Theater sues Petrillo, aides for $50,000
2 corporations also named in action involving hiring ‘compulsion’
…
In Washington –
Federal union joins in plea for more pay
Many leave U.S. jobs, CIO leader explains to committee
…
Dies demands Congress curb Jap plotters
Groups accused of working in and out of relocation centers
…
Allies may end food shipments to Spain soon
Seek to force Franco from playing both ends against middle
…
Soldier vote compromise believe due
Federal ballot subject to state controls thought likely
Washington – (Jan. 29)
The capital today considered it likely that the Senate and House will accept a compromise on the soldier-vote issue and pass a bill providing for a federal ballot subject to state controls.
Senator Scott Lucas (D-IL), co-author of the Lucas-Green Bill, said he had taken an informal poll of the Senate which showed that the administration has strength enough to pass a federal-ballot bill “without crippling amendments.”
Rep. Eugene Worley (D-TX), sponsor of a companion measure, said there were “encouraging signs” to force a record of how House members stand.
The force of President Roosevelt’s message to Congress terming a straight state ballot a “fraud” on the troops is reported to have increased the public pressure on the Senate and the House to approve the federal ballot, although it angered many Congressmen.
The advantage of time, however, lies on the side of the advocates of the state ballot, for unless the Congress completes action on a soldier-vote bill next week, the War and Navy Departments will have to begin the distribution to the Armed Forces of postcard applications for state ballots, according to the terms of the 1942 soldier-vote law.
Senate debates compromise
The Senate is in the midst of debate on a bill providing for a uniform federal ballot and guaranteeing the right of election officials in the states to determine the validity of the ballots returned to them.
The House is about to open debate on the Rankin-Eastland Bill which the Senate passed before it decided to reconsider the issue and commence debate on the compromise bill. The Rankin-Eastland legislation keeps the voting in the hands of the states and revokes the provision in the 1942 voting act which suspended the poll tax and registration requirements.
The rule adopted by the House Rules Committee forbids the House on the floor to amend the Rankin-Eastland Bill, but the Committee of the Whole House may offer any number of amendments before the bill goes before the House for a vote.
Wary of recorded votes
The effect of this legislative device is to free members of the House from having to make a record vote on the different amendments. No roll calls are taken in the Committee of the Whole House. This will make it easier for Representatives to vote to change the nature of the Rankin-Eastland Bill.
Cyrus Eaton calls Wall Street banks morgues for cash
New York investment firms are ‘pusillanimous’ – lawyers, accountants and engineers are ‘parasitic,’ Ohio banker says
…
Californians charge Japs ‘living off fat of the land’
Townspeople angered by atrocity story; Army to reduce guard at internment camp
…
First Lady explains –
Retort explained by publication of first letter
…
Poll: Dewey gaining in popularity; Willkie drops
MacArthur pulls into third place, ahead of Bricker
By George Gallup, Director, American Institute of Public Opinion
The popularity of Governor Thomas E. Dewey of New York as a GOP presidential nominee has increased substantially during the past six weeks. Wendell Willkie’s popular standing has showed a slight drop.
These are the highlights of the Institute’s latest survey among the rank and file of Republican voters from coast to coast.
Governor Dewey’s gains have come in virtually all sections of the country, but principally in the Mid-Atlantic area, which includes New York State. Mr. Willkie’s best areas are New England and the South, and he has shown a gain in both areas.
MacArthur tops Bricker
Gen. Douglas MacArthur, whose popularity as a candidate has increased slightly since December, runs third today, with Ohio Governor John Bricker fourth. Next comes Lt. Cdr. Harold E. Stassen, former Governor of Minnesota.
Voters from coast to coast were shown a list of men most prominently talked about as possible presidential candidates and were asked to indicate their choice today. Based on those who named a Republican, the results show:
| Today | December 1943 | |
|---|---|---|
| Dewey | 42% | 36% |
| Willkie | 23% | 25% |
| MacArthur | 18% | 15% |
| Bricker | 8% | 15% |
| Stassen | 6% | 6% |
The remaining 3% of the vote in today’s survey was divided between California Governor Earl Warren and Eric Johnston, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In the December survey, Senator Taft (R-OH) received 5%, while Mr. Johnson, Governor Warren and Massachusetts Governor Leverett Saltonstall each received 1%.
Willkie strong in East
Mr. Willkie is the top choice of New England Republicans at present, and he runs Governor Dewey a relatively close race in the Far West – the Rocky Mountain and Pacific Coast states. But in the Mid-Atlantic area – New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland and West Virginia – Governor Dewey is favored by better than 5–2. From Ohio across the prairies to Western Nebraska, Governor Dewey likewise leads Mr. Willkie by about 2–1.
The sectional standings of the four men with the highest votes follow:
| Dewey | Willkie | MacArthur | Bricker | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| New England | 38% | 41% | 14% | 3% |
| Mid-Atlantic | 54% | 21% | 16% | 4% |
| East Central | 35% | 15% | 17% | 21% |
| West Central | 40% | 23% | 19% | 3% |
| South | 30% | 36% | 24% | 6% |
| Rocky Mountains | 37% | 26% | 21% | 7% |
| Pacific Coast | 35% | 27% | 12% | 4% |
With the nominating convention only five months off, the Bricker boom as yet has made comparatively little gains outside the East Central area. However, in that area, which will send a large number of delegates to the convention. Governor Bricker is second only to Governor Dewey.
After the battle –
Tarawa Marine goes back to his pots, pans
Sewickley Heights private volunteers as rifleman
By Sgt. Mason Brunson, USMC combat correspondent
…
Editorial: Where is the leadership?
Republicans are doing their cause a good deal of harm by their dog-in-the-manger attitude on the soldier-vote issue.
They are showing a woeful lack of leadership and statesmanship.
Some of them are chagrined over the dismal exhibition which has characterized the activities of too many Republican Congressmen, as well as some Democrats, over this issue.
The first smokescreen thrown up by some Southern Democrats and joined in by many Republicans was the “states’ rights” bugaboo.
Now they have thrown up the fourth term as another smokescreen.
The issue is whether or not the members of the Armed Forces are to have every possible opportunity to cast a ballot in the presidential election.
This issue cannot be beclouded by the fourth term issue – that is another controversy entirely.
Republicans, if they choose, are free to accuse President Roosevelt of thinking in terms of the election campaign when he put out his recent blast at the “fraud” soldier-vote bill now before Congress.
They are free to let loose with all their ammunition and resources in opposing a fourth term.
But these things cannot be permitted to interfere with the enactment of a sensible, simple plan for enabling the Armed Forces to have the opportunity to vote.
Republicans will be in far better position to fight the fourth term if they display some evidences of statesmanship and leadership on the soldier-vote issue.
Editorial: Dear Mr. President
They say, Mr. President, that you and Congress are feuding.
They say, for example, that you requested a national service law not particularly because you thought it was needed now or believed Congress would pass it, but rather to get yourself on record in case further labor strife crops up – so you may put the blame on Congress if that happens and if no such law is enacted.
They say, too, that the belief by some Congressmen that this is the case has added to Congressional resentment and made the feud more bitter.
They say – inevitably no doubt, but perhaps without justification – that your words and deeds relating to domestic policies are dictated by fourth-term strategy, and that the national service law proposal is a sample of such maneuvering. That you prefer to tackle the labor problem by indirection, as a face-saving gesture, rather than by frontal attack. That this is the adroit, the expedient, way of washing your hands of a vexing and politically delicate problem.
They say, Mr. President, that this is typical of your administration – that you have your eyes focused so firmly upon the history books that your capacity to deal with actualities is muscle-bound.
They say that if such were not the case, you’d be more willing to delegate authority and to retain or dismiss members of your official family on the basis of performance rather than by the measuring rod of personal loyalty.
They say, too, that if your viewpoint were altered ever so slightly in that respect, you’d be less sensitive to criticism, less anxious to call people Tories and copperheads and dunces, more positive and effective in decisions. That, in short, your great natural endowments would be able to function freely to your nation’s benefit.
They say there’s no hope of any change, any improvement.
They say all that, and much more.
What do you say, Mr. President?