Election Day 1946 (11-5-46)

[NormanStewart]

Vandenberg wins by big margin

DETROIT (UP) – Election of Arthur H. Vandenberg as U.S. senator and Kim Sigler as governor was assured today as Michigan returns turned in large pluralities for both Republican candidates.

Vote tabulations showed:

U.S. senator (1,925 of 3,953 precincts): Vandenberg (R) 491,603, James H. Lee (D) 220,940.

Governor (1,961 precincts): Sigler (R) 463,322, Murray Van Wagoner (D) 284,904.

Both Democrats conceded defeat.

Mr. Sigler’s advantage was regarded as safe, although Metropolitan Detroit’s returns were still scant. In Detroit, however, Mr. Sigler and Mr. Van Wagoner were running comparatively even while GOP forces were piling up a thumping outstate edge.

[NormanStewart]

Wallace predicts liberal comeback

WASHINGTON (UP) – Henry A. Wallace, former secretary of commerce and leader of the Democratic Party’s left wing, said today that “progressives must not be discouraged” by the Republican victory in yesterday’s election.

He said the Republican Congress “will inevitably multiply our economic problems.”

Mr. Wallace’s statement was issued here through the office of Harold H. Young, a political associate.

Mr. Wallace said: “Progressives must hot be discouraged by the outcome of the election. The Republican Congress will inevitably multiply our economic problems and the American people who fundamentally are always progressive in their attitudes will then turn to liberal leadership for help. As a result of this election the Democratic Party will either become more progressive or it will die. I do not expect it to die.”

[NormanStewart]

CIO to decide PAC’s future at convention

Election setback puts it in doubt
By Fred W. Perkins, Pittsburgh Press staff writer

WASHINGTON – Where the CIO Political Action Committee goes from here, after yesterday’s decisive defeat will be decided in the CIO’s national convention in Atlantic City two weeks from now.

This is the first big setback for the CIO politicos. They claimed to have furnished most of the margin for President Roosevelt’s victory in 1944. They have claimed numerous other tests of political strength. How they face the proof that when a political trend gets going no group can stop it.

The Republican gains in House and Senate are enough to prove that the CIO-PAC cannot swing a nation-wide election against general public sentiment.

Murray opposed GOP

Philip Murray, CIO president, and Jack Kroll, chairman of the CIO-PAC, both “laid it on the line” – they were dead-set against almost any candidate with a Republican label.

In addition to the general result, there are scores of individual instances in which the CIO-PAC failed. It failed to re-elect congressmen it had recommended, and it failed to defeat congressmen it had condemned.

One of the senators to which it credited a “perfect voting record” – Joe Guffey of Pennsylvania – was badly beaten. Sen. James M. Mead, who also had full CIO support, suffered probably the worst licking in New York gubernatorial history. John W. Bricker in Ohio, an avowed enemy of the CIO, romped in ahead of the Democratic incumbent.

Here’s a sample

Here is a sample of the voting records put out by the CIO-PAC against congressmen: “James W. Wadsworth, 41st New York District, Republican, – – – – – – – – – – – --.”

That meant Mr. Wadsworth had voted “wrong” on 12 issues the CIO-PAC had selected as vital. However, Mr. Wadsworth was re-elected.

Another citation was: “Mathew M. Neely, Virginia District, Democrat, xxxxxxxxxxxx.”

That meant Mr. Neely had voted “right” on the 12 issues. At last reports Mr. Neely’s re-election to the House was in doubt.

Even Case re-elected

Rep. Francis Case (R-South Dakota), sponsor of the Case Union-Control Bill, also got a completely minus tabulation. He was re-elected.

The CIO and other organized labor threats to defeat every legislator who voted for the Case Bill or the Smith-Connally law or any other union-control law didn’t work out.

The question for the CIO political leaders will be whether it is wise for a labor organization to become go closely identified with one political party as the CIO-PAC has become identified with the Democrats.

Gompers warned them

The “stodgy old fellows” who run the AFL have followed the advice of Samuel Gompers not to set compromised with a political party. Is the AFL right, or is the CIO right? That is the question the CIO now will ponder.

The CIO is not expected to withdraw immediately from political activity. It may join in with a program announced by C. B. Baldwin, executive director of a sister organization, the National Citizens PAC. Mr. Baldwin said in a speech on election eve:

“Whatever the outcome of this election, we independent progressives have got to start devoting all our energies now to make sure that in ‘48 the people in this country have a chance to vote for a presidential candidate who is really a progressive candidate.”

[NormanStewart]

Georgia woman to contest vote

ATLANTA, Georgia (UP) – Rep. Helen Douglas Mankin, refusing to concede defeat, announced today that she would contest election returns in the Fifth District giving victory to her Talmadge-supported opponent.

Mrs. Mankin, who conducted a whirlwind write-in campaign after failing in last-minute efforts to get on the election ballot, issued a fiery statement charging fraud and crookedness as unofficial and incomplete returns gave Judge James C. David more than a 6,000-vote lead.

“I was written in and counted out,” Mrs. Mankin charged.

Mrs. Mankin’s apparent defeat highlighted voting in the “Solid South” where colorful Governors James (Big Jim) Folsom of Alabama, and Eugene Talmadge, who won the summer primary on a white supremacy theme, were formally elected without opposition.

The list of Democratic southern senators returned to office included Sen. Theodore G. Bilbo of Mississippi, and Sen. Kenneth D. McKellar of Tennessee, dean and president of the Senate.

Mrs. Mankin revealed that she had obtained affidavits from voters of election violations at the polls.

“In one county (DeKalb),” Mrs. Mankin charged, “they are not counting any Mankin ballots. In another county (Fulton, which includes Atlanta), I have hundreds of affidavits stating that the voters were not shown how to vote and in some cases were refused any information.”

[NormanStewart]

Editorial: The Republicans win

The Republicans have won their greatest victory since 1928.

The political party once given up as a ghost of its former great self has staged a comeback.

But how and why did the Republicans win?

What have they done to deserve this great victory?

On the national front, very little. They have won because of the Democrats – just as the Democrats won in 1932 primarily because of the Republicans.

The election, as we make it out, was a protest. It was a protest against industrial strife, against blundering controls, against man-made inflation, against the delay and omissions of a reconversion program which didn’t reconvert.

The Republicans didn’t win because they came forward with a progressive program which gave the people real hope. They won because the people are tired of the same old stuff, because the people want a change.

In Pennsylvania, the situation has not been quite so dull.

Here, under Gov. Edward Martin, the Republican Party has shown some of the spark of genuine leadership. It has been a little better than a “sit-and-wait” party.

As a result, Mr. Martin’s victory ran ahead of the national pattern. He was more than just the beneficiary of a widespread Republican sweep, carrying the state by a majority that may exceed 600,000. At this writing his majority promises to be one of the biggest in the nation – second only to the lopsided Dewey victory in New York. As winner of so great an election victory he naturally will become a considerable national figure.

Despite his close affiliation with some of the Stone Age moneybags in the party, Mr. Martin turned out to be largely his own boss, and a progressive one at that.

While he had the benefit of war-born prosperity and thus was able to end his administration with a fat cash surplus, the governor didn’t just sit it out in Harrisburg. He did things, and he has even bigger things in mind which his successor-elect, James H. Duff, surely will carry out.

Mr. Duff, as the Republican candidate for governor, offered the people not only an experienced and able administrator, already proven by his performance, but a progressive politician of extraordinary independence.

In Pennsylvania, the Republicans offered the people something to vote FOR, as well as against.

The danger of political shifts such as the one which has been demonstrated by the returns from yesterday’s voting, is that the pendulum will swing too far.

The lean and hungry Republicans, out of power these many years in Washington and hopped up on their prospects for 1948, may fall into their old rut. Nationally, their leadership is anything but promising. There has been nothing stimulating in their recent performance, as a party, and they hold out little hope of improvement.

But if the Republicans are as keen on 1948 as they pretend to be, if they have any sense of the responsibility imposed by a great election victory, if their political judgment is half as good as their election luck–

In a word, if the Republicans have any real notion of the temper of the people, they will follow the bent of the Jim Duffs, the Vandenbergs, the Stassens, the Balls, the Warrens and other thoughtful progressives of the party. And they will avoid the ruts of the Pews and the Grundys and the Tafts and the Joe Martins and the Curly Brooks, the Dewey Shorts and the Charley Hallecks and the Harold Knutsons.

[NormanStewart]

Background of news –
Who is Bricker?

By Bertram Benedict

The results of yesterday’s election in Ohio are expected to augment consideration of John W. Bricker as a possible Republican presidential nominee in 1948.

He usually has been considered an arch-conservative. Both Wendell Willkie in 1940 and Tom Dewey in 1944 indicated that they approved of certain features of the New Deal. In his speeches as the vice-presidential candidate in 1944, Mr. Bricker aroused more enthusiasm than did either Mr. Willkie or Mr. Dewey among those Americans who thought the New Deal bad in practically every respect.

However, in his 1946 campaign for senator, Mr. Bricker described himself as a “middle-of-the-roader,” anxious to avoid the “ditches” both on the right and the left. He is for minimum wage legislation, a permanent FEPC, a federal anti-poll tax law.

Housing bill opposed

Mr. Bricker differs from the senior senator from Ohio, Robert A. Taft, about public housing. He is opposed to the Wagner-Ellender-Taft housing bill, because “slum clearance should be a local problem, where the people know their own needs. They can deal with it.”

He differs with Senator Taft also on the Nuernberg executions; Mr. Bricker thinks “justice has been done.”

A scrutiny of Mr. Bricker’s speeches in the latter half of October shows them devoted primarily to castigating the administration at Washington. “The New Deal defied economic laws and reaped economic chaos.” The returning war veteran finds “his homeland stalled in its industrial tracks by political strikes encouraged by government bureaucrats and inspired by those alien forces which he thought he had destroyed during the war.”

The housing shortage is “directly the result of the unsound economic policies of OPA and the restrictive red-tape and bungling of the super-bureaucracy built up under the leadership of Wilson Wyatt, the housing czar.”

The cut in domestic sugar production “developed as a result of the unrealistic and un-American controls imposed upon our grocers and refiners.”

He would lift controls

Mr. Bricker is for lifting controls on building materials “at once.” “The immediate elimination of OPA will … make America again the land of plenty in a free competitive society.” “The Republican Party is pledged to eliminate all wartime controls.”

“The Republican Party is determined that the budget shall be balanced now.” It “pledges the orderly reduction of our gigantic national debt” (and also) “a reduction of the present tax rates on individuals, corporations, and in hidden taxes on everything we buy” (October 24).

There are 2,500 Communists in the federal government, Mr. Bricker says.

On foreign affairs, Mr. Bricker condemns the Yalta Conference because of its “secret commitments.” The United States should not part with the secrets of the atom bomb. And, with obvious reference to Russia, “Now is no time for appeasement of the dictator powers of the world.”

[NormanStewart]

New York Republicans take their victor quietly

Harlem stages only celebration to hail Marcantonio victory; Midtown deserted

NEW YORK (UP) – It was the quietest New York election in years.

The Democrats carried the city, but lost the state, so they had nothing to celebrate.

The Republicans were in the minority of the city – so they stayed out of bars and arguments.

“I’ve seen bigger crowds at county fairs in Ireland,” said the police inspector on duty at Times Square where the usual election throng failed to appear.

Harlem celebrates

The only celebrations were in Harlem where bonfires blazed and liberals danced in the streets over the re-election of Rep. Vito Marcantonio on a combined Democrat and American Labor Party ticket.

In midtown, not a horn sounded. Gov. Tom Dewey went to bed at 1:20 a.m.

As Gov. Dewey went to his 15th floor room at the Roosevelt and sank into slumber, the corridors of headquarters were virtually empty, the ornate grand ballroom – where Republican faithful had received returns – was dark.

Clementine gone

At 11:53 p.m., long after Mr. Dewey’s opponent, James M. Mead, Democratic-Liberal-ALP candidate, had conceded defeat, a sedate bit of song drifted from one campaign office suite: “Oh, my darling Clementine; she is lost and gone forever…”

It was the rowdiest demonstration of the evening.

Upwards of 300 well-dressed well-wishers stood and applauded when Gov. Dewey, beaming and dignified, walked with his smiling wife into the flag- and bunting-draped grand ballroom of the Roosevelt shortly before 11 p.m. He had just made a statement to the press that “the people of New York have once more entrusted to me the governorship of this great state.”

[NormanStewart]

Republicans in majority of governorships

Gain posts in Ohio, Massachusetts, Idaho

NEW YORK (UP) – Republicans today added control of a majority of governorships to their congressional victories.

GOP candidates took over the governor’s chair from Democrats in Ohio, Massachusetts and Idaho, while losing control in Colorado.

Their gubernatorial margin was assured by the victory in Ohio of Thomas J. Herbert, Cleveland attorney, over the Democratic incumbent, Frank J. Lausche. It was the state’s closest governorship race in 20 years. The Ohio victory put at least 25 of the 48 governorships in Republican hands for certain.

Thirty-four governors were selected this year. Republicans won 20 of the places, Democrats 10. In the remaining two races, Democrats led.

Gov. Tobin loses

Gov. Maurice Tobin, Democrat in Massachusetts, was defeated by Robert F. Bradford. The Republican winner in Idaho was C. A. Robins, who topped Arnold Williams. In Colorado, Democrat William Lee Knous edged out Republican Leon E. Lavington.

The old division in governorships was 25 Democrats and 23 Republicans.

In four other contests, still undetermined, Democrats now holding the governorships were in front, with some precincts still to be heard from. These states were New Mexico and Wyoming.

The Republican drive was paced by Gov. Thomas E. Dewey who piled up a big margin in New York against Sen. James M. Mead.

Warren unopposed

Gov. Earl Warren of California, another possible GOP standard bearer, was unopposed for re-election, having received both the Democratic and Republican nominations.

There was no opposition in the victories of Eugene Talmadge (D) in Georgia and J. Strom Thurmond (D) in South Carolina. Only token opposition was forthcoming against Ben Laney (R-Arkansas) and Beauford H. Jester (D-Texas). These Southern states traditionally elect Democrats.

No gubernatorial races were involved in elections in 14 states. Of these, nine have Democratic governors and five have Republicans chief executives.

[NormanStewart]

Othman: Pretzels & caviar

By Fred Othman

WASHINGTON – Democratic chieftains nibbled on pretzels early today and drank hydrant water. Two blocks down the street the Republicans had caviar in two flavors, which they washed down with bubbly stuff deluxe.

The Democrats held forth in the luxurious gloom of the Mayflower Hotel’s second floor, where the carpets were as deep as the frowns of the politicos, the bar ran out of free bourbon before midnight, and Campaign Chief Bob Hannegan got sore at the photographers. He said they had to quit banging on his door. He didn’t want a picture taken.

The cameramen were amazed. Never before in their memory, said they, had a politician dodged a flashbulb.

An easy jog down Connecticut Avenue was Republican National Headquarters in an ancient, four-story mansion and spreading, by means of a door cut in the wall, to the second floor over the Dupont Circle Bar and Grill.

The odor of frying hamburgers filtered through the crowds of Republicans and their ladies viewing the election returns on a battery of score boards.

Tie as bright as his smile

Every time another Democrat bit the dust, the ladies squealed their delight.

In the big front room sat Rep. Clarence Brown of Ohio, the campaign manager, in a tie as bright as his smile. The doors were open. The room was jammed with Republicans, reporters, photographers, movie cameramen and radio experts.

Mr. Brown analyzed the election returns for all comers. He posed for pictures. He made speeches into the microphones. He dictated statements. He said now he supposed Moscow had learned what American voters think of its advice.

He said, in fact, that he was having fun. Then he took three caviar sandwiches, the black ones, and ate ‘em in a hurry.

In the back hall, behind a door marked “Women’s Division – Private,” was a Republican lady in a black satin dress and a gold necklace, happily whipping up more sandwiches. She fixed me a ham on rye. She said he was providing nourishment for the working Republicans. Upstairs, she said, was the party.

Scene gay and confused

It certainly was. On the fourth floor, behind rows of filing cases, was a door with a sign, “Apartment To Let.” It opened into a work room, which the ladies had cleared of all office equipment except a row of official OPA reports, bound in black buckram. These had provided some of Mr. Brown’s best speechmaking ammunition and the ladies felt they were symbolic.

On a large table they lighted red candles and placed a bowl of red and white carnations. On either side of the flowers, they put heaping plates of sandwiches, black caviar and red.

At one end of the room was a young fellow in his wife’s red-checked apron, sloshing seltzer water and bonded flavoring into paper cups for all comers. The scene was a gay one and a little confused.

I met one blond beauty with a southern accent, who said she was a Republican from South Carolina. Her escort introduced himself as one of the few Republicans now working at the Department of Agriculture.

“For 14 years,” he said. “I’ve been in hiding. And it’s nice to come out. Let’s have another drink.”

Mr. Brown was dictating another triumphant statement as I left. When I walked by the Mayflower, the Democrats were beginning to filter outside. Mostly they kept their eyes averted from the headlines on the papers at the door.

[NormanStewart]

Wiener Kurier (November 7, 1946)

Amerikas Außenpolitik bleibt unverändert

Die Parteiführer für Zusammenarbeit

Washington (WK) - Führende Männer der beiden größten Parteien der Vereinigten Staaten bekundeten gestern ihre Bereitschaft zu weiterer Zusammenarbeit auf außenpolitischem Gebiete für Weltfrieden und Sicherheit sowie für die Festigung und das Gedeihen der heimischen Wirtschaft.

Die unbedingte Überzeugung von der Beibehaltung der amerikanischen Außenpolitik war der Grundton einer Erklärung des demokratischen Senators Tom Connally. Connally betonte, diese Erklärung nicht als Parteimann, sondern in erster Linie als Vorsitzender des Senatsausschusses für auswärtige Angelegenheiten abzugeben. Er wies vor allem darauf hin, daß sich die republikanischen Kandidaten während des Wahlfeldzuges zur rückhaltlosen Anerkennung der derzeitigen Außenpolitik des Außenministers Byrnes bekannten.

Volle Zustimmung der Republikaner

Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg, der republikanische Parteiführer auf dem Gebiet der Außenpolitik und Berater Außenminister Byrnes auf der Pariser Konferenz und beim Rat der Außenminister, erklärte: „Der Sieg der Republikaner ist eine Bestätigung der gemeinsamen, durch beide Parteien unterstützten, Außenpolitik, durch die wir uns auf der Grundlage gesunder, amerikanischer Anschauungen um die Erhaltung der eigenen Sicherheit, des Weltfriedens und der Gerechtigkeit bemühen. Die Ergebnisse der Wahl bedeuten, daß die gegenwärtige Außenpolitik fortgeführt wird. Denjenigen, die vielleicht unsere Einigkeit auf diesem Gebiet bezweifelt haben, hat das Volk der Vereinigten Staaten eine eindeutige Antwort gegeben.“

Amerikas Außenpolitik wird stärker und klarer werden

John Foster Dulles, der allgemein als Hauptsprecher der Republikaner in außenpolitischen Angelegenheiten gilt, gab der Überzeugung Ausdruck, daß der republikanische Kongreß die amerikanische Außenpolitik zum Nutzen Amerikas und der Welt stärken und präzisieren werde.

Dewey: „Parteiinteressen zurückstellen und Zusammenarbeiten“

Der wiedergewählte Gouverneur des Staates New York, Thomas E. Dewey, ermahnte das amerikanische Volk, die Parteipolitik zurückzustellen und sich zu gemeinsamer Arbeit zusammenzuschließen. „Wir in Amerika“, so führte Dewey aus, „sind die Verfechter der gleichen Entwicklungsmöglichkeiten für alle, der sozialen, der wirtschaftlichen und der menschlichen Freiheit. Laßt uns gemeinsam und vereint an das große Werk des Wiederaufbaues und des Friedens gehen.“

Wallace ist nicht entmutigt

Henry Wallace, der ehemalige amerikanische Vizepräsident, der in der demokratischen Kongreßperiode bis vor kurzem das Handelsministerium leitete, erklärte: „Die fortschrittlich Eingestellten mögen sich durch das Wahlergebnis nicht entmutigen lassen. Das amerikanische Volk, das im Grunde immer fortschrittlich ist, wird sich wieder der liberalen Führung zuwenden.“

Soll Truman zurücktreten?

Die Zeitung „Chicago Sun“, die im allgemeinen die Demokraten bei der Wahlkampagne unterstützte, fordert in einem Leitartikel den Rücktritt Präsident Trumans, der nach Ansicht der Zeitung einen patriotischen und mutigen Schritt bedeuten würde.

Auch „Washington Post“ nimmt zum Vorschlag eines Rücktritts Trumans Stellung und erklärt, ein solcher Schritt würde im völligen Widerspruch zur Verfassung stehen. „Wir glauben auch nicht einen Augenblick, daß der Präsident den Vorschlägen zu seinem Rücktritt Gehör schenken wird, es sei denn, dieser Schritt wäre eine ultima ratio. Ein Rücktritt würde nur der Ausdruck einer Gesinnung bedeuten, die man dem Präsidenten nie vorwerfen konnte. Präsident Truman hat noch nie vor einer Sache kapituliert.“

[NormanStewart]

Die Republikaner beherrschen den 80. Kongreß

Mehrheit im Repräsentantenhaus stärker als im Senat

Washington (AND) - Überall in den Vereinigten Staaten schritten die Amerikaner am 5. November zur Wahlurne und gaben zum erstenmal seit 16 Jahren der Republikanischen Partei die Herrschaft im Kongreß. Zwar sind einige Wahlergebnisse noch unentschieden, doch deuten alle Anzeichen darauf hin, daß im Jänner, wenn der 80. Kongreß Zusammentritt, von den 435 Sitzen des Repräsentantenhauses, die bei der Wahl zu besetzen waren, 244 den Republikanern, 190 den Demokraten und 1 den Unabhängigen zufallen werden. Damit hätten die Republikaner 26 Sitze mehr als die bloße Majorität von 218. Dies bedeutet, daß sie eine feste Herrschaft über das Haus besitzen.

Die republikanische Mehrheit im Senat ist nicht so überwiegend. Im Kampf um die Senatssitze, von dessen 96 Sitzen 35 zu vergeben waren, lassen die letzten Meldungen erkennen, daß die Republikaner 12 Sitze gewonnen haben, so daß ihnen 51 Sitze, das ist eine Mehrheit von drei Sitzen, gesichert ist. Die letzten Zählungen hängen jedoch noch von den Ergebnissen der engeren Wahlen in drei Staaten ab.

Gute Aussichten für republikanischen Präsidentschaftskandidaten

Während die Kontrolle über die amerikanische Gesetzgebung auf die Republikaner überging, sprachen die Wähler der Republikanischen Partei auch die Führung in den Regierungen zahlreicher Bundesstaaten und Bezirksbehörden zu. Ein Erfolg der führenden Partei war auch die Neuwahl des Gouverneurs von New York, Thomas E. Dewey, der mit einer Mehrheit von 750.000 Stimmen gegenüber seinem demokratischen Gegner Senator James M. Mead seine zweite Amtsperiode antritt. Durch diesen Sieg wurde Dewey, der 1944 republikanischer Präsidentschaftskandidat war, führender Bewerber seiner Partei für die Präsidentschaftswahl im Jahre 1948.

Truman bleibt Präsident bis 1948

Obwohl die Republikaner die Herrschaft im Kongreß erhalten haben, wird der demokratische Präsident Truman, der im April 1945 nach dem Tode Roosevelts Präsident wurde, mindestens bis 1948, dem Jahr der nächsten Präsidentenwahl, im Weißen Haus bleiben. In ihren Ämtern verbleiben auch die Minister der einzelnen Ministerien, da sie vom Präsidenten ernannt sind und von den Kongreßwahlen nicht berührt werden.

Vandenberg voraussichtlich Vorsitzender des außenpolitischen Ausschusses im Senat

Im Senat wird voraussichtlich der republikanische Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg Vorsitzender des wichtigen Ausschusses für auswärtige Angelegenheiten werden. Senator Vandenberg ist ein erprobter Anhänger der amerikanischen Außenpolitik und zusammen mit dem demokratischen Senator Tom Connally (Texas) - beide wurden am Dienstag wiedergewählt - einer der wichtigsten Berater Außenminister Byrnes bei internationalen Verhandlungen und Konferenzen.

[NormanStewart]

The Evening Star (November 7, 1946)

Choice of compromise or fight through veto on major issues faces Truman in new Congress

Decision to lead conservative shift also faces him
By Jack Bell, Associated Press staff writer

President Truman, his administration rebuked at the polls, faced with outward calm today three political decisions which could alter the course of American and world events.

Mr. Truman apparently must decide:

• Whether he shall compromise with the Republican-dominated Congress on controversial domestic and foreign issues, or challenge it and fight back with Democratic-supported vetoes.

• Whether he shall attempt to lead his own party back toward the more conservative line that appeared to be popularized by Tuesday’s sweeping GOP victories or steer it even more forcefully toward the opposite side of center.

• Whether he shall attempt to rally dispersed Democratic forces around himself as a candidate for re-election in 1948 or prepare to step aside then for some other nominee.

Truman has no idea of resigning, party sources emphasize

President Truman has no intention of heeding the suggestion that he resign because of the Republicans’ election victory.

Party sources said today the president had not even considered the proposal by Sen. Fulbright (D-Arkansas), who suggested that the president name a Republican as secretary of state and then step out to permit that Republican to become president.

First and foremost, it was emphasized that Mr. Truman is not a man who runs out on a job.

Secondly, it was added, Mr. Truman has no intention of changing the American constitutional system by executive flat.

Lame duck session out

One idea cropping up after the GOP landslide – that Mr. Truman should call a special “lame duck” session of Congress – was brushed off by Rep. Sparkman (D-Alabama), who is high in Democratic councils.

The Alabaman, a senator-elect, said of this proposal from Reps. Boykin (D-Alabama) and Rankin (D-Mississippi): “I don’t see that anything could be accomplished. The Congress which convened last spring would not enact the president’s program and I can’t see that it would do it as a lame duck Congress.”

Truman may indicate plan

The president may give some clues about his thoughts on the matter at a news conference, probably next week. His next scheduled public talk is an Armistice Day broadcast Monday.

This much is clear: For the first time in 14 years, the 80th Congress which convenes next January will be controlled by the party which does not hold the White House.

Chave defeats Hurley

Late returns which brought victory for Sen. Chavez, Democrat, in his re-election contest with Patrick Hurley, Republican, in New Mexico raised the assured Democratic strength in the Senate to 43 with the Republicans sure of 51. Democrats continued to lead in the unsettled West Virginia and Maryland contests.

For the House, the party lineup stood Republicans 246, Democrats 180, and American-Labor one with two contests still inconclusive.

Thus Mr. Truman presumably could count on substantial minority support in both houses if he elects – as some of his advisers are certain to urge him to do – to enlarge and resubmit the legislative program which Republican-Democrat coalition hacked into small pieces in the 79th Congress.

The argument of these advisers, who want the Democratic Party to be labeled unmistakably as the liberal political organ, is that there is no hope of obtaining the conservative vote in 1948.

Their contention is that if Mr. Truman hews to the course fixed by the late President Roosevelt, the Democratic Party will stand to benefit in 1948 from any mistakes the Republican Congress might make in the next two years.

James Roosevelt, son of the late president and California State Democratic chairman, voiced this thought with the observation that when the “people begin to feel the effects of their action we shall again be called upon.”

On the other hand, the majority of Democratic members in the new Congress lean to the conservative, rather than the opposite, side. Many of the most prominent supporters of the Roosevelt policies, such as Sens. Guffey (D-Pennsylvania), Tunnell (D-Delaware), Mead (D-New York) and Mitchell (D-Washington), were defeated in Tuesday’s avalanche of ballots.

In the House, among the Democrats who were returned by Southern and Northern states are many who joined with the Republicans in the 79th Congress in opposing Truman measures they regarded as too radical in their nature.

These returning members say they would like to see Mr. Truman make at least minor compromises in an attempt to get legislation through the next Congress. Their views are such that Mr. Truman probably never could be quite certain of mustering the one-third vote necessary in either house to sustain a series of vetoes.

As against this, politicians generally look for the Democrats to begin a slow process of solidification. Historically the congressional minority irons out most of its differences in party conferences and presents a much more united front than the majority.

But in the Senate, where only a little more than one-third of the members were chosen for first or new terms this year, the progress toward unity promised to be slow. Such divergent viewpoints, as those represented by Sens. Byrd (D-Virginia) and Pepper (D-Florida), could not be reconciled in a day, if ever.

Dissatisfaction in party

There was plenty of evidence, too, that there is some dissatisfaction within the party on the score of Mr. Truman’s leadership.

At Memphis, Ed H. Crump, who heads the Shelby County Democratic organization, asserted it would be “foolish for President Truman to offer himself for re-election.” He added it would be “even more foolish” for the President to retain Democratic National Chairman Robert E. Hannegan as his official spokesman.

From Harry Bridges, head of the CIO Longshoremen’s Union, who was a strong supporter of President Roosevelt, came the assertion that the Republican victory was “a cry of protest against Truman and his complete betrayal of the Roosevelt program and promises.”

While Mr. Bridges said the country now can look forward only “to food riots, house squatting, bonus marches, Hoovervilles, breadlines and a drive to bust the unions,” Republican National Chairman Reece and other Republican leaders promised a quite different result.

Imposes heavy responsibility

Mr. Reece said the Republicans would “prove to all the world that the United States is, and intends to remain, a strong, prosperous and self-respecting nation, eager to cooperate with other nations to promote worldwide prosperity and to safeguard peace, but determined at all costs to be true to American traditions and to protect American interests.”

Rep. Brown of Ohio, GOP campaign director, said the victory imposes on the party “a heavy responsibility.”

Democratic National Chairman Hannegan reminded the Republican Party that it is “laced with a great responsibility” and “with a Democratic administration, it is jointly answerable to the people for a program to establish peace in the world and continued prosperity for America.”

Sen. Vandenberg, in line to become the Senate’s new presiding officer and chairman of its Foreign Relations Committee, interpreted the GOP victory as “unmistakable endorsement of the united, bipartisan foreign policy through which we are striving for national security and for world peace, with justice, on the basis of sound American ideals.”

Immediate reaction abroad to the election results appeared to be a belief that the Republicans’ return to power means a sharpening of differences between Russia and the United States. Henry A. Wallace, former secretary of commerce, accused Sen. Vandenberg during the campaign of having “needled” Secretary of State Byrnes into a sterner policy against Russia. Sen. Vandenberg has been serving as a Byrnes adviser.

[NormanStewart]

Defeat frees president of ties to pressure groups, aide says

Friends see Truman now in position to chart own course
By Joseph A. Fox

President Truman today was in a position to embark on what his close friends described as a new course of political freedom.

As one associate put it, the crushing defeat the Democrats suffered in Tuesday’s election left the president free of obligations to any influential pressure group and he was expected to conduct himself accordingly.

Men who talked with the president yesterday afternoon following his return from Missouri said he was visibly disappointed over the first test of his own administration, which resulted in the defeat of some of his warmest allies, but that he was far from “down-hearted.”

Mr. Truman, it was added, is far more concerned over the interpretation that will be placed abroad on his party’s repudiation by the voters, than with its effects on his own political fortunes.

With this thought in mind, it was said, the president will continue to emphasize in the two years ahead the two-party support of the nation’s foreign policy, enunciated by Secretary of State Byrnes and firmly endorsed by Sen. Vandenberg (R-Michigan) and former Sen. Austin (R-Vermont), now U.S. representative to the United Nations.

Publicly, the president has refused to comment on the election. Press Secretary Charles G. Ross said the president probably could hold a news conference early next week. Until that time, Mr. Truman will have no comment on the election, he said.

One of the president’s intimates said Mr. Truman was convinced that the Democratic defeat was ascribable to many factors in the nation’s economy. The president’s reaction, it was said, was that he was “going to do from day to day what I think best for the welfare of the country.”

The campaign ended without any explanation of one big question – the reason for President Truman’s silence.

At one time, presidential speeches were in prospect. Then little by little this possibility dimmed, and at the end, the president even passed up a political rally at his home town in Independence, Missouri, after Speaker Rayburn had traveled across the country to urge Missourians to uphold their fellow citizen.

[NormanStewart]

Taft forecasts budget slash to 25 to 30 billion

Must be balanced, Republican Senate leader declares

CHICAGO (AP) – Sen. Taft (R-Ohio) today predicted a federal budget of $25,000,000,000 to $30,000,000,000 for the fiscal year beginning July 1 as the result of the election of a Republican Congress. This would compare with a current budget of $41,500,000,000.

He said, “We must balance the federal budget, which has not been balanced for 15 years, but I do not favor paying off the national debt too fast.”

Sen. Taft is a leading contender for the post of Senate majority, leader in the 80th Congress and is almost certain to be chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

Sen. Taft spoke at a news conference before addressing the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons. He said taxes “probably” could be cut and that they “should be cut because they now are taking one-third of the national income, a heavy burden to bear.”

$10 billion for defense

The senator itemized his projected budget as follows:

For the Army and Navy together, $10,000,000,000 to $12,000,000,000; interest on the national debt, $5,000,000,000; for veterans, $6,000,000,000, and for federal departments, $2,000,000,000. The balance of the budget, he said, would be required for such items as tax refunds, loans to foreign nations, and “such aid as we may give” to agriculture.

He refused to answer a question as to whether he would be a presidential candidate in 1948.

“This is a team play proposition,” he said, “in which I will play my part. I am hoping the Republicans will develop a legislative program.”

Steering group called

He added that he had called a meeting of the Republican Senate Steering Committee for 2 p.m. Next Thursday, the same time the Republican House committee will meet to discuss such matters as the organization of the 80th Congress as well as proposed legislation.

Turning to the subject of medical aid, Sen. Taft asserted the Wagner-Murray-Dingell bill would “completely socialize” medicine. He added that he believed that the election, “if it was a mandate, was a mandate to cease governmental interference with the private lives of our citizens.”

GOP must decide quickly on taxes, prices, spending

Between November 14, when the Republican House Steering Committee meets, and January 3, party leaders expect to pick a slate of officers for caucus ratification and to erect the framework of their legislative policy.

Decisions must be reached quickly on:

• Taxes: Whether to cut individual income taxes by 20 percent, or $3,000,000,000, as Republican Rep. Knutson of Minnesota insists should be done quickly. Mr. Knutson is in line for the chairmanship of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee.

• Price controls: Whether to finish off OPA in short order rather than allow the agency to linger on until June 30.

• Federal spending: Specifically, how to balance the budget if taxes are cut.

Wants excise tax cat

In disclosing his intention to press for an immediate 20 percent individual income tax cut, Mr. Knutson said the Republicans also will seek to cut excise taxes on liquor, jewelry, furs, cosmetics and a long list of other items.

“Our immediate goal will be to cut expenditures, balance the budget, establish a surplus each year to apply on the national debt, and grant as much relief to a tax burdened nation as sound fiscal policies under governmental economies will permit,” Mr. Knutson said in a statement.

A presidential veto of any 20 percent tax cut appears almost inevitable, in view of the administration repeated emphasis on keeping levies near their wartime peak while national income continues high.

Two tax bills planned

Mr. Knutson made no mention of corporation taxes. He said:

“There will be two tax bills in 1947. The day the 80th Congress convenes I will introduce a bill providing for a 20 percent cut in the individual income taxes effective for the calendar year 1947. It should be passed immediately.

“The second 1947 tax bill, on which public hearings will start early in February, will be directed to the elimination of some and downward adjustment of other excise taxes and to urgent administrative amendments to the present revenue code. Several of the changes in excise taxes should become effective July 1, 1947.”

Mr. Knutson said the unofficial House Republican Tax Study Committee, headed by Rep. Reed of New York, will meet in Washington later this month to begin drawing the Republican tax legislation.

[NormanStewart]

O’Conor leads by 1,789 votes; 6 precincts out

Four Baltimore city boxes among those to be tabulated

BALTIMORE (AP) – A narrow margin of 1,771 votes kept Gov. O’Conor ahead today in the senatorial race with Brig, Gen. D. John Markey, Republican, but the final result hung on the outcome of tabulations in six precincts still unheard from.

Four of the unreported polling places were in Baltimore City, one in Baltimore County and one in Kent County on the Eastern Shore.

With 1,324 of 1,330 polling places reported, Gov. O’Conor, Democrat, undefeated in 23 years of political life, held 236,315 votes to 234,526 for Gen. Markey.

Expect result to stand

The Baltimore Sunpapers, which plugged for Gov. O’Conor throughout, said the returns from the missing precincts would not change the picture.

The Boards of Election Supervisors would not begin the official tally until noon today. It will be sometime after that before the unofficial returns are complete, the Sunpapers said.

In reply to rumors that both he and Gen. Markey would ask a recount Gov. O’Conor said in Annapolis he was “issuing no statement” and that he would “stand definitely on the campaign headquarters statement of last night, declaring me victorious.”

Gen. Markey also stood on an earlier announcement that “on the basis of the figures we have from our people I am ahead by a small majority, from 500 to 1,000.”

The race was the closest since Albert C. Ritchie, Democrat, won the governorship battle in 1919 with a 165-vote margin over Harry W. Nice, Republican.

Delay in count explained

Reason for the delay in obtaining the unofficial count from the four Baltimore City precincts is that poll officials at those places in advertently sent an official tally to the police station in sealed envelopes. Three official tallies from the voting machines are supposed to be sent to the Board of Election Supervisors and one unofficial count given to the police.

On receiving the official counts, police refused to unseal the envelopes, but sent them to the election supervisors, it was understood.

In all of the four unreported areas except Baltimore County, Gov. O’Conor was leading, according to unofficial returns. In Baltimore County the count now stands at 24,587 for Gen. Markey and 21,160 for Gov. O’Conor.

Lane piles up 266,692

In contrast to the uncomfortable Senate race, William Preston Lane Jr., Hagerstown Democrat, won easily over Mayor Theodore McKeldin of Baltimore, Republican. In 1,322 polling places Mr. Lane received 286,692 votes to Mayor McKeldin’s 291,070, a margin of 45,622.

Mr. O’Conor, a 50-year-old political veteran who has been state’s attorney, attorney general and twice governor of Maryland, watched his Baltimore city lead of 12,000 dwindle almost to the vanishing point yesterday and last night as Gen. Markey gained heavily in the counties. Late returns from Anne Arundel County (Annapolis) lowered the margin even more.

Despite the narrow edge, the governor’s headquarters issued this statement last night:

“Based upon all available returns, and the information communicated to this headquarters from all parts of the State, it is our definite belief that Gov. O’Conor has been elected to the United States Senate.

“It seems apparent that the lead maintained by the Governor throughout the counting will be continued and that official returns will assure his victory.”

Democrat Hall Hammond was elected attorney general defeating George C. Doub, Republican, by more than 51,950 votes, the largest majority received by any candidate.

Elected state controller to succeed J. Millard Tawes was James J. Lacy, Democrat, who defeated Alexander T. Grier, Republican, by more than 47,585 votes.

In the congressional races, Edward T. Miller (R-Easton) ousted Rep. Roe, (D-Sudlersville) in the 1st congressional district (Eastern Shore) and Hugh Allen Meade, Democrat, won in the 2nd district; Rep. D’Alesandro, Democrat, in the 3rd (East Baltimore), and Rep. Fallon, Democrat, 4th (Central Baltimore).

Democratic Rep. Sasscer was victorious in the 5th (Southern Maryland) district, and Rep. Beall, Republican, won in the 6th (Western Maryland) district.

Gov.-Elect Lane was formally congratulated on his victory by Mayor McKeldin. Mr. Lane, who will take office during the second week of January, prepared to leave with Mrs. Lane for a vacation drive of two or three weeks through the South.

[NormanStewart]

Chavez ahead by 5,000, Hurley won’t concede

ALBUQUERQUE, New Mexico (AP) – Sen. Chavez (D-New Mexico) has been re-elected to the seat he has held 11 years, on the basis of incomplete and unofficial returns from Tuesday’s election, defeating Maj. Gen. Patrick J. Hurley, Republican candidate.

With the vote in from all except scattered, small precincts, many of which were snowbound and may not have held elections at all, Sen. Chavez had a lead of more than 5,000 votes over Gen. Hurley, who resigned early this year as ambassador to China.

Gen. Hurley refused to concede and indicated he would await the official canvass and perhaps a court contest. Ballot boxes of four counties – Rio Arriba, San Miguel, McKinley and Valencia – which gave Sen. Chavez strong majorities were impounded yesterday by court order.

No reason was given for the impounding actions except protection of “the best interests of all concerned.” Gen. Hurley would not say that he proposed to file a contest himself.

[NormanStewart]

Kilgore holds 3,000 lead, with 13 precincts still out

CHARLESTON, West Virginia (AP) – Sen. Kilgore was leading today by only 3,000 votes in his bid for a second term with 13 precincts still out.

On the basis of the unofficial returns of Tuesday’s election, the Democratic candidate was ahead of Republican senatorial nominee Thomas B. Sweeney of Wheeling, 271,450 votes to 268,248 in 2,786 of the state’s 2,799 precincts.

The count in some of the missing precincts will not be available until the official canvass tomorrow because the tally sheets were sealed in the ballot boxes.

Rep. Randolph (D-West Virginia), seven-term veteran from the 2nd district, lost his bid for re-election to Republican nominee Melvin Snyder of Kingwood.

Mr. Randolph conceded Mr. Snyder’s victory late yesterday, as unofficial returns from 463 of the district’s 472 precincts gave Mr. Snyder 40,564 votes to 38,783 for the incumbent.

[NormanStewart]

Varied interpretations given election by nation’s editors

By the Associated Press

The sweeping Republican election victories were viewed by newspaper editors today variously as a “protest against bureaucracy,” “a shattering repudiation of New Deal abuse of power” and “a vote of no confidence in the Truman administration.”

Some editorials tempered their expressions of gratification over the results with words of counsel for the Republican leaders.

San Francisco Chronicle: The Republican Party has been returned to power in the United States. This is an occasion for gratification among Republicans, but above that it is an occasion for self-searching. For if this power is considered primarily as a triumph and only secondarily as an opportunity to promote the national welfare, it will surely be lost again. The Republican Party has not yet a victory, all it has won is an opportunity.

Portland (Maine) Press Herald: The future of the Republican Party depends on its ability to act with restraint, wisdom and statesmanship.

Indianapolis Star: Republican leaders now owe the people a positive and definite legislative program. This must include labor legislation to bring balance again between union and management, new budget and tax laws commencing with the retirement of the huge national debt, workable public housing legislation, the end of OPA, bipartisan foreign policy.

Indianapolis News: The millions who cast Republican ballots Tuesday were not voting against the ideals of liberalism but against the perversion of those Ideals.

New York Dally Mirror: The Republican landslide means the end of the New Deal. It is kaput. It is finished. It is over. It is a separate Chunk of American panorama, now past, now burled.

Chicago Tribune: The election results form the greatest victory for the people… since Appomattox. The meaning of the victory for this country is plain enough. The bureaucracy will be cut to size. Its arrogance will disappear and the conspiracy to destroy the economy of the country by meddling with it will be broken.

The Chicago Sun: …For the Democratic Party the lesson of the election is clear. When voters want “normalcy” and a conservative, backward march, they will turn to the party which is expert in these moves. That is the GOP.

New York Herald Tribune: Republicans… naturally are looking to 1948. But to achieve the promise it now offers they are not, like the Democrats 16 years ago, under any necessity for paralyzing all action in order to produce a crisis by that time; on the contrary, the unity and efficiency which they display in working, even under a Democratic president, for concrete and sound results will give them their beet title to assume the complete responsibility which Democratic chaos and confusion has surrendered.

Minneapolis Tribune: The nation can look forward now to a sharpening of controls over government instead of, control over people.

Cleveland News: They (the voters) voted for an end to New Dealism and a return of power to the people… The next two years, with split control and divided authority in the Capital, easily can prove chaotic and depressing. It will be the responsibility of Republicans in Congress to work out a progressive program under most difficult conditions. It is a time for the moderation and careful planning of true statesmanship.

Atlanta Constitution: The immediate result of the elections means without question the breaking up of the Democratic Party. A Republican victory in 1948 is almost a certainty.

Detroit News: The overall meaning of the election is to be taken as repudiating New Deal leftist tendencies.

Detroit Free Frees: The election returns are evidence that America has reaffirmed its belief in the two-party system.

Omaha World Herald: The GOP sweep was to s large extent a nonpartisan victory in which Democratic and independent voters joined with Republicans to pronounce judgment against government too big, too powerful, too autocratic to fit in with the ideal of free citizens in a free republic.

Seattle Times: There is little thought of boasting in winning GOP ranks. There is deep down a realization that (the) veto was to be rid of those of whom too long power had made careless. The voters hope for better things from their new servants but won’t be sure until they see the results.

Miami Herald: The aping to the GOP showed the people want a change because they can no longer trust the Democratic majority on Capitol Hill to guide them through the perilous period of reconversion to a profitable and progressive peace.

Miami Dally News: If the Republican victory is put down as another “return to normalcy” one can only scan the horizon prayerfully for the portents of the accompanying phenomena – scandal in high places, boom or bust, deteriorating foreign relations.

New York Daily News: And so to 1948. If the Republicans play their cards shrewdly, they should have an excellent chance to elect a president that year and begin a real cleanup job on the monumental mess created by the New Deal in its later phases.

Memphis Commercial Appeal: The floods of votes cast for the Republicans were put in by people who have been badgered and pestered into feeling that things cannot be any worse, and any change is bound to be an improvement.

New York Times: What is urgently needed is prompt recognition, both by the president and by the Republican leaders, of the real risks inherent in an interregnum in which authority is divided between an Executive and a Congress of different political loyalties. Only confusion at home and a weakening of American influence abroad can result from an attempt on either side to exploit this divided authority for partisan advantage.

Philadelphia Inquirer: The Republican sweep was a mandate for restoration of constitutional government. It is also a body blow dealt the Political Action Committee of the CIO. Now it is up to the Republicans to clear out the wreckage left by the New Deal and build anew for a better America for us all.

Philadelphia Record: The people of the United States have spoken unmistakably. The Record, which supported the Democratic candidates, regrets the decision of the voters. We do not quarrel with it. In fact, we prefer that, while they were about it, they did such a thorough and decisive job.

Richmond Times Dispatch: The extraordinary thing about the election results was that they represented a swing in the direction opposite from the swings in most other parts of the world. The United States has gone conservative, where as in Great Britain and various other countries the trend has been leftist.