St. Louis Post-Dispatch from St. Louis, Missouri • Page 24

PAGE 7C ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH, FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1945 SI LOUIS POST-OISPATCH Mr. Byrnes's Speech founded by JOSEPH PVUTZEX. clause to which the Governor objected, and repassing the measure. The dispute that has been provoked by the wholly desirable move to increase State park funds should convince Mr.

Donnelly that a change in the board setup is essential, and that his signature on a revision bill is in order. Dtfmhn I J. Wf TJic Pulitzer Publishing Ce. Tllcfliont AiiitU UAin 1111 fill St. (If THE POST-DISPATCH PLATFORM i I knew that tnf retirement will fhake no difference in iu cardinal principle; that it will always fifht tor progress and reform, never Xol-erale injustice or corruption, always fight demagogues of all parties, never belong to any party, always oppose privileged classes and public plunderers, never lack sympathy with the poor, always remain devoted to the public welfare; never be satisfied with merely printing news; always be drastically independent; never be afraid to attack wrong, whether by predatory plutocracy or predatory poverty.

JOSEPH PULITZER. April 10, 1907. LETTERS FROM THE PEOPLE The Falzone Case Is Not Ended The resignation of Senator Falzone of Clayton from the Missouri Senate, without making a case against charges that he solicited a $1500 bribe from cosmetologists for his help in passing a bill, is not the end of the matter. The charge now becomes a proper matter for investigation and action by the law enforcement authorities of Cole County, whose Prosecuting Attorney Riley has announced that he will ascertain whether he would be warranted in proceeding against Falzone on a criminal charge. It also becomes a proper matter for grand jury investigation to determine what person or persons made anonymous telephone calls threatening to kidnap or injure the son of Mark D.

Eagleton of St. Louis, one of the Senate's attorneys in the Falzone case, and to besmirch tha reputation of Mrs. Lillian Maccallum, former director of the State Division of Cosmetology and Hairdressing and the principal witness against Senator Falzone. Threats of kidnaping and malicious slander are serious offenses, and every effort should be made by the law enforcement officers of St Louis and St. Louis County, as well as of Cole County, to track down the source of the offense and see that the proper punishment is meted out.

The Legislature also has a piece of unfinished business in connection with the case. Giving, accepting and offering a bribe are legally felonies in Missouri, but soliciting a bribe is only a misdemeanor. Legislation should be enacted to make the solicitation of a bribe a felony. A bill to this effect was Introduced but defeated. Senator Falzone has said he has no connection with the anonymous threats.

Obviously they were made in his interest. If, as he says, he is Innocent of any part in this contemptible business, he deserves to be cleared. Collaterally, if he had any part in it, he deserves to be exposed and punished. This is not a matter to be decided on the basis of what Falzone or any other individual personally prefers. Certain grave offenses are alleged.

The proper course is to get to the bottom of them. Secretary Byrnes's speech before the Herald Tribune Forum introduced a new note in American foreign policy. It suggests that we may be approaching the maze of diplomatic problems that lie ahead armed with something besides self-conscious power and a rigid conviction of our own virtue. This is the first time since he has become custodian of our tangled International relationships that Mr. Dyrnes has functioned in the role that suits him bestthe fole of conciliator.

The impression in some circles that the Secretary was compromising principles and indorsing spheres of influence is not borne out by the text of the speech, which is printed on this page today. What he actually said, after recalling the unruly and now repudiated days of "Yankee imperialism," was that regional arrangements are no "substitute for a world system," and that "regional isolationism" is a real menace to it The suggestion is plain: this country isn't taking up arms against Russian ideas of security, but we strongly urge pursuing them along different lines from those now in use. When he reiterated our belief in free choice of government, in economic sovereignty for nations, in free exchange of news and in noninterference, he was speaking of them as general principles, positive instruments for working policy, as useful to Russia as they would be to us. There seems to be one weakness in Byrnes's logic an Implication that there is no present incompatibility between regionalism and progress toward the one-world idea. Actually, what he says is that regionalism exists both benevolent regionalism and a cruder kind and he's not going to pretend it doesn't.

You can't fight an enemy you don't face. It is well to remember that regionalism and its companion, the sphere of Influence, were wrangled over and strengthened at Teheran, at Yalta and Chapultepec, at the time the war was going on and unity was the Big Three theme song. They will be with us until the one-world idea is realized to supplant them. Mr. Byrnes's speech took a step short but effective toward dispelling some of the fears and soothing some of the mistrusts that actuate powers like Russia and Great Britain and the United States when they seek protection in regionalism and spheres of influence.

They cannot be broken down until the fears themselves are broken down. Mr. Byrnes addressed himself to a first thing first. The list of American fears about Russia is well known. But since Mr.

Byrnes at last gives signs of seeking a higher level for negotiation, it is appropriate to catalogue some Russian fears about us. Specifically: Our own regionalism in the Western Hemisphere. Our domination of the Pacific. Our failure to demand democracy for India, Java, Indo-China and China itself at the same time we insist upon it in the Balkans. Our wartime approval of British attempts to dominate Italy and Greece, and our tolerance of British and French imperialism in the Middle East.

Our practice of agreeing on a policy line with England in advance of almost every Big Three meeting, so that the Russian vote is usually Isolated 2 to 1. Talk of a "Western bloc." accelerated by French alignment with England, China and ourselves at London. Lax enforcement of economic policy in Germany. The bitter memories, easily refreshed, of Allied invasion of Russia after the last war, the "cordon sanitaire," exclusion from the League of Nations, appease-snent, the Munich deal, the rebuffs to Litvinov's internationalism. Mr.

Byrnes at least made a beginning on the task of finding a way around some of these barriers to understanding. Old Deal That Was To the Editor of tha Post-Diapatch: W. J. Shea in a letter to this column quotas Attorney General Tom Clark as Baying: "It's Truman for sure In 1948 and perhaps in 1952 and 1956." Mr. Shea r.eminds ua that Bryan was nominated by the Democrats and defeated again and again and again.

He ahould have added that the Democrats nominated Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932, 1936, 1940 and 1944. and that the American people cast outmoded tradition and precedent to the four winds and elected him again and again and again. Sinca Mr. Shea has seen fit to delve Into rather ancient election history.

I would like to remind him that Bryan ran In "the good old days' when tha malodoroua Old Deal was in tha zenith of its power. They wera the days when that Old Deal King, Mark A. Hunt, collected a fabulous slush fund. Those were the days when employes cf large corporations found in their pay envelopes on the Saturday before election intimidatory notes which read: "If the national Administration is not returned to office, this plant will closo down." I wonder if Mr. Shea can recall that here In St.

Louis In 1896, hundreds of men and women wera discharged because they refused to obey the orders of their employers to march in a "Gold Bug" parade? Aa lata aa 1940, a large corporation in thia city resorted to this form of coercion, and when exposed and denounced by Congressman John J. Cochran, it desisted and Issued a statement to ita employes that they were at liberty to vote aa they pleased. (Which, of course, waa very kind of that corporation.) This is the way our captains of industry who are everlastingly demanding the preservation of our American system of free enterprise would preserve the inherent American principle of freedom of thought. But thanks to the late and lamented Franklin D. Roosevelt, the "good old days" can never recur.

M. J. M. DISPLACED PERSON From the Chicago Times. The Vanishing Drink Some slight homage is owing to the Southwestern Jackrabbit, which, according to studies made by the University of Arizona, can take it or leave it alone.

These remarkable creatures, and many other desert animals, millions of them, never touch the stuff. No Aquatics Anonymous for them. They are on the food wagon, and as for water they feel no craving for it whatever. What this will do to the prestige of water as a beverage we leave to the W. C.

T. U. to ascertain. But can the most one-sided aquaphile deny that the jackrabbit is healthy, that he is industrious, that ha loves his family? Is he not as moral, as admirable as, say, the camel, which goes on sheer binges of water-drinking? No one seriously questions the merits of water for bathing, generating electric power and solving the housing problem for fish. But if the Arizona jackrabbit is one jump ahead of the procession, as it seems reasonable to suppose he is, water as a beverage is going down the drain.

World Organization by Neighborhoods An Address- by Secretary of State James F. Byrnes at Ihe New York Herald Tribune Forum on Current Problems Meanest-Man Nomination To the Editor of the Post-Dispatch: The meanest man In tha world is an officer who would keep men in the Army to keep himself in job, or in his present rank. E. HENRI. The Delusion of Sovereignty To the Editor of the Post-Dispatch: Senator Fulbright says that the nations of the earth, to secure peace, must cede "a part" of their sovereignty to a world government.

What part? Mortimer Adler has given us the answer in hia lucid essay, "How to Think About War and Peace. The nations participating in world government must sacrifice ALL of their sovereignty in EXTERNAL, or international, affairs. They would retain their internal (civil) sovereignty to become aa states in a greater nation of tha world. This is tha price of peace; no half-measure will suffice. Our own Civil War should adequately have demonstrated what would happen to a union of states if each atate were permitted to make and execute its own laws regardless of their effect upon neighboring states.

Tha result would be anarchy auch aa prevails among nations today. Several centuries henca (and let us hope, much sooner), our contemporary notions about national sovereignty will appear aa absurd to men then living as tha concept of the divine rights of Kings seems to us today. DONALD DATES. Censorship in Palestine An American news correspondent, Constantine Poulos, has been expelled from Palestine by the United States Army, acting at the request of Brit-ish officials. This summary action against a competent newspaper man raises a serious question of British Government policy and a further question of our Army's understanding that wartime censorship is done with.

Poulos, who had been in Palestine just a week, had written one dispatch in which he likened the situation there to that in Greece in the fall of 1944 and said that the repressive measures of the British reflected the violence of their methods against Greek Leftists. His expulsion followed Immediately. Is it Britain's intention to keep Its activities in Palestine hidden from the world at a time when the question of admitting more Jews to the country is an issue of world concern? Is it the policy of the Labor Government to set up barriers to the free flow of news? Finally, is it the policy of our Army to act positively to suppress the reporting of news? An investigation and Poulos's re-admlsslon to Palestine have been demanded. Persons concerned for free world news' will be interested in the official explanation of the incident. They will be more interested to see if Poulos goes back.

A Bad Transportation Bill By exempting railroad rate-making conferences from the anti-trust laws, the pending Bulwinkle bill would legislate the ground out from under the Federal Government's and State of Georgia's suits against the railroads. It is like the attempt to quiet title to tideland oil before the Supreme Court can act, and for the same reason that a judicial determination is needed, the bill should be rejected. There is, of course, a seeming anomaly in the Government's suing against practices accepted, at least tacitly, by the Interstate Commerce Commission. Obviously, too, the railroads, being interconnected, must work in concert on many matters. It is only just, therefore, that they come in for no heavy penalties for past practices consented to by the ICC.

Unlike the member roads, however, the powerful rate conferences are not under ICC regulation. A Senate committee was unable in 1943 to work out a scheme for bringing them under such regulation. The issues were not clear enough. They lacked precisely that definition which only the courts can give them. Furthermore, the Interstate Commerce Act, in draftsmanship or administration or both, has often failed to give the even-handed justice for which it was intended.

On numerous occasions, it has seemed to concede too much to the principle of monopoly and too little to competition. Inevitably, therefore, large unreconciled differences have developed between ICC regulation and the anti-trust laws. The gap needs closing and the differences need harmonizing. The Bulwinkle bill, with the whole-hearted support of the railroads, would do it by throwing anti-trust overboard. The record is not good enough to support that action.

Rather, the law suits should be pushed through to a conclusion. Then, and only then, will Congress know what legislation, if any, Is really needed. The subject about which I wish to speak briefly this evening ia "neighboring nations in one world." It waa no accident that President Roosevelt, who did so much to develop our inter-American system, did even more to develop the world community of the United Nations. For today all nations are neighbors, and although wa may have special relations with our nearer neighbors in the Americas, we must remember that and they are parts of a single, interdependent world. When we consider the principles which govern our Inter-American system as it haa been worked out in recent years, it is well to remember that these principles were not always recognized by ua in our relations with our neighbors.

There were times, not so far distant, when we tried dollar diplomacy and intervention and were accused of Yankee imperialism. But we have learned by experience that to have good neighbors, we must be a good neighbor. We have discovered that understanding and good will cannot be bought and cannot be forced. They must spring spontaneously from the people. We have learned also that there can be no lasting friendship between governments unless there is understanding and good will between their peoples.

Understanding in the Americas In the inter-American system, the members do not Interfere in the internal affairs of their neighbors, nor do they brook interference in those internal affairs by others. But we do want other people to know what our people are thinking and doing. And we want to know what other people are thinking and doing. Only with auch knowledge can each people determine for itself its way of life. Wa believe other nations have a right to know of our own deep attachment to the principles of democracy and human rights, our profound belief that governments must rest upon the free consent of the governed, and our firm conviction that peace and understanding among natlona can best be furthered by the free exchange of ideas.

While we adhere to the policy of nonintervention, we assert that knowledge of what other people are thinking and doing brings understanding. And understanding brings tolerance and a willingness to cooperate in tha adjustment of differences. Censorship and blackouts, on the other hand, breed suspicion and distrust And all too often this suspicion and distrust are justified. For censorship and blackouts are the handmaidens of oppression. How Tyranny Grows The policy of non-intervention in internal affairs does not mean the approval of local tyranny.

Our policy is intended to protect the right of our neighbors to develop their own freedom in their own way. It is not intended to give them free rein to plot against the freedom of others. We have learned by bitter experience in the past 10 years that Nasi and Fascist plans for external aggression started with tyrannies at home which were falsely defended as matters of purely local concern. We have learned that tyranny anywhere must be watched, for it may come to threaten the security of neighboring nations and soon become the concern of all nations. If, therefore, there are developmenta In any country within the inter-American system which, realistically viewed, threaten our security, we consult with other members in an effort to agree upon common polices for our mutual protection.

We Americans can take genuine pride In the evolution of the good neighbor policy from what in a way, were its beginnings in the Monroe Doctrine. We surely cannot and will not deny to other natlona the right to develop such a policy. Far from opposing, wa have sympathized with, for example, the effort of the Soviet Union to draw into closer and more friendly association with her Central and Eastern European neighbors. We are fully aware of her special security interests in those countries, and we have recognized those interests in the arrangements made for the occupation and control of the former enemy states. Sympatby for Russia's View We can appreciate the determination of the people of the Soviet Union that never again will they tolerate the pursuit of policies in those countries deliberately directed against tha Soviet Union's security and way of life.

And America will never Join any groups in those countries in hostile intrigue against the Soviet Union. We are also confident that the Soviet Union would not join in hostile intrigue against us in this hemisphere. We are concerned to promote friendship, not strife, among neighbors everywhere. For twice in our generation strife among neighbors has led to world conflict. Lasting peace among neighbors has its roots in spontaneous and genuine friendship.

And that kind af friendship among nations depends upon mutual respect for one another. It is our belief that all peoples should ba free to choose their own form of government, a government based upon the consent of the governed and adapted to their way of life. We have put that belief into practice in our relation with our neighbors. The Soviet Union has also declared that it does not wish to force the Soviet system on its neighbors. The whole-hearted acceptance of thia principle by all the United Nations 'will greatly strengthen the bonds of friendship among nations everywhere.

Regionalism Not Exclusive But the point I wish to emphasize is that the policy of the good neighbor, unlike tha institution of marriage, is not an exclusive arrangement. The best neighbors do not deny their neighbors the right to be friends with others. We have learned that our security interests in this hemisphere do not require its isolation from economic and cultural relations with the rest of the world. We have freely accepted the Charter of the United Nations, and we recognize the paramount authority of the world community. The Charter, while reserving to ua and other nations the inherent right of individual and collective self-defense in case of armed attack, requires that enforcement action taken under regional arrangements be sanctioned by the Security Council of the United Nations Organization.

Moreover, we adhere strictly to the policy that co-operation among the American republics does not Justify discrimination against non-American states. The American republics have practiced the policy of equal treatment for all states which respect the sovereignty and integrity of their fellow states. Inter-American co-operation Is not inconsistent with world-wide co-operation among the nations. Regional arrangements, like the inter-American system, which respect the rights and interests of other states and fit into the world system, can become strong pillars in the structure of world peace. But we cannot recognize regional arrangements as a substitute for a world system.

To do so would not promote the common and paramount interests of all nations, large and small, in world peace. Regions in a World System We live in one world, and in this Atomic Age regional Isolationism is even more dangerous than is national isolationism. Wa cannot have the kind of co-operation necessary for peace in a world divided into spheres of exclusive influence and special privilege. This was the great significance of tha Moscow Declaration of 1943. That Joint statement of policy pledged the world'a most powerful nationa to mutual co-operation in winning the war and maintaining tha peace.

It was a landmark in our efforts to create a world community of nations and to abandon tha discredited system of International relations based upon exclusive spheres of influence. Out of the Moscow Declaration have come the Dumbarton Oaks, Teheran, Crimea, San Francisco and Potsdam conferences. And the United Nations Organization and the London Council of Foreign Ministers wera created In tha spirit of that declaration. International co-operation must as I emphasized in my recent report on the London council depend upon intelligent compromise. It does not require us or any other nation to neglect its special relations with its nearer neighbors.

But it does require that all neighborly relations be fitted into an organized system of International relations world-wide in scope. Equal Rights for All Nations The world system which we seek to create must be based on the principle of tha sovereign equality of nations. That dooa not mean that all nations are equal in power and in influence any more than all men are equal in power and influence. But it does mean equal respect for the individuality and sovereignty of nations, large and small. Nations, like Individuals, should be equal before the law.

That principle is the cornerstone of our inter-American system as it is the corner-atone of the United Nations. Adherence to that principle in the making of the peace ia necessary if we are to achieve enduring peace. For enduring peace is indivisible. It is not the exclusive concern of a few large states or a few large groups of states. It is tha concern of all peoples.

Believing this, the position of the United States will continue to be that the nations, large and small, which have borne the burdens of the war must participate in making the peace. In centuries past, powerful nationa for various purposes tried to divide the world among themselves. They failed, and in failing left a trail of blood through the centuries. Such efforts have even less chance of success in the modern world where all nations have become neighbors. Today the world must take its choice.

There must be one world for all of ua or there will be no world for any of us. A Temptation to Crime To U) Editor of the Post-Dispatch: Ten years ago I was employed in a bank, and sinca leaving the field I'va often wondered why there weren't more rases such as the one we've recently read about in the papers. To my mind, banking is one of the poorest-paid occupations a man or woman can choose. Good hours, yes, but a person cannot raise a family and present a decent appearance on that. Why bank employes haven't organized to demand livable salaries is beyond me.

Why the bonding companies haven't forced banks to raise their salary scales is also puriling. T. M. SMITH. Politics and the Park Board The fact that Missouri has an inadequate and political State Park Board opens the way to Just such attacks as that made on Attorney General Taylor by Chairman King of the House Appropriations Committee in the controversy over providing adequate funds for the park system.

King charges that the Attorney General is backing the demands merely for political effect Of course, legitimate reasons exist for a larger appropriation, in the rundown condition of the parks and in the fact that the new Constitution calls for larger funds. But so long as the Park Board is so largely political, including as it does the Governor and Attorney General in addition to the Conservation Commissioner, political charges will be made against it, and there is danger that some of them will be true. The setup is undesirable for the further reason that these three officials are kept busy with their regular duties, cannot meet as frequently as they should and cannot get a real grasp of park problems. What is needed is a fulltlme, bi-partisan Park Board, serving staggered terms, as proposed in the bill passed by the Legislature but vetoed by Gov. Donnelly last June.

The present dispute emphasizes the need for viving the bill, eliminating the emergency Spam in the Breach To the Editor of the Post-Dispatch: As yet I haven't aeen the Spam advertisement the Hormel people are running this week in the slick magazines, but I would be willing to bet my last dime that there is one GI who would agree with all they say about it. In a letter received a couple of days ago from my son who is on Okinawa, written after the latest typhoon which upset their meal-time schedule by blowing their mess hall and most of the food supplies out to sea, he writes: "We had half a case of Spam, and one of the fellows salvaged some storage eggs somewhere tonight, and boy, did wa eat! Do you know what Spam and eggs tastes like after a month of Okinawa rations, which even before the storm consisted solely of Australian goat, Vienna sausage and mashed dehydrated potatoes? Oh, Lordy!" MRS. NORMAN COX Granite City. An Unjust Pearl Harbor Rule The Republican minority of four on Congress's Pearl Harbor Committee, which is protesting President Truman's rule that a majority vote will be required to obtain Army or Navy records or to call witnesses from the armed forces, will be effectively submerged if the rule stands. So long as the Republicans must carry two of the six Democrats along with them in order for any of their ideas about the introduction of evidence to prevail, the bi-partisan make-up of the committee is pure sham.

The injustice can only intensify any disposition to make the inquiry a party affair, and there is every reason why it should be nothing of the sort. If records can properly be obtained and witnesses can properly be called at all. they should be as much subject to the wishes of the Republicans on the committee as of the Democrats..