Evening star., 1942-01-16
Lawrence Article
Scored by Ickes
Interior Secretary Believes
CoIumnist Is Advocating
RecoII Of Officials
To the Editor Of The Star:


Recall Of Officials
To the Editor Of The Star:
When all Americans are supposed to
be working in harmony to win the fight
of their lives, when all hands, as
thought, had agreed to adjourn unneces-
sary controversies for the duration-at
such a time, we feel q drag In the
breeching, and lo! who should be
Lawrence.
have before me The Washington
Evening Star, issue of Friday, January 2,
in which appears a foul attack upon
the President of the United States. 1t
is under the by-line Of Mr.. Lawrence.
Mr.. Lawrences excuse for it is feeble
and will get him nowhere. One must In
fact read more than half way through
the offensive article before learning that
it involves an issue between the De-
partment of Justice and two major
broadcasting companies. With that for
a weapon, "Sir Galahad" leaps to his
horse and slashee away at the President
with a right good will. It's typical
Lawrence attack in defense OF weak"
and "defenseless" corporations.
Is Mr.. Lawrence advocating q recall
of public ofIicials or isn't he?
am surprised that the ever loyal
The Evening Star would permit
"calumnist" to choose such an inop-
perfume time to sponsor a movement
to bring about the passage OF con-
stitutional amendment to permit the
Commander in Chief when he fails"
What he means and what he actually
says is that the Commander in Chief
the President-is responsible for the
Pearl Harbor disaster. AS witness this
statement: Even the fact that as Com
mander in Chief, Mr.. Roosevelt must
have known how critical were the rela-
tions between America and Japan prior
to December 7 and hence must have had
the ultimate responsibility for seeing to
it that the fleet was on the job "a hours
Of the day ."
1 know nothing officially or otherwise
about the controversy between the two
radio systems and the Department OF
Justice, which moves Mr.. Lawrence to
make his treacherous attack upon the
President. Mr.. Lawrence himself doesn't
seem to be any too clear about it. The
nearest that l can get to 1t is that the
Federal Communications Commission
issued an order which the broadcasting
companies liked SO little that they asked
the courts to restrain it. The Depart
ment of Justice now files what Mr..
Lawrence calls "a punitive law suit" in
volving question Of whether the
broadcasting companies constitute a
monopoly.
And, by the way. 1t appears that the
Mutual Broadcasting Co. is suing Ma
tional Broadcasting Co. on the ground
that it is violating the antitrust laws
May We expect blast from Mr..
Lawrence against Mutual Broadcasting
Co. and its most important stockholder,
R. r. Mccormick of Chicago?
1t Is fair to assume that the Bepart-
ment of Justice believes that the two
radio systems - National Broadcasting
Co. and Columbia Broadcasting Sys-
in violation OF the law and proposes
to find out about it through proper and
orderly democratic processes. Is there
anything wrong with that? Is it Mr..
Lawrences view that some Of our laws
may be violated because We are at war?
And if one law. why not all laws? Does
he propose immunity for a particular
class-the class in defense of which his
name has long been identified?
My quarrel isn't with Mr.. Lawrence's
heartrending appeal to spare his busi-
ness friends the rod so much as 1t is
with his hateful suggestion that the
Commander in Chief-the President
could have prevented the Pearl Harbor
disaster and, because he didn't, that the
country should proceed to considera-
ton Of ways and means of removing such
a Commander in Chief in the future
The amazing thing to me is that, with
all Of the opposition there was to spend
ing money to build up our defenses II
venture the opinion that a file of Law
renee articles would reveal him as one
of the principal objectors) we were as
ready as We were when the blow fell.
I deplore "Calumnist" Lawrence's de-
1iberate attempt to undermine the pres
tige and authority of the President at a
time of grave national peril in order to
get word in edgeways in support of
what may or may not be monopolistic
practices on the part of private business
enterprises. Am unreasonable in hoping
hat -
won't be permitted to happen again?
Let's win the war-and then have at
u.s." HAROLD L. ICKES.
Secretary of the Interior