Show 7 1 I diar Di 1 10 fr K I 1 national T topics e 0 on N W M BR BRUCK V j 40 9 je E 3 A shi washington to have a clear understanding der standing of 0 the discussion that is to follow I 1 think I 1 the I 1 ri he TVA tia IV A A must first find a controversy definition of the t h e word contumacy it ought to be properly and officially defined because it is going to be a very important word in this country so I 1 read from the dictionary here on my desk the following definition CONTUMACY contemptuous disregard of authority insolent disregard of authority incorrigible obstinacy st next it should be set down that there are rather there were two men with the surname of morgan as officials of the tennessee valley authority before president roosevelt removed one of them from office for contumacy the fact that there were two morgans must be remembered because each one figures prominently in a continuing controversy and for the reason that neither one of the morgans is connected with the house of morgan to which so many demagogues refer when they talk about economic royalists in the third place we should know something about david E lilienthal who like the two morgans also was a director of the TVA mr lilienthal continues to be a director as does harcourt morgan the mo morgan who no longer has official connection with TVA according to president roosevelt is dr arthur E morgan founder of the famous antioch college at yellow springs ohio arthur morgan was removed as chairman of the TVA because becaas e the president said he was guilty of contumacy and harcourt morgan was made chairman the removal took place by executive order after mr roosevelt had personally held three hearings for the purpose he said of determining who was wrong in an old fashioned cat and dog fight that has been going for months among the three directors of TVA arthur morgan had made accusations against the other two directors charges of a libelous nature charges of dishonesty in short charges that the other two directors were guilty of enough things to cause their removal from office arthur morgan had openly urged a congressional investigation of the TVA as well and when mr roosevelt made his own investigation and arthur morgan refused to offer one iota of evidence to support his previous charges he was guilty of contumacy and the chief executive removed or just plain fired him and so we come to another phase in urging a congressional investigation arthur morgan followed what he thought was the proper course he held that the TVA was a creature of congress which placed in its law its legal charter that none of the directors could be removed unless on charges that they had played political favorites in TVA appointments he thought that the white house investigation was a means of checking a congressional investigation which had been so vigorously opposed by senator norris of nebraska father of the TVA and roosevelt supporter that is to say chairman morgan believe president roosevelt had any authority to call in the three directors and there in the presence of all compel the chairman to substantiate his charges so he stood pat but mr roosevelt believed he did have authority and he used it ile he removed arthur morgan and promoted harcourt morgan to the TVA well there had been a lot of hemming and hawing around the senate over the general TVA investigation vesti gation proposed by the fighting young styles bridges of new hampshire who was joined in the battle by sen william willia m H king of utah senator norris succeeded in stalling the invests investigation gation for quite awhile but after the white house investigation which senator bridges contemptuously referred to as a comic opera trial things began to happen in the house of representatives as well as in the senate and so now there is scheduled an investigation in in which house and senate will join an inquiry that will go into every phase of TVA to see what makes it tick there can be no doubt at all that instead of sal satisfying the country especially congress as to the merits ot of the TVA row the white house investigation had the effect of bringing about a far reaching investigation in congress many bitter words have been uttered about the white house course in firing arthur morgan observations that mr roosevelt had railroaded the chairman out of the TVA job assertions that it constituted an american version of the famed french dreyfus case assertions that contumacy is a crime only where dictators operate etc try as they may now the public ownership advocates socialists cia cla lists and others who believe in the state owning everything are due to have the varnish removed from TVA the country at last is going to have a look at the real wood they will get some facts that hitherto have been concealed or hushed up that is these things will come out for an airing unless the presidential lash whips enough committeemen into line to develop a whitewash aside from the tragedy of having arthur morgans name smeared the TVA row and good for the white house the country investigation probably will be good for the country anybody who knows arthur morgans record must agree that it is one of which any man could be proud it is too bad therefore that he has to be the goat in the case but I 1 repeat that the affair will result in considerable good if the whole TVA record can be brought into the open and the go ingson ings on of public ownership advocates can be exposed tor for once insofar as TVA is concerned there is however something S much more significant much deeper in in this situation than just justice or injustice to one man in this I 1 refer to the use of authority by the president to make an independent official do the bidding of the chief executive it is is a case comparable cm parable in many respects to the removal of the late william E humphreys as a member of the federal trade commission that was done president roosevelt said at the time because mr humphreys failed to see eye to eye with the chief executive it is to be remembered too that the supreme court of the united states held unanimously that mr roosevelt did not have the power to remove mr humphreys thus there is again a legal question whether the president had the power although homer S cummings the attorney general advised mr roosevelt that such power was vested in him as president undoubtedly arthur morgan will try out the matter in court the disturbing thing is however that if president roosevelt has that much authority now how much more authority will he have to do that sort of thing and many many others it if given authority to reorganize the government agencies as he sought in the original government reorganization bill of course much of his demanded authority has been shorn from the bill but I 1 believe there is ground for alarm at what remains whether mr roosevelt continues to be president indefinitely or whether some other man is president I 1 think congress condrea has no right to give away such power but to get back back to the case of arthur morgan and his contumacy the meaning of the word is clear arthur morgan according to people who know him intimately was trying to do the best job he knew how to do he read the law one way the president read it another I 1 see no legitimate reason for removal of the man on the grounds of conturba con contumacy turna cy that is no crime discipline mr morgan yes if the president wanted to do so suspend him until the facts have been brought to light by a congressional inquiry a mode of procedure which congress reserved to itself but removal seems to be rather foolish and the action certainly has reacted adversely to the president among his own partisans the white house inquiry failed to adduce any story about the operations of harcourt blames morgan and mr lilienthal Lil lenthal in many quarters that mr lilienthal is the man who really started the trouble in the b beginning e he is the same man who was connected with the wisconsin utilities commission and wrote an order directing a reduction in telephone rates before holding a hearing to give interested parties a chance to have their day in court if current reports be true mr linenthal lilienthal actually signed the order reducing rates several days before the so called public hearing was held the court called his action arbitrary and delivered itself of quite a tongue lashing about such unwarranted and despotic action that opinion was rendered late in february whether mr lilienthal has been guilty of the same kind of despotism in TVA I 1 have no means of knowing but this much surely can be said if he attempted anything of the kind arthur morgan would be the first to object mr Lilienth als operations in TVA as far as they are visible from washington have the appearance and the results naturally to be expected of an extremist arthur morgan i is s self willed too but the re records C of the two men as far as they a are re known 0 wn publicly assuredly shows him to understand human nature mr roosevelt having elected to fire mr morgan for contumacy and thereby having placed himself on the side of mr lilienthal EOV must face the political music 0 western newspaper union |