The Wilmington morning star. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1909-1990, 1945-09-13
By WEsTBROOK PEGLER

yances has been that it is unseemly to brin.
out such information regarding a great MAJ
so recently dead. This thought has been ey
pressed by some who speak not in the fanatic
and cynical tones Of the political action group,
but appear to be fair-minded if over-sensitive
citizens. It is argued in this connection that
history should be allowed to form the verdict
on Mr.. Roosevelt's character.
To this agree to the extent that history
will give the final decision.
First, Mr.. Roosevelt, himself, impetuously
jumped the gun and acknowledged his own
greatness during his life by erecting historical
monuments to himself, being our only presi-
dent who ever did this, although Hitler ane
Mussolni of course did. And, second, as every
trial lawyer knows, the time to prepare a case
is when the evidence is still at hand and wit.
nesses are still alive and their memories good.
famous criminal lost his life in a memor-
able case because he waited too long to turn
states evidence. He had hoped from one jur
isaictlon to another and fought long appeals to
XIII time in the hope that time would operate
IN his favor. Finally, however, he was doom.
ed and, at the last hour, he intimated that in
exchange for recommendation of clemency
Dy tne prosecuting attorney, he would give evil
dence that would convict persons higher up,
The prosecutor interviewed him with the un.
derstandlng that if his revelations seemed to
promise other convictions, his sentence would
be committed to life. Otherwise, not.
The interview was held and as the con.
denned man unfolded his story it became
plain that he had waited too long, He was
turning states evidence against other men who
had already died in the gang wars and was
citing some witness who had died. AS to other
witnesses still living, the prosecutor had to
consider the probability that their recollection
would be faulty after so long time Alto.
gether, 1t was his practical decision that he
could not make hanging case out of the in
formation thus given in desperation, and the
convicted murderer was executed.
Historians complain that they are hampered
in their work by, the carelessness of living
generations. But they have been hampered
by timidity, also, and by an exaggerated sense
of the nice thing, which forbids the recording,
while the facts and the witnesses are still
alive and before documents can be DESTROYED,
of information bearing on historic causes,
events and personalities.
Years afterward, patient studious research
men proWl the libraries trying to restore his.
tory from fragments and bring versions into
symmetry. This has been called debunking,
although redressing would be a farer word
in many cases.
There is no dearth of propaganda in support
OF MIR. Roosevelts greatness, his generosity,
his high principle and his fierce devotion to the
cause of that mythical and object creature
conjured up by the writers and orators of his
party and called by them the common man.
This common man is represented as the typic.
al American citizen, the toiler the small mer-
chant. the farmer. And the image is not com.
plimentary representation of the Americans
who came off the floor with blood on their
gums to beat the mighty and fanatical Japan.
csc one-handed while with the other hand they
finished off Adolf Hitler, the greatest military
power in all history, not only landing on his
fortified beaches but smashing his vaunted
western wall.
Is it fair to history and to these Americans
to permit them to be portrayed as helpless,
mept, beWlldered masses, so inefficient that
they had to be fathered and mothered by pat
ronizing cult of sef-appointed uncommon men
and women and so emotional that they could
not endure the truth about one whose syco.
plants would make him god above them?
MIR. Roosevelt appealed for their votes and
their confidence by certain professions of prin-
clple. He was, for example, an enemy of the
public official who allows a member of his
family to obtain fees or benefits through his
political influence -
The people took him at his own word in
this particular. If then, it can be shown that
he Knocked his own words and ethics by per-
hitting several members of his family to ex
plot his office for income far beyond their
probably normal powers, should the generation
now living cheat history and, indeed, deceive
itself in its own judgments, by covering up
evidence that he did?
If it can be shown that he contrved to throw
burden on the common man in order to re-
iieve his own son of an enormous debt, what is
the duty of the current historian as to that?
And if evidence of that concealed or allow
ed to vanish for lack of timely initiative, how
can history, years afterward, reach correct
verdict?
If, for all his denunciations of tax-dodgers
and OF Clever little schemes having the color
OF legality Mr.. Roosevelt left his own estate
SO organized that his heirs could escape a
certain inheritance tax, would examination OF
the facts here be sacrilege or conscientious
reporting?
Is it a violation of decency or service to
truth and history to point out that the most
lavish giver of other peoples money to the
needy, even in foreign lands, himself, when he
died, left $1Oo apiece to his personal
employees and he a millionaire, and provided
for less than $40 week for loyal conf
dante and helper of many years. service?
Agreed that history should be allowed to
give the verdict, but it is impossible to produce
a valid verdict from one-sided case.