Evening star. [volume], March 07, 1947, Page A-8, Image 8

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

Image provided by: Library of Congress, Washington, DC

                
With Inin Moraine Edition.
WASHINGTON, D. C.
Published by
The Evening Star Newspaper Company.
FRANK B. NOTES, President.
R. M. McKELWAY. Editor.
Main Office: 11th 8t. and Pennsrlvanla Ave.
New York Offiee: 110 East 42d St.
Chicato Office: 435 North Michigan Ave.
Delivered by Carrier—Metropolitan Area.
The Evening and Sundar Bear. BOc per month:
when 5 Sundays In the month, $1.00.
The Evening Star Onlr. S5c per month.
The Sunday Stir. 10c per copy.
Eight Pinal Edition. 10c per month additional.
Rates by Mail—Payable in Advance.
Anywhere In United States.
1 month. 6 months. 1 veer.
Evening and Sunday. $1.25 $6.0«; $12.00
§; Ssatsr 15::::: -.a 1.88 hs
Telephone National 5000.
Entered at the Post Office Washington. D. C.,
as second-class mall matter.
Member of the Associated Press.
The Associated Press is exclusively entitled to
the use for republlcation of all nawa dispatches
credited to It or not otherwise credited in this
paper and also the local news published herein.
An rights of publication of special diapatcbas
hortln also are reserved.
A—* * FRIDAY, March 7, 1947
wrrTf**^~**"—— —a.« in
The Lewis Decision
John L. Lewis h&s lost his fight
to set himself above the law and
outside the limits of the. restraints
imposed by the public interest. It
would be a mistake, however, to sup
pose that yesterday’s decision by the
Supreme Court supplies the Govern
ment with a permanent and effective
instrument to deal with strikes
which threaten the national welfare.
Five of the justices agreed that, in
the light of the circumstances of this
case, the Norris-La Guardia Act did
not serve to prevent the Govern
ment from securing an injunction
commanding Mr. Lewis to call off
last year’s coal strike. Having agreed
on that point, the majority of the
court then proceeded—although
there was a split among them on this
—to uphold the contempt convic
tions against Mr. Lewis and his
union. The $3,500,000 criminal fine
against the union was reduced to
$700,000—the balance remaining as
a penalty only if the union continues
in disobedience of the order of the
court.
That, of course, is an important
victory for the Government. But it
is at best a narrow and precarious
victory.
In the first place, the majority
decision was based squarely on the
proposition that the Government
having taken possession of the
mines under authority of the Smith
Connally Act, the miners thereupon
became employes of the Govern
ment. In other words, if this em
ployer-employe relationship had not
been found to exist, the courts
would have been closed even to the
Government by the stringent pro
visions of the Norris-La Guardia Act.
The fact is, however, that the Smith
Connally Act, out of which grew the
legal basis for the Government’s
victory, will expire on June 30.
After that time, unless there is new
legislation, the Government will be
without power to deal with another
coal strike or any other strike in
private industry.
a second important point has to
do with the narrowness of the
ground on which Justices Black and
Douglas stood with the justices con
stituting the majority. They stated
the belief that the Norris-La Guardia
Act would prohibit the Government
from seeking an Injunction for the
benefit of private employers. "But,”
they added, "as we read the War
Labor Disputes (Smith-Connally)
Act and the President’s order taking
over the mines against the back
ground. of circumstances which
prompted both, we think • • * that
the Government operates these
mines for its own account as a
matter of law; and those who work
in them, during the period of com
plete Government control, are em
ployes of the Government.”
The italics have been supplied for
purposes of emphasis because^ the
italicized words seem to be an im
portant qualification by the two
Justices. They might well mean that
against a background of different
circumstances, even though the Gov
ernment were lawfully in possession
of an industry, Justices Black and
Douglas wOuld not be willing to
agree that the workers were in fact
employes of the Government.
Still a third point has to do with
the power and persuasiveness of the
dissenting opinions, particularly
those of Justices Frankfurter and
Murphy.
These members of the court, along
with Justice Rutledge and probably
Justice Jackson, who dissented on
the Norris-La Guardia Act issue
without writing an opinion, con
tended that even if the miners could
be held to be employes of the Gov
ernment—a point which they did
not concede—the Norris-La Guardia
Act would still operate to prevent
the Government from securing an
Injunction against the workers. And
this view was so cogently argued
that one can readily believe that
the court, in the absence of new
legislation, may swing around in
time to this minority viewpoint.
From all of the foregoing, two
conclusions can be drawn. If in the
future the Government expects to
use the injunctive weapon against
strikes which threaten the welfare
of the Nation, and if this is to be
predicated upon an employer
employe relationship, then Congress
must enact some legislation to re
place the expiring Smith-Connally
Act in this respect. Secondly, even
if this is done, the Norris-La Guardia
4ct should be ^amended to make it
unmistakably clear that, in such a
Situation, Congress does not Intend
that the restraints of that law
should be effective against the Fed
eral Government acting in the na
tional interest.
Mr. Gromyko's Latest
Through Mr. Gromyko’s latest
speech to the Security Council, the
Russians now have made clear that
it probably will be years, if ever, be
fore they agree to our atomic-con
trol plan. They are for “rigid” in
ternational supervision—but. They
favor a vetpless inspection system—
but. They do not dispute that vio
lators should be punished—but. As
for outlawing the bomb, they insist
that that must be done right away.
Our plan calls for a powerful
world authority; for effective inspec
tion unhampered by the veto; for
vetoless and swift punishment for
violations; and for a timing pro
cedure under which we would sur
render our present exclusive advan
tages only as the control machinery
went into effect. Rather than go
into the tedious details, suffice it to
say that the Russians would extract
most of the teeth from the system
we have in mind and substitute a
completely inadequate alternative.
In Mr. Gromyko’s words, "only
people who have lost the sense of
reality can seriously believe” in the
American plan. Mr. Gromyko says
this even though all members of
the twelve-nation Atomic Energy
Commission—with the exception of
Russia and satellite Poland—have
voted in favor of the plan’s essen
tials. Why this illogic? Why this
insistence that everybody is out of
step but the Russians? Mr.
Gromyko’s speech seems frank
enough to suggest at least part of
the answer. Leaving aside his un
warranted bitterness and sarcasm,
his arguments strongly indicate
that the Soviet Union is afraid that
the rest of the world, led by Amer
ica, could employ our control pro
posals to undermine Soviet inde
pendence.
Why the fear? If the situation
were reversed, If the Russians were
in our place and we in theirs, how
would we react? Suppose Russia
were democratic and had exclusive
possession of the A-bomb and pre
sented the same plan as ours. Sup
pose America were a Communist
dictatorship without the bomb. Sup
pose great numbers of freedom-lov
ing Russians were openly hostile to
and fearful of our totalitarian sys
tem. Suppose, finally, that they and
peoples politically and economically
akin to them were consistently and
heavily outvoting us in the United
Nations. What would be our atti
tude then? Would we insist on
immediate outlawry of A-weapons?
Would we oppose a powerful world
atomic authority as a menace to
our “sovereignty”? Would we insist
on maintaining the veto to offset the
majority usually voting against us?
Would we be reluctant to permit un
limited inspection behind our “iron
curtain”?
These questions are not cited to
make the present Russian position
seem less discouraging or ominous
than it is. They are cited simply
to emphasize what the free world
is up against in seeking to control
the atom. If we were the Russians,
it is not improbable that we would
react pretty much as they, out of
a sense of fear. We would do so be
cause of deep ideological and eco
nomic differences. There is a vast
gulf between them and us, and we
cannot bridge it by beating them
over the head for failing to see eye
to eye with us. The only construc
tive course to follow is to keep on
trying to convert them to our view.
The alternative is to give up in de
spair and let civilization prepare
for its suicide in the deadliest arms
race of all time.
The Not-So-Dark Ages
Certain alarmed commentators—
possibly too alarmed—are saying
that western civilization seems
clearly to be falling apart. They
may or may not be right; time alone
will tell whether they are or not.
But when they add that the world
is in “danger” of reverting to the
"Dark Ages,” they are wide open not
merely to challenge but to outright
correction as well.
It is about time that the so-called
“Dark Ages” received a square deal.
To begin with, although loosely
catalogued as the several centuries
between the fall of Rome and the
Renaissance, they did not begin and
end on such-and-such dates. All
one can be sure of is that no period
in history has been quite so mis
represented and libeled as these
early medieval times. Fifty or a hun- '
dred years ago there might have
been some excuse for speaking of
them in a derogatory sense. But
there is no excuse now, the fact
being that scholars have uncovered
enough evidence to prove that they
were in many respects brilliantr-not
“dark,” not something to be thought
of with a shudder, not a deadly
epoch that mankind is in “danger”
of reverting to.
Actually the “Dark Ages” belong
too much to medieval civilization
to be classified separately. They
were a time that cannot sensibly be
belittled. As the Encyclopedia
Britannica says, “If we search in
history for examples of sheer good
ness, or of forms of delicate percep
tion, or of intellectual greatness, of
legal acumen or of constructive
ability, we can find them as readily
in the Middle Ages as elsewhere, just
as we find, as nowhere else, depths
of religious experience.” We can also
find in this period—and perhaps to a
much lesser degree—persecution,
cruelty, decadence and all the other
manifestations of evil that can be
found now.
The encyclopedia, reflecting the
findings of scholars, is frankly
exasperated with muddled talk about
the “Dark Ages.” Remember, it says,
that they were times when "Intel
leetual work of the highest quality '
was done by exceptional individuals.”
Remember, too, that “With the
progress of medieval studies in the
nineteenth century it became im
possible for historians to dismiss one
of the great constructive periods in
human activity with an epithet im
plying contempt for its aAieve
ments, and the phrase has now
become obsolete.”
In short, however right or wrong
they may be about the seeming dis
solution of our present civilization,
certain commentators ought to
bring themselves up to date and
stop speaking about the “danger”
of our reverting to the “Dark Ages.”
Worse things could happen to us
than that. Our own time is not so
wonderful that we can afford to
misunderstand the past and look
down our noses at it.
DST Party
Impressed by the siz6 of the House
vote against daylight-saving time for
the District, Chairman Buck of the
Senate District Committee expressed
belief that the House action had
“settled it.” But developments of
the past few days show that the
DST question is far from settled, as
far as the aroused citizens of Wash
ington are concerned. They do not
relish having local matters settled
for them by farmers who live some
where else.
So, as the taxed but unrepre
sented citizens of Boston did with
their tea in 1776, the indignant resi
dents of Washington are threaten
ing that if worst comes to worst
they may take matters in their own
hands and toss standard time over
board, regardless of the House vote.
This would be an unofficial, volun
tary adoption of “fast time” in lieu
of a legal change. The last-ditch
alternative was to be discussed at a
mass meeting of business and civic
interests today under joint sponsor
ship of the Board of Trade and
Junior Chamber of Commerce.
The voluntary plan should be, in
deed, a last-ditch measure. Only an
official and legal clock change could
hope to achieve complete compli
ance, and anything less than unani-.
mous adoption of DST in the Dis
trict would result in confusion. The
mere prospect of a spontaneous DST
party here should be enough to con
vince Congress of the desirability of
giving heed to what Washingtonians
want, rather than to what farmers
outside of Washington are alleged
to want.
If Congress listens to those who
live here and would be benefited by
daylight saving, it will either grant
the District the time change out
right or, as the McGrath bill pro
poses, authorize the Commissioners
to grant it if a public hearing shows
that the city wants it.
This and That
By Charles E. Tracewell
“Dear Sir:
“Since childhood in Virginia I always
heard that birds select their mates every
year on February 14, but of late when I
speak of it I am laughed at. «
"Will you please tell me if there is
any truth or is this simply a legend.
“Respectfully yours, C. A. W.”
This is a legend due to the desire of
many persons to humanize the birds.
The only practical fact in relation to
it is that often early February is warm
enough to make the birds begin to think
spring is really here.
They tend at such times to select their
mates, if their old ones are missing, but
by and large there is no date set, of
course.
It is only the desire of humanity to
make all things human that would
allow any one to pretend that the
songsters know about our St. Valentine's
day!
It is a nice enough legend, as far as
it goes, just as is the one about the blue
jays flying to see their father, the
devil, on Fridays.
This is based on the indubitable fact
that jays do more or less absent them
selves from their usual haunts on that
day.
As to why this is so, is anybody’s
guess. But it had been observed by
almost every one interested in these
birds.
The modem idea, as contrasted with
the old one, is that jays are more
sinned against than sinning. Old plates
show the jays with gripping eggs of
other birds in their claws.
Such pictures portray only occasional
jays. They do not truthfully represent
these true Americans. One has but to
watch them closely at a bird feeding
station to admire them, and to see that
they do not in any sense pester other
species, but to the contrary get along
with them very well.
The blue jay is an upstanding fellow,
beautiful to look at, and interesting to
watch. He takes care of himself, and his
family. He is one of the few species
which lives in small flocks composed of
his own. The father, mother and three
or four children, sometinfcs a few more,
make up these bands.
Such bands come to feeding stations,
and arev so regular in this habit that
their absence, after a time, may be
noticed.
It will then be realized that they
abstent themselves on Friday. At this
point the mind of man, seeking an ex
planation, turns to religion, and, com
bining it with the old idea of the “bad
ness” of the jay, comes up with a
legend.
The month recently ended is often
warm. This year nature, after giving
snowless months, suddenly surprised us
by sending down snow and plenty of it.
But bad weather, as we humans call
it, is just weather to the birds. They
are used to taking fair and foul days as
they come. In their stride, as the ex
pression has it.
Birds do not resent snow and ice.
They just hustle the harder for a living.
In this they are helped no end by kind
hearted admirers.
The snowy days set off the birds in a
marvelous manner.
Addicts of bird watching and feeding
must be glad of snow, now and then, if
for no other reason than it furnished
a fine background for their favorites.
Cardinals, Jays and others shine with
renewed coloring against the neutral
background.
And even in the snow, the birds do
begin to feel the various urges of spring.
Common sparrows often may be seen
carrying small sticks for nest building
in February.
The bluebirds begin to nest about
March 5. Soon thereafter the busy
Jenny Wrens appear, and following a
long list of favorites, at present just
beginning to feel the urge to fly north.
That is where we come in, and we will
be waiting for them.
Letters to The Star
A Sedition Case Defendant
Demands to Be Tried
To the Editor of The Star:
Your lead editorial “Travesty on
Justice” in your March 4 issue is one of
the most thought-provoking in the his
tory of one of America’s most pro
vocative legal cases.
Of course the Justice Department is
to blame and very much to blame for
its flagrant mishandling of the anti
sedition case over the years. But are
we to be led to believe that the in
ferior Federal Court in the District of
Columbia itself is blameless? The
record will not bear out any such con
tention of implication and I know
The Star, true to its inherent fair
play, will seek to expound all sides of
this great controversy. After all, this
attitude would but properly climax The
Star's own uniformly fair reports of
the incompleted court trial itself.
It seems only logical a higher court
should now be called upon to grapple
with this bungled cause. I am sure
The Star will not want to countenance
the establishment of a narrow-minded
legal precldent decreeing that the
Government stall or drop all cases it
feels it may lose. After all, this case—
including its amazing major and minor
implications—is going to be tried
whether anybody likes it or not. Isn’t
it better that it be tried legally, rather
than resolved informally for many years
to come in the shop, on the farm, in
the subway or on the high seas?
Defendants ''Impoverished."
Indictments in this case were be
fore the inferior Federal Court in the
District of Columbia from the middle
of 1942 to the latter part of November,
1946. If the ‘‘mass trial" was a
‘‘Travesty on Justice” in 1946, wasn’t
it equally so in 1942? Surely the court
erred in waiting nearly four and one
half years—until surviving defendants
were utterjy impoverished and ruined
in business and personal reputation—
to render the pontifical, trial-less
verdict you take for the caption on your
leading editorial.
The record will further show that
some of the defendants themselves re
peatedly over the years since Chief
Justice Eicher’s death pleaded with the
court to give them bread in the form of
a vindication trial. Finally, at long
last, the court replied after the No
vember elections. But its reply was to
give all the defendants as well as the
Government and the public at large
the stone of dismissal—dismissal with
out court vindication, without the de
fendants being allowed one syllable in
court to meet the stupendous charges,
without any form of restitution either
in finances or reputation or even in
some cases a climate in which to obtain
or retain a job in a conditioned social
order successively prejudiced against the
defendants by the strange dilatory at
titude of prosecutor and court. If this
isn't conviction by mere accusation, just
what is?
Asks for Precedents.
Where are the precedents, the cita
tions, the authorities allowing such
dismissal of such a case? whatever
can be said against the appeal of the
Justice Department—and plenty can and
doubtless will be said—at least it is on
the side of due process of law—even if
very belatedly so.
Court and prosecutor long ago
violated the presumption of innocence
as well as due process of law. .Thus
it would seem but the part of equity
to grant the defendants the right to
fight for their own American innocence
and to recoup what they can in the
form of reputation, prestige and business
ability. In their trial-less but multiply
indicted condition they have long since
suffered all the possible disadvantages
of a trial without being allowed an op
portunity to win the major advantage
of any trial—a clean bill of health be
fore their friends, neighbors and business
associates. It would seem but axiomatic
that an American citizen should be
granted the right to fight for a clean
bill of health when victimized by three
next-door-to-treason charges.
PRESCOTT DENNETT.
, Courses for Shut-ins
To the Editor of The Star:
I notice that a plea was made re
cently before the Association for the
Education of Handicapped Shut-in Chil
dren of the District fo» an increase in
home instruction to five hours a week.
The cause of the shut-ins is so excellent j
that nobody could desire to speak in any
way against the bettering of their op
portunities. The proposed increase,
however, would mean paying a teacher’s
full salary, over $2,000 annually, for the
instruction of six children (supposing
the teacher worked normal hours,
apart from the time spent in traveling).
An alternative might be considered.
A number of States have correspondence
courses foe those children living in re
mote areas who cannot attend school.
Some of these correspondence courses
are so excellent that students who have
taken them are found, when they come
to attend high school or university, to
have a better grounding than ordinary
“classroom” students.
Why shouldn’t the District invest in
correspondence courses for its “shut
ins” from one of the better State de
partments of education, while, of
course, keeping the present one or two
hours weekly of personal instruction as
tuition to supplement the correspond
ence courses, providing help when
needed? HELEN B. AKRIGG.
Economy Tip for Congress
To the Editor ol The Star:
With all the furor Congressmen are
making over reducing the budget, why
does it never occur to them to decrease
their own expenditures at the expense
of the taxpayers?
Every Representative gets $2,500 ex
pense* money not liable to taxation.
That amounts to more than $8,000,000.
Every Representative and Senator gets
$1,500 stationery money, which is sel
dom used but is partly taken as extra
cash in the member’s pocket. That
amounts to nearly $7,000,000. The 20
cents per mile allowed for travel, which
costs 2 cents a mile, is a clear racket
and amounts to another $1,000,000. And
when the money earned by relatives of
Senators and Representatives on the
payroll is added, the amount gets large
enough so that Congress should be
ashamed not to reduce it in proportion,
at least, to the cuts in the Army and
Navy budgets.
But will they sacrifice anything them
selves? TIMOTHY J. WALES.
(Not a Government Employe.)
America’s 'Umptee’ Army
A Mental, Physical and Moral Experiment to Prove
the Virtues of Universal Military Training
By John Justin Smith '
Fort Knox’s unique school for teen-age soldiers offers, among other
things, good music daily. —Photo by U. S. Army Signal Corps.
r'UKT K.NOX, Ky.—The "Umptees,” a
battalion of 664 teen-age soldiers, today
are out to prove that universal military
training won’t necessarily make Army
bums out of American boys.
The Umptees are members of the new
universal military training experimental
unit and derive their nickname from it.
This is the new Army.
Imagine! In this Army cussing is
taboo. Crap games and other gambling
are strictly forbidden. Drinking is out.
Top sergeants are firm—but not hard
boiled.
Instead, the shiny-faced Umptees are
going through regular basic training in
a collegiate atmosphere.
Barracks are painted in cheerful col
ors. Some windows even have curtains.
The post exchange does a big busi
ness in candy bars, but sells no beer.
Classical music is served up daily in
a big, carpeted room devoted to music
alone.
There are high school and college
classes and social events galore to fill
off-duty hours.
Discipline is maintained by a court
made up of Umptees themselves.
The chaplain is just about the most
important man in camp.
Despite all this, Brig. Gen. John M.
Devine, chief guardian of the Umptees,
insists that the program “is not revo
lutionizing Army training.”
From Regular Volunteers.
"We’re just adapting training to the
needs of 18-year-old boys,” he says.
Seven weeks ago, the Umptees were
selected from the roster of Army volun
teers. To qualify, they had to be under
20 and without previous Army experi
ence. Coming from 46 States, they
make up a cross-section of the Nation’s
youth.
They have been formed into a bat
talion of four companies with 16 pla
toons of 40 ipen. So far, their training
program has been worked out to cover a
six-month period. Currently, they’re
taking regular basic training.
All training, according to Gen. Devine,
consists of three phases—“mental, phy
sical _and moral. And we’re not going
to make any bones about moral train
ing.”
For the first four Sundays of their
training, the Umptees were required
either to go to church or attend a lec
ture on “citizenship.” The first week
all but one Umptee went to church. He
went the next week.
The officers insist that "we’re not try
ing to convert anybody.” It’s just that
the chaplain is being given a chance to
do his job.
Discipline is kept among the Umptees
by a new system of demerits. In the
old days, a soldier who failed to shine
his shoes or missed saluting an officer
was in for a first-class bawling out.
Umptee gets a demerit. He must do an
extra hour of duty for every demerit
over 20 that he gets in a single month.
Five demerits in a week keeps an Umptee
from getting a wreek-end pass.
Have Own Court.
More serious violations of military
rule are handled by a court of eight
Umptees, including one appointed as a
trial judge advocate.. If the court finds
a soldier guilty it recommends punish
ment to the company commander. Un
der a special Umptee code, he must deal
out the punishment.
Special attention is paid to the Ump
tee in his off-duty hours.
An entire barracks building is de
voted to the information and education
sertion. There the Umptee can take high
school or college courses through the
United States Armed Forces Institute.
Seme 120 of the 664 Umptees are work
ing for high school diplomas.
To keep idle hands busy, another ,
building has been made fnto a hobby
sh°n. Umptees are learning such things
as leathercraft, photography and gem
cutting.
Their own service club, with its two
pretty hostesses, is a dream. In addition
to the usual service club pool tables
and snack bar, this one has a juke
box, a dance floor and an outside danc
ing patio. Girls from nearby Louisville
are brought to the fort as dancing part
ners.
The entire service club is designed to
keep any teen-age kid happy.
For the sports-minded Umptees. there
are two gyms in the battalion area and
a combination basket ball-volley ball
court.
Week-End Passes.
Umptees are given week-end passes.
But they’re watched like hawks. Their
officers must know exactly where they’re
going to spend their time.
Bartenders in Louisville have been
warned to watch out for the blue and
yellow Umptee shoulder patch. The
youngsters are turned out of the sa
loons. Most Umptees, however, take ad
vantage of the planned week end for
trips to historical places in Kentucky.
Despite all this, officers stoutly claim
"we're not coddling anybody around
here. We re just trying to prove that
we can make something besides cannon
fodder.”
The Umptees seem to like their job.
Primarily, their mission is to prove that
universal military training won’t hurt
them if it’s done right. But they’re
also learning to be soldiers. They make
enthusiastic soldiers.
As one instructor, a sergeant with
wartime experience, puts it: "They al
most drive you goofy with the questions
they ask. They want to know all about
everything.”
However, it’s in their barracks life
that Umptees are really different from
the soldiers. Pinup girls don’t exist.
The teen-agers talk about such things
as sports, Army training, the news and
school work. Pay day crap games are
forbidden by a special code of conduct.
Instead, the beardless soldiers spend
much of their time reading or study
ing.
In every barracks, the second-floor
sergeant's room has been converted into
a sort of study with curtained windows
and soft chairs.
orderly at Mess.
Any Army veteran would be shocked
at conditions in rvi Umptee mess hall.
There’s no mad scramble for food. Hie
Umptees march to meals and noboby
sits down until all are ready to eat.
Officers tactfully point out faulty table
manners.
And Umptees eat more than other
soldiers.
‘‘They’re the eatingest guys I ever
saw,” says Lt. Ray May of Panama
City, Fla. “They almost eat us out of
house and home.” The manager of
the post exchange also reports that
Umptees “are darned heavy eaters.”
“We don’t sell many razor blades,” he
says. "But we sure peddle a lot of
candy bars and ice cream.”
The noncommissioned officers In
charge of these teen-agers report that
they must stay on their toes. “It’s like
having your kid brother around all the
time,” said one first sergeant. “You
gotta be careful of what you say and
Gen- Devine declares he believes
that the program “will come out all
right.”
For, years, he says, chaplains have
complained that their role In the Army
pass«l over lightly, “in this
unt, he points out, “we propose to
support the chaplains and to give them
every opportunity to improve the moral
fiber of the trainees and to emphasize
the moral aspect both of military train
ing and of human relations”
Gen. Devine feels sure a proper pro
gram of universal military training will
™er£ way.”UmPteCS ‘ better cltizen* to
(Chicago Daily News Service.)
On the Record
By Dorothy Thompson
ricsiaent, uen. Marshall,
former Ssr. :.ary of State Byrnes and,
apparently, Senator Vandenberg urging
Immediate ratification of -the treaties
with the Axis satellite states—Italy,
Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria—it is
difficult and may, indeed, seem pre
sumptuous to express any doubt, how
ever humbly, whether this counsel is
altogether wise.
None of our statesmen is defending
these treaties in principle. They are
quite unable to do so. They are defend
ing them, as President Roosevelt de
fended the Yalta Agreement, with a
wry face, as the best we could get.
They are defending them as “real
politik,” that German concept of politics
which has become universalized, as
though to prove Emerson's remark that
“we tend to become what we hate.”
The Secretary of State urged ratifica
tion that his hafid should be strength
ened in Moscow, whither he has since
departed. He argued that the principal
provisions of the treaties were based on
recommendations of the Conference of
Paris adopted by a two-thirds vote, and
that “this is the kind of co-operation
which we must encourage if we are to
build enduring peace.”
But the peace treaties of 1919 repre
sented just this kind of co-operation,
based on struggles of interest among the
victors, divorced from any principles in
cluding those of Woodrow Wilson.
Those treaties did not bring enduring
peace. And these, more completely di
vorced from the Atlantic Charter than
the 1919 treaties were from the Fourteen
Points, are worse than the former
treaties were—much worse.
Former Secretary Byrnes went into
the matter farther, describing the situa
tion in Venezia Giulia. What he said
was more ominous than encouraging.
* * * *
“We were compelled to choose between
internationalizing Trieste or having no
agreement at all* * • • Nationals of
Yugoslavia were moving into the city.
* * • It is probable that there would
have been rioting. Then Yugoslavia
would declare it necessary to quell the
rioting on its border and would send
troops to Trieste.” Therefore, Yugo
slavia was threatening a repetition of
the Hitler tactics in the Sudetenland—
—arc v«y«
"It is my opinion Yugoslavia will
hesitate to take such action as to the
international territory under the con
trol of the United Nations. She will
realize that there is a difference be
tween encroaching on the territory of a
defeated enemy state that has been
disarmed and encroaching upon the
free territory of Trieste.”
I submit that is a remarkable state- '
ment. It means that the aim of the
internationalization of Trieste is not to
protect the Yugoslavs against the Ital
ians but the Italians against the Yugo
slavs. And if there is a "difference"
between attacking a disarmed ex-enemy
state and any other form of state,
what is that difference? Can the one
be committed with impunity? If so,
disarmament is an invitation to con
quest.
The tactics of World War in, into
which we are already sinking, is not to
send armies across the frontiers of an
other country in an obvious act of
aggression. Instead, it is to give po
litical and armed support to factions
within a country after it has been
weakened to the point where no gov
ernment can command authority
weakened by measures conducive to
economic breakdown, misery, despair
and consequent anarchy.
* * * *
And what Mr. Byrnes said was an
admission of being forced to circumvent
a threat of aggression. It is a bad way
to start an enduring peace.
Were the times other than they are;
were justice and principle the lodestars;
were there such a thing, even, as com
mon sense—a common definition of
sense—no treaties would be ratified
until all could be considered together.
The treaties with the Axis satellites
will be relatively good or bad only in
the light of the German and Austrian
treaties. Until one sees the whole pic
ture, it is impossible to exercise sound
judgment.
OteitMad by the BUI Syndicate, Inc.)
#
Law's Power Uphefd
By Lewis Decision
Court Action Cited to Show Need
To Alter Injunction Act
By David Lawrence
John L. Lewis and the miners’ union
are not above the law. They must obey
it. They cannot defy a court order
and go unpunished.
This 1s the major issue just decided
by. the Supreme Court of the United
States. But in fairness to Mr. Lewis
and the miners’ union, it must be stated
that they thought they had a right
to disregard a restraining order by tha
court, for they believed the court had
no valid basis for the issuance of such
an order.
Under our legal system, #nybody can
defy what an individual believes to be
an invalid or unconstitutional exercise
of power and ask a court to decide the
casQ. But if the citizen who does the
defying loses out, he pays the penalty.
There apparently is no other way to
test such ambiguous points of law.
Mr. Lewis and his attorneys could
have recognized* the temporary re
straining order and instructed the
miners to discontinue their work stop
page until the tangled points of law
could be argued and settled in the
courts. But, as pointed out in these
dispatches at the time, the miners’
chieftain refused and took a long
chance. Now he has lost.
There were other points of great im
portance decided by the Supreme Court
in the case. Thus a majority of live
to four decided that Congress had not
intended by the Norris-La Guardia Act
to bar the Government itself from seek
ing injunctions where the employes
were under Government control.
Four Justices Dissented.
Four justices took the amazing view
that one Congress can, by a broadly
written statute, stay the hand of the
Government itself indefinitely from pro
tecting its interests in a major crisis
affecting its own safety. Thus a law
which doesn’t even mention the Gov
ernment as an exception really applies
to governmental action—as the minority
see it.
The fact that they took this view
shows how uncertain is the status of
the Norris-La Guardia law today and
how much need there is for an amend
ment affirmatively outlining the powers
of the Federal Government. It cer
tainly is a narrow majority—namely
one vote in the Supreme Court—on
which to rest in future disputes involv
ing labor unions.
Also it brings sharply into focus how
wide-sweeping is the Norris-La Guardia
act, for plainly most of the justices
agreed that, if the dispute had been
between private employers and the
unions, there could have been no relief
by injunction no matter to what ex
treme of hardship the whole nation had
been forced by a nationwide coal strike.
This means that Congress must amend
the law and give the Federal Govern
ment power to intervene in any national
emergency, when declared by the Presi
dent, as a consequence of a paralyzing
strike. Certainly if there are four
justices who think the laws actually
forbid the Federal Government from
protecting itself, another justice may
turn up some day on the mercurial
Supreme Court and decide the issue
the other way.
Judicial Processes Upheld.
What the Court did about the line to
not likely to excite too much contro
versy, for the case Itself was unprece
dented and the extent of the fine to a
matter on which opinions may rightly
differ. What is important and signifi
cant is that the judicial process in a
broad sense was upheld. When District
Court Justice Goldsborough issued a
temporary restraining order to hold
things in their unchanged state until
the merits of the question could be
argued and a determination reached as
to whether the temporary order should
be confirmed, he was merely following a
historic procedure. There could be no
trials of complicated legal issues if the
delay, while the court tried the case,
were to result in damage to either party
so that the decision itself, when reached,
would be irrelevant.
Congress, of course, will take notice of
the latest Supreme Court decision and
legislate accordingly. The public will
applaud the decision, but labor union
leaders will be resentful. Also if ths
New Deal were in power today, the new
dealers probably would favor the passage
of a law specifically forbidding evefi
temporary restraining orders from be
ing issued by the courts in any labor
disputes even when the Government in
in control of the properties and of the
employes.
Fortunately, the New Deal isn't in
power today and the American people,
by the election last fall, indicated what
perhaps the present Supreme Court hag
• noted—that the people still are sovereign
and that labor unions cannot set them
selves apart as a separate system of
super-government.
(Reproduction Rithte Reserved)
J. L. Garvin
Prom the Montreal Star.
J. L. Garvin will be long remembere4
in English journalism, not only for tbg|
length of his distinguished services but
also for the vigor and power of his writ*
lng. He was 79 years old when he died,
in service to the last.
His recent readers will remember hid!
chiefly as the principal journalistic
mouthpiece of the "Cliveden set” whoaii
activities as the Intellectual front df
the prewar appeasement movement in
Great Britain came into great prom$4
nence. It is more likely, however, thah
Mr, Garvin will be remembered longest
for his espousal of the imperial move*
ment led by the father of the late Nev*
ille Chamberlain, the redoubtable "Joe$
That statesman, after a long career as a
radical, with a record inside the British
Liberal Party of social reform, caught R
vision of empire which involved a change
in the long-established free-trade poll*
cies of the United Kingdom.
In the great crusade that followed at
the turn of the century, it was the thuni.
dering rhetoric prose of Garvin which
popularized the movement in the press
as Kipling and others did in other form*
of the written word. In due course Gar*
vin wrote the formal biography of JoH
seph Chamberlain, and this work ra*
mains his most enduring monument. !*
It Was in March
It was in March, a wind-swept day likti
this— \l
A girl walked in a garden, wondering
When woolly buds would loose to silken,
leaves
And birds, flown back from Egypt, greet
the spring. .
The wind, she thought—then glinfpeed
an angeVs form; i a «
Heard Gabriel’s cry, "Hail, Mi
of grace!’’—
And learned that she would
Son of God— ,
She, merely seeking April in that vlace Jt
VIOLET ALLEYN B’TOWBt.M