The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1939-02-23

defend his fidelity to the American
system of life and economy.
In days gone by it was generally as
sumed that when a man was named to
a responsible Federal office he was an
American, believed in American insti-
buttons and the American way of do
ing things and that he subscribed with
out reservations of any kind to the
Constitution. None ever thought of
questioning an appointee about such
matters.
But now we have the strange spec
tacle of men named to high office be-
ing required to defend their American
ism against doubts raised by their past
records. Such defenses are put forth
as though they were all that need be
said in behalf of the qualifications for
office.
Claim They Are Americans
Thus we have Secretary of Com
MERGE Harry L. Hopkins squirming
about, protesting that he is in favor
of the profit system (Which means our
present economic system) and that he
is not Socialist, though once regis
tered as member of that party. We
have Secretary of Labor Frances Per-
kins insisting before a House Commit
tee that she is a good American. We
have Felix Frankfurter dramatically
telling a Senate Committee inquiring
into his appointment to the Supreme
Court that he has as high a regard for
the Constitution as any living man.
We have Attorney General Frank
Murphy affirming his belief in law and
order.
And, last but not least, we have
Thomas R. Amlie defending his nomi-
nation to be member of the Inter
state Commerce Commission. Though
several years ago Mr.. Amlie consorted
with Communists and wrote that our
present economic system Capital
ism) sis not worth saving" he in
sisted to a Senate Committee that he
is not Communist and has no sympa-
thy with Communist aims.
Roosevelt Action Strange
The strange part of these perform
ances is not that these persons have
been questioned regarding their AM
ericanism but that Mr.. Roosevelt
should name to major posts appoin-
tees of whom such questions had to be
asked. There is ample reason, as a re-
suit of developments during the last
four years, why the question of the
Americanism of such appointees
should be raised.
For instance, there are the findings
of the Dies Committee. This group re-
ported evidence of an infiltration of
Communistic ideas into the Federal
Government. In a report signed by five
Democrats and two Republicans, the
committee reported it was Convinced"
by evidence before it that David j.
Saposs, chief economist for the Ma
tional Labor Relations Board, sis eth
er Communist or is sympathetic with
Communist teachings"
From his own expressions and ac-
tivities, it is impossible to reach any
other conclusion" the committee went
on. "When it is considered that Mr.
David j. Saposs occupies one of the
key positions in the National Labor
Relations Board, and that he was pub
licly defended by Mr.. Warren Madden,
chairman of the National Labor Re-
lations Board, a most astounding Sit
uation is presented.
"In defending Mr.. Saposs, Mr.. Mad
den places a stamp of approval upon
Mr.. Saposs' expressions of Commun-
list views and his activities along this
line which creates a grave doubt with
regard to the National Labor Rela-
lions Board in view of these facts"
SapOss Is Like Amlie
Mr.. Saposs is still the chief econo-
mist for the Labor Relations Board.
Of course he denies he is a Commun-
list, just as Mr.. Amlie does-and takes
refuge in the same explanation, name
ly, that such expressions of his as
capitalism cannot be stabilized' and
bourgeois democracy is a sham" con-
stitute descriptive writing and not his
own opinion.
Well, if Messrs. Saposs and Amlie
are not Communists, they certainly
are not Democrats in any sense of the
word. If they do not preach a totali-
tartan doctrine, they certainly are not
preaching Americanism. In this age of
pinning label on everyone-such as
liberal, Tory, reactionary and left
winger-a word descriptive of the
Amlies and Saposses should be imme-
dately coined.
We think we have the precise word