The Ypsilanti daily press. (Ypsilanti, Mich.) 1928-1962, 1941-05-31

It's true that his effort was
rather to get pro-Yankee stuff
into print than N the direction Of
suppression. South American ed
itors quickly recognized that he
wasn't trying to muzzle them.
Hence they not only didn't resent
his activities. They outright ap.
preciated his service, asked for II
and published it ad lib. The Com
pub was alright.
I don't particularly quarrel with
a cable censorship, either. It's a
nuisance, which can be carried to
ridiculous extremes, as it was dur
ing the 1914-1S period. I had ex-
perience with that, too, for / was
a Yankee correspondent in Lon
don, and. off and on, on the West
Front, before we entered the ear
lier conflict. 1t always made me
sore to have dumb-headed censor
ditch a perfectly harmless dis
patch that I'd filed. Still, / can
see that a. certain amount Of dis
erection. relative to international
communication, may be necessary
In such an emergency.
Radio Censorship
George also supports a radio
censorship. I begin to get a bit
sensitive on that subject. The sug-
gestion hints at an abridgement Of
the right Of free speech. Ny no
ton is that a citizens entitled to
shoot of his mouth about as he
pleases. and it's a privilege that
certainly is qualified II he's told
that he can't do it il he happens to
be standing in front Of a mike.
OF course, it's arguable that
there isn't much use in putting a
husher onto cables IL the same in
formation can be transmitted just
as well by wireless. It wasn't
much Of a problem during the last
war. The Allies severed Ger
many's cable connections at an
early stage Of the game and the
wireless wasn't dependable enough
to signify materially. For a few
months after that rookus started,
before l was dispatched to Europe
and then South America, was
foreign news editor in New. York.
I got reams Of wireless copy from
German sources their cable being
cut) and it was seldom that I
could sort out an ineligible SEN
tence. Now it's entirely different.
On the whole, I agree with
George Creel. Censor the cables
II we must. I'm not radio broad
caster, so I'm concerned as to
those broadcasters' fate only in an
academic way. But, as newspa-
perman, I'd be prepared to holler
my head off at press restrictions
except as to libel and a little stun
like that.
However, there's an evident ten
dency toward regular censorship
Of the press itself. The superficial
chats in advocacy Of organization
of another Compub, like George
Creels-just Informative, or even
propagandistic. If you care to call
1t so. But the undercurrent in
Washington is to smother news
that authority believes ought to
be kept corked up.
Lowell Mellett, himself a news
oaperman and an old personal
friend of mine, is the chap most
frequently suggested to handle the
job He denies that a real censor
ship is what's aimed at, and pre-
sumo, from what I know Of him
land that's lott, that he's sin
cere. But there are others.
Knox's View
Navy Secretary Frank Knox Is a
newspaper man also-publisher Of
the Chicago Daily News when he
isn't on leave Of absence, as he is
now, in charge Of our sea forces.
Franks scheme is what he refers
to as voluntary censorship"
That is, our newspapers are to Gen.
sorize 'emselves. But who's to be
the final judge Of the competency
with which they do it? 1t seems
as II the task would require an Of
fetal administrator. And what will
, HE be? A chief censor or what?
Publisher Arthur Hays Sulz-
berger Of the New York Times is a
newspaperman likewise. II be-
lieve," he says. that we can have
military censorship and still pre-
serve a large measure Of our free
DOM"
A large measure Of it-huh! But
1ot ALL?
And there's a distinction be-
tween what Frank Knox said and
what Art SulzberRer said.