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
…
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.
Nazi rail lines in Italy ripped
5th and 8th Armies beat off patrols
By Reynolds Packard, United Press staff writer
…
Reds take lead in recognizing Italian setup
U.S. and Britain may follow suit
By Eleanor Packard, United Press staff writer
…
Murder takes ‘holiday,’ FBI crime report shows
Homicide squads had 12.3 fewer cases last year; city’s record among best of big towns
…
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.
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.
Background of news –
Soldier vote muddle
By Bertram Benedict
Speaker Rayburn declares that he will support the compromise soldier vote bill recently reported out of conference, because he has been informed that it will let more soldiers vote than will the Soldier Voting Act of 1942. But Senator Lucas (D-IL), one of the sponsors of a “national” bill, declares that he opposes the pending bill because it will let fewer soldiers vote than under the 1942 act.
Opinions in Congress differ on whether the pending bill can get through both Houses or whether, if it does, President Roosevelt will veto it. It is generally agreed that the bill cannot be passed over a veto. Senator Connally of Texas says, “It is this bill or no bill at all.” If it is to be no bill, the 1942 act will apply to the November elections.
The bill reported out by a Senate-House conference committee is so complicated that opinions vary widely on how many soldiers would vote under it. The answer would depend in large measure on what action the state legislatures take.
The measure would apply to members of the Armed Forces overseas (probably five or six million by November), overseas members of the civilian groups attached to the Armed Forces, and all servicemen and women from three states – Kentucky, New Mexico, South Carolina – which have no provision for absentee voting.
Procedure outlined
The serviceman overseas would have to apply for a state ballot by Sept. 1 in order to vote under the act. If he receives it before Oct. 1, that is the ballot to use. Only if he certifies that he has applied and has not received it by the latter date may he use the federal ballot. Even so, he may not use the federal ballot unless the governor of his state certifies by July 15 that his state has taken action authorizing the use of the federal ballot.
The bill urges the states to take action allowing their absentee soldiers to vote. It also urges the states to accept as applications for state ballots the postcards to be printed and distributed by the War Ballot Commission. The postcards are to be distributed by Aug. 15 to men overseas, by Sept. 15 to servicemen within the country, and are to go overseas by plane wherever practicable.
The federal ballot will contain blank spaces in which the voter may write in the name of the candidate for whom he votes for President, for Senator, for Representative. Lists of the candidates are to be transmitted to the Armed Forces by the War Ballot Commission. The federal ballots utilized will be transmitted by the commission to the secretaries of state of the several states, who will distribute them to the proper voting precincts, in which they will be counted. The 1942 act is, for all practical purposes, repealed.
President’s approval in doubt
Whether the President will approve or veto the bill if presented to him may depend on how closely he thinks it corresponds to the “state” bill which the Senate passed on Dec. 3, 1943. The President called this a “fraud,” “meaningless,” and no improvement over the 1942 act, which was in turn described as useless.
The 1942 act, enacted Sept. 6, 1942, is a curious piece of legislation. It says that every “qualified” voter in the Armed Forces shall be entitled to vote for federal office irrespective of state laws on registration. No poll-tax requirement mays be imposed for voting for federal office. Requests may be made, on postcards furnished by the government, to the several secretaries of state are directed to have printed. These, when returned, are to be counted in the same way as regular ballots cast within the state.
The ballots are either to list the candidates and their parties, or to leave blank spaces for names to be filled in.