The Waterbury Democrat., 1936-05-04
TERM "ABOLISH NEW DEAL DEAL" DIFFICULT TO DEFINE; EVERYTHING \ PART OF IT." SAYS MR. FARLEY
Democratic National Committee Chairman Takes Exception to DuPOnt Liberty Leaguers' Objections
 in Sweeping Statement in PittsfeId Last Week

Washington, D. O., May 4-"You will perhaps remember that an erli- lent spokesman of the old Order pfopheSied in l032 that if the poli- cies of his administration were inc tefrupted by the election of the gov- ernor of New York to the presi- dency, grass would grow in the streets of our great cities and that ruin would rule over the whole country Chairman James A. Far. ley of the Democratic National Committee said in Q speech ct Pitts. feld, Mass, last Thursday.
 "Now we are being told by the same high authority and by the due Pont Liberty League and their sub- sidiaries, that # the policies that have brought business back to 6 prosperous state are not abandoned, again our industrial sections will be- come COW pastures.
 we read every day and hear over the radio these political Jeremiahs explaining that business recovery is here despite the New Deal; that the president of this country is bent on changing our democracy to a dictatorship, a Soviet system: that he will abolish the supreme court, defy the constitution, regiment every form of industry and agriculture. In short that Franklin Roosevelt will do everything in his power to des- troy the prosperity he has brought about.
 'These campaign arguments are of no more consequence than when George Washington was accused of trying to set Up a Kingdom with himself as monarch, when Jefferson was black-guarded as Q communist, when Lincoln was charged with criminal usurpation of executive power and when Theodore Roosevelt was pilloried as arl advocate of so- cialistic philosophy.
 "You can hardly pick up . news- paper without being startled by the violent conflict between it's opinion columns and its business columns and the evident inconsistency of those who assail the Roosevelt ad- if1inistration. I noted for example in the New York Times the other day the story of the annual report of AL fred P. Sloan, head of General Motors Corporation, directed to his stockholders. The headline read: Sloan Finds Trade Hurt by New Deal Just below 1t, on the same page, was printed the financial Statement of General Motors Cor pogation, which Mir. Sloan himself had submitted to his stockholders.
 "That financial statement recited that in l035 it's net sales amounted to $i,i66, 100000, as against $872,- 87B, 1000 in 1884; its accumulation of fiCw assets in 1885 was $50, ,000, ,000; its net earnings in 1885 were 9i07,- 100000, compared to @llO,000, ,000 in 1884. Now if you want more dran- atic exposition of what the New Deal has meant to General Motors Corporation, compare It's 1o7 million dollar net income for 1895, with its net income of 166 thousand dollars reported for 1883. A lapse of only two years, 24 months of Roosevelt end ruin.
 T do not pick out this particular business incident because Mir. Sloan is Q large contributor to the Liberty League or because General Motors is to . very large extent 6 duPont corporation, but simply as Q shining example of how little relationship exists between the political express sions of those who are striving to abolish the New Deal and the plain facts as they are told on the finan- cial pages of tho newspapers. Pos. sibly no better comment could be