davidaulloa/AmericanStories huggingface dataset:
Ohio Waisenfreund. [volume] (Pomeroy, O. [Ohio]) 1874-1953, 1944-08-09
ltnpOIitifd,e 8eiASnfte
(sSortIckuttg bon Sette {,

\OUrIiCEUH1 UON SetIe ~
tnterniert. Die geIaute 9eiasung 6es
obgei9ofenen 8ombers rettete iid
our6 Soaidirmabiprune, tpabreno Die
Nai9ine nabe Siebenen i'm Set.
S6tpp3 obitiir3te. gs ltn6 ieBt amid
berno 400 untformierte amertfaniide
5liegermonni9aften in N6elbooen
interniert uno ettpa 100 an6ere, Die
aus Deuti6lano entfloben iin6, IN
&loiters. Diele nod Der S9nei3 e11t.
fommenen tragen 3ipiltleioung. II
amerifaniIde Slieger liegen iebt in
Der S6neid begraben. 13 bon ibnen
tpuroen i'm bergongenen SerbIt bel
Abftiir3en get0tet, bier iarben an ben
Tolgen bon Gerlebungen, Die Tie in
2ufttampfen iiber Deutidlan0 erlit-
ten batten.
Oie Snternierten befommen Ser.
pflegung un0 llnterfunft uno IS
0oQar monatli6. 9(uBeroem beitebt
fir lie Elm &re6itipitem, 6as ibnen
9Qufe bon @egenltdn6en tpie &lei-
oung uno 3iearetten erm0eli6t. 9ie
aus Dem Del1tlden Rei6 entflobenen
9lmerifaner be5ieben ibren bol1en
Sol0.
5dlpei5eri16e 9lrmeeflug5euge, Die
Slug5euge ser &riegfiibren0en our6
5ignale gum 2onoen beran1a1len mol
len, iino oeutli6 nit &ennmarfen
perieben un0 nabern it6 Ben 8om~
bern in einem @intel, Der es i6pte-
rig mo6t, ite on5u9reifen. 0omit ge>
ben Iie gu erfennen( 0oB ite feinen
&f iu6en. 9fafeten mer6en abge"
l6oiien uno our6 Sanolignale er>
gan5t, 0ie Die Bomber 5u einem Slug
plab leiten. Oie Signale peroen TO-
lange pieoerbolt, Bis Der ooer oie
Bomber gebor6en. Senoriert Der Bi'
lot aber oie 5ignole, Iebt er lt6 Dem
Mneriff aus. 8isber boben Die 56pei-
ger auf 0iele 8eiie 5tpei 5lug5euge
beruntergeboIt. Na6 Der 2anoung
tperoen Die Jlieger our Geltitellung
ibrer Namen un0 perl0nli6en 9aten
na9 8araden 9ebra6t, mo Sormu>
lare auSgefiiut tperoen, Die Damn Dem
ameritaniiden g e T onotl6aftsatto6e
iibermittelt peroen. Oana6 fommen
Die S1ieger na6 N6elbooen uno per-
ben bier in Sotels untergebra9t, Die
bon Der omeritanii6en &egierung ge'
pa9tet itno.
Ohio Waisenfreund. [volume] (Pomeroy, O. [Ohio]) 1874-1953, 1944-08-09
NnsfnmH
.(SortIebatna bon seite 81

vAOOL@EC9&bab WV N~EL%C ~ ..'. =
DIES lit otpnr bort, no oie HHan5e
tpddit, idon felt Sabrbunoerten i'm
@ebrau6, ober in ubober 5iDiltlter'
ten" 26noern oertpenoet man MIR oen
baral1s getponnenen tpirtiamen Stoff
pos &otoin in retnen, unoerfdli6tem
3uitonoe. Die gero6e5u iataniibe
Su6t Der &ofainiiten gu oem ,,unents
|bebrli9en &ots" berubt auf Der eis
genartigen 8irfung oieies alfa1oios
auf 40rper uno @eiIt. 9os Gift bot
cine momentan erfrii6enoe uno erbei'
ternoe 8irtung, nebit 8abnborltel-
1ungen. 4ber nu6 iebr fur5er 3eit
MAIDEN it6 6ie i6redliiten forperliz
6en un0 geiltigen gerbeerungen be-
mertbor. @eb0rs, @eitdt- un0
5pra6it0rungen, idredli6e Nnglt3u>
ltdnoe, 2dbmungen, Delirium uno
Eobiu6t folgen nhousbleibli6.
0aB man geraoe in l&nlerem nm
Materiellen baften0en, an religtoleln
un0 moralil6em Salt INNER i6mader
meroenoen 3eitalter> INNER mebr
nod einem Wtittel ereift, Inn wenig=
items fir Sen Iugenblid Die Sorgen,
2eioen uno &rontbeiten, Oenen nun
einmal nie1nonO entgeben fann, 81
perge1len iu6t, lit leidt ertlGrli6.
$50 oas iibernotiirlibe, religiole, lno
nit @ott DerbinOenOe Wfittel feblt,
greift man 81 1innbetdubenOen Wfit<
teln, oie uber MIR poriibergeben0e
9inOerung, aber feline Seilung brln=
gen. 2lae &aul6- unO 8etaubungsgifte
lino ber0erbli6 uno totem unnusbleib=
li6 ibre ungliidli6en Spfer uno lte
lpcroen ser betorten Wtenl6beit sum
5lu6. Sour in Der 9anO zines ge=
16idten Ir5tes tonnen tie in getpillen
6oaen CUR @obltat peroen, 11no
1elblt oo lolte mun auBerlt borltbtig
gu @erte geben, ounit man ntdt III
Die @enolt oes @etpobnbeitSteufels
gerGt un0 fir feline llnborlidtigfeit
ldmer biiBen nuB.
Ohio Waisenfreund. [volume] (Pomeroy, O. [Ohio]) 1874-1953, 1944-08-09

Oem 2uftangriff om 5. SUM aui
@enua lit oie beriibmte Stride 5unta
Moria oel1e Gigne gum Spfer ge=
fallen. Sn Eurin tpurbe am glei6en
Sage cine Stride aus Oem Is. Sobr=
bunoert 5er1tort.
Ohio Waisenfreund. [volume] (Pomeroy, O. [Ohio]) 1874-1953, 1944-08-09

SSn Ser @eieui6aft gibt es Neen>
i6en, Die uns interellieren, neil tie
etpns iino, uno onoere, bie uns amii-
1ieren, neil lie ltd fir ettpos bo1ten.
Ohio Waisenfreund. [volume] (Pomeroy, O. [Ohio]) 1874-1953, 1944-08-09

6ouen bic guten @igeni6aften Ser
Menlden nobl nrr oesbalb We1lger
auf ols ibre 6ebler, neil iie it6 ni6t
unbeI6eioen bororGngen?
Ohio Waisenfreund. [volume] (Pomeroy, O. [Ohio]) 1874-1953, 1944-08-09

Arbeiter Iin0 0omit beI6aftigt, oie
pGpltlide 5ommerOiua, Gaitel @an-
oo1fo, Die bel einem oneritaniiden
8ombenangriff S6aoen erlitten but
te, tpieoer ber5uri6ten, oa erpartet
miro, oaB Der Haplt oort einen fur
sen Serienaufentbalt nebmen pirb.
Ohio Waisenfreund. [volume] (Pomeroy, O. [Ohio]) 1874-1953, 1944-08-09
9as nerfannte 8ort

Mor: gti6t tpabr, Bapa, cine gfee-
oereigeleuI6aft iinO Diele 0amen, Die
3um &affee fonmen uno iiber anoere
2eute blel reoen!
Ohio Waisenfreund. [volume] (Pomeroy, O. [Ohio]) 1874-1953, 1944-08-09

3ipei Dinge ltn6 gren3enlos: Ser
9ori5ont uno bic 9ummbeit.
Ohio Waisenfreund. [volume] (Pomeroy, O. [Ohio]) 1874-1953, 1944-08-09

2anglon 1booet ni9t, 1pobl ober,
menn man sic Soffnung oerliert.
Ohio Waisenfreund. [volume] (Pomeroy, O. [Ohio]) 1874-1953, 1944-08-09

Oie 8ergangenbeit lit tlar tpie Elm
epiesel' bic 8utunft 0untel tOie Sir
niB. I
Ohio Waisenfreund. [volume] (Pomeroy, O. [Ohio]) 1874-1953, 1944-08-09

Der 8etie bri9t Elm einmal gege-
benes @ort nt6t.
Ohio Waisenfreund. [volume] (Pomeroy, O. [Ohio]) 1874-1953, 1944-08-09

gei9ts ouf Der g8elt fann etpas
meroen obne @r5iebung.
Ohio Waisenfreund. [volume] (Pomeroy, O. [Ohio]) 1874-1953, 1944-08-09

8as ou biit, oas tpage audi 5u
i6einen.
Ohio Waisenfreund. [volume] (Pomeroy, O. [Ohio]) 1874-1953, 1944-08-09
Seile ber Stride

8ilo 1: 9ie @r6ubigen mob
men Dem @ottesbienlt in &irden-
itiiblen bel, Die gum &nien un6
Sisen eineeridtet itnb. Sn man.
den &ir9en @uropas tperoen elm.
Ohio Waisenfreund. [volume] (Pomeroy, O. [Ohio]) 1874-1953, 1944-08-09

Gaufitein iit elm ornamentales gef->
fen aus 5tein, Sol5 ooer Metall,
porin oas Eaufmafier aufbeipabrt
pirb. Sn bielen groBen &irden
befin6et ii9 ser Eaufitein 1T elmer
Ohio Waisenfreund. [volume] (Pomeroy, O. [Ohio]) 1874-1953, 1944-08-09

@elt, Bapa, neil Der &afe 10 rieht,
fommt er unter cine @losglode?
geee, oontt er ni6t oaoonldnft!
Ohio Waisenfreund. [volume] (Pomeroy, O. [Ohio]) 1874-1953, 1944-08-09

Die 3eit oedt sic Ser5en ser Wen=
1ten auf.
Ohio Waisenfreund. [volume] (Pomeroy, O. [Ohio]) 1874-1953, 1944-08-09

5troBenpaiiant, Der ourd oa2
6ernrobr geieben bat, enttaui6t: Das
NOR ia BLOB Der tleine 8Gr!
StraBena1tronom: Sa, oenfen Sic,
Sic f0nnen fitr n geidel g1eid iroBe
8dren ieben?
Ohio Waisenfreund. [volume] (Pomeroy, O. [Ohio]) 1874-1953, 1944-08-09
NeltgtpnsItnnbe

2cbrer: ,,gos ion oenn oas bei-
Ben: 0o bob slbrobom feline Augen
ouf 3"
Gin ltebeniobriger &nirpS: vgeu,
Die 8rile miro ibm bolt runterge-
fouen fein!"
Evening star., 1944-01-23

from Germany and from the countries
allied to Hitler for the postwar rehabiii-
tation of devastated regions"
This was interpreted widely outside
Russia as Soviet bid for German
slave labor" after the war.
At this point, the British New States
man and Nation pointed out that slave
labor is never efficient, and that the
Russians are likely to need teams of
skilled engineers and technicians rather
than gangs of unskilled workers, to re-
build Russia's ruined industries and
cities.
The British journal further suggested
that Germany may have much unem-
ployment after the war, with surplus
of skilled labor which might rightly be
used to help Russia. But it would let
revived German trade unions run the
show, under supervision of the United
Nations relief and rehabilitation ad-
ministration.
The London Economist offers these
principles:
A'r reparations there must be, let them
be confined in assessment to the resti-
tuition of deliberate loot and damage. in
collection to what can be paid in goods
and labor, and in duration to five years" !"
But if Germany is to pay in goods, she
must be able to manufacture them, and
this would mean she would continue to
operate a big industrial system, some
quarters object, fearing Germany would
turn It to war again.
Evening star., 1944-01-23

ing to hold the German people to-
gether under Nazi leadership.
British, Russian and American econ
omists who have written on reparations
agree that Russia's socialistic economic
system can absorb reparations prac-
tically in any form without being upset.
Not SO the democracies, whose COM
petitive commodity and labor markets
both would be affected by influx of
goods to pay reparations.
Most explicit proposals have come
from the Russians, chiefly from Prof.
Eugene Varga, who writes for the Soviet
publication, War and the Working Glass.
Varga said that Germany cannot hope
to pay any appreciable part Of her
reparations from either her investments
abroad or her national wealth, though
these may help.
He suggested, therefore, that the chief
source of payment should be postwar
German production.
He figured that since Germany spent
about $4,000, 100000 a year before the
war to rearm, she could reasonably fur
nish that much annually in reparations
in goods.
He expressed belief that priorities on
reparations should g6 to those nations
which have suffered the most damage
in relation to their national wealth,
and added:
1T would be both just and practically
expedient. to reputation labor power
Evening star., 1944-01-23
By James d. White.

The reparations question is hot
potato of planning for the postwar
world
Victory over Germany is near enough
for Gen. Eisenhower to predict it for
1914, yet no Allied government has
made any official statement on whether
Germany is to pay for the deliberate
damage she has done.
That. presumably, is one for the
peace table.
In any discussion of reparations, two
questions Immediately arise:
l. Should Germany pay-are the VIC
tors going to demand it?
2. Can Germany pay?
Observers who attended the United
Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Con-
ference at Atlantic City are convinced
that Germany's victims are going to
insist on payment.
Delegates from the occupied coun-
tries in Europe discussed reparations
only as they related to general relief
problems-yet the veins stood out on
the necks of seasoned European diplo-
mats as they told of wanton destruc-
ton by the Nazis.
They have not forgotten Lidice, Rot
terdam, Warsaw, Kharkov, Nanking.
In the absence of official statements,
let's look at what few economists
have been writing on the subject.
Articles published In Russia, the
Evening star., 1944-01-23

United States and Britain show strik-
Ing agreement on three points:
1. Germany has wrought so much
destruction that she probably never
can pay for it.
2. Preparations generally should not
be paid in money.
3. Payment in goods will suit Russia,
but will be difficult for capitalist coun-
tries to absorb.
Germany was called upon to pay a
bill of $32 ,00O, 900 900 after the last war.
The Russians estimate that if the Nazis
continue looting and wrecking in their
customary way, they might owe some
thing around $500,O00, 900, 900 by the
end Of this war.
In 1919 the Allies insisted on money
payments. Germany wanted to pay
in goods, but the Allies baked because
goods coming in from Germanys cheap
labor markets would compete with their
own products.
But the Germans couldn't pay in
cash unless they sold more abroad
than they bought abroad.
This led to some economic acrobatics.
The Allies lent Germany the money to
pay reparations, but she ended sup by
paying back considerably less than the
loan.
This, 1t is suggested, may be one rea-
son why Allied statesmen today say
nothing about reparations. Another
may be that reparations is still prime
subject for German propasandists seek
Evening star., 1944-01-23

This objection might be overcome by
controlling the supply of essential min
erals, say experts of the Brookings In
stitution in Washington in recent book
called "World Minerals and World
Peace"
The Axis countries, they point out,
lack within their own borders the raw
materials, particularly the steel-harden-
ing alloys, necessary for production Of
modern arms.
licensing system could be set up to
control the supply of these vital mate
rails, it is suggested, so these would get
only enough to operate peaceful in
dustry.
In another American study of the
question, published last July in the
quarterly Foreign Affairs" Jacob Viner
of the University of Chicago noted the
probability that if Germany can pay at
all 1t will be mostly in goods and said:
"The American interest in reparations
will probably not be much greater than
It was after the last war of all
the major countries, we have the great
est aversion to imports, and the less we
have to pay for them. the less we like
them"
Viner advocated that the reparations
period run for not more than 10 years,
to facilitate return of Germany to the
family Of nations and to prevent repara-
tions from being an obstacle to q sound
system Of collective security.
Distributed b. the Associated Press)
Evening star., 1944-01-23

the political power of one person in
Nevada is equal to that of 120 persons
in New York. Two Nevada votes against
a treaty, under the two-thirds rule, could
cancel out the four affirmative votes OF,
say, New York and Pennsylvania, which
means that the will OF 11O,247 persons
would be equal to that of 23,379,322.
To put the matter in another way, it
would be possible for SO Senators repre-
senting one-twelfth of the American
people to block a treaty favored by So
Senators representing eleven-twelfths
of the people
Not all the eloquence in Christen-
DOM" Prof Colegrove comments, can
prove that this is democratic process"
More Astonishing Figures.
The argument, he goes on, can be re-
duced to even more astonishing figures.
A quorum to do business in the Senate
consists of one-half plus one of the
total membership, or 49, II q bare
quorum is present when the vote on
treaty is taken, any II Senators can de-
feat ratification II the II votes come
from the nine smallest States, the op-
ponents represent only 3,584,51l people
out of a population of 131 ,669,275 If
the 80 Senators favoring the treaty (out
of the quorum of 49, come from the 16
largest States, they represent 88,U46,2 ,234
people. In other words, Prof. Colegrove
sums up, the will Of ss,o46,23 people can
be overridden by that Of 3,584,5l1 people
The example is extreme, but under the
two thirds rule not impossible.
The two-thirds rule for treaty ap-
proval," writes Prof. Colegrove, has
been defended on the ground that it
saves the country from harmful treaties
"a weak argument, indeed. The rule
has saved the United States from no
pernicious treaty; it has been the means
Of rejecting many treaties designed to
promote the best interests of the Ameri-
can people.
Minority control of foreign policy is
always dangerous. Majorities are sell
dom protected by minorities; almost in
variably the minority, by obstruction,
confusion, division and delay, destroys
the majority as we'll as the Nation. II
simple majorities cannot protect the
country the Nation is already lost. -
Senators, like Representatives, are
politicians: they watch the interests of
their political party as avidly as does
any member of the Lower House.
Opposition Has Control.
"It is not often that political party
commands a two-thirds majority in
either house. More often the President
has a bare majority. 1t is thus ex-
tremely rare for treaty to be approved
by a two-thirds majority consisting en-
tirely of the Presidents party Gener-
ally, the opposing party occupies more
than one-third of the seats in the Sem
ate. At such times, the opposition
party, if party loyalty be enforced, holds
the fate of any treaty in its hands. AS
politicians, many Senators find that
they have more to gain by embarrassing
the President than by considering the
interest of the people"
The author points to the long record
of treaties which have been rejected
because of partisanship. In 1924, a
treaty negotiated with Great Britain
for the suppression of the slave trade
was so mutilated by amendments in the
(Coptin,,ad ~, Dora "a r,o1,,v.,, ~
Evening star., 1944-01-23
By Charles g. Ross

houses of Congress, provided a ma
jority of the Senators and Representa-
tives present concur" is embraced in
proposals introduced by Senator Claude
Pepper Democrat Of Florida (who
would also stop flibustering by permit
ting majority of either house, with
out debate, to fix the time for a vote)
and by Representatives Pat Cannon
Democrat of Florida and J. Percy
Priest DemocraD Of Tennessee
Senators who oppose the abolition Of
the Senates monopoly over ratification
of treaties" Prof Colegrove writes,
usually end their arguments with the
assertion that it is now too late to
amend the Constitution" He replies by
citing the fact that the prohibition re-
peal amendment, under the spur of an
aroused public opinion, was put through
within nine and half months.
In any case, Prof. Colegrove says, the
"too late" argument begs the question.
LAS long as government exists" he
contends, ''it is never too late to correct
its imperfections. Procrastination,
in undertaking the task of reforming
the antiquated process of treaty making,
may impair the leadership of the United
States in the counsels of the United
Nations. In turn, the inadeQuacy OF our
leadership may be one of the many con-
ditions that would ineXorably bring on
the third global catastrophe of the goth
century. Regardless of this war or
possible war in the future, however, our
treaty-making process is undemocratic
and requires change. Why aspire to
democracy unless we practice it in such
an important function of government
as the making of treaties?'
The two-thirds rule adopted by the
Constitutional Convention, eight States
to three, was a carryover from the Ar
ticles of Confederation, under which the
Congress was the sole organ of govern
ment and each State, regardless of size,
had an equal voice in the making of
treaties. The small States demanded
that the practice be continued, and they
won this point as they won others based
on the doctrine of States right.
Saw Need for Secrecy.
1t appears, too, that the members Of
the convention saw need for secrecy
in the making of treaties and believed
this was more likely to be obtained #
ratification was vested in the Senate
alone. James Wilson, from Pennsylvania.
argued in vain that the proposed pro-
cedure carried the danger Of minority
control of foreign policy.
There are strong defenders of the
present system today, but their argu-
ments rest on other grounds, notably
that to democratize treaty ratification
would expose our foreign policy to an
upset with each partisan change in the
control of the Government The Sem
ates monopoly of the power to approve
treaties is warmly upheld in Justice
Joseph Story's celebrated Commentaries
on the Constitution" 1889 as insuring
safety and efficiency in our foreign rela-
tions. That often-quoted verdict was
given, Prof. Colegrove observes, before
the treaty -wrecking habits of the Senate
were fully formed"
AS Prof. Colegrove points out, the pres
ent treaty making process gives the
smallest state the same weight as the
largest. Nevada has 110,247 inhabitants;
New York, 13,479,1 JAP. Because each has
the same representation in the Senate,
Evening star., 1944-01-23

10 those who are hoping for American
participation in an effective system to
keep the peace of the world after the
war, it is a disturbing thought that any
treaty or treaties with this end in view,
no matter how strangely they may be
supported by the people, can be killed
by 80 members Of the Senate
The President, says the Constitution
(section 2, Article III, shall have power,
by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate, to make treaties, provided
two-thirds of the Senators present con-
cur" A minority consisting of one third
Of the Senate plus one member can
therefore block ratification. A minority
prevented acceptance of the treaty Of
Versailles, with the League of Nations
Covenant, after the last World War.
Will history repeat itself?
EAround this question, Kenneth Cole
grove, professor of political economy at
Northwestern University, has written a
timely and provocative book, The
American Senate and World Peace"
(the Vanguard Press, New York;, the
theme of which is that our archaic,
oligarchic and antisocial' procedure for
the ratification of treaties should be
ended through a constitutional amend
ment.
Lists Two Basic Reasons.
There are two basic reasons, Prof.
Colegrove says, for such an amend
ment: First, the present process per-
mits the will of the American people to
be flagrantly ignored; second, it is "a
menace to world peace" 1t is possible,
the author points out, for the constitu-
tional rule on treaties to be by-paSsed
in the future as it frequently has been
in the past, but he believes the question
should be settled for all time by the
fortnight method of a change in the
Constitution
If it be necessary" he writes, "to
violate the Constitution in order to set
aside an obstreperous minority which
seeks to frustrate the will of the Nation,
bold craftsmanship will not hesitate to
act in the interests of the Republic. But
why should the American people have
to resort to indirection. year after year?
Why should the Government do basely
by devious ways what could be done ad-
mirably by straightforward method?
In other words, why tolerate in our
fundamental law provision that places
great nation in the humiliating posi-
ton of lodging the universally accepted
method of making contracts with other
states?"
Several proposals of a constitutional
change in the treaty-making provisions
are now pending in Congress. These are
reducible to four principles: That ma
jority of the Senators present be suff-
cient for ratification; that majority OF
the full Senate be required; that the
House be associated with the Senate in
treaty ratification, with the requirement
either (a) of a House majority of the
members present or CD a majority OF
all the House members.
Prof. Colegrove believes the treaty.
ratifying mechanism should be democ-
ratized by giving voice to the House,
and that in both Senate and House the
decision should be by a simple majority
OF the members present. To require a
majority of all the members, he says,
would be 'far from liberal improve
ment Of the present system"
The plan for ratification by both
Evening star., 1944-01-23

Continued on Page C-3, Column -
Evening star., 1944-01-23

(see CENSORSHIP. Page C-3.l
Detroit evening times. (Detroit, Mich) 1921-1958, 1944-07-16
MiIIicent AyI swort h
Morries Naval Officer
Times Photo

Mrs Myles s. Weston III. the
natron If honor wore a she'll
pink taffeta froCk with bracelet
sleeves. square neckline and q
bouffant skirt She carried a
bouquet Of rubrum lilies and
Stephanotis with a coronet Of
the same flowers IN her hair
Cap' Larned s Whitney Jr.
was his brothers best man
a reception was held IN the
Crosse Polnte Club with Mr..
and Mrs. William p. Stevens
and Nh and Mrs. Charles p.
Splcer as co-hoStS
II and Mrs Whitney left
later on a short wedding trip.
For travelling. the bride chose
navy and white silk print
troCk with navy accessories and
A gardenla corSage bouquet
Among the out-of-town guests
az the wedding were Mrs. Ward
r Davidson OF Port Washing
ton. l. / It. and Mrs. George
Ross Of Chicago. Mrs. Robert
r AylSworth. mother Of the
bride. OF Montclair. y. j.. and
Mr. and Mrs. Larned s. Whit
ney OF Saybrook. Conn, par
entS Of the bridegroom.