'cdlcj ffkiAoon.Vol. 41, No. 58 Z-149 THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO. MONDAY, JANUARY 27, 1941 Price 5c Special War SupplementPrivate CitizenADLER OPPOSES HUTCHINS ON WARHutchins^ PrinciplesRights His JudgementWrongs Says Adler(Courtesy of the Daily Times)A house divided against itself standsoil the Midway where President Rob¬ert M. Hutchins of the University ofChicago and Mortimer J. Adler, hisclosest friend and adviser, held forthon the subject of America and thewar.When Hutchins broke a silence ofmore than eight years with a radioaddress, Dr. Adler replied.“President Hutchins is a man ofKood will whose integrity cannot bequestioned, any more than he hasquestioned the integrity and good willof Mr. Roosevelt or will question myow n,” Adler began. “I find myself inabsolute agreement with those prin¬ciples of freedom and justice given inhis radio address. I also find myselfin absolute disagreement with Pres¬ident Hutchins’ conclusions.”'Practical JudgmentWhen several men of good willagree on basic principles, Adler con¬tinued, and then arrive at oppositepractical conclusions, it must be be-jause they have formed different judg--nents of fact.“Mr. Hutchins is basing his adviceto the .American people—that thiscountry should stay out of war—oncertain practical judgments and not onprinciples,” Adler asserted, “for onthe same principles that he accepts,many citizens, including myself, canfive the country the opposite advice—lo go to war if it is necessary to pre¬sent a German victory over Greattlritain.“There is one fundamental point to)e made. Mr. Hutchins disagrees withne on this basic issue: Should theU. S. permit a German victory if toirevent it the U. S. must commit acts>f war against Germany? Mr. Hutch-ns say.s, ‘Y'es.’ I say ‘No.’“Why does Mr. Hutchins say ‘No’ tohat question? It is easier to find, inhis radio speech, why he does noteach this conclusion than it is to findvhy he does reach it. Mr. Hutchinsarefully lists the motives behind such nations now fighting Hitler, Mr.Hutchins, by his own admission, wouldnot advise the U. S. to help them.“But does President Hutchins fol¬low his own principles in decidingwhat aid to give Britain? ‘Aid toBritain, China and Greece,’ he saidlast night, ‘should be extended on thebasis most likely to keep us at peace,and least likely to involve us in war.’“But why does Mr. Hutchins saythis? Is he not urging us to followour most .selfish, materialistic im¬pulses?”Own Words ContraryThe difficulty in Mr. Hutchins’ case,Adler explained, becomes apparentwhen you apply his advice to an in¬dividual. Would President Hutchinsadvise a good man, a moral man to beselfish? He would not, any more thanhe advises the U. S. to act from selfishmotives. Good and moral men, like 1good and moral nations, must be pre-1pared to make sacrifices for human- jity. These are Dr. Hutchins’ own jwords:“But if the good man decides hemust try to save a friend,” Adlerasked, “does he say to himself, *I willdo all I can for him as long as I donot get hurt?’ If Mr. Hutchins wouldnot advise a man to act so, why doeshe so advise a nation?“Here is a fatal contradiction in Mr.Hutchins’ thesis. He would have usunselfish and sefish at the same time.We should aid Britain but only to thepoint where it hurts. Then we shouldcease helping her. fellow traveler'StudentsCommentOn TalkIn an effort to discover what thereactions of University students wereto President Hutchins’ radio addressThursday evening, a Maroon inquiringreporter gathered > the following com¬ments.Walter Blum, Senior in the LawSchool: “The speech served to throwfurther doubt into my mind as to whatis the best course for America to fol¬low. Further discussion is necessary,but must await more complete dis¬closure of relevent facta—primarilymilitary ones.”Points Inconsistency Henrietta Mahon, Senior in History:“President Hutchins’ speech appealed“I say this is inconsistent with his I to me for two reasons in particular,statement that ‘national selfishness I First, his stress on the outcome ofshould not determine national policy.’ I war, the moral degradation, loss ofI say this is not what Mr. Hutchins! freedom, economic instability etc. thatwould do as an Individual, as a moral j will result. This point has seldom beenman. I feel he would agree that it is mentioned by any of the speakers dis¬not what a moral community should i cussing the question of our entrancedo either, if he were not concerned ■ into the war, and I have never heardwith another problem.” ■ it expressed with more clarity and... ... , , . .. ' forcefulness. Secondly, I agree veryAdler said he referred to the prac.,^j , Hutchin’s state-tical question of an Axis invasion of I ^^Remain At Peace^^Hutchins DemandsOf U.S. In Broadcastthe western hemisph'^re. Dr. Hutchins, ments concerning the fact that werewe to go to war we would be fightingrroups a.s the America First commit- he said, mentioned a “mass of assump-,oe, concluding that none of them im-•els him to agree with their position. assumptions, Hutchins i ing blindly for no real cause—unless‘In Their Camp’“ ‘I dissociate myself from alliJazis, Fascists, Communists and ap-leasers,’ he says, and from ‘those whoI'ant us to stay out of war to saveur own skins or our own property.’le dissociates himself from these'cople but he cannot help finding him-elf in their camp,” Mr. Adler con-inued.“For a man of Mr. Hutchins’ in-ugrity this is an unpleasant predica-lent, therefore he made a special ef-f>rt last night to distinguish himselflum his fellow-travelers.“ ‘1 believe,’ he said, “that the peo-le of this country are and should berepared to make sacrifices for hu-lanity. National selfishness shouldot determine national policy.’ If Mr.lutchins means what he says, he hasfvealed the weakness of his entireosition.“Mr. Hutchins wants to give military'■sistance to the nations fightingttalitarism, not for selfish national•asons, not to gain time for our own‘arming, but because these countriesTO more just and moral than theiriiemies. He would have the U. S. ex-■nd aid unselfishly.“For only national selfishness com-'ds us to aid Britain ‘so that welight have time to rearm.’ If thatMl' the only reason for helping the said last night, rests the case for war.They lead to the conclusion that theU. S. might as well fight Germanynow, while Britain can help, as laterwhen we would be alone.Hutchins ‘Assumptions’The assumptions mentioned byHutchins are: (1) That the Briti.shempire must fall unless we enter thewar. (2) That the dictators will sur¬vive the conflict. (3) That they willwant to attack us. (4) That they willbe in a position to attack. (5) Thatthey will find it possible to attack thewestern hemisphere. Hutchins said itis only on a “pyramid of (these) as¬sumptions, hypotheses and guesses”that the decision to go to war rests.“My answer to this is simple. Mr.Hutchins is doing exactly what he ac¬cuses his opponents of doing. He ismaking assumptions. He is assumingthat Britain will not fall, that thedictators will not survive, that theywill not want to attack us, that theywill not be in a position to do so andwill rot find it possible to attack us. one could call ‘saving the world fordemocracy’ when as Mr. Hutchinspointed out we could do much morefor democracy by perfecting it athome;”Erica Muller, Sophomore in the Col¬lege: “His speech included many validstatements which analyzed the presentneeds of this country; however, hisconclusions were illogical and idealis¬tic 'since they did not take into con¬sideration the other side of the ocean.We cannot choose between heaven andhell; but only between hell and a bet¬ter hell.”Vincent Burke, Senior in Social Sci¬ence: “I agree with Hutchins thatA'merica should stay out of the warto try to preserve the world’s onlyhope for democracy, though at thesame time I would like to send Brit¬ain “all-out” supply aids. Rooseveltwon’t let us do both. So, I’m afraidHutch was really only promoting a Text of the Address byROBERT M. HUTCHINS(Over the red network of the Na¬tional Broadcasting Company, 9:30-10 p. m. (C. S. T.) Thursday,Jan. 23.)I speak tonight because I believethat the American people are about tocommit suicide. We are not planningto. We are drifting into suicide. Deaf¬ened by martial music, fine language,and large appropriations, we aredrifting into war.I address you simply as an Ameri¬can citizen. I do not represent the Uni¬versity of Chicago. I am not a militaryexpert. It is true that from the age of18 to the age of 20 I was a private inthe American army. I must have some¬where the very fine medal given meby the Italian government of thatday in token of my co-operation onthe Italian front. But this experiencewould not justify me in discussingtactics, strategy, or the strength towhich our armed forces should nowattain.I wish to dissociate myself from allNazis, Fascists, Communists, and ap¬peasers. I regard the doctrine of alltotalitarian regimes as wrong intheory, evil in execution, and incom¬patible with the rights of man.No National SelfishnessI wish to dissociate myself fromthose who want us to stay out of warto save our own skins or our ownproperty. I believe that the people ofthis country are and should be pre¬pared to make sacrifices for human¬ity. National selfishness should notdetermine national policy.It is impossible to listen to Mr.Roosevelt’s recent speeches, to studythe lease-lend bill, and to read thetestimony of cabinet officers upon itwithout coming to the conclusion thatthe President now requires us to un¬derwrite a British victory, and appar¬ently a Chinese and a Greek victory,too. We are going to try to producethe victory by supplying our friendswith the materials of war. But what ifthis is not enough? We have abandon¬ed all pretense of neutrality. We areto turn our ports into British navalbases. But what if this is not enough?Then we must send the navy, the airforce, and, if Mr. Churchill wants it,the army. We must guarantee the vic¬tory.We used to hear of “all aid short ofwar.” The words “short of war” areominously mihsing from the Presi¬dent’s recent speeches. The lease-lendbill contains provisions that we shouldhave regarded as acts of war up tolast week. The conclusion is inescap¬able that the President is reconciledto active military intervention if suchintervention is needed to defeat theAxis in this war.Roosevelt SupporterI have supported Mr. Roosevelt sincehe first went to the White House. Ihave never questioned his integrityor his good will. But under the pres¬sure of great responsibilities, in theheat of controversy, in the interna “a woi’ld founded on freedom ofspeech, freedom of worship, freedomfrom want, and freedom from fear.”We are to intervene to support themoral order. We are to fight for “thesupremacy of human rights every¬where.”With the President’s desire to seefreedom of speech, freedom of wor¬ship, freedom from want, and freedomfrom fear flourish everywhere wemust all agree. Millions of Americanshave supported the President becausethey felt that he wanted to achievethese four freedoms for America.Others, who now long to carry theseblessings to the rest of the world,were not conspicuous on the firing linewhen Mr. Roosevelt called them, eightyears ago, to do battle for the fourfreedoms at home. But let us agreenow that we want the four freedoms;we want justice, the moral order, de¬mocracy, and the supremacy of humanrights, not here alone, but everywhere.The question is whether entrance intothis war is likely to bring us closerto this goal.little arm chair discussion—all goodstuff and true, but unfortunately only j tfonafgamrof'bluff, the^PreridenUs, academic m scope. j speeches and recommendations areRichard V. Bovbjerg, Senior in committing us to obligations abroadZoology; “I believe nothing in the cannot perform. The effort“I cannot make these assumptions, i could be critcized except the I perform them will prevent theThese are the questions of fact about conclusion which did not necessarily I ?ichievement of the aims for which thewhich reasonable men can reasonably ■ although it is certainly one ■ FTesident stands at home. ■disagree. In terms of their disagree- view. I liked particularly his j£ ^ poine-ment reasonable men come out with j assumptions for a German vie- foj.? This is to be a crusadedifferent pr.et.cal conclus.ona. „t w.r.“ f Zty war. Jts o^e^t U IrT We(Continued on Page 3) ' (Continued on Page 4) are seeking, the President tells us. Stay OutHow can the United States betterserve suffering humanity everywhere:by going into this war, or by stayingout? I hold that the United Statescan better serve suffering humanityeverywhere by staying out.But can we stay out? We are toldit is too late. The house is on fire.When the house is on fire, you.do notstraighten the furniture, and cleanout the cellar, or ask yourself whetherthe house is as good a house as youwould like. You put out the fire ifyou can.The answer is that the house is noton fire. The house next door is on fire.When the house next door is on fireyou do not set fire to your own house,throw the baby on the floor, and rushoff to join the fun. And when you dogo to quench the fire next-door, youmake sure that your bucket is fullof water and not oil.But, we are told, we are going tohave to fight the Axis sometime. Whynot fight it now, when we have Britainto help us? Why wait until we haveto face the whole world alone?Pure AssumptionsThink of the mass of assumptionsupon which this program rests. First,we must assume that in spite of itsheroic resistance and in spite of theenormous supplies of munitions whichit is yet to receive from America theBritish Empire must fall.Second, we must assume that thepresent rulers of totalitarian stateswill survive the conflict.Third, we must assume that if theseregimes survive they will want to at¬tack us.Fourth, we must assume that theywill be in a position to attack us. Thisinvolves the assumptions that theywill have the resources to do so, thattheir people will consent to new andhazardous ventures, that their task ofholding down conquered nations willbe easily completed, and that the am¬biguous attitude of Russia will causethem little concern.Next, if Britain falls, if the total¬itarian regimes survive, if they wantto attack us, if they are in a positionto do so, we must further assume thatthey will find it possible to do so. Theflying time between Africa and Bra¬zil, or Europe and America, does notdecide this question. The issue iswhat will be at the western end of theline. This will depend on our moraland military preparedness. A lone(Continued on Page 2)/ /i/Page Two THE DAILY MAROON, MONDAY. JANUARY 27. 1941%£ dailq IfloADon.The Daily Maroon is the official etudentnewspaper of the University of Chicago, pub¬lished mornings except Saturday, Sunday, andMonday during the Autumn. Winter, andSpring quarters by The Daily Maroon Com¬pany, B831 University avenue. Telephones:Hyde Park 9221 and 9222.After 6:30 phone in stories V> our printers.The Chief Printing Company, 148 West 62ndstreet. Telephones: Wentworth 6123 and 6124.The University of Chicago assumes no re¬sponsibility for any statements appearing inThe Daily Maroon, or for any contract enteredinto by The Daily Maroon.The Daily Maroon expressly reserves therights of publication of any material appear¬ing in this paper. Subscription rates: $3 ayear; |4 by mail. Single copies: three cents.Entered as second class matter March 18.1908, at the post office at Chicago, Illinois,under the act of March 3, 1879. "Remain At Peai :e"Hutchins Asks N(Continued from Page 1) ation doned if they interfere with winning i industry and our cuitural life, anda war. In the ordinary course of war help us make democracy work,most of them do interfere. All of themMemberftssocioied CbIle5«alG PressDistributor ofCbllebiclie Di6estBOARD OF CONTROLWILLIAM HANKLA ERNEST LEISERPEARL C. RUBINSJOHN P. STEVENS. ChairmanBusinessWILLIAM LOVELL, Business ManagerWILLIAM KIMBALL, Advertising ManagerEDITORIAL ASSOCIATESJames Burtle, Chester Hand, Richard Himmel,Daniel Mezlay, Richard Philbrick, Robert F.D. Reynolds, and Daniel Winograd.BUSINESS ASSOCIATESRobert Dean, George Flanagan, Lyle Harper,and Myles Jarrow.Night Editors: Ruth Ahlquist, Dale Tillery,Helen Pearce, Dick BakerSupplementaryApparently the question ofwhether the United States shouldaid Great Britain, even if itmeans war, is not one w'hich canbe resolved simply from prin¬ciples.Fascinating, and a little tragic,is the alignment of distinguishedthinkers on the question of whatAmerica’s policy in a world atwar should be. President Hutch¬ins and Mortimer Adler, w’hoseagreement in the past has beenso marked as to be notorious,are in direct disagreement. An¬ton J. Carlson, who has been oneof the President’s bitterest ene¬mies as an educator and philoso¬pher, finds himself in politicalaccord wdth his former foe.Maynard Krueger, who as aneconomist and a materialist,would have been denounced byboth Hutchins and Adler as a“positivist” responsible for thefailure of American educationtoday, is aligned on the side ofthe President in this particularissue. Wirth, who has been aclose associate of Krueger’s andis also a determined “positivist”is on the other side of the fencenow, and in Adler’s backyard.Starting in our regular issuestomorrow% the Maroon wdll de¬vote a week to its analysis ofHutchins’ broadcast. But today,we are allowing our elders andour scholastic superiors to ex¬press themselves.Having read carefully whatthey say, we feel certain thatthese opinions are more thor¬oughly considered than any ofthe political addresses w’hichhave been made on the vitalquestion so far.Probably few people will havetheir convictions changed bywhat any of the scholars have tosay—on such a burning politicalquestion opinions are too definite,and too rigid to be easily swayed-. |But at least they will have areasonably complete presentation;of both sides of the “defeat Hit- -ler at any cost” thesis. }This w^as our chief purpose in iprinting this supplement issue.!We hope it is read with the careit deserves. iE. S. L. I squadron of bombers might conquer acontinent peopled with inhabitantscareless of safety or bent on slavery.We cannot assume that any combina¬tion of powers can successfully invadethis hemisphere if we are prepared todefend ourselves and determined to befree.War Not InevitableOn a pyramid of assumptions, hy¬potheses, and guesses therefore, restsa decision to go to war now because itis too late to stay outo There is nosuch inevitability about war with theAxis as to prevent us from askingourselves whether we shall serve suf¬fering humanity better everywhere bygoing into this war or by staying out.The chances of accomplishing thehigh moral purposes w-hich the Pres¬ident has stated for America, even ifwe stay out of war, are not bright.The world is in chaos. We must giveour thought and energy to buildingour defenses. What we have of highmoral purpose is likely to suffer di¬lution at home and a cold receptionabroad. But we have a chance to helphumanity if we do not go into thiswar. If we do go into it. we have nochance at all.The reason why we have no chanceto help humanity if we go into thiswar is that we are not prepared. I donot mean, primarily, that we are un¬prepared in a military sense. I meanthat w’e are morally and intellectuallyunprepared to execute the moral mis¬sion to which the President calls us.Convictions Clear?A missionary, even a missionary tothe cannibals, must have clear and de¬fensible convictions. And if his planis to eat some of the cannibals in or¬der to persuade the others to espousethe true faith, his convictions must bevery clear and very defensible indeed.It is surely not too much to ask ofsuch a missionary that his own lifeand works reflect the virtues whichhe seeks to compel others to adopt.If we stay out of war, we may per¬haps some day understand and prac¬tice freedom of speech, freedom ofworship, freedom from want, andj freedom from fear. We may even beI able to comprehend and support jus¬tice, democracy, the moral order, andthe supremacy of human rights. To¬day we have barely begun to graspthe meaning of the words.\Those beginnings are important.They place us ahead of where we wereat the end of the last century. Theyraise us, in accomplishment as well asin ideals, far above the accomplish¬ment and ideals of totalitarian pow’-ers. They leave us, however, a gooddeal short of that level of excellencewhich entitles us to convert the worldby force of arms.Freedom for Whom?Have we freedom of speech andfreedom of worship in this country?We do have freedom to say what ev¬erybody else is saying and freedom ofworship if we do not take our religiontoo seriously. But teachers who do notconform to the established canons ofsocial thought lose their jobs. Peoplewho are called “radicals” have myste¬rious difficulties in renting halls. Labororganizers sometimes get beaten upand ridden out of town on a rail.Norman Thomas had some troubles inJersey City. And the Daughters ofthe American Revolution refused tolet Marian Anderson sing in the na¬tional capital in a building calledConstitution Hall.If we regard these exceptions asminor, reflecting the attitude of themore backward and illiterate parts ofthe country, what are we to say offreedom from want and freedom fromfear? What of the moral “order andjustice and the supremacy of humanrights. What of democracy in theUnited States?Human DignityWords like these have no meaningunless we believe in human dignity.Human dignity means that every manis an end in himself. No man can beexploited by another. Think of thesethings and then think of the share¬croppers, the Okies, the Negroes, theslum dwellers, downtrodden and op¬pressed for gain. They have neitherfreedom from want nor freedom fromfear. They hardly know they are liv¬ing in a moral order or in a democraev where justice and human rights aresupi'eme.We have it on the highest authoritythat one-third of the nation is ill-fed,ill-clothed, and ill-housed. The latestfigures of the National ResourcesBoard .show that almost precisely 55per cent of our people are living onfamily incomes 'of less than $1250 ayear. This sum, says Fortune Mag¬azine, will not support a family offoul’. On this basis more than halfour people are living below the min¬imum level of subsistence. More thanhalf the army which will defend de¬mocracy will be drawn from those whohave had this experience of the eco¬nomic benefits of “the American wayof life.”Want and FearWe know that we have had till late¬ly nine million unemployed and thatwe should have them still if it werenot for our military preparations.When our military preparations cease,we shall, for all we know, have ninemillion unemployed again. In hisspeech on December 29 Mr. Rooseveltsaid, “After the present needs of ourdefense are pa.st, a proper handlingof the country’s peacetime needs willrequire all of the new productive ca¬pacity—if not still more.” For tenyears we have not known how to usethe productive capacity we had. Nowsuddenly we are to believe that bysome miracle, after the war is over,we shall know what to do with ourold productive capacity and what to doin addition with the tremendous in¬creases which are now being made.We have want and fear today. Weshall have want and fear “when thepre.sent needs of our defense arepast.”As for democracy, we know thatmillions of men and women are dis-franchished in this country because oftheir race, color, or condition of eco¬nomic servitude. We know that manymunicipal governments are models ofcorruption. Some state governmentsare merely the shadows of big-citymachines. Our national governmentis a government by pressure groups.Almost the last question an AmericanIS expected to ask about a proposalis whether it is just. The question ishow much pressure is there behind itor how strong are the interestsagainst it. On this basis ai’e settledsuch great issues as monopoly, theorganization of agriculture, the rela¬tion of labor and capital, whetherbonuses should be paid to veterans,and whether a tariff policy based ongreed should be modified by reciprocaltrade agreements.Community of PrinciplesTo have a community, men mustwork together. They must have com¬mon principles and purposes. If somemen are tearing down a house whileothers are building it, we do not saythey are working together. If somemen are robbing, cheating, and op¬pressing others, we should not saythey are a community. The aims of ademocratic community are moral.United by devotion to law, equality,and justice, the democratic communityworks together for the happinessof all the citizens. I leave to you thedecision whether we have yet achieveda democratic community in the UnitedStates.In the speech in which Mr. Roose¬velt told us, in effect, that we areheaded for war, he said, “Certainlythis is no time to stop thinking aboutthe social and economic problemswhich are the root cause of the socialrevolution which is today a supremefactor in the world.” But in the samespeech he said, “The need of the mo¬ment is that our actions and ourpolicy should be devoted primarily—almost exclusively—to meeting thisforeign peril. For all of our domesticproblems are now a part of the greatemergency.” This means—and it isperfectly obvious—that if any socialobjective interferes with the conductof the war, it will be. It must be in¬stantly abandoned. War can mean onlythe loss of “social gains” and the de¬struction of the livelihood of millions may. In calmer days, in 1929, the NewYork Times said, “War brings manycollateral disasters. Freedom ofspeech, freedom of the press suffer.We think we shall be wiser and coolerthe next time, if there is one; but weshan’t.” The urge to victory annihil¬ates tolerance. In April, 1939, AlfredDuff-Cooper said that “hatred of anyrace was a sign of mental deficiencyand of lack of a broad conception ofthe facts of the world.” In April, 1940,Mr. Duff-Cooper said that the crimesof the German militarists were thecrimes of the whole people and thatthis should be kept in mind when thepeace treaty was written.We cannot suppo.se, because civilliberties were restricted in the lastwar and expanded after it, that we canrely on their revival after the nextone. We Americans have only thefaintest glimmering of what war islike. This war, if we enter it, willmake the last one look like a strollin the park. If we go into this one,we go in against powers dominatingEurope and most of Asia to aid anally who, we are told, is already inmortal danger. When we rememberwhat a short war did to the four free¬doms, we must recognize that theyface extermination in the total war tocome.We Have HopeWe Americans have hardly begunto understand and practice the idealsthat we are urged to force on others.What we have, in this country, is hope.We and we alone have the hope thatwe can actually achieve these ideals.The framework of our governmentwas designed to help us achieve them.We have a tremendous continent, withvast resources, in a relatively im¬pregnable position. We have energy,imagination, and brains Prepare MorallyBut most important of all, we shouldtake up with new vigor the long strug¬gle for moral, intellectual, and spiritual preparedness. If we would changethe face of the earth, we must firstchange our own hearts. The principalend that we have hitherto set befoiourselves is the unlimited acquisitiotof material goods. The businessAmerica, said Calvin Coolidge, i.business. We must now learn thatmaterial goods are a means and ni.;an end. We want them to sustain lif*but they are not the aim of life. Tinaim of life is the fullest developnutitof the highest powers of men. Thismeans art, religion, education, moraland intellectual growth. These thingswe have regarded as mere decorationsor relaxations in the serious businessof life, which was making money. Th.American people, in their own interest, require a moral regeneration. Ifthey are to be missionaries to theworld, this regeneration must be pr.>found and complete.We must try to build a new moralorder for America. We need moralconviction about the dignity of man.intellectual clarity about ends andmeans, moral action to construct in¬stitutions to bring to pass the endswe have chosen.New SecurityA new moral order for Americameans a new conception of securityToday we do not permit men to die ofstarvation, but neither do we givethem an incentive to live. Every citi¬zen must have a respected place inthe achievement of the national pur¬pose.A new moral order for AmericaDieans a new conception of sacrifice.W 'nioral purposes of them»d<. some notable «dvance/in X ’ „e I'''’long march toward justice, freedom, u ^ fand democracy. ‘^‘?«racter. and .ntelligence.These positive goals demand the de¬votion and sacrifice’ of every Ameri¬can. We should rebuild one-third ofthe nation's homes. We must provideadequate medical care in every cornerof the land. We must develop an edu¬cation aimed at moral and intellectualgrowth instead of at making money.A new' moral order for Americameans a new conception of mastery.We must learn how to reconcile themachine with human dignity. We haveallow’ed it to run wild in prosperityand war and to rust idly in periodiccollapse. We have hitherto evaded theissue by seeking new markets. In anunstable world this has meant biggerand bigger collapses, more and morecatastrophic war. In Europe and Rus¬sia the efforts to master the machineare carried out by methods we de.spiseAmerica can master the machine with¬in the framework of a balanced de¬mocracy, outdistance the totalitariandespotisms, and bring light and hop<-to the world. It is our highest func¬tion and greatest opportunity to learnto make democracy work. We mu.stbring justice and the moral order tolife, here and now.Build Our Strength"imrifij our heartft'If we go to war, we cast away ouropportunity and cancel our gains. Fora generation, perhaps for a hundredyears, we shall not be able to struggleback to where we were. In fact thechanges that total war will bring maymean that we shall never be able tostruggle back. Education will cease.Its place will be taken by vocationaland military training. The effort toestablish a democratic community willstop. We shall think no more ofjustice, the moral order, and the su¬premacy of human rights. We shallhave hope no longer.PeaceWhat, then, should our policy be?Instead of doing everything we can toget into the war, wc should do ev¬erything we can to stay at peace. Ourpolicy should be peace. Aid to Britain,China, and Greece should be extendedon the basis most likely to keep usat peace, and least likely to involveus in war.At the same time we should prepareto defend ourselves. We should pre¬pare to defend ourselves against mil¬itary or political penetration. Weshould bend every energy to the con¬struction of an adequate navy and airforce and the training of an adequatearmy. By adequate I mean adequatefor defense against any power orcombination of powers.In the meantime, we should beginto make this country a refuge forin modest circumstances, while pirates ' those who will not live without liberty,and profiteers, in spite of Mr. Roose-lFor less than the cost of two battle-velt’s efforts to stop them, emerge' ships we could accommodate half astronger than ever. Why Fear Anyone?If we have strong defenses and un¬derstand and believe in what we aredefending, we need fear nobody in theworld. If we do not understand andbelieve in what we are defending, wemay still win, but the victory will beas fruitless as the last. What did wedo with the last one? What shall wedo with this one? The government ofGreat Britain has repeatedly refusedto state its war aims. The Presidentin his foreign policy is pledged toback up Great Britain, and beyondthat, to the pursuit of the unattain¬able. If we go to war, we shall notknow what we are fighting for. If w'estay out of war until we do, we mayhave the stamina to win and theknowledge to use the victory for thewelfare of mankind.The path to war is a false path tofreedom. A new moral order forAmerica is the true path to freedom.A new moral order for America meansnew strength for America, and newhope for the moral reconstruqtion ofmankind. We are turning aside fromthe true path to freedom because it iseasier to blame Hitler for our troublesthan to fight for democracy at home.As Hitler made the Jews his scape¬goat, so we are making Hitler ours.But Hitler did not spring full-armedfrom the brow of Satan. He sprangfrom the materialism and paganism ofour times. In the long run we can beatwhat Hitler .stands for only by beatingthe materialism and paganism thatproduced him. We must show theworld a nation clear in purpose,a nation clear mmillion refugees from totalitarian ] united in action, and sacrificial inI countries for a year. The net cost' spirit. The influence of that examplevvould not approach the cost of two j upon suffering humanity everywhere1 battleships, for these victims, unlike i will be more powerful than the com-The four freedoms must be aban- battleships, would contribute to our 1 bined armies of the Axis.Abandon FreedomTHE DAILY MAROON. MONDAY. JANUARY 27. 1941Carlson SupportsHutchins' Position Page Three"Education, Conciliation, Un¬derstanding Back Democ¬racy.Ariton Carlson is one of the,/i),/«/”.''• most eminent physiologists,and 'I jirofessor emeritus at the Vni-vcrsitii. Ha has long been an amateur•'pnli^irian," and his political viewsart hosed on a long life which hasnern changing political conceptions infh, iroiid.\\y ANTON CARLSONIII my opinion, President Hutchins’flI.-t•ll.'»^ion is factual, reasonable, andfair, on the phases of our war hys¬teria actually dealt with, and of mostsignificance to our way of life. Fromwhat I konw of war, and of humannature, the “Arsenals of democracy",in not tfuns, bombs or battleships,but education, understanding, fairrompiomise, and conciliation. Thesewill |)rove more effective towards amore just and a longer lasting peacethan has been accomplished by suchwar< as that of 1914-18, and the cur¬rent violence. The foregoing is. nofloubt. irritating enough to many ofmy colleagues, and I should probablyvtop at this point, lest I add more’fuelto the current emotional flame. Butif the .Maroon will print. 1 will add thefollowing:1 We should arm to repel invasion,not with the object of invading. Andin that program setting our own housein order, and developing a genuine;md fair cooperation with all the peo¬ples of the Americas based on under¬standing and fair play, is at least asimportant as flying fortresses andhrittleships.J. Bad ideas are not demolished bycun powder, bayonets or dynamite.They can bt* conquereil only by bet¬tor ideas, and as for the remote con¬tingency of physical invasion of ourland by the ,\xis Powers we have ournavy, and we will soon have an airtieet. unless we give the Presidentpower to give them away.1. The present war in F)urope, Asia,and Africa, in essential causes, andaims, is not so different from similar\iolenre in the past. In 1914-18, suchdemocracies as Czarist Russia, Japan,Bulgaria. .Serbia, and Italy alsofought “to make the world .«afe fordemocracy." Does any one doubt thatin the present debacle Great Britaindill do its best to get at least Russia■ind Italy, if not Japan on ‘its’ side?4. The fact that our war in Europe191t-is rendered the conditions inmost of the world worse than beforethat war indicates to me that if weattempt to settle our present racialhatreds and greeds by force, or byforce alone, we will be at war for un¬told decades. And in the meantime,what becomes of our own democracy?What becomes of human understand¬ing and fellowship? What becomes ofthe fairest and feeblest flower of hu¬man evolution, our sense of justice?5. I hate guile and intellectual dis¬honesty as thoroughly as I hate war.In our present “all aid short of war"policy, we have adopted the sophistries"f our adversaries. We render pooraid towards a democratic world of to¬morrow, by competing with the basest ^now. We have already committed actsof war, legal quibbles not withstand¬ing. Our “measures short of war” isclever propaganda in a befuddled land,but it will not look so good in the'•old light of history, I, for one, pre¬fer honesty, even when wrong, totemporary success through Heceit.d. In my opinion, the time of Na¬tional hysteria created by hate andtear, and nursed by skillful propagan¬da, is not the time for our people to•lecide on such a momentous policy asPolicying the whole world in the in¬terest of a hoped-for democracy. EvenWere we strong enough to attempt it,He would not gain the goal. But Iagree with President Hutchins thatH e would speedily lose our own way oflife via the well known route of total¬itarianism and imperialistic domina-tiim, as is declared in the literaturefi'mn the headquarters of the Whitecommittee. “If the combined fleets oft^ireat Britain and the U.S. dominatethe seas, the future of the world isafe.” Safe for whom?"• I am neither a pacifist nor a con¬scientious objector. I am, I hope, a ra¬tional objector to the folly and futil-'•y of war, especially for our owncountry now. But when needed by my'ountry, I still can and will shoulder■ gun, and play the futile game ofbayonets and hand grenades. Still, IHill nurse the hope that some day the■acuity and the students in our great Anton J. Carlson H.R.1776/ hate- guileview that the real arsenals of democ¬racy are not violence but understand¬ing. reason, conference, and approxi¬mate justice for all the people in ev¬ery land. If such views make me an“appeaser”, make the most of it. Forthere will also be an appraisal tomor¬row. A BILL“Further to promote the defense ofthe United States, and for otherpurposes.’’S. 275—Introduced by Senator Al-ben W. Barkley (D) of Ken¬tucky.R. 177(i—Iiitroduceci by Representa¬tive John W. McCormack ofMassachusetts.Be it enacted by the .Senate andHouse of Representatives of theUnited States of America in tlongressaijsembled.That this .Act may be cited as “An !.Act to promote the defen.se of the IUnited States.” 'Sec. 2. As in this Act— i(a) The term “defense article" means(1) Any weapon, munition, air¬craft, vessel, or boat; |(2) Any machinery, facility, tool,material, or supply necessaryfor the manufacture, produc¬tion, processing, repair, serv¬icing, or operation of any ar¬ticle described in this sub¬section ;(B) Any component material orequipment for any article de-.scribed in this sub-section;(4) Any other commodity or ar¬ticle for defense. Such term“defense article” includes anyarticle described in this sub¬section; Manufactured orprocured pursuant to section3, or to which the UnitedStates or any foreign gov¬ernment has or hereafter ac¬quires title, possession, orcontrol.(Continued on Page 4) Aid Britain" InsistsDouglas In ReplyMortimer AdlerFaculty Support Qf Lend-LeaseBill Grows; 158 Sign PetitionThe following petition expressingstrong support of the bill H.R. 1776was signed by 168 faculty members.The petition was circulated and thesignatures obtained before Hutchinsspoke.TEXT OF PETITIONThe effort of the American peopleto build a happier and more humanesociety has been profoundly affectedby the European war. The totalitarianconquests have forced us to take stepsto safeguard our security. Withoutthat security we can neither maintainnor extend the economic and culturalachievements which distinguish theAmerican way of life.Many Americans have not yet fullyrealized how gravely a Hitler victorywould affect our destiny. They fail tosee that one of the strongest weaponsof the Nazis has always been to lull threat of war will still hang constant¬ly over our heads. This incessant men¬ace would necessitate total militariza¬tion of our country and gravely reduceour standard of living. If we areforced to turn our hands and ■mindsfrom constructive effort to productionfor destruction, the realm of the spiritwould not remain untouched. It wouldbe foolish to presume that Americandemocracy, however firmly rooted,would bear such shocks lightly. Thedisappeaance of the last of the majorfree countries beyond our shores.Great Britain, would for many doomthe idea of democracy itself. Therewould be panic among some once thesudden recognition would dawn uponupon us that we are terribly alone ina world ruled by gangsters.America today still lias a choice. Arealtively brief period of concentratedeffort will spare us endless and per¬haps futile agony. It will be im¬measurably less costly in the longrun. In order to keep war from our He disagrees with meAdler—(Continued from Page 1)ica as a fiee nation, and to keep theroad open in the world at large forthe realization of the democratic ideal,we must by all means in our powerprevent a Nazi victory.Therefore, we urge the immediateenactment of House Bill 1776, whichwill empower our democratically elect¬ed chief executive to take all neces¬sary measures to prevent the nationaldisaster which threatens us as longas Hitler remains undefeated.Following are the names of theeducators who signed the petition:university will be unanimous in the immediately by Nazi aggression, thetheir prospective victims into a false chores, to insure the survival of Amersense of security. They refuse torealize that should we permit Britainto perish, the Nazi tyranny wouldthreaten our world too. The Nazisknow that the triumph of fascism re¬mains incomplete as long as the ex¬istence of a free America can give thelie to Hitler’s boast that democracyis dead.Britain Only BulwarkAt present the single-handed butvaliant effort of Great Britain is allthat stands between us and the Naziavalanche. If we allow this Britishbulwark to fall, America will face theterrible prosi)ect of being forced tofight alone against the totalitarianonslaught which will draw its strengthfrom the harnessed resources of therest of the world.The tragic consequences of appease¬ment are evident to us from the col¬lapse of country after country in Eu¬rope. Still there are Americans who,though paying lip-service to nationaldefense, in fact practice a policy ofappeasement by telling us that thewar is no concern of ours and that weare not threatened by anything thathappens beyond our shores. But withBritain beaten, a war for self-preser¬vation will be forced on an isolatedAmerica at a moment best suited tothe destructive will of the enemyarmed with treason and technology.We shall then bitterly regret our fail¬ure to have done everything possibleto prevent such a national disasterendangering all we have and all welive for.Incessant MenaceBut even if war is not brought to us Manuel J. AndradeMortimer J. AdlerWright AdamsPaul C. BucyRaymond BarnardC. H. BeesonHarry A. BigelowG. V. BobrinskoyJohn M. BealB. BettelheimPierce ButlerEdson L. BastinBlanche B. BoyerHerbert BlumerRobert J. BraidwoodJames BrownAlex BrunschwigGeorge G. BogertWilliam BloomR. R. BensleyGeorge M. BartelmezHarlan H. BarrowsNorman L. BowenR. S. CraneLeon CarnowskyHerrlee G. CreelCarey CroneisHugh T. CarmichaelJames Lee CateNellson C. DebenoiseH. A. DobbsElizabeth S. DixonLeland C. DevinneyPaul H. DouglasNewton EdwardsFred EgganH. S. EverettEdw. B. Espenshade Jr. Maud SlyeCarl Eckart Henry C. SimonsAlfred Emerson C. H. SwiftSamuel I. Feigin Zens L. SmithEdith Farrar M. B. SingerM. Ference Robt. W. SiebenschuhMartin J. Freeman Bernadotte E. Schmitt((Continued on Page 4)C. B. JoeckelW. K. JordanMarcus W. JerneganEarl S. JohnsonHazel KyrkFrank H. KnightW. M. KrogmanGordon J. LaingJacob A. O. LarsenMayme 1. LogsdonJoseph B. LohmanWalter H. C. LavesJacob LoftRalph S. LillieA. DeS. LinkGeorge K. K. LinkRichard P. McKeonU. MiddeldorfDonald E. McCownA. G« McLaughlinL. W. MintzJules H. MassermanHenry C. MorrisonRobert S. MullikenRobert S. PlattEdith P. ParkerF. J. PettijohnCharner M. PerryBessie Louise PierceThornton PageWalter L. PalmerW. C. ReavisWilliam M. RandallM. Llewellyn RaneyMax RhciiisteinWilliam H. SpencerLeon P. Smith “I suggest we ask ourselves whatthe penalty might be. Suppose Mr.Hutchins is wrong. Suppose Britaincan fall and that the dictators areable to do what he assumes they can¬not do. What will happen to us andto our great principles of freedomthen?“I find another question arising outof Mr. Hutchins’ address. Why doeshe urge us to rearm to the teeth? IfBritain, by his own assumptions, can¬not fall and the dictators do notthreaten us, why should we arm ?“I hear him replying: ‘To reducethe probability of attack we must bestrong. It is true that there is littlereason to expect the dictators canreach us or that Britain will fall,’ hemight continue, “but we should beready even for this slight probabil¬ity.’ ”“But," I would reply to him, “thereare more important things to be done.You say so in your speech. W'e owe agreat duty to the world, you say, tomake the U. S. really democratic andfree, to make the four freedoms workin America.”Vital Objectives“These objectives,” Mr. Hutchinssays, “are more important than help¬ing England by going to war. Theyare more vital than the life of theBritish Empire.“Then merely to make it more im¬probable that the dictators might suc¬cessfully invade the western world,Mr. Hutchins should not sacrificethese greater objectives. And they willbe sacrified if America becomes agreat military nation. You cannot armfor war, anymore than you can makewar, without losing some of your free¬dom.I feel sure Mr. Hutchins will agreethat the U. S. cannot become ade¬quately armed against the wholeworld and at the same revive and in¬crease internal freedom and democ¬racy. There is little difference be¬tween creating a war economy andmaintaining it for years and war it¬self. If our primary duty to humanityis to make ourselves fit to bring de¬mocracy and freedom to the world,how can we fulfill that duty while de¬voting our full national resources tomilitarism?“And why should we spend billionsto build a vast military machine iftotalitarian attack is so improbable?How To Separate Them?“I would ask him, how we can sep¬arate national rearmament and mil¬itary aid to Britain? Are not the twointimately related? Does not Britishdefense give us essential time to re¬arm? Where do you draw the line be¬tween the two?“If we follow Mr. Hutchins’ adviceto give help to Britain now, whilebuilding a great war machine at home,must we not postpone social recon¬struction ? Can we do both at the sametime any better than we can wage warand reconstruct society at the sametime?” Adler asked.“And if aid to Britain ‘short of war*and rearmament are essential, as Mr.Hutchins admits, why not postponesocial reconstruction if circumstancesmake it necessary to fight Germany?We will be forced to do so for thesake of aiding Britain and rearming.Must End Hitler“A friend of mine agrees with Mr, Charges Hutchins Talk Foilsto Understand Real Dangers.Paul Dougins is professor of Eco¬nomics at the Unirersity and the Al¬derman of the Fifth irnrd. He is anardent New Deal snpjmrter, and hashelped the federal government oftenin the past in its labor surveys.By PAUL DOUGLASThe spirit which animated Mr.Hutchins was noble in its purpose.W'ith his desire to reduce poverty anddisease, and to build an America inwhich there would be greater democ¬racy and moral freedom, I am inhearty sympathy.But I think Mr. Hutchins has mis¬taken the issue when he says it isone of peace or war. The issue is notthat but whether we shall give allmaterial aid short of war to GreatBritain so that she can keep Hitleroff our necks and keep the war awayfrom America.Hitler already has the dispositionto cause us trouble. Anyone who hasread his “Mein Kampf" or Rausch-nig’s “Voice of Destruction” shouldknow that.Democratic ChallengeFurthermore the Fascist nationsw'ould not be willing to have a power¬ful democracy survive, since wewould be a continued challenge andreproach to their strength and rule.If Great Britain falls, then Hitlerand his allies will have the ability tocause us an incalculable amount oftrouble. For even without the Britishnavy they will have a supremacy overus on the water of approximately 2 to1, and since they could hold the Brit¬ish nation as hostages they would alsoprobably be able to take the Britishfleet. This would give them a navalsupremacy of about 4 to 1. We wouldthen lose the control of both the At¬lantic and the Pacific and not onlywould we have to give up the Philip¬pines, but Hawaii also would prob-.ably fall. It would also be impossiblefor us to defend South America atleast below the “bulge.”Moreover, Hitler would have a su¬periority in the air by a ratio of 6 to1 and he and his allies would have atleast 10 soldiers or more to every oneof ours. We would then be chainedup in a hostile world.South AmericaHitler and his agents would be ac¬tive in South and Central Americaand in the Caribbean countries aswell. Some of the governments wouldgo over to him without more ado. Inothers revolutionary movements wouldbe started which would probably besuccessful.Hitler moreover, controlling all ofEurope and Africa, and with Japancontrolling Asia, would impose tradeterms upon us which would threatenour democracy. He would probablyinsist that we could not export, unlesswe gave up criticizing the principlesof totalitarianism, and unless we soft-pedalled our advocacy of democracy,there would be increasingly strongappea.sement groups inside this coun-(Continued on Page 4)But, he adds, it would seem that noth¬ing left is better than Hitler left. Foreven if we end up with nothing, wedo end up with ourselves. We may re¬build society. But if the end finds Hit¬ler ruling the world, we will not evenhave ourselves and there will be noopportunity for reconstructing a mor¬al order.”“The problem facing this nation,”Adler continued, “is how should agood nation live in a bad world.Should we get behind our stockade,as the French did, and await the at¬tack? Should we march forward, withthose who agree with us, to meet thesavages? In colonial society the menwent out to fight hostile Indians.Women and children and the agedwaited helplessly behind the stockade. I‘I hold that the quicker and betterHutchins that in the course of the i way to achieve what Hutchins and Ipresent total war, most if not all the 1 and Roosevelt and many others desire,social advances won by man during is to rid the world of its all-too-pres-the last century will be wiped out.' ent dangers.”XPage Four THE DAILY MAROON. MONDAY. JANUARY 27. 1941Wirth Explains PerilsOf Peaee-At-Any PriceIsolated United States WouldBe a Militarized State.Louis Wirth is professor of Soci¬ology at the University. He heis spe¬cialized in research on rare problems,and is one of the most popular lec¬turers in the Social Science division.By LOUIS WIRTHThere is so much to agree with inPresident Hutchins’ Radio Address ofJanuary 23 that I regret to find my¬self in sharp disagreement with hisfinal conclusion which, unfortunately,is the only thing that matters in thishour of decision. His critique of con¬temporary America is shared by meand many others who are concernedabout the glaring discrepancy betweenour professed ideals and their realiza¬tion. I am grateful to him for havingpointed out how far short of the ful¬fillment of the hopes and potentiali¬ties of a democratic order we are inthe United States today. This indict¬ment was courageous, eloquent, ear¬nest and truthful. But it is preciselybecause I agree with him in his as¬sessment of where we are and hisdefinition of the goals to be achieved Ithat I must differ with him on thepolicy that we ought to pursue. Louis Wirth Krueger Pleads For PeaceCan he?Can President Hutchins . . . ?President Hutchins is concernedabout democracy in the United Statesnot only for us, but to keep alive thehopes of mankind. So am I. He pointsout the obvious perils to the dem¬ocratic values associated with a courseof action which, in his judgment, in¬volves the risk of war. I recognizethese contingencies but must expressastonishment that Mr. Hutchins doesnot even find it necessary to raise theissue of the perils to our cherishedvalues inherent in the course he wouldadvocate. He blithely assumes that wecan eat our cake and have it too.H.R. 1776=War?Mr. Hutchins presents his argu¬ment as if he had only the choice be¬tween his peace-at-any-price policyand war. Actually, however, the de¬cision that confronts us is quite dif-1ferent. It is a choice between nearabstention (too little and too late aidequals nothing) and the clearly statedpolicy of President Roosevelt. Pres¬ident Hutchins assorts without proofthat that policy is a war policy. How¬ever, whether anything we do to helpBritain will get us into war or whetheranything we refrain from doing willkeep us out, is at best a conjecture onwhich Presient Hutchins’ opinion maybe matched by others no less authori¬tative to the contracy.President Hutchins, though confess¬edly not a military expert, assertsthat no combination of powers cansuccessfully invade this hemisphere“If we are prepared to defend our¬selves and determined to be free.’’ Notbeing a military expert myself, I can¬not say whether the United Statescould be a match for a possible worldcoalition directed against us. But I be¬lieve that we all would have to agreethat in order to make ourselves in¬vasion-proof we would have to trans¬form this hemisphere into what wouldbe virtually a vast armed camp. It ishard for me to recover from my as¬tonishment at reading PresidentHutchins’ speech to find that whereashe, who so thoroughly realizes andeloquently depicts the domestic costof a limited period of war, has nothingwhatsoever to say about the crushingburden of the indefinite duration of astate of siege which has only the re¬motest resemblance to what we or¬dinarily understand by peace. Mr.Hutchins himself realizes that we can¬not afford to take a chance on thepacific intentions of Hitler and his as¬sociates triumphantly ruling the restof the word. Refusing to underwritethe defeat of Hitler, President Hutch¬ins has to underwrite something else,namely an army, navy, and air force“adequate for defense against anypower or combination of powers”(which we know may mean the rest ofthe world.) Knowing something ofwhat it cost the Nazis to build up theirmachine for aggression, we may wellponder W’hat it will cost us to buildup our ramparts for total defense.Can President Hutchins seriously be¬lieve that if one-third (or more) ofour national income is plowed underfor insurance against attack, that the“third of the nation” which is nowsubmerged will be lifted up to higherlevels of life? President Hutchins’ anxiety aboutour material life is only exceeded byhis concern about our intellectual andmoral fate. I share this anxiety withhim. However, as a recent facultystatement puts it, “If we are forcedto turn our hands and minds fromconstructive efforts to production fordestruction, the realm of the spiritwould not remain untouched.” If thereis any valid generalization concerningthe conditions under which democracydecays, it is this: democracy tends towilt away in an indefinitely protractedperiod of menacing aggression fromwithout and cumulative militarizationwithin. Can President Hutchins se¬riously entertain the thought that ourrespect for dissent will be maintainedeven at its present shamefully insuf¬ficient level if Hitler and his asso¬ciates compel us to make a permanentinstitution out of national emergency?Can President Hutchins reasonablyassume that the pursuit of the goodlife can go on even at its presentpathetically pedestrian pace in a so¬ciety in which considerations of mil¬itary morale become the highest im¬peratives in “peace-time” pursuits.On these and other gp'ounds, ofwhich limitations of space forbid mention, I firmly believe that whereas theprobable sacrifices which PresidentRoosevelt’s policy entails are far fromnegligible, the material and spiritualcosts of President Hutchins’ courseare prohibitive at best. At the worst,of course, such a policy would reallylead to “national suicide” in the farfrom figurative sense of the term. Maynard C. Krueger was the So¬cialist candidate for vice-president ofthe United States in the recent elec¬tion. He is an associate professor ofEconomics at the University.By MAYNARD KRUEGERI believe that the passage of H. R.1776 in substantially its present formwill clear the decks politically forfull American entry into the war inEurope and Africa, and possibly inAsia as well. The political meaningof this bill is not to be found in anyof its words, but in the fact that itspassage will effectively break thebackbone of the opposition to our en¬try into the war. Since I believe this,I think that Mr. Hutchins did wellnot to argue about the words in thebill, but to discuss its meaning: Shallwe go into the war whole hog?Some say that we should join thewar in pure physical self-defense. Ido not think that there is any factualbasis for this position. It has its ba¬sis in frustration and hysteria. Otherssay that we must join the war todefend the American way of life. Butin the process of fighting a long waron three continents for an idealizedway of life, we shall instead lose thatpart of the ideal way which we havealready achieved. Maynard Kruegeraon't clear the decKsDistinctionsThere is a basic distinction to bemade between destroying Hitlerismand merely destroying Hitler. Hitler¬ism cannot be destroyed without thesolution of the fundamental problemsof unemployment and insecurity outof which Hitlerism grows. I believethat the governments of both Britainand the United States will be contentto destroy Hitler by methods whichintensify the conditions which' pro¬duce Hitlerism, and that there will bemore Hitlerism after the war thanbefore it, win, draw or lose. It is a popular fallacy that thecharacter of a post-war peace will bein accord with the hopes with whichmen go to war. But historically it hasnot often been so. It is nearer right,I believe, to expect that the characterof the peace will be determined by thecourse of the war itself. It is prac¬tical, I suggest, to expect no more ofa peace than that it will sanctify thestate of affairs which prevails at theend of the war. And this will be moretrue of total war than of past partialwars. There is no hope at the end ofthat road, if the road even has an end.Aggressive?I believe that the hope hes in put¬ting democracy again on the aggres¬sive in those fields in which our fail¬ure to continue to expand democracyhas placed it on the defensive. Weare even now, with the slogans of agreat military crusade for democracy on our lips, more likely to remake thesomewhat democratic state in theimage of the large-scale private cor¬poration than we are to remake theprivate corporation in the imagethe democratic state.An economy which has not thecourage or the vision to solve its un¬employment problem simply kids it¬self when it puts on a uniform andraises the flag of the four freedoms onthe march.If we were Denmark on the Germanborder, Mr. Hutchins’ new conceptionof security and sacrifice, and his newconception of mastery would not countfor much in foreign policy. But weare not Denmark on the German bor¬der. We are economically the world’smost powerful nation, and we lieacross an ocean a thousand times aswide as the English Channel. It isthese gifts of nature, and no tub-thumping Tribune nationalism, whichmake it unnecessary for us to commitsuicide.Good or TribuneBut if we go to war, it will be theTribune which will win, and not theNew Republic. It will be state capi¬talism which will win, not free privateenterprise and not socialism. And ifwe go on into the war, either in thename of steps short of war or in thename of achieving a democratic worldorder, disillusionment with even vic¬tory may well destroy men’s capacityeven to imagine what a democraticorder might be like. Then the lightwill be out.This whole question is not one ofcertainties, but of where lies the mainchance. I believe that the main chancelies not in joining the war, but inusing the time which natural factorsgive us to do the basic job of social-economic reorganization which wehave thus far failed to do.H.R, 1776-(Continued from Page 3)Douglas—(Continued from Page 3)try which would work to keep passiveand to accept Fascist control.These are forces which apparentlyMr. Hutchins does not realize, butwhich the history of Europe duringthe last eight years should have dem¬onstrated.No Perfection HereOf course we have not reached per¬fection in this country, and we shouldtry to improve it in every possibleway. But with all our faults, oursociety is infinitely superior to Hit¬ler’s or to the society which he wouldimpose upon us. Because we have amote in our eye is no reason why weshall not recognize a beam in the eyesof the totalitarian nations.In his anxiety to avert the dangersto democracy from within, I believeMr. Hutchins unduly minimizes thedangers to democracy from without.Denmark and Norway were coun¬tries with a high degree of social jus¬tice. That did not save them fromHitler. Nor did it save Czechoslo¬vakia.Mr. Hutchins seems to think thatwe must first attain moral perfectioninside this country before we canreally defend it or work for a betterworld. If we fold our arms inter¬nationally while exclusively seekingthis greater decency we will, in myjudgment, lose most of the good thingswhich we already have. We musttherefore struggle on two fronts; thedomestic and the external.It is for these reasons, that muchas I admire Mr. Hutchins and appre¬ciate and share his generous desiresfor this country, I believe him to bewrong in the passive attitude whichhe would have us adopt in interna¬tional affairs. (b) The term “defense information”means any plan, specification, de¬sign, prototype, or informationpertaining to any defense article.Sec. 3 (a) Notwithstanding the pro¬visions of any other law, the Pres¬ident may, from time to time,when he deems it in the interestof national defense, authorize theSecretary of War, the Secretaryof the Navy, or the head of anyother department or agency ofthe Government(1) To manufacture in arsenals,factories, and shipyards un¬der their jurisdiction, orotherwise procure, any de¬fense article for the govern¬ment of any country whosedefense the President deemsvital to the defense of theUnited States.(2) To sell, transfer, exchange,lease, lend, or otherwise dis¬pose of, to any such gov¬ernment any defense article.(3) To test, inspect, prove, re¬pair, outfit, recondition, orotherwise to place in goodworking order any defensearticle for any such govern¬ment.(4) To communicate to any gov¬ernment any defense infor¬mation, pertaining to any de¬fense article furnished tosuch government under para¬graph (2) of this subsection.(5) To release for export any de¬fense article to any such gov¬ernment.(b) The terms and conditionsupon which any such foreigngovernment receives any aidauthorized under subsection(a) shall be those which thePresident . deems satisfac¬tory, and the benefit of theUnited States may be pay¬ment or repayment in kindor property, or any other di¬rect or indirect benefit whichthe President deems satisfac¬tory.Sec. 4. All contracts or agreementsmade for disposition of any de¬fense article or defense informa¬tion pursuant to section 3 shallcontain a clause by which theforeign government undertakesthat it will not, without the con¬sent of the President, transfertitle to or possession of such de¬fense article or defense informa¬tion by gift, sale, or otherwise,or permit its use by anyone not an officer, employee, or agent ofsuch foreign government.Sec. 5. The Secretary of War, theSecretary of the Navy, or thehead of any other department oragency of the Government in¬volved shall, when any such de¬fense article or defense informa¬tion is exported immediately in¬form the department or agencydesignated by the President toadminister section 6 of the Actof July 2, 1940 (64 Stat. 714), ofthe quantities, character, value,terms of disposition, and destina¬tion of the article and informa¬tion so exported.Sec. 6. (a) There is hereby author¬ized to be appropriated fromtime to time, out of anymoney in the Treasury nototherwise appropriated, suchamounts as may be necessaryto carry out the provisionsand accomplish the purposesof this Act.(b) All money and all propertywhich is converted intomoney received under sec¬tion 3 from any governmentshall, with the approval ofthe Director of the Budget,revert to the respective ap¬propriation or appropria¬tions out of which funds wereexpended with respect to thedefense article or defense in¬formation for which suchconsideration is received, andshall be available for ex¬penditure for the purposefor which such expendedfunds were appropriated bylaw, during the fiscal year inwhich such funds are re¬ceived and the ensuing fiscalyear.Sec. 7. The Secretary of War, theSecretary of the Navy, and thehead of the department or agencyshall in all contracts or agree¬ments for the disposition of anydefense article or defense infor¬mation fully protect the rights ofall citizens of the United Stateswho have patent rights in and toany such article or informationwhich is hereby authorized to bedisposed of and the payments col¬lected for royalties on such pat¬ents shall be paid to the ownersand holders or such patents.Sec. 8. The Secretaries of War andof the Navy are hereby author¬ized to purchase or otherwise ac¬quire arms, ammunition, and im¬plements of war produced withinthe jurisdiction of any countryto which section 3 is applicable,whenever the President deems Isuch purchase or acquisition to be j necessary in the interests of thedefense of the United States.Sec. 9. The President may, from timeto time, promulgate such rulesand regulations as may be neces¬sary and proper to carry out anyof the provisions of this Act;and he may exercise any poweror authority conferred on him bythis Act through such depart¬ment, agency, or officer as heshall direct.Student—(Continued from Page 1)Louis Jacover, Social Science Divi¬sion: “I believe all of Mr. Hutchin’scriticism and warning is good, and inorder, but I am afraid he hasn’t sug¬gested anything constructive—a posi¬tion and rational policy for the coun¬try to follow.”Hyman Minsky, Senior in PoliticalScience: “Mr. Hutchins made a powerful statement for the continuance of.social reforms and democratic liber¬ties during the present crisis. How¬ever, his conclusion that we will “cast ’away our opportunitie.s and cancel ourgains by aiding England is, I believe,wrong. The effect of a German victor>in terms of internal reaction and for¬eign policy makes it necessary tostrengthen our democracy by makingit work at home and by striving fora type of international order in whichdemocracyiis possible.”Petition—(Continued from Page 3)Helena M. GamerI. J. GelbMary B. GilsonRalph W. GerardC. O. GregoryHarold F. GoanellFrances E. GillespieLouis GottschalkMaure GoldschmidtL. M. GravesN. HenryC. HouleEverett C. HutrhesRichard T. HallockWm. T. HutchinsonS. William HalperinFrank C. HostT. R. HottnessPaul JacobsonA. C. BenjaminR. J. BonnerWilliam BurrowsTom Peete CrossWilliam DavidsonPhillip De LacyArthur FriedmanF. B. GordonDavid GreneCharles HartshorneFranklin P. JohnsonJerome G. KerwinNathaniel KleitmanSanr)uel C. KincheloeAlbert LepawskyH. M. LeppardArno B. Luckhardt Arthur P. ScottNorman E. SteenrodM. ScheinR. Jos. StephensonEklward A. ShilsRalph TylerCharlotte TowleB. L. UllmanNapier WiltLeonard D. WhiteQuincy WrightHelen R. WrightR. Clyde WhiteW. Lloyd WarnerI.ouis WirthE. O. WollanSewall WriKhtW. H. ZachariasenFranklin C. McLeanHarley F. MacNairF. J. MullinNelson H. NorjrrenCharles E. OlmstedKarl A. OlssonErnest W. PuttkammerCharles A. RovettaKenneth C. SearsGertrude SmithRussell ThomasLeslie C. WarrenJames T. WatkinsLouis R. WilsonTheodore O. YntemaG. A. Borgese