(2 of 4)
M. NELDA HEATH Philadelphia, Pa.
Sirs:
Now that Roosevelt has asked and Congress undoubtedly will grant all the powers of a dictator, thus removing from Congress all authority and all responsibility, why do we need a Congress?
Would it not be a long step towards paying the bill for national defense if the 435 Representatives and the 96 Senators were removed from the payroll for the duration of the dictatorship? There should be a saving in excess of $100,000,000* annually in actual cash expenditures besides the savings incidental to the elimination of mileage, franking, secretaries. . . .
J. H. McGARRIGLE Berkeley, Calif.
Sirs:
Theoretically to grant dictatorial powers to F. D. R. is undesirable, it is undemocratic, it savors of totalitarianism, and it would be better and safer to have the Congress in session to pass on moves and policies. But these are ideals and are impractical, they would lead to disaster and defeat because the Congress is incapable of even reasonably quick action.
The loudspeakers of Congress must be heard no matter how inane, bromidic and repetitious their statements are. For example, the whole country knows how Senator Blank feels and where he stands; it and his colleagues have heard him ad lib and ad nauseam and yet he takes up time, creates confusion and dissension, and accomplishes no good, makes no constructive suggestions and in fact has degenerated into a common scold.
Because of these loud and verbose speakers it is impossible to get quick action and makes it necessary to give to F. D. R. dictatorial powers and to set the Congress aside temporarily—for time is all-important. . . .
JOHN E. FIELD Denver, Colo.
Sirs:
Europe would not have been ready for another war for half a century after 1918, at the least, had Uncle Sam withheld his assistance —his money and credit.
If we must set Europe's quarrels aright every few decades and finance their war preparations, it would seem that we should have the rule of those countries so that such gangsters as arise may speedily be put out of circulation before they have had sufficient opportunity to grow dangerous to world peace. . . .
CHARLES E. GEE Atascadero, Calif.
Sirs:
I wonder if, in his heart, Lindbergh hasn't changed his mind a little. The England that he knew—the England of Baldwin and Chamberlain—is not this England. . . .
I too was an isolationist. The countries collapsing like houses of cards over there didn't seem worth even an airplane of ours. But since September I've changed. This England has changed my mind. . . .
BETTY LYMAN Omaha, Neb.
Sirs:
ON ALL SIDES I HEAR AND READ, "I AM SORRY FOR ENGLAND BUT—" WELL, I AM SORRY TO THE EXTENT OF ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND WILL GLADLY OBLIGATE MYSELF, MY HEIRS AND ASSIGNS TO MAKE TEN ANNUAL PAYMENTS OF $100 EACH TO ANY WORLD-WIDE ORGANIZATION THAT [undertakes to pay back to the U. S.] AT LEAST ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS OF ANY MONEY THAT IS LOANED BY THIS GOVERNMENT TO GREAT BRITAIN.
ALAN MACDONALD Danville, Ill.
Dizzy
Sirs: