Imperial Valley press., 1939-04-17
When PartyLines
Come TumbIing
Bv CHARLES p. STEWART

EX-Secretary of State Henry l..
Stimson and Bernard M. Baruch,
as the Senate Foreign Relations
Committees initial witnesses at its
neutrality investigation, disagreed
in a very peculiar way. Stimson,
a9 everyone knows, is a lifelong
Republican, who might reasonably
have been expected to deprecate
President Roosevelt's argument that
the White House ought to be al
lowed to take sides mot necessarily
in military fashion but in an eX-
preston of Americas sympathieS
between belligerentS) in conditions
of warfare involving foreign coun-
tries. Baruch, a veteran Democratic
counselor. might just as reasonably
have been expected to indorse the
Chief Executives contention that
the administration should be per-
mitted TO use a great deal of its own
Judgment.
Instead, the Republican former
state secretary tended strongly to
concur with the present Democratic
President; whereas Mr.. Baruch, the
chairman of President Wilson'S war
industries board, a Democrat from
way back, gave it as his opinion
that Uncle Sans best bet toward
keeping out of overseas wars is to
treat all belligerents alike.
Their Roles Reversed
In short, Mr.. StimSon testified
exactly as Mr.. Baruch might have
been supposed to testify, and vice
versa as between Mr. Baruch and
Mr.. Stimson.
What they said, respectively, al
ready has been printed in detail. but
| don't think that the odd diverg-
encc between their conflicting teSti-
monies has been emphasized.
Members of the Senate committee
noticed 1t, though. Republican iso-
lationists, like Senators william E.
Borah and Hiram w. Johnson,
razZed Republican eX-State Seere-
tary Stimson considerably. but were
very friendly toward Mr.. Baruch.
Comparatively anti-isolationist So
lons Gin close touch with the White
House,, like Senator Alben w.
Rarkley. the Presidents leader in
the upper congressional chamber,
patted Republican Mr.. StimSon On
the bacl. and inclired TO pan Demo-
cratic MI Baruch.
The discussion hasn't been bitter
thus far. It's been academic.
All the same, the Republican
testimony has been pro the Derl-
ocratic administrations program,
and the Democratic testimony has
been anti"
Chairman Key Pittman of the in
Lestisating committee has been en-
Enthusiastically for the administra-
t4On plan-tC let the White House
boss the job. He has bill OF his
own to authorize it TO do SO. And
a lot of the Republicans are in favor
of it.
Adverse? Senator Gerald P. Nye
Hes a Republican. That's natural
But Representative Ludlow also
He's Democrat And Senator
Hiram Jonnson-a Republican. AnG
Senator Henrik Shipstead-a Far
mer-Laborite. And Senator George
w. Norris-an independent. And
Senator Lynn J. Frazier-Whatever
he is. He wants to make war un-
constitutional.
Who Wins The Debate?
Well, who wins? No war at all
as per Senator Frazier? Compulsory
neutrality-aS per Senator Nye?
War only by plebiScite-aS per Rep
resentative Ludlow? War only under
certain circumStanCes-as per abb
solute necessity-as defined by MI
Raruch and eX-Secretary Stimson
No war at any cost-as per Senators
Johnson and NorriSi
And, if there is i war already (aS
there Isl now are We going TO keel
out of it?
That's the problem the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee i
wrestling with.