Invasion coasts hammered; new night air blitz hinted
Europe’s radios go silent, indicating raiders en route after day attacks on France
By Phil Ault, United Press staff writer
…
Records show how labor violates no-strike pledge
More men walked out in 1943 than in any of 15 years preceding Pearl Harbor
By Phelps Adams, North American Newspaper Alliance
…
Ship collision costs 30 lives
30 others are rescued off Cape May
…
Comrades fail to find trace of Marine ace
…
State to stand on present law in soldier vote
Governor Martin tells Senate group he won’t call special session
By Robert Taylor, Press Washington correspondent
Washington – (Jan. 8)
Pennsylvania Governor Edward Martin has advised the Senate Elections Committee that he believes the state law on absentee voting is sufficient to handle the soldier vote in the 1944 election.
As a result, the Governor said in answer to a query by the Senate committee, it will not be necessary to call a special session of the State Legislature to consider soldier vote legislation.
The statement contrasts with recent announcements by Governor Martin that he intends to call a special session to make state laws conform with prospective action by Congress to grant men in the armed services a military ballot for federal offices.
Present law cited
The query, sent by Senator Theodore F. Green (D-RI), coauthor of the Green-Lucas Soldier Vote Bill, asked if the Governor contemplates calling a session “to consider legislation relative to absentee voting for those in the armed services.”
Governor Martin replied:
It now looks as if it will not be necessary for Pennsylvania to call a special session of its Legislature. We believe that, with some cooperation from the Army and Navy, which we are sure we will secure, we can take care of absentee voting by our present laws.
Under Pennsylvania law, soldiers and sailors can register by mail, make application for a military ballot 30-90 days before election, fill it out and take an oath before an officer and mail it back to be added to returns from the home districts.
Objections stressed
It was this procedure that was denounced in Congress by the advocates of a federal soldier vote bill, on the ground that it required at least five long-distance transactions by mail and was unworkable as far as most of the men in military service, in particular those on the fighting fronts, are concerned.
The federal soldier vote proposal, as contained in the compromise Green-Lucas Bill, calls for distribution by the armed services of ballots to every member, and distribution by a war ballot commission of the complete ballots to the states.
Such a system would require, in most cases, new state legislation to provide for addition if the military returns to the civil vote for federal offices.
Some wait on Congress
Senator Green made his poll to determine what state officials plan to do about the soldier vote. Seven governors replied that they had called or will call a special session of their legislatures and another added that he would do so if necessary. Six others said they would take no action until Congress acts.
Governor Martin was one of seven state executives who indicated they are standing on their state laws.
Senate opponents of an unrestricted federal ballot for men in the armed services succeeded in killing the original Green-Lucas Bill and substituting for it a measure that would refer the whole question of soldier voting to state legislation. They were led by Southern Democrats and included a number of Republican Senators from Northern states.
The charge was made at that time that cumbersome operation of state laws would result in disfranchisement of most of the men and women in the Armed Forces who would be eligible to vote under the federal ballot proposal.
The charge of Senator Joseph F. Guffey (D-PA), that an “unholy alliance” of Southern Democrats and Northern Republicans had killed the bill, started a bitter party feud in the Senate.
As a result of continued protests against the way the Senate handled the soldier vote issue, compromise measures, designed to meet the objections of Southern states, have been introduced in both the Senate and House under which the Armed Forces will still handle military voting and the ballots delivered to states for dispositions under state laws.
This system would permit states which want to do so to continue setting the qualifications for voters, irrespective of the federal ballot and permit other states to accept all military ballots.
Ruml suggests 9-point plan for post-war
Program envisions lower taxes and more stabilized employment
…
Poll: Plan to divide Germany lacks public backing
Four-nation survey shows strict control favored over dismemberment
By George Gallup, Director, American Institute of Public Opinion
…
Soldier vote sponsor cites Civil War plan
Southerners today ignore Confederacy’s example, Congressman claims
By Daniel M. Kidney, Scripps-Howard staff writer
Washington – (Jan. 8)
Although Southern Senators, with three exceptions, noted for the Eastland-McKellar-McClellan substitute which would leave soldier voting to the states, the Worley Bill to let the Army handle the voting and the states count the ballots more nearly matches the manner in which the South handled the problem during the Civil War.
This is the conclusion reached by Rep. Charles M. La Follett (R-IN), who has spent the Congressional recess in research on voting by the Union and Confederate Armies.
Mr. La Follette said:
The fact is that the Union Army was far more insistent on state control of voting than was the Confederate Army.
Soldiers’ rights preserved
Although the South was theoretically fighting for states’ rights, it placed the voting privilege of its soldiers before all else and insisted that no man be disenfranchised because he was in the field.
The Confederate Congress passed laws lying down the method of voting and spelled out the right of the states to do likewise. Whatever voting in the field was done by soldiers from Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas and Arkansas was under the Confederate Congress’ law, these states having passed none. Other states did pass statutes, but in each case Army officers handled the balloting and sent the ballots back to the state for counting.
Southerner leads opposition
Mr. La Follette said:
States without special laws could only vote soldiers for President, Vice President and members of Congress, of course.
He pointed out that the leader of the opposition against the Worley Bill in the House is Rep. John Rankin, who comes from Mississippi.
Mr. La Follette said:
Certainly Southern oppositionists are overstressing the states’-rights issue in this matter. They cannot be more fond of states’ rights than their ancestors, who fought a four-year war to preserve them.
In Washington –
Chamber of Commerce offers plan for post-war peace
Republicans answer Walker’s charge that GOP lags in drafting foreign policy
…
Army finds youth soft, malingering a common practice
Unpublicized medical report surveys rejections, reveals high percentage of neuro-psychiatric cases
…
Draft of labor awaits signal
Service journal predicts Roosevelt will act
…
Senator Ball warns against tinkering with labor policy
Patchwork job does more harm than good, says young GOP leader who regrets that steps have been delayed
By Senator Joseph H. Ball (R-MN)
…
More evidence of Roosevelt’s campaign cited
Edison: Administration keeps Hague alive with patronage
By Lyle C. Wilson, United Press staff writer
Washington – (Jan. 8)
Charges that the Roosevelt administration was keeping the Hague machine alive in New Jersey with feedings of federal patronage were being assayed here today in terms of presidential year politics.
Governor Charles Edison, retiring Democrat, who was formerly a member of President Roosevelt’s Cabinet, made the charges yesterday in citing the appointment of Dr. Edward J. Jennings, a Hague man, to be postmaster at Trenton despite opposition by the non-Hague element of the state Democratic organization.
At a Trenton press conference, Mr. Edison said that without such federal patronage, Mayor Hague “would have been a dead duck long ago – in fact that is all he is living on now.”
The policy of appeasing Mayor Hague has been cited by anti-Roosevelt Democrats and Republicans as an indication that the President intended to seek a fourth term since it is to be expected that the Mayor will control the New Jersey delegation to the Democratic National Convention this year.
Mr. Edison’s pointed complaint gives Republicans some useful presidential year arguments in support of their frequent charge that the Roosevelt administration is or has been aligned with questionable political machines in several large cities including New York, Chicago, Kansas City, Memphis and Jersey City.
Usual campaign planned by GOP
Chicago, Illinois (UP) – (Jan. 8)
Harrison Spangler, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said today the party will probably not shorten its wartime presidential campaign because “we believe the Democrats are already conducting theirs.”
Mr. Spangler said the National Committee, which begins a two-day meeting here Monday, will probably set the date for the national GOP convention in June, “around the usual time.” A campaign of the usual duration, he said, would not interfere with the war effort if it is conducted properly.
Meanwhile, observers speculated significance on a statement by Wendell Willkie, who said in New York that he was interested in no particular city as convention site. Mr. Willkie’s followers have opposed selection of Chicago as the convention site, observers said, in the belief the city is a stronghold of isolationist sentiment.
Observers speculated on whether Mr. Willkie regarded it as good strategy to appear disinterested, or whether he believes it would be useless to oppose sentiment for holding the convention here. Chicago will bid for both the Democratic and Republican conventions.
Post-war jobs for 60 million is Perkins’ aim
Labor Secretary blueprints plan in yearly report to Congress
…