Newspaper Page Text
With Sunday Morning Edition.
WASHINGTON, D. C. v Published by The Evening Star Newspaper Company. SAMUEL H. KAUFFMANN, President. B. M. McKELWAY, Editor. MAIN OFFICE: ll*h St. onel Pennsylvania Ave. NEW YORK OFFICE: 110 East 42d St. CHICAGO OFFICE: 435 North Mkhigan Ave. Delivered by Carrier—Metropolitan Area. Daily and Sunday Daily Only Sunday Only Monthly ..1.20* Monthly _90c 10c par copy Weekly .—30c, Weekly ... 20c 10c per copy •10c additional when 5 Sundays are in a month. Also 10c additional for Night Final Edition in those sections where delivery is made. Rotas by Mail—Payable in Advance. Anywhere in United States. Evening and Sunday Evening Sunday 1 month .. 1.S0 1 month .. 90c 1 month AOc 4 months.. 7.50 4 months_ 5.00 4 months 3.00 1 year _15.00 1 year_10.00 1 year -.4.00 telephone Sterling 5000. Entered at the Post Office. Washington, D. C„ as second-class mail matter. Member ef the Associated Prase. The Associated Press is entitled exclusively to the use far republication of all the local news printed in this newspaper, as well as all A. P. news dispatches. A—10 * " TUESDAY, July S, 1949 A New UCS at Work Reorganization of the old Washington Community Chest-Council of Social Agencies machinery required a lot of time and patience. It was accompanied by much wrangling, bringing buried discord to the surface and airing old grievances. But most of that is behind us now. The meeting last week of the Board of Trustees of the revitalized United Community Serv ices was indicative of a new beginning in planning a program of social welfare work tor this city. The trustees acted on the admittance to membership of some fifty-seven Washing ton agencies which will be represented in the appeal this fall of the Community Chest Federation. But the act of admit tance was no mere formality. Some of the agencies admitted were directed to ex plore and report back on why they should not combine. Others were warned, in ef fect, to demonstrate their eligibility -for continued inclusion in the united appeal. There were examples of disagreement among the trustees, decided after debate and ballotting, on the admittance of others. But all of the decisions reached by the trustees had been preceded by more than fifty meetings and "hundreds of hours” of discussion by the committees in charge of preliminary screening. This process, it is believed, will be im proved by experience and in months to come should produce results that are nec essary if the principle of a combined ap peal for welfare work is to be preserved in Washington. Winning admittance to the United Community Services should not be easily accomplished. And because of the stringent requirements, it should carry with it a prestige that wins confident sup port of contributors. While it is doubtless impossible to obtain unanimous agreement among trustees or contributors as to what agencies should be included, continuation of a careful se lective process, with constant emphasis on eliminating unnecessary ^or duplicating work by member agencies, will serve in the end to minimize complaints. Community support of the Chest principle will grow stronger with general recognition of the fact that no agency can be Included in United Community Services if its useful ness is seriously questioned, if it is doing work with private funds that is being done already by public funds or if it is motivated by a competitive spirit rather than effec tiveness in treating the problems lying within its field. Continued showing of a sufficiently hard-boiled attitude in admittance of new agencies or rejection of those which have outlived their community usefulness will do more than any other single thing to build public confidence in the promising new United Community Services. The Government Has Rights, Too District Court Judge Holtzoff’s ruling upholding the constitutionality of the Fed eral employes loyalty program is well rea soned and soundly based. It is in line with Justice Holmes’ oft-quoted (and Judge Holtzoff is the latest jurist to quote it) logic in a New Bedford police case: “Hie petitioner (a discharged policeman) may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman.-’ The issue before the District Court arose nut of the threatened dismissal of thirty aix postal workers on orders from the de partmental loyalty board. The employes attacked the President’s loyalty program on grounds that it violated their rights of free speech under the First Amendment and of due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. Judge Holtzoff, in disposing of the free apeech question, stated the Holmes philos ophy in another way: “The Government has a perfect right to pick and choose its own employes, and it would have a perfect right, if it saw fit to do so, to get rid of them for making utterances which they have a right to make under the Constitu tion.” In this contention he was following closely the reasoning of the Court of Ap peals in the Friedman case, in which the appellate judges unanimously held that the Federal Government has the right to prescribe the qualifications of its employes and to attach conditions to their employ ment-including a provision for discharge ii there is reasonable ground for doubting their loyalty. As for the “due process” question, Judge Holtzoff held that due process require ments do not apply to loyalty procedures, which are in the nature of employer employe dealings, not like court proceed ings. An employe, he said, has no right to appeal to the courts from a loyalty or der. However, the loyalty program • was drawn up with a view to according an employe more rights than he had ever had under any previous screening process. He has the right to receive written charges in considerable detail, the right to a hearing, with counsel and any witnesses he may wish to produce, before a departmental board, the right to appeal first to the de partment head, then to a panel pf the-Civil Service Commission Loyalty Review Board and, finally, to the full Review Board. This Is not-“due process," of course, in the juridical sense, but it is an earnest effort by the Government to avoid injustices in administration of the loyalty policies and procedures. It is proper that the Govern ment should go as far as it reasonably can in protecting the rights of individual em ployes under the loyalty program—but, as Judge Holtzoff’s ruling makes plain, the Government also has a right, indeed an obligation, to protect itself. The Senate in a Haunted Room With the renovators temporarily driving ! it from its regular meeting place, the Sen ate of the United States moves back today to a kind of haunted room where there is no space for lobbyists or spectators but afliere sensitive members must surely be influenced by the velvety, unseen presence of a multitude of histqry’s wraiths. For this relatively small semicircular chamber (75 feet long and 45 feet wide in the center* is a storied place richly sat urated with the spirit of our American past. The Senate first moved into it in 1810, when the Union consisted of a mere 17 States and when the membership there fore totaled only 34. From th6n on, through a period of stressful growth and tumultuous change, the Senators regularly met there until 1859. After that, for 76 years, with its handsome and august at mosphere, it served as the home of the Supreme Court. Because of its limited physical dimen sions, some of our 96 Senators may feel unhappy about having to do business in this room. The absence of appreciative spectators may cramp their style, or the confines of the place may fill a few of them with a sense of claustrophobia. Indeed, there is even the possibility that a couple of them, irritated by being crowded to gether, may be driven to do violence of the sort that occurred there in 1856 when Representative Brook? took cane in hand to rain cruel blows on the head of the aged Senator Sumner. On the other hand, though, there is some reason to believe that historic sur roundings have a way of putting people on their dignity. A Senator will be dis posed to regard nonsense as something out of place in a room that was burned by the British back in 1814. In dealing with such issues as the Atlantic Pact, he will be likely to remember that the Monroe Doctrine was first proclaimed in this very same chamber. Moreover, he probably will find himself being influenced, at least a little bit, by the fact that here Webster raised his famous cry for "Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and insep arable;” that here Calhoun and Clay once lay in state; that here the highest tribunal of the land handed down a long series of momentous decisions climaxed by the in validation of the NRA. So in moving back for a while to its old chamber the Senate is rendezvousing with its past within walls that have looked down on men and events of vast impor tance to the story of America. The place, if one had the ears to hear, still rings with the great and wise words that were often spoken there in an earlier time. There may be no such things as ghosts, but nev ertheless, looking on and lobbying in its own way, a certain spirit, a heritage, a historical presence sits in that room now with the living Senators. Where Red China Stands A pronouncement of Mao Tse-tung, made in commemoration of the twenty eighth anniversary/ of the birth of the Communist Party in China, is a clear indi cation of the basic ideology and policies of the Red regime now dominant over most of China. Since Mao is the acknowledged civilian leader and spokesman for that regime, his words can be considered as authoritative. In the first place. Mao leaves no doubt as to where Red China stands in the inter national field. “We belong,” he asserts, “to the anti-imperialist front headed by the U. S. S. R., and we can look for genuine and friendly aid from that front, and.hot from the imperialist front. China cannot sit on the fence. • • * Neutrality is a camouflage.” Mao makes the distinction common to Communist propaganda everywhere be tween the “masses of the people” in all countries, who aw represented as friendly, and the “imperialists” and “reactionaries” who allegedly control “capitalistic” gov ernments such as those of the United States, Britain and other non-Communlst nations. He gratefully acknowledges ef forts by “progressive parties and groups” in America and elsewhere- for the opening of trade and diplomatic relations with Red China, but goes on to tell his followers not to' expect “genuine” aid from the United States or Britain so long as their present Governments are in power. Such relations could be achieved, however, if “we unite all forces at home and abroad to smash domestic, -and foreign reaction aries.” All this naturally has a bearing on current discussions as to the possibility of arriving at some sort of informal ar rangements with the Red regime under which trade and other economic contacts would be feasible. Mao’s pronouncement ■appears to be less conciliatory than previ ous utterances or than the practices of the Red authorities in newly-won commercial ports like Tientsin and Shanghai, which seem to be pragmatically experimental rather than dogmatic in character. In the domestic field, Mao is equally forthright. He admits that his concept of government for contemporary China is “dictatorial.*” This he describes as a “people's democratic dictatorship. That is, the right of reactionaries to voice their opinions must be denied and only the people allowed to have the right of voicing their opinions.” Freedom of speech, as sembly and association, and the right to vote are to be given only “to the people and not to reactionaries.” This, of course, is st%pdard Communist doctrine, but it is franker than previous official statements, which gave the impression that the com-i ing regime would be a coalition embracing all “democratic” elements, even those not formally affiliated with the Communist Party. To be sure, consistency in utterance is not to be expected from Communists. However rigid their ideology and however unswerving their basic strategy, they are extremely flexible in their tactics, never hesitating to change their promises or arguments, no matter how illogical such ch|nges may look in retrospect. But Mao’s latest pronouncement offers scant Indica tion of compromise or conciliation, either at home or in the conduct of Red China’s foreign relations. Library Demonstration For .millions of Americans, the library card has always been a passport to a whole world of pleasure and information through reading. The public library has served countless other patrons in a highly prac tical way. Many a young couple starting a home or a family has found guidance from library books on interior decorating or baby care. City-dwellers who have availed themselves of the joys of browsing and borrowing since they first marched home with “Grimm’s Fairy Tales’’ firmly in hand are inclined to take library service for granted, and to assume that it is part of every citizen’s life. The sad truth of the matter, however, is that 35,000,000 Americans, mostly in rural areas, have no library service at all, and another 35,000,000 have inadequate facilities. The Library Demonstration Bill, cur rently stalled in a House committee, is intended to remedy this situation, to pro vide the advantages of self-education through reading to these people. Under terms of this measure, which is before Congress for the third time, all States, ter ritories and the District of Columbia would receive from the Federal Government an annual grant of $40,000 over a period of five years for a demonstration of library service. During that time, the Govern ment would also match State appropria tions up to $100,000 for library funds. After the demonstration—and the bill is aimed at stimulation of State programs, not indefinite subsidy—the people of the localities who had been introduced to library service would be obliged to assume responsibility for its continuation. Backers of the bill have maintained that once peo ple have enjoyed library service they refuse to be without it. Their contrition is borne out in the case of Louisiana, where 21 out of 22 parishes which became ac quainted with book-borrowing through bookmobiles voted local taxes to make the experiment permanent The American Library Association, chief sponsor of the Library Demonstration Bill, has polled members of both houses of Congress as to their sentiments about the measure and found a majority in favor of it. It is to be hoped that the bill will be given a hearing by the House Labor and Education Committee, and then passed, for an extension of library service would be a sound investment in democracy. The last word on the Brooklynite living in a three-by-flve closet had him shooing callers away with “there’s nobody here but j just us moths.’’ * This and That By Charles E. Tracewell Miss G. G. need not worry about her mockingbird. The bird is probably all right, birds have thousands of years behind them, even the youngest have! Miss G. had a pet mocker, and it finally flew away, she says. “If you will recall, I contacted you on the phone for advice on how to raise a fledgling mocker.” she writes. “I had him May 1. I kept him in a large room, where he was free to come and go at will. “I encouraged him to fly as soon as he showed the inclination. In the week of May 23 he was flying—and perching outdoors at night. * * * * “He was slow in learning to eat. > “Every two hours all day for three weeks he would swoop down from some oak, call In a baby chirp and then fly In the window, which I always left open and demand his meal. “He usually perched on my head until I had his meal ready. Then he would perch on my left finger and eat—they fly away. “Friday, May 27. at 5 p.m„ was the last time I ever saw him. I am heartsick. I wonder If I let him free too soon, if he was too young to protect himself. I can’t under stand whatever happened to him. “What is the life cycle of a wildbird? How soon can they take care of themselves? 'Do you know if birds who become pets ever come back? “I would not feel badly if I knew he was safe among Jiis own. “I live on a farm containing 10 acres of land. I have many occasions to assist the . feathered friends. I find many badly Injured.” * * * * / Four weeks is long enough for a mocker to get its bearings. Our correspondent’s specimen probably is all right. By that time, Jt would be fully able to take care of itself. The fact that it did not come back means little. Each bird is an individual and has its own way of accepting life. There always comes a point, in the life of every bird “raised by hand.” when it decides to make the break for freedom. Some of these do come back, from time to time. Others do not. Our own Lily Belle, a robin, never came back to hand, once she made a break for it. She did, however, appear in the yard, from time to time, for about a month. This, apparently, is robin fashion. The mockingbird, being a more redoubtable sort of creature, probably seldom appears after it once makes its getaway. It may, however, return in late fall, or even take up its winter residence around the house. Or, again, it may not. The mocker is a capable creature, well able to take care of itself, certainly. Some of them remain here the year around. • These are commonly thought to be the males. It would be a good thing for our cor respondent to put out raisins, from time to time and other foods the bird liked. * * * * The mockingbird is most likely of all birds to be able to take care of himself. Much depends upon the Individual speci> men. As for eating habits, if he had ever taken any food at all from the floor or tha palm of the hand, he had learned enough to reach for food in his own way and that is what eating means to a bird. They have no etiquette to worry about. The robin baby bird, for instance, can learn to peck up , insects and worms when only a few weeks old. A mockingbird at the ripe old age of four weeks should be in good shape to take on all the duties of bird life from then on. He might find it a little difficult, at first, but shortly the spur of hunger woold compel him to look around him in earnest. We must not forget that nature’s school is faster than any human school. -The house cat is fully adult at 8 months. Most birds are able to take care of themselves shortly after they are able to fly, if compelled to. Parent birds sometimes make “babies”'of them longer, but at any time the baby bird could take care of itself if it had to, once it esits by itself and flies weflt Letters to The Star . Urges Arbitration to Settle Strike Of Longshoremen. Warehousemen In Hawaii To the Editor of The Star: The settlement of the collective bargain ing dispute between the Capital Transit Company and the employe members of the AFL here in Washington was achieved through an agreement to continue bargain ing for a given period and then to resolve all the remaining issues by arbitration. Why can’t a similar procedure be used to settle the strike in Hawaii? The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service—which settled the Washington transit dispute—repeatedly has proposed arbitration in Hawaii. The union publicly has agreed to arbitration and is prepared now to go back to work immediately upon the announcement that an arbitration tri bunal has been appointed. But the Em ployers Council has been completely ada mant in its refusal to arbitrate the dispute. Can it be that the employers are reluc tant to present their case before an im partial tribunal which will hand down a binding decision based on the merits? The union is ready. If arbitration can work in the Capital of the United States, why won’t it work in the Territory of Hawaii?, WILLIAM GLAZIER. Washington Representative, ILWU-CIO. _ Criticizes People Who Allegedly Want Special Privileges To the Editor of The St»r: Well, here we go again! The same thing as usual, another misguided individual has written to The Star his condemnation of the Communists and also an attack upon the only true Americans in this country to day, those who believe in the Constitution. A. W. Parsons states that he would like to send the people who conjured up the Bar den school bill to Russia. Does he know, or does he care that these people whom he wants to send to Russia are the living de scendants of the people who made it pos sible for him to be in this country where he has so much freedom? Yes. he. along with the Communists, has the privilege of attacking the Constitution, which should be sacred to all. I wonder sometimes if the majority of Americans really appreciate this country. If people like Mr. Parsons and others have to have special privileges, then if this coun try goes to hell they can’t blame any one but themselves. E. K. S. Building One’s Own House Appears to Be > Disturbing Experience To the Editor of The Star: I imagine there are a lot of people who gave up being Sunday school teachers after getting mixed up with the business of trying to build their own houses. I know of one chap who never uttered an expletive more eloquent than “Dad gum it” until one day, about two months before he went crazy, he started to build his own house. I myself once got the bright idea that I’d save myself some money by constructing my own home. After a few months of it, shampoo and hair tonic didn't seem to do me much good, my hair kept falling out anyhow. Oh, well, I’ll never get gray-haired with no hair. feRNEST ROY WELCH, Jr. Mr. Hodgkins Argues Home Rule As Something Standing Alone To the Editor of The Star: In the interest of clarity and fairness in the discussion of District home rule meas ures now before Congress, may I make a public plea for an end to the strange logic of those who can’t see home rule for lack of national representation, as if the latter were supposed to be part of the former idea? My very good friend. Jesse C. Suter, indulges in this unfortunate use of terms in his civic column in The Star of June 26, under the title of “Denatured Home Rule.” which deserves an answer at some length. - I would certainly dispute the truth of Mr. Suter’s statement that the advocates of elective local government who also would like to have national representation "recog nize that any of the pending bills in the House District Committee would provide only a very limited gesture toward home rule.” Some of them (including myself) would like to have some improvements in the measure either before passage or by action of the-home-rule government after wards, but we are, I think, generally agreed that either the Kefauver or the Auchincloss bill would constitute "home rule” without "denaturing” of what that term means in common usage elsewhere and was intended to mean in the official title of both bills. What Home Rule Means. Let us not assume the prerogative of Lewis Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty to have words mean whatever we choose to have them mean in the face of established practice to the contrary. Comparison of several defini tions indicates that home rule, in its general political sense, means the carrying on of local government in any part of a country or state by authorities responsible to the people of that part, with as little interfer ence as practicable by the 'authorities of the country or state at large. No definition I have seen includes any stipulation about representation in the sovereign or general government to which the local area is still subject in more general affairs. , So far from being of little account if the local area is poorly or not at all represented in the general Government, home rule is all the more valuable in such circumstances. A city that had everything its own way in its State, would have little need for a separate home-rule government. A city that is only one of many important local areas in a State needs local home rule so that a too busy, uninterested, or even antagonistic cen tral Government would not be upsetting the local situation by positive action or by in action. Only Immediate Possibilities. The District has no representative in Congress, apd cannot have for some little time, even if the present Congress should submit our constitutional amendment to the states. That is all the more reason why Congress should now do what it can, by ordinary legislation, to let the District citi zens attend to their own local affairs. Even if we did have, or can soon get, national representation, we will still want local heme rule, since that representaion (by some thing like one per cent of Congress and of the electoral college) will be our fair share of national affairs but obviously too small on our own distinctly local affairs. There is another specialized meaning of home rule in American political practice, applying to the situation where a city or county may adopt its own home-rule charter under appropriate constitutional prescrip tions, and the State Legislature is forbidden to interfere within the constitutionally granted scope of home-rule powers. The people of the District have not shared in making the proposed charter in quite this fashion, as would have more nearly been the case under the charter commission plan formerly suggested. But local views have been liberally consulted, and there is to be a referendum on adoption. And by the sys tem of “legislative proposals” embodied in the pending bills, the District Council under home rule could in effect revise as well as supplement the District charter at the will of the District voters. Of course, what Congress has given it could take away or override at will, and nobody seems to be proposing that Con-, gress be subjected to- any constitutional limits tygp in doing this. In the 8U£m, Letters for publication must bear the signature and address of the writer, although it is permissible for a writer known to The Star to use a nom de plume. Please be brief. rigid constitutional protections of home rule seem to be regarded as less important and less practical than in the early days of the movement for municipal home rule. How much interfering or direct local ac tion Congress would actually do in the District, would depend upon needs that may arise and also upon customs which will develop in carrying out the system set up by the charter. We can hope . and work for the best, and take added hope from the fact that bills now in Congress give wide scope of local action which can take effect if Congress and the President merely refrain from for mally objecting to it within a given time. Since the District is geographically a unit by itself in the usual field of State as well as municipal action, the District Council could act by legislative proposals on mat ters which the State and not the city would act upon elsewhere. That power has been Questioned as to constitutionality by some persons, but if it were adversely decided by the courts, it could be covered by a clause in the constitutional amendment which we want to put through foi purposes of na tional representation. Sees A Real Gain As the bills stand now, therefore, if them is any diminution of home rule on some points because of the peculiar status of the District, there are other compensating points on which a -wider scope of home rule is given. Consequently there is, in the net total, just about as much home rule in these bills as any city in the country now has, in the recognized meaning of thg term “home rule.” Try to get any home-rule city to tell you its local self-government, as something distinct from representation in the more general government, is hardly worth having! And let’s have an end to the idea that District home rule is rendered ineffectual by lack of national representa tion, when really it is all the more im portant to us so long as we are unrepre sented on Capitol Hill where, for lack of home rule, so many of the functions of the proposed District Council are now carried on as a side issue amid national legislation. GEORGE W. HODGKINS Says Mr. Barbee Did Not See Papers of the Bingham Family To the Bditor ol The 8t»r: David Rankin Barbee claims he made a thorough search of the Bingham papers in Cadiz. Ohio, in regard to Mrs. Surratt. At the time the Bingham family left Cadiz j for Washington, D. C., boxes containing Mr. Bingham's papers were strapped in steel and given to our family for safe keeping. They have never been opened, barring one left in the barn. The rest are in the third floor of the house. Mr. Barbee had access to none of them. I think his claim of having made a thorough search of Mr. Bingham’s papers and his conclusion are mistaken. Cadiz. Ohio. MRS. A. H. LYNN. Disapproves Representatives of Religion Having Hand in World Peace To the Editor of The 8t»r: A recent speaker on the Catholic Hour stated that peace never will be achieved until the Pope is given a hand in it, according to his own terms. Representatives of other religious denominations also have made known their desires that religious leaders be given a part in making the i>eace. This writer, for one, hopes that these re quests never will be granted. I would like to see a just and lasting peace as much as any one. but not at the expense of religious free dom. Let us keep religion in its own sphere and politics in its sphere. The two do not mix. It is all very welLto speak of a peace based on moral principles, but there are different interpretations of moral principles. If we want to see a thoroughly muddled state of affairs, let us allow religious leaders to attempt to mold the peace. A READER. Wants Library Grounds Improved By Traveling Gardener To the Editor of The Star: I suggest the Public Library employ a landscape gardener to take care of the grounds around the main library and all branch libraries in the District. The weeds are crowding out the flowers and shrubs. Janitors do ng)w the lawns, but they do not know how to take care of the flowers, shrubs and trees. One landscape gardener, going from library to library, could do the pruning and with the ■ janitors’ help could beautify the grounds. , The grounds surrounding our libraries are just as important to education as are books and schools. • It took us 22 years to get the first appro priation for the Petworth Public Library. This Is a beautiful building' in a fine loca tion. The Petworth Citizens’ Association and the Petworth Woman’s Club took the lead in financing the beautification of the grounds. Now what do we have but neglect and destruction and weeds? Our library trustees never have asked for a landscape gardener. We want Petworth Library to be a beauti ful place, not an eyesore, in our Nation's Capital. MRS. BRANSON GILBERT McELWEE. Says Franco Offered I. O. V. For Cotton He Wanted T3 the Editor of The Star: My heart bleeds for the poor American raders who. according to Constantine Brown, will “suffer” because Britain and France are “taking” Spain’s trade while our State De partment “refused to approve” Gen. Franco’s kind offer to buy $200,000,000 worth of American cotton. Is it not strange, however, that Mr. Brown could have failed to inform his readers that there was a catch in Franco Spain’s offer? As he must know, Spain also wanted to bor row that $200,000,000 to pay for the cotton. And that is why the bankers of the ExjJort Import Bank, not the State Department, 'refused the “offer.” Franco pays Britain and France in goods. He offers us only his "I. O. U.” FELIX CORNELL. Different “Types” of Food In Different Pentagon Dining Booms. To the Editor of The Ster: Three cheers for the article in The Star about the special dining rooms of the Pentagon building. However, one thing was omitted—the types of food served in each dining room. The typical menu in the civilians’ dining room is chicken croquettes, lamb pie, chow mein, hamburger "steak”: not all in the same day, mind you. But do they ever get chicken, or lamb chops, or steak? No, those items are reserved for the "brass,” served in the flag officers’ and generals’ dining rooms. It may be argued that the CAF-2-11 and their equivalents cannot normally afford lamb chops or chicken or steak for lunch, hence it is not made available in their dining roam. But who has the right to dictate such tastes? If the messenger-boy wants steak for lunch, and has the dollar and a half to pay for it, why shouldn’t be have the importunity to order steak, as he would in any restaurant in to£n? ‘CIVILIAN. The Political Mill Welfare State Program Suffers Two Body Blows Defeat of Taft Act Repeal and Budget Deficit Point Way to Congress By Gould Lincoln The Truman program—Fair Deal and Welfare State—has just taken a couple ef body blows—from the present session of Con gress. The first was the defeat in the Sen ate of the Administration's proposal to re peal the Taft-Hartley labor law and go back to the lopsided Wagner Labor Relations Act. The second was a Government deficit of nearly two billion dollars at the close of the fiscal year, June 30. And these two blows are likely to have a decided effect on the remainder of the first session of th* 81st Congress. It has been demonstrated that the Fair Dealers and their political appendages, the labor leaders, c&nnot force this Congress to lie down and permit the return of organized labor to its former position of being above the law. It further has been demonstrated —to the Congress—that it would be sui cidal to go ahead with new Federal social ized projects which might run the country many more billions of dollars into debt. Under such circumstances, it seems probable that Congress will now complete its work on appropriation bills—which need drastic cutting—and after passing a bill to continue the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act on the North Atlantic Security Treaty, tackle farm legislation and then adjourn. Issues Taking Shape. This is quite a program in itself—but it does not take into consideration the de mands of the Administration for a lot of other legislation—like extension of the So cial Security Act, giving greater benefits and more extended coverage, national health insurance, and civil rights bills (to ban tha poll tax, give the Federal Government the power to punish lynching in the States, and to set up a Federal FEPC). Although the congressional campaign is a year away, the issues between the Fair Dealers and the Republicans are taking shape. The Fair Dealers claim they are entirely satisfied to have Taft-Hartley repeal again a major issue. They hope also to have the farm price support issue to work on. And this may be possible, too. Tha Fair Dealers are backing repeal of the Re publican Hope-Aiken Farm Act of 1848. In its place they wish to substitute the miracle performing Brannan farm price support pro gram (which is designed to keep farm prices at 100 percent of "parity” and at the same time give the consumer lower prices for food stuffs*. It may be they will be able to re peal the Hope-Aiken Act whose flexible scale of price supports is due to go into operation in January 1950, and in its place keep most of the present farm price sup ports (at 90 percent of parity), while giving the Brannan production payment plan for ^ supporting prices of perishable farm crops a partial try out. More Subsidies Pledged. One thing is certain—in the matter of Government subsidy offerings to farmers, tha Fair Dealers are going the Republicans one better. But this is nothing new. The Fair Dealers—who have supplanted the old Roose velt New Dealers—are promising more sub sidies, to be paid out of the Federal treasury, to more groups of people than any major political party in the history of the country. So far the Fair Dealers are figuring that tha farmers, who were Republican for the most part until they were lured away by Truman promises in the 1948 campaign, will stiok to the Fair Deal Party in the congressional elections. Seemingly the only chance the Republicans have to hold on to the farmers is to convince them that if they take the Brannan program they will be hopelessly regimented. The Brannan bill makes the Secretary of Agricul ture a czar over the farmers. Only a reading of the measure is needed to understand that he will be authorized to -tell the farmers what and how much to grow, not to mention what prices they are to have for their crops. Under the Brannan program, it appears that farmers can get top prices for their produce, even though they have to sell them for far less, for the Government will take money out of the Treasury to make up the difference. If no limit is put on production under such a program, then the farmers could roll up for tunes fast, with the Federal Government paying out billions to them. That would mean national bankruptcy. So the Secretary of Agriculture would have to put a limit on production—and that is where the screw would be turned—on the farmers. Maybe they will fall for the Brannan program. It certainly looks like easy money-wfor a time. Questions and Answers A reader can let tlje answer to any question of fact by writing The Trail ini Star Information Bureau. 316 I street N.E.. Washington 3, D C. Please Inclose 3 cents for return postage. T By THE HASKIN SERVICE Q. What is the accepted explanation of the title of Beethoven's “Erolca”%mphony? —F. R. M. A. Beethoven’s Third Symphony, in E-flat, op. 55. composed in 1803, was written in homage to Napoleon, whom the composer admired as a hero of democracy. However, upon Napoleon’s assuming the role of a dictator and the title of emperor, Beet hoven, greatly infuriated, withdrew the planned dedication and changed the title from “Sinfonia grande; Buonaparte” to: “Sinfonia eroica, per festeggiar il sovvenire d un gran uomo” (—■- to celebrate the mem ory of a great man). The symphony was intended as a really heroic effort and Beet hoven himself observed, “This symphony, purposedly being written at greater length than is usual, should be played nearer the beginning than the end of a concert, so that the audience will not be too fatigued to grasp its intended effect.” Q. Was Longfellow’s poem which begins. “Tell me not in mournful numbers, Life is but an empty dream” written to com memorate any special event in his life?— G. L. A. The “Psalm of Life” was written in 1838, when the poet was 31 years of age, and after the death of his first wife. In writing of it he said, "I kept it some time in manuscript unwilling to show it to any one, it )>eing a voice from my inmost heart, and expressing my feelings at a time when I was rallying from the depression of disappoint ment.” Q. How many books were lost by German libraries during World War n?—J. C. R. A. The war losses of all German libraries during the war have been estimated at between 20 and 25 million volumes. In the State Library at Munich alone about half % million books were destroyed. Night Magic A child has never “lived” who has not taken A box by shoes and owner both forsaken, And cut square holes for windows in this treasure, Perhaps a pair of eyes for extra pleasure. A little candle glow to give it Ught, , A string to guide it through the early night, i And pulled it happily along the street, A bit of Are-lit heaven at his feet! HARRIETT SCOTT OUN2CX. -