r
|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.