America at war! (1941–) – Part 3

4241

americavotes1944

Drive is started for fourth term

County organization hears war pleas

Urging the reelection of President Roosevelt for a fourth term, the Allegheny County Democratic organization formally launched its Congressional campaign last night at a dinner rally in the Alpine Hotel, East McKeesport.

The keynote of the rally was sounded by Auditor General F. Clair Moss, candidate for Superior Court, who declared that the progress of the war hinges on November’s election.

Bitter campaign deplored

Mr. Ross said in part:

The election next November will determine whether the progress of this war will continue or whether there will be an interruption. It will also determine if a lasting peace will be written. A lasting peace can be written only under the guidance of President Roosevelt.

Rep. Francis J. Myers, Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate, told his audience that Nazi and Jap warlords are encouraged by bitter political campaigns and disputes in this country.

Other speakers were State Chairman David L. Lawrence, G. Harold Wagner (candidate for Auditor General), Ramsay S. Black (candidate for State Treasurer), and Mayor Frank Buchanan of McKeesport County Commissioner John J. Kane was toastmaster.

Soldier is guest

Congressman Samuel A. Weiss, who represents the 33rd district where the rally was held, had as guest a wounded soldier, Stephen Timco of Duquesne. Mr. Weiss urged proper provisions for disabled soldiers. He also declared that servicemen should be given a federal ballot so that they may vote in this year’s elections.

The 33rd district, created by the last session of the Legislature, comprises the three third-class cities, McKeesport, Clairton and Duquesne, plus 21 boroughs and eight townships. Republicans are expected to wage an intensive campaign to unseat Mr. Weiss.

4242

Navy gives up plan to rule plant guards

Unions win point after strike series
By Fred W. Perkins, Pittsburgh Press staff writer

…

4243

Dispute over $3.51 closes Cleveland steel plant

1,100 men made idle while nine others walk out for failure to get paid for ‘standing time’

…

Commons invites U.S. Congressmen

…

4244

‘7 deadly sins’ of labor cited by Johnston

Chamber of Commerce head warns against ‘doghouse’

…

4245

Carrier planes get 3 U-boats

…

4246

americavotes1944

Presidential primary vote opens in East

New Hampshire first to cast ballots
By Lyle C. Wilson, United Press staff writer

Washington –
New Hampshire today opens the presidential preference primary season which will extend through May 19.

During that period, a maximum of 18 states, including New Hampshire, could give their voters an opportunity in one form or another of indicating their preference among Republican and Democratic candidates for 1944 presidential nomination.

In three states, Alabama, Arkansas and Georgia, State Executive Committees determine whether there shall be a preferential vote. Among the other states, some enable voters to express a preference among potential presidential nominees listed on the ballot and others provide a choice among National Convention delegates who pledge themselves or express a preference for certain individual candidates.

Next primaries April 4

After New Hampshire’s vote today for delegates to the Republican and Democratic National Conventions, there will be a lull until after March 28 when New York holds its primary. Wisconsin’s primary is on April 4. Thereafter the primaries come in this order:

APRIL 11: Illinois, Nebraska
APRIL 25: Massachusetts, Pennsylvania
MAY 1: Maryland
MAY 2: Alabama, California, Florida, South Dakota
MAY 9: Ohio, West Virginia
MAY 16: New Jersey
MAY 19: Oregon

Primary preliminaries so far have been notable for activity by Wendell L. Willkie, the most aggressive campaigner for Republican presidential nomination, and apparent agreement by a preponderance of Democratic organizations in primary states that President Roosevelt will have a fourth-term nomination.

Roosevelt challenged

Only in Massachusetts is there any formal challenge so far to the accumulation of delegates by the Roosevelt-for-President forces.

In Massachusetts, the former Governor Joseph B. Ely has authorized the use of his name as an aspirant to the Democratic nomination, but there is no chance of a contest between delegates pledged to Mr. Ely and a slate pledged to the President because Massachusetts statutes require that a presidential candidate must file written assent to the use of his name. So far, Mr. Roosevelt is following the strategy of 1940 when he refused to reveal his political intentions.

4247

Friends unable to give Cobb cheerful funeral

…

4248

Nazi rail lines in Italy ripped

5th and 8th Armies beat off patrols
By Reynolds Packard, United Press staff writer

…

4249

Congress’ target quits his job

…

German prisoner found hanged

…

4250

All women are different according to Kay

…

4251

Work starts on Pyle film

…

4252

2-prong drive perils Japs in Burma

British cross river to tighten pincers

…

4253

Reds take lead in recognizing Italian setup

U.S. and Britain may follow suit
By Eleanor Packard, United Press staff writer

…

4254

Murder takes ‘holiday,’ FBI crime report shows

Homicide squads had 12.3 fewer cases last year; city’s record among best of big towns

…

4255

Grant of only $1,280 led to development of penicillin

…

4256

Editorial: Keep at it, gentlemen!

…

4257

Editorial: Stay free together

…

4258

americavotes1944

Editorial: Riddled by politics

This soldier-vote issue has never been straight.

It has been glutted by politics – on both sides.

And the raucous politics which has made a joke of this issue reached a crescendo as a result of Governor Dewey’s proposals to the New York Legislature.

Mr. Dewey, rightfully, finally went before the legislature with a plan for providing New York’s voters in the Armed Forces with a vote. He delayed this action until he measured the probability of a Congressional enactment at little more than zero.

The New York Governor’s address to the legislature at once was interpreted, on both friendly and unfriendly circles, as his first “open” bid for the Presidency.

Maybe there was some politics in Mr. Dewey’s message. But the basic intent of it was sound and justified. He had waited for Congress. Congress had failed to deliver. Now it was up to the states.

Perhaps he overstated the case when he directed a few sharp barbs, a la Roosevelt, at the so-called administration plan for a federal ballot.

But now comes Senator Lucas (D-IL), an original sponsor of the federal ballot plan for enabling the Armed Forces to vote, making two wrongs out of a right.

He described the Dewey message as a “springboard to announce his candidacy for the Presidency.” He used it as a basis for the charge that the sabotage of the soldier-vote plan is “plain, pure, partisan, Republican politics and nothing else.” Mr. Dewey’s speech, he said, was an “unstatesmanlike, unworthy and unjustified assault.”

But in the next breath he singled out – not without cause – Rep. Rankin (D-MS) as the chief obstructionist to a soldier-vote law.

That has been the trouble from the start.

Both the protagonists and the antagonists have been more concerned with their own partisanship than with the need – a simple, uniform method of enabling the Armed Forces to vote.

Both sides have angled the issue. Those opposing a federal ballot have angled to from the anti-New Deal slant. Those favoring a federal ballot have angled it from the fourth-term slant.

This is not an issue which concerns the welfare of politicians, be they Republicans, anti-New Deal Democrats or New Deal masterminds.

It is an issue that concerns the constitutional rights of millions of men and women in the Armed Forces who have been rooted from their homes to fight and die for a free country.

It is an issue which calls for statesmanship and sincerity, but which has been handled with the rawest kind of selfish partisanship.

4259

Edson: Electric group’s lobby under investigation

By Peter Edson

…

4260

img

Ferguson: Equal rights

By Mrs. Walter Ferguson

Elizabeth Gurley Flynn in the New Masses warns her readers that the Equal Rights Amendment is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Worse still, according to her, it is a reactionary Republican measure and those mean Republicans only want to get the poor working women into factories and grind them down under heels of greedy, profit-hungry employers. It’s the same old line used in Cleveland’s administration.

Women who oppose the Equal Rights Amendment have some good argument. They fear it will scrap all protective legislation, such as widow’s pensions, maternity aid, minimum wage standards, regulations of hours, and safety provisions. Then, they add, this is no time to propose such a measure – we’re too busy winning a war.

It seems to me we ought to move up into the ‘40s with our thinking on this question.

Labor has moved a long way in obtaining suitable working conditions, wages, rest periods, hours and safety devices. Women wouldn’t be slapped back into the sweatshops of the ‘90s, even if they lost some of their privileges, because labor never intends to put up with that sort of thing again.

Also, I believe the average American employer knows that the worker who is hungry, sick or tired is not a good producer. We can assume that all citizens who disagree with the doctrine promulgated by the New Masses are not tyrants. Most of them are pretty decent people.

In case the amendment becomes part of the Constitution, it is inconceivable that our statesmen will permit mothers and children to be exploited, for unless we can depend upon the honor of men, laws will not save women from opposition.

As for postponing the measure until war’s end – maybe it’s the altruistic thing to do, but you notice the working men aren’t so noble. They press for advantage when their services are needed most.