Evening star. [volume], January 09, 1940, Page A-18, Image 18

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

Image provided by: Library of Congress, Washington, DC

                
Text of Roosevelt Talk
President Says Politics Only an
Instrument to Achieve Government
Following is the text of Presi
dent Roosevelt's address last
night at the Jackson Day dinner:
Once upon a time there was a
school teacher, who. after de
scribing Heaven in alluring and
golden terms, asked her class of
small boys how many of them
wanted to go to Heaven. With
eyes that sparkled at the
thought every small boy in the
class held up his hand—except
one. Teacher said, "Charlie,
Charlie McNarv, you don’t
want to go to Heaven? Why
not?" "Teacher—sure I want to
go to Heaven, but" he said,
pointing to the rest of the boys
in the room—"not with that
bunch."
A week ago three distinguished
leaders of the opposition were
invited to this great banquet—
a $10 dinner with all the flxin's
free—no cover charge—no $100
check—no tips—"nothin’ to sign
and nothin' to jine"—and a ring
side seat at a non-political plate
side chat. Believe-it-or-not—
they sent polite regrets. Why?
There are a lot of riddles in
the National Capital. I, myself,
am supposed to be a self-made
riddle—in fact a cross between
a riddle and a Santa Claus. Most
of the riddles in this town, how
ever. are the ones posed for you
in some solemn column. Like
cross-word puzzles and hypo
thetical bridge hands, they come
to vou morning or evening as a
synthetic daily amusement fea
ture. like fairy tales or bedtime
stories calculated to keep un
suspecting children awake all
night. But occasionally we get a
real riddle like this one about
the three empty chairs.
Why didn't our guests come?
I guess the real reason is that,
like the small boy. they did not
want to go to Heaven with this
bunch.
«(_L„ I_ t’t_1
A Reason for Closed Season.
But maybe there were other
reasons Maybe it was because
they figured that we just wanted
to fatten up the ducks, and that
we were putting on a closed
season in January merely 40 get
better sport next fall.
Maybe they were holding out
for an old-fashioned Jackson
dinner. Some one called my at
tention the other day to a
magazine article setting forth a
report of a dinner in February,
1834. in Andrew Jackson's White
House, as made by a guest at
the dinner. T quote:
"The first course was soup
in the French style; then beef
bouille. next wild turkey
boned and dressed w-ith
brains: after that fish: then
chicken cold and dressed
white, interladed with slices
of tongue and garnished with
dressed sailed: then canvass
back ducks and celery: after
wards partridges with sweet
breads and last pheasants
and old Virginia ham The
dishes were placed in succes
sion on the table, so as to give
full effect to the appearance,
then removed and carved on a
side table by the servants.
The first dessert was ieljey
and small tarts in the Turk
ish style, then blanche mode
and kisses with dryed fruits
in them. Then preserves of
various kinds, after them ice
cream and lastly grapes and
oranges."
Such a dinner today would
cost the full $100 we have each
and all of us paid; there would
have been nothing left for Jim
Farley: and the Democratic Com
• mittee would have had to borrow
money to provide bicarbonate of
soda for all.
i iiau nuptu t'ui liivjueu guvsi*
would come because I had in
tended to tell them not only
about Andrew Jackson but about.
Abraham Lincoln as well; to tell
them how much alike all our
great leaders have been—even to
give them free—though unsoli
cited-advice on how to reconsti
tute the Republican party suc
cessfully along the lines on which
Abraham Lincoln created it. As
the leader of the Democratic
party I felt no reluctance to give
them good advice for I was sure
that they would not use it—they
of little faith.
Government Before Politics
Is Creed of Great Men.
Seriously, the more I have
studied American history and
the more clearly I have seen what
the problems are. I do believe
that the common denominator of
our great men in public life has
not been mere allegiance'to one
political party, but the disin
terested devotion with which they
have tried to serve the whole
country, and the relative unim
portance they have ascribed to
politics, compared with the para
mount importance of government.
By their motives may ye know
them'
The relative importance of
politics and government is some
thing not always easy to see when
you are in the frontline trenches
of political organization.
“In a period of 30 years, during
which I have been more or less
In public life—in my home
county, in Albany, in Washing
ton, in Europe during the World
War, in New York City, in
national conventions, back in
Albany and finally again in
Washington—I have come to the
conclusion that the closer people
are to what may be called the
Frontlines of government, of all
kinds—local and State and Fed
eral—the easier it is to see the
immediate underbrush, the in
dividual tree trunks of the mo
ment and to forget the nobility,
the usefulness and the wide ex
tent of the forest itself.
It is because party people in
county courthouses or city halls
or State capitals or the District
of Columbia are, most of them,
so close to the picture of party
or factional warfare, that they
are apt to acquire a false per
spective of what the "motives”
and purposes of both parties and
their leaders should be for the
common good today.
Politics Only an Instrument
To Achieve Government.
They forget that politics is only
an instrument through which to
achieve government. They for
get that back of the jockeying for
party position—back of the party
generals—hundreds of thousands
of men and women—officers and
privates, foremen and workmen—
have to get a job done, have to
put in day after day of honest,
sincere work in carrying out the
multitudinous functions that the
policymakers in modern democ
racy assign to administrators in
modern democracy.
People tell me that I hold to
party ties less tenaciously than
most of my predecessors in the
presidency, that I have too many
people in my administration who
are not active party Democrats.
I admit the soft impeachment.
My answer is that I do believe
in party organization, but only
in proportion to its proper place
in government. I believe party
organization—the existence of at
least two effectively opposing
parties—is a sound and necessary
part of our American system;
and that, effectively organized
nationally and by States and by
localities, parties are good instru
ments for the purpose of pre
senting and explaining issues, of
drumming up interest in elections,
and of improving the breed of
| candidates for public office.
But the future lies with those
wise Dolitical leaders who realize
that the great public is interested
more in Government than in
politics; that the independent
vote in this country has been
steadily on the increase, at least
for the past generation; that vast
numbers of people consider
themselves normally adherents
of one nartv and still feel per
fectly free to vote for one or
more candidates of another
party, come election day, and on
the other hand, sometimes up
hold party principles even when
precinct captains decide "to take
a walk."
The growing independence of
I voters, alter all, has been proved
by the votes in every Presidential
election since my childhood—
and the tendency is on the in
crease. I am too modest, of
course, to refer to the most recent
example—the election of 1936.
Party regulars who want to win
must hold their allies and sup
porters among those independent
voters.
Some Examples of
Strictly Party Voting.
There are, of course, some citi
zens—I hope a decreasing num
ber—with whom I find it difficult
to talk rationally on this subject
of strict party voting. I have in
mind, for example, some of my
close friends in the South, who
are under the impression that
they would be ostracized in so
ciety and in business if it were
to appeal publicly that they had
ever voted for a Republican. I
i also have in mind some very
| close friends in northern villages
who tell me. quite frankly, that
though they would give anything
to be able to vote for me. a
Democrat, it would hurt their in
fluence and their social position
in their own home town.
I have in mind the predicament
of one of the ablest editors of
today, who some time ago said
to me, very frankly:
"I am really in complete
sympathy with your program,
but cannot say so publicly be
cause, Mr. President, the read
ers and advertisers of my
paper are 90 per cent Repub
licans and I simply cannot
afford to change its unalter
able policy of traditional op
position to anything and
everything that comes from
Democratic sources. Of course,
you understand.”
Millions of unnecessary words
l and explanations and solemn
! comments are uttered and writ
ten. year after year, about the
great men of American history—
with ample quotations—to prove
what Jefferson or Hamilton,
Jackson or Clay. Lincoln or Doug
las. Cleveland or Blaine, Theo
dore Roosevelt or Bryan would
have said or would have done
about some specific modern prob
lems of government if they were
alive today. The purpose of all
these comments is either to in
duce the party leaders of today
blindly to follow the words of
i leaders of yesterday: or to justify
i public acts or policies of today
I by the utterances of the past.
: often tortured out of context. The
devil can quote past statesmen as
well as Scripture, to prove his
purpose.
most. i%ot on firing Line,
Attach Importance to Motives.
But most people, who are not
on the actual firing line of the
moment, have come to attach
major importance only to the
motives behind the leaders of
the past. To them it matters,
on the whole, very little what
party label American statesmen
bore, or what mistakes they made
in smaller things, so long as they
did the big job that their times
demanded be done.
Alexander Hamilton is a hero
to me in spite of his position that
the Nation would be safer if our
Jpaders were chosen exclusively
from persons of higher education
and of substantial property
ownership; he is a hero because
he did the job which then had to
be done—to bring stability out of
a chaos of currency and banking
difficulties.
Thomas Jefferson is a hero to
me despite the fact that the
theories of the French revolu
tionists at times over-excited his
practical judgment. He is a hero
because, in his many-sided
genius, he too did the big job
which then had to be done—to
establish the new republic as a
real democracy based on uni
versal suffrage and the inalien
able rights of man, instead of a
restricted suffrage in the hands
of a small oligarchy. Jefferson
realized that if the people were
free to get and discuss all the
facts, their composite judgment
would be better than the judg
ment of self-perpetuating few.
That is why I think of Jefferson
as belonging to the rank and
file of both major political parties
todav.
I do not know which party
Lincoln would belong to if he
were alive in 1940—and I am not
even concerned to speculate on
it: a new party had to be created
before he could be elected Presi
dent. I am more interested in the
fact that he did the big job which
then had to be done—to preserve
the Union and make possible, at
a later time, a united country.
His sympathies and his motives
of championship of humanity it
self have made him for all cen
turies to come the legitimate
property of all parties—of every
man, woman and child in every
part of our land.
I feel very much the same way
about Jackson—not Jackson the
Democrat but Jackson the Amer
ican, who did the big job of his
day—to save the economic dem
ocracy of the Union for its west
ward expansion into a great
Nation, strengthened in the ideals
and practices of popular govern
ment. 4
Re-Election Illustrates
Instinct of Public.
I have always thought it a
magnificent illustration of the
public’s instinct for the quality
of a leader that the people trium
phantly re-elected Jackson in
spite of the fact thfct in the
meantime, in his fight for eco
nomic democracy, Biddle and the
bank had sought to create an
economic depression in order to
ruin him.
Of all of these great American
figures, I like to think—and I
know I am right—that their pur
poses, their objectives, their mo
tives. placed the good of the
Nation always ahead of the good
of the party; that while they used
the mechanics of party organiza
tion in many ways, they dropped
mere partisanship when they
considered it against the national
interest.
T caur a onnH HpaI nf thp anvprn
orship of New York before I be
came Governor of the State, and
I saw a good deal of the Inside of
the White House for many years
before I occupied it. Many years
ago it had become clear to me
that, properly availed of, the gov
ernorship and the presidency, in
stead of being merely a party
headquarters, could become the
most important clearing house for
exchange of information and
ideas, and facts and ideals, af
fecting the general public welfare.
In practice, as you know, I
have tried to follow out that con
cept. In the White House today
we have built up a great mosaic
of the state of the Union from
thousands of bits of informa
tion—from one man or woman
this thought, from another, data
on some event; a scrap here per
haps and a scrap there; from
every congressional district in the
Union: from rich and poor, from
enthusiast and complainant, from
liberal and conservative, from
Republican and Democrat.
I like to think that most Ameri
can Governors or Presidents have
seen the same opportunity in
their office, and that their mo
tives have been primarily of serv
ice rather than of party or per
sonal aggrandizement.
iMM'araca nair anins
If They Matured in Public Life.
Doubtless they have all been
irked by the commentators of the
day, who ascribed other motives
to them. Doubtless after much
experience in the public life of
America, with its free speech and
press, the irksomeness wore off.
Doubtless, all of them wore hair
shirts wh'n they started, but if
they matured in public life most
of them discarded those shirts in
their earlier days. They had to
drop their hair shirt or else lose
their political shirt. ,
And when you have learned not
to worry about all these things
there is really a lot of fun in this
job.
For when you reach that point
of understanding, there is deep
satisfaction in pursuing the
truth through the jnedley of in
formation that reaches the White
House, the overstatement, the
half-truth, the glittering gen
erality, the viewing-with-alarm,
and the pointing - with - pride.
There is practical satisfaction in
sifting a tiny particle of truth
from the mass of irrelevances
in which it is hidden. And there
is the philosopher's satisfaction
of fitting that particle of truth
into the general scheme of things
that are good and things that
are bad for the people of the
Nation as a whole.
I said a moment ago that the
measure of greatness of any
party leadership of a country is
the measure in which it gets done
in its time the big job that has
to be done. By this test I do not
think any one can say that the
many people in these last seven
years who have given composite
leadership have failed in their
obligation. Most of those who
call for a wholly different type
of leadership must admit the
fairly constant progress of these
years. Most of those who com
plain now were the shouting
optimists of 1929.
I do not believe that the
American people who swallowed
that canned optimism in 1929
will swallow canned pessimism in
1940—particularly out of the
same can.
People of United States
Recognize Two Great Facts.
The people of the United
States recognize two facts today:
The first is that the world out
side our hemisphere is in really
bad shape. This is a matter not
for pessimism or optimism; it
is a matter for realism. It is
a fact—a fact so big that few
peaple have grasped its meaning
—a fact so big in its effect on the
future of the world that all our
little partisan squabbles are
shameful in the light of it.
The second is that we have
made great gains at home in our
own economic prosperity and in
the security of our individual cit
izens. These gains must not be
chipped away; they must be only
a foundation on which to build
further gains.
Behind us lies accomplished a
really big job. It was the creation
out of the funk of the early 30s
of a new spirit with which we can
now face the 40s.
A realistic historian of our
party has wisely concluded, ''We
have the intelligence to define our
troubles and the physical means
with which to meet them. In the
end, whether we make America a
good or a bad country will depend
on what we make, individually, of
ourselves. A selfish and greedy
people cannot be free.”
The enormous task which the
Democratic party has already
performed in this generation has
been to provide the energy and
the confidence to steer Govern
ment in the interest and under
the direction of those of our peo
ple who do not want to be selfish
and who do not want to be greedy.
Most People Convinced
Of Right Direction Progress.
And I am convinced that most
people in the United States do
have a sense—with a real feeling
of pleasure in the moralities In
volved—that we have been mov
ing forward these later years in
the right direction.
They are really glad that on
the whole the farmer is no longer
an economic outcast and is get
ting better prices for his crops.
^ They are glad that we are
slowly working out for labor
greater privileges with greater
responsibilities.
They are glad that gamblers
and speculators are no longer the
most honored element in our
economic life.
They are glad that certain op
portunities for security, once only
available to the rich, like old-age
insurance, are becoming available
to the poor.
xxxcy me gmu umt we die ue
ginning to conserve the natural
resources of our soil, our rivers
and our trees for the good of our
children; that we have improved
our roads and added to our parks
and built hundreds of schools;
that we are bringing to every
housewife cheap electricity’s re
lief from drudgery; that we have
made our banks safe and brought
our courts up to date; that we
have kept millions of people out
of the breadlines.
They are glac. that Government
is daily becoming more honest
and more decent.
And one of the manifestations
of that new spirit is that there
are fewer Americans who view
with alarm. There are, of course,
some people—in addition to the
professional politic vicwers-with
alarm—who always look on the
dark side of life, complain that
things are not as they were once
and who firmly believe that
everybody who disagrees with
them is a moron or a crook. They
belong to the type of unfortunate
individual of whom it is said, "He
is enjoying bad health.”
Sometimes when I listen and
listen to people like that I
understand old Uncle Jed.
"Uncle Jed,” said Ezra, one day,
"ben’t you gittin’ a lettle hard of
hearin'?” "Yes,” said Uncle Jed,
"I'm afeared I’m gittin's a mite
deef.”
Whereupon Ezra made Uncle
Jed go down to Boston to an ear
doctor.'
Uncle Jed returned. Ezra ask
ed what happened. “Well,” said
Uncle Jed, “that doctor asked me
if I had been drinkin’ any. I
said 'Yes, a mite.’
“Then that doctor said, ‘Well,
Jed, I might just as well tell you
now If you don’t want to lose
your hearln’ you’ve got to give
up drlnkin’.
"Well, I thought It all over;
and then I said, ‘Doc, I like what
I’ve been drlnkin’ so much bet
ter than what I’ve been hearln’
that I reckon I’ll Jest keep on
gittin’ deef!”’
forensic Antagonists
Friendly After Bout.
So you see I have talked with
you tonight in a vein of old
fashioned philosophy, with little
or no partisanship mixed up with
it—just as I promised my three
Republican leader friends who
ought to have been here tonight.
They are grand fellows, liked by
me and by every Democrat in the
Congress. Nowadays most every
body in the country knows that
sometimes when two Congress
men or two Senators engage in a
terrific battle of words, a forensic
Philippic, a 15-round heavyweight
championship bout, the two con
testants, five minutes later, will
be found sitting in the cloakroom
with their arms about each other,
laughing and joking while they
catch their breath.
There are, of course, a few ex
ceptions of men who, stretching
political disagreements into per
sonal invective, prove the gen
eral rule—but why bring up un
pleasant subjects at this dinner,
at which we are all having such
a good time. I am genuinely
sorry for those exceptions to the
rule. They must find it hard to .
live with themselves—and with
their families and friends as well.
Motive in the long run is what
counts—motive accompanied by
good manners. If leaders have
good motives and good manners
and, at the same time, knowledge
of the different parts of the
country and plenty of experience,
you can be fairly safe in assum
ing that they won't wreck your
Government.
But remember that they must
have other qualities—the willing
ness to pay $100 for a $10 dinner,
the fortitude to eat the whole of
it and the courage to make a
REMODELING
From Basement to Attic
Low, Easy Payments
SUPERIOR CONST. CORP.
1331 G St. N.W. MEt. 2493
half-hour plateslde chat at the
end of It.
- -
p
!
OUT THEY GO! Odds and Ends, one-of-a-kind and all de
pleted lines are assembled for store-wide clearance! Quan
tities are limited, so come early for best buys! ,
\Q MONEY DOWN! EASY CREDIT TERMS!
Our Reg. $61.95 Maple Bedroom Ensemble Our Reg. $89.50 Simmons Bed Ensemble
7 Pieces including a bed, chest of drawers and * 8 Pieces including a large •sofa-hed with two
dresser in maple finish over solid tupelo, Sim- innerspring mattresses; kneehole desk and
•, _ • x r_. i, ^ .. . matching desk chair, coffee table, end table,
mon, coil spring, comfortable mattress and cogssvelllounge chair, metal smoker and table
two feather pillows, (.ompare and \oull find lamp. A group for the one-room apartment
it a most extraordinary value! or studio at sharp savings.
10-pc. Walnut Dining Room Suite 870.80
Our Rep. $114.95 value! Modern style, walnut veneer on pumwood 4 Ifc
6-pc. Walnut Dinette Suite §* /f.oo
Our Rep. $79.50 value! Buffet, table, 4 ehairs, walnut veneer on gumwood 'm
9-pc. 18th Century Dining Room Suite 800.80
Our Rep. $114.95 value! Mahogany veneer on pumw ood
3-pc. Mahogany Veneer Bedroom 8/10.20
Our Rep. $98.50 value! 18th Century style: bed, vanity and chest
3-pc. 18th Century Bedroom Suite
Our Reg. $99.85 value! Dresser or vanity, chest and bed, genuine Hon- 84343*40
duras mahogany veneers on hardwood_ DO
3-pc. Solid Maple Bedroom Suite 8 4 0.96
Our Rep. $74.95 value! Dresser, chest on chest and full size bed _
3-pc. Modern Bedroom Suite 800.80
Our Rep. $59.95 value! Dresser or vanity, chest and bed: walnut finish gum wood * fjff*
3-pc. Modern Bedroom Suite 84342.88
Our Reg. $114.75 value! Walnut veneer waterfall style: dresser, chest and bed.. |fO
7-pc. Blonde Modern Bedroom Suite
Our Reg. $219.50 value! Dresser, vanity, chest, bed, nite table, chair, si 1 yfl .40
bench; waterfall tops; beautifully made of bleached bird s-eye maple- m u
2-pc. Living Room Suite $ A Q.90
Our Reg. $84.95 value! Made of durable cotton and acetate rayon velour ... . ‘-l-af
Kroehler 2-pc. Living Room Suite S4&Q.05
Our Reg. $119.75 value! Made of durable cotton and rayon acetate velour__ Hr*
2- pc. Semi-Modern Living Room Suite $/i/4.88
Our Reg. $74.95 value! Made of heavy cotton tapestry, balloon cushions
3- pc. Solid Maple Living Room Suite
Our Reg. $69.95 value! 3-cushion settee, arm and wing chair; balloon cush- 8/4 C$.70
ions, covered in durable cotton tapestry and nicely made- Tat/
18th Century Living Room Suite $430.99
Our Reg. $99.75 value! 2 pieces, covered In small figured cotton tapestry- 4949
2-pc. Modern Mohair Living Roam Suite $^W.39
Our Reg. $129.50 value! Choice of red or blue mohair, triple balloon roll fronts- 4 4
| Our Reg. $18.95
Lounge Chaif
$|| 87
Choice of heavy cotton tapes
try coverings over full spring
construction.
Our Reg. $16.95
Walnut Dresser ^
$1096
Two drawers, swinging mirror.
Walnut finish over hardwood.
mill ~ ■- --1
Our Reg. $12.95
Set of 3 Lamps
$g99
Junior, student, bridge and table
lamps with shades to match.
Indirect lighting and nite lite
in bases.
Our Reg. $2.98
Part-Wool Blanket
$j.98
Plaid colors, guaranteed not less
than wool contents. 70x80
inch double blanket.
<
-—1 -
Our Rag. $2.69
End Table
$|-44
Booktrough style in walnut fin
ished gumwood.
i Our Reg. $12.95
Oil Circulator
$088
Single burner unit of high per
formance. Economical.
f M in P"—P 111
y/ I H II I f r j \0r y f ^ 11