COURAGE AND CORRUPTION

To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

It is somewhat ironic that the list of onetime Democrat "I Like Ike" for president men includes Harry Truman, Jake Arvey, James Roosevelt, and John S. Sparksman. If these men had ever prevailed upon Eisenhower to run as a Democrat, there would be no question about the outcome of this election. However, Eisenhower preferred not to be the political handmaid of a president who could call the Fullbright Report on RFC corruption "asinine" or who has still refused to fire Harry "Deep Freeze" Vaughan, Wallace "Grain Speculation" Graham, or Donald Dawson who, as presidential patronage boss with power to hire and fire the directors of the RFC, the Fullbright Report found, "recommended" many RFC loans which later went sour. This he did, the Report continued, on the advice of E. Merle Young, later indicted.

In his assignments as Supreme Commander in World War II and at NATO chief diplomat and great administrator. Both these jobs in scope, magnitude, and responsibility far surpass any job Adlai Stevenson has held. Eisenhower showed a great ability to get people of diverse nationalities and hostile viewpoints to work together effectively. As a candidate, he has used that same talent to bring an increasing degree of unity to his party. But his recent speech in Michigan clearly demonstrates that his foreign policy is as much as ever that of Senator Vandenberg, not Senator Taft. His speech in Milwaukee just as clearly demonstrates that he is against the practices of Senator McCarthy and specifically against smearing the innocent. Before the reporters, Eisenhower strongly and vigorously defended General Marshall. Eisenhower endorsed McCarthy, the candidate, not the man, because he wants a Republican Congress to work with. I have never yet heard of a presidential candidate, including Stevenson, who would not prefer to work with his own party. . .

A Soldier's Courage

Eisenhower has a soldier's courage. Unlike Stevenson, he has not changed his position on Taft-Hartley. But Eisenhower's greatest example of courage was his taking an unpopular position on national FEPC because of his conviction that compulsory laws do not make good long range solutions. Unlike Stevenson, he has not changed his position on national FEPC. Eisenhower's stand on compulsory laws is significant coming from a so called "military" man. If he was merely seeking Southern votes, why did he tell his audience at Comumbia, S. C. that no group of Americans can be allowed to remain in a status of second class citizenship?. . .

Stevenson started as an independent. Yet since Truman said that Stevenson must run on Truman's record, we have not heard one word of difference between the two men. Originally, Stevenson had some strong differences. I would like to know his position on the recent steel strike. I would like too know whether the government in the future will honestly mediate rather than take sides. We have seen his two major labor speeches follow the labor boss line completely and this after he had told the American Legion he would resist all pressure.

Truman vs. Jay Gould

Eisenhower has stated that the government must encourage collective bargaining that will be truly bilateral. Stevenson has not yet to take a stand on the issue drastically symbolized by the steel strike. When Stevenson, as now head of the Democratic Party, could have prevented Truman from campaigning, he might have fulfilled his promise to give up a high level campaign. Instead we have Truman running against Jay Gould and other present-day bogey-men. I hope that, if elected, Stevenson will not feel indebted to the man whose administration will probably go down as one of four most corrupt. His record so far in resisting pressures, contrary to his words, does not speak well for him. W. A. Newcomb 3L