He also had been condemned vehemently by the Russians, placing him therefore in good stead with the anti-Russian voters. The leftist Negro Congress out of South Carolina had also criticized him, another feather in his cap in a negative campaign year, sure to be attractive to conservatives.

His candidacy would also remove foreign relations from the table as he had been a leading champion of bi-partisan diplomacy throughout his tenure as Secretary, always including Senator Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan in his decision-making. He had become a hero of both parties.

His major drawback was that he was from South Carolina, seen, along with the rest of the South, as a political desert by party chieftains. As a favorite son candidate, he could not deliver electoral votes not assured to the Democrats anyway. Thus, the piece predicts, just as the case had been in 1944 when he was nixed for the vice-presidential spot on the ticket for his South Carolina heritage, he would also be nixed for the nomination in 1948.

The piece thinks the latter question had to be answered in the negative. Recently, longshoremen refused to load an UNRRA ship headed to Yugoslavia, occurring shortly after the August 9 and 19 incidents involving the shooting down of two American planes by the Yugoslavian forces. While many might agree in principle with the refusal, the longshoremen had used their strength to impose their will on the Government, which had approved the UNRRA shipment.

In Portland, Maine, striking seamen picketed a newspaper in protest of its criticism of their union. Truck drivers then refused to cross the picket line and, in consequence, the newspaper was not delivered. Thus, the Constitutional right of freedom of the press had effectively been denied by a union upset with the newspaper.

These were clear-cut examples of unions interfering with entities with whom they had no contract and thus no right of collective bargaining. But other situations were more difficult. The time had come for stricter definition of the right to strike.

It left in place an unsavory result, the nomination and assured election of Eugene Talmadge as Governor, though there was no question of the undemocratic nature of the county-unit voting system which gave deference to less populated counties against the more populated areas. Mr. Talmadge had lost the popular vote.

It properly distinguishes the electoral system nationally, based on population, from the county-unit voting system, not based on population. One vote in the smallest county in Georgia was equal to 106 votes in Atlanta.

It also led to anomalous situations such as in the Congressional race of incumbent Helen Mankin, defeated by the county-unit system though winning a majority of votes in her district. The party leaders had implemented the system with the intent of defeating her after the district had for years voted on the basis of popular majority.

The responsibility to correct the system was now with Georgians, and, it ventures, that might be a blessing, since the state could no longer rely on the Federal courts to intervene to undo unfair results.

The piece finds it ironic that the North was complaining now that the shoe was on the other foot and the discrimination which had beset the South for so many decades was now being erased. The North was suddenly proclaiming itself to be a victim of a form of discrimination.

Mr. Rogge had discussed his Swarthmore College speech on October 22 with Attorney General Tom Clark in advance and received approval for its contents. He had also cleared it through one other Cabinet member. Two days passed after the speech and nothing had happened. On October 24, Senator Wheeler went to the White House for a two-hour conference with the President. Mr. Wheeler was not only a friend of the President but was also an ally of John L. Lewis.

After the conference, the President ordered Mr. Clark to fire Mr. Rogge immediately. Mr. Clark issued the termination letter at midnight.

Mr. Rogge, he notes, had one of the best records in the Justice Department, having helped in the prosecution of Boss Tom Pendergast of Kansas City, having convicted Governor Richard Leche of Louisiana, part of the Long gang, and tried the pro-Nazi seditionists in the country.

He next tells of RNC chairman Carroll Reece remaining mum about a link between the Republicans and pro-Communist Vincent Longhi, a candidate from New York's Twelfth Congressional District in Brooklyn. Mr. Longhi had failed to report for induction to the Army, but when he joined the Merchant Marine, prosecution for draft evasion was dropped. He was the office manager of the Joint Anti-Fascist League, a pro-Communist organization, and was also an officer of the National Maritime Union, with strong leftist leanings. He also was affiliated with L'Unita del Popolo, a Communist newspaper. Yet, Mr. Reece, despite freely placing the all-embracing Communist label on Democrats, supported Mr. Longhi without reservation.

Finally, he tells of General William "Wild Bill" Donovan, who had in 1942 organized the OSS, being upset with Governor Thomas Dewey over being snubbed as the Republican Senatorial candidate from New York, in favor of an obscure Cornell dean, Irving Ives. General Donovan had sought Governor Dewey's crucial support but was given the brush-off. His staff believed that the Governor made a deal with labor to have the pro-labor Mr. Ives be the candidate. While General Donovan was being a good sport about the matter, managing the Ives campaign, his staff might retaliate against Governor Dewey in 1948 when he would again seek the Republican presidential nomination.

The Senator had undergone a transformation from an isolationist to an internationalist in recent years, convinced that cooperation was the only way to achieve permanent peace. His friend, Senator Robert Taft of Ohio, another convert, had recently assured Senator Vandenberg that he was behind his foreign policy completely.

If the Republicans were to gain control of the House, then Representative Harold Knutson of Minnesota, a narrow-minded nationalist, would become chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, able effectively to block foreign policy measures. Both Senators Vandenberg and Taft well understood this possibility.

Senator Vandenberg could be relied upon to try to bring the isolationists among the Republicans into line with his views.

The debate on the subject was consistently appearing in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Journal of Commerce. But it was absent from the lay press and the campaign. The result was that the electorate would proceed to the polls the following Tuesday uninformed of the most salient issue at stake.

Even though farm prices were likely to decline steadily into the future, the Midwestern farmers would likely cast their vote for the Republicans because they had stood against ceilings on food. There were no longer scarcities of food, only manufactured goods, and thus abundant supply would send prices lower. A question for the farmer was whether the Government would continue to spend enough on relief and public works programs, key New Deal components, to enable consumers in the cities to go on buying farm products when the recession hit.

The Democrats did not want the blame for the prospective recession and the Republicans did not want it to seem that abandoning price controls had precipitated the downturn. Thus, both parties simply steered clear of the issue.

Some would cast their ballots against the Democrats because of the strike waves since the war. But a Republican Congress, though likely to pass anti-labor legislation, would not be able to impact the coming winter round of strikes, as it would take years for any new legislation to be determined in the courts, just as it had for the Wagner Act.

The Democrats, in dealing with a recession, would likely stress relief and public works, while the Republicans were likely to let the slump take its course as a corrective measure to inflation. Mr. Grafton posits that this difference should be informing the debate. Instead, the candidates sounded "like members of a high school class exchanging talks on how they spent their Summer."

She finds the whole matter simply to be resolved by paying fair remuneration to property owners whose property would be acquired for the highway right-of-way, as well as to owners whose property value would be reduced.

The editors explain that an expert appraisal board would appraise property values to determine compensation for both the property actually taken and property depreciated by the presence of the highway. The City, it points out, had rarely had to invoke its right of eminent domain to take property, as the appraisals had almost always been accepted by the residents without contesting them through the court system.