« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
Stumping the Empire State of New York for the high office of Governor, Lieut. Col. Theodore Roosevelt paused at Colgate University (Hamilton) to ingratiate himself with some undergraduates. Said he: "As I recall it, there was a game [football] played in which Colgate participated not long ago."
This was quite true. The previous Saturday, Colgate had been badly beaten by the University of Nebraska.
Said the candidate: "As I recall it, the score was very satisfactory from your standpoint. The Cornell game." The smiling faces of the undergraduates froze stiff.
Said the candidate: "Didn't you play Cornell?"
Cried an undergraduate: "No!" The candidate spun on his heel, faced his traveling companions who sat on the platform.
"Who told me that?" cried he.
"I was misinformed," he continued to the undergraduates. "What was the last game you played?"
"Nebraska!" growled the audience.
About Senator William E. Borah's reëlection there seemed to be no question. A huge majority for him could be seen rolling up on Idaho's peaks, though he was detained on a rat hunt (see Page 3) in Washington, helpless to help it roll. Few Republicans could hope for a higher compliment than that paid Senator Borah by the rabidly Democratic New York World, which published an editorial addressed to the people of Idaho, imploring them not to fail in their duty of reëngaging this valuable national
Minnesota's choice for junior U. S. Senator lay between the present widely known incumbent, Magnus
("Magnavox") Johnson, FarmerLaborite, and a blind man with a German name, U. S. Congressman Thomas D. Schall, Republican nominee. Hot and close was their race.
CANDIDATE SCHALL "-a tendency toward tartness."
Johnson was backed by persons believing in his honesty, simplicity, pertinacity. Backers of Schall made a butt of Johnson's notorious difficulties of speech and leisurely mental processes. Republican buttons appeared: "The joke has gone far enough"; "Schall is blind,* but Magnus is dumb"; and Schall's affliction was said to be gaining him both sympathy and curiosity. Decidedly close voting was expected; but, no matter who won, it was certain that the junior Senator from Minnesota would be an insurgent. Shrewd, with a tendency toward tartness, Schall is but a nominal Republican.
Butchers stroked their jaws and pondered. Bakers smote their thighs and vowed. Bond salesmen banged
*Mr. Schall lost his eyesight in 1910 as the result of "bending too low over an electric cigar-lighter in Fargo, N. D."
their desks in glee, wrote down new addresses. Doctors hemmed, cogitated, jotted in their notebooks. Housewives and other married women bit their lips, considering, some in pride, some in anger, some in mortification. Up and down the land, "high" society buzzed and cackled; "low" society grinned, frowned, asked questions or just looked on. In their offices, restaurants, clubs, the income taxpayers of the U. S. groaned and bore it; then joined the countrywide game of comparisons and exclamations.
It was a six-day wonder. It stimulated conversation more highly than did the oil scandal or Mah Jong or crossword puzzles because it was easier to understand-on the face of it. The Treasury Department had simply announced that the list of income-tax returns paid since Jan. 1, 1924, by every individual, corporation, partnership, estate and trust, was ready for "public inspection." Commissioner of Internal Revenue David H. Blair, with Secretary Mellon's perfunctory approval, had issued the order which was then flashed to the office of every Collector of Internal Revenue in the U. S. in accordance with the publicity section of the Revenue Act of 1924.
Few U. S. citizens had anticipated this order. Always, heretofore, such information had been strictly confidential. But newspapers had anticipated it. Reporters were ready in Internal Revenue offices everywhere, waiting pencil to lips for the assessment ledgers to be opened. Out came the ledgers. Forward rushed the eager reporters. Frenzied fingers pushed up and down the complicated indices seeking out names of individuals in whose tax payments "the public might be interested."
In some revenue offices, however, the public news-gatherers chewed their pencils and waited in vain. Not every Collector would reveal his books to the copyists because, though the Revenue Act of 1924 authorized "public inspection" of the amounts of taxes paid, a section of the Revised Statutes contained a seemingly contradictory clause: ". . . and it shall be unlawful for any person to print or publish in any manner not provided by law any income return or part thereof under penalty of a fine not to exceed $1,000, or of imprisonment or of both."
Dutiful Collectors reported their dilemma to Washington. Taken unawares by the turn of events, the Treasury Department, by way of official warning, called public attention to the Revised Statutes clause and informed inquiring newspaper men that the Department construed that clause as pro
hibitive, "pending a judicial determination." The Department of Justice refused to hand down such determination in the absence of Attorney General Stone. Out in Iowa, Mr. Stone approved this refusal and added that any persons publishing the lists before sufficient time had passed to permit a careful study of the law's provisions and intent, did so at their own risk. There was talk of a test suit, of endless litigation.
Many a newspaper-avid for news and willing to risk $1,000 in obtaining it-construed the Revised Statutes to their own advantage, published the lists. Timid or "law-abiding" papers held off at first, then followed the cat, seeing it out of the bag. In a few hours, the "interesting" portions of the lists were public property.
Furor raged over what one irate taxpayer declared was "a damned outrageous invasion of what are known as individual rights," and over what another declared was "a wholesome, logical service for the newspapers to render." Aside from the legality of their actions, newspapers that published the lists were condemned, on the one hand, for "snooping into a man's private affairs to get misleading information" and praised, on the other hand, for daring, in the face of the uncertainty prevailing, to save their readers the trouble of going to Collectors' offices to satisfy their idle or valid curiosity.
Quite naturally, most of the papers that "complied with the law" (i.e., refrained from exposing the lists) were of the Republican persuasion. And there were plenty of critics ready to impute a political motive to the Democratic papers. From the outcry that went up, it was obvious that few income-taxpayers greatly relished the publication of their names and payments, that few would thank an Administration that had let the information get out.
The New York Times (Democratic) published the lists promptly and, in doing so, pointed out that "full publicity, such as newspapers could give" was the intent of the insurgent Senators, led by Norris of Nebraska, who, last spring, fought for the insertion of the Revenue Act's publicity clause. The Times pointed out also that publicity of the bare figures of taxes paid was a compromise reached after Senator Norris and his fellows had argued for full publicity of returns.
What most people felt to be the worst feature of this country-sweeping wave of publicity was the misleading nature of the tax figures. So complex is the law, so complex are men's affairs,
so varied and mixed are men's motives, that a bald tax total is anything but a fair indication of the income upon which it was paid or of the fortune from which the income was derived. Thus many a man, noted for his wealth, was popularly suspected of having practiced shrewd evasion when the sur
ROOSEVELT JR. "Nebraska!" growled the
(See opposite page.)
prisingly low figure of his income tax was made known. The suspected one might have had a lean year, might have given much to charity, might have paid other taxes upon trust or estate funds not mentioned in the public prints. Conversely, many a man, actually suffering reverses at the present, was popularly regarded as being affluent indeed, judged by the tax he paid on the winnings of 1923, now lost and gone forever.
THE CABINET Husbandman
As it must to all men, Death came to Henry Cantwell Wallace, in the 59th year of his life and the fourth of his administration of the U. S. Department of Agriculture. An apparently successful operation for appendicitis was followed by intestinal poisoning and inflammation of the gall-bladder.
After a state funeral at the White House, the body was taken to Des Moines. Flags on all public buildings in the land remained at half-mast by
order of the President until after the interment.
Son of a husbandman, fellow of husbandmen, writer for and teacher of husbandmen, Henry Cantwell Wallace brought to his office a practical and scientific knowledge of agriculture second to none. His understanding of the devices and desires of farmers was gained at first hand-in the days when his father took to the soil in Adair County, Iowa, and later when, as a youth of 20, he was obliged to interrupt his course at the Agricultural College, at Ames, and put in five years raising corn and hogs on one of his father's tenantless farms.
The elder Wallace, a Presbyterian minister, known to a neighborly countryside as "Uncle Henry," was part owner of a county newspaper, and the son learned printing along with tilling as he grew to manhood. When lean years came, young Wallace studiously and scientifically applied himself to the task of inducing the indurate soil to yield him his livelihood. His experiments and solutions he then reported in articles for farm journals in Iowa and Illinois; and it was these writings that paved his way to greater things than struggling to support a wife with corn at 10c and 15c a bushel and hogs at 234c a pound.
In 1893, the Professor of Agriculture at Ames was one James Wilson, destined four years later to enter upon a 16-year service as Secretary of Agriculture under Presidents McKinley, Roosevelt and Taft. Professor Wilson had seen young Wallace's articles, talked with him, induced him to return to Ames and finish out his two remaining years of study. This Wallace did -in a twelvemonth-and in 1893 he was appointed Professor Wilson's assistant.
In 1894, the young farmer-professor launched Farmer and Dairyman, later known as Wallace's Farmer when it was merged with the elder Wallace's Iowa Homestead. At the mast-head of Wallace's Farmer is this motto, invented by the Presbyterian pastor: "Good Farming, Clear Thinking, Right Living."
Warren G. Harding did not know his future Secretary before the campaign of 1920, when Senator Capper brought them together. Upon his appointment, Mr. Wallace succeeded his friend of long standing, Edwin Thomas Meredith of Des Moines. In office, Mr. Wallace conducted the Department's affairs with quiet industry and without notable occurrences other than his staunch opposition to the proposed transfer of Alaskan forest reserves to
the control of Secretary Fall's Department of the Interior. This fight was long and bitter. In his speech of July, 1923, President Harding let it be known that he sided with Mr. Wallace and against Secretary Fall. The Alaskan forest reserves still appertain to the Department of Agriculture.
Between President Coolidge and Mr. Wallace all harmony existed, despite the fact that Mr. Wallace, ever the husbandman, did not share the President's disapproval of the HaugenMcNary bill for farm relief.
Charles F. Marvin, Chief of the Weather Bureau, was the President's appointee for Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
At Los Angeles
If a young child, in a spirit of generosity or mischief, gives the garden rake to the neighbors, it is a simple enough matter for the father to drop in on them after supper and explain that the lad knew not what he did. If they are nice neighbors, they will surrender the implement without argument and the owner can whisk the leaves off the lawn next morning as planned.
Not so simple is the Government's task of recovering its celebrated Oil Reserves, No. 1 and No. 3*, leased respectively by onetime Secretary of the Interior Fall, in a spirit commonly described as mischievous, to Edward L. Doheny and Harry F. Sinclair, oil merchants.
Last week, Judge Paul J. McCormick mounted his U. S. District Court bench in the Federal Building at Los Angeles, and listened to the beginnings of U.S. v. the Pan-American Petroleum & Transport Co. (dominated by Mr. Doheny). There came before him:
Lawyer Owen J. Roberts, for the plaintiff, who said he would show that the leases constituted a scheme between Messrs. Fall and Doheny, furtively and illegally contrived, and should therefore be canceled.
Lawyer Frank J. Hogan, for the Doheny interests, who said he would show that no thought of profiteering lurked in the minds of Messrs. Fall and Doheny, but only a desire on Mr. Fall's part to protect the U. S. by securing to the Navy a hoard of fuel oil at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, as planned by farsighted Navy officials. Lawyer Hogan
*Reserve No. 1 is in the Elk Hills, near Bakersfield, Calif. Reserve No. 3 is near Casper, Wyo., on an elevation known as Teapot Dome. The Government's suit to recover No. 3 from the Mammoth Oil Co., to which corporation Sinclair gave it in consideration of $106,000,000 of stock, is to begin in the near future.
said he would show further that Mr. Fall had played a "purely formal and perfunctory part" in carrying out these plans, which called for leasing Elk Hills to Doheny on condition that Doheny build and fill the Pearl Harbor fuel base.
Judge McCormick could also see, down in the witness row behind Lawyer Hogan, a man intensely interested in all that went on. Eager to catch every syllable from the lips of attorneys and witnesses, this man
LAWYER HOGAN & MR. DOHENY "-not so simple is the Government's task."
strained forward in his seat, cocked his head sideways, put his hand to his ear. Kindly of demeanor, spectacled, snowy-moustached, looking more like a mediocre dentist than a genius of finance, this listener was the Edward L. Doheny whose name kept constantly recurring in the testimony.
To him the case meant much indeed-Lawyer Roberts had said $100,000,000 in his (Doheny's) own estimate. To him, more than to anyone in the room, the flickers of interest passing now and again over Judge McCormick's inscrutable countenance were exceedingly important.
Doheny recalled a newspaper article that had appeared last February, descriptive of the Hogan type of lawyer. That article had said: "... a first class fighting court lawyer, quick on his feet, clever before judge and jury, capable of profiting enormously by the slower wits of an antagonist. It is easy to name other lawyers of this type, such as Samuel Untermeyer and Max Steuer, Frank Daly, who conducted the prosecution against Senator Newberry in Michigan, and Frank P. Walsh [of Kansas City, now Candidate LaFollette's attorney in the "slush fund" inquiry]."
That article had continued: "When the Government proceeds against someone in an important action, especially if it involves an element of criminality, inevitably it encounters lawyers of this sort. And inevitably the Government is represented by some lawyer who might grace the Supreme Bench or at least would do for a district judgeship. Generally they are Presidents or ex-Presidents of the American Bar Association or at least of some state Bar Association; solid men, who know the law, who write excellent briefs and who perhaps are impressive before the United States Supreme Court.
"But you never notice the fellows who wish to escape the toils of the law hiring them. They turn instantly and surely to the Hogans the Steuers, Dalys and the Untermyers. They never employ an exJudge or an ex-Governor, or an exAttorney General or a President of the Bar Association. They don't inquire about a lawyer's standing or his knowledge of the law; all they are interested in is his ability to fight a case through to victory in court."
Among the many figures issuing last week from Washington, a few trickled forth from Prohibition headquarters. These stated that, in the last four years, Prohibition has cost:
The lives of 37 Federal agents.
The lives of at least 40 Federalkilled bootleggers, not to mention the many killed by Coast Guardsmen.
$50,130,000 in money, inclusive of anti-narcotic appropriations.
Officials estimated the necessary appropriation for 1925 at $10,630,000.
On the credit side of the Prohibition enforcement account were four years' fines collected ($12,800,000), plus revenue from the sale of confiscated automobiles, boats, bottles, barrels.
From Paris, Seymour Parker Gilbert, Agent General of Reparations, made his first statement: "I leave for Berlin next Tuesday with Owen Young. We shall probably remain there several weeks. We expect to work together as long as he remains in Europe."
He was then reported to have added: "But I expect to be in Paris most of the time, and I'm glad of it." Apparently the Agent General does not like Berlin.
The Reparations Commission appointed the personnel of the Transfer Committee which is to handle deliveries in kind made by Germany under the Experts' Plan. The members: Britain, Sir Thomas H. Unwick; France, M. Aron; Italy, Commendatore Laviosa; Belgium, M. Bemelmans. Representation was refused to Japan, Rumania, YugoSlavia.
At Paris, sat a Commission of the representatives of Allied Finance Ministers. The U. S. was represented by Colonel James A. Logan, unofficial representative of the U. S. Government on the Reparations Commission.
The task which confronted the Commission was not easy. They had not only to determine how much the French and Belgians had extracted from the Ruhr but to decide how the receipts are to be distributed and by whom the cost of collection is to be borne. The next problem is to decide on the distribution of the 1,000,000,000 gold marks which is Germany's first annuity under the Experts' Plan.
The U. S. Government has a claim for $250,000,000, due as expenses for the U. S. Army of Occupation. In addition, there is a sum of about $250,000,000 that may be charged to Ger
When the treaty of peace between the U. S. and Germany was signed in 1921, the U. S. claimed damages from Germany to the extent of $1,479,000,000. This sum was subsequently whittled down by the U. S.-German Mixed Claims Commission to a little over $400,000,000, for which sum security to the value of $245,000,000 is said to be held. The difference between these two sums is likely therefore to become a charge against Germany. As the Mixed Claims Commission has not yet disposed of all of the claims, no precise figures are available.
(British Commonwealth of Nations)
Britannia's brow was furrowed with frowns last week. The three prongs of her trident - Laborism, Conservatism, Liberalism-absorbed her whole attention.
Issues. The "trilemma" which the electorate had to decide on polling day was contained in the manifestos of the three big parties, of which the following are excerpts:
Labor. The Labor manifesto, which is entitled Labor's Appeal to the People, reviews what the Government has done for peace, housing, education, agriculture, unemployment.* Then, under a paragraph called "What the Liberals and Tories have combined to stop," a list of bills introduced or which were. about to be introduced are cited, chief of which are:
1) Nationalization of the mines. 2) Taxation of land values. 3) Prevention of profiteering. 4) Development of transportation facilities.
5) Prevention of excessive hours of labor.
7) Votes for women on the same terms as for men.†
The manifesto ends:
Conservative. The manifesto deals with the Campbell case (TIME, Oct. 20), the Russian Treaty (TIME, Aug. 18), unemployment, safeguarding of industry, economy, juvenile employment, imperial preference, imperial unity, imperial foreign policy, imperial defense, agriculture, cost of foodstuffs, housing, slum improvement, insurance for old age and widows' pensions, education, women and children, ex-service men. It might be termed a broad social policy.
The manifesto ends: "In conclusion, I [Stanley Baldwin] would appeal to you to help to secure for the country, in this difficult and anxious time, a strong and stable Government, based on an independent majority in Parliament, resolved to maintain the existing constitutional and economic liberties under which Britain has grown great and prosperous, and empowered
to solve on practical and common-sense lines the urgent industrial and social problems of the day. . . . I appeal, therefore, to all men and women who desire stable government to support the broad and national policy that I have outlined and to ensure the return of a House of Commons that will have the will and power to carry it into effect."
Liberal. The Liberals start out by defining their position in the last Parliament, referring to the “Russian Blunder" (i.e., promising to guarantee a loan); it then deals with unemployment, housing, land, agriculture, coal and power, education, free trade, industrial peace, social insurance, prohibition, electoral reform, and ends: "The people have now a choice to make between three parties. It has an opportunity of putting in power a Liberal Government, which will pursue the path of peace, social reform, and national development, avoiding, on the one hand, unthinking resistance to progress, and, on the other hand, unbalanced experiments and impracticable schemes which will destroy the whole social and economic system upon which the prosperity of this country has been built."
It is thus easy to see that the predominant issue of the campaign is Socialism.
Campaign. The week's campaign: Labor. Premier MacDonald, speaking in support of his son's* candidacy: "We must give young men a chance. It is not much use going into the House of Commons when you are 40, 50 or 60. If you are going to do your work from a national point of view and give to the nation and to the people of the nation all that is in you, you must begin young and master the House of Commons, its ways and its opportunities while your blood is still vigorous in your veins and while the best of your life is still in front of you."
Miss Ishbel MacDonald, daughter of the Premier, who was canvassing on behalf of her brother: "My line is social work, like my mother's, but I'm doing this because I want to do all I can to help the Government."
Premier MacDonald, at another meeting: "Go on, my Liberal friends, and do not look behind. In the Labor movement we have the spirit that used to animate your souls, widened, brightened and heightened."
George Lansbury, referring to charges made against him by Sir Al
*Premier MacDonald's son, Malcolm, was in the U. S. as a member of the Oxford University debating team.
fred Mond: "The whole thing is simply poppycock so far as I am concerned."
J. H. Thomas, referring to Lord Curzon's speech (see under): "Lord Curzon did not tell the country that when he resigned his position and the Labor Government came in, by his own action at Lausanne he had so strained relations between Canada and ourselves that several alternatives were discussed in the Canadian Parliament, and that one of the alternatives-happily rejected-was even that of separation.
"That was the position which Lord Curzon and his method brought about. The Labor Government has had to refuse to issue a white paper in connection with that conference, because of the strained relations it might cause in the colonies themselves."
Conservative. Ex-Premier Stanley Baldwin to the ladies: "I place first in my appeal to the women of Great Britain a confident hope that they will give themselves heart and soul to a policy of encouraging mutual trade within the empire by means of Imperial preference."
Mrs. Stanley Baldwin: "We are on the eve of an election which must seriously affect, for good or ill, many things which we women hold most dear. The future of our homes and our children depends greatly upon how the women of Britain use the power of their vote.
"The choice that lies before the British women is clear. Do they want their country to go forward in the British way, holding to British ideals of honor, freedom and justice, or do they want it to be destroyed and rebuilt on the model of Bolshevist Russia?
"The Socialists say it must be destroyed.
They say we can do nothing for unemployment or any other trouble until we get a 'new and recreated society.' If you want to know what this means, you have only to look at Russia, which is now a Socialist country."
Lord Birkenhead, referring to Premier MacDonald whom he called shifty, evasive, disingenuous and anti-British: "I charge him deliberately with this, that from the first moment of the War to the armistice there was nothing which he could say to embarrass the cause of the British arms that he did not say; there was nothing that he could do to assist the German cause that he did not do. That is the man I am asked to take as the spokesman of the British Empire."
Lady Frances Balfour in a letter to The London Times: "Class hatred is abroad everywhere, the most sterile of all passions. . . . Do not let us add to it by separating the classes of citizens. Let women vote in their strength,
but let their ruling purpose be to establish righteous government among a free people, of whom they now form a large part."
Lord Curzon, apropos of the AngloRussian Treaty: "The whole annals of our country contain nothing more humiliating or more disgraceful than this treaty. It and the Campbell case show that the Labor Government is not master of itself; it is in the hands of its gunmen. As soon as the automatic pistol is raised, up go the hands of the Prime Minister.
"It is the Labor extremists who have compelled the holding of this election. They think that by taking the appeal to the country in a hurry they may have a better chance.
"The Prime Minister is in the hands of the desperadoes of his party. The country is revolting against this form of Government, as it is not Government by the better men of the party, but by men in the background, who pull the strings and dictate the policy and hold the Prime Minister in bondage."
Lady Astor, asked about the old cry of "hang the Kaiser": "I think it is far worse than death for a man who thinks he was sent from Heaven to rule the world to be locked up in a Dutch village with a dull wife."
Sir William Joynson-Hicks: "We shall reimpose the McKenna duties in order to give some fairness between our own people and the Belgian and German nations."
Liberal. Ex-Premier Asquith: "There is nothing whatever in the nature of a compact arranged at the headquarters of the Liberal and Conservative parties. All that has happened is that in a number of constituencies there has been a strong feeling that at this election only, when Socialism is being made the dominant issue, some steps should be taken to avoid a splitting of the antiSocialist vote and the return minority vote of candidates pledged to Socialism.
"With this sole object, Liberal candidates have been withdrawn in some constituencies, and Conservatives in others, but there has been no bargain of any kind as to how the votes of the party whose candidate has been withdrawn shall be cast. There has been no agreement and no recommendation to the individual voter, who is left to make his own choice."
Ex-Premier George: "Mr. Baldwin had been in office about six months and had made a thorough mess of every big business that had come into his hands. Mr. Baldwin went to America and
made arrangements by which we were to pay over £30,000,000 a year for 50 years to the U. S., without making any arrangements for getting a pennypiece from the people who owed us twice as much as we owed America. I happen to know, and I have said it in publ and it has not been contradicted, but Mr. Bonar Law, who was then Prime Minister, thoroughly disapproved of the transaction and was almost on the point of resigning as Prime Minister rather than agree to it. But it went through.
"Mr. Baldwin having given £30,000,000 to America, Mr. MacDonald said: 'Well, I don't see, if money is going like that, why I should not do the same thing.' So he gave £12,000,000 to the Germans and £30,000,000 to the Russians, so as to level with Mr. Baldwin.”
Rowdyism. Not since the days of the militant suffragettes has Britain seen such a violent and unsporting electoral campaign.
Some of the rowdyism came from the Laborites, a little from the Liberals, still less from the Conservatives, but most from the Communists and those elements that were mistaken for Labor followers.
The Labor Party was forced to answer frequent charges of having organized the rowdies: "As far as we are concerned, we have no knowledge of any organized rowdyism of any kind. We strongly deprecate disturbances at meetings, either by Socialists, Liberals or Tories."
Premier MacDonald declared: "I see in the newspapers that an attempt has been made to repeat what happened last year, and that our opponents make a great grievance about rowdyism at their meetings.
"Now, last year we had all these stories told. You remember a lady in Glasgow who was kicked on the shins and fainted, and who three or four days after the election was discovered to have been, at the moment of her faint, addressing a meeting two or three miles away from the place where she was kicked.
"At the same time, I do hope that the great enthusiasm and strong moral ideals of our people are not going to induce them to become vociferous when they hear the other side talking nonsense or uttering slanders. I am not in favor of any of that sort of manifestation at all.
"I know that bad chairmen and provocative speeches on the part of the other side do try the patience of audiences. Then, my friends, if your patience is not equal to that trial, stay away from their meetings and leave them alone together."
Still rowdyism increased. H. C.