Election 1944: Pre-convention news

[NormanStewart]

Prohibitionists name attorney as candidate

Los Angeles, California (UP) –
Claude A. Watson, formally notified of his nomination as the National Prohibition Party’s presidential candidate, today called for a fight against governmental bureaucracy and extravagance and against the “strongly entrenched liquor power.”

His acceptance speech was the first political platform to be announced officially by a 1944 presidential nominee.

The Los Angeles attorney said:

Today we find the liquor power again strongly entrenched, in legal and quasi-legal partnership with government everywhere. It is the same old liquor power, the same liquor traffic, but in even more insidious form than when the righteous wrath of an aroused nation sounded its death knell.

Mr. Watson described his platform as a “four-square” stand and urged an end to “overlapping, liberty-destroying bureaucracy” and demanded “real economy” in government.

Calling for freedom of individual enterprise and an end to government competition with private business, he said his party was still opposed to establishment of monopolies of trade and wealth.

[NormanStewart]

Communists ask new name

Browder urges wide discussion on change

New York (UP) –
Earl Browder, general secretary of the Communist Party, recommended last night that the organization at its May convention delete the word “party” from its name, but continue under a title “indicating its character as a communist association for political education.”

The recommendation was in a report by Browder to a meeting of the national committee, which unanimously approved the proposal and others involving policy and party organization changes.

Browder asked that the proposed name change “be thrown open for wide discussion, in which the general public is invited to participate,” before the May convention.

Challenge national policy

He suggested a name:

…more exactly representing its [the party’s] role as a part of a larger unity in the nation, not seeking any partisan advancement – a name, for example, like “American Communist Political Association.”

The committee, which concluded a three-day session today, issued a statement warning that the “Win-the-War” policies of the nation will be challenged in the coming national election.

The statement said:

A rejection by the people of all defeatist attacks on the President’s and the nation’s war policy is an inseparable part of the successful and speedy victorious conclusion of the war. The national election of 1944 is as much a test of the people’s support of the war as was the election of 1864.

Big Three conferences lauded

The statement said it was evident that present political issues “will be decided within the form of the two-party system traditional in our country” and said the party’s contribution in the election:

… will be to aid the struggle for the unity of the people in support of the nation’s war policies, without partisan or class advantages.

The committee lauded the Moscow, Tehran and Cairo agreements and described them as “a program to banish the specter of civil wars and war between nations for several generations,” but warned that the war “is not yet won. The really decisive fighting lies ahead.”

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (January 11, 1944)

Soldier vote compromise due

Washington (UP) –
House and Senate leaders predicted compromise legislation assigning specific duties to the federal and state governments to break the soldier-vote deadlock inherited from the last session of Congress.

Speaker Sam Rayburn said the soldier-vote bill could be passed this week if it were approved by the Elections Committee today or tomorrow, but indications were that House action would not come before next week.

---

Eberharter challenges GOP

By Robert Taylor, Press Washington correspondent

Washington –
Now that Republican National Chairman Harrison E. Spangler has predicted a pro-Republican vote by the men in the armed services, the Republicans in Congress ought to support federal soldier-vote legislation, Rep. Herman P. Eberharter (D-Pittsburgh) told the House.

Mr. Eberharter, reopening the issue as the 78th Congress’ second session convened yesterday, based his challenge on Mr. Spangler’s assertion that a survey by four officers showed a majority of the Armed Forces “against the administration.”

That estimate contrasted with Democratic claims that 70% or more of the Armed Force vote would go for President Roosevelt if he is a fourth-term candidate.

The Pittsburgh Congressman pointed out that there won’t be any soldier vote to speak of for the Republican or Democratic nominee “unless Congress does something about the pending soldier-vote bills.”

He said:

The Spangler announcement ought to mean that the Republican members of this House will cease their efforts to make voting by the soldiers and sailors difficult, if not impossible.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (January 12, 1944)

Old Guard hit by GOP committee revolt

By Thomas L. Stokes, Scripps-Howard staff writer

Chicago, Illinois –
Underneath the surface serenity of the Republican National Committee’s meeting here occurred one of the bitterest revolts in recent years against Old Guard leadership, personified now in RNC Chairman Harrison E. Spangler. It was a revolt that may have an important bearing on the national convention opening here June 26.

It all took place in a series of secret sessions and never broke openly on the floor.

The revolt was directed at the alleged “one-man” rule of Chairman Spangler. It was charged that he had failed to consult the executive committee or other members of the National Committee in the management of party affairs.

The rebels numbered more than a majority of the 106 members – aside from other sympathizers who did not participate actively. They included supporters of Wendell L. Willkie and of Thomas E. Dewey, now regarded as the leading candidates for the nomination, along with others not directly associated with any particular presidential aspirant.

They complained of a domination of party affairs by the Old Guard through the influence of Chairman Spangler and others, including Henry P. Fletcher of Rhode Island (general counsel and former chairman), and satellites of Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio, particularly in the South, among them National Committeeman R. B. Creager of Texas, who was the Taft floor manager at the 1940 convention when Mr. Taft was runner-up to Mr. Willkie.

Senator Taft and his lieutenants are now promoting Governor John W. Bricker of Ohio.

The revolt was represented as not concerned with any particular candidacies but as aimed at “closed corporation management” by the Old Guard which, some revolters said might result in a backroom nomination of a candidate less liberal than desired by the rank and file, and thus detrimental to the party’s chances.

The leading spirit in the revolt was National Committeeman Dan Whetstone of Montana, a newspaper publisher. More than half of the revolters were women. They had plenty to say.

The protest and demands of the revolters were taken to Chairman Spangler by a committee of five. They pointed out that Mr. Spangler has not called a meeting of the executive committee since he has been chairman and has not consulted members on policy and management of his Washington office, and complained that he has “disbanded” the Republican Finance Committee. They demanded that he call a meeting of the executive committee within 30 days, and that the committee meet regularly hereafter every 30 days.

The chairman was obviously impressed. Approached later, he declined to discuss the revolt, and spoke angrily of “fifth columnists.”

[NormanStewart]

Background of news –
Dewey stresses thrift

By Jay G. Hayden, North American Newspaper Alliance

Washington –
Because Governor Thomas E. Dewey is by all odds the most likely Republican nominee for President, and he knows it, his annual message to the New York Legislature last week assumed nationwide interest.

Particularly, this message is being compared with one another New York Governor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, delivered in the same circumstances just 12 years ago.

From the standpoint of comparison, the remarkable thing is the unlikeness of these messages. Mr. Roosevelt’s bristled with obvious thrusts against the national administration of Herbert Hoover.

He said:

Not since the dark days of the sixties have the people of this state and of the nation faced problems as grave, situations as difficult, suffering as severe. The economies of America, and indeed of the whole world, are out of joint.

The states were doing their best, Mr. Roosevelt said, but because the problems are:

…national in scope, it is impossible to solve them without leadership and a plan of action by our national government… The public asks that they be given a new leadership.

‘Political bombast’ lacking

In contrast, there is not one word in Governor Dewey’s current message that even his most captious critic could spot as “political bombast” or “playing to the national gallery.”

Even so, the Dewey message contains many implications both as to future national policy and the character and political views of the man who wrote it.

Its high point is easily the announcement that the state has a $140-million surplus, coupled with a recommendation that the whole of this be saved for the after-war “rainy day.”

Mr. Dewey said:

Either tax reduction or increased spending at this time would, in my judgment, be unsound and irresponsible. We must never forget that this is not a normal surplus… It has come to us out of the hurricane of war. It can be, it must be, safeguarded to meet post-war needs.

Through the whole message runs the idea, not only that the states are financially better able than the federal government to handle many post-war problems, but a realistic thrift in dealing with them is imperative.

Bonus according to need

Whereas President Roosevelt has proposed a severance bonus for “every soldier,” Mr. Dewey differentiates according to need. Of 100,000 New York servicemen probably to be discharged during 1944, he says:

About one in five is likely to be unemployed and in search of a job for varying periods of time.

His plan is to give this unfortunate “one-fifth” fully adequate aid, rather than a bonus indiscriminately to all soldiers, poor or rich.

He says there has been much “talk” of federal action, “thus far exactly nothing has been done” and “returning veterans cannot wait for Washington.”

Mr. Dewey emphasizes that the main after-war economic hope is the revival of private enterprise. He cautions the Legislature not to do anything that will “interfere with or hinder the fullest possible productivity and employment of our people.”

Other features of the message carry a national appeal. Mr. Dewey presents the form of a state income-tax return that any taxpayer can fill out “in five or ten minutes.”

He enthusiastically supports governmental measures for better medical care, but stipulates that these should be a “partnership of government and the medical profession, functioning cooperatively,” rather than in the nature of complete “governmentalization.”

[NormanStewart]

Democratic majority cut

Washington (UP) –
The Democratic Party was threatened with loss of voting control of the House today when Rep. Joseph A. Gavagan (D-NY) resigned to cut party membership to 217 and leave it with the narrowest majority since 1931.

The division of the House is now 217 Democrats, 208 Republicans, four independents and six vacancies which will be filled by special elections.

Two Pennsylvania seats will be settled Jan. 18. One was formerly held by a Republican and the other by a Democrat, but observers predict the GOP will capture both.

---

Soldier vote proponents aided

Washington (UP) –
Congressional leaders declared today that prospects of a bitter fight over soldier-vote legislation were only slightly lessened by President Roosevelt’s assertion that absentee voting for servicemen could not be effective without participation by the federal government.

Proponents of federal participation, nevertheless, welcomed the support given them in the President’s message to Congress and his fireside address to the nation last night. They said it should help considerably in beating down charges that a federal plan would violate both states’ rights and the Constitution.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (January 13, 1944)

In Washington –
Republicans deny blocking soldier vote

Members of House election group strike back at Democrat accuser

Washington (UP) –
Four of the five Republican members of the House Elections Committee today denied charges by Democratic Leader John W. McCormack that they had blocked development of a workable soldier-vote bill and in turn accused him of being partially responsible for the delay.

The fifth Republican member – Rep. Ralph A. Gamble of New York – was recovering from pneumonia and his office demanded to know how he could block any legislation from a hospital bed.

Confident of satisfactory bill

While blaming Mr. McCormack and other administration leaders with slowing progress on the soldier-vote issue, the four Republicans nevertheless expressed confidence they, with the aid of three Democratic committee members, would soon be able to get a satisfactory bill to the floor.

Rep. Karl M. LeCompte (R-IA) declared that:

You can be sure that by the end of the week, we will report out a bill that will give every member of the Armed Forces, the American Red Cross, merchant seamen and civilians overseas a chance to vote in the coming elections.

Worley blamed for delay

Rep. Harris Ellsworth (R-OR) charged that Elections Chairman Eugene Worley (D-TX) had forestalled a committee showdown for fear his bill would be defeated. Mr. Worley’s bill would call upon the federal government to print, distribute and collect ballots and then send them to the individual states, which would determine their validity.

In the Senate, where a purely state-control bill has already been passed, administration forces were busy seeking a compromise similar to Mr. Worley’s proposal. There were reports that several Senators who voted for the original state-control bill were ready to support a measure for limited federal participation.

[NormanStewart]

Roosevelt’s doctor: ‘Take it easy’

Washington (UP) –
President Roosevelt’s doctor has asked him to “take it easy for a while,” the White House disclosed today.

White House Press Secretary Stephen T. Early said RAdm. Ross T. McIntire, the President’s physician, asked Mr. Roosevelt to maintain a relatively light routine for the time being.

The President has just gone through an attack on influenza and the labor incident to the State of the Union and budget messages.

[NormanStewart]

Walker to quit chairmanship

Announcement due Jan. 22 at Chicago conclave

Chicago, Illinois (UP) –
Postmaster General Frank C. Walker, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, is expected to resign that post at the committee’s meeting in Washington, Jan. 22.

Sources within the committee said it was understood Mr. Walker would submit his resignation at the same time the group meets to choose the 1944 presidential nomination site.

Robert E. Hannegan, Commissioner of Internal Revenue and formerly of St. Louis, has been mentioned prominently as his successor.

Mr. Walker and the executive vice chairman of the committee, Ambrose O’Connell, arrived from New York yesterday to confer with Mayor Edward J. Kelly regarding Chicago as the site for the 1944 convention.

He said he had “no comment” on reports that he would announce his resignation as committee chairman during his stay in Chicago.

He did not know, he said, what Mr. Roosevelt intended to do regarding the approaching election, adding:

I doubt that anyone knows what the President’s political plans for the future are.

With Chicago practically assured as the Democratic convention city, Mr. Walker indicated the date would be during the latter part of July or early August.

He said:

The Democrats are going to conduct a short, snappy campaign and the date makes little difference.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (January 14, 1944)

In Washington –
State-controlled soldier-vote bill is given approval

House Elections Committee’s measure rejects Army and Navy plea for federal distribution of ballots

Soldier vote issue may affect 7 million

Washington (UP) –
Senator Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. (R-MA) said today that seven million American fighting men will be overseas by election time in November.

Mr. Lodge made this estimate at a Senate Elections Committee hearing on the Lodge-Austin compromise soldier-vote bill.

President Roosevelt in his Christmas Eve broadcast said 3,800,000 men are already overseas and that the total will reach five million by July 1.

Washington (UP) –
The House Elections Committee today approved a soldier-vote bill leaving control over absentee ballots for servicemen and women in the hands of the states.

The proposal would authorize the Secretaries of War and Navy to send cards to all members of the Armed Forces and the Red Cross, merchant seamen and civilians serving overseas, requesting them to notify the secretary of their home state if they desire an absentee ballot. The state officials would then forward the ballots and upon their return dispatch them to local election boards.

Retains Senate provision

The committee-approved bill retains that provision of the Senate legislation recommending to the several states that “appropriate machinery” be enacted to handle the disposition of the presidential ballots.

The principal difference between the bill approved by the House committee and that passed by the Senate is that the House measure provides that the Secretaries of War and Navy should place in the hands of service personnel overseas by Aug. 15 a postal application for a ballot.

The Army and Navy have gone on record as holding that only a system of federal distribution of ballots is workable. Both bills reject that contention.

Coalition defeats bill

The House committee voted 7–5 for the bill, with four Republicans and three Southern Democrats approving it.

The coalition defeated a “compromise” proposal offered by Chairman Eugene Worley (D-TX), which would have provided for a federal ballot commission to prepare ballots which would be transmitted to servicemen and women by the Secretaries of War and Navy.

---

Weiss urges soldier vote

Washington –
If Congress could find no constitutional objections to the draft, it shouldn’t raise such a question about the right of soldiers to a federal ballot in the coming election, Rep. Samuel A. Weiss (D-Glassport) told the House of Representatives.

Mr. Weiss presented petitions signed by 10,000 Allegheny County residents, representing 3,100 men in the armed services and urging passage of a soldier-vote bill.

[NormanStewart]

Governors’ poll on soldier vote –
Dewey stands pat on New York law

Bricker to call special session of Ohio Legislature after Congress passes bill; other states plan action
By Robert Taylor, Press Washington correspondent

Washington –
Governor Thomas E. Dewey believes that New York’s soldier-vote law is adequate to assure every New York soldier a vote, and he plans no further recommendations to his legislature, but Governor John W. Bricker plans to call a special session of the Ohio Legislature when Congress passes a soldier-voting bill.

The two Republican presidential possibilities made their positions known in a poll of governors conducted by Senator Theodore F. Green (D-RI).

Mr. Dewey, replying through his secretary Paul E. Lockwood, implied that the federal government had failed to cooperate with New York’s soldier-vote program. The reply said:

The New York law for soldier voting appears to be complete and, if the U.S. government had consented, would have permitted every soldier from this state to vote in each of the last two elections.

Mr. Bricker reported that:

It is my purpose to call a session of the legislature as soon as Congress acts on this matter.

Nine other governors replied, like Mr. Dewey’s secretary, that their state laws were adequate to permit soldier voting, and that no further action was contemplated now. These states were Alabama, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, Oregon and Pennsylvania.

Altogether, 23 governors either consider present soldier-vote laws adequate, are waiting to see what Congress does, are considering the problem and have reached no decision, or will make legislative recommendations “if necessary.”

Two governors, John Moses of North Dakota and Lester C. Hunt of Wyoming, mentioned that they favored federal action. States in the waiting group include Delaware, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Arkansas, Idaho, Vermont and Washington.

In 16 other states, governors have made or will make recommendations to their legislatures, in regular or special session, for soldier-vote legislation. These are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma (where a referendum is planned), Rhode Island, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

Senator Green is reporting the results of his poll to the Senate Privileges and Elections Committee, as evidence of the need for federal legislation. Congressional supporters of such action have cited cumbersome and conflicting state laws as the principal reason for a federal military ballot to assure each servicemen a vote on federal offices.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (January 15, 1944)

Soldier vote fight

Washington (UP) –
A stormy House debate on soldier balloting appeared certain to take place next week after Elections Committee approval of a bill authorizing the War and Navy Departments to send cards to servicemen asking them to write their home states for ballots.

The House committee version would amend the Senate-approved bill which merely recommends that the states enact legislation to facilitate soldier voting.

No sooner had a Republican-Southern Democrat coalition approved the measure 7–5 yesterday than Committee Chairman Eugene Worley (D-TX) blasted it as a “ghost bill” which would not enable servicemen to vote next November and would “destroy their morale more than all the enemy bullets, bombs and propaganda have been able to do.”

Mr. Worley had offered a compromise plan authorizing the War and Navy Secretaries to distribute ballots to the men overseas which would then be collected and forwarded to the several states for validation and counting. This the committee bypassed, but sentiment among Democratic members of the House appeared to be swinging in that direction.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (January 16, 1944)

Democrats to point to military record

Syracuse, New York (UP) – (Jan. 15)
Democratic National Committee chairman Frank C. Walker said tonight that his party would campaign in this presidential election year on the administration’s military record.

Declaring in a Jackson Day address to Upstate New York Democratic leaders that the party leadership had brought into being “the best equipped, most admirable Army and Navy in American history,” Mr. Walker added:

We shall go before the country in the campaign year of 1944 and report to the country what we did and we shall not be afraid.

[NormanStewart]

Cabinet named, Black is ready for Presidency

Portland man files formal application of ‘Equal Rights’

Portland, Oregon (UP) – (Jan. 15)
He’s the only member of the “Equal Rights” Party, but Henry Black, a Portland paint contractor, is perfectly willing to be its nominee for President of the United States.

He has filed declarations in California and Washington and is also willing to represent Republican and Democratic parties if they would care to nominate him (he is a registered Republican, he admits).

There’s no shadow-boxing with Henry Black. He has already appointed his Cabinet. Here it is:

SECRETARY OF WAR
Gen. Douglas MacArthur

SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
Lt. Gen. John L. DeWitt

ATTORNEY GENERAL
Senator Burton K. Wheeler (D-MT)

SECRETARY OF STATE
Col. Robert R. McCormick, Chicago publisher

SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
Beardsley Ruml, pay-as-you-go tax planner

POSTMASTER GENERAL
Sewall L. Avery, president of Montgomery Ward & Company

SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
Rep. Martin Dies (D-RX)

SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
Vice President Henry Wallace

SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
Wendell L. Willkie

SECRETARY OF LABOR
John L. Lewis

[NormanStewart]

McFarland: Tip from Chicago

By Kermit McFarland

Some Republicans still cling to the high-tariff principles of the Coolidge-Hoover era, but on the whole Republicans have become lukewarm on this issue, many are in agreement on the reciprocal trade policies of the Roosevelt administration and most, at least, prefer to apply tariffs with a large measure of restraint.

In the last Republican national platform, the traditional tariff ideas of the Old Guard were toned down a good deal, although the tariff plank, as usual, was phrased in somewhat ambiguous language.

What the 1944 platform will contain will depend, probably, on the presidential candidate and on the dickers that go on among the platform carpenters in the backrooms of the convention.

But if it is left to front-running Republican powers in this state, the platform will scream for the old Smoot-Hawley type of tariff – and loud!

This was tipped off at Chicago last week when the Republican National Committee adopted a resolution opposing the return to this country, at “distress” prices, of surplus goods sent abroad for war purposes.

G. Mason Owlett, Pennsylvania national committeeman, sponsored the resolution, but prefaced it with a resounding high-tariff speech. He went after the “free traders” and demanded “proper defenses” against foreign-made products.

Mr. Owlett is a high-tariff proponent, you might even say a highest tariff proponent. He is the mouthpiece for Uncle Joe Grundy, ex-Senator, champion tariff lobbyist and still, at 80, the push behind the Republican wheelbarrow. And Mr. Owlett undoubtedly will be a delegate to the presidential convention.

Unless there is an uprising in the April primary, when delegates are elected, Mr. Grundy will be in the saddle when the Pennsylvania delegation goes to Chicago in June, stories about Joe Pew and his money notwithstanding. Mr. Pew, oil heir and would-be kingmaker, is reported maneuvering to unhorse Mr. Grundy, but he has been pursuing this course in vain for several years.

Anyway, the two are well on the way to making a deal which would preclude any but the most surreptitious efforts on Mr. Pew’s part to trip Mr. Grundy.

It began when Alexander Cooper was appointed by Governor Martin to Common Pleas Court. That appointment was designed to appease a local pressure group seeking the Superior Court post held by the late Judge Joseph Stadtfeld; this move to make way for the appointment of former Governor James to the Superior Court, where he formerly sat.

Mr. James is the Pew candidate for this job and if he gets it, Mr. Pew undoubtedly will line up behind Attorney General James H. Duff for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate. Mr. Duff is the Grundy-Martin candidate as of now.

It all adds up the probability that the Pew-Grundy-Martin factions will be consolidated to battle Senator James J. Davis’ candidacy for renomination. This inevitably will become tangled up with the delegate scrap because any stray opposition to the Pew-Grundy-Martin axis will pitch in with the Davis camp.

This combination will play a loose game with the rival presidential candidates, hoping to line up a controllable delegation which can throw its weight around at the convention in such a manner as will profit the combination the most.

How well the combination can control the delegates may depend, to a high degree, on whether or not Mr. Duff can beat Mr. Davis.

[NormanStewart]

Tax collector to head drive for 4th term

Democratic campaign expected to be similar to that of 1940
By Lyle C. Wilson, United Press staff writer

Washington – (Jan. 15)
President Roosevelt’s fourth-term campaign – now generally regarded as inevitable – will apparently be similar to that of 1940 but conducted under new management.

The President’s only response to public inquiry about his political plans has been that the question was picayune.

But some of the most experiences political observers in this capital are convinced now that he will be a candidate for one reason if for no other.

Only one with chance

That reason is that no other Democrat would have more than the merest chance to be elected.

Observers believe that the only Democrat who would have any kind of a chance against Mr. Roosevelt in a fight for delegates and a convention showdown would be Secretary of State Cordell Hull. And even his best political friends concede that if Mr. Hull licked Mr. Roosevelt in the convention, the Republicans could defeat him in the election.

Furthermore, there is no one here who thinks for a moment that Mr. Hull would make the attempt.

Will accept ‘draft’

Therefore, with all war questions aside, there is persuasive evidence that Mr. Roosevelt this year will adopt the strategy of 1940 and permit an overwhelming majority of convention delegates to be pledged to him and then accept their nomination for another term in the White House.

The new campaign manager is evidently to be Robert E. Hannegan, a Missourian who is presently Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The capital expects Postmaster General Frank C. Walker to resign the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee when that body meets here next week to fix the time and place of the nominating convention.

Mr. Walker took the job as a favor to Mr. Roosevelt after Edward J. Flynn of New York resigned last January.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (January 17, 1944)

GOP fears political consequences –
Stokes: Republicans face on-spot decision on soldier vote

Choice is to support so-called states’-rights bill or to get behind federal-state compromise
By Thomas L. Stokes, Scripps-Howard staff writer

Washington –
Republicans in Congress face an important decision in their attitude on the soldier-vote bills which are expected to come up soon in House and Senate.

The question is: Shall they join with Southern Democrats in supporting the Eastland-Rankin “states’-rights” bill, so-called, which would leave soldier voting to varying and complicated state laws?

Secretaries Stimson and Knox hold that voting under state laws would be impossible for the Army and Navy to administer, although they take no position on any specific legislation.

Or shall they support compromise state-federal-cooperation bills prepared in both branches, which would provide for a simple ballot on President, Vice President and members of Congress, to be distributed and collected by the Army and Navy and turned over to state officials for counting?

GOP attitude disturbing

A tipoff on the probable official attitude of the Republican Party in the House, where the real test will come, was seen in the solid Republican vote in a House Elections Committee for the Rankin-Eastland “states’-rights” bill. Four Republicans were joined by three Southern Democrats to defeat the compromise federal-state measure sponsored by Rep. Worley (D-TX) and to report the “states’-rights” bill to the House. The vote was 7–5.

This attitude of Republican committee members, and reports that House Republican Leader Joe Martin (R-MA) is active behind the scenes in trying to put over the “states’-rights” bill, are disturbing some Republicans on both sides of the Capitol who are for the compromise state-federal bill and are fearful of political consequences for their party if they don’t provide some practical means for servicemen to vote.

They feel that the party has already suffered politically from the coalition of some Senate Republicans with Southern Democrats to pass the Eastland bill in the Senate a few weeks ago, they see an opportunity for the party to retrieve itself by supporting in both House and Senate compromise federal-state bills which the Army and Navy can administer, so that voting will be easy.

A compromise federal-state bill now before the Senate Privileges and Elections Committee, sponsored by Senator Lucas (D-IL), is expected to be reported out this week. Senator Lucas is confident this measure will be approved by the Senate, as there have been some switches since the Senate acted previously.

Martin on spot

This puts the issue squarely up to House Republicans, who can gang up with Southern Democrats to defeat such a bill and put over the Eastland-Rankin bill, or can throw their strength behind the Worley measure and pass it with the help of Democrats outside the South. Some few Southern Democrats will support the Worley bill.

Because of the parliamentary situation, which will bring the Eastland-Rankin “states’-rights” bill before the House, it will be possible for Republicans to avoid a record vote on the Worley bill, which the Texas Congressman will offer from the floor as substitute.

He has announced he will seek a record vote.

[NormanStewart]

Fourth term talk just like 1939-40 pattern

So, when Democrats meet this week, they probably will lay plans

Washington (UP) –
The Democratic National Committee meets here this week probably to elect a new chairman and to prepare for the 1944 campaign in which President Roosevelt is now generally regarded as an inevitable fourth-term candidate.

There is little support here for reports that Southern states would bolt a Roosevelt candidacy. But many persons do believe Mr. Roosevelt is the only Democrat who would have a chance to carry such vital states as Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey.

Therefore, practical politicians hereabouts incline to the belief that Mr. Roosevelt is the only Democrat with a chance to win this year. The National Committee meeting is likely to develop some fourth-term enthusiasm, and there is no hint that it will be discouraged from the White House. The committee’s scheduled business is to select the time and place of the nominating convention. Chicago in mid-July is expected to be the decision.

Wagner-Dingell bill attacked

Washington (UP) –
Rep. Stephan A. Day (R-IL) charged today that President Roosevelt has endorsed a program to place all practicing physicians and hospitals under government control as part of a “fourth-term platform.”

He said the Wagner-Dingell bill is a detailed program for socialized medicine and:

…a faithful epitome of what the New Dealers have in mind for the communistic America they now have on the Washington planning boards.

He said the bill, now before the House Ways and Means Committee, is the “boldest attempt of the New Dealers to date to apply communism by legislative compulsion.”

Rankin sees victory for vote bill

Washington (UP) –
John E. Rankin (D-MS), of the House Elections Committee, insisted today that the committee-approved “states’-rights” soldier-vote bill meets all fair objections and predicted its speedy passage by the House soon after debate begins Thursday.

The measure has been denounced by House Democratic Leader John W. McCormack as meaningless and ineffective.

The Army and Navy Journal, the unofficial service publication, has warned Congress that swift action on the soldier vote is vital if the Armed Forces are to gain balloting privileges this year. It called the legislation as essential as the Selective Service Act.

[NormanStewart]

Editorial: A demand from the people will get results

Some of the members of Congress either didn’t go home for their Christmas recess, or they didn’t get around much while they were home.

They would be the members of the House Committee on Election of President, Vice President and Representatives in Congress, who have rejected a soldier-vote bill.

The committed has voted, 7–5, to present to the House what the committee chairman, Congressman Eugene Worley (D-TX) calls a “ghost bill.”

It simply authorizes the War and Navy Departments to send a postcard to the members of the Armed Forces suggesting that they write to their home states for ballots on which to vote in this year’s elections.

This is not giving the Armed Forces the right to vote. Like the Senate measure, which merely recommended that the states set up an absentee voting system for the Armed Forces, it sidesteps the issue.

It doesn’t do anything.

Some of the states have made provision for taking a vote among the Armed Forces. Some have not. Some which have enacted such legislation, like Pennsylvania, did so before these was any idea that seven million fighting men might be overseas before the next election.

The Pennsylvania law was not adequate last year. It will be less adequate this year.

But it is not easy for the states to do an effective job of providing for a vote among the Armed Forces.

It is much easier for Congress to do the job. And it is Congress’ duty to do it. The responsibility of Congress to these men is greater even than its responsibility to the home front.

And there is one good way to get Congress to act, poll-tax Congressmen, coalitions, “unholy alliances,” or whatever.

That is for the people to act, to let Congress know how the voters at home feel about it. And the way to do that is to write them letters about it.

Depriving these men of a vote would be an unspeakable betrayal of the trust they left in the home front when they went abroad to fight and die.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (January 18, 1944)

Constitution violation seen

Washington (UP) –
The House Elections Committee, formally reporting its “states’-rights” soldier-vote bill, asserted today that proposed compromises involving a federal ballot could open the door ti violation of the Constitution.

The charge was denied promptly by minority members who said they did not share the majority’s “sanguine faith” that each of the 48 states will provide necessary machinery so that all members of the Armed Forces can vote.

The approved committee bill, an amended version of the Senate bill leaving overseas balloting up to the states, limits federal participation to handling of mail applications for ballots and airmail transmission of ballots to and from the voting service personnel. First reports said debate would begin Thursday but it may not come until next week.

A United Press dispatch from Allied headquarters in Algiers said censorship had been clamped down on an expression of soldier opinion on overseas voting. Correspondents may report the attitude of military personnel on the issue.

In Washington, the War Department gave no explanation of the interview ban.