Senator Thomas: Independent unions sure of WLB spot
Plan is submitted to President Roosevelt without recommendation of committee head
…
Simms: British fear post-war air aims of U.S.
Bargaining is begun on bases
By William Philip Simms, Scripps-Howard foreign editor
…
Willkie faces first big test as Wisconsin holds primary
1940 nominee opposed by Dewey, Stassen and MacArthur in race for delegates
Milwaukee, Wisconsin (UP) –
Wisconsin voters gave Wendell Willkie’s campaign for the Republican nomination the acid test today in a primary election to select the state’s 24 delegates to the GOP National Convention.
Mr. Willkie, in a 13-day tour of the state which ended last week, indicated he was prepared to stand or fall on the results of the balloting. He said the primary today would be the most important in the nation.
Willkie lone campaigner
Although Mr. Willkie was the only candidate to campaign for the Wisconsin vote, he was opposed by slates of delegates pledged to three others in today’s balloting.
Fifteen of the delegate candidates were pledged to Governor Thomas E. Dewey of New York. They made the race in spite of Mr. Dewey’s request that they withdraw.
Nineteen delegate candidates were running in support of LtCdr. Harold E. Stassen, former Governor of Minnesota. Cdr. Stassen, through the Navy Department, announced he would not seek the nomination but would accept if it were offered.
MacArthur on ticket
Gen. Douglas MacArthur was represented by 22 delegate candidates. He did not acknowledge them or make any statement concerning the campaign.
Only Mr. Willkie had a full slate of 24 delegate candidates in the field.
In the Democratic primary, only President Roosevelt was the contestant with a full slate of candidates. A partial slate of 13 candidates was offered in opposition, but they were not pledged to any candidate.
Willkie scores party cliques
Grand Island, Nebraska (UP) –
Wendell L. Willkie denounced what he called party combinations and manipulations in the selection of platforms and candidates in an address here last night.
Mr. Willkie, speaking before 1,000 persons, said that:
If the Republican do not throw out all forces of negative partisanship, then their victory, if attained at all, would be hollow.
Although he did not mention any names, his remarks were apparently directed at Christopher J. Abbott of Hyannis, Nebraska, banker and landowner, who advised Republicans last Saturday, in Mr. Willkie’s presence at a meeting in Lincoln, to vote for LtCdr. Harold E. Stassen since Governor Thomas E. Dewey’s name was not entered in the April 11 primary.
He said:
Right here we not only are hearing of tales and trades and seeing these repugnant policies beginning to operate, but blunt, public declarations are being made of them.
I have heard speakers calling on the people to vote for a candidate whom they are not really for and every time people read of these things, they have a feeling of helplessness and frustration.
Conventions get special trains
Washington (UP) –
The Office of Defense Transportation announced today that it will arrange special transportation to the Democratic and Republican National Conventions in Chicago for bona fide delegates, alternates and newspapermen.
Special provisions for the transportation, however, will be made only “insofar as possible without interfering with war traffic,” Brig. Gen. C. D. Young, acting ODT director, said.
In letters to Republican and Democratic leaders, he said it would be impossible to find train room for “the throng of visitors and sightseers who usually attend political conventions.”
The Republican convention is scheduled for June 26 and the Democratic for July 19.
Bridges fears plan to block soldier voting
Walker’s statement called ‘ominous’
Washington (UP) –
Senator Styles Bridges (R-NH) charged today that the administration apparently intends to discourage voting by servicemen overseas because it failed to push through Congress its “bobtail” federal ballot.
He described as “ominous” a Los Angeles statement by Postmaster General Frank C. Walker expressing doubt that the Post Office Department will be able to deliver ballots in time for the election. The statement, he said, is “in sharp conflict” with President Roosevelt’s promise that the federal government will do everything in its power to get the ballots overseas.
Doubtful about shipping
Mr. Walker said that some of the voting mail undoubtedly would have to be transported by sea since mail planes are already overloaded, and that he doubted if shipment could be made in time.
Mr. Bridges said that Mr. Walker’s statement would tend to discourage servicemen from seeking to vote and discourage states which are now preparing the necessary machinery for absentee voting.
He said:
It sounds as if the administration, failing to get the bobtail or abridged ballot by which the servicemen could not vote for state officials, intends to discourage voting by these servicemen at all, and that its cooperation in getting the ballots overseas will be lukewarm at best. It is most regrettable that this should be the administration’s attitude.
Cooperation pledged
The three-man war ballot commission authorized by the new soldier vote law called on state election officials to cooperate in facilitating voting for as many servicemen as possible.
The commission, composed of Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox and War Shipping Administrator Emory S. Land, issued a joint statement pledging to “work with state authorities to facilitate and expedite the transmission and return of all balloting material.”
Norris: GOP puts party above country in its desire to win
Former Senator defends administration’s stand in soldier vote, tax controversies
By Thomas L. Stokes, Scripps-Howard staff writer
McCook, Nebraska –
Former Senator George W. Norris, deploring in an interview in his home here the partisanship on Congress which he feels is dividing the country when unity is so needed, was especially critical of the Republican Party with which he was identified for many years. He broke away and ran as an independent for the last term be served.
He said:
It does seem to me that the Republican Party is putting party above country. They are so anxious for victory.
The 82-year-old statesman was not sparing either those Southern Democrats who have been so hostile to the administration.
I don’t think President Roosevelt is right about everything. But in the controversies over the soldier vote and taxes it seems so plain to me that the administration was right that there ought to be no question.
He also regretted the so-called “Barkley incident,” the one-man rebellion which Senate Democratic Leader Alben Barkley staged over President Roosevelt’s tax bill veto, saying that this contributed to disunity and encouraged our enemies.
Currently he is sorely disturbed over the fight Senator McKellar (D-TN) is making against TVA, of which Senator Norris was the sponsor in a Congressional battle that went on for years. Senator Norris’ eyes light up when he talks about TVA. He banged his fist on the arm of his chair as he spoke of the fight against the project now in Washington.
He said:
Senator McKellar gives everybody hell – but they can’t criticize him.
Defends TVA director
He resented the Tennessee Senator’s attacks on David Lilienthal, TVA director, whom he praised most highly. He pointed out that Senator McKellar had fought legislation for the project in its earlier form.
The efficient management and operation of TVA will be severely crippled, Senator Norris said, by amendments requiring confirmation by the Senate of all government personnel making over $4,500 a year and by the proposed prohibition against the use by TVA of funds it derives from the sale of power. This, he said, would hamstring TVA in its program of improvement and handicap it in dealing with emergencies.
Hits partisanship
He said:
I think the way to make Congress more efficient is to make it less partisan. I don’t think they ought to play politics in Congress. I think partisanship is increasing. It always does, of course, approaching a presidential election.
When Congress goes wrong, it is because members are not voting their convictions. Some members are cowards. They are afraid of bossism from one direction or other. Some follow a course to give them votes so they can get reelected. The individual Congressman is honest, but they get afraid they will lose their seats.
George Norris was one of those independent, honest, conscientious, fearless members, as one who watched him for many years can attest.
Glassport pilot escapes trap set by 20 Zeros
Beats own squadron home after outracing Jap airmen who hit plane with 17 bullets
…
National Red Cross quota ‘in the bag’
…
Jap spy caught at China air base
Clerk’s forgetfulness leads to capture
…
Yanks hunting Japs get food, ‘grog’
…
Editorial: The Negro and the vote
The Supreme Court, reversing by 8–1 a decision of nine years ago, now holds that the Democratic Party of Texas cannot bar Negroes, if otherwise qualified, from voting in primaries.
In the earlier decision, now abandoned over the lone but biting dissent of Justice Roberts, the then conservative court had ruled (in Grovey v. Townsend) that to deny a vote in a primary was a mere refusal of party membership with which “the state need have no concern.”
In other words, the Democratic Party in Texas was in the nature of a private club, able like any club to limit its membership as it saw fit.
Now the 15th Amendment (1870) states:
The right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
The amendment doesn’t mention primaries. But, as everybody knows, in Texas as in other Southern states, the primary is usually the whole shooting match. The election is only a pro-forma ratification. Thus, exclusion from the primaries is actually exclusion from an effective vote.
Nevertheless, through various expedients – including the one sustained until yesterday by the Supreme Court – this exclusion has been successfully maintained.
The new ruling is a milestone in the long and arduous struggle to obtain for the Negro the civil rights accorded to him by the Constitution. He should exercise great vigilance – and temperateness – lest new expedients be devised to thwart this newly-won franchise.
Editorial: ‘NP’ discharges
The size of the problem presented by neuropsychiatric discharges from the armed services is indicated by Marjorie Van de Water, who says in a Science Service series now being published in The Press that some 25,000 men a month are being mustered out for mental or emotional unfitness.
Relatively few of these cases are a result of crackups in combat. Most of the “NPs” have not even been overseas. They usually are men who were either maladjusted to life before getting into uniform, or who have been unable to adjust themselves to a goldfish-bowl existence and to accept the bluntness of officers and noncoms as a substitute for motherly or wifely tenderness. There are many cases, also, of soldiers who break down emotionally because of worry over troubles back home.
The large number of such discharges, which must involve enormous expense to the government as well as distress to the men involved, suggests a need for closer psychiatric screening of inductees. But psychologists will tell you that while it is simple to spot some of the more obvious cases of unstable temperament, it is very difficult to identify others until after exposure to Army or Navy life.
What can and should be done, however, is to ease the way for these men back into productive and satisfactory lives. In that connection, Miss Van de Water gives employers this tip, among others:
The type of person who cracks up in military life is nearly always an overconscientious sort of person. The “gold-bricker” manages to escape strain; it is the man who won’t shirk and who faces the music that is the one to break.
All of us should be careful to avoid discomfiting such returning servicemen by crass questions about why they’re not in uniform, by gushing over-pity, or by adopting the attitude that an “NP” discharge brands a man as feebleminded or queer.
Roberts adds to his record as dissenter
Opposes granting Negro voting right
Washington (UP) –
Justice Owen J. Roberts, conservative Republican member of the Supreme Court, now ranks as the key figure in two of the greatest reversals in the high tribunal’s modern history.
He was the line dissenter yesterday when the court overruled its own decision of nine years ago and declared that Negroes have a constitutional right to vote in state primary elections. The opinion was written by Justice Stanley Reed.
Justice Roberts, reiterating criticism voiced earlier this year, charged that the court was breeding fresh doubt and confusion in the public mind by its about-face tactics.
Has changed own views
Observers recalled, however, that it was Justice Roberts who in 1937 changed his mind on minimum wage legislation for women and thereby permitted the court to reverse an earlier ruling holding the New York Minimum Wage Act unconstitutional.
That reversal, which came during the famous Supreme Court reorganization fight, has been hailed since as the turning point of President Roosevelt’s efforts on behalf of many of his New Deal programs and policies.
Wage ruling reversed
The minimum wage law for women was originally rejected by the court in a 5–4 verdict in June 1936, but nine months later, it reversed this decision in upholding a Washington minimum wage statute. The split again was 5–4, on the basis of a change of viewpoint by Justice Roberts.
Thereafter, the tribunal held constitutional such programs of social and economic significance as the Railway Labor Act, the National Labor Relations Act, Social Security Act and the powers of the Securities and Exchange Commission – important phases of the New Deal program.
Stone changes mind
The court’s ruling yesterday was considered one of the tribunal’s most important stands in the field of civil liberties in the past decade. Justice Reed’s 8–1 majority opinion reversed a unanimous decision written in 1935 by Justice Roberts in the case of Grovey v. Townsend.
Justice Roberts and Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone are the only men now on the court who were also members when the 1935 case was decided. Justice Roberts stuck to his guns, but the Chief Justice changed his mind and agreed with Justice Reed.
New curb sought by Southerners
Washington (UP) –
The Supreme Court ruling that Negroes may vote in state primary elections raised the possibility today that some Southern states may abandon the primary system and return to the convention method of selecting political candidates.
The prospect of such action was seen by at least two Southern Senators, one of whom said that any Negro attempting to attend a Democratic convention in the South “will be thrown out by the seat of his pants.”
Senator John H. Overton (D-LA) mentioned the possibility of abandoning primaries and predicted at the same time that Southern reaction to the court ruling would be averse to a fourth term for President Roosevelt.
Mr. Overton said:
The South at all costs will maintain the rule of white supremacy. The Negro can be kept from the polls by educational qualification tests. This decision will add greatly to the difficulties of advocates of a fourth term in securing the support of the South,
Texas case involved
Southerners generally denounced the decision, in which the high court ruled that when primaries become part of the machinery for choosing state or national officials, a Negro has a constitutional right to vote.
The case arose in Texas where, as in other Southern states, the Democratic primary usually decides the winner of the general election.
Southerners in Congress predicted their states would find some other way, such as conventions or education tests, to prevent Negroes from participating in their primaries.
‘An abiding faith’
Rep. Nat Patton (D-TX) said:
I have an abiding faith that the Negroes aren’t going to vote in the white man’s Democratic primary. Our Democratic people in Texas will find some way to work out a Democratic primary for white folks. The Negroes don’t want to vote in an election that is not for them.
The high court’s ruling was broad enough to cover all primaries in which state and national candidates are nominated, but J. Lon Duckworth, chairman of the Georgia State Democratic Executive Committee, said in Atlanta that it should not qualify Negroes to participate in the Georgia Democratic primary.