Election 1944: Letters from readers (post-convention)

61

The Pittsburgh Press (September 5, 1944)

Unions aim to control government, he fears

To the editor: Thanks for your editorial, “Government by Faction.” The fact that R. J. Thomas, president of the CIO United Auto Workers, who is paid by the U.S. Government to serve on the War Labor Board, considers the union first, the Government second and the public last, is conclusive proof to many Americans that the CIO is determined to get control one way or another of both national and state governments, as one of their representatives told a convention of their members.

It behooves the intelligent, free Americans to give a body blow to the CIO in November by voting against the man they chose for the presidency even before the New Dealers chose Mr. Roosevelt at the Democratic convention. And don’t forget, the Communist Party voting in New York decided not to run a candidate of their own, but chose to support FDR.

And Sgt. A. Landay’s letter, as quoted by his father, expressing his wrath and indignation over the strikes which continue to abound with little cracking down by the administration, should give voters something more to think about. Much has been written against the continued flirtation with strikers (especially as voting season approaches) by boys in service, but still it goes on. Perhaps Mrs. Roosevelt gave the explanation for this coddling and lack of “cracking down” when she wrote last Sept. 23 in My Day that the boys on Guadalcanal “were puzzled over strikes and asked why they should occur, but they were reasonable, however,” adding “they simply could not understand why there should be any.”

Perhaps Mr. Roosevelt read her column, and when he found they were “reasonable” about strikes, concluded he should be! Was he ever otherwise? Is it “reasonable” to permit strikes while soldiers fight for days at a stretch without rest or food, risking their lives “that that Union might live”?

NORMAN L. ROSE
537 Sherwood Ave., Pittsburgh, PA

62

Basic causes of business depressions considered

To the editor: Mr. Byrnes and Mr. Pierce are at cross purposes about business depressions because they are considering, not the basic cause, but the particular events which have set them off. An avalanche is caused by melting snow, but a shock, like firing a gun, may start it.

Depressions are caused by too much saving, beyond the need for new capital. People save to invest in the hope of having a property income. While business is expanding, their investments will hire people to work building new plants, and so be returned to the stream of business.

As a result of the new building, wages and prices of materials go up until it becomes doubtful whether more expansion will pay. Then any disturbance of business like a tariff law or the defalcation of a foreign government will stop all new investment. Buildings are finished, hands are laid off, production is greater but the demand less, more and more money is taken out of circulation, and business spirals downward.

Obviously, neither Democrats nor Republicans are able to deal with depressions, for what is needed is control of the total of saving through income taxes adjusted to the real need for new capital. The minute some statesman like Henry Wallace mentions such an idea, all the business men in the country jump on him. So the ordinary legislators does not dare do what is necessary.

If you prevent government interferences with business, you get depressions.

A. CRAIG
Mars, PA

63

The Pittsburgh Press (September 6, 1944)

View of induction as a penalty disputed

To the editor: I, too, agree with your recent editorial on Hearst. However, I see little difference between the Hearst and the Scripps-Howard editorial policies. Hearst attempts to confuse the less educated, unthinking man; Scripps-Howard, in a more subtle manner, the “higher level” reader. Both appeal to ignorance.

The Scripps-Howard policy of “Give light and the people will find their own way” has long been obsolete. Let me give you one example” In your editorial, “The Army Isn’t a Prison,” you attack the Navy and the Government bureaus for applying sanctions against ‘Frisco machinists who refuse to perform necessary overtime work. You say, “It is a denial of legal rights to convict men without trial or accusation before Government bureaus, from whose decisions no method of court appeal is provided.”

Selective Service was established by act of Congress to insure an orderly and just induction of men into the armed services. Men in essential war work were to be deferred. Selective Service is empowered to determine what work is “essential” and what men are “necessary.” A machinist who refuses to perform what the Navy considers “essential” war work is no longer a “necessary” man. Contrary to your charge, he is not convicted without trial, but may demand a hearing from his draft board and may appeal their decision.

You charge the Administration with withholding ration coupons for food. That is an obvious perversion of the facts. According to your own news dispatches the machinist no longer doing essential work would merely be deprived of gas coupons alloted for such purposes.

I am afraid that Scripps-Howard, like Hearst and Pegler, is playing politics with the war effort. Its aim is to split labor’s support of an administration whose guiding purpose is to win the war and to challenge any worker or manufacturer who selfishly stands in the way.

You are right, “The Army Isn’t a Prison.” But who can best serve his country as soldier or civilian is to be determined by Selective Service. Let’s have more enlightenment and less confusion; more appeals to intelligence and less to ignorance.

SIDNEY AKSELRAD
5525 Jackson St., Pittsburgh, PA

64

The Pittsburgh Press (September 7, 1944)

Claims of New Deal supporter disputed

To the editor: A philosopher once said, “What you are speaks so loud that I cannot hear what you say you are.” If we change the word “are” to “do,” that quotation applies to the New Deal.

For a long time I have been reading the Letters Column, Mr. Mellet, My Day, and the like hoping that sometime I would read an assertion backed up by fact. But always it is the same, They say they did this and that, yet the record says “Tain’t so.”

I have just read a letter from Mr. L. W. McEntire in your column. Up to this time, in my opinion, Mr. Bogart was the champ with his statement that prosperity was here because he was able to buy eight autos under Mr. Roosevelt’s rule. But now we must hand the crown to Mr. McEntire for his two paragraphs of rapid-fire accusations against the Republicans and claims in favor of the New Deal.

First, I shall quote Mr. McEntire and then show why his assertions need a little proof.

“Poverty and destitution were the uninvited guests in the homes of 40 million American citizens.” Now there are in the United States about 130 million citizens. Forty million would mean that one out of every three was poverty stricken and destitute. Think back to those days. Out of all your friends and acquaintances, can you write down the names of every third one and truthfully say that the words “poverty and destitution” applied to them? Can you remember any headlines screaming that our people were dying right and left of starvation? No, you cannot do these things because they did not exist. “Poverty and destitution” are indeed rather far-fetched.

“We have had prosperity ever since.” What prosperity? Our own State of Pennsylvania should be the best place to notice any improvement in our prosperity because it is an industrial state where we depend very greatly on employment. In 1933, when Mr. Roosevelt took office, 21 percent of our people were on relief. In 1939, at the start of the war, 18.6 percent were still there. This means simply that the New Deal made prosperity for just 2.4 percent of our population.

Too, during these years our national debt rose from 17 billions to 50 billions. Yet when war finally caught up with us we had to train our boys with wooden guns, vehicles on which were painted the word “tank.” Quite a bill for just food and clothing, was it not?

“Saved our system of private enterprise.” How? By having our Army carry a defenseless old man from his office? By letting bureaucrats force business to waste hours of time, dollars of money filling out forms that they never read anyway? By telling our boss that he cannot pay us more money no matter how much we deserve it? Truly it is the greatest wonder in the world that there is any private enterprise left after the saving it got.

When we hear statements supported by facts we will listen with open minds. But we never will believe something is so simply because someone says it is.

C. K. ALLEN
1700 7th Ave., Beaver Falls, PA

65

Answer supplied to ‘$64 question’

To the editor: The answer to Mrs. Edna Freeman’s $64 question (for which she can send the $64 to the address printed below) is that the Roosevelt Depression was from 1932 to 1940. The records will show that in 1940 there were still 10 million unemployed in the country after eight years of unequaled spending. (Of course, we have to give Mr. Roosevelt credit for sticking to his policy of depleting treasuries which he inaugurated while Governor of New York.) Luckily (if one could call it luck) the war stepped in to relieve unemployment.

Now to the rest of Mrs. Freeman’s letter. Her statement, “Every one earned enough to keep going – if they weren’t too lazy to work,” ought to read, “Everyone received enough to keep going – if they were too lazy to work.” Seems that if you “worked” on the WPA you didn’t stay long, by consent of your fellow “workers.” But that is a subject in itself.

Her “No one ever had the security they have now” is a masterpiece. The security of knowing that the Government will continue to make a “lazy” America by “reconversion” to spendthrift war workers; the secure knowledge that we will forever be paying the heavy taxes we are paying today is no doubt the security of which she speaks.

And that other masterpiece, “If the American citizen who has his stomach filled now lets his belt out a notch or two, is cocky and turns his back on the hand that fed him, he should starve,” hits the truth right on the head. Yep, the “hand that fed him…” A handout by a hand that pulled in votes in exchange for the handouts – enough votes for at least three trips to the White House.

W. W. CANNON
403 Bodkin St., Pittsburgh, PA

66

Judge’s criticism of Slav group scored

To the editor: Opportunists are always with us and the latest to make himself public is Judge Blair F. Gunther. We’ll regret to our dying day the vote we cast for and the recommendation we gave to the once candidate for judgeship, Blair F. Gunther.

Today (after elections), Judge Gunther has the courage to denounce the Slav group and to label it as Communistic or leftist. Quite right, your honor. You are now free to speak your mind for the elections are over and you are well entrenched on a bench for a very long time; your future is assured. You have obtained your desire and may the devil take those who were so enthusiastic about your getting it.

No, the writer was never a member of the Slav Congress, nor has he attended at any time any of its conferences whether local or otherwise. Neither is he a Communist or Communist sympathizer. But we do admire fair play, be that from an individual or a public figure. Judge Gunther’s blast at this group teaches us but one thing: Be on the lookout for opportunity seekers!

ANTON CINDRICH
3020 Harcum Way, South Side, PA

67

The Pittsburgh Press (September 8, 1944)

Mr. Malone wrong about PAC, reader says

To the editor: The August 24 edition of The Pittsburgh Press contained a report on the meeting of 400 Republican women of this county. This report was based on the talks given by Republican County Chairman James F. Malone and Mrs. Edna R. Carroll.

Before speaking, Mr. Malone had best investigate the subject he intends to talk about. His remarks on the Political Action Committee tend to show ignorance of the subject.

In contradiction of Mr. Malone, not one member of the CIO is being compelled or coerced into donating to the PAC. All the money is being donated voluntarily. Not one member is compelled to vote any certain way. On the contrary, CIO members and the public, also, are being enlightened on the subject of political parasites and also the best of politicians. For which information we, the working class of people, should be thankful.

Reverting back to contributions, it can be well understood that our organization must obtain its funds from some source. CIO members are not in a position to hold $100-plate dinners. We do not have steel manufacturers or other capitalists who can donate thousands of dollars. The Republicans do. Therefore, how can it be wrong for any group of Americans to contribute voluntarily to any cause they think it worthy of?

Mr. Malone states that Mr. Roosevelt should decline the support of these votes. With this statement Mr. Malone implies that Mr. Dewey would accept these votes were they to be turned down. It has been the firm doctrine of the United States for years that all Americans use the privilege of voting. In view of this fact, no other meaning could be derived from his statement.

Perhaps this is just another excuse for the Republicans and perhaps the industrialists to belittle the union man. It sounds like it.

ARCHIE W. ROBBINS
485 Mt. Vernon Dr., Pittsburgh, PA

68

The Pittsburgh Press (September 9, 1944)

Fatigue a handicap to Roosevelt, he says

To the editor: As I see it, this year’s election turns on the issue of personal efficiency. If one believes that President Roosevelt is the man who can run the war most efficiently and make the peace most efficiently, then that is likely to outweigh any distaste for any of his characteristics or any distrust for any of his tendencies.

If one thinks Gov. Dewey would be more efficient than Mr. Roosevelt, one is not likely to support Mr. Roosevelt because one believed that he is supremely on the right side. Therefore it is illogical for campaign arguments to stress any other issue than this.

Mr. Roosevelt is thought to be uniquely efficient as President not because he is supposed to have greater natural ability than any other of America’s efficient men, but because of his unique experience in the office. I hold that the history of the United States proves this argument fallacious.

For the past 100 years – in other words, ever since the United States became big enough to wear out its Presidents – no man who has been President eight years has done as well in his second term as in his first. In each case the man in his second term had, in comparison with the same man in his first term, the advantage of experience and the disadvantage of fatigue. To me these things prove, as conclusively as history can prove anything, that the disadvantage of the fatigue of four years in the White House outweighs the advantage of the experience.

STEVEN T. BYINGTON

69

1937-38 Depression cited by reader

To the editor: In a recent letter in The Press under the title of “If Dewey and Bricker Win, She’ll Go Along,” a reader thinks she has the $64 question. I would like to ask her where she was during 1937, 1938 and 1939.

During the first few years of the depression my husband got about two or three days’ work a week. Then in 1936 and 1937 industries got a shot in the arm and we had about 18 months of prosperity. My husband was laid off Oct. 1, 1937, and didn’t have a steady job until Jan. 1, 1941. I defy anyone to say he was too lazy to work during that time. He went 80 miles up in the country to get a day’s work in a coal mine. That isn’t his line of work but he was willing to do anything so that he could take care of his family.

We would be in one of the worst depressions our country has ever known right now if it wasn’t for this war. If you will take the time to talk to some one who really knows, they will tell you that the First World War saved the Wilson Administration. I don’t blame these depressions on any particular man, nor when we have prosperity do I give any man the credit.

History has proved that when a nation honors God, He will honor that nation. When a nation forsakes God, wars and famines and pestilences will follow. The political party that happens to be in power has nothing to do with it.

A patriotic American as he looks about him and sees how low our people have become morally and begins to realize where the real danger to our beloved America lies, would accomplish more good by trying to bring our people back to God and the Bible and not spend so much time squabbling over who caused depressions or who caused us to have prosperity.

The following is a good remedy for depressions found in Second Chronicles 7:14: “If my people which are called by my name, shall humble themselves and pray, and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”

MRS. FRANK E. GRIMM
Rd 2, Tarentum, PA

70

Truman’s ‘experience’ argument scored

To the editor: I read with a great deal of interest Senator Truman’s address to the American voters, and, I wonder if he realized what he said in effect, if not in words, when he warned the voters to beware of electing an inexperienced man to the presidency. That leaves us with only two men eligible for the office: Former President Hoover and the present incumbent. Small choice for a democracy.

May we remind Senator Truman that if through an act of God President Roosevelt should be incapacitated and unable to attend to his office as President that we would have an inexperienced leader to follow him, or has Mr. Truman been trained in secret for the position? All of our presidents were inexperienced at the start, even Mr. Roosevelt himself, Two of our presidents whose names will forever glorify the pages of history could not be experienced. Washington certainly could not have been as he was our first, and, surely Lincoln could not qualify on that score. They made such a fine job that no other president has yet equalled either.

Does Mr. Truman think that the office of Vice President should be a presidential preparatory for his successor? If he does think this we may have secession rather than succession. That trite old statement that we shouldn’t change horses in midstream is outmoded. Sometime ago I had to get into the heart of Pittsburgh and when I was half-way to town something went wrong with the car in which we were riding and we had to change right in midtrip. We arrived in town all right but the car we had changed from had to by-pass and lay up for repairs.

Mr. Dewey does not deny “The atrocious crime of being a young man,” but the years will add to his age, and his age to experience. If I were the most radical of Democrats, I would still want to see Mr. Dewey elected. Twelve years are four years too many for any president to serve. No other president has ever tried to upset our most cherished traditions. Let up hope no other president ever will.

JUANITA PERRY GROGAN
423 West St., Pittsburgh, PA

71

The Pittsburgh Press (September 11, 1944)

Depression is 11 years old, he says

To the editor: The $64 question of Mrs. Edna Freeman: “Will someone in the know kindly inform us when the Roosevelt depression was?”

Kind lady, your question is something like the remark of Mayor Kelly of Chicago who said, “I don’t think we would have any country today if it hadn’t been for President Roosevelt.”

No man is indispensable, as was proven after the death of President Lincoln. We had a most wonderful free country from 1865 to 1932. We have had 11 years of a Roosevelt depression, but you and other New Deal lovers won’t admit it. Our national debt will soon be 300 billion dollars. Our national debt from Washington to Hoover during the 150 years was 125 billion, including all wars. The New Deal bureaucrats have spent 85 billions on worthless projects and publicity since they took over. Would you call that a depression or prosperity? Unborn children will have to answer that one.

Some Americans think they are riding high, like in the last war, but what a shock to their vanity when the real Roosevelt depression hits them.

Mrs. Freeman said that if Mr. Bricker did not make a better Vice President than he did as Governor we are lost. When Mr. Bricker and Mr. Dewey took over their respective states they were – through Democratic mismanagement – so far in the red no one ever thought they could recover. Yet today Ohio and New York have been freed of debt and have so much surplus funds it is amazing.

Maybe there are Republicans that sling mud, but until the Democrats wash off the stain of politics as practiced in Chicago and New Jersey, they had better leave the mote in the Republican eye until they remove the beam from their own eye.

CHALRES E. FAGAN
1013 Mill St., Wilkinsburg, PA

72

Socialization urged by reader

To the editor: There is only one question in the mind of John R. Charles “concerning the scheme of production for use but without any profit,” but he asks four questions and suggests at least seven additional questions. “Capitalism,” he states, “has a 150-year record of success in this country.” The word “success,” however, is a generic term. It may have been a record of “success” for the capitalist’s pocketbook, but it is a record to look at but not brag about when it becomes known by what unfair practices this “success” was obtained.

The history of capitalism in this country has been one long struggle between government and capitalism with Presidents like Taft, Theodore Roosevelt and Wilson trying to check the unfair methods of big business. The low wages and sweat shop systems which prevailed were disgraceful and there is still much to be done in the struggle for a living wage.

The evolution of society brings it to the evolution of government. In the earlier days the natural resources were plentiful. A man could “go west” and make a living. At least, the land was cheap as dirt. Now, everything is owned and much is owned out of proportion.

Unfortunately, greed more often has changed into revolution what should have been peaceful evolution. The inventions and progress of this machine age are making it impossible to employ increasing numbers of men. That fact, however, is no reason why we should stop inventing or progressing. It does, however, call for some form of socialization.

Capitalism can supply that aid from profits accruing from inventions and progress. Government can and should socialize whenever capitalism neglects its duty to society.

JAMES J. CURRY
825 Virgin Way, Pittsburgh, PA

73

Questions offered voters to ponder

To the editor: Who was it who said, “All we have to fear is fear itself?” Who was it who promised, in a campaign speech in Pittsburgh, October 1932, that he would balance the budget? Who was it who said, “Happy days are here again?” Who is now telling us that if he is not re-elected, the war effort may be impaired and the peace lost? Who is it who has built a government debt well on the way to 300 billions?

Who was it who closed the WPA in the United States but is now planning to establish an international WPA?

Who was it who promised to be the first to acknowledge his mistakes but who has, to this date, failed to acknowledge a single blunder? What administration has piled upon the people’s backs the most gigantic tax burden known in history? What party is now attempting to frighten the voters into re-electing its candidates?

These questions are most important for every American citizen to ponder before he casts his vote next November and to all of those who are capable of deductive thinking and who are divorced from emotional prejudice, there can be only one course of action, and that is to vote the present administration out of power.

GAYLORD YOST
1430 Barnsdale St., Pittsburgh, PA

74

Campaigns called ‘disgrace to U.S.’

To the editor: The political campaigns are a disgrace to the United States, especially the presidential campaigns in which huge sums are spent for big signs which do not mean a thing. How low have we fallen when both parties resort to slogans to win an election for their man to the highest office of our country. We have reached the depths when parties deal in personalities and mud slinging.

If anyone cares to hear the truth and if they want to hear real issues discussed, they should pay some attention to Norman Thomas.

VERNIE G. REITH

75

The Pittsburgh Press (September 12, 1944)

Roosevelt called ‘most valuable servant’

To the editor: The Republicans open their political campaign and their candidate for President admitted that after the war, if he is elected, he would not be able to control his party, and that he would be faced with 10 million unemployed. However, with Republican political cleverness he threw ashes and some so-called labor leaders, and blamed all on Mr. Roosevelt.

The Republican candidate should weep for his own party’s sins, which brought unto our nation its misfortune. What did President Roosevelt find in 1933 but misery?

What have the Republicans done in Roosevelt’s 12 years toward his humane legislation but put their hearts against him? Roosevelt’s silvery voice came to their ears but they stuffed their fingers into them, for they felt that if they let Roosevelt’s humane efforts go on, it is all over with them.

When Roosevelt was striving to lead our nation in preparation, for our defense that party leadership, seeking to damage Roosevelt, demanded a different foreign policy. But now, at election time and in the midst of the world’s tragedy, the Republican candidate proposes to our suffering humanity that we must hold the world together – and, if you please, with the Republican dictionary “peace force,” the paternity of which nobody understands and they are unwilling to explain.

But the common people are touched with the fire of conviction that Franklin D. Roosevelt is the most valuable public servant to the U.S. and in the world today and that he will be retained to finish his mission.

GEORGE DAVIS
Custer Hotel, Rochester, PA

76

The Pittsburgh Press (September 13, 1944)

Mr. Thomas hasn’t a chance, reader fears

To the editor: In this corner, James (Kid) Malone Jr.; in the other corner Knock-out Barney McGinnis; final feature of the evening – 10 rounds.

The Democratic and Republican parties are worn out, washed up and getting old. We need in this country a young, honest, God-fearing Christian party. The best man running in this presidential election will not get to first base.

The American people insist only on a two-party system. It does not make a particle of difference how rotten either party gets. Switch from one to the other and keep going through corrupt government.

Norman Thomas, to my knowledge, would make the best President. As a Socialist, what chance has he got? None.

ROBERT G. BLACKHAM
16 Exeter St., Pittsburgh, PA

77

The Pittsburgh Press (September 14, 1944)

He wants facts on Pearl Harbor

To the editor: I agree with Mr. Yost’s letter in The Press concerning the gigantic political machine that President Roosevelt and the New Deal have set up and all the blunders that the New Deal has forced on the American people. And the large debt that they are piling on the backs of the American people with their bureaucrats in office with no real work to do but to walk the chalk line for the politicians in Washington.

The American people are tied up to their necks with taxes while our boys are fighting and dying by the thousands to win this war.

The New Dealers should tell the Americans the truth about Pearl Harbor. They blame this on Admiral Kimmel and General Short, who demanded a hearing. Why don’t the New Deal politicians give them a hearing and let the truth out of the bag? There were over 4,000 men lost and millions of dollars’ worth of damage done at Pearl Harbor. The American citizens demand the truth and the guilty punished and the innocent cleared.

CHARLES W. WANGLER
4120 Perrysville Ave., Pittsburgh, PA

78

Ignorance of history scored by Mr. Keeler

To the editor: Lincoln did not consider himself “half of the horse” when he selected Andrew Johnson as his running mate while Hannibal Hamlin was Vice President. Lincoln and Johnson won the 1864 election on Lincoln’s slogan, “Don’t swap horses while crossing a stream.” In 1944, Quentin Reynolds put Lincoln’s idea into up-to-date language, “Don’t take the pitcher out when he is pitching a winning date.”

Mr. Brownell, who Mr. Dewey stubbornly appointed over the protest of other Republicans, should get a history and learn how many men have been President. A columnist should study history and learn that Lincoln had national experience as congressman before he was elected President.

A letter writer who does not know that Franklin D. Roosevelt was Assistant Secretary of the Navy in the First World War and that he made two trips to Europe in the performance of his duties, should study history. Mr. Churchill and President Roosevelt planned the African campaign which saved the world from Hitler. Had Hitler gained Africa as he gained Europe, where would our cities be today?

The majority of the Republicans broke the two-term tradition 28 years before 1940 when they voted for Theodore Roosevelt in 1912. He carried six states and had 88 electors, while President Taft carried two states and had eight electors. Mr. Wilson was elected. In 1940, the Republicans had a candidate and practically no organization; in 1944, they have an organization and practically no candidate.

Can ignorance of history, mudslinging and fault finding win while we have intelligent voters and a secret ballot?

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

79

The Pittsburgh Press (September 15, 1944)

He could fill a book arguing for third party

To the editor: In his recent letter to The Press, Mr. Rose seems to think that it is wrong for union labor to try to obtain its rights through party control.

Who controls our Government now? Why were postal rates raised when it was claimed that the Government never made any profit on postal rates? Why are the banks selling money orders cheaper than the Government?

Why did Gov. Martin appoint an old political veteran to the Dream Highway Commission instead of a war veteran? Also, why did Mr. Roberts do the same in his office? Also, Mr. Rose, why did the Republicans suggest putting a limit on the presidential term and no limit on the senators’ or congressmen’s terms? That is why we have them holding office 30 or 40 years. Who do you think keeps them in office? The people or political parties?

No, Mr. Rose, we do not want to turn our boys into apple men when they come home or have them work for 20 cents per hour as they had to do before. The union man wants to see the serviceman get these juicy plum jobs as he deserves them – not the man who has had a good state or city job all his life.

I could fill a book with reasons for a third party.

RALPH W. HAMILTON
3263 Faronia St., Pittsburgh, PA

80

Now’s the time to vote Socialist, he contends

To the editor: This year the Republicans and Democrats actually admit that there are no differences between them. Gov. Dewey hastens to agree with everything in the Administration’s foreign policy, and even on domestic issues he criticizes administrative methods rather than basic law. No matter which of the old parties is put in power, we are heading for another Versailles, another depression, and another World War.

The Socialist Party is calling for fundamental economic reforms to end the accumulation of vast fortunes that lead to imperialism and war; for production for use, making depressions impossible; for a federation of co-operative commonwealths instead of a “League of Nations” which will merely be a cloak for the old game of power politics.

Since this is one year when it clearly makes no difference which of the old parties wins the election, it is a good time for liberals of all affiliations to follow their natural impulses and vote for Norman Thomas and Darlington Hoopes on the Socialist ticket.

SAMUEL SLYMAN
1073 4th Ave., New Kensington, PA