Evening star. [volume], March 25, 1937, Page A-11, Image 11

About Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972

Image provided by: Library of Congress, Washington, DC

                
New Property
Definition
May Come
* —————
Sit-Down Strikes Could
Be Step to U.S. Regu
lation of Uses.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.
MONTHS before President
Roosevelt embarks on a new
policy tlie trend of the New
Deal can usually be foreseen
or inferred from the writings and
apeeches of the nine or more “young
men” who furnish him with most of
the ideas he embodies in his public
addresses.
James M. Landis is one of these
“young men.” His position as chair
man oi me oe
curities and Ex- |
change Commis- |
•Ion indicates the |
reliance placed by |
Mr. Roosevelt in |
his capacity, and |
th selection of '
Landis by the S
board of trustees |
of Harvard Law ;
School to be the
dean of that in
stitution begin
nin[ next:;
Autumn is an in- |
dication of how
Landis ranks in
David Lawrence.
ms proiession as a leacner oi law.
For these reasons it is pertinent
today—in order to understand the
future—to examine the text of a care
fully prepared address just delivered
by Landis before the Eastern Confer
ence of Law Students in which he
made not exactly a defease of sit
down strikes as practiced today, but
of the right of workers to stop pro
duction as a means of securin satis
faction of their grievances. The
paragraph which reveals what Landis
is thinkinB about—and to a certain
extent what Secretary Perkins meant
when she said the legality of sit-down
strikes is still undecided—reads as
follows:
"We have witnessed for some years j
the effort of employes to bring about 1
recognition of their claim to be free
to persuade others to refrain from
taking their places, who by such action
would diminish the effectiveness of
their own economic pressure. In
recent months we have seen the ad
vancement of a new claim to take
measures that will effectively prevent
all production until grievances are,
satisfied—action that in its economic
effects is the counterpart of the lock
out. but because of the absence of any
relationship such as the lockout pos
sesses to property, finds itself with
doubtful traditional legal justification.
New concepts May Arise.
"The eventual outcome of such a |
claim will depend in part upon the !
emphasis that law will give to the
concept of property and its inviola
bility in its industrial and corporate
setting to economic pressure of this
type—and in part, perhaps, on the
capacity of our law to devise new con
cepts and mechanisms to meet the
? ?eds out of which this type of eco- !
nomic pressure has been born.”
It will be noted that' Landis uses
the word "doubtful” to qualify "tra
ditional," namely, that sit-down strikes ^
merely have behind them no tradition
of legal justification, which can be j
taken to mean, of course, that be- j
cause they do not posses* such legal
justification on precedent they may j
now be declared legal as a necessary ;
part of a system of social and eco- j
nomic justice.
In Europe, of course, Russia, Italy j
and Germany have distinctly modi- ;
fled the traditional concepts of prop
erty. Private property as an institu
tion has been under attack in America,
where many so-called liberals think
that the state should own various
businesses in entirety, or compete with
existing private businesses till the
property of the private owners is
rendered worthless, a form, Indeed, of
gradual confiscation.
Landis reveals how the process of
creating "new rights" comes out of j
the evolution of law itself. He says:
"The history of our law is replete j
With illustrations of the creation of !
new rights. In the employer and
employe relationship, the right of
employes to quit work together for
the simple end of improving the con
ditions of labor found recognition
only in the early nineteenth century.
Indeed, the right to strike, and
through such economic pressure to
force collective bargaining, found no
recognition in this country until the :
turn of this century.
"But this insistence upon collective
bargaining refuses to stand still. It
Is pushing itself now from a claim to
use economic pressure toward the ac
complishment of this end to an in
sistence that the law itself shall im
pose a duty upon the employer to
endeavor conscientiously to arrange a
collective labor contract with his em
ployes when a majority of them so
desire."
The foregoing in substance is what
the Wagner labor relations act has
provided and it remains now for the
Supreme Court to say whether com
pulsory agreement, in so far as it
affects action of the employer. Is an
Impairment of his freedom of con
tract. This particular point has not
arisen in any lawsuit as yet, but if
the Wagner act is sustained in part,
as seems reasonable to expect, the
next step will be the determination
of a controversy hinging on the sup
posed obligation of the employer to
come to an understanding with a ma
jority of his employes on terms of a
contract, even when he feels such
terms would be economically danger
ous for him to grant if he intends
to keep out of bankruptcy or receiv
trship.
It is very important, of course, who
•hall define the supreme la ./ of the
land. Landis wants President Roose
velt to be given the power to add six
new justices at once to the Supreme
Court, and he Insists that this is
necessary because of the previous
decisions of members of the court.
It is but another way of saying that,
given a friendly Supreme Court, the
sit-down strike, as an economic wea
pon, will some day win approval if
embodied in a statute.
What is generally overlooked by
the Landis school of thought is that
the right to strike and the right to
picket plants where production has
stopped has not gone unlimited here
tofore. and that the simple use of
physical violence or physical intimi
dation to attain an economic end has
never before been sanctioned by law
or by the courts, and yet it exists as
a weapon largely because of an alli
ance between labor and the politicians.
To say that the right to strike has
been universally recognized, or that
picketing has been sanctioned, is to
say that all the incidental violences
connected with strikes have also been
sanctioned.
What Landis and his colleagues In
the New Deal are working toward is
, I
News Behind the News
Much of Income Expected From Soak-the-Rich Tax
Leaks Through Loopholes.
BY PAUL MALLON.
MATTER of greatest Importance to an Individual or a government
is income. Life depends very much on the size of the old weekly
pay check. That decides nearly everything.
Imagine, therefore, the current embarrassment of Morgenthau,
keeper of the Federal purse. His income for this first quarter year is
seriously below what he expected. How much is a matter of debate.
Estimates ranging from $100,000,000 to $200,000,000 are bejng published.
When the books are added about three weeks hence, the amount is very
likely to hit $130,000,000 at least. This is the best inside guess to be
made by the best experts now.
Spoofers are inclined to chide Morgenthau about this, especially
because ne nag been so proud of
the exactness of his estimates in
the past. If that were all it in
volved, the problem would not be
very serious. He has more ways of
raising money than Ponzi. How
ever. the trouble seems to be
deeper.
For some reason or other, the
taxes levied are just not raising the
money expected. *
Officials will tell you it u too .
early to draw deductions. The fine l figures are not available. It will be
months before the collectors will be able to tell who did not pay as-much
taxes as expected, and why. ... _ .
But it is not too early for officials to be developing the broad
suspicion that, for one thing, their soak-the-rich tax bill is not soak
ing the rich. Evidence strongly hints that the corporation surplus tax
bill, passed last year, is a Swiss product which may have nearly as
many holes as cheese. Certainly something seems to be very 'sadly
wrong with the way the rich are exuding, and it probably is the
administrative enforcement provisions.
In the first place, Morgenthau’s estimators seem to have made
excellent guesses. The business improvement in 1936 was just about what
they calculated. Economically, they seem to have had Justification to
expect the amount of revenue they set forth in their budget. The trouble,
therefore, can be traced, not to business, or economics, but to revenue
causes.
Beyond that lies a field of speculation, but- some very interesting
tangible evidence is available in the published revenue receipts by States.
These show .that income tax receipt* between March 1 and 20 were Just
about double those of last year in all the States, except the wealthiest.
* * * *
Alabama taxpayers paid $2,000,000 this year and $1,000,000 last
year; Arizona, $870,000 instead of $456,000; Arkansas, $1,200,000 instead
of $600,000; but Massachusetts paid only $21,000,000 as against $14,000,000
in 1936; Michigan, $38,000,000 instead of $25,000,000, and so on. New
York, the wealthiest State, paid exactly 52 per cent more than last year,
while Wyoming increased over 100 per cent.
This evidence is not conclusive, of course, but there can be no ques
tion that the States in which the largest income surtax bracket citizens
reside showed less than the average revenue increase.
To put it anothr way: The largest increases in revenue now are com
ing from States where there are not many taxpayers wealthy enough to
hire lawyers to tell them how to avoid the new tax reform law.
For some time it has been evident that methods of getting
around the law were being daily discovered. Some attorneys are
understood to have worked out methods of stock distribution of divi
dends whereby neither the payer nor the payee is considered liable
for the tax. Treasury authorities seem not to be excited by these
and other known and unknown practices. They say they will make
somebody pay eventually, presumably, the Democrats as well as the
Republicans.
Small corporations, in which holdings are centered in one family, are
said to have dissolved and created partnerships, thus avoiding the flat cor
porauuiis tax. xn suui taaca vino
the device Is unquestionably legal
and certainly no Democrat and
perhaps few Republicans will be
made to pay.
* * * *
The development has again
raised the question whether there
will be a tax bill this session. If
the final official figures disclose
that the loopholes must be faced
and closed (if they can be), a cor
rective measure will have to be passed before Congress quits. It cannot
be delayed until Congress returns next January.
Many authorities do not see how the Treasury can get away from it,
despite the antipathy of Congress to consider a tax bill of any character.
The Congressmen probably can be made to see that it is better to consider
a tax bill this year than next, when they will be up for re-election.
Also there is the question of further deficit financing and increase of
the debt. Some experts believe that the revenue goose, sitting on the social
security and unemployment trust funds, will lay a few extra golden eggs
and obviate the difficulty. However, any plans for retirement of the
$1,500,000,000 of open market debt will have to be dropped. The prospect
of balancing the budget next year *ls not as good as when it was first
advanced and it was not very good then.
Likewise the Congressmen who are dreaming extensive housing,
C. C. C. and other plans will now be able to occupy themselves with a
phase of their plans which they overlooked so far, namely, where the
money for them is coming from. J
a new definition of property. They
want property affected with a public
interest. When that is obtained they
will want Government to determine
the uses of property. Norman Thom
as and the Socialist party will go
along with them a considerable dis
tance on this and so will the Com
munists, too.
(Copyright, 193?. >
BY MARK SULLIVAN.
IN WHAT now occurs about the
Chrysler strike in Detroit, the
thing more important to watch
than any other is what happens
to the courts. Conceding the very
great interest attaching to other
aspects, it is the effect on the courts
that will have deepest bearing on the
kind of country America is to be.
That all courts—the Judicial system
as an Institution—is under attack,
everybody know*.
In the preserva- g
tlon of this |
system the people 1
have at stake the |
heritage of seven f
centuries. Yeti
few realise ljow 1
tragic would be |
their loss if they |
lost this.
Preservation of |
the authority of |
law administered s
by courts is, to the |
public, the funda- |
mental issue in 1
the Chrysler
Mark Salllran.
strute. net mere is danger it may ue
lost sight of in the more dramatic
interest attaching to other aspects.
Let us look at the relation of the
courts to the Chrysler strike: Some
5,000 men "sat down” in the Chrysler
factories, barred out the company
officials who represent the owners, and
provided themselves with the means to
use force in resisting eviction. The
owner of the factories, the Chrysler
Corp., went to the court and asked
for an order directing the sit-downers
to cease their illegal occupancy by a
given hour. The hour passed. The
sit-downers did not quit. They are
there yet. They declared in a public
statement that they would not obey
the order of the court.
At present the head of the Chrysler
Corp., Chrysler, and the head of the
sit-downers’ union, Lewis, are in con
ference. In this conference Lewis has
his purposes. Chrysler has his. There
is no one present, unless it be Gov.
Murphy, to stand for the interest of
the court that has been flouted, and
the people whose paramount Interest is
the preservation of respect for the
authority of courts.
The purpose of Chrysler is to end
the strike on his terms. The purpose
of Lewis is to end it on his terms. In
that common purpose both are likely
to treat the court, as democratic insti
tutions everywhere in the world are
being treated, with an ...difference
that amounts to contemptuous flout
ing.
The relation of the courts to "sit
down" strikes can be more clearly seen
by turning away from the Chrysler
strike to a different strike in which
the events are now over. In the sit
down at Flint in January and Febru
ary, the owner of the property. General
Motors, got from the court an order
directing the sit-down strikers to leave
the plant. When the court’s officer,
the sheriff, read this to the sit-downers
they ‘ booed.”
Thereupon General Motors called
the attention of the court to the fact
that its order was being ignored. The
court then issued a “writ of body
attachment” directing the sheriff to
arrest and remove the sit-downers.
The sheriff asked the Governor of the
State, Mr. Murphy, for the assistance
he had to have to carry out the
court's order.
To this request Gov. Murphy made
no reply. Instead he conducted con
ferences between the heads of General
WHERE DOES \
$Uf
GET HER ENERGY?
Star of -WEE WILLIE WINKIE” A 20th Ctntury-Fox Picturo
I THAT'S the first question you’d ask
■ too, if you could see Shirley acting,
■ dancing, playing. She just bubbles
I with energy from morning ’till night.
LUCKILY, Shirley likes the things
that are best for her. Sunshine,
fresh air, and hearty breakfasts
of Quaker Puffed Wheat keep
her fit as a fiddle.
Look for this display ;
at your grocors
r3 WRAPPINGS GUARD
THE CRISPNESS OF
GENUINE QUAKER PUFFED
WHEAT. LOOK FOR THE RED
"YnwnrriiiiiitMMi
TIE
ruiiiE
WITH* k ,
PACKACE I
4
WITH* k\
PACIAtE 1
CTHE opinions of the writers on this page are their own, not
necessarily The Star’s. Such opinions are presented in
The Star’s effort to give all sides of questions of interest to its
readers, although such opinions may he contradictory among
themselves and directly opposed to The Star’s.
Courts "Hold the Bag”
Judicial System Has No Adequate Spokesmen as
Capital and Labor Dicker.
■
Motor* and the heads of the sit
downers* union. This conference ended
in agreement.
In the agreement General Motors
blandly recited that it would aslc the
court to drop the proceedings which
General Motors had initiated. General
Motors added that it would make this
request dependent upon "the will of
the court.” In effect, General Motors,
having come to an agreement with the
sit-downers’ union, promised it would
ask the court to do whatever is the
le«?al verbiage for "Just forget it.”
In accordance with this promise.
General Motors’ lawyers asked the
court to dismiss its action against the
sit-downers. But General Motors’
lawyers appear to have got from the
Judge a reception which they '■ould
hardly have anticipated. Judge Gadola
told them that they couldn’t get a
writ from him, use that writ to bring
about agreement with the sit-downers,
and then ask him to "Just fo>®et it.”
Judge Gadola told General Motors’
lawyers that they were themselves
perilously close to contempt, that they
"might find themselves ’ able for con
tempt citations.” He said that such
flouting of the court and the law as
had been practiced by the leaders of
the sit-downers could not be allowed
to pass without penalty—the spectacle
was subversive of the authority of
law.
“Already, Judge Gadola said, "we
are beginning to see the results of
their contemptuous action. People
who are being served with papers in
less important lawsuits are laughing
at the court officers and pointing out
that the court was impotent to enforce
its will upon the strikers and totfiunish
them for non-obedience."
Judge Gadola said that "the court
system cannot be treated as these men
have treated it in the last few weeks.”
He said that he had no desire to "send
any one to jail,” but he declared that
the strike leaders must appear before
him, “acknowledge the jurisdiction of
the court and apologize for their con
temptuous actions.”
This declaration Judge Gadola made
on February 17. What has happened
since, if anything, has not appeared
in the newspapers, so far as I have
seen. (It is from newspaper accounts
that I take’the facts and quotations
cited here.) It looks as though this
obscure judge of a local court in a
small Michigan city is making himself
worthy to stand with the great Judges
in American and British tradition who
have made the centuries-long struggle
for the supremacy of law. Judge
Gadola is defending the judicial
system against both the sit-downers
! and the corporation.
(Copyright. 1937.1
-
We, the People
America’s Individualistic Civilization Is a Great
Child Killer, Too.
BY JAY FRANKLIN.
THE tragedy at New London, Tex., where more than 400 school children
lost their lives In a fearful and unexplained explosion which shat
tered the town’s fine new school building, brought out the best in
civilized human nature. The thrill of horror and sorrow ran like
an electric shock through the entire Nation. National, State and local
agencies rushed such aid and comfort as was passible and the disaster took
precedence over the Spanish War, the Supreme Court fight and the sit
down strikes, in a general wave of warm-hearted sympathy.
If there is any human way of preventing such a massacre of the
innocents, we shall doubtless discover it. But will we apply it? The ugly
^ 111 #
laci remains inai 11 was me twin
ness and size of the disaster, rather
than the fact that children were
needlessly slain, which evoked in
stantaneous reaction. Year after
year we kill far more children than
perished at New London, and by
clearly preventable causes of death,
and laugh it off as part of the price
of our individualistic civilization.
For example, a leading insurance
- company nas garnered ngures on
traffic deaths among children during 1936. In that year 970 children
of kindergarten age and 2,550 of school age (5 to 14) were run down
and killed by automobiles. An additional 5,410 children in the same
kindergarten and school-age groups were killed In automobile collisions, etc.
Yet we know that effective legislation to enforce speed and
traffic regulations and to restrict the issuance of drivers’ licenses to
persons who can pass rigid physical and psychological tests would
be fought to the death by the automotive industry as well as by
the large number o1 automobile owners who would feel that their
personal and property rights were invaded by such restrictions. It is
not too much to say that we value the automobile at more than the
lives of the 9,000 little children it kills a year.
Then there are the deaths of children from preventable diseases,
including the diseases of malnutrition (starvation or underfeeding).
Such deaths reflect the defects of our economic and social system,
for there are few parents who would grudge giving adequate medical care
and decent food to their children, if they possessed the financial means
of paying for them.
It is, therefore, not too much to say that we consider the present
unequal distribution of income and opportunity as being worth more than
14,000 children's lives a year.
* * * *
There is no space here to go into the matter of deaths involving
children in industrial employment. That is another battle.
Those whose aspirations ore lumped under the general name of
the New Deal feel that the price is too high and that we cannot
call ourselves a civilized nation so long as we are willing to march
ahead over the bodies of our carelessly slaughtered children. And
that is ichy, among other things, we are ready to take on the Con
stitution and the Supreme Court, if necessary, to give reality to "life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in this undisciplined country
f of ours.
An Iowa correspondent echoes the suggestion that non-lawyers be
appointee to tne supreme uourt:
"The Constitution is written
in a simple manner and can be
understood by any intelligent per
son isays he). It should be inter
preted in such a way as to promote
the general welfare of the people.
The lawyers know nothing about
the needs of the people or about
production and distribution of ne
cessities and comforts. To promote
G*5'* 1
// -
me wenare oi me people ana in ■ ' «
facilitate abundant production and distribution I would appoint the fol
lowing men to the court: Walter Polakov. engineer; Harold Loeb, econ
omist; Stuart Chase, economist; Oscar Ameringer, editor; Mack Rust,
inventor; Jerome Davis, educator.”
Adding to the Irish confetti directed at this column a Minneapolis
reader writes: "It is too bad that Mr. Smith of Burlington called Mr. Jay
Franklin a skunk. The skunks have good reason to complain.”
Since neither Insult nor compliment can be regarded as arguments,
without knowledge of the people who utter them, there is no point in quot
ing the letters which urge: "Keep it up, Jay, old boy. You've got ’em on
the run.”
An American
You Should
Know
Farrington Carpenter
Shepherd of 142 Mil
lion Acres.
BY DELIA PYNCHON.
WITHOUT exaggeration rar
rington Carpenter is prob
ably the greatest shepherd
since the days of Father
Abraham.
As director of grazing, United States
Department of Interior, Farrington
mmmm m mmu
Farriniton Carpenter.
carpenter is na
tional shepherd
of 6,500,000 sheep,
1,500,000 cattle
and thousands of
horses and goats.
Person ally he
owns the seventh
largest pure-bred
Hereford herd of
cattle in the
U n i t ed States.
Born in Evanston,
111., Farr lngton
Carpenter, as a
lad in high school,
visited New Mex
ico. The reafter
me country naa mm nog-uea. Be
fore graduating from Princeton and
Harvard Law. he had filed a homestead
claim in Hayden. Colo. With charac
teristic directness. Mr. Carpenter ex
plained his adventure in homesteading.
"I built my own log cabin and started
off with 25 Hereford cows in 1907. My
Present herd of 600 is descended from
that original stock.” Mr. Carpenter
is married and has three children. Fif
tyish, ruddy, spare, he bears witness to
life in the open. As district attorney
he bears witness to many cattla rus
tling cases.
Came Here in 1934.
In 1934 Mr. Carpenter came to
Washington to head the grazing divi
sion. To “make the land bloom again”
is the keynote of the entire grazing
program. Mr. Carpenter knows his
facts. He knows stockmen, he knows
cattle. He loves the "good earth” and
wants to preserve it. There are 142.
000,000 acres to patrol, control and
preserve for present use and future
generations.
This vast domain is divided into 49
districts functioning in 10 States. Each
district is about the size of the State
of Connecticut.
Unit Is Profit-Making.
Each year Mr. Carpenter turns in a
report to the Goverment that is a se
cret envy, as well as a "pea in the
shoe” to every other department. The
budget is balanced in favor of th*
United States Treasury! It takes
$400,000 to run the grazing division.
The Income is a cool million. Income
comes from fees charged stockmen for
grazing privileges. These run from 1
cent a head for sheep to 5 cents a head
for cattle. Like the "five and dimes"
the pennies come rolling in.
A New Kind oi ECONOMY
FOR TRUCK OWNERS
! —^
112" Ford V-8 truck for 1937 with stoke body powered by the new 60 H. P. engine for light delivery service
iATEVER your haul
.ng problem, there is a
1937 Ford V-8 truck to fit your
needs.
For heavy-duty service or
highway express work, the fa
mous 80 horsepower truck en
gine has been “stepped up” to 85
horsepower.... New, alloy-steel
pistons have been introduced,
the cooling system has been im
proved, and many other refine
ments have been made in this
big husky engine.
For light delivery work the
new 60 horsepower Ford V-8
engine sets a new “high” in gas
oline and oil economy in the
truck and commercial car field.
It is just as outstanding in econ
omy as the 85 h.p. engine is in per
formance. And like the “85,” it is
built to highest standards of
precision and quality materials.
Try one of these rugged haul
ing units with your own loads
over your regular routes, and see'
how much better it handles your
individual job. Ask your Ford
Dealer to lend you an “On
the-Job”. Demonstrator .today.
There’s no obligation.
ONLY FORD V-8 GIVES YOU
ALL 7 OF THESE IMPORTANT
TRUCK FEATURE$ #
e Two V-8 engines—85 H.P. for maximum per
formance with good economy ... 60 H.P. for
maximum economy with good performance.
• Improved, self-centering, easy-action Safety
Brakes—greater stopping ability.
• Improved Centri-Force clutch for longer life.
• Improved rear axle with optional gear ratios for
increased power application.
• Improved cooling system, new location of water
pumps, shrouded fan, twin V belts on the “85.”
• New styling inside and out. New driver con
veniences and comforts. V-type ventilating wind
shields. Regrouped instruments, electric gasoline
gauge for greater accuracy.
e All models with or without De Luxe equipment.
FORD V-8 TRUCKS
AND COMMERCIAL CARS
-—-FORD DEALERS OF WASHINGTON
LOGAN MOTOR CO.
1111 ISth St. N.W.
*•17 Vlrrinl* At*. N.W,
ANACOST1A MOTOR CO.
1335 OiH Hot RA.
CARTER MOTOR CO.
113 N. St. A(*»k
Akx*n«rU. V*.
ARLINGTON MOTOR CO.. INC.
R***lra. V*.
K
CHERNER MOTOR CO.
1781 Elerida Are N.W.
Cann. An. and Nebraaka
ISIS llth St. N.W.
TRIANGLE MOTOR CO.
New Tark Are. and
Narth Capital
NORTHEAST MOTOR CO.
Bladenabare Rd. N.E.
PARR WAT MOTOR CO.. INC.
SMS M St. N.W.
4080 WUeeaila Are.
*, .
TAKOMA MOTOR CO.. INC.
21 Carrol Are.
Takoma Park. Ml.
44k and Blair Rd. N.W.
WALSH MOTOR CO.
SOO« Ga. Are.
Silrer Sprint. Md.
BILLHEIMER A PALMER
7 Spencer 81.
5014 Rhode Island Art.
HraUarUla. Md.
WARFIELD MOTOR CO.
Sherman An. N.W.
U3T Cenneetient Are. N.W.
FRANK M. MeLACGHLIN
3103 Rhode.Ialand Are. N.E.
NORTHWEST MOTOR CO.
0*30 Wiaeanain Are.
Chery Chaae. Md.
3310 Wiaeanain Are.
CAPITOL MOTORS. INC.
SIS Pennarlraala Are. S.E.
Ml Water St I.W.
t
HANDLEY MOTOR CO.
3*30 Georria Are. N.W.
HILL A TIBBITTS
1114 Vermont Axe. N.W.
1133 L 8t. N.W.
1830 11th St. NW.
STEL'ART MOTOR CO.
Sixth and New York Axe. Njf,
14th St. and R. 1. Axe. N.l
3rd and ■ 8ta. N.R.
>