The Washington times. [volume], February 06, 1932, Image 20

About The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939

Image provided by: Library of Congress, Washington, DC

                
No Time to Disarm
Let’s Get That Straight
With a first-class powder magazine near explosion in Shang
hai, two dismal farces are being staged in Washington and
' Geneva.
In Washington a pacifist gentleman named Collins, who by
some peculiar working of our political system is on the Military
Affairs Committee of the House, wants to reduce our Army by
2,000 officers and 8,000 men, abolish the Citizens Military Train
ing Camps and cut down the appropriations for the National
Guard. He defends this interesting program—at a time when
the international horizon is more clouded than it has been since
August, 1914—0 n the ground of economy.
Mr. Collins reminds you of a man whose house is next to a
burning building and who selects that moment to save a few
cents by canceling his fire insurance policy.
You wonder whether this novel form of logic will appeal
greatly to the people of his country.
The scene is not vastly different at Geneva. We have a dele
gation over there at a disarmament conference which had to
postpone its meeting to consider the war in China.
Every nation represented, except our own, is keen for dis
armament—that is, disarmament of the others but SECURITY
for itself.
Our taxpayers are putting up several hundred thousand dol
lars to enable our delegates to’ learn this simple truth.
It seems a fairly good price to pay for information which
every one knew beforehand. Americans who can still think re
spectfully suggest that the money, plus the millions thrown
away for prohibition enforcement and similar foolishness, would
be better spent on American DEFENSES.
George Washington probably would suggest something of that
sort if he were alive today, and the country probably would
trust his judgment as much as that of our international busy
bodies—or Mr. Collins.
Too Many Shootings
Pass the Weapon Laws
In the last few days Washington has been the scene of
several shootings.
Two high school girls are shot down as they walk along
the street. Thirty minutes later a citizen is shot in front
of his home.
In another shooting affray, in which one man was hit
four times, all of those involved seemed to be pretty well
supplied with weapons.
And still neither the Senate nor House District Committees
has taken any action to expedite the anti-weapon bills pend
ing before them.
There is at present no effectual control or regulation of
the sale of weapons in the National Capital.
Any person, nd matter what his character or police record,
can walk into a store and buy anything from a small caliber
pistol to a machine gun.
Police are powerless, under, existing laws, to obtain any
satisfactory record of the weapons sold.
Whenever some of our so-called “gangsters,” pewees imi
tating the big shots of other cities, get into an arguement
they are always armed. But the police know nothing about
their guns until after they have spoken.
Enactment of a strong and drastic weapon law, giving the
authorities some measure of control and some knowledge of
where guns are going would mitigate, even if it did not
cure the evil.
Senator Capper and Representative Norton should at once
hold hearings on the gun bills, listen to the pleas of peaceful
and law-abiding citizens, iron out differences over the bills
and start them on the way to enactment.
The District Fund Bill
Stick to the Old Basis
With the District subcommittee of the House Committee on
Appropriations about to start hearings on the District supply
bill the question arises as to whether that measure should
be predicated upon the Mapes fiscal program or upon the basis
which has heretofore prevailed.
There is not the slightest reason either in law or in com
mon sense for applying the Mapes proposals to the appropria
tion bill.
It would, of course, be asking too much to request the
House to follow the existing law and formulate the bill on
the 60-40 basis.
But even in its intense desire to place upon local residents
the burden of maintaining the Capital of the entire Nation, the
House should not do less than follow the custom of recent
years and prepare the appropriation bill on the basis of a
$9,500,000 Federal contribution.
Even though the Mapes bills, providing new forms of taxa
tion and repealing the 60—40 provision, were the most ad
mirable pieces of legislation ever contemplated, they are not
yet the law and by no feat of legerdemain can the House
make them the law in time to apply them to the District
appropriation bill.
The bills, it is true, galloped through an indifferent House,
but they have been slowed down in the Senate.
It is possible that under the onslaught of District citizens
they may die in the Senate, or at least be given life only in
a radically changed form.
They therefore should not be given any consideration by
the House District subcommittee when it gets around to the
local appropriation bill.
Prohibition’s Development
Wet-Dry Auto Plates
Auto plates which tell where you stand on prohibition will
soon be on sale in automobile accessory shops. The one designed
by the prohibitionists reads, “Help the President With Law
Enforcement.” That designed by the antis says, “Repeal the
Eighteenth Amendment For Prosperity.”
The “dry” plate is red, with white letters and a blue border.
It costs 25 cents, or the price of a glass of beer. The “wet”
plate is white, with red and blue letters. It costs a dollar, the
price of two shots of whiskey.
If you are a private citizen you can take your choice. If
you happen to be a member of Congress you will want both—
one for the front of your car, one foe the rear.
EDITORIAL PAGE
OF THE
WASHINGXONTIMES
Black Eye—By the Japs B * T E Powers
(tai \
# KA ® oSLsm '
; Z 4/ A’//\ ' •? a I I
lausahhe. » \\ || I
CONFPR.BNCE lA V. A W A/? :
c?\ \] Y / OJ rsa
ft [JAPANES£ H aI 1%
| De.LEqATe-5 I l\y Iff ) W
I I 4 w.
/?/£■
LISTEN, WORLD!
By Elsie Robinson J
Here’s a letter. You’ve read
dozens like it lately. Per
haps you’ll agree with it. Per-
■ML
ELSIE ROBINSON
haps you, too,
think it would
be a great
thing in gen
eral if mar
ried women
were forbid
den to work.
BUT
WOULD IT?
Oft WOULD
IT CHEAP
EN ALL FEM
ININE LA-
B O R...
BLOCK ALL
FEMININE
AMBITION... KEEP WOMAN
WORKERS IN THf OFFICE
BOY CLASS?
Read this letter. Think it
over.
“Dear Miss Robinson—
“l am taking this means
of asking you what you think
of THE MARRIED WOMEN
IN OUR GREAT CITIES, WHO
ARE WORKING WHILE THEIR
HUSBANDS HAVE GOOD
JOBS.
One of Many
“I am a graduate of the High
School of Commerce . . . just
one of many, of the class of
1930/* I have looked for work
in offices and department
stores, as bookkeeper, stenog
rapher or clerk, and nine times
out of ten my interviews will
be with some married woman,
and when I ask for work, her
answer will be ‘Nothing today.’
In our city hall there are twice
the number of married to sin
gle women, perhaps with hus
bands working in the same
office.
“You speak to these women
and say the depression is ter
rible and their answer will be,
‘We don’t feel it. OF COURSE
THEY DON’T FEEL IT! WHY
SHOULD THEY? THEY HAVE
IT SOFT WHILE THE SINGLE
GIRLS STARVE.
“Now I ask you! DON’T
WISE WORDS
Virtue’s achievement, Folly’s
crime,
Whate’er of guilt or good the
past has known.
Not e’en the Sire of all things,
mighty Time,
Hath powei* to change or make
the deed undone.—Pindar.
But the gods hear men's
hands before their lips.—Swin
burne.
If you wish in this world to ad
vance
Your merits you’re bound to
enhance;
You must stir it and stump it,
And blow your trumpet,
Or, trust me, you haven’t a
chance. —Sir W. S. Gilbert.
Heaven wills our happiness,
allows our doom. —Young.
Willows are weak, yet they
bind other wood.-s-Prov.
A few strong instincts and a
few: plain rules.—Wordsworth.
♦ YOU THINK THAT WHEN A
WOMAN GETS MARRIED,
SHE SHOULD STEP DOWN
AND LET THE YOUNG GIRLS
HAVE A CHANCE?
“IF THEY’RE SO FOND OF
WORKING, WHY NOT HAVE
THEIR HUSBANDS QUIT
THEIR JOBS, SO SOME OF
THE REST OF US COULD
EAT? HAZEL.”
Sounds like a hard break,
doesn’t it? And you’ll be sym
pathizing with Hazel, just as I
am. But suppose she had her
way... suppose all women had
to quit work when they mar
ried ... WOULDN’T EVERY S
WOMAN, SINGLE OR MAR
RIED, SUFFER?
Take Hazel herself. She has
ambition. She is looking for
something more than a small
immediate job with beginner’s
pay. She doesn’t intend -to stay
a file clerk or stenog. She has
prepared herself for serio as
work...for a position with a
future. Some day she hopes,
just as a man hopes, to be a
Big Shot in some large com
pany.
Just Suppose
That’s fine. That’s the way
a girl should feel about her
work. The whole human race
will profit because working girls
feel that way.
BUT SUPPOSE A GIRL HAD
TO STOP WORKING IF SHE
FELL IN LOVE AND MAR
RIED?
What would happen, then, to
her ambition? How would that
affect her standing in the busi
ness world?
HO'V V’OULD IT AFFECT
A MAN’S STANDING.
He wouldn’t have any stand
ing, under those conditions.
He’d remain a transient worker
—in the office-noy class. It
takes time and money to train
workers and Big Business
doesn’t groom people for im
portant positions if it knows
that they will step out just
when they are getting good.
That’s what would happen to
the man worker if he retired
when he married. And that is
what would happen to woman
workers—to all women workers
if retirement on marriage
were compulsory.
Woman’s Job
At present some of our most
serious and valuable work is
performed by women. BUT
NO WOMAN WOULD HAVE
A CHANCE TO DO SERIOUS
OR VALUABLE WORK IF A
LAW WERE PASSED AGAINST
THE MARRIED WOMAN
WORKER. For no employer
could tell when a woman
might marry. Therefore no em
ployer could bank on a woman
worker’s permanency—or would
bother to train her for a larger
program...or trust her with
heavy reponsibility
IF THE MARRIED WOMAN
IS NOT PERMITTED TO
WORK, NO WOMAN WORKER
WILL BE TAKEN SERI
OUSLY.
Is THAT a happy solution
for the working woman’s prob
lem?
(Copyright 1932. King Features
H Syndicate. Inc.l
MARRY-GO-ROUND
By Helen Rowland—
Junking the Husband ♦
With Dakota and Nevada
making faces at each other, this
“Land-of-the-Free-and-Grave of
the-Home” bids fair to blossom
with a bumper crop of “de
serted wives,” when spring
comes.
“Desertion” is the most po
lite ground on which you can
divorce a husband. It is even
more polite than “cruelty”; since
It implies nothing except that
one of you didn’t care to have
the other around, any more.
Tn some States, if a husband
insists on sitting in another
room, in order to concentrate
on his newspaper, it constitutes
“desertion.” But, in others, you
have to prove that he went as
far as the club or, speakeasy
and wouldn’t come back when
you DARED him to.
“Desertion” is an india-rubber
term, warranted to stretch over
a multitude of sins, running all
the way from a golf-complex to
a blonde-complex. It comes in
the usual 57 varieties, all tastily
prepared and put up—by your
lawyers.
There are husbands who sneak
away stealthily, those who run
away defiantly, and those who
just go out and bang the door
never come back again.
There are those whose wives
have to pack their grips, order
the taxi, and make their reser
vations for them, before they
will consent to “desert.”
And those who just cheerfully
turn over the Pekinese and the
ONCE-OVERS
Be Thankful '
If you have a fair job and re
muneration is steady, be thank
ful.
Perhaps you do have to work
harder to earn it these days.
Some of the work which used
to be done by others may have
been added to your job, but
what of it? .
In some instances it may be
true that men are imposed
upon in the naine of present
depression, and compelled to do.
more than their share,
Notwithstanding, you should
still consider yourself lucky to
have work.
Thousands of men more capa
ble than you would be pleased
to accept your place and would
keys to the apartment and go
off pleasantly and live at the
club.
There are husbands who take
"the little woman” to Paris or
Mexico and help her to PROVE
that they are “deserters” and
“brutes” —and all that sort of
thing.
And there are those who “de
sert” by merely staying at
home and looking after the dog
and the garden, while their
wives go to Reno, for the
climate.
But probably the most popu
lar and painless form of deser
tion is simultaneous desertion,
when you help pack each
other’s trunks, divide the books,
the shoe-trees and the bridge
prizes—and then go off to
Paris and California, respec
tively, after a warm good-by
and the solemn promise to post
card each other.
Everything chummy—and no
misunderstanding!
After all, why be rude or in
sulting to a man just because
you can’t stand him around
| | Illi I!
g© W
the house? THINK of the
beautiful things in the Metro
politan Museum that you
wouldn’t care to have around
the house!
“Desertion” is the modern
substitute for paris green,
ground glass and shooting-irons
—just as “arbitration” is the
civilized substitute for war. A
divorce, “by any other name,”
would not be half as sweet!
Happy landings!
(Copyright, 1932. King Features
Syndicate. Inc.)
consider themselves lucky to
have such a job.
It is true that every man
should be provided with the
opportunity to work for a living
and they should not be required
to do more than a fair amount
of work In order to earn it.
But exceptional conditions
have made this impossible.
Output must be curtailed, If
It can’t be sold, with decrease
in labor required, hence the
difficulty in finding employ
ment.
In times like this the man
who gets work of any kind
should rejoice.
He should put forth his best
efforts to be worthy of the
place, and do it happily.
(Copyright, 1932. by Internationa!
featur* Servica, Inc.)
WASHINGTON, D. C.>
FEBRUARY 6, 1932
A Truce to Bunk: A
Nation, the Starving
By Claude G. Bowers
Author of “The Party Battle* of the Jackson Period,” “The Stru-vle
for Democracy in America," "Jefferson and Hamilton,”
"The Tragic Era,” and other important work*.
THESE are days when
political bunk is intoler
able. In normal times, when
the economic and social ma
chinery of modern civiliza
tion is running smoothly,
and everyone is reasonably
satisfied, men aspiring to
national leadership may in
dulge in platitudes and in
articulate rhetoric without
inviting a rebuke, but these
are days of serious crises.
It is a boast of ours in
America that whenever a
crisis comes destiny brings
forth a leader to meet it.
It always has. But the
choice of the leader has
never been made in the
dark. Never have politici
ans and statesmen, and fre
quently they are one arid
the same thing, indulged in
such plain talk as in critical
periods of our history; never
have they been more daring
or frank. And the people,
hearing them, determine
which they will follow —and
always the choice has been
made because of the posi
tions they have taken.
The campaign this year
must be one of straight
thinking and plain speaking,
for no class of people, all
suffering and a little
alarmed, has the patience
for mere bunk. The feeling
is that he who is too cau
tious as an aspirant will not
be sufficiently courageous
as a responsible leader in
power. The American people
have a right to know where
men stand.
No Repetition of the
Hoover Campaign
Four years ago everyone
knew where Smith stood on
everything; and no one knew
for certain where Mr. Hoover
stood on anything, except
that he stood for a “chicken
in every pot” and “sanitary
plumbing” and radios, and
electric washing machines.
In North Carolina he stood
for prohibition and in New
York is was whispered that
he stood against it; and he
hid behind the promise of a
commission to investigate.
But in 1928 “business” was
“booming,” as the super
ficial thought, and never has
the American appetite for
bunk been so keen as it was
then.
But never has the popular
impatience with bunk or
double meanings been so pro
found as it is today.
The campaign this year
must find leaders getting
down to cases, discussing
principles, pitching the argu
ment on the higher plan.
There can be no repetition
of the Hoover campaign of
1928.
Hoover’s Record Now
Speaks For Him
No one yet knows where
Mr. Hoover stands on any
thing, positively, unless it is
on prohibition. He is satis
fied with existing conditions
and wants no change. But
it does not matter much this
time whether he expresses
himself articulately or not;
his' record now speaks for
him.
But he has the advantage
of being in.
The Democratic candidate,
whoever he may be, is out
and must make it plain to the
people why he should be in.
He must have a policy,
clearly defined, and based on
principles, and must battle
for it militantly, not gingerly.
Unless he shows by his
frankness and earnestness
that he believes in himself,
he cannot expect a disillu
sioned public to believe in
him.
No Candidate
Can Pussyfoot
Three are now three candi
dates in the field avowedly;
for while Mr. Baker has not
announrtfed and probably will
not, his recent statement is
tantamount to a declaration.
He rendered a service in
eliminating the League as a
possible issue; and now Gov
ernor Roosevelt, who has re
frained thus far from expres
sions on national policy, has
just taken a position defi
nitely on three things.
He is not in favor of enter
ing the League of Nations.
He is not in favor of the
“cancellation” of the debts.
And he is against the tariff
act which has contributed
mightily to the economic
chaos of the world and the
loss of our foreign markets.
His speech to the farmers
in New York more nearly
met his duty as a candidate
than the formal noncommit
tal declaration to the people
of Dakota.
And Governor Ritchie’s
views have been frankly ex
pressed on everything.
Before, and long before,
the Democratic convention
meets, it will be found that
no candidate can pussyfoot
his way to the nomination;
each must fight his way by
standing definitely on the
issues that are real.
Must Know the Attitude
Os Candidates
It is imperative that the
American people know the
attitude of candidates or.
the transfer of the debts of
14 nations from the people
who “hired the money” and
used it to the taxpayers of
this country. There is a
droll unanimity among the
debtor nations that the so
lution of all problems de
mands that we pay their
debts—pay them by adding
billions in taxation to a
people seriously burdened
now, whose government faces
an enormous deficit.
Neville Chamberlain, the
British chancellor of the
Exchequer, has officially an
nounced in the Commons
that this is the expectation
and the policy of the British
government.
Mussolini announced it as
his policy some time ago.
M. Laval announced it on
his return to Paris.
It is the policy of Europe
—and it is not the policy
of the United States; and
America will not knowingly
put in power any man or
party that favors the policy
here.
Nothing Has Been Done
For the Desperate Millions
Had we gone to Paris,
and, after the fashion of the
debtor nations, grabbed Ger
man territory, and exacted
reparations, something might
be said for the Chamberlain
plan; but we took no repara
tions and we cook not one
inch of territory, and we
are not going to pay sll,-
000,000,000 for the privilege
of taking nothing.
For months we have said
in these columns that the
problem of human beings
who are suffering and starv
ing because of economi:
conditions for which they
are not responsible, can
not be indefinitely ignored.
Had* Mr. Hoover had the
time last summer, when the
.Administration was dis
tressed over the unfortunates
in Europe, to summon Con
gress in extra session for
the floating of a prosperity
loan to furnish work, there
would be no need for ap
propriations from the Fed
eral Treasury for direct re
lief to the unemployed, their
women and children.
Had this and the previous
Administration not prevented
for three years the enact
ment of the Wagner Em
ployment Stabilization Bill,
the work' could have been
launched immediately.
But the Administration
has utterly ignored the hu
man equation; and if gov
ernment is concerned with
banks, railroads, and the
profits of big business to
the explusion of people, it
is a new wrinkle in the
American concept of the
purposes of government,