Boston, Massachusetts (UP) –
Partial tests of President Roosevelt’s possible fourth term strength and Governor Thomas E. Dewey’s popularity in this state featured Massachusetts presidential primary today.
An extremely light vote was forecast, with perhaps not more than 100,000 ballots to be cast among the 2,450,000 which were distributed in the 351 cities and towns.
There is much talk about possible nominees for Vice President Most of it is based on political considerations, and these are based mostly on geography.
As for geography, this may not yet be “one world” but it is one country, and people care less where a man comes from than what he is and what he stands for.
As for politics, the best politics always is to eschew politics and get down to business. And what is the business of the summer of 1944? It is to select four men, any one of whom may have the job of leading the nation through difficult times.
Four men, we say. Because it looks like a close race between the Democratic and Republican nominees for President, and any man who may be Vice President may succeed to the Presidency.
A candidate for the Vice Presidency should be chosen not only as a potential President, but also as a possible right-hand man for the President.
If it becomes understood that the Vice President is to be an assistant President, if it is never forgotten that he may become President – as two Vice Presidents have done in the lifetime of many now living – the Vice Presidency will not be considered the graveyard of presidential hopes and it will attract the able men that the nation’s need demands.
The candidate for second place on either ticket must be a man whom the party can present to the nation as one fit in all respects to be President. A party which chooses any other kind of candidate for Vice President does not deserve the confidence of the voters.
By Mrs. Walter Ferguson
Mrs. Roosevelt can claim one distinction: She is the only person in the United States who says she is not curious about Mr. Roosevelt’s fourth term intentions. The rest of us want to know, and I think his silence makes woeful waste since reams of paper are used daily as the commentators argue the matter.
The First Lady played the same game in 1940. Until the moment she was rushed to Chicago to stampede the convention for her husband, Mrs. Roosevelt declared she had not the slightest idea about campaign plans.
Why must we be subjected to the same tricks again? People know that the First Lady is affected by the political future of her husband. After all she breezes into the White House occasionally and she gets her mail there. And, if only in her capacity as a wife whose destiny is bound up with that of her husband, she deserves to be consulted on such important family business.
The wives of the nation either will feel she is badly treated so long as this state of affairs goes on, or they will surmise that somebody believes somebody else can’t keep a secret.
Even if the President doesn’t wish to inform the people of his plans still, I think he ought to tell his wife. A pert “Wouldn’t you like to know?” to press conference questions would sound better than Mrs. Roosevelt’s present reply, “I have not been told and I do not care to be informed.”
That attitude sets the First Lady too far above other women; it makes her less human than we would like her to be.
New York (UP) –
Governor John W. Bricker of Ohio said today that he was “not interested” in the Republican vice-presidential nomination.
Mr. Bricker will address the Ohio Society dinner tonight. His speech will be broadcast at 10:30 p.m. ET by WJAS.
He was asked during a press conference:
Would you accept a position on the Republican ticket as Vice President?
Mr. Bricker said:
I am not interested in that at all. I am a candidate for President and nothing else.
Mr. Bricker’s campaign manager, Roy d. Moore, predicted that his candidate would have at least 257 delegates’ votes pledged at the convention start, June 26. Mr. Moore declined to say from which states the 257 votes would come. He also predicted that there would be no first-ballot nomination.
Five hundred and thirty votes are necessary to nominate.
The Pittsburgh Press (April 26, 1944)
Nominees for state posts chosen
By Kermit McFarland
An impressive showing by Governor Thomas E. Dewey, despite a record light vote, featured Allegheny County’s presidential-year primary yesterday.
Mr. Dewey, although his name did not appear on the ballot, piled up a surprising write-in vote, overwhelming all other Republican possibilities in this informal contest.
22,151 Dewey write-ins
In 927 of the county’s 1,017 districts, Mr. Dewey attracted 22,151 write-in votes compared to 1,611 for Gen. Douglas MacArthur, his nearest Republican opponent.
President Roosevelt polled 1,955 Republican write-ins. On his own Democratic ballot, where he was unopposed for the presidential preference, Mr. Roosevelt collected 82,397 votes in 1,009 of the 1,017 districts.
Mr. Dewey’s showing, in the absence of any organized campaign on his behalf, was regarded as remarkable by local political circles.
Wide popularity shown
His popularity was demonstrated by a similar write-in vote throughout the state, but in some eastern countries this was attributed to a last-minute campaign by Pennsylvania friends.
Estimates of the vote cast in yesterday’s primary did not exceed 30%. It was possible the lightest vote in the county’s history notwithstanding the absence of thousands of voters in the Armed Forces.
Otherwise, the primary here was featured by a close fight for the Republican Congressional nomination in the new 29th district, by the defeat of David C. “Cap” Davies for the Republican senatorial nomination in the 45th district (South Hills) and the renomination of State Rep. John R. Bentley in a bitter Democratic contest in the 12th, 13th and 14th Wards.
Howard E. Campbell, president of the Pittsburgh Real Estate Board, who had the endorsement of both the Young Republicans and the Old-Line Republicans in a pre-primary deal, narrowly escaped defeat for the Congressional nomination in the 29th district.
McDowell is close behind
Former Congressman John McDowell, Wilkinsburg publisher, running without the backing of the Young Republican organization he helped to organize, ran only 360 votes behind Mr. Campbell with six precincts missing in the district. The official count, to start Friday, could alter the result.
Three other candidates split up the vote.
Mr. Davies, secretary to County Controller Robert G. Woodside, was generally forecast a winner in the 45th district senatorial fight, but trailed Thomas Lewis Jones, young Baldwin Township attorney, in a close fight.
Dispute recalled
The fight against Homewood attorney Mr. Bentley was led by Charles A. Papale, 12th Ward Democratic chairman, and resulted from a dispute between ward alderman Mr. Papale and the Democratic county organization over city and county patronage.
Mr. Papale put Julius Zangrille, a 12th Ward plumber, into the race in an effort to wheedle more jobs from Democratic headquarters. He was joined in the contest against Mr. Bentley by Louis Leff, 14th Ward chairman.
On the basis of nearly-complete returns, Mr. Bentley was renominated by a margin of 3–2.
In other Republican Congressional contests, Sheriff Robert J. Corbett in the 30th district (North Hills) and James G. Fulton of Dormont, now a lieutenant in the Navy, were easy winners, each in a field of five. Mr. Fulton will be the Republican nominee in the 31st district (South Hills).
All candidates slated by the Democratic organization were nominated safely. Only Mr. Bentley had a serious contest.
Woman wins race
In the Republican legislative contests, a feature of the results was the runaway victory of Bernyce Lysle, the only woman in the Republican primary, in the 2nd legislative district. She almost doubled her nearest opponent, Alexander Dlugonski, a previous candidate, who was also nominated.
The only other woman nominated for public office in the Allegheny County primary was Mrs. Emma Bray of Baldwin Township, who won a Democratic nomination for the Legislature in the 12th district. The slate on which she was a candidate was unopposed.
The 12th district turned up with a close race in the Republican legislative primary, late returns showing Baldwin Township attorney Irwin I. Tryon pushing Rep. Norman H. Laughner of Crescent Township for the fourth place on the ticket. Reps. Edwin C. Ewing and George W. Cooper of Mount Lebanon and John R. Haudenshield of Carnegie were safely renominated.
Christler wins
Charles M. Christler, 14th Ward attorney and former legislator, easily won the Republican legislative nomination in the 5th district, despite opposition of Young Republicans who backed William F. White (Brushton restaurant operator) who ran second, just ahead of Alderman Kenneth H. Davies of the 14th Ward.
In the 10th district, Swissvale auditor Robert J. Strathearn broke the organization-endorsed slate by a wide margin. He defeated Walter C. Feick, Glassport dentist backed by organization leaders. Also nominated were Albert E. Beech (a state employee of Wilkinsburg), Paul M. Bardes of Oakmont (former legislator) and William P. H. Johnston (Penn Township auto dealer).
McNair is victor
Former Mayor William M. McNair, running with the support of the Democratic machine, easily won the legislative nomination in the 4th district and will oppose Rep. O. B. Hannon in November.
Mr. McNair defeated Michael J. Holland, a city fireman. Mr. Hannon was renominated by a heavy majority over former legislator Harry B. Ackermann and Edward W. Brinling.
Party men win
In other statewide contests, candidates backed by party organizations easily won nominations.
Superior Court Judge Arthur H. James and Common Pleas Judge J. Frank Graff of Kittanning won Republican nominations for the State Superior Court by handsome majorities over Judge Chester H. Rhodes, a Democrat who entered the Republican primary.
Judge Rhodes, nominated for a second term by the Democrats, and Auditor General F. Clair Ross, named as his running mate for the Superior Court, polled similar majorities over Judge James, former Governor, who took a fling at the Democratic primary.
In the only other statewide Democratic contest, State Treasurer G. Harold Wagner was nominated for Auditor General over John F. Breslin, an assistant in the Auditor General’s office.
Davis renominated
U.S. Senator James J. Davis was renominated by the Republicans and Congressman Francis J. Myers of Philadelphia was named for the Senate by the Democrats. Neither had primary opposition.
Also nominated without opposition were Democrat federal judge Charles Alvin Jones and Republican Justice Howard W. Hughes for the State Supreme Court, and Democrat Ramsey S. Black, third assistant postmaster general, and Republican City Treasurer Edgar W. Baird of Philadelphia for State Treasurer.
By Helen Kirkpatrick
London, England –
Britons traveling to the United States on business in recent weeks have been admonished by Prime Minister Churchill himself against any talk or action which might in any way be interpreted as interference in American politics.
Among the usual documents that outward-bound travelers receive has been a letter from Mr. Churchill strongly urging Britons going to the United States not to make any statement or engage in any discussions which might subsequently be construed as indication of the British attitude toward American elections. He expresses his determination that nothing shall be done to endanger the good relations between the United States and Britain.
Ely, New Deal critic, lags behind
Boston, Massachusetts (UP) –
Complete unofficial returns from the Massachusetts presidential primary showed today that Democrats elected a slate of delegates largely unpledged but favoring a fourth term for President Roosevelt.
Only six of the 56 Democratic district delegates chosen were pledged to former Governor Joseph B. Ely, anti-New Dealer and fourth term foe, who is a candidate for his party’s presidential nomination in Massachusetts.
In the two Congressional districts where the popularity of New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey was put to a minor test, the pro-Dewey delegates were elected by the Republicans over unpledged opponents.
Roosevelt men happy
Results of the balloting, probably the lightest in Massachusetts history, were hailed by Democratic State Chairman William H. Burke Jr. as a definite Roosevelt fourth term victory. He predicted that within 48 hours Mr. Ely would endorse the President for a fourth term.
However, Mr. Ely said the returns indicated:
Such a substantial cleavage in the party that I should think the vote would serve as a warning to fourth-termers.
Ely is a delegate
Mr. Ely himself was assured a seat at the National Convention since he was one of 12 Democratic delegates-at-large elected without opposition.
The seven-man Republican at-large slate, including Governor Leverett Saltonstall and House Minority Leader Joseph W. Martin Jr. likewise was unopposed.
It was in the 13th Congressional district comprising part of Boston and a Southeastern Massachusetts area, that the Ely forces made their best showing. All four convention seats at stake in that district were won by Ely-pledged candidates: Michael P. Feeney of Boston, Francis J. Carroll of Canton, Clement A. Riley of Norwood and Alice M. Durst of Boston.
Some Ely men trail 4–1
Mr. Ely’s other two delegates were in the 10th district, a Boston-Brookline area. They were Boston City Councilor Michael J. Ward and David J. Brickley of Boston, who ran both as members of the pro-Roosevelt slate presented by the Democratic State Committee, and at the same time endorsed Mr. Ely’s candidacy.
Pro-Ely candidates were entered in a total of seven of the state’s 14 Congressional districts, but trailed in most cases, sometimes by as much as four-to-one.
Louisville, Kentucky (UP) –
The 22 Kentucky delegates selected to go to the Republican National Convention in Chicago will cast first a complimentary vote for Governor Simeon Willis as the “favorite-son” candidate for the presidential nomination and then switch to New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey, it was disclosed today.
The selection of delegates was completed yesterday at the State Republican Convention here.
Friends of Ohio Governor John W. Bricker had hoped to captured at least four of the 22 delegates, but a solid front for Governor Dewey was presented.
Governor Willis, elected convention chairman, keynoted the meeting. He said:
After the November election, we will have no buttery-voiced fireside chats or My Day tripe in the newspapers. We must have a President who does not show contempt for the intelligence and character of the people. For 12 years, we have seen the United States mismanaged, manhandled and outraged, but deliverance is in sight.
Denver, Colorado (UP) –
Colorado Republicans met here today to select the remainder of the delegates to the party’s presidential nominating convention in Chicago next June.
Each of the state’s four Congressional districts has already selected two delegates each, with seven to be named today. Colorado’s delegation is traditionally uninstructed, but party sources said sentiment was strong for Governor Thomas E. Dewey of New York for the presidential nomination.
Bipartisan showdown may affect campaign
By Jay G. Hayden, North American Newspaper Alliance
Washington –
A bipartisan showdown with regard to American foreign policy, which is bound to affect vitally the approaching presidential campaign and may determine this country’s international relationship for years to come, will get underway in a Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee this week.
This is the committee asked by Secretary of State Cordell Hull “to secure as great unanimity among the American people and Congress as possible with respect to the basic post-war security program.”
Its membership consists of Democrats Chairman Tom Connally (D-TX), Walter F. George (D-GA), Alben W. Barkley (D-KY) and Guy M. Gillette (D-IA), Republicans Arthur H. Vandenberg (R-MI), Wallace White (R-ME) and Warren R. Austin (R-VT) and Progressive Robert M. La Follette (PR-WI).
La Follette opposed
A degree of friction entered into the formulation of the roster. The administration did not want Senator La Follette included in it, and when Senator Vandenberg, who had nominated Mr. La Follette as one of the three minority members, refused to proceed without him, one additional member was added each to the Democratic and Republican sides.
The obvious intention of this maneuver was to strengthen the administration hand, since Senator Austin has never varied even so much as a hair’s breadth from support of President Roosevelt’s foreign policies.
Senator Vandenberg’s position is understood to have been that Mr. La Follette was entitled to the place from the standpoints both of seniority and ability, and, in any event, there can be no real solidarity of American foreign policy unless it takes account of the Midwestern nationalism, for which Mr. La Follette speaks.
Full cooperation demanded
While nobody so far has been able to put their hands on it, there is rumored to have been a significant correspondence between the Republican and Democratic Senate wings.
The crux of the position of Senator Vandenberg, personally, is that he is willing to go the limit in bipartisan cooperation, even to the point of devoting all his time to the effort from now on and abstaining from any part in the approaching presidential campaign.
But, Mr. Vandenberg insists, this sort of cooperation is practicable only if it proceeds on the basis of a completely equal Democratic-Republican partnership in formulation of foreign policies and an equal Democratic abstinence from their use for electioneering purposes.
Electioneering fought
Particularly, Senator Vandenberg is said to have insisted that Mr. Roosevelt, no less than the State Department, must be completely tied into any interparty harmony arrangement that may be affected.
Reduced to its most blunt political implication, the Republicans intend to see to it that, if a bipartisan foreign policy entente is entered into, Mr. Roosevelt is foreclosed from going out in the weeks immediately before election and saying, “See how effectively I have brought the Republicans to heel.”
New York (UP) –
Ohio Governor John W. Bricker last night advocated an early agreement between the United Nations on post-war military strength and objectives, followed by establishment of a cooperative world peace agency when governments have been restored, as the first steps toward averting another world war.
Mr. Bricker said other essential steps include a joint study of the problems of international trade, tariffs and monetary stabilization, and the adoption of a strong, decisive policy by the United States.
At the same time, he charged that the New Deal failed to exercise “ordinary prudence” for national security before the war.
World police opposed
The American people, he said in an address at the Ohio Society of New York dinner, want no international police force and no super-government or dictatorial world state, but feel that the United States must take her place in a cooperative order of sovereign states supported by the will of the people.
Joint responsibility for world order until economic and political stability has been regained by individual nations must be assumed by the United States, Great Britain, Russia and China, he recommended.
Mr. Bricker said:
This means that these four great powers should agree now to maintain adequate military, naval and airpower in the immediate post-war period.
‘Mutual understanding’
This does not mean an international police force, or a military alliance… it does contemplate a mutual understanding as to their respective military establishments and that they shall express that understanding in a temporary and transitional compact to be entered into as soon as possible.
Assailing U.S. foreign policy of the past decade as an unwise “course of day-to-day diplomacy,” Mr. Bricker said the State Department must again be permitted to exercise the responsibility vested in it. This country has the “know-how” in international relations, he said, “and a Republican administration will use it.”
He charged the Roosevelt administration with too often exhibiting indecision in dealings with other nations, and asserted that the nation’s ideals must not go by default in this war.
Must guard principles
He said:
America’s cooperation with other nations must not be at the expense of her principles, her honor, her ideals or her form of government. But I believe we can have international cooperation with justice and with honor, and that America must play her full part and do her full share.
Promises to do more than can be performed will breed ill will and hate, he said, adding:
There must be open and frank consideration of our responsibilities. There must be no secret international agreements affecting the post-war world. International goodwill can be developed by open and honest dealing with other nations and by keeping our commitments.
Lack of prudence shown
In his attack on Roosevelt’s pre-war policies, Mr. Bricker said that the New Deal failed to fulfill its obligation to protect the Philippines “in the face of Japan’s growing power” and sought to appease Japan despite the warnings of Ambassador Joseph C. Grew.
He added that after Hitler seized the power in Germany, the government did not exercise “ordinary prudence” for national security and took no heed of gathering clouds of war.
The Pittsburgh Press (April 27, 1944)
Santa Fe, New Mexico (UP) –
New Mexico’s gubernatorial election in November may be one of the fanciest political scraps in the state’s history.
Mrs. Edna Peterson of Albuquerque filed yesterday as a Democratic candidate for the nomination – the first woman in the state to seek the post.
Robert E. Peterson, her husband, has announced he, too, will seek nomination – on the Republican ticket.
Governor’s proven popularity leaves delegates no choice except to back him
By Kermit McFarland
Pennsylvania support for Governor Thomas E. Dewey on the first ballot at the Republican presidential convention in June is practically guaranteed by the write-in votes cast in Tuesday’s Republican primary.
Nearly complete returns from the state’s 8,195 voting precincts today showed that the New York Governor, in an impressive showing of strength, had drawn approximately 140,000 write-in votes in an election which set a record by its small turnout.
Have no alternative
Mr. Dewey’s thus proven popularity among Republican voters in Pennsylvania left the 70 delegates elected to the national convention no choice except to back him on the first ballot, despite the failure of nearly all the delegates to pledge support to the popular choice.
As a result, both Pennsylvania delegations will go to the national conventions prepared to vote as a unit for the two leading candidates for President – Mr. Dewey and Franklin D. Roosevelt.
All of the Democratic delegates were already pledged to the President and he became the voters’ choice by rolling up more than 300,000 votes in the preferential primary Tuesday. He also garnered more than 6,000 write-in votes – 2,000 of them in Allegheny County – on the Republican ballot.
No basis for comparison
Politicians today were busy trying to interpret the results of the presidential poll, but without great success.
While Mr. Dewey’s showing was remarkable, considering that he is not an announced candidate and that his name did not appear on the ballot, a comparison of probable strength between him and the President is not easy on the basis of the Tuesday returns.
Mr. Roosevelt was the only presidential candidate on the Democratic ballot. Thousands of Democratic voters apparently did not indicate a presidential preference, but whether it was because they disapprove of Mr. Roosevelt or because they saw no need of voting in the absence of a contest was a matter for speculation.
Organized movement in east
Governor Dewey’s write-in was sparked in the eastern part of the state by an organized movement and by editorial support of this plan from The Philadelphia Inquirer, Republican daily. However, his vote in western counties, where there was no activity on his behalf, appeared equally impressive.
Only one Congressman fell by the wayside in the primary voting. He was Grant Furlong of Donora, elected two years ago to represent Washington and part of Allegheny Counties. This time, however, because the Congressional districts were reapportioned, he ran in Washington and Greene Counties.
He was beaten in the Democratic primary by Fredericktown physician Dr. Thomas E. Morgan.
Supported by CIO
Dr. Morgan had the backing of the Democratic organizations in Washington and Greene County, but Dr. Furlong was supported by active CIO political groups. Dr. Furlong carried his home county of Washington, but lost Greene by a wide margin.
The principal surprise of the Congressional races was the victory of Eddie McCloskey, turbulent Johnstown politician, in the Democratic primary in Cambria, Armstrong and Indiana Counties.
Mr. McCloskey, beaten for reelection as County Commissioner last year by the leaders of his own party, turned the score on the same faction Tuesday by trouncing their candidate, Westmont insurance agent Robert S. Clark. Mr. McCloskey had previously been Mayor of Johnstown and a state boxing commissioner.
Falls in comeback
In November, Mr. McCloskey will run against Congressman Harve Tibbott (R-Ebensburg), who had no primary competition.
One former Congressman made a successful primary comeback and another failed.
Clinton County manufacturer Robert F. Rich, who in six terms in Congress attracted national attention by his repeated question on the floor, “Where is the money coming from?” was nominated by the Republicans in the new 15th district – Clinton, Lycoming, Potter, Tioga, McKean and Cameron Counties.
He won in a field of four candidates.
Former Congressman Guy L. Moser of Berks County failed in his attempt to defeat Congressman Daniel K. Hoch for the Democratic nomination. Mr. Hoch ousted Mr. Moser two years ago.
Casualty among Senators
Charles A. P. Bartlett, former State Senator, was nominated by Republicans in Northampton, Carbon and Monroe Counties to run in November against Congressman Francis E. Walter of Easton.
Among State Senators, the only casualty of the primary was Senator George A. Deitrick of Sunbury, who was defeated in the Republican primary by William I. Troutman of Shamokin, present Congressman-at-large from Pennsylvania. Mr. Troutman had the backing of Northumberland County Republican leaders.
Only eight of the 190 members of the State House of Representatives who were candidates failed to win renomination. Each party nominated 208 at the primary.
Delivered at dinner of the Bureau of Advertising, American Newspaper Publishers Association, New York City
I am very happy to speak before this wartime gathering of American newspaper publishers. Yours is an essential industry because, in America, the press is a vital part of our war effort, it is a vital part of our whole free system. It is an indispensable element of everything for which we fight.
The tragic history of recent years has shown us vividly that freedom of the press cannot exist where there is no political freedom; but the corollary to this basic truth is perhaps even more important: Political freedom cannot exist without a free press.
An electorate, fully informed on issues, is as fundamental to representative government as the election itself. And full information through the press is the bulwark of the people’s power to check up on their representatives between elections.
We saw it demonstrated in Germany that tyranny can rise to power by the elective process. But in order to stay in power the Nazis immediately set about destroying the freedom of the German press. In all countries men have been elected to office who prove unworthy of the trust. The strength of a free system is that such mistakes need never be fatal. They can be corrected at the polls. But these corrections can be made only if the people are informed.
The precious guarantee in our Constitution of freedom of the press is not a mere guarantee to the press. It is a guarantee to the people that their press shall be free. It imposes an obligation on government to permit free dissemination of news and a duty on the press to print honest news. The right resides in the people because it is basic to their liberties.
Freedom of the press today means more than freedom to print what information can be obtained. It means access to the news. It involves the right of information and a corresponding duty to print it.
All of us recognize the need for military censorship. But there is a dividing line between military news and political news, or, if you will, diplomatic news. It is a dividing line which can never be left without scrutiny – which, throughout the war calls for vigilance. Once the fighting has ceased, we must insist that all censorship of every description cease with it. We shall need then the uncorrupted word of truth.
I am confident of our future because we have, in fact, a great, free press. I believe our publishers generally are today more conscious of their tremendous responsibility than ever before. They will have much to do with the steadfastness with which we fight through this war. They will have much to do with the intelligence and determination with which we face the even more complicated problems of the peace.
The power of the written word lies in shaping the mind and spirit of man toward high achievement. There is, of course, a wide gulf between a statement of fact or of principles, on the one hand, and epithets or empty promises on the other. In recent years, we have had good reason to learn that difference in our domestic affairs. It is not enough to talk about economic security and then pursue policies which promote insecurity. It is not enough to talk about the enterprise system and then pursue a course of action that stifles enterprise.
These experiences with domestic policies cannot be forgotten when we think of foreign policies. All of us are aware that there is great concern and uncertainty among our people over our nation’s foreign policy. Yet I think it is no more than fair to say that we have had some excellent expressions on that subject lately from the Secretary of State, Mr. Hull. In his address of April 9, Mr. Hull certainly offered a statement of basic principles which deserves respect. His pledge to seek the advice and help of members of Congress from both parties is especially welcome.
Nevertheless, these statements have done little to relieve the concern and uncertainty our people feel. That is not primarily because of dissatisfaction with the words Mr. Hull used. It is because we see reported daily in your papers developments from abroad and other statements from high government officials at home which do not seem to fit in altogether with the words Mr. Hull has used. It is because we cannot be sure to what extent our foreign policy is actually being handled by the Secretary of State and to what extent it is being handled privately by the President.
What troubles us is not the main objectives of our foreign policy, but whether that policy will be effectively carried out in accordance with constitutional methods. One way it will succeed. The other way it will surely fail. Foreign policy is not a mere matter of negotiations, of diplomatic maneuvering, or even of treaties and alliances. Foreign policy is the expression of the ideals, traditions and aspirations of a people in their relations with the people of other countries.
In a free republic, there can be no such thing as an administration having an effective foreign policy, unless that policy reflects the will of the people. Here we are, fighting, hoping, praying for a world in which we can have a lasting peace, but in almost every discussion, one simple fact is forgotten: No foreign policy that fails to represent the will of the people will ever last as long as two years. It will not last beyond the next Congressional election.
Among our people, there are differences of opinion with respect to details and methods; but, I insist, there is overwhelming agreement upon the main objectives. Those major objectives are:
To carry on the war to total crushing victory, and in so doing to drive home to the aggressor nations a lesson that will never be forgotten;
To organize in cooperation with other nations a structure of peace backed by adequate force to prevent future wars;
To establish and maintain in our relations with other nations conditions calculated to promote worldwide economic stability not only for the sake of the world, but also to the end that our own people may enjoy a high level of employment in an increasingly prosperous world.
There is, I am confident, no real dissent from those major objectives on the part of any substantial portion of our people. They have been proclaimed by men of all parties and subscribed to by men of all walks of life in all parts of our country. They constitute the fundamental principles of our foreign policy because they represent the will of our people. But once again, let it be said that these objectives cannot be attained by mere words.
As to the winning of the war, the point needs no argument. We shall win the war only by the work and sacrifice of all our people. We shall win it by the courage, strength and suffering of our fighting men and by the unremitting effort of our war production forces at home. To win the peace will require equally great determination, and over a longer period of time. It will not be sufficient when the fighting ceases merely to draw up a treaty and then forget about it. We must not repeat the tragic error of twenty-five years ago.
The central error of our course in 1919 was the false assumption that words could create a peace. Then, as now, there was much wishful thinking. Men everywhere wanted to feel that a treaty which proclaimed peace would suffice to assure it and that from there on they could relax. The war leaders of the world wanted to feel that by signing their names to a treaty, they had brought their task to an end. The very idea that fine words made a peace bore within it the seeds of its own failure.
Within a few years, the reality of Germany bore no relation whatever to the word picture of Versailles. This was because those who drafted the treaty were tired war leaders. They could not find within themselves the physical and mental strength to make the peace a living reality.
We have learned much since 1919. The experience of two world wars has taught us that we cannot remain unaffected by what happens elsewhere in the world. It has shown us also that unprovoked aggression against a freedom-loving people anywhere is an attack upon the peace of the whole world. We may again be tempted to feel that with the defeat of our enemies and a proclamation of peace, we can afford to rest on our oars. But the truth is those years that follow will be decisive. The maintenance of peace will require continuing labor and forbearance. When we have ceased to wage war, we shall have to wage peace.
Germany and Japan must not only be utterly defeated and completely disarmed – they must not be left in a post-war environment which might enable them to maneuver as a balance of power. After 1919, lethargy, jealousy and power politics resumed sway among the Allies. In that environment, Germany quickly eluded the controls of the Treaty of Versailles.
If after this war we reproduce the same political climate, we will get the same results. No initial measures against Germany and Japan, however drastic, will have permanent value unless they fall within the setting of a durable cohesion between Great Britain and ourselves, together, I hope, with Russia and China. To deal effectively with our enemies and also to solve many other post-war problems will, as I have said, require solid relations among the United States, Great Britain, Soviet Russia and China.
We have a long background of friendly working relations with Great Britain and China, which will make easy their continuation. As regards Russia, it would be stupid to ignore the fact that during the twenty-four years between the Soviet revolution and the German attack on Russia, our relations were not of the best. There were faults on both sides. If after this war we relapse into the old suspicions, the future is indeed dark. But there has been genuine improvement growing out of our partnership in this war. The American people have sympathy and admiration for the peoples of the Soviet Union.
There are and still will be fundamental internal differences between our countries. Our economic and social systems will not be the same. But our political dissimilarities from Russia need not be the sources of friction if we seek and find the many practical ways in which we can work to a common end.
Russian affairs are in the hands of hardheaded, realistic leaders. That is nothing we should be afraid of provided we are equally realistic and devoted to our country. If we are, the United States and Russia can deal with each other with candor while building firm and mutual respect and friendship.
Inevitably a major responsibility to work together will fall upon the United States, Britain, Russia and China in the first few years following the war. They will be the strongest nations. They will be the nations with the greatest power to preserve peace or to undermine it.
In some countries, we may for a time face confusion. We must wisely and without intrusion into their domestic affairs seek to make that period as brief as possible. We shall need the participation of these nations. The peace of the world will require the support of all peoples. We are all agreed that there must be prompt measures to establish a system of general international cooperation.
First came the Republican Mackinac Charter, then the Moscow Declaration and the Fulbright and Connolly resolutions. All agree in proposing an arrangement which will regularly bring together the representatives of the nations to discuss, to plan and to seek agreement about matters of common concern. This will not be accomplished to perfection overnight or in a few months. It must be a matter of growth and experience and everlasting hard work.
It will not be possible to solve immediately the economic problems of the world. It will take time and patience to restore currency stability and trade relationships and to promote the general economic wellbeing.
Here it cannot be too greatly emphasized that the role of the United States will be decisive. We will be truly effective in helping with the economic rehabilitation of the world only if we first restore at home a healthy, a vigorous and a growing economy.
There are false prophets who for years have been telling us that America has ceased to grow; that its period of vigor is over. They would have us believe that our economy has become mature. They say it is static, that it can continue to function only by constantly taking ever more expensive patent medicines. Yet these same people now talk glibly of a WPA for all the rest of the world.
To hear them talk, Uncle Sam must play the role of a benevolent but slightly senile gentleman, who seeks to purchase the goodwill of his poor relations by distributing among them the dwindling remains of his youthful earnings.
I utterly reject that proposition. America is still young, still vigorous, still capable of growth. Certainly we shall play the part of a good citizen in the community of nations. We shall deal fairly and generously with our neighbor nations throughout the world. This we shall do because it represents the practical idealism for which America has always stood and because it is good hard common sense. Goodwill cannot be bought with gold. Goodwill flows irresistibly to the man who successfully manages his own affairs, who is self-reliant and independent, yet who is considerate always of the rights and needs of others.
Traditionally, America has occupied this role for 150 years. This country won the admiration of the world because we had here something to which the people of all nations aspired. We had a society of free men who believed in themselves and in the future of their country. We were in sober truth the land of opportunity. Here beyond everywhere else in the world there was a field for economic enterprise and human progress.
For the sake of the men and women who are working and fighting and dying to win this war, for the sake of their children and for the sake of the world, we must work to make America once more the land of opportunity.
It is particularly incumbent on us solemnly to view our obligations tonight. As we meet here, hundreds of thousands of the youth of America stand poised on the shores of Great Britain for the mightiest invasion of a defended coastline in history. Every one of those young men knows that the future of his country and of freedom itself may hang on the success of this terrible venture. Every man knows the price he may have to pay.
Nothing any of us has said here tonight will be of import unless the invasion is crowned by ultimate success. The infinite patience, preparation and training behind this gigantic effort may well serve us as a standard for our own acceptance of our future responsibilities. Surely it is a minimum standard for the infinite patience, preparation and toil we should be willing to give for peace. No sacrifice for peace will ever equal the ultimate sacrifice we expect of our young men in war.
The very least we can do, therefore, as we look ahead tonight to hopes of a peaceful world, is to pledge to ourselves and to those who die for our country that we shall accept the challenge they lay before us. We can resolve to accept the responsibility which our own greatness and importance as a nation place upon us – a responsibility which two world wars have shown is utterly inescapable.
Let us recognize that this peace we pray for and our young men die for will have to be worked for over many years. Let us be flexible, earnest and devoted enough to make it a reality.
If the newspapers of America will accept the challenge of peace as they have of war, we shall have made a great beginning. The years of labor ahead will be successful only if an informed people support the effort – only if they know the size of the task. We shall need in these years, as never before, a courageous and a free press in the United States of America.
The Pittsburgh Press (April 28, 1944)
Alliance advocated with major powers
New York (UP) –
Governor Thomas E. Dewey of New York, calling for creation of a peace structure “backed by adequate force to prevent future wars,” proposed today that the United States, Great Britain, Russia and China continue collaboration after the war.
He said:
No initial measures against Germany and Japan, however drastic, will have permanent value unless they fall within the setting of a durable cohesion between Great Britain and ourselves, together, I hope, with Russia and China.
Germany and Japan must not only be utterly defeated and completely disarmed – they must not be left in a post-war environment which might enable them to maneuver as a balance of power.
Governor Dewey’s statements, made at the annual dinner of the Bureau of Advertising of the American Newspaper Publishers Association last night, were his first expression on foreign policy since the Republican conference at Mackinac Island last year, when he advocated a British-U.S. alliance.
The New York executive, considered by many as the leading candidate for the Republican nomination for President this year, proposed three fundamental principles for U.S. foreign policy, which he said would command the support of the American public. He listed them as:
To carry on the war to total crushing victory, and in so doing to drive home to the aggressor nations a lesson that will never be forgotten.
To organize in cooperation with other nations a structure of peace backed by adequate force to prevent future wars;
To establish and maintain in our relations with other nations conditions calculated to promote worldwide economic stability not only for the sake of the world, but also to the end that our own people may enjoy a high level of employment in an increasingly prosperous world.
He said Secretary of State Cordell Hull’s outline of post-war collaboration on April 9 deserved respect, but failed to “relieve the concern and uncertainty our people feel.”
This was due, he added, to the fact that:
We cannot be sure to what extent our foreign policy is actually being handled by the Secretary of State and to what extent it is being handled privately by the President.
He said:
What troubles us is not the main objectives of our foreign policy, but whether that policy will be effectively carried out in accordance with constitutional methods.
Facts and epithets
The New York executive touched briefly on domestic affairs with the assertion that:
It is not enough to talk about a more abundant life if the actions that follow the words leave millions unemployed and dependent upon government for a bare existence.
He said:
In recent years we have had good reason to learn of the wide gulf between a statement of fact or principles, on the one hand, and epithets or empty promises on the other. It is not enough to talk about economic security and then pursue a course of action that stifles enterprise.
He said:
Our political dissimilarities with Russia need not be the source of friction if we seek and find the many practical ways in which we can work to a common end. Russian affairs are in the hands of hardheaded, realistic leaders. That is nothing we should be afraid of, provided we are equally realistic and devoted to our country.
Governor Dewey concluded with praise for American newspapers, which he called a vital part of the war program and a vital part of the nation’s free system.
Eric Johnston, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said urgent necessities of war have made expansion of government controls inevitable, but that only action by the people will check an increasing spread of government when the war has been won.
He called on the nation’s press to take the lead in making the coming presidential campaign one of “calm reason rather than blind prejudice.”
GOP leader renews attack on New Deal
Atlantic City, New Jersey – (special)
In another of a series of speeches he has been delivering against the Roosevelt administration, G. Mason Owlett, Pennsylvania member of the Republican National Committee, charged here today that “the war we are fighting against dictatorship in other lands is being used to advance dictatorship through bureaucracy in America.”
Mr. Owlett, also president of the Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association, addressed a convention of the Pennsylvania Self-Insurers’ Association.
‘Menace to enterprise’
He said:
Certainly, Mr. Churchill’s intensive drive for victory has not been diverted by political considerations, as is the case with our leadership in Washington. In this country, with an election approaching, it becomes more and more evident that the active duties of our government are evenly divided between prosecuting the war and spendings untold millions in public money to perpetuate the New Deal in power.
Men of business and industry recognize the New Deal as a menace to all enterprise for the reason that it has sought to establish a policy of iron-fisted regimentation for individual initiative and freedom. Whenever any administration can silence criticism, crush opposition and refuse to be accountable to the people for its acts, whether we are at peace or war, free government in the United States is dead and the American way is gone…
Voters to be tested
The socialistic policies of the New Deal have given us a complete political anarchy in Washington.
The intelligence of American voters will be tested this year by their capacity to discern that the war itself is not a political issue and that our liberties depend upon the restoration of constitutional government as well as the defeat of our enemies abroad.
The virility of American voters will be tested by their capacity to resist class agitation, paternalistic buncombe and the implication that free political expression is analogous to treason.
The fact that more than 140,000 Pennsylvania Republicans voted for Governor Thomas E. Dewey as their presidential choice, in a primary marked by exceedingly light voting, is of real importance.
We say this without regard to the political implications in Republican pre-convention politics. The interesting and vital feature of this big vote was the fact that the voters had to write in the name of the New York Governor – that it was an expression of individual choice rather than of machine manipulation.
The political bosses of the Republican Party in Pennsylvania saw to it that no name of a presidential candidate appeared om the primary ballot – thus trying to defeat the purpose of the primary, which is to give voters a chance to express their desires as regards party nominees.
Therefore, the voters had to write in Mr. Dewey’s name. In the eastern part of the state, there was some organized movement to encourage such write-ins for Mr. Dewey and one Philadelphia newspaper gave it editorial support. But elsewhere neither politicians nor newspapers encouraged a write-in campaign, and what happened was therefore the individual and independent work of the voters.
Incidentally, there were about 25,000 write-ins in Allegheny County – where independent voters have long been a vital force in elections – while in Philadelphia there were only about 11,000 write-ins despite newspaper and political advocacy of them.
We are always strong for anything that encourages independence in politics. We like to see voters select candidates without regard to party labels; in fact, we’d like to see party labels eliminated from the ballot so that voters would have to make their choices on an individual basis instead of voting straight tickets.
The writing in of names in a primary is likewise an expression of independent judgment. It requires both intelligence and some trouble on the party of the voter; and in this case it served to upset the desires of party bigwigs who wanted to be left free to manipulate Pennsylvania’s 70 convention delegates without any instructions.
While the top-heavy vote for Governor Dewey is not binding on the delegates chosen last Tuesday, it was such a clear expression of rank-and-file wishes that probably few delegates will feel free to ignore it.
And the heavy write-in vote demonstrates that the people really can use primaries in a constructive manner, even though the party bosses try to keep them from doing so.
There was more statesmanship than politics in Governor Dewey’s foreign policy address last night.
The fact that he chose to put himself on record is, in itself, significant. He is sitting petty as a potential draft candidate for the Presidency; under the political rules, all he has to do is keep his mouth shut and coast into the nomination. But whether he is or is not a candidate, he takes a stand on the big issue.
It is not a partisan stand. He does not try to copyright for one party the common aspirations of our people, as some others have done. He does not confuse the small minorities – the isolationists and international extremists – with the vast majority in favor of the responsible American world collaboration pledged in the bipartisan Fulbright and Connally resolutions.
Unlike shortsighted politicians who magnify minority division for campaign purposes, he emphasizes that America is overwhelmingly united in war aims and peace aims. And he gives Secretary of State Hull deserved credit for stating them.
Mr. Dewey’s own summary of those major objectives has the force of brevity and clarity:
To carry on the war to total crushing victory… To organize in cooperation with other nations a structure of peace backed by adequate force… To promote worldwide economic stability, not only for the sake of the world, but also to the end that our own people may enjoy a high level of employment in an increasingly prosperous world.
But mouthing fine phrases won’t win the peace, any more than the war. Mr. Dewey’s chief contribution to this discussion is his warning that words are not enough. Neither points, nor charters, nor treaties, nor alliances nor international organization will preserve peace automatically. Only as we “wage peace” – patiently, constructively and continuously – will we escape repetition of the 1919 peace that failed.
The thing that troubles Mr. Dewey is the apparent conflict between officially stated American war aims and daily developments abroad. He states bluntly the problem usually evaded by wishful thinkers, do-gooders and campaign orators:
Germany and Japan must not only be utterly defeated and completely disarmed – they must not be left in a post-war environment which might enable them to maneuver as a balance of power. After 1919, lethargy, jealousy and power politics resumed sway among the Allies… If after this war we reproduce the same political climate, we will get the same results.
Mr. Dewey says the chief responsibility is ours, and Britain’s, Russia’s, China’s – working together and with the smaller nations for a better world order. He offers no shortcuts, no easy road. He warns that it will be hard. But he believes that a young, strong, considerate America can lead the way by its example at home and by its common-sense cooperation abroad.
The Governor, who rarely discusses foreign policy, seems to know more than some who talk so much about it.
Columbus, Ohio (UP) –
A special session of the Ohio General Assembly last night passed and sent to Governor John W. Bricker for signature as an emergency measure a bill providing for absentee voting by Ohio members of the armed services.
The bill provides that absentee ballots be ready 90 days before the November election instead of the present 30 days; applications for absentee voter ballots may be made by the soldiers, by mail or in person, or for them by relatives; applications received Jan. 1 and until Nov. 4 shall be considered valid, and ballots will be accepted from soldiers until noon of Election Day.
Evanston, Illinois –
A “Beer-for-Evanston” party was launched here today by two staff members of The Daily Northwestern, student publication at Northwestern University. The party advocated a three-point program advocating beer for the United Nations, assurance that all men in all lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want of beer and establishment of an international police force to aid in the democratic distribution of beer.