Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1938-04-07

Washington.-To have a clear un,
derstanding of the discussion that is
-, 49,. to follow, / think
Inc IVA must first find g
Controversy definition of t h G
word "contuma-
cy." 1t ought to be properly and
officially defined because it is going
to be a 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 GO
ing for months among the three di-
rectors Of IVA. Arthur Morgan had
made accusations against the other
two directors, charges of a libelous
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 a 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
q means of checking a 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 MIR. Roosevelt believed he did