The Ely miner. [volume] (Ely, Minn.) 1895-1986, 1938-04-07

must hrSt md a
Controversy definition of tn e
word "contuma-
cy.' It ought to be properly and
officially defined because it is going
to be very important word in this
country. So, I read from the die
tionary here on my desk the follow
ing definition:
CONTUMACY, contemptuous dis
regard Of authority; insolent dis
regard of authority; incorrigible OBJ
stinacy.
Next, it should be set down that
there are-rather, there were two
men with the surname of Morgan
as officials of the Tennessee Valley
authority before President Roose-
welt removed one of them from Of
fee for contumacy. The fact that
there were two Morgans must be
remembered because each one fig
ures prominently in a continuing
controversy and for the reason that
neither one of the Morgans is con-
nected with "the House of Morgan"
to which so many demagogues refer
when they talk about economic roy
alists.
In the third place, we should know
something about David E. Lilien-
thai, who, like the two Morgans,
also was director of the iva. Mr..
Lilienthal continues to be director,
as does Harcourt Morgan. The Nor
gan who no longer has official con-
nection with IVA, according to
President Roosevelt, is DR.. Arthur
E. Morgan, founder of the famous
Antioch college at Yellow Springs,
Ohio. Arthur Morgan was removed
as chairman of the IVA because
the President said he was guilty Of
"contumacy," and Harcourt Nor
gan was made chairman.
The removal took place by execu-
tive order after Mr.. Roosevelt had
personally held three hearings for
the purpose, he said, of determining
who was wrong in an old-fashioned
cat and dog fight that has been 60
ing for months among the three di-
rectors of IVA. Arthur Morgan had
made accusations against the other
two directors, charges of Gbelous
nature, charges of dishonesty-in
short, charges that the other two
directors were guilty of enough
things to cause their removal from
office. Arthur Morgan had openly
urged congressional investigation
of the iva as well, and when Mr..
Roosevelt made his own investiga-
ton and Arthur Morgan refused to
offer one iota of evidence to sup
port his previous charges, he was
guilty of contumacy and the Chief
Executive removed, or just plain
fred, him.
And SO, we come to another
phase. In urging congressional
investigation, Arthur Morgan fol-
lowed what he thought was the prop
er course. He held that the IVA
was a creature Of congress which
placed in its law, its legal charter,
that none of the directors could be
removed unless on charges that they
had played political favorites in
iva appointments. He thought that
the White House investigation was
a means of checking congressional
investigation which had been so Wig
orously opposed by Senator Norris
of Nebraska, father of the IVA and
Roosevelt supporter. That is to say,
Chairman Morgan didn't believe
President Roosevelt had any author
ity to call in the three directors
and there, in the presence of all,
compel the chairman to substanti-
ate his charges. So he stood pat.
But Mr.. Roosevelt believed he did
have authority and he used it. He
removed Arthur Morgan and pro-
NOTED Harcourt Morgan to the iva
Craftsmanship. 49,.
Well, there had been a lot of
hemming and having around the
senate over the general iva in
vestigation proposed by the fighting
young Styles Bridges of New Hamp-
shire, who was joined in the battle
by Sen. William H. King of Utah.
Senator Norris succeeded in stalling
the investigation for quite awhile.
But after the White House investiga-
ton which Senator Bridges con-
temptuously referred to as ''comic
opera trial." things began to happen
in the house Of representatives as
well as in the senate and so now
there is scheduled an investigation
in which house and senate will join,
an inquiry that will 60 into every
phase of IVA to see what makes it
tick.
There can be no doubt at all that
instead of satisfying the country,
especially congress, as to the merits
Of the IVA row, the White House
investigation had the effect of bring
ing about a far-reaching investiga-
ton in congress. Many bitter words
have been uttered about the White
House course in firing Arthur Nor
gan, observations that Mr.. Roose-
Welt had "railroaded" the chairman
out of the iva job; assertions that
it constituted an American version
Of the famed French "Dreyfus
case" assertions that "contumacy
is crime only where dictators OPP
crate" etc. Try as they may now,
the public ownership advocates, so-
cialists and others who believe in
the state owning everything, are due
to have the varnish removed from