The Ely miner. [volume] (Ely, Minn.) 1895-1986, 1938-06-23
:B5l||
BY |l! M|a 3 ~ I2'| SsS6ass5Ss

M u III III J mlI IlI III vi III -EI8
atoria1 ears must have burned to b
crisp. Anyway, it brought action
and for that the country ought to be
thankful.
1t might be well to review the SEN
ate action when it ran away from
an honest job on the relief appropri-
alton. First, there was the amend
ment by Senator Hatch, Democrat,
New Mexico, which was to prevent
use of relief funds for political pur-
poses by the simple expedient of
dismissal for the official who had
control over such funds; second,
there was the amendment by Sena-
tor Lodge, Massachusetts Repubi-
can, which would have required a
distribution of the relief funds on
the basis of the number of nem-
ployed in each state and which,
thereby, would have prevented use
of vast sums in some states where
the political battle might be going
against the candidate with a New
Deal blessing, whether the opponent
be an old line Democrat or a Re-
publican; third, there was the
amendment by Senator Rush Holt,
Democrat, of West Virginia, which
merely proposed to make all federal
relief officials responsive to civil
service laws insofar as political &C
tivity was concerned, and fourth,
there was the amendment by Sen
ator Austin, Republican, Vermont,
which would have made it unlawful
for any person whose compensation
comes from relief funds to solicit,
or authorize the solicitation of, funds
as contributions to any political
party.
Well, as I said, the senate ran
away from them and it seems to
me that any senator who voted
against those amendments has a
pretty difficult job to explain that
vote. AS much as admire Senator
Barley, the basis of his argument
was so sour that it smelled to high
heaven. The Kentuckian told the
senate that the amendments would
destroy senators and give all of the
political power into the hands of
state political machines which
could use that power against sena-
tors seeking reelection. Senator
Barley is being challenged for re-
nomination in his state and, I sup
pose, the matter strikes right close
home with him.
Whether senators who voted
against those amendments so in
tended or not, what they have done,
when the picture is examined in an
unbiased fashion, is to put the whole
Roosevelt administration in a ride
ulous position. It was their action
which makes the record show that
the whole administration is willing
to let politics run riot in relief; it
is against a fair and equitable al
location of money among the states
in accordance with the number of
unemployed who must be fed.
AS to the phase of conditions
"back home," the word seeps
-, through to Wash
The Folks ington that a good
Back Home many persons who
are seeking house
or senate nominations against New
Deal aspirants are finding strong
WPA organizations against them
and in favor of the New Deal candi-
date. And the full import of that
strength comes to mind quickly
when one thinks what hungry per-
son will give up in order to have
food.
Senator Tydings of Maryland is
the sponsor of the move to clean
up the mess in relief. Of course,
Senator Tydings, while a staunch
Democrat, seldom has done any,
thing to cause the New Dealers hap
piness; on the contrary, he was
marked for liquidation" long, long
ago. 1t is much better that an out
standing Democrat should have pro-
posed the investigation than to have
had the proposal come from a Re-
publican. Had Republican intro
duced the resolution, the thing
would have been called political,
purely. But it would have been
move calculated to demonstrate the
genuineness of the New Deal if some
Roosevelt 100 per center would have
brought up the proposition.
There is great opportunity for
this new senate committee to serve
the country well. It can, and should,
go into every report it's investiga-
tors obtain to learn to what extent
taxpayers money is being employed
to influence elections. 1t has an out
standing piece upon which to work,
at the very start. Did not Mr.. Hop
kins horn into the Iowa primary?
And everywhere there was the ques-
ton whether the WPA and other re-
lief workers in Iowa would not con-
strue the Hopkins announcement in
behalf of Mr.. Wearin as an "or-
der" for them to support the same
man.
But more important than Mr..
Hopkins, this investigation-if it is
seriously made-can point the ire
mendous fallacy and danger of re
lief being administered from Wash
ington instead of from the states
and the counties where the money
is spent. If the country is made
fully aware of true conditions,
believe there will be changes in the
relief methods that will allow more
than go or 20 cents out of each dol
lar expended to be used for food and
clothing as is the case now.
@ Western Newspaper Union.