Evening star., 1942-02-13
A Discordunt Note

The Presidents letter to Repre-
sentative Mansfield urging quick ac-
ton on the billion-dollar omnibus
rivers and harbors bill sounds note
which is strangely out Of tune with
his appeals for public recognition Of
the grim realities of our national
position.
This bill in its present form is
representative of a most undesirable
legislative practice. 1t is an omni-
bus bill-one in which worthy prof.
ects are Jumped together with those
Of a'strictly pork barrel" character,
the thought being that the demand
for the good projects will tend to
overcome opposition to those which
are not desirable. Then there is also
the further point that If enough
projects can be included this bill
Is reported to carry 236) a sufficient
number Of Congressman will be di-
rectly interested to insure passage.
At this particular time any realis-
tic appraisal of our national position,
both fiscal and military, would de-
mand the exclusion from a rivers
and harbors bill Of everything not
truly essential to the prosecution of
the war. The pork" projects are
bad enough in peacetime, but they
are utterly indefensible when the
taxpayers are being required to as
sumo a crushing tax burden for
necessary military outlays, and, pre-
sumably with this in mind, the bill
Is to be presented as an authorize
tion measure. Some thirty-seven
defense" projects, including the
controversial st. Lawrence seaway,
would be appropriated for at once;
the others to be held over until six
months after the end Of the war.
Under this arrangement it might
be supposed that some Of the more
fantastic projects in the bill, such
as the Florida ship canal, the Tom
bigbee waterway and the Beaver
Mahoning canal. would be deferred
until after the war as non-defense
items. But what assurance Is there
Of that7 Many competent persons
are vigorously opposed to the st.
Lawrence seaway, which the Presi-
dent so strongly advocates. Oppo-
nents contend that the $285 100000
cost is unjustified, that materials
and labor needed to construct the
seaway are more urgently required
elsewhere and that in any event It
would take four years to complete
the project. The President over
rides these arguments and says that
the seaway is Immediately essential
to defense. But what Is the country
to believe when 1t Is told on the one
hand that we will be ready to take
the offensive against the Axis in
l943 and on the other that a project
which cannot be ready before 1916
Is necessary to the prosecution of
the war? If the seaway, under these
circumstances, is a clear-cut defense
project, what may be expected Of the
Florida ship canal six months or a
year hence?
The truth OF the matter, Of course,
IS that the supposed ban for the
duration of the war on non-defense
items is more imaginary than real.
The President stresses the point
that an authorization is not an ap-
preparation. But why authorize q
project II an appropriation Is not to
follow? Why not separate the good
from the bad and let Congress vote
on them independently? II the st.
Lawrence seaway is a worthy prof.
ect, why not let it pass muster on
its own merits instead Of Jumping
1t into a pork barrel measure? If
case can be made for the seaway as
a defense undertaking, was it really
necessary for the President to ask
for its inclusion in the omnibus bill
so that some Congressman would
be induced to vote for it in exchange
for authorizations for pork barrel
projects in their home districts?
1t is difficult to believe that legiti-
mate defense legislation has to be
obtained in this fashion. And it is
still more difficult to believe that
the people, witnessing the employ
ment Of such legislative methods,
will not wonder why they should be
called upon for the fullest measure
Of sacrifice and self-denial.