Tremendous obstacles accentuated by Allied refusal to damage religious objects used as Nazi strong posts
By Carroll Binder
…
Men, supplies must reinforce beach quickly
By William H. Stoneman
…
Mayo clinic surgeon reveals delicate operation to save life of Canadian boy
…
Liberators rock mystery targets in vicinity of Pas de Calais
By Walter Cronkite, United Press staff writer
…
Just calls him ‘Governor of Ohio’ in stories sent overseas
Washington (UP) –
The Office of War Information covered Governor John W. Bricker’s press conference here Thursday, but for policy reasons did not identify the Ohio chief executive in the reports sent abroad as a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, Director Elmer Davis said today.
He was simply referred to as a “prominent Republican and Governor of Ohio” in the OWI dispatches sent to Africa, Britain and Australia.
The press conference was covered by an OWI editor and his story was cleared personally by Mr. Davis. It was transmitted to OWI outposts in London, Algiers and Sydney for redistribution.
Political angle cited
Mr. Davis said the omission of any reference to Mr. Bricker’s announced candidacy was in line with the agency’s policy in handling political news the last few months when it was difficult, he said, to ascertain who presidential candidate actually were.
The OWI chief said:
That was the period when a lot of men were standing around waiting for lightning to strike and it was considered best not to mention political aspirations in our reports.
Now that the elections are drawing closer and the political picture is coming into sharper focus, Mr. Davis said, a new policy in this matter will be drawn up soon by himself and other OWI officials.
Must announce candidacy
Under the new policy, Mr. Davis said that if a candidate has publicly announced his candidacy, it will be mentioned in OWI overseas stories.
Mr. Davis said:
In some cases, of course, it will be necessary to say “considered by many to be a candidate for the office.”
The OWI story began by saying that Mr. Bricker “favored a foreign policy ‘along the general lines’” of the Mackinac Republican Conference statement.
It also included Mr. Bricker’s comment on a recent article in a British newspaper suggesting the reelection of President Roosevelt.
‘None of their business’
Mr. Bricker said in that connection:
I think we ought to elect our own President and it’s none of their business. I think we ought to take care of that matter without outside interference.
The story ended by quoting Mr. Bricker as saying that he differed with “the whole philosophy of the New Deal.”
The dispatch also carried Mr. Bricker’s stand in favor of state ballots for soldier voting but made no reference to his views that there should be a law which would outlaw wartime strikes.
Favorable ruling on case, company cooperation are essential
…
Survey shows general public isn’t convinced the manpower shortage is that critical
By George Gallup, Director, American Institute of Public Opinion
…
Vast underground is ready to combat invaders, President says
…
Russia may tell Tokyo to seek peace with Allies
…
30 institutions close doors in past two years because of unprofitable operations
…
St. Paul, Minnesota (UP) – (Feb. 12)
Doloris May Thauwald, who was married last night to Senator H. Styles Bridges (R-NH), said today she planned to return to her war job in the Intelligence Division of the State Department after a brief honeymoon at Hot Springs, Virginia.
The 29-year-old bride said:
My employers in the Intelligence Division have spent time and trouble training me and it would inconvenience them considerably for me to leave.
State’s share eight times pre-war construction in program
By Robert Taylor, Press Washington correspondent
…
By leaving it exclusively to the states to provide ways and means of enabling members of the Armed Forces to vote, as a majority in Congress seems determined to do, the statesmen in Washington are deciding that the hardest way is the right way.
The contrary is true. Voting is an inherent right, provided in the Constitution, the same Constitution which created Congress and details what it may and may not do.
Since voting is a basic right, it follows as a fundamental corollary that the qualifications for voting, the methods for voting and the rules for voting should be as simple as possible.
Democracy functions through free suffrage. If suffrage is not free, the functioning of democracy is restricted if not actually endangered.
Any obstacle thrown in the way of full opportunity for suffrage on the part of any group of free citizens is an interference with democracy.
The opponents of a uniform, simply ballot for use of the Armed Forces claim any regulation of voting, save the 48 different systems set by the states, is unconstitutional.
But the Constitution does not say so. It says laws governing the election of members of Congress shall be prescribed by the states, but it also says Congress may “at any time” alter such regulations.
It also says that neither Congress nor the states may abridge the right to vote because of race, color or “previous condition of servitude.” And in another amendment, it forbids abridgement of the right to vote because of sex.
In both articles, Congress is charged with the duty of enacting legislation which will make these prohibitions effective.
Isn’t it logical, then, that Congress also has the power to enact legislation which will prevent the abridgement of the right to vote for other reasons, such as the conglomeration of state regulations which will prevent hundreds of thousands of voters in the Armed Forces from exercising their franchise?
If the opposition Congressmen will read the instructions issued the other day by the Army for the benefit of voters in Pennsylvania, Illinois, Nebraska and Louisiana, they will find an irrefragable example of how to keep the Armed Forces from voting.
Pennsylvania voters in the military and naval forces must apply for a military ballot within the 20-day period which occurs not more than 50 days before the election and not less than 30 days before the election. Election officials must then mail these ballots at least 15 days before the election “to the address furnished by the elector in his application.”
With Pennsylvania voters scattered in hundreds of places around the world, many of them bound to change addresses between the time they apply and the time ballots are mailed, it is manifestly impossible to provide more than a fraction of them with ballots, even if they were thoroughly acquainted with the law.
Nebraska is even worse, for the elector from that state also must apply for a form on which to apply for a ballot!
As the Army suggests:
It is not desirable to burden overseas airmail with applications for ballots where the time interval is manifestly too short to accomplish receipt, execution and return of the ballot.
There is nothing more constitutional than the right to vote. Let’s make the Constitution work by providing a simple, uniform method by which the Armed Forces may exercise their constitutional franchise. Let’s make it as easy as possible for them to vote, not as hard as possible.
By Lee Casey, the Rocky Mountain News
I am becoming excessively weary of listening to unfunny off-color anecdotes, most of them well-worn, about President and Mrs. Roosevelt.
To be sure, this is a campaign year, and in a campaign, we are told, everything goes. Such is the American way. We have always indulged in jesting and even sneering at those in high office.
It is true that some of the current anecdotes have survived the campaigns of 1932, of 1936 and 1940. But, as for these representing any kind of American tradition, even a bad one, I just don’t believe it.
That abuse that was heaped upon Abraham Lincoln offers no parallel. That abuse, unjustified as it proved to be, at least was done in the open. It came from newspapers, from ministers and from politicians speaking in public – in short, from individuals and publications that could be held accountable for their words and acts. It was all wrong, as we now know, but at least it was not speaking.
The lip-to-ear attacks upon President and Mrs. Roosevelt are both wrong and sneaking. They are especially offensive because, for the first time in American history so far as I can discover, these sneaking attacks are being made upon a woman.
Pegler’s duty
Let me try to be very clear upon one point. I’m not remotely suggesting that Mrs. Roosevelt’s activities, insofar as they have a public bearing, should not be subject to the closest scrutiny, examination and criticism. She is different from any other mistress of the White House in that she has deliberately made herself a political figure. Her words and deeds are, therefore, deserving of the same approval or disapproval as the words and deeds of any man or woman in public life.
Westbrook Pegler has been emphatic about this, in accord with his duty as a commentator upon national affairs. He has challenged, and properly challenged, Mrs. Roosevelt’s occupancy under a priority order of a place on a military transport plane. He has challenged, and properly challenged, her right to make distant journeys in military planes as a representative of the American Red Cross. He has challenged Mrs. Roosevelt’s partiality in labor disputes, has charged that her affiliation with groups sympathetic with communism has tended to give administrative sanction to the communist movement.
All this has been done directly, openly – and forcefully, Mr. Pegler has criticized and challenged Mrs. Roosevelt in her public capacity. That is not only his right but his duty. That is the business he is in.
Bogus wit
Mr. Pegler’s way and not the way of innuendo, is the true American way.
The slyness, the bogus wit – yes, and the smut – are not characteristic of this country. Those who use such methods are this country’s disgrace.
Some of the supposed witticisms designed to besmirch the President and his wife touch upon the interest both he and Mrs. Roosevelt have shown in protecting the rights of minority groups of citizens. The intended effect is to belittle and sneer at the fact that President and Mrs. Roosevelt are showing the same interest in the welfare of their fellow-citizens that is characteristic of any civilized human being.
The whispering campaign against Al Smith when he was a candidate was slimy enough. So was that against Warren G. Harding. This one is more pernicious than either because it carries smut along with slander. It is doubly despicable because it is hidden. As Edmund Burke asked, who can refute a sneer?
Approval or disapproval of the administration’s policies has nothing to do with one’s attitude toward this sniping from undercover. Decent people owe it to their own decency to refuse to listen to such pernicious chatter. It seems to me the campaign of falsehood and malice disguised as humor should come to a sudden end.