anaheim-gazette 1939-07-20

ANAHEIM GAZETTE Established 1870 Orange County's Oldest Newspaper HENRY KUCHEL, Editor and Publisher 1887-1935 The Anaheim Gazette has been owned and edited by the same family since 1875. Published every Thursday at 259 East Center Street, Anaheim, Calif. Subscription Per Yeat ... $2.00 Six Months ... $1.00 MRS. HENRY KUCHEL THEODORE B. KUCHEL Editors and Publishers Entered as second-class matter at the Post Office at Anaheim, California, under the Act of March 8, 1879. THE NEUTRALITY FIGHT From this remote point of vantage it appears that our senior United States Senator, Hiram Johnson, spoke for the great mass of his countrymen several days ago, when he organized a bloc of 34 senators to oppose granting the President additional power under the federal neutrality law. It was that bloc's power which aided the shelving of that issue for this session. It is conceded, of course, that all official Washington desires this county to avoid war. The question remains, however, how that course may best be followed. The President, apparently, believes that it would be followed most effectively, if he were given the right to determine—in any international conflict abroad—who is the aggressor nation; and, having made that determination, that he be given the right to authorize sales of war materials to the defending nation. With this, Senator Johnson and his 33 colleagues take exception. They argue that the best policy is a "hands off" policy. They feel that, to paraphrase Washington, we should "steer clear of entangling alliances," and that this country should take no part in foreign conflicts or in sales to warring nations. The wisdom of this latter course appeals to us. It is sometimes extremely difficult to determine, as a matter of fact, who the aggressor is. But even if this could nicely be determined, the United States' sanction of sales to the other side of international conflict would, in the very nature of things, provoke animosity and hatred in the alleged aggressor nation. WASHINGTON—The smooth political trade engineered in Washington in years gave former Governor McNutt of Indiana the appointment by President Roosevelt to head up the New Deal's seagencies. The smooth part lay in the fact that no one been able to discover who traded who. Even in the ranks of New Dyers, the differences of opinion to the meaning of the appointment are as wide as among publicans. Did the president do McNutt out of the president race by making him the first hear a frank statement that Roosevelt was going to see third term? Was McNutt probed the vice-presidential nomination with Mr. Roosevelt if would pull out of the big deal? Did Mr. Roosevelt make McNutt stronger candidate and, indirectly give his blessing after Harry Minsk, Secretary Wallace, and torney General Murphy failed catch on with the public as a sensible nominee? All of these questions that have Washin guessing and the truth may not be known to the public. Bob up as an aftermath came the question, did Mr. Roosevelt throw fast curve around McNutt's when, after announcing the pointment, he referred to the commissioner of the Philippines just one of ten or a dozen "changing young men" whose friend are mentioning them for the pardency. As the third term drive President Roosevelt moves al With this, Senator Johnson and his 33 colleagues take exception. They argue that the best policy is a "hands off" policy. They feel that, to paraphrase Washington, we should "steer clear of entangling alliances," and that this country should take no part in foreign conflicts or in sales to warring nations. The wisdom of this latter course appeals to us. It is sometimes extremely difficult to determine, as a matter of fact, who the aggressor is. But even if this could nicely be determined, the United States' sanction of sales to the other side of international conflict would, in the very nature of things, provoke animosity and hatred in the alleged aggressor nation. In this connection, the Gazette here reprints a statement, appearing in the Congressional Record, dealing with the neutrality issue... now apparently shelved for the present session of Congress... made by the chairman of the National Council of the Steuben Society of America: The Steuben Society of America, founded in 1919, respectfully submits to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Senate, now examining into the advisability of amending the neutrality law, the following: First. Bearing in mind that we are living under and wish to preserve a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, as defined by Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg, we oppose every endeavor to abridge the right of the people to deliberate and determine for themselves what their course of action shall be in any given instance, especially when it concerns itself with the question of peace or war. While foreign governments may decide for themselves that it is to the interest of their people to empower a single individual to manage their foreign affairs our own people having so often and vehemently declared themselves against transplanting such a system to our shores, logically cannot agree to place such power in the hands of one individual, though he be the President. We therefore, deem it inadvisable to give the President the power to determine in any given event who among contending nations shall be termed the "aggressor." Having done so, such decision would inevitably draw us into a war against the alleged aggressor. Right here may we suggest that we heed the warning not to be misled by the "tyranny of words." China may soon become the victim of Japan's undeclared war and be compelled to sign a so-called peace treaty. Would that be classed among the sacred treaties and would China, chafing under its debasing terms, attempt to burst its schackles, wage war on Japan, be classed by the President as the "aggressor," a disturber of world peace? Then; again, suppose the "subject" people in Asia or Africa, of imperialistic countries of Europe, Great Britain, and France, may some day rise in rebellion against their oppressors. Would they be classed as "aggressors," disturbing the peace of the world, and would it then become our duty to assist their rulers in preventing them from gaining their liberty? If we as a people are of a mind to stand by Great Britain and France under all circumstances; to assist them in holding what they have garnered against those who are asking for restitution, let us say so in so many words, but let us get away from the hypocrisy of stating that we are at their beck and call because they are fighting for the principles of democracy against autocracy. It is a case of power politics, and nothing else. Should these countries now intervene to check Italy, we should clearly understand before we act that what is going on there is a struggle for the domination between those foreign powers for the control of the Mediterranean and adjacent waters. Principles of democracy have nothing to do with it. At the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War, Theodore Roosevelt said, "All officials of the Government—civil, military, and naval—are directed to abstain from either action or speech which can cause irritation to either combatant. It is always unfortunate As the third term drive President Roosevelt moves about there are increasing signs of organized effort to make the moment appear a groundswell for the people... Meanwhile, the publican National committee democratic leaders are assamnification. Most explosive this preparatory collection is resolution adopted in 1928 when appeared Calvin Coclidge must seek a third term. At the pointally expedient time this ideal resolution will be presented to senate. In the senate still a number of New Dealers who against a third term at that including the Senator Barkle Kentucky, and Senator Norrie Nebraska. Most recent of the historic documents come to light part of the campaign to Theodore Roosevelt's third ambitions in 1912. When Theodore mounted his Bull Moose and sed on his party-smashing ride the White House, it was fierce "Marse Henry" Watterson, or Louisville Courier-Journal, declared that if Roosevelt elected he would never quiet mansion until he was taken feet first. What Colonel Watson meant was that if the term tradition were once-breaking there would be no check on ambition, and a strong man find it easy to perpetuate him. One of the most politic striking surveys of public opinion that has struck Washington cently was that of the Institute Public Opinion conducted by George Gallup in measuring moral," "conservative" and "cal" leanings among voters. Gallup asked those who were sonally queried to classify themselves. The terrific shift in sentiment in recent years significantly portrayed in the finding per cent of all voters class themselves as conservative, 46 per cent liberal, and two cent radical. Among republicans let us say so in so many words, but let us get away from the hypocrisy of stating that we are at their beck and call because they are fighting for the principles of democracy against autocracy. It is a case of power politics, and nothing else. Should these countries now intervene to check Italy, we should clearly understand before we act that what is going on there is a struggle for the domination between those foreign powers for the control of the Mediterranean and adjacent waters. Principles of democracy have nothing to do with it. At the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War, Theodore Roosevelt said, "All officials of the Government—civil, military, and naval—are directed to abstain from either action or speech which can cause irritation to either combatant. It is always unfortunate to bring Old World antipathies and jealousies into our life, or by speech or conduct to excite anger and resentment toward our Nation in friendly foreign lands; but in a government employee whose official position makes him in a sense the representative of the people, the mischief of such actions is greatly increased." The President, being the representative of the people, especially in foreign eyes, might well take note of these words uttered by his illustrious namesake. If amended, the Neutrality Act should contain a provision taking from the President the power to impose economic sanctions or commit any other act "short of war" against foreign nations with which we are at peace: Our tariff legislation was never intended to give him that power. The American people have not given expression to a belief that they have a world mission to perform, which is to maintain law and order in all parts of the globe. The President should bear in mind and recognize the fact that he is but the agent of a free people who wish to remain at peace with all the world. The road to peace lies not as has been suggested in an agreement to disarm but rather in arriving at some adjustment of the economic inequalities causing universal unrest among the nations. The Haves must surrender to the Havenots sufficient of their holdings to enable the latter to afford a decent living to their peoples. If it is true that "new instruments of public power have been forged that might some day provide shackles for the liberties of the people if they come into improper hands," our Representatives in Congress should make certain that those powers be not now further extended to permit the creation of a situation in the conduct of our foreign relations which might force us into war. If "we have a rendezvous with destiny," it is to prove to the world that our system of government is superior to that of any other. Empty phrases about the blessings of democracy prove nothing. With millions out of employment, millions on the dole, industry at a standstill, agriculture in a precarious condition, and, as the President himself advertises to the world (which includes the totalitarian states) that one-third of our people are ill-housed and ill-fed, with a crime bill which goes into the billions of dollars, corruption in the ranks of even the judiciary, we are not in a Public Opinion conducted by George Gallup in measuring eral," "conservative" and "cal" leanings among voters. Gallup asked those who were sonally queried to classify themselves. The terrific shift in timent-in recent years significantly portrayed in the finding per cent of all voters claim themselves as conservative, 46 per cent liberal, and two cent radical. Among republicans 73 per cent voted conservatives. Even among democrats who queried, 42 per cent had no back to the conservative base. Coming after the 1938 election, but many do not know they met them. The only preparation to take advantage of them, please fidelity to what each brings.—A. E. Dunning. Great opportunities come but many do not know they met them. The only preparation to take advantage of them, please fidelity to what each brings.—A. E. Dunning. The Steuben Society o place in Europe, Africa, or own house in creder, give bring the greatest modicu own. We deem it unfair our people from these protroubous affairs of state that we may become invov For many years we h wars," with all that these High-Lighting Politics by John Randall Page WASHINGTON—The smoothest commercial trade engineered in Washington in years gave former Gov. McNutt of Indiana the appointment by President Roosevelt to head up the New Deal's social agencies. The smooth part of it on the fact that no one has been able to discover who outlived who. In the ranks of New Deal officials the differences of opinion as the meaning of the appointments are as wide as among recessors. Did the president drive out of the presidential office by making him the first to give a frank statement that Mr. Roosevelt was going to seek a term? Was McNutt promise a vice-presidential nominee with Mr. Roosevelt if he had pull out of the big derby? Mr. Roosevelt make McNutt a bigger candidate and, indirectly, his blessing after Harry Hopkins Secretary Wallace, and Atrey General Murphy failed to join with the public as nominees? All of these are actions that have Washington being and the truth may never known to the public. Bobbing is an aftermath came the question did Mr. Roosevelt throw a curve around McNutt's neck, after announcing the appointment, he referred to the high commissioner of the Philippines as one of ten or a dozen "charm-young men" whose friends mentioning them for the presidency. the third term drive for resident Roosevelt moves ahead, DON'T LET IT SPREAD! DANGER POISON NY The MARCH OF TIME Prepared by the Editors of TIME The Weekly Newsmagazine MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY— WASHINGTON — When congress set up WPA four years ago, friends of union labor saw to it that union hourly wage scales, as prevailing in different sections of the U.S., were provided for skilled workmen. Thus, if union car-wrappers did not return to his WPA job in five days. The issue focused sharply in New York City, where 30,000 of the 32,000 skilled workers on WPA rolls were union men. Thomas A. Murray, president of the Building & Construction Company, who did not return to his WPA job in five days. John Steinbeck's lurid novel the Dust Bowlers, "The Grapes of Wrath," drips from the press—a succession of editions which attests the credibility of reading public, or at least segment of it which spends cocktail hour daintily sippin' cent drinks and nibbling'd'ouvers while dilating on terrible plight of the nation. Steinbeck's book doubtless a tremendous wallop for "pinks" and cocktail room rists, who want life in the rarest in their literature. For in spots, it is raw, incite it is a triumph of sensation over fact, with unparalleled profanity to provide new shocks for those whose satirical petites demand that type of tenance. But as a story of the Californians migrant problem, the book about as true to life—and as the average Wild West is in its portrayal of life in the West. Unreality and palpitation stalk the pages. Onnia farmers are club-wear vigilantes, who treat their better than their men. Shopers and shop clerks, bankers their tellers, Legionnaire newspapers publishers are avious conspiracy to deny some men food and to turn the "Grapes of Wrath" (that's the book's term, now into slaves to be placed in slave farms of "the great landers." Tractors are tanks for nomic warfare, crushing a lifeblood of the unemployed. MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY— WASHINGTON — When congress set up WPA four years ago, friends of union labor saw to it that union hourly wage scales, as prevailing in different sections of the U.S., were provided for skilled workmen. Thus, if union carpenters were getting $1.75 an hour in private employment, carpenters working for WPA got $1.75. Result: to earn the maximum monthly wage of $92.89 allotted to them, they need work only 53 hours a month. The unions’ interest in thus preventing unemployment from breaking the market for their labor was only natural. But WPA’s prevailing-wage provision had other effects. Testifying to congress prior to this year’s revision of WPA, Administrator Harrington explained: (1) Workers on the same project, earning at different hourly rates, worked different hours. Confusion was inescapable when 53-hour carpenters, for example, had to be teamed with 121-hour common laborers. (2) Skilled workers, having earned their federal money in a few hours, could secretly work and earn elsewhere during the month (at any wage levels they chose). This aroused jealousy, criticism. Administrator Harrington asked congress for a “security wage” up to $96, based on regional costs and he said, “It is my recommendation that persons employed on projects of the WPA be required to work 130 hours per month and that the earnings of such persons be on a monthly basis . . . that substantially the present national average labor cost (to WPA) be maintained.” Obviously that meant more hours of work for the same pay, pay-per-hour far below “prevailing” (union) rates for skilled labor. But congress passed Administrator Harrington’s law just about the way he wanted it. President Roosevelt signed it without commenting on the 130-hour provision. Last week, first week of the new law’s operation, union labor startled president, administrator, congress and taxpayers by a nationwide performance daring and unprecedented; a strike against a law of the land. WPA “striker” who did not return to his WPA job in five days. The issue focused sharply in New York City, where 30,000 of the 32,000 skilled workers on WPA rolls were union men. Thomas A. Murray, president of the Building & Construction Trades council (A. F. of L.), officially authorized the walkout and declared: “The new WPA bill, jammed through by congress at the last minute, is one of the most vicious pieces of legislation ever palmed off on the people of this nation. This fight will be fought to a finish.” In Manhattan, District WPAdministrator Brehur Burke Somervell retorted with equal heat: “You can’t strike against relief! It’s fantastic!” Columnist Arthur (“Bugs”) Baer cracked: “Mutiny on the bounty.” In Washington, the C. I. O. (which embraces fewer unions in occupations assisted by WPA) rushed to the support of A. F. of L. with a blast warning congress to amend the new law. The Workers Alliance, whose membership is largely dependent on WPA, jumped for joy on the sidelines. Violence grew. In Minneapolis a policeman was killed in a row between pickets and non-striking WPA men. As skilled unionists walked out, WPA projects came to a halt and unskilled workers were idle willy-nilly. Brunt of the battle fell, of course, upon A. F. of L.’s President William Green, who failed to act when the bill was before congress. He now called a meeting in Washington of all his union presidents to put on belated heat. Cried he: “A vital principle is at stake. The wage standards of organized labor, built up through years of sacrifice, suffering and collective bargaining, are threatened . . . strikes and strikes!” Senator Murray of Montana, Representatives Bradley of Pennsylvania and Sabath of Illinois, servants equally of organized labor and of the New Deal, dutifully drafted amendments to Colonel Harrington’s law as dictated by labor. Cutest question of the week was whether the president would throw his weight for or against what the New York Times termed “the artstocrats of relief.” position to boast about the blessings of democracy in many major respects. It is our duty to move heaven and earth to remove these blots from our escutcheon. The Steuben Society of America is interested in not what takes place in Europe, Africa, or Asia. What it strives for is to put our town house in order, give employment to those that seek it, and bring the greatest modicum of happiness and contentment to our town. We deem it unfair to attempt to destruct the attention of our people from these problems by drawing their attention to the troublous affairs of state in foreign countries, with the intimation that we may become involved therein. For many years we have issued the slogan: "No Presidential wars," with all that these words imply. The FARMERS CORNER by RALPH H. TAYLOR Executive Secretary Agricultural Council of California John Steinbeck's lurid novel of the Dust Bowlers, "The Grapes of Wrath," drips from the presses in succession of editions which amy attests the credulity of the leading public, or at least that moment of it which spends the skirtail hour daintly sipping 50-but drinks and nibbling hors ouvers while dilating on "the terrible plight of the nation." Steinbeck's book doubtless packs tremendous wallop for "parlor books" and cocktail room reformers, who want life in the raw—at least in their literature. For in spots, it is raw, indeed! It is a triumph of sensationalism over fact, with unparalleled filth and profanity to provide necessary rocks for those whose sated appetites demand that type of sustance. But as a story of the California grant problem, the book is out as true to life—and facts—the average Wild West thriller in its portrayal of life in the Old West. Unreality and palpable distortion stalk the pages. California farmers are club-wielding vigilantes, who treat their horses better than their men. Shop keepers and shop clerks, bankers and tellers, Legionnaires and newspaper publishers are all in a conscious conspiracy to deny starving men food and to turn the "Oakies" what's the book's term, not ours) to slaves to be placed in serfdom in farms of "the great land owners." Tractors are tanks of economic warfare, crushing out the weblood of the unemployed mi- Mitchell, California novelist and wife of former Senator Sanborn Young of Los Gatos, announced that she is writing a novel showing the "farmer's side" of the migrant problem—and answering Steinbeck's book. Any farmer who has wasted so much time as to read "Grapes of Wrath" will wish her well in that endeavor. For Steinbeck's book requires an answer. And the answer—if it is written by one in command of the facts, as Ruth Comfort Mitchell undoubtedly will be—can do a great deal toward righting a rank injustice. The plight of many of the hundreds of thousands of nomads from other states now wandering over California is heartrending. But California farmers—and California taxpayers generally—simply cannot, financially or physically, provide for the destitute of the nation. California has tried—and has nearly bankrupted its citizenry. California's fault, in fact, is that it has been too generous, rather than too selfish, and has been rewarded for its generosity by new hordes of indigents and new demands for bigger relief payments. The libel that California farmers "invited" the migrants to California by advertising for workers in middle-west states has been exploded too many times to require answer here. The migrants came here because other states shunted them here; because California generosity, with the first caravans of poor, invited others; because relief payments were bigger here, climate better, pension advocates more active, and because radical labor leaders wanted grist for their mills. Desperate as their condition is here, it was worse where they came from. And only the national government and their home states can solve the problem. California's resources simply won't stand the strain—and Steinbeck's attempt to blame "the great land owners" of California for a problem that California had no part in creating is either the result of gross ignorance or a deliberate attempt to fan the fires of class hatred. The "great land owners" he refers to are mostly 20 and 40-acre farmers, who are fighting desperately to pay their own bills and support their own families. For most of the farms in California are owned by farmers in that category! Throughout Steinbeck's novel runs the familiar propaganda of the communists—"When property accumulates in too few hands, it is taken away. When a majority of the people are hungry and cold, they will take by force what they need." But California, Steinbeck, isn't in too few hands. It is in the hands of Californians—and Californians intend it shall remain there. And California, even to give reality to a best-seller, can't take over the job of feeding all the hungry of America. That job belongs to the nation. And it can't be solved by emotional fiction. "BOTH YOUR HOUSES" Both Your Houses," Maxwell Anderson's drama with a strong political flavor, will be produced by the Pasadena Community Playhouse July 24 to 29 as the fifth playbill in the current Midsummer Drama Festival series. farmers are club-wielding vigilantes, who treat their horses better than their men. Shop keepers and shop clerks, bankers and their tellers, Legionnaires and newspaper publishers are all in a conscious conspiracy to deny starving men food and to turn the "Oakies" that's the book's term, not ours) to slaves to be placed in serfdom in farms of "the great land owners." Tractors are tanks of economic warfare, crushing out the Weblood of the unemployed migrant. And California is on the verge of a revolution—to be staged, apparently, by its relief roll recipients. If California's "great land owners" (that's Steinbeck's term for farmers!) could separate causes from results, says the book, they might save themselves from bloody revolution. If they knew that Marx and Lenin were results, rather than causes, they would know how to cope with the migrant problem. But not knowing much about Marx and Lenin or the new ideology, they're doomed says Steinbeck). A few days ago, Ruth Comfort TIRE SPECIAL FOR JULY: An extra allowance for your old tires. BUY GOODRICH SILVERTOWN TIRES LEE TRADING CO. 718 South Los Angeles Street Anaheim Citrus Fruits Provide One of the Main Streams Of Your County Income Production and handling of CITRUS FRUITS—oranges, lemons, grapefruit—is BIG BUSINESS for you and everyone else in your community. In 10 counties in California CITRUS FRUITS give direct employment to more than 23,000 persons, and indirect employment to thousands of others. In an average crop year, the cost of packing—labor, oranges, lemons, grapefruit—is BIG BUSINESS for you and everyone else in your community. In 10 counties in California CITRUS FRUITS give direct employment to more than 23,000 persons, and indirect employment to thousands of others. In an average crop year, the cost of packing—labor, materials, overhead—of the California citrus crop is more than $25,000,000. Cost of transporting these crops to market, in an average year is $50,000,000. Every merchant, every resident, of these producing counties knows well when the CITRUS INDUSTRY is prosperous—and knows, also, when it is not. THINK CITRUS FRUITS USE MORE CITRUS FRUITS TALK CITRUS FRUITS A series of advertisements to be run by the Anaheim Gazette in the interest of Orange county's greatest industry—THE ORANGE.