Indianapolis Times, Indianapolis, Marion County, 26 February 1941 — Page 15

PAGE 14 ET he Indianapolis Ti imes

(A SCRIPPS-HOWARD NEWSPAPER) ROY w. HOWARD RALPH BURKHOLDER MARK FERREE President Editor Business Manager

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

Mail subscription rates in Indiana, $3 a year; outside of Indiana, 65 - cents a month.

«Po RILEY 5551

Give Light and the People Will Find Their Own Way

~ Owned and published daily (except Sunday) by The Indianapolis Times Publishing Co, 214 W, Maryland St. .

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

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1941

HOW NOT TO BE POPULAR

HE Indiana Senate, we note, is going to require drinkers to get licenses before they can buy a drink of liquor or beer. Why not fingerprint them, too?

MR. ROOSEVELT ON WIRETAPPING

HANKS to President Roosevelt, it now seems certain that general use of wiretapping by Federal agencies will not be sanctioned by law. The President had been asked .for his views on the pending Hobbs Bill, which the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been urging. This bill would permit any Govern‘ment bureau chief with investigators at his disposal to authorize them to tap wires whenever he found reason to ~ suspect that a felony might have been, was being or might

be about to be committed. The bill, Mr. Roosevelt replied, goes “entirely too far.” Wiretapping should be permitted only to combat sabotage, espionage, kidnaping and extortion. We welcome this firm opposition to wholesale resumption of a “dirty business,” as Justice Holmes called it, now outlawed by Congress. Since the President believes wiretapping is necessary to combat the serious crimes named by him, we hope he will take the further position that it should be authorized in specific cases, not by the head of the FBI or any other bureau, but by judicial officers, as search warrants are authorized. This is a weapon too capable of misuse, too dangerous to the innocent, to be used, unless with legal safeguards, against those whom bureaucrats may suspect of guilt.

A FRIEND OF LABOR

ESTBROOK PEGLER’S testimony before a Congressional committee seems to us a complete answer to those who seek to protect themselves by calling him an enemy of organized labor. He made it clear that he is no enemy, but a stanch defender, of working people and their rights. His fight is against those union officials who, because they are crooked or because they are weak or because they are incontpetent, betray the interests and endanger the rights of working people. The Government, as Mr. Pegler said, has conferred great power upon the leaders of labor. It has provided no adequate check on the use of that power. The purpose of conferring the power was good—to protect workers against abuses by employers. The use of the power has been too often bad—to perpetrate abuses against smployers, against workers and against the public. Because Mr. Pegler has attacked there abuses, the leaders responsible for them cry that he is attacking organized labor. It is not so. The real attack on organized labor is by its own leaders who commit or permit the abuses —by the racketeers, by the demanders of extortionate fees, by the promoters of jurisdictional strife, by the sympathizers with communism and by those who, knowing what is going on, ‘do. nothing. These leaders will be to blame if Congress now attempts to protect the national-defense program by restricting labor’s hard-won rights. The danger of such an attempt is that the innocent, honest, patriotic members of labor’s rank and file might suffer more than their guilty leaders. That is why Westbrook Pegler keeps on fighting against the abuse of power.

“EN PAZ” A PRESIDENT MANUEL AVILA CAMACHO is moving slowly yet surely to restore the confidence of the outside world in Mexico. In fact, so slowly is he discharging holdover officials of the Cardenas regime that some of his followers are becoming restive. They want a housecleaning— and the jobs. But Avila Camacho goes his way unperturbed, and from porth of the border his way seems wise. The new president is proud that he took office peace‘fully, and. that now no gangs of bandits or revolutionists are roaming the broad states of his country. Other changes will come, and if Avila Camacho has his wish they will all come “en paz’—in peace. Seeking the peaceful way is something new in Mexico, and it takes a strong man to win through. After the election of last summer, Mexico was ripe for revolution. A little carelessness, a rash move, would have sent the opposing factions on the warpath. In that tense situation, Avila Camacho had his peaceful way. If he proves able to continue on that course, both

. _ Mexico and the United States will profit greatly.

. MORE MORAL CLIMATE

HE Jackson Day dinners, in the past a potent means of raising funds for the Democratic Party, are to be given

\ this year on March 4. Since last year, however, the Hatch

‘Act has made it illegal to use the dinners directly for fundraising by charging the faithful high prices, ranging downward from $100 a plate for the Washington affair at which President Roosevelt is the main attraction. : So Richard J. Reynolds, the party’s treasurer, has announced. a new plan. Democrats are being solicited, in advance of the dinners, to make contributions to the party. Those who contribute $100 or more will be invited to the Washington dinner. The same plan, of course, can be used elsewhere, and the benefits to the Democratic treasury may greater than ever. It’s an interesting plan—especially for a party whose er has been so critical of “clever little schemes” for ) nd evading the spit ok the country’s laws.

Fair Enough By Westbrook Pegler

Most ‘Workers Patriotic and No Doubt Would Favor Law Barring Strikes Except as a Last Resort

ASHINC TON, Feb. 26.—Assuming that most American workmen are patriotic citizens who would not willingly impede the preparations to fight a war, then it follows, I think, that they would welcome legistation which would make it impossible for leaders to call them out on strike except as a last resort in a fight with an employer over hours or pay. The question of legislation to this effect arises because recent court * decisions have held, in substance, that a labor leader has no guide but-his own conscience, which may not be reliable. The employer already is ruled by laws governing his labor relations, which are not equally binding on the unions and, being, on the average, a patriot, he will co-operate or yield in most cases because he wants to go ahead with the job and. knows he will have to, anyway, whelher he likes it or not. The union leader, too, may be given credit for patriotism, but so much is left to his own judgment that he practically writes his own laws,

The laws which now put the employer under compulson were written on the theory that, without come pulsion and restriction, he would run wild. The employer, h¢wever, is no worse or better, as a man, than the labor leader, and, therefore, the restrictions should be equal. g 8 Oo eripliver in the whole United States has the individual power that is possessed by any one of many union leaders in jurisdictional conflicts. When several unions are thrown out of work by no strike or grievance of their own, but because a strike in a key operation makes it impossible to proceed with the job, the patriotic members stop work because they simply ate unable to go ahead. The roofers can't go ahead with the roof if the diggers strike down in the excavation over a dispute as to whether miners or day laborers should do the work. Such a dispute is held to be a &trictly private spat. Labor and present laws permit no interference in the nationel interest, even though soldiers be sleeping under canvas in zero weather for lack of housing. Would legislation here constitute Government control of labor? If so, what of it? The fact is that labor organizatioii has grown too fast for its leadership and now is & liuge, powerful, clumsy force, which, in a moment of bad judgment, may cause great harm, even though the individual workers want to settle disputes reasonably and produce results. But there are degrees of Government control, and certainly it would be no disaster to the rank and file to place the unions under laws designed to prevent interruplions of work or total loss of employment and consequent delays in the war program, The disaster to labor would be much worse if by reason of unfortunate union leadership the national defense should fail.

NTERUNION strife has caused some interference with ‘the program up to now, but apparently not much, anc. both big houses seem willing to compromise differences. Yet the facts remain that some delays have been caused and that the whole national program i: at the mercy of union leadership and subject to the good will and good judgment of the leaders. . In sucli a case what help could be given by William Green, who is a strict constitutional labor executive with no power to force a compromise or give arbitary judgments, considering his respect for the autonomous rights of unions? After all, the people who gave the unions these powers retain the right to curb them in the interests of national defense or in the interests of the members themselves. - There are, by their claims, only about eight million members in both big groups—a small minority of the total citizenship and a minority even of tlie working population. That these eight million, mirus the reluctant or captive members who have joired against their will, should be independent of any. control,” when even their self-control is not always reliable, is a contention which need not be admitted. For this is a national emergency from which escape without actual, rough-and-tumble war with terrible enemies will be a very lucky break for the U. S. A.

Business By John T. Flynn

Japan Our Best Customer in Asia; Trade Could Not Be Cause of War

[EW YORK, Feb. 26.—Whatever reason we may have for getting into a war in Asia with Japan, cerfairilly it cannot be for reasons of trade. If our object is to save our trade or protect it or stimulate it, going to war would be the surest way not to attain that object. We import® a variety of things from Asia, but those which are most important to us are chiefly crude rubber or milk of. rubber, tin, silk and tung oil, and a variety of skins. We sell a lot of things to Asia, but our chief exports are machinery, metallic and non-me-tallic minerals. We could rock along without silk. Tin is essential to us, but apparently we have enough of it to last for about 15 months. The loss of the skins and oils would certainly hurt certain industries, but they probably are industries which the war would hurt anyhow. Rubber would be our chief loss. If the war lasted a long time ‘the loss of both tin and rubber would be embarre ising. Bit we sell quite a bill of goods to Asia each year, and our chief customer there is Japan. China buys but little. So if it is our trade we are thinking about, the &urest way in the world to interrupt it and to injure ourselves would be to go to war and—singularly —agéinst the power which is our biggest Asiatic customer. I do not say we should refrain fram going to

thos¢ who think we should go to war for trade advantages can hardly support that position when war would do precisely what they want to avoid. So far as the future is concerned, it can hardly be said that our supplies of tin, rubber, skins and and oils ‘are in any way jeopardized. Malay and the Dutch East Indies are our chief source of rubber. On the other hand, we are their chief customer. The same thing is true of tin, No nation would want those countries for trade reasons save to have customers for their products. The notion that Japan would want to take any of thes2 lancs, or dominate them, in order to cut off our supplies ¢f rubber or tin is fantastic, Cutting them off irom ius would mean utter ruin for those lands. If we g0 into a war in Asia we may, therefore, be well assured that it will not be to serve our trade interests. There will be other reasons. "Ihe only reason, in my opinion, would be to take over for England the policing of her empire in Asia, Not: her tlemocracy, for she has no democracy . there, but only her imperial possessions and, for that matter, some of her worst imperial possessions.

So They Say— GERMANY will stop when it becomes unprofitab: e to go further ~—Charles A. Lindbergh.

THE AVERAGE man of the 13th century had 6500 more chances of dying peacefully in bed than ‘has his descendant of the 20th.—Waldemar Kaempffert on the prospects for peace.

THE GREATEST. eoupitstimient of my govermnment consists in having given impulse to a new sense of dignity of citizenship and public institutions. -—en, Fleazar Lopez Contreras, president of Veneziela, in announcing that he will not run again. : i * * * SLUM CLEARANCE in general, although it is not Job of the Defense Housing office, is a real and

war ‘merely for trade purposes. I merely say that

THE INDIANAPOLIS TIMES

—And How!

GERMANY ES BAC 5, - OF us)

WEDNESDAY, FEB. 26, 194,

The Hoosier Forum

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

PREDICTS H. R. 1776 WILL BRING U. S. INTO WAR

sylvania St.

Any member of the Congress fa‘voring pdssage of H. R. 1776 as it stands will be responsible for the involvement of the United States in a world war, and for the inevitable slaughter of millions of American soldiers. England may be able to ward off an invasion, but the empire cannot win unless we go to war. The internationalists are driving ahead on that same old sterile foreign policy —but, this time, the people are to be far more cruelly exploited—and for Britain! Any member of the Congress favoring passage of the Aid-to-Britain Bill as it stands will be responsible for glealing free representative government a fatal blow—for dictatorship in the United States. We should never consider the outrageous policy of defending Britain before we defend ourselves. Our rock bottom price to Britain for the aid she will require must be that Britain shall leave the New World to us. British Imperialism and the internationalists for less enviable reasons keep us from organizing our defenses. The great continent of South America is ours for development in the future. There is only one fifth columnist worthy of note in South America—and that is Britain! ” ” ” CONTENDS NO PAUPER WOULD ADMIT LAZINESS By James R. Meitzler, Attica

It would be expecting too much to believe a pauper pensioner would admit he was lazy, wasteful, or undeserving. They have been, according to their tell, all hard working, taxpaying citizens, who labored not for their own selfish interests but for the good of the community, and who lost, through no fault of their own, their savings except, of course, what they still happen to have. But Mr. Taxpayer, whose earnings they covet, has also worked hard. He has lost some through bad investments. He has raised a family and cared for his parents in their old

By John R. Surber, M. D., 3540 N. Penn-| -

(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 withheid on request.)

age. He is of pension age and in some cases is unable to work. He has paid and is still paying taxes. But none of these things entitle him to a pension, only to abuse. An honest man pays his debts. The taxpayer has paid his. Supposing the pensioner is the paragon of virtue he claims, and has received $1000 of the taxpayer's money before he passes out, and leaves an estate of $1000. Does he want to turn that $1000 over to the taxpayer and thus pay his debt or does he want to beat the taxpayer out of his money? Now don’t all speak at once. ” » ” A MOTHER URGES A REFERENDUM ON WAR

By Mrs. Estelle B. Davis, 2203 Broadway, Apt. 2

As one of the hundreds of

thousands of American mothers, I do not feel that we should send American convoys across: Why shouldn't a war referendum be taken and the American people vote on same? Who has a better right— the financiers or exploiters of war, or the mothers of soldier boys? No one man should be allotted or have the authori'y to flaunt or disregard our Constitution or Bill of Rights which expressly fcrbid this. Thank God our forefathers who wrote our Bill of Rights had the infinite wisdom perhaps to foresee into the future, as there has always been turmoil and war over in the other hemisphere! If England is/ truly deserving of our assistance, she could easily prove same by an offer to give us

Canada outright in lieu of the debt of $5,000,000,000 plus the added bil-

Side Glances=By Galbraith

1941 BY NEA SERVICE, INC. T. M. YU.

Roriodl elgment in defense—C. F. Paier, defence. housing co-ordinator. 1

"You're helping your mother with the housework - regularly trom now on—you ceased being even an exemption. on your last.

lions she is now whimpering for in defense equipment. I want to see England win this war, but we must be adequately prepared for defense here—in every respect—and never again must any mother’s son be obliged to fight without the privilege of yoting for same. :

o ” A LOUD BOO FOR PAUPER CLAUSE AUTHOR By Mrs. A; E. Si, Noblesville, Ina,

I wonder who was the author of the pauper clause in the Indiana “farewell” relief law? Also all those legislators who voiced it blessing with their ayes? What a noble Christian attitude

8

manity. Never before in this “land of ours,” has dignity and decency been so outraged, humiliated and penalized. If the citizen has been shiftless and a disgrace to society, his state award is much more than the citizen who had struggled and made a

old age. They must reimburse the

cash outlay allowed, while the shiftless is awarded near the maximum. What a setup to point to with pride. All the college bred snoopers on the job should be ashamed of lending their degree to the ugly degrading work of a political henchman, for such is their occupation, when reduced to United States language uncontaminated by either Oxford or Harvard. 8 ” ” RESENTS SLAP AT AIL’ DRUGLESS PHYSICIANS

y fan G. R. Nairn, 968 N. Pennsylvania St. I have been interested in following the controversy relative to “quacks.” It seems to me that Inquisitive has not carried his investigations far enough, for he apparently chooses to run down the whole drugless profession in the light of some information he has obtained regarding a few apparently doubtful individuals. I wonder if Inquisitive is aware of

drugless healers practicing in this country who are respected and honored citizens in their communities. men and women who often work in conjunction with medical doctors, who have received their training from reputable colleges, which aré inspected and approved by members of medical boards. Does Inquisitive know that many of the graduates

'| of these institutions write and pass

precisely the same state board examin#tions, as do graduates of medical schools, when the state regulations require this? There are admittedly undesirables among the drugless healers, but it must be remembered that the medical profession has its percentage of “quacks,” too!

BROADCAST OF FEBRUARY

By MARY P. DENNY A stir of life in the maple tree A flock of wild birds singing free. Gloria of wind over blackberry brush An echo of song from the first . brown thrush. The break of ice in the far north lake The soft sweet stir of the late snow flake. A hint of spring in the evergreen The walks of the great park shining clean. The song of life is in the air Ringing and singing everywhere. The Divadeast of February ringing clear The shortest month of all the year.

DAILY THOUGHT

And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them; and he departed. —Numbers 12:9.

displayed toward unfortunate hu- |

supreme effort to accumulate for |g state for every dollar paid out if |3

there is enough, and in the mean- |} time try to exist on the pittance | §

the fact that there are thousands of |"

Gen. Johnson

Says—

U. S. Cdnvoys Logical Next Step If Majority of Our People Accept Claim 'Britain Is Fighting Our War"

ASHINGTON, Feb. 26.—We are going to cone voy ships carrying aid to Britain: There is not much doubt that a provision in the Lease-Lend Bill prohibiting the President from using American armed forces on the high seas to protect American property, would be an unconstitu« tional Congressional interference with his constitutional power as Commander - in - Chief of ‘those armed forces. Except for some psychological popular effect, it would be useless, null and void. Just now, popular opinion is so much against convoys, which would be a direct adventure into war, that it probably would not be attempted. But a most skillful job has been done of leading popular opinion closer and closer to war, and also of so timing ace tion as not to offend it. It is easy to see how a change to favor convoys could occur. Some time later in the year our industrial mobiliza« tion will begin to disgorge vast quantities of supplies,’ The British demand for them will be great. The Lease-Lend Bill will be a law and there will be no financial or other hindrance to sending them. Also Hitler's major. effort to blockade Britain on and under the sea will be at its peak and cargo sinkings will multiply. A lot of this vital war stuff in which good American dollars have been invested will go to the bottom. ” » » HEN we shall hear: “Are we just building ships and supplies for Hitler to sink? A ton of supplies on the docks of Liverpool can help win this war. So can a ton of supplies in our own hands, but a ton of supplies at the bottom of the Atlantic isn’t of any use to anybody but Hitler.” The latter part of this argument is already being used by distinguished authority. If you once admit the major thesis that “Britain is fighting our war for

- us,” somewhat as the Hessians fought hers against us;

that the pay is supplies promised and that Britain is not getting them, there isn't any very good answer to that argument. Arguments for which there aren't any "very good answers don’t very often prevail with the American people. From the moment that enough of them swale low the argument that “Britain is fighting our wap for us,” we shall begin to convoy shipments to Brite ain. Very soon after that happens there is pretty likely to be a naval encounter between American and German men-of-war, and that is outright war, » o ” F the “Britain is fighting our war” belief is ace cepted generally in the process of this fateful sequence, we shall probably drop into that condition of all-out war with no great shock. The consciences of more and more people are becoming troubled with such night-thoughts as these: “Since when did we begin to let any other people do our fighting for us, especially when there is so much death and desolation in the process? Isn't it pusillanimous ratting to let other mothers’ sons die to protect our own?” Here again, if you accept the main premise that “Britain is fighting our war for us,” it is pretty hard to think up an honest answer to that argument also. It would be a good thing for people who want to preserve their self-respect and at the same time keep this country out of war, prayerfully to re-examine their view of that slogan which is doing its work 80 swiftly and so broadly. They should make up their own minds whether they think “Britain is fighting our war,” or whether tae real truth is that whereas some of our interests happen to run parallel with those of England and in that respect we should do our part in aid, many of our interests do not run paraliel and in that respect we should build up our own defenses and keep out of bloody war,

Editor's Note: The views expressed by columnists in this newspaper ‘are their own. , They are not necessarily those

of The Indianapolis Times.

A Woman's Viewpoint By Mrs. Walter Ferguson

INCE this column is often accused of unfairtiess to men—the poor martyred dears—you shall get the benefit of the other side of the question, for part of the space today goes to an Indiana reader who takes issue with its stand. . “You, as a feminist,” he says, “sometimes overlook facts whicn need serious consideration by both men and women. The majority of men in these United States don’t want women enslaved to the management of men. But in gene eral we recognize more and more every day that women use their hearts to think with instead of their heads. “You state that women do not have ivory towers to which they can retreat when things get tough. I agree. Neither do we men have retreats except that solid reasoning capacity based not on wishful thinking but upon realities as they exist. “Men don’t like this world either. We detest the way it is managed. But if you have studied world history you certainly know that neither men or women can correct conditions. Sven Christ, the Prince of peace, failed in his efforts to make this world a fit dwelling place for the human race. So what can ordinary mortals do? “I disagree wholly with your statement that the country needs .more feminine meddlers. We suffer now from the fact that the women go on emotional sprees and their last one—the pacifist movement— has nearly wrecked the United States.” ‘I've been expecting that to come up. In more ways than one we are moving around to the philosophy of Nietzsche, whose code, resurrected by Adolf Hitler, is responsible in part for the wreckage of a civilization, Herr Nietzsche didn’t like softies in any form, but especially in skirts. He hated feminism and pacifism and everything else that opposed the war ideal. It seems rather a pity he is not alive to see how popular his theories are becoming, hot only in Germany buf in an American democracy. Men, they tell us, always think with their heads. From the look of things it’s about time for them to have their heads examined, then. And becayse, in spite of the tragic lessons of recent history they still put their trust in armaments and think they can settle their big disputes with big wars, they ought to be awarded the medal for wishful thinking. Their “solid reasoning capacity” seems to have slipped a cog.

®

Questions and Answers

(The Indianapolis Times Service Bureau will answer any question of fact or information, not involving extensive rea ..search. Write your questions clearly, sigh name and address, inclose a three-cent postage stamp. Medical or legal advice cannot be given, Address The Times Washington Service Bureau, 1013 Thirteenth St., Washington, D. C.).

Q—In the Census, what definition is used by the United States Government for a “family”? A—A group of persone living together and usually sharing the same table. Single persons living alone are counted as families. Q—When was the Townsend Old-Age Pension Plan first acted on by Congress? A—It was embodied in the bill H, R. 7154, introduced in the first session of the 74th Congress and was defeated in the House of Representatives in the spring of 1935 by a vote of 206 to 56. Q—What was the cost of Grant's Tomb in New’

| York City, and who paid for it?

A—The monumental tomb overlooking the Hudson

River at Riverside Drive and 123d St., was built by _ 4

popular subscription at a‘ cost of $600,000. There a two sarcophagi in the tomb, one containing the body o Giant ang the other that of his wife, Julia Dent ' ran Q—Which countries have the same standard gauge for railways, 4 feet 8% inches, as the United States?" A-Great Brisein Canada, Germany, Austria, H

Li2IT 1S LESS to suffer pupishzen 4 land, Belgium