Election 1944: Pre-convention news

[NormanStewart]

Background of news –
Republicans recall 1920

By Bertram Benedict

Some Republicans declare that recent election results in Kentucky, New York, Pennsylvania and Colorado indicate a Republican landslide in 1944 like that of 1920.

In 1920, the Republican Party gained its greatest national victory since Reconstruction days. It had 76% of the electoral vote, carrying every state outside of the South and also Oklahoma and Tennessee, and gained almost 70% of the seats in the House of Representatives. To a considerable extent, these results were presaged by the elections in the winter of 1919-20.

Kentucky, which elected a Republican governor in November 1943 and replaced a Democrat by a Republican in the House, elected a Republican for governor in November 1919 by 32,000 votes, the largest majority ever given a Republican gubernatorial candidate in the Blue Grass state. Kentucky also gave the Republicans a majority in the lower branch of the Legislature, while the Democratic majority in the State Senate was reduced to 2.

Big Coolidge victory

The most startling Republican victory in November 1919 was registered in Massachusetts. There Governor Coolidge was reelected by a majority of 124,000 over the Democratic opponent he had defeated in the previous election by only 17,000.

Mr. Coolidge had won national acclaim for what was considered his strong stand in the Boston police strike, and President Wilson sent him a telegram of congratulations on his victory, as one for law and order. Newspaper accounts said that many recently demobilized soldiers and sailors had voted for Mr. Coolidge in resentment at the police strike and other strikes.

In New York, the Republicans increased their strength markedly in the Legislature. Republican F. H. La Guardia was elected president of the Board of Alderman over the Democratic incumbent in New York City. The Democratic organization lost 10 seats in the Board of Alderman, and was defeated badly in two judicial contests.

On Nov. 8, 1919, in a special election to the House of Representatives from Oklahoma, in a district normally Democratic by about 5,000, the Republican candidate won the seat by a majority of 708.

On the other hand, in New Jersey the Democrats took the governorship from the Republicans, with the Republicans retaining control in the Legislature. The Democratic candidate, Edward I. Edwards, had promised if elected to press for state legislation annulling national prohibition and his election was considered a wet rather than a Democratic victory.

Wilson not a candidate

In Maryland, the Democrats, with Albert C. Ritchie, another wet, retained the governorship by a sharply-reduced majority, but made gains in the Legislature.

Early in 1920, the Democrats retained a House seat from a district in Missouri nominally Democratic. Several special elections for the House from New York City districts were meaningless as a gauge, because the Republicans and Democrats had combined against the Socialists.

It must be pointed out that in 1920, President Wilson was not running for reelection. The Democratic candidate, James M. Cox, had hardly the political appeal which had been Wilson’s. Mr. Wilson had been physically incapacitated for more than a year and the Democratic organization had drifted. The war was over and the peace treaty, rejected by the Unite States, had gone into effect in Europe. And the post-war depression had begun.

It must be pointed out also that in the midterm elections of 1922, with the country still in depression, the Democrats won 75 House seats from the Republicans, whose majority was reduced from 168 to 18.

[NormanStewart]

Cox demands two-thirds rule restored

Convention power of South is issue
By Lyle C. Wilson, United Press staff writer

Washington (UP) –
Rep. Eugene E. Cox (D-GA) today demanded changes in Democratic National Convention procedure which would provoke the bitterest kind of intraparty dispute.

In an address prepared for delivery at Moultrie, Georgia, but released here, Mr. Cox summoned the South to unite to compel the party convention to return to the two-thirds majority system of nominating presidential candidates.

The two-thirds rule was abolished in the harmony convention of 1936 when triumphant Democrats nominated President Roosevelt for a second term. That rule, requiring that a nominee must receive a minimum vote of two-thirds of convention delegates, almost prevented Mr. Roosevelt’s first nomination in 1932.

Clark-Wilson case

It did actually prevent the nomination of Champ Clark of Missouri in the Democratic National Convention of 1912. Woodrow Wilson was chosen there after Mr. Clark piled up a majority vote but was unable to achieve a two-to-one margin.

Under the two-thirds rule, Southern delegates had in effect a veto power against any candidate.

Mr. Cox said:

When the two-thirds rule was abrogated, the South completely lost its power independently to influence party affairs. It is true that the South may still vote in national elections, but for candidates chosen by others.

Favors unequal

So long as the South submits to this, a single Northern state in the politically doubtful column and with only a handful of people will continue to receive governmental favors far exceeding those bestowed upon the entire South.

Now is the time for the South to make itself heard. Let the demand be made upon candidates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency before the convention is held that they make disclosure of their attitude toward the proposal to reenact this two-thirds rule.

Mr. Cox is a notable anti-New Dealer and a consistent critic of Mr. Roosevelt.

[NormanStewart]

Willkie wins 6 of 11 delegates in primary

Concord, New Hampshire (UP) –
Complete returns from New Hampshire’s presidential primary, the first such contest in the nation in 1944, today gave Wendell L. Willkie six of the state’s 11 delegates to the Republican National Convention.

Two will be pledged to Governor Thomas E. Dewey of New York, while the remaining three will be unpledged.

The Democrats elected a complete slate pledged to a fourth term for President Roosevelt.

[NormanStewart]

Stokes: GOP drifters

By Thomas L. Stokes

Washington –
Two political developments in the day’s news point up the alternatives which confront the Republican Party in its attempt to return to power.

The choice lies between a passive, wait-and-see attitude which counts on drifting into power on what looks like a Republican tide, and moving out aggressively with a definite, forward-looking program.

Senate Republicans took the easy way when they decided to continue with a temporary organization instead of electing a permanent leader now to succeed the late Senator McNary, one who could take command boldly in shaping a party program to arouse the voters.

Wendell L. Willkie is taking the hard road, out beating the bushes, speaking day and night in the personal interest of his candidacy for the Republican nomination and in the broader interest of a progressive domestic and international program for the party.

Primary dividends

He got some dividends in the New Hampshire primary in winning six delegates who, though not actually pledged, will support him at the Chicago convention. Three are unpledged and two are for Governor Dewey. Next week Mr. Willkie takes to the hustings in Wisconsin and later in Nebraska, with primaries April 4 and 11.

Whether the bolder method, exemplified in Mr. Willkie’s one-man campaign, is the better party policy strategically remains to be seen.

But some of the newer and younger Republicans think a definite and aggressive policy by the party in the Senate is wiser. They wanted to set up a permanent organization now. But they acquiesced in the temporary organization.

Senator White (R-MO) will continue as acting leader; Senator Vandenberg (R-MI) will remain as acting chairman of the party conference, and Senator Taft (R-OH) will be chairman of a steering committee of nine appointed by Senator Vandenberg. This committee includes the three named, and party whip Senator Wherry (R-NE), Senators Danaher (R-CT), Bridges (R-NH), Brookes (R-IL), Bushfield (R-SD) and Millikin (R-CO).

Senator Vandenberg explained that this temporary organization is based on expectation of Republicans winning the Senate as well as the White House next November, in which case:

We wish to be entirely free to fit the permanent organization to the necessities of those events.

Guilty of own charges

Such a position has been criticized as based on the implication that Senate Republicans would lean on their President to name a Senate leader, which is just what they have so often jibed at in President Roosevelt’s intervention to elect Senator Barkley (D-KY) as Democratic Leader, all a part of the picture they built up of a “rubber-stamp Congress.”

What is most regretted by some younger and more progressive Republicans is that the Senate policy of delay and evasion seems to fit a pattern favored by the GOP old guard of avoiding party conflict and side-stepping troublesome issues.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (March 17, 1944)

States at odds on soldier ballot

Roosevelt’s survey seems inconclusive

Washington (UP) –
Telegrams carrying widely divergent answers piled up in the White House today in President Roosevelt’s survey to determine whether the various states will accept the federal ballot provided in the new Soldier Vote Bill.

More than half of the 48 state governors have responded to the President’s request for the information, with unofficial returns showing only five unequivocal decisions – four accepting the ballots or promising acceptance, and one rejecting him.

In between the direct “Yes” and “No” columns, nine governors indicated their states probably would take action to validate the ballots, seven that it was unlikely they would accept, and most of the others apparently unable to give clearcut information, saying merely that they would do “everything to enable the soldiers to vote.”

While more than half of the governors have replied so far, their answers have not given the ringing chorus of affirmatives which the President may have wanted before signing the bill.

Here is the tabulation of unofficial replies given so far:

• Maryland, North Carolina and California governors said their laws already authorized use of a federal ballot. Utah’s governor said he would call a special session of the legislature to authorize it.

• New Jersey, Connecticut, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Maine, Nebraska, Rhode Island, New Hampshire and New Mexico gave replies indicating they would seek federal ballot authorizations.

• Missouri, Oklahoma, Kansas, Louisiana and Illinois governors had not yet made up their minds.

• The only positive “no” came from Idaho’s Governor C. A. Bottolfsen, who said state laws did not authorize a federal ballot and no steps would be taken to legalize it.

• However, replies largely negative came from governors of Tennessee, Ohio, Michigan, Montana, Iowa and Colorado; and Governor Thomas E. Dewey previously indicated New York would not accept the federal form.

• Kentucky’s Governor Simeon Willis said merely that he would do “everything possible” to assist soldier voting.

[NormanStewart]

Voting record shows GOP as best legislative team

By Lyle C. Wilson, United Press staff writer

Washington –
Voting records of the first session of the 78th Congress compiled today show that House Republicans worked together last year in considerably more harmony than did their Democratic colleagues.

Editorial Research Reports compiled the record of political alignments on outstanding House roll calls in four categories: Taxation and appropriations; price, farm and labor legislation; war and post-war policies; miscellaneous roll calls. The first two categories contain the most numerous votes and fairly completely cover the field of domestic policies dealt with by Congress last year. Eight roll calls are recorded in each of those two categories.

Republicans are FOR

On the eight major price, farm and labor issues voted upon in the House, Democrats cast an aggregate of 1,481 votes, Republicans cast 1,421 votes. The significant factor is that the Democratic votes tabulated on those eight issues show 743 FOR and 738 AGAINST whereas the Republicans divided 1,158 FOR and 263 AGAINST. The average division further emphasizes policy disputes among Democrats and comparative cohesion among House Republicans. The Democrats average 93 votes FOR to 92 AGAINST, Republicans averaged 145 votes FOR to 33 AGAINST.

Here are the issues upon which the votes were cast:

No rollbacks on foods below parity; override anti-subsidy veto; new anti-subsidy bill; motion to consider anti-strike bill; anti-strike bill (passage); anti-strike bill (conference report); override anti-strike veto; Hobbs anti-racketeering bill.

The taxation record

On eight taxation and appropriations issues, the Democrats nearly voted together but Republicans were even more cohesive. On those eight issues, Republicans and Democrats cast the same aggregate of votes, 1,509, divided as follows: Democrats FOR 411, AGAINST 1,098; Republicans FOR 1,415, AGAINST 94. The average of votes was: Democrats FOR 51, AGAINST 137; Republicans FOR 177, AGAINST 12.

The tax and appropriations issues involved were: Compromise pay-as-you-go tax bill; first, second and third votes on the Ruml Plan; Robertson-Forand compromise tax bill; debt limit increase coupled with salary limit repeal; reduction of Office of Price Administration appropriation by $35 million; withhold funds from Office of War Information Domestic Branch.

The division of Republican votes in those two categories fluctuated from 105 FOR and 71 AGAINST the motion to take up the anti-strike bill, to 163 FOR and 3 AGAINST the bill to forbid rollbacks on foods below parity prices.

The division of Democratic votes fluctuated from seven FOR and 190 AGAINST the Ruml Plan on the third vote to 89 FOR and 99 AGAINST the compromise pay-as-you-go tax bill.

Research Reports says that Republicans maintained better attendance records than Democrats during the early months of last session and were able sometimes to achieve results which could not have been attained had Democrats been voting in full strength.

The figures do not suggest that the Democrats have been politically impotent. For instance, Democratic votes defeated the Ruml Plan and sustained President Roosevelt’s anti-subsidy veto.

But the compilation does spotlight policy disputes within the Democratic Party. It is partly upon the basis of these disagreements that Republicans confidently argue that the New Deal-Democratic coalition which was so effective from 1932 at least through 1940 has disintegrated considerably.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (March 18, 1944)

GOP in state taken to task

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (UP) –
The failure of the Pennsylvania Republican nomination to name its ablest men for governor and for the U.S. Senate was cited by Chief Justice George W. Maxey of the State Supreme Court as one reason why the party has never nominated a Pennsylvanian for President.

Judge Maxey, speaking at the annual banquet of the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick last night, said the GOP party leadership in Pennsylvania “too often refused to place in the conspicuous positions of governor or U.S. Senator Pennsylvania’s ablest public men.”

On the national political front, he charged the “rights of several states are rapidly being destroyed by the federal government.”

U.S. Senator James J. Davis told the banquet America must not repeat mistakes of the past when the present war is over. Senator Davis added he will “never vote to give any nation the power to dominate the destiny and fate of the United States.”

Judge Clare G. Fenerty succeeded Barry Hayes Hepburn as president of the organization.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (March 19, 1944)

President’s survey shows –
Half of states plan to use federal ballot for soldiers

Washington (UP) – (March 18)
An unofficial survey of replies by state governors to President Roosevelt’s question on the Soldier Vote Bill showed today that probably at least half of the 48 states will not use a federal ballot for servicemen if the Soldier Vote Bill passed by Congress becomes law.

The replies from 16 state governors left no doubt that they would not use the federal ballot. Six others indicated they would not. Several of these indicated that present laws are adequate if the Army delivers the ballots.

Five say ‘yes’

Only five states replied with a categorical “yes” to the question of whether present laws permit use of the federal ballot. But 14 others replied that they would try to get their state legislatures to make use of the federal ballot valid.

Seven states have given no indication of their answer.

President Roosevelt will announce his summary of the replies late tomorrow afternoon. He may indicate then whether he will veto or sign the compromise bill passed by Congress. He has said that his decision will be based on whether that bill will give more servicemen a chance to vote than did the 1942 Soldier Voting Act.

States are summarized

The replies showed that most of the existing state laws do not permit use of the federal ballot as proposed by Congress, and many of them plainly stated that they would do nothing to change the law.

Here is a summary of the position of the states, based on either the governor’s reply to the President or other statements:

• States that will not use the federal ballot – Idaho, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, Iowa, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, Washington, Minnesota, Montana, Virginia, Arizona, Texas.

• States whose present laws allow use of the federal ballot – California, Florida, Maryland, North Carolina, Vermont.

• States whose governors have promised to take steps to validate use of the federal ballot (special sessions of legislature, etc.) – Oklahoma, New Mexico, Nebraska, Indiana, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, New Jersey, Utah, South Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania.

[NormanStewart]

Roosevelt, Willkie favored by women

New York (UP) – (March 17)
Women voters favor a Republican ticket headed by Wendell Willkie and a Democratic ballot with President Roosevelt again a candidate, a survey conducted by the Women’s Home Companion showed today.

Answering the magazine’s question of “Who would be the best candidate in 1944?”, 28.2% of the women voted in favor of Mr. Willkie for the GOP ticket. However, the 1940 presidential candidate received only 0.2% more than New York Governor Thomas Dewey. Ohio Governor John W. Bricker was third.

Forty percent of the women polled favored Mr. Roosevelt’s renomination. The second choice was Senator Harry F. Byrd (D-VA).

[NormanStewart]

Willkie offers 6-point plan for farmers

Opens his campaign for primary aid

Richland Center, Wisconsin (UP) – (March 18)
Wendell Willkie, opening a three-week campaign for Republican votes in Wisconsin and Nebraska, said tonight he was sure a majority of farmers were convinced “that a change of national administration is… overdue.”

Addressing several delegations of farmers prior to Wisconsin’s April 4 primary in which he hopes to demonstrate his strength as a candidate for the Republican 1944 presidential nomination, Mr. Willkie decried administration farm policies and outlined six “specific policies for desperately-needed farm production.”

For “the quickest winning of the war and for the soundest building of the future,” Mr. Willkie made these suggestions for “this year.”

• A manpower policy which “simply must not be permitted to strip our farm below the irreducible minimum of strength and skill.”

• A speeding of war machinery production so machinery now wearing out can be replaced “before it is too late.”

• “A workable policy for the fair distribution of food…”

• “Food policies that take account not only of production but also of marketing…”

• “Policies based on real horse sense in pricing for production.”

• “Complete elimination of partisan political scheming from the farm-producing agencies of government.”

In his “beyond victory” program for the “building of economic foundations of prosperity and peace,” Mr. Willkie said:

Thirty markets are a No. 1 need for the wellbeing of the farmer.

He added:

The second need of agriculture is for decent prices.

[NormanStewart]

Editorial: Do-nothing party?

Failure of the Senate Republicans to select a permanent leader is not so important in itself as it is in indicating a state of mind.

Aside from espousing an occasional easy-to-climb-aboard issue which seems popular at the moment, the Republican membership of both houses of Congress has shown a remarkable ability to evade decisions and positive action. Faced with political opportunity inasmuch as natural reaction against a too-old administration is running in its favor, and Democratic-controlled domestic policies are inept and fumbling, the GOP nevertheless seems determined to play it the cautious way, the indecisive way.

As Thomas L. Stokes pointed out the other day, the only conspicuous example of forthright expression and plain speaking in Republican ranks is furnished by Wendell Willkie, who is campaigning frankly for the Presidency. Do the other spokesman for his party imagine, in the light of recent byelection results, that this is just naturally a Republican year, and all they have to do is sit tight and win?

If so, they’re in for a rude awakening. The country may be willing and ready to change from what it has to something better. But there’s no reason for thinking it’s in the mood to change to a do-nothing party to run the war and win the peace. That’s the only alternative, so far.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (March 20, 1944)

Willkie holds secret parley with leaders

Senators told of ‘stump’ plans
By Lyle C. Wilson, United Press staff writer

Washington –
Wendell L. Willkie was revealed today to have had last-minute conferences here with Republican Senators before beginning his three-week campaign for the Wisconsin and Nebraska presidential primaries.

In contrast to other visits to Washington, Mr. Willkie was unseen and unheard except by those with whom he had political conferences. He opened his Wisconsin campaign over the weekend with a farm policy speech in Richland Center.

His opposition

Full slates of Willkie delegates are entered in the April 4 Wisconsin primary and the April 11 Nebraska primary. Governor Thomas E. Dewey of New York is represented by a partial slate in Wisconsin despite his request that his name not be used. Former Governor Harold E. Stassen of Minnesota, now a naval officer, and Gen. Douglas MacArthur will also be represented in Wisconsin.

Top heavy Willkie success in those states would serve somewhat to ease the shock of North Carolina’s bolt for Governor Dewey. North Carolina Republicans named their convention delegates last week ands thereupon adopted a resolution endorsing Governor Dewey for President.

Mr. Willkie has consistently recognized but minimized the fact that Congressional Republicans are cold to his candidacy. The fact that he came here last week to talk quietly with several of them suggests to some observers that Mr. Willkie hopes to improve his relations with Republicans in Congress.

Hosts for parley

Senator Sinclair Weeks (R-MA), a recently-arrived industrialist, who succeeded the resigned Henry Cabot Lodge, has long been a Willkie adherent. Both he and John W. Hanes, former member of the Securities and Exchange Commission and Under Secretary of the Treasury in the Roosevelt administration, are named as luncheon hosts at the principal meeting between Mr. Willkie and Republican Senators.

Last week’s appearance here was in marked contrast to that of Oct. 19, when Mr. Willkie spoke off the record before House Republicans as the guest of first-term GOP members. Mr. Willkie pleased a few of his hearers, surprised many of them and annoyed some by announcing without qualification that he could have the Republican presidential nomination if he wanted it.

[NormanStewart]

Background of news –
Presidential elections

By Bertram Benedict

Although the soldier vote bill leaves to the states the decision on whether to use the federal ballot, and although the bill repeals most of the Soldier Voting Act of 1942, the bill leaves untouched the most contentious section of the 1942 act. This section orders the states to waive their registration requirements in federal elections for members of the Armed Forces qualified to vote. It also bans the poll tax as a requirement for voting by any member of the Armed Forces in a federal election.

Several states have already reported that they are constitutionally unable to comply with these requirements, and other states undoubtedly will disregard them. there seems to be nothing the federal government can do to enforce compliance. The Constitution allows the federal government only to make regulations on the “times” and “manner” of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, and on the “places” of holding elections for Representatives.

There has been some speculation on whether a move might be made to declare the presidential election of 1944 invalid if the states disregard federal regulations on the subject, but the speculation seems unwarranted.

Considered state officials

The Constitution prescribes how the presidential electors shall cast their votes within the states. The electors are considered state, not federal, officials (if they are remunerated fir expenses, the remuneration comes from the states). The Constitution does prescribe that the votes of the presidential electors shall be counted in the presence of both houses of Congress, but it does not say how they shall be counted.

Congress undoubtedly has the authority to reject any electoral vote submitted, but only if the electoral vote thus submitted was submitted improperly, or contravened an express provision of the Constitution.

In 1868, for instance, the vote of Georgia was rejected largely because the state was held not yet eligible to participate in the election. In 1872, the electoral votes of Arkansas and Louisiana were rejected as not representing the true results in those states. Congress also refused to accept three votes from Georgia for the Democratic candidate, Horace Greely, because he had died after the election was held. And in 1876, Congress passed upon several cases of electors who were alleged to be constitutionally disqualified because they were federal officeholders.

In 1887, Congress passed the Electoral Count Act which practically allows each state to decide any dispute arising out of a presidential election within its borders, and forbids Congress to interfere with that decision. In any event, the concurrence of both houses of Congress is necessary to reject the electoral vote submitted by any state.

Federal inspectors used

In one of the “Force” acts, that of Feb. 28, 1871, Congress authorized the use of federal inspectors in elections for the House of Representatives, on application to a federal court. In the election of 1876, some 7,000 U.S. deputy marshals supervised elections in the Southern states. there was grave doubt as to whether the 1871 act was constitutional, and it was repealed in 1894.

What caused the dispute in the election of 1876 between Hayes and Tilden, and its final adjudication by an electoral commission set up by Congress, was the fact that in several Southern states the government of the state was in dispute between rival factions, each of which sent in an electoral vote. Congress had to decide which return from those states to accept.

Although the commission probably decided several of these contests improperly, several of the Southern states probably had violated the law in denying votes to Negroes, and it was commonly said at the time that the Democrats stole the election at the polls and the Republicans stole it back again in Congress.

[NormanStewart]

States reply to queries on soldier vote

President makes no analysis

Washington (UP) –
The White House today revealed without comment or analysis replies from 42 of the 48 governors to President Roosevelt’s soldier vote questionnaire, and they showed that 15 states definitely will not accept the federal ballot for counting, while only six states definitely will.

Replies were received from 24 Republican and 18 Democratic governors. Four Democratic and two Republicans have yet to reply.

Response to queries

The replies were in response to telegraphic queries dispatched by Mr. Roosevelt last Wednesday – a few hours after Congress sent a predominantly state’s rights bill to the White House for signature. The bill places the accent on the state ballot plan endorsed by Southern Democrats and Republicans in Congress. The use of the administration-backed federal ballot is restricted to overseas servicemen who have applied for, but have not received a state ballot by Oct. 1 – and then only if their home state has certified by July 15 that the federal ballot is acceptable for counting.

Mr. Roosevelt asked each governor to advise him whether use of the federal ballot is now authorized by his state and, if not, whether steps would be taken before July 15 to validate the use of such ballots.

To help President decide

He sought the gubernatorial advice “to enable me to form an opinion as to the effectiveness of this measure” – to help him decide whether he should veto or sign it into law. He previously announced his decision will be based on whether the pending bill will permit more servicemen to vote than does the 1942 Soldier Voting Act.

On the basis of replies received, it would be impossible to forecast with any accuracy whether Mr. Roosevelt will sign or veto the bill.

Here is a box score:

States replying	42
States definitely accepting the federal ballot	6
States definitely rejecting	15
States that probably will accept	14
States that probably will reject	3
States undecided	4
States not replying	6

West Virginia won’t

The gubernatorial replies showed this alignment:

• States that will permit use of federal ballot (6): California, Florida, Maryland, North Carolina, Vermont and Washington.

• States that will not (15): Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana, South Dakota, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

• States that probably will not (3): Alabama, Mississippi and Missouri.

• States that will make efforts to permit use of the federal ballot (14): Connecticut, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Utah.

• States undecided (4): Delaware, Louisiana, Nevada and North Dakota.

• States not reporting (6): Michigan, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wyoming.

Among the summarized replies were:

PENNSYLVANIA – Republican Governor Edward Martin hoped the Legislature would “take whatever appropriate action is necessary” for absentee voting before July 15.

WEST VIRGINIA – Democrat Governor Matthew M. Neely: Federal ballot not authorized. If it becomes law, the Legislature would “refuse by an overwhelming majority to utilize anything the measure contains.” He added that the state law is adequate and said:

In the circumstances, I could not think of recommending… that the many thousands of West Virginians in the armed services be insulted with an official expression of approval of the deplorably inadequate bill passed by Congress.

OHIO – Republican Governor John W. Bricker:

I am calling a special legislative session in order that Ohio laws may be further liberalized so that ballots will be available for distribution under provisions of the bill recently passed by Congress… The bill now before you will materially aid Ohio’s citizens in the Armed Forces in exercising their franchise.

MARYLAND – Democrat Governor Herbert R. O’Conor: State absentee voting law permits use of the supplementary federal ballot.

Last reply from Dewey

The last reply up to yesterday afternoon came from Republican Governor Thomas E. Dewey of New York, who had advised the President he had signed a New York State war ballot bill Saturday night. He said the New York law “complies in every respect with the provisions” of the state ballot clause in the pending federal bill and confers upon the New York State Ballot Commission “powers so broad and flexible as to make feasible the use of any ballot which complies with the state constitution.”

Governor Dewey said:

To the limit of our constitution, I shall extend every assistance to employ any and all federal facilities and ballots to ensure the right of every member of the Armed Forces from New York State to vote at the coming general election.

[NormanStewart]

Stokes: The minors

By Thomas L. Stokes

With Willkie in Wisconsin –
There’s something a bit like the glamorous Broadway star going back to the five-a-day in the cheap and drafty theaters of the provinces in Wendell Willkie’s attempted comeback for the Republican presidential nomination on this Wisconsin circuit, preliminary to the April 4 primary.

Or, perhaps, like the major league pitcher who is sent back to the minors, ostensibly to cure that ailing left wing so the old hop will come back on the ball, who left the big town with the confident assurance from the boss, “We’ll be seeing you back soon again, old boy – you’ll like that club,” which he tried to believe as he shakes hands with teammates who smile too cheerfully.

All the trappings of the big time, all the sound effects, the perfection of detail, still cling reminiscently about this Willkie troupe back on the provincial circuit. The local committees are organized. The high school auditoriums are spick and span and frilly with flags. The suppers are laid out temptingly in the back rooms of local restaurants with that dainty touch so dear to small-town women showing themselves off to strangers.

The hotel reservations are ready in advance. The autos are on hand to transport the traveling show from town to town – Mr. and Mrs. Willkie and their entourage plus a sizable press corps which remembers the big-time circuit of four years ago, the screeching, storming multitudes, the huge auditoriums wild with frenzied people.

Towns are smaller, crowds smaller

But it’s all in miniature – 1940 on a greatly reduced scale.

The towns are smaller, the crowds are smaller, and the enthusiasm is tempered with the restraint of old folks who sit placidly and boys and girls in their early teens who gape and whisper and giggle, but don’t make hilarious noises. That vigorous middle group of the electorate is no longer here. It is off somewhere in the wars or wars’ industry. But the big, shaggy fellow is working at his electioneering job here with only 24 convention votes as the prize as if the whole thousand odd were at stake.

As he sees it, that is the stake. He is here trying to prove that he’s popular with the plain folk, despite the politicians. He wants so much to be President, so very much.

You can see he has doubts now that he didn’t profess a few months back. He’s a sobered man, but still determined.

We watched him perform for the small circuit.

Heterogeneous state politically

The high school gymnasium was full – the largest crowd it has ever had except for the county fair when the governor is a guest. It was a quiet, orderly crowd, until, at 8:15, the high school band struck up “The Battle Hymn of the Republic.” Everybody stood up and applauded as he made a grand entrance with Mrs. Willkie. He came smiling down the main aisle, waving now this way, now that, just as if there were 30 or 40 thousands present. There were about 2,500.

When the mayor got up, he addressed the crowd as “Republicans, Democrats, New Dealers, Progressives, Socialists, Prohibitionists and Townsendites,” and there was a chuckled through the crowd. This is a heterogeneous state politically.

He said:

A good political meeting is like an old-time religious meeting – there’s always the hope that someone will be converted.

Mr. Willkie lost no opportunities. When he had finished speaking, it was announced he would shake hands with all who wanted to come to the platform. For over half an hour, the folks filed by.

There was nothing like that on the big circuit in 1940.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (March 21, 1944)

Stassen willing to be drafted

Cdr. Stassen

Washington (UP) –
LtCdr. Harold E. Stassen, former Governor of Minnesota, has notified Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox that while he will not seek the Republican presidential nomination, he will accept if nominated.

Mr. Knox said today that Cdr. Stassen made his position clear in a letter which came through official channels from the South Pacific where the former governor is now serving on the staff of Adm. William F. Halsey Jr., commander of the South Pacific area.

Cdr. Stassen’s letter to Mr. Knox follows:

In recent weeks, there have been numerous questions by representatives of the press in the South Pacific as to my attitude toward the current inclusion of my name in the presidential nomination discussions.

The same questions have been raised in the public press on the mainland, accompanied by an increasing amount of conjecture and speculation and attempts at interpretation and misinterpretation.

I have therefore concluded that it is desirable and in the best interests of my naval service that my position be clearly, concisely, promptly and publicly stated.

The following is the statement Cdr. Stassen wished to make publicly:

In reply to the questions that are being asked as to my attitude toward the current inclusion of my name in the presidential nomination discussions, I will frankly and directly state my position.

I do not seek and will do nothing personally to secure the nomination. If, notwithstanding this position, I were to be nominated, I would consider it to be my plain duty to accept and would do so, requesting inactive duty for a sufficient time to discuss with the people the issues and problems of the future.

I wish to make it equally clear that I will make no statement on political issues while on active duty, that I do not wish any publicity of my activities in the Navy to be used in a political manner, and that no one is authorized to make personal commitments on my behalf.

I will continue to carry out to the best of my ability those naval duties assigned to me.

[NormanStewart]

Guffey urges only voters hold U.S. jobs

He says others ‘are not worthy’

Washington (UP) –
Senators Joseph C. Guffey (D-PA) and Bennett Champ Clark (D-MO) today sought support for a bill they introduced which would require that appointees to positions in the federal government be qualified voters.

Applicants would have to be a qualified and registered or enrolled vote in a state, territory or possession of the United States. persons already employed or who have not attained voting age would be permitted to work in a temporary capacity until they could qualify by residence or age to become a voter.

Senator Guffey told a press conference:

The more vote you get out, the stronger the government should be. A man who is not interested enough to vote is not worthy of holding a federal job.

He said the effect of the bill would be to bar aliens, Southern Negroes, and District of Columbia residents from federal employment, except in the case of the latter if they have lived in Washington five years.

Senator Guffey said the bill would make him “hated” by government employees. He told reporters he thought knowledge of history should be a prerequisite for voting as well, but that is a matter up to the states.

[NormanStewart]

President gets soldier vote bill

He has 10 days to sign or veto it

Washington (UP) –
The compromise soldier vote bill reached the White House at 2:45 p.m. ET yesterday – five days after Congress completed action on it.

President Roosevelt has 10 days – not counting next Sunday – to sign or veto the bill. If he has done neither by midnight of March 31, it automatically becomes law.

Six governors have not yet replied to his telegram asking whether their states allow the use of a federal ballot and, if not, whether validating action will be taken by July 15.

Nearly half of the governors replying revealed that their states would not, or probably would not, permit use of the federal ballot.

[NormanStewart]

Willkie warns of federal rule

Every ill exploited, candidate declares

Ripon, Wisconsin (UP) –
Charging that the Democratic Party was “a vehicle for the maintenance of power,” Wendell L. Willkie last night accused the New Deal of aiming at “eventual adoption of a government-controlled society.”

The candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, speaking in the town where the GOP was organized 90 years ago, charged that the New Deal had exploited the theory that the only solution for “every ill” was complete government control.

The speech was Mr. Willkie’s second in his campaign to win the support of Wisconsin delegates to the Republican National Convention.

Mr. Willkie said:

The panic of 1929 and the devastating years that followed gave impetus and encouragement to the thesis that the solution lay solely in government control.

The total result, consistently fostered by the administration, has been the illusion that there is conflict between a society built upon economic incentive and a society of human welfare.

Mr. Willkie said that the modern Democratic Party:

…provides us with a clear example of… subversion, by which an inner group has carefully nurtured its power for 12 years.

[NormanStewart]

Stokes: Willkie’s limb

By Thomas L. Stokes

With Willkie in Wisconsin –
Governor Dewey of New York is very much the man who isn’t here.

Wendell Willkie has him constantly on his mind.

In his campaign here for Wisconsin delegates in the April 4 primary, the 1940 Republican candidate strikes at his rival for the 1944 nomination without naming him, by using him as a symbol of the type of candidate who refuses to discuss the issues as he himself is discussing them in his tour through this state.

Mr. Willkie gets into the subject by listing three categories of Republican candidates.

First, representatives of “narrow nationalism and economic Toryism.” In conversations, he includes Gen. MacArthur, who is entered in the primary, in this category as well as Governor Bricker of Ohio, who is not a candidate here, though he names neither publicly.

Second, those who would avoid the issues and depend upon rallying all sorts of elements to their banners. In this he includes Governor Dewey, who has a nearly complete slate in the primary.

Third, those who believe in international cooperation and an expanding domestic economy that recognizes social advances. In this he includes, principally, Wendell Willkie.

GOP can’t win if–

The Republican Party, he says, cannot possibly win if it nominates anybody in the first two categories.

It cannot help but win, he predicts, if it nominates a representative of the third category – again, Wendell Willkie.

In his calculations, Mr. Willkie is largely overlooking Gen. MacArthur and LtCdr. Harold Stassen, ex-Governor of Minnesota, who is also entered in the primary because he does not think either will cut much of a figure. It would be hard, too, for him to attack LtCdr. Stassen because the latter, his floor manager at Philadelphia in 1940, fits into Mr. Willkie’s own private third category.

Governor Dewey is the man he fears here. Political analysts tell you that this is, basically, a Dewey state, and that if it weren’t for the confusion over whether Governor Dewey is a candidate, he would easily come out on top. Governor Dewey tried to withdraw his delegates on the plea that he isn’t a candidate, but some 16 of them stayed in the race. But people out here take Mr. Dewey more at his word than do more cynical Easterners.

Over and over again

So, Mr. Willkie hammers over and over again on the theme he expressed most succinctly at Oshkosh, in describing the second category:

There is another group of delegates who say they should be elected on the basis of no discussion of the issues at all. They represent the argument that if a man says he is not a candidate, then you can tell the people that you represent all the divergent elements on America. The 1944 convention, them, would be not a convention of principle but merely a political convention, a depending for nomination through cleverness. There must be no hotel-room nomination.

The inference from Mr. Willkie’s discussion of the Republican Party and what it should be and should do is that if does not follow his prescription he cannot go along with it.

Mr. Willkie is glad to have this inference get out and the interpretation that goes along with it, namely, that he might bolt the party and lead a third party or independent movement. But nobody who knows Mr. Willkie well takes any stock in any third party movement. He, himself, has made a careful examination of state laws and discovered that third parties can get on ballots in only a negligible number of states.

His dissent rather would take the form of refusing to support the Republican candidate, perhaps even supporting Mr. Roosevelt.

He is working himself out that far on the limb.