Evening star., 1947-06-30


Senate-did not read the dispatch
in question, but unfortunately dis
cussed it just as if they we're really
familiar with what was written.
In the House, Representative
Hart, Democrat, of New Jersey, put
into the Congressional Record
long letter from Father Dobson,
director Of the Institute of Indus
trial Relations Of st. Peters College
in Jersey City, N. j., discussing the
same dispatch. Also Representative
Thomas L. Owens, Republican, of
Illinois. expressed his views to the
House on the matter.
Point Apparently Missed.
With the exception of Representa-
tive Owens, who really read what
was written and agreed with it, they
ell seem completely to have missed
the point. Thus Senator McGrath
said during the debate on the Taft
Hartley bill:
The Senator from Idaho spoke
Of an article by David Lawrence in
which he stated that he resented
the fact that certain people who
have some responsibility for the
morals and social welfare of our
people have dared to express their
views, in accordance with their
rights as free Americans. Does the
Senator from Idaho subscribe to
the view Of Mr.. Lawrence that be-
cause a man happens to be of the
cloth, he thereby is precluded from
expressing his views on economic
and social and political questions?"
To this, Senator Taylor replied:
4 say TO the Senator that l
disagree with that view of Mr. David
LaWrence's, and may add that I
do not reCollect ever reading any,
thing which he wrote that l did
agree with
Unwarranted Conclusion.
Then Senator McGrath con-
tinued: Does the Senator from
Idaho agree that an expression of
that kind by a columnist is worthy
of the SevereSt condemnation in the
Senate of the United StateS-a
comment Of that sort from a man
who proposes to silence the voice
of morality in this country as
against his own, self-proclaimed
right Of expressing his views on
politics and economics and immoral
iSSueS?"
Senator Taylor, of course, an
swered he had been condemning the
statement and thought it was "ab-
.Solutely wrong
Now it so happens that both Sen
atorS were talking about something
they must have imagined. For
when the writer re-eXamined his
original dispatch, he did not find
anything therein to warrant the
statement that he was trying to-
silence the voice of morality"
What this correspondent did say
was that it was unfortunate that
all institution which is described as
the social action department" OF
the National Catholic Welfare Con-
ference" should take sides and en-
deavor to exert pressure on the
President to veto piece of pending
LEGISLATION and that this was mix
ing the church into politics.
Similar Group Criticized.
The writer previously had criti-
cized a similar body, the Social Re
search Department of the Federal
Council of the Churches of Christ
a Protestant organizat1on-tor IN
vading the same field of politics on
q different issue. The two Senators.
Of course, did not read the con-
Guiding paragraph in the original
disnatch It reads as follows:
There is not the slightest OBJ
tocuoN IL the expression of views
BY Individual clergymen on puollc
Questions when they are plainly
acting as individual citizens. But
for any church unit, functlonlng
as an institution, to mix IN as a
pressure group on specific laws IN
the economic or political field is to
involve America in unfortunate con-
troverSies where the influence OF
the churches will be weakened IN
stead Of strengthened"
If the men in the social action
department of the National Cathollc
Welfare Conference had issued their
statement in their own names as
individuals. or if Father Dobson' as
al authority in the field of labor
relations, had discussed the SUD
ipct. there would never have been
the slightest criticism from any one.
Many letters from prominent Cath
c,i~s have been received by thF
vriter approving the point OF vleN
expressed in the original dispatch,
~. la..t rana II