Newspaper Page Text
Financial News, 9-11 Organizations—Civics Classified Ads, 12-20 TWENTY PAGES. WASHINGTON, D. C., JANUARY 19, 1941. Dollar-a-Year Men Increasing As Defense Tempo Quickens List of Those Aiding in Program Reads Like a Directory of Directors; Some Are Anti-Roosevelt Men By Marquis W. Childs. As the defense program gathers mo mentum, the number of dollar-a-year men in Washington increases in the same ratio. Prom every industry, from nearly every important firm, they have been summoned to contribute their spe cial knowledge and skill to the vast construction program that is really just beginning It was one of President Roosevelt's boasts during the election campaign last fall that he had brought “several hundred of the best business execu tives in the United States” to Wash ington to help in the task of rearma ment. And it is true that the list reads like a Who's W'ho of big busi ness or, perhaps, like the. Directory of Directors. A few receive compensation from the Government but the majority give their services free. Some of these business executives who have enlisted in the defense drive are full-time employes spending long hours over a Washington desk or rang ing across the country on special mis sions. Others are consultants who come from New York, from Pittsburgh, from Boston and Philadelphia for two or three days a week. Hints of Unhappiness. The juxtaposition of big business and the New Deal seems a little strange to those who have watched Washing ton expand under the Roosevelt drive for reform. And now and then there Is evidence that these strange bedfel lows are not altogether happy. Since the election, hints have come from the New Dealers that the President could be expected to curtail the powers of big business and correspondingly en hance the position of those who have directed the New Deal. But the trend still appears to be In the opposite direction. The President has strengthened the controls of busi nessmen at the top, and more and more executives are commuting between New’ York and Washington in connec tion with the defense effort. The most conspicuous figure Is, of eourse, the big. slow-spoken Danish born industrialist, William S. Knudsen, to whom the President has delegated far-reaching responsibility for the suc cess of the program. Knudsen was pres ident of General Motors, an industrial empire touching almost every phase of American life', before he came into Government. Now’, with Sidney Hill man, representing labor, Knudsen Is at the top of the defense pyramid: Stettinius and Many Others. Sharing this lofty height with Knud Ben, Edward R. Stettinius, jr., is the other large-scale industrialist on the defense commission. He is—literally and figuratively—the fair-haired boy who rose, while still comparatively young, to the top of United States Steel, industrial empire like that of General Motors. Many such younger men. lead ers in their own field, have come to Washington since last summer. Naturally a concentration of execu tives is found on the defense commis sion, for it is there that the chief problems of Government and industry must be worked out. The latest list shows 85 men with the commission bor rowed from business and serving at “$1 per annum,” to use the official phrase. Here, working under Stettinius and Knudsen, are many big names. W. Averill Harriman, chairman of the board of the Union Pacific Railroad, is trans portation liaison and export licensing officer on Stettinius’ administrative staff. William L. Batt, head of the American branch of the great S. K. F. steel firm, Is section executive of the mining and mineral products section. C. E. Adams, chairman of the Air Reduction Corp., is Stettinius’ executive assistant. Ralph Budd, president of the Burlington Rail road, is a defense commissioner, in charge of transportation. Clarence Francis, president of Gen eral Foods, is in charge of agricultural and forest products. Marion B. Folsom, treasurer of Eastman Kodak, is assist ant to Batt. In the chemical and al lied products section—where oil is all important—the chief is E. R. Weidlein, businessman and scientist who is head of the Mellon Institute in Pittsburgh. His first assistant is Robert E. Wilson, president of Pan American Petroleum & Export Co., a Standard Oil subsidiary. Bigger* is Deputy. Knudsen has brought many men from the automotive and aircraft industries to help him run his production division. His deputy commissioner is John D. Biggers, president of the Libbey-Owens Ford Glass Co., whom Roosevelt has several times in the past called upon for special Government tasks. At the head of Knudsen’s administrative staff is William W. Knight, jr„ president of the Ford Building Co. in Detroit. The aircraft section of Knudsen’s pro duction division is starred with the names of executives drawn from the aviation industry. T. P. Wright, direc tor of engineering for the Curtiss Wright Corp., is chief of the aircraft structures section. Wesley A. Kuhrt of Pratt <fe Whitney is his chief assistant. George J. Mead, formerly vice president and chief engineer of United Aircraft Corp., is head of this section. Harold S. Vance, chairman of the Studebaker Corp., is head of the machine tools and heavy ordnance section and his first assistant is Mason Britton, vice presi dent of the McGraw-Hill Publishing Co. J. C. Nichols, president of the J. C. Nichols Co. of Kansas City, is director of the miscellaneous equipment section and his assistant director is Milton H. Luce, also of Kansas City, president of the Egg White Products Co. In addition to these top executives, business has loaned to Government many economic advisers and special consultants as well as the heads of trade associations. It is curious, for example, to find C. W. Kellogg, president of the Edison Electric Institute, an organiza tion that has bitterly resisted New Deal utility regulation, working for a commis sion on which Leon Henderson, ardent | New Dealer, is a member. “Nest Like Cuckoos.” J. D. East, chief economic statistician of the United States Steel Corp., is a member of Stettinius' administrative staff. Another member is Grenville R. Holden, economic adviser of Eastman Kodak. Arthur Besse of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers is a specialist on wool for the Defense Commission. Gano Dunn of the J. G. White Engineering Co. is listed as “sen ior consultant” to Stettinius. Andrew Court of the Automobile Manufacturers’ Association is working for Knudsen. An account such as the foregoing hits only the more obvious names. From other and lesser known fields men of top rank have joined the trek to Wash ington. Despite confusion and uncer tainty. they have found office space— the commission is spread around 13 different buildings, like cuckoos, as they describe their own nesting habits—a telephone and perhaps a secretary and* they have gone to work. Some men have been recruited from business to do special jobs. Nelson Rockefeller was brought to Washington last summer to be co-ordinator of com mercial and cultural relations between the American republics, an imposing title for the 32-year-old president of Rockefeller Center in New York. Other members are Karl A. Bickel, former head of the United Press Asso ciation and later chairman of the board of the Scripps-Howard Radio Co., and John Hay Whitney. Whitney, known more widely by his nickname of "Jock,” is one of the wealthiest young men in the country. He is in Hollywood, where he has large motion picture interests, working on picture producers to insure that American movies will not only not offend Latin audiences—inadvertently by lapses and gaucheries—but will ac tually build good will south of the border. The chairman of Rockefeller’s Communications Committee is James W. Young, director of the Bureau of For * ' (See CHILDS, Page C-3.) «Talk about swank! Just because ’is was the only ’ouse ’it by the bomb, yer can’t scarcely speak to ’im.” \ Garner Ready to Say Farewell Here 38 Years, He’ll Start Home Tomorrow By W. B. Ragsdale, Associated Press Staff Writer. TUST at the moment when bands blare out and soldiers step off Into the Inaugural parade tomorrow, a man with white hair and thick eyebrows will climb aboard a train, bound for Uvalde, Tex. For John Nance Gamer will end his 38 years of work in Washington when he administers the oath of office to the new Vice President, Henry Agard Wallace. A few minutes later he will vanish from the Washington scene, dodging the ceremonies that follow. Parades, dinners, balls, all of these will be left behind. Those who in vited him got a polite note of regrets. Where President Roosevelt was involved, Mr. Gamer talked over the problem with the Chief Executive and got excused. ‘‘I don’t blame you,” the President told him, in ef fect, when Mr. Garner asked to be allowed to stay away from the re viewing stand past which the inaugural parade will march. Mr. Gamer takes no bitterness home with him. He has achieved a phi losophy of life which closes the door of his heart against bitterness. He puts it this way: "Ten or 15 years ago, I began to try to free my self of all hatred and envy of my fellow men. I began to try to go to bed at night without a heart filled with such things. And I began to get rid of worries about tomorrow. “I was minority leader then. And I said to Ettie (Mrs. Garner), ‘I'm going to quit hating people, and quit envying people.’ Since then. I have pretty well kept that promise. “The nearest I have come to breaking it was when I had an argument with the boss over sit-down strikes. But he had asked my opinion. I gave it to him. I was simply doing my duty as I saw it. Long ago, I got over any feeling about that. “And I don't worry about tomorrow. As an individual, no one knows what will happen to him tomorrow. He can't plan for it. So I simply compose myself and go to sleep.” The Garners Arrived in 1903. Thirty-eight years is a long time to spend around Wash ington. And many things have happened since the wintry day in 1903 when the young Texan and his wife settled down in Mrs. Lillie List’s boarding house in K street to transact the business of his district. Congress had no office buildings for its members then. And the Garners had both office and home at the boarding house. The total of Government spending that year was only a shade more than half a billion dollars. The new budget calls for about 35 times that much. Like the sit-down strikes, the big spending of past years produced a difference between Mr. Gamer and Mr. Roose velt. Whatever of property or wealth Mr. Garner may have, he got it the hard and thrifty way. No oil bonanzas or stock market deals fed it. He saved and bought land, invested the income carefully in good American earth, not in get-rich-quick schemes. And he could not reconcile his own ideas of per sonal thrift wdth big governmental spending schemes. Helped Others Get Bills Passed. In Washington, Mr. Garner will be remembered more for the way in which he smoothed the path for other men’s bills to become law than for any law to which his own name might have been attached. He introduced few bills, and most of them were the routine measures that the average member of Congress introduces, for bridges and public buildings and to specify where Federal courts shall meet in their districts. But, during his first term in Congress, he did introduce what was one of the first measures Congress ever got that called for a graduated income tax. Nothing happened to it then. But 10 years later there was a graduated income tax. And in 1931, almost two years before the New Deal was swept Into power on a rising swell of votes, he introduced another bill to provide almost two and a half billion dollars for public works and general relief projects. The measure carried a tax to pay its way. Between the time he introduced his income tax bill and the production of his public works bill, he had grown to be the most potent single member of Congress. And his strength lay chiefly in tightly riveted friendships, not alone with Demo- , crats, but with Republicans who were powers in their own right. As a young member, he belonged to Speaker Joe Cannon’s poker circle. In his middle years, his friendship with Speaker Nicholas Longworth was a national legend. They were Republicans, he a Democrat, Yet, when he was leader JOHN NANCE GARNER. —Sketch by Newman Sudduth. for his own party in the House and Longworth chief of the opposition, the two were boon com panions and he often re ferred to the Speaker's automobile as ‘‘our car.” In his later years as Vice President, his whole power rested upon that tightly bound but wide circle of friends he had made in his years in Washington. Often in those days, he would tell friends: ‘‘I wish I had stayed in the House. I didn’t ever ask any one to be Vice President. If I had stayed on as Speaker, I would have been in that place longer than any Speaker In history—10 years. The longest has been six.” But the simple wish to have held the job longer than any other man was i not the real reason why he expressed that thought. The real answer lay in the fact that: "The only power I have is such as I can wield j through my friends. A Vice President's power is restricted according to his personality and friends. All he has is an affirma tive vote. He can vote ‘yes’ but he can't vote ‘no.’ A bill is defeated cn a tie vote in the Sen ate unless the Vice Presi dent votes ‘ves.’ It is only through his friends that a Vice President can accomplish anything.” Mr. Gamer accomplished plenty through his friends. He was the first Vice President in history to become an active legislative general for the President. As Democratic leader in the House, he had had key men in every State delegation who could give him a quick summary of how the men on their delegation felt. As leader and Speaker, he had had a direct hand in elevating many of the House committee chair men to their posts. And through the years, his friendships had reached across the Capitol into the Senate. Parts Company With President. Later, when he and President Roosevelt parted company in the turmoil of the second term, he became the sharpest vice presidential thorn any President has encountered since John C. Calhoun presided over the Senate and prompted debaters in the tariff fight with Andrew Jackson. The per- i sonal relations between Mr. Garner and the President remained friendly, but their differences over policy were sharp. The roots lay deeper than many suspected. In 1936, per haps unknown to the President, there had been an active desire by some of those around him to oust Mr. Garner as Vice President. But friends of Mr. Garner got wind of the plan before it came to the surface and headed it off. This lay in the background as they came into the second term, a term which brought the Supreme Court battle, sit-down strikes and unnumbered smaller disputes. However enthusiastic may have been the cheering of his friends for Mr. Garner as a presidential candidate, he was not deluded by their hopes and certainly not entranced by the idea of being President. That he was not deluded is evidenced by the bets he won on who would be nominated. Dislikes Turmoil Here. “Going to the White House would be just like going to jail for four years. Why, I couldn't even go fishing in the summer without taking along an army. I'm telling you the truth, I'd rather go back to Texas and take life easy than anything else,” he told friends. He fell silent and looked long at the end of his cigar, as if his mind might be wading back through some of that past turmoil. Tax fights in the Ways and Means Committee. Party I caucuses in the House. Conference Committee disputes. Relief ; battles. Supreme Court bills. Sit-down strikes. Plenty of turmoil. .1 Tomorrow, while all Washington is watching the cere mony of the inauguration, he will quit its turmoil and head for Uvalde, for his chickens and pecans and barbecue pit, for days of quiet fishing in placid streams, for the more vigorous tramp ing after deer and quail, for nights of camping in the wdld, , where the only sound is the howl of coyotes. He will like it. A British Victory in Two Years? By Albert Bushnell Hart. Who will loin the war? Here are views given to the Associated Press by an eminent American historian, Al bert Bushnell Hart, now 86, for nearly half a century professor of history at Harvard until his retirement in 1926. I think that Germany can be defeated by Great Britain in two years at the most, provided the English can receive a sufficient and continuous supply of the materials of war—a responsibility that rests with the United States. In fact, I believe that the next four weeks will constitute the acme, the crisis, of the war, because it will be within that period that public opinion must crystallize on President Roosevelt’s viewpoint that we must fortify Britain in order to offset ultimate invasion of this country. The United States is in no danger of invasion as long as Britain stands, and further, I don’t believe there is any likelihood of this country entering the war as long as she keeps Britain sup plied with the arms and ships she needs. Nazis Have No Real Allies. But I do say flatly that if it should appear that Britain were to be subju gated, this country would have to send an expeditionary force to Europe. I believe that Germany realizes that, too, and fears the possibility. As to the two years’ time I have set, I don’t believe either of the sides at war can hold out any longer than that. Moreover, the odds are decidedly against the Germans because she has no real allies. Italy has proved a failure—in fact, the amazing thing has been that Germany has so far not raised a real hand to help Italy out. And Japan, despite the apparent bends of the Rome-Toklo Berlin axis, cannot be considered as a potential ally, because Japan knows that if Germany wins, she will eat Japan up. Then, there’s always the threat to Germany that rests with Russia—Russia who will never play No. 2 to Germany's No. 1. The Russians would never accept a German-dictated peace for Europe, and if it came to an issue over Ger many’s coveting the oil and grain of the rich Ukraine, Russia would fight. Russia Versus Germany. I have said before and I say again that Russia always will be a stumbling block to Germany’s aims. At least three times, it’s been announced that they’re going to be good friends, good schoolmates eating out of the same lunch basket, but it has not worked out. Russia always breaks away. She wants to be captain or she won’t play. Now, as to the world situation after the war. First of all, the German people would have to get rid of Hitler; there could be no permanent peace with this man who has shown himself to be a tyrannical despot. It would be useless to attempt any permanent league of nations, because Germany has shown In the past she cannot accommodate herself to any genuine league with the nations and would probably act the same way again. However, I believe that there might well be some sort of world congress working toward a peace based on justice. U. S» Post-War Role. But I don’t believe- the United States should attempt to play too prominent a part in any after-war settlement. This country still will have territories of her own to guard—and we can’t attempt to remake the map of Europe. I don’t believe it is beyond the realm of possibility that this Nation may annex Canada and British possessions in the Pacific, because Britain, weakened by war, will be unable to protect them her self from an aggressor, whoever it might be, and they certainly won't be able to protect themselves. Moreover, no matter what happens as a result of the war, Greenland must be added to the United States. It is too near us to be the coveted prize of any nation with aggressive tendencies. As to the possessions we now have, it is impossible to argue down the fact that a comparatively small group of airships might bomb the locks’ of the Panama Canal, thereby separating the two vast boundaries of the United States^so far as seapower is concerned. Hawaii Vital to U. S. Then, there are the Hawaiian Islands, an outpost to be held at any sacrifice of ships or men. To allow the Hawaiian Islands to be occupied by any nation other than the United States would mean the eventual capture and trans fer of California and the whole Pacific Coast down to Mexico. The republic of the United States cannot endure if any combination of powers, European or Asiatic, finds a lodgment south of California anywhere between the Golden Gate and the Isthmus of Panama. The President has indicated the im portance of these outposts to us. He realizes that if the Germans should con quer England and occupy it in this war. the next movement of the Germans would be to occupy a group of the West Indies Islands and the Isthmus of Pana ma, and, presumably, the territory be tween the Canal and the Rio Grande, southern boundary of the United States. In his insistence that the United States be the arsenal of democracy in the war now going on, we have a founda tion for military and naval preparation which will keep the United State* out of danger. j Lease-Lend Victory or Defeat, Not Compromise, Held Need Measure Declared to Effect an Alliance With Britain Which, If Decided On, Should Be Made Permanent By Felix Morley Four years ago, at the outset of Presi dent Roosevelt's second term, the his toric struggle over the judiciary bill of 1937 was just getting under way. It is already clear that the legislative fight over the current “lend-lease” meas ure will in certain fundamental respects parallel this earlier controversy. Oppo sition to H. R. 1776 is likely to concen trate on “the false theory * • • that an impending crisis justifies hasty action in the nature of a short-cut to an undis closed goal,’’ to quote comment passed bv Senator Burke of Nebraska on what came to be known as the proposal “to pack’’ the Supreme Court. This is not to say that the two issues are identical in any but an underlying philosophic sense. In behalf of the court-packing proposal there was no such urgency as can readily be argued for the bill to promote national defense by outright aid to the embattled democ racies This distinction explains why the President's bill seems to have much more popular support, and the opposition much less, than was the case in the 1937 conflict. Nevertheless the fight will «be bitter, for the present measure, no less than the ill-fated Supreme Court proposal, recalls Thomas Jefferson's observation that “an elective despotism was not the Govern ment we fought for.” And it recalls also the much more recent observation of President H. W. Dodds of Princeton University, that “If democracy fails with us it will be through a war of attrition involving a chain of emergencies which at the moment could be made to justify authoritarian measures.” Number Perhaps Unfortunate. It was, perhaps, unfortunate that the lend-lease bill, as introduced in the House of Representatives, should have drawn the mystic number 1776. That number, as a date, evokes patriotic sentiment which can be capitalized for the bill. But it also symbolizes the rise of the United States as an independent power, free from British control and from en forced participation in what the Monroe Doctrine called "wars of the European powers in matters relating to them selves.’ Rightly or wrongly, the memory of 1776 can be utilized in behalf of isola tion as strongly as for intervention. So far as the emergency permits, how ever, partisans of both sides should at tempt to avoid the easy exploitation of patriotism and concentrate on vital con stitutional aspects of the lend-lease bill. In this field two major issues are al ready wholly clear. The bill would in effect transfer the responsibility for na tional defense, and for converting de fensive steps into measures of war, from Congress to the President. And it would further nullify the section of the first article of the Constitution, which states that “all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representa tives.” War Power Unimportant. Transfer of the power to commit acts of war to the President, as envisaged in the pending bill, seems relatively unim portant. It is now the custom to make war with out declaring it. or even to make war while declaring that you are not making it. This alone has rendered anachronistic the constitutional provision that Con gress shall have power to declare war, aside from the fact that the President as commander in chief of the Army and Navy has actually always had this power. The same cannot be said for legislative surrender of the power of the purse. For three centuries subordination of the executive in this respect has been defined as a fundamental safeguard of demo cratic government. Because he persisted in flouting Parliament in this matter King Charles I lost his head. And no issue was a matter of greater concern during the formulation of our own Con stitution. So it is on this basic point that criticism is likely to center. And this is as it should be. • A curious way to defend our form of Government would be hastily to undermine the foundations at the outset. The widespread anxiety m this regard was well summarized by Wendell Willkie at the beginning of his statement giving a qualified indorsement to the lend-lease bill. This measure, he said, “asks for an enormous grant of executive power. Under a democratic system * * * every such grant of power should be jealously scrutinized. That is a general rule for democracy, and that rule should be ap plied doubly to .this bill.” The specific recommendation of the latest Republican presidential nominee was that the increased executive power asked by the bill “should be granted for a fixed term, not too far in the future," and that the legislation “should spe cifically provide that the powers granted are of a temporary’ and not a permanent nature.” There is, however, an underlying in consistency in Mr. Willkie's position. On the whole, he supports the President's contention that “the future and the safety of our country and of our democ racy are overwhelmingly involved in events far beyond our borders.” But at the same time this Republican leader says flatly that “Congress must not be harried into passage of this bill.” No Compromise Possible. The two viewpoints are so distinct that Mr. Willkie's endeavor to bridge them is unsatisfactory- If the emergency is as “overwhelming” for this country as the President maintains, then there is grave risk of losing the substance of democracy while debating amendments which would at best preserve its shadow. If the emer gency for this country is largely fanciful, on the other hand, then the whole bill, which is based on the assumption of that emergency, is unnecessary and indeed highly dangerous. There are some legislative measures which, like the problems they seek to solve, cannot be compromised. They should be adopted without significant change or they should be defeated in toto. That was clearly the case in the court-packing bill and that is very likely the case in the more important measure before Congress today. The advocates of passing the lend-lease bill as is. and the advocates of its total defeat, both seem on firmer logical ground than are the compromisers. Obviously the alignment of forces pro and con the lend-lease bill should not be made on any short-range viewpoint. The variance between our present Neutrality Act and our official policy should of itself be sufficient to illustrate the dangerous absurdity of legislating without a clear cut purpose and without any intelligc: : visualization of the trend of events. An Alliance With Britain Fortunately It is not difficult to r the direction in which the lenc'-: bill points. Five months ago. at ; time of the destroyer and naval base c. with Great Britain, Winston Chur:' said to the House of Commons: “T process means that .... the Brill. Empire and the United States will ha- • to be somewhat mixed up together in some of their affairs.’’ The legislation pending in Congress confirms and em phasizes that prediction. The current bill would in effect ini tiate an alliance between Great Britain and the United States. Senator Wheeler and Mr. Landon. as typical of the oppo sition, say in effect that no such alli ance is wanted. Mr. Willkie favors such an alliance as a wartime measure only. The President, particularly in the light of past policy, seems strongly to intimate that such an alliance should be perma nent. If the alliance is desirable at all. it should be permanent. It should be per manent because nothing could be more fatal than helping England to win the war and then refusing assistance to con solidate and maintain the subsequent peace. That was our course from 1917 to 1919. The state of the world today attests the magnitude of the blunder. And if a permanent alliance with Great Britain is sought, the powers which the President asks are not excessive. He will need all of them, and more, in order to develop a workable political union of the United States and the British Em pire. Real or War of Nerves?