Indianapolis Times, Indianapolis, Marion County, 8 February 1939 — Page 5
i
iy
3 5
Gale oy aims
fa
. .
Kappa
"URGES TAXING
OFU. S., STATE ~ WORKERS’ PAY
Majority of Nation's Voters - Back ‘Roosevelt Plan, Survey Shows.
By DR. GEORGE GALLUP American Institute of Publie Opinion ~ _ NEW YORK, Feb. 8.—President Roosevelt's recent proposal to remove Federal income tax exemptions from Government bonds and to tax the salaries of state and local officeholders is favored by a large majority of the nation’s voters in a cross-section survey by the American Institute of Public Opinion. A bill was introduced in the House last week to tax state and local government workers who at present are immune from the Federal income levy. Separate legislation is planned to end the tax exemptions on all future government bonds. The public's attitude toward both these Ineasmrby is indicated in the Institute’s survey on these two issues: “Do you think people who work Jor the state and local governments should pay Federal A taxes on their salaries?” > Yes Getetsstesarine.osiakl, 87% ose 13
0 S008 0000000000000 “Should people who own United States Government bonds or state or municipal bonds have to pay Pederal income taxes on their in‘comes from these securities?”
: Yes 00500080 0cs000 No secosdss0ssnne
President Has Support
The President has twice called for legislation to remove the tax exemptions, He argues that persons who earn their livelihood from Government “should bear the same tax burden” as those in private jobs, and also that “a fair and progressive income tax” could not exist side by side with a “huge perpetual reserve of tax-exempt bonds.” Although state and local governments have raised protests against the proposed legislation, the country’s ‘voters apparently share the President's views. The most frequently cited reason for favoring taxes on the salaries of all officeholders is that “they should not have privilegés which others don’t have.” The chief reasons why voters favor taxing government bonds is that the owners of such [securities can afford to pay taxes, that they are receiving a guaranteed income, and that because “people buy government bonds to escape taxation” the government should “plug up the loophole.” | Some voters argued, however, that the national, state and local governments would have greater | difficulty borrowing money if the tax exemptions were removed.
Wealthy Favor Idea Less
The main opposition taxing Government securities comes from voters in the upper income class, the survey shows. But even there a maJority favor the idea in principle. Tax Gov't. Bonds?
No
Upper Income ? . Yes Group Middle Income Group Lower Income Group ....cece0. 81 19
There has been much controversy in Washington over whether the courts would uphold taxes on state and local officeholders or en Government securities. A long line of Judicial decisions has held that Congress possesses no constitutional power to levy such taxes, and many jurists think a constitutional amendment would be necessary. | ‘ The indications from the Institute survey are that, if such an amendment were put to the people, ratification would not be difficult.
LECTURES T0 GIVE "LIGHT ON SCIENCE
1.-U. Extension Course Open
To General Public.
Recent developments in science will be discussed in a lecture course offered by the Indiana University ‘Extension here. Six scientists of the university faculty will give the lectures. ‘The series is intended for both university uates and the general public. e lectures will hot be technical and some will be illustrated They will be given Tuesdays from 8:15 to 9:15 p. m., starting next week in Room 301, Plaza Building, €35 N. Pennsylvania St. Those who will speak include: Dr. Allan C. G. Mitchell, head of the physics department; Dr. H. T. Briscoe, chemistry department ch 3s Dr. Ralph E. Cleland, new head of the botany department; Dr. A. C. Kinsey, professor of zoology, and Dr. W. R. Breneman and Dr. R. L. Kroc.
DR. SPEISER COMING AS BUTLER SPEAKER
Dr. Ephraim Speiser, director of the American School of Oriental Research in Bagdad, and University of Pennsylvania faculty member, will speak tomorrow at - Butler University. Te Dr. Speiser is a Semitic scholar and an archdeologist. He has been directing excavations in Mesopotamia d the last ten years. He will ‘on “The Recovery of Prehistory” at 3 p. m. at the Arthur
Jordan Memorial Hall. Dr, Speiser’s visit to Butler and the address are sponsored by Phi pa Phi, national honoraty scholastic fraternity, and the University. ; J
FLOODS IN AFRICA “ROUT THOUSANDS
DURBAN, . South Africa, Feb, 8 '(U. P.) ~/Thousands of natives : ome ma17 persons
and Natal
¥
Text of Roosevelt's Letter to Judge Roberts
WASHINGTON, Feb. 8 (U. P.).—~The text of President Roosevelt's letter yesterday
to Judge Floyd Roberts, whose nomination was reject-
ed by the Senate, follows: My Dear Judge Roberts: I feel that in justice to you and your family I should write to you in regard to the refusal of the Senate to confirm your appointment as United States District Judge for the Western District of Virginia. First of all, I tender you my thanks for the honorable, efficient, and in every way pralsgworthy service that you have rendered to the people of the United States in general and to the people of the western district of Virginia in particular. Second, I wish it known that not one single person who has opposed your confirmation has lifted * his voice in any shape, manner or form against your personal integrity and ability. In order that you may know the full history of what has occurred, I take this opportunity to summarize the story. . On March 17, 1938, I received a letter from Senator Glass inclosing a clipping from a local Virginia paper. This newspaper article, quoting an editorial in another local Virginia paper, made the assumption that it would henceforth be necessary to receive the backing of Governor Price of Virginia -before any Virginian could hope for a Federal appointment. Senator Glass in his letter asked if Federal appointments, for which Senate approval was necessary, would be subjected to the effective veto of the Governor of Virginia,
‘EXPLAINED DIFFERENCE’
To this I replied on March 18th explaining to the Senator the difference between the appointive power, which is in the President,
and the power of confirmation, which is in the Senate.” I pointed out to the Senator that the hallowed courtesy permits Senators and others to make recommendations for nomination, and, at the same time, that every President has sought information from any other source deemed advisable, : On March 19th Senator Glass wrote me again, covering his construction of Article II of the Constitution, and asking me again as to the accuracy of the newspaper statement. He winds up by saying “the inference is, of course, that you approve, the offensive publication which was the basis of my inquiry.” : I replied to this letter from the Senator on March 21st in a personal and friendly vein. I stated that I was glad that we seemed to agree in our construction of the Constitution. I told him that I was not in the habit of confirming or denying any newspaper article or editorial. Obviously if I were to begin that sort of thing, I would have no spare time to attend to my executive duties. I told the Senator to go ahead as before and make recommendations; that I would give such recommendations every consideration: but that I would, of course, reserve the right to get opinions from any other person I might select.
BELIEVED IN HIS FITNESS
I ended by asking the Senator to forget the newspaper article and wished him a good vacation and expressed the hope that he would come to see me on his return. Subsequent to this date, I received a number of recommendations for the position of United States District Judge for the Western District of Virginia—among them recommendations in behalf of two gentlemen from Senator Glass. I am not certain whether these recommendsations were at that time concurred in by the junior Senator from Virginia, but this is possible. Other recome mendations were received from citizens of Virginia to a total number, as I remember it, of five or six. The Attorney General was asked by me to report on these recommendations, paying attention as usual to the qualifications of each person suggested. I might add that your hame was on this list but that at no time, fo my knowledge, did you seek this office of judge. The Attorney Geneial and I held several conferences with the result that we concluded that you were best fitted te fill the judgeship. AS a result, I wrote on July 6th to both of the Virginia Senators stating that I had concluded to appoint you, that a number of gentlemen had been suggested for the place, but that I believed you to be the best fitted.
RECORD IS PRAISED
The following day, July 7th, I received. a telegram from Senator Glass stating that he and his colleague would feel obliged to’ object to your appointment as being personally objectionable to them, and that a letter would follow. A few days later I received a letter from the Senator stating that he could not conceive any fair reason why
New Under-arm Cream Deodorant
/ )
1. Does not rot dresses — does not iericate skin, 2. No waiting to dry. Can be used right after shaving. ) ‘ 3. Instantly stops perspiration for 1to > ay Removes odor from perspiration. 4. A pure white, greaseless, stain. less vanishing cream. S$. Artid has been awarded the - Approval Seal of the American
one of his candidates had not been appointed. : : It is worth noting that neither Senator on July 7th or subsequently raised any question as to- your integrity or ability, and the only objection was that you were personally objectionable. “oe In regard to the original newspaper article suggesting that Governor Price had been given the veto over Federal appointments, this and similar stories are, of course, not worth answering or bothering about for the very simple reason that no person—no Governor, no Senator, no member of the Administration has at any time had, or ever will have, any right of veto over Presidential nominations. Every person with common sense knows this.
took the oath of office, and have beén serving with great credit as district judge since then. Your name was sent by me to the Senate January, 1939, together with m other recess appoint ments. :
RELATES ‘LAST CHAPTER’
We come now to the last; chapter. Your nomination was referred to the Judiciary Committee of the Senate and by the chairman of that Committee to a subcommittee of three. It appears from the record that both Senators from Virginia registered their objection with the subcommittee saying “this- nomination is utterly and personally offensive to the Virginia Senators whose suggestions were invited by the De-
partment of Justice only to be ignored.” The subcommittee reported
Committee without recommenda-
tion, stating the raising of the mat-|,
ter of Senatorial courtesy and saying that this matter has not been a direct issue since 1913.
At a special meeting of the full Committee on the Judiciary and before the Committee went into executive session, attention was invit-. ed to the presence of the Governor of Virginia, to the presence of two former Governors of Virginia, and to the presence of the nominee and his counsel.
, After lengthy discussion the Com- |
mittee went into executive session, reopening the doors an hour later. . The record shows that at this time the Committee heard the Governor of Virginia in favor of the nominee and also former Governor E. Lee Trinkle and former Governor Westmoreland Davis; also, George M. Warren, Esq., counsel for
mittee, instead of hearing other witnesses in behalf of the nominee, many of whom were present, moved that a list of these further witnesses be incorporated in the record without hearing them.
SCORES SENATOR GLASS
ceive certain letters and editorials behalf of the nominee, and, finally, a record of designations you have received from former Governors of Virginia to sit in other Judicial districts, this list including
former Governor Harry F. Byrd. That was followed by your own testimony. The privilege of making the closing and sole arguments against you was accorded to the two Senators from Virginia.
he nor his colleague had formally or definitely made any statement affecting your capabilities. He proceeded to review the newspaper reports of last March, stated that he had not communicated with the Governor to ascertain whether or not the latter had authorized the publication, and spoke of, his letter to me. He went on to state that the President had not answered his question up to this date, except by
The Perfect Valentine Gifts! 24.75. Values!
safely | | Stops Perspiration
_ELGIN
‘Anniversary >
WATCHES
1975
Open a Rost Charge Account Pay Weekly or Monthly At No Extra Cost,
This offer is positively for g limited time - only.
Your Dependable Jewelers Since 1886
Institute of Laundering, for ing Harmless to Fabrics. TEN MILLION jars of Arvid have been sold. ajar today!
Your appointment followed, you
back the nomination to the fullf
the nominee. Thereupon the Com-| *
The Committee also agreed to re-|
many designations of you made by|
Senator Glass stated that neither|
sending the nomination to the United States Senators” I am sorry, Senate, |in view of my long personal friendYou will recognize from what I|ship for ‘the senior Senator, have written you that as far back as hat he bas made Jay such statelast March, in reply to Senator |ment, and I can only excuse it on Glass’ letters, I told him categoric- ihe ground of anger or forgetful-
ally that I never answered any| A¢ the end of his speech Senator questions relating to the credibility |Glass says “Mr. Cummings never or otherwise of newspaper articles|had the slightest idea of giving or editorials, and I asked him to|consideration to the recommendaforget the newspaper article alto-|tions of the two Virginia Senators gether, Therefore, the statement because the Governor of Virginia of Senator Glass to the Committee |had been promised the right of veto does not square with the facts, on nominations that they made.” Continuing, the senior Senator|Neither of these statements ' is from Virginia referred to other|true. : newspaper articles which spoke of| Senator Glass was followed by “rebukes” to the Senators. It 1s{Senator Byrd who stated that your almost needless for me to suggest |nomination was personally offenthat neither you nor I pay any at-|sive to both Senators, in fact “per tention to such excuses. Finally, |sonally obnoxious.” Senator Glass stated “as a matter| At the very close of the Judiciary of fact, the President of the United |Committee hearing Governor Price States did give to the Governor of [stated “Senator Glass has made a Virginia the veto power over nomi-|charge against me. He 1s entirely nations made by the
two Virginia mistaken about it.” The Governor
further stated that he was not irvolved in the newspaper story, The Committee thereupon abrupt - ly closed the hearing and went into executive session, with the resul b as you know, that your nomination was reported adversely to the Senate. This brief history repeats sever: épisodes in the history of the Unite i States, which have occurred froin time to {ime during the past ore hundred and fifty years. In cther cases nominations by former Presidents, of men of outstanding ability and have been denied confitmation by the Senate, not oa the plea that they were unfitted for office but on the sole ground that they were personally obnoxious to the Senator or Senators from the state from which they came. During this whole per Presidents have recognized that the constitutional procedure is for a President to receive advice, i.e. recommendations, from Senators. = Presidents have also properly re-
ceived advice, 1. e., recommendations, Pom such other sources as they saw Thereupon Presidents have decided on nominations in accordance with their best judgment—and in
"| most cases basing their judgment
on the character and ability of the nominee. In many cas-:, of course, the recommendations of Senators have been followed, but in many other cases they have not been followed by Présidents in making the nominations. ‘Thereupon, under the Constitution, the Senate as a whole—not the Senators from one state—has the duty of either confirming or reJjecting the nomination. It is, of course, clear that it was the intention of the Constitution of the United States to vest in the Senate as a whole the duty of reJecting or confirming solely on the ground of the fitness of the nomee. Had it been otherwise, had the Constitution” intended to give the right of veto to a Senator or two Senators from the state of the nominee, it would have said so. Or to put it another way, it would have vested the nominating power in the Senators from the state in which the vacancy existed. :
On somewhat rare occasions the
Senate, relying on an unwritten of Senatorial courtesy, which e; in no place in the Constitution,
rejected nominees on the ground their being
in effect to the power of nominatio In the particular case of w you are the unfortunate and cent victim, the Senators from ginia have in effect said to. tk President: “We have nominated | you two candidates acceptable to you are hereby directed to nominate one of our two candidates, and if you do not we will reject the nomi: nation of anybody else selected b you, however fit he may be.” Perhaps, my dear ‘Judge Roberts, the rejection of your nominati will have a good effect on the ci zenship and the thinking of thi whole nation in that it will tend create a greater interest in the Con stitution of our country, a greater interest in its preservation in ace. cordance with the intention of the gentlemen who wrote it. & I am sorry, indeed, that you ha been the victim. Against you one syllable has been uttered derogation of your character, ability in the legal profession or
your record on the bench.
A STORE-WIDE SALE... With Reductions In All Departments
Group No. 1
Group No. 2
Chippendale, Duncan Phyfe; Modelo and Chesterfield styles in figured vel brocatelles and small figured tapestries.
; Group No. 3
Georgian, Empire and Chippendale period designs, also some modern styles. In brocatelle, damasks and kid mohair.
~ Group No. 4 ;
Almost every one is a different style. Selection of covers includes tapestries and damasks of many colors and patterns.
Most have solid walnut or solid mahogany frames. Covers are fine tapestries, velvets, damasks and mohair. Choice . . .
rich
£1
SOFAS, Were $89.50 to $139.50... . Now SOFAS, Were $175.00 to $250.00 .. Now
Occasional Chairs, Were $14.75 to $19.75
Occasional Chairs, Were $29.50 to $39.50
‘Ghe Greatest Sale of Upholstered. Furniture We Have Ever Held...Is In Progress
|
- Wing chairs,
$600
All are late
‘125
kind. Every
$Q-75
kinds, some with downfilled backs. Fine . mohair, damask and tapestry covers...
Several in mohair, most in velvet or mgohair frieze. All have sofa and chair.
~~ 0100 Two-Piece Living Room Suites Valués from $129.50 to $159.50
=100
Wide selection of styles, frames and covers . . . English Lounge, Chesterfield, Modern and Conventional designs in mohairs, plain and figured velvets and loompoint frieze
Group No. 6 LOUNGI: Chairs, Were $39.50 to $59.50
$ 205°
barrel back styles and other
Group No. 7 2-Piece SUITES, Were $98.50 to $119.50
79%
styles in desirable covers.
Group No. 8 - Occasionzl Chairs, Were $19.75 to $29.50
A large group that includes many differ. ent styles and covers. Most are one of a
one is a rare value at...
Group No. 9
styles. Many
$3197
® You May Trade In Your Old Furniture ® Convenient Terms to Suit Your Income ® StateWide Delivery at No Additional Charge
Solid walnut or mahogany frames . . .
LOUNGE Chairs, Were $49.50 to $69.50
Group of better quality chairs of various
have downfilled cushions.
%
31-35 S. Meridian
STORE 1S OPEN EVERY MONDAY NIGHT . .. 7 to 9:30 P. M.
14”
$3050 |
Also Many Other Pieces In Limited Quantities eo « Greatly Reduced
- hsm — i “0 : 8 : x 2 ¥ ¥
——— ——