Newspaper Page Text
|fl)e ^ticnitrg %ht “ With Sunday Morning Edition. 4 WASHINGTON. D. C. t Publkhed by • The Evening Star Newspaper Company. “SAMUEL H. KAUFFMANN. President. 1 - 2 B. M. McKELWAY. Editor. —■*-* .MAIN OFFICE: llth St. and Pennsylvania Ave. > NEW YORK OFFICE: 110 East 42d St ; CHICAGO OFFICE: 435 North Michigan Ave. J Delivered by Carrier—Metropolitan Area. ■felly and Sunday Daily Only Sunday Only Monthly 1.20* Monthly —90c 10c per copy Weekly 30c Weekly .. 20c 10c per copy *l0c additional when 5 Sundays are in a month. Alio 10c additional for Night Final Edition In those sections where delivery is made. Rates by Mail—Payable fat Advance. Anywhere in United States. Evening and Sunday Evening Sunday 1 month 1.50 I month .. 90c 1 month 40c 4 months.. 7.50 4 months - 5.00 6 months 3.00 lyear _15.00 1 year ..10.00 1 year 4.00 Telephone Sterling 5000 Entered at the Post Office, Washington, D. C., as second-clati mail matter. Member el the Associated Press. The Associated Press is entitled exclusively to the irn for republication of all the local news printed in this newspaper as well as all A. P. news dispatches. A—4 * SATURDAvToctober 15, 1949 Archaic Medical Barriers Failure of the Medical Society of Vir ginia to support the Arlington and Fairfax Medical Societies in their move for better medical reciprocity with the District of Columbia is hard to understand. The action of the State-wide organization in pigeonholing a reciprocity resolution is a setback for the physicians of nearby Vir ginia, who, with their patients, are ad versely affected by an outmoded State law. The law requires out-of-State doctors to pay a fifty-dollar fee for a license to prac tice in Virginia, whereas the District is willing to let Virginia doctors come to Washington hospitals as often as they like on payment of a nominal dollar fee. The hitch, so far as Virginia is concerned, is that the District has threatened to impose on doctors across the Potomac the same sort of onerous restrictions as Virginia re quires—a type of reciprocity that would hurt Virginia doctors and their patients more than it would District doctors. For there are far more Virginia physicians bringing their patients to District hospitals and clinics than there are Washington doctors going into Virginia. Of course, the indifference of the Medical Society of Virginia to this situation does not mean that nearby Virginia physicians and State legislators will give up their effort to have the State law amended at the next session of the General Assembly. If the State society merely refrains from taking active part in the reciprocity drive, the outlook for a sensible modification of the law is still good. If the organization should decide to fight the reciprocity plan before the Legislature, however, the pros pect is less favorable. Meanwhile it would be a mistake for District authorities to use the short sighted action of the Medical Society of Virginia as an excuse for reinstituting retaliatory reciprocity measures against Virginia doctors. There is no :doubt as to the determination of the legislators from the Northern Virginia area to seek a modi fication of the law to pave the way for a permanent “borderline* reciprocity” agree ment with the District. The Virginians should be given a fair chance to effect this much-needed reform. In a letter to The Star, former Health Officer Ruhland calls for an end to all “these wholly meaningless and unnecessary State restrictions.” He referred specifically to laws challenging the competency of physicians licensed to practice in another State. “I think you will agree,” he said, “that with the improvement in the quality of medical schools, that now are all grade A, it should be unnecessary to re-examine a physician who transfers his practice from one State to another. Surely the war, during which sixty thousand physicians from all over the country gave medical service—and good medical service—to more than 13,000,000 enlisted personnel, is ample proof that our medical men are quite com petent to treat people anywhere in the United States. No other nation has the awkward arrangement that we are still following of insisting upon re-examination if a person moves from one section of the country to another. It, is an archaic and awkward practice that should be done away with because it, fortunately, now is no longer necessary.” The Star is in wholehearted agreement with Dr. Ruhland on this question. Mrs. Ambassador-Designate If the Senate confirms her—as seems most likely—Mrs. Eugenie Anderson will be the first American woman4Ambassador in history. Although she has had no formal diplomatic experience, and although her appointment is in part a reward for her political services to President Truman, reports Indicate that she is well qualified to be a credit both to her sex and her country as our representative in Denmark. An Iowa native, and in more recent years a resident of Red Wing, Minnesota, j Mrs. Anderson, age 40, is described by ■ those who know her as well educated, in- j formed on world affairs, artistically tal- j ented, energetic and highly personable all good ambassadorial qualities. Mother , of two young children, she has found time j —since 1944—to play a leading role in the j politics of her State. As a national com- i mitteewoman of her party, a director of | Americans for Democratic Action, and a prime mover in efforts to oust Communists from Minnesota’s Farmer-Labor organi zation, she has been a strong supporter of President Truman and his domestic and foreign policies. Despite being a novice in the field of diplomacy, she is said to be amply equipped with the kind of intelligence—as well as the personality —that should make it easy for her to operate effectively as soon as she has had enough time to get her bearings in the Embassy at Copenhagen. Another of Mrs. Anderson’s qualifica tions is that she and her husband have been running a 500-acre Minnesota farm— an experience that would be helpful to any American serving as Ambassador to a country whose economy is based largely on butter, eggs and bacon. The Copen hagen post—which is of key importance to our Scandinavian relations—has been vacant for several months. It ought to be filled without further delay. If Mrs. Anderson is as competent as reported, she will do the sort of Job there that will make us less hesitant in the future about naming women to represent us abroad. Our Policy on East Germany Secretary of State Dean Acheson’s state ments on Germany at his news conference last Wednesday do much to clarify the department’s attitude and policy toward the latest Soviet moves. These state ments confirm and amplify the pronounce ment of Acting Secretary Webb, made a few days previously, denouncing Moscow’s entire postwar policy in Germany, cul minating in the setting up of an “oppres sive police state” in the Russian-occupied Eastern zone. And both of those pro nouncements should be read in the light of a British diplomatic note to the Soviet government, rejecting Soviet charges against the legality of the Bonn govern ment of Western Germany. This indicates an identity of views between Washington and London, and foreshadows a concerted policy on the issues involved. Secretary Acheson did not mince words respecting either the Soviet charges or the character of the “so-called German Demo cratic Republic” just set up in the Russian sector of Berlin. He stigmatized this regime as “without legal validity or foun dation <P» the popular will • • • created by Soviet and Qpmmunist flat * * * Such a government cannot claim by any demo cratic standard to speak for the German people of the Soviet zone; much less can it claim to speak in the name of Germany as a whole.” He therefore pledged con tinued full support for the Bonn govern ment, regardless of Soviet maneuvers. Equally forthright was the Secretary’s rejection of the Soviet charges, echoed in similar charges made by Moscow’s satellite regimes. He conceded that, abstractly, the people of those East European nations had “a legitimate interest in German affairs.” But he went on to point out that the present regimes in those countries have been “foisted upon their own peoples by totalitarian methods.” For that reason, our Government rejects their attempts to criticize “in the interests of a foreign power rather than of their own people,” the actions of nations trying to establish democratic institutions in the greater part of Germany. From all this, it is obvious that the United States and the other Western powers do not intend either to alter their policy in Western Germany or to recognize the validity of the Soviet-backed East German regime in any way. This naturally intensifies the split between West and East Germany, with diametrically con flicting claims of the two regimes in the respective regions. The thorniest prob lein arising out of this conflict is presum ably Berlin# The new East German regime claims jurisdiction over all Berlin; as, in deed, it does over the whole of Germany. That claim the Western Powers emphat ically reject. But this leaves the Western occupied sectors of Berlin a political no man’s land, since it does not form part of the West German state. The logical answer might seem to be its prompt in clusion, as its inhabitants ardently desire. Yet there are certain practical difficulties involved. Not only does France object, but i$ is doubtful if the present Bonn gov ernment would be pleased with the pros pect, despite its formal advocacy of inclu sion. This is because the conservative Adenauer cabinet contrbls only 139. seats in the Bonn Parliament, while the Social Democratic opposition has 131. It is gen erally anticipated that Berlin would give a Social Democratic majority large enough to whittle down the present Conservative lead or even overturn it, thereby ousting the Adenauer cabinet and putting the Social Democrats in its place. That is merely one of several contin gencies which should be considered in formulating the policy required by the Soviet challenge. The implementation of that policy will appear as the course of events unfolds. Halloween and Greenbelt GreenJielt’s City Council is in tune with the times. Take, for example, its plans to discourage vandalism on Halloween. Boys, the theory goes, like to break win dows. So the community will supply window panes for them tb break, and make a game of it. Young people like to deface plate glass with soap writing. So plate glass will be supplied by a public-spirited citizen. A contest in artistic soap writing will be held. Thus far no member of the Cily Council has volunteered to make him self the target for BB guns, slingshot missiles and bean shooters. But that, no doubt, will follow in time. The boys would like it. The theory on which the Greenbelt City Council bases its plans finds many modern exponents. The theory is that young people have the urge to do for bidden things. To deny them the proper expression of such impulses is to invite frustration or unregulated window smash ing. Well, maybe so. But it Is at least argu able that the Greenbelt boy, provided by the community with a pane of glass to smash on Halloween, will thereupon con clude that one of his “rights” is to throw stones through glass. If the community does not supply the glass, at convenient locations and at proper intervals, his “rights” therefore are infringed. The remedy is simple. Demand the right. Break any window as a demonstration of that right. It is unfortunate that win dows are broken. But are broken windows as important as the denial of human rights? If it Is a question between “human rights” and "property rights,” the answer is “human rights”—as any of our great liberal columnists would say. The other Idea is perhaps reactionary. The other idea is that parents are respon sible for teaching their young some of the obligations, as well as rights, of living with other people. One of the obligations Is to respect the property of other people, to be courteous and to learn that the healthiest manifestation, of young man hood or womanhood is an ability to resist the occasional impulse to heave a brick through a neighbor’s window. One way of enforcing such’a concept Is parental supervision. And an excellent symbol of parental authority is the hickory switch, the razor strap, the wooden hair brush or the leather belt. The fine little lad who heaves a brick through a neigh bor’s window, defaces the windshield of his automobile or deflates the tires with an icepick, may be doing nothing more than expressing healthy and normal im pulses. But if he is caught in the act and soundly thrashed as a prelude to making his apology to the neighbor, and paying for the damage, he will have learned a better lesson in the art of living in a democracy than he will learn at Greenbelt on Halloween. As revolutionary as the idea may be, in this day and age, it has its merits. A Man of Peace In this era of the cold war the Nobel Peace Prize seems so anachronistic that a kind of bitter irony can be read into the Norwegian Parliament’s decision to award it to Lord Boyd Orr of Britain. Yet it is a shining symbol of humanity’s up-and down striving for a better world, and whenever it is bestowed, it serves as a good and inspiring reminder to peoples everywhere that the effort to achieve such a world—a decent world of collective secu rity—must be carried on without let-up. In the atomic age this is mankind’s most urgent task. To consider it futile, to abandon it as a waste of time, to lose faith in it and surrender to the do-nothihgism of despair would be merely to accept as inevitable a thing that can be avoided— another holocaust that could destroy the whole of civilized society. It is because he has been anything but despondent about this task, because he has set a splendid example of how the individual can help to carry it out, that Lord Boyd Orr has been awarded the Nobel Prize. Known as Sir John Boyd Orr before being oreated a baron some months ago, he has been one of the world’s foremost crusaders for collective security. In a concrete sense, during his distin guished service as director general of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Or ganization, he gave effective leadership to an international assault on the war-breed ing forces of hunger and want, and now he is throwing all his fine intelligence and his great energy behind a movement to bring everj* nation, Eastern and Western, under a single global government. In the present context of events, Lord Boyd Orr’s current labors may seem im practical and unrealistic. But idealists of his type are sorely needed to prod the world, no matter how slowly, toward the distant goal of a genuinely co-operative, collectively secure global society. To the extent that any one individual can im prove humanity’s lot, this man of peace has contributed much to his fellow men and is still contributing. Certainly, although the cold war rages on as fiercely as ever, he well deserves his new honors for his persistent effort to abate it. We laughed when the newscaster fell on his face over the pronunciation of 'Queuille, resigned Premier of France—we, who have to get up three times to confirm the spelling. This and That By Charles E. Tracewell Such stuff as dreams are made of. indeed! It is protein that does it. Let those who do not wish to dream abstain from meat, soybeans, cottage cheese, eggs, etc. Especially at supper. This is a secret of the ages, literally not known to millions, who say they do not like dreams, but who still go on eating what they like for the last meal of the day. Let them confine their proteins to the first two meals of the day, and they will lie down to dreamless sleep later. * * * * Templeton Jones had a vivid experience recently along this line. He had Just listened to a talk by one of his favorite commentators, Drew Pearson, in which the latter had practically predicted that all of the Atlantic seaboard would be moved to Kansas in case of a Russian attack. Jones didn’t agree with that. He likes Washington, and wants to stay here, bomb or no bomb. "I am going to die, anyway,” said Jones, lightly. “What difference does it make how I go?” • He wants to be around to see things hap pen. he says. He has relatives in Kansas. He isn’t quite sure he wants to be moved there. Wouldn’t some other State do? * * * * So he ate a nice steak for supper. Not a large steak, but a good one. It was a good meal, the sort some people 1 say you should be ashamed to eat when so many millions are starving, etc., etc. Jones always thanks heaven that he has no guilt complex about anything. He tries to do no harm, sometimes gets bopped in return, but harbors no malice, at least not longer than a few minutes. Templeton Jones liked his steak. He went to bed in the calmest of spirits. His diges tion seemed to be in perfect working order. But he forgot his internal chemistry. * * * * Internal chemistry is one of the most amazing and complex things the human mind knows. An atom bomb is simplicity, itself, com pared with the workings of the gall bladder for instance. The number of different chemical com pounds in the blood would amaze a saint. This chemistry went to work in Jones, and it started his unconscious mind, or whatever it is that dreams, to doing things. It was night, in the Jonesian dreaming. Thei e was a light in the house next door and Jones was looking across the way. The house was very light, with people coming and going in the living room. * * * * He could see a large rug being rolled up ; around a cylinder as large as an automatic hot-water heater. Jones was amazed to see an audience on the roof. of his own sunporch! Ordinarily he would have resented mightily a dozen or more strangers grouped on his porch roof. They all seemed to be looking over at the house, and talking about the same scene he was watching. Templeton Jones thought he had better walk downstairs and out, and then tell these folks to get off his roof. This was too much. * * * * As he started down the steps, up came one of those smoking cylinders. “Don’t touch it,” cried some one. “It is a present from Stalin. ' AS long as you don’t touch it, you are safe.” « Jones backed up the stairs with unusual agility. After all, backing up a staircase is a young man’s game. Just then, a dark-skinned man came In wheeling a wagon. He* trundled the cylinder on it, and started off. “I hope you get it to the storage place safely,” said Templeton Jones, politely. “I doubt I will,” replied the man. “Thev often just disappear as I wheel them along." “What becomes of them?” queried Jones. Said the man: “They just go back to Uncle Joe.’’ Letters to The Star Readers Defend Navy For Making Its Case Public To the Editor of The 8t»r: The usually accurate and precisely objec tive Evening Star errs in its editorial of Oc tober 11, entitled “The National Security." It suffers from a mistaken belief that the Navy is responsible for the agenda items being followed by the House Armed Services Committees’ investigation of the B-36. While there is no doubt that the Navy welcomed the opportunity to present its views, in the interest of truth, I think it should be realized that the Navy is only carrying out orders, and is following them out in typical Navy fashion, courageously and fully. HUGH L. HANSON. To the Editor of The Star: I have for a good many years considered The Star’s editorials and its editorial stand on the issues of the day to warrant for The Star the position of leading newspaper in the country. Your editorial of October 11, however, apropos the present Navy testi mony before Congress makes me wonder. You seem to have misse# the entire point which the Navy is attempting to make for the American public—which is simply the folly and peril to national security in a de pendence upon one weapon for waging war, especially when that weapon is untried and open to very great question as to its effective ness. You take the Navy to task for insisting that the B-36 without escort can be shot down in prohibitive numbers, and try to make the rather inane point that if the B-36 cannot reach its targets neither could carrier planes. Your statement is probably true but has little bearing on the issue. The Navy outlines the vulnerability of the B-36 and the weakness of intercontinental bombing merely as a rebuttal to testimony of the Air Force to the effect that the plane is rela tively invulnerable and by implication at least can win a war without the help of other weapons, particularly Naval aviation. The Air Force might, and should, deny having fostered the above implication. It has, however, been sold to the American public and also apparently to the top brass in the Pentagon. The Navy is doing the country a very great service in exploding this dangerous myth. 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. dlvidually and collectively through spiritual enlightenment and diligent effort. To strive for social equality at this point is to put the cart before the horse. MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC. Steel Strike Brings Warninr Of Townsendism Run Riot To the Editor of The Bter: The recommendations of the steel fact finding board for a non-contributory plan run against the Federal Social Security Act Initiated by President Roosevelt as a con tributory plan and Ignore legislation pro viding for substantially increased benefit payments. The board stated that its “findings and recommendations are not binding in any way” and President Truman gave similar assurances; yet by its strike the union re jects this principle but not the board’s suggested 10-cent increase. The board urged collective bargaining after full study, but the union demanded the acceptance of its terms before, i. e.: without collective bar gaining. The board's report contains contradictions and inconsistencies. It gave a closely rea soned justification for stabilizing prices and wages and in the public interest, but that reasoning is equally valid for not increasing disbursements to employes for any other purpose, as for pensions and insurance. The board urges collective bargaining after an exhaustive study and yet set 10 cents an hour before any study. The board admits, “No one can state with certainty what they (companies) can af ford now (for social insurance). Much de pends on future conditions.” Why did the board fix any rate now? Again, "The board is scarcely in a position after this concen trated hearing to say precisely what should be done on pensions.” Why then did the board promptly recommend 6 cents per hour as a pension charge? Wants Public Informed. You, furthermore, criticize the Navy's course in making the entire matter public and suggest that it be threshed out by the Weapons Evaluation Board. This would be a most narrow and chimerical solution. The above board would be competent to decide the technical merits of the B-36 as a bomber, but certainly has neither competence nor re sponsibility for exaluating a whole new con cept of warfare. Finally it might be pointed out and that the Weapons Evaluation Board would be hardly likely to arrive at a con clusion any more unanimous than that of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Since wre still live in a democracy, the place to explore so vital an issue as this is before the American public. No data pre sented to date are in any way secret. The strength and the many weaknesses of stra | tegic bombing are well known to any one who participated in the past war—including the Russians. The average American has passed upon many grave issues in the course of our history. He is qualified to pass on this one—just as much so as Defense Secre tary Johnson who I am sure would not claim to be an expert but who nevertheless has been forced heretofore to make the de cisions. As a final point, I would observe that the Naval Officers now testifying should be heard with respect by all Americans. For, strange as it may appear, the average senior naval officer is vastly more familiar with all of the elements of war than are the generals of the Army and the Air Force. The Navy has conducted land operations with its Ma rine Corps, including thfe all important tac tical aviation. The Navy has also flown land based planes since they were invented and has pioneered much of the development of air warfare. Even senior generals, on the other hand, have ordinarily never so much as seen an aircraft carrier in operation, and have no familiarity whatever with combined sea-air or land-sea-air warfare except from the point of view of their own land locked or exclusively air point of view. ... If we are to develop a new concept of war, we will do so over the Navy's objections only at our peril. JOSEPH Z. REDAY. Tragedy of the Country Home Without a Drop of Water To the Editor of The Star: During the war we saved like beavers. My husband was a B-29 pilot flying long, dan gerous missions from Guam and Saipan to Japan. I held a Government job in Wash intgon. We’d bank our pennies and some day we’d have a home of our own. That's what we dreamed of in those days of sepa ration. That’s what we got; a cute little brick home with a fireplace in Prince Georges County. Well, maybe it wasn’t worth the $12,000 we paid for it but we were satisfied. It was ours. Then what happens? One day we awaken to the sharp realization that there is no water. We turn the spigot and a gush of dirty watei^ emits. Then not even that. The house suddenly becomes a tomb. A strange hysterical sort of gloom settles over the place. Our dream cottage isn’t so dreamy anymore. # cut mere must De a way out, we say. Surely something can be done. We rush around madly over the county, we ask questions, seek advice. Doesn’t anybody know about wells? Finally we locate a well-digging crew and after weeks of delay they dig deeper and run into blue clay. No water in blue clay they say—no. telling Upw far through. Dig another well then, mister. But would it be more money wasted? The folks around us are all in the same boat. This is the second well that’s been dug on the property. Frankly we are at our wits’ end. Our house sits empty and silent. Go there and see it. See the harvest of our hard work in beautifying the garden, see the little house with its green shutters and screened porch, the white door begging for some one to enter. But who can live without water? Were it a castle no pne would want it. The Sanitary Commission advises in defi nite, impersonal tones that a survey has been made and it has found it impracticable to extend city water in that direction in the foreseeable future. In the meantime we pay high rental to live elsewhere. Shall we give the house containing our life’s savings away? We can’t live in it, rent it or sell it. I appeal to all who read this letter for suggestions. Maybe there’s something we have over looked. Only two miles from city water on the main route to Southern Maryland. Why can’t we get city water? MRS. OMER L. COX. East Riverdale, Md. Social Equality Opposed At Present Time. * To th« Editor of The Star: It seems to be the chief purpose in life of some people to try to promote the mingling socially of the white and negro races. If the facility is public, segregation is attacked because of that fact. If the facility is private, the attack is made from some other angle. Negroes have the same opportunities as the white people to advance their race in employe Contributions Favored. Furthermore, the board favors insurance by government but recommends insurance by industry. “That (social insurance) could be done only by Government itself, but there would probably still be inadequacy.” The obvious conclusion, therefore, should be that the Government increase payments ade quately and not, as the board proposes, to shift the burden, with the evil consequences, which the board itself points out. The board deprecates private programs. “It should be a cause of great concern that there is growing up haphazardly unequal and unco-ordinated insurance funds with little or no public control.” Yet the board will add to this evil. Why should the mem bers of the Lewis or Murray unions have pensions and not the low-wage workers in logging, sawmills and canneries? The board’s approach is fragmentary and re lates only to the beneficiaries and ignores stockholders and consumers. What is industry's position? The post war increases in steel were 18.5 cents (1946), 15.0 cents (1947), and 13.0 cents (1948) and now' 10 cents is recommended. On this de clining scale 10 cents would have been a corresponding fourth-round increase. On the company's books this debit is identical with a wage increase. The purpose of the payment can disguise, but not change, its true nature. Shall the beneficiary contribute? Even union leaders favor employe contributions. Mr. Murray signed the report of the Gov ernment's Advisory Council on Social Se curity in 1938 and changed his mind only recently. William Green of the AFL strong ly approves them as he stated before the House Ways and Means Committee in April. 1949. The Government view is that “the con tributory principle is the cornerstone of so cial insurance,” according to the report of the Social Security Advisory Council (1948). The House Ways and Means Committee has enunciated “the basic principle that a con tributory system is the most satisfactory way of preventing dependency and insecurity while preserving self-reliance and initiative.” As for industry, a leading insurance com pany states that out of 100 of its largest clients, the basis is contributory in 86 per cent of the cases. In 10,000 contracts ana lyzed by the Institute of Life Insurance, about 80 per cent are contributory. The union’s estimate of pension costs are below actuarial calculations. The country discovered this in the coal industry. To start a pension plan requires more money than merely to keep it going. For individ uals to obtain a pension of $100 a month at 65 requires an annual premium of $499 at 25, $1,996 at 45 and a lump sum of $16,000 at 65. The same principle would apply to 1.000 men or 1,000,000 men. 1 Paupers to Help Princes? Who will pay for the increased costs which constitute about 6 per cent of the hourly wage? Can the stockholder do so? In United States Steel, for example, the stockholders’ dividends were a smaller percentage of the wage, about 4.5 per cent for 1941-48 and 3.7 per cent for 1932-48. Therefore, the rest of the community, through higher prices, must subsidize the steel workers who are now among the highest-paid employes in the country. Paupers may be paying tribute to princes. The board states that steel has lagged be hind the coal and railroad industries. But these are “sick" industries. In many com panies the shares are selling at less than the net current assets. Thus, the “fixed assets” are a liability. Even the bondholders flee. A 10-cent demand seems small. The dime is a symbol of cheapness as in the 5-and-10 cent store. But for the industry the in creased cost is about $200,000,000 per an num or about $3 a ton even at full capacity. Such rise in prices may drive consumers to competing products, and that has been the ' fate of the two "basic industries” regarded as models by the board. Coal has been re placed by gas, oil and electricity increas ingly. Railroad traffic is being diverted to trucks, buses and planes. To compare the pension of Mr. Fair less with the mill laborer makes little sense. The Government pays a much larger pension to a Supreme Court justice than to the court janitor. Besides, if the management worked for nothing, the stockholders’ divi dends could hardly be increased. But a 10-cent-per-hour wage increase could wipe out the common dividends of most compa nies in the steel industry. The basic ques tion is mot between Mr. Fairless and the workers, or between Mr. Murray and the stockholders, but between the employers , (stockholders) and the employes. The rest is a red herring. What are the logical conclusions? Is it not wise to make haste slowly? There is a minimum area of agreement. Whatever insurance payments are finally agreed upon should be made retroactive to the date when negotiations began. An actuarial study is a prerequisite for any plan of pensions and socjal insurance. Above all, the country must avoid Townsendism run riot, under the pressure of union leaders’ rivalry. The mess in the coal union pension fund could become a national catastrophe if extended generally to all industry. ELISHA M. FRIEDMAN Consulting Economist Chairman, Eco | nometric Institute, Inc. New York, N. Y. The Political Mill Senate Vote on Olds Seen Blow to Party Discipline Democrats Wonder Why Truman Tried to Put Heat on Upper Body By Gould Lincoln President Truman and Democratic Na tional Chairman William Boyle have discov ered it’s a difficult thing to put the heat on the Senate—and some of the Democrats are wondering just why they tried it. The vote in the upper house on the reappointment of Leland Olds to be a member of the Fed eral Power Commission showed only 13 Democratic Senators supporting the de mand of the President for confirmation. Twenty-one Democratic Senators voted against Mr. Olds. The President insisted that it was a matter of party discipline —support of the Olds appointment. If that is the case, it looks as though party disci pline, for the time being at least, has gone with the wind. A main charge against Mr. Olds was that he had written pro-Communist articles— showing himself a fellow-traveler. The re ply of his supporters was that these articles were written 20 years ago and should not be held against him now. Mr. Olds himself told the Senate Interstate and Foreign Com merce Committee that he would have writ ten the articles differently today—but he did not recant. Issue in New York Campaign. This raises again the question whether the Administration is inclined to be soft with the Reds and fellow-travelers in this country. It’s an issue which has already been thrust into the senatorial campaign now going on in New York, where Senator Dulles, Republican, is pitted against For mer Governor Herbert H. Lehman. Mr. Dulles has not charged that Mr. Lehman is a Com munist or a sympathizer with communism. He has insisted, however, that Mr. Lehman is receiving the support of the Communists and of the American Labor Party which is Communist-dominated. Mr. Dulles, who came back to Washington especially to vote against Mr. Olds, is continuing to ring the changes on this issue. The fact that the President tried to crack the party whip over members of the Senate raises another important question. The Senate, under the Constitution, has the duty of passing on presidential appointments. The Senate, belonging to a separate and dis tinct branch of the government, is not con stitutionally expected to take orders from the head of the executive branch. Governor Tuck of Virginia, Democrat, re plying ta Mr. Boyle’s telegram urging him to bring pressure to bear on Senator Byrd and Senator Robertson — both Virginia, Democrats—in favor of Mr. Olds, said that he never had and never would, as Governor, undertake to influence the vote of a mem ber of Congress from his own State. He added: * “Duty and Power of Senate” “The United States Senate has the duty and the power of confirming or rejecting certain appointments made by the Presi dent, which power under our system of de mocracy is separate and distinct from the executive and ought to remain so. • * • Your implied threat of withholding patron age (jobs) from those who may refuse to vote for confirmation is a violation of the fundamental principles of checks and bal ances.” It ^ould be idle to contend that other Presidents have not sought to influence members of the Senate to vote for their appointees, and put pressure on them. But never before has it been done in such a wholesale and public manner, the President, through the party’s national chairman, call ing on Governors, State chairmen and na tional committeemen to help push the Sen ators into line. The refusal of the Presi dent's own party members in the Senate to go along with Mr. Truman on the Olds appointment, glaringly exposed in the Sen ate, may be a blow to Mr. Truman’s prestige. It may also mark the beginning of a cam paign to eliminate some if not all of the recalcitrants. The actual vote in the Senate on Olds was 53 against and 15 for his confirmation. This does not give a complete picture, how ever. Nine Democrats were paired for Olds and three against him. which would be a division of 24 Democrats against and 22 for him, with half a dozen Democratic Senators not voting and not paired. questions ana Answers A reader can act the answer to any question of fact by writing The Evening 8tar Information Bureau, 316 Eye at. n.e., Washington 2. D. C. Please inclose three (3> cents for return postage. By THE HASKIN SERVICE. Q. Who took the picture of the Marines planting the flag on Iwo Jima?—P. N. R. A. Joe Rosenthal of the Associated Press won the 1945 Pulitzer Prize “for an out standing example of pews photography as exemplified by a news photograph published in a daily newspaper,” for his photograph of the Marines planting the flag of the United States on Iwo Jima. Q. How long have white center lines on highways been in use?—A. W. M. A. The white center line on highways was originated in 1911 by Edward N. Hines, a road commissioner of Wayne County, Michigan. Q. Where in the United States was the largest gold nugget found and what was its size?—D. S. E. A. Apparently the answer to the question depends upon the definition of “nugget.” According to the records of the Smithsonian Institution, the largest gold nugget in the United States was found at the Reid Mine, Cabarrus County, North Carolina, in 1896. The nugget weighed 28 pouhds, including 3 pounds of quartz. Other authorities list larger “nuggets.” Q. Has the whale any hind limbs?— F. A. H. A. The fore limb* of the whale are de veloped into paddle-like organs but there are no external traces of hind limbs. There are vestigial traces of hind limbs in the skeleton. Q. Where did football originate?—C. R. H. -A. Football gradually evolved from such early games as the Greek Harpaston, mean ing the forward pass game, and the Roman Harpastum and Follis. It came from many peoples including the Celts, Teutons, Eski mos and Aztec Indians. Limitations And if it be called to the attention Of the cock that he cannot sing, Shall he then abdicate his barnyard throne^ Leaving no alert watcher to herald the morning? And if the albatross discover His way of tcalking is an awkward thing, Shall he then refuse to fly on the winds far-blown, Letting the great ship sail with no at tendant bird of good omen? ' And if the qy.iet lake’s mirror show the nightingale But a small plain crest, a dull-plumaged wing, Shall she then hide away, silent and alone> Failing to voice her aria for the world’s enchantment? B. Y. WILLIAMS.