Evening Star Newspaper, May 9, 1937, Page 31

- Editorial Page Special Articles PRESIDENT’S NEUTRALITY POWER UNPRECEDENTED Legislation Gives Him Authority to Decide Course of U. S. in Any In- ternational Conflagration. BY CONSTANTINE BROWN. EVER has Congress granted more sweeping powers to the President than under the neu- trality bill which became law May 1, 1937, and which gives him the power to decide whether this eountry shall go to war or remain at peace. It givas the Chief Executive discretionary powers, such as no oiiier President has had heretofore, to decide the course of action in the event of an international conflagration. It is doubtful whether there is a single Congressman or official of the State Department who believes that there can be neutrality legislation adequate to keep any country out of war. The question of war or peace is & matter which rests exclusively with the will of the people and the efficiency of the principal executives to avoid entanglements. People, as a rule, can be swayed by propaganda and emotionalism. This is particu- larly true when leaders who have de- termined ideas about helping, or not helping, the world through the might of the United States shut their eyes to or even encourage certain types of propaganda. There was a bitter battle in Con- gress as to whether the President should be granted such vast powers in administering the neutrality law or whether the Congress should decide on certain restrictions and policies and make it mandatory for the Presi- dent to apply them without regard to the general international political situation or line-up. Major War Held Unlikely. The chief reason why the advocates ©f a neutrality act controlled by Con- @ress have lost is that the State De- partment and the White House have been able to convince their conferees ~—Senators Borah, Pittman, Robinson end Representatives McReynolds, Bloom, Luther Johnson and Hamilton Fish—that there is no danger of a major war in Europe or in Asia in the course of the next two years; conse- quently, there could be no harm in allowing the President to administer the neutrality legislation. After all, it was argued, the Congress is in session for only a few months out of each year and certain situations might | develop in the international field | during the recess when it would be impossible for the Congress to meet and consider them. Furthermore, it was added as a convincing argument to give the President discretionary powers, such latitude granted to the Chief Executive would save the Con- gressmen a good deal of embarrass- ment with their constituents. Manda- tory laws would demand, it was said, an enumeration of articles which, under certain circumstances, should be embargoed. What would the cotton grower, or the farmer, or the oil, copper, tin or steel interests say to their respective Congressmen if they voted in favor of such a law? These considerations prevailed in both houses when the conference re- port was adopted which gave the President, if he chose to fight once more to save the world for democracy, the right to do so. Section 1 of the bill deals with an embargo on arms and ammunition ‘which must be imposed on belligerents 88 soon as the President has ascer- tained that a state of war exists be- tween two or more countries and has issued & proclamation to that effect. This section was already accepted in 1936. The legislation passed last year covering the export of implements of war to Spain also is incorporated in that section, and will apply to any countiies where there is a civil war, if the President believes that such action is necessary. ‘There is nothing in section 1 which might endanger our isolation in the event of another general conflagration, or which cannot be described as routine precautionary legislation, Discretion in Section 2. In section 2 of the bill the Presi- dent is granted discretionary powers regarding the placing of “restrictions on the shipment of certain articles or materials in addition to arms and implements of war from the United Btates to belligerent states.” American vessels will be prohibited from carry- ing such articles or materials to any belligerent state. It will be necessary, therefore, for the prospective foreign purchasers of such materials to take possession of them before they leave American territory. This is the well- Xnown theory of trading during the war without any risk. Any foreign government—belligerent or not—is en- titled to purchase her certain “re- served” materials, provided it takes title of property before the merchan- dise leaves the shores of the United States, and provided it is carried in foreign boats. It is for the President to decide what kinds of goods thus become “restricted.” Outside of ostrich feath- ers, there is not a single item produced in the world which does not become war material in case of war. The President has the latitude of placing ofl, for instance, on the restricted list and not cotton, although both are equally necessary in the prosecution of & war, A country like Italy, for ex- ample, possessing an insufficient fleet of oil tankers, would be placed at a distinct disadvantage. On the other bhand, if cotton were not placed on the restricted list, ships flying the American flag would be permitted to transpor® that commodity across the sea and enjoy the immunity of Ameri- ca’s neutrality, backed by the might of the United States Navy. Of course these ships could not enter a blockaded area. But there might be a repetition of the 1914-1917 situation if our ships were to take cotton for France, for instance, to a neutral port. Any molestation on the part of men-of- war belonging to powers engaged in s war against France naturally would be & hostile act against the United Btates. Through such a situation there is s serfous possibility of being drawn into & conflict, despite the avowed desire of Congress “to promote the security, or preserve the peace of the United States, or to protect the lives of citizens of the United States.” ‘This sentence is persistently repeated in every section and subsection of the neutrality bill, doubtless with the view of proving to the citizens of this are to avoid the risk of sending to their death millions of men from this country. In section 3 the Congress has taken care of the financial transactions of eventual belligerents almost as effec- tively as it has taken care of the raw material prohibition. As soon as the President has issued his proclamation regarding the state of belligerency between two or more countries, it be- comes unlawful to purchase, sell or exchange bonds and securities be- longing to belligerent governments, or to make loans or extend credit to any such government. There is a provision, however, which reads as follows: “That if the Presi- dent shall find such action will serve to protect the commercial or other interests of the United States or its citi- zens, he may, in his discretion * * ¢ except from the operation of this sec- tion ordinary commercial credits and short-time obligations in aid of legal transactions and of a character cus- tomarily used in normal peacetime commercial transactions.” There are few commercial transactions which cannot be construed as serving to pro- tect the interests of the people of the United States. And the President, under the neutrality act, termine from both the economic and financial points of view which of the belligerents might benefit by this proviso. The members of Congress naturally admit that it cannot be against the law and the interests of the people of this country who spent hundreds of millions during the last war to alle- viate the sufferings of humanity to solicit funds for humanitarian pur- poses. Nevertheless, even for this purpose they have decided that they had best follow the opinion of the Chief Executive. The bill provides that “all such solicitations and col- lection of funds shall be subject to the approval of the President and shall be made under such rules and regu- lations as he shall prescribe.” Section 8 Interesting. The most interesting section of the bill is the relatively less vital section 8, dealing with submarines and armed merchant vessels which might have or want to use American ports and territorial waters. In this section the President has the com- plete freedom to play favorites if he chooses to do so. The expression, “all belligerents,” has completely dis- appeared in this section. It reads as follows: “Whenever, during any war in which the United States is neu- tral, the President shall find that re- strictions placed on the use of the ports and territorial waters of the United States by the submarines and the armed merchant vessels of a foreign country will serve to maintain peace . . . and shall make proclama- tion thereof, it shall thereafter be unlawful for any such vessel to enter a port of the territorial waters of the United States . . .” In other words, pick and choose which of the belliger- ents shall enjoy the hospitality of American harbors and territorial wa- ters. Of course, the assumption of the members of the Congress is that the President will not discriminate between the belligerents, and they will all be forbidden to use the Amer- ican harbors for their armed ves- sels. A leading Democrat explained to this writer: “This might be dan- gerous, of course, with another Pres- ident. But remember that the new act is good for two years only and during all this time Mr. Roosevelt will be the head of our Govern- ment.” Even the prohibition for American citizens to travel on liners of bel- ligerent nations is supjected to the President’s will. The Congress has made it unlawful for American citi- zens to travel on such ships except “in accordance with such rules and regulations as the President shall pre- scribe.” There is little wonder, then, that on the afternoon of April 29, when the embassies of the democratic Eu- ropean states heard that the new bill ‘was passed with a handsome major- ity, they sent excited cables to their respective governments. One of these diplomats remarked in his bursting enthusiasm: “We now have the United States in the bag!"” (Copyright, 1937.) “Brain Fag” Continues Scientific Mystery AMES, Jowa (#)—Have you ever felt “tired and dopey” after eating a heavy dinner? The reason, says Earl C. McCracken, Towa State College biophysicist, isn't because your blood rushes to your stomach after you've eaten. “As a matter of fact,” he explained, “the brain gets more blood than it ordinarily does, for circulation is speeded up greatly following a meal.” He said sclentists don't know just What causes the “brain fag” in spite of the fact physiologists for many years maintained it was caused by blood rushing to the stomach. McCracken added that tests he con- ducted recently upon dogs showed conclusively “circulation to every part of the body is speeded up greatly dur- ing digestion.” — Foreign Words Added To Japanese Language YOKOHAMA (Special) —The Jap- anese language, spoken and written, constantly is being enlarged by the adaptation of foreign words due to Visitors, the films and the number of Japanese returned from residence in America and Hawaii, who have helped the spread of American words. “O. K.,” for instance, is part of the everyday vocabulary of the Japanese taxicab driver. A familiar specimen of an expression spoken in Japanese fashion is “Oral,” which is used by the uniformed girl conductors on ‘Tokio busses to proceed. “Orai” is de- rived from “all right.” A department store is & “departo” and apartment house an “aparto” and a “pamfu” is & pamphlet, while “sjito” is agitation. eountry how anxious their legislators » X (Copyright, 1937.) can de- the President is given the power to | EDITORIAL SECTION he Sy Star WASHINGTON, D. C, SUNDAY MORNING, MAY 9, 1937. What Has Lewis to Say? Abhors Strikes, Says C.I. 0., Renouncing Ambiti on for Public Office—Aim to Aid Working Man. BY JOHN M. CARLISLE. HERE will Poker-faced John L. Lewis, the most astute and dominant labor leader of his time, take the mili- tant labor movement under the blazoning banners of his Committee for Industrial Organization? With new citadels captured for the vertical union movement in the steel, automobile and glass industries, with the strengthening of the old union fortress in the coal industry, and with the validation of labor's own bill of rights, the Wagner act— where does John Lewis go from here? Does this one-time pick-and- shovel miner, self-educated, self- made and self-confident in the Lin- colnian tradition, aspire to be ‘Presi- dent? Does he want to found the first labor party in America and be- come a labor dictator? Does he want to change the capitalistic system? « What does Lewis want now for labor and for himself? These are questions which the man- in-the-street has been asking since fast-moving developments on the in- dustrial front in a period of economic change have made Lewis the symbol of union labor under the New Deal. The administration has recognized Lewis as labor's spokesman in the mass production industries. Not Communist, He Insists, Well, what has Lewis to say? I am not a Communist,” Lewis told this interviewer. “I am not a Democrat or a Republican. am I a Socialist nor a Fascist, nor any other kind of ‘ist.’ American who is for anything that is good for Americans. “This organization of the mass production industries American labor movement. It ex- pands and extends America’s strength. The best insurance policy this Nation can take out, as I have said before, is to permit a larger number of Ameri- cans the right to participate in the crystallization of Government poli- cies. “Let the American workman have & sufficient participation in the in- creased efficiency of Industry. Let him have decent wages, own his home, educate his children, “Oreate a citizen with a stake in the country and at all times he will fight to protect that stake. He can be trusted not to follow false gods or false leaders to a point where tke stability of the Nation in its domestis economy would be impaired.” Lewis was talking in the offices of the United Mine Workers' Union, of which he is president, in the Tower Building here. The spacious and well- appointed offices of the largest union in the Nation provided him with a fit setting as an executive devoting his energies to a new type of big busi- ness—the mass unionization of work- ers. He sat bolt upright, his 230 pounds overfilling a red leather easy chair, with all the noiseless office manage- ment efficiency circulating about him, with secretaries hovering nearby, with long-distance calls from prominent public officials constantly demanding his attention. Opening Typically Bluff. On his face was the inevitable Lewis frown and in his mouth was the in- evitable fat cigar. His was a typical Lewis opening—bluff, abrupt and on the offensive. “If you have any questions—shoot!"” Now that the Wagner act has been validated, where is labor going under Lewis and the C. I. O.? “The Wagner act,” he replied, “affects only the mechanics of the labor situation. It legalizes labor's right to organize, its right to have representative bargaining. “We propose to do what we are doing—organize labor. We demon- strated the ability of labor to organize in advance of the validation of the act and the validation justifies what we are doing. It gives labor the imple- ments with. which to continue organ- izing. “I think the vote of employes of the Packard Motor Car Co. in Detroit, giving the United Automobile Workers’ Union sole collective bargaining rights, was a commonplace thing. It was obvioys the employes want to be or- ganized in the automobile industry. The result was to be expected. “We of the C. I. O. are obviously trying to organize in the mass produc- tion industries those who are unorgan- ized. “It is & big program in itself. But we won't stop there. We intend to be of service to other groups. Not Reorganizing the Organized. “We are concerned now with organ- izing the unorganized and not with re- organizing the organized. That will be our program if organized groups in the American Federation of Labor do not perversely annoy us. Then we may have to pause long enough to protect ourselves. “The establishment of ocollective bargaining in the mass production * Neither | I'm just an| is a modern | industries placed a greater degree of participation for labor in the in- creased efficiency of modern industry. It created a forum of interindustrial relations for a discussion of social, economic and political rights of labor. “Labor wants and demands the right to a larger participation in in- dustry’s increasing productiveness. It wants a larger part in the govern- ment of this country. It wants an equality of opportunity. It wants the privilege of helping make the policy of the Nation.” Are Lewis and the C. I. O. headed toward a national labor party? “I have no thoughts on this now Lewis said. “I am concerned with the capacity for organization. I can't say what will be the by-products of organ- ization.” Lewis paused, as if in meditation. It was recalled that he had contributed $500,000 to President Roosevelt's cam- paign. It was recalled that Lewis had been very much in politics in 1934, when he concentrated on electing a Governor and Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania in the persons of George Earle, a New Deal Democrat, and Tom Kennedy, secretary-treasurer of the U. M. W. Lewis' purpose was plain then. He was getting ready to or- ganize steel, and he didn't want his steel organizers beaten up as they were in 1919. Recently, at mass meetings in De- troit of members of the United Auto- mobile Workers' Union, a C. I. O. affiliate, officials llke Homer Martin, U. A. W. president, have told their members to get ready to vote as a Michigan labor party. Workers Can Decide. “If, after organization,” Lewis con- tinued, “the workers want to engage in some plan of political action, they have a right to do it. They can decide. They can make their own policies. What these policies will be, I won't attempt to suggest. I have no desire to be a prophet for the future. “In any event, I am confident that labor, if organized, will follow the sound policies of Americans and I am just as confident that the Ameri- can people will follow sensible and sound policies, “Those who decry the organization of labor on the ground that it makes possible the shifting of political in- fluence are only those interested in casting aspersions on our govern- menta] philosophy and on our de- mocracy. “Certainly, in our form of govern- ment, we expect the people to govern through elective representation, and if we don't think they are intelligent enough to elect intelligent represen- tation, then we are merely denying the soundness of our form of govern- ment.” Does Lewis believe in the capitalistic system? “I have never done anything to change our foerm of government. Ob- viously, the system of corporation profits is on trial. What I am trying to do is not disturb that system, but have it operate more effectively for the benefit of the working class.” ‘Why does Lewis now accept the help of known members of the Com- munist party in his C. I. O. move- ment when he was for years a Com- munist baiter in his U. M. W.? “It is true that I have resisted the efforts of Communists to get control of the U. M. W. in years gone by. For years the U. M. W., as the big- gest union in the country, was con- sidered fair game for the Communists. ‘They never got control of the U. M. ‘W. and they never will, “However, we started out to organ- ize in the mass production industries and we started out to organize all the workers in those industries. “There is not any point in exclud- ing a worker merely because he es- pouses the Communist political phi- losophy. Only when a worker at- tempts to make the Communist phi- losophy come into control of a labor organization and impress on that or-| ganization the Communist philosopny | is it necessary to exclude him.” What are Lewis’ own ambitions? “I haven't any answer to that —. ‘By their deeds ye shall know them.’ I consider it relatively unimportant. What would I want? “I am not looking for a job. I am not looking for political office. I am merely trying to create an increased opportunity for Americans and for all Americans. “My philosophy is fundamentally an economic one and I wish to turn whatever economic forces I can to- ward the aid of the working man. “The only thing that gives me any power is what I am trying to do. If I don't properly do that, I won't have any influence. If I don't interpret what the workers want—their dreams, their hopes, their ideas—I will have no more influence than a doorkeeper.” Perhaps power is what Lewis is seeking, power for himself and power for the working man. For it seems that money in itself has never at- | tracted him. The U. M. W. pays him $12,000 & year, but he refused an in- crease to $25000. His associates as- sert that he has turned down many lucrative offers from coal operators. Act Won't Abolish Strikes. Lewis was asked if sit-down strikes would be ended by the validation of the Wagner act. “I don’t think,”” he replied, “that the validation of the act has anything to do with strikes. The act may reduce the number of strikes that might oc- cur due to the demands for the rec- ognition of unions. However, it has nothing to do with the right to strike or the economic fundamentals, like wages, hours and conditions of em- ployment. “The validation of the act will help establish conditions in coliective bar- gaining conferences to work these things out. It will permit the rule of reason, of common-sense discussion. “Strikes have come not so much over differences in economic thought, but over the right of individuals to be members of a union. If the Wagner act had been in oper- ation, it is extremely unlikely there would have been Genemal Motors and Chrysler strikes. The status quo might have been preserved until the workers were strong enough to have demanded &n election. The Packard election, for example, is merely another case in point. “The attempt to organize Ford work- men will be continued. I hope Henry Ford will not pit his industrial strength against either the Govern- ment, referring to the provisions of the Resettlement Administration Buys More Than 8,000,000 Acres of Land have been bought by the Resettlement Administration, and at present, according to Will W. Alexander, resettlement administra- tor, about 15,000 families are settled on these lands. At this moment, when it s being generally believed that the Resettlement Administration will not get more than $75,000,000 of new re- lief money, it is interesting to glance back at what the R. A. has accom- plished. Mr. Alexander, in testimony recently on the agricultural appropria- tion bill before the House Committee on Appropriations, gave us a word picture of the achievements to date of the R. A. The families which went out on these lands were of all sorts, Mr. Alexander tells us; probably 20 per cent had enough equity and initiative to go out on their own. A second group, with small equities, needed as- sistance in finding & place to locate. Another group, for which good land was obtained, needed only this start. Finally, there were old people, more or less relief cases, for whom “there Was no hope of ever securing s per- manent self-supporting basis.” Submarginal land may be put to ETWEEN eight and nine million B acres of submarginal land many uses, including grasing, water- shed lon, . forest development, game refuges and other uses. Many of the improvements on submarginal lands, the testimony showed, were very poer. The R. A. astempted to improve ». this land by salvaging the improve- ments already made. ‘The farmers are usually put on the farms with & five-year preliminary lease and charged about the average rental rate in the community. The R. A. believes that it will take, on the average, a five-year period for the better class farmers to accumulate some- equity and to demonstrate their sbility before they are started on their own. Between 35,000 and 50,000 men have been working on these submarginal areas in connection with work-relief projects. By the middle of March, Mr. Alexander stated, 7,888,160 acres of land had been acquired under the pur-~ chase program and approximately 15, 000 families selected for settlement, not all of whom have as yet actually moved onto the land. In purchasing buildings already erected, the R. A, according to Mr. Alexander’s testimony, always tries to get a house for not more than $2,000, although sometimes the price will run & little higher. Where relief labor is used, in most areas the barn will cost from $450 to $500 and the chicken house $175. “Then there is & certain amount of fencing provided. “It is our feeling,” Mr. Alexander said in his testimony, “that relief labor, which adds about one-third to construction costa, m_‘m 49 be charged against the farmer. , 2070 1 ‘Wagner act, or the efforts of the U. A. W. to establish recognition in his plants.” Lewis was asked if the rumor was true that, as head of the C. I. O, he did not want or authorize the Chrysler strike, “I never wanted any strike if I could avoid it,” he replied. “I would much prefer to avoid a strike. But that had no bearing on the Chrysler strike. If there is not any other way to work it out, I have been willing to strike to obtain th objective. I abhor strikes.” " “‘Abhor?” Wants Strike Only If Necessary. “Yes, I abhor strikes. I told the Washington Press Club that.” Lewis was reminded that his “ab- horrence” seemed paradoxical for the leader of the C. I. O. which had caused so many major strikes, “I'm the last man to call a strike | unless it's necessary,” Lewis said. What does Lewis think of the pro- posal for & Federal law requiring the | incorporation of unions? . “I think it would be excellent if the proposal is for the purpose of de- stroying labor organizations. Ob- viously, I do not want that destruction and I am opposed to the incorporation of unions. - “You see, the only reason business incorporates is to limit the liability of the assets of a corporation, preserv- ing the assets of those who compose it and rendering them immune. “That is the sole purpose of incor< poration. But the reverse is desired when the incorporation of unions is suggested. Here the desire is to es- tablish liability. Incorporation would simply mean that the central organi- zation would be responsible for the acts of local union affiliates and the members thereof. “For instance, suppose a local union in Red Dog, inspired by detectives hired by a management against labor, was to take an action that would give the employer the right to sue under the anti-trust laws. No union could exist under that kind of centralized liability. Aim to Destroy Labor. “Let me cite another example: Sup- pose an employer in Lansing, Mich., wanted to break up a union. He would hire detectives to go into the union and advise adopting a policy that would mean breaking of a contract. Then the employer could sue the central organization and cripple the union. 5 “It i as sensible as incorporating the Republican party and making it responsible for the acts of all Re- publicans. “If there should be Federal incor- poration of labor unions, would in- dustry agree to the Federal incor« poration of the corporations? Indus- try would never agree. What it wants is an instrumentality to destroy labor. “Who am I responsible to as chair- man of the C. I. O. and president of the U. M. W.? I am responsible to my flag and my Government; my country and my State and my com- munity; to my God, my family and my neighbors. “I am also & servant to my employ- ers, the United Mine Workers. At bi- annual conventions of the U. M. W. I must render an aceounting of my stewardship. As chairman of the C.I. 0, I am responsible to the various organizations which compose it for any of my acts. “What has happened to the money contributed to the C. I. O. by member unions? It has been spent and is being spent for the payment of organ- izers’ salaries, fleld workers’ wages, for printing and for organization expenses. The C. I. O. charges no dues. It de- pends on contributions from member unions for its work.” '$65,000,000 Cost to Labor. It was recalled to Lewis that a statistical agency had computed the cost to labor in months of striking in the automobile industry as $65,000,000 lost in wages. “How much did, it cost the auto- mobile industry!” Lewis snapped, and then, with & sharp note of sarcasm in his voice, he added: “The adversaries of labor should be congratulated if they cost Iabor that much to live. Who can measure the tight to live? Who can determine how much one should pay for that right? “Do I consider that'labor gained any ground in the Chrysler strike? “The Chrysler strike justified itself entirely. What has been gained in the automobile industry is demon- strated by the fact that the United Automobile Workers’ Union has more than 300,000 members. “The U. A. W. is one of the major organizations in the country at the present time.” Lewis paused for a moment. arose quickly from his chair. interview was almost over. “That union was eut from whole cloth,” he said. “It was & worthwhile price for the workers to pay.” (Coprrisht, 1087, by the North Ameriesa Newspeper Allisncs, Ine.) L1 He The Part Two- Travel — Resorts SENATE DEBATE ON COURT TO ENLIGHTEN COUNTRY It Will Reveal How Many Democrats Are Willing to Subordinate Conscience to Party. BY MARK SULLIVAN. N ABOUT 10 deys, on May 18, the Senate Committee on Judiclary will vote upon the President’s ocourt proposal. A majority of the committee is opposed to the proposal in the form in which the President sent it to the Senate. Some are against the proposal in any form whatever. Some favor a variation of the President's proposal—for example, two new justices, instead of six. But there are in the committee a minority ‘who support the proposal in the form in which the President put it. These Senators, presumably, will bring in a minority report. That is, the Presi- dent’s proposal in its original form will be before the Senate—but only as a minority report from the Senate com- mittee. This will take away some prestige from the measure and from the President’s whole position. With the President’s measure before the Senate, there will ensue a debate which will command the best talent the Benate possesses. This talent is more elevated than is commonly sup- posed. There is no reason to say that the Senate today is inferior to past Sen- ates. The late Senator Thomas J. Walsh of Montana, who knew Amer- ican history well, said that Senator Borah, at his best, is fully equal to Daniel Webster. And the radio speech that Senator Glass of Virginia made about the court measure a few weeks ago contained passages which could stand comparison with Webster's re- Ply to Hayne on the issue of secession, which McGuffey Readers made fa- miliar to generations of American school boys. Anyhow, whatever the present Senate's talent may be, the President's court measure is an issue elevated enough to bring it out. Will Enlighten Country. The debate in the Senate, and the final roll call, will enlighten the coun- try on sereval matters. We shall dis- cover, among other things, how many Democratic Senators are willing to| subordinate conscience to party dis- cipline. There are observers who say that out of the 76 Democratic Sen- ators, there are not over 15, if that, | who in their hearts believe in the President’s proposal in the form in which he made it, or who would vote for the measure if they were free from White House pressure and the | sense of party discipline. And it is possible we may discover something about the private views, and the private code, of one who is more elevated than a Senator, name- ly, Vice President Garner. Ordinarily he, as presiding officer of the 3enate, is not called on to vote, or to reveal his position. But' suppose that on the crucial roll call the Senate is di- vided exactly evenly, 48 for, 48 against. In that case the deciding vote would lie with Vice President Garner. How would he cast it? Nearly everybody would assume that Mr. Garner in his private conviction is probably appalled by the court proposal. But as the sec- ond ranking Democrat in the Nation, if he had the deciding responsibility, how would he vote? Probably the answer is he would prevent himself from being put in that position. Prob- ably, if the vote were going to be ex- actly even, he would foresee it and would go.to the President and per- suade him to accept a compromise or let the proposal die. Attitude of Republicans. Of all the matters about which we shall shortly learn, one of the most vital is the attitude of the Repub- lican party. Not merely its attitude on the President's court proposal— 85 to that we know the Republicans are opposed. And not merely the at- titude of the 16 Republicans who are in the Senate—they, we know, are all opposed. But just how far is the Republican party willing to g0 in order to defeat a proposal which, in effect, would make the Supreme Court subservient to the President? | For that exalted purpose, are the! Republicans willing to go to what- ever extent may be called for, even if it requires a certain degree of sac- rifice of party identity? That the Republicans should co-operate for- mally with that wing of the Demo- cratic party which opposes the Pres- ident's measure is recommended in many quarters. Ome suggestion goes so far as to propose a new party, to be made of Republicans and anti- New Deal Democrats, and to be known as the “Constitution” party. Cer- tainly the Republicans are in a posi- tion that suggests the desirability of novel and extraordinary steps. Here is the President's proposal that he be given the privilege of naming six new justices of the Su- preme Court—a proposal described, commonly and correctly, as the out- standing issue of the time. And here is the Republican party. The ques- tion is, how can the Republican party best help defeat that proposal? I say “help defeat it"—for the Re- publicans can only help; they can- not, a& a party, defeat it. There are too few of them. In the Senate there are only 16 out of 96; in the House only 48 out of 435. 48 or 49 Votes Required. To defeat the President's court measure either 48 or 49 votes are re- quired—depending on whether and how Vice President Garner votes. As- sume the number needed is 49. Of these the Republicans can provide only 16. The Democrats would need to provide 33. That is, to defeat the President’s proposal, the Demo- crats must provide two votes for every one the Republicans can furnish and one more. Clearly, in any defeat of the President’s proposal, if that is to be the outcome, the Republicans can play only a minor part. As it happens, literally every Re- publican Senator is against the pro- posal. All the regular Republicans are against it; all the irregular and frequently uncertain Republicans -are against it. Senator Borah is against it. Senators Frazier and Nye of North Dakota are against it. Senator Hiram Johnson of California is against it, in spite of the fact that when Mr. Roosevelt emerged as a candidate for the presidency in 1932, Senator John- son supported him and supported many of the early New Deal meas- ures. (Senator Norris of Nebraska is year he ran for the Senate as an independent and is officially so listed. Neither is Senator La Follette any longer a Republican; he is formally listed as a Progressive, the official name of the La Follette party in Wisconsin.) Without going into the records, I should say, offhand, that probably this is the first time in 30 years when every Republican in the' Senate was united on one side of an| issue, the first time since “Republica Insurgents” or “Progressive Republi cans” began to be recognized as group. about 1907, The Republicans, then, can any will contribute 16 votes in the Sen- ate against the President's proposal, In the House they can contribute 8¢ votes. (I assume that every Repub« lican in the House will vote against the proposal, though I have not exe amined the situation minutely.) Now what more can the Republicans do? If they are to give further help, it must take some unusual form. An obvious way for the Republice ans to help defeat the President's court proposal would be to give aid to those Democratic Senators who are sgm{n.'n thelpmprxsal when they come up for re-election in t s R heir respective Republicans to Help Democrats. The Democratic Senators who op- Pose the President’s measure come up for renomination and re-election, as all Senators do, in three classes. Some come up next year, in 1938; some in 1940, some in 1942. The ones who will most need support by Republicans are the ones who come up next year. Those are the ones who are “‘under the guns.” By 1940 the court proposal may be a past issue, and by 1942 Mr. Roosevelt may be, presumably will be, out of office. Of Democratic’ Senators who come up for renomination and re-election next year and who are opposed to the President’s court measure, there are about eight, It is impossible to give the exact number, for not all the Democrats have yet stated their posi- tions. In the lack of exact informa- tion. I accept a newspaper compilation made up from informal statements and deductions. According to this list, Democrats who are against the Presi= dent’s measure and will come up for re-election mnext year include Clark of Missour, Van Nuys of Indiana, Adams of Colorado, Tydings of Mary=- land, Lonergan of Connecticut, Gillett of Towa, George of Georgia and Smith of South Carolina. To this list there may be additions; several other Demo- crats up for re-election next year are 8till uncommitted. Here are eight Democrals, at least, who are against the President’s meas- ure and who will come up for renom= ination and re-election. next year. What will Republicans in the respect- ive States do about them? A large number of Republicans undoubtedly will want to help return these Deme ocrats to the Senate. Must Win Nomination. But if the Republicans are to help these Democrats at all, they must help them get renominated. It is in getting renominated that these Deme ocrats will have their real difficulty. It is no use for Republicans to say they will help a Democrat in the gen= eral election—for the Democrat cane not run in the general election unless he is first renominated. Renominae tion takes place in Democratic prie maries. And in the Democratic prie maries the administration, Mr. Roose= velt and Mr. Farley, will undoubtedly y to defeat Democrats who have voted against the President’s court measure. Consequently, if Repube licans are to give practical help ta these Democrats, they must go inta the Democratic primaries. The plan for Republicans to Supe port next year Democratic Senaton' who are against the President’s pro! posal has begun to take practica form. In Missouri the principal Re publican leader in the State, Nations Committeeman Arthur M. Curtis, h{ stated it as his belief and the b lief of the other principal Repuld lican leaders of the State that the Red publicans in Missouri should help t4 return to the Senate Bennett Champ Clark. To do this the proposal is that in about half of Missouri's coune ties, where Republicans are the mie nority party but consdierable in nume bers, the Republicans should abandon their own primaries and go into the Democratic primaries and there vots for the renomination of Senator Clark. Tt 1s likely that in other States bee sides Missouri similar steps will be considered. The desirability of Ree publicans giving aid to Democratic Senator who oppose the President's Court measure is too obvious to pass without action. (Copyright. 1937.) French Say Sit-Down Is of U. S. Invention PARIS (#)—As far as France is concerned, the “sit-down” strike i an American invention. Officials of the General Confedere ation of Labor told the Associated Press that the stay-in strike of Goods year Tire’s Akron plant in March, 1936, probably was the first practical application of the new occupational method. Inspired by the success of the Good« year strike employes of three motoy and airplane factories in the Paris district occupied their plants for four days until they got higher wages and paid vacations. They were the site down pioneers in France. ‘This was the signal for the epidemi¢ of strikes that spread over France in the Summer of 1936. Bridging of Yangtze To Aid China Progress HANKOW, China (#)—Eight hun dred miles from its mouth, nea Shanghai, the mighty Yangtze is soor to be bridged, linking the triplet citiet of Hankow, Wuchang and Hanyang industrial and trade centers of th Chinese hinterland. It will make possible for the firs time uninterrupted highway and rail no longer listed as & Republican; last X 4 way traffic between North and Soutd [ China, ¥ .