San Bernardino Sun, Volume 60, Number 171, 18 March 1954 — Page 44

Thursday, Marcli 18, 1954

THE DAILY SUN SAN BERNARDINO , SIXTIETH YEAR Published daily except Sunday, and Sunday in combination with The Sun-Telegram, by The Sun Company of San Bernardino, California. EDITORIAL Taxes and Government Chafing under Democratic Party pressure to pass an election year tax reduction measure of greater proportions than that recommended by the administration, President Eisenhower took his case directly to the people Monday night in a radio and television broadcast, declaring he wanted a revenue bill that would be fair to everybody. The President was forthright in his contention that the reductions proposed by his administration were all that could be justified at present, and he also plainly labeled the proposals' by the Democrats as unsound, politically motivated and unfair to the great majority of taxpayers. Expressing himself as willing as anybody to cut taxes "at the right time," President Eisenhower pointed to the fact that it wTas his goal to lop about seven billion dollars off the nation's tax bill, some of which has already taken place, and promised there would be further relief when justified by conditions. But the Democrats have a proposal with powerful public appeal. They are going to ask for an increase in personal exemptions from the present $600 to anywhere from $700 to 51,000. This, the President attacked as unwarranted and "politically motivated," inasmuch as it would relieve one-third of the taxpayers from paying anything and putting the additional burden on the other two-thirds. He continued: The only other way t& make more tax cuts now is to have bigger and bigger deficits and" to borrow more and more money. Either we or our children will have to bear the burden of this debt. This is one kind of chicken that always comes home to roost. The President recalled that his administration had shaved many billions of dollars from the outlay of expenditures it rer ceived from the previous administration and that it was his : plan to save in every manner consistent with good government, ; giving consideration to the maintenance of an adequate defense and promotion of a strong domestic economy. . But nonetheless the Democrats have a powerful weapon with which to go out and beat the bushes for votes this year, holding out to millions of voters the prospects of being re- - lieved of all income taxes through the medium of increasing . exemptions. There is not the shadow of a doubt that it will be effective ' politics and its attraction is likely to influence some Republicans who are up for a hot battle to retain their seats in Con- - gress. There is going to be some lively sessions before the tax bill is written. Not all Democrats are likejy to go along with the heavy reductions in revenue, nor will all Republicans stand firm behind the President. The outcome will likely be a crossing of party lines, with a mixture of Republicans and Democrats sup- - porting President Eisenhower. There is no way of telling how the struggle will go, but observers are saying that the big congressional battle will be . over taxes and that it will be close. Of course, the President can veto the new revenue bill if he feels that it is against the , best interests of the country, but then that would be subject to a vote to override him. ' This is going to be a year in the life of President Eisenhower that he will long remember. His administration has passed the breaking-in period and will be called upon to function as a smooth machine if it is to make progress. He has captured the support of the American people, and now he must convince Congress that his program of converting the nation from a wartime to a peacetime economy, of maintaining defenses at a high standard and bring about an efficient government is the right one. It will be tough all along the line and the tax battle might well be the tip-off as to how the President will fare.

Contest in Senate Members of the Senate will make an important decision when they vote on a resolution which would in effect void the 1952 election in New Mexico at least the senatorial phase of it. The Senate Rules Committee decided to put the fate of Sen. Chavez (D-NM) up to the whole Senate after investigating reports on "flagrant irregularities." There seems little chance that Chavez will be unseated. Senators treat their colleagues rather gently in matters of this type. Sens. Langer and McCarthy had really serious charges levelled against them, but retained their Senate seats. Besides, the Democrats have more votes. The Chavez case is important politically because if he were ousted a Republican probably would be appointed by The Republican governor of New Mexico. This would enable the Republicans to regain control of the Senate. It is hoped that the senators will not vote along strict party lines in this matter, but decide it on its merits.

Our military services and their leaders have always been completely loyal and dedicated public servants singularly free of suspicion and disloyalty. President Eisenhower.

When demogoguery and deceit become a national political movement, we Americans are in trouble, not just Democrats but all of us. Adlai Stevenson.

WALTER LIPPMANiV QUESTION IS NOT STATEHOOD OR COLONIALISM

It is not an agreeable task to argue at this late date that before statehood is granted to Hawaii and Alaska. Congress and the country should re-examine the issues very carefully. High hopes and great expectations have been raised in Hawaii. Yet we tnust remember that the granting of statehood is an irrevocable art. Once done it cannot be undone. Statehood cannot be repealed and a state cannot secede. Congress is, therefore, faced now with the kind of decision which must not be made except with fullest deliberation. NOW THE admission of outlying territories to statehood would mean a radical change in the Structure of the union and of our external relations. If such a change is to be made, it should .be done when the people of this country are listening and have their eyes open. As I read the record, the crucial question was raised in the House of Representatives last tfuly by Mr. Farrington, the able nd highly respected delegate from Hawaii. In an eloquent and moving peroration he said : "Either we become a state or we enter permanently into a colonial tatus. This is what continuation of the territorial status in its pres

ent or modified form means, and nothing else. The issue clearly is one of statehood or colonial-, ism. Proposals that we be permitted to elect our own governor; that we be - given a larger measure of local self-government and possibly an increase in our representation in the national government, are nothing but attempts to disguise an unwilling'ness to grant the people of Hawaii their full rights as American citizens. They are colonialisms and, so far as I am concerned, I want nothing of them." BEFORE WE impale ourselves on the horns of this dilemma colonialism or statehood let us re-examine the question. Much has been made of the promises of statehood in the party platforms. But anyone who takes the trouble to read what the party platforms have said about statehood for Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico in the past 20 years will come away confirmed in the belief that neither party has ever seriously put its mind on the question. The platform on which President Eisenhower ran in 1952 advocated "immediate statehood for Hawaii; statehood for Alaska under an equitable enabling act; eventual statehood for Puerto

Ahem!'

IXEZ ROBB

JONESES PICK WRONG PARLOR GAME

Parlor games, it occurs to me,fracture more beautiful friendships than any other social hazard known to man. Modern parlor games, that is. I can't remember that parties used to turn into donnybrooks when parlor games were confined to Forfeits, Spin the Pan and Post Office, which were just and excuse for a little innocent smooching out in the hall. BUT TOO OFTEN the modern parlor game, sometimes a pseudo intellectual exercise and sometimes just an exercise, starts out as good, clean fun and ends up as a riot call. Only time will tell whether the Head of Clan Robb and I are ever asked back to the Joneses, after -'last night. And yet it wasn't our fault that the Joneses insisted we play their favorite parlor game toward the end of a large, fosmal dinner party. Up to that point, every guest had been minding his manners like Lord Chesterfield and crook

JOlIiV ERAIVKEIX CARTER TREATY POINTS UP ERRORS IN ASIA

The American-Japanese arrangements for 100 million dollars in military and economic assistance underscores the tremendous miscalculation in world affairs which, rather than communism, is the real indictment of Roosevelt's foreign policy. Stated bluntly, we picked the wrong position in the Far East. We backed a China which' has proved to be hostile to us and subservient to the Soviet Empire, and opposed a Japan which, by any test, was far more compatible with American security than any other major power in Asia. WE DESTROYED the only nation which could have provided an effective check to Russian geopolitics and drew back only at the last moment when Japan was no longer a power in East? ern Asia. As a result, we created a power vacuum into which imperialistic communism has expanded and are compelled today to provision and to rearm the very nation which Roosevelt had set out to smash. Having deprived Japan of her economic resources in Asia, we must pro Rico." As a measure of how little the authors of the platform have done their homework, we may note that in the previous March the people of Puerto Rico had ratified by a popular vote a new constitution, making Puerto Rico not a state but a free commonwealth associated with the United States. This new constitution had become law by President Truman's signature before the Republican , convention met and it had become effective two weeks before the Republican Party had declared in its platform that Puerto Rico should look forward to "eventual statehood." These campaign promises are really something. Twenty years before President Truman signed the resolution which made Puerto Rico not a state but a com-, monwealth, the Democrats were saying in 1932 what the Republicans were saying in 1952 that they were in favor of "ultimate statehood for Puerto Rico." IN 1940 the Democrats were in favor of statehood for; Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico; the Republicans were saying, on the other hand, that statehood was the logical aspiration for Puerto Rico, while to Hawaii they were saying no more than that it was entitled to the fullest measure of home rule. In those days they

ing his pinkie to boot. Then the host and hostess distributed pencil and paper and told each of us to find and list "17 objects scattered about this drawing room that ordinarily do not belong or are associated with such a room." LET US face it: This in itself was an unwise, if not calamitous, challenge. One man's interior decorative scheme is too oft another man's bilious attack. And for every woman who puts a whatnot in the parlor, another puts it in the attic. So when I said that the silver tea service in the corner had no place in a drawing room, but ought to be on the dining-room buffet, how did I know that I was giving mortal offense to my hostess? Mrs. Jones explained, rather stiffly, that the tea set was rare Irish silver, inherited from her grandmaw and used in the drawing room as one would use a pic

vision that country. Having deprived Japan of her political and military bases in Manchuria, we must help her defend herself. It is only fair to admit that Roosevelt was not alone to blame. For over 30 years before Pearl Harbor there had been a tradition of animosity and suspicion toward Japan, reaching a crisis under Wilson and again under Hoover. Hoover's secretary of state, the late Henry L. Stimson, was perhaps more responsible than any other single individual for the complete deadlock in JapaneseAmerican relations which Roosevelt inherited and expanded into a major American foreign policy. THERE CAN ALSO be no doubt that this anti-Japanese fixation was extremely popular and widespread and that American public opinion gave it enthusiastic support. But it is the essence of statesmanship to rise above immediate circumstances and envisage the future. Roosevelt seems never to have asked hirrlfelf what really would happen in the Far

thought Puerto Rico a far better candidate for statehood than Hawaii. Today nobody in Puerto Rico or in the United States is thinking of granting statehood to Puerto Rico. The point of it all is that at one time or another, both partiesThe Republicans as late as the Eisenhower campaign of 1952 have been in favor of statehood not only for Hawaii and Alaska but also for Puerto Rico. Yet in fact we have seen the working out of a quite different relationship with Puerto Rico. It is, therefore, not true that the only choices are permanent inferiority in a colonial conditon or statehood. There is no such ugly -dilemma. The Congress can, as Sens. Fulbright, Monroney, and others are now proposing, work out a Constitutional status for Hawaii and Alaska which avoids the Farrington dilemma of statehood versus colonialism. .SUCH A constructive solution cannot, of course, be improvised quickly especially amidst the turmoil in this Congress. Nor can it be made acceptable without careful and thorough negotiation. But this is what should be attempted if and when as. now seems probable the combined bill becomes stalled. . J

ture or a decorative Sevres vase. This rather took the fight out of me, but not out of the rest of the guests. The biggest hassle of all arose over the tie and cummerbund worn by the host with his dinner jacket. Both were of a particularly violent Scotch plaid. It was the general consensus that he had worn them in jest and that they constituted two of the 17 objects that, under no circs, belong" in a well-regulated drawing room. THUS CHALLENGED, the host looked sheepish. But the hostess looked tearful. She explained, choking back the sobs, that she had given both to her husband for Christmas and that it had taken her all these, weeks to break his spirit and force him to wear them. "Now, he'll never wear them again!" she cried. I feel that none of us is ever apt to be asked back to the Joneses again.

East if Japan was smashed, any more than Truman asked himself what would be the longrange effect upon our security of using the atom bomb at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We fought the war without a political policy and we made the peace in a political vacuum. Now we are paying the price part of the price of our stubborn stupidity. Personally, I think it would be a good idea if we stopped some of our yelling about the lousy Reds and made a few agonizing reappraisals "of our own national policy. This would be good politics, since there are obvious disadvantages in attempting to pin the label of treason on the Democrats and obvious advantages in proving that they were fools in world affairs. AS MATTERS stand, we did the bulk of the fighting in a war in the Pacific which has ended with a Russian bloodless conquest of China and exposed us to greater dangers than those we believed we faced from Japan. This was not only not smart; it was sheer folly and useless and until we realize how such a mistake occurred we will not be ever on the road to comparative security, let alone survival. ' GRIN AND BEAR IT too far, Mr. Sneedby, when I to say anything to tht class!

WORDS, WIT & WISDOM By WILLIAM MORRIS Here are a few more of those off-the-beaten t track words, the ones which we recognize in reading from their context, words which we should like to have in our own writing and speaking vocabularies but which remain just a bit elusive. By studying these words carefully, finding out where they come from and what they mean we shall be able to add them to our working vocabulary. Remember: once you learn a new word, you have only to use it three times in writing and speaking and it's yours for life. "Succinct" (pronounced sukSINKT) is a word which comes to English from the Latin SUCCINCTUS meaning, literally, "tucked in" and refers to the way Roman men tucked up their flowing togas when there was need for swift, decisive ac

tion. Thus a succinct style of writing is one which is concise and terse, devoid of fancy ornamentin a phrase, "stripped for action." "Castigation" and "denigration" are two words from the sizable category of words of abuse. Castigation (pronounced kas-tih - GAY - shun) literally means severe criticism, occasionally carried to the extent of physical punishment. From the Latin words CASTUS, pure, and AGO, make, castigate originally meant to purge or make pure by punishment. In Colonial times the ducking stools used to punish lawbreakers were sometimes called "castigatories." Today, though, when one castigates a rival, he merely criticizes him verbally. When you denigrate (pronounced DEN-ih-grayt) a person, though, you are doing him much more costly damage than mere criticism could effect, because denigration, from the Latin DENIGRO, to blacken, means to defame an opponent by blackening his character. Thus a historian might write: "In the sordid campaign of 1888, denigration of candidate's by their political fores became the order of the day." And, of course, this practice is not unknown today. 20 YEARS AGO (From the files of March 18, 1934) Dr. Virgil M. Pinkley has been named president of the San Bernardino Rotary Club. H will succeed George R. Momyer. The Los Angeles Bureau of Power & Light has built a plant to make hollow copper tubes which will be used instead of cables on its power line from Hoover Dam. Miles of tubing is being stored at Victorville. The San Bernardino Chamber of Commerce has called on the County for early improvement . of desert roads in the Trona and Osdick district. SO THEY SXT Like attracts like and like produces like. So tall people usually marry tall people and have taller children. Dr. Earnest A. Hooton. What may seem a troublesome surplus is a part of our great national asset and part of our security. Defense Secretary Wilson on farm surpluses. The President must not be deprived of his historic position as the spokesman for the nation in its relations with other countries. President Eisenhower. THOUGHTS And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. Luke 24:3. Lovely was the death Of Him whose life was Love! Holy with power He on the thought-benighted Skeptic beamed Manifest Godhead. Coleridge. "Progressive education has gont have to raise MY hand if I want .

DREW PEARSON CONGRESSMEN ON SPOT

WASHINGTON While the nation has been intrigued, mystified and absorbed in the McCar-thy-Cohn-Schine fight with the Army, the nation's most important and complicated tax bill in 20 years is almost totally "ununderstood" in the House of Representatives. With only' a few days to study its 875 intricate pages, no congressman no matter how conscientious could possibly vote intelligently on this bill. Even Treasury Department experts who helped write the bill admit that certain sections don't turn out to mean what was intended. DEMOCRATIC members of the House of Representatives, however, have decided with the exception of one man to send the bill back to the Ways and Means Committee with instructions to change only one section. They would eliminate the provision whereby those who receive dividends are given a preferred status over those who earn salaries and wages. In its place Democrats would substitute a $100 increase in personal tax exemption, thereby helping lower bracket taxpayers and taking about 7 million people off the tax rolls. The one Democrat who disagrees with this almost united stand by Democratic congressmen is Thurman Chatham of North Carolina, who doesn't believe there should be a new tax bill at all. Chatham's family manufactures the famous Chatham blankets, and if he voted for the Republican bill he and his family would reap a bonanza, because first, their income comes from dividends; second, because the new tax bill is considered a gift to big business. REGARDLESS of personal benefit, however, Chatham doesn't believe this is a time to reduce the nation's income, and a lot of other Democrats and Republicans privately agree with him. When it comes to a vote to recommit the tax bill, about 20 Republican congressmen are on the spot. In the past they introduced bills to increase the personal exemption of individual taxpayers, and now they are called upon by President Eisenhower, Speaker Joe Martin and the GOP leadership to vote against a better break for personal tax exemption.

DAVID LAWRENCE APPROVES 'NEW LOOK'

WASHINGTON What is the biggest piece of news that the world would like to know today? It's whether or when there will be a large-scale war. Does anybody in the United States government or the Soviet government know whether or when there will be a large-scale war? The answer is that each is convinced today that the .destruction would be so great on both sides as to make such an attack absolutely improbable. Corroborative evidence on this comes from Moscow and Washington in various manifestations that add up to. the aforesaid con-' elusion. WHAT. THEN, shall each country do by way of armament preparation?" The answer is: all that is feasible to do within economic bounds so as to afford a defense against any kind of attack. What is the policy of the United States? It is covered by the phrase the "new look," which for obvious reasons has never been fully or specifically explained to the American public because, to do so, is to explain it also to the Russians. What does the "new look" generally involve? It means that President Eisenhower and the National Security Council have decided to take a "calculated risk." This is the assumption that large-scale war will not come within the next several years. What was the meaning of the speech by Secretary Dulles warning that "massive retaliation" would come if the free world were attacked? It was intended to warn the Soviet government that no ban on the use of the atomic bomb or the hydrogen bomb has been adopted and that the United States, with its allies, would retaliate with any weapons and in any place 'of its own choosing. DID THIS mean that, if a "little war" broke out -in Korea or Indochina or the Near East, the "massive retaliation" policy would apply? Not at all. Each situation would be dealt with as the circumstances required. It is not necessarily to be inferred that any atom bombs would be used. They would not be. Adm. Radford says it is desirable to keep the enemy guessing. Is the armament of the United States adequate to carry on a "little war" and yet maintain enough strength for a big war if the "little war" became a big war? The answer to this question has not been determined by anyone. Out of the uncertainty which it arouses has come the debate between the heads of the armed services as to whether they have been given enough money to buy the weapons and to raise the manpower necessary to achieve victory- under those circumstances. Has the United States decided to limit its military expansion to commitments it can fulfil instead of allowing its expansion to go to fantastic heights beyond T

In other words they're called upon to vote directly against what they've already proposed, also against the Democrats who are solidly for what these Republicans originally proposed. And since the bills these 20 Republicans have introduced are all a matter of record, they'll have a hard time explaining the switch to voters back home. Some, like forthright Congresswoman Edith Nourse Rogers of Massachusetts, aren't going to do any explaining. Mrs. Rogers plans to vote her convictions and with the Democrats, regardless of the urging of GOP leaders. Others who have introduced similar bills for higher personal exemption and are on the spot include: Bennett, Clardy and Bentley, Mich.; Busbey and Mason. HI,; Cole, Pillion and Wharton, N.Y.; Kersten, Wis.; Poff. Va.; Reese, Kans.; Saylor and Simpson, Pa.; and Utt. Calif. IN ADQITION to the above who have proposed raising tht personal tax exemption, five other Republicans have introduced bills proposing increased benefits for those who are blind, aged or disabled, or who have dependents in this category. They are: Bates, Mass.; Hagen, Minn.; Javits, N.Y.; McDonough, Calif., and Warburton, Del. Other congressmen are watching to see how the 20 vote in the final showdown. What makes Democratic congressmen so sore about the administration's bill is first, the loopholes favoring big business; second, the manner in which the bill was rammed through the Ways and Means Committee. The Ways and Means Committee is charged with writing tht nation's tax laws. In the past this has been done by both Democratic and Republican members, usually over a period of many months. The work is so exacting that committee members art excused from attending regular sessions of Congress and concentrate only on taxes. WHAT IRKED the Democrats, however, is that this time, tht tax bill was drafted by the Republicans separately, then handed to the Democrats. Then it was rammed through the committet in six weeks, before the Democrats had any real chance to consider it.

the capacity of the American people to pay for? Limitation has been decided upon as a "calculated risk." America cannot b expected to furnish the manpower for the rest of the world, nor can it do more than its proper share of the expense of manning and equipping other nations armies. Will the United States retaliate in case of a large-scale war without consulting its allies? It will retaliate instantly from American bases and from, bases in Europe t- like Spain perhaps -r and from its own aircraft carriers in the North Atlantic and Mediterranean which carry atom bombs. The United States will retaliate also from bases like those in Britain or" Canada only if arrangements have been worked out in advance for such instant retaliation. WHEN WILL Congress be consulted? In the case of an instant attack, the President is authorized already to repel instantly an invasion or attack on American forces anywhere in the world. He would be expected to submit to Congress as soon thereafter as practicable a resolution to ratify his action and authorize further military measures. Would an attack on any of 'tht many countries in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization permit the President without consulting Congress to retaliate instantly? The NATO treaty obligates the United States to enter the war instantly to defend any NATO country that is attacked. No previous authorization by Congress is needed if it be accepted as Sound constitutional doctrine that a treaty supersedes the Constitution "as the supreme law of the land. The recent debate over the Bricker amendment showed that most senators apparently feel that the twothirds vote which ratifies a treaty and authorizes American military action makes it unnecessary to ask the consent of both Houses of Congress for a declaration of war. WHAT THEN did President Eisenhower mean when he told his press conference recenbr that America wasn't going to Decome involved in the Indochina war and that, if we did, he would first ask authorization from Congress? The answer is that Indochina is not covered by any mutual-defense treaty to which the United States is a party and that the situation is not even like Korea. This means that, if Mr. Eisenhower had been President in June 1950, he might have ordered American troops into action as an implied obligation of the United Nations charter but at the same time he would havt asked for a formal resolution of ratification by Congress immediately afterward. All this boils down to the confident belief that a "hot war" is not on the horizon, and may not be for a long time to come provided the United States maintains its armament program and its present policy of non-appeasement and resoluteness.