Evening star. [volume], January 19, 1941, Image 33

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

Image provided by: Library of Congress, Washington, DC

                
Editorial Page—Features
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?