The Tacoma times. [volume] (Tacoma, Wash.) 1903-1949, 1942-09-12

Controversy Between fok
And Congress Is Bad
People Want Action TO
Win War, Not Squsbbles
Majority Want Something
Done. Be Il FOR or solons
n, RAYMOND CLafPER
WAsHINGToN-it would be
most unfortunate for the war
effort IL congress and President
Roosevelt fell into another DIT
ter controversy like the one
over the supreme court No good
and much harm would result
Naturally, many members OF
congress feel that Mr.. Roose-
welt is pointing a pistol at them
to use the frequent description
on Capitol Hill-and 1t is natural
that they should resent IT,
Yet what do We need most!
An argument over who has what
power? Or action TO hold the
war economy under control?
What do we need most-an
argument over constitutional
powers. or a drastic tax bill!
Speeches Or control over food
prices?
What can be gained by an
argument as 10 who is wrong
who started it. who didn't do
what he should have done?
People want this war fought
hard and efficiently to the earl
lest possible victory. The sweep
of public support behind Kaiser
arises from that sentiment. The
complaint at the sluggish bu-
reaucrscy here arises from that
sentiment. Complaint at con-
gress arises from it. People
know we are in a fight for our
lives-that il is either us or the
axis. Our instinct for survival
is aroused. 1t Is the most ele-
mental instinct of an individual
and nation.
In such time there is little
patience with argument. Words
become secondary. Theories OF
government become secondary.
Results take precedence.
Guessing as an observer, be-
lieve that if a showdown came
between a congress that was not
acting and president who
wanted to act. the ma jority sem
timent of the country would
back the president who wanted
to act. I would certainly want
to take my stand on that side.
But to allow such an issue -
develop would be a grave dis
service to our form Of govern
ment. Only by gross lack of
self-restraint and by distorted
judgment could congress allow
such an issue to arise.
This reminds me of the situa-
ton in which the press OF the
country is placed by the war. We
agree TO a voluntary censorship.
We agree not TO print certain in
formation that might be of value
to the enemy. But the Constitu-
ton guarantees freedom Of the
press. Suppose the newspapers
tried to take cover under that
guarantee TO print military in
formation that might help the
enemy. We would have the Con-
stitution on our side. But how
long do you think the people OF
the country would tolerate such
thing? Constitution or no
Constitution, a way would be
found to stop ii mighty quick.
and the country would approve.
Newspapers know that IL
would jeopardize American lives
and aid in bringing about our
own defeat to exercise their full
constitutional rights. II doesn't
make sense, and every newspa-
per man knows 1t. So We agree
to the voluntary censorship.
There is better chance of re-
tanning freedom of the press in
that way than in trying to stand
on constitutional rights that
have no reality in the midst Of a
war because they menace our
national survival.
The same goes for congress.
Dietators in Europe sprouted out
OF the decayed ruins Of parlia-
mentary governments that had
lost the capacity 10 act. Polit-
ieal parties and factions stood
upon their constitutional rights
until they had wrecked their
countries. Thus far we have
been more practical.
Theorists and doctrinsires will
try 70 whip up an issue between
congress and the president.
Some practical politicians 1ill
tr.' 70 do il for political reasons.
Reslists will stick to the main
fact. which Is that the war must
Dc won. and they won't ALLOW
that vital purpose to be frustrst.
ed by legalistie arguments.
We have been a realistic peo-
pie. When the electoral college
proved TO be an unresIistic de.
vice, We just left it standing
FNn#a an r~~x - .s Il. -