Evening Star Newspaper, February 17, 1935, Page 2

IVENLE COURT CHANCES DEBATED “Foster Parent” Involved in New Laws. This is the flist of three articles discussing local opinion concern- ing amendatory Juvenile Court legislation—why it is favored and why opposed. Bocial responsibility vs. individual responsibility—within these conflict- ing conceptions are embraced many of the principles upon which present day laws and rules of court proeedure’ are based. In the latter, particularly, is found | the motivating theory for criminal | law and criminal court procedure— the flat theory that persons who com- mit prohibited acts should be punished; that all persons are subject to judg- ment by the same standards; that society has no responsibility or right to guide the lives of individuals, but that society must be protected. In| other words, individuals have the| right to grow up as they please, or as their parents please, and the right to continue life as they please—until this pleasure involves an offense against society. When it does, lhe_vl are subject to punishment. ‘Their protection against persecution rests in & system of legal checks and balances, rights stated by the Constitution and by statute. . Social Theory. | In the theory of social responsibility | {s found a much broader conception of what society may and should do with the individual. In the applica- tion of this theory, society does not stand aloof until offended against: it takes unto itself the right to enter the private lives of individuals at the | first indication that the individual is not leading & well-ordered existence. ! It embraces punishment, however, only as & final recourse—only after it has extended advice, guidance and supervision and these have failed. Most pointed local instance of the conflict of these theories is found in the quiet but determined controversy in progress over the Juvenile Court set-up in the District. In its present form, the District Juvenile Court follows the original pattern of what such a court should be—namely’ a court of law in which offenders under a certain age would be tried for their offenses. The of-| fenses parallel those for which adults; are brought into police courts, the! procedure may be identical and the defendant_children are accorded the same legal rights as are available to adults in court proceedings. They may have counsel, they may plead guilty| or otherwise, they may request trial! by jury, may appeal decisions and in all the ways familiar to the legal profession may seek to protect them- gelves against just or unjust punish- ment by the court. Based Upon Law. In keeping, also, with the original| conception of a Juvenile Court, the| local court employs a wider use of the probation system than does the adult court; it commits its convicted offenders to institutions for children where supposedly they will not come! in contact with habitual criminals. Its cases are prepared and referred to it by the office of the corporation counsel—are shaped in conformance to good legal procedure and based upon an alleged violation of law or statute. Followed strictly, the Juve- nile Court law does not give the court the privilege of basing its decision partly upon the home circumstances of the child, does not admit as evi- dence a youngster's general conduct or attitude. For this system of dealing with ju- veniles there are many defenders. Members of the legal fraternity, for instance, uphold it as an approved vehicle for law enforcement, for pro- tection of society and for protection of the individual defendant's rights. The special needs of children, they point out, are met in the broader ap- plication of the probation principle, in the use of special institutions for committal and in the practice exclud- | Ing the public from trials. Properly administered, they claim, the District Juvenile Court law is fully adequate for the purposes for which such a law is intended. Theirs is the doctrine of individual responsibility, in which each person may go his own way until he commits a prohibited act—young or old—then he must be punished. The degree of punish- ment, of course, is not the same for young and old, and this discretion- ary margin is deemed sufficient to care for the juvenile problem. The Other Side. On the other side of the argument, however, are those who assail thej present District law most bitterly. Administered as it must be, they in- sist, the present court set-up auto- matically places all delinquent chil- dren in the classification of crim- inals. It provides for their arrest, trial and conviction, just as if they were adult criminals, and makes no real provision for study of case his- tories. It prevents, for instance, a Juvenile Court judge from inquiring into the home life and surroundings of a youngster and finding that it really was the fault of the child’s parents that he became an habitual stealer of groceries. It requires the court to confine itself to the question of whether or not the defendant really stole the groceries. If he did, then he should be punished, the law says, although the punishment may be merely placing the defendant on pro- bation. Followers of the theory of social responsibility, they offer in the place of the present law a new one which would make the court a socitl agency empowered to become a “foster par- ent” to any child whose family cir- cumstances are considered illy suited for the development of a useful citi- zen. They would give it jurisdiction far beyond that of the present law, would make it a powerful agency of reform, but from it they would at- tempt to remove the criminal stigma and the recourse to punishment as a means of benefiting soclety. (Some of the criticism for and against this mew juvenile court conception will be given in a sec- ond article in The Evening Star tomorrow.) o FLETCHER FETE PLANNED G. 0. P. Club in Capital Will Honor Party Chairman. A reception in honor of Henry P. Fletcher, chairman of the Republican National Committee, and Republican members of Congress will be held at the National Republican Club, Six- teenth street at Scott Circle, on the evening of February 26. The affair is being sponsored by the president and Board of Trustees of the National Capital Republican Club, THE SUNDAY STAR, Unemployment Com pensaiion Plans for Athount of Benefit, When Payment Euture of Institution as| Should Start and Its Duration Essen- tial Features Which Must Be Settled. BY J. A. O'LEARY. The question of what system of unemployment compensation should be enacted for Washington, and how extensive its benefit provisions should be, will be a live issue soon in the House and Senate District Commit- tees. Anticipating passage of the Nation- wide soclal security program—of which unemployment insurance is one feature—members of Congress al- ready are considering what type of separate bill to write for the District in their capacity as local legislators. When civic, trade and labor organi- zations come to consider the problem they will find several widely different general methods to be debated. Ellenbogen Bill Provisions. To start with there is the Ellen- bogen bill, introduced in the House a few days ago. This proposes the so- called ~State-wide pool system of | placing all employers’ contributions in one fund and calls for a program of benefits that would require the Dis- trict government to raise through new taxation between $750.000 and $1.500.- | 000 annually, in addition to the 3 per cent pay-roll tax to be collected from employers. This measure differs” substantially | from the plan Senator Wagner of New York put forward for the District in | the last Congress. Unlike the Ellen- | bogen bill, Senator Wagner's original | bill, which died with adjournment | last Summer, followed the general theory of the Wisconsin system of | giving industries the option of either | working out voluntary unemployment | reserve plans or going into the gen- eral governmental fund. The Wagner bill was confined to the 3 per cent pay-roll tax on employers without additional general tax on the com- munity as a whole. | | | Compromise Arrangement Likely, | Senator Wagner has not yet rein- troduced his bill since this Congress | met, but is studying the subject and | has said he probably will reintroduce it with modifications in its original terms. The Senator indicated he has in mind some compromise arrange- ment. Incidentally, there is only one State in the Union with an unemploy- ment reserve law in operation at the present time—Wisconsin—and the general theory of that law was em- bodied in the original bill Senator ‘Wagner proposed for the District. Legislatures of other States are pre- paring to take up the subject as soon s they know what final terms Con- gress will lay down in the national security law to enable States and the | District to obtain the Federal assist- | lmce contemplated by the national | aw. No General Tax Proposed. The Legislature of New York has a bill before it now that follows the | basic idea of the State-wide pool sys- tem in the Ellenbogen District meas- ure, but New York is not proposing any general tax to provide a State contribution on top of the 3 per cent employers’ pay roll tax. In drafting its law three years ago, the Wisconsin Legislature appropri- ated $25,000 to assist employers in | establishing voluntary unemployment | reserve plans, but did not provide for | a regular State tax to supplement the employers’ pay roll tax. The House | bill would require the District gov- ernment to make a regular contribu- tion equal to 1 per cent of the pay | roll of all employers affected by the | law, and Representative Ellenbogen, Democrat, of Pennsylvania, has re- vived the suggestion that Congress | enact a local income tax to meet this | new municipal obligation. Essential Features. The essential features of any un- employment compensation plan are: How large a benefit shall be paid; how soon should it start and how long a period of unemployment should be | provided for? | One of the mein differences between | the Ellenbogen bill and Senator Wag- | ner's bill of last year is in the dura- | tion of benefit payments. The House measure allows for a maximum of | 26 weeks of benefit payments in a | year, while the Wagner bill called for | 16 weeks in a year. The bill now pending in New York contemplates 15 weeks. ‘The Ellenbogen bill also goes fur- ther by providing for additional ben- | efits beyond this 26-week yearly max- imum. Under this additional benefit clause, | an employe who had received the max- | imum benefits allowed for the one- | year period, could receive additional | benefits in the ratio of one week of | total unemployment benefit for each unit of 20 weeks of employment oc- | curring within the 265 weeks (five | years) preceding the most recent week of employment. and against which benefits had not already been charged | under the law. | Under the Ellenbogen plan, a work- er would be eligible for benefit pay- ments if he had accumulated either 35 weeks of employment within the past two years, or 20 weeks of work within the preceding year. $15 a Week Maximum. Both plans are substantially the same as to the rate of payment, hav- ing the same maximum payment of $15 a week, and both call for a wait- ing period of three weeks. The benefit provision of the original Wagner bill was: Not to exceed $15 a week, or 50 per cent of the average weekly wage, whichever is the lower, ‘The benefit clause of the Ellen- bogen bill is: 4C per cent of the work- er's weekly wage, plus 10 per cent if | he has a dependent wife, and an ad- ditional 5 per cent for each dependent relative in his household. In no case, however, could the weekly benefit ex- ceed $15, or 65 per cent of his wage, whichever is the lower. The main- differences, therefore, in the two plans are in the length of time benefit payments would continue and in the method of administering the system, as between the general pooling of all contributions under the House bill, or the separate employer accounts allowed under the original ‘Wagner bill. The more liberal pro- visions in the House bill would make necessary the new tax on the com- munity as 8 whole to supplement the 3 per cent pay roll tax. Salary Deductions Prohibited. . Both plans prohibit deduction from | the employe’s wages of any part of the 3 per cent pay roll tax, but the Wag- ner bill of Jast year allowed employes to agree voluntarily with their em- ployers to increase the amount of con- tribution in order to make possible greater benefits than would be pay- able out of the employer tax under the general program. The original Wagner bill placed administration of the plan under the Secretary of Labor and provided for the keeping of a separate account of each employer’s tax payments. In a depression, or period of slack work, | the rate of contribution would be | revoke the exemption on 10 days’ | operating under the general | tice of his unemployment either at| | industries would have the option of | exact contributions from employers District Differ the employe laid off would receive his unemployment benefit allowance from his employer’'s account. For the first two years of operation of the plan the employer would continue to pay in the 3 per cent pay-roll tax, but thereafter he would only have to con- tinue to pay at that rate if the bal- ance in his account amounted to less | than $65 of reserve per employe. Whenever an account contained from $65 to $99 of reserve per employe that ! employer would have his pay-roll tax | cut to 1 per cent. And whenever his reserve amounted to $100 or more per employe no further tax payment would be required until the reserve began to go down. Rate of Contribution Reduced. Thus, when employes were being | kept steadily at work and, therefore, no drain on the employer's reserve, temporarily reduced or discontinued. Since the House bill contemplates placing all contributions in one fund, there are no similar provisions for re- ducing or suspending the tax of an employer while his reserve remained at a certain level. The House bill, instead, provides that for three years the Social Insurance Board (created to administer the law) would study the workings of the system ‘relative to the financial aspects and the suffi- ciency of contributions” and submit a report of its recommendations to| Congress by February 15, 1939. In addition to providing for sepa- | rate accounting of the funds of all| employers under the general compul- sory part of the plan, the Wagner bill | of last year allowed an employer or a group in the same industry to sub-, mit their own plan for handling un- | employment benefits. If the Secre- tary of Labor found that such plans were at least equal to and as beneficial as the terms governing the general | fund, such employer or group could | be exempted from the general pro- visions of the act. In such instances | the Secretary could require the em- | ployer to furnish security to assure payment of all promised benefits under that separate plan. Revoking of Exemption. If the employer failed to give such security, or failed otherwise to com- ply with the rules, the secretary could notice. In that event, such an em- ployer or group would at once have to pay into the general fund an amount equal to the balance he would have had in his account had he been | lan up | to that time. Although separate ac- counts would be kept for each em- ployer in the general fund, the sec- retary would have discretionary power to pool the contributions of employers in any industry whenever it appeared the carrying out of the purposes of the law required a wider base than the individual accounts. Under the Wagner bill in the last | Congress, an employe would give no- | the district employment office, or at | separate employment offices which | establishing, subject to approval by | the secretary. Assessment on Fund. i The expenses incurred by the De- | partment of Labor in administering | that proposed law, plus half the ex-! penses of the employment offices, would be estimated annually and ob- tained by an assessment on the un- employment fund. The secretary would assess these expenses on the general fund and on the funds of em- ployers operating under separate plans, in the proportion that the benefits peid from the general fund or by any exempted employer bore to the tota: benefits paid that year. No employer could be assessed more ; than three-tenths of 1 per cent of his yearly pay roll, however, for these expenses of administration. Some modifications undoubtedly would have to be made in the Senate bill of the last Congress to conform to the stardards being laid down in the pending national social security bill, which standards will have to be met in the local laws before a State or the District could share in the advantages of the Federal act. In order to induce the States to enact unemployment reserve laws, the na- tional bill proposes to levy a 3 per cent pay roll tax, against which an employer would be given credit up to 90 per cent of a similar tax paid under his local law. Unemployment Insurance Explained. In explaining the unemployment insurance phase of the national bill; to the Senate Finance Committee re- cently, Senator Wagner said: “Practically no restrictions are placed upon the types of laws that the States | may enact. They may provide for! State-wide pooled funds or for in- dividual company reserves. They may or from employes, or from both. They may add their own contributions if they desire to do so. It is estimated that the 3 per cent pay roll tax upon employers alone will provide, after a four-week waiting period, 15 weeks of benefit payments to the unemployed, estimated at 50 per cent of the work- ing wage, but not more than $15. Additional contributions of 1 per cent by workers and 1 per cent by the States would raise the weeks of bene- fit to 30. “While great latitude is thus left to the States, the bill provides that no State shall receive any subsidy, nor shall any employer be entitled to any off-set against his Federal tax, unless the State law conforms to three basic standards. Deposited With Treasury. “The first of these standards is that all funds raised under the State law shall be deposited with the Sec- retary of the Treasury for safekeep- ing and management. This will pro- tect the unemployed from the hazards of local financial crises. And as I have already stated, the investment of this huge aggregate fund by the Secretary of the Treasury will exert a tremendous stabilizing influence upon industrial operations. “The second Federal standard is that no State law shall deny bene- fits to any worker because he refuses to accept work at terms below those prevalent in the locality, or because he will not accept as a condition of employment any interference with his right of self-organization. Unemploy- ment insurance is a matter of right, not of charity; it is a mark of free- dom, not an instrument of oppression. “The third Federal standard is that every State shall administer its unem- ployment insurance through employ- ment offices. If it has none, it must set them up.” Representative Ellenbogen has an nounced that the bill he introduced recently for the District was drafted in co-operation with the President’s Committee on Economic Security is being put forward as a i model for the States to copy. Ac- o | cording to Mr. Ellenbogen, it embodies iin a lump sum a benefit payment | MACON CRUMPLED “LIKE PAPER SACK” Atténdant at Lighthouse Unable to Place Origin of Tear. By the Assoclated Press. SAN FRANCISCO, February 16.— The crash of the Macon was compared to “a paper sack exploding” today' before the naval court investigating the loss of America’s last big dirigible. The comparison was drawn by | Henry Miller, assistant lighthouse keeper at Point Sur, near where the Macon fell into the ocean Tuesday. “It all happened at one time” Miller said—so quickly that he could not see whether the airship’s fabric started to tear at the rear, center or forward part of the upper fin. Other wimesses had agreed the “casualty” that sent the airship down was first discernible as a failure at the fin. Watched With Glasses. Thomas Henderson, keeper of the lighthouse, testified he watched the break-up through powerful glasses. He said “the material seemed to go to pieces and then drifted back,” add- ing: “The trouble seemed to start at the forward part of the fin. Then it worked back and seemed to raise up at the front all at once.” Both Henderson and Miller said there was nothing particularly bad about the weather at the time. Answering a question by the Macon's chief—Comdr. H. V. Wiley—Henderson said a rain squall came up about the time the Macon was settling to the ocean surface, but that there was no increase in the wind. Saw Ballast Dropped. From the deck of the cruiser Houston, Ensign Terry L. Watkins said he saw the Macon about 5 pm., a few minutes before she was stricken. “I saw her dropping ballast,” he said. “That seemed to be the only unusual thing about her.” The Houston was about five miles from the falling dirigible. ‘The Macon's rudderman and eleva- tor man testified the huge ship rolled suddenly and tore herseif from their control. Coxswain W. H. Clarke, the rudder- man, said the wheel spun suddenly from his hands and Comdr. Wiley grabbed it. “The first thing I noticed was the ship trembled and took & bow up inclination,” Clarke testified W. M. Conover, the elevator man, also said the wheel was jerked from his hands. “Four spokes hit my hand before I could stop it,” he said. WIDOW FEARS FUTURE. SUNNYVALE, Calif, February 16 () —Desolate and bewildered, Mrs. Ernest Dailey, sole widow of the Ma- | con disaster, peered today with youth- | ful eyes into an unknown, frightening future. She is an expectant mother. Not for two long days after the sinking of the Navy's mammoth di- rigible, with its sequel of joyful news for every wife but her, did she give up hope of ever seeing again the heroic | young radio man who stuck to his | post to summon aid for others, and | then plunged to his death in the | Pacific, | Life had looked sunny for Mrs. Dailey since she met the young radio | man less than three years ago at| Akron, Ohio, when the big ship was | nearing completion. Their home is in San Jose, where Dailey was sup- | porting also his father and invalid | mother, and ambitiously studying to become a warrant officer. i He had just passed his tests. Money | was scarce and Mrs. Dailey found a job in a San Jose department store to help him buy his new warrant officer's uniform. It hangs in the! closet now, still unworn. Those nights of study will boost the pension a Mittle for Mrs. Dailey. But the pension of a warrant officer’s widow is less than $20 a month. The young wife had planned to leave her job soon to get ready for the baby. | Sympathetic friends ask: “What will you do?” “I don't know,” she mutters dully. the latest recommendations of the President’s committee. Having been drafted more recently, this House bill contains some features not embodied in the Senate bill of last year. For instance, it defines “partial unemployment” and fixes the degree of benefits to be paid in such cases. The Senate bill. which was drafted nearly two years ago, directed the Secretary to study “partial unem- ploymént” and recommend amend- ments which Congress could include in the plan on that subject. The House bill also provides for cases in which a laid-off worker has no prospect of obtaining further em- ployment here, but may secure em- ployment elsewhere. In such in-! stances the employe could be given somewhat less than he would be en- tiled to in weekly installments if he remained in the District. Register for Work. Since the benefit payments are only intended to go to laid-off workers who are physically able and available for work if called, to prove such avail- ability, the worker would be required by the House bill to register for work and file his unemployment benefit claim at the District public employ- ment office. Both the old Senate bill and the new House measure provide machinery for settling disputes and noting ap- peals. Both provide also for advisory councils to advise and co-operate with the public authorities in administer- ing the plans. WASHINGTON, D. C, Representative Ellenbogen regards the State-wide (in this case District- wide) pool fund system as preferable to the Wisconsin plan. ‘The Wisconsin law, approved Janu- ary 28, 1932, started out with the declaration that its intent is “to give employers a fair opportunity to bring about the purposes of the act with- out legal compulsion.” It provided for benefits at the rate of $10 a week, or 50 per cent of the weekly wage, whichever is the lower. An amend- ment adopted in July, 1933, provided that the employer’s account shall be liable for benefit payments in the ratio of one week of benefits to each four weeks of employment in the pre- ceding 52 weeks, allowing for a cer- tain probationary period. Another feature of the Wisconsin law was the provision for exemption of employers who adopt a guarantee work period. This was to apply to any employer who guaranteed em- ployes in advance at least 42 weeks of work and wages for at least two-thirds of the full-time weekly hours in each week. It is not likely that the District Committees in Congress will begin consideration of local legislation on the question until the national se- and | curity measure is in final shape, so that the provisions can be made to oconform. ) Tough Cavalry Horse and Ex-Cowboy Trooper | Take Fort Myer Jumps With Breakneck Speed FEBRUARY 17, 1935—PART ONE. Corpl. William H. Vanderwege exhibitions at Fort Myer. and Puggy, features of the riding —Star Staff Photos. RISING FOOD COSTS NOT T0 HIT POLIGY A. A. A. Says It Will Not Abandon Program Now in Effect. By the Associated Press. Despite increasing prices of food. the Agricultural Adjustment Admin- istration said in a formal statement yesterday that it was “not consider- ing abandonment of any program now in effect.” At the same time the A. A. A. said statements that the farm prices of 14 basic commodities were 24 points above prewar parity “is incorrect.” The administration, however, re- cently stated that the price level of | | Forum Speaker | the 14 basic commodities, those on > which processing taxes may be levied for benefit payments, were virtually at the parity level. Parity is described in the adjust- ment act as the price for which farm commodities must sell to have the | purchasing power they had in the 1909-1914 period. Increases Called for. A. A A officials pointed out yes- terday that reduction programs al- ready were in effect for several major food crops for this year and the statement said “all of the major programs for 1935 call for increases over 1934 farm production.” In vieWw of the food situation, of- ficials said there was little likelihood that any attempt would be made to reduce acreage for crops not aelready under contract. The farm act apparently forbids collection of processing taxes after prices have reached the parity level, declaring the amount of the tax shall be the difference between the “cur- rent farm price” and parity. Taxes have remained at 30 cents per bushel for wheat, $2.25 per hun- dred pounds for hogs, 5 cents per bushel for corn, and 4.2 cents per pound for cotton for more than a year without .change. Taxes to Continue. In addition, the administration al- ready haes declared it would continue taxes on corn, hogs. and cotton in 1936 to repay benefit payments totaling about $260,000,000 in 1935. Complaints against processing taxes have increased lately with the rise in food prices. A decision on how long the A. A. A. may continue to levy taxes even though a parity price has been reached for a product has not been made. Taxes have not been low- ered to correspond to the rise in farm commodities. “The purpose of the adjustment act is to seek to establish and maintain parity prices,” the A. A. A. state- ment said. Leaders to Be Feted. Pedro Guevara and Francisco A. Delgado, resident commissioners to the United States for the Philippine Islands, will be honored by the Fili- pino community of Washington at a reception and dance next Wednesday at 9 pm. in the National Press Club. Modern Port Planned. Ifni, the little Spanish town on the west coast of Africa, may be made into & modern port, L 4 JAMES A. MOFFETT. MOFFETT T0 TALK ~ ONRADIO FORUM {Housing Administrator Will Review Results of Re- cent Survey. The first seven months’ development of the Federal Housing Administra- tion's program will be the subject of an address by Administrator James A. Moffett tcmorrow at 10:30 pm. on the"National Radio Forum. The talk will mark Moffett's second appearance on the forum. He deliv- ered an acdress on the same program outlining what he hoped to do last Summer shortly after organization of the Federal Housing Administration The forum is arranged by The Wash- ington Star and will be broadcast over a cost-to-coast network of the Na- tional Broadcasting Co. Mr. Moffett recently returned from an extensive tour of the country, in- cluding stops at Los Angeles and San Francisco. While on this trip the ad- ministrator obtained a first-hand pic- ture of housing developments and business improvement in many sec- tions of the Nation and, it is expected, his address on the forum will cover his observations on this trip. furnish the Nation with a detailed picture of the magnitude of the hous- ing movement and the vast potential markets that are being developed through it. Animal Friends to Meet. A discussion of “Our Crimes Against Animalkind and Their Reac- tions Upon Ourselves” will feature & meeting of the Vegetarian Soclety and the Anti-Vivisection Society of the District tomorrow at 8 p.m. at the Rosicrucian Fellowship, 907 Fifteenth street. An address by Theodore Heline of New York will precede the discussion. James P, Briggs will preside, A The administrator is expected to| UGGY and his rider get along| | ). tairly well together, now that A they're acquainted i The pair quarreled at first, | as well they might, for their introduction two months ago sounded | more like a challenge. It was a case of—"Puggy. meet | the former cowboy from Wyoming. | Corpl. Vanderwege, meet the toughest | cavalry horse that ever tossed a re- | cruit into the bandstand!" 8o Corpl. Willlam H. Vanderwege, | Troop F, 3d Cavlary, climbed aboard Puggy and asked for the fireworks Puggy hacn't been in the Caviary 8 or 10 years for nothing, and neither had Corpl. Vanderwege. They knew a lot of tricks they had learned by experience at separate posts. But soon the two began to entertain a certain respect for each other. After all, theye were old troop- | ers—Puggy, whose high spirits Cavalry discipline had failed to break, and Corpl. Vanderwege, who couldn't for- get he used to ride the range. The two began to be noticed almost at once, riding in the exhibitions at Fort Myer. Puggy ran at the indoor jumps with a wild abandon which Corpl. Vanderwege made no effort to restrain. They both were capable of | taking punishment. Puggy was big, tough and rangy—so was the cor- poral. The pair won much applause Fri- day, riding in the exhibition put on in honor of Maj. Gen. Paul Malone, | commander of the 3d Corps Area. Puggy took the jumps in a full run- | ning stride, like a steeplechase horse, and Corpl. Vanderwege gave him his head. | Vanderweg like the other non- | commissioned officers of the Cavalry | regiment, took the saddle and briie | off his mount while jumping, and rode | barebacked, guiding with his knees. | To the spectators, at any rate, thws feat seemea more impressive because of Puggy's break-neck tendencies. As a metter of fact, Puggy almost ran down the photographer who caught him in action. Puggy doesn't care for publicity and neither does | IMUNITIONS PROBE HALT THEATENED Democrats Irked by Inquiry Digression Into Political Fund Path, Ey the Associated Press. Indications were given yesterday that Democratic members of the Sen- ate Munitions Committee might vote to end that inquiry if it continued to stray into “such little matters” as 1932 political campaign correspond- ence. One member of the committee said he was displeased with introduction in evidence Friday of an exchange of political correspondence between A. P. Homer, Washington marine architect, who was connected in 1932 with the Democratic national headquarters, and George A. Eddy, president of the Goss Printing Press Co. of Chicago. “There is growing sentiment not only among members of the commit- tee, but on the floor of the Senate against delving into such little mat- ters,” the Senator said. “They have little, if any, relationship to the muni- tions investigation.” Collusion Probe Object. ‘The committee has sought to learn whether the shipyards had set up a system of collusive bidding for distri- bution of the naval building business among themseives. Repeated references have been made in testimony that “Washington con- tacts” had an influence in obtaining shipbuilding contracts. It was to in- quire whether Homer had employed such “contacts” that he was called The political correspondence went into the record during a prolonged questioning of Homer. Senator Barbour of New Jersey. one of the three Republican members of the committee. introduced a letter dated October 13, 1922, and signed by Homer asking Ed for a cam- palgn contribution. The letter recited that in 1918 Mr. Roosevelt, then As- sistant Secretary of the Navy, rein- stated a contract with the Goss Print= ing Co. which had previously been canceled with ending of the war. Letter Theft Charged. Homer insisted the letter never was mailed, but was stolen from his files by a Republican employe. A modi- fied letter was sent Eddy, he said and brought a reply, describing the request as a “flagrant attempt at political blackmail.” The reply was sent directly to Mr. Roosevelt during the presidential campaign. Homer said he obtained consent of Roosevelt to reply to Eddy. After re- calling his efforts. as a wartime offi- cer of the Goss Press Co.. to have the naval contract reinstated, Homer ac- cused Eddy in the reply of “an effort to completely discredit” him, and of committing “one of the most astound- ing examples of perfidity that has ever come to the writer's attention.” A copy of what he said was Eddy's reply was intreduced by Homer. Regret Voiced in Letter. Da‘ed Octcber 24, 1932, it expressed “deep regret.” and added “I must admit your statements as absolutely correct, and I am exceerd- ingly sorry over the results of this affair.” It went on to relate that “yon have a leak in your (Democratic) organiza- tion—a copy of your October 13 let- ter to me was received by local Re- publican Committee one day before I received the same here.” “Heavy pressure was brought to bear upon me through influential sources,” the Eddy letter continued, the corporal They're just a Cavlary pair, well met. 5000 IN SERVICE FACE INCOMEL0SS Pay Restoration April Fails to Offset Heavy Slash in Commutation. While full pay will be restored to all Government employes April 1, par- adoxically, 5,000 officers of the uni- formed service face a new cut in com- mutation allowances on June 30 which will reduce their total income by 10 | per cent, despite the pay restoration. | The existing commutation rate ex- pires June 30. Under the law ‘.hel President is required to set the rent | and rations allowance on the basis of | Labor Department cost of living index figures for the preceding year as com- {p-red with 1922. War and Navy De- vpartment officials report that the 1934 index figures would require a reduc- tion of commutation large enough to reduce the total income of the men approximately 10 per cent. Average Cut Is $35 Monthly. The services affected are the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Public Health Service, Coast Guard, and Coast and | Geodetic Survey, for members who are | not provided Government living quar- ters. They will be out of pocket an average of $35 each per month for the remainder of 1935. The “whys” of the paradox are: When the officers of these agencies are assigned to duty where they are not furnished with Government living quarters, they are granted commuta- tion allowances. Under the 1922 pay act it was| specified that a maximum of $20 per room and 60 cents per day for rations would be paid. Each officer is allowed | at least two rooms, up to a maximum of six rooms, according to his rank and size of his family. When the 15 per cent economy P cut was instituted in 1932 a “ride attached provided that it would be the only pay cut taken by the uniformed services. The “rider” continued in ef- fect when 10 per cent was restored. At the present time—with the 5 per cent—officers on commutation basis | receive $19 per room and 57 cents per day rations. With restoration of the cut thay will receive an additional $1 per month and 3 cents per day rations. War and Navy Department officials report that each of the 5,000 will lose at least $15, while the average will approximate $35, when the new scale is fixed. Affected by the order will be nearly 3,000 Army officers on duty as instructors with National Guard, Organized Reserve and R. O. T. C. | | “to forward the reply sent direct to Mr. Roosevelt. The Republican Com- mittee wanted to carry this even fur- ther and make a political issue of the entire matter. but I stopped this dead in its tracks.” HOMER CHARGES DENIED. Shipbuilder Says No Money Was Pald for Business. CHESTER. Pa.. February 18 (#).— John G. Pew, president cf the Sun Shipbuilding Co., today denied asser- tions made before a United® States Senate investigating committee that his company had paid “some one” $70.000 to obtain submarine and other Government construction business. He described as “false and ridicu- lous” the testimony of A. P. Homer, marine architect who told the Senate committee in Washington yesterday he had learned from “a Mr. Carlson of Chester” that the Sun Co. had paid $50,000 to obtain submarine business and $20,000 more for other business. Pew identified Carlson as Charles A. Carlson, Democratic political worker of Ridley Park, Pa., and said Carlson never had any official connection with the Sun firm. “What's more, we never paid 50,000 cents or 1 cent to any one to get any business,” Pew asserted. “If we want to go to the Navy Department. they are always ready to receive us, and we don't have to pay anybody to get our business. “Carlson is a neighbor of one of our officials, and some time ago attempted to make an engagement for me to see Mr. Homer. I had no interest in him and never saw him. A telegram from Mr. Homer was sent to my office, but I was in Ohio at the time, and my secretary replied that she didn't know when I would be back. “Carlson, I believe, is now in Wash- ington as a sort of contact man for some firms, but certainly not for us.” Losses From Casualties, Theft and Wagers. To be deductible, a loss arising from “fires, storms, shipwrecks, or other casualty” need not be con- nected with the taxpayer's trade or business. If his home or his auto- mobile is destroyed by fire, or his Summer bungalow damaged by flood or storm, he may claim a deduction for the loss sustained. Loss of property by theft or bur- glary is an allowable deduction, and need not be incurred in trade or busi- ness. Hence, the loss occasioned by the theft of jewelry or an automobile used for pleasure and convenience is deductible. It must be established, however. that the property actually was stolen. Should circumstances at- tending the loss leave the owner in doubt as to whether it was stolen or lost, the claim would not be al- lowed. Losses from wagering transactions are allowable only to the extent of the gains from such transactions. A loss Is deductible only in the year in which it is sustained, even though, as in the case of a theft or casualty, units, on recruiting duty, engineer as- signments, or in Washington. Approximately 2,000 Navy officers and smaller numbers of Marines, Pub- lic Health Service, Coast Guard and Coast and Geodetic Survey also will lose through the commutation reduc- A » it may not be discovered until a later year. Losses compensated for by in- surance or otherwise, of course, are not deductible. However, in the event the amount of insurance is not suffi- clent to recompense for the loss sus- tained, the excess of the loss over the amount of the insurance 1s deductibls. »