Evening star. [volume], November 06, 1939, Page A-11, Image 11

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

Image provided by: Library of Congress, Washington, DC

                
Labor Board
Wife Union
Order Hit
Refund of Dues
Seen Not Intention
Of Congress .
By DAVID LAWRENCE.
The principle of democracy, so
deeply cherished in the political
world, was supposed to have been
applied to the economic world in
the enactment
of the Wagner
labor relation.'
law. But a de
cision just ren
dered by the Na
tional Labor Re
lations Board
has raised the
question of
whether workers
really have free
dom of action in
making their
collective bar
gaining con
tracts. or wheth
er the will of a
David Lawrence.
Government board in Washington
may be imposed upon them to tell
them what they can do.
Twenty years ago. the employes of
the Western Union Telegraph Co.
formed a union. The labor board
says it is a "company union” in the
sense that the employer is alleged
to dominate it or help finance it.
The law prohibits that type of com
pany union, but does not forbid
a union of employes wholly inde
pendent of the employer as well as
of national unions. The only re
quirement is that the employer shall
not interfere with the freedom of
choice by the employes.
Then there arises a minority
group of employes who want to
form another union, usually to be
affiliated or integrated with the A.
F. of L. or the C. I. O. The first
line of attack is to break down the
independent union. The Wagner
labor law furnishes a ready weapon.
If proof can be offered that the in
dependent union at one time—per
haps as far back as 20 years ago,
long before the law was passed—
■was formed with the aid of the em
ployer. it becomes tainted in the
eyes of the labor board and is or
dered to be "disestablished.”
i/urs wiunni unumiru.
For three years now, the labor!
board has been ordering “company
unions" in various businesses to be
disestablished. But now, in a case {
just decided, the board has ordered
the employer to refund all the dues
collected on behalf of the independ
ent union through the company's
deductions from pay roil each week
since 1935. No consideration is given
to the fact that the money may have
been legitimately spent for the car
rying on of the independent union's
affairs. The workers have nothing
to say about the labor board order j
and thus a relationship which grew j
up long before the Wagner act was
passed is now held to be unlawful. '
The penalty or remedy in this
Instance need not have been the one
selected by the labor board. It (
could have selected another means
of accomplishing the same end. I
That it had the right to impose a j
penalty of its own selection is con
ceded because the Congress gave
broad discretionary powers to the
board to fix almost any economic
punishment it pleases, subject to
court review. But Congress also
has the right to amend the labor
law and state specifically just what
the penalties are to be.
In this and other instances, the
question will arise why the labor
board did not merely put the mat
ter up to the workers by a secret
ballot. If the employes felt that
the existing independent union
served their needs, they could say j
eo in a ballot and give legal ratifi- J
cation to the existing union. If the ;
workers wished to let the dues pay- j
ments stand and declare a new j
Elate from a fixed future date, when
an election would be held, they,
likewise could have been permitted
to express that wish in a secret bal
lot or referendum.
corners noi v onsuucu.
The labor board, however, does
not consult the wishes of the work
ers in that manner. It merely or
ders the union disestablished and
dues refunded and requires that the
company accord recognition to a
new union if one is created repre
senting a majority, or to withhold
recognition from any group until a
union is formed. This usually coin
cides with the efforts of union or
ganizers from the outside, who
cajole the workers into setting up a
union to be affiliated with either
the A. F. of L. or C. I. O. The
effect usually is to force the workers
Into an outside national union.
It is true that many company
Unions do interfere with the free
dom of choice by the workers, but
it also is true that the growth of
the legitimate independent union
has been made almost impossible
by the rulings of the labor board,
which, of course, follow the powers
given the board by Congress.
The averaee person will wonder
why the power of Government to
intervene should ever go beyond i
the fixing of a method of permitting
the workers to decide for them
selves in a secret ballot what they
want their arrangement with the
employer to be. Even if the work
ers wish voluntarily to permit the
management to give them certain
aids, such as dues collection or other
legitimate assistance which facili
tates their union activities, this is
in the nature of a contract between
two private parties who may insert
in a contract any lawful terms they
mutually agree upon.
Kecogmzen hy l ongress.
This principle is specifically rec
ognized by Congress under existing
law where voluntary agreements,
covering, for instance, a “closed
shop,” are permitted. Ordinarily it
is a violation of law for an em
ployer to make union or non-union
membership a condition of hire,
but if a union and an employer
agree upon it in a private contract
the employer can refuse to hire
anybody unless the worker joins a
particular union. Congress, there
fore, could amend the lawr to say
broadly that employers and em
ployes may get together on any
form of contract they desire, so long
as no employer coercion or im
proper financial aid is given.
But at present the board, pos
sessed of a broad veto power al
ready given by Congress, can in
tervene and prevent the employes
from bargaining on their own terms
with the employer. If, moreover,
this provision of the existing law
is constitutional, some future labor
board can at any time order an A
P. of L. or a C. I. O. union dis
l
The Capital Parade
Leadership in Embargo Fight Second High Spot
In Career of Hamilton Fish
By JOSEPH ALSOP and ROBERT KINTNER.
During the last week, the career of Hamilton Fish, Representative
from the President’s own Dutchess County, reached its second high-water
mark. The first occurred some years ago, when he raided that old Red
stronghold, Baltimore, for secret Communist documents, and captured a
number of crates of wilted lettuce.
The second great Fish experience was owing to the peculiar system
of legislative seniority, by which
House members need only survive
sufficient numbers of their physically
or politically infirm colleagues to
attain places of great influence and
importance. Ham is pnysicaily as
tough as an all-America Harvard
tackle ought to be. and his district,
although it is also the President’s, Is
sure-fire Republican. Ham has sur
vived long enough to become senior
Republican on the House Foreign
Affairs Committee, and, as such, was official leader of the fight to retain
the arms embargo.
To be sure. Ham was beaten, but he did a noble job. He used his
office and his official stationery to organize a sort of propaganda com
mittee. He was overpoweringly eloquent, denouncing war-mongers in
terms so stinging that they might have been borrowed from his own
orations against the "maggots of pacifism” during the last European con
flict. And. when the neutrality bill reached the floor, he succeeded, for
perhaps the first time in a long, uphill struggle, in being self-effacing. As
a matter of fact, having been rather sternly advised by several older
members, he proved an excellent floor manager for his party.
Birth of a Fish
Ham has been often described, but he really has to be seen and
watched to be grasped in his full impressiveness He is a large man—a
very large man—with large features, beetling black brows and the expres
sion of lowering menace that was fashionable among the football heroes
of the Iron Age. He is the heir to a tradition, for his grandfather of the
same name was one of the forgotten great Americans. As Secretary of
State in Grant's administration, the first Hamilton Fish saved his country
almost single-handed from the worst of the disgraces which threatened
in that sordid time.
Ham's father however, was agin* statesmanship, being the hard
boiled political manager of his New York territory. Ham himself, after
going to St. Mark's and achieving the football Valhalla at Harvard,
apparently decided to blend in his own career the best qualities of the
two previous Fish generations. He has not always succeeded, but in his
time he has done some remarkable things.
After making a fine war record, he entered Congress in. 1920. His
first decade was chiefly occupied by a prolonged and vociferous Red hunt,
in which, conditions not being so favorable as today, he caught very
little more than the above-mentioned vegetables. His real period of
greatness has been during the Roosevelt administration.
Fish in Glory
During these last years, Ham has made a specialty of criticism of
members of the Roosevelt family, no topic, from their income tax
payments to their propensities for travel, being too small for his Draconian
censure. He has sponsored a number of vital measures, such as his
resolution releasing Washington ladies from the duty of calling on one
another, an ancient practice which Ham described as "a social Franken
stein detrimental to the health, nerves and disposition.” He has sug
gested a 100 per cent tax on the fortunes of all American heiresses
marrying foreigners. He has also sought nomination, once for the
presidency and once for the vice presidency, both times as a ‘'liberal.”
And among these lesser exploits, there have been exhibitions of larger
statesmanship. One occurred when
the English King and Queen were
here last spring. Then Ham sprang
to the defense of our bi-partisan
political system, bitterly denouncing
the British Ambassador, Sir Ronald
Lindsay, lor not asking enough Re
publicans to the royal garden party,
and none at all to dinner. Another
Fish exhibition was during his
summer vacation in Europe as chair
man of the American delegation to
the Inter-Parliamentary Union. He obtairied this post by packing an
unattended meeting and defeating the routine candidate. Senate Majority
Leader Alben W Barkley He used it to rampage around the continent,
talking up another four-power conference on Munich lines, traveling in
German Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop's private airplane, and offering
himself as the ideal arbitrator of Europe's problems.
Ham has only one serious drawback. Being accustomed to use
any information as a stick to beat the President with, he has completely
prevented any confidential intercourse between the State Department
and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. He is therefore an impor
tant obstacle to the development of an intelligent American foreign
policy. And picturesque though he may be, his fellow Republicans
wonder, sometimes, whether he is really worth it.
(Released by the North American Newspaper Alliance, Inc.)
I
established where the “checkoff”
now prevails and compel a refund
to members of all dues collected
every year since 1935—long after ,
the money has been disbursed. No
such interference with the opera- :
tions of labor unions, bona fide or
company dominated, was ever con
templated in the original discus
sions of the law when it was passed.
(Reproduction Rights Reserved.)
Atlanta Gets Premiere
Of 'Gone With the Wind'
By the Associated Press.
NEW YORK. Nov. 6—The world
premiere of the screen version of
Margaret Mitchell's “Gone With the
Wind” has been set for December
15 in Atlanta, Ga.
It was in that Southern city, Miss
Mitchell's home, that most of the
action of the novel on the Civil War
and reconstruction took place.
The picture was produced in tech
nicolor by David O. Selznick from
the screen play by Sidney Howard
and it stars, Clark Gable as Rhett
Butler, and Vivien Leigh. British ac
tress, as Scarlett O'Hara.
Running time of the film is three :
hours and 40 minutes, plus a 10-min- i
ute intermission. After its premiere,!
it will play in Atlanta twice daily
with all seats reserved.
Syracuse Clubs
Plan Dinner Thursday
The Syracuse Men's and Women's
Clubs of Washington will hold a
dinner at 7 p.m. Thursday at the
Kennedy-Warren Hotel. Guests of
honor will be Dr. M. Eunice Hilton,
dean of women and professor of edu
cation, and Charles A. Lee, jr„ field
secretary of the alumni association
and director of the alumni fund.
Frederick Vosburgh. now a mem
ber of the National Geographic So
ciety editorial staff, will preside, and
officers will be elected.
Mrs. Roosevelt Uncertain
About Plans After '40
By the Associated Pres*.
ST. LOUIS, Nov. 6.—Mrs. Frank
lin D. Roosevelt last night urged
Americans to show a tense world
that “we can act and govern our
selves.”
“We no longer have the right to
be apathetic and lazy,” she declared.!
“This is a serious world we are!
living in now and the individual
should have not only a knowledge
of his Nation, but of the world.”
In answer to a question, she said
“I have no idea where I'll be atfer
1940.” and added she never has
asked the President about his future
plans.
"If you have been married as long
as I have to a man who has been
in public offlte a long time, you
will learn never to think ahead and
you will make up your mind to ac
cept what comes along.”
ANY WATCH
Cleaned and . All Wort
Overhauled Guaranteed
Watch Crystal*, 35c
CREDIT
eiaiathat-Nw JEWELERS !
— ■ ■ ■ ■ I I ^ ■
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 be contradictory among
themselves and directly opposed to The Star’s.
Washington Observations
Secretary Hull Presses Reciprocal Trade Program
Although Act Faces Battle*in Next Congress
By FREDERIC WILLIAM WILE.
Notwithstanding that the Recipro
cal Trade Agreements Act expires in
June, 1940, and faces a congres
sional battle for renewal in the
i u i vu vu 111 i iif,
regular session,
Cordell Hull is
proceeding full
steam ahead to
develop his pro
gram and bring
still other coun
tries within its
scope. Hearings
on revision of
the Belgian
treaty were held
last month.
Public hearings
on the proposed!
new agreement.
with Chile will Frederic William Wile,
open November 27. The Belgian
agreement covers mainly chemicals,
cement, glass, steel products, sheet
zinc, cotton manufactures, flax
goods, wool and hair wastes. A deal
with Chile would relate to fruits,
melons and beajas as the conspicu
ous items among imports from that
west coast South American country.
The Chileans also seek tariff reduc
tions on sheep, lambskins, nitrates,
guano, iodine, iron ore, sulphur and,
most important of all, copper.
To date. 20 reciprocal trade agree
ments have been negotiated—with
Canada. Cuba, Brazil, Turkey,
Czecho-Slovakia, Belgium, Haiti,
Sweden, Colombia, Honduras, Great
Britain and her colonies, the Neth
erlands, Switzerland, Nicaragua,
Guatemala. France, Finland. Costa
Rica, El S' lvador and Ecuador.
* * * *
Argentine Pact Snags.
For a long time seemingly insur
mountable barriers have thwarted a
reciprocal trade bargain with Argen
tina. The State Department has on
file a mountain of "briefs.” in the
form of protests from the Ameri
can farming community, objecting
to tariff concessions to the land of
the tango. Turkey raisers are the
most numerous and vociferous com
plainants. Flax growers are not far
behind. Our livestock industry and
producers of casein, tallow, oleo oil
and dog food are also fearful of the
consequences of customs cuts for the
benefit of Argentine competitors.
According to the authoritative Farm
Journal, the National Co-operative
Milk Producers’ Association, repre
senting 350.000 dairy farmers, has
filed a monster brief opposing nearly
every single item on the State De
partment's proposed list of tariff
reductions, while the National
Grange signals undying opposition
to any curtailment of rates on com
modities of which the United States
has surpluses. The meat industry,
of course, especially Southwestern
cattle breeders, will fight “from hell
to breakfast,” as one of their spokes
men puts it, in an idiom from the
range, against any sort of tariff
sops to the Argentine meat people,
especially on corned beef. For years,
our cattle raisers have harped on
the iniquity of "polluting” the Amer
ican market with any competing
meat products from a country in
which, it is alleged, the hoof-and
mouth disease has never been eradi
cated.
* * * . *
We Must Give, as Well as Take.
Unless our incessant emphasis on
the beauties and virtues of inter
Americanism, political, cultural and
economic—is to remain tongue-in
the-cheek lip service, farmers, mer
chants, manufacturers and bankers
of the United States have got to
make up their minds jointly and
severally that we must buy from
Latin America, and not expect ex
clusively to sell to Latin America.
That is the Alpha and Omega of the
Hull trade policy. Only last week
Latin American diplomats and
United States businessmen launched
a campaign to stimulate purchase
of Latin American goods here. For
that purpose it is planned to estab
lish a huge market place in Rocke
feller Center, New York City, where
several important European coun
tries already maintain trade and
trade-propaganda headquarters.
Hitler's war gives American business
literally a golden opportunity to cash
in on Latin American business. Al
ready, Commerce Department offl
cials estimate, some $250,000,000 of
trade has been switched to this coun
try through the interruption of
normal relations between our south
ern neighbors and Great Britain,
France, Germany and others affect
ed by the conflict “over there." Ad
ministration spokesmen assert
roundly that it’s economically illogi
cal to expect the sister Americas to
buy copiously here without balancing
their orders with sales of their stuff
to us. All this, of course, directly
opens up the fundamental question
of credits. Because of the extensive
defaults in private Latin American
bond issues held in this country,
there's no wild or widespread enthu
siasm for risking more American
dollars in the realms of the peso and
the milreis.
* * * *
1940 Aspirants Relieved.
No community in the country
breathes more freely over the end
of the neutrality debate than the
goodly group of Republicans and
Democrats yearning to immolate
themselves on the 1940 presidential
altar. Vandenberg, Taft, Dewey,
Bridges, Nye, Bricker, Landon,
Hoover. James, McNary, Barton,
Hoffman, Lodge and all the other
G. O. P. Barkises have had rough
sledding trying to keep their names
on any of the newspaper pager
nearer the front than the football
and racing sections. As for the
Democrats, would-be inheritors of
F. D. R.'s mantle continue to be
stymied by the President's refusal
to be smoked out on the third-term
issue. White House newspaper
men lie awake nights inventing
ways and means of unscrewing the
inscrutable, but get nowhere fast
and continually. Last of the bump
er crop of third-term rumors is
that Roosevelt will declare himself
pro or con renomination right after
adjournment .of the neutrality ses
sion of Congress. Meantime, Demo
cratic political opinion remains al
most equally divided as to whether
the Executive Mansion incumbent
will or will not seek to prolong his
lease. The McNutts, the Garners,
the Hulls, the Farleys, the Doug
lasses, the Byrds, the Jacksons, the
Wheelers, the Clarks, the Barkleys,
the Murphys, the Starks and all the
other possibles—and impossibles—
would give a good deal to know the
state of the boss’ mind. But. like
everybody else, including, allegedly,
members of the President's own
family, they can only wait, hope and
guess.
^ ^ ^
Secretary Ickes’ New Book.
“America’s House of Lords—an
Inquiry Into the Freedom of the
Press,” Secretary Ickes' latest book,
just off the press, is dedicated to
"Jane,” his new and attractive
young wife, who has just borne him
another son and heir. The Interior
chief confesses in his preface that
he expects "a flood of abuse from
the newspapers." but adds that “the
press might take refuge in the
thought that if there is no substance
to my charges they will fall to the
ground of their own weight. How
ever, a barrage of vituperation, of
smearing insinuation and misrepre
sentation is all too likely to persuade
people that I have hit the target
not far from the bulls eye.” It is
too early to know whether hard
hitting Hal's anticipated torrent of
knocks will materialize or not.
We, the People
Any Nationalistic Conquest Justifiable
Under Terms of Commissar Molotov
By JAY FRANKLIN.
It's hard to start a discussion of the Soviet foreign commissar’s
recent speech on Russia’s foreign policy, without knowing whether his
name is Molotoff or Molotov. Miss Dorothy Thompson spells it with the
"off,” but “ov” looks a little more Slavic. It’s easy to think of plenty of
words ending in “f”—like muff, puff, gruff, huff and tough—bu*. off-hand
I can’t think of the words that end in "v.” So I opt for Molotov, with
the proviso that I don’t have to call him by his first name—"Viacheslav.”
Molotov—by the way, he’s also Prime Minister of the U. S. S. R—said
that "The ruling circles of Britain and France have, of course, other and
more actual motives for going to
war with Germany * • • in their
profoundly material interests as
mighty colonial powers. Possession
of these colonies • • • is the founda
non oi me worm supremacy of
Great Britain and France, it is
fear of Germany's claims to these
colonial possessions that is at the
bottom of the present war— • • • It
Is fear of losing world supremacy
that dictates to the ruling circles of
Great Britain and France the policy of fomenting war with Germany * • «
One can see from all this who is interested in this war which is being
waged for world supremacy. Certainly it is not the working class.”
Now, as I understand the basis of Marxism, it glories in the principle
of “dialectical materialism.” That is to say, the Marxist doctrine is that
"man liveth by bread alone.” If this means anything, in terms of the
dictatorship of the proletariat, it means that every man—excuse me,
every comrade—is an empire in himself, with colonies and possessions,
raw materials and income equalized and supervised on a planetary scale.
It also means, as I understand the Communist theory, that no price in
terms of blood, suffering and privation is too heavy for the achievement
of this working-class revolution. Those who stand up against it are
counter-revolutioniaries, Kulaks or bourgeoisie.
Open for Question
On this basis, the statisticians are invited to testify whether ail the
wars of the British Empire or all the wars of Louis XIV and Napoleon
killed as many human beings as the Communist revolution has killed,
starved, exiled or imprisoned inside the Soviet Union alone. And I
wonder whether the Communist revolution has shown as much intelligence
and adaptability in dealing with primitive peoples as the “ruling classes"
of France and England. I think that if I were a native of the Congo
or Nigeria, I'd rather have an imperialist rule me than have Molotov
liquidate me as a counter-revolutionary influence or starve me as a
result of a misplaced decimal point in the Kremlin.
This is not fanciful but Is a very real question since the Soviet
advance in Poland and in the Baltic. Molotov explains the annexation
of Eastern Poland by saying that "at a moment when the Polish state
was in a state of complete collapse our government <U. S. S. R> was
: obliged to extend a helping hand to our brother Ukrainians and B"°lostok
Russians • • • That is what it did." He adds, reassuringly, that “the
special geographical position" of
the Baltic countries called for
special Soviet defense facilities and
criticized President Roosevelt for
“intervening" in the Finnish nego
tiations—"which one finds it hard
to reconcile with the American
policy of neutrality.” On these
terms, any nationalistic or imperial
istic conquest could be justified.
Molotov concludes his statement
after rebuking Mr. Roosevelt for
mixing into an international discussion between Russia and Finland by
i remarking that there is no “justification for lifting the embargo on the
j export of arms from America"—a purely domestic issue in the United
j States
Clear Indication
The whole Molotov speech is clear indication—to those who wish to
look beyond it—that the Soviet Union is now embarking on an attitude
which facilitates imperialism as spacious as that of the ‘capitalistic
powers," accompanied by a Soviet nationalism and moral jingoism which
justify in advance any extension of Russian sovereignty. Russia is,
therefore, approximating a "national Communism" parallel to the
Nazis’ "national Socialism ” This means that the “world revolution" will
henceforth be the handmaid of Russian (and German i imperialism and
that the goal is the conquest of the British and French colonies, protec
torates mandates and possessions for the national benefit of the home
lands of the hammer-and-sickle and the crooked cross.
Wadsworth's
Repeal Talk
Is Praised
House Deserves
Credit Mark for
Its Applause
By CHARLES G. ROSS.
There was no more striking epi
sode In the neutrality debate than
the ovation given Representative
James W. Wadsworth, Republican,
ot Mew York at
the end of
his 15 - minute
speech in favor
of repealing the
arms embargo.
Members on
both sides of the
dividing aisle
stood up and
applauded. They
were applauding
two things—the
excellence of the
speech and the
manifest intel
lectual honesty
of the speaker.
Charles G. Ross.
as ior tne speecn ltsen: it was
one of the best of the whole debate
in either chamber. It was so eflec
! tive that it may have accounted for
some of the votes that produced the
unexpectedly large majority for re
peal. That's about as high a tribute
as could be paid it, for it's very rare
that a speech on the floor of the
House or Senate gives even the ap
pearance of having turned any votes.
Wadsworth said more in a few
minutes than most of those said
who spoke on the neutrality issue
for longer periods up to seven hours.
I He talked extemporaneously, with
j out any oratorical frills or any pon
J derous citations of expert views on
I international law. He gave his own
! opinions simply and clearly—and
] he won the House.
Realistic Approach.
To hear him and observe the effect
on the House was like sitting in the
Supreme Court chamber and see
j ing the court snap out of boredom
when a lawyer like the late Newton
D. Baker, after the legalistic ver
bosities of lesser lights, begins to cut
to the heart of an issue with plain
English.
Wadsworth’s speech ought to be
read in full. It is possible here only
to glance at it. He confessed that
he was not “wildly enthusiastic" over
the bill, but he believed that it
represented a “realistic” approach
to the problem of keeping out of
war. The note of realism—a very
faint note in many of the speeches
on the subject—was dominant.
Thus: “This legislation is being pro
posed largely because we are afraid
| of oui own emotions. We are afraid
that incidents will occur somewhere
which will get us angry and drive
us into war. It is precautionary
legislation.”
He made clear his belief that we
are not going into the war and in
so doing expressed a mood which
seemed to grow in Congress, day
by day, as the neutrality fight pro
gressed—the feeling that “the
American people will never go to
war unless they have become the
victims of a studied, presistent series
of overt acts of violence, acts com
mitted not merely by individuals,
by cranks, by radicals, but committed
at the behest of a foreign govern
ment. Without such acts, a series
of them, carried on to such extent
that their purpose has become com
pletely recognized. I think America
does not go to war.”
Scorns Argument.
One of the arguments against
repeal—the suggestion that we
should be deterred by the fear of
, "explosions and other outrages" that
might follow repeal—provoked the
speaker to scorn. “If." he said, "we
arevever to frame the foreign policy
| of tne United States upon the theory
I that we cannot keep order in our
own Government, in our own coun
try, then, by heaven, we would bet
ter crawl into a hole and pull the
hole in after us.”
Finally there was this note, on
which the House came to its feet
with cheers:
“Let us be calm about this thing
* * * I think we have been a
little jittery in the last two or three
weeks. There is a realistic side to
all this. What we must do is keep
our heads steady and keep our feet
on the ground. Those high in au
thority in the United States Govern
ment should refrain from scolding
other nations. Nothing is gained for
us or in the interest of peace and
liberty by exciting enmity. I think
Theodore Roosevelt expressed it
very well when he said, ‘Speak
softly and carry a big stick.’”
So much for the speech.
The lesson from its reception is
not only that clear thinking and
clear statement sometimes have
their reward,-even on the floor of the
frequently turbulent House of Rep
resentatives. but that sincerity, how
ever much it may cost a Congress
man in immediate political gains,
pays him large dividends in the
respect of his colleagues, political
friends and foes alike.
> ote Not Surprising.
, The respect which is accorded
Wadsworth of New York, a conser
vative. is akin to that accorded the
liberal Norris. They are both rec
ognized as men who stand by their
convictions. Nobody who knew
Wadsworth's views on the neutrality
issue was surprised when he joined
the little band of Republicans in
the House—21 in all—who supported
the President's plan.
Memories wen back to 1926, when
Wadsworth, then a two-term mem
ber of the Senate and the chair
man of the Committee on Mili
tary Affairs, was up for re-election.
Wadsworth was a wet; he was one
of the very few wets in high public
life (Ritchie of Maryland was an
other) who didn't trim on the issue.
The Republican party of New York
State was dry. Wadsworth could
have won the united support of his
party, and so the election, through
a minor compromise with the drys.
He refused to make it. They put
up a third candidate who diverted
enough votes from Wadsworth to
defeat him. He came back into Con
gress. as a member of the House,
in 1933.
The House deserves a credit mark
for applauding Wadsworth. It con
tains trimmers a-plenty, in one
degree or another, but they all know
and respect political courage when
they see it.
Furniture
Lamps and Clocks
CATLINS, Inc.
1324 N. Y. Ave. N.W. Nat. 0992
_Lighting Fixturmt_
A
INSIST ON
Modern Floors
Non-Scratch
VITRA SEAL
Water Proof Waxes
2418 18th St. N.W. Adams 7575
IRRDI MARK * Cl
Large Sale
Household Effects of E?ery
Description
At
_ Public Auction I
T,HD AT SLOAN’S
1 715 13th St.
WEDNESDAY
November 8th, 1939
At 10 A.M.
Also at 10 A.M. —■ ■
1936 Lincoln Sedan
Bv Order ot the Northern Trust Co.,
Chicago. Ill. Executor ot the Estate
ol Emma C. Mann, Deceased.
TERMS: CASH.
I C. G. SLOAN a CO.. Inc., Aaetf.
Established 1891
t>
QUESTION
Which are the
only cough drops
containing
Vitamin A?
tCAftOTfNf)
J AT THANKSGIVING TIME, you'll want your Home to J
£ look its best... Telephone Hinkel to call for and clean +
your Rugs and Carpets. Prompt Service.
^ Lowest Prices for Finest Work ^
I E. P. HINKEL & CO. *
^ 600 Rhode Island Ave. N.E. ^
$ Telephone HObart 1171 J
i "The Best Known . . . Known as the Best"—Since 1875 J
¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ ¥¥¥¥¥¥¥»■»■»*¥»¥¥¥
' h ' i
1
Heed these Danger Signals—
Avoid the Road to Baldness
BALDNESS can be prevented! "When your scalp be
comes sick, obvious danger signals such as (1) thinning
hair, (2) itching scalp, and (3) dandruff, warn you that a
baldness-producing condition exists. You cart prevent bald
ness by heeding these w arnings and ridding your scalp of the
local causes of hair-loss.
More than a quarter-million persons have avoided bald
ness by permitting The Thomas’ to rid their scalps of local
scalp ills. Thomas treatment is based on the sound principle
of first determining the exact cause of hair loss and then
overcoming that specific cause. Your scalp itch soon ceases,
dandruff disappears, abnormal hair-fall stops, and new hair
grows on thin and bald spots.
Consult (in private, of course) with a Thomas expert to
day. He’ll examine your scalp—without charge or obli
gation— and tell you exactly what can
be done to help you have a good hea(l of
[ ft SCALP IPKUUSTS]
w w wnm
im*.i''~■ ■ m. w W 4 jl
I SUITE 1050-51 WASHINGTON BUILDING
(Corner N. Y. Avenue and 15th St. N.W.)
■ (Separate Departments Ior Men and Women)
IB _ HOURS—9 A.M. to 7 P.M. SATURDAY to 8:30 P.M.
Write tor Free Booklet. “How to Hotels or Bocals Tear Hair.”
'■ .1