Newspaper Page Text
G. O. P. SITUATION ASSUMES
TUG-OF-WAR COMPLEXION Observer Sees Possibility of Borah, Laudon and Knox Killing Each Other Off and Outsider Named. OX MAK& BULLI»A«. rE Republican presidential sit uation has fallen into a pat tern of a familiar kind. The pattern may change. Yet. just this kind of pattern has frequently arisen in both parties, has frequently, remained to the end, and frequently determined the nomination. Whether, in the present case, the pattern will remain, cannot now be foretold. Much depends on whether Senator Borah develops material strength. In any event, all that is said in this article is merely an adven ture in speculating on how the forces of politics sometimes work out. What is said here has no relation to the merits of men or to principles. It is just a speculation in one of the most fascinating of fields, the psychology of politics as it influences the nomi nation of presidential candidates. To clarify tile present situation, be gin with Senator Borah. We can sum up his position by saying he Is the least conservative of the aspirants for the Republican presidential nomi nation. He is nearest to the "left." He is going to be the favorite of t.he so-called liberal portion of the party. His following will include most of the “progressive Republicans” who have not gone over to the New Deal. He is the candidate of that part of the party that is nearest to the New Deal. He is the candidate of inde pendent voters who this year will go Into Republican primaries with the hope of bringing about nomination of the Idaho Senator. Mr. Borah, in seeking the nomina tion, will appeal to so-called progres sives and liberals. He will denounce what he calls the stand-pat and conservative party leaders. van dc ircaica uiic. Turn now to two others of the Re publican possibilities, Gov. Landon and Col. Knox. For convenience in this analysis, they ran be treated as one. Gov. Landon and Col. Knox will be regarded as conservative candi dates. Compared with Senator Borah, they actually are relatively conserva tive. As the campaign develops they will be regarded as more conservative than they really are. Inevitably con trast will arise between Senator Borah, on the one hand, and on the other hand. Gov. Landon and Col. Knox. The contrast will be promoted by Senator Borah, or certainly by his managers and followers. Continually as the contest grows warmer the term ••conservative,” used as a reproach and epithet, will be hurled at Gov. Landon and Col. Knox by Mr. Borah’s followers. The epithet will be misleading, but It will be used, nevertheless. Col. Knox could make out a good case to show that *fhstorically he is more progres sive than Senator Borah, for Col. Knox in 1912 left the Republican party to follow Theodore Roosevelt into the lat ter’s Progressive party, whereas on that occasion Senator Borah remained an orthodox Republican. Similarly it it can be shown that Gov. Landon is a liberal who has the support of such a thoroughgoing liberal as William Allen White. rxjran, Liioerai lanuiaaie. But all that does not matter. Sen ator Borah will be regarded as the lib eral candidate. By his aggressiveness he will monopolize the liberal portion of the party, certainly the more ex treme liberal portion. Directly or by implication, he or his managers, or both, will create the im pression that the other leading candi dates, Gov. Landon and Col. Knox, are “standpatters.” As the present pattern works out. Gov. Landon and Col. Knox actually will be the candidates of the conser vative portion of the party. They will be the principal candidates of those Who don't want Mr. Borah. Thus we will have a set-up in which Mr. Borah is the candidate of the so called liberal portion of the party, while Gov. Landon and Col. Knox will be the leading candidate of the con servative portion. Senator Borah will be the symbol of the liberals: Gov. Landon and Col. Knox of the con servatives. In this situation we will now have a kind of tug of war between the liberal and conservative wings of the party—the liberals following Senator Borah, the conservatives following Gov. Landon and Col. Knox. The tug-of-war pattern is familiar In political conventions of both par ties. Commonly it is between two men. But it can be, and often has been, between wings of the party. The Democratic convention of 1924 was a tug of war between the "wet” and “dry” wings of the party, the “wets” symbolized by Gov. smith, the "drys” by Mr. McAdoo. That 1924 Demo cratic tug of war lasted more than two weeks, and at the end the prize, as commonly, went to an outsider. Neither Side Wins. In a tug of war in a political con vention almost always neither side wins. As the ballots are taken, as the two sides glare more and more angrily at each other, each side de termines that the other shall not win. At a certain stage, the primary emo tion, the wish of each side to win, is supplanted by a secondary emotion, the determination that the other side shall “not” win. In any prolonged tug of war the two sides arrive at a ottmnte, n ueauiuth. iuc uoiauwc ic- i mains for a few ballots, like two even ly-matched prize fighters, both tired out, unable to make progress against each other, able only to glare at each other angrily. At this point a new candidate be gins to move forward, one not in volved in the tug of war. The origi nal contenders, tired out, both rush to welcome the newcomer. That is the ordinary way in which the tug-of-war pattern works out in a political convention. That is the way former Gov. Lowden and Gen. Leonard Wood wore each other out in 1920, the prize going to one who in the beginning had only a hand ful of delegates, Senator Harding. In the present case the tug of war between Senator Borah and on the other side Gov. Landon and Ool. Knox is even more likely to come to an end in which neither side wins, in which the prize goes to an out sider. For in the present case it is not merely men who are deadlocked with each other. It is also ideas. It will be the liberals against the conservatives. After these two groups, and the can didates who are their respective sym bols, have opposed each other for several weeks of primaries and sev eral days of balloting in a hot June convention—after all that struggle, ; it will be realized by everybody that it would be imprudent to nominate i any of the candidates who have been the symbols of the struggle. It will be felt that if Gov. Landon or Col. Knox were nominated. Senator Bo rah's followers might refuse to vote the Republican ticket in the ensuing contest against the Democrats. Sim ilarly it will be felt that if Senator Borah were nominated, conservative Republicans would have no heart for the ensuing campaign against the Democrats. uuvsiucr dc; In short, a prolonged struggle be tween Senator Borah, and on the other hand Gov. Landon and Col. Knox, would be a strongly character istic example of the tug-of-war type, in which the prize goes to an outsider. If the present situation works out that way, who will be the fortunate newcomer who dissolves the deadlock and carries off the prize? If the tug of war develops, if Sen ator Borah kills off Gov. Landon and Col. Knox while those two kill off Senator Borah—in that case whom would the convention turn to? It would have to be some one who, throughout the tug of war, had no part in it, some one who w’as unobtru sively on the sidelines, some one who had not incurred the hostility of either contender. One man wrho, in the present situation, might fit the specifications is Senator Arthur Van denberg of Michigan. Senator Van denberg would not have been involved in the tug of war. Neither side would think of him as an enemy. Senator Borah and his followers would be able to say they had no hard feelings against Mr. Vandenberg. Gov. Lan don and Col. Knox would be able to say the same. Senator Borah would be able to say. further, that Senator Vandenberg is a satisfactory liberal, and that he, Mr. Borah, would take pleasure in supporting Senator Van denberg heartily in the ensuing cam paign against Mr. Roosevelt. Simi larly. the conservatives would be able to say that Senator Vandenberg is conservative enough and that they would support him heartily. Merely Speculation. lX7V.r>f __ _ ._ .. . . -- *-'***'-» licit uut uc taken for more than it is. It is merely a not very serious speculation based on the pattern that seems just now emerging. No one is aavised to bet on it. The pattern may change com pletely. It is nearly four months un til the convention. The early pri maries may bring developments which would make this speculation worth less. What I am saying here is little more than rumination on tne cards as they seem to lie at a time four months in advance of the convention. It is subject to much change. For one thing, not all the cards are dealt yet, not all the factors are in sight. For a large part of a lifetime I have watched presidential situations devel op in both parties. I h&ve observed the part played by psychology, mass and individual. It is fascinating to watch. But it is a field in which mistakes are frequently made, both by observers and candidates. In the present situation a score of new fac tors may . enter. Senator Borah may make little impression in the early primaries, in which case he would cease to be a material factor. Some thing like that happened to Senator Hiram Johnson in 1924. In that year Senator Johnson started out for the Republican presidential nomination as formidably as Senator Borah is now starting. But in the first three pri maries he failed rather disastrously and ceased to oe a factor, conceiv ably that mignt happen to senator Borah this year. On the other hand, Senator Borah might turn out to be very strong in the early primaries. Even if the pattern here suggested, the tug-of-war pattern, should work out to, the end the convention might not turn to senator Vandenberg as the solution. It might turn to some one not now much to the front. Or it might decide to nominate Gov. Landon or Col. Knox regardless. _(Copyright. 10.30.) Old Colors and Codes at Heidelberg Are Supplanted by Hitler Policies HEIDELBERG, Germany. — “We wish no other banners and colors than those of Adolf Hitler," said Baldur von Schirach, leader of the Hitler youth. In a speech here at the height of the controversy between the party and the •tudent corps. Von Schirach might have added that the Nazis also want no other ideas, in the class room or outside it, than those of Adolf Hitler, and no other organiza tion or activities or customs or tra ditions or loyalties except Hitler’s. Because that is the kind of student life in the universities—as well as of all life outside them—which the Nazis are busy at work organizing to take the place of the historical student corpo ration life which went before. Old Colors Disappear. The Nazis have begun already. Most of the old corporations with their col ors and codes have disappeared, and new party student associations are be- ' tag set up and the party “philosophy of life" preached instead. There are two great organizations through which the Nazis are "co-ordi nating” student life in German univer sities, the Studentenschaft and the Studentenbund, or Student League. ^U1 German "Aryan” students talj 3erman universities belong automat ically to the Studentenschaft. Its president is Andreas Feickert, who is responsible to Bernhard Rust, minister Df education. The Studentenschaft was founded in 1919 on democratic jrinciples but was taken over by the Nazis in 1933 and reorganized along party lines. Schaft Is Non-political. The Studentenschaft is responsible for the primarily non-political affairs >f the students—although in a totali tarian state almost everything is made to be political. It helps organize sports, lets for the students in matters af fecting studies, co-operates with for eign student organizations in arrang ing joint Summer camps and similar projects, and has a voice in the grant ng of scholarships. The Student League is a national system of clubs for such Nazi students is wish special organizations compar able in a way to the fast-disappearing :orporations. Baldur von Schlrach was national leader of the league for i time. The present leader is Albert Derichsweiler, who is responsible to Rudolf Hess, deputy leader of the party. (Copyright. 1938.) j Who’ll Pay for New Deal? Fifteen Billions Added to the Public Debt and Federal Taxes Soar—Children Must Pay. BY NICHOLAS ROOSEVELT. HE Federal Government, under the New Deal, has spent an average of $1.88 for every dol lar it has collected in revenue. When the additional sums needed to finance the bonus and the necessary borrowing to cover the deficit of the fiscal year beginning July 1 are pro vided, the national debt will have been increased by nearly $15,000,000,000 since June 30, 1933. Such a sum is fantastic and incom prehensible. It is equal to the average . nual income of 10,000,000 American families. It is 15 times more than the entire Federal Government spent in 1914. But this is not all. The Government has pledged its security behind nearly $5,000,000,000 of so-called "contingent liabilities”—debts and loans which, if not repaid by the debtors, will have to be repaid by Uncle Sam. Under ex isting statutes the Government can underwrite several billions more. Every dollar of this which the Govern ment has to take over will have to be paid by American taxpayers. What does all this mean to the aver age citizen? Pay pay Is Coining. That the Federal Government, by living on borrowed money, has been able to postpone the day of reckoning. But pay day cannot be evaded. Some one will have to pay for the New Deal. So long as the Government can bor row. our children will do the paying. This makes it easy for the New Deal ers—and hard on our children. But common sense shows that it is impossible to go on indefinitely living on borrowed money. The mortgage which dad put on the old farm a few years before he died has to be paid oft by his sons. It is just the same with Government borrowing. The money which the pres net administration receives from the sale of United States Government bonds and Treasury certificates will have to be repaid during another ad ministration. Wilson borrowed to wage war. Harding, Coolidge and Hoover paid off nearly half what Wilson bor rowed. But when the end of borrowing comes—and it is already in sight—we shall either have to cut expenditures or increase taxes—or both. Economy Hard to Practice. Unfortunately, it is desperately hard to cut expenses. The average politi cian prefers spending to saving—espe cially if a fair share of the spending is done in his own district and his own friends profit from it. Economy necessitates reducing the number of people supported in whole or in part by the Government. This means not only cutting down Federal allowances for relief and Federal grants to farmers, but reducing the number of political henchmen on the Government pay roll. Taking away easy jobs from friends and relatives of politicians brings troubles for the politicians in question. Cutting relief payments and farmers’ benefits risks losing votes. As a rule, therefore, the politicians “gang up” on those who would reduce expenditures or avoid new extravagances — just as they “ganged up” on the President in the matter of the soldiers’ bonus. Their motto is “spend till it hurts.” If the Government insists on spend ing at the present rate after it stops borrowing it will have to raise $1.88 in taxes for every dollar which it now raises. In other words. Federal taxes will have to be nearly doubled. Only thus will the Federal Government be able to operate on a pay-as-you-go basis. U. a. ranuiy would ray raurc. If this happens the average Ameri can family will have to put aside a larger amount of its earnings for the Federal Government. Already taxes under the New Deal have been drastically increased. In 1934 the Government collected a little more than $3,100,000,000, of which only about a sixth represented indi vidual income taxes and estate taxes— that is, the taxes paid by the very rich. The balance came* from all kinds of taxes paid by rich and poor alike. For the fiscal year beginning in July, 1936, the Government counts on receiving $5,650,000,000. The bulk of it will have to come out of the pqpkets of the consumers—of the aver age men and women. This is a fact which many persons fail to understand. A look at the President’s estimates, however, makes this clear. Less than two billions of the $5,650,000,000 which the Govern ment expects to collect in revenues comes from income taxes. Of this item the major portion will be de rived from corporation income taxes— which means taxes that are passed on to the consumer by being in cluded in the price which is charged for the goods sold. Hidden Taxes Paid by All. A half-billion dollars is expected from the tax on alcoholic beverages and another half-billion from the tobacco tax. These taxes also are paid by the consumers—usually with out the consumers’ knowledge. Out of the cost of every package of cigar ettes, for example, six cents goes in taxes. There are also taxes on soap, perfumes, toilet articles and count less other items—taxes paid to the Federal Government and included in the price, with the result that the average- man or woman is unaware that he or she is paying it. At present, the average family pays at least a fifth of its income in taxes, State, local and Federal. The Federal share comes to perhaps 7 cents on every dollar of income. This will be raised to 11 cents—and the remaining 14 cents will continue to go to State and local governments. In other words, about 25 cents out of every dollar will go to support a vast army of spendthrift bureaucv.ts, local, State and Federal. Put this in nth*r tprms—two hours out of every eight which the average person devotes to work goes to sup port government. Out of every month we work a week for the politicians and their expenses. The other three weeks we work to support ourselves. All of this, of course, is not the fault of the New Deal. Local govern ments are the heaviest tax collectors in the country. But the more the New Deal spends, the more we or our children will have to pay. If they increase taxes, we pay. If they bor row, our children will have to pay Unemployed StiU With Us. Look at what has been spent. Al ready about ten billion dollars has been slated by the New Dealers for relief. This enormous sum, equal to ten times the annual cost of govern ment before the World War, has helped to stave off hunger and suf fering from millions of unfortunate people. But despite this expenditure, we still have IS,000,000 peoge on . ■mi—ini mm mini, inir ■ in mi Inimiw relief, and the number of unemployed has been only a little reduced. People would not begrudge even this large amount if they felt that it solved the unemployment and relief problems. It has been useful charity, but it has brought no solution. In stead, the spending of these billions has created new problems. It has .II III I -. ■ made a sixth of the population de pendent on Federal aid. The New Dealers have added nearly 200,000 men to the Federal bu reaucracy. This means not only mil lions of dollars in salaries—at an av erage of $1,500 a year it would re quire $300,000,000 a year to pay them —but also a vast outlay for offices, STAMP ISSUE REVIVES FALKLAND ISLAND ROW Great Britain's Claim to Possession Held Unsubstantiated by New Facts Found in Case. u.iotuii minTfiii. , ANEW issue of postage stamps | has brought again to the lime light one of the oldest and most controversial interna tional disputes over territory in the Western Hemisphere. The Argentine government recently issued stamps showing the Falkland Islands, or Islas Malvinas, to be Argentine territory. In the House of Commons at London aroused members of Parliament pre vailed upon the British foreign secre tary to voice the official protest of his majesty’s government. The young and energetic Mr. Eden 1 “welcomed the opportunity of stating i that, in so far as the issue of the i stamps is based on the assertion of an Argentine claim to the Falkland Is lands, his majesty's government can- : not admit any such claim, as the j islands are British territory.” The i British foreign secretary added, ac cording to press reports, that the Brit ish Ambassador in Buenos Aires had been instructed to point out that “no useful purpose can be served by the stamps, which can only be detrimental to the good relations of the two coun tries.” Argentine statesmen and. in general, all students of history who may be familiar with the facts of the famous Falkland Island controversy will And ample reason to disagree with the sol emn pronouncement of Mr. Eden. In the dawn of the year 1833 two British warships, the Clio and the Tyne, proceeding on royal orders, dis embarked troops on the Falkland Islands and took possession of tnem in the name of his Britannic majesty. The islands were then under the sov ereignty of the maepenaept govern ment of Buenos Aires, or of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata, as the Argentine government was called at the time, which had Inherited them from Spain at the conclusion of its successful war of liberation from the Spanish crown. i . a_iirtll. CmaIamJ UlttU OWIKO n^ivva ——o This attack having taken place less than 10 years after the now historic message of President Monroe, the United States might have been ex pected to take sides with the Buenos Aires government. Far from that, however, the United States not only failed to denounce this usurpation of Argentine sovereignty, this new col onization of American territory by a European power, but it indirectly sup ported it and, afterward, it sanc tioned it officially. The excuse given by the United States was that "the resumption of actual occupation of the Falkland Islands by Great Britain in 1833 took place under a claim of title which had been previously as serted and maintained by that gov ernment,” and that the Monroe Doc trine, not having a retroactive nature, did not apply, which was tantamount to admitting and indorsing the British rUtim Of sovereignty. That had, also, been the excuse advanced by Great Britain to justify the aggression. Thus the United States, by refusing to act, really upheld and supported the Brit ish expropriation of Argentine ter ritory. For many long years after the seizure of the Falklands by Great Britain the British claim of legal sovereignty was the subject of heated arguments among authorities on in ternational affairs. English advocates, and particularly the spokesmen for the British government, based it on two grounds—prior discovery and the “declarations of 1771," which, with the consent of Spain, had reinstated at Port Egmont, In the Falklands, British authorities previously expelled by Spanish forces, ^ opain, wmcn was sn possession oi the islands until Argentine independ ence, had questioned the claim of dis covery alleged by England and had denied that the “declarations of 1771” implied a transfer of sovereignty be cause the rights of Spain had been specifically safeguarded in them. Furthermore, Spain contended that the restitution of Port Egmont to the British in that year had been merely an act of satisfaction to heal the wounded honor of the British crown and that it had been agreed to only upon the promise of subsequent and complete evacuation by the British and the acknowledgment of Spanish sov ereignty over the islands. As the latter point could not be proved satisfactorily, for no written evidence of it appeared in the official text of the “declarations of 1771,” the claim of title asserted by Great Britain, especially after Its implicit indorse ment by the United States, seemed to have at least an appearance of fact. The British flag still flies over the Falkland Islands and writers of his tory text books make only passing reference to the case. *,v" vjiuviu m§cmiu*a Recently, however, documents which throw new light on the subject have been given publicity, and this light is so conclusive that no stone is left standing of the British claim of title. It has been reserved to a North Ameri can author, Prof. Julius L. Goebel, jr„ of Columbia University, to unfold this new evidence and say the final word on the case, a final word which would substantiate the Argentine claim in any Impartial tribunal of justice. A study of Prof. Goebel’s work and the documents he quotes cannot fail to suggest the conclusion that the British claim of title to the Falkland Islands was devoid of any legal or material foundation, when the seizure of the islands was carried out, as against the Argentine (previously Spanish) claim, supported by the right of occupation and possession in International law, superior to that of discovery; by the public law of Europe in the eighteenth century; by specific treaties; by the British aban donment of 1774, which was not a voluntary one, but a withdrawal com plying with terms agreed to in the correspondence preceding the “declara tions of 1771” here revealed for the first time; by the continued exercise of sovereignty; and, last but not least, by the formal acquiescence of Great Britain in the Nootka Sound Conven tion. Unfortunately, however. Pi of. Goebel’s scholarly work cannot be distributed with every stamp of the new Falkland Islands issue sold at the post offices of Argentina. But it is hard to believe that a few copies are not available at the London House of Commons and at 10 Downing street. (Copyright. 1936.) Glass and Quartz Used For Prehistoric Tools CAIRO.—That prehistoric men and women used glass knives and tools of quartz, mixed with other minerals, is attested by the recent “find” of a party belonging to the Desert Survey of Egypt. The discovery, by mere chance, was largely the outcome of the expedition’s curiosity concerning a large area covered with large lumps of glass in the Libyan Desert, where there was no evidence whatsoever of volcanic rock to be found. How glass could be accounted for was debatable. However, this glass strewn about the desert was certainly utilized by our prehistoric ancestors. (Copyright. 193«.) , equipment, transportation, lighting and other expenses. This army will remain on the Government pay roll until some hard-boiled man Is elected President and ruthlessly lops oft these parasites. Public Foote the Bill. In the meantime you and I pay for these men. We pay for the automo biles In which they ride around, for the stationery on which they write to each other, for the printed forms that they use, for their telephone calls. Without attempting to assess the value of the work which they per form—and some of them have served their country ably—the sum total of their pay rolls and expense accounts Is part of the cost of the New Deal. As such we pay for it. It has been estimated that 53 sepa rate taxes go Into the making and selling of a loaf of bread. While all such calculatioas are likely to contain a substantial margin of error, the un derlying fact cannot be evaded—that already we have a vast mountain of taxes in this country, most of which, as explained, are scarcely perceived. Each telephone call, for example, In cludes enough revenue for the com pany to cover the company's taxes. Each time we switch on an electric light, a part of the charge goes to Government as a franchise or other tax. The burden of present taxation is the principal reason why people are revolting against any further increases in tax rates. And yet it Is impossible to continue the New Deal without raising taxes. Ca IT C U...4 _ To put It another way, we cannot have lower taxes and the New Deal at one and the same time. We must choose between the two. Bare statistics are usually hard to understand. This makes it difficult to answer clearly the question: “What is the cost of the New Deal to date?’’ But the record shows that where the Hoover administration spent, in its four years, $21,337,000,000, the Roose velt administration has spent or bud geted *30.696.000,000. When to this is added the bonus and the extra sums needed for relief and other purposes, we may estimate the Roosevelt ex penditures at *32.900.000,000 (covering the period July 1, 1933. to June 30. 1937). The Coolidge administration (July 1, 1925. to June 30, 1929) spent *16,889.000,000. The Hoover administration increased the national debt $6,353,000,000. The Roosevelt administration is responsi ble for an increase of fifteen billions. The Coolidge administration (four year term) reduced the national debt by $3,585,000,000. This seems to be one of those cases when money talks. i Elusive Okapi Recent Animal Life Discovery - One of the rarest animals in the world is the okapi, of which a speci men is on exhibition in the Field Museum of Natural History. Chicago. The okapi is the only extant relative of the giraffe. It is said that hunters find it the most difficult of all African animals to obtain. The specimen in the museum was speared by pygmy natives in the Ituri forest of the Belgian Congo and was obtained from them by the Marshall Field African expedition. . The okapi is a forest animal of shy, secretive and nocturnal habits and is found only in a limited area of the Congo, inhabited mainly by pygmy black men who are extremely hostile to white people. Members of the expedition had to spend several weeks building up good will on the part of these pygmies before they could be approached with a proposition to obtain their aid in getting an okapi specimen, and their assistance is al most indispensable in hunting this j elusive creature. The okapi is a striped animal and its existence was not suspected until as recently as 1900, when some strips of its skin were obtained from natives by Sir Harry Johnston, a British co lonial administrator. At first these were thought to be pieces of the skin of a new type of zebra, but subse quently an entire specimen (skin, skull and skeleton) was obtained and the animal was then found to be kin to the giraffe. It resembles more closely certain prehistoric ancestors of the giraffe, with whose fossil skele tons it has been compared, than it does the modern giraffe. The okapi’s neck and legs are much shorter than those of a giraffe, but its teeth and horns are very similar. So far as records show, only one or two white men have ever seen this mysterious animal alive in its native habitat. Moulage Casts Become Effective Detectors Today masks are being used to iden tify and convict criminals. When a burglar ransacked a Mis souri home he was careful about fin gerprints but didn’t bother about footprints. His oversight landed him in prison. Investigators found no worthwhile clues in the house, but outside in the soft mud was a print of the heel and sole of one of the in truder’s shoes. ’ A few years ago such a bit of evi dence would have been worthless be cause it could not have been pre served. Today, thanks to a method of reproduction known as the moulage process, a cast was made of the foot print and filed away. Long after the original footprint was obliterated several suspects were picked up, butr all denied the burglary. Then their shoes were examined. One man wore shoes one of which exactly matched every detail of the cast. Con fronted with this evidence, he con fessed and pleaded guilty. Here’s another case. A series of robberies occurred in an Illinois town. In each case a small "jimmy” was used to pry open windows. Casts were made of several of the marks left by the tool. In the possession of a sus pect a Jimmy was found which bore marks identical tc those of the casts. The evidence was so conclusive that the man confessed at once. In a Midwestern city several cars were stolen, the serial numbers were filed off and other numerals were substituted. The police recovered some of the cars, but were not certain whether one gang or several were in volved. By making casts of the num ber blocks the officers determined the same set of dies had been used on all the can. ^ HUGE TUSSLE BREWING OYER GERMAN COLONIES French Impression Held That Areas Under French Mandate May Be Used in Negotiations for Peace Pact. PARIS.—It is felt here that a gigantic diplomatic tussle is coming with Germany on the question of colonies. The opening guns of the campaign already have been heard in Berlin, and there has even been a riposte from the British side, when the British colonial ltiinister, J. H. Thomas, gave as surances in the House of Commons that the government was not con sidering any cession of colonies or mandates to “foreign powers." So far the French government has not taken any positive stand. The impression, however, here is that France would be willing to use some of the ex-German colonies now under French mandate as a money of ex change in negotiations for a new peace pact with Germany. Public Badly Informed. Public opinion in all European countries, even Germany, is badly in formed about the colonial problem. In these circumstanfces arguments are accepted that have no basis in fact or experience. The Germans point to their growing population and the need for “outlets,” implying that, if they had their colonies back they could dump a good deal of their surplus population there. In reality, however, the number of Germans who could or would emigrate to the colonies is ab surdly small, not more than a few thousands. Another fallacious argument that receives wide popular acceptance is the alleged need for raw materials. Unthinking people suppose that a country which has no colonies from which to draw such things as rubber or tin or coconut oil or stray braid is somehow disadvantaged as com pared with nations that can get such piuuucus i rum cneir colonies. A little reflection shows, however, that whether a manufacturer buys his raw materials from one of his own na tion’s colonies or from some other makes no practical difference, and in practice it often happens that French manufacturers can get and do get better terms by buying from British colonies than from French. It is well recognized among leading economists that colonies are, if any thing, a liability. They require a great deal of financing, and they occasion enormous expenses in naval and mil itary armaments. Explorers Benefit. The real beneficiaries from colonial possessions are the companies which exploit concessions. If one could lift the veil of secrecy that covers the present diplomatic talks, one would see that, behind the questions of popula tion, raw materials and national pres tige that are used as a cover, the real battle is between rival concessionaires. Exploiters of colonial concessions cus tomarily receive large grants from their governments, as well as having armies and civil administrations, paid for by their nation’s taxpayers, vir tually under their orders. A French political and economic writer, Jean Galtier Boissiere, brought out in a recent book that the French ■ treasury not only had never been ben j efited in any way from the French col j onies, but that the latter had cost i French taxpayers many billions of francs and were continuing to do so. The only beneficiaries, M. Galtier Bois siere says, are the concessionaires and financiers. It would be possible to al low German companies to share in the spoils in some of the colonies without any transfer of sovereignty. 1 (Copyright. 1936.1 Austria and Hungary Resent Inability To Decide Own Form of Government BY ANTHONY LANE. IENNA.—Profound disappoint ment is felt here at the fail ure of the recent Paris con versations to advance the Hapsburg restoration. It was hoped that Prince Starhemberg's visit to London and Paris, and his surprise meeting in the latter city with Arch duke Otto, would result in some en couragement for the Hapsburg cause. Instead of that, it now appears that the only consequence of the proceed ings has been to stiffen the resistance of the Little Entente, which now seems more firmly resolved than ever to go to war if necessary to prevent the Hapsburgs from regaining their throne. The feeling here is very close to despair. A great majority of Aus trians are convinced that Austria will have to choose, probably very soon, between Hitler and the Hapsburgs. Every obstacle that is put in the way of Archduke Otto, they hold, is a stepping stone for Hitler. In Hungary there is much the same sentiment. Hungary has not even, as Austria has. established a republic. The monarchy still exists, though the throne, for the time being, is occupied by a regent. The fears of the Little Entente are well understood here. The successor states—Czechoslovakia, Rumania, Yu goslavia and Italy—have every rea son to fear that, if Otto of Hapsburg regained his throne in the dual mon archy, he would not be satisfied until he had regained also the rich terri tones that formerly belonged to the Austro-Hungarian empire. Suggestions have been heard that Otto should solemnly renounce all claim to the territories in question. Such a renunciation, particularly if indorsed by the principal powers, might go a long way toward alleviating the fears of the successor states. There have even been intimations that Italy might go so far as to cede Fiume back to Austria, thus giving her an outlet to the Mediterranean. But Fiume is coveted by Yugoslavia, and it is certain that Yugoslavia would not consider allowing it to become an Austrian port. Moreover, the port that Austria really wants is Trieste, and there is no more chance of Italy abandoning Trieste to Austria than of the United States giv ing Galveston to Mexico. The net result is that Austrians, as well as Hungarians, labor under a sense of being unjustly oppressed. They feel that they are not allowed to exercise the most elementary sovereign right—namely, the right to determine their own form of government. Greece has re-established its monarchy with full approval of the powers. Bulgaria, though defeated in the war, has been allowed to keep its King. Turkey could go back to the Caliphate if it wanted to. But Austria and Hungary are doomed to maintain the form of government that pleases their neigh bors, even if it means a risk of a Nazi upheaval such as occurred in Ger many, as a consequence of the effort by other powers to maintain Germany in a state of political serfdom. (Copyright. 1936.) Belgian King Playing Diplomatic Role With Britain to Bolster Italian Throne Special Dispatch to The Star. BRUSSELS —Young King Leopold III of Belgium appears destined to play an important part in the secret diplomacy of Europe. Within recent weeks he has made two trips to Eng land. ostensibly for private reasons, but mild official disclaimers of any diplomatic mission have not dispelled the well founded belief that his real purpose was to intercede with King George in connection with Anglo Italian relations. King Leopold's sister. Princess Marie Jose, is the wife of the Italian Crown Prince Humbert, and as such some day will sit on the throne of Italy. Dowager Queen Elisabeth of Belgium has been visiting her daughter in Rome recently, on account of the princess’ illness, and through her the Belgian court has been kept well in formed of the news and gossip of court circles in Rome. It is an open secret that, during the 13 years of Fascist rule in Italy. King Victor Emmanuel has not been too happy. He could not, without expos ing the dynasty to the gravest risks, take an open or even a covert stand against Mussolini, but the dictator’s ruthlessness toward the statesmen of the old regime who had been close friends and counselors of the King was known to have caused him much pain. King Forced to Yield. This fact was so apparent that, when the war with Ethiopia began, Musso lini determined that the King must finally be compelled to lend the weight of his influence to the support of rhe Fascist regime. -Consequently, Musso lini and the King have made a senes of simultaneous appearances, carefully stage-managed to create in the public mind the conviction that the mon archy and Fascism are indivisible. But England’s determination to de feat Italy’s objects in Ethiopia has aroused the Italian crown to the peril it faces. If Italy suffers a serious set back in the present war it is not un likely that the Mussolini regime will be swept away, and there is serious fear that the crown might be forced to follow. What King Leopold seems bent on is primarily saving the crown. The sim plest way to do this would be to bring about a satisfactory settlement of the Ethiopian question, allowing Italy and the Mussolini regime to get out of the adventure honorably. If that cannot be done, it is reported that Leopold wishes to get England’s support for a plan whereby King Victor Emmanuel would abdicate in favor of his son, in case of a revolution in Italy. The act of abdication would be equivalent to assuming personally the blame for sup porting the Mussolini policies, leaving Prince Humbert uncompromised. England Backs Monarchy. The British King apparently was Impressed by Leopold’s plea, and, if rumor is correct, it was this that led Sir Samuel Hoare to agree to the Laval compromise, which was agreed on shortly after ^eopold’s first visit to London. The repudiation of Sir Samuel Hoare. however, created a new’ situation, necessitating another visit of the Belgian ruler to London. England, having just helped bolster the monarchical principle in Europe by restoring King George to the Greek throne, is by no means anxious to see Italy go republican. Should that hap pen, England would be alone among the great European powers clinging to royalty. Maintenance of the mon archy in Italy is consequently one of the cardinal points of British policy. It may be expected that England's future acts toward Italy will be in fluenced to an increasing extent by these considerations, which apparently had not struck the London foreign of fice with any force until King Leopold brought them to British attention. Danube Bridge Opened By Yugoslavian Prince VIENNA.—An event of outstanding Importance in the history of Balkan communication recently took place when the great Belgrade-Pancevo Bridge across the River Danube was opened to traffic by H. R. H. Prince Paul, the Yugoslav regent. This mighty bridge for the first time links Eastern Yugoslavia north of the Danube and Rumania directly with the Western Balkans. The rail distance from Belgrade to Bucharest will be shortened by 10 hours, to gether with bringing the Black Sea coast of Rumania into direct rail communication with the Yugoslav Ad riatic coast ports for the first time. Its influence on the development of the tourist trade is destined to be tre mendous, and will re-orient the gen eral travel from the north and east to the west. No less significant is the fact that it will bring the Balkan countries nearer to Russia and offer a trans-Balkan land and rail route from. Odessa to the Adriatic. New Series of Stamps To Portray Darwin NEW YORK.—The great English naturalist, Charles Darwin, is to be portrayed on one of the new series of postage stamps, of which a London firm has manufactured 5,000,000 to the order of the Ecuadorean govern ment, according to the educational department of the American Express Co. The new stamp is one of six de nominations of a set wijich com memorates the centenary of the visit of Darwin to the Galapagos Islands in September, 1835, and described in the "Voyage of the Beagle.” Ecuador has chosen to make these stamps serve as propaganda to let the world know that the Enchanted Isles, as they were formerly called, are Ecuadorean prop erty. At the seme time the Presi dent seeks to honor this year’s Darwin memorial expedition.