Debt Challenge
Sirs: That was a neat distinction you drew between the ''legal" and "practical" aspects of the War Debts (TIME. July 18). But as self-interested Americans, don't you think you do yourselves a disservice to so emphasize the legalistic view, the view to which blind yahoos from our hinterland cling, unmindful of what is sighted by our international financial lookouts from the topless towers of New York? The men who know most about money tell us that until the War Debts are out of the way, international trade must plod and stumble. They tell us that the private loans we have made to Europeans are jeopardized by the political loans which remain like a hangover from the War. It seems to me that the people who want the Debts canceled are the same people who pay most of our taxes. Since canceling the Debts would increase our tax burden, why isn't it just that the chief taxpayers should decide our Debt action? Besides, these people--yes, our bankers and industrialists--are the ones who most clearly realize what is true--that debts paid now are paid in dollars of far greater purchasing power than the dollars that England and France borrowed when wheat was $3 per bushel. Finally, add up what France and Britain have already paid back and figure out how much better it would be for us to have, from now on. like sums in trade from those countries, so it would come direct to our pockets instead of draining down through the Washington pork barrel and the gaping pockets of a lot of racketeering "heroes" not half of whom really fought for their country in the War. I challenge any or all fellow TIME-readers to advance three, or even one. sound argument for collecting what is left of the War Debts! JAMES G. WEBB St. Louis, Mo.
Let any TIME reader who picks up the gauntlet flung by Challenger Webb bear well in mind these basic facts: P:The $1,888,000,000 tax revenue of the U. S. during the fiscal year 1932 was derived 60% from the income tax. Of the personal income tax (1930). 181/3% was paid by 0.4% of those filing returns. P:The capital sum borrowed by the Allies from the U. S. totaled approximately $10,000,000,000. the greater part of which was to be repaid at 4 1/4%. Since the term of repayment was always envisaged as extremely long, the number of dollars to be paid in interest was envisaged as much larger than the capital sum or principal to be repaid.
P:Of the sum borrowed approximately 70% was for carrying on the War. approximately 30% for reconstruction and other post-War expenditures. P:Each of the Allied nations funded its debt to the U. S. separately, these agreements purporting to fix the term of years and the total sum to be repaid in principal & interest. It was agreed that approximately $22,230,000,000 should be repaid over 62 years. P:If the original sums borrowed were to be repaid over 62 years at the original rate of 4 1/4% interest and at the same proportional rate of annual principal and interest payments as is provided in the British funding agreement, the total repayment to the U. S. would be $27,767,000,000. P: In the U. S. at present are $3,960,000,000 in monetary gold, approximately $6,634,000,000 in paper money of all descriptions and the so-called "national wealth" of the U. S. is estimated at $329,700,000,000. Thus, total cancellation of the Allied War Debt would wipe out agreed payments (of $32,230,000,000) equivalent to 0.7% of the national wealth. P:The Allies have already repaid to the U. S. $1,676,000,000 on their War Debts. This they did chiefly by handing over to the U. S. sums which they received from Germany in Reparations. Germany has paid in Reparations one-half what she obtained during the same period by private loans, mostly from U. S. lenders. P:Since the funding of the debts the U. S. has paid out in interest on Government bonds equivalent to the sums originally borrowed by the Allies, more than twice what the Allies have paid in interest & principal. P:Conditional upon U. S. cancellation of virtually all War Debts, it was agreed at the Lausanne Conference that the Allies would virtually cancel German Reparations by scaling them down to 1-c- on $1.--ED. Georgia's Crisp We, the undersigned, would appreciate a sketch similar to those printed in your magazine of Congressman Charles R. Crisp of Georgia. B. F. DANIEL W. H. NALL
C. O. LAM J. R. HIKES
W. P. WlLKES Hogansville, Ga.
The record of Representative Charles Robert ("Judge") Crisp of the 3rd Georgia district is as follows:
Born: At Ellaville, Ga., Oct. 19, 1870.
Career: After a public school education he was taken to Washington by his father Charles Frederick Crisp. Confederate veteran and Georgia Representative (1883-96), who got him, aged 19, a clerkship in the Interior Department. When his father was chosen Speaker (1891), he got a job as House parliamentarian --experting on rules, practices and precedents. On the side he studied law, was admitted to the Georgia bar in 1895. In 1896 his father died and he, aged 26, was elected to serve out his father's unexpired term. Back in Americus, Ga. he practiced law, served as judge of the city court. In 1911 when the Democrats organized the House and elected Champ Clark Speaker, he was recalled to Washington to act as parliamentarian again. At the Democratic Convention at Baltimore in 1912 he handed clown parliamentary law that resulted in Woodrow Wilson's nomination. That year he was again elected to the House where he has served continuously ever since. In Congress: Beginning as an inconspicuous member of the powerful Ways & Means Committee he gradually worked his way toward the top. President Harding appointed him a member of the World War Foreign Debt Funding Commission and he helped put through Congress the agreements for repayment negotiated by that body with the Allies. When the House went Democratic last December, he found himself second only to Chairman Collier of Mississippi on the Ways & Means Committee. When Chairman Collier fell ill and withdrew to recover, Mr. Crisp stepped into the committee's acting chairmanship at a most difficult time. Taxes had to be raised to balance the Budget. Upon him fell the unpopular responsibility of drafting a billion-dollar revenue bill and pushing it through a balky House. He voted for: Declaration of War (1917), the 18th Amendment (1917), Volstead Act (1919), Tax Reduction (1924, 1927), Restrictive Immigration (1924), Soldier Bonus (1924), Reapportionment (1929), Farm Board (1929), Bonus loans (1931), "Lame Duck" Amendment, (1931, 1932), Philippine Independence (1932), Sales Tax (1932), Federal employes paycut (1932), Unemployment Relief Bill (1932). He voted against: Fordney-McCumber Tariff (1921), Hawley-Smoot Tariff (1930), State option on liquor (1932), Wartime income taxes (1932), full Bonus cashing (1932). He votes Dry, drinks Dry, has announced that, in line with the party platform, he will vote to resubmit the 18th Amendment to the States. Legislative hobby: taxes & tariffs. He was one of the first House members to raise the cry: 'Balance the Budget!" As acting chairman, he sponsored a Sales Tax provision in the revenue bill. A rebellious House tore his measure to tatters. Instead of losing heart and sulking, he worked mightily to effect a compromise. In himself he dramatized the tax issue and stirred all factions of the House to rousing cheers when he declared: "I have burned every bridge behind me. No matter what the personal political consequences may be, I'm going to advocate levying sufficient taxes to balance the Budget. It means nothing to the United States whether I remain in Congress or not but it means much to the United States Government that its honor, its credit, its security be maintained at par." Although the House declined to pass his revenue bill as drafted, the fact that it passed a tax measure at all was principally due to his persistent and courageous prodding. In appearance he is short, well-built. He and Secretary of the Treasury Mills are about of a size. His clothes are neat but distinctive. His hair is thinning on top. He carries his head tilted to one side. His public manners are easy, gracious. He makes a good forceful speech, never too long. He smokes cigarets. No blind partisan, he is respected by Republicans and Democrats alike lor his intelligence, his parliamentary fairness, his industry. Outside Congress: In Washington he lives modestly at The Highlands Apartment, also has a home at Americus. He is a relatively poor man, with little beside his Congressional salary, now cut from $10.000 to $9,000. He is married, has one son named for his famed father. He attends the Methodist church, has few sports or diversions. Feeling that he has outgrown the House, he is a candidate for Georgia's Democratic senatorial nomination. Primary day is Sept. 14. Opposing him is 34-year-old Governor Richard Brevard Russell Jr.. son of the State's prolific, tobacco-chewing Chief Justice. Governor Russell appointed Major John Sanford Cohen, publisher of the Atlanta Journal, to the Senate vacancy caused by the death of William J. Harris. Governor Russell thus has the Journal's backing, while Mr. Crisp has the support of Clark Howell's Atlanta Constitution. Against him is being used the charge that, after a visit from Georgia Power Co.'s Preston Stanley Arkwright, he consented to a new provision in the revenue bill putting the electricity tax on consumers instead of producers. For him is being used the claim that he is Georgia's most distinguished statesman at the U. S. Capitol. He made a hit when instead of using his Congressional frank to save money, he mailed out campaign literature marked "postage paid." The primary race is considered nip & tuck. Impartial House observers rate him thus: An able, experienced legislator above the average in political pluck and national outlook; a conservative House leader who wins wide personal applause even in a losing fight; a Georgian with the best political tradition of his State in his blood whose legislative enterprise and-- parliamentary knowledge fully qualify him for promotion to the Senate. His term expires March 3,1933.--ED. Satevepost's von Schleicher
Sirs:
Enclosed a picture of General von Schleicher. cut from p. 17 of TIME of June 13, and two pictures cut from the opening article of the Saturday Evening Post of July 16. You will notice that on the latter the same person is supposed to be General Groener. Which is right?
MRS. L. THOMASSEN
Ann Arbor, Mich.
Satevepost was wrong, TIME right. Satevepost's "von Schleicher" is General Wilhelm Groener, onetime Minister of Defense and Interior, and vice versa.--ED.
This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.