Evening star., 1944-01-27

mdCJer anu ttlclr feScIltIIleut aBdllSt
the discrimination which is being
practiced against them"
Why should Mr.. Roosevelt have
used the title Commander in Chief
when he could as readily and even
more properly have said "as Presi-
dent of the United States, am sure
that I can express, etc.?
1t certainly is unprecedented for
the title Commander in Chief" to
be used for the purposes of urging
Congress to act on any legislative
matter. If the precedent is repeated
it opens up a wide opportunity for
Mr.. Roosevelt to make speeches and
addresses on behalf of the troops
who, he pointedly remarks, 'are not
ordinarily permitted to write their
Congressman on pending legisla-
ton"
1t will come as great surprise to
the American people to discover
that the soldiers and sailors are not
permitted to write their Congress-
man on a subject which so intimate
ly concerns them as soldier voting.
1t has always been assumed, of
course, that servicemen are not per-
mitted to lobby for special money
grants from Congress or for military
appropriations generally, but on an
issue as broad as soldier voting, 1t
is puzzling that Mr.. Roosevelt should
disclose that the right of petition
guaranteed by the Constitution to
every citizen is really being denied.
Congressional committees should be
interested in learning how and why
this constitutional guarantee has
been abrogated If, indeed, that is
the meaning of the Presidents as
sumption of the exclusive right to
speak to Congress for the members
of the armed services.
It would be interesting to ascer-
tain also whether the Presidents
speech-or rather the message of
the Commander in Chiefs being
distributed by radio to the camps
and soldiers publications and
whether the views of Wendell Will
kie and other men prominently
mentioned for the presidential NOM
ination who recently made public
statements on the soldier voting
controversy are being given space
in the soldier newspapers or are
even being transmitted to the camps
and overseas stations.
Also it would be pertinent to learn
II the views of the Senators and
Representative who disagree with
the Presidents Interpretation OF the
function of Congress on soldier
voting-as, for instance, the speech
of Senator Taft answering the Presi-
dents meSsage-are to be broadcast
to the troops or suppressed or un-
duly abbreviated.
Mr.. RooSevelt'S address is an open
invitation to Congress to disregard
State Constitutions in at least two
cases. The President, moreover, has
accused the opponents of the legis-
lation of trying to "disqualify" SOL
diers from voting when the truth Is
nobody is trying to disenfranchise
anybody. The only difference be-
tween the two sides is in the manner
of handling the ballots, the one side
contending that this is State OBJ
legation upder our Constitution, and
the other side, including the Presi-
dent, arguing that it doesn't make
any difference what the constitu-
tional barriers are-they can be cir
cumvented by an Act of Congress.
This has been Mr.. Roosevelts
answer to almost all constitutional
objections since 1888. In 1887 he
frankly stated in a public address
that because the method of amend
ment provided in the Constitution
itself was cumbersome" he favored
a bill that would permit him to
appoint Justices of the Supreme
Court whose Interpretation of the
Constitution presumably would OBJ
viate the need of amendments for
his social reforms. Maybe there are
among the soldiers those who would
regard fidelity to constitutional
precedence as more important than
their vote this year.
If Mr.. Roosevelt is interested in
shortcuts, there are two legal meth
ods available which he has over
looked. One Is that his own party,