SEEN and HEARD' around the [ATIONAL CAPITAL By Carter Field AMOUS WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT Washington. — Republicans in the ise and senate are receiving an onishing number of letters from long G. O. P. voters insisting t practical expediency dictates breaking up of the Republican 'ty as a national institution, be writers almost without excep 1 take the ground that the im tant thing, both from their own Ish interests—which they gener r construe as the good of the mtry—and the carrying out of old Republican economic ideals, lot only to prevent the re-election Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1940 but prevent the election of any one isen by Roosevelt who will carry the New Deal policies, he only thing that holds the Dem iatic party together at the mo ot, many of these writers insist, he presence on the field of battle heir enemy, the Republican par Some of them make the point t the old truism that there are re Republicans in the United tes than Democrats—that this i Republican country—is no long nccurate. A new generation has pe of voting age, which has no ty ties rooted in the old tradi i, they insist, and apparently a y large majority of the younger s have very definitely affiliated l the Democratic party, ven the often made statement Republican Chairman John D. M. nilton about the tremendous iber of Republicans who voted the last election, nearly seven i million, is the bunk, many of ;e writers go out of their way assert. They point to the fact , a tremendous number of these ipublican" votes were actually t by Democrats who have no ( whatever for the Republican ty, its traditions or leaders. They ance Alfred E. Smith, John W. is, Balnbridge Colby, former ator James A. Reed of Missouri, though he never made a public ement that he was going to vote Alfred M. Landon, many writers mention Newton D. Baker. >uld Scrap G. O. P. >ere is no way of telling how ly Democrats, unhappy about New Deal tendencies of their y, voted for Landon. But every of the folks writing in recently asking that the Republican par e scrapped in order to open a r road for an effective conserv* e opposition to the New Deal ns to think a great many. ;t the opposition to being sed as a Republican, or to giv aid and comfort to a revival of G. O. P., the writers point out. rred literally millions of Dem its from jumping party lines, ly of the letters mention such -known Democratic leaders as itors Carter Glass and Harry F. i of Virginia, Millard E. Tyd of Maryland, Josiah W. Bailey lorth Carolina, and Walter F. rge of Georgia as among the locrats who supported ltoose some tepidly and some strong nerely because he was the Dem tic nominee, running against a ablican. Ithout the national Republican y opposition to hold it together, y of these letter writers be >, the Democratic party would >st immediately split into two ies, giving the country the con ative and progressive division economic lines to which it is Jed, and getting rid of bygone' ;s, labels and prejudices which Id no longer be permitted to be ll our presidential campaigns. ding Corporations t many votes are involved, so * is no telling what congress do about it, but there are a t many individuals on Capitol who think the personal holding oration, in many instances, is ?ctly moral and justified, e best demonstration is one did not happen. But let us take case of the author of “Gone the Wind.” That book came just over a year ago. It is rally estimated to have earned million dollars for Margaret hell. All of that million was ed in two calendar years, most in the first. And the govern t will take approximately half latl w no one would object to the rnment taking fifty per cent of icome of half a million dollars ar—if the income came every —if it was interest on invested bal or earnings from a going ern. it here is a case where an au certainly from a comparative ipoint, eked out an existence rg the ten or fifteen years in h this major opus was under truction. Furthermore, while statement may be confounded , most authors think it is ex ely unlikely that the writer of le With the Wind” will produce ler highly profitable work. As atter of fact, there is no in lion to date that she will at it it w to apply the corporation idea, irgaret Mitchell had incorporat he government would have tak fteen per cent of that one mil lion dollars—the normal levy on cor ; poration earnings. The rest could have remained in the surplus, save j what part she drew out for spend- , ing On that part drawn out in divi-' dends she would have to pay in- i come taxes, of course, but she would escape pie enormous sur taxes that an income of half a million dollars rates. She could dis tribute the taxes over the rest of her natural life, and the govern- | ment would be lucky to get $200,000 instead of the $500,000 it gets with Margaret Mitchell unincorporated. How It Works The point here is that there are a great many people who have brief periods of very high earning power, sometimes coming toward the end of a lifetime, and sometimes very early. It is just possible, for ex ample, that Shirley Temple will never earn a dollar after she is ten years old. Or nine for that matter. Often a comedian or more serious actor will struggle in comparative poverty for twenty years, as did the late Frank Bacon, and then have a wonderful three or four years. Sometimes it is only one year. There are other forms of occu pation where the same thing works out, with plenty of ups and downs, mostly downs. But the only way to prevent the government taking half or more of the profits in good years, although not helping out in bad years, is to incorporate. To hear the testimony of the gov ernment experts before the house committee, and to read the news paper articles about their testimony, the casual reader might assume that the person thus incorporating actually dodged all taxes in that particular directon. Let’s look at what the government actually does to corporations! In the first place, it takes fifteen per cent of all net earnings. That is a fair sized tax in itself, more than one dollar out of eight. In th