Evening star. [volume], April 22, 1937, Page A-11, Image 11

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

Image provided by: Library of Congress, Washington, DC

                
EconomyView
May Become
Awkward
Items in Budget Held
Not Unlike Others
Left in Cold.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.
PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT’S
budget message falls on fertile
ground today so far as a small
number of members of Con
gress are concerned. Indeed, many
of them realise the importance of
cutting expenses and may try to
pare down me
President's fig
ures.
But the truth
la Roosevelt is
the only man
who can really
bring expenses
down. Pressure
groups of one
kind or another .
are always on
hand to get this
or that appro
priation through
and in the last •
three years each
of these nressure
David Lawrence.
groups has had access to the White
House.
The President is emphasizing the
Importance of getting the budget into
balance, but he will find Congress
rather disinclined, on the whole, to
reduce the expenses of the Federal
Government. The economy advocates
will be prominent in the discussion,
but the overwhelming majority have
been taught the doctrines of spending
so intensively by the Roosevelt ad
ministration itself that it will be diffi
cult to reverse the thinking of men
who have been boasting about how
much money they got out of Uncle
Sam for their respective districts.
During the last campaign, the
WTiter encountered a member of Con
gress from a Western State who made
his whole campaign canvass on the
plea that he had obtained more dollars
per capita for the people of his dis
trict- than any other Congressman
in the country.
Spending Idea Dominant.
The idea of calling on the Federal
Treasury to finance every kind of
boondoggle, from the building of me
nageries to the construction of city
sewers, which ought of course to be
financed out of city taxes without
subsidy from the National Govern
ment. is a basic New Deal policy. The
arguments made by the President
against spending which now appear in
his budget message are remarkably
similar to the arguments which have
been made for three years by the
administration's opponents. Hence
suddenly to expect Congress now to
take seriously any warnings about
Federal deficits, after a political party
was elected last Autumn by the big
gest majority in history notwith
standing three years of successive defi
cits. is something too novel to be in
troduced at this time. The experience
is too recent to be forgotten by the
politically-minded members of the
National Legislature.
Mr. Roosevelt’s words about the
necessity of side-tracking expenditures
lor certain social reforms do not, to
be sure, sit well with the more radical
members of his party. A paragraph
like this from the President's budget
message, they opine, might have been
written by a Liberty Leaguer of by
gone days:
“While I recognize many oppor
tunities to improve social and eco
nomic conditions through Federal ac
tion, I am convinced that the success
of our whole program and the perma
nent security of our people demand
that we adjust all expenditures within
the limits of my budget estimate."
Sentences like the foregoing would
have more weight with Congress if
the President did not have a half
dozen agencies planning more and
more Federal aid in the coming years.
Items Dangerous to Cut.
Mr. Roosevelt refers to expenses
Within his budget estimate. Naturally
there are some items which he would
like to cut out but which, if elimi
hated, mean antagonism for him
Among members of Congress whose
rotes he needs for certain measures
like the bill to reorganize the Su
Iweme Court.
The President will be In an awk
ward position If he attempts to defend
kome of the items already within his
budget which do not differ In prin
ciple from the items which other
groups now are trying to insert in the
Federal appropriation bills. It is sig
nificant to note that Mr. Roosevelt
chooses now to speak of “special
pressure groups.” He says:
“It Is a matter of concern to you
and to me who are working for a
balanced budget that so many special
groups exert the strongest pressure to
bring about Increases In Government
expenditures. ”
Who are the special groups, and '
what pressure do they exert? There
usually is plenty of time and money
to investigate business interests who
ask that they be freed from ham
ktringing legislation, but there never
apparently is any money to investi
gate the “special pressure groups”
who want to raid the Treasury. The
reason is that most of these special
pressure groups aided the Roosevelt
administration and members of Con
gress to get a big majority last Au
tumn, and It Just isn’t political style
or custom to Investigate the short
comings of ones own party or its
Allies.
ICopyright, 1937.)
One factory at Moscow, Russia, an
nounces It will make 30,000,000 paper
cups this year.
YOU WILL
PREFER THIS HOTEL
IN NEW YORK!
•
IT’S MODERN
AND MODERATE..
in the Grand Central District
adjacent to Radio City, the
leading theatres and better
shops. All 800 rooms feature
outside exposure, bath,
shower, and radio. Single S3,
double $4, twin-bedded, (4.50.
HOTEL
MONTCLAIR
Lexington Ave. at 49th St., N.Y.C.
News Behind the News
Budget Estimates Held Less Promising Than Message
With Middle Road Taken.
BY PAUL MALLOV.
R. R. wrote his budget argument to Congress In type of normal size,
but he attached a proving table of flgurea printed in sensationally
fine type.
The figures were certainly too small for elderly legislators to
read with their aging eyes, but some of the younger Congressmen could
make them out with the use of glasses. Their conclusion was that perhaps
the figures should have been in even smaller type.
The specific estimates disclosed far less promise of expenditure
curtailment than did the written message.
Tot one thing, these figures showed President Roosevelt's new budget
on the whole Is about 168,000,000 more than the one he submitted In Jan
uary. Also, the appropriations he Is seeklhg are only about 6 per cent lest
wum vne expenditures now con
templated this year.
The basic story of the budget
was not even evident to good
legislative eyesight from a face
analysis of the fine print figures.
They needed a pencil and pad to
figure it out, and some of them
are still at it.
The uncertainty in the face
value of the figures is amply illus
trated bv one extreme instance:
LOOKS
Offhand they appeared to show a curtailment of some $275,000,000
In the supplemental items of the revised budget, meaning the odds and
ends of Government expenses. The $450,000,000 total of the January budget
was shown to be cut to $175,000,000 in the revised one.
But a footnote on another Item (not on this one) indicates the new
figure does not include C. C. C.. as the old one did. This time C. C. C. is
listed separately. So, if you add in C. C. C„ the $275,000,000 saving in the
odds and ends estimates really is a $75,000,000 loss.
Instead of disclosing a disposition to curtail sharply, the odds and
ends item really indicated a disposition to let things slide.
The whole set of figure* is more or less like that.
Thus, the layman and the expert are likely to get two opposite
conclusions about Mr. Roosevelt's proposition. The layman will note
that the President "regards it as extremely important that we should
achieve" a balanced budget next year, and it appealing to Congress
to help him. Analysts generally will agree that a balance is wholly
improbable from the figures.
*
What Mr. Roosevelt seems to be doing now. in its simplest terms,
devoid of elusive figures, is this:
He intends to hold down expenditures, not to cut appropriations.
He intends to block extrabudgetary appropriations by Congress this ses
sion to whatever extent he later may choose. He i* saying to Congress:
"You go ahead and pass the appropriation bills for next year, limited to
the amounts I told you last January, and I will try to balance the budget
by spending less than you appropriate, and by picking up some money on
refunds received by the Government on R. F. C. loans, etc.”
The whole implication clearly is one of "spending no more than
necessary" rather than "active curtailment." The budget is still
on the basis of "need," rather than income.
Mr. Roosevelt is taking a less serious view' of his budgetary situation
than Federal Reserve Board Chairman Eccles has taken, for Instance.
All hopes of a real reduction in relief appropriations is over for another
year at least. To all who are
clamoring for a balance, Mr. Roose
velt is merely saying:
“Just leave it to me."
Strictly under your hat, two
of Mr. Roosevelt's legislative con
sultants protested the tone of the
message to him before it was de
livered. They said the relief figure
was too high, that he need not
spend $1,500,000,000 together with
the money he will have left over
xsvin tans jcm. aucy cuuiiacicu mm u) cut me ngure to a nat billion Just
for the sake of appearances. It would have a beneficial effect, to show he
meant business.
This and several other less important recommendations of the
consultants were turned down cold. As a result, there is likely to
be an unexpected and unusual inside movement in Congress to
readjust the figures submitted by the President in several ways.
The officially whispered explanation of the President's stand is that
he was caught between two fires. The Governors and Mayors out in the
country have been doing everything in their power to keep the Federal
Treasury grab bag open for themselves. The State and city officials wanted
$2,000,000,000 for .relief. A small group in the House is propagandizing
for $2,400,000,000, or some such sum.
The President apparently decided to take the middle course again.
It would appear he landed about halfway between the pork barrel criers
and the budget balancers, thereby satisfying no one and clearing nothing.
(CoorTlsht, 1937.)
“Vanishing” American Indians
Rapidly Increasing Population
By the Associated Press. .
America’s Indians, once considered a
vanishing race, now are increasing i
more rapidly than any other group in :
the country. |
This fact was reported by the Indian
Office today along with the announce- 1
ment that the country’s Indian popu- !
lation is 334.300, compared with
Smithsonian Institution estimates
that there were 800.000 of the redmen
here when Columbus arrived.
The Indian Office said births now
exceeded deaths by 3,500 a year,
whereas a few years ago the population
was steadily decreasing.
At the same time John Collier, com
missioner of Indian affairs, noted a re
birth among Indians of an independent
spirit, which, he said, helps keep
Uncle Sam's per capita expense for
them down to around $60 to $90 a year.
As evidence of a growing Inde
pendence of spirit Collier cited that
some tribes will not accept Govern
ment assistance except as a last resort.
The Florida Seminoles particularly
are independent, he said. They re
fuse to send their children to school
or to go to a hospital except in cases
of great emergency.
Collier mentioned also the Red Lake
Day School near Leupp, Ariz., where
several Indian families interested in
home gardens built and paid for an
Irrigation dam.
The commissioner's annual report
said, however, that “the Indians' eco
nomic level, by and large, is still the
lowest in the United States."
DR, SZE TO BE FETED
Cornell Alumni Club to Honor
Retiring Ambassador.
Dr. Sao-Ke Alfred Sze, retiring
Chinese Ambassador, will be the
guest of honor at a dinner to be
given by the Cornell Alumni Club of
Washington Saturday night at the
Carlton Hotel.
John L. McElfresh, president of the
club, will introduce the toastmaster.
Prof. Charles L. Durham of Cornell.
Dr. Jacob Goul Schurman, former
president of Cornell, and Bancroft
Gherardl, vice president and chief
engineer of the American Telephone
& Telegraph Co., a trustee of the
university, will speak.
'J'HE 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 be contradictory among
themselves and directly opposed to The Star’s.
Showdown on Spending
Another Failure in President’s Resolve to Economize
Would Be Hard to Explain Away*
BY MARK SULLIVAN.
DURING the interval since
President Roosevelt sent his
budget message to Congress,
the question has been, will
expenditures actually be held In
check? Dependent on that, the ques
tion Is, will the country experience
seuuus umauon:
For the moment
the answer seems
yes, expenditures
will be restrained;
and no, the coun
try will not ex
perience serious
inflation. But all
that this answer
purports to be is
a summary ol
present atmos
phere. The long
term answer is
not possible to
know.
For the moment,
Mark Sullivan.
tne picture seems to be a competition
In virtue between the President and
Congress; that is, a competition in
reduction of spending. The President
sends to Congress a budget of pro
posed expenditures and says to Con
gress In effect: "I hope you won’t add
anything to It.” And Congress re
plies in effect: “All right, if that's the
way you feel, we’ll go even farther;
we’ll take out some of the expendi
tures you put In yourself.”
Such a competition in economy is
most unusual. As respects Congress,
It could readily turn into a competi
tion in the other direction, in spend
ing. If Congress felt the president
would put personal drive behind his
recommendation, then Congress would
reduce. Congress in that case would
have the President as an alibi. In
dividual members of Congress would
be able to say, to the constituencies
that ask for relief money and other
appropriations. “I'd like to. but the
President is determined to reduce, and
I won’t stand in the way.”
Relief Key to Economy.
As between Congress and the Presi
dent, the key to the situation is re
lief expenditures. The President says
he wants a billion and a half. Con
gressional leaders who met with him
in a conference preceding his budget
message told him—60 gossip says—
that they thought much less would do.
Gossip says that all the leaders told
him $1,000,000,000 would be enough,
except one who said $1,200,000,000.
Nevertheless Mr. Roosevelt, in his
budget message, kept his figure at
$1,500,000,000.
To this, the reaction of the congres
sional leaders could take one of two
directions. They could say, “Very
well, if he holds to his $1,500,000,000
for relief, there is no reason we should
say no to the constituencies that
demand appropriations from us.” That
would be a competition in spending.
Or Congress could say, “If we must
say no to our constituencies, then
we'll reduce the President’s $1,500,
000,000 to what W'e think is enough.”
The latter seems to be the direction the
congressional leaders are taking. Im
portant ones among them say they
will move to reduce the $1,500,000,000
to $1,000,000,000. Thus Congress is
asking for what Senator Arthur Van
denberg of Michigan calls “reciprocal
self-denial.” If that mood in Congress
lasts, then the whole trend will be
toward reduction of some expenditures
and restraint of new ones.
The question comes down to the
degree of the President's earnestness.
Is reduction a “must” matter? Is
the President as much in earnest about
restraining expenditures as he is, for
example, about getting his change in
the Supreme Court? To push his
court proposal, he sent Democratic
National Chairman Parley into North
Carolina and other States, to make
speeches saying that the court pro
^ w
We Can Repair 4
That Watch 1
Our wtlthmiVfri art ruga
of aklll and Ion* training.
Thry know howl Work
SuaraaUH.
Uit Your Credit
CASTELBERG’S
1004 F St. N. W.
M A.
V. • < -'-rv <■ ■
r ■
C. Schmidt $k Smi, Inc.
Phil*., Pa.
EXCLUSIVE DISTRIBUTOR FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Try-Me Bottling Company
1345 Florida Avenue, N.E.
WASHINGTON, D. C. Htoiwi Line. 0112-0113-0114
posal is official party policy, thereby
implying that Democrats in Congress
who fail to support it will be marked
for political death ■when they come up
in the primaries for renomination. If
the administration were willing to do
this in behalf of restraining expendi
tures, and do half the other things
that are being done for the court pro
posal, then the expenditures would be
restrained.
Resolution Is Questioned.
Opponents of the President and
critics of him are digging up records
to show that, with respect to economy
in government, the President lacks
continuity of intention. Yet the
President's past lapses in this respect
could be explained. True, the Presi
dent, in his 1932 campaign, promised
great economies. True, the President,
as almost his earliest act, in March,
1933, moved in the direction of econ
omy with greater force than any other
President had ever done; he actually
performed what was deemed incred
ible; he brought about an extreme
reduction in payments to veterans.
True, these early economy moves were
later undone and the campaign prom
ise of economy was thrown out the
window.
But this reversal in 1933 could be
explained as a change of fundamental
policy, adopted because of emergency
For the economy policy of the cam
paign and of the first month of hi*
administration, there was substituted
the spending policy which some
economists recommended as the better
cure for depression. Whether spend
ing actually is a better cure; whether
the change from an economy policy
to a spending one was justified by
new conditions that arose in the
interval between the two policies—all
that is a question over which his
torians and economists will long dis
pute.
Another reproach now thrust at
the President has to do with his
repeated holding out of expectation
that the budget would be balanced
It is recalled that in 1933 he said
there was “reasonable prospect" of a
balanced budget “within a year”;
that in 1934 he said “we should plan
to have a definitely balanced budget
for the third year of recovery"; that
again in January this year, in his
message to Congress, he still seemed
to expect early balance of the budget
Answer to Be Had Soon.
All that, however, can be seen af
mere excess of optimism. That the
President is an optimistic person is
not denied by either friends or foes
Whether optimism is at all times a
virtue is a question. Immunity from
worry is commonly supposed to be
a desirable human attribute. But
immunity from worry may be merely
one way of describing inability ta
see possible unpleasant outcomes oi
present actions.
However, the President's past record
on economy may be explained or
excused, the fact remains that this
record Impairs his moral authority
for insisting on economy now, the
fifth year of his administration. Any
how, the coming weeks will constitute
almost a last call for Mr. Roosevelt
and for the country.
One more failure in continuity of
intention about economy, added to
the previous ones, would make a
record not easy to defend.
And if Mr. Roosevelt cannot or
does not balance the budget at this
stage of recovery, if he does not
balance it when times are as good
as they now are. there will be a
general feeling that he will not bal
ance it at all. And if that feeling
We, the People
New Deal Pushes Packed Court Program in Spite of
5 to 4 Favorable Decisions.
BY JAY FRANKLIN.
THE New Deal attitude toward the Supreme Court’s cherry blossom
festival over the Wagner labor relations act is that there is no
change since the 5-to-4 decision on the Washington State minimum
wage law. They still regard it as a "one-man court,” composed of
Associate Justice Owen J. Roberts, whose peripatetic vote can make or
break any Federal law that comes before the judiciary.
Those officials and politicians who are working to repack the Supreme
Court point out that the five labor relations cases produced only one
unanimous decision—the interstate bus ease, which was so clearly a matter
oi interstate commerce as to be
undeniable.
In the four other cases—the
Associated Press Watson case, the
Jones Sc Laughlin Steel Co. case,
the Fruehauf Trailer Co. case and
the Frledmann-Harry Marks Cloth
ing Co. case—the decisions were
*11 5 to 4, with always the same
Judicial battalion of death voting
against the majority. Associate
Justices Sut.herl anH Van — *_
McHeynolds and Butler—by the aolldlty of their line-up—show on how
thin a thread hangs the fate of New Deal legislation.
It it not too much to toy, the New Dealert feel, that it was not
to much the election-returns as the strike-news which induced Mr
t0 Cast hU deciding vote with the three liberals and
with Chief Justice Hughes, any they are interested to note that
while Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion in the A P case
Mr. Hughes wrote the opinion in the other three split decisions.
This is In line with the practice of a Chief Justice who has hern
careful to write opinions only when he Is on the liberal side, but has“uS
one of the conservatives to write the opinion whenever he found himself
m agreement with them. In New Deal cases from May 1. 1935 through
December, 1936, the Chief Justice has refrained from writing a liberal
opinion monly four minor matters coming before the court, when he was
voting with the liberals. He has written only one conservative opinion
aH H ,L‘.Cv°nCU g and confuMn« one—in the many cases where he has
sided with the conservatlvee. e
The record speaks for itself:
1. West vs. C. & P. Tel. Co. (Rate value oase). Roberts for
conservative majority of six (including Hughes).
2. MeC and less vs. Furland. Cardoso for liberal majority of live (In
cluding Hughes).
3. U. S. vs. Constantine. Roberts for conservative majority of six
(Including Hughes). ^ y oi six
4. Colgate vs. Harvey. Sutherland for conservative majority of six
(Including Hughes).
U' f3 , VV B,utler (the A A- A CM*>- Roberts for conservative
majority of six (including Hughes).
6. Great Northern vs. Weeks (North Dakotei Tax Case). Butler for
conservative majority of six (including Hughes).
, B°rden* Co vs. Ten Eyck (Second New York Milk Case). Roberts
for liberal majority of five (including Hughes).
8. Mayflower Farms vs. Ten Eyck (Third New York Milk Case)
Roberts for conservative majority of six (including Hughes).
9. Brown vs. Mississippi (third degree confession, Negro case) Hughes
for “liberal'' unanimous decision.
10. Ashwander vs. T. V. A. Hughes for liberal majority of eight.
11. Whitfield vs. Ohio (convict goods case). Sutherland for liberal
majority of six (Including Hughes>.
12. Sugar Institute vs. U. S. Hughes for “liberal" seven.
13. Jones vs. S. E. C. Sutherland for conservative majority of six
(including Hughes).
14. St. Joseph Stock Tarda Co rs. U. 8. Hughes for “liberal"
majority of six.
15 Carter vs. Carter Coal Co. (Guffey ooal act). Sutherland for
conservative majority of five, Hughes in separate conservative opinion.
16. U. S. vs. Elgin & Joliet Railway Co. McReynolds for con
servative majority of six (including Hughes).
17. Ashton vs. Cameron County (munirloAl lanirunhi art.)
Cardozo for liberal minority of four
(including Hughes).
18. Morehead vs. Tlpaldo.
Hughes for liberal minority of four.
19. Landis vs. North Ameri
can. Cardozo for "liberal" seven
on procedure.
20. Duke Power Co. vs.
Greenwood County. Hughes with
conservative per curiam decision—
(a raw deal for the New Deal's
power program).
)tciito*S
So when Mr. Hughes comet to write his autobiography he will
find plenty of interestingly liberal opinions for inclusion. His votes
on the conservative tide will not be supported by documentary
material. So can one choose how one shall be presented to posterity.
The Supreme Court decisions on the Wagner labor relations act,
however, do represent the first stage In the New Deal plans for *%
conversion of the Judiciary. Shortly after the election. I wrote that
President Roosevelt really was gunning for 5-to-4 decisions In favor of
his legislative program. Now that he has them, slnos the appetite grows
with eating, It would be idle to expect him or his supporters to refrain
from pushing through the Judiciary reform bill to the bitter end. Never
theless, unless the word "No compromise” is again sent out from the
White House, no one can blame some of his supporters In Congress
from wondering whether he may not leave them out on the end of a limb.
(CopTTlsht. 1937.)
becomes widespread, then inflation
will not be a matter of prediction, it
1 will be an actuality. Whenever there
is a widespread feeling that the budget
is not going to be balanced, and that
therefore prices of all kinds are going
to go higher and higher—that psy
chology constitutes a definite stage of
Inflation.
fCopyrlsht, 1P37.)
An American
You Should
Know
--
Dorothy Detzer Leads
Women’s League Fight
for Peace.
BY DELIA PYNCHOV.
PEACE and freedom ring interna
tional door bells hopefully.
Their reception become* in
creasingly cordial In war
weary world homes.
Many organizations sponsor peaca.
The Women’s International League
for Peace and Fredom iW. I. L. foe
Dorothy Delier.
Miorw goes a step
further. They link
freedom to peace.
This is not the
freedom of li
cense. It la, they
say, a "liberty of
the human spirit”
in opposition to
"intolerance and
oppression.”
Dorcthy Detzer
ts Its executive
s e c r e tary. She
fights with the
weapons of or
ganization, edu
cation and legis
lauon ior "justice witnout violence."
She lobbies in Congress with a vigor
ous political technique, she argue*
with a factual knowledge of Interna
tional treaties and policies. She wins
converts to the cause with logic and
persuasion.
Her recent single-handed attack on
the profits of munitions makers re
sulted In a munitions Inquiry, spon
sored by Senator (Jerald P. Nye In
1934, to Investigate the manufacture
of armaments.
Native of Indiana.
A vital personality Is Dorothy Det
*er. By definite stair-steps she has
gone up In peace convictions and serv
ice.
From Fort Wayne. Ind, where she
was born, she started viewing the
world at 17, when she went to the Far
East.
“I revolted against college,” she said,
“and Instead went to Hull House in
1915 and had social service training
under Jane Addams.”
During those World War days Doro
thy Detzer’s peace ideas were de
veloped. She saw what war was doing
to individuals and nations.
"Something happened to me," sha
said.
There is no abortive indecision about
Miss Detzer. She went overseas In
1920. She worked with the American
Friends Service Committee In Vienna,
which, she said, was a “dying city
without food.” In Russia In 1922 sha
saw what revolution did to civilians.
When she returned to America sha
camped on peace organizations door
steps, determined to scrub floors, if
necessary, for the cause of peace. In
1925 she became executive secretary
of the W. I. L.
Sections In *1 Nations.
Twenty-one national sections func
tion In 21 countries. Headquarters are
In Geneva. It Is a growing movement,
which, like a giant arterial system,
pumps the life blood of peace and free
dom Into every city and town. It 1*
significant that a war-resisting cam
paign In England has signed up mora
people than the army or navy in re
cent months.
Dorothy Detaer feels the “manifes
tations of facism does not come out of
a clear sky.” “These countries mus*
have access to raw materials," she
says.
To accomplish this she hopes we
may have an “international organiza
tion of society which will permit the
formation of an international export
and import board to control allocation
and distribution of raw materials and
goods.”
"nf NICE TO HAVE A COMPLEXION CAPE
THAT KEEPS SKIN SMOOTH/—"
^ >
Guard against Cosmetic Skin
the Screen Stars’ way ...
' yes! i never risk p
Cosmetic Skin! i use E
ROUGE AND POWDER BUT ft
I REMOVE THEM THOROUGHIY I
with Lux Toner Soap ■ J
#
iCT USE Lux Toilet Soap,” lovely
X Doris Nolan tell* you. “It carries
away every trace of stale rouge and
powder, dust and dirt.”
And Gertrude Niesen says:"Cosmetic
Skin—tiny blemishes, enlarged pores— ^
spoils good looks. Lux Toilet Soap’s '%
ACTIVE lather removes cosmetics thor
oughly—keeps my skin smooth 1”
Try this soap 9 out of 10 screen stars
use. Use it before you renew make-up
—ALWAYS before you go to bed!
{
See
. DORIS NOLAN
and
GERTRUDE NIESEN
In UNIVERSAL’S naw mualeal hM
*ioRcf turtcmr
Now Showing Locally
4