Evening star., 1932-02-11
PRINCIPLES VS.. Distress.


La Toilette Costigan bill for direct
Federal aid for the relief OF distress
Senator Fess was placed by his gifted
opponents in the uncomfortable position
of the man who opposes saving human
lives because it is contrary to his
principles. OF course, Senator FeSs did
not take that position. But the follow
ing exchange is typical of the discussion:
Mr. Borah. Suppose. then, that the
local authorities are not taking care OF
them that they are actually suffering
would the Senator still refuse to
appropriate Federal money?
Mr.. Fess. l would. I would insist
upon the local authorities doing their
duty.
Mr. Borah. Mr.. President, We seem
to have the philosophy of the Senator
from Ohio in all its naked and hideous
ugliness. He takes the position that
the National Government should not
aid the suffering, the needy. the sick
and the diseased, even though the local
government is not taking care Of them.
Mr.. Fess. And able to do it.
Mr.. Borah. I say that the local
government is not taking care of them.
- But the Senator takes the position
that although there may be need, al
though there may be hunger. although
there may be want and suffering. and
though the people are not being taken
care of by the local community. the
Senator still would not help them.
And; naturally. when the elusive
principle of justifiable Federal aid is
weighed against the ably represented
fa"t hat thousands of men, women and
CHI. IN are starving to death. the
sllev;aticn of human suffering has all
TIE best of the argument.
But nowhere in that Senate deb te
yesterday was it affirmed that the ap-
preparation of S375 900, 900, as provided
under the terms of the La Follette-
Costig3n measure, will correct the con-
ditions so eloquently portrayed by Sen
ator Borah. We learn that there is
widespread and terrible suffering in this
country. In some places the situation
is beyond description. Thousands and
millions CT homes in this country, for
merly owned but now merely occupied
by good American citizens. have not
had a day free from care and actual
want for from eighteen months to two
years. Disease Is now visiting these
homes and taking away the children by
reason of the undermined physical con-
dition of those children. I am not
willing, out of superstitious regard for
the responsibilities of local government
and the responsibility Of national gov
ernment, to refuse to do my duty to
humanity"
But the question here is whether
the Federal Government can assume
the responsibility of doing its duty to
humanity according to the conception
OF such duty held by the proponents OF
direct Federal aid Can the Federal
Government, by the appropriation of
money for direct relief of suffering,
expect to remove the conditions de-
scribed by Senator Borah? When a
Federal bureau is set up in Washing
ton and backed by S375 100000 in cash
1OT ulSpSIlSdllOIl dulOllS dli VI lilOSc
who suffer and are in need, how far
will the bureau or the money go? What
Is the measure of the tangible good
that they will accomplish? How long
will it be before another s375,oo0,000
fund, and another, and still another,
is demanded. backed not only by the
pictures Of the thousands who suffer,
but of the thousands whose suffering
has not been alleviated by Federal
Government that has assumed that di-
rect responsibility?
The question is not Of the need of
1915 900 900 or of $3,75O,oOo,0Oo. The
question is not one of the pitiable dis
tress and suffering and hardship
throughout the land. If the mere ap-
preparation of Federal money would
relieve distress, that money would be
appropriated. 1t is not a question Of
the desire to relieve distress, but OF
ability to relieve distress through meth
DDS advocated by proponents Of direct
Federal aid.