The Omaha guide. (Omaha, Neb.) 1927-19??, September 09, 1939, City Edition, Page 9, Image 9

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

X All News Copy of Churches and Organiz- V
X ations must be in our office not later than U
U 5:00 p. m. Monday for current issue. All Q
{) Advertising Copy or paid articles not later X
A than Wednesday noon, proceeding date of y
y issue, to injure publication. _u
a Race prejudice must go. The fatherhood U
y of God and the Brotherhood of Man must pre-Q
Q vail. These are the only principles which will X
X stand the acid test of time. ^ V
fj James H. Williams, James E. Seay, Linotype X
X Ope: a ars and Pressmen U
y Paul Barnett, Foreman Q
X Published every Saturday at 2418-20 Grant 0
y Street, Omaha, Nebraska— Phone WE. 517Q
fj Entered a; 2nd Class Matter March 15, 1927X
X at the Post Office at Omaha, Nebr., underU
U Act of Congress of March 3, 1879. M
Soviet Parliament Outlaws Barring of
Vote to Any Race
By Austin Worth, Moscow Correspondent CNA,
MOSCOW, USSR—(By Airmail)
—The recently held second session ot
the Supreme Soviet of Sussian Soviet
Federated Sociasist Republic (RSFS
R), one of the eleven republics without
the curse of racial prejudice d mpris
ing the Soviet Union, adopted unani
mouly its election rules which the fran
chise and election democracy on a scale
and equality such as the Negro people
everywhere have long dream of but
never achieved.
Neither race or color, creed nor
education, possessions nor social des
cent can stand in the way to disfran
chie a citizen of the RSFSR, whb is al
so at the same time a citizen of the
RSFSR under the election rules. Thus,
a citizen here is doubly guaranteed the
franchise, that is, by the election laws
of the USSR and by the separate elec
tion rules of the FSFSR. — «*
The forthcoming general elections
in the FSFSR this coming fall will be
such a mass turnout of citizens—black
and white, yellow and brown—as Ga.
and Arkansas, Miss, and Fla. and the
rest of tlie Bible Belt find impossible
under their Ixourbon-landltrd rule.
—No Place for Ku Klux Klan
It was during just an election as
the forthcoming one is expected to be
that the American Negro worker,
I^bert Robinson, was elected by the
people as one of their deputies in the
Moscow' Soviet, highest governing
organ of the city of Moscow, capital of
one sixth of the earth. Paul Robeson
has declare himself so delighted with
all-round Soviet denixnracy, politically
socially and economically— that he
wants his son to be educated and grow
up under such a system.
The Ku Klux Klan and all of its co
horts would soon find themselves be
hind the bars under the RSFSR elec
tion rules. For here is W'hat the elec
tion law's declares (and enforces):
“Any person who by violence,
fraud, intimidation, or bribery, hin
ders a citizen of the RSFSR in the
exercise ctf his rights to elect and be
elected,” faces a term of imprisonment
up to two years.
Then* are no loopholes or subtar
fuges in this law, no way to beat round
the bush or raise “Grandfather
Clauses,” etc., to deprive citizens of
their birthright and -citizen rights. In
this respect the election rules lay down
the inviolable law that “All citizens of
the RSFSR who have reached the age
of 18, irrespective of race, nationality
religion, standard of education, domi
cile, social reign, property status or
past activity” as the right to vote and
be elected, and no power, individual or
group of individuals can deprive him
of this right.
Oppression Abolished
About the closest approach that the
American Negro people have ever
made the franchise democracy uni
versally existing in Soviet Russia was
- ==It
during the Reconstruction pe*-od,
when Negroes sat in the Southern
state legislatures, had their own arm
ed people’s militia, and gave the South
its first public school education sys
How comes it, then, that more than
three-fourths of a century later the
huge RSFSR, sprawling over vast
scretches of Europe and Asia and with
a population of colors in excess of 60
millions, can put the vote into the hand
of ever/ citizen, as well as social and
economic equality?
The answer seems not far to seek.
Primarily, it is that oppress pn of
races and exploitation of man by man
has been abolished, there are no pos
sessing and nonpossessing class, and
equality of all rights have been grant
ed to all citizens with nit any distinc
tions, racial or otherwise.
The American public is. unknow
ingly, being taxed gigantic sums of
money annually as a result of our
haphazard transportation policies.
That is the opinon of M. J. Gorm
ley of the Association of American
Railroads, whb points out that, ac
cording to a recent authoritative sur
vey, highway transportation was sub
sidized to the tune of $10,000,000,000
between 1921 and 1932—and that it is
reliably estimated another $3,000,000,
000 has been donated by general tax
payers since then, and the subsidy is
now alpfut $680,000,000 per year, which
is the amount in excess of what motor
vehicles pay.
Another survey indicates that, on
the basis of 1929 tonnage, it costs the
taxpayers of this cpuntry $4.50 for
every ton of freight moved on the Ohio
River from Pittsburgh to the mouth.
A report of the National Resour
ces Committee found, on^the basis of
1928-29 tonnage, that the taxpayers
were subsidizing shippers on the Low
er Mississippi River to the extent of
alj>ut nine mills per ton mile.
What this amounts to is that ap
parent differentials between railway
rates and the rates charged by other
camel's, are usually a delusion. The
lower rates charged by the latter are
made possible only by handsome sub
sidies—which all of us are taxed to
As Mr. Gfcrmley says. "There is no
economic health or vigor in such a
policy." What we need today is a cohe
sive transportation policy under which
all carriers will stand on their own
feet, all be subjected to fair regulation
all pay their own way. Any other
course spells continued chaos in trans
portation — and more unnecessary
headaches lor taxpayers.
If for no other reason than the fact
that they are the promoters of nation
wide "producer-consumer" campaigns,
the retail chain stores are entitled fc}
an established niche in the economic
structure of the nation.
Since the food chains inaugurated
this organized plan of agricultural as
sistance three years ago, more than
65 empaigns & promotions have been
conducted. On a number of these, fi
gures are available with which to
measure concrete results. They indi
cate startling and gratifying success.
For example, a national beef cam
paign in 1936 brought a 34% increase
in beef sales over a comparable period
in 1935. Large percentages increases
in sales were reported for similar cam
paigns in grapefruit (274%, lamb
(42 percent), apples {46 percent), eggs
(16 percent), beans (45 percent),
oranges (64 percent), dairy products
and other citrus fruits.
„ .j _ 1
In the face of demonstrable proof
of this kind, of the economic value of
mass merchandising, it is hard to see
how politicians and short-sighted busi
ness men will be able to talk the public
into condemning the chains to death
with “chain store taxes" and other
forms of punitive legislation. Even
now the tide appears to be turning.
And undoubtedly if given a fair op
portunity, mass merchandising will do
still more in the future to ameliorate
the evils of farm surpluses.
---yj yj
Most of us have seen, in some in
dividual instance, the tragic problem
of men grown old without financial re
sources, and forced \> subsist on the
bounty of relatives or public charity.
The plight of thousands of widows
is equally grave. According to the U.
S. Census Bureau, 32 per cent of all
the widows in this country must work
for a living.
Many of these women once had
fine hpmes. rJ\heir husbands earned
good salaries, or owned prosperous
businesses. But no bulwark was es
tablished against the future, and when
death came to the wage earner, there
was little or nothing left for depen
It is an encouraging thing, going
by the records of life insurance sales,
that more and more men are making
sure that their widows mav never be
in that unhappy position.
“Like it or not, we have got to
make the choice between free enter
prise and Fascism—A >r economic plan
ning. Let us revive the capitalistic
system by restoring the flow of ven
ture capital through a basic correction
of our system of taxation. Let us bat
tle for free enterprise by putting up a
real fight for free and open competi
tion. If we are willing to fight not for
special privilege but for such objec
tives, it won’t take long to put those
ten million back to work, to insure a
continuation of the American way of
life, and to bring back that singing,
surging America that we all love.”—
Paul G. Hoffman.
ARE Americans irresponsible
This would appear to be the only
logical conclusion to be drawn from
the fact that during the past eight
years the yearly additions to the pub
lic debt have averaged three and a half
billion dollars, which is mpre than the
total cost of government in 1929, not
withstanding new and heavy taxation
that has been imposed since then. By
July 1, 1940, the President estimates
that the Federal debt will be $44,458,
000,000, as contrasted to $16,000,000,
000 in 1932. Interest alme on this vast
amount now consumes 20 cents of
every dollar of tax revenue, or over
$1,000,000,000 a year.
All the flag waving in the uni
verse cannot save a spendthrift nation
from revolutionary chaos. And that is
something that the general public does
not yet seem to realize. Public officials
in the nation’s capital are now almost
helpless to stem the tide of spending,
even if they S3 desired. The desire to
stop spending the nation into ruin has
got to start at home. Every man and
woman must come to realize that the
Federal debt is rapidly approaching
proportions that threaten the very
foundations of individual liberty.
There is no such thing as “free
money.” As one public official, a
United States Senator, recently point
ed out: “We get the money from you
and you don’t get it all back. We take
your shirt and give you a little piece
of the shirt tail. Then you go back
home waving it and shouting, ‘Look
what Uncle Sam gave me.’”
One essential of national prosperi
ty, observed a recent economic survey,
is the existence otf “a private banking
system, publicly supervised, operated
primarily for the benefit of indivi
duals, industry, commerce and agricul
It should b(* kept in mind that there'
is a world of difference between gov
ernment “supervision" of banking and
government “control” or management
of banking.
Government supervision is prop
er and necessary. Government “con
trol" of banking, on the other hand,
Wjuld amount to government control
over practically all of the financial re
sources of America. Every bank ac
count would be more or less the play
thing- of politics. Immense financial
power uld be used for political ends
and purposes.
Our American private banking
system has worked. It has built our in
dustries and homes, and has done
much t*j help give us the highest work
ing and living standards in the world.
It has been largely responsible for our
world supremacy in every field of
commercial endeavor. To weaken
banking as a private enterprise is an
invitation to disaster. That would
place the savings of the American pen
pie more and more under the not-so
tendr mercies of politicians, few of
whom would be employed bya private
citizen to invest his savings or manage
his business.
- —0O0—-<—
The farm marketing cooperatives
have been subjected to many attacks.
They have been denounced by selfish
dealers, who dislik doing business with
organizations which can meet them on
equal terms in deciding prices. They
have been reviled by others with an
axe to grind at the farmers’ expense.
But the farmer, by and large, has
rpt been fooled. The membership rolls
of the marketing co-ops have steadily
increased. So has their volume of busi
ness. And this has happened because
the organizations have produced re
sults. They have broadened and stab
ilized markets. They have often im
proved prices. They have helped tho
consumer, by assuring him of a trust
worthy supply of farm products. And
they have done invaluable work in *
improving standards of farm main
tenance and operation.
The cooperative marketing move
ment brings business principles to the
craft of agriculture, and provides the
eventual solution to many of the farm
ers’ most difficult problems.
Whether taxes are or are not busi
ness deterrents depends to a large- ex
tent upon whether government actf-*
vities are necessary activities, wheth
er they are efficiently performed, and
whether government policies as a
whole are sound. Given a certain'
amount of revenues to be raised, how
ever, for whatever reason, it is obvious
that certain ways of raising them will
have a more deterrent effect on busi
ness than others. What the present
advocates of tax revision are now ad
vocating is merely the adoption of the
least harmful ways of raising the
existing level of revenues and the re
peal of the most harmful ways. That
problem should present insuperab^’
difficulties. In fact, there is remarka
ble agreement among the tax revisicr-*
ists concerning- the necessary progran'
—New' York Times. o . •> *.