Election 1944: Pre-convention news

americavotes1944

Dubinsky backs Roosevelt for another term

Boston, Massachusetts (UP) –
President David Dubinsky of the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union (AFL) endorsed a fourth term for President Roosevelt today.

Addressing 800 delegates representing some 305,000 members at the Garment Workers’ 25th Annual Convention, he called for government cooperation with industry in providing employment “for the great many millions who will lose their jobs on the day of the final armistice.”

Praising the New Deal as a “progressive national administration,” he said “Franklin Delano Roosevelt must and will be reelected President.”

He said:

Those who raise the cry of dictatorship expose their lack of faith in our government and in the democratic processes of government.

Address by Ohio Governor John W. Bricker
May 30, 1944

Delivered at the Governors’ Conference, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

Bricker

Our representative system of government has responded amazingly to the crisis of war. The dictators have said that the democracies were decadent. They had proclaimed to the world that a free people could not be welded together into a strong, united and determined nation. American ingenuity has belied their accusations.

We have built, almost overnight, the mightiest Army and Navy in the world. American industry and agriculture, in spite of burdensome restrictions, have worked a miracle of war production. The American people are actuated by a single-minded determination to win this war. There is every evidence that we are now ready to strike decisive blows both in Europe and in the Pacific.

We cannot safely predict the length of the war. But I think it is the part of wisdom, in developing our post-war plans, to assume that the Axis powers may see at any time that they have nothing to gain by further resistance.

We may suddenly be confronted by problems of converting our economy to peacetime production and providing jobs for our returning soldiers. There is much to do. Nothing would be more encouraging to the American people than some substantial progress in the solution of our fiscal and taxation problems. These problems have confused enterprise and dampened the spirit of our people for more than a decade.

For six years, I have attended these conferences. At every meeting we have been considering the encroachment of the national government on state and local authority. We have had to fight our own government to keep our own rights. At this time of crisis there should be complete unity of purpose in all segments of our governmental authority. On the federal plan, we have built and produced mightily. We are serving America’s best interests when we battle to maintain it. This issue of centralized bureaucratic power as against a larger degree of local autonomy cuts across our fiscal and tax policies.

In considering our fiscal policies I am guided by two basic objectives. The first is the preservation of our federal system of government. The truth is that the states are threatened by an ever-growing centralization of power in Washington. The threat is so serious that today we face the question whether the states will remain active, cooperative and equally sovereign members of our governmental system, or whether they will be reduced to provincial administrative units with little or no self-government.

Indeed, the issue reaches to the very heart of the American form of government. Shall government be kept close to the hands of the American people and ever responsive to their guiding will, or shall it be completely usurped by an already highly centralized national authority which is ever growing more powerful? Shall the people preserve home rule or shall they sit passively by while it is being strangled to death? This is the issue to which the people must be constantly alert. To settle it, there must be a sweeping change in many current philosophies of government.

My second objective is that we must devise a system of taxation and adopt a scale of rates that will revitalize our entire economic machinery. To that end we must provide the necessary incentives for investment in industry and for production by management and labor. Before the war, our economic machinery was virtually on dead center because of unbalanced budgets, severe taxation and the overwhelming threats of higher taxation and restrictive legislation.

If government is to encourage, rather than hinder, full production and high employment, it must devise a system of taxation for the long run, not for the short pull. It must understand that frequent changes in fiscal policy throw our economic machinery out of gear and cause confidence to give way to misgiving and uncertainty. Government also must understand that if risks are to be taken, there must be a fair balance between opportunity for reward and hazard of loss.

In order to grasp fully the immediate and far-reaching significance of state and local fiscal policies, it is necessary to bear in mind certain trends which have been changing our public fiscal policies.

From the founding of our nation until the early 20th century, ours was essentially an agrarian economy. Most individuals felt far removed from the federal government – even from state government. Their governmental relations were primarily with the township or town and the county.

The federal government was concerned mainly with foreign relations, especially foreign commerce. At home it had the job of maintaining a small army and navy and improving internal waterways. Its financial requirements were easily met by indirect taxes, largely customs, and a few internal revenue duties of a sumptuary nature.

With the closing of the geographical frontier and the rapid growth of cities, the Machine Age was upon us. Soon a wider view was taken of interstate commerce. More businesses were held by the courts to be carrying on interstate commerce and hence came within the purview of Congress.

Thus began the more minute federal regulation of business which involved the organization of new federal agencies and the expansion of old ones. This led to the search for new sources of revenue. The income tax amendment was ratified in 1913 and immediately a new federal tax was imposed. World War I brought death taxes to the federal system. The Depression of the ‘30s saw the introduction of many more new taxes, such as those on payrolls, and the extension of old ones.

These developments had an adverse effect upon state and local governments. Confronted with their own increased financial responsibilities resulting from the Depression, they found their tax resources being cut into very severely by the revenue demands of the federal government. Nevertheless, they have continued, without forethought, to go along with a trend which, if continued, will lead to the loss of their financial independence. Our federal system is founded upon the necessity of maintaining strong, independent state and local governments. They cannot be destroyed without also destroying freedom. As Dean Pound said:

All experience shows that a domain in continental extent as always been ruled as an autocracy or as a federal government.

Or as Woodrow Wilson was moved to say:

The history of liberty is the history of the limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it. When we resist… concentration of power, we are resisting the processes of death, because concentration of power is what always precedes the destruction of human liberties.

It is true that now the states and local governments generally are in a relatively good financial position. Many states have accumulated surpluses. This present condition has resulted from more efficient and economical operation of state and local governments. It also resulted from the rise in the national income which started in 1939 and which was accelerated by the war in Europe, the defense program and, finally, our war production. Notwithstanding this condition, however, we should not be oblivious of the underlying currents which are inevitably washing away the very foundation of our state and local governments – their traditional financial independence. The time has come for the adoption of fiscal policies which will preserve that financial independence.

Attention should first be directed to the mainstay of local governments – the property tax. This has been severely reduced by the purchase of more and more land by the federal government, thus withdrawing it from the state and local tax rolls. As of June 30, 1937, it was estimated that total federal real estate holdings, including the public domain, were 395,000,000 acres. This was more than 20 percent of the total area of the country. If taxed at local rates, this federally owned property would have yielded some $91,000,000. That amount exceeds all collections from property taxes in 1939 in 34 of our 48 states.

Since Pearl Harbor, there has been, of course, further substantial acquisition of land by the federal government and its instrumentalities. The Defense Plant Corporation, for example, by December 1943, had acquired more than 10,000,000 acres and 20,000 city lots.

To make up the loss in revenue, instead of permitting the states and local governments even a limited exercise of their own taxing power, the federal government devised the scheme of “payments in lieu of taxes.” Adherence to this policy will help to destroy the financial independence of local governments.

Appropriate authorization for the local taxation of federally owned property, with proper restrictions, would help to maintain their financial independence. Even more important, all this property acquired for the conduct of the war, not needed for our permanent post-war military needs, should be returned to private ownership as soon as practicable after victory, thus restoring it to the local tax rolls.

The next threat to state and local governments to which we should direct our attention is the recent expansion of what might be termed the subsidy theory. This means that more and more functions of government heretofore locally administered and financed are becoming centralized. Changes in economic and social conditions obviously require, from time to time, a reallocation of governmental functions. But this should be done only when such a change results in greater benefit to the public at large with no loss in democratic control of the revenue raising and spending activities of the government assuming such function.

In 1932, federal subsidies to the states amounted to $217,000,000. By 1937, the figure had more than doubled. In 1941, it was more than triple, reaching $744,000,000. But this is not all. In 1941, in addition to the $744,000,000 granted to the states, over $95,000,000 went to local governments. Of all taxes collected in the United States in 1932, the federal government’s portion was 22 percent, leaving state and local governments 78 percent. In 1939, before World War II started, the share of state and local governments had dropped to 62 percent of all taxes, the federal government’s share having jumped to 38 percent.

Make no mistake about it, the most effective way to abolish the independence of state and local governments, and with it home rule in America, is by taking away their financial independence.

Coincident with the centralization of more and more of the taxing power in the federal government and the increase of federal subsidies to state and local governments, a similar trend has been going on within the states. There has been a steady expansion of the state taxing power with increased subsidies from the states to local governments.

It is perfectly natural that extension of the subsidy program should have some support from state and local officeholders. It is always more agreeable to a local official to have money to spend for the benefit of his constituents which he gets from the state capital or from Washington than it is to have to raise it by taxing his constituents who elect him. The same may be said of state officials with respect to federal grants. But we must realize the implications and results of this trend. State and local governments become a sham and a pretense if they cannot support themselves and must go to another government for handouts.

An excellent illustration of extending the subsidy theory info more and more fields has been the recent proposal of the federal government to subsidize the public schools of the nation. By dangling federal money before the eyes of the public schools, a very attractive lure is presented. But the difficulty is aside from the loss of financial independence, that there results a proportionate surrender of the states control over their educational systems. When an effort is made to change the government of a country, one of the first steps is to take over the education and training of the youth of that country. This is what Hitler did in Germany. I am opposed to the dictation of our educational policies from Washington.

The question then is: What is to be done in the face of these trends? I offer three recommendations.

First, it is essential that the strictest economy in government be practiced. This applies particularly to the federal government. Unless federal expenditures are limited to absolutely essential items, it is inevitable that the federal government must ultimately preempt the entire field of taxation, leaving nothing for state and local governments, have repeatedly pointed out that we may expect no substantial curtailment of federal expenditures until we abolish our present bureaucracy and return to a responsible cabinet government. There is a limit to the tax burden which our economy can bear.

Second, the states working together, the local governments working together and the two groups working with the Congress should take immediate steps toward appropriate segregation of tax bases, preserving appropriate fields of revenue for the national, state and local governments. One of the most serious problems confronting not only national, state and local governments, but especially the taxpayers, lies in overlapping tax bases. Our tax structure now is only a planless patchwork held together by nothing more substantial than political expediency.

Third, whenever state governments reach the point where their revenues may reasonably be anticipated to exceed necessary demands for any material period of time, instead of increasing local government subsidies, they should repeal such taxes as will best open fields of revenue for local governments. During recent years, the present administration in Ohio, after paying off its inherited deficits, has been confronted with the constant demand from local governments that the state’s surplus be distributed to them. It was my position last year that had we not been confronted with the uncertainties of war and the necessity of providing for a much-needed post-war building program, we should have launched upon a state tax repeal program, rather than one of increasing subsidies to local governments.

Of equal importance to the establishment of fiscal policies to maintain financial independence of state and local governments is the shaping of those policies so as to aid and encourage rather than stifle and suppress American private enterprise. Sound governmental fiscal policies, national, state and local, are the foundation stones of a stable economy and American prosperity.

There is need for further cooperation between the states in extension of reciprocity provisions in tax statutes. In view of recent decisions of the Supreme Court, two or more states may now tax the same income, the same inheritance or the same property. The necessity for appropriate reciprocal legislation has become more pressing in order to avoid this form of double taxation. While in a sense multiple taxation has existed for many years, it is my position that there is no justification for the imposition of such inequitable double taxation as I have mentioned. Appropriate reciprocal legislation will also relieve not only business, but individual citizens from double taxation arising from questions of domicile.

I am convinced that constructive work along these and other similar fines will aid rather than hamper business, to which we must look for high employment. But if this program is to be effective, the federal government also must do its part. This means that recent fiscal and tax policies of the federal government must be completely overhauled.

The federal government should balance its budget at the earliest possible date. That would give more jobs than all the made-work the Government could possibly plan. Simplification and stability of tax laws are desperately needed. We are given little encouragement along this line now. Adherence to the principle that the taxing power exists primarily for the purpose of raising necessary revenue and should not be used as an undercover method of effecting social changes is also necessary.

Moreover, there is a vital need for a sane and constructive federal tax policy that will stimulate incentive and encourage venture capital. Federal taxes should be reduced as soon as possible after victory. Such action would enable business to map out constant fear of changes, and to provide jobs for all who wish to work.

The recent Baruch-Hancock report went even farther. It said: “Until it is definitely known that post-war taxes are to be reduced, the launching of new enterprises and the expansion of existing ones will be deterred.” Accordingly, it recommended “that a post-war tax law be drafted now, during the war, and put on the shelf to go into effect at the end of the war.”

This proposal points the way toward the kind of federal tax policy that will be needed for reconstruction and rehabilitation after the war. In my judgment, the pre-war federal policy of spend, waste, borrow and tax will wreck American economy if continued in the post-war period. A nation which builds its financial house upon shifting sands of deficit financing in peace times cannot survive as a nation.

Nor can such a nation be a powerful influence in world affairs. The United States must help solve such problems as currencies, credits, air rights, markets and international trade. So long as the world is inflicted with discriminatory trade agreements, quotas, cartels, exchange wars, barter systems and the like, there can be little assurance of an enduring peace. Collaboration between nations in solving world economic and monetary problems is just as necessary as collaboration in solving world diplomatic and political problems.

But for all these purposes America must be strong. To be strong, to be influential, to be helpful in the world, we must, above everything else, build our own house upon the solid rock of financial solvency, equity and justice. Our power to help others will be dependent upon the degree in which we strengthen private enterprise and preserve individual opportunity.

Let us then remember, as the guiding principle of domestic policy, that our state and local governments, as well as the national government, are essential to our federal system. The strength of America stems from the practice of representative government in the towns, the cities, the counties and the states of this nation. When state and local governments become paralyzed, the door is open to every form of absolutism and every form of demagogy. When local responsibility is destroyed, citizenship atrophies and dies. But when state and local governments flourish, when men and women practice representative home rule, the foundations of the Republic are secure. The more the history of the Republic is written at the crossroads and the less at the Capitol, the freer we shall be.

The Free Lance-Star (May 30, 1944)

americavotes1944

Dewey hits past foreign policy

Says America must no longer sit on the sidelines

Hershey, Pennsylvania (AP) –
Governor Thomas E. Dewey of New York says Americans “must not again sit on the sidelines as mere observers and commentators” while new warlords grow strong.

The leading figure in the Republican presidential nomination picture told the 36th Governors’ Conference that “our foreign affairs must be so conducted that disasters like the present one will not recur… the people are determined to join in preventing future wars.”

Holding that civilians are “worried about inefficiencies and bungling” on the home front, Dewey said:

While there has been a maze of regimentation, some necessary, some inexcusable, our strength at home has come wholly from the genius of our free men in industry and the devotion of our workers and farmers to their jobs. Our success or failure after the war will depend on whether we, as a nation, take to heart the lesson the war has taught us.

If we permit the continuance of the regimentation which some so earnestly desire, we shall fail. We cannot practice in peace the centralization which brought totalitarianism to our enemies and be either free or successful.

Dewey asserted that in the pre-war years:

We had a 10-year depression, ended only by the feverish and deadly stimulus of war… no material reason was adequate to explain what happened.

The task of political leaders, he said, is to unify – “to keep and build our newfound faith in God.”

The Brooklyn Eagle (May 31, 1944)

americavotes1944

Democrats call meeting to action on the 1944 county ticket

Will decide judgeship, other posts
By Joseph H. Schmalacker

Frank V. Kelly, Democratic county leader, today scheduled a meeting of the Kings County Democratic executive committee for June 8, to act on the county ticket for the 1944 campaign. The chief political prize to be decided at the session is the party’s designation for the $22,500-a-year County Court judgeship.

The executive committee, headed by Kelly and consisting of the leaders and co-leaders of Brooklyn’s 24 new assembly districts, is also expected to announce the party’s candidates for nine seats in Congress, nine in the State Senate and 24 in the Assembly.

Three mentioned for post

The race for the County Court designation has been growing in intensity anions the Democrats. The prevailing belief is that State Senator Carmine Marasco of the Bensonhurst-Coney Island district holds the inside track. City Court Justice Sylvester Sabbatino, City Councilman Anthony J. Digiovanna and others are also in the running.

The Democrats are out to recapture the county judicial office which was held by the late Democratic Judge Peter J. Brancato, who died several months ago. It is occupied now by Judge Nicholas Howard Pinto, a Republican, who is the temporary appointee of Governor Dewey.

Will decide mix-ups

The announcement of the slate by the leaders after next week’s meeting is due to decide several unsettled political mix-ups produced by the reapportionment of legislative districts. The political fate of Senator Edward J. Coughlin is due to be one of those decided.

The reapportionment had the effect of throwing the Democratic veteran into a revised senatorial district with Senator James J. Crawford and Senator Louis B. Heller. Coughlin has transferred his residence to the Flatbush district, where the senatorial post is held by Senator Samuel L. Greenberg. Several delegations have visited Leader Kelly to urge Coughlin’s redesignation.

americavotes1944

Opponent leads Newsome in Alabama primary

Birmingham, Alabama (UP) –
Rep. John Newsome and former Rep. Luther Patrick were running a close race for nomination in the 9th district, nearly-complete returns showed today in a Democratic Congressional runoff primary.

Latest returns gave Patrick 12,874 votes and 12,252 for Newsome, who two years ago was unseated by Patrick.

americavotes1944

Roosevelt-Dewey ticket suggested by newspaper

Red Bank, New Jersey (UP) –
The Red Bank Daily Standard suggested editorially today a “unity” presidential ticket, with President Roosevelt running for reelection and New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey for Vice President.

The Brooklyn Eagle (June 1, 1944)

americavotes1944

Bricker cites free enterprise as big 1944 issue

Hershey, Pennsylvania (UP) –
Governor John W. Bricker of Ohio, candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, resumed active campaigning today after spending four “non-political” days in conferences with 35 other governors, including his possible chief opponent, Thomas E. Dewey of New York.

Even before the official end of the 36th Annual Governors’ Conference, Bricker went to Lancaster, Pennsylvania, where he told local members of the Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association that “reestablishment of free enterprise” was one of the foremost issues of the 1944 campaign.

Dewey stayed to the end, ruffling some feelings when he observed that the conference spent too much time on social activities and too little time on problems common to the states, but closing it with a conciliatory note when he acted as mediator in a dispute over a resolution demanding better cooperation between the federal government and the states.

Bricker told his Lancaster audience:

Free enterprise made our country great and strong. Yet the New Deal has arrogantly sought to destroy business in many ways.

Recalling the recent government seizure of Montgomery Ward & Co. at Chicago, Bricker quoted Attorney General Francis Biddle as saying in that connection that “no business in this country is immune from seizure.”

He asserted:

If what Attorney General Biddle says is true, then we no longer have a constitutional government ln the United States of America – we have a dictator.

americavotes1944

Nolan charges New Deal strangles American business

Cites vital role of free enterprise
By Joseph H. Schmalacker

William G. Nolan, Republican nominee in the 4th Congressional district special election, charged in a statement issued today through Republican campaign headquarters that American business has been subjected to a process of “strangulation” by the New Deal.

He declared:

We of the Republican Party feel that with aggressive and strengthening leadership in Congress we can once again develop the initiative and concentrated effort of American free enterprise.

Nolan’s statement asserted America’s “fifth freedom” was the freedom of enterprise and maintained its existence depended on “six birthrights of every American.” He said these birthrights had motivated American life from the very beginning and added that:

Without the fifth freedom, the four freedoms of the Bill of Rights would have little vitality, and the future development of our country would never be possible of achievement.

Names six birthrights

Nolan’s statement said the birthrights included:

The freedom to work in a field of one’s own choosing; the freedom to earn and save and to invest one’s savings; the freedom to plan and build and to profit from one’s contribution to the growth and progress of one’s community; the freedom to create and to enjoy the fruits of one’s creativeness; the freedom to venture and to reap the rewards of one’s initiative and daring, and the freedom to try and fail and to try again.

The statement added:

The New Deal and the present administration, through its socialized philosophy and governmental structure, does not hold any such opportunity for an expanded future. We fell, therefore, that we should add emphasis to these points and to bring to the electorate’s attention the strangulation of American business which the New Deal is carrying out.

Nolan is running against John J. Rooney, Assistant District Attorney, who has both the Democratic and American Labor Party endorsements. Both sides stepped up their activities today, announcing a series of semi-final political rallies for the special election next Tuesday. Nolan’s backers will stage a rally at the 7th AW Republican Club, 5205 5th Avenue, tonight, while Rooney speaks at the 3rd AD Democratic Club, Clinton and Kane Streets. Nolan, a World War I veteran, also unveiled a servicemen’s plaque at the Federal Republican Club, 341 Union Street.

GOP faces hard fight

Behind the widening activity of the campaign was a bid by both the Republicans and Democrats to strengthen party prestige. The Republicans, waging an uphill fight in a district long recognized as a Democratic stronghold, hope to make an impressive showing on the basis of the vote which turns out at the polls. The late Rep. Thomas H. Cullen, whose death caused Governor Dewey to call the special election, represented the district for 13 consecutive terms and was dean of New York State’s Democratic delegation in the House.

With 30,487 voters registered and eligible to cast ballots and with the number of enrolled voters heavily in favor of the Democrats, the latter are working hard to guard against a slump in the percentage of the vote which their party polls normally. Records of the Board of Elections give the Democrats an enrollment of 23,127 to the Republican Party total of 4,995.

The Brooklyn Eagle (June 4, 1944)

americavotes1944

Nolan, Rooney press fight for Congress seat

By Joseph H. Schmalacker

An all-out fight with the fourth term, the New Deal and so-called “communistic tie-ups” as the principal issues, developed in the special election in Brooklyn’s 4th Congressional district last night as the campaign approached a climax and political party organizations and organized labor groups mobilized to bring their supporters to the polls Tuesday.

The importance rival forces have attached to the special election as a political laboratory test in advance of the November campaign became clear from the eleventh-hour activities of the opposing camps.

The Republican campaign headquarters, backing William G. Nolan, GOP nominee, and gunning for a political upset in a district long controlled by the Democrats, flooded the mails with 25,000 letters to the voters, began the distribution of 15,000 cards by hand and prepared to throw a force of 250 workers into the district for direct calls to the homes of voters.

Nolan said in the letter to the voters:

I am opposed to communistic tie-ups, to the New Deal, to the fourth term and to the government’s “kicking” of labor and small business around to suit its political convenience.

Rooney backers announced

The headquarters for John J. Rooney, Democratic nominee (also endorsed by the American Labor Party), struck back by announcing Rooney’s endorsement by the Central and Labor Council of the American Federation of Labor acting through its Brooklyn Nonpartisan Committee.

Meanwhile, the Greater New York CIO Council, headed by Councilman Michael J. Quill, reiterated its support of Rooney and called on CIO members to vote for him.

Mr. Quill, declaring Rooney had pledged himself without qualification to support President Roosevelt and his war and peace policies, asserted the special election was important, not only to help determine the makeup of Congress, “but also as demonstrating labor and the people’s support for President Roosevelt’s Victory program.”

Nolan restates position

Nolan’s letter reiterated his platform of the freedoms of enterprise on which he has been campaigning.

His letter told the voters:

It is imperative that every voter go to the polls and vote, not only to elect a new Congressman, due to the untimely death of our friend and neighbor, Congressman Thomas Cullen, but to oppose the New Deal and a fourth term. I believe in the democratic principles of Thomas Jefferson.

Thomas Murtha, president of Central Trades and Labor Council, and James C. Quinn, secretary, told Rooney in a letter that the council after an analysis of the records of the candidates had reported favorably on Rooney’s candidacy.

Other Rooney supporters

Rooney’s headquarters said he had also received expressions of support from Vincent Kane, president of the Uniformed Firemen’s Association; Vincent J. Ferris, former secretary of the Allied Printing Trades Council; James Barry of the Plasterers Council; Jacob Rosenberg, president of the Musicians Union, Local 802, and John Owens, secretary and treasurer of the International Longshoremen’s Union. Nolan, a superintendent of stevedores, is a member of this union. The Rooney headquarters listed about ten other union locals said to have endorsed him.

Meanwhile, William A. Root, chairman of the Nolan campaign committee, and Raymond Schmidt, vice chairman, said they believed the election would be close. The voting on Tuesday will be from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. ET.

americavotes1944

Bricker to carry fight to convention

Washington (UP) – (June 3)
Roy D. Moore, Ohio publisher who is managing Governor John W. Bricker’s campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, said tonight that “our man is still in the fight and will stay there until the GOP Convention acts.”

He said in an interview that the Bricker forces do not anticipate or concede possible first-ballot nomination of Governor Thomas E. Dewey of New York. He also challenged accuracy of newspaper polls and surveys by private organizations indicating that Dewey has enough pledged and claimed delegates to win on the first ballot.

Moore said:

Governor Bricker would not have entered this contest unless he and his friends thought he could win. The fact that we are still in this fight should prove that we haven’t changed our minds.

Bricker’s aides, he asserted, have made no claim to delegates except those from Ohio.

The Brooklyn Eagle (June 5, 1944)

americavotes1944

New Mexico GOP voters to pick governor nominee

Albuquerque, New Mexico (UP) –
Only about 33,000 Democratic votes, less than half the 64,000 party votes recorded in the 1942 primary, will be cast in New Mexico’s primary election tomorrow, Ray Rodgers, State Democratic chairman, predicted today.

Major interest in the Republican ticket was centered in the race for the nomination for Governor between Gallup banker Glenn Emmons and Grants businessman Carroll Gunderson.

Seeking nomination for the state’s two seats in the House of Representatives in the Democratic contest, Reps. Clinton Anderson and Antonio Fernandez are running for reelection, opposed by Robert Valdez and Capt. Bob Wollard.


ALP names Dickstein as Congress candidate

Rep. Samuel Dickstein, a Manhattan Democrat, who has served in Congress 22 years, yesterday was named as the American Labor Party candidate from the new 19th Congressional district.

Tammany leaders are scheduled to select a candidate today, and there was some doubt as to whether Dickstein or Rep. Arthur Klein would get the Democratic nomination.

americavotes1944

Farley’s name may be offered to convention

New Deal foes would prevent unanimous choice of Roosevelt
By Lyle C. Wilson

Washington (UP) –
Submission of James A. Farley’s name to the Democratic National Convention for the presidential nomination in opposition to President Roosevelt’s fourth term candidacy was under consideration today by conservative Democrats.

Farley’s permission still has to be obtained. No one expects the proposed maneuver to prevent the President’s renomination, but it would prevent unanimous action. It is the only method by which anti-Roosevelt Democrats can show the voters the extent of fourth term opposition within the party – be it large or small.

Convention spectators will see real political drama if Farley is placed in nomination. Among some of the big and little convention delegates already selected, there is a scattering of anti-fourth term sentiment which will never have an opportunity to express itself unless there is at least one name put up against Mr. Roosevelt.

Could poll delegations

But with two men in the contest, a situation will be created in which all or any of the state delegations can be polled. The usual way of casting ballots is for the chairman of each delegation to announce the disposition of its voters as the state roll is called. Some of the big states and some of the little ones bind their delegations with the so-called unit rule.

In Florida, for instance, the unit rule has been followed. That state’s 18 delegates to the Democratic convention are divided 14 for Mr. Roosevelt and four for Senator Harry F. Byrd (D-VA). Under the unit rule, the chairman could and probably will announce that Florida casts 18 convention votes for Mr. Roosevelt’s renomination.

But with Farley or any opposition candidate in the race, there could be a request for a poll of the delegation.

Foresee split in 20 states

It is believed that in upwards of 20 states, Farley’s name would cause a minority of the various delegations to split away from the Roosevelt parade to cast what would be, at most, courtesy ballots for the former Postmaster General and protest ballots against the President.

Farley was placed in nomination four years ago in opposition to a third term.

The purpose of the anti-fourth term campaign is not to elect some alternative Democrat President of the United States. It is to defeat Mr. Roosevelt. He has taken party control away from men who feel that they are entitled to consideration in Democratic affairs and they are determined to come back to power.

The New York Times (June 6, 1944)

americavotes1944

Gillette takes lead in Iowa primary

Senator ahead; Blue names in GOP race for governor

Des Moines, Iowa (AP) – (June 5)
Senator Guy M. Gillette, a Democrat campaigning for reelection, took a long lead over his opponent, Ernest K. Seemann, in the Iowa primary today.

Returns from 748 of 2,463 precincts gave Gillette 12,093, Seemann 3,181.

Mr. Seemann, a Waterloo factory worker, was making his fifth bid for a place in the national political spotlight.

The winner in the Democratic primary is to meet Governor B. B. Hickenlooper in the general election. Mr. Hickenlooper was unopposed for the Republican nomination.

In the Republican governorship race, Henry W. Burma, Speaker of the House, conceded the nomination to Lieutenant Governor Robert D. Blue. They were trailed by Milton W. Strickler of Des Moines.

Returns from 757 precincts gave:

Blue 31,925
Burma 19,215
Strickler 3,548

Two of the eight Republican Congressmen seeking renomination were trailing opponents, Henry O. Talle in the 2nd district and Fred C. Gilchrist in the 6th.

The Brooklyn Eagle (June 6, 1944)

americavotes1944

Heffernan: Bricker or Dewey – which?

Governor John W. Bricker of Ohio concluded his address the Conference of Governors with these words:

The strength of America stems from the practice of representative government in the towns, the cities, the counties and the states of this nation. When state and local governments become paralyzed, the door is open to totalitarianism and every form of demagogy. When local responsibility is destroyed, citizenship atrophies and dies. But when state and local governments flourish, when men and women practice representative government and exercise home rule, the foundations of the Republic are secure. The more the history of the Republic is written at the crossroads and the less at the Capitol, the freer we shall be.

Mr. Bricker’s immediate predecessor on the platform was his rival for the Republican presidential nomination, Governor Dewey of New York. Mr. Dewey had also stressed the desirability of strong state and local governments.

As I read both these addresses, each delivered by a statesman in whose hands may soon rest the destiny of our nation, a memory came to me. Where had words of the same import and in some instances very similar form been uttered before and by whom? In the capital of this state, and by Franklin D. Roosevelt, then – as now is Mr. Dewey – Governor of New York. Then, as now is Mr. Dewey, an aspirant for the Presidency.

And it occurred to me that among men of high ambition the desire often existed to have the seat of power wherever they may be themselves located. It is perhaps natural. So with this in mind, as a seeker for my own candidate for the Presidency, I studied carefully the two addresses. For I wanted to find a man in whom this feeling would be fundamental, as it was, let us say, in Thomas Jefferson, and would govern his actions when he had ascended from the Chief Magistracy of a state to that of the Republic. Would Mr. Dewey, who ran for the District Attorneyship and used it as a stepping-stone and the echo of whose declaration that he was resolved to serve four years in the Governorship is still on the air, hold true to the views now expressed, if he succeeded Franklin Roosevelt?

Or would John Bricker, who after three splendid terms in the Governorship of Ohio voluntarily surrendered the certainty of another successive term in order to seek the Republican nomination for the Presidency, hold fast should his ambition be gratified?

I think Bricker rings true. And, as one of those Americans who found themselves four years ago without a candidate and are again threatened with a Hobson’s choice, I hope Mr. Bricker will be the nominee.

The New York Times (June 7, 1944)

americavotes1944

Dempsey leads in New Mexico

Albuquerque, New Mexico (AP) – (June 6)
Governor John J. Dempsey, seeking renomination on the Democratic ticket, had a lead tonight of 604 votes to 97 for Mrs. Edna Peterson of Albuquerque, on the basis of unofficial and incomplete returns from thirteen of New Mexico’s 900 voting points in the primary. In the contest for the Republican governorship nomination, unofficial, incomplete returns from 11 precincts gave Gallup banker Glenn L. Emmons 129 votes to 117 for former legislator Carroll G. Gunderson.

americavotes1944

House women aid poll

Named by Spangler to advise Republican campaign

Washington – (June 6)
The six Republican women members of Congress were named today by Harrison E. Spangler, chairman of the Republican National Committee, to a special women’s advisory committee for the 1944 campaign.

All except Rep. Winifred Stanley of New York, absent on a speaking engagement, attended a luncheon conference with Mr. Spangler at which he expressed great pride in “the largest contingent of women Representatives of any one party serving at one time” and said that it was “fitting they should be the original members of the Woman’s Advisory Committee.”

The others names were Reps. Edith Nourse Rogers of Massachusetts, Frances P. Bolton of Ohio, Jessie Sumner of Illinois, Margaret Chase Smith of Maine and Clare Boothe Luce of Connecticut.

americavotes1944

Certainty in five weeks

That is period fixed in capital and President is said to base plans on it
By Arthur Krock

Washington – (June 6)
Members of the government were advised this forenoon that the invasion to liberate Europe was keeping exact pace with Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower’s timetable. They were informed that, up to the moment of this report, men, ships, aircraft and supplies had reached the destinations planned for them to reach today and at the time appointed.

In the late afternoon, the relation of the invasion to the timetable was said to be unchanged.

But only a very few high officials were given, with any exactitude, an idea of how long the military and naval commanders believe will be required before the operation under Gen. Eisenhower can be set down as an unqualified success, a general success, a moderate success, a stalemate or a defeat. This period was placed at a maximum of five weeks from June 6, or about July 11. The President, it is understood, is basing his summer plans on this calculation. Where he will go and when, and in some degree what he will do (including possible conferences abroad), will be governed by the progress of the invasion in these five weeks and its final outcome.

Air battles are expected

A military authority explained today that the lapse of time was fixed conservatively and that unforeseen events may reduce. But probably will not extend, it. He said the period will probably include one or more great air battles in which the Luftwaffe will still be able to give an account of itself. If it is virtually destroyed in one battle, since replacement facilities are believed to be inadequate, that will shorten the time. If two battles are required, the decision will be retarded that much.

He said further that the Germans can be expected to put great weight behind delaying actions until they have had to assemble as much manpower and supply as they can from their eastern and southern fronts in preparation for the great infantry and artillery battle which most authorities think will have to be fought before the road to Berlin is opened. During that time, the problem of the Allies will be to maintain and increase strength and broaden their lines of supply which, being by water, are subject to more obstacles from nature than the Germans will encounter over land.

Too early to celebrate

For these reasons and others, five weeks has been set as the period that must be passed before definite conclusions can be reached. High government officials, to whom with the President this calculation has been imparted, trust that the public will not be led by hope or native optimism to expect quick and crushing victory and the same low percentage of losses the Allies had on the first day. One of these said today that it is not yet the time to celebrate the toss harts in the air. This, he remarked, is not Armistice Day, though some people are behaving as if it was.

In the proving period of five weeks, the Republican National Convention will have met and adjourned, but there will still be nine days before the opening of the Democratic Party gathering. Thus, if the final decision does not come much more quickly, its outcome will be in doubt while the Republicans deliberate and after they have nominated their candidates for President and Vice President and adopted a platform. But the Democrats and all involved in their convention will be able to reach their conclusions (as to candidacy and otherwise) after the event.

boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! Get out of here with that nonsense!

1 Like

I’ll give it a chance. :smile:

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Get out of here you fucking john bircher!