Election 1944: Pre-convention news

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (January 26, 1944)

ROOSEVELT URGES FEDERAL SERVICE VOTE
State ballot called fraud by President

Special message demands Congressmen stand up, be counted

Washington –
President Roosevelt today assailed as a “fraud” on service personnel the so-called states’ rights soldier-vote legislation. He called upon Congress to provide a single federal ballot, which he said would enable all members of the Armed Forces to vote for federal officials this November.

In a special message to Congress, the President specifically endorsed a compromise bill now pending in the Senate which would provide for distribution of federal ballots to servicemen and women, with states retaining the right to determine whether the voters are qualified and whether their votes are valid.

Wants a record vote

Mr. Roosevelt also noted that Congress might act on the matter without a record vote.

That, he said, is entirely a legislative matter, but he added that:

I think that most Americans will agree with me that every member of the two Houses of Congress ought to be willing in justice “to stand up and be counted”!

The bill passed by the Senate on Dec. 3, Mr. Roosevelt said, was a “fraud on the soldiers and sailors and Marines now training and fighting.”

Senator Robert A. Taft (R-OH) arose immediately after the President’s message was read in the Senate to protest against what he termed the Chief Executive’s “insult.”

Senator Taft objects

Senator Taft said:

It is most unfortunate that the President should again see fit to inject himself into legislative matters. It is an insult to the members of Congress.

The existing soldier-vote law enacted in 1942 would permit soldiers to vote, Senator Taft said, and the Senate-approved bill pending in the House would enable soldiers to vote.

He introduced a substitute bill which would retain state ballots but set up federal machinery for their distribution and collection, and promised that he would later discuss the President’s message on the grounds that Mr. Roosevelt’s arguments were “untrue and unsound.”

Mr. Roosevelt in his message said the bill passed by the Senate was a fraud upon the people as well as on service personnel.

He continued:

It would not enable any soldier to vote with any greater facility than was provided by Public Law 712 under which only a negligible number of soldier’s votes were cast.

The bill condemned by Mr. Roosevelt called upon the states to enact legislation to facilitate absentee balloting by members of the Armed Forces.

On House calendar

It was adopted by the Senate in place of a bill which had been approved by the Senate Privileges and Elections Committee and which would have provided for voting by members of the Armed Forces on federal ballots under direction of a War Ballot Commission.

The bill is now on the House calendar, after being slightly revised by the House Elections Committee.

The Senate, meanwhile, is considering the soldier vote issue anew. Pending on the floor is a compromise bill sponsored by Senators Scott Lucas (D-IL) and Theodore F. Green (D-RI), which would provide for distribution of federal ballots on which service personnel would write in the name of their choices for President, Vice President, Senator and Representative.

Lucas bill favored

Mr. Roosevelt endorsed the pending Lucas-Green Senate bill – which has been introduced in the House by Elections Committee Chairman Eugene Worley (D-TX) – because, he said, it “seems to me” that it would furnish to service personnel an opportunity to vote.

The new Lucas-Green and Worley bills set up proper and efficient machinery for absentee balloting, Mr. Roosevelt said.

Each state, under the bills, would determine for itself whether or not the voter is qualified to vote under the laws of his state.

The President said:

There is nothing in such a proposed statute which violates the rights of the states. The federal government merely provides quick machinery for getting the ballots to the troops and back again.

He said that he spoke as the Commander-in-Chief of the men in the armed services and that:

I am sure that I can express their wishes in this matter and their resentment against the discrimination which is being practiced against them.

The nation’s fighting men, Mr. Roosevelt asserted, do not have a lobby or pressure group on Capitol Hill “to see that justice is done for them.”

Can’t use ads

He added:

They are not ordinarily permitted to write their Congressman on pending legislation, nor do they put ads in the papers or stimulate editorial writers or columnists to make special appeals for them.

It certainly would appear unnecessary that our soldiers and sailors and Merchant Marine have to make a special effort to retain their right to vote.

The President said that he has been informed that it would be possible, under Congressional parliamentary rules, for a soldier’s vote bill to be rejected or passed without a roll call. He said he had hesitated to say anything to the Congress on this matter because the making of these rules is closely within the discretion of the two Houses.

But he added:

I think that there would be widespread resentment on the part of the people of the nation if they were unable to find out how their individual representatives had expressed themselves on this legislation – which goes to the root of citizenship.

The President said there will be more than five million Americans outside the United States in our Armed Forces and Merchant Marine when the 194 elections are held. He noted that they, and millions more who will be stationed within the country awaiting shipment overseas, will be subject to frequent, rapid and unpredictable transfer to other points outside the inside the United States.

‘Tongues in cheek’

The President said:

Some people – I am sure with their tongues in their cheeks – say that the solution to this problem is simply that the respective states improve their own absentee ballot machinery.

In fact, there is now pending before the House of Representatives a meaningless bill, passed by the Senate Dec. 3, 1943, which presumes to meet this complicated and difficult situation by some futile language which recommends to the several states the immediate enactment of appropriate legislation…

This recommendation is itself a proof of the unworkability of existing state laws. I consider such proposed legislation a fraud on the soldiers and sailors and Marines now training and fighting for us and for our sacred rights.

The recommendation in that bill, Mr. Roosevelt said, may be heeded by a few states but will not and cannot be carried out by all the states.

The President said that he was convinced that if all the states tried to carry out the recommendations contained in the bill passed by the Senate, the most practical method would be to authorize the Army and Navy to distribute and collect ballots prepared by the states in response to post card requests from servicemen.

But this very procedure, he added, is set forth in Public Law 712 which he said “has been such a failure.”

The law to which he referred was enacted in 1942 to facilitate absentee voting by servicemen, but even opponents of federal balloting legislation have conceded that it was adequate.

[NormanStewart]

Eberharter urges genuine vote bill

Washington –
Presidential candidates ought to inform the public whether they favor “the enactment of a genuine soldiers’ vote bill or the “innocuous and spurious Rankin-Eastland bill,” Rep. Herman P. Eberharter (D-PA) told the House of Representatives.

Mr. Eberharter noted that Wendell Willkie, Republican presidential possibility, had declared for a full soldier vote and had said it was impracticable to poll the soldier vote under laws of individual states.

The Congressman added:

Also, the soldiers and sailors and Marines will want to know, and they will remember in the future, how each member of Congress votes as between the genuine and the counterfeit.

[NormanStewart]

Bricker speaks here tomorrow

He will address veterans at William Penn

Ohio Governor Bricker

Governor John W. Bricker, the only announced candidate for the Republican nomination for President, will arrive in Pittsburgh tomorrow morning.

Governor Bricker, the first Republican in the history of Ohio to be elected governor for three consecutive terms, will be the main speaker at the annual McKinley Day banquet to be held at 7:00 p.m. ET in the William Penn Hotel. The banquet is under the sponsorship of the United Spanish War Veterans.

In appearing here, Governor Bricker will be making his initial appearance in Pennsylvania since he announced his candidacy. He recently returned to Ohio from a tour of Kansas, Texas and Oklahoma.

Accompanying Governor Bricker will be John W. Galbreath (campaign director and treasurer), Robert L. Barton (the Governor’s secretary) and Jack Flanagan (press secretary).

Others who will speak at the banquet include Guy V. Boyle of Indianapolis (the veterans’ commander-in-chief), Mrs. Hettie B. Trazenfeld of Philadelphia (national president of the Women’s Auxiliary), Department Commander Dr. Charles I. Shaeffer, and Mrs. Helen R. Hawk (auxiliary department president).

[NormanStewart]

Editorial: Soldiers are voters first

The public is getting dizzy watching Congress weave in and out with measures for soldier voting. The issue has many technical complications, constitutional and otherwise. But the politicians have compounded the complications with every known brand of joker and parliamentary trickery, until the situation almost defies comprehension.

In this, the politicians are outsmarting themselves. If they maneuver this so that many soldier ballots will not be counted – as some of them seem to desire – the public kickback will be so hard they won’t know what hit them.

For one thing is so clear that not even Congressional gyrations can obscure it: The country is determined that servicemen and women overseas shall vote. That determination is all the greater because the soldiers abroad are not here to speak for themselves.

Congress is aware that the public is supersensitive on this subject; hence the effort to cover up tracks. Thus the House has a special rule which if it prevails will bar a roll call on the controversial amendment proposing a federal ballot.

The legal and practical trouble in soldier suffrage arises because normal voting is on state ballots, and many states have no adequate machinery for absentee soldier voting. Added to this is the difficulty of distributing the bulky state documents abroad – which the Secretaries of War and Navy say cannot be done effectively unless the states simplify certain requirements.

On the political side is the fear of certain Southerners that sectional voting restrictions, such as the poll tax, will be undermined. Also, some Northern Republicans think the servicemen may return a Democratic majority because of the Commander-in-Chief, and using the states’ rights issue for obstruction.

A compromise is necessary. Since not all 48 states can guarantee the absent serviceman a ballot, there should be a substitute federal short ballot allowing a choice of presidential, vice presidential and Congressional candidates – leaving it to state election officials to count the votes returned.

To disfranchise eligible voters among the five and a half million fighting overseas for the preservation of American democracy would be a crime – and a costly crime.

[NormanStewart]

Background of news –
Democrats united on fourth term

By Jay G. Hayden, North American Newspaper Alliance

Washington –
One thing unmistakably demonstrated in the Democratic 1944 campaign curtain-raiser on Saturday is that President Roosevelt either must accept a fourth nomination or leave his party so hopelessly debilitated as to be unable even to stir up a respectable scrap within its own ranks.

Judged by the flood of individual and group complaints it has been receiving, the party high command expected trouble from several directions.

A group of Midwesterners, headed by James C. Quigley of Nebraska, staged a rumpus at the National Committee meeting in Chicago last year and arrived for the present session ahead of time ostensibly to repeat this performance.

Early last week, also, a flock of Southern governors came to town, breathing fire and brimstone against alleged federal discriminations affecting their section. In this group were several governors who had talked openly of the possibility of Southern bolt against a fourth term.

President Roosevelt’s call for a national service act to end strikes seemingly had antagonized all but an extreme left wing of organized labor.

Farley attends session

Most disturbing of all to the party managers must have been the news that James A. Farley, leader of Democratic opposition to the third term and reported even more opposed to a fourth, had slipped into the headquarters hotel and was busily finagling among the committeemen.

What eventuated from these rumblings of dissension?

Exactly nothing. The supposed Western insurgents were the first of all to plunk for a fourth term. The Southern governors left town, if not placated at least effectually silenced. If dissident labor unionists and farmers were present, they did not disclose themselves by even so much as an off-key peep. Mr. Farley left before the formal meeting began, tiptoeing, as he came.

The reason for all this abnegation is plain enough. It is that Democratic aspirants for office, from would-be Vice Presidents of the United Staters down to town constables, cannot discern a glimmer of 1944 hope anywhere except in another ride on Mr. Roosevelt’s coattails.

The kingpin of all present abnegators is Vice President Henry A. Wallace, Mr. Garner probably could have had a third vice presidential nomination if he had continued to play a harmonious second fiddle. But not so Mr. Wallace. The skidoo sign was handed him quietly several months ago, and at the Jackson Day dinner it was hung out for everybody to see.

The Rayburn-Wallace byplay

With the President absent the top billing for this gatherings logically should have gone to the Vice President. Instead, Speaker Sam Rayburn got it and he, all along, has been touted as the man Mr. Roosevelt had picked for his 1944 running mate.

This play between Messrs. Wallace and Rayburn was easily the most intriguing feature of the Jackson Day program, and it also may be indicative of one intra-Democratic danger lying ahead for the President.

While Mr. Rayburn monopolized the radio time with a speech strictly in Mr. Roosevelt’s new “Win-the-War” mold, Mr. Wallace clung to the cast-off “New Deal” and played it for all it was worth.

He asserted:

The New Deal is not dead. If it was dead, the Democratic Party would be dead, and well dead… The New Deal is Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Mr. Wallace, like every other Democratic office seeker, is plainly hanging on for dear life to Mr. Roosevelt’s coattails, but also he is hanging on to the “New Deal” policies with all of their old-time implication respecting organized labor, impecunious farmers and “big business” villains.

Implied in Mr. Wallace’s remarks is just the suspicion of a threat that if he is finally shoved from his coattail perch, a lot of other New Deal supporters may slide off with him.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (January 27, 1944)

Gen. MacArthur: Soldier-President can shorten war

But private advices from the South Pacific picture general as very willing to let events take course
By Lyle C. Wilson, United Press staff writer

Gen. MacArthur

Washington –
A recent visitor to Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s headquarters in the Southwest Pacific has sent me a report on political sentiment in that outpost which will be of unusual interest to Americans who have been wondering whether the general will be a candidate for President.

The summary is by an experienced observer, and those who are interested in the MacArthur boom undoubtedly will be impressed by the fact that it was passed through the general’s own military censorship.

**Probably the most striking part of this report is the suggestion that Gen. MacArthur believes an experienced soldier in the White House would bring an earlier victory in the war.

The report says at one point:

It would not be surprising if Gen. MacArthur felt – as do a good many here – that the shortest way to victory would be to place an experienced military man in the White House.

The report reflects the impression at his headquarters that Gen. MacArthur will neither declare his availability for the Republican nomination nor withdraw his name from consideration, preferring to “let events take their course.” It is emphasized that he is not taking any time out from war for politics, but that no one should assume this to mean that he would not be receptive to the presidential nomination.

The report continues:

Even if he were nominated, sources here believe it entirely possible that Gen. MacArthur would not leave his post to campaign. Talking to MacArthur supporters of whom there are many here, I get the impression they foresee the possibilities about this way:

MacArthur will maintain complete silence on political matters pending the Republican National Convention, but his supporters will go into the convention with a fair bloc of votes from the Midwest. One figure mentioned is 125 delegates. This presumably would place his third behind Governor Thomas E. Dewey and Wendell L. Willkie. They believe Dewey and Willkie are likely to deadlock whereupon MacArthur might emerge as a compromise candidate since he likely to have considerable second choice strength among both Dewey and Willkie supporters.

If nominated, it is believed MacArthur might accept by cable, explaining that his job of beating the Japs was too important to permit him to campaign. The campaign would be the responsibility of party leaders at home with the general-tossing in an occasional radio speech or public statement.

The report continues that in “some quarters here” there is a suggestion that Gen. MacArthur might be nominated for vice president on a ticket headed by Mr. Dewey.

According to this report:

But it is felt that the general probably would not be receptive to such suggestions and would scorn any pre-convention deal with Dewey, Willkie or any other candidate.

But whether he actually would refuse the vice presidency should the convention offer it is entirely unknown. Such a ticket might be as attractive as anything the Republicans could offer, especially if the presidential nominee announced that he planned to let MacArthur handle the job of winning the war.

MacArthur backer charges favoritism

Milwaukee, Wisconsin (UP) –
Lansing Hoyt, state chairman of the MacArthur-for-President club, today accused the national administration of discriminating against Republicans because of a ruling that Lt. Col. Philip F. La Follette could not run as a GOP convention delegate candidate pledged to Gen. MacArthur.

Maj. Gen. J. A. Ulio, Adjutant General of the Army, informed Hoyt of Col. La Follette’s standing. He had asked whether servicemen could run as delegate candidates for the national party conventions.

Gen. Ulio said:

The War Department cannot permit a member of the Army on active duty to participate in the convention of a political party.

Col. La Follette is serving on Gen. MacArthur’s staff in the Southwest Pacific.

Mr. Hoyt said he could see no difference between running for delegate or for President and pointed out that the War Department had consented to the naming of an Army man as a presidential candidate.

[NormanStewart]

Roosevelt’s blunt demand for soldier vote irks GOP

President spoke to people over head of Congress; majority support for bill probable
By Thomas L. Stokes, Scripps-Howard staff writer

Washington –
President Roosevelt’s blunt message to Congress demanding passage of the Green-Lucas-Worley soldier-vote bill was a shock that reacted in many questions.

The first-blush reaction in some quarters was that it might hurt rather than help the bill for a federal ballot because of the President’s plain language, particularly the brand of “fraud” which he stamped on the Eastland-Rankin “states’-rights” bill supported by a coalition of Republicans and Southern Democrats.

But the second thought was that the President’s intercession probably would help in the long run, since he was talking over the heads of Congress to the people, and the public reaction might be potent.

The message made Republicans so mad that they exploded in a direction which some of them, on cooling off, thought might have been poor strategy.

Senators Taft (R-OH) and Bridges (R-NH) broke out immediately with charges that the President was using the federal-ballot bill to help win a fourth term.

Hitherto Republicans have been trying to keep the argument on the high ground of constitutionality. Some of them have confessed privately a fear that the Democrats would get more of the soldier vote than the Democrats.

Southern Democrats, privately resentful, kept their mouths closed, for the President, by bearing down on the Republicans, had made the bill a party issue.

He exposed the plan of Republicans to avoid a record vote in the House on the Worley Bill – a plan which a group of Democrats headed by Rep. Anderson (D-NM) are trying to circumvent. Some Southern Democrats have joined in this attempt to put everybody in the House on record.

Democratic leaders, seeking to reap the full benefit of the President’s message, postponed House consideration of the Rankin Bill until Tuesday.

Senate Democratic Leader Alben W. Barkley (D-KY) said he was ready to put the issue to a test in the Senate at any time and hoped to get a vote before the weekend. “It looks pretty good,” he said.

A partial poll of those who voted against the administration last time indicated that the new Lucas-Green Bill has won over enough Southern Democrats to reverse the outcome.

Most of them are basing their shift in a section of the new Lucas-Green bill which stipulates that validity of absentee ballots shall be determined by state and local officials. Thus, the responsibility for throwing out a soldier’s ballot because he had not registered, paid a poll tax or voted on the regular form of state ballot would not rest with the federal government.

[NormanStewart]

Bricker raps labor draft, administration

Coverup for bungling, Ohio presidential candidate calls proposal

Governor John W. Bricker of Ohio brought his campaign for the Presidency into Pennsylvania today with a blast against the National Service Act proposed by President Roosevelt for the drafting of men and women for war work.

In a press conference in his William Penn Hotel suite preliminary to a McKinley Day address before United Spanish War Veterans at the hotel tonight, Governor Bricker declared there has been no necessity shown for the proposed labor draft.

He charged that the act:

…is only a smokescreen to cover up the administration’s bungling and failure to cope with and handle the muddled condition in industry that has led to many strikes.

On soldier vote

He characterized the labor draft proposal as an extension of bureaucratic control and asserted:

There is no reason to put American men and women workers under the jurisdiction of draft boards.

Commenting on the soldier vote bill before Congress, Governor Bricker said there should be federal-enabling legislation passed, but that our soldiers should be entitled to vote the same kind of ballot they would receive if they were at home.

He suggested the soldier vote be handled by the Army and Navy, but that it be kept on a state basis as well as national.

Soldier bonus die

Governor Bricker said his program toward erasing the federal deficit would be to reduce taxes, to slice federal payrolls to a necessary working number and to slice salaries where they were far out of proportion.

Regarding the mustering-out pay for soldiers, Governor Bricker said it was entirely fair and certainly no more than soldiers deserve for their sacrifice of income and opportunities.

He charged that what the nation needs most today is a change in the philosophy of government as well as a change in the administration.

Visited nine states

He declared:

We must make the people masters of their government, rather than servants to it.

Governor Bricker said it had not yet been determined whether he will enter any of the state preferential primaries. He has visited nine states thus far since announcing his presidential candidacy in Chicago last December.

[NormanStewart]

Editorial: Guffey and Southerners

Led mainly by Senator Byrd of Virginia, a backsliding bloc of Southern Senators has revived the idea that Senator Joe Guffey, Pennsylvania’s leading coattail rider, should step out as chairman of the 1944 senatorial campaign committee.

Offhand, we can’t get much excited about whether Mr. Guffey steps down from this job or not.

As a matter of fact, we doubt that his presence as chairman of the senatorial campaign committee will make a whole lot of difference. By our standards, his name at the top of the committee’s stationery would not be regarded as exactly an asset.

But Mr. Guffey has been chairman of this committee in several campaigns. Up to now, there has been no complaint from Senators Byrd, Bailey of North Carolina or Smith of South Carolina, chief characters in the act of being incensed about Senator Guffey.

As a matter of fact, the chief cause for this demand for Senator’s Guffey’s scalp comes, not so much from base opinions these Southern gentlemen may have of Pennsylvania’s junior Senator, as from the fact that he said hard things about their opposition to a soldier-vote bill.

Senator Smith is the only one of this incensed trio who is a candidate for reelection this year. And if Senator Guffey’s position as chairman of the senatorial campaign committee turns out to be a liability to Senator Smith, it seems to us Senator Guffey, for once, will be performing a genuine public service.

The truth is that Senator Guffey was not too objectionable to these colleagues until he let loose with several blasts at an “unholy alliance” of Southern Democrats and Northern Republicans which he said was responsible for defeat of a soldier-vote bill.

Whether or not the alliance was “unholy” may be a matter of opinion, but any group which deprives the Armed Forces of a vote of achieving an “unholy” purpose.

On that issue, Senator Guffey can make no mistake if he maintains an unyielding obstinacy.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (January 28, 1944)

Dry party candidate’s kin called drunken driver

Los Angeles, California (UP) –
C. Arthur Watson, brother of the candidate for President on the Prohibition Party ticket, awaited a hearing today on a drunk driving charge.

Watson, a radiographer, did not say whether he would vote for his brother in the next election.

Watson’s attorney said he hadn’t realized what the effects of a cocktail taken after cough drops would be. The effects included an auto accident.

[NormanStewart]

Stokes: 4th term issue linked by GOP to soldier vote

And Democrats are quick to capitalize on Republican anxiety that Roosevelt will run again
By Thomas L. Stokes, Scripps-Howard staff writer

Washington –
The fourth-term issue is befogging consideration of the soldier-vote bill.

Republicans dragged it up in their first burst of anger over President Roosevelt’s message to Congress. Democrats pick it up, whenever it is offered, to capitalize on the apparent Republican anxiety that Mr. Roosevelt is going to run.

A few Republicans, including Senators Taft (R-OH) and Bridges (R-NH), have attracted so much publicity with their charge that the simple federal ballot in the Green-Lucas-Worley Bill is merely a device to get a solid soldier vote for the President, that it might appear this is a “party line.”

The President came out flatly for the federal-ballot bill and denounced as a “fraud” the Eastland-Rankin Bill, which leaves voting under state law, and which is supported by a majority of Republicans in Congress and by most Southern Democrats.

Some surprised

But it is not the case that Republicans have adopted the “fourth-term-plot” line as a party policy.

Some Republican leaders, notably Senator Vandenberg (R-MI), have been chagrined over this tack because of its defeatist taint. Mr. Vandenberg paced the center aisle, rubbing his chin in perplexity, when another outburst was precipitated yesterday by Senator Holman (R-OR).

He conferred with Senator White (R-ME), Acting Minority Leader, but nothing came of it, at least immediately.

The truth is that Senate Republicans have been lacking in real leadership since Senator McNary (R-OR), the Minority Leader, was compelled by illness to relinquish his duties.

Unable to agree

Their failure to adopt a party policy, and the resultant floundering, have been the subject of much comment. They were unable to agree at a party conference.

Republicans on both sides of the Capitol opened themselves up to the President’s pointed attack – particularly the House Republican leadership, which chose to ally itself with Southern Democrats in a scheme to support the “states’-rights” bill and to prevent a record vote in the House on the Worley Bill similar to the Green-Lucas measure in the Senate.

They find themselves in a dilemma.

The President sought to put them in the position of trying to keep the soldiers from voting, and by virtue of his office he has a much larger public hearing and can more easily dramatize and oversimplify an issue.

Public reaction feared

House Minority Leader Martin (R-MA) is trying to hold his Republicans in line against the public reaction which is expected from the President’s message. A few Republicans had already taken a position for the Worley Bill with its federal ballot, but the majority were backing the Rankin “states’-rights” measure.

A few days ago, it seemed certain that the Rankin Bill would pass in the House, which will take it up next week, but the President’ message may change this. The issue is closely drawn in the Senate, which resumes consideration of the legislation next week.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (January 29, 1944)

Political repercussion seen over atrocities

Washington (UP) –
Rep. Gerald W. Landis (R-IN) believes the report of Jap atrocities will have an effect on domestic politics.

He predicted yesterday that President Roosevelt “will not run for a fourth term because of the exposure of the Japanese atrocities on the men of Bataan.”

He charged:

Mr. Roosevelt and Harry Hopkins are directly responsible for not getting supplies to Gen. Douglas MacArthur that would have saved those men.

[NormanStewart]

Background of news –
Willkie and the primaries

By Jay G. Hayden, North American Newspaper Alliance

Washington –
By withdrawing his name from the California presidential primary, Wendell L. Willkie has just about ended any chance he might have had to demonstrate popular strength sufficient to induce the Republican National Convention to nominate him.

California was important for many reasons. With 50 delegates, it is exceeded in voting power by only four states – New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Ohio. It is the ne primary state where the full block of delegates goes with the preference vote and the commitment to stand by the popular choice to the last ditch is irrevocable.

California is one of very few states where Mr. Willkie has run ahead in the straw votes. And most important of all, in California he was offered a straight-out contest against the combination that has set out to beat him by creating an uninstructed convention.

Governor Earl Warren, while declaring himself not a candidate, consented to become a figurehead for the purpose of keeping the delegation free from commitment. Supporters of all the other leading candidates – Dewey, Bricker, Stassen and MacArthur – had agreed to this plan.

Clear-cut test avoided

Thus Mr. Willkie was presented with the opportunity to strike squarely at the “smoke-filled room” conception, and to get a clean-cut decision on it from the voters of a major state.

After much cogitation Mr. Willkie refused this test. The point, as most political observers see it, is that Mr. Willkie cannot hope to win by any such timid method. He hasn’t a chance if the party leaders have their way, and the only means by which he can upset them is to prove that he is the popular choice.

Mr. Willkie has previously indicated that he would not enter the primaries in three other of the five biggest states – New York, Illinois and Ohio. Of the remaining nine states that have some sort of popular participation in selection or instruction of presidential delegates, Mr. Willkie so far has definitely entered in only one – Wisconsin.

In New Hampshire, the Willkie managers are still backing and filling. early last fall Mr. Willkie definitely threatened that unless New Hampshire leaders agreed to a delegate slate favorable to him he would make a fight.

This led to a convergence of elements in favor of an uninstructed delegation, which as finally entered includes George H. Moses and Huntley Spaulding, former Senator and Governor, respectively, definitely anti-Willkie, and Robert Burroughs, present national committeeman, who is pro-Willkie. Others in this slate are non-committal, but most of them are suspected of being anti-Willkie.

First showdown in Wisconsin

Four pro-Willkie candidates meanwhile have filed in an apparent attempt to force the hand of the “uninstructed” group. Mr. Burroughs has made a proposition that if the while delegation will agree to vote for Mr. Willkie through two ballots, all opposition to it will be withdrawn.

The first big primary showdown will come in Wisconsin where delegate lists pledged to four candidates – Willkie, Dewey, MacArthur and Stassen – seem sure to be entered.

In this contest Mr. Willkie will be running against three shadows, in that not one of his opponents is in the open. Gen. MacArthur and Lt. Cdr. Harold E. Stassen are barred from active campaigning by their service connections and Mr. Dewey continues to insist he is not a candidate.

And in spite of the fact that the Willkie campaign in Wisconsin has been going forward for some time, with strong newspaper support, a Gallup Poll Wednesday showed Mr. Dewey with 40% of the state’s Republican vote, as against 20% for Mr. Willkie, 15% for Gen. MacArthur and 11% for Mr. Stassen.

[NormanStewart]

Pegler: Fourth term

By Westbrook Pegler

New York –
A fourth term for President Roosevelt would just about finish off the form of government under which we lived when he took office in 1933, but even though the men and women in the services undoubtedly would give him a big bulge over Tom Dewey in the autumn election, I say Congress had better find some way to let them have their say.

In thus nominating Governor Dewey, I am anticipating the Republican Convention, but I suppose nobody is going to dispute me.

Congress had better find a way to let these people vote because they would be awful sore at Congress if not, and in the event that Dewey were elected by a strict home-guard vote, he would take office under a handicap of resentment and suspicion in the fighting forces and his authority and prestige as Commander-in-Chief would be badly impaired.

There is some dissatisfaction with the conduct of the home-guard already, mostly because of the strikes.

This annoyance should be directed against Mr. Roosevelt himself, because he is ultimately responsible and the Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Merchantmen, WACs and WAVES undoubtedly know it in a subconscious way.

Lewis also blamed

However, in their immediate view, John L. Lewis was the devil in the coal strike and old Green and Murray and the racketeering Fays and de Lorenzos are responsible for the five thousand and odd walkouts since Pearl Harbor.

Most of these people grew up under President Roosevelt. A fellow of say 25 years fighting in Italy or the South Pacific was only a leggedy, bucktoothed kid when Mr. Big walked in and had no mature appreciation of the nature of the American system.

He has no perspective on the changes toward fascism wrought in those 12 years and he is going to feel that he has been gypped of a very important and precious right if he doesn’t get a chance to vote.

Moreover, in addition to the other advantages which Mr. Roosevelt enjoys with this great block of voters, he now appears before them as their champion against a lot of no-good Republicans whose very sincere and valid arguments on the question of states’ rights will seem mean and tricky and inspired by no other consideration than low politics.

A handicap for Dewey

And just as Hitler and Mussolini raised a generation in their own beliefs, the younger Americans whose whole conscious or intelligent life has been spent under the influence of the New Deal were taught not to be fastidious about strict observance of the Constitution and the laws of their own country, the less so when strict observance would subject them to a plain injustice and leave the election of the next President to civilians who have made little or no sacrifice and felt no physical pain.

This will be an awful handicap to Dewey even if he should hop up in Albany this very day with a loud declaration in favor of letting the fighters vote the federal ballot at least.

They all know Mr. Roosevelt.

He has shaped their lives to a great extent, he is their C-in-C and a gaudy showman and they will be more afraid of a change of command in a war which, in the military way and in the matter of production at home, has been going amazingly well, than of changes in their form of government and the status of the civilian under government at home.

They don’t know Dewey, they won’t be able to read his campaign speeches and he won’t be able to get around among them to stand inspection, so the choice in their minds is bound to be one between Mr. Big and Mr. Who.

Like the Democratic National Committee, I am anticipating the Democratic Convention in nominating Mr. Roosevelt for a fourth term and assuming he will run, and for like reasons.

If Mr. Roosevelt doesn’t accept the nomination, he will defeat his own party because there just isn’t any other Democrat who could like Dewey.

And if Dewey, the best vote-getter the Republicans have, should refuse to run, he would be throwing down his party and millions of people who really believe in him and regard him as the only hope of saving what is left of constitutional government under law and restoring some of that which was done away with in the adolescent days of the generation which is now fighting the war.

[NormanStewart]

GOP asks votes for all

Washington (UP) –
Senate Republicans were reported today to be studying the possibility of joining amendments proposed by two of their members as an alternative to the administration-supported “federal ballot” soldier-voting legislation.

The Iowa Legislature passed enabling legislation to permit servicemen and women to vote by absentee ballot in this year’s primary and general elections last night. Governor Burke B. Hickenlooper signed the measure a few minutes later.

The plan, as tentatively put forth, would combine the proposals introduced by Senator Robert A. Taft (R-OH) and Senator Joseph H. Ball (R-MN) during the past week of debate.

The Taft proposal, offered as a substitute for the entire Lucas-Green “federal-ballot” bill, provides for absentee voting by state ballot and recommends that the various states amend their election laws so that all their soldiers and sailors would have a chance to vote by that method.

The Ball proposal would permit a federal ballot for residents of those states which failed to amend their election laws in such a method as to facilitate soldier voting.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (January 30, 1944)

Truman urged by Kane to run with President

War program investigator is outstanding, says commissioner
By Kermit McFarland

County Commissioner John J. Kane yesterday advocated the nomination of Senator Harry S. Truman (D-MO) as the Democratic candidate for Vice President.

Mr. Kane said he thought it could be assumed that President Roosevelt would be renominated for a fourth term and that the principal job of the nominating convention which will meet in Chicago in June will the selection of a candidate for Vice President.

Vice President Henry A. Wallace apparently will not be slated on the 1944 Democratic ticket.

Outstanding service

Mr. Kane said:

Senator Truman, as chairman of the committee investigating the national defense program, has performed an outstanding war service.

I do not know whether Senator Truman has even been thinking of this idea, but he certainly deserves consideration for the nomination.

He and his committee have done a first-class job of seeing that the men in the Armed Forces, who are doing the fighting, get the kind of materials and equipment they need.

State meeting Friday

Mr. Kane’s suggestion, so far as is known here, is the first linking the Missouri Senator’s name with the vice-presidential nomination. Previously, Speaker Sam Rayburn (D-TX) of the House of Representatives and War Mobilization Director James F. Byrnes have been the most prominently mentioned possibilities.

Meanwhile, the Democratic State Committee prepared to meet Friday in Harrisburg to complete a slate of candidates for state offices.

Mr. Kane is backing federal judge Charles Alvin Jones of Edgeworth – the 1938 Democratic nominee for Governor – for the Supreme Court nomination. Another federal judge, Guy K. Bard of Lancaster County, has also been proposed.

Guffey backing Black

If U.S. Senator Joseph F. Guffey is unsuccessful in his efforts to slate Ramsay S. Black of Harrisburg, third Assistant Postmaster General, for the U.S. Senate nomination, the candidate will probably come from Philadelphia.

Congressman Michael J. Bradley and former Congressman James F. McGranery are avowed candidates.

Auditor General F. Clair Ross of Butler is a potential candidate for one of the two Superior Court nominations. Superior Court Judge Chester Rhodes of Stroudsburg, the only Democrat on either appellate bench, will be slated for a second 10-year term.

Democratic leaders virtually have agreed on State Treasurer G. Harold Wagner of Wilkes-Barre to succeed Mr. Ross as Auditor General. Under the Pennsylvania Constitution, neither the State Treasurer nor the Auditor General may succeed himself.

---

Senator Byrd reopens feud with Guffey

Pennsylvanian’s job demand for surgeon starts latest fight
By Robert Taylor, Press Washington correspondent

Washington – (Jan. 29)
Senator Harry F. Byrd (D-VA) today reopened the still-smoldering feud with Senator Joseph F. Guffey (D-PA) with a prediction that Mr. Guffey will be ousted as chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Mr. Byrd charged that Mr. Guffey has been using his influence as head of the committee “to advance his demands upon the various agencies of the government.”

He said:

Senator Guffey was never and is not now the choice of the Democratic membership of the Senate for this position. He was appointed and not elected. As soon as a caucus can be held, unless he first reigns, I make the confident prediction that Senator Guffey will be removed as chairman of the committee.

Guffey admits threat

The Virginia Senator made his complaint against the Pennsylvania New Dealer in a letter to District of Columbia’s Commissioner Guy Mason,. Who became involved in a dispute this week with Mr. Guffey over failure of the District officials to appoint a Guffey protégé as a hospital surgeon.

Mr. Guffey admitted authorship of letters threatening a Senate investigation unless his friend and personal physician, Russian-born Dr. Eugene de Savitsch, was appointed a surgeon at Glenn Dale Tuberculosis Sanatorium.

District officials retorted that the Guffey-sponsored physician was not qualified for the type of work he proposed to do.

Called ‘reprehensible’

Mr. Byrd, in his letter to Commissioner Mason, called Mr. Guffey’s attempt to bet a surgical post for his personal physician:

…especially reprehensible because it was proposed that Savitsch would only perform operations on indigent patients who could not protect themselves.

Mr. Byrd’s letter said:

This is a question of life and death. Yet a U.S. Senator used his political power even to the extent of threats of reprisals against the District Commissioners unless his protégé was permitted to perform experimental operations on the poor people who could have no protection against being operated upon by one who is incompetent, in the opinion of those in authority.

I do not think I have ever heard of a kore contemptible act.

Stand firm, Byrd says

Mr. Byrd urged the District officials to stand firm against Mr. Guffey’s effort to get a job for his physician, and predicted that if Mr. Guffey succeeds in getting an investigation “neither the Senate nor the House would permit you or your subordinates to be coerced in this manner.”

Mr. Guffey aroused Mr. Byrd’s enmity when he identified him as leader of Southern Democratic Senate members, who, he charged, teamed up with Northern Republicans in an “unholy alliance” to defeat the federal soldier-vote bill.

Another speech planned

Mr. Byrd replied, on the Senate floor, with a demand that Mr. Guffey prove or withdraw his charges, promising to speak further on the Pennsylvania Senator’s past record, if he doesn’t do so.

The Virginia Senator has reportedly prepared another speech on the subject of Mr. Guffey.

[NormanStewart]

WLB member quits to enter Senate race

Roosevelt accepts Wayne Morse’s resignation with ‘sincere regret’

Washington (UP) – (Jan. 29)
Wayne L. Morse, public member of the War Labor Board, resigned today to become a candidate for the Republican nomination to the U.S. Senate in Oregon. At the same time, he announced his resignation as dean of the University of Oregon Law School.

The party primary will be held in May. Mr. Morse will oppose the incumbent, Rufus Holman.

President Roosevelt accepted the resignation effective Feb. 2, declaring that the reasons set forth by Mr. Morse left him no alternative.

The President said that he accepted the resignation with “sincere regret” and that Mr. Morse had shown as a WLB member “great industry, vigorous thought and an enlightened point of view.” Mr. Morse had done work of supreme importance to the war effort, the President added.

Regrets leaving

In his letter of resignation, Mr. Morse said that in many ways he regretted leaving the board at this time because he appreciated what he described as the importance of its work to the war effort on the home front.

He said:

I believe, however, that the major policies and procedures of the board for the settlement of labor disputes and the stabilization of wage already have been established in decisions rendered by the board.

‘Record will continue’

Hence, I am sure that the splendid record of the board will continue for the duration of the war, irrespective of changes which may occur in its personnel.

Therefore, after weighing all of the factors involved, I have decided to become a candidate for election to the United States Senate.

This decision was reached only after a large number of friends and groups in my home states urged that I could perform a much-needed public service if elected, especially in view of the fact that the issues which will undoubtedly be decided by the Congress in the next six years will greatly affect the destiny of our nation for many years to come.

[NormanStewart]

Soldier vote compromise believe due

Federal ballot subject to state controls thought likely

Washington – (Jan. 29)
The capital today considered it likely that the Senate and House will accept a compromise on the soldier-vote issue and pass a bill providing for a federal ballot subject to state controls.

Senator Scott Lucas (D-IL), co-author of the Lucas-Green Bill, said he had taken an informal poll of the Senate which showed that the administration has strength enough to pass a federal-ballot bill “without crippling amendments.”

Rep. Eugene Worley (D-TX), sponsor of a companion measure, said there were “encouraging signs” to force a record of how House members stand.

The force of President Roosevelt’s message to Congress terming a straight state ballot a “fraud” on the troops is reported to have increased the public pressure on the Senate and the House to approve the federal ballot, although it angered many Congressmen.

The advantage of time, however, lies on the side of the advocates of the state ballot, for unless the Congress completes action on a soldier-vote bill next week, the War and Navy Departments will have to begin the distribution to the Armed Forces of postcard applications for state ballots, according to the terms of the 1942 soldier-vote law.

Senate debates compromise

The Senate is in the midst of debate on a bill providing for a uniform federal ballot and guaranteeing the right of election officials in the states to determine the validity of the ballots returned to them.

The House is about to open debate on the Rankin-Eastland Bill which the Senate passed before it decided to reconsider the issue and commence debate on the compromise bill. The Rankin-Eastland legislation keeps the voting in the hands of the states and revokes the provision in the 1942 voting act which suspended the poll tax and registration requirements.

The rule adopted by the House Rules Committee forbids the House on the floor to amend the Rankin-Eastland Bill, but the Committee of the Whole House may offer any number of amendments before the bill goes before the House for a vote.

Wary of recorded votes

The effect of this legislative device is to free members of the House from having to make a record vote on the different amendments. No roll calls are taken in the Committee of the Whole House. This will make it easier for Representatives to vote to change the nature of the Rankin-Eastland Bill.

[NormanStewart]

Editorial: Where is the leadership?

Republicans are doing their cause a good deal of harm by their dog-in-the-manger attitude on the soldier-vote issue.

They are showing a woeful lack of leadership and statesmanship.

Some of them are chagrined over the dismal exhibition which has characterized the activities of too many Republican Congressmen, as well as some Democrats, over this issue.

The first smokescreen thrown up by some Southern Democrats and joined in by many Republicans was the “states’ rights” bugaboo.

Now they have thrown up the fourth term as another smokescreen.

The issue is whether or not the members of the Armed Forces are to have every possible opportunity to cast a ballot in the presidential election.

This issue cannot be beclouded by the fourth term issue – that is another controversy entirely.

Republicans, if they choose, are free to accuse President Roosevelt of thinking in terms of the election campaign when he put out his recent blast at the “fraud” soldier-vote bill now before Congress.

They are free to let loose with all their ammunition and resources in opposing a fourth term.

But these things cannot be permitted to interfere with the enactment of a sensible, simple plan for enabling the Armed Forces to have the opportunity to vote.

Republicans will be in far better position to fight the fourth term if they display some evidences of statesmanship and leadership on the soldier-vote issue.

[NormanStewart]

Editorial: Dear Mr. President

They say, Mr. President, that you and Congress are feuding.

They say, for example, that you requested a national service law not particularly because you thought it was needed now or believed Congress would pass it, but rather to get yourself on record in case further labor strife crops up – so you may put the blame on Congress if that happens and if no such law is enacted.

They say, too, that the belief by some Congressmen that this is the case has added to Congressional resentment and made the feud more bitter.

They say – inevitably no doubt, but perhaps without justification – that your words and deeds relating to domestic policies are dictated by fourth-term strategy, and that the national service law proposal is a sample of such maneuvering. That you prefer to tackle the labor problem by indirection, as a face-saving gesture, rather than by frontal attack. That this is the adroit, the expedient, way of washing your hands of a vexing and politically delicate problem.

They say, Mr. President, that this is typical of your administration – that you have your eyes focused so firmly upon the history books that your capacity to deal with actualities is muscle-bound.

They say that if such were not the case, you’d be more willing to delegate authority and to retain or dismiss members of your official family on the basis of performance rather than by the measuring rod of personal loyalty.

They say, too, that if your viewpoint were altered ever so slightly in that respect, you’d be less sensitive to criticism, less anxious to call people Tories and copperheads and dunces, more positive and effective in decisions. That, in short, your great natural endowments would be able to function freely to your nation’s benefit.

They say there’s no hope of any change, any improvement.

They say all that, and much more.

What do you say, Mr. President?