Evening star., 1946-04-17

ueWdl Oh tIle COIltTdCI, IIldI tIlc ItcC
Gross was sick of the arrangement
and rather than risk the resigna.
tions sure to follow a renewal-anc
the inevitable handicap in the next
campaign for funds-had deter.
mined to withdraw. In brief, the
CIO Reputation" was not "on the
level"
Knowing the facts in advance, Il
acted first, striking a typical blow
at the party of the second part by
hurting the absurd and unfoundeo
charge that the Red Cross is "un-
democratic"
The truth Is that Chairman
O'Connor had talked with both the
CIO and the AFL leaders about
dropping the contract several week!
ago. Both knew it was going to bt
done. The CIO letter was cleal
case Of trying to get ahead of thu
Red Cross Central Committee an
nouncement. According to a mem
ber of the Central Committee
came as a complete surprise to tn
chairman and the committee, which
unanimously decided to ignore tn
CIO charges and in its statemen
uncandidly tried to convey the ides
that the alliance was merely a war
time affair and was being dissolved
by mutual agreement" because thu
war is over.
No such suggestion was ever made
In any previous Red Cross explana-
ton or defense Nor was it even
hinted at in the official Emerson
report of 1912 on the original reasons
for making the contract. The CIO
letter, of course, makes the mutual
agreement" assertion seem ridicu-
lous.
Now that it is all over, there is a
natural disposition upon the part OF
some to say that the CIO attack
serves the Red Cross management
right; that it never should have
entered into the arrangement which
violated the Red Cross voluntary
tradition and clashed with its prin-
ciples; that it was clearly warned in
1912 that it would ultimately regret
the contract.
But that sort of recrimination Is
not worth while now. The big thing
is that the Red Cross is free again
relieved of a bad bargain, dis
tasteful to the bulk of its friends,
damaging to its morale, injurious
to its cause, defendable only on
the ground of expediency. 1t was
bargain that forced its spokesmen
into evasive, insineere and mislead-
ing explanations, compelled them
to defend an arrangement of which
in their hearts they did not
approve.
Financial Loss Doubted.
Whatever financial sacrifice may
be involved in ending it will not be
great. Actually, it is doubtful that
there will be any at all. For one
thing, it is impossible to verify the
large claims made of the money
raised under the contract since
1941. The estimates put out are
largely guesses. For another, the
comparison of figures under the
contract and before the contract
are not honest. For the very i'm
portant fact that prior to the con-
tract we were not in the war and
that after 1941 we were, Is mex
cusably unmentioned. For still an
other, thousands of regular Red
Cross contributors either reduced
or cancelled their gifts because Of
contract resentment. These easily
might Offset any drop in union
contributions.
At any rate, responsible Red Cross
heads all over the country will be
relieved not to have to make an
other campaign forced again to
explain and defend-particularly
as in the next drive there will be
no repetition of the 'liberality" Of
the rich corporations which in De-
cember, for the last time, under
the excess-profits tax, were enabled
to be generous" to all charities
without costing themselves any,
Cross ob3sined a large part Of its
funds In the recent drive. It cam
not do so again-but, at least, it
is free.
And it never would have been
free but for the publicity given the