I DARE SAY —
A funny place for ghosts
By Florence Fisher Parry
…
POW suicides start inquiry
‘Kangaroo court’ rumors sifted by Army
…
Former count seized by FBI on spy charge
…
Probe of Fly’s part in firing of admiral due
Congressional committee to investigate Hopper’s leaving FCC
By Frederick Woltman, Scripps-Howard staff writer
…
Roosevelt meets with Pacific War Council
Washington (UP) –
President Roosevelt, in his first meeting with the Pacific War Council in more than three months, today presented a lengthy review of the decisions reached at the Cairo and Tehran conferences.
This was the first time Mr. Roosevelt has visited his office in about two weeks during which he has been confined to his residential quarters because of illness.
Old Guard hit by GOP committee revolt
By Thomas L. Stokes, Scripps-Howard staff writer
Chicago, Illinois –
Underneath the surface serenity of the Republican National Committee’s meeting here occurred one of the bitterest revolts in recent years against Old Guard leadership, personified now in RNC Chairman Harrison E. Spangler. It was a revolt that may have an important bearing on the national convention opening here June 26.
It all took place in a series of secret sessions and never broke openly on the floor.
The revolt was directed at the alleged “one-man” rule of Chairman Spangler. It was charged that he had failed to consult the executive committee or other members of the National Committee in the management of party affairs.
The rebels numbered more than a majority of the 106 members – aside from other sympathizers who did not participate actively. They included supporters of Wendell L. Willkie and of Thomas E. Dewey, now regarded as the leading candidates for the nomination, along with others not directly associated with any particular presidential aspirant.
They complained of a domination of party affairs by the Old Guard through the influence of Chairman Spangler and others, including Henry P. Fletcher of Rhode Island (general counsel and former chairman), and satellites of Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio, particularly in the South, among them National Committeeman R. B. Creager of Texas, who was the Taft floor manager at the 1940 convention when Mr. Taft was runner-up to Mr. Willkie.
Senator Taft and his lieutenants are now promoting Governor John W. Bricker of Ohio.
The revolt was represented as not concerned with any particular candidacies but as aimed at “closed corporation management” by the Old Guard which, some revolters said might result in a backroom nomination of a candidate less liberal than desired by the rank and file, and thus detrimental to the party’s chances.
The leading spirit in the revolt was National Committeeman Dan Whetstone of Montana, a newspaper publisher. More than half of the revolters were women. They had plenty to say.
The protest and demands of the revolters were taken to Chairman Spangler by a committee of five. They pointed out that Mr. Spangler has not called a meeting of the executive committee since he has been chairman and has not consulted members on policy and management of his Washington office, and complained that he has “disbanded” the Republican Finance Committee. They demanded that he call a meeting of the executive committee within 30 days, and that the committee meet regularly hereafter every 30 days.
The chairman was obviously impressed. Approached later, he declined to discuss the revolt, and spoke angrily of “fifth columnists.”
Simms: Red border plans menace post-war Allied cooperation
If Poland is dismembered, others won’t feel like pinning their faith to United Nations accords
By William Philip Simms, Scripps-Howard foreign editor
…
Poll: Voters’ shifts give problem to Democrats
Question is: Can migrant groups be talked into going to polls?
By George Gallup, Director, American Institute of Public Opinion
Besides the normal worries of a campaign year the Democrats will have an added worry in the November presidential election because of wartime migration of workers.
Roughly one-fourth of all the people who would normally be in the voting population – or 13 million – now live in election districts where they have never voted before. The majority of them are Democrats.
The problem which faces the Democratic Party is to induce these people to tale the trouble to register, where necessary, or to satisfy other requirements for voting in districts where they are newcomers.
Majority voted
The size of this group and its importance to the Democratic Party is revealed in a survey by the Institute. The study first ascertained the total number in the group by asking the following question:
Interviewing Date 12/17-22/43 Survey #308-K Question #9aHave you ever voted in the election district where you now live?
| Yes | 75% |
| No | 25% |
Each voter in the two groups was then asked what party he would prefer to see win the presidential election this year. The results indicated that the Democratic Party will probably exert a great deal of effort to get the migrant group to the polls because the proportion of persons with Democratic leanings in that group is far higher than in the other group.
Sentiment tested
The party sentiment of those who have never voted before in the district where they now live follows:
| Democratic | 61% |
| Republican | 39% |
The party sentiment of those who have voted before in the district where they now live follows:
| Democratic | 49% |
| Republican | 51% |
The voter turnout in this group might make the difference between victory and defeat for the Democrats in a close election.
Another problem
To this headache must also be added the problem of the soldier vote. Ever since President Roosevelt took office in 1933, the Democrats have held an advantage over the Republicans among voters in the younger age levels – 21-29 years old.
With the Armed Forces largely made up of men from that and younger age brackets, the Democrats will be at a disadvantage in the election if only s small number of soldiers vote.
Ferguson: An angry view of marriage
By Mrs. Walter Ferguson
Alma Booker of Pittsburgh is a valued correspondent, because she does such a swell job of romping on a columnist.
Believing in moral as well as economic and political freedom for women, she offers some fine arguments to make her point:
Why do you defend the state of marriage? It needs no defense, for it’s still the best of chiseling rackets for women, although they haven’t sense enough to resist its superstitious trimmings.
On all sides I see reason to be ashamed of my sex – girls trying to force men to marry them “for the baby’s sake,” trying to force them to establish a home.
If marriage is so important, it is a crime that society fails to provide every woman with that status automatically on her coming of age. Make it a criminal offense to insult a woman who has children without a husband. Have all women use the same title. The depth of their degradation I s measured by their present willingness to brand themselves as “Miss” or “Mrs.”
Motherhood should be subsidized. Birth control should be legalized, but discouraged. No disgrace ought to be attached to fertility in a woman. Personally, I’m sick of reading of doctors imprisoned for illegal operations. If motherhood were no disgrace such operations would be unnecessary.
Why couldn’t we have the luck of the Swedish, Norwegian, Russian and Danish women whose governments have recognized them as equal, decent human beings instead of the property of men? Women need a good strong dose of freedom.
It seems to me the first reform must be made in the character of men and women. Others would follow naturally. No institution is better than the individuals who maintain it.
Background of news –
Dewey stresses thrift
By Jay G. Hayden, North American Newspaper Alliance
Washington –
Because Governor Thomas E. Dewey is by all odds the most likely Republican nominee for President, and he knows it, his annual message to the New York Legislature last week assumed nationwide interest.
Particularly, this message is being compared with one another New York Governor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, delivered in the same circumstances just 12 years ago.
From the standpoint of comparison, the remarkable thing is the unlikeness of these messages. Mr. Roosevelt’s bristled with obvious thrusts against the national administration of Herbert Hoover.
He said:
Not since the dark days of the sixties have the people of this state and of the nation faced problems as grave, situations as difficult, suffering as severe. The economies of America, and indeed of the whole world, are out of joint.
The states were doing their best, Mr. Roosevelt said, but because the problems are:
…national in scope, it is impossible to solve them without leadership and a plan of action by our national government… The public asks that they be given a new leadership.
‘Political bombast’ lacking
In contrast, there is not one word in Governor Dewey’s current message that even his most captious critic could spot as “political bombast” or “playing to the national gallery.”
Even so, the Dewey message contains many implications both as to future national policy and the character and political views of the man who wrote it.
Its high point is easily the announcement that the state has a $140-million surplus, coupled with a recommendation that the whole of this be saved for the after-war “rainy day.”
Mr. Dewey said:
Either tax reduction or increased spending at this time would, in my judgment, be unsound and irresponsible. We must never forget that this is not a normal surplus… It has come to us out of the hurricane of war. It can be, it must be, safeguarded to meet post-war needs.
Through the whole message runs the idea, not only that the states are financially better able than the federal government to handle many post-war problems, but a realistic thrift in dealing with them is imperative.
Bonus according to need
Whereas President Roosevelt has proposed a severance bonus for “every soldier,” Mr. Dewey differentiates according to need. Of 100,000 New York servicemen probably to be discharged during 1944, he says:
About one in five is likely to be unemployed and in search of a job for varying periods of time.
His plan is to give this unfortunate “one-fifth” fully adequate aid, rather than a bonus indiscriminately to all soldiers, poor or rich.
He says there has been much “talk” of federal action, “thus far exactly nothing has been done” and “returning veterans cannot wait for Washington.”
Mr. Dewey emphasizes that the main after-war economic hope is the revival of private enterprise. He cautions the Legislature not to do anything that will “interfere with or hinder the fullest possible productivity and employment of our people.”
Other features of the message carry a national appeal. Mr. Dewey presents the form of a state income-tax return that any taxpayer can fill out “in five or ten minutes.”
He enthusiastically supports governmental measures for better medical care, but stipulates that these should be a “partnership of government and the medical profession, functioning cooperatively,” rather than in the nature of complete “governmentalization.”