The Waterbury Democrat., 1936-07-06

permanent weather change
 Two years ago their chief, Henry Wallace, made 8 statement that the 1884 drought was "smch au wo have never had in tilis country, and are not likely ever to have again"
 Henry was wrong, however, and the big question mark iti some peoples minds is whether sue. cesslve droughts will gradually turn the Middle West into Q Sahara.
 The experts who study the weather charts say No. There will be no permanent change of climate. We are only pass. ing through Q dry cycle Of our normal climate. Periods of re.
 curing drought are not new. I'm the Bible story, Pharaoh dreamed of seven lean kline that ate up the fat Kline, and 10. seph interpreted the dream to mean recurring years of want and years Os plenty.
 There have been five droughtS of national importance In recent history: 1894, 1901, 1890 and 1884. To compensate for recent droughtS there probably will be excessive moisture for some time to come. Man.Made Drought?
 The weather experts also have been doing research into the cause of drought, to learn whether it iS Inan-Ynade or ilature-i1ade. They have concluded that 1t definitely is Q phenomenon of nature.
 What they say iS that man has been mistaken blaming himself for droughtS ever since the days of Columbus. During his second voyage, in 1404, Columbus noted in his log the daily showers i1 Jamaica, and reasoned that such showers were not enjoyed in the islands of Spain because "the woods are cut down that shaded them"
 Forests, however, do not proc duce rain; they merely help re. tain moisture. What Columbus should have noted was that the trees did not grow along Spanish islands because they got no rain.
 On the other hand, the denud- ing of forests and the blowing up of prairie grass has contributed to dust-storns and the quick run- off of water, 50 there is less re. serve in the soil when drought does hit the country.
 Rough Treatment
 Uncle Dan Roper's Business Ad- visory Council, supposed to ce- ment happiness and content. ment between the New-D Deal and big business, has decided to go into eclipse for the dura ton of the campaign.
 This decision was not entirely voluntary. It was more or less forced on the Council at an un. recorded conference with the President not long ago.
 Some of the business big wigs on the Council thought it would be . good idea to tell Roosevelt why big business couldn't stomach the New Deal. An emlssary was dispatched to Marvin Mcintyre, White House secretary, to demand an ap- p0lntment, preferably 2 luncheon engagement.
 The tone and manner of the spokesman was that of C big business nogul giving Q command to an underling.
 FDR Hits Roof
 When this reached the ear of the President he hit the ceiling. He told Mcintyre to tell the Council he would let them have Q half hour when 1t could be conveniently fitted into his sched- ule. But luncheon was out.
 The conference, when 1t final ly did take place, was not what the callers anticipated. Instead of their doing the talking. the President took the floor. Tn pointed language he read them a lecture on "Chiselers" and critics. He cited the fact that, while busi- ness men were denouncing admin istration policies, production, sales and profits were soaring to 1929 levels.
 The business men had little to say fl, reply. Shortly after this conference, the Council decided to adjourn for the summer. Free Speech
 Tn the autumn of 1883 Miss Perkins, secretary of labor of the United States, was denied permis. sion to address 8 public gather ing at Homestead, Pa, @ strong hold of the steel baronS.
 The mayor, Q republican, was quoted as saying that he wouldn't let God Himself speak if he didn't want him to; and Miss Perkins had to speak in the federal build ing.
 This week, three years later, Fred Kennedy, vice president of the United Mine Workers, far more objectionable to the steel barons than Miss Perkins, is cnnakiYau fin H0meskead in an efs