Election 1944: Pre-convention news

[NormanStewart]

CIO woos the Democrats –
Guaranteed weekly wage pledge asked of party

Union group wants backing for revolutionary change in American industry practices
By Fred W. Perkins, Pittsburgh Press staff writer

Washington –
CIO union leaders, now out in front of the Roosevelt fourth term movement, hope to get a Democratic National Platform Commitment that would indorse a revolutionary change in industry practices.

They want the Democratic Party to sponsor their proposal that every workingman ve guaranteed a specific weekly wage, in good times and bad, come hell or high water.

This was learned today from sources close to CIO president Philip Murray, who has made the wage guarantee a principal demand in the big wage case of the United Steelworkers before the War Labor Board.

In last week’s Cleveland convention of the steel union the statements of Mr. Murray and other officers gave the wage guarantee question an importance equal to that of the union’s demand that the Little Steel wage formula be broken to allow a pay boost of 17 cents an hour for the more than half a million employees of this industry.

The steel union, on the 17-cent demand, is up against the facts that President Roosevelt wants to make no change in wartime wage-control policies, and that under present law the War Labor Board says it cannot change its pay yardstick.

Roosevelt backing hinted

But the wage-guarantee issue is one that Mr. Roosevelt is said to be ready to regard as part of a general social security program, and the CIO forces might accept victory on this front as recompense for failure on the pay-boost question.

If the wage-guarantee theory should be enforced in one industry, it inevitably would spread through others, with the result that employers of non-white collar workers would have to revamp their financing plans. The wage would have to be paid all qualified employees during times when, according to past history of depressions, plants would be shut down.

The steel union’s proposal is that an employee’s average hourly straight-time earnings be averaged for the preceding year, be multiplied by 40 (for the legislated 40-hour week), and that the resulting sum be his weekly guarantee.

The union proposal said:

For each week during life of this contract that the employee, for reasons beyond his control, does not receive a sum equal to this minimum amount, the company shall make up the difference.

Ups and downs cited

The union pointed out that the steel industry has been subject to sharp ups and downs in activity and employment, and therefore:

There is the imperative social need to assure steelworkers that the prince and pauper era is at an end. Economic security through full employment, thereby creating freedom from want and freedom from fear, can and must be accomplished for this basic industry. This objective is not attained through the pitiful unemployment compensation payments.

Industry leaders have charged that both the political and war situations are being used by the CIO union to force adoption of a government policy that might not be attainable under ordinary conditions.

Fairless quoted

B. F. Fairless, president of U.S. Steel Corporation, testified:

A guaranteed annual minimum wage would not ensure employment, but would inevitably destroy the financial ability of the steel industry to employ. In fact, the demand for such a revolutionary change becomes fantastic unless the eventual insolvency of the steel industry is the desire.

War experience in planned production, asserted the union, makes the wage-guarantee plan feasible.

The future of every man and woman who works on a wage basis, rather than on a fixed salary, may be affected by outcome of this phase of the steel case. So may the planning of industrial operations.

The War Labor Board proceedings resume today after a two-week recess.

[NormanStewart]

New Deal secrecy hit by Landon

Chicago, Illinois (UP) –
Alf M. Landon, the 1936 Republican standard-bearer, said today that the most important qualification for a President was ability to formulate a clear domestic policy and provide the leadership to carry it through.

Mr. Landon told the 147th Rotary International District Conference:

A man can’t be a “statesman” abroad and a failure at home and be of much use in the period ahead, either to America or to the world.

Mr. Landon charged that:

The everlasting confusion over manpower and the draft – to mention only two items out of a long list – brings the realization of the great need for an efficient administrator in the White House.

The Kansan said:

There is a marked difference between Woodrow Wilson’s publicized diplomatic exchanges and the personal secrecy of President Roosevelt.

We should have had long ago the promised report from the President on his conferences, and agreements with Stalin and Churchill. We do not know whether we are headed in the direction of a super international state – a league of nations – a federation of nations – a world court – or a balance of power alliance, or a direction not yet made known.

---

Tammany strife taken to court

New York (UP) –
A court order obtained by foes of the Tammany Hall regime of Edward V. Loughlin forced the organization’s leaders to call off a meeting of 1,000 county committee members last night and to delay adoption of a resolution endorsing a fourth term for President Roosevelt.

Mr. Loughlin charged that the motive behind the move by John L. Buckley and Dennis J. Mahon, members of Tammany’s Executive Committee, was to prevent passage of the resolution.

Mr. Buckley and Mr. Mahon, who obtained the order, alleged that the rules the committee was scheduled to adopt were not formulated properly. The proposed rules changes, they said, would have had the effect of strengthening the present leadership of Tammany.

The order is returnable next Monday.

[NormanStewart]

Background of news –
New York and the election

By Bertram Benedict

In the election in November, the state of New York will have 47 (17%) of the 266 electoral votes necessary to elect a President. This is more than the combined electoral vote of 12 other states. No wonder, then, that most of those who expect the election to be close are prophesying: “The man who carries New York will win,” nor that the Governor of New York now seems about to walk away with the Republican nomination.

For Mr. Dewey looks like a remarkably good vote-getter in New York, even if he was born and reared in Michigan. In 1938, he ran against Governor Lehman for the New York governorship and came within a hair’s breadth of winning. Mr. Lehman received 1,971,000 votes on the Democratic ticket and 420,000 on the American Labor Party ticket, for a total of 2,391,000. Mr. Dewey, receiving 2,327,000, was defeated by only 64,000 votes out of more than 4,700,000 cast.

In the same year, the two Republican candidates for U.S. Senator from New York (one for an unexpired term) lost by 438,000 votes and 355,000 votes, respectively. Two years before, the Republican gubernatorial candidate had lost by 521,000 votes. And in 1942, Mr. Dewey defeated the Democratic candidate and the American Labor Party candidate by a clear majority of 245,000.

Opposed by Willkie in 1942

Mr. Dewey received the Republican gubernatorial nomination in 1942 over the ill-disguised opposition of Wendell L. Willkie. When the state Republican leaders were obviously about to swing the party nominating convention over to Mr. Dewey, Mr. Willkie came out for a free-for-all nomination race, although disclaiming any ambitions for himself and any participation in a Stop-Dewey movement.

Mr. Willkie was understood to have warned the party leaders privately that Mr. Dewey would be defeated because of his alleged isolationism prior to Pearl Harbor. But Mr. Dewey got the nomination hands down.

Mr. Willkie himself had run well in New York against President Roosevelt in 1940. There Mr. Willkie had 48% of the major party vote, as against 45% in the nation as a whole. If one in every 25 New Yorkers who voted for Mr. Roosevelt in 1940 should vote for the Republican candidate this year, the Republicans will carry the state.

However, the fact that Mr. Dewey ran well for Governor does not necessarily mean that he will run as well for President in the Empire State. Alfred E. Smith was also a great gubernatorial vote-getter, but the state which sent him to the Governor’s Mansion in Albany four times (once in a Republican landslide year, 1924), would not vote to send him to the White House in 1928.

Yet while New York was voting against Mr. Smith as the Democratic presidential candidate, it was voting for Franklin D. Roosevelt as the Democratic gubernatorial candidate.

Hughes wins – but loses

In 1916, the Republicans nominated for the Presidency Justice Charles E. Hughes of New York, largely because he was expected to carry, in what looked like a close election, the state in which he had been elected Governor in 1906 and 1908. The expectation was realized, for Mr. Hughes carried New York by a substantial margin, but he lost the election by 23 electoral votes (Woodrow Wilson, the winner, lost his state, New Jersey).

That was really the only time since the Civil War in which the country did not vote as New York voted. True, in 1876, New York voted for its governor, Samuel J. Tilden, only to see Hayes elected, but probably Tilden was unfairly counted out; as it was, he had a popular majority.

If it is Dewey vs. Roosevelt in November, it will be the first time since 1904 (Theodore Roosevelt vs. Alton B. Parker) that both major party candidates have been New Yorkers. In the year 1884, Governor Grover Cleveland of New York carried the state and was elected President; in 1888, he lost the state and the Presidency; in 1892, he carried the state and the nation again.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (May 17, 1944)

Roosevelt, Dewey win in primaries

Downey comes back in California vote
By the United Press

President Roosevelt and Governor Thomas E. Dewey of New York gained additional support for the forthcoming presidential nominating conventions yesterday, returns from primaries in New Jersey and California showed today.

In New Jersey, candidates pledged to support a fourth term for the President were uncontested for 40 seats and 34 votes at the Democratic National Convention. Mr. Dewey picked up 35 potential votes in the New Jersey Republican primary in a contest in which the state GOP organization, headed by Governor Walter E. Edge, piled up almost a six to one lead over a slate which campaigned on a “Draft Dewey” campaign. Mr. Edge, former backer of Wendell L. Willkie, has said he favored Mr. Dewey, but desired the state delegation to be uninstructed.

Fourth term endorsed

California’s 56 delegates, with 52 votes to the Democratic convention, favoring a fourth term for the President, were unopposed, while a 50-member GOP delegation, also unopposed, was pledged to Governor Earl Warren, as a favorite son. Mr. Warren, however, was not an announced candidate for the presidential nomination, but has been mentioned frequently as a possible running mate for Mr. Dewey and his delegates were expected to support the New York Governor after the first ballot at the convention.

The Democratic state committee in Delaware closed a meeting last night by instructing its eight-member delegation to support Mr. Roosevelt for a fourth term.

Dewey has 529 votes

Montana political parties, closing a two-day convention, pledged 10 delegates to the President and eight for Mr. Dewey.

In all, President Roosevelt added 104 convention votes to swell his total to 788 – 199 more than necessary for nomination. Mr. Dewey added 93 pledged and potential delegates to give him a possible 529 delegates on the first or second ballots at the Republican convention, only one vote shy of nomination.

In New Jersey, returns from 2,157 of 3,645 precincts gave the Republican organization delegates-at-large slate, headed by Governor Edge (115,378 votes), compared with 20,186 for the opposing slate headed by former State Senator Lloyd Schroeder.

GOP National Committeemen H. Alexander Smith continued to pile up an overwhelming lead over his rival for the party’s designation for U.S. Senate in New Jersey.

Senate seat fight

In 2,471 precincts, Mr. Smith had 128,748 votes compared to 23,076 for Jersey City attorney Andrey O. Wittreich.

Rep. Elmer H. Wene, Vineland poultryman, was unopposed for the Democratic Senatorial nomination in New Jersey. The primary winners will fight it out for the Senate seat now occupied by Senator Arthur Walsh, who was appointed by Governor Edge to succeed the late Senator W. Warren Barbour. Mr. Walsh did not seek the nomination.

There were no major contests for the Democratic Congressional nominations, and Republican organization candidates won easily in the four contests in their primary.

Downey triumphs

In California, Democrats by inference endorsed the Roosevelt administration in a consolidated primary by giving U.S. Senator Sheridan Downey, a New Deal supporter, a 3–1 lead over his nearest opponent for Democratic renomination.

Republican votes gave Lieutenant Governor Frederick F. Houser, a critic of the President’s domestic policies, a commanding lead in the contest to name a GOP nominee.

Returns from 8,277 precincts gave leading Senatorial candidates:

REPUBLICAN

Houser	124,348
Downey	61,536
Philip Bancroft	50,044
William G. Bonelli	23,503
Justus Craemer	20,062
Charles G. Johnson	24,001

DEMOCRATIC

Downey	243,601
Houser	62,026
Bonelli	30,639
Bancroft	27,750
Jack B. Tenney	14,670

Under California law, candidates are permitted to run for both Democratic and Republican nominations regardless of their party affiliations.

No campaign made

Mr. Downey remained in Washington and did no active campaigning in the last few weeks preceding the election. Mr. Houser, a State Assemblyman and an unsuccessful candidate for Congress before he was elected Lieutenant Governor in the 1942 Republican sweep in California, campaigned in most counties of the state.

Five Republican and five Democratic representatives of the 23 in the California delegation held leads for both major party nominations which, if maintained, would send them into the November general election unopposed.

Los Angeles Rep. John M. Costello, a Democrat, was trailing behind Hal Styles, a Los Angeles radio commentator, for his own party nomination although he was leading for the Republican nomination. He will be disqualified for any nomination if he fails to win his own party bid.

GOP voters lead

A heavy Republican turnout gave the unopposed Warren presidential ticket a larger early count than that won by the fourth term Roosevelt delegation, although the state’s registration is Democratic 3–2.

Representatives who held leads for both major party nominations were Clarence Lea, leader of the delegation, John H. Tolan, Alfred J. Elliott, Cecil King and Chet Hollifield, all Democrats, and Leroy Johnson. John Z. Anderson, Bertrand W. Gearhart, Carl Hinshaw and John Phillips, Rep. Richard J. Welch (R-San Francisco) had no opposition for major party nomination.

In the 14th district, being vacated by Thomas F. Ford, a Democrat, Helen Gahagan Douglas, a former actress and Democratic National Committeewoman, led for Democratic nomination and William D. Campbell for the Republican bid. Ellis E. Patterson, a former lieutenant governor, led for Democratic nomination in the 16th district being vacated by Will Rogers Jr. and the Rev. Jesse R. Kellems, a state assemblyman led for the Republican nomination.

[NormanStewart]

CIO for 4th term, Wallace

Chicago, Illinois (UP) –
The CIO Political Action Committee and the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America has endorsed President Roosevelt for a fourth term.

The Political Action Committee, meeting in special session, passed a resolution saying that the members “felt confident that the people will reelect” the President.

ACWA delegates, meeting here in their 14th biennial convention, approved a fourth term for President Roosevelt and Vice President Henry Wallace by unanimous acclaim.

Philip Murray, president of the CIO, told the convention that labor must get behind the drive for President Roosevelt’s fourth term.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (May 18, 1944)

Fourth term strategy gets workout here

Democrats’ gunsights leveled at Tom Dewey
By Kermit McFarland

Paced by two new stars of the campaign circuit, the Democratic high command last night outlined its fourth term strategy at the fundraising Jefferson Day dinner of the local Democratic organization.

To a crowd of 1,200 which paid $10 a plate for a $3 meal, Democratic National Chairman Robert E. Hannegan and U.S. Senator Samuel D. Jackson (D-IN) blueprinted the 1944 battlefront on which President Roosevelt will attempt to stand off Governor Thomas E. Dewey of New York.

Although Mr. Dewey is not an announced candidate, let alone the Republican nominee, the Democratic leaders accepted him as Mr. Roosevelt’s opponent and uncorked the barrage which they hope will send him to join Herbert Hoover, Alf Landon and Wendell Willkie in the ranks of Republican nominees beaten by the President.

Counts against Dewey

Mr. Hannegan, who took over the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee in January, lined up these counts against Mr. Dewey:

• Inexperience.

• His opposition to Lend-Lease in 1941.

• A statement Mr. Hannegan said the New York Governor made in 1940 in which he said it would be “impossible” to produce 50,000 warplanes in a year.

• A statement Mr. Hannegan said Mr. Dewey made in the same year in which he said it would be “impossible” to train 75,000 pilots.

• His alleged hookup with former President Hoover.

• His alleged tie-in with the big financial interests.

To which Senator Jackson added:

• The election of Mr. Dewey would be a throwback to Presidents Harding and Coolidge.
• An isolationist tag for Mr. Dewey.
• The abortive peace efforts of 1920, which he blamed on the Republicans.

On the more positive side, Mr. Hannegan urged the reelection of Mr. Roosevelt as a means of guaranteeing the Four Freedoms. And Senator Jackson warned that a “change of horses in mid-stream” might lead to a change in the grand military strategy, in the military command and in foreign policy generally.

Campaign chest swelled

The dinner must have netted the Democrats more than $20,000 for the campaign chest.

The 1,200 persons Democratic State Chairman David L. Lawrence said were present paid $10 a plate. Expenses were estimated not to exceed $5 per, leaving a net profit of $5 each, or a total of $6,000. This will be split 50% to national headquarters, 25% to state headquarters and the balance to local headquarters.

In addition, the dinner committee distributed a slick-paper “program” consisting of 162 pages of advertising, at $100 a page, and three pages of program. What with half-, quarter-, eighth-, and sixteenth-page ads are intermediate rates and $5 for merely a name, the book should have netted upwards of $16,000.

Notables are present

Democratic notables from over the state were present, including all the candidates in this year’s election – save State Treasurer G. Harold Wagner, nominee for Auditor General, reported ill in Harrisburg – local public officials and party officers.

Aside from the two visiting notables, the only speaker was Mr. Lawrence who warned the Democrats that since 1932 some of them have become “statesmen and fat cats,” that this is the most crucial election since 1864 and they had better get out and plug.

Mr. Hannegan, saying the “identities of the two probable candidates are by this time foreshadowed clearly enough,” waded into Mr. Dewey, whom he termed “the Great Republican Unmentionable.”

‘Defeatism’ charged

Mr. Hannegan said:

Read him three years ago, and two years ago, and up to the time when the dream of becoming President of our country began to put a new cast in his thinking and a new color in his public utterances.

Read those speeches – speeches of defeatism, of helplessness, of narrow jealousies and suspicions – and then ask yourself, had we followed the pattern traced out then, where would our country be today?

He said the Republicans were trying to make his references to Mr. Dewey’s earlier statements appear as a “smear” and asserted:

We are being asked by the minority party to trust to luck, to the chance that an inexperienced, unpracticed leader will guess right. We are being asked to make him President and then hope that among the wavering, varying and contradictory policies to which he has already subscribed at one time or another, he will pull out the long straw.

Hoover ‘issue’ enters in

He said Mr. Hoover is Mr. Dewey’s “political guardian.” He said:

As far as the people of America are concerned, the Great Engineer and the Great Republican Unmentionable are interchangeable.

Senator Jackson – serving in the Senate by appointment, but the current Democratic nominee for Governor of Indiana – answered his self-propelled question as to how long the Democrats would stay in Washington:

Until the escutcheons of this government shall have been cleansed of the debauchery of the administration of Warren G. Harding. Until the economic and financial structure of this Republic shall have been healed of the rampant and unchecked pirating during the do-nothing administration of Calvin Coolidge. Until the last farmer, businessman and worker shall have been made whole of the devastation wrought by the unfortunate and unsung administration of Herbert Hoover. Until that permanent peace promised to the heroes of World War I shall have been kept in spirit and in truth.

He said there is not a “mustard seed” of hope in Mr. Dewey.

[NormanStewart]

Background of news –
Political repercussions of priest’s trip

By Jay G. Hayden

Washington –
The part foreign events may play in the approaching American presidential election is strikingly exemplified in the storm now going on among Polish-Americans over the visit to Moscow of Rev. Stanislaus Orlemanski and Prof. Oscar Lange.

The vital political circumstance is that news of this pilgrimage arrived just when Catholic and Polish-American Democrats had joined in a warning to President Roosevelt that the worst mistake he could make was to give countenance to these and other pro-Soviet Poles in the United States.

It is doubtful if the discontent of anti-Russian Poles or Catholics was much assuaged by the recent letter of Secretary of State Cordell Hull, which explained that Father Orlemanski and Prof. Lange “are making this trip as private American citizens… They have no official status, and, therefore, are not, in any sense, representatives or spokesmen of the United States government.”

Mr. Hull said the Soviet government furnished their transportation to Moscow.

Big vote in nine states

The Polish-American vote is large concentrated in nine states, all extremely close in 1940. If these states all had gone for Wendell L. Willkie, he would have had 259 electoral votes, just seven short of a winning majority.

As shown by the census, the largest Polish-American population is in New York, which Mr. Roosevelt carried in 1940 by the slim margin of 1.8%.

The other states in order of Polish-American population, each with its percentage margin of victory at the 1940 polls, are as follows:

Illinois	Roosevelt	1.2%
Pennsylvania	Roosevelt	3.5%
Michigan	Willkie	0.1%
New Jersey	Roosevelt	1.8%
Massachusetts	Roosevelt	2.4%
Ohio	Roosevelt	2.2%
Connecticut	Roosevelt	3.7%
Wisconsin	Roosevelt	0.9%

Now strongly Democratic

Of all Congressional districts the one with the largest preponderance of Polish-American voters is the 1st Michigan. This district elected Republicans from 1924 to 1930. In 1932, it went Democratic, 51,620 to 21,764, and it has remained so by even greater margins since that time. In 1942, its present Democratic Representative, George G. Sadowski, received 48,620 votes, as against 13,691 for his Republican opponent.

The change in Polish vote undoubtedly accounted for the fact that Michigan had Democratic governors for six of the 10 years between 1932 and 1942.

Alignment of Polish-American voters on the Democratic side was similarly responsible in large degree for the huge majorities candidates of that party rolled up in the same decade in such previously-Republican cities as Cleveland, Buffalo, Rochester, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Milwaukee and Hartford, all vital to Democratic victory in their states.

[NormanStewart]

Politicos fret over upsets in Dies ranks

But whether CIO is factor is undecided
By Thomas L. Stokes, Scripps-Howard staff writer

Washington –
In the ominous “one-two-three” order of Count-of-Monte-Cristo vengeance members of the dies Committee have fallen before the voters, creating a new political superstition in the House of Representatives.

Defeat of a third member – Rep. John M. Costello (D-CA) – of the investigating body which has become so obnoxious to the CIO and the New Dealers was the subject of speculation and barbed raillery about the House lobby.

A favorite wisecracking greeting of one Congressman to another was, “Don’t you want to go on the Dies Committee? There’s be a few vacancies.”

Was CIO a factor?

Just how much the CIO had to do with Rep. Costello’s defeat in Los Angeles has not yet been made clear, if it was even a substantial factor. The CIO has been taking credit for defeat of another Dies Committee member, Rep. Joe Starnes, in the recent Alabama primary, and for the withdrawal of the head man himself, Rep. Martin Dies, from the Texas primary.

The regularity of the defeats is getting on the nerves of House members still to face primaries. This is not so much from the Dies Committee angle, for there are only five members of that body, but from the appearance of new and unpredictable influences seemingly at work among the voters, of which the CIO is the most clearly recognizable.

Another angle seen

Rep. Costello’s district is described as a conservative one. It takes in part of Hollywood, where there is anti-Dies Committee sentiment prevalent, but the larger part of the district is outside Hollywood and a substantial-type community.

Rather than the Dies Committee angle which, it was reported, was not stressed, some Californians here ascribed Mr. Costello’s defeat to his opposition to the administration on numerous votes in the House. As they saw it, Democrats were rising up against a member who had failed to follow the administration.

Taken with other recent developments, it begins to appear that a voluntary “purge” is going on here and there by Democrats against those who have been bold in opposing the administration. This is borne out, contrariwise, in the success of those New Dealers who have made so much of their support of the administration – Senators Pepper in Florida, Hill in Alabama, Downey in California.

Conservative Democrats, who though they sensed a conservative swing, are having a rough time of it.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (May 19, 1944)

State’s delegation to GOP convention to meet tomorrow

Philadelphia caucus unlikely to endorse a candidate but majority favor Dewey
By Kermit McFarland

Pennsylvania’s delegation to the Republican presidential convention, which meets in caucus tomorrow in Philadelphia, is unlikely to endorse any candidate for the presidential nomination.

However, a majority of the delegates – and probably all of them – will vote for Governor Thomas E. Dewey of New York on an early ballot when the convention meets in Chicago next month.

The delegates are posing a noncommittal attitude at present, mainly at the request – implied in some cases and direct in others – of Governor Edward Martin.

May face minor fight

This plan may face a minor fight, however, because W. Clyde Haret of Williamsport, who is Lycoming County register-recorder and a delegate, disclosed today that he will offer a resolution endorsing Mr. Dewey.

He said:

It is the plain patriotic duty of Pennsylvania’s delegation to resolve unanimously to cast the state’s entire 70 votes on the first ballot for Dewey.

Several reasons given

There are several versions of the Governor’s reasons for this noncommittal policy being bruited about. But the most authoritative is that Mr. Martin looks with disfavor on any endorsement by the Pennsylvania delegates prior to the Governor’s Conference which opens at Hershey May 28.

The delegates have been asked to withhold comment until after the conference, at which Mr. Dewey will be a principal speaker. Governor John W. Bricker of Ohio, another presidential candidate, is also a scheduled speaker. The conference will be attended by nearly all the 48 governors, both Republican and Democratic.

Mr. Martin is represented as feeling that as host state it would be a breach of courtesy for the Pennsylvania delegation to pledge itself at this time.

Other versions offered

Other versions of the story less credible include one which holds that Republican state leaders don’t want to get caught out on a limb of Mr. Dewey refused to run, another which maintains that the Governor is endeavoring to show that he holds the delegation in his vest pocket and a third which contends that state leaders don’t want to “embarrass” Mr. Dewey before he formally announces his candidacy.

Adhering, in the main, to this noncommittal policy, the 10 delegates and 10 alternates from Allegheny County are maintaining a loose disguise over their obvious pro-Dewey sentiment.

A poll of the 10 delegates drew a flat commitment from only one, although several indirectly indicated a preference for Mr. Dewey. All of them were elected on an uninstructed basis.

Estep favors Dewey

Harry A. Estep, former Congressman who is a delegate from the 32nd district, said Mr. Dewey is his “personal preference” although he would be satisfied, under the circumstances, if the delegation voted no endorsement at tomorrow’s caucus.

Three of the alternates said they would vote for Mr. Dewey, if they get a vote (Alternates vote only in case of a delegate’s absence).

David H. Anderson of Homestead, alternate from the 23rd district, and Ray E. Schneider, North Side insurance dealer, agreed as candidates to support the popular choice – Mr. Dewey, on the basis of the write-in vote cast at the primary. The other alternate who declared himself is McKeesport physician Dr. Thomas A. Steele.

One alternate, Flora Von Hofen of Sewickley, elected by write-in votes in the 30th district, said she would not attend the convention. She declined to explain.

Mrs. Mary Hart Poling of Dormont, an alternate from the 31st district, is out of the city and couldn’t be reached in the poll, but she ran on an agreement to support the popular choice.

The statements of delegates and alternates from Allegheny County on their presidential preferences follow:

• Frank J. Harris, 31st district delegate:

Any delegate should be guided to a great extent by the sentiment of the people in his party. It is very apparent that the people of Pennsylvania seem to be for Governor Dewey. The write-in votes cast at the primary definitely indicated the wishes of the people. Therefore, the duty of every delegate at this writing is clear and definite.

• William B. McFall, 31st district delegate:

The overwhelming number of those whom I have consulted favor Governor Dewey.

• James F. Malone, 32nd district delegate:

Right now, Governor Dewey appears to be the outstanding candidate.

• Harry A. Ester, 32nd district delegate:

I was elected as an uninstructed delegate, but my personal preference is Governor Dewey/. However, I’m perfectly satisfied if the delegation doesn’t want to act at Philadelphia but decides to wait until we meet again in Chicago.

• Paul W. Mack, 33rd district delegate: “No comment.”

• John S. Herron, 39th district delegate:

I prefer not to make any statement until after the caucus.

• William P. Witherow, 29th district delegate:

I am uninstructed. I intend to give the question of a nominee every consideration, but I wouldn’t like to mention any names now. I feel that the Pennsylvania delegation will do the best job possible.

• Ralph E. Flinn, 30th delegate delegate:

I wouldn’t want to answer. In fact, I don’t know. I’m not instructed. I ran unpledged and unsupported by the organization and I don’t support it matters much whether I’m for a candidate or not.

• William H. Robertson, 30th district delegate:

I’d like to give Governor Martin a complimentary vote, but I don’t want to miss the boat. I think Governor Dewey will be nominated very early in the game.

• C. J. McBride, 33rd district delegate:

I am not committed to any candidate, but I think the Pennsylvania delegation will support the people’s preference.

ALTERNATES

• Mrs. Adelaide Rigby Conly, 39th district alternate:

I am going to wait until the delegation meets. I want to see if there is going to be any group action.

• Mrs. Anna M. Conley, 32nd district alternate:

I want to wait until the caucus in Philadelphia before I make any statement.

• Dr. Thomas A. Steele, 33rd district alternate: “I like Tom Dewey.”

• David H. Anderson, 33rd district alternate:

I think Dewey would be it.

• George R. Hann, 30th district alternate:

I think the delegates should sit down and have two or three conferences before any of them make any commitments.

• Ray E. Schneider, 30th district alternate:

If I have a vote at the convention, I personally would like to be for Governor Dewey.

• Mrs. Nelle G. Dressler, 29th district alternate:

I feel we should wait until the delegate caucus.

[NormanStewart]

Oregon voters go to polls

Portland, Oregon (UP) –
Two senatorial contests feature the Oregon primary today, in which voters balloted on nominees for Congressional, state and local offices.

Senator Rufus Holman (R-OR) was opposed in his campaign for renomination by Wayne L. Morse, former member of the War Labor Board and dean of the University of Oregon Law School.

In the battle for the GOP nomination for the senatorial vacancy created by the death of Charles L. McNary, Guy Cordon (the interim appointee) was opposed by former Governor Charles Sprague.

Willis Mahoney of Klamath Falls was unopposed for the Democratic short-term nomination, while Walter Whitbeck and Edgar Smith sought the regular-term nomination.

President Roosevelt was unopposed in the Democratic preferential primary, while a heavy write-in vote was anticipated on the Republican side, where no candidates were listed.

[NormanStewart]

Stokes: Roosevelt, CIO worry Democrats

By Thomas L. Stokes, Scripps-Howard staff writer

Washington –
The House of Representatives’ lobbies and cloakrooms are somewhat gloomy with what might be termed “Democratic pre-election blues.”

They are inspired by two fears.

One, presumably common to Democrats of all shades outside the Solid South, is that President Roosevelt may not run again. This anxiety would not seem to be well-grounded from all the preparations that are going on to “draft” Mr. Roosevelt, but the ordinary rules don’t apply to politicians who are a timorous lot. Many, outside the South, are afraid they will be swept out of office if the President does not head the ticket and give them a coattail ride.

They would like some word from on high. They are not going to get it. To keep them on tenterhooks is part of the clever game being played by the President, for that tends to keep them in line and will make the “draft” this year more closely approximate a real call, without the synthetic tomfoolery of four years ago.

The other fear, especially plaguing to conservatives still to face primary tests, is the sudden and surprising strength exhibited by the CIO through its militant and aggressive Political Action Committee which broke out in the South, of all places.

The tall, spare Rep. Smith (D-VA), co-author of the Smith-Connally Act and outstanding anti-labor leader in the House, gave voice to this undercover dread that he sought to calm the fears of his colleagues.

He pointed out that although Attorney General Biddle says the CIO Committee has not violated the Smith-Connally Act by raising a $700,000 fund for political activity, he had introduced a resolution for an investigation into contributions by both corporations and labor unions to political committees. Such contributions are forbidden by the Smith-Connally Act.

This resolution represents the counterattack of the conservatives. It is the brainchild of Rep. Smith and Rep. Cox (D-GA), subsequently it was broadened and was reintroduced in the name of Rep. Gathings (D-AR), who comes from a plantation district safe against any invasion from CIO, so that Mr. Gathings can proceed freely.

During the floor discussion, no one mentioned expenditures by corporations, obviously large in the Florida and Alabama primaries against New Deal candidates. New Dealers will see that this part of the story comes out if the Smith investigation is authorized.

[NormanStewart]

To nominate Stassen

Washington –
Senator Joseph H. Ball (R-MN) will nominate LtCdr. Harold E. Stassen, former Minnesota Governor, for President at the Republican National Convention in Chicago on June 26.

[NormanStewart]

New liberal party to be organized

New York (UP) –
Organization of a new liberal party, which plans to name the first national ticket, headed by President Roosevelt, will be completed at a state convention opening tonight.

The ticket, including Vice President Henry A. Wallace, and Senator Robert F. Wagner (D-NY), will be named at tomorrow’s session of the convention, Dean Alfange, head of the Liberal and Labor Committee, which is organizing the party, predicted.

The new party is composed of former right-wing members of the American Labor Party and other liberal elements.

[NormanStewart]

The Pittsburgh Press (May 20, 1944)

Governor Dewey leads in Oregon, 8–1

Senator Holman trails Wayne Morse

Portland, Oregon (UP) –
Governor Thomas E. Dewey of New York took an overwhelming lead today over LtCdr. Harold E. Stassen and Governor John Bricker of Ohio in Republican presidential preference write-in votes cast in yesterday’s Oregon primary election.

Returns gave Mr. Dewey a lead of almost 8 to 1. The uninstructed 15-man Oregon delegation is not obligated to vote for the winner of the write-in campaign, but the results of the presidential preference balloting were expected to have a strong influence on the delegation at the Chicago convention.

Roosevelt unopposed

President Roosevelt was unopposed in the Democratic preference primary.

Local interest centered on two close contests for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate, where outlying results may decide the issues. Senator Guy Cordon, interim appointee replacing the late Senator Charles L. McNary, stayed slightly ahead of ex-Governor Charles A. Sprague for the Republican nomination.

Wayne Morse, former law school dean who resigned from the National War Labor Board to oppose Senator Rufus Holman (wealthy Republican manufacturer), held a narrow lead throughout the night’s tabulating. It was Mr. Morse’s first political race, while Mr. Holman is a veteran campaigner.

Edgar Smith, member of the State Board of Education, easily won the Democratic nomination for the Democratic nomination for the long-term Senate seat from Walter W. Whitbeck, while Willis Mahoney was unopposed for the Democratic nomination for the short term.

Returns from 829 out of 1,828 precincts gave for the GOP presidential write-in race:

Dewey	14,032
Stassen	1,867
Bricker	979

Returns from 1,029 precincts gave for Senator:

Short term
Henry Black (R)	3,270
Cordon (R)	33,883
John McBride (R)	2,152
Sprague (R)	29,166
Mahoney (D)	9,031

Long term
Earl Fisher (R)	4,456
Holman (R)	29,733
Morse (R)	33,048
Smith (D)	19,523
Whitbeck (D)	7,384

Congressmen renominated

Republican voters renominated all four o the state’s GOP Congressmen with James Mott of Salem the only one with a contest. He led Dan Harmon of Newberg, 2 to 1. The only Democratic Congressional contest found Lester Sheely of Portland holding a slight lead over L. N. Granoff.

The withdrawal of Wendell Willkie from the presidential race did not deter National Republican Committeeman Ralph Cake from being reelected. His opponent, Charles Paine of Eugene, based his campaign on Mr. Cake’s managing of the Willkie campaign.

---

Alabama group to back Dewey

Birmingham, Alabama (UP) –
Seven delegates instructed to support Thomas E. Dewey and seven others uninstructed but reported to favor the New York Governor were selected yesterday at the state Republican convention to cast Alabama’s 14 votes at the national convention in Chicago.

[NormanStewart]

GOP delegates of state will not endorse Dewey

By Robert Taylor, Pittsburgh Press staff writer

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania –
Pennsylvania Republicans today organized their forces for the presidential campaign to the accompaniment of resounding criticisms of the New Deal.

According to plan, members of the State Committee were to reelect their principal officials, but delegates to the national convention were to forego endorsement of any candidate for the Republican nomination for President.

Though the nomination of Governor Thomas E. Dewey of New York was virtually conceded by party representatives here, the principal business was to name Governor Edward Martin as chairman of the group that will vote for Pennsylvania at the Chicago convention.

That action was expected to rule out any possibility that the Pennsylvania delegates, who usually go to conventions uncommitted, might stand off in the convention by casting ballots for Governor Martin as a favorite-son candidate.

The state committee reelected State Senator M. Harvey Taylor of Harrisburg as chairman and Insurance Commissioner, Gregg L. Neel of Pittsburgh, as secretary.

Former State Senator G. Mason Owlett, president of the Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association, and Mrs. Worthington Scranton of Scranton, members of the national committee, were renamed for four-year terms.

Mrs. Edna Carroll of Philadelphia was named vice chairman in place of Mrs. Margaret R. Lamade of Williamsport, who retired, and Mrs. George Hemphill of Beaver, as assistant secretary.

Two speakers – Philadelphia City Chairman David W. Harris, and Vice Chairman Edna Carroll – told a dinner meeting of Republican women last night that “the atmosphere looks Dewey,” but the decision of party leaders against a Dewey endorsement was expected to dominate the delegate caucus.

Speakers at the series of meetings gave a sample of what Republican campaign oratory will sound like as they denounced the New Deal, its works and personalities.

Edgar W. Baird, candidate for state treasurer, said:

It’s not the New Deal anymore – to my mind it’s the National Socialist Party of America.

Lieutenant Governor John C. Bell asked:

Shall the House of America, built on the rock of Liberty, be supplanted by the House of Roosevelt, embedded and about to be rebuilt on the shifting sands of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Communist Russia.

Government seizure of Montgomery Ward & Co., high taxation and the activities of the CIO Political Action Committee are among the subjects Republicans will hammer on, according to this preview.

Mr. Owlett summed it up this way:

I don’t believe we’re going to turn this nation of ours over to Sidney Hillman, Frankfurter, Hopkins or Mrs. Roosevelt.

Senator James J. Davis, head of the state ticket as candidate for reelection, told the meeting the nation must be prepared after the war for “full participation in an international organization to preserve the peace.”

Must have better program

Governor Martin, in the keynote speech, said that, in five years of Republican rule, Pennsylvania turned a deficit of $71 million into a $100 million surplus, with lower taxes and increased appropriations of $40 million for education and welfare.

After 12 years of the New Deal, he said, the nation now is entering “the most difficult and dangerous period of American history.”

He said:

Regardless of the fact that the Constitution has been ignored and frequently evaded, and that our domestic problems have been recklessly handled, the Republican Party cannot win by griping, complaining and faultfinding.

We must have a better program. We must convince the voters that we have the will and the ability to put that program into effect.

11-point program

The Pennsylvania chief executive expressed the greatest confidence in the ability of the Republican Party to stop the greedy nations of the post-war era, and to lead the people in the “American way.”

Mr. Martin said:

From the days of William McKinley, John Hay and Theodore Roosevelt, the Republican Party has ably handled international affairs. The acquisition of the Philippines and Puerto Rico gave us great concern. The Democrats opposed, but the problems were courageously met and handled to the entire satisfaction of the American people by the Republican Party,

Mr. Martin proposed an 11-point program for the Republican Party:

• The use of all our energies to speedily win the war.

• Work for permanent peace in collaboration with other nations.

• Preservation of the sovereignty of the United States.

• A program of veteran rehabilitation, reemployment and opportunity to succeed as a recompense for sacrifices made in the service.

• A government of thrift and economy. Elimination of all unnecessary super-government.

• A policy toward agriculture, labor and management, that assures them equality of opportunity, freedom of action and minimum of interference by government.

• Simplification and decentralization of government.

• An end to the economy of scarcity and a clear recognition that the economy of plenty is the only economy for America.

• Disposition after the war of all surplus lands, factories and material required by the government for the prosecution of the war and full establishment of an economy of full private enterprise.

• A program of conservation of national resources.

• An adequate program of national defense to safeguard America and secure peace for the world.

[NormanStewart]

Völkischer Beobachter (May 21, 1944)

Tarnungsmanöver auf Befehl Moskaus –
Auflösung der US-Kommunisten

dnb. Genf, 20. Mai –
Wie Reuters meldet, soll die seit 25 Jahren bestehende Partei der US-Kommunisten den einstimmigen Beschluß gefaßt haben, sich als politische Partei aufzulösen. Daß diese angebliche Auflösung nur aus Tarnungsgründen erfolgt, geht aus dem weiteren Inhalt der Meldung hervor, wonach dafür eine neue, nicht politisch aufgezogene Organisation gebildet werden soll.

Genau wie seinerzeit bei der Auflösung der Komintern wird also auch nur das Firmenschild geändert, um unter einem neuen Namen umso ungestörter die Befehle Moskaus ausführen zu können.

Da weite Kreise der USA den Kommunismus ablehnen, wird auch Herr Roosevelt erfreut sein, daß die Kommunisten, die unter Verzicht eines eigenen Kandidaten für die Wiederwahl des Kriegshetzers und politischen Freundes im Weißen Hause stimmen werden, sich ein neues Mäntelchen anziehen wollen, das Roosevelt ermöglicht, sich noch mehr als bisher für die Jünger Stalins einzusetzen, nachdem seine Frau schon vor längerer Zeit als erste Kommunistin bezeichnet wird.

[NormanStewart]

The Brooklyn Eagle (May 21, 1944)

New Liberal Party lines up for Roosevelt and Wallace

World peace unit plank is adopted

The new Liberal Party, organized by former right-wing leaders of the American Labor Party and allied groups as the nucleus of a potential national liberal party, threw itself once into the 1944 national campaign yesterday by voting by acclamation to nominate President Roosevelt for a fourth term.

The action, climaxing a two-day convention in the Hotel Roosevelt in Manhattan, was voted by 1,124 delegates who. shortly afterward, also now chose by acclamation Vice President Wallace as their nominee for reelection. The same method was used to vote the renomination of Senator Robert F. Wagner for a new six-year term in Washington.

Claim 400,000 votes

Convention spokesmen predicted at the close of the proceedings the new party would poll 400,000 votes lor Roosevelt. The new party comes into existence less than 60 days after former right-wing leaders of the ALP withdrew from the latter organization after a losing primary fight in March which involved the issues of party control and alleged ALP domination by Communists and their so-called fellow travelers.

Under the state election laws, the new political group, in order to place the names of the President, Vice President and Senator Wagner on the ballot, must nominate by petition as an independent party. Its nomination of the Roosevelt-Wallace ticket will require 12,000 signatures of state voters, with at least 50 from each county.

A demonstration of between 10 and 15 minutes was staged when President Roosevelt’s name was presented to the delegates in a nomination speech by Samuel Shore, vice president of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union, the most powerful union group behind the new party.

Delegates parade

Horn-tooting, cowbell-ringing, banner-waving delegates paraded around the main ballroom, in which the convention was staged, and went into a similar demonstration later when the nomination was made.

Mr. Shore said:

In hours heavy with uncertainties, we need men who are unswerving in their certainty of principle, their devotion to justice, their loyalty to ideals. Small men cannot perform great tasks – no matter how big their ambition or how wealthy their backers.

The speaker placed the President’s name before the delegates without a reference to a “draft” movement.

O’Leary endorses choice

Joseph V. O’Leary, former State Controller, made a seconding speech. The convention howled with laughter later when Prof. William Withers of Queens College, in another seconding speech, declared:

It is a privilege to second the nomination, not of an Ohio Governor, not of a naval officer from Minnesota, not of a Pacific war commander, not of a man in a blue serge suit, but of a real liberal, the greatest of them all, Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The nominations came after the convention, at its morning session, had adopted a declaration of the need for the formation of the new party and a program containing 12 planks.

The plank dealing with foreign policy called for the immediate creation of a United Nations Council and the post-war creation of a permanent international organization with power to maintain peace and carry out its decisions. One of the specific recommendations was for the formation of an “effective system of international policing to suppress aggression.”

Rejects isolationism

The plank rejected “isolationism and imperialism for American” and warned against alliances of the big powers, declaring that after the war there must be collective security and world organization.

The platform also included planks on a post-war economic policy; the transition from war to peace economy; democracy and equality; labor’s rights, agriculture, cooperatives, civil rights, education, housing, social security and civil liberties.

Prof. John L. Childs of Teachers College, Columbia University, was elected party chairman. Alex Rose was chosen chairman of the party’s administrative committee, and 21 members were named as vice chairmen, including Andrew R. Armstrong and Alexander Kahn of Brooklyn. The vice presidents include Mr. Dubinsky of the Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union.

[NormanStewart]

Browder: FDR retirement would be disaster

The recent visit of Father Stanislav Orlemanski, Polish-American Roman Catholic priest, to Moscow means “the opening of a final opportunity for the [Polish] government-in-exile to purge itself of its anti-Soviet personnel and policies and merge into the new Polish government which will undoubtedly arise,” Communist leader Earl Browder said yesterday.

Speaking at the opening session of the Communist Party’s final convention as a political party, at the Riverside Plaza Hotel in Manhattan, Browder declared that the American Communists would support President Roosevelt for a fourth term and added that the President’s retirement now, if it were to come, “would be a disaster to our country.” That is so generally recognized, he declared, that “Republicans-for-Roosevelt clubs are springing up all over the country.”

Browder announced dissolution of the Communist Party as such and said it would carry on as “a new non-party organization through which we expect to contribute to the common cause of the progressive majority of the American people,” under a new name such as the American Communist Association or American Communist Political Association.

[NormanStewart]

Heffernan: On Americans without a candidate

Sometimes I wonder if this presidential campaign, like that of 1940, will find Americans of my turn of mind without a candidate for the Chief Magistracy.

There have come to my desk letters from supporters of Mr. Roosevelt who say that they are against a fourth term but that the Republican Party offers no acceptable candidate against the present incumbent. There have come letters from readers who say that, although they are not satisfied with Governor Dewey, whose mobility of sentiments is already a target for New Deal attack, they would vote for a piebald puppy rather than for Roosevelt again.

Then there are others who, like myself, base their political action on these points:

• Desire for a return of constitutional government.

• A two-term limitation on the presidential tenure.

• This polity pronounced by Washington and a guiding influence of our foreign policy up to President Wilson’s time: “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.”

The quotation is from Washington’s Farewell Address.

People of my mind realize that we are in this war, that our bravest and best blood is being shed on a hundred fields, and that extrication when the cannon cease their thunders will not be a matter of easy and immediate process. We shall have to aid the other powers involved to enforce peace where force is necessary and to persuade it where persuasion is possible.

But that still can be attained, we think, without the permanent alliances which Washington considered ruinous to our government, and which if we make them, will create a constant drain on our manhood and wealth and a continuous irritation of our domestic politics and a continuous depreciation of the value of our way of life.

Our opposition to President Roosevelt is the result of the lack of correspondence of performance with profession. The campaign speeches of the last presidential campaign seem like words floating in air against the American boys on foreign fields today. And even before the war the domestic policy of the administration has been a strange commentary on this from his 1935 Message to Congress:

Continuous dependence on relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive of the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.

We are now confronted with the strong probability that Mr. Dewey will be the Republican candidate. His 1940 addresses, which were strongly non-intervention, are at odds with his present-day declarations on national policy. But if he be the candidate, we shall find ourselves forced either to vote for him or for the continuance in office of the New Deal and the consequent obsequies of the Constitution of the United States.

[NormanStewart]

Völkischer Beobachter (May 22, 1944)

Eine wohlverdiente Unterstützung –
Die Bolschewisten stimmen für Roosevelt

vb. Wien, 21. Mai –
Aus Washington meldet das Reuters-Büro, die Generalversammlung der nordamerikanischen kommunistischen Partei habe zum erstenmal in der Geschichte dieser Partei beschlossen, keinen eigenen Präsidentschaftskandidaten aufzustellen. Earl Browder, der Sekretär der Partei, erklärt in diesem Zusammenhang, daß die amerikanischen Kommunisten sich für die Wiederwahl Roosevelts einsetzen würden, denn ein Abgang Roosevelts würde ein Unglück für das Land sein.

Selten hat ein Präsidentschaftskandidat soviel dafür getan, sich die Unterstützung einer anderen Partei zu sichern, wie es bei Herrn Präsidenten Roosevelt und bei den amerikanischen Kommunisten der Fall ist. Außer dem britischen Premierminister hat Stalin niemandem so viel zu verdanken wie dem gegenwärtigen Präsidenten der Vereinigten Staaten. Dank der mächtigen Hilfe Nordamerikas herrscht der Bolschewismus heute bereits in Nordafrika, dringt er immer weiter in Süditalien vor, ist ihm gerade noch Nordnorwegen und Kiel angeboten worden, soll ihm für die Zeit nach dem Kriege Polen, das Baltikum, der Balkan, die Tschechei und schließlich ganz Mittel- und Westeuropa gehören. Es ist nur in Ordnung, wenn Stalin für so viel selbstlose Hilfe auch einmal einen Gegendienst leistet. Das Bündnis zwischen britisch-amerikanischem Kapitalismus und östlichem Bolschewismus findet durch die Empfehlung der kommunistischen Partei Nordamerikas an ihre Mitglieder und Wähler eine neue Steigerung.

Dieses Bündnis hat in der gleichen Sitzung der Partei noch eine höchst aufschlußreiche Deutung erfahren. Nach seiner Mitteilung über die Haltung der Partei in der Frage der Präsidentenwahl erklärt Browder weiter, auch die Kommunisten müßten die Einigkeit in den Vereinigten Staaten fördern. Man müsse die Politik von Moskau und Teheran beschützen. Deshalb dürften die Kommunisten nicht die Frage des Sozialismus in einer Form auswerten, die die nationale Einigkeit gefährden könnte. Er sagte: „Wenn irgendjemand das bestehende kapitalistische System in den Vereinigten Staaten als freies Unternehmertum zu bezeichnen wünscht, so haben wir nichts dagegen.“ Nach einigen wohlwollenden Bemerkungen für die breiteren Schichten der Bevölkerung fügt Browder hinzu: „Wir erklären in aller Offenheit, daß wir bereit sind, unsere Mitarbeit zu gewähren“ – und schließlich gab Browder noch den entscheidenden Satz:

Wir ziehen im Wahljahre 1944 keine politische Trennungslinie hinsichtlich irgendwelcher Form oder Fragen des freien Unternehmertums.

Man kann nicht deutlicher ausdrücken, wie sehr sich die Börsengrößen der Wall Street und die Machthaber des Kreml geeinigt haben, um in der ganzen Welt ihr Spiel mit verteilten Rollen zu spielen. Man kann aber auch nicht deutlicher den Völkern die Lehre erteilen, daß es nicht genügt, eine dieser beiden Mächte zu zerschlagen, sondern daß man sie beide treffen muß, wenn man die Welt wirklich befreien will.