Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-01-18
BY WILLIAM HARD.


Senator David Ignatius Walsh Of
Massachusetts has drafted and will
presently introduce a bill for a Fed
expended upon public works "for the
relief of unemployment and for the
sterilization of business" This bill
seems destined to be one Of the pivots
around which the question will revolve
whether or not the so-called progress
sives" can agree on a legislative pro-
gram and can thereupon agree on a
policy Of forcing the President into the
calling of a special session after March
next.
That the "progreSsives" in the pres
ent parliamentary situation in the Sem
ate now have the power to compel a
special session is certain. The problem
of whether they will do it or not is now
being discussed within their own ranks.
Contrary to common superstition, their
ranks are not united. There genuinely
is no such thing as senatorial pro
gressive bloc" There simply are some
20 or IS Republican and Democratic
Senators Of varying hueS OF progress
sivism" who in almost all instances are
highly independent and highly individ-
ualistic in their methods and manners.
They are soloists. They are not an
OECIleSJId. WIlel J1lSy 1dppCA GIL W
play the same tune, 1t Is not a concert
but coincidence. At the present mo-
ment they have no understanding
whatsoever among themselves as to
what their policies would be IL they
should find themselves faced with the
necessity for action in special session.
Most of them, therefore, at this mo-
a EnQRIQl session
They fear that in it their divisions Of
views would make them look ridiculous
and would by comparison strengthen
the President. In the meantime the
regular Republicans and the regular
Democrats in both houses Of Congress
are Overwhelmingly opposed to spe-
cial session for reasons of their own.
The regular Republicans oppose it be-
cause they fear the Democratic strength
in the Congress which would assemble
after March 4. The regular Democrats
oppose it because they wish the Presi-
dent alone to bear the whole respon-
sibility for whatever economic adversely
may continue to exist in the United
States after March a. The progress
Sives," on the other hand, would like
special session if they could con-
certedly think of something to do in
1t that would conspicuouSly immedi-
ately benefit the country and their
cause, but 80 far they have not in
unison had the thought.
These considerations would seem to
eliminate the possibility of a special
session, and yet 1t is not at this week
end really entirely eliminated. Out of
the clutter Of the proceedings here dur
ing the last few weeks a certain issue
has gradually emerged This issue IS
a deep-doWn conflict between the local
taxpayers and the Federal taxpayers of
the country as to the sharing between
them of the public burden of the re-
lieving Of distress and of the restoring
Of prosperity.
X
1t is In the light of that conflict
that Senator WalshS bill for a $1,000
000. 900 bond issue has to be considered
1t Is similarly in the light Of that same
conflict that consideration Is attracted
by the whole separate bill of Senator
Henrik ShipStead Of Minnesota for a
bond issue Of $500, oo0, 900 for the spe-
cial purpose Of completing the water
way developments of the United States
within q concentrated period Of I'VE
years.
At the present time the emergency
expenditures Of our cities and towns
and villages and counties and States for
the relief of economic distress and for
the providing of work to the voorhees,
are enormously in excess of the cor
responding expenditures of the Federal
Government. Senator Walsh states that
in his own home city of Clinton, Mass,
which has a population Of some $4,000,
there are today approximately 1000
persons who are receiving relief from
local sources. Similarly extreme stu
ations exist throughout many regions
If char
tiles Of the local governments and their
emergency public works amount in cost
to total which so vastly exceeds the
efforts of the Federal Government as
to seem to most senatorial progress
siveS" to be extremely unbalanced and
unfair They accordingly almost unani-
mouSly tend toward favoring certain
amount of direct relief to the destitute
out of Federal funds and also toward
favoring large expansion OF Federal
public works at the expense of the
payers of Federal taxes.
They think that they begin to see in
this issue an underlying fierce fight be-
tween different social elements. Sen
ator Walsh has quite accurately stated
their general point Of view by saying:
r.
what Is all this relief discussion in
Congress about? It Is about who Will
pay the bills for relief. When we talk
about New York and Arkansas and
other cities and States paying the bills,
we are saying that the cost OF relief
must come out Of the pockets OF
large number of tl.e relatively poor
landowners Of this country; for the
local people who will be called upon to
pay taxes for relief in the several
States and communities are for the
most mart the average men and women
who are the owners CT homes and OF
other properties that meet the demands
Of local taxation. Thereupon what DO
those spokesman mean who say that
the Federal Government should not
participate? They mean that the
wealthy of this country, the individual
Federal income taxpayers and the cor
porations which pay Federal income
taxes and the importers of foreign goods
who provide our customs revenue, shall
in respect of large part of their
al, aSak