Evening star. [volume], September 11, 1946, Page A-10, Image 10

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

Image provided by: Library of Congress, Washington, DC

                
' %\\t fftenmg ^taf
With Sondsy Morning Edition.
WASHINGTON, D. C.
Published by
The Evening Star Newspaper Company.
PRANK B. NOYES, President.
Main Office: llthJSt. and Pennsylvania Ava.
New Tort Office: 110 East 42d 8t.
Chicago Office: 425 North Michigan Ave.
Delivered by Carrier—Metropolitan Area.
The Evening end Sunday Star. 90c per month;
when 6 Sundays in the month. $1.00.
The Evening Star Only, 65c per month.
The Sunday Star. 10c per copy.
Wttht Pinal Edition, 10c per month additional.
Ratea by Mail—Payable in Advance.
Anywhere In United States.
1 month. 6 months. 1 yetr.
Evening and Sunday._$1.25 $6.00 $12.00
The. Evening Star_ .75 4.00 8.00
The Sunday Star_ .50 2 50 6.0o
Telephone National 5000.
Entered at the Post Office. Waahtnston, D. C.<
as second-class mall matter.
Member mt the Associated Press.
The Associated Press Is exclusively entitled to
the use for republication of all news dispatches
credited to It or not otherwise credited In this
neper and also the local news published herein
All rights of publication of special dispatches
herein also are reserved.
A—10 WEDNESDAY, September 11,1946
Parole Board Reform
The District Parole Board is for
tunate in obtaining the services of
Leo A. Rover, former United States
Attorney for the District of Colum
bia, as successor to Frank R. Jelleff,
who has retired after 11 years of
outstanding membership on this im
portant board. Despite the pressure
of private business, Mr. Jelleff de
voted countless hours and boundless
energy to the vital task of aiding
men to re-establish themselves after j
they had run afoul of the law. His
decision to retire caused widespread
regret. That a citizen so well quali
fied for parole work ps Mr. Rover
has accepted appointment to the va
cancy is gratifying to those who j
know the burdens and the responsi
bilities of the office.
In his letter declining reappoint
ment to the board Mr. Jelleff has
called public attention to a serious
defect of the present make-up of the
parole organization, known officially
as the District Board of Indeter
minate Sentence and Parole. This
is the lack of a paid, full-time mem
ber, available “at all times for super- j
vision of the work and consultation
with members of families of pros- !
pective parolees." Under the exist
ing system, the members of the
board serve on a part-time basis and j
receive no compensation for their
often arduous and perplexing duties.
Since the members invariably are !
engaged in private businesses or pro
# fessions. it sometimes happens that
employes of the parole office are
delayed in obtaining decisions in
pending cases or signatures on im
portant ^papers requiring official
board approval. That so much has
been accomplished under this handi
cap of part-time work is a tribute to
the unselfish devotion to duty of the I
busy citizens who have agreed to I
undertake this public service.
Reorganization of the board so as
to provide for a full-time, salaried
member would require legislation. A
bill to effect this reform has been
submitted to the Commissioners by
the board. Its passage by the next
Congress would greatly facilitate the j
administration of the parole system j
in Washington.
'Too Damn Late"
The National Labor Relations Act
was passed on the premise—skillfully
promoted and widely sold—that it
was the obligation of the Govern
ment to protect and foster the right
of workers to join unions and bar
gain through them with their op
pressive employers. Given this pro
tection, it was argued, the unions
and the employers—the latter under
sanction of law—would sit down at
the table and work out their differ
ences <in a give-and-take process,
with the end result being a rebirth
of industrial peace and harmony.
Today, eleven years later, finds the
Mayor of New York City, a man
whose record has been one of friend
ship toward labor, denouncing the
truckers’ strike as Communist-led
and appealing to the national presi
dent of the Teamsters’ Union to
come to New York to compel the
members of one of his locals to bar
gain with the employers. If these
workers would agree to enter into
negotiations, says the Mayor, the
paralyzing strike would end. Mean
while, the city approaches the point
of desperation, and AFL pickets,
armed with baseball bats, patrol the
streets and successfully prevent
other drivers from taking out their
trucks.
In Washington the Wage Stabi
lization Board has held a "rehear- I
mg” In the seamen’s wage decision.
None of the affected unions would
send a representative to the hear
ing. The only union man to appear
came on behalf of a union which
has not yet gone on strike, but
which is threatening to do so. He
told the Government board that he
was demanding for his people the
Increase previously turned down as
being in excess of the stabilization
formula, and added: “We are taking
a strike vote. Unless this thing is
settled Thursday morning we’re
going to be on the bricks (strike)
and we’ll stay, no matter how long
it takes. After Thursday morning
it will be too damn late.”
And so, with this gun at its head,
the board is considering its decision,
trying to make up its mind whether
it should stand firm or back down
in the face of labor pressure. What
it ultimately will do is any one’s
guess. But it is clear enough that
the authority of Government is
perilously close, to the point of
breaking down.
It is also clear that this condition
is due to a continuing unwillingness
of the elected representatives of the
people to enact labor legislation
which would correct the one-sided
ness of the present laws and compel
unions to accept the same govern
mental authority that applies to all
* *
other segments of the country.
This Is a reform that Is long over
due. If It does not come soon, to
borrow language from the labor
representative, the country will wake
up one day to discover that it is
“too damn late” to do anything
through our established legislative
processes.
Charges Against Greece
The forthright criticisms directed
by the American and Australian rep
resentatives concerning Hhe charges
brought against Greece by Dmitri
Manuilsky, representative of the
Ukrainian S. S. R., promises to bring
into the open an issue which may be
vital to the procedure and even to
the prestige of the Security Council
of the United Nations.
The issue was raised when Mr.
Manuilsky charged the present Greek
government with aggressive anda
provocative conduct toward its Bal
kan neighbors which threatened in
ternational peace and security.
Coupled with this was the collateral
charge that British troops in Greece
had deliberately interfered in
Greece’s internal affairs and were
contributing to the alleged interna
tional security threat.
Although the Ukrainian delegate
appeared with suitcases full of docu
ments which he asserted would prove
his charges “to the hilt,” he offered
no prima facie brief to substantiate
his grave charges. This caused the
British representative, Sir Alexander
Cadogan, to object to a hearing, al
leging that this was merely a
warmed-up version of previous
charges on the same subject which
had been heard and dismissed
as unsubstantiated. To this Mr.
Gromyko, the Soviet Russian repre
sentative, took violent exception,
contending that any charge must be
heard by the Council without pre
liminary consideration of its valid
ity. Thereupon Herschel Johnson,
the American representative, de
clared himself in favor of freedom
of presentation, though with the
warning that if the charges were
found unsubstantiated, “either
through ignorance or malice,” he
would propose that they be sum
marily dismissed.
That contingency now appears to
have arisen. The “case” of Mr.
Manuilsky looks so flimsy and in
adequate that the Australian dele
gate terms it "frivolous” in character
and deliberately propagandistic in
intent, going on to suggest that the
Council might much better investi
gate the Greek charge that it is its
Balkan neighbors who are threaten- i
ing international peace and security, i
In all this our representative con
curs, terming the Ukrainian charges
“little short of absurd” and “entirely I
beyond the realm of credulity.” j
Questioning Mr. Manuilsky’s good
faith and veracity, the American
and Australian representatives pro- !
pose that the charges be promptly ;
thrown out.
However, there is reason to believe
that Mr. Gromyko will strongly sup
port Manuilsky, and that a bitter
controversy will ensue, in which the
charges will be reiterated, with more
propagandist speeches from the
spokesmen of the Soviet bloc. Thus
the issue is fairly joined on the right
ful limits to freedom of presentation.
Like the British representative, the 1
Australian warns that measures j
must be taken to see to it that j
charges shall be brought in good i
faith. “Otherwise the activities of I
the Council will be associated in the
minds of every one. not with justice
but with the travesty of justice; not
with fact but with propaganda.”
GOP Carries Maine
Since the Nation no longer neces
sarily goes as Maine goes, the
September balloting in the Pine
Tree State has come to be watched
by the politically minded for signs
of a trend, and it is on that basis
that the results of Monday’s election
are being carefully appraised.
To the uninitiated, it is difficult
to see how either of the major
parties can derive any particular
comfort from the outcome. It is
true that all of the important Re
publican candidates won handily,
but the total vote was the lightest
cast since 1930 and the GOP margin j
of victory was hardly sufficient to
justify any extravagant claims by
the party strategists.
It is a generally accepted proposi
tion that a Republican majority of
around 70 per cent in Maine pre
sages a GOP landslide throughout
the country in November. On the
other hand, if the Republican vote
in Maine falls below 65 per cent of
the total the chances are that the
Democrats will not lose ground
when the rest of the country votes
two months later. There is nothing
mathematically certain about this,
or course, but past experience tends j
to support the proposition. For
example, in 1928, the year of the
Hoover landslide, the Republican
senatorial candidate in Maine re
ceived slightly more than 70 per
cent of the vote. But in 1930, when
Maine gave the GOP candidate for
the Senate 61 per cent of the vote, ]
the Democrats all but captured con- j
trol of the House in November. In i
1936, when Franklin Roosevelt car- i
ried every State except Maine and
Vermont, Maine gave GOP Senator !
White a meager 51 per cent of its
vote. When the same Senator ran
again in 1942, however, he received
67 per cent of the Maine vote and
the GOP in November fell only nine
votes short of carrying the House.
With these statistics as a back
ground, and keeping the light vote
in mind, the 64 per cent of the vote
; polled on Monday by Senator Brew
ster does not seem especially signifi
i cant of anything. It is a gain over
his 1940 margin of 55 per cent, but
it can hardly be said to herald a
Republican triumph two months
from now. Even more suggestive
i
In this respect Is the 61 per cent
of the vote received by Governor
Hildreth in contrast to his 70 per
cent margin two years ago. He may
have hurt himself by advocating a
State veterans’ bonus plan which
was opposed by his GI Democratic
opponent and which was over
whelmingly rejected in a referen
dum by the thrifty Maine voters.
When the fullest allowance is made
for this, however, there seems to
be no reason for loud cheering in
the Republican camp. At best,
viewed from this distance, the re
sults in Maine apparently point to
nothing more than a fighting
chance for the GOP to win the
Ho\ise this fall.
Lining Up the Suckers
Howard Hughes, the versatile
moving-picture producer, has sought
to build himself up in the eyes of the
public as a champion of the freedom
of the theater and a bold defender
of the public's right to pass its own
judgment on what sort of moving
pictures it shall see.
But as a matter of fact his con
troversy with the Motion Picture
Association over his film, “The Out
law”—which has been going on since
1941—makes him out a rather cheap
exploiter of sensationalism. The as
sociation, which has just removed its
certificate of approval of the picture,
should stick to its guns.
The interesting thing about this
controversy is that the picture itself
is not considered objectionable.
What was objectionable and led to
disapproval of the picture was Mr.
Hughes’ alleged violation of the rules
in advertising it. The tone of the
advertising was that here, in “The
Outlaw,” was something very, very
naughty, something that sucessfully
defied the efforts of the censors to
keep it from the screen. Those who
have seen the picture report that it is
a second-rate “western,” with about
as much sex appeal as Roy Rogers’
horse Trigger. Nor will Mr. Hughes
get very far in fussing about censor
ship. In the motion-picture industry
the censorship is voluntary and self
imposed, not so much in protection
of the public as in protection of the
industry itself against the bad taste
and stupidities of Its own members.
If Mr. Hughes wants to violate such
censorship, the most he is doing is to
cut off his nose to spitp his face.
The practical thing that Mr.
Hughes can accomplish for himself
in his battle with the Motion Picture
Association is to make some money,
because he has already built up a
public curiosity over the picture. But
the only principle that Mr. Hughes
is standing for is the old principle,
discovered long ago by P. T. Barnum
and others, that a sucker is born
every minute and if you can con
vince enough of them that they are
seeing something on the shady side
of decency you can really pack
them in.
This and That
By Charles E. Tracewell.
If you want to make a hit with some
lady safely out of the teen age, give her
an African violet.
There is nothing except love that will
so vibrate the feminine heart as one
of these plants.
Indoor plant-keeping is not a relic of
the gay ’90s. It is a keen Interest, a
sound investment, a source of continued
pleasure, mixed with a bit of pertur
bation.
The African violet reigns supreme,
in case you don’t know it.
Templeton Jones didn’t.
That is where he got in trouble with
the chickens.
* * ♦ *
It was this way.
Mrs. Jones is and for a long time has
been an African violet enthusiast.
Pots of them added up to lots of them.
They were blue, no whites or pinks.
They really were a sight to see, when
in bloom, and that was most of the
time, but it was the in-between period
w hen T. Jones, Esq., didn’t like them.
He was always saying something
about “those messy plants,” which Mrs.
J. paid no attention to at all, a trick
she had learned over many years,
v * * *
Templeton Jones liked to talk for
effect.
There was something in him which
lured him on at times to sa v something
just to see what effect it would have.
His friends soon got onto this, and
never registered much concern over any
thing he said. /
At various times he had intimated
that African violets were best on the
back porch..
So one day in early summer he W'as
pleased to find three pots of them there,
all in full leaf.
They were perched on a shelf.
It was a nice back porch, slightly on
the cluttered-up side, but with a clothes
line paralleling tpe shelf, and some old
odds and ends around.
A good porch, Jones thought, and the
violets seemed to "go” with the rest of it.
Jones approved.
* * * *
It was at this Juncture in the house
hold life that the Moregraves present
ed the Joneses with the Easter chicks
—grown up.
They were large hens now, and the
children no longer wanted them.
No one could bear the idea of killing
them.
What happier thought than to pre
sent them to the Joneses, those perfect
pet lovers?
Well, there were the hens on the
back porch that evening Templeton
Jones came home after the rest of the
family was in bed.
“Hello, there,” he said, familiarly, as
he switched on the light.
The hens, miserably squatted on the
floor, paid no attention to Jones.
Their dreams were of corn, perhaps.
•* * * *
“You would be better on a perch,”
smiled the kindhearted Jones.
He looked around—
“The very thing,” he said, spying the
clothesline. v
Up went one hen, up went the second.
The next morning, just before break
fast, an agonized feminine wail came
from the porch.
He got there in time to hear Mrs.
Johes declare, “Every last leaf of my
African violets!”
And so it was.
During the early morning hours, the
hungry hens had reached out and con
sumed all the leaves of the prize vio
lets!
Nothing was left but pots, dirt and
stalks. "They will grow again, of course,”
sighed Mrs. Jones, "but I don’t see how
those hens got up there, unless-’’
Templeton Jones didn't say a word.
A
Letters to The Star
Mr. Byrnes’ Stuttgart Speech
Interpreted and Approved
To tb* Editor of Tb* St or:
Twelve years short of a century ago
Abraham Lincoln, the most realistic of
humanitarians, said: “I believe this
Government cannot permanently en- i
dure half slave and half free.” At !
Stuttgart a distinguished son of a !
sovereign state that futilely rebelled
against this logic reaffirmed its im
mutable truth in respect to the United
Nations organization. In no uncertain
terms Secretary Byrnes reminded trou
bled mankind that our United Nations
organization cannot endure, econom
ically or politically, half slave and half
free, and that this inviolate truth must
apply even to our undeserving enemies.
For the discerning, here is timely ap
plication of the ultimate in wisdom: A
man may not serve two masters.
This courageous reaffirmation of the
Potsdam agreements, of which the
communistic dictatorship of Russia was
a solemn guarantor, probably will
arouse the ire of two protesting groups
—those who will continue to want the
major portion of their indemnifica
tion in punishment and revenge and
those who believe that there should be
no limit to the repudiation of our own
principles in appeasing the inordinate
demands of predatory Communism for
world dominion. One wants peace en
forced with sadism: the other wants
peace at the price of spiritual enslave
ment of the many by the cynical few.
Secretary Byrnes wisely has affirmed
that criminal Germany best can pay
her incalculable debt to her ravaged
victims only by resuming maximal pro
duction and equitable distribution of
vitally needed consumer goods. It must
be obvious that a shackled, knouted,
dismembered Germany never can ex
piate her economic vandalism by the
forced production of the essentials of
life she so wantonly destroyed or con
fiscated. Unless she promptly is re
stored to productive economic health,
she remains a parasitic liability.
But in his sane Insistence that even
outlawed Germany eventually may as
pire to an honorable restoration as a
free sovereign nation, Secretary Byrnes
has exposed the essence of the issue
which divides mankind into two irrec
oncilable Ideologies.
The issue is not Russia versus the
war-weary nations of the earth who in
sist upon a peace within the framework
of the solemn covenant of the Atlantic
Charter. The real issue is the funda
mental antagonism between two con
trary concepts of human dignity and
security—dictatorial communism ver
sus freedom-loving democracy. Why
should the ruthless conniving totali
tarian dictatorship of communism yield
to a despised and shackled enemy that
which she dare not permit her own
regimented and intimidated multitudes
I to enjoy?
No one knows better than the sus
picious Communist dictatorship that
its own survival as the ruler of the
enslaved many by the ruthless and
cynical few is dependent on vigilant
suppression and discouragement of the
liberating forces of truth and the en
nobling belief in a moral order predi
cated on faith in God’s justice as ex
emplified by the golden rule. Only by
resisting truth with the iron curtain,
only by continuing to enjoin criticism
and dissent with the purge and only by
coercing obedience and sychophancy
with persecution, sabotage and fear
may predatory communism survive.
The hope Secretary Byrnes has of
fered Germany is an assured promise
of the inalienable dignity of human
freedort} even to the enslaved, slowly
awakening heroic multitudes of Russia
herself. Predatory communism ^tands
in fear of history’s Inevitable judgment.
Our United Nations Organization may
not permanently endure half slave and
half free. Neither may it survive and
serve two masters.
THOMAS E. MATTINGLY, M. D.
Neglect of Children Deplored
To the Editor of The Star:
The immediate fundamental need in
this controversy between the Board of
Public Welfare and the Commissioners
is to make a decision now. Surveys are
costly both In time and money and we
have been making them for years with
little to show in the progress of admin
istering children’s institutions under
the Board of Public Welfare. They, up
to recently, have been administered
along with the penal institutions!
There have been voluminous reports
on this subject; therefore the facts have
been well publicized, so that no one who
is interested in this Important field
should be ignorant.
It is a mortification to those of us |
who are Interested and particularly j
those who are District of Columbia na
tives. that our city is regarded as mak
ing little progress in its plans for the
proper care of neglected and otherwise
unfortunate boys and girls.
The responsibility for this program
primarily should be with the Commis
sioners who necessarily are zealous for
the reputation of the Nation's Capital.
Nothing can be more tragic to a gen
eration than to have failed Us chil
dren—“the hope of the world.’’
D. C. NATIVE.
Tactics (A) and (B) Resented
To the Editor of The 8t*r:
Practically every paper tor maga
zine) I’ve looked at during the past 10
days has had a sketch, cartoon or
cooked-up picture of some youngster
heading for his first day in school.
I rise to protest two aspects of these
little features:
(A) The ghild inevitably is portrayed
as carrying books with him. This is
silly. No child ever entered the first
grade or went to his first day in any
other grade with a load of books. If,
as in some cases, the school provides
the books, he’s given them after he’s
enrolled; if he must buy them him
self, obviously he wouldn’t know what
to buy until he’d been enrolled.
Item (A), of course, can be dis
missed as merely stupid fakery, but
not:
(B) The child usually is shown as
most unhappy about the whole thing.
Generally the Impression given is that
children hate school. I don't believe
this is true or ever has been true. My
view is that it's bad business to infer
that they do—to portray the low I. Q.
problem brat or mental case as typical.
For a number of years I was a news
paperman—on a Western daily. The re
opening of school always was a good
story with us, but we had a hard
fast rule: Tactics (A) and (B) abso
lutely were barred.
Aren't we violating enough of the
rules which make for good citizenship
today without (A) and fB>?
INQUIRER.
L
ft This Changing World f
By Constantin* Brown
until last week oen. Marsnairs reports
from China were gloomy. President Tru
man's special envoy, however, held out
some vague hope that he might be able
to effect at least a face-saving arrange
ment between the Chinese National gov
ernment and the Communists. Although
his chances were limited, he was willing
to stay on until the bitter end.
His most recent reports show that he
has reached the end of the rope. Hence
forth the clash of arms between
the forces of the officially recognized
Chinese government and the Moscow
supported Communists will become in
creasingly intense. No decision can be
expected for some time. The fighting
will continue here and there on “fluid”
fronts, just as was the case in our own
Civil War. Large bodies of men will be
engaged and the outcome will depend
not so much on the fighting ability of
the protagonists but on the material
support each receives from outside.
Although Gen. Marshall has never
openly admitted that the battles in
Northern China and on other fronts are
nothing but a conflict between the
democratic-liberal conception of the
United States and the totalitarian state
police concept of the U. S. S. R„ he is
said to recognize now that this is the
sad truth.
* * * *
Officially, Moscow still recognizes the
Nanking government headed by Chiang
Kai-shek. But at the same time it is un
officially giving every conceivable assist
ance to Mao Tse-tung, the Communist
leader. This consists of handing over to
him important war materials from the
captured Japanese stockpile, without
which he could not have armed a force
of at least 750,000 men, and lending him
military instructors to train Communist
forces which hitherto had been accus
tomed to the mast rudimentary tactics
of guerrilla warfare.
At the same time Communist sympa
thizers and followers in the United
States and China have joined in a
chorus demanding the withdrawal from
the Chinese mainland of the American
Marines, whose presence is a definite
handicap to the Communist plans. The
same organizations1 are asking the Gov
ernment also to withdraw all support
from Chiang and are urging the admin
istration to adopt a policy of noninter
ference. They want Chiang and Mao to
fight, it out between themselves and may
the best man win.
The Communists and their affiliated
groups in this country claim that since
Russia continues to have formal rela
tions with the Nanking government, she
is not assisting the Yenan outfit in any
shape or form.
Our military men In China report
that such an idea is contrary to the
actual situation as they learn about it
from personal observation.
The Chungking government Is the
only recognized authority in China and
the administration is pledged to assist
it. The fact that it is a member of the
Big Five is less Important than the fact
that it has stood by the Allies through
out the war against Japan. The estab
lished policy of this country is to re
frain from supporting any moves such
as we witnessed in Iran when the
Azerbaijanese, assisted by the Russians,
rose up against the Teheran govern
ment, or as we may witness in the near
future in Greece.
* * * *
President Roosevelt and after him
President Truman assured the Chinese
government that the United States
would support it in the difficult period
of transition after the defeat of the
Japanese. The Russian government also
put its stamp of approval on the Nan
king government when it signed the
Sino-Soviet treaty on August 18, 1945,
and pledged itself to refrain from any
Interference in China’s domestic affairs.
While technically this promise still
stands, there Is, in fact, ample evidence
that it has been assisting and urging
the Chinese Communists to fight the
recognized government. It is now an
established fact that while it has helped
the Yenan forces enter Northern Man
churia. the Red Army has prevented, in
spite of formal treaty obligations, the
dispatch of national government troops
to that area.
American strategists consider China
of paramount importance to the long
range defense of the United States.
They are chiefly interested in the
existence of an undivided and orderly
China.
President Truman may soon be faced
with the choice of deciding whether to
continue a policy of supporting the
recognized government in China or yield
to pressure groups and withdraw all
assistance from Chiang and let nature
take its course, with Russia giving an
all-out aid to the Yenan group.
On the Record
By Dorothy Thompson
mx:. iii in uuviuua, muviug lUWfllU
a showdown with the Soviet Union. Mr.
Byrnes’ speech in Stuttgart was ad
dressed less to the Germans than to
the Soviets. It was a historic chal
lenge. It will, of course, bring repercus
sions, in the first line from the Polish
government in Warsaw. Though at
Potsdam the western frontiers of Poland
were not clearly set: and though Mr.
Byrnes, in iterating this fact, reiterated
a statement by Mr. Bevin to the House
of Commons months ago, the fact is
that we have stood by for over a year
whiie Germans were moved en masse
out of the territory claimed by Poland,
and that some weeks ago, a Polish
plebiscite ratified the annexation of
this territory. The plebiscite was pre
posterous, but if we made any protest
against it, that fact is unknown. Usual
ly “silence gives consent,” and the
Poles will doubtless say we have already
recognized the present frontiers de fac
to, if not de jure.
The British now say they will re-*
treat from the whole plan for Venezia
Giulia if the zone is not genuinely in
ternationalized as a free state. But
what prospect is there for genuine in
ternationalization? The Security Coun
cil daily proved that international co
operation is a fiction. What cannot be
accomplished in New York or Paris, can
hardly be fulfilled in a cockpit of op
posing interests and aims.
Furthermore, to make any solution
whatsoever regarding Trieste before the
Austrian and German treaties are made
is nonsense. Trieste is economically
and historically the natural port of
Austria, Hungary, and, to a lesser ex
tent, of Czechoslovakia, and Southern
Germany. Tito wants control of this
area for most important political and
military reasons, namely, to bring the
last squeeze on Austria, Hungary and
Italy Itself. Even now <we cannot keep
order in the area, and as the economic
life of Trieste slows down to a stand
still, the cry of reunion of the whole
Austro-Hungarian hinterland will rise
as a primary motive for finally incor
porating the Danubian Valley into the
Soviet sphere, as the only means of its
economic existence.
* * * it
Mr. Lippmann, in the important
articles he has recently published, sup
ports a policy, doubtless already agreed
upon, of a show of force at the Dar
danelles. His idea is that here Russia
is most vulnerable—which she is—and
that faced with a clear American de
termination to stop the extension of the
Russian empire, the Soviet Union will
probably sober up and negotiate. The
risk is war. and where would it be
fought? With what armies? Our air
force could probably obliterate large
pans oi nussia. out u couia not con
quer it, and meanwhile the Russian
armies would probably be advancing into
Europe. Our small forces in Europe
actually would be a hostage in the hands
of the Soviets, who have some two mil
lion men there already, not counting
the army of Tito.
Given war, shall we drop atomic
bombs on Paris—or on the Germany
Mr. Byrnes is trying to conciliate?
The purpose of any future war will be
that of this last one—to end sovereign
war-making powers. That will be both
the American and Russian purpose, the
one through organized freedom, the
other through domination. But from
Dumbarton Oaks onward we have showr>
no understanding of what that takes.
It would still, however, seem wiser to
have a showdown on this issue than
on any other.
So far, also, we have presented the
wcrld, since the war, with no indication
of capacity to manage our own affairs.
As Mr. Byrnes spoke in Stuttgart our
ports were strikebound and no supplies
could move to our forces in Europe or
the Far East. We are on the verge of
a disastrous inflation. The economy is
in chaos.
* * * *
Nor have we ever shown a grasp of
the necessities of Europe. While Mr.
Byrnes was repudiating the “pastorali
zation" theory regarding Germany, he
could hardly repudiate the fact that
this theory was bom, not in Moscow,
but in the American Treasury Depart
ment, nor deny that American military
government has steadily operated under
the notorious directive 1067.
According to Joseph Alsop. writing
from Germany to the New York Herald
Tribune Syndicate, American Commun
ists and sympathizers found important
posts in the economic control and in
formation divisions, and even in the
counterintelligence of our military gov
ernment in Germany. Actually, I heard
an information official say in Salzburg
to several members of the American
press over a year ago that the Sovietiza
tion of Germany would be a good thing.
And he was charged to pick newspaper
editors!
In Canada a spy plot has been un
covered, full details of which—700 pages
—are published in a report of an in
vestigating royal commission. It reads
like a gangster story of the wildest kind.
And Canada is lots nearer than the
Dardanelles.
United States power could be sufficient
to command universal respect and if
necessary, fear. But that presumes a
restoration of American unity, intelli
gence, imagination, and a much cleaner
record than that of the past year.
(Releeied by the Bell Syndicate, Inc.)
Policy Cleared on Germany
By Raymond Moley
aecietary Byrnes has
made clear that official American opin
ion agrees with those unofficial voices
who protested during the war against
the Morgenthau-Vansittart idea of a
permanently rural Germany. His speech
was not, as some seem to think, solely
a gesture of opposition to Russia, It
was a belated recognition of the solid
fact that the economic structure of
Europe cannot be built around an in
dustrial vacuum.
When the views of the Secretary of
the Treasury were made known during
ihe war, there was no official denial of
them. Instead, they were seized upon
by Goebbels and other propogandists as
a means of stiffening German resistance.
It is a fair inference that the threat
to reduce Germany to an agricultural
state lengthened the war. The half
way measures of Yalta and Potsdam
did nothing to reassure Germans. The
result has been 10 months of imperfect
peace.
* * * *
There is, of course, economic and po
litical rivalry between the proposals of
Russia and America for Germany. Both
are playing for the confidence of the
German people. Russia, through Molo
tov, has already assured them of Russia’s
desire to unify Germany. The Soviet
leader also hinted at a restoration to
Germany of some of the eastern prov
inces desired by Poland.
The Byrnes speech, like that of Molo
tov, rejects the French policies regard
ing the Ruhr. It holds out the offer
of assistance, to the end that Germany
become self-sustaining. In our case we
can give help by supplying food and
other material aid. In Russia’s case
the offer is of land on which Germany
can raise her own food. The net purpose
is the same, and the decisive element
will be what happens in the politics of
Germany. Will middle-class republican
ism or working-class Communism ulti
mately prevail? It Is early to predict the
answer to this question, but it is prob
able that both systems will exist in
Germany for a long time to come.
In any event, Byrnes makes it clear
that the United States is going to stay
in Europe. His emphasis on this is to
quiet German fear and Russian wish
ful thinking that we shall presently be
getting sick of it all and withdraw
across the Atlantic. This is a fact
upon which all hope of peace must
rest. It needs saying over and over.
* * * *
It will be disagreeable for the United
States to be put in a position where
it essentially will be paying repara
tions to a defeated enemy, but help
from us Is a vital element in a policy
which is the only guarantee of peace.
The cost of this, together with the cost
of occupation,-will be some hundreds
of millions of dollars a year. Under
favorable conditions, it will be necessary
for five years. The chances are that
it will be seven or eight years. No one
can tell exactly how long, because Rus
sia’s purpose is to make us pay as
much as possible toward Germany’s re
covery, and so the Soviet government
can well play for time. Russia still
holds some millions of German work
ers and technicians as prisoners. They
will be used to rebuild Russia. Mean
while Russian occupation, however
costly, pays dividends, for Russia is
holding productive land and valuable
industrial equipment.
And so the long struggle to crush
Germany now passes into a new phase.
With Russia we prevailed over the
material body of Germany. Now in
rivalry, not altogether friendly, we
struggle to capture the German mind
There is irony in all this, but war itself
is a paradox
(Released by Associated Newspapers, Ine.)
A Mere Pleasantry?
From the Chsrlottetown Pstrtot.
Nobody wants to hurt friends, but
sometimes you’ve got to give them a
kick in the pants when they go too far—
but what’s a kick In the pants between
good friends?
I
Elections in Maine
Turn Out as Usual
Partisans Read Figures to Suit
Own Political Perspective
By David Lawrenct
The Maine elections turned out as
usual—that is, the figures can be read
by partisans to suit their own political
perspective.
Actually Senator Brewster, Republi
can, polled 5.3 percentage points more
than he did when he ran six years ago,
but he fell 2.7 percentage points behind
the vote which Senator Wallace White
got four years ago. This gives both
sides a break.
It is not fair to cither side, however,
to compare percentages obtained by gu
bernatorial candidates with percentages
obtained by Senators or members of
Congress in Maine elections. The gov
ernorship usually turns on local issues
and personalities and often a big vote
for the State ticket is contradicted as to
size by a presidential vote the same
year. Also. ofT-year elections should be
compared with other off years because
the political activity is different.
It is a fact that in 1930 when the
Republican vote for United States Sen
ator was 60.9 per cent of the total there
was a drop to 50.2 in 1934—another off
year election when there was no cam
paign on for the presidency. The next
! time a United States Senator was voted
i on was in 1940, a presidential year when
! the Republican vote was 58.7 but. again,
i this is not germane to the comparison. .
Rea! Comparison.
The real comparison comes with the
: 1942 off-year election when Senator
| White, Republican, won by polling 66.7
! per cent of the vote. Now comes Sen
ator Brewster with approximately 64
| per cent of the vote which, while higher
I than six years ago when he ran in a
! presidential year, is not above the 1942
off-year election • percentage for his
party.
Senator Brewster has been In Maine
public life for a long while, having
served not only as Governor of the
State but as a member of the House
of Representatives. This will be his
second term In the United States Senate.
It is interesting to note how Mr.
Brewster voted on various issues which
might be called outstanding roll calls.
The record shows that Senator
Brewster voted for the confirmation of
Secretary Wallace for the Commerce
Department, against the confirmation
| of Audrey Williams as Rural Electrifi
cation administrator, against the ex
tension of the Trade Agreements Act,
in favor of the $250,000 appropriation
for the Federal Employment Practices
Commission, and for the United Nations
Charter, for the cloture rule to cut off
debate on the Federal Employment
| Practices Commission bill, against the
1 loan to Great Britain, in favor of mak
ing unions suable for breach of con
tract, in favor of a bill to outlaw sec
ondary boycotts in labor disputes, in
favor of making labor subject to the
I antiracketeering bill, in favor of the
Case bill which President Truman sub
sequently vetoed, against a bill that
would strike out labor injunctions, in
favor of the President's strike control
bill introduced after the railroad crisis
last spring, against the equal rights
j amendment sponsored by women's
groups, and in favor of the OPA revival
bill.
No Issue Paramount.
It is difficult to tell from the above
record just what the Maine voters said
by their verdict at the polls, for no one
issue was paramount. The important
fact is that the State of Maine likes
Republicans and if they run in an off
year when the Democrats do not or
ganize particularly well, their chances
of polling a high-percentage vote are
better than in presidential years.
The weather in Maine, of course, is
always a factor in judging the size of the
vote. When there is bad weather the
vote in the rural districts, which is
heavily Republican, doesn't get to the
polls in as large numbers as when there
is fair weather. In the cities where the
Democratic vote is heavy the weather
makes little difference. It is important
to consider the weather if one is ex
amining vote percentages, especially in
i an election where the result is a fore
| gone conclusion and where the element
| of contest is absent. Many .voters do
: not take the trouble to vote in elections
which are one sided, and hence the per
centage polled by Senator Brewster
might have been larger if some special
effort to get out the vote had been
made.
The conclusion must be reached,
therefore, that the Maine elections do
not indicate that the Republicans in
Maine are any less Republican than
they have been or that the Democrats
have any particular momentum left for
their party in Maine as a consequence
of the Roosevelt leadership. The trend
in the Nation will have to be discovered
in other States, especially in the Middle
West where the Republicans may make
substantial gains this autumn.
(Reproduction Rights Reserved.)
'Monty' and 'Tommy'
From the London IHily Telegraph and Morning
Post.
We have lately had a somewhat un
dignified controversy, conducted mainly
on the other side of the Atlantic, over
the claims of this or that general to
have done most to win the war. M°nt
gomery (whose claim would stand high
in any such contest) has swept aside
all such nonsense and advanced in
stead the candidature of the British
soldier as “the man who bore the heavi
est burden of the war and carried us all
to victory.” Military men, with a few
outstanding exceptions, have not been
as good at commanding words as bat
talions. Field Marshal Montgomery is
one of the exceptions, and his apprecia
tion of the British soldier, whose quali
ties and achievements have too often
been neglected through the polite desire
to give every one else his due, will be
numbered as not the least of his serv
ices to the army of which he is now the
head.
* ——_
Eve's Legacy
In that first garden of the. earth
While she awaited her child's birth.
Eve marked the hours
By naming flowers
Translating nature into words
Melodious as singing birds.
No one less beautiful than the
Could, so endow posterity,
Eve marked the hours
By naming flowers
With liquid music that will last
Until the world drops in the past.
HARRIET GRAY BLACKWELL.
l \
i/