Indianapolis Times, Indianapolis, Marion County, 14 March 1938 — Page 5

ouse Conferences

(Continued From Page Four)

hands of the Federal Government ‘complealy off any effort to adjust the growing of national crops, and go right straight back to the old thing hc wants, raise anything, any old time, in any quantity, and sell any time he wants? You and I know perfectly well that if ve completely abandon crop

control I don’t care whether it is’

the present ‘method of, let us say, the McNary-Haugen method, because, =fter all, that is a Federal method, too—if we are to abandon relationship to any national _ Crop, we shall again have 36-cent wheat, “You can’t stop it. Under present world conditions we will have S-cent cotton. That is obvious.

And then you come down to the next series of things—manufacturing. We have tried to improve the economic conditions of certain forms of manufacturing. I am not talking - about the social conditions now. I - am talking about the economic conditions, civing to manufacturers a chance to eliminate things that we have nationally concluded are not

id example, the chain stores going inio little communities. or. big communities all over the country and starting ‘a system of loss leaders. Of course anybody who does his own marzeting, and all you ladies of the press will appreciate this, knows perfectly well that where there is ‘he loss-leader system and “you are ‘rying to get along on a budget, you are going to look into the chain-store window and see what the leader is each day. You m= get a can of peas for 14 cents instead of 18 cents; naturally Jou wait and buy the loss leader. ing chai: store can afford to put ut loss ‘caders; but the independent grocery store cannot. A number of states—and here we come down to the last question —have zitempted to take away the priv! lege: or the advantages that come very large nationwide businesses, by imposing special tzxes.on chain stores, but only a few states have succeeded in doing it. And that is a very good illustration of the difficulty of correcting economic conditions by 48 separate actions.

‘We Attempted to Do - It in the Codes’

We attempted to do it in the codes by getting industry itself to formulate codes that would eliminate loss leaders. They did, and as a result the wave of bankruptcies of small stores which was under way throughout the country two years ago was'stooped. And the volume of telegrams that has come in today leads one to believe that they again face, a great many of them, bankruptcies, or at least they think they do. The other example is that of a department store which puts in a book department and sells all the latest detective stories that retail ordinarily =t $150—I ought to know because I read them—for 90 cents. Up to the time that their code went through, bankruptcies of small bool: stores throughout the country where these practices were engaged in, were increasing. They were ness because they could not afford to sell $1.50 books for 90 cents. The big department stores could afford to do it, beca people who went into that department to save 60 cents on a detective story. undoubtedly \ bought a good many other . things in/ that department store, and the Store was able ta make ‘up the loss. Now all that seems to be “out of the window.” We made a very sincere effort to eliminate things that were called unfair trade practices not "only because they were hurting little fellows, but also because they were giving advantages to people with lois of capital or with nationwide si stems — advantages over smaller men or local men. It seemed to be going pretty well. It was donc under the general theory that, because these goods came from every part of ‘the United States, Jhere was a rather direct implication that they affected the internal commerce of the United States as a whole, and therefore came under ‘he interstate commerce clause. - "Then we come down to the mines, but the implication in this question is that mines and mining do not come under interstate commerce. It is purely a local thing no matter where the copper or the oil or coal goes. It is rather interesting, I think, that there arc former decisions of the Supreme Court which have held much more liberally in labor cases, in mining cases where peoig were trying to get an in- _ junction against labor. In those cases the Supreme Court ‘has tended to approve mining injunctions on the ground that the coal was goin> to go into interstate commerca. =

“This Case . . . Seems to Be A Direct Reversal’

This case, however, seems to be a direct reversal in saying that where you try to improve the wages and hours of miners, the coal sud.denly becomes 2 purely local intrastate matter and you Sams do anything about it course, here the shoe.is on the other foot. Those are the important human

growing of orc ps—the important

el, what docs it do? It seems to ‘me it brings—ol-. I suppose you will want to say an issue. I accept the word “issue” on one condition; and that is that you make it very clear that it is not a partisan issue. It. is infinitely deeper than any pu-

implied pover or any courtany to enter into a so-

a national economic pi b. Jatien but. that that national |

nomic problem must be decided only : "rhe oth “part of It 1s this: Shall er socia’ problems—and in 5 } employment. of all

la week in favor of the South.

os National . . . Issue’

take any part in trying fo hetter national social conditions? Now that is flat and that is simple! - If we accept the point of view that under no interpretation of the ‘Constitution can the Federal Government deal with construction matters, mining matters (which means everything that comes out of the ground) manufacturing matters or agricultural matters, but that they must be left wholly to the States, the Federal Government must abandon any legislation. ‘ Thus we go back automatically to the fact that there will be not merely 13 Governments as there were in 1789 at a time where none of [io these questions existed in the country—but we will go back to a Government of 48 States. Or we can go ahead with every possible effort to make national decisions based on the fact that 48 sovereignties cannot agree quickly enough or practically enough on any solution for a national economic problem or a national social problem. When I was in Albany I had the desire of getting through the Legislature on two or three occasions certain bills relating to the improvement of factory conditions and the improvement of labor conditions, and people came to me and said, “If those bills go through we are going to move into Pennsylvania.” That gave to the Chief Executive of one State seridus concern. Should he force the legislation and let these factories move out of this State into a State that didn’t have any restrictions and didn’t have nearly as advanced social legislation; ‘or should he go in and leave certain evils just as they were?

“You Will Unavoidably Develop Sectionalism’

In other words, by the returning of all these powers exclusively to the States you will unavoidably -develop sectionalism. Just ‘imagine what will happen in the case of the cotton textile industry—the problem of the differential in wage between New England and the South, Less than two years ago that differential was more than five dollars

Under the code system it has been cut to two and a half dollars; and in all human probability if we had gone on under code methods, the differential would gradually have been cut still further. 3 They were actually working on an additional cut in the “labor differential in the cotton textile ‘industry. That, of course, we ‘have had to stop. We come down, in passing, to the question of whether they can now live up to these codes. We hope so —surely. Everybody hopes that the wage agreements and codes: will be lived up to, and every effort should be made to have people in every industry live up to the codes. I sincerely hope that everybody will live up to them. On the other hand, as. President, naturally, I have to think of what is going to happen to the country if people, some people, do not live up to them. You go back te the same old 90 per-cent and 10 per cent we have talked about so often. There are, let's say, 100 of us in this room who are making cotton textiles. Each one owns a mill and out of the 100 there are three or four, that is all, who see an advantage to be gained—an immediate advantage of quick profit. So they cut their wages, and increase their hours, and go ahead with the stretch-out system beyond the code allowance. What is going to happerr to us?

Uses Correspondent to Make His Point

Let us say that it happens to be a mill right next to Charlie Hurd’s (one of the correspondents) mill Charlie Hurd, making the same kind of goods, is naturally going to call a meeting and he is gojng to say, “This fellow over here, Bill Smith, is cutting his wages and increasing his hours and increasing his stretch-out. And I am going broke.” - Well, we are going to have an awful lot of sympathy for Charlie Hurd, and what are we going to do about it? Probably he/would say, “Do you think I ought to go broke?” and probably most of would say, “Why, no; you came 100 percent right straight through, and we will release you from any obligation to keep on with these code Practices. » Being human and inorder to keep his head above water, he will probably try to meet the competition of the other fellow; and we wouldn’t blame one bit. So it is not a question of fighting industry. The great bulk of industry is perfectly sincere and honest in wanting to maintain good wages and fair hours, but the problem is going to be: Can they do it by agreement? That is the thing of course we cannot tell between Monday and Friday of this week. You and I know human nature. Fundamentally it comes down to this. In the long run can voluntary processes on the part of business bring about the: same: practical results that were attained under NRA? .I mean the good results. Of course there have been some had ones. But I mean the good results. Can it be done by voluntary action on the part of business? Can we. go ahead as a nation with the beautiful theory, let us say, of some of the press, “At last the rule of Christ is restored. - Business can do anything it wants and business iff going to live up to the golden rule so marvelousy that all of our troubles are ended” It is a school of thought that is so delightful in its naivete.

‘We Are Facing a Great

And so we are facing a very, very great national non , issue. We have got to decide one woy or the other. I don’t mean this sum‘mer or winter or next fall, but over a period, perhaps, of five years or 10 years we have got to decide: Whether we are going to relegate to the 48 states practically all: control over economic conditions—not only state economic conditions but national economic conditions: and:

going to relegate to the states all

along with that whether we arejg;

cance and effect in other states outside of the individual states, That is one side of the picture. The other side of the picture 1 whether in some way we are going to’ turn over or restore to—whichever’ way you choose to put it— turn over or restore.to the Federal Government the which exist in the national governments of every other nation in the world to enact and administer laws that have a bearing on, and general con-trol-over, national economic problems and national social problems.

it ay take ioctaed years or 10 years. This decision—if you accept the obiter dicta and all the phraseology of it—seems to be squarely on the side of restoring to the states 48 different controls over national economic and social problems. This is not a criticism of the Supreme Court’s decision; it x merely pointing out the implica ons oO 8 some wats 1t may be the best thing that has happened to this country for a long time that such a decision has come from the Supreme ‘Court, because it clarifies the issue. If the press and the radio of this country can make that issue perfectly clear, it will be’ doing a very great service, ~~ ‘The Selegrams Mig iit ] Save been reading to 8 every kind of a method of overcoming the decision will not continue to come in, because all except a very few of them suggest remedies which are wholly outside of the

gested violation of the strict interpretation of that opinion. : I think it is perfectly proper to say further that the implications of this decision could,-if carried to their logical conclusfon, strip the Federal Government of a great many other powers. Federal alcohol control— well—that is gone—we know that is gone: This decision did it. - Federal alcohol control was put in with an objective. At the end of prohibition, when spirts- and beer came back, I think everybody, whether on the prohibition side or the antiprohibition side, believed that the Federal Governnient should do everything in its power to see that pure liquor and good liquor was offered to the American people However, that is not, apparently, a Federal power.

‘A Perfectly Ridiculous and Impossible Situation’

We have 48 nations from now on under a strict interpretation of this decision—48 nations, each of which will prescribe a different standard for its own liquor, and will be com-

from the next-door state, or 10 states away, from comng into its borders. : It is a perfectly ridiculous and impossible situation. But. it is a very good example of what 48-inde-pendent-nation-control means. Your next implication relates to certain things that we believe are within the. Federal power. They have not been definitely outlawed by this decision; but the decision raises a very great question about them. The Securities Act of 1933, for example; was intended to prevent nationally the issuing of securities to the investing or speculating public under false pretenses. The act repuired that, through a central Federal organization, securities that were proposed to be issued should have the full truth stated about them. That is all: there was to it—it was a Truth in Securities Act and it has been working very well. However, securities, I suppose, like a crop: or like manufactured goods, can be held to be issued in one place and bought by the public in one place, and are therefore wholly intrastate. : It does not make any difference whether the securities afterward go into 48 States or not. The issuance and buying in one State, like a crop or a factory product, have no character of interstate commerce about them under this decision. In the same way the decision raises a question with respect to the Stock Exchange Act. After all, a stock exchange is just a building in one place—in one city. There. are a good many of them scattered throughout the country. They sell various forms of securities, but each one is attached to the ground like wheat or cotton—like coal or anything else. The decision raises a question about that. They you come down to the A. A. A. itself. I have discussed that. The question is raised by this decision as to whether the Federal Government has any constitutional right to do anything about any crop in the United Staies; and’ it suggests by implication that 48 States should each have their own crop, laws. You see the implications of the decision. That is why I say it is one of the most important decisions ever rendered in this country. And the issue is not going to be a partisan issue for a minute. The issue is going to be whether we go one way or the other. :

The Famous ‘Horse and Buggy’ Remark

Don’t call it right or lett; that is just first-year high school language, just about. It is not right or left— it is a question for national decision on a very important problém of Govérnment.

‘tion in

solved that problem. We ar we were solving it, and now it has been. thrown righ faces. We have been relegated to the horse-and-buggy definition of interstate commerce.

step. Probably tn there VIL Re wi Sumber of a nouncemen ch will ‘bs that line. This is‘only for the het four’ or) ave days, S Along the ;

we v.oW them from the not; the

control over. social and working ‘So

pletely powerless to prevent liquor:

: top company at the top

the next few days) o along |

eral and the Attorney General_in order that they might be digested

Nobody is writing out anything for |

me. And Sieve says it is one o'clock daylight time and we have been talking an awful lot. Have you any other ‘questions? -Q (Mr, Stephenson)—Can we use the direct quotation-on that horse-and-buggy stage? = | THE PRESIDENT—I think SO. . MR. EARLY—Just the phrase. @—You referred to the Dred Scott decision. That was followed by the Civil War and by at least two amendments to the Constitution. THE PRESIDENT—Well, the rea-

‘son for that, of course, was the fact that the generation of 1856 did not

take action during the next four years. Q—You made a reference to the necessity of the people deciding within the next five or 10 years. Is there any way of deciding that question without voting on a con< stitutional amendment or the passing of one? ; THE PRESIDENT—Oh, yes;

the final analysis. Q—Any suggestion as to how it might be made, except by a constitutional amendment? THE PRESIDENT—No; we haven't got to that yet. Q—Or a war (laughter)?

~ THE: PRESIDENT—Just qualify-

ing the issue, that is all.

He Discusses Utility Holding Co. Bill

The 214th press conference (excerpts), J 19, 1935; @Q—Are you inisisting on the 80called death sentence section of the so-called utilities bill? ‘THE PRESIDENT—What do you mean, the “death sentence”? @Q—That is the section in the bill requiring some companies to end their existence by 1942 if they do not meet the approval of the Securities Commission. You will remerhber that some of them wanted to turn that down. THE PRESIDENT-—AIl I can say is that I am heartily in favor of Section 11. Q—That is the section. THE PRESIDENT-—Of course the objective is this and I think probably the easiest way to understand it is something along this line: There are certain holding companies which are wholly intrastate such, for instance, as the Public

‘| Service Corporation of New Jersey.

I think that is wholly intrastate— I am not certain—but it is 95 or 98 per cent intrastate. ~The Niagara Hudson Co. of New York is an intrastate company. Now, as I understand it, we eliminate from the operation of this bill the intrastate companies that do business solely within the State. Then you come down to certain other. types. of holding companies like, for example, the Associated Gas & Electric Co. Now take in your owh minds—we have talked about this before—take a sheet of paper and on the bottom put a lot of little circles—coming back to my old illustration. Those represent the operating companies: Say there are’100 of them. In most cases the operating companies are properly capitalized, and ‘in most cases they are making good money.

He Outlines Objective Of the Bill

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that they are making an average of $7 on $100 investment. That $7 goes up that sheet of paper in a zigzag line and it goes through, let us say, 33 other ciicles which are in the middle of the sheet of paper. Those are intermediate holding companies, they are management companies, engineering companies, finance companies. On the way up through these various zigzag lines — the most extraordinary document in the world is the organization chart of the Associated Gas & Electric Co.—by the time the $7 comes up through these 33 intermediate companies and gets to the of the page, there isn’t $7 left. The $7 has been milked all the way up so that when it gets toithe top holding company of all, it may, if it is “lucky, represent $4. Now, the objective of the bill is to eliminate the intermediate companies so that the $7 will go up to the top substantially intact. I suppose that is the easiest way

1 think so. But it has got to come to =

tor the layman io be given a pic-

.| ture of what it is all about.

Q—In other words, you have no objection to a holding company in the so-called first degree and ‘eliminating all the rest? THE PRESIDENT—No. But there is one other feature, and that is that the holding company in the first degree probably should relate

to substantially contiguous terri-| -

tory. When that holding company relates ‘to widely disseminated properties all over the United States, it is not a holding company, it is

‘| an investment company.

Q—Now, you take the North American Co. It operates in Washington, it operates in ‘Cleveland, it operatés in St. Louis. Would it be possible for the North American to divide into three companies, one for each group? THE PRESIDENT—I don’t see why not. Q—Could the North American

stock be held by an investment.

company as long as they did not

interfere with the management?

THE PRESIDENT—Yes. . . .

On His Tax Message To The Congress

The 225th press conference. (excerpts), July 31,1935: Q—Mr. President, is there anything you can tell us about the tax situation, generally? You had a conference last night with Secretary Morgenthau and a few more of them. THE PRESIDENT—I have been talking with the Treasury in regard to the data that relate in general terms to the tax measure before the Congress and of course relate also in general terms to the tax message that I sent up. (See Item 83, this volume.) I got a good deal of information yesterday and I still have more coming, There are a few. Mhings yesterday that came out clearly that I think are of some interest. They seem to be taken from hte recofds of the Treasury. I am not ready to say anything yet about the policy or the theory of the graduated corporation tax any more than I have already said in my message, or about the intercorporate dividend tax, at this particular moment, but there are

one or two: things that came 0

yesterday that are of interest. For instance, it’ appears that the 58 thriftiest (people in the United States (lgughter)—the 58 thriftiest people/ in the United States—and of (course we are all in favor of thrift, the thriftier you are the nearer you will come to being included among the 58—in 1932 they were all so thrifty that although they had a million dollars income a year or more, they paid no tax whatever to the Fed- - eral Government on 37 per cent .of their net incomes. Q—Is that individually or as an average?The PRESIDENT—The aggregate of the 58. On 37 per cent of their net incomes they escaped taxation altogether, largely because the investments were in municipal or Sate or Government tax-exempt bonds. Thirty-seven per cent escaped taxation altogether. ~ Furfhermare, it turned up. in the figures that one family in this country had 197 family trusts. They are a very. thrifty family. Of course it is very easy to demonstrate that one of the primary purposes of these 197 trusts in this one family was to reduce their taxes through the reduction and splitting up of income into a great many parts, thereby avoiding or greatly reducing the surtaxes. That family trust method, in the case of that one family, cost the Government of the United States a very large sum of money. I just jotted these things dowiT because they seemed rather interesting. Q—Will this bill get at the family trust point? THE PRESIDENT—No, not at the family trust business. It does not touch that except that it does increase the surtaxes.

Q—Won'’t that tend to increase

the number of such trusts? THE PRESIDENT—What? Q—Won’t that tend to increase the -number of such trusts in the future if there is no provision against it in the bill? THE PRESIDENT—It could. It is a form of tax avoidance. There is a very great distinction between tax evasion and tax avoidance. Tax avoidance means that you hire a $250,000-fee lawyer, and he changes the word “evasion” into the word “avoidance.” Let me see, there other things in here.

were some Another

ANY LENGTH— ANY COLOR— ANY KIND—.

SPECIAL!

GLOVES

DON'T MISS THIS SENSATIONAL OFFER!

ACT NOW!

LIMITED TIME ONLY!

‘Donnan 285 U. 8. 312,332).

some time before Sumter.

eather interesting thing came out. While the gift tax legislation was in the process of going through Cangress In 1932, in other words the two months before it signed, one taxpayer

Tuas is is what they call beating

oe ‘yout tell us fie name of that family? (Laughter THE Tonien) you want to violate the law? Then ‘there was another example of the use of gifts. A $100,000,000

‘estate was reduced within two

years of death by gifts to approximately $8,000,000, There is a very interesting decision which you might look at; if you are very curious and wan; some very interesting information. It is the famous gift-tax decision of the Supreme Court in 1931, and I call your attention especially to the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Stone. (Heiner vs. It was a divided Court, if you remember, in that case; and a majority of the Court held that ‘the law that said that gifts made within two years ‘fof death should be presumed to have been given in anticipation of death was unconstitutional. Mr. Justice Stone wrote the dissenting opinion, and there are some very extraordinary citations in that opinion of ‘actual evasions. There were two men who gave away a large proporton of their property when they were: over 90 years old. The Supreme Court held that that could not be held by Congress to be

another man 85 years old and there were several others between 80 and 85 and. of course, & large number in the 70s. , . .

Neutrality Legislation and The Spanish Problem

The 332d press conference (excerpts), Dec. 29, 1936. Q--Can you say whether you are giving any consideration to legislation that would strengthen the Arms Embargo Act, particularly in the case of civil war? ; THE PRESIDENT — Obviously, there should be a further discretion vested in the President.with the appropriate penalties to take care of internal strife. I leave out the words “civil war” for the perfectly ‘obvious reason which is illustrative of why no act can possibly take into consideration every future contingency. In other words, ask yourself the question, Fred, what is a civil war and you see how impossible it is to define it. The Confederate States, as I remember it, most of them seceded from the Union in the winter of 1861. Most of them had seceded Well, what was the status then? Was it a civil war?

Then, in the late April of 1861, Sumter was fired on. Hostilities were confined at that time to Charleston Harbor. Was there a civil war going on? I don’t know. In the North, they called it a rebellion; in the South they called it a war between the states. For a good many years we fought in this country a series of wars with the redskins. They were recog-: nized as wars because of the fact’ that special decorations were given to people who fought in them. They: were the Indian wars. Was that a civil war in the United Risiss or not?

Further back, there was a Whiskey Rebellion, soon after the Revolution. Was that a civil war? I don’t know. In other words, civil war means anything ot nothing; and the circumstances and the particular case must be decided on by somebody who has authority 365 days of the year. That is about the easiest answer. - Of course it seems obvious that today, ‘in this particular case Spain, there are two organized

in anticipation of death. There was.

TeCALL 1 LL. 531 for Fr ree Home

grotips of armies and the normal person trying to define the Spanish situation would normally call that particular situation a civil war. There isn’t much question about that. In this particular case of the sale of these planes and engines, it is

il- | perhaps a rather good example of

the need of some power in the Executive. It is, furthermore, an example of cooperation by business. As the State Department has told you, they have had a number of applications from’ American citizens and firms to sell munitions to the belligerents in Spain, to one side or the other, and the State Department‘ specifically and definitely requested them not to engage in the Sansaction on two grounds, the first | P€ t-it was con to the Governthe second that it , even if only to a ‘slight de our desire to be neutral in this unfortunate happening in Spain. Well, these companies went along wi of the Government. re is the 90 per cent of business that is honest, I mean ethically honest. There is the 90 per cent we are always pointing at with pride. And then one man ‘does what amounts to a perfectly

_ legal but thoroughly unpatriotic

act. He represents the 10 per cent or less of business that does not live up to the best standards. Excuse the homily, but I feel quite

deeply about it. that the Govern-

Q—Sup, ment. would not grant this license, or whatever you call it, for the exportation of those munitions? THE PRESIDENT—We have to under the law. The law says we must issue them. @Q—There are some persons who say that you have discretion under the law land that it could be refused? | THE PRESIDENT—Couldn’t do it. Absolutely not a chance. law says that this Committee in the State Department shall grant the license. : Q—A mandamus could be obtained? | | THE PRESIDENT—Of course, there is the other phase of the case. If legislation! is passed extending even the present Neutrality Act to civil wars and I find, by an executive finding, that a civil war exists in the same way that I would under the present Act that a war between two nations exists, and that Act should become law within the.next two weeks| after Congress meets, we could then clamp down on this particular shipment under this particular contract or commission. That immediately raises the) question as to) whether this particular individual could go to the Court of Ciaims and seek damages for the promise which he otherwise would claim he could have made. The best way of answering that is to ask you to read the Supreme Court’s decision in the Neutrality case the other day. There is an intimation in there, only an intimation—nobody can guess how the Supreme Court would rule in a case like that, it being an act contrary to the request of the Government, and the condrat of foreign affairs being in the Execu-

The |

tive, the Courts would not grant reimbursement {o this individual for a loss of what he otherwise would have made as being contrary to public policy. But, as I say, wou cannot tell“until the case is decided.

‘That . . . Plea Was Made In 1914 and 191%’

Q—This manufacturer who obtained “this license was quoted today as saying that his planes wer: not to be used for military pur poses. at all. He claims he had : id right and that h would pro de employment of skille 4s men. He says they arg not t:. d for war purposes at all. PRESIDENT — Of course that" particular plea was made ir 1914 and 1915 and 1916, in just the same way. They said that the export of machine guns would give

| work to Americans. That does no!

mean it is the right thing to do... . Q—Can you tell us what Sidney Hiliman dropped in this: morning or THE PRESIDENT—We discussec a lot of things. Among others, w discussed the breakdown of both th: maximum-hour and minimum-wag’ provisions that we enforced unti a little over a year ago. There seem: to be a general consensus of opinor and statistics—you might try to ge’ a story out of the Department o° Labor on that or out of the Central Statistical Board—showing the breakdown of the child labor provisions and also the minimum-wage. maximum-hour provisions. There has been very little printec about it, but the fact remains that the breakdown has been constant and increasing. . Q—Do you think something should be done to restore minimum pay and maximum hours by the Government? THE PRESIDENT — Absolutely. But don’t write any story saying that the President is going to re store NRA. That is the ‘easy sloppy method of writing a story. Anybody can do that. What I would like to have you do is to point ou. the fact that something has got tbe done, and don’t go beyond ‘some thing.” Don’t get out on a limb, be cause you know how often you hav. sawed off your own limbs. Say the something has to be done about th: elimination of child labor and lon hours and starvation wages. That i. as far as I could go. If I were writing the story, I would stick to that Q—Do you think the situation can be handled by State action without Federal help? THE PRESIDENT—No. Q—-Did Sidney Hillman have sa suggestion? THE PRESIDENT No. : Q—Can a sweat shcp, by ‘offering to take men on for jobs paying $7 and $8 a week, force them off the WPA rolls in order to do it? THE PRESIDENT—That is a difficulty we fdce in a great many localities. People on ‘he WPA rolls have been offered jobs ‘on such a low weekly or daily wage that we

| simply, in good conscience could not

throw them off WPA rolls to take what. we Sinsidered an inadogusls

daily wage, .

Three-Ouarter

FOR

( Rough Dry) %- POUND

And 8c Pound for Each ‘Additional Pound Over 5 Pounds

Pilgrim" Laundry

2169-79 No. lllinois St. at 22nd.

I

Finish Service

TA lbot 6210

STORE HOURS: 9:30 A. M. fo 5 P. M., Thursday and Saturday, § A. M. to 9 P. M.

Regular 59.95 Full Rotary Kenmore Electric Sewing Machine

Complete With Sewing Light and

Full Set ; of

NOW Priced at Only—

* Semi-Automatic Bobbin Winder

~ Release

° Convenient Knee

Control

Fie taatiies

Griest Attachments

95

$5 'Down | $5 Monthly Plus Carrying Charge ® Sqws Double Lock 5 Stitch ga - ® Numbered Stitch and Tension Regulator

of machines “selling at

twice the price! Smart console cabinet in rich walnut veneers! Full rotary move-

a

ROFB

{ bl 4)

pCa a aE

1. ment. Quiet, smooth operation. -

Demonstration

- AcFirst Floor