Milford chronicle., 1951-03-23
FRIDAY, MARCH %, 1851
DIVIDED RESPONSIBILITY

DIVIDED RESPONSIBILITY
Divided responsibility is at the very heart
of Democracy. The country fully realizes
the critical nature of the emergency which
faces the United States and the entire free
world. 1t also realizes the necessity of deal
ing with this emergency efficiently but with
out developing tOtalitarianism, against which
we arm. There is no more cOrruphng influ-
ence than the development Of eyer-swelling
power. For this reason, and with entire
sympathy for the Armed Forces III every
legitimate and reasonable demand upon Con-
greSs and the American People, we suggest
the high Importance that Congress shall not
forget its own responsibility. For the elected
representatives of the people to put the stamp
of approval upon every request of the Armed
Forces when those requests are within the
area of Congressional responsibility and run
counter to the considered opinions of the
legislators, would be an abdication which
the people would regard with profound Un-
ease. Have we not been warned that we
cannot defend ourselves without losing every
thing we want to defend? We do not be-
lieve this to be true; it is ours to see to it
that it is not allowed to become true.
There was reason in Representative
Mundt's suggestion that even the contem-
plated expenditures for defense should be
subjected to close scrutiny for possible saw
ings. These thoughts are prompted by the
failure of the Senate Armed Services Com
mittee, in the bill it reported, to provide for
protection of the men in the Armed Forces
against systematic exploitation by the liquor
traffic. Many of these men will be very young
and many of then-we believe on the aver
age, the best of then-will come from homes
where they are encouraged to abstain from
liquors. Indeed, the majority of them will
have been taught in their schools and in
their churches that abstinence is the better
and safer way of life. The American Legion,
in bill it proposed to the Committee, made
very clear its attitude that such protection
should be offered in any system of military
training or service. Members Of the Sen
ate Committee who considered this legisla-
ton, men of great experience and prestige,
believe that such provisions should be made.
They have NOT been made and this failure
seems. to be due to an uneasy Difference on
the part of the legislators to all suggestions
from the PentsgOn. Too great difference
may lead to customary by-passing of the
elected representatives of the people, to
reach an autOcratic group holding all pow
en- of decision. There are men high in the
Armed Forces who are evidently disturbed
by the number of alcoholics among veterans.
When an abstainer becomes a drinker, he
incurs certain liability to alcoholism a
greater liability to ordinary addiction, and
a very formidable liability to involvement in
alcoholic misfOrtunes which are almost in
finite in variety
For this reason we suggest that the mat
ter should receive adequate consideration in
general debate. Why are not the provisions
of existing law carried Out2 Why are there
perslStlng rumorS and more than rumOrs,
of unsatisfactory conditions in the Occupa-
ton Area in. Germany? Why these humiH-
ating stories of misconduct, so damaging to
the prestige of the United States? Is it be
cause examples set the men are bad? Is it
because no standard is raised, no high ideal
of morality is set before the men in regard
to alcoholic indulgence? We believe that
others in places of responsibility should
share the evident concern of General Eisen-
hover IN this matter when he testified be-
fore the Armed Services Committee of the
United States Senate in February. Too much
is at stake for them to fail to do so. In the
meanwhile, the responsibility primarily
rests upon Congress. There should be no
rubber stamping.
LET'S HAVE NO FUTURE YALTAS
Nothing is easier than hindsight. 1t is
the simplest of matters to look back on great
political and military decisions which turned
sour and to point out just what should have
been done by those who had the responsible
Ivy OF deciding. However, certain of those
decisions stand out as mountainous. examines 4
Of errors Of judgment. In the view of a great
many people, the agreement which President
Roosevelt and Premier Churchill concluded
with Marshal Stain at Yalta early in 1915.
Tails INTO that sorry category. There are some
who still defend Yalta- particularly in view
Dt the world situation at that time, and the
problems which confronted Roosevelt and
Churchill IN their dealings with the Soviet