Indianapolis Times, Indianapolis, Marion County, 19 June 1943 — Page 10

he Indianapolis Times ROY W. HOWARD RALPH BURKHOLDER President Editor, in U. 8. Service MARK FERREE WALTER LECKRONE

Business Manager . Editor : iL ~ (A BCRIPPS-HOWARD NEWSPAPER)

cai

Price in Marion County, 4 cents a copy; deliv-

“Owned and published" Ey

a week.

Mail rates in Indiana,|

$4 a year; adjoining

states, 75 cents a month; |

others, $1 monthly.

«> RILEY 5561

Give Light and the People Will Find Their Own Way

~ SATURDAY, JUNE 19, 1943

~ Service, and Audit Bue TeAu of Oirculations,

UP TO MR. ROOSEVELT "THE war labor board has now made a “final determina- ~~ tion” in the soft-coal wage dispute, ordering the signing of new contracts which would increase the average miner's income by perhaps 25 cents a day instead of the $2 a day demanded by the John L. Lewis union. : Whether the board’s order is to be enforced—and, if 80, how—is up to President Roosevelt. We are not going out on a limb with predictions as to ‘what Mr. Roosevelt will do, or what Mr. Lewis will do. We hope, for the country’s sake and for the sake of more than two million American soldiers and sailors now overseas, that there will not be another coal strike. The two strikes which already have attended this controversy have cost more than 10 million tons of coal production and done firretrievable harm to the war effort. 1s ! But we think Mr. Roosevelt must either back up the ‘war labor board to the limit or deal a death blow to his own program for stabilizing wages and prices and saving ‘the country from uncontrolled inflation. #® » » . # * . R the board has adhered to the president’s plainly stated policies, and obeyed his specific instructions, It searched for and could find no loophole through which to give the miners more than the small allowances for vacation pay and occupational expenses. And, though Mr. Lewis .was denying its jurisdiction, defying its authority and holding a strike threat over it, we believe the board’s written opinions reveal a sincere effort to deal fairly with him and his union. r : The miners have already received more than the Little Steel formula allows. Their minimum hourly wage of 85.7 ‘cents for able-bodied men is not a substandard-of-living rate. Their. average weekly earnings with overtime are about $48 a week, 66 per cent higher than in January, 1941, which puts them among the higher-paid workers in war industries. ig hit And such is the wartime demand for coal and the consequent opportunity for steady work that their average ‘annual income for 1948 will be over $2150—77 per cent ‘higher than in 1940, and nearly 24 per cent higher than in 1942, . . un = Lew : SAYIN G all that, the public and employer members of the board hold that an award of portal-to-portal pay, to be distributed equally among all miners regardless of ‘whether they actually travel underground, would be in fact ‘a general wage increase which the board is forbidden to order. : It would “open the flood gates” to demands by other unions for similar increases in excess of the government's wage-stabilization policies, with a resulting increase in production costs and in all prices. : The legal question of whether individual miners are ‘entitled to pay for travel time under the wage-hour act, based on the actual amount of travel, is one to be determined by the courts or settled by genuine collective bargaining. : The weakness of the board's case and of Mr. Roose- _ velt’s case—the one reason why millions of people who detest John L. Lewis have a great deal of sympathy for the ‘coal miners—is that the cost of living, especially of food, continues to rise. ; To be sure, for most organized workers, including ‘the miners, wages thus far have risen more rapidly, But a firm wage-stabilization policy, which the war labor board has attempted to follow in the coal case, cannot long survive without an equally firm food-price policy—and nobody can contend that the administration, with food authority scattered among many agencies, is doing anything like an _ adequate job in that field.

THE FULBRIGHT RESOLUTION

3,

resolution of its foreign affairs ‘committee for post‘war international scllabererighy that the senate will .do likewise. - From public-opinion’ polls and press expres‘sions it is clear that a large majority of Americans favor, {like the house committee, “the creation of appropriate ‘international machinery with power adequate to establish and to maintain a just and lasting peace among the nations of the world,” and with “participation by the - United States.” : In their one-sentence declaration Rep. Fulbright and the committee have found a form on which Democrats and Republicans can agree. Most of these whom the internationalists have called isolationists are actually moderates favorable to any world co-operation which does not sacrifice essential American sovereignty. The extremists on both sides, internationalists and isolationists, are smaller in number and importance than their noise indicates. Among the great body of our ple there is no fundamental difference of approach or goal, but only one of degree—of what is practicable. that difference is not dangerous so long as it is tad honestly and tolerantly, | : Indeed it is a healthy conflict of ideas, which guarantees proper debate and adequate. consideration of an

= ~

se much too complicated and momentous for rubbey-|.

mping either by congress or the public.

‘Final decisions must be made by the president and| senate, but their decisions will have neither endurance|

validity unless representative of the public will. There- » informed congressional and public discussion is most Roosevelt co-operates with the senate as

=] ered by carrier, 18 cents

her hither and

‘WE hope the house will pass promptly the unanimous|

if the post-war world| some

Fair Enough By Westbrook Pegler

CHICAGO, June 19, — Mrs. ‘Eleanor Roosevelt has been prophetic so often in the past that it would be unwise to overlook a proposal which she has put forth. Discussing the so-called antistrike bill passed by congress, but not yet signed by the president, Mrs. Roosevelt suggests that in‘agmuch as unions would be forbidden by this bill to contribute

further to campaign funds in elections involving fed- |-

eral office, the national government should limit the amount of money to be spent by candidates and ration advertising space and radio time, equally among them.

“I think it would be a great step forward,” Mrs.

Roosevelt wrote, “if the government allowed all candi- |.

dates to spend exactly the same amount, gave them so much time on the radio, so much newspaper advertising space and so much cash for traveling and actually meeting people. : “It would really be a good thing if this expense came out of the taxes and we never had to have any funds raised by political organizations except for educational work on actual policies between elections.

‘Even where party activities such as these are con-

oerned, I am not sure that there might not be & better way of doing it than the way in which we do it now.” . s A .

'Boldest Attack' on U. S. Form

I BELIEVE that this is the boldest attack on the American form of government that has yet been made by any fellow-traveler in the New Deal administra tion. is It is more dangerous because Mrs. Roosevelt is her self a tireless, cunning and clever politician who is the more effective because she pretends to be utterly naive and to have no influence in the government whereas she has made many appointments and has dictated several radical policies received from elements of the Communist front. - One of these was the $25,000 salary limitation first proposed by the Communist party as a platform proviso. : The president hastened to propose this limitation

to congress and was twice rebuffed and then proceeded |

to limit salaries to the Communists’ figure by decree. In that case, congress revoked his decree and congress undoubtedly would do the same if Mrs. Roosevelt, through executive order or by other peremptory means should attempt to impose the limitations on

free elections which she now advises. ‘Thus her proposal is not imminently dangerous but it does show what Mrs. Roosevelt has in mind and, on the basis of past performances, probably tells us what the Communists in and around the government are cooking for the people of this free republic.

Could Jail F.D.R. Rival?

UNDER THIS plan, President Roosevelt would be allowed, let us say $1,000,000 out of the treasury for his fourth-term campaign, already well under way,

with his wife trouping the country on continous’

political errands disguised as war activities, The other candidate would be allowed a like amount, but the president would have his official travel allowance to spend for political tours, in addition to the campaign fund taken directly and openly from the treasury. Limited to a certain period of radio time, President Roosevelt would be able to campaign for reelection off-the-record, so to speak,.in fireside chats and other addresses to the nation on the progress of the war and other issues of public importance, while the rival candidate would be strictly limited. Presumably, although she did not suggest penalties for violation, the rival candidate could be punished, perhaps sent to prison, if he should rig up a Siatiog of his own and try to equalize things by using more e.

Might Kill Free Press we

THE LIMITATION on newspaper advertising would be a Hitleresque invasion of the freedom of expression and of the press and may have another motive than the one stated by Mrs. Roosevelt. This limitation would not bother ‘either President Rocsevelt or the other fellow, for presidential nome inees do not usually buy newspaper space. But the limitation We there Just the ume, and if it can be applie advertising by candidates it can to all other advertisers. be anpiivt In fact, the Communists in Washin an about the nation in various New ington 2 80d Spotted war activities of the government have been urging this limitation more and more boldly for a long time, the idea being to kill the free press and substitute the subsidized party press according to the European pattern. . Mrs. Roosevelt, herself, would still be able to campaign as she has been doing for several months in the interests of the fourth term, subject to none of the limitations, for she would never admit that she a vt n ac y she could use government “ portation and priorities, as she Tg pi her own undercover political machine would invite yon on political missions i interesting chats and activities on oie ea ae people.” Ie

We the People

By Ruth Millett

. WE HAVE grown tised to the idea of a suddenly successful man or woman getting a divorce after living for years with one mate. Now it seems the same thing is happening over and over among {4 women in war work. It is hapL Dpening 50 often that it already has

become the greatest concern of |

social welfare workers in the warboom town of Buffalo. , That is something for us to get concerned about. It is one thing for the highly

| successful or famous to lose their heads and get

divorces. They are a small minority. : But there are thousands of wives in war work, and there will be more and more as time goes on. If numbers of them are letting their jobs go to their heads to such an extent that they think they no longer need their husbands, the divorce rate is going to move upward fast.

Thrill Will Wear Off

a

PI Re) A

|

aD

ath

Be

BURT

7

The Hoosier Forum

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

“ERNIE PYLE DIDN'T STOW AWAY” By One of the Four, Bloomfield Just for the sake of the records, Ernie Pyle never stowed away or even considered doing so. :

In 1922 when the I. U. team went to Japan, Ernie and three fraternity brothers after talking it over with school authorities decided to “bum” along with the team. Arriving at the west coast the four applied for work on the Keystone State and were given jobs. Ernie was a bell hop. The four were allowed to land in Japan and did so in Yokohama, Kobe and Tokyo (by train). However, they could not follow the team on -its island journey because they had signed on to work until the boat reached China. : At Shanghai, a Chinese crew was taken on for return trip, and as the Chinese would not work with American workers, the boys were -deadheaded home in style. On the return trip when the boat reached Manila, the four helped a. Philippine boy (19 years) who wanted to go to the states. ; It was this boy, Jean Ubelhart, who was short of money. Actually he had $5, and with the help of Ernie and the others he stowed away on the return trip. He was brought back to Bloomington where they found work for him and he finished high school and enrolled in the university,

; rae nom “MUST LEARN TO GET ALONG ON LESS FOOD”

By Mrs. Marjorie Montgomery, R. R. 1 Box 638, Edgewood y

In answer to Mrs. C. L. H. and Mrs. W.C.P.... Why is it people will holler before they know what is wrong? Don't you ladies know that baby food is also rationed? Also all kinds of condensed milk. Milk requiring one point of the red stamps and cereal, etc, something similar of the blue stamps. Babies must also eat, you know. i As for rationing, your letters sound as if you neither one knew why we have rationing. : If there was enough for everyone to have all they need or want; there wouldn't be ahy rationing, but with the armed forces, lend-

(Times readers are invited to - express: their views in these columns, religious controversies excluded. Because of the volume received, letters must be limited to 250 Letters be

words. must

signed.)

lease and less food production, there is not enough for all to have what they are used to or would like; therefore, we are rationed and each must learn to get along on less - food. ! Do you understand the situation any better? Let's hope so, for I hate to hear of anyone that would begrudge a baby or child its food. Also I might add that if the food situation should become critical, babies and children should be fed first. eo 0 6 : ® 2 =» “STRINGING ALONG WITH LINCOLN” By George R. Brown, 3609 N, Keystone ave. James R. Meitzler, in his recent letter to the Hoosier Forum, gets

plenty of ammunition to shoot at me from Tennyson's “Northern

Farmer.” I might resent that crack]

at the end of his letter: “George, thou’s an ass for thy pains,” if I thought it was intended personally. But it isn’t. He just means that for anyone not property-minded. Both the “Northern Farmer” and Mr, ‘Meitzler consider the most important human right to be the right to own and. control property. A person's value, in their opinion, is measured by his possession of property. “The poor in a lump is bad,” says the “Northern Farmer.” And Mr. Meitzler agrees with him. He shows his contempt for poor people all through his last letter, particularly in his reference to the WPA. The fact that there were many of them saved from starvation by the WPA does not weigh very heavily in Mr. Meitzler’s scales. Mr. Meitzler has misquoted me twice, and I do not like it. He says “George characterizes some of our presidents as good ones elected by voters too good-for-nothing to pay

Side Glances—By Galbraith

cao a "

:|casions ‘as Father's day. 1 thappened to be in need of a neck-

= and that was the end of it.

a pool tax.” I said that these presidents were opposed by voters like Mr. Meitzler. A majority of | voters at ‘any presidential - election cannot be characterized as “too good-for-nothing to pay a poll tax.” 1 did not say “the balance (of the presidents) were poor sticks elected by thosé who pay the expenses of government.” I said that at times the property-minded have carried elections and given us the weakest and poorest administration in our history. And they have. I mean the administrations of Taft, Harding, Coolidge and Hoover. And I'll warrant that Mr, Meitzler voted for all of them. Mr. Meitzler considers’ that all virtue and worth are on the side of the conservatives and propertyminded, and that there is no virtue or worth in those that oppose them. All through his letter he accuses poor folks of chicken stealing

and other petty larceny, and he].

feels that they are of no value to the community and should have no say in running affairs. It is not as simple as that. Though I do not agree with them I admit that most conservatives are honest, decent people. I do not let Teapot Dome, the crooked stock market, the busted banks and other highway robberies of the late conservative era influence me to think all who do not agree with me are crooks, But I do remembér that Abraham Lincoln said, “God must have loved the common people, He made so many of them.” So in spite of all Mr. Meitzler’s argument I think I will string along with Lincoln.

® » » “FOR SO GOOD AND NOBLE A DAD” By Ted, Indianapolis Dear Dad: ; Just a lttle more than a year ago we, our mother and your chiidren, - sorrowfully followed your mortal remains to your last resting place, I remember, Dad, when you were in your “thirties”—a long time ago, wasn't #6? I remember how you told me, maybe & bit boastfully, of your prowess as a& pitcher at college in the days when gloves were scorned and the pitches were underhand. I learned a lot about baseball from you, Dad, and.I also learned many things vastly more important than baseball. I learned, among other things, that you did not approve of or sanction such silly mercénary ocIf you

tie, a belt, a fountain pen or whatnot. you went out and bought it

And now Father's day with its advertisements and ballyhoo is with us again. I'm going to give you what you want most—the assurance that we, your children— all seven of us--honor and respect

your memory and love you for what |

you did for us in life and death.

not lie:

“happens:

Our Hoosiers #

pues

By Daniel M. Kidney

WASHINGTON, June 19. —Vissy Bok iting potentates, who are epidemic here, finally have gotten in Rep. Earl Wilson's hair. . The ninth district Republican congressman, who formerly was & Hoosier schoolmaster at Huron, issued a blast against this highe - priced good neighbor policy in a letter to his constituents. “It's ‘a’ cockeyed merry-goe A round and we never get the brass ring,” Mr. Wilson exploded. Here is what he says “A distinguished visitor, representing some foreign power, calls at the White House and is wined and dined by the ‘little: congress’ which, in some cases, has taken up residence there. “Then the real, elected congress is ‘spoken to. Then when international neighborliness is flowing like oil through the new east-west pipeline, Uncle Sam gets it in the pocketbook. After the address to cone gress, the details and the ‘crossing of palms with silver’ take only a day or so, and thus we have another . little ‘New Deal’ launched and financed for some other capitol city of the world.” yr

Opposes. Good-Will Purchase

THE WILSON STATEMENT points out that “your congressman is not and never will be in favor of purchasing the good will of sister nations” and cone

tinues: A “I cannot approve a foreign policy which wnds to subsidize our international friendships. I cannot bee lieve that we must buy good will, co-operation and neighborliness from our allies. If we must, then what will happen when we are forced, through sheer banke ruptcy, to cut off their allowances? , .. “We should not tolerate or encourage common pan« handling among men or nations, no matter how much our own ego is fed by being called a good neighbor, - or a free-handed fellow with his money. To drug a man or a nation with favors is to dull his sense of upright independence and is not only less than a favor to him but. it amounts to. eriminal hypnotism.”

May Find U. S. Cupboard Bare

THERE IS much more of the same in the Wilson statement, which concludes: ; “I resent being put in the position of unwilling host to uninvited guests. I want to be able to welcome

my guests and offer them my fullest hospitality withe

out having to worry about whether or not they will eat mé ‘out of house and home’ before they have the courtesy to leave. It is impractical and impossible for us to maintain this open-handed policy to the

"world on the shaky basis of increased indebtedness

for our own people. ¥ “One of these days we will go to our cupboard and

‘ find it as bare as Mother Hubbard's.”

At the very bottom of the page, Mr. Wilson listed

"the treasury figures for June 8 as follows:

Total debt, $140,392,210,454.28; per person, $1063.57; per family, $4254.18; increase per person since June 2—$1.13,

In Washington By Peter Edson

WASHINGTON, June 10.—Sece retary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau Jr.'s ¢rack the ot day that by the end of 1943 “t average American family should be investing approximately 256 cents of every dollar of income in war bonds,” has béen worrying a number of people, but it may not be as bad as it looks at first glance. The average Joe or Jane, now patriotically contributing 10 per cent of his or her pay check to buy war bonds, is apt to figure it ous like this: » “Ten per cent is okay, but where do they get this 25 per cent stuff? Withholding taxes after July are going to be 20 per cent under this new tax bill so I understand, and if they want me to kick in with another 25 per cent for bonds, that makes 45 per cent of my pay, and what do they expect me to live on? Wages are frozen, cost of living is still going

every dollar I make. What do they expect me to do —sell the house or the car? Give up my life insure ance? Starve?” Take it easy, chums, for it really isn't that tough. In rd first place, the 20 per cent withholding tax cafled for under the new tax bill is a gross figure. Exemptions are provided, so the actual met payroll tax collected will run from nothing at all to a maxi mum of 20 per cent. For the majority of the taxpayers, withholding taxes will average only about 13 per cent. :

Percentages Vary ee Rl :

IN THE second place, this 25 per cent of payroll contribution the treasury is talking about is an. erage figure. It doesn’t ‘mean that every wage-eart ] is expected to kick in with 35 per cent of his pay fo war savings, as was the case with the campaign to ges. everyone to contribute 10 per cent of his pay. Some people obviously won't be able to boost theip 10 per cent $0°35 per: cent. Others will be expected to do as much as 5( per cent. A number of cases are actually on record now in which some of a family, all of whom are working, are saving full 100 per cent of their wages. : 3 ‘Starting this month when the treasury wap

drive, the slogan is to be “Figure It Out for Yourself.” The idea is simply that every wage-earner should get

mainder of 1943, figuring in new taxes and cost of living expenses at present prices, then determine what his maximum contribution for war bonds can be. . This treasury figuré of 28 per cent average income savings hasn't been simply pulled oyl of the afr, Treasury experts know that this surplus money is available, in savings accounts or as hot money burning holes in the pockets of people who want to spend. it on something—anything—just to get rid of it. ~~ As loose spending money, this excess purchasi power is an tionary Biron’ and tie inca is to “blot it up with war bonds, not only to check inflatio; ‘now, but to help findnce the war effort, hold dow

up, and I'm supposed to get by on 55 cents out of -

savings staff gets under way with its new summer

a pencil and paper, make out a new budget for the re-