101, TWO -.-. -, , ..... w .....t.,r.... .......... T1I~ MU~iANIAL WEDNESDAY, AM-4,1944 ________________________________________________ U ~------..-.. ~ '--.--------..---- Fifty-Third Year Edited and managed by students of the University o' Michigan under the authority of the Board in Control of Student Publications. Published every morning except Monday during the regular University year, and every morning except Mon- day and Tuesday during the summer session. Member of The Associated Press The Associated Press is exclusively entitled to the use for republication of all news dispatches credited to it or otherwise credited in this newspaper. All rights of repub- lication of all other matters herein also reserved. Entered at the Post Of fic at Ann Arbor Michigan, as second-class mail matter.,' Subscriptions during the regular school year by car- rier $4.25, by mail $5.25. Member, Associated Collegiate Press, 1942-43 Editorial Staff Marion Ford . . . . . . Managing Editor Bud BGrimmer . . Editorial Director Leon Gordenker . iy. . . . Editor Harvey Frank . . . Sports Editor Mary Anne Olson . . . . Women's Editor Business Staff Jeanne Lovett . . . .Business Manager Molly Ann Winokur . Associate Business Manager Telephone 23-24-1 NIGHT EDITOR: MARGARET FRANK editorials published in The Michigan Daily are written by members of The Daily staf and represent the views of the writers only. FIRM STAND: Inter-Racal Assocaion Demands Jury Probe POSITIVE STAND toward the "blundering attempts of city officials to bring coherence out of confusion" in the recent Detroit race riots has been taken by the Inter-Racial Association. In telegrams to Prosecuting Attorney William E. Dowling and Mayor Edward J. Jeffries, Jr. and in an open letter to the Detroit papers, the Association demands a grand jury investigation of the causes of the riots. They attack Mayor Jeffries' "weak, vacillating position in his refusal to condemn the dangerous assertions of Dowling as having no foundation in supporting evidence and his half-hearted support of a grand-jury investigation." Dowling, key figure in the investigation of the riots, has persistently accused the Negro people of Detroit, the NAACP, the Negro press and leadership as the instigators of the riots. Ate has taken no steps to prove the truth of his assertions, but has ranted in blind prejudice against the Negro people, the true victims of the riots. Dowling's stand on the law enforcement dui'- ing the riots is directly contrary to the facts. There was no law and order until the troops took over. Dowling refuses to admit that the Detroit police were negligent and frightened. The dangerous consequences of these riots in arousing a storm of hatred and prejudice throughout the country is evidenced by the outbreak in Harlem between Negroes and po- licemen. The failure of Detroit officials to meet the'situation adequately has paved the way for a tide of lawlessness that may sweep the country. S THE OPEN LETTER STATES, "Wayne County's Prosecuting Attorney must be pos- sessed of a remarkable naivete if he believes any thinking man or woman in the City of Detroit today has confidence in the integrity and compe- tence of the City Police Department." Evidence indicates that the police could have quelled the disturbances in the early stages if they had taken a firm hand in dealing with the first outbreak. Police Commissioner Wither- spoon inexcusably feeling that the situation did not warrant an iron hand, realized too late that this was more than a Sunday evening skirmish. When he did get around to taking strong measures the disturbances were "completely out of hand and he had to call for help. The initiative taken by the titer-Racial Association in demanding a grand jury probe and making a study of the causes of the riots indicates that a sloppy and slipshod analysis and discriminatory treatment of the arrested rioters will not be tolerated in the greater democracy that is rising inevitably out of this war. THESE STUDENTS of the Inter-Racial Associ- ation have pledged themselves to the ideal of a true racial equality, but have not been lost in visionary clouds. They have taken concrete steps to see that prejudice, discrimimation and ignorance concerning the Negro minority in the United States is wiped out, through the excellent lectures of Robert Hayden and their demand for a grand jury probe of the riots. They are deter- mined that racial problems here shall be dealt with intelligently and quickly. With the backing of the campus, the steps taken by the Inter- tacial Association toward the meting out of justice to the true instigators of the riots can carry real weight. Not only MERRY-GO-ROUN WASHINGTON. Aug. 4.- One amusing side- light on Congress was its sudden loss of interest in legislation broadening the powers of the War Food Administrator the minute Judge Marvin Jones, then ex-colleague, was named to the job. Farm blocers in both Houses were clamoring for action on legislation giving the food ad- ministrator supervisory authority over prices as well as the production and distribution of farm commodities. This was while Chester Davis, seetly in league with farm bloc efforts to rig price ceilings at inflationary levels, still held the job.. Representative Hampton P. Fulmer of South Carolina, chairman of the Agriculture Commit- tee, had the stage all yet for the bill enlarging Davis's powers. He even announced, after un- successful efforts to get White House approval, that he was going before the Rules Committee and demand a "rule" to bring his measure to the Rouse floor. Jones Was Fulmer's predecessor as chairman of the Agriculture Committee, and everyone in Congress knew he was i tough hombre. So the last thing the fart bloc wanted was for Jones, a stalwart supporter of the President's -ant-inflation policies, to have the powers which had been tailor-mnade for Davis in the Fulmer bill. Also, there may have been, a personal motive in Fulmer's case. Friends say he never has quite forgiven Jones for holding on to the Agriculture Cominittee chairmanship for six months after his appointment to the Court of Claims in 194Q. Fulmer withdrew his request for a Rules Com- mittee hearing and hied himself to Myrtle Beach, S.C., for a summer vacation a week before Con- gress recessed. To Capitol newsmen, he ducked comment on his about-face but said frankly to colleagues: "What's the use of pressing for action on my bill now?" Officials here are crediting Alfred P. Sloan, chairman of General Motors, with reviving the old Liberty League under another name. He has just sent a round-robin letter to a large number of businessmen-including some of his own automobile dealers-urging that they raise a fund of $1,300,000 to be spent for educating the American public on "the problems of indus- try" Since this fund is for 1943 alone, and since $1,300,000 is no small amount to spend on propaganda i any year, Administration lead- ers draw the natural deduction that it is chief- l3 'another Liberty League war chest aimed at the New Deal. Joining Sloan in this appeal are other one- time Liberty Leaguers and anti-Roosevelt men, including: J. Howard Pew,bf Sun Oil, one of the GOP bosses of Pennsylvania; Colby Chester, chairman of General Foods; Ernest Weir, chair- man of National Steel; A. W. Eames, president of the California Packing Corporation; and James S. Adams, president of Standard Brands. They operate under the new name of "National Industrial Information Committee;" After attacking "the trply deplorable per- formance of Government bureaucracy" and praising "the truly magnificent performance of American industry," Sloan, in his letter, pro- poses a propaganda campaign to educate the public on the problems of industry. "We must not be too general," Sloan cautions. "We must not be too specific. But we must get across as effectively as we can our story . . . I do hope you will see fit to send me a subscription representing your company's proportionate share of our 1943 goal of $1,300,000." (Copyright, 1943, United Features Syndicate) SHOULD a teacher of history take up the chal- lenge laid down in Mr. Chips' statement that "the Soviet Union has consistently stuck to an honest and pro-democratic foreign policy"? The statement, unhappily, is not true to the facts as I know them (and it is my business to know), but, on the other hand, one is reluctant to criti- cize either a brave ally or a generally very sound and intelligent commentator. So let me begin by admitting that Russian foreign policy has been in recent years less menacing than that of any of the Axis Powers and more resolute, on many occasions, than that of any of the democracies. Russia has borne, and borne well, the heaviest burdens of the present war, and ought rightfully to play a great part in the future world. Russia was right about Munich; France and Britain were wrong. Russia was right in joining the League; we were wrong in refusing. But to represent Russian policy as altruistic, or as anything but pro-Russian. is to lead to dangerous self-deception. Such a thesis would run up against the following facts: (1) Russia refused nearly all forms of international cooper- ation from 1917 to about the middle of the 1930 decade; (2) Russia's pact with Germany in 1939 gave the signal for the present war; if Russia had not agreed to it the war might have been postponed; (3) Russia seized half of Poland-a disputed region, I admit, but still a cruel thing to do at the time when Poland was being wrecked by Germany; (4) Russia seized, without any real consent of the people, Estonia, Latvia and Lithu- ania, three independent republics; (5) Russia at- tacked Finland in time of peace, when (so far as any evidence goes) Finland merely wanted, in common with ALL the other small nations of Europe, to remain neutral and keep out of the war; (6) Russia did not enter the present war until directly attacked, and did not even give as much indirect aid, during her neutrality, to the hard-pressed democracies as we did ourselves; t7) the Communist party in France, Britain and, above all, in the United States always trying to keep the Russian "party line," denounced the war of the democracies, demanded that the work- ing class hold aloof froit "the second Imperialist War" and showed no sympathy at all with the crusade against Fascists and Nazis from 1939 till the summer of 1941, when Russia was attacked. On our campus, here at Michigan, the commu- nists and their sympathizers were by far the most active of the "Yanks - are - not - coming crowd" of isolationists. I repeat, the Russian record is no worse than the average Great Power record. It does not preclude the possibility of hearty cooperation with Russia now and afterwards. But I am tired of those whose Russian sympathies are so strong that they weigh Russia in a different pair of scales from the "capitalist nations." What is right is right, what is wrong is wrong, no matter who does it. If it was a crime to sacrifice Czech- oslovakia to the timidity of Britain and France; Why does it become a virtue to sacrifice Poland a year later to the interests of Russia? If Russia needed "time for rearmament" in 1939; did not Britain need it in 1938? If Russia has a good claim to her annexed territories because they used to form part of the old Russia (though often against the will of the people), why not justify the similar historic claims by other coun- tries? If Russia was right in annexing other peoples' land for strategic reasons of defense, why not admit the same plea when made by "capitalistic imperialists"? If democracy was in danger when Germany attacked Russia in 1941, why were the American Communists so cynically indifferent when France, Holland, Bel- gium, Norway, Denmark (all with democratic constitutions) fell in 1940, and Britain barely saved herself, Europe and America by a brave resistance? - Preston Slosson Straight from the Shoulder ...By CHIPS. pROF. SLOSSON in the adjoining Slosson that had we followed them, world put together, by forcing the column has attacked my views on we would have headed straight for Germans to concentrate millions of Soviet foreign policy in which he national disaster. But the policies of men and thousands of tanks and implies that anyone who does not the local Communist parties are not planes on her frontiers, could not share his views on Soviet foreign pol- the foreign policy of the Soviet Un- trust a Britain in which the Nazis icy is a Communist or fellow-tray- ion-that at least, I thought, would had also placed their faith. eller. be recognized by a historian. Russia did not follow a policy of Now, I have always been a pro- nN THE QUESTION of Soviet altruism, but an honest forthright gressive and have never been. an. sympathy for the gallant de- foreign policy in the selfish interests isolationist or Communist. I was fense of Britain, Prof. Slosson has of its people. In contrast, the poli- in favor of United States interven- evidently not read the heroic ac- cies of Britain and France, and to a tion in favor of Loyalist Spain in counts of Britain's valiant battle imuch lesser degree the United States, 1936, in favor of our participation in Pravda and Izvestia during the were not policies in the selfish inter- in collective security in 1938, in critical period in 1940. But how ests of the British, French, and favor of our active support, even to could Prof. Slosson expect the Sov- American peoples but were policies the point of war, of Britain, iet Union to give direct aid to a pursued in the selfish interests of France and Poland in their strug- country which had for so long op- British, French, and American Rus- gle agast Nazi Germany. I was posed collective security, a country sia-hating industrialists. an active member n the student which even German intelligence The selfish-interests of. the Amen- groups advocatig intervention In thought so anti-Soviet that it sent can people, had 'they been clearly the "European" war and have Rudolph Hess to conclude an anti- understood, without any sentimental ie d my a ance to Soviet alliance with it during the altruism, would have led us to a President and his New Deal poli- war in 1941?poiyfcletvesciyaoiy Iauesrpolcy of collective secuty, a polio -when I say that Soviet foreign It is obvious that Russia, who was that Russia vainly tried to sell the policy was a more honest and pro- indirectly aiding Britain far more world during the critical period of democratic foreign policy than that than all the other countries of the fascist aggression, 1935-39. of the other great powers, a policy based on collective security and the GRIN AND BEAR IT By Lichty preservation of the independence of small democratic states, I speak as a progressive and pre-war interven- tionist. As Prof. Slosson well knows the Soviet Union was forced into the Soviet-Nazi pact of 1939 only after persistent attempts in -crises such as Ethiopia, Czechoslovakia, China, and Spain, to create a system of collective security. He well knows that the announced policy of Brit- - ish conservatives and French in- dustrialists was to have Germany go to war against the Soviet Union. I IT WAS ONLY for national security that Russia took over the three Baltic republics of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, republics that were little fascist states. s,"; r Also conveniently forgotten by rof. Slosson is the fact that Nazi Germany had already obtaooed osnithfatta territorial concessions from Lithu- ania in the Memel agreement; that Colonel Beck and the Polish Gov- ernment were fleeing across the border into Rumania when Rus- sian troops finally marched into ~ Poland; that Russia offered Fin- land twice as much non-strategic territory for the few bases that they asked for; that the control- . ling influence in Finnish foreign policy was pro-Nazi Baron Man- ' nerheim.?.419,CcagoTisInc As to the question of the policies "If you're really determined to work in a war plant, Bridget, we can't of Communist parties in the dem- stop you--but first, write us a nice reference in case We ocracies, I definitely agree with Prof. set anothercook " DAL FFICIAL BULLETIN' Id Rather Be Right By SAMUEeLGnRFTON NFkW YORK, Aug. 4.-- After a six-day breath- ing space, Gen. Eisenhower did not seem, to be nearly so sure as some other Americans that soft words were-going to open the door into Italy. He turned, and strangely enough, placed his reliance for dealing with the Badoglio govern- ment on the same weapons he had used against the Mussolini government, bombers and naval vessels. After having given American commentators and columnists a week in which to conquer Italy by writing articles sympathizing with 'the prob- lems of Badoglio, Gen. Eisenhower found that he had to go back to'the good old way which has given us our only successes to date. The Allied Command's Sunday warning to Italy 'did not call King Victor Emmanuel any names. But it did say : "The Germans . .. have used that breathing space to strengthen their own position. And for that, full and sole responsi- bility rests with the new government in Rome. IHad that government acted speedily, the Ger- mans by now would be in full retre't." The Allied statement could hardly have come closer to saying that the new Badoglio govern- meit had protected the Germans, that it had prevented a German retreat. Some sections of American opinion became so tender toward the Badoglio regime during its Peace may be made with Italy soon, even per- haps before these words appear. If so, it will stand imperishably on the record that Italy sur- rendered only after the Allies had resumed aerial bombardment and coastal shelling. And the true test, in the scale of war, of the difference, or lack of difference, between the Mussolini and Badoglio governments, is that the same methods were needed to subjugate both. To those commentators who applied violent epithets, such as "stupid" and "ill-informed" to those of us who did not fall on our faces when Mussolini resigned, it must be said with all firmness that, in wartime, we cannot afford to rely on subjective tests to distinguish be- tween one regime and another. We cannot say that one regime is different from another, or better, because, in its secret heart, it may harbor sentiments which are, perhaps, morally superior to those of the regime it has replaced. The important difference in regime, in war- time, is that which shows itself in difference of policy, in actual difference of behavior, in overt acts. We need objective differences before we can be convinced that a major change has taken place. Subjective differences are not enough. This is not a psychological drama. This is war. These are questions of direct importance to the lives and safety of our soldiers. For the Ger- WEDNESDAY, AUG. 4, 1943 VOL. 111, No. 27-S - All notices for The Daily Official Bulle- tin are to be sent to the Office of the Summer Session in typewritten form by 3:30 p.m. if the day preceding its publi- cation, except on Saturday when the no- tices should be submitted by 11:30