Indianapolis Times, Indianapolis, Marion County, 1 February 1941 — Page 8

ROY W."HOWARD RALPH BURKHOLDER

Owned and published daily (except Sunday) by

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

THEY TRAVEL—YOU PAY :

(A SCRIPPS-HOWARD NEWEeAYED)

MARK FERREE _ Business Maziager

ne y il Price in Marion County, 8 cents a copy; deliv ered by carrier, 12 cents a week. |

Mail subscription rates in Indiana, a year; outside of Indiana, 65 ‘cents a month.

Give Light and the People Will Find Their Own Wey

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1941 “«

- STOP, LOOK AND LISTEN . | R. HENRY NOBLE MacCRACKEN, president of Vassar College, is one of those friends of England who, like William Allen White himself; found the temperature of the “William Allen White” Committee to defend America by Aiding the Allies getting too hot for comfort. l He withdrew his support from the coramittee some weeks ago, on the ground that it was advocating steps that would lead to war. ‘Mr. White seems to have had somgwhat the same reaction, although since resigning the cominittee chairmanship he has gone into the silences. Dr. MacCracken feels no obligation to keep stil The ‘other day at a dinner in Brooklyn he said: | “The battle for American entrance into the war has begun and is in full activity. The outline of strategy is 5 fairly clear. The slogans have been devised. the publicity offices are working night and day. The psychologists have selected the emotions.

The speakers have their fhemes

“There are those who say ‘we are in the war seads. Iti is too late.’ He particufarly censured those clereymien who he said are engaged in propaganda “to persuade the great Christian public of America that war is our inevitable course. p That is a healthy warning, from a scholar of | ‘unchallengeable patriotism, that we should all keep our| guards up if the war fever evidenced here and there is| ‘not. to become an epidemic.

I deny it.”

|

WRONG END TO TATIONAL draft headquarters has ruled that Lokal draft boards must stop giving out for newspaper publication the lists of registrants called up for physical examinations. Some men, it seems, have lost their jobs as a result of publication of .their names, appearing on such lists. In a few cases, the ignorance of employers may: have been responsible. One employer in Washington, D. C., for instance, learning that an employee had been summoned for psychiatric as well as physical tests, leaped to the conclusion that something must be wrong with the boy’s mind, fs fired him—although he passed the tests successfully. | The law requires that the jobs of drafted men Hust be held open for them when they return after a year’s training. By firing men when they are called for physical examination, but before they are actually drafted, some employers are scheming to evade this requirement. |! We believe draft headquarters is going about the matter wrong-end-foremost. The lists are. legitimate, news, of * interest to the friends, neighbors and fellow-workers of registrants. Their publication is a safeguard for fairness in the draft system. who fire men because their names appear on such lists, might be a much more effective way of Stopping this abuse.

Publicity for mercenary employers,

~ GOOD ADVICE FOR EMPLOYERS

HE manufactures committee of the United States Cham- ~ ber of Commerce, displaying unusually sound judgment, comes out strong against Federal anti-strike legislation. Such legislation, the committee says ‘correctly, would not only prove ineffective but would deny fundamental rights to citizens. difficulties, helped by the patriotism of employees and employers and by public disapproval of unnecessary strikes, probably will prove effective in 99 per cent of the defense

Voluntary methods of adjusting labor

So the committee believes, and so we believe, A law to ~ prohibit strikes, or a law for compulsory | 'open-shop on defense projects, such as some members of ‘Congress are advocating, would produce more conflict be tween labor and management, rather than less. Employers can follow no better advick than that urged upon them by this committee: ‘tion with your employees for the prompt adjijstment of labor disputes which may arise; and, should these internal * plans fail, use the Government conciliatory services ‘to facilitate prompt settlement of such disputes.

i

Develop plans ih co-opera-

ANOTHER BROKEN PROMISE

SS than three weeks ago the building-trades department of the American Federation of Labor announced a “hard and fast policy” of no strikes “for any reason whatsoever’ on national-defense projects. ‘ This week A. F. of L. building-tradss council at Dayton, O., called a strike of 400 men, stopping york on the Army Air Corps project at Wright Fleld. The feason given is that the contractor had hired four “non-union” workmen. It turns out, however, that the four workmen sre members of the C. I. 0, and involved only a jurisdictional question. If the building-trades unions won’t try td settle such a question peaceably, without holding up national defense, there can be no more respect for their “no strike” promise than their other promise—made but not kept—to put a reasonable ceiling on the “membership fees” they are extorting: from men seeking work on Army camps and other military construction.

»

! f | i

i {

everything possible is done to eliminate waste; extrava-

s| Fair Enough By Westbrook Pegler

Citing Our Stand on Russia, He Asks 5 We Are Being Idealistic or Just Practical in This War—or What?

EW YORK, Feb. 1—It certainly would be a favor to many of us if someone would explain patiently in plain, littie words to what extent we are being ldealistic and moral in this war and fo what extent prectical or, if not practical, then selfish. Because, if we are stricily idealistic and moral, how do we distinguish between Hitlerism and Stalinism, which, as so many have observed, are equally off:nsive to American ideals and mdrals and both guilty of wanton aggression, although in the latter respect there has been a difference of degree? That is to say, Hitler is no worse aggressor than Stalin but is, in fact, from the standpoint of efficiency, a better one. Both are extremely unkind to elements of their home folk, but Stalin has vastly outscored Hitler in slaughter within the national family circle. But, however the cries of the victims pain us, we have no right to interfere by force—anyway, on that ground. If we were to take that attitude we should be forever rusaing into other people’s houses and yelling “unhand that woman!” If that were our position we should have taken firm steps against Turkpy a long time ago for the terrible things the Turks did to the Armenians, and we\ never should have :ecognized Soviet Russia. However, I think we can take it as sett! ed that it is not our intention to reprove by force of arms the rulers of other nations who hold massacres or otherwise persecute elements of their people, mich as we deplore this conduct.

2 2 2

N°% if Russia today were to throw in on the Allied side—meaning our side—we would give numerous rousing cheers and our best pegple would start inviting the Soviet Ambassador, Constantine Oumancky, to parties at their homes. Wg are prepared to admire and root for the once unspeakable Turk a: well, although Turkey, of course, is a dictatorship, too. So it comes around that wg are willing to help one of the worst aggressors and, jone of the most fiendish tyrants in all history to lick the other, after which the tyrant of the first pari—meaning Stalin—would be stronger and meaner then ever. That wouldn’t be spreading freedom in'the world. Ther—about England. For the first time in the adult life of this country we are beginning to realize what tough, game people the English are—and I mean the English, specifically, and not the Scots, Irish and Welsh along with them, although their courage is not questioned. It just happens that in this fight the blow has fallen on the English almost exclusively and that they have stood up under their punishment as no other people ever did or had to in the history of the world. Even the Germans must admire them for their sustained bravery, and, win or lose this war, the English are going to be respected afierward and have some say in the running of it.

# s 8 8

UT, even admiring the English—and 211 the British, for that matter—Americans can t tell themselves that we must help Britain only because we think Britain is defending freedom as such. If Germany didn’t threaten our position as g big nation we woudin’t be taking all these exercises to develop our chest measurements and making all these speeches to ourselves. Our Government and most of our people are convinced now that the Germans are this country’s enemies, too, or, at least, that they are very tricky, unreliable neighbors who really have set themselves the task of bossing the whole world. Eut there our own freedom and our existence as a biz nation are threatened. As to the freedom, I think we will lose some in the struggle. and, even if victorious, never will g:t it back. And even if the slave states should wiggle loose if Hitler were demolished that is no promise that they would be free. So it appears that in fighting for their own safety the British, incidentally, are defending ours, too, but I don’t think they ever would fight for ours unless their own safety and freedom were invplved or that we would make all this effort unless we felt that ours were threatened. If it is freedom, as an ideal, everywhere that we are wrought up about, why didn’t we tie into the Russians a year ago? )

Business By John T. Flynn

U. S. Must Know British War Aim; Must All Europe Be Recaptured?

EW YORK, Feb. 1.—Lord Halifax says that the aim of the British is to win. He says this because of the growing insistence here uppn some statement of the war aims. The American people, beyond a doubt, join in the wish that Britain will win. But the question that disturbs them is this: When will the British consider that they have won? In this country the first slogan was “Neutrality.” After a while . this was changed ‘to “Aid to the Allies.” When France fell it became “Aid to Britzin.,” Now it is “Save Britain.” As we count up the huge bill for economic assistance and, beyond thaf, war, the ‘question remains as imperious as ever: Is our aim to ‘Save Britain”? Or is it to “Save Britain” and “Save France” and “Save all the Allies,” including Poland We really have to know. ‘The reason is this. There is a possibility of saving Britain—by which I mean the British Isles—without our going into-the war with men. |The attack on England is from the air. There sre few military authorities in this country who believe that England can be invaded. by the Germans. Of course, if the Germans could knock out British air defense and could then successfully blockade Britain by destroying her ports and her shipping so as to starve her out, Britain would ‘have to sue for peace. After she had surrendered Britain might be occupied. To make this clearer—Britain probably cannot be frvaded and conquered; but she might be conquered and then invaded without resistance as part of the peace settlement. But with the aid of American plznes, tanks, guns ew, sent to her in vast quantity, she might finally convince Germany that her subjugation by air is impossible. Germany might then be willing to call it off and make a treaty with England.

8 8 8

Would Lord Halifax consider that at this point England had won? Germany woulc| still have France, JH nd, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Poland, Czechoslovakia. war. She had won all but Britain. The low countries and French coast would still h2 in her hands menacing England.

Would Lord Halifax say that Evitain had not yet.

won, and that she would not ccmsider ending the fight until Germany ‘was driven from the low countries and France? Would ‘we still say, “Aid Britain”? Would we still go back fo our first slogan of aid—“Aid the Allies”? When the time comes to drive Germany from France it is going to take five or six million men and a vast mountain of equipment. And no power in the world can supply it to England—men and machines—except America. If at that point Lord Halifax says “Our aim is to win,” then of course no help we can give will mean anything unless accompanied

No one could say Germany had lost the:

SATUR AY, FEB. 1 19

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

WONDERS IF BRITISH THINK WE'RE SOFT HEADS By Chas. M. Anderson We have always heard a lot about England having the best diplomats of any other country. A good diplomat is a man who can get a lot for his country for nothing from the country he is assigned to, and make the people of that country think he is doing them a good turn. Ireland has broken away from them and it has begun to look like India will be the next, so it is quite natural that her inferior cousins of the United States will do her the honor of paying her bills. I wonder if we should really call ourselves

soft-heads. # 2 o

RENEWS JOB PLEA FOR ARTIFICIAL LIMB WEARERS By Charles E. Black On reading the Forum of Jan, 24 I notice that a letter addressed in answer to Mr. Black’s letter was published. This article was not an answer to the article I wrote asking that jobs be given persons who are wearing artificial legs, because it

| does not provide the necessary em-

ployment for which we are seeking.

I am very glad to have awakened an interest in Mr. Barnes. All the things that Mr. Barnes points out in his article are true and I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Barnes that we unfortunates should band together and protest loudly against

| the discrimination that is directed

against us. ... A few years ago the Social Securtiy Act was passed. This covers assistance to the aged and the blind, and the dependent children, providing pensions for both. There is no mention of the person who is physically handicapped, with the exception of making the department of vocational rehabilitation a permanent functioning organization and alloting funds for this purpose. I would like to quote a paragraph from a pamphlet released by the Social Security Board some time ago entitled “Restoring the Handicapped to Useful Employment”: “The existence in society of a large group of physically handicapped persons and their dependents, who must be fed, clothed and sheltered, constitutes a serious social and economic problem. Such persons not only do not produce, they consume a considerable portion of the proAuctive work of others.” Now this seems to me an admission that the problem of the physically handicapped is an important one and should be dealt with as such. As I pointed out in my pre-

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

vious article, there is a group which falls under the category of physically handicapped that is very much able to be a useful part of society and have the ability to perform as good a day’s work as any other. I: believe that these persons (wearers of artificial legs) who are willing should be provided with work on the same basis as a person who has both his legs. To those who are not physically able I believe they should be provided fer with an adequate pension much the same as the pension for the blind.

uation.

This would eliminate a grave sit-

a 2 = : INVASION POSSIBLE BY POWERFUL FOE, IS CLAIM By W. H. Edwards, Spencer, Ind. The Times (Jan. 24) in its editorial, ecalls Col. Lindbergh’s testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee “Expert Evidence.” To so classify Lindbergh's evidence is to disregard many facts.

Col. Lindbergh perhaps qualifies|

as an expert in the subject of civil aviation, but as an expert on national defense his evidence isn’t worth any more than that of many others who know both the strength and weakness of our coastal defenses. . . . Lindbergh’s view of our coastal areas have been from high in the air, where the terrain has quite a different appearance than it does to one on the ground. I have traveled along both our coasts—on terra firma—and without claiming to be an expert, state definitely that either coast can be invaded by any powerful enemy from either the sea or the air. Editorially, The Times asks for unity. . How can we who are intensely interested in our country’s welfare think or act unitedly with others who have absorbed so much of Hitler's propaganda that they are blinded to Hitler's favorite slogan of “Divide and Conquer”? We are

unquestionably as ae now

Side Glances=By Galbraith

as France was before its fall; shall we suffer the same fate? There are many of us who would like to have unity of thinking, unity of action in the sphere of national defense, but we refuse to unify with

.|those who classify that » cruel,

treacherous unholy Axis alliance above the British, who are fighting for their own skins, yes, but

_|who are also acting as our first line

of defense. y 2 2 2

COUNTS HIMSELF OUT

ON HELPING ENGLAND By Curious I see by the papers the claim that America is unanimously in favor of aid to Britain. That is not true because it includes me. I am an isolationist of the firstggyater and with deep feeling I o aid to anybody outside of /theUnorthern half of this hemisphere. If Britain was so low and mean to get into this scrape let them get out. I hate no man, not even Mr. Hitler, and the propaganda will not change my attitude. I do not at all think Mr. Hitler is the cause of this present trouble but one of the effects of the last one. We recognized the U. 8. S. R. after that greatest of all social revolutions 23 years ago and after this one is over we will make friends (for a few dolars) with whomever rules (Continental Europe 10 years from how. If we, as a nation, are more interested in dollars than in honor and principles, why not be big enough to say so.

# & = FEARS AID BILL TAKES IN TOO MUCH TERRITORY

By Edward F. Maddox

moved by fear, anger, hatred, and are bent on vengeance are not com-

the best interests of all concerned. I submit, for careful consideration, the opinion that the Lend-Lease Bill now before Congress is the result of fear, war jitters and panic peddlers, written by men who were excited by hatred and a desire for vengeance, and should be examined carefully and revised to meet the realities of the situation. -I submit the plain fact that the bill is not an “Aid to Britain Bill,” as it is being represented, but is an Aid to the Whole World Bill—=to any nation the President desires to aid. I believe the words “regardless of the provisions “of any other law,” should be stricken from the Lend-

other law, including the Constitution, and therefore is an absolute grant of absolute dictatorial powers. Furthermore, as I see it, the Lend-Lease Bill will weaken our aid to England because it can be used to aid “any nation.” “Let’s concentrate our “short of war” activities on England, for the great need, according to the proponents of the bill, is to save the British Navy.” . That is a man sized job. ‘Better listen to rational men like Joe Kennedy, Gen. Johnson and Louis Ludlow.

ROCK-LINED WELL "By VERNE MOORE

-| Stop here beside the stones that tell

The story of the rock-lined well; Where long ago it conjured up Clear liquidness to fill 4 cup.

Now, if you scan its*rocky walls Below’ the curb that sags and falls You must admit that you perceive A useless shaft where spiders weave. How much like this, the passing

years The warp of thought the weft of

It is a fact that men who are| |

pletely sane, or rather not exactly ; rational, and therefore are likely to] | act unwisely, hastily and contrary to| |

Lease Bill. That nullifies every|

Gen. Johnson Says—

Answering Stimson on Purchases

He Recalls World War Setup Which Did Not Require Any New Law

ASHINGTON, Feb. 1.—Secretary Stimson says that one reason for bum’s-rushing the increasingly discredited Lease-Lend Bill is that it will cure the “disorder which has existed for nearly two years in the manufacture of munitions.” His point is that the President must purchase all supplies for our several defense departments and also for any allies because, otherwise, they could compete with each other, raise prices and create confusion. Whatever confusion has “existed” is not traceable to any lack of executive authority. Up to the middle of last year, our Government had no plans whatever for adequate defense and then, in a moment of panic, dumped indigestible billions of dol lars of totally unco-ordinated ore ders into the lap of an unwarned industry. It is due also to the long and inexcusable lag in sett any single authorized and intelligent control. t 2 hasn’t been done yet." The Knudsen commission is still a mess. Le It was not because Government had not been warned by the voice of intense and highly successful .- experience. B. M., Baruch warned it over and over again as to ‘precisely what was wrong and what was necessary to cure it.

OMPLETE co-ordination of Allied purchasing with our owh and of the purchasing our own hydraheaded purchasing departments was accomplished in 1918 without any Congressional enactment whatever. It was done, as to our Government, by an intelligent use of the normal powers invested in the executive and the appointment of Mr. Baruch as co-ordinator with power to act. As to our Allies (we called them “associates”), Mr. Baruch did that by making the Abraham Lincoln of that effort—old “Cowboy” Legge —head of the Allied Purchasing Commission.

To use the excuse that Mr. Stimson thus advanced for the passage of this totalitarian bill—this gratuitous American assumption of responsibility for the worldwide conduct of this war—is either a confession of ignorance or it is an attempt to frighten this nation into such an abandonment of democratic dnd constitutional processes as is neither necessary nor desirable. The second and only other point of Mr. Stimson’s argument is that the barter process of “lease-lend” or “otherwise dispose of” our weapons is “more flexible” than the advancement of credit or a donation of hard cash. “More flexible” for whom? Money and credit were invented and over the ages have proved to be the most flexible of all methods of exchange of goods between nations. One of our chief complaints against Hitler is his design to substitute barter in kind for money transactions. The Secretary’s testimony is selfcontradictory and astonishingly absurd. » » ” E SEEMS somehow to have given the House Foreign Affairs Committee an impression that, by what he proposes, our production facilities can be made more useful to us because our designs of air=craft and artillery can thus be made uniform with British designs. Any man who knows molasses from tar about that problem, knows that this testimony is equally equivocal. British .military problems re-. quire one type of naval, aerial and ground equipment. Ours require another kind. The caliber of their guns and methods of fire control are different. We have no business to impose upon the British our ideas of - the design of lethal weapons—nor they to impose theirs on us. The truth is that gery reckless statements of fact are being used to bulldoze this bill. Let us do What’ is prudent or necessary in our own defense to do to aid Great Britain, but let us not, under the urge of the advisability of doing that, revolutionize our whole framework of government. Finally, the argument is made that the President will never use the totalitarian powers granted in “this bill. Said Patrick Henry: “Is it consistent with any principle of prudence or good. policy to grant unlim= ited, unbounded authority which is so totally unnece essary that it will never be exercised?” But that was in the pre-horse-and-buggy-days—before two and two ceased to make four.

A Woman's Viewpoint

By Mrs. Walter Ferguson

MES ROOSEVELT told her press conferenee the other day that the Army wants no married draftees, even though the law does not so state. “This notion is based upon the belief that the family is a unit of importance to national well-being, and that men who worry about wives and children at home do not take well to the martial arts. It is, I believe, a typical feminine attitude, and not to be brushed aside on that account. However, single men whose jobs and way of life seem equally sweet to them have quick and reasonable retorts. - As might have been expected, the military conscription law for a country which is officially not at war confuses our minds and will certainly complicate our lives. 1 ; If we could discount recent fear hysteria about 50 per cent, we could conscientiously stand with the First Lady. But, if the country faces such dire perils as Senator Josh Lee and other sponsors of the LeaseLend Bill predict, then it seems the very height of absurdity to be squabbling over the men we shall train. They'd better all make tracks for camp and let the women move into industry, for, according to reports, the dictators are going to take us even more surely than the Martians once did. One truth is obvious. You can’t fight a war without disrupting family life. Indeed, consideration for . the family unit is just about the last worry, of military powers. The course we have mapped out for ourselves, which, according to Presidential proclamation, means. guaranteeing to people “everywhere in the world” freedom of speech, freedom of. the press and freedom. of worship, will most. certainly necessitate something - more forceful than brave words. Talk about preserving happy family life if we move into the world con= flict is futile. It is worse. It is false and misleading. The present war proves conclusively that the women and children occupy more hazardous positions than the soldiers. Casualty lists show a preponderance of civilian dead. When we count also the starved, the maimed, the diseased—all the victims of guns, pestilence and want—we see clearly that, in a nation at war, everything beautiful symbolized by the family unit is sacrificed.

Questions and Answers

up =

QO S gance and needless spending of Coverninent money? Then how about the following fact, repcrted to Congress by "the General Accounting Office? ; . In 314 months last winter, more than 700 Federal employees found it “necessary” to make trips to Florida at the taxpayers’ expense. Congress would do well to question some) of those empyees and their superiors who approved their travel garges. Further, it would be a good idea to find out how Federal paytollers are getting their expenses paid to r? :

by .men. American statesmen who are thinking about Ameriea, to whose protection they are sworn, ought certainly’ to insist on’ an answer to this question:

What are the war aims?

So They Say—

ONE OF THE surest facts of the social science is that the power to tax is the power to destroy, but hialf of our citizens think that-this is false.—Dr, E. L. Thorndike in the New York Sun.

ears, Can spin & web whose scope will make