Evening star., 1944-05-26

management of home affairs has
been pretty badly bungled, most
people believe that his management
OF the war has been splendid and
his support of the military chiefs
wholehearted and complete.
This assumption Is one of those
upon which rests the Roosevelt
fourth-term candidacy and. it will
be loudly proclaimed by administra-
ton propagandists throughout the
campaign. The facts, however, do
not sustain the assumption. On the
contrary, the facts indict both Mr..
Roosevelt and Congress for failure
to stand back Of vital recommended
tions, unitedly, earnestly and re-
peatedly made by every responsible
military and naval authority we
have. This is a serious charge, but
it can be fully proved-first, by their
attitude toward the Austin -Wads-
worth national service bill and now
by their attitude toward the Bailey
Brewster "work-or-fight" bill, the
latter Of which, in effect, is q limited
version Of the former.
Services Back Bill.
AL the work night" bill does
is to pro7ide that men between 10
and IS be made subject to induction
into military or work units II they
leave Jobs In essential industries
without permission from draft
boards. It further provides that
men who are physically disqualified
for military service may be drafted
into work units unless they take
war-industry jobs. This proposal,
like that for national service, has
the support Of the Secretaries and
Undersecretaries of War and Navy,
Of Gen. Marshall and Admiral King,
OF Rear Admiral Land, Of the MARI
time Commission and Of Donald M.
Nelson Of the War Production Board,
who q few days ago described the
need rs desperately acute"
All Of these gentlemen made im-
pressive appeals last week to the
Senate committees. Most Of them
have expressed preference for the
national service bill but, hopeless
about that, they are now centering
upon the "work-or-fight" proposal
and asking for 1t as essential to
victory And, what Is the response
to this appeal? Is 1t favorable re-
port from the committee and an
overwhelming passage vote In Con-
gress? Or is 1t a strong, fighting
message from the President back
ing up the military men and insist
ing that they be given the thing
they say they need to win? It Is
neither one. Instead, there Is
apathy and antipathy In Congress
and inaction and lack Of interest In
the White House.
That is the response which this
appeal from the men supposed to
win the war for us gets from the
Commander in Chief and the Con-
gress which are supposed to be
supporting them "to the limit" !"
Last Friday the discouraged spon-
sors Of the "work-or-fight" bill
Senators Bailey and Brewster
declared that its enactment now
depends upon "the active support
Of President Roosevelt"
President Silent.
So far President Roosevelt has
given not the least sign Of active
or even passive - support - and
mighty little is now expected from
him. Actually, he seems to have
completely lost interest in the sub
ject since, months ago. urged by
his combined chiefs of stan, he
recommended the national service
bill but tied so many strings to his
recommendation that it had no
weight at all
The question arises "Why?" Why
there should be to this appeal from
the armed forces, antipathy in Con-
gress and inaction in the White
House? The answer seems to be
that this is election year; that fur
ther drafting would be unpopular
with the voters; that most members
OF Congress, along with Mr.. Roose-
velt, are candidates for reelection
this fall-and that the main oppo-
sition to these Army-Navy requests
comes from organized labor-par-
ticularly the CIO.
II there is any other explanation
1t has not been advanced. So far
as the President is concerned it is
impossible to reconcile his record
on this legislation with the claim Of
100 per cent support of Marshall
and King. Certainly, it clashes with