The Pittsburgh Press (October 26, 1941)
Supports Herbert Hoover’s plans for feeding Europe’s starving
Editor, The Pittsburgh Press:
War is a terrible thing. It is terrible because it represents the will of only a very small minority of the peoples involved. It is terrible because no sound reasons can be advanced for war. It is terrible because it tends to spread its boundaries like a great metropolis conflagration. It is terrible because it creates worldwide, satanic hate and revenge for Christian love and sympathy.
It is terrible because it crushes life and man’s created fruits for happiness and the abundant, natural blessings bestowed upon humanity by a generous Father. It is terrible, tragic and pathetic because the innocent, non-fighting peoples of warring nations are made to suffer the agonies of starvation, disease, cold and death by enemies and friends alike.
Herbert Hoover may have been wrong in many of his national and international policies, but his stand regarding the feeding of those innocent, starving, suffering and dying peoples of war-torn Europe is so very, very right that it seems difficult to understand how Christian America can accept the British-dictated policy of “It is Hitler’s problem. Let Hitler feed them or let them starve.”
There are those who go to Church faithfully every Sunday and pray for God’s blessings upon a suffering world, yet they raise their voices in opposition to the Hoover plan to provide food and medical care for millions of little, innocent children in victimized nations that have always been friendly to America. The argument is advanced that the despairing, wailing cries of millions of starving, dying children in France, Belgium, Holland, etc., will cause the peoples of these nations to hate Hitler with such a terrible hate that they will do everything to interfere with his plans.
We should know quite well that Hitler’s plans cannot be greatly opposed by nations composed of hungry, weak, diseased, unarmed men and women. They may hate Hitler but they also will hate Britain and America with a far greater hatred. They accept the cold, hard fact that Hitler is their enemy, and they expect nothing from him but the cruel realities of war. But Britain and America have always been considered their friends. They know about the proposed Hoover plan to help them with sorely needed necessities. They also know the British-American decision to stand by coldly and see them sacrificed upon the alter of “we must do everything to defeat Hitler.”
Hitler may be guilty of many terrible actions that justly qualify him for the title of “monster,” but there is no good reason why America should adopt a “monster” policy toward our friends in Europe. Rather should we welcome the opportunity to adopt a humanitarian policy that will forever guarantee to us the love and admiration of these peoples directly concerned.
GROVER C. WATSON
Point Marion, PA
Adds his protest to animal cruelty
Editor, The Pittsburgh Press:
I trust you will allow me to add my protest to that of Mrs. Carl Arthur in your issue of Oct. 20 against the ghastly horror known as vivisection. All human baseness and wickedness finds its greatest extreme in pitiless cruelty, and the atrocities committed on helpless creatures under the false pretense of its being medical science and beneficial to human beings exceed anything that the world has seen since the days of the Spanish Inquisition.
And since pitiless cruelty and high handed tyranny always go together, being based upon the same ruthless selfishness, I should like to call attention to the fact that while we heard frequent references to the four (or is it eight) freedoms that we enjoy or are supposed to enjoy, no mention is ever made of the one fundamental freedom without which all the others are mere empty words, namely the freedom of watch and every individual to control his or her own body and to have the final say as to what shall be done to it in health or sickness. This is everyone’s birthright and without it we are in no sense free.
CHAS. W. HARRISON
East Liverpool, OH
Sees inconsistency in isolationists’ stand
Editor, The Pittsburgh Press:
As the Lend-Lease Act is the law of the land and was passed by a large majority, does not that prove that the United States does not look upon this war as a “foreign” one? Yet, the America First Committee persistently insists that this is a “foreign” war. One wonders how they reason it out, as one wonders also why some of the leaders of this organization, who are Senators of the United States, talk against the provisions of this same Lend-Lease Act. For are they not doing so when they say we are isolated?
Usually people who break the law are punished in some manner, yet Senators of these United States talk and talk with impunity against a law, the carrying out of which is costing us billions of dollars. Free speech is one thing, but this is free speech gone haywire. It is like a man spending thousands to renovate his home, while his immature son tries to burn it down, because he doesn’t understand.
JANE O’RYAN
21 East 31st St.
New York City
Wonders what ethics means
Editor, The Pittsburgh Press:
I think I’ve got my words mixed – I don’t know whether I’m wrong or not. I have a hunch that ethics ought to take the place of psychology. I have a feeling that if people would deal in ethics more and try to build their own psychology – from the facts of life and from living with other human beings – that everyone would be a lot better off. But I don’t know what ethics means. Can you help me find out?
SAM MARCUS
Clairton, PA
‘Never another Germany’ is urged as ‘battle cry for America’
Editor, The Pittsburgh Press:
There shall never be another Germany.
This should be our battle cry as America moves into war against this nation which for the second time in a quarter of a century has plunged the whole world into war by pitting her entire resources toward the domination of the world with the avowed purpose of enslaving all peoples, and for the second time threatens our safety as a democracy, with a free way of life and our national integrity.
Germany’s idea of justice for herself is the injustice to all other races and nations. Added to the perpetually fostered idea of Germanic culture by world rule of this super race whose primary creed is military domination by force, coercion and trickery – denying humanity to man and righteousness to God – we now have Nazism superimposed with its whole category of evils, gangsterism and ruthless injustice.
This time we must make sure there will never be another repetition of a nation worshipping brute force reestablishing military power with which to strike down humanity. This time:
…there shall never be another Germany.
This time we must carry the full force of war into every nook and corner of the territory which was Germany. We must literally bomb her out of the existence as a nation – spread her inhabitants to the four ends of the earth with German ever again inhabiting any part or proximity of what was Germany, dividing her territory among the small nations she so ruthlessly invaded and make the German language extinct by prohibiting it from ever being used in any manner whatsoever in any part of the world.
Times without number they have proved they cannot govern themselves but must revolve always onto a military state which inevitably must put the sword to other nations’ throats.
Individually the German people will be better off and freed of the insuperable barrier of trying to govern themselves, with free access to the entire world. They are a race which assimilates with other races and can easily become trustworthy parts of other nations once they are freed from their own national slavery to the sword and permitted to develop as free individuals.
This time we are going to have peace on earth and goodwill to men on a lasting, enduring basis. It may also be a very realistic and lasting influence on other nations tempted to turn against their fellow men and God Almighty.
L. S. ADAMS
316 Hastings St.
Need for sound capital structure in reconstruction period cited
Editor, The Pittsburgh Press:
There is evidently a closer relationship between taxes, the national debt and national wealth. In 1920, the government debt as percent of the national wealth stood at 11.4, whereas today the figure is approximately 20 percent. If we keep up the present rate of deficit, it is quite probable that the national debt will reach the figure of $150 billion. That amount was mentioned by Senator Pepper as the possible cost of saving democracy.
It would seem, with national income approaching the $100 billion mark, that our national wealth should be on the upgrade. This is not so, however, because the majority of the goods produced is for consumptive purposes; goods produced for the war effort do not add to the national wealth, even though they are necessary.
Rev. Edward Keller, director of the Bureau of Economic Research, University of Notre Dame, estimates that the total physical assets of the United States in 1930 was $410 billion. Of this amount, $268 billion represented the value of real estate. It is doubtful that the real estate of the nation, considering the rents received, is worth more than $100 billion at the present time.
If taxes keep constantly increasing and the profit in business is limited, there will be little incentive to risk capital. Such a condition would, of course, affect the value of all fixed assets adversely. We will not be able to employ 590 million workers if the capital wealth of the nation is put in the zone of bankruptcy.
Increasing national income because of defense measures is a temporary prosperity and will end with the war. We must keep our capital structure in sound shape, so that it will stand the shocks of violent economic disturbances in the reconstruction period. If we do not, our democracy is in danger.
JAMES F. DURNELL
Cites ‘unbiased’ views on church freedom in Russia
Editor, The Pittsburgh Press:
President Roosevelt’s recent notice of the religious freedom clause in the Russian constitution has aroused a storm of discussion but no information. What are the facts? Most letter writers quote articles by correspondents or contributors to the anti-Communist papers and publications. This is biased testimony. There is other evidence.
Archbishop Nicholas of the Russian Orthodox Church in New York City, says that church is a large and prosperous organization in Russia, and that, outside of prohibiting political activities and the operation of secular schools, no restriction is placed on it.
Rev. Hewlett Johnston, Dean of Canterbury Cathedral in England, who visited and wrote a book about Russia, says there is no restriction on religious worship as such. Political and educational activities of churches are prohibited.
Lieut. Com. Charles S. Seeley of the U.S. Navy, retired, who visited and wrote a book about Russia, corroborates those statements. A number of union labor leaders, who attended the labor convention in Russia in 1928, state they had no difficulty in finding and attending religious services in the churches of their choice.
These are disinterested, or at least unpaid, witnesses and their testimony is entitled to the greater weight.
There is no denial the Russian constitution contains such a clause, the contention being it doesn’t mean anything; that persecution goes on in spite of it. Our Constitution guarantees religious freedom too, but the Quakers, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and other sects were persecuted.
Religious freedom supposes the equal right and opportunity to accept or reject, to advocate or oppose, any religion. Separation of Church and state is the first step to religious freedom.
Is there any reason why a believer in Communism cannot be religious, or any reason why a believer in capitalism cannot be against religion? Both are economic systems for the production and distribution of wealth. One for use, the other for profit. Religion is offered as a means of producing and distributing spiritual and celestial riches. Why then should there be any preference? Rev. Johnston believes in Communism and is a teacher of Christianity, likewise Archbishop Nicholas. On the other hand, probably the greatest opponent of religion, Robert Ingersoll, was an advocate of capitalism.
CYRUS A. DAVIS
Walsh Building
Having liberty involves helping others have it
Editor, The Pittsburgh Press:
In her column of Oct. 21, Mrs. Ferguson says, in effect: The isolationists seem to be about washed up.
To me, it has been a self-evident fact that the isolationists’ stand was wrong. I started writing letters to editors and senators when the late Senator Borah made his famous (or was it infamous?) “it isn’t our war” speech over two years ago. To me, the stand of the isolationist has been so irrational that I have been convinced that only some ulterior motive could account for any intelligent person taking it.
I do not want war any more than any isolationist wants it. But I am able to see that having liberty involves helping others have it; and that we cannot avoid war by merely not wanting it – by wishful thinking.
To show that the stand of the isolationist is a reductio ad absurdum, I ask this question: What would be our question today if Britain had not taken up the Hitler challenge? Or, for sake of argument, what if Britain had joined forces with Germany, Italy, France, Russia and even Canada and Mexico and others, against us?
With his illogical reasoning, I can hear the isolationist say: That only proves that we must not depend on anyone. We must make our defenses so strong that all others together dare not attack us. But, if one will be rational he can see that the above really proves that when we try to limit our co-operation for the preservation of liberty, and carry the plan through to its logical conclusion, we come to a state where every individual stands alone against any ruthless gang that might decide to attack him.
For those not willing to accept the above proof, I will put it thus:
If we can trust experience for anything, surely it is evident that if we are to banish fear, despair and needless suffering, and create any semblance of the paradise Wheeler, Norman Thomas, the La Follettes and all of us talk about, we must co-operate and work together toward that end.
Then, since we know we must co-operate, we are up against the problem of what should be the extent of our co-operation. And whenever we try to determine where the boundaries should be, we will find ourselves hopelessly mired.
No, there is no getting around it. If we are made of the stuff that it is going to take to preserve our American way, we must stand on the principle that having liberty involves helping others have it, and be ready and willing to uphold that principle wherever it is attacked.
C. M. GRIFFIN
Dormont, PA
Night ‘speed lights’ suggested for autos
Editor, The Pittsburgh Press:
Along with the development of the auto, there is also the necessity of increasing safety devices and aids for the driver. Now then, there is one more such mechanism that has not yet been incorporated in the present car design.
By far, the greatest number of auto accidents occur at night, and a high percentage of these are of a serious nature. Their cause can, in most cases, be attributed to drivers’ inability to judge speed and distance at night. Everyone who has driven on a highway has, at some time or another, found it necessary to use full brakes in order to slow down behind some car traveling at 20 miles per hour on a 60-mile-per-hour highway. Not only is this dangerous, but it also gives rise to many a tragic incident. Furthermore, the ability to judge the seed of oncoming traffic is greatly reduced at night, hence a driver is apt to find himself passing another car at the wrong time.
In order to reduce these hazards, the use of “speed lights” has been conceived. These lights are for the purpose of indicating the speed at which the vehicle is traveling. There being three lights of different colors, each indicating a different speed range. Thus:
White, 0 to 25 miles per hour; blue, 25 to 45 mph.; red, 45 to 60 mph.; and blinking red, 60 mph. and above.
The chosen colors are such as to be distinguished by those who are color-blind. The mechanism operating these lights would be a simple relay system actuated by the speedometer. The lights may be arranged either on top of the auto or a set fore and aft, and would not necessarily ruin the design of the car. By proper placement or agreement, the system would not interfere with the signals already in use by taxicabs and trucks.
Not only would this system reduce the danger of night driving, but it would also aid policemen in keeping the traffic within a safe driving range.
This idea may not sound so good to you the first time you think of it, but think of it again the next time you come up behind a slow moving car at night, or wish to pass a car against oncoming traffic. Then think of it again the next time you pass a mass of wreckage on the highway some morning while on your way to work.
The possibility of using red reflectors to remove the hazard of one-eyed monsters should also be considered by those who would like to promote safety on the highway.
WYNONA GREGG, MILTON WORLEY
U.S. Naval Air Station
Corpus Christi, TX