This excess of effort is what makes progress, starts new enterprise and makes more jobs. If you kill that excess effort by saying, “It makes no difference how much you make or produce, we are going to take it away from you as fast as you make it,” you remove from our economic system the principal force which makes it go. = = =

ov Hema the engine of selfishness and greed, 4# but what does that do to the production countrv—the national income WhICE gives ee provides the taxes from which relief is granted and by I Cuvee and civilization is maintained. a ws the whole machine if it completely stall it. HE 4 Woe ~

So what? There will be less and less to divid for the upper two-thirds as well as the lower one-

Se

able, poverty.

The clog of unbearable taxes has

It does not distribute wealth it distributes

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

bill the President sent another message rebuking Congress for this flouting of the merit principle. His designation of the amendment as “unfortunate,” was extremely mild. It was an act worthy only of jobchasing politicians and was particularly reprehensible in that it opened the door of politics to a system that above all must be manned by experts, While pleading for the merit system the President is not satisfied with a mere extension of the civil service as it is. In his five-point reorganization program is a proposal for a general overhauling of the civil service in the interest of a more efficient personnel. The merit system as it works today is just a little better than the spoils system. Its rigid system of rules and red tape offers no attraction to young men and women of exceptional ability and devotion. There is scant provision for transfer or training or promotion. The top posts are underpaid. The result is that we have “merit” on the lowest possible plane. The Government is not luring the best trained young people to its service. And many attracted to Washington by the New Deal's idealism are now deserting to private positions.

Single Administrator

The President’s proposal aims to make Government service more of a career, less of a steady job. Instead of a board there would be a single Civil Service Administrator working directly under the President. He would devote his attention not only to giving examinations, but to recruiting able personnel and then seeing that they get training and opportunities for promotion. Salaries for positions of responsibility would be made more attractive and the merit system extended upward to include all but the policy-making officials. Some 250,000 persons would be brought under -civil-service rules within a year. Aiding the administrator would be a Civil Service

UNFINISHED SYMPHONY

By MARY WARD I have an open book near at hand, Some of whose contents I think I understand, Other pages are still unknown to me, unread— And life is so, partly before us spread.

DAILY THOUGHT

Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation. Mala=chi 3:8, 9.

HE who purposely cheats a friend would cheat his God.—Lavater.

already

Board of nonsalaried citizens to keep the merit system free from politics. As the President's Committee on Administrative Management says, “Government cannot be any better

or more efficient than the men and women who work in it.” ” o ” PEDESTRIAN DEFENDS BICYCLE ORDINANCE By William Lemon The ordinance to license the bicycle nuisance is one of the best passed by our City Fathers in recent years. Another ordinance should be passed restricting bicycles to certain streets in the various localities permitting use of the sidewalks by jaywalkers. This ordinance not only protects the bike owners but also places a responsibility on them as on the motorist. The second ordinance would also give us pedestrians a chance. . To receive the benefit of modern civilization, taxpayers must pay for it, and if they wish to avoid it, they should move out in the sticks. The only opposition to this ordinance comes from what is left of the almost extinct G., O. P., and like the ostrich their heads are still in the sand. It takes law to accomplish anything, and as for safety, education is a back number. If you think it isn’t, try crossing Noble and Market Sts. about 5:30 p. m.

= ” ” RED-BAITERS USED BY RUSSIA, CLAIM By Bull Mooser, Crawfordsville These Russians are a queer nation. All the “red-baiting” and insults we have thrown in their faces haven't brought forth a single angry retort. They just smile understandingly — and sometimes they hand us back our “red-bait”

wrapped up in an April-fool package. Here is an instance. The Russians had placed an order for the building of a large battleship in the U. S.; then they were approached by the Japanese with an offer to build the battleship for half the American price. How could’ the Russians release themselves from the American contract? That was easy. They simply cooperated with the Japanese in instigating in the U. S. a ‘red-bait-ing” protest against the building of the ship. They supplied the proFascist organizations with “redbait” propaganda and let those gullible organizations do their job for them.

Results: The pro-Fascist newspapers started a campaign against the U, S. building battleships for Red Russia. Army and Navy officers flocked to Washington in protest. Our pro-Fascist State Department became active demanding that the Government revoke its consent to an American shipbuilder to build the ship. So, for the moment, the Russians and Japs forget their enmity and laugh together. Only the unemployed American workman is glum. He would like to have beat the Japs cut of the job of building that ship.

In the Capital

1

By Rodney Dutcher C. I. O. Expected to Call Parley

In Immediate Future to Draft Policies And Organize on Permanent Basis.

VW ASHINGTON, July 8.—While the C. I. 0. certainly is functioning as a rival of the A. F. of L., technically it is little more than its name implies—A Committee for In« dustrial Organizations.

There is no constitution and there has been no national convention. Future relationship of

the international and local unions has not been set tled—as the question has long been settled in the A. F. of L. The career of C. 1..O, has been too turbulent and hectic, as well as too rapid in progress, to permit fussing over these de= tails. Nevertheless, C. I. O. already is definitely in a period of transition from an organizing committee to an actual national central organization of labor unions. There nolonger seems the slightest chance of a reconciliation with the A. F. of L. The transition began last March when a full meeting of the C. I. O. authorized issuance of certificates of affiliation to national, international, state, region= al, city central and other local groups.

International unions affiliated have begun to pay per capita dues to C. I. O. in the same way they used to pay them to the A. F. of L. Some 227 local industrial unions chartered since March in various industries, which are not covered by the 26 national and international unions affiliated with C. I. O., are subject to definite regulations from the central C. I, O. and are also paying per capita dues to it. About 30 industrial union councils, corresponding to state federations or central labor unions in the A. PF. of L., also have been chartered.

The C. I. O. unofficially claims about 3,000,000 members and says that’s more than the A. F. of L. has. It began with eight affiliated international unions and now claims to be adding about une a Week and about 10 local industrial unions every 10 ays.

Mr. Dutcher

” ” ” i time during the late summer or fall, C. I. O, is expected to call a national convention to organ=

ize a national labor federation on a permanent basis, Most decisions of the past year have been sudden, and quick shifts to meet changing conditions have been 50 common that labor leaders wouldn't be surprised to ce the convention call issued without warning at any me.

Except for its policy of taking in and chartering new unions as part of its organization, the basic nature of the committee formed in November of 1935 by John Lewis, Sidney Hillman and a few .other labor leaders, remains unaltered. It was a voluntary, selfappointed committee of heads of international unions and other prominent labor leaders who banded to=gether to promote industrial unionism, to exploit opportunities for organizing which they believed the A. F. of L. had neglected. ?

o #" »

F the days which followed, as their plans cons flicted increasingly with those of the A. F. of Lg: this committee and most of the unions whose leads’ ership it represented, split away from the federaw tion. Hundreds of thousands of the unorganized Joined, and dozens of organized unions affiliated with the C. I. O. But C. I. O. is still a committee, accepting new members as national and internationa? unions and their leaders volunteer to join.

Relationship of the industrial union councils; formed to unite local unions thrown out of central labor unions by the A. F. of L., is still only vaguely defined. Many small local unions have affiliated with the C. I. O, but their relationship, in voting strength for instance, has yet to be settled. Even in the C. I. O. itself there are unions claiming the same field and the jurisdictional plague which has caused the A. F. of L. such infinite grief—or should have—lies potential in the C. I. O.

The Washington Merry-Go-Round

Roosevelt Under Cabinet Pressure to Warn Labor to Watch Its Step;

Lewis Frankly Worried at

By Drew Pearson and Robert S. Allen

ASHINGTON, July 8.-—Inside fact about the strike situation is that Roosevelt has been under

practically stopped the creation of new industries which are recognized by everybody as the only way to take up the unemployment caused by the increasing use of machines in old industries. If they lose, they lose it all. If they win, the Government takes most of it. The undistributed profits tax is an absolute bar to, building such a project out of profits.

It is not a question of fearing this communistic tax principle will ruin the country. Already it has ruined it in part. There is only one reaSon on earth why production is not back on the 1929 level with employment even greater. That reason is the taxing and spending policies of this Administration, which are more and more clearly revealed as a ‘share our wealth” program. : = ” s is true that distribution is our greatest problem, that submerged groups must be elevated, that the buying power of the lower third must be increased, that to increase it is the surest way to prosperity, and that part of the solution is to prevent excessive prices on the one hand and exploitation on the other. But it is not true that the way to do that is to distribute poverty, to share scarcity or to try to abolish the human dynamos of selfishness and greed. If those unlovely moving forces could be abolished and other effective forces substituted to make civilization work, nobody could be fiend enough to oppose it. But there are no other known moving forces to replace them and we can no more abolish them by acts of Congress than we can abolish human passions, appetites and instincts, Let’s work out our problems with the tools we have, in accordance with the natural laws that govern us and put an end to this miracle business.

‘have not been able

| pressure right inside his own Cabinet to make a | pronouncement warning labor extremists to watch | their step. As far back as the sit-down strikes, one Cabinet member who is extremely close to the President urged | that he make a friendly but straight-from-the-shoul-der statement that while the Administration was for | the working-man, they should not go too far. Several others in the Cabinet friendly to labor also feel that it is now spoiling its own gains by unauthorized strikes, jurisdictional disputes between unions, and extremist action. As a result there has been some very quiet, but definite, inner Cabinet resentment against the Presi- | dent for not acting long ago. The feeling is that any | statement by him now would be interpreted by the country as being dragged out of him rather than volunteered as the leader of the country. un un | =k have also been some conversations with | John L. Lewis about the irresponsibility of labor | extremists, and Lewis has been frank to admit that | he is worried about the failure of labor leaders to | control their own men. His own problem, Lewis says | very frankly, is that the €. I. O, has grown so fast | that it lacks sufficient responsible executives. One weak point which Lewis has been trying to | bolster is the United Automobile Workers, who have had several hundred unauthorized strikes. For permitting these, Homer Martin has been called on the C. I. O. carpet and told he must control his men. Martin is an ex-preacher, an amiable, drawly, nice enough fellow, and a good rabble-rouser, but not the a potent union, Jo-ohieek one or e newest and mos in the country. C. I. O. executives have considered replacing Sontry. SSor.

D1

Failure of Leaders to Control Their Men.

Real fact is that with unionization expanding at the rate it has, it will take a lot of miracle workers to whip up responsible organizations overnight, J » ” ” nA

HE steel executives who conferred in Cleveland with President Roosevelt's Mediation Board took no chances of letting slip any words that might be used against them. On entering the board room, the steel moguls looked about carefully to see if a dictaphone or other recording device was hidden anywhere. One of them suspiciously examined a small radio that: belonged to the hotel. : To allay their doubts, Chairman Charles P. Taft had the board's secretary, who was in and out of* the room during the meeting, leave her pencil and: notebook outside. He also explained that she was. present only to answer the telephone, : ” ” » CIENTISTS of the U. S. Bureau of Standards’ have a unique new job—testing beer meters.

Few persons outside the brewing industry have heard of a beer meter, but the device is one of great importance to the Internal Revenue Bureau. : A beer meter measures the amount of brew that. flows from a vat, and on its accuracy depends, the Government's collection of the $5 per barrel Fed-* eral beer tax. To check on the accuracy of these meters the Government's inspectors are equipped with. “master meters” which are clamped on the pipes through which the beer flows. : If the recordings of the master meters do not: square with the beer meters, then the agent knows something is wrong. : The Bureau of Standards makes periodic tests of the master meters to see that they are accurate, The meters are required to be within two-tenths of 1 per cent perfect. As they register flows of from 20 to 110 gallons of beer a minute, this means they must be songtanuy regulated and checked, : ? X