Election 1944: Letters from readers (post-convention)

1

americavotes1944

The Pittsburgh Press (July 22, 1944)

Vote for the man best qualified

To the editor: In a few months the people of the United States will reorganize its political map. They will march to the polls and cast their ballots – not bullets. For this we ought to be thankful.

But we have a great responsibility. We must learn what our present government is, what it ought to be and what individuals are the most competent to serve us in the future.

We are offered a choice of two candidates by the two major party machines. We know very little about these men aside from what the propaganda machines turn out.

But there is one element of the voting public which both parties have seemed to ignore; a voting power which may decide the election. I am referring to the foreign-born element in this country.

There are 22 million people in this country who are either foreign-born or of foreign parents. An estimated 11 million of these people are voters. Out of this 11 million, five million cannot be reached by the press because they cannot read the English language.

California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey and Pennsylvania are the states which have cohesive blocs of foreign-born voters. According to statistics, two-thirds of these voted the Democratic ticket in the last election. President Roosevelt carried Pennsylvania by only 281,000 votes.

During the past few years, Mr. Roosevelt’s popularity has taken nose-dive so far as the foreign-born are concerned.

But the most essential thing to remember in this election is to exercise our right to vote. For only by expressing our will through the ballot will we remain a free and democratic nation. On election day we should put aside personal hatreds and political bickerings. We should go to the polls and vote for the man who is best fitted for the office he seeks – be he Democrat or Republican.

JOSEPH LESINSKY
53 S 17th St., Pittsburgh, PA

1 Like
2

Silver-tongued orator needed by Republicans

To the editor: Why the Republican Party has a hard time putting it over to the general public:

A group of children were playing in my back yard. The game was Republicans and Democrats. The game was called off – no one wanted to be a Republican and everyone wanted to be Roosevelt.

These children come from homes where fathers, sisters and some mothers work in war plants and may have brothers in the Army and Navy. Their opinions are formed by conversations heard in their homes.

During the depression I attended an unemployment meeting held at the Stadium. Father Cox and a blind senator held this meeting. There were hundreds of hungry-looking and poorly dressed men, women and children there. Children remember and some of them are now voters, so choice of party means nothing to them.

I know hundreds of men are working tirelessly night and day setting up machinery and organizing groups, and without their brains and executive ability we would not be able to carry on. Many of these men are Republicans and are 100 percent Americans, but they think if we get a new party in it will cut the red tape and reduce the taxes. I think they are wrong. A new party would only make more confusion. We all know that war means taxes and if the little fellow can take it why does the big fellows have to kick?

If the Republicans want to win, quit throwing mud. And it wouldn’t hurt the party one bit if they could get hold of a silver-tongued orator.

ALMA A. MAHANEY
804 Lorenz Ave., Pittsburgh, PA

3

The Pittsburgh Press (July 24, 1944)

Defense of Hoover is criticized

To the editor: Mr. H. L. Pierce again dwells upon the faultlessness of Mr. Herbert Hoover. He carries us over to Germany, by way of Florida, and back again in a desperate effort to find excuses for Mr. Hoover’s inability to cope with the problems that confronted him during his Administration. He informs us that a Yale professor, in 1932, came forth with the amazing deduction that our recovery from that Republican depression would be more substantial if Mr. Hoover were elected. Nonsense. We can be thankful that the professor was denied his fervent wish.

Mr. Pierce derides the march of “Coxey’s Army” to Washington in 1894 and expresses regret that the veterans of World War I saw fit to converge upon the Capital of the nation to press their right for adjusted compensation. Once again, however, he cautiously evades “the tragedy of Anacostia.” Are we to believe that he condones the treatment accorded those heroes by Hoover in 1932?

Another trek to Washington was led by the Rev. James R. Cox of this city, a real humanitarian if there ever was one, in that same year 1932. Father Cox led a very large group of jobless men at that time and I take it that Mr. Pierce was not in accord with the laudable aims of that pilgrimage, either. Article 1 of The Bill of Rights ordains, among other things, the right of assembly and petition.

With relation to his linking the Democratic Party with “hard times” in the early 90’s, I suggest that he read “Letters and Papers of the President.” He will find that when Grover Cleveland was elected for a second term in 1892, a Republican Congress was elected at the same time. That Congress was dominated by Wall Street, whose orders were transmitted by the legislature by three notorious Republican bosses of the day, namely, Senator Matt Quay of Pennsylvania, Senator Tom Platt of New York and Boss Cox of Cincinnati. Every proposal that was made by President Cleveland to ease the burden originated and developed by the Wall Street gang was completely ignored by that boss-ridden Republican Congress.

Wall Street manipulators were handcuffed and throttled by Franklin D. Roosevelt when he established the Securities Exchange Commission, a tribunal that confounds the money men no end.

I contend that Herbert Hoover was tried and found wanting, and I maintain that his personal choice as Republican standard-bearer for 1944, Thomas E. Dewey, would be no better. The latter opposed, step by step, every bill proposed by the Democratic Party for strengthening our national defense.

I reiterate that the election of Mr. Roosevelt in this year 1944 is the only salvation for our great nation and concrete insurance that the destinies of our gallant kids, now fighting for our freedom, will be placed in experienced hands.

JOHN E. F. BYRNES
5802 Kirkwood St., Pittsburgh, PA

4

A free man knows freedom is right

To the editor: There are those who disagree with Judge Learned Hand’s statement in his address on I Am an American Day that “the spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right.”

It is this assumption, too commonly accepted in America, that a free man does not know what is right and that democracy itself is something so vague as to defy essential definition that makes it so difficult for the American people to create a more perfect union during these crucial days when a decision either for liberty or enslavement must be made.

This state of affairs is something of a mockery among a people whose forefathers believed that the propositions that all men are created equal and that the source of human rights is in God were so well understood as to be termed “self-evident truths.” And it suggests, at least, that our churches and schools spend more time examining the basic principles of liberty and more effort teaching them to the American people so that free men in this country may be armed with the certain knowledge of what liberty is.

It is important that this be done. For we are daily faced with the necessity of contending with the propaganda of the totalitarians who deny the principles of liberty. If, however, we are not sure of our own position, if we do not know on reasonable and moral grounds that we are right, how can we say that the totalitarians are wrong?

It is this indefiniteness, this lack of certainty as to what a liberated man can know to be right that, in some quarters, still makes it possible for people to get a hearing who say that Nazism has its “good points.” We shall never be free of the threat of Nazism until we are sure that it is a system of society which is wrong – wrong at the core, and wrong to its depths. Neither shall we ever build the strong and united America for which we hope until we know what the basic principles of this Republic are and that they are right – right at the core, and right to the depths.

W. C. KERNNAN

5

He wants acting left to the theater

To the editor: Having ready completely the advance comments made by Mr. Roosevelt relative to his nomination as the candidate for President on the “Democratic” ticket, I suddenly felt the desire to sit down and have myself a good cry – what an actor! What pathos he exhibited to the multitude of press men in the conference: “His hand shook as he read the letter to the conference, due to the intense feeling and importance of the situation.”

It seems to the writer that Mr. Roosevelt was doing his best bit of acting since becoming President. He has always, especially in his radio and “fireside chats,” appealed to the heartstrings of the American public, and again he does it, but this time through the medium of the press reporters and especially Gabriel Heatter.

I feel very sorry for Mr. Roosevelt if he harbors the impression, he or the New Deal Party (not the Democratic because he has severed his affiliations with that body some time ago) that he is indispensable to the successful conclusion of the war, or success in the post-war era. May God help this, our America, if there be only one man able to perform that duty either during a war or in peacetime.

Would that the people of this country come to their senses and put a man in there that has faith in the future of our nation, and also in the men (military and naval) to conduct this war to a successful conclusion and cease putting so much politics and “humbug” into the war effort. This letter is written strictly on the basis that Mr. Roosevelt is a citizen of the United States of America and placing himself in the race as a candidate for President. In view of that fact, his faults as well as his good points must be cited, and to my mind his faults and broken promises far exceed the good points.

Let’s vote for Mr. Dewey and leave acting to the theater.

JAMES W. TAYLOR
410 Ross Ave., Pittsburgh, PA

6

The Pittsburgh Press (July 26, 1944)

Conversation with a pocketbook

To the editor: I heard a New Dealer say: “We New Dealers know why we are for Roosevelt; he is always giving us something.” So I said to myself, “Why am I a Republican?” Then I had a little chat with my pocketbook. And my pocketbook told me a lot of things that made interesting sense – all adding up to why I am a Republican.

My pocketbook said, “Sure, the New Deal is much like a parasite, always getting out of the pocketbook of other fellows, and among those other fellows, one happens to be me. It includes you, too.”

And then my pocketbook said to me, “Just figure out for yourself the number of New Deal payrollers it takes to make up the hundreds and hundreds of bureaus and commissions. These hideouts for the faithful of the New Deal are rampant in our land. These payrollers of the New Deal are the main reason why many dollars are missing in my pocketbook every payday. “Think it over,” said my pocketbook. “He who runs may read and even a fool need not err in voting intelligently if he looks at his own paycheck.”

My pocketbook said, “We’re not talking about supporting the war effort. Any man who doesn’t is less than an American. We are not talking about lending our Government our money through the purchase of War Bonds. A man would be less than an American who does not purchase bonds.”

The amount you actually earn and the amount you take home payday is a pretty good reason for thinking things over carefully before you vote for Mr. Roosevelt.

Does your pocketbook speak the language of the New Deal or does it talk to you in plain, honest English without any doubletalk? Most pocketbooks these days speak the same language. You can’t kid your pocketbook.

Avoid the New Deal blighting kiss of death on your pocketbook by voting to take home a paycheck representing the full amount you have earned each week – not a New Deal fraction of it.

Your pocketbook – let it talk to you these days.

FRANK M. KELSO
331 Scotia St., Ingram, PA

7

Slick ‘one-two’ put over on Wallace, he says

To the editor: By way of comment on the Democratic convention, this is to say that the Democratic bosses with the help of President Roosevelt put over the slickest “one-two” ever witnessed in any arena.

On the first ballot, Bosses Hannegan, Flynn, Kelly and Hague threw everything they had at Candidate Wallace, by way of favorite sons, right to the solar plexis. Then in the second ballot they straightened out the Democratic champion of international co-operation and progressive legislation with a haymaker to the jaw, leaving the Democratic Party right where it was 20 years ago (1924).

Once again President Roosevelt has turned over to his hatchet-men another who dared to approach his stature, and paved the way for his fifth term (if he should ever get a fourth) leaving him as the only champion of the forgotten man, the unforgotten man, the red man, the Chinaman and the strawman.

Their fate hangs on a single thread.

R. J. STRATHEARN
218 Oakview Ave., Edgewood, PA

8

The Pittsburgh Press (July 27, 1944)

Voters have duty on Election Day, he says

To the editor: Voters, you soon will be called upon to perform a sacred and solemn obligation. By all means perform that duty. Go to the polls next November and vote. It’s you, Mr. and Mrs. Independent Voter, whom the politicians fear. They depend on what they call the controlled vote, which gives them the opportunity of electing candidates of their own choosing, and the fault lies entirely with you, for if you fail to play your part in an election which is of vital interest to you, then you actually help the very people you oppose for the next four years. It’s your choice, your decision, your responsibility, whether you want a form of government which represents the thoughts and actions of one man, or whether you want the kind of government that represents the thoughts and actions of all men.

The New Deal Administration, whose motives are so cleverly and so completely disguised, makes it appear it is an absolute necessity to the welfare of this nation. In reality, members of the New Deal tend to destroy the very principles upon which this country was founded, and upon which it prospered and progressed.

The kind of government our forefathers wanted, and fought and died to make – that is the kind of government we want, and which our boys now fight and die to keep. The bodies of many of those brave boys – soldiers and alike – some only in their ‘teens, now rest on the shores of France, Italy, Africa and on many islands in the Southwest Pacific. They died in a supreme effort to destroy dictator nations who had threatened our country and our form of government. They have kept the faith with them, and vote to destroy any hint of dictatorship which may threaten our form of government from within, so that those boys, your friends, your neighbors, and your sons, shall not have died in vain.

THOMAS E. CHURCHILL
245 Ames St., Pittsburgh, PA

9

Voters have duty on Election Day, he says

To the editor: I was very much interested in the letter of Robert L. Miller in The Press of July 17 in which he said:

GOP candidates promise to send our boys home sooner if elected. Applesauce! Free enterprise? More applesauce!

The grocery store is yelping about the OPA. In the last war there was no OPA. So eggs sold for 73 cents, butter 80 cents, sugar 18 cents a pound.

I paid 30 cents for a pound of sugar and could only get one pound in two weeks as the stores did not have it. One grocer took orders in June for apple butter sugar at $27 a hundred-pound sack. One of my neighbors ordered a sack but I did not. When apple butter making time came I bought 100 pounds for $19. Thus I saved $8.

Mr. Miller says, “The free enterprise phrase in the Republican platform is for big money interests who are hurt because labor is able to hold its own on an equal basis. We voters will not be fooled.”

The Grundy tariff plank is also for “big money interests.” Look how the Hoover-Landon-Pew-Grundy-Spangler gang snubbed Wendell Willkie because he wanted a sane and sensible platform.

The GOP, which is the Great Old Promiser, had what is called “free enterprise” from 1921 to 1933. First we had Harding “normalcy” and a Cabinet of “the best minds” – Albert Fall, Harry Daugherty, etc. Next came “Keep cool with Coolidge.” Then came the “great engineer,” Mr. Hoover, and we had 5,761 bank failures in four years, along with free enterprise, a Republican Congress, the highest tariff in history and the worst panic – now called a depression.

Patrick Henry said “I have no way of judging the future but by the past.”

E. F. KEELER
Rd 1, Ford City, PA

10

The Pittsburgh Press (July 28, 1944)

Informal amendment of Constitution cited

To the editor: I have a friend whose conviction it is, that the American Constitution, because it is a solemn recorded instrument, written by men of great public spirit and noble inspiration, may never be amended or changed except in the manner set forth in the document itself.

I am in disagreement with him, and if I can disprove his thesis in one convincing instance, he stands refuted in his argument, the instance that comes most readily to mind is in the procedure for the election of the Vice President.

The Constitution in Article II, Section 3, states: “…in every case, after the choice of President, the person having the greatest number of voters of the electors shall be the Vice President.” Obviously the purpose here is to establish a check on the President by electing to the presidency of the Senate and as successor to the President, in the event of his demise, removal or resignation, the choice of the leading minority party, rather than a man of indifferent consequence to the people, as is the case today.

Madison, who himself was elected President and who had much to do with writing our primal law, is proof of the purpose of Article II, Section 3. Another example is Jefferson, whose Vice President, Aaron Burr, was his most obvious enemy.

The American people and their leaders have, through devious means, circumvented these instructions in Article II. Applied to modern politics the original “pre-amended by tradition” Constitution would have placed Wendell Willkie in the vice presidency and as presiding officer of the Senate, exactly where he belongs, instead of retiring him in favor of Mr. Wallace. It would require little conjecture to realize the value, the asset ti our nation of Mr. Willkie as Vice President during the last three years of torment.

There are instances in which Presidents have held officer while representing a minority of popular votes. These men, because of our “traditional amendment,” were denied any opportunity to participate in the government – contrary to the purpose of the authors of the Constitution. Under the original law, Mr. Hoover would have been elected Vice President in 1932, Mr. Landon in 1936 and Mr. Willkie in 1940. And we could anticipate to co-administration of both Roosevelt and Dewey in the next four years.

I hold the issue proved: that the American people can amend the Constitution without recourse to the formal procedure as outlined in the document itself.

T. M. CHERINGTON
2015 Wendover St., Pittsburgh, PA

11

Mr. Dewey’s record good, he contends

To the editor: Already the Democrats have begun to belittle Mr. Dewey by stating that he is of small caliber and lacks sufficient experience to handle the affairs of the nation.

A man’s caliber is estimated upon the basis of his accomplishments and the manner in which he discharges his duties, and by this standard no one can minimize the importance of Mr. Dewey’s performance to date – not only in connection with his duties as District Attorney, during which time he pout the heat on some of Tammany’s biggest racketeers, but also his record as Governor of New York will bear close inspection.

It is evident that Mr. Dewey has a keen and analytical mind and he is not subject to the crackpot ideology which has characterized the New Deal philosophy from the beginning. The sooner we have realistic thinking and action in Washington, the better it will be for all of us.

If we must have wars in order to have jobs, there is something radically wrong with our system. Without this war the employment situation would still be tragic and the bare facts of New Deal failure would be so apparent that they could not possibly be argued away. But now they will doubtless tell us that we have prosperity and the post-war period will provide employment for everybody. But the post-war period will not last forever and then what will our masters do?

Let us hope that Americans will see the catastrophic folly of again re-electing the present incompetents and bunglers.

GAYLORD YOST

12

The Pittsburgh Press (July 29, 1944)

Open-mindedness in politics urged

To the editor: After listening to the Democratic convention speaker, I felt I must put in a word about the caliber of the politically-minded of my sex.

The mud-slinging is degrading at any time, but when the announcer informs the radio audience that a charming woman is about to talk, the shock is great when one hears in loud, unmusical tones a speech so ordinary, vindictive and misinforming.

Why can’t we listen to platforms that are kind, even to their opponents; if they must strengthen their party by digging up all the detrimental actions of the opposing party, let them stick to actualities.

It is written, “Whoever is without fault, let him case the first stone.” But would such a person need to resort to stone throwing?

Let us try to be open-minded; let us forget personal feelings; let us think of all of the people all of the time. This way we will prepare a great government and a happy and peaceful country for the return of our war-weary men in service.

MRS. W. R. SCHUCHMAN
208 Breading Ave., Ben Avon, PA

13

The Afro-American (July 29, 1944)

Dixie swindles voters

To the editor: It is estimated that tax collectors swindled colored people out of at least $14,000 they would not have paid if they thought they could not vote. The polls should have been swamped with colored persons who could show how Roosevelt is elected, by barring half the voters in Dixie.

A. S. SCOTT
Atlanta, GA

14

The Pittsburgh Press (July 31, 1944)

Republicans will try to forget past

To the editor: The political conventions are now a matter of history. During the past month or so, it was indeed interesting to note upon which issues the two parties would base their attacks. One such issue of the Republican Party has, day by day, become more prominent. This issue is America’s entry into the Second World War.

In the very near future, GOP leaders will make much ado over this so-called “unnecessary” entry. They will claim that the President broke his previous campaign promise not to send our boys overseas. They will claim that this war could have been avoided. They will claim that Mr. Roosevelt was shortsighted, incapable and war-minded in handling diplomatic relations with Italy, Germany and Japan. And furthermore, they will claim that the Democratic Party was responsible for legislation leading up to our part of the war.

Yet how can these Dewey supporters so easily forget that Harding’s decision against the League of Nations was responsible for the death of 3000 Americans at Pearl Harbor? How can they forget that the Washington Arms Conference, supervised by Republicans, was a cause of Japan’s surprisingly strong naval force? How can they forget that Republican isolationists, in union with other such forces, blocked the bill providing for the fortification of our Pacific possessions? The answer is they will never forget! But in these months preceding the election they will try very hard to forget this stigma in their foreign relations.

FRANK MIHALIK
106 Warnock St., Aliquippa, PA

15

GOP accused of smear tactics

To the editor: Following the usual custom, the Republicans are again using the only tactics they understand – destructive criticism of everything New Deal, which has cost them so many victories in the past. Nothing disgusts the people so thoroughly as mudslinging.

They are so inconsistent, too. For instance, President Roosevelt is a one-man party, a dictator supreme and answerable to no one. Then, on the other hand he is controlled by bosses.

Mr. Pegler thinks all union men are Communists – a slap at all labor.

“Cotton Ed” Smith is a reactionary and violently opposed to 16 years in the White House for Mr. Roosevelt, but he has spent 36 years in the Senate himself!

Mr. Pegler said the Communists forced the re-nomination of Henry Wallace (on the eve of Mr. Wallace’s defeat) but he got a surprise. The Communists did not have a death-grip on control, after all. So he changed it to “some other bosses.”

The little pigs were sure to be resurrected, although Lowell Mellett had just written a column giving the exact record of that transaction which showed that farmers of many states had banded together to petition the government that they be allowed to slaughter the little pigs because there wasn’t enough corn that year to raise them. Many people knew there was a plausible explanation. The only wonder is why it was not forthcoming long ago.

Finally, some Republicans say Mrs. Roosevelt dictates the policy of the White House. But how can she? She is never there. Even if this were true, how many Americans wish to live in any other country outside America which is still run by men?

As for Governor Dewey – he may be a fine man. How efficient he might be in the most important office in the world today is yet to be proved.

We Democrats might hunt up something to smear the GOP candidate and his wife but we are not so good at that sort of thing as are some Republicans.

MRS. CLAUDE KENNEDY
Springdale, PA

16

The Pittsburgh Press (August 1, 1944)

New political parties needed, he contends

To the editor: Let’s talk about voting and just why we bother to go to the polls and vote. Is it just because we want to favor one party or another? That is not a logical reason for voting. The main reason for voting is to elevate a higher plan of theory as to government: a more progressive and simplified form of government that a great many more people will be able to understand.

I find by talking to lots of people that a great many of the voters think that the Government is our boss, but the Constitution states that the people are the government and the elected are the people’s servants – not our bosses.

If we want progressive legislation we must write to our congressmen and tell them the kind of legislation we want them to support or not support. If they fail to give us progressive support they should be eliminated at the next election. Let us think about this for a few minutes and see for ourselves just who is to blame when we do not get the right support on any piece of legislation – the voters or the congressmen?

It is high time we discard the two old parties and start to modernize politics by creating new and up-to-the-minute political parties. The two old parties have served their purpose and will never again function to the benefit of the majority, the favored minority being the rule as it now functions.

I suggest that we institute a party name that will appeal to all the people regardless of creed or nationality, the only requirement being that the voter must be an American citizen. I would suggest that it be called the American Party. The Socialist Party could remain as it is and that would make two parties in the field to choose from. Anyhow if a candidate is known to be honorable and truthful, it would not matter to what party he belonged. That is the kind of man or woman we want to elect.

Let us write our representatives and tell them what we expect from them, that we want modern and useful service from them, that we pay them for their service and we expect something of value in return.

JOHN N. MAXWELL
1201 Stanhope St., Pittsburgh, PA

17

She prefers Gracie to My Day

To the editor: We suggest that Gracie Allen take the place of My Day. When we read what she says, she really has said something worthwhile.

FLORENCE GILLETTE
22 Haberman Ave., Mt. Washington, Pittsburgh, PA

18

‘Old political methods’ called repulsive

To the editor: Mr. D. M. Blakeslee in one of his letters to The Press writes much about the importance of aiding the development of democracy in the reduction of intolerance – now and after the conflict.

Here we have a party headed by President Roosevelt, the most liberal, progressive President this country has ever had, using the same old political methods so repulsive to people who really believe in democracy and who live in hopes of an awakening of the people to the need and use of democratic methods of life in our country.

In the Democratic convention, Vice President Wallace was knocked out of the running as a candidate by all the reactionaries of the party – especially the representatives of the South. Also by the undemocratic bosses of the boss-ruled cities of Chicago, New York and New Jersey, and the remnants of the Pendergast gang who were responsible for the advancement of Mr. Truman into politics and now as a vice-presidential candidate in a party backed by most of labor and dedicated to bring about racial justice and political and economic democracy.

In a world dominated by force, ignorance and racial intolerance, mass stupidity, worship of the strong and powerful, etc., the rich receive their offer through an unjust rotten social and economic system called capitalism, which rewards the scrupulous while the mass of people live on the verge of poverty.

These conditions, Mr. Blakeslee, are conducive to bringing about the democratic and tolerant world you talk about in your letter.

Our country and the world have a long way to travel before we even state toward real democracy. The present mass murder of humans, called war, is the result of our present inefficient, haphazard, corrupt social and economic system, which reads greed and robbery with most of the products of our industrial greatness.

EDW. J. DUBROSI
Wildwood, PA

19

The Pittsburgh Press (August 2, 1944)

Study long before you vote

To the editor: Mr. Frank Kelso’s letter was very amusing. It brought back to mind the pocketbooks of the Harding-to-Hoover administrations, I am speaking from experience – not as a Democrat or Republican – just one of the little guys.

At least there is something left in the pocketbooks of today. We who are getting older won’t be compelled to go over the hill to the poor house; when we had no job, we were taken care of until we got one. So it does not all go to bureaus, etc.; in the Republican administrations there was nothing in pocketbooks to take out. No jobs – nothing; and who cared? We had to pay out taxes just the same.

It never occurred to Mr. Hoover to take a cut in his wages from $75,000 to $25,000 per year. He was paid – for what, I ask – giving us a line about prosperity being around the corner.

We had pots but could not even buy a soup bone, never mind the chicken. And some who had cars could not afford gasoline. The little guy could not even pay five cents carfare to hunt for work. They who wanted to work had to go on “shank’s mare.” My husband did.

Mr. Hoover at that time was taking care of one of his personal Republican friends, Mr. Dawes. Did he take that help which he extended to his friend out of his personal pocketbook and mine? Of course, Mr. Dawes was a banker. We are just common folk.

The veterans of World War I, through want and hunger, I guess, decided to go to Washington to ask for their bonus. Did Mr. Hoover extend the helping hand to them as he did Mr. Dawes? No! We are well aware of what the veterans of the First World War got! Can anyone honestly say those veterans forget that? Their sons are fighting today. Are they going to take a chance on their sons’ getting the deal they themselves got? I would not think so. We certainly will think it out wisely before we vote in November.

But in all fairness, compare our pocketbooks of today with those of 1920 and 1930. We don’t kid our pocketbooks any more than they kidded us in those long, lean years. Then it was like the proverbial Old Lady Hubbard who went to the cupboard to get her poor dog a bone. But the cupboard was as bare as our pocketbooks were. Yes, think wisely and study long before you vote.

MRS. MINNIE FRYERS
100 Brightwood Ave., West View, PA

20

Extent of political control questioned

To the editor: Wouldn’t it be wonderful to have an election in our fair country that hadn’t a trace of any selfish interests doing their best to elect men to office?

After reading the account in the daily papers about how the CIO Political Action Committee has pledged six million dollars, or any part if it, to see that President Roosevelt is re-elected, it sort of made a feeling of nausea come over me, as I am sure it must have to any decent American citizen.

What must the men elected do and pledge to these committees in order to get such support? It stands to reason that were I a politician, I would certainly be bound to favor any man or group of men who would pledge such great financial aid to my election. There are far more individuals in this country who could in no way contribute such aid and therefore their desires and wishes go for naught.

I believe that any man or woman running for any political office should pay out of his own pocket any expenses incurred for a campaign. To accept money or favors from any person or group automatically obligates you to go or act as they say, and if I were running for office, I would accept nothing from anyone in order that I might run my job without fear of partially being shown to any person or group.

What, I ask the Democratic Party, has the Political Action Committee demanded of you for you to accept such financial aid? Don’t say that you are still free to govern and rule with a free hand without the committee having something to say, because if I were to spend that much money, you may be sure that I’d get plenty of patronage out of it or there wouldn’t be any support.

If we are going to have men in office that can be dictated to by labor unions and other diversive groups, such as was shown by John L. Lewis in the mine situation and the CIO in the Democratic convention, then it’s either time we formed a new party or demanded that the party clean house. To accept money or any gratuity from outside groups is nothing more or less than a form of blackmail in the fact that “you do as I say and favor my union or my group, or else.”

Why elect a man who isn’t big enough to stand on his own two feet and tell the people that he’s running on his record and will execute the job as he sees fit, to the best interests of the people who elected him – not bought his way to the job.

JAMES W. TAYLOR
7023 Wiltsie St.