APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD who are aware of the problems which exist. This outline is designed to serve the double purpose of indicating the work which has been done on law and legislation in the avia- tion field and of indicating the work which needs to be done as shown by experience to date. It is readily apparent that every field of aviation laws is in a state of current and almost constant change. Members of the bar have a most difficult but challenging task to perform in formulating the legal prin- ciples best suited to the air age in which we now live. I. INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORTATION 1. The sovereignty of nations over airspace above all territory under thetr jurisdiction Settled principles of international law now give each nation absolute sovereignty over the airspace above the territory under its jurisdiction.! The very first article of chap- ter I of the Chicago International Aviation Convention relates this principle. This means, for example, that Russia, Yugosiavia, England, or the United States may exclude all foreign aircraft, or these nations may prescribe the terms and conditions under which foreign aircraft may land on their ter- ritory, or fly over such territory, for any pur- pose. This absolute sovereignty must be kept in mind in all relations in the inter- national] aviation field, for it definitely limits every phase. The Chicago International Aviation Convention mentioned below and the several similar conventions which pre- ceded it, all have as their purpose the open- ing up of airspace over nations to aircraft of other nations. If a foreign aircraft at- tempts to cross a nation’s territory without permission, there is no doubt under interna- tional law of the right of the aggrieved nation to force such aircraft to land or to shoot such aircraft down if necessary. 2. Legal rules for international aviation as developed by international convention, treaty and agreements In addition to the Chicago International Aviation Convention of 1944, which 1s out- lined below, there are international aviation conventions covering air mail,’ sanitary and quarantine measures to guard against in- troduction of communicable diseases by air- craft,‘ and bipartite treaties or agreements in this field covering a wide variety of sub- jects." There are many bipartite agreements covering operation of noncommercial civil aircraft, the recognition of pilots’ licenses, airworthiness certificates for exported air- craft, reciprocal air-transport operations, and other international aviation subjects. The Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 governs permits to foreign air carriers coming into the United States, and gives the CAB con- trol over routes of United States air carriers to foreign nations. Unfortunately, the act does not give CAB any control over rates charged by United States air carriers in international air transportation, and that is one of the suggested amendments to the act now pending before the Congress in Senator McCarran’s bill, 8. 1, Eightieth Oongress. Perhaps the chief thing to remember in connection with agreements for entry of our aircraft to another nation is that any rights obtained by the United States must be on 169 A. B. A. R. 228 (1944). See Pogue, What Is Freedom of the Air? Nation's Busi- ness, June 1943. 8See Hotchkiss, Law of Aviation, p. 4 et seq.; Hudson, Aviation and International Law (1980), 1 Air L. Rev. 183; and Gibson, De- velopment of International Air Law to 1919 (1981), 5 Temple L. q., 161. 'See text of Universal Postal Convention of Buenos Aires (United States Government Printing Office, 1940). *International Sanitary Convention (1933), United States Treaty Series 901. *See Gibson, Bi-Partite Agreements on Aerial Navigation, 6 Temple L. Q., 57. XCITI—App.——44 a reciprocal basis. If we are to fly to or over England, Russia, Turkey, or any other nation we must be prepared to grant them like rights to fly to or over the United Btates. 3. The Warsaw Convention and its presump- tions and limitations on recovery of dam- ages The United States is a party to a convene tion which establishes a presumption of lia- bility for death or injury in international air transportation and which limits recov- ery for such death or injury to 125,000 gold francs, or $8,291.87 in United States cur- rency, unless the claimant can prove “willful misconduct.”* The convention also limits recovery for property damage. With proof of the cause of most aircraft accidents al- most impossible, the affirmative proof of either negligence, on the one hand, or of “willful misconduct” on the other, is a bur- den which is dificult if not impossible to meet in most cases. Under the convention there is a presumption of liability up to the $8,291.87 in death or personal injury cases, and to escape such Hability the air carrier must prove that the injury or death was not caused by its negligence. This shifting of the burden of proof is similar to the res ipsa loquitur doctrine sometimes relied upon in domestic aviation accidents. The im- portant question is, Do the advantages of such a shift in the burden of proof com- pensate for the limitation on liability? This convention was adhered to by the United States on June 27, 1934.7 It is tech- nically known as the convention for the unification of certain rules relating to Inter- national Transportation by Air and popularly known as the Warsaw Convention. Twenty- nine nations are now parties to this con- vention. In 1934 International Air Trans- portation was minor in character so the ad- herence of the United States to this conven- tion was relatively unnoticed. With interna- tional air transportation now a major indus- try, and with all air lines engaged in such transportation issuing tickets subject to the Warsaw Convention it seems to be time to give this matter serious attention, and your committee is giving it thorough study at this time. The committee which drafted the Warsaw Convention, the International Technical Committee of Aerial Legal Experts, usually referred to as the CITEJA, is in the process of transferring its functions to PICAO, and the views of the American Bar Association on this $8,291.87 limitation will undoubtedly prove quite helpful to PICAO in carrying for- ward the work CITEJA has started on amendments to this convention. Definite recommendations on this subject will be made at the annual convention if your com- mittee’s further study reveals the need for such recommendations. In addition to the liability limitation re- ferred to above, the Warsaw Convention covers the form and legal effect of passenger tickets, baggage checks, and aerial waybills, a limi- tation on liability of the air carrier for dam- age to baggage or goods, jurisdiction and procedure of courts in handling claims, a 2- year time limit on filing of suits and other provisions to carry the foregoing into effect. 4. The Chicago International Aviation Convention From November 1 to December 7, 1944, rep- resentatives of 54 nations attended the inter- national civil aviation conference in Chicago. The conference adopted an interim agree- ment setting up the Provisional Interna- tional Civil Aviation Organization (PICAO), with an interim council and interim assem- bly, with headquarters in Montreal, PICAO *Orr, The Warsaw Convention (1945), 31 Va. L. Rev. 423. 149 Stat. 8000; United States Treaty Series No. 876; Hudson, International Legislation No. 235; 1934 United States Av. R. 239, 246. A689 is to coordinate and guide international avia- tion until a permanent organization can be set up. The United States and 45 other nations signed this agreement. PICAO has made remarkable progress in the technical phases of international air transportation, Emphasis has been chiefly on safety, research, and development of air-navigation facilities, as, for example, the PICAO agreement to speed up immigration and customs require- ments, to which this association gave its approval in Atlantic City last October. Un- der the interim agreement and the perma- nent convention little power is given over the economic phases of international air trans- portation. At the first interim assembly of PICAO, held in Montreal from May 21 to June 6, 1946, a resolution was adopted calling for the deposit simultaneously by March 1, 1947, of the formal ratifications of all ratifying nations in addition to the 9 who had there- tofore deposited their ratifications. Five have since deposited ratifications and 12 more are necessary to complete the 26 ratifi- cations required so that the permanent con- vention will be brought into effect 30 days later, under the terms of the convention. The United States ratified the permanent convention last year. The permanent or- ganization, to be known as the International Civil Aviation Organization, or ICAO, will convene its first general assembly on May 4, 1947. The Permanent Convention sets forth prin- ciples in international air navigation and air transport which ratifying or adhering nations are to follow. It is impossible to summarize such a comprehensive document” so your Committee merely indicates here in brief that it covers sovereignty of nations over airspace above their territory, flight over territory of contracting states by “aircraft not engaged in scheduled international air services,” na- tionality of aircraft, measures to facilitate air navigation, the conditions which aircraft of member nations engaged in international air transportation must meet in the way of documents, licenses, etc., adoption of inter- national standards and recommended prac- tices on communications systems, ground marking, airports, rules of the air, traffic con- trol, licensing of personnel and other tech- nical matters. Certain disputes between members nations ate to be decided by the Council created by the Convention and they may be appealed to the Permanent Court of International Justice. As appendices to the Convention, but not a part of it, there are the “two freedoms” and “five freedoms” agreements which are optional for member nations. The so-called “two freedoms” In- ternational Air Services Transit Agreement gives the nations signing it the right to fly over the territory of other signatories with- out landing and the right to land for non- traffic purposes. The United States is a party to this agreement. The so-called “five free- doms” International Air Transport Agree- ment grants each contracting nation the privileges just named in the ‘two freedoms” agreement and in addition the privilege to put down and take on passengers, mail and cargo destined from or to the nation whose nationality the aircraft possesses, and pas- sengers, mail or cargo destined to or from any other contracting Nation. When the United States ratified the Convention it with- drew from this agreement.” Up to the present time, PICAO has had no organizational relationship to the United Nations. However, @ proposed agreement de- signed to govern the relationship between the permanent International Civil Aviation Organization, or ICAO, to be established when the Convention becomes effective and the * American Aviation, January 15, 1947, p. 8. *°See Rhyne, Legal Rules for International Aviation (1945), 31 Va. L. Rev. 267, 305-315. *” State Dept., Press Release No, 510, July 25, 1946; 1946 U.S. Av. R. 378.
A690 United Nations organization has been pre- pared, approved by the PICAO Council, by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, by the United Nations Gen- eral Assembly, subject to the condition that Spain shall not be a member of ICAO, and now awaits only similar approval by the As- sembly of ICAO, which has its next meeting in May 1947. If this agreement becomes effective, it will not place ICAO under the supervision and direction of the United Na- tions, but will establish a consultative ar- rangement between the two organizations and will recognize ICAO as the specialized agency of the United Nations in the field of aviation. 1. FEDERAL JURISDICTION OVER CIVIL AVIATION 1. Safety powers very broad under Civil Aeronautics Act Under the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 Federal jurisdiction over safety in the air is based on the very broad definition of “air commerce” in that act which includes (1) interstate, overseas, and foreign air com- merce; (2) the transportation of mail by aircraft; (3) any operation or navigation of aircraft within the limits of any civil air- ways; (4) any operations or navigation of aircraft which directly affects interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce; and (5) any operation or navigation of aircraft which may endanger safety in interstate, overseas or foreign air commerce. Under this broad definition of “air com- merce” the Civil Aeronautics Board has promulated regulations requiring Federal certificates for all aircraft and all airmen regardless of whether either or both are engaged in interstate or intrastate commerce, regardless of whether the flight is of @ com- mercial or noncommercial nature, and re- gardiess of whether the flight takes place on or traverses a civil airway. In other words, any airman or aircraft engaged in flying of any sort in the airspace overlying the United States is required pursuant to the Safety Regulations ‘to have a Federal license.™ Intrastate flights are covered.* 2. Federal economic regulatory powers are limited under Civti Aeronautics Act While the constitutional power of Congress over interstate and foreign commerce is just as broad with respect to economic regula- tory jurisdiction as it is to safety regulatory jurisdiction, Congress did not see fit in pass- ing the Civil Aeronautics Act to exercise the commerce power as comprehensively with re- spect to Federal economic regulation as it did with respect to Federal safety regulation, As has been stated above, all aircraft and all airmen are subject to the safety require- ments, No parallel provision is made in the so-called economic sections of the act. Rather, the act applies its economic sections only to carriers engaged in air transporta- tion, which term, by a series of definitions in the act, means the carriage by aircraft of persons or property as a “common carrier” for compensation or hire in interstate com- merce or the carriage of mail. Consequently, economic regulations under the act do not extend to contract carriers by aircraft, re- gardless of whether or not such carriers are engaged in interstate, overseas or foreign commerce, That Congress has power to reg- ulate any carrier, whether common or con- tract, engaging in interstate commerce ad- mits of no doubt; why Congress excluded contract carriers from the terms of the act poses an interesting, if speculative, problem. 1 This regulation was upheld in Rosenhan v. United States (181 Fed. (2d) 932 (C. C. A, 10th, 1042)). (Certiorari denied 318 U. 8, 790.) * The court so held in United States v. toa (88 Fed. Supp. 151 (U. 8. D. OC. Nev., 1944) ). Senator McCarran’s pending proposed bill (8. 1, 80th Cong.) rewrites the Civil Aero- nautics Act so as to, among other things, regulate contract carriers by air. 3. The problem of nonscheduled air carrters At the present time there is much in the press about the safety and economic phases of nonscheduled air carriers and the CAB ts currently engaged in rewriting all the safety and economic regulations it had pro- mulgated for this type of air carrier. As stated above in discussing economic juris- diction, the Civil Aeronautics Act gives CAB jurisdiction over all “common carriers” by air. Whether all nonscheduled air carriers come within this definition or whether many of them are contract carriers is one of the legal problems yet to be decided in this field." Since the war, availability of sur- plus aircraft has caused the number of non- scheduled air carriers to increase by the hundred, and cargo and passenger carriers in this classification are seemingly deter- mined to compete with the scheduled air lines for such business as they can obtain. Many new legal regulations must be written to cover this type of alr carrier. 4. Should Federal jurisdiction be exclusive over both safety and economic phases of civil aviation? There is much discussion at the present time as to whether or not Federal jurisdic- tion should be exclusive over both safety and economic phases of civil aviation.“ Your committee has pointed out that Federal jurisdiction under the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1988 in the safety fleld is broad enough to cover all fight by civil aircraft, and that the economic powers given to the CAB under that act are more limited in scope. The problem is merely pointed out for consid- eration as it is impossible to discuss the various arguments on this subject in this summary. 5. How should the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 be amended to meet the needs of civil aviation? Civil aviation has made great strides in this country since the Civil Aeronautics Act of 19388 was adopted. The extent of Federal safety and economic powers as discussed above indicate certain improvements which might be covered in amendments to this act. The problem of nonscheduled air carriers is certainly one that may call for more legis- lation. Senator McCarran, the acknowl. edged congressional expert in the field of aviation law and author of the Civil Aero- nautics Act of 1938, has prepared a com- prehensive bill, 8. 1, Eightieth Congress, in which he has rewritten all Federal legislation on the subject of civil aviation. In this he has, in a comprehensive way, covered such subjects as contract carriers, the matter of rates in the international field, and many other defects of the existing law. He has pro- posed in his bill that the Civil Aeronautics Authority be re-created as an independent agency and that an independent Air Safety Board be created. Senator McCarran has now introduced the provisions of his bill creating the Air Safety Board (title VII of 8. 1) as @ separate bill (8. 269) and the latter bill is currently the subject of hearings before the Aviation Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, These hearings are directed to- ward an investigation of the causes of recent aviation accidents. Bee Neal, the Status of Nonscheduled Operations Under the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 (1946), 11 Law & Contemp. Prob. 508. 44 8ee Ryan, Economic Regulation of Air Commerce by the States (1945), 31 Va. Law Rev. 479; and Hamley, Appropriate Areas of State Economic Regulation (1946), 11 Law & Contemp. Prob. 488. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD I. STATE JURISDICTION OVER CIVIL AVIATION 1. Atr safety jurisdiction of the States All of the States have legislation covering various phases of air-safety regulations. Forty States require that all aircraft and all pilots have Federal certificates. Of the eight States which have no such requirement, six require either a State or Federal certificate, and two require only a State certificate for both aircraft and pilots. Virginia requires both a State and Federal certificate for air- craft and pilots, Eleven States have adopted air-traffic rules substantially identical with the Federal Air Traffic Rules, 23 have air- traffic regulations which make no reference to the Federal rules but which are usually based in part upon them, and 14 have no provision on this subject." The most recent activity in connection with Federal-State cooperation in the field of air- safety enforcement is a model State statute supported by CAA proposing among other things that the States punish reckless flying and that Federal aviation statutes and regu- lations be used as prima facie evidence of what constitutes reckless flying. CAA has pointed out that it does not have sufficient personnel to police the airways and that it would welcome State aid in the enforcement field. Previous reports of your committee have pointed out the constitutional ques- tions involved where States adopt Federal regulations by reference, so this new statute attempts to avoid these problems. It is planned to extend this enforcement idea to local police as well as State police by urging adoption of local ordinances similar in char- acter to the model State act. Undoubtedly as civil aviation continues to grow there will be many other ways in which States can aid in increasing the safety of air navigation. 2. Economie regulations of air carriers by the States In discussing Federal jurisdiction over civil aviation above, your committee has posed the question as to whether Federal jurisdiction should be exclusive over both safety and eco- nomic phases of civil aviation. In footnote 14 recent articles on this subject have been cited as a starting point for those interested in the subject. While 15 States have statutes authorizing economic regulations applicable to air trans- portation, no State has taken any action in this field of any consequence. There has been recent agitation in this field due to the activity of the National Association of Rall- road and Utilities Commissioners in sponsor- ing the uniform State air-commerce Dill. This bill purports to give States jurisdiction over intrastate operations of all air carriers. In 1944 Virginia enacted rather comprehen- sive legislation to provide for economic regu- lation of air carriers and Rhode Island amended her statute to strengthen its reg- ulatory provisions. In 1945 Alabama, Arkan- sas and Vermont adopted economic regulatory statutes based upon the uniform bill just referred to. It is to be noted, however, that in the latter three States the legislatures de- leted the provisions of the uniform Dill re- lating to regulation of intrastate business of interstate air carriers. 3. State taxation of civil aviation State and local taxes on commercial air lines are almost exclusively of the following types: (1) Real property taxes; (2) personal property taxes; (3) net income taxes; (4) capital-stock taxes; (5) gross-earning taxes; (6) pay-roll taxes; (7) gasoline taxes; (8) aircraft-registration fees; and (9) pilot- license fees. In the only aviation tax case of national tmport the Supreme Court of the United * For names of States in each category see Rhyne, Federal, State, and Local Jurisdiction Over Civil Aviation (1946), 11 Law & Contemp, Prob., 459 at 467,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD States has held that Minnesota could tax all of the planes of Northwest Airlines where that air line used Minnesota as its “home port.” ‘This decision has brought about a very exhaustive study and report to Congress on taxation of air lines by the CAB pursuant to a resolution of the Congress." Though bills have been introduced, no congressional action has yet been taken on the legislation pro in the report to eliminate multiple taxation of air commerce. The National As- sociation of Tax Administrators has recom- mended adoption by the States of legislation employing a uniform formula for allocation of aviation taxes among the States. Each State’s portion of these taxes is determined according to its share of aircraft arrivals and departures, revenue-tons handled, and reve- nues originating inside its boundaries. 4. Model State legislation now under consideration With 44 of the 48 State legislatures now in session, there are a number of so-called model aviation bills before them. There is & model airports act designed to give cities and counties adequate powers to establish and operate airports as well as to receive Fed- eral aid for such purposes. The model air- port zoning act which has been adopted with some changes by nearly 40 States, is referred to below in discussing the sub- ject of airport zoning under section IV of this summary on airport development. The uniform State air commerce act has been referred to in discussing State economic regulation over air carriers. The model stat- ute on reckness flying has been referred to in discussing State air-safety Jurisdiction and has just been made a part of another model bill called the State aeronautics commission or department act which is sponsored by the National Association of State Aviation Of- ficials. A still further model bill sponsored by the Council of State Governments would require the channeling of all Federal air- port funds through State agencies, elimi- nating direct Federal-city relations under the Federal airport program. The model act on State taxation of air lines is discussed, supra, in the section on State taxation of civil aviation. IV. AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT 1. Power to acqutre, develop, and operate There have now been 55 decisions by 26 State supreme courts holding that publicly owned airports are a public purpose upon which local governments may spend tax funds, The courts have also held that public airports are a public use for which property may be condemned under the power of eminent domain by public agencies. In one instance an air line has been allowed to in- voke the power Of eminent domain to acquire necessary property for terminal facilities. Airport leases have created many legal prob- lems, as have regulations governing the use of airports, Taxation of public airports and damage claims against both privately owned and publicly owned airports have likewise created legal problems for the courts.” With the Federal Government, the States and cities embarking upon a 81,000,000,000 national airport program under the Federal Airport Act of 1946, many of the above prob- lems will be most important in the next few years and many new legal problems will un- doubtedly arise. 18 Northwest Airlines v. Minnesota, 822 U. 8. 292 (1944). 7Multiple Taxation of Air Commerce, H. Doc. No. 141, Seventy-ninth Congress, 1945. 4 Bee H. R. 1241 Eightieth Congress, intro- duced by Representative BuULWINKLE. 3” For a starting point on research on any of the subjects mentioned above, see Rhyne, Airports and the Courts (1944). All court decisions, books, and law-review articles on these subjects are cited. 2. Alleged nuisances or trespasses from low flights at or near airports The common-law maxim ‘“‘cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum et ad in- ferons” meaning “he who owns the soil owns everything above and below, from heaven to hell” has been held inapplicable to air trans- portation by the Supreme Court of the United States. Other courts have reached similar conclusions. The Supreme Court decision held that a person who was damaged by low flights over his property, by federally owned planes which were taking off and landing at an adjacent airport, was entitled to recover for the damage so suffered. The decision was not unanimous and there is much disagree- ment in other court decisions as to the legal rules which apply in this type of case.) With civil airplanes increasing by the thousands, claims of this character based on low flying, noise, depreciation of property adjacent to airports, dust, fright and similar factors can be expected to multiply greatly. Much con- fusion had been caused in this fleld of law by the “Uniform State Law for Aeronautics” of 1922, endorsed by the association in 1922.72 and adopted by 25 States.” and the American Law Institute's Restatement of the Law of Torts, section 194,74 both of which contain the old ad coelum theory. Section 4 of the 1922 act subjects air space to a right of flight where the owner's use is not interfered with but much confusion tn interpretation has re- sulted from attempts to reconcile these two sections. In 1931 this committee attempted to work out a draft of a uniform regulatory act which would eliminate the ad coelum theory but conflict of opinion prevented agreement on the language which would accomplish this purpose. The Commissioners on Uniform State Laws then attempted a similar objective in their Proposed “Uniform Aeronautical Code.” Your committee and a committee represent- ing the American Law Institute worked on this project from 1933 up to 1989 when your committee recommended that further work on the proposed Uniform State Aeronautical Code be suspended pending a study by CAA of whether the entire field of regula- tion cannot and should not be covered by Federal Law.” Your committee was author- ized by the association in 19397" to accept an invitation to cooperate with CAA in this study and to suspend further work on the proposed State code. The President's Reorganization Plan of 1940 came along and CAB inherited this broad study, but the only part ever released was the study on tort liability discussed under the section on avia- tion accident law, infra. In 1941 this as- sociation voted to suspend its recommenda- tion of the Uniform State Regulatory Act on this committee’s recommendation that Fed- eral regulation rather than State regulation was best suited to this fleld.* The advent of war and more pressing problems diverted CAB attention elsewhere, and in 1948 this association adopted a resolution stating as follows: * “That the American Bar Association en- dorse the principle that— 2 Cousby v. United States (66 Sup. Ct. 1062 (1945)). See Hunter, The Conflicting In- terests of Airport Owner and Nearby Property Owner (1946), 11 Law & Contemp. Prob, 538. *\See Rhyne, Airports, and the Courts (1944) pp. 82-161, ™ A.B. A. Rep. (1922), 97, 413. ™ 1944 U. 8. Av. R. 129, ™% See Pogue, Aviation as a Law Molding Force (1943). 21 Nebr. L. Rev. 53; and Wherry and Condon, Aerial Trespass Under the Re- statement of Torts (1935), 6 Air. L. Rev. 118. 66 A.B. A. R. (1981) 69, 317. 64 A.B. A. R. 171. 7 64 A. B. A. R. 100-101. ™66 A. B. A. R. 148, 221-228. ~68 A. B. A. R. 143, 196 (1943), A691 “(a) Maximum development of the air commerce of the Nation is in the public interest. “(b) Uniformity of law and regulation of such air commerce, including its economic and safety regulation, control, and the cer- tification of aircraft and airmen, is neces- sary to bring about its maximum develop- ment. “(c) Such uniform regulation and con- trol can only be accomplished through Fed- eral legislation. “(d) The declarations of principles and policies stated in H. R. 1012 (committee print No. 2, dated May 26, 1943) of Federal control of all air commerce to the exclusion of State control of a contrary, duplicating, or otherwise burdensome nature are in accord with the announced policies of the American Bar Association.” This resolution ended association interest in all parts of the then pending uniform State Aeronautical Code except the part de- voted to tort liability. This leaves the Uni- form Airports Act®® and the 1922 uniform State law for aeronautics as the only pro- posed State legislation bearing the associa- tion's endorsement. Your committee is making a study as to the advisability of a recommendation that the association sus- pend its endorsement of both of these uni- form acts as the development of aviation has made them out of date in many of their provisions, and the Uniform Airports Act has been superseded by a more recent Model Air- ports Act referred to in discussing model State legislation, supra. Without further elaboration of the many difficult legal and legislative problems in this field as illustrated by the court decisions and legislation herein discussed, it can be seen that this is one branch of aviation law where much work must be done to clarify the legal rights of landowners, airplane operators and others. 3, Airport zoning Airport zoning to prohibit obstructions in the approach zones of airports is a subject which ts receiving much attention at present because one of the conditions of Federal aid under the Federal Airport Act is prevention of such obstructions by zoning or other means." With airports of the transport class costing from four to one hundred million dol- lars, this entire investment can be wiped out overnight if some landowner can erect a tall building or other structure in one of the approach zones of such an airport. Airport zoning is designed to prevent such obstruc- tions by limiting the heights of all struc- tures, and objects of natural growth, in the approach zones to public airports. Some 40 States now authorize local governments to enact airport-zoning ordinances. The legal basis of such zoning is the principle enun- ciated by the Supreme Court of the United States years ago in the Euclid™ case that zoning is a valid exercise of the police power and that an individual can be required, with- out compensation, to give up a part of his property rights for the benefit of the com- munity as a whole. Airport zoning cannot be used to force removal of existing structures since that would be confiscation without com- pensation, but it is directed toward preven- tion of future obstructions. In the few cases on this subject which have reached the courts, the decisions have pointed out that airport zoning cannot be used to confiscate property immediately adjacent to airports by so limiting the height of structures on such © 60 A. B. A. R. 119 (1935). "Public Law No. 337, 79th Cong., sec. 11 (8). 2 Village of Euclid v, Ambler Realty Co. (272 U. 8. 865 (1926)); McQuillin Municipal Corporations (2d Ed.) § 1027.
A692 property as to make it useless." The control- ling legal principles in this field of aviation law are yet to be written by the courts as no court of last resort has yet passed squarely upon airport zoning under adequate State legislation and local ordinance. There is & model State statute on airport zoning which is jointly sponsored by the CAA, the National Institute of municipal law officers, the Na- tional Association of State Aviation Officials, and the Council of State Governments. V. AVIATION ACCIDENT LAW 1. Aviation-accident liabilities There is now a large number of cases cover- ing many points of law involving aviation- accident liabilities. The distinction between common and private carriers has been made by the courts in describing the degree of care required of aircraft operators. In quite a number of States there are statutory provi- sions applicable to aircraft operator accident Mabtiity. It will be recalled that the uni- form State law for aeronautics referred to above, in discussing alleged nuisances from low fiights at or near airports, also contains @ provision stating the rule of absolute lia- bility for damage by aircraft to persons or property on land or sea unless the injury is caused in whole or in part by the person injured. Twenty-three States have adapted this uniform law, but some of them have removed the absolute-liability provision and have based liability on the rules of torts applicable to accidents on land. In 1937 your committee, the Commissioners on Uni- form State Laws, and the American Law Institute, through a joint committee, at- tempted to draft a uniform aviation Ha- bility act.“ Many differences of opinion arose, and finally your committee and the American Law Institute withdrew from par- ticipation in the work on the proposed uni- form act.” The executive committee of the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws voted to withhold promulgation of this act until the Civil Aeronautics Authority com- pleted a study they were making of aviation- liability legislation. When the reorganiza- tion order of the President reorganized the Civil Aeronautics Authority in 1940 the study went along with the functions of the new CAB. The study was completed in 1941," but the war and its emergencies have caused CAB to delay action upon recommendations made therein. These recommendations call for a Federal act to cover most aviation tort Hability. In 1939 the association authorized this committee to accept a CAA invitation to co- operate in this study of tort Nability, and your committee is hoping that this project can be revitalized within the next few weeks. No action approving the CAB’s recommenda- tions has yet been taken by the association or the committee, and the committee is giving serious consideration to the CAB recommen- dations so that it can make proper recom- mendations for action by the association on this subject. 2. Workmen’s compensation Workmen's compensation problems of a unique character have been created by air ™ Mutual Chemical Co. v. City Council of Baltimore (236 C, 0. H. § 1818 (Cir. Ct. Balt. Co, 1989)); Yara Engineering Co. v. City of Newark (235 C. C. H. § 1989 (N. J. Sup. Ct. 1945)). Cases upholding airport zoning are Untted States v. 357.25 Acres of Land (285 Cc. C. H. § 1972 (U. 8. D. C. W. D. La. 1944) ) and by dictum Burnham v. Beverly Airways, Inc, (811 Mass, 628, 42 N. E, (2d) 575 (1942) ). “Report of the Standing Committee on Aeronautical Law (1937), 66 A, B. A. R. 221. * Report of the Standing Committee on Aeronautical Law (1942), 67 A. B. A. R. 186. * See Sweeney, Report of the Civil Aero- nautics Board of a Study of Proposed Avia- tion Liability Legislation (1941). " 64 A. B. A, R. 100-101 (1939). transportation primarily because of its long distance interstate character. Most State laws have been interpreted as applying to all phases of civil aviation, but numerous inter- pretation of the situs of the employment of air-line employees is required. It has been suggested that the Federal Government as- sert complete jurisdiction in this field to eliminate some of the problems which have arisen.* 3. Aviation exclusion clauses in insurance contracts and the trend toward court inter- pretations which nullify these restrictions on air travel Up until recent years insurance companies included in all accident and life policies a provision that the insured was not to be cov- ered by the policy if injured while “engaging in” or “participating in” aviation, Some of these exclusion provisions relate to the dou- ble-indemnity payments only. Almost from the beginning the courts held that a mere passenger was not “engaging in” aviation or aeronautics, but the earliest cases held that @ passenger in an airplane was “participating in” aviation or aeronautics. There was then a change in judicial construction of “par- ticipating in” which held that this phrase should be given an occupational connotation so that only pilots and those actually direct- ing airplane flights should be regarded as “participating in” or “engaging in” aviation or aeronautics. Some insurance companies then added the word “operations” to ‘“‘par- ticipating” or “engaging,” but the courts held that the addition of “operations” did not cover passengers, so the insurance companies then added to “engaging” or “participating” the phrase “as a passenger or otherwise.” The courts at first held that the addition of “as a passenger or otherwise” clearly ex- cluded liability under an insurance policy for the death of a passenger who was killed in an airplane accident, but recent cases have now given an occupational connotation to this exclusion clause and have held that a mere passenger on a regularly scheduled flight over an established air route is not within the meaning of the exclusion clause. The foregoing has been recited to indicate that the courts have gradually changed their construction of aviation exclusion clauses in insurance policies to conform to the de- velopment of air transportation. In the beginning the courts considered aviation as an experiment and any person who took a flight in an airplane, even as a passenger, was considered as engaging in or partici- pating in aviation. When air transporta- tion began to be accepted as an ordinary mode of travel, the courts, as indicated above, reversed these earlier decisions.” A recent survey of life-insurance companies reveals that 98 percent of these companies now issue policies at standard rates to air- line passengers, with 84 percent imposing no limits whatever on the insured’s use of scheduled air lines. Only 14 percent make such restrictions as limiting flights to 40,000 miles per year or limiting the size of the policy.” Respectfully submitted. Susi O. ARNOLD, Wi.uiam P, MacCrackEn, W. Percy McDonatp, L. We.cu Pocve, Cuaries 8, Ruynz, Chairman, ™Bee 68 A. B. A. R. (1943) and Pillsbury, Application of Federal Compensation Acts to Aviation (1933), 4 Air L. Rev. 38; Hearings on HR. 1012, 78th Cong., 1st sess., at pp. 240- * See, for example, the recent decision in which the New York Court of Appeals re- versed itself: Hartol Products Corp. v. Pru- dential Insurance Co, (200 N. Y. 44, 47 N. E. (2d) 687, 1948 U. 8. Av. R. 44 (1948)). “ New York Times, Jan, 29, 1947, p. 13, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD A Protest EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. AIME J. FORAND OF RHODE ISLAND IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 24, 1947 Mr. FORAND. Mr. Speaker, distressed by the treatment their fellow country- men are receiving at the hands of the Russian-dominated Communist regime now in control of the Government of Lithuania, American Lithuanians of Rhode Island gathered at a meeting to commemorate the twenty-ninth anni- versary of Lithuania’s independence on February 16, 1947, and adopted a resolu- tion which, in my opinion, merits our serious consideration. Under leave to extend my remarks, I include this reso- lution with the urgent request that every Member of Congress read it and give their support to the pleas for relief of this oppressed nation. Resolution unanimously adopted by the Lithuanians of Providence, R. I., at their mass meeting held at St. Casimir’s Purish Hall, on February 16, 1947 Whereas over 20 months passed since the end of hostilities in Europe and Lithuania is still held under the occupation of the Soviet Russian Army; Whereas the Russian Government has illegally formed in Lithuania a Communist regime, which is forcing upon the people a Soviet system of government, abhorrent and alien to their convictions; and Whereas the Communist administration, supported by the Russian Army and police, has deprived the Lithuanian people of all their individual and political rights and lib- erties, is cruelly persecuting them, arresting them, and subjecting them to long terms in prison and deporting them into the Soviet Union, while their properties are being turned over to colonists brought in from Russia: Therefore be it Resolved, That this meeting, gathered to commemorate the twenty-ninth anniversary of Lithuania's independence, register an em- phatic protest against the illegal, arbitrary, and cruel Soviet conduct in Lithuania; and be it Resolved, That this meeting of Lithuanian Americans of Providence appeals to the Presi- dent of the United States and the Secretary of State to demand, through diplomatic channels and international conferences, that Russia immediately withdraw her armed forces and secret police from Lithuanian territory and permit the Lithuanian people to choose their own government in a free and unfettered election; and further be it Resolved, That this mass meeting appeals to the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations at Lake Success, N. Y., through ite chairman, Mrs. Eleanor Roose- velt, to protect the innocently suffering peo- ple of Lithuania from the terror and perse- cution by the Russians and their henchmen, and draw its attention to the horrible condi- tions described by the Supreme Lithuanian Committee of Liberation in a statement sub- mitted to the United Nations by the Lithuan- jan Minister in Washington; and finally be it Resolved, That copies of this resolution be forwarded to the Senators and Representa- tives of the State of Rhode Island and pub- Ushed in the press. Zowarp Clocys, Chairman. B. Secretary.
. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Was Marshall Wrong? . EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. LAWRENCE H. SMITH OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ,Monday, February 24, 1947 Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my re- marks, I am including herewith a pro- vooative article by George E. Sokolsaky, well-known newspaperman, who dis- cusses quite objectively the strategy em- ployed by the late President Roosevelt and Gen. George Marshall, then Chief of Staff of the American Army: THESE DAYS (By George E. Sokolsky) When Gen. George Marshall was Chief of Staff of the Army, Congress and the American people accepted his judgment without ques- tion. It is now clear that his particular judgment concerning the invasion of Europe was wrong, has resulted in a political tragedy of a magnitude not often witnessed in his- tory, and that the United States, because of it, faces the interminable debate with Soviet Russia. Winston Churchill had proposed that the Allies attack the Germans through the Balkans, a historic entry into Europe from the Mediterranean and the east. That would have brought British and American forces into those areas which are now generically, if somewhat inaccurately, described as behind the iron curtain. This plan Franklin D. Roosevelt and George C. Marshall opposed, on grounds which may, in their judgment, at the time, have found reasonable justification. They supported the invasion through France. Churchill was defeated, but time has proved him to have been correct. For the sum total of the European war has proved to be that Russia is the sole victor, that for German hegemony over Europe has been sub- stituted Russian hegemony, that for the autocratic will of Hitler has been substituted the autocratic will of Stalin, that a just peace has become impossible, and that two years after the war came to a military end, the world is still at war politically with no end in sight. I recall these incidents not in criticism of General Marshall, for history and the course of events are taking care of that, but rather as a protest against the assumption that any Secretary of State, whoever he may be, is a sacred cow. In a free country, such as ours, no holder of a public office should be beyond scrutiny and criticism. General Marshall may have made two blunders of a serious nature already. One appears to be his petulant assumption that because he failed in an impossible task in China, the United States must withdraw ita support from Chiang Kai-shek. If the United States assumes the role of the defender of free peoples, then it must define what a “free people” is. If by a “free people,” the United States actually means one that is governed by a government of the people's free and unfettered choosing, then we have no part to play, for among the peoples who need defense, there are no such governments, If, on the other hand, by “free people” we mean those who are not controlled, fettered, mastered and enslaved by one of the great powers, and these days, principally by Soviet Russia, then nearly all Buropean countries and China come within our scope. George Marshall, then, as Secretary of State, has to decide whether China deserves our support in the form of recognition of Chiang Kai-shek's struggle against a Russian hegemony or not. His original theory, on which he spent more than a year in China, that unity was possible between the Kuomin- tang, as represented by Chiang, and the Chinese Communists, representing Soviet Russia, was historically untenable and from the standpoint of American interests unde- sirable because it would have resulted in a Russian hegemony over China. Chiang had to resist that as he resisted Japan’s con- quest of China and for the same reasons. - Secondly, the American acceptance of the Russian limitations of press representation at the Moscow Conference is a basic error. Byrnes asked for and received a promise that Moscow would have the same coverage as all other international conferences have had since the war ended. The Russians have now reduced the number, which involves a se- lectivity of coverage by Russia, Thus far no radio coverage is announced. The United States should have declined to permit any news coverage unless the news and radio coverage was altogether free. In fact, the American delegation could decline to attend a conference at which the news and radio coverage was limited by a foreign country. We have never, for any reason, limited Russian news coverage at any conference held in this country and if the Russians sent few correspondents, cameramen, and broadcast- ers, that was their choice. The State Department has no business per- mitting the Russians to make that choice for the United States. Lithuanian Independence EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. KENNETH B. KEATING OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 24, 1947 Mr. KEATING. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I include below a copy of a resolution which I am today sending to the Secretary of State with the request that he advise what action is taken as the result of this pro- test. Free elections should be the right and heritage of a free people. The resolution follows: Resolution unanimously adopted by Lithua- nian fraternal societies and cultural organi- gations which constitute the Rochester (N. Y.) Chapter of the Lithuanian Ameri- can Council, at their mass meeting held at St. George’s Hall on February 16, 1947 Whereas over 20 months have passed since the end of hostilities in Europe and Lith- uania is still held under the occupation of the Soviet Russian Army; Whereas the Russian Government has Mlegally formed in Lithuania a Communist regime, which is forcing upon the people a Soviet system of government, abhorrent and alien to their convictions; Whereas the Communist administration, supported by the Russian Army and police, has deprived the Lithuanian people of all their individual and political rights and lib- erties, is cruelly persecuting them, arresting them and subjecting them to long terms in prison and deporting them into the Soviet Union, while their properties are being turned over to colonists brought in from Russia: Therefore be it A693 Resolved, That this meeting, gathered to commemorate the twenty-ninth anniver- sary of Lithuania's independence, register an emphatic protest against the illegal, arbi- trary, and cruel Soviet conduct in Lithuania; and be it Resolved, That this meeting of Lithua- nian Americans of Rochester, N. Y., appeals to the President of the United States and the Secretary of State, to demand, through diplomatic channels and international con- ferences, that Russia immediately withdraw her armed forces and secret police from Lithuanian territory, and permit the Lithua- nian people to choose their own government in a free and unfettered election; and fur- ther be it Resolved, That this mass meeting appeals to the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations at Lake Success, N. Y., through its chairman, Mrs. Eleanor Roose- velt, to protect the innocently suffering peo- ple of Lithuania from the terror and perse- cution by the Russians and their henchmen, and draw its attention to the horrible condi- tions described by the Supreme Lithuanian Committee of Liberation, in a statement submitted to the United Nations by the Lithuanian Minister in Washington; and finally, be it Resolved, That copies of this resolution be forwarded to the Senator and Representa- tives of the State of New York and published in the press. Prrer NORKELUNAS, Chairman. VINCENT APTON, Secretary., House Stands by Its Guns EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. LEON H. GAVIN OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 24, 1947 Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following editorial from the Bristol (Pa.) Courier of February 22, 1947: HOUSE STANDS BY ITS GUNS By an apparently unanimous vote, the Republican Members of the House of Repre- sentatives have backed up their proposal that President Truman's budget be cut at least $6,000,000,000. The reafirming by the House Republicans of their insistence on drastic spending cuts came after the Republicans in the Senate, by the narrow margin 3 22 to 19, had held out for smaller reductions—totalling only $4,500,000,000. This difference of opinion, in the basic question of Government spending and hence of taxation, presents many interesting ques- tions. One of them, of course, is purely political. That is the division between schools of Re- publican thought. It is striking that the House is solidly behind a program in which the Senate is so uncertain and badly split. A developing tug-of-war is bound to result, in the course of which many Presidential hope- fuls may receive painful scars. Another also has its political phases. The House Republicans have clear command of the lower Chamber, so long as they stand shoulder to shoulder, They could even spare a few defections and still keep their control. But in the Senate the situation is different. The margin is close at best, and a split in
A694 the Republican membership throws the bal- ance of power to the Democratic faction. Here, again, the result ts most interesting. Many Democrats, followers of Senator Brrp, of Virginia, are just as insistent on rigid economy as any Republicans. There is a dis- tinct possibility that a program solidly backed by the House Republicans might be carried in the Senate only by a fusion of Republicans and southern Democrats, against the votes of many Republican Mem- bers. . In its broader aspects, the situation may be said to be one in which the House has rather the best of the argument. The Congressmen are, unquestionably, closer to public opinion than are the Sen- ators—a Senator measures his constituents in millions, a Congressman only in thou~ sands. Moreover, Congressmen, having to run at 2-year intervals instead of six, keep their ears closer to the ground. At any given time, when such difference is developing, it is a pretty fair bet that a strong sentiment in the House more accu- rately reflects the public's point of view than &@ divided opinion in the Senate. Moreover, under the Constitution, it ap- pears to have been the intention to give the lower House the whip hand in money mat- ters, since it is provided that “all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may pro- pose or concur in amendments as on other bills.” Obviously, if the House were to stand firm and refuse to pass tax bills going beyond the lynits it has in mind, there is nothing the Senate could do, in the long run, to make it change its mind. The basic difference of opinion about the budget figures, sa interpreted by the two Houses, seems to revolve around the question of military appropriations. In other fields there is substantial agreement. The prevailing argument in the Senate is that the international situation is too dan- gerous for them to be willing to take chances on cutting the funds for the armed forces. They don’t put it quite this way—but ob- viously they would prefer to take a chance on waste rather than risk being blamed for a break-down in military strength. In the House, the thinking runs along dif- ferent lines. There is a definite conviction that the military requests are full of water— that upwards of 62,000,000,000 can be squeezed out without real harm to the de- fense program. As a practical matter, the House Repub- licans are backing the judgment of one of their Members, JoHN Taser, of New York, who is chairman of the Joint Budget Com- mittee. Congressman Taser has made a careful study of the nature of the military appro- priations, and has been emphatic in his ver- dict that a large share of them are nothing but pork—that they are wasteful, and in some cases have notding to do with military security. ‘ If half of what the other Congressmen have heard is true, concerning Tasgr’s spe- cific discoveries about some of these neces- sary military requests, he is prepared to blow the lid off one of these days when resistance to his proposed reductions gets too strong. That this may very well be the fact, and that the leaders of the armed forces may have asked for extravagantly large appropriations, is a possibility which the public in general is apt to agree with, on the strength of its own experiences and observations. Former servicemen can, almost without ex- ception, tell the most appalling stories of military waste they witnessed. They are fond of saying: “There are three ways to do things: the right way, the wrong way, and the army way.” Ever since the defense program began back in 10940, there have been well-substantiated stories of gross and willful waste by military outfits. Much of the black-market gas for- merly on sale was reported to have been smuggled out of military installations. Again and again it was reported by first- hand obeervers that, during the peak of the gasoline shortage, Army-contracted gas was dumped because the storage.tanks were full and the staff didn’t wnat to turn it back. At some war plants, millions of feet of excellent wood, réceived as crates and boxes, were burned during the midst of a serious lumber shortage. For that matter, gigantic war plants were built, out of scarce materials, with whole villages of new houses surrounding them— and never put to the intended use. The wastefulness of the armed services was a seething scandal. Testimony of the most outrageous laxity was taken concerning one large depot in Pennsylvania, near the capi- tal—and then the whole matter hushed wy and forgotten. . Much of this, of course, is perfectly well known to President Truman—since as head of the Truman committee during the war he complained bitterly about it. If the House has in its possession evidence that the requested appropriations contained in the President’s budget are as unnecessary and as loosely guarded as were similar appro- priations during the war, then in the show- down those who are protesting that “we mustn't cut the military” are going to be made to look pretty silly. Congress and the Budget EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WILLIS W. BRADLEY OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 24, 1947 Mr. BRADLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my re- marks in the Recorp, I include the following editorial from the Long Beach Independent of February 19, 1947. CONGRESS AND THE BUDGET As the House of Representatives and Senate vote on cutting from $4,000,000,000 to $6,000,- 000,000 out of the President’s budget, an ef- fort is being made to label economy-minded Congressmen and Senators as isolationists, The suggestion is that 81,700,000,000 be cut from the $11,200,000,000 asked for in the budget by the armed forces. It is doubtful if any such cut will be made because public opinion is unwilling to take chances on a weakened military force. Every veteran knows the wastefulness of the armed forces and knows the budget is padded. But for the present chances cannot be taken on cutting the military budget. Those seeking to discredit economy-mind- ed officials have tried to use the armed forces budget as an example of why the President's budget should not be cut. They gave little or no arguments concerning the other 84,- 000,000,000 cut that is projected. They fail to explain why OPA continues to have half as many employees on the Washington pay roll as 1t did when about everything was un- der OPA control. Today only rent and sugar is controlled. But in Washington OPA has 914 executives each drawing over $4,000 a year. In all there are 15,000 OPA employees in Washington alone. There are many more thousands scattered throughout the country. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD In the budget is $2,000,000,000 for public works that can and should be delayed until cost of public works is less and when such projects are needed—when unemployment becomes a problem. Throughout the Presi- dent’s budget every department in the Gov- ernment sets up the figures it claims to need for the year's operation, There is no ap- parent effort shown to cut down the number of employees from the staggering 2,400,000 now on the taxpayers’ pay roll. This is al- most three times as many as we had in 1939. Every public body that passes upon budg- ets of department heads knows that most budgets are padded because the department head figures his estimate will be cut anyhow, 80 he pads it to be safe after it is cut. For the past 15 years the emphasis has been on more and more public spending because it was thought it was the road to full employ- ment and prosperity. For the war years we had no choice but to spend, regardless of from where the money came. But now we are at a point where the public debt and high taxes are a danger to full employment and prosperity. Unless there are enough economy-minded Congress- men and Senators with enough courage to trim expenses we are in for serious trouble. Public money sucked out of taxpayers’ pock- ets cannot purchase the products of industry. We have no confidence that the armed forces are any less wasteful of materials and personnel than they were during the war. But we cannot take chances on tampering with national defenee as long as world condi- tions remain as uncertain as at present. There is, however, no reason for assuming any of the departments expected to receive what was asked for. For that reason the economy-minded officials deserve the support of those who are interested in cutting down the cost of government. The Man on Horseback EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF * HON. ROBERT L. DOUGHTON OF NORTE CAROLINA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 24, 1947 Mr. DOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, un- der leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following article by Hon. Josephus Daniels, former Secretary of the Navy: THE MAN ON HORSEBACK The Army and Navy have become so ac- customed during war days to spending bil- lions they have acquired the billionaire com- plex. The Chicago Sun asks a question in the mind of every taxpayer: “Why do we have to spend $11,200,000,000 next year for mili- tary p' ?” The correct answer would be “because the Army and Navy wishes to keep the expensive habit.” There is no other true answer. The Dallas News calls for “greater efficiency in Army and Navy spend- ing,” and the 8t. Louis Globe-Democrat urges “more economies in the outlay for the armed services.” In war days there was reason for spending millions for public relations, but there was no justification for spending $5,715,690, ex- clusive of pay and allowances of 51 officers, for publicity experts in Washington and pub- licity staffs with generals all over the world. What ts the chief occupation of the publicity relations in peace? It is to spread propa- ganda for big appropriations and securing a
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD continuance of drafting men for the Army in time of peace. Here are some examples of demands by the Army and Navy: The Navy wishes to spend $344,000,000 on new ships that are not need- ed, since we have the greatest Navy in the world; the Navy asks for $815,000,000 for the air force, which is more than the entire Navy Department got before the war; it wants $110,000,000 for training Navy Reservists as against 68,500,000 before the war; the Army asks for billions above the needs of 1941, wanting double for West Point and all other agencies. If the requests of the Army and Navy are granted we will be going toward the time when every citizen will go to work carrying & soldier on his back. Do we wish to adopt the Nazi idea of the man on horseback? Sugar EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. ROBERT F. RICH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 24, 1947 Mr. RICH. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following letter: WELLSBORO, Pa., February 20, 1947. Hon. Roseat F, RicH, Washington, D. C. Dear Bos: This is another dissertation on sugar. I know that you do not need to be reminded of these things but I know that controls should be taken off sugar. Can you give me the names of Congressmen to whom I could send letters like this with the idea of getting their support? In the February monthly Letter of the National City Bank of New York, on page 16, T read, “Because of this continued high rate of spending, the Government finds itself in the unhappy position of scarcely being able to balance the budget, despite a tax structure practically at the wartime high (except for elimination of the corporate excess-profits tax) and boom conditions in industry, trade, and employment. If we cannot, under these favorable conditions, generate enough of a Treasury surplus to pay off debt and reduce taxes, when can we hope to do so?” I think that it would be admitted that we are now at the peak of employment and so the Gov- ernment is taking in the maximum amount of money in taxes. If we are unable to save enough to reduce the enormous debt now, what will become of us !f we have a depres- sion? Will we receive help from the rest of the world? The answer is no. Then, is it not a matter of self-preservation to prepare for a slump while we have the opportunity? One of the ways to do this is to give the housewife sugar so she can have her shelves filled with canned fruit, Jams, and jellies. You will find-enclosed a clipping taken from this morning's Patriot. We, the Inter- national Emergency Food Council, allocated sugar to Czechoslovakia. Were they given so much sugar that they have an excess from which they can send sugar to sugar-starved families in the United States? In the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, on page 880, I read, “Whereas in 1946 the sugar under direct control of the United States increased by more than 500,000 tons and no portion of this increase was made available to the American people.” I maintain that the New Dealers will always find an excuse for ration- ing sugar. Take off all controls now and the world would soon produce enough sugar for everyone. In the Appendix of the ConcrrssionaL Recorp, on page A481, under remarks of Hon. Ror O. Wooprurr, of Michigan, I read: “Sugar rationing continues in the United States with promise of only a miscroscopic increase in allowances, yet Canada recently declared a sugar dividend of 3 pounds per person to her household consumers. This dividend has been reported in the press as being justified by increased supplies of sugar. Canada is producing only 65 percent of its beet-sugar plant capacity, with the largest beet-sugar Plant in Ontario standing idle for the past 5 years.” Will any nation produce sugar to any ex- tent when they can get it through the Inter- national Emergency Food Council at less than it cost them to produce it? Of course they will not, and unless we get rid of the TEFC control of sugar we will always have a shortage of sugar in this country. In the ConorrssionAL REcorp, on page 992, Hon. Danie. A. Reep, of New York, says: “It would be interesting to know if the sugar which the administration is shipping abroad is a part of the candy which we are import- ing from foreign countries. The figures on importations of candy from abroad are quite startling. For example, in 1941, 1,100,000 pounds of candy were imported; in 1945, 65,- 575,000 pounds were imported.” And yet last week Frank J. Loftus, OPA administrator in Philadelphia, said that there would be no sugar for canning this year. Are the New Dealers going to continue to ship our sugar to other countries and then have them return it to us as candy, and thus put our own candy makers out of work? I am enclosing a couple of sheets from the United States News dated February 14. This shows that as a result of using our natural resources without stint during the war, it now appears that we are getting short on some of our vital resources. Without considering this, the New Dealers apparently want to still further lower our economic position in the world by withholding canning sugar so millions of dollars’ worth of our fruit will rot. In the Iron Age of February 6 I read: “Dr. Clyde Williams, director of Battelle In- stitute and president-elect of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engi- neers, warned that the United States and Canada should view with concern the de- Pletion of their formerly rich mineral re- sources. He says, ‘As a result of the deple- tion of our mineral resources, which, of course, has taken toll of most of the highest grade deposits, there has arisen for the first time a discussion of the question of whether the United States has now become a have- not nation.’ Again he says, ‘The tremendous wartime production of steel cut into Ameri- can deposits of high-grade iron ore severely and greatly increased our dependence on lower-grade ores.’ Let us look to the future and husband our resources or, at least, not waste them. Let's not be complacent as we were when Hitler was rearming and threaten- ing the peace of Europe. Let’s get rid of the IEFC and the OPA control on sugar.” Yours sincerely, (W. E.) Brut Hriz. The Federal Budget EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. PHILIP J. PHILBIN OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 24, 1947 Mr. PHILBIN. Mr. Speaker, another one of the very baneful effects of the A695 reorganization bill, which up to this time has hamstrung the Congress in its legis- lative program, is the requirement that general budgetary recommendations be submitted by February 15 of each year. Hence the presence of this bill at the present time. Obviously any recommen- dation concerning the budget must, of necessity, be premature when it is sub- mitted before the Members of this body have had the opportunity to make detailed comprehensive study. Even the members of the Appropria- tions Committee, who give special atten- tion to fiscal matters, have not had for the most part adequate opportunity to study the massive quantity of data and material incidental to the Federal budget. No effort has been made to hold general hearings. If it were not for slavish, drudging work on the part of a few of the members on this important committee, at this early date, Congress would not have any information what- ever available for the debate of this sweeping recommendation to cut $6,000,- 000,000 from the Federal budget. So much for the cumbersome organizational difficulties and arbitrary requirements deposited by the reorganization bill which have precipitated this unfortunate situation in which we are called upon to act without adequate information and deliberation. Now let me deal briefly with the merits of this particular resolution. I am as intent as any Member here upon achiev- ing maximum economy, efficiency, and tax relief for all classes of our citizens which will not endanger the national se- curity or cripple essential functions of the Government. I am fully convinced that the rank and file of our people are entitled to every possible relief from present heavy tax burdens. I am fully persuaded on the proposition that if in- dividual incentive is to be preserved, gen- eral business, including small business, and also investment and venture capital, must be relieved and protected from onerous, confiscatory taxes which are stifling initiative and undermining busi- ness prosperity. I would like to join in efforts to help our small-income groups to secure reductions in present taxes which are taking a larger portion than they can afford to disperse from their hard-earned weekly pay envelope. The middle-class groups, embracing small businessmen and women, professional people, farmers, and other independent businessmen are also hampered by heavy taxation. In the higher brackets the rates are staggering, onerous, and con- fiscatory to a degree that could be justi- fied only during periods of emergency. Clearly, remedial measures are in order to effect the relief of our people from such burdens of taxation, if we are to go forward as a dynamic expanding econ- omy, capable of providing full employ- ment, I am, therefore, prepared to sup- port every sound reduction in taxes that can be effected. The important question is: How much can we cut the budget without weaken- ing the national defense during this time of ominous world crisis, without impair- ing Government securities held so widely by our people and without further dis- turbing our national stability.
A696 Clearly the Government has huge an- nual fixed obligations which cannot be avoided. Interest on the staggering debt which is now reaching toward the $300,- 000,000,000 mark, an astronomical sum which wil] fasten great burdens on our people for many generations to come, appropriate reduction of this huge debt, the imperative, inescapable needs of the armed services, adequate hospital facili- ties, care, treatment, as well as other decent provisions for our veterans, con- stitute virtually mandatory requirements in any sound, well-considered, all-inclu- sive budget. There are also ordinary civil functions which must be maintained. Iam most eager to support and sustain 8 policy of strict economy, efficiency, and prudent management of the Govern- ment’s affairs, but these salutary ends must be carried out in ways which are consistent with the national safety and welfare. I could never bring myself in conscience blindly and without full con- sideration of the facts involved, without study and scrutiny of the figures, to slash appropriations for the Army and Navy and other vital activities. I want to vote for a reduced budget and tax reduction if it is at all possible, but I insist upon voting intelligently and discriminately. First, I must have the facts on which to base my decisions. I cannot cast my vote in the dark. I can- not make a blind stab at some over-all figure which is more or less arbitrarily fixed and the various component ele- ments of which, if indeed they are known at all, as has been asserted here in de- bate, to some members of the Joint Budget and Appropriations Committee have never been published or made avail- able to all Members of the House. Be- fore I act upon this important matter of budget and tax reduction I insist upon having full information, not only as to the over-all figures but also the details as to where, what, and how much, these re- ductions will be, the departments they will involve, the particular items they will curb and curtail, the special activi- ties and functions they will eliminate or restrict. There is undoubtedly room for cutting and reducing the size of the national budget. I personally know places where that can be accomplished, but I think that as a Member of this body I am en- titled to have complete and detailed in- formation and not be in a position where I would have to act blindly in matters of such great import to the Nation. It is purely idle, to my way of thinking, to seek to cut and balance the budget by mere expressions. I do not feel bound by the inane provision of the reorgani- zation bill which requires Congress to strike a figure for the national budget even before it has been fully organized. The manifest way to effect the economy and tax reduction which most of us seek and urgently desire is to cut specific items. When we know what these items are and what activities they affect, I will be prepared to act. When regular ap- propriation bills are presented to this body, I will be prepared to vote for econ- omy, curtailment, and retrenchment, but I want to know what I am doing. I want the facts and the figures, and I do not propose to vote for any budgetary reduc- tions if the cuts proposed are demon- strated to weaken the national defense, impair our bartering position at the so- called peace tables, or jeopardize the soundness and stability of the Federal Treasury. The Lilienthal Nomination EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOHN E. FOGARTY OF RHODE ISLAND IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 24, 1947 Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rec- orD, I include the following article from the Providence Visitor of February 20, 1947: WHEAT AND CHAFF—A DIGEST OF CURRENT EVENTS The nomination of David E. Lilienthal to serve as Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, made by President Truman on the basis of Lilienthal’s outstanding public service with the Tennessee Valley Authority, has developed a division of sentiment among Members of the Senate, reminiscent of the protracted fight which was waged against the appointment of Louis D. Brandeis to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Perhaps the powers lurking behind the scenes are not unlike those which fought Bran- deis, for many of the transparent charges being hurled at Lilienthal—that he is a Communist, that he believes in socialism— are cut out of the same cloth as those which were used to smear Brandeis. They failed ot their purpose at that time, and history has proved the value of the Brandeis service on our highest Court. There is some substance to the argument which Gov. Ernest W. Gibson, of Vermont, raised here in Providence last week. He counseled the American people to recognize the implications of having the civilian branches of our National Government dom- inated by those who have been schooled in the undemocratic processes of the military forces. He was pleading, quite sanely and quite wisely, for dominance of the civilian over the military, especially in our national thinking. He could have applied this argu- ment, with some logic, to the quiet opposi- tion which has developed to Lilienthal’s ap- pointment from those in the military forces. They would like to control atomic energy, not for any public purpose or civilian good, but for the value it would have in military and war purposes, The people of this Nation would do well to realize that atomic energy must be peacefully developed, lest the world be the victim of its own scientific inventions, Of course, Senator KennetH D. McK&ZLuar, of Tennessee is against Lilienthal because, as Chairman of the Tennessee Valley Au- thority, Lilienthal managed that vast public power project in the interest of the common welfare. Since its major operations were located in McKetuar's State, the veteran Senator, on the grounds of pure politics, thought he had a natural right to share the patronage in this development. Lilienthal resisted this intrusion of a single State Sen- ator into a project which is owned by all the people, and which, to continue its superior value to the Nation, especially as a yardstick on power rates, must be maintained in the public interest. McKziiar has got out the mud, tried to smear Lilienthal with it, and, as is evident, has drawn to his side those who perhaps, for other reasons, say they back — for the reasons he advances. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The people of this Nation must realize that the best law which man can conceive can be defeated, in its operation, by operation, by improper administration. Lilienthal has established his ability as a great public ad- ministrator, and, of course, to McKELvar, that is treason. We prefer to believe that the vast majority of the American people stand behind Lilienthal for his insistence upon de- votion to the public service. It was perfectly logical and natural for President Truman, in seeking a tried and true public servant to head the Atomic Energy Commission, to draft Lilienthal for this vitally important adminis- trative position. Since atomic energy, as developed by the United States, belongs to the people, it becomes extremely important to make sure that it is retained in public possession. And to retain it in public pos- session means to have administrators who, even though in public office, do not submit to the views of private interests. We have been told that atomic energy, properly controlled in the public interests, will be a great boon to the public welfare. It may well supplant coal and oil as the fuel for electric energy. It means that the time is coming, in the not too distant future, when energy for industrial and domestic purposes can be developed in any region without too much difficulty. The possibilities are so great that private interests are not overlooK- ing their value. In fact, the battle the power trust has waged against such public- power developments as the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Columbia River Authority may pale into comparative insignificance with the fight private interests will wuge against public control of atomic energy. This may be the major battle of our time, between public and private interests. Of course, on the surface, some attractive arguments will be raised by the jingoists, by those who are military-minded to have the military rather than the civilian authority control atomic energy. We have noted signs of this line of attack. Many times, the antagonists to public control charge that Lilienthal is a New Dealer. and for that reason he should not be confirmed by the United States Senate. Memories may be short, too short, but we cannot forget that the administration of the TVA, during World War IJ, was on such a high plane of public service that our war-production ma- chine became so gigantic that we were able to shorten the war, and save millions of lives. TVA needs no defenders, on the record of public service. What TVA needs is defenders from those who now want to turn over con- trol of great projects, involving public energy and the future welfare of this Nation, to those whose record belies their fundamental devotion to the public welfare. The American people cannot afford to sur- render control of their welfare to either pri- vate interests or to those of a military mind, who, as Governor Gibson so ably pointed out, have been schooled in the undemocratic Proceases of the military forces. Millions of Americans who served in the armed forces, even though devoted to their oath and to their constitutional duty to defend their country in time of peril, know that the goose- step discipline of the Army and of the Navy do not make for democracy. We cannot af- ford to weaken our devotion to that most fundamental principle of all principles— that the civilian authority shall ever remain dominant in this country of ours. It is no accident that the military, In most instances, has opposed public power projects. That is why it is no coincidence that the military and the private-power interests look with longing on control of atomic energy. Presi- dent Truman, even though a military veteran himself, realizes his supreme obligation to the American people, and to their welfare. He has made a selection which, aside from the understanding opposition of those who
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD have thus far come out into the open against him, is adequate proof that the President is looking to the future. Peace can be achieved Only through civilian processes. The mili- tary must remain subordinate. We cannot allow it to be otherwise. Balkan Situation Disturbing EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. LAWRENCE H. SMITH OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 24, 1947 Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. Mr. Sneaker, Sumner Welles has again placed his finger on a troubled situation in Eu- rope. It appears that peace will never come to the Balkan Peninsula and that, if so, perhaps because of rival positions by the great powers in that area. Under leave to extend my remarks I am includ- ing an article by Mr. Welles which ap- peared in the Washington Post on Febru- ary 19, 1947: BALKAN INVESTIGATION (By Sumner Welles) INTERVENTION VERSUS SOVEREIGNTY The resolution which the Security Coun- cil adopted on February 10, in response to the inquiry addressed to it by the Balkan in- vestigation commission, involves a question of major significance. Impelled by motives which were ostensibly humanitarian, the commission had requested the Greek Government to postpone the execu- tion of a number of Greeks condemned to death for alleged treason. These had been convicted of trying to overthrow the present constitutional government that a majority of the Greek people had elected a few months ago. They were charged with complicity in a plot to bring about a civil war for the purpose of establishing a Communist-domi- nated regime. The Greek Government reacted vigorously to the request of the Balkan investigation commission. It flatly charged the commis- sion with unauthorized intervention in the internal affairs of the Greek people. The Security Council had sent the inves- tigation commission to the Balkans in order to ascertain whether the recent uprisings in Greece had been instigated by foreign gov- ernments, and particularly by Communist organizations in Albania, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria. The technical point upon which the Council now had to pass was whether the action taken by the commission was within the authority granted it when it was ap- pointed. But the basic issue at stake was of far greater importance than any technicality. The resolution finally adopted by the Coun- cil declared that the investigation commis- sion was “not empowered to request the ap- propriate authority of Greece, Albania, Bul- garia, and Yugoslavia to postpone the execu- tion of any persons sentenced to death, un- Jess the commission has reason to believe that the examination of any such person as a witness would assist the commission in its work, and makes its request on this ground.” The delegate of the Soviet Union and of Poland disagreed with the majority of the Council that reached this decision. The real crux of the problem was brought out in the course of the debate. Mr. Gromyko there insisted that the po- litical conditions in Greeee must be taken into account. He complained bitterly that, unless the Council approved of the action of its investigation commission, “heads are to fall of persons who have been condemned to death for defending their elementary demo- cratic rights and liberties.” This is a further illustration of how, in accordance with Moscow's present strategy, the representatives of the Soviet Union and of the latter's satellites persistently try, through constant repetition, to convince public opinion in the democracies that any Communist seeking to overthrow by violence a fairly elected and democratic government is in reality an exponent of democratic rights and liberties. Yet it is of course notorious that in all of the Balkan states, except Greece, the democratic rights and liberties of the majorities are wholly disregarded by the Communist governments imposed upon them, The heads that are falling in those unhappy countries are the heads of the democratic individuals who are attempting to defend their rights and liberties against Communist dictatorship. It is the Soviet Government that rejected the request of the United States and Great Britain for international supervision of the elections in the countries of eastern Europe whose peoples had been promised free and unfettered elections through which, in ac- cordance with the terms of the Yalta agree- ment, they could secure representative gov- ernment, The request was rejected on the ground that such supervision would consti- tute interference in the domestic affairs of those countries. Yet in the case of Greece, whose government is the only government, except for that of Czechoslovakia, in all of eastern Europe which has been elected by a majority of its people, the Soviet Government demands that an investigation commission of the United Nations be given blanket authority to intervene in questions of in- ternal policy which can only legitimately be decided by the constituted authorities. The first chapter of its Charter specifically denies the United Nations the right to inter- vene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state. If commissions of investigation appointed by the Security Council were to assume, in the name of the United Nations, the authority to intervene in the domestic concerns of the countries to which they have been sent, the Security Council would speedily become a means of arousing, rather than of compos- ing, international controversies. Because of our traditional repugnance here in the United States to the imposition of capital punishment upon political offenders, the underlying principles involved in the question thus presented to the Security Council have been generally disregarded. But the resolution which the Council adopted by a vote of 9 to 2 is destined to become of lasting benefit. The precedent established is altogether salutary. It implies that, in ac- cordance with the categorical prohibition contained in the first chapter of the Charter, the United Nations is not going to undertake to interfere in the internal affairs of any sovereign state. Because of this precedent it will be more likely that the just rights of the smaller members of the United Nations will in the future be respected and safe- guarded. Civilian Production Administration EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HOMER D. ANGELL OF OREGON IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 24, 1947 Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rrce A697 orD, I include the following resolution of the Legislature of the State of Oregon: House Joint Memorial 5 To the honorable Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled: We, your memorialists, the House of Rep- resentatives and the Senate of the State of Oregon, in legislative session assembled, most respectfully represent and petition as fol- lows: Whereas the Congress, in furtherance of the prosecution of World War IT, enacted the War Powers Act granting to the President of the United States extraordinary powers, which powers are wholly unwarranted in peacetime; and Whereas the said War Powers Act among other things provided that the President of the United States might by Executive order transfer the duties of Government agencies from one to another, but expressly provided that the powers granted therein could be exercised only in matters relating to the condi.ct of the war; and Whereas the President of the United States on January 16, 1942, promulgated Executive Order No. 9024 whereby there was created a Government agency known as the War Pro- duction Board; and Whereas by Executive Order No. 9040, pro- mulgated on January 24, 1942, the primary duty of the said War Production Board was to “exercise general direction over the war procurement and production program,” and sald order further provided that the chair- man of said board may exercise the powers, authority, and discretion conferred upon him by such order and in such manner as he might determine, and that his decisions are final; and Whereas On October 4, 1945, long after the unconditional surrender of our enemies, the President of the United States promulgated Executive Order No. 9638 whereby he abol- ished the said War Production Board, and created another Government agency desig- nated as the Civilian Production Adminis- tration, and conferred upon it all the ex- traordinary war emergency powers thereto- fore possessed by the said War Production Board; and Whereas the said Civilian Production Ad- ministration has since purported and is now purporting to exercise power and authority over every person and corporation through- out the United States who undertake to erect or repair a building or structure at a cost of even a nominal sum, and among other things hag decreed all such construction to be unlawful unless first authorized by such Civillan Productior Administration; and Whereas government by such executive fiat is wholly contrary to the American sys- tem of constitutional government, and is not within the powers delegated to the Fed- eral Government by the several States of the Union, and such exercise of authority by a Federal agency over the lives of the peuple of this State has not increased housing fa- cilities, but on the contrary has created more chaos and confusion, and the assertion of such authority by said agency, and the exercise of such extraordinary powers by the President of the United States should be promptly terminated: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Oregon (the senate jointly concurring therein), That the Congress of the United States be and it hereby is memori- alized and requested, and this Forty-fourth Legislative Assembly of the State of Oregon does hereby petition that honorable body, to abolish the said Civilian Production Ad- ministration, and to promptly terminate all the functions and activities assumed by said agency pursuant to the aforesaid executive order, or any other order or statute; and be it further
A698 Resolved, That the secretary of state of the State of Oregon be and hereby is directed to transmit copies of this memorial to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress and to each Senator and Representative therein representing the peo- ple of the State of Oregon. Adopted by house February 6, 1947. Joun H. HALL, Speaker of House. Adopted by senate February 14, 1947. M. EB. Coanetr, President of Senate. Statement of Eastern Massachusetts Dis- trict of Pelish-Amevican Congress, Inc. EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. THOMAS J. LANE OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 24, 1947 Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I wish to include herein a statement by the Poltish-American Congress, Inc., eastern Massachusetts district, at a mass meeting held Sunday, February 9, 1947, at the Bradford Hotel, Boston, Mass. : Several thousand public-spirited Ameri- cans assembled in the historic city of Boston, where so often the clarion call of liberty re- sounded, raise our voice in solemn indig- nation and protest against the outrages per- petrated upon the liberty-loving people of Poland, upon that great heroic nation, champion for democratic principles since time immemorial. The Provisional Government of National Unity in Poland, as a condition to its recog- nition, solemnly pledged to the holding of free and unfettered election to enable the Polish Nation to set up a government truly representative of its own exclusive and in- dependent national will in the best tradition of true democratic principles, deliberately postponed the time of such election to sup- press and thwart the rational will of the Polish people, and to impose upon Poland an alien ideology and to set up a government in the interest of a foreign power at the expense of Poland itself. International peace is based on justice. The struggle for freedom and independence of Poland is not the concern of the Polish Nation alone. All humanity demands justice and freedom for Poland to assure the peace and security for all nations. The sacrifice of Pulaski, the service rendered by the immortal Kosctusko, and the contribution of more than a militon of our sons bind us together here in America in the cause of freedom. Abraham Lincoln, whose birthday we are about to observe, inspires us with added courage in our fight against tyranny and en- slavement, Therefore, we propose that new elections be held in Poland; that such elections be free, secret, and truly representative of the majority national will. We further propose that such elections be held under the direct supervision of the United Nations. PorisH-AMERICAN Concress, INC., EASTERN MASSACHUSETTS DISTRICT, Rev, L. O. Srxora, President, Mary ©. Rrear, Secretary. Address of Hon. Joha Davis Lodge, of EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WILLIAM J. MILLER IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 24, 1947 Mr. MILLER of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my re- marks in the Recorp, I include the fol- lowing address of the Honorable JoHN Davis Lopex to the members of the FPae- tano Society at a dinner at the Stratfield Hotel in Bridgeport, Conn., on Sunday, February 23: My friends of the Paetano Society, I have been looking forward to this occasion for some time because it gives me an opportu- nity to combine business with pleasure. It is a great pleasure to be with you here to celebrate the thirty-eighth anniversary of the founding of your worthy society. It ts a which cannot fail to remind us of the manyfoid blessings which we enjoy in America. It is a pleasure also because I feel that, although this is the day after Wash- ington's birthday, this dinner can, never- theless, be regarded, in a sense, as a cele- bration of the birthday of this great man. I appear before you here tonight after a week of hard work in Washington—a week in which, among other matters, the House of Representatives was called upon to con- sider the legialative budget. The resolution by which this legislative budget was adopted was passed by a vote of 230 against 150. It was passed after 4 hours of debate. It provided for a reduction of $6,000,000,000 in the Presidential budget for the fiscal year 1948, or a reduction from thirty-seven and one-half billions to thirty- one and one-half billions. This figure may be reduced when the question comes up for passage by the Senate. There is no question in my mind that the Ameriean people want a reduction in Faderal expenditures in order that tax relief may be granted and payments made on the national debt. I agree wholeheartedly with this de- sire, provided it does not impair the national safety or prevent ua from discharging our international commitments. Much attention was given during the de- bate to the question of national defense. Before voting for the passage of this resolu- tion I satisfied myself by personal conversa- tions with the Speaker of the House, the ma- jority leader, the chairman, and other mem- bers of the Appropriations Committee that there was no question of jeopardiaing the national safety. The fact is that the Legislative Budget Committee made its report and recommenda- tion in accordance with the terms of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, and that the report was made after joint meet- ings of the Appropriations Committee of both Houses, the Committee on Ways and Means of the House, the Committee on Finance of the Senate. It was obligatory upon the Con- gress under this new act, to make a report and recommendation and it was obligatory upon the Republican Party, as a result of the mandate which we received from the peo- ple last November, to attempt to relieve the people from a substantial part of the bur- den of taxation which they have been carry- ing for several years. I cannot, in the small compass of this ad- drese, discuss the many aspects of this com- lex question. But I will say that had we not been assured by our leaders that the na- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD tional defense was not to be tampered with, the Republicans would not have voted as they did on this measure. They would not have voted as they did because, ladies and gentlemen, there were many veterans of World War I and It who voted for it. You may be sure that we have a primary interest in maintaining a strong America. There is no question that our Army and Navy are only as strong as the economy upon which they depend. There is no question that our economy will be much more produc- tive if the peopie are relieved of a part of the heavy tax load. It is the people of this coun- try who have made America great. We in the Republican Party believe that the Gov- ernment should be given back to the people. Moreover, a reduction in tax rates in the past has meant an increase in tax revenues because of the stimulus which such reduc- tions provide for production. Accordingly, it is reasonable to assume that if we are able to reduce taxes there will be more revenues available to bolster our nationa) defense, if this should become necessary or advisable. We shall be able to determine this more easily after the Moscow conference. Furthermore, though I yield to no one in my determination to maintain an ade- quate Army and Navy, I know, and many other veterans know, that there is some waste and extravagance which could very well be eliminated with a resulting re@duc- tion in taxation and an improved morale in the services. In addition, there are a number of items in the Army and Navy budget which do not properly belong there and which could be eliminated, reduced, or transferred to other departments without in any way affecting the national safety. However ali this may be, the point is that I shall have the oppor- tunity to pass on these matters when they come before the House. All that we indi- cated last week was our desire to make a reduction of $6,000,000,000 in the Presidential budget. Now, I want to talk to you for a moment about the Italian peace treaty. This treaty is one of four treaties which will come before the Senate for ratification in the near future, I start by telling you that I believe very strongly that ratification of this, and the treaties concerning Hungary, Bulgaria, and Rumania, should be withheld at least until all the treaties containing the European set- tlement have been negotiated and pre- sented to the Senate and the American people. It has been said by some that the Senate's refusal to ratify these treaties would be widely interpreted in Europe as constituting @ withdrawal from European affairs and therefore as an isolationist move. I submit that the contrary is true. The United States is now irrevocably enveloped in the European situation. If the result of these treaties is bad, as I believe it will be, then the blame will rest on those who made the treaty, and particularly on the United States. Accord- ingly, we should be most m our approach to this problem and postpone a final determination until the complete pic- ture is available. If we rush headlong into these engagements on the theory so often advanced that the United States must accept any settlement rather than none, we can justly be accused of isolationism for our unwillingness to involve ourselves further in this troublesome problem. As Adolph Berle, Jr., former Under Sec- retary of State, has said ‘treaties based on battlefield conditions, temporary occupa- tions, and disturbances following a huge war, are rarely enduring.” President Tru- man and former Byrnes have been frank enough to declare that the treaty is unsatisfactory in some respects, They con-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD tend that it is the best obtainable under the circumstances. In fact, the terms of the present Italian treaty satisfy no one. Now what are the principal terms of the treaty? . Italy is deprived of Venezia Giulia and Trieste is set up as a free territory guar- anteed by the United Nations. She is sub- stantially disarmed on land and on sea, and it is required that within 1 year any de- fenses which Italy has on the new frontiers be demolished. Thus she is rendered help- less to strike a blow in her own defense. She is required to pay $365,000,000 in reparations. She is required to cede her African colonies to the United Nations organization, and to make other cessions of territory. These are the bare bones of the treaty. The firat question which arises is whether this treaty can benefit the United States, The answer is "No.” Asa result of the devas- tating military campaign fought on Italian territory, and as a result of Fascist and Nazi domination, the entire economy of Italy has been seriously impaired. ‘There is wide- spread destruction and suffering. Much time must pass before the Italian economy can be restored to a point where adequate employ- ment for the Italian public can be provided. This impoverished country is required by the treaty in question to pay reparations, on the basis of gold which it does not possess, as follows: One hundred million dollars to the Soviet Union. One hundred and twenty-five million dol- lars to Yugoslavia. One hundred and five million dollars to Greece. Twenty-five million dollars to Ethiopia. Five million dollars to Albania. Now the Italian people cannot even take care of their current needs. They have barely subsisted since the end of the war in spite of UNRRA, American supplies, American loans, and the considerable personal sacri- fices of thousands of Americans who from their own resources send food and clothing to their Italian relations and friends. Un- der the treaty, this condition will not only be prolonged, but accentuated by the huge burden of reparations. Accordingly, it con- stitutes in effect a levy upon the taxpayers of this country to make payments principally to the Governments of the Soviet Union and of Marshal Tito in Yugoslavia. The next question arising is whether the provisions of this treaty will promote politi- cal tranquillity in the area concerned. The answer to this question is also “No.” The territorial changes stipulated in this treaty, particularly those along the Italian- Yugoslavian frontier, violate both common- sense and humanity, and provide a most fragile basis for concord in this troubled area. It would appear that we had already forgotten the bitter lesson of the past 30 years. In spite of our tragic experience with the Danzig Corridor between the conflicting sovereignties of Poland and Germany, it is now proposed to set up a sort of Trieste Corridor between the conflicting states of Italy and Yugoslavia. The international port of Trieste can easily be the Danzig of the future. Moreover, this treaty makes no provisions of security for the Italian population of Trieste. Until tho Austrian treaty has been negotiated, and it can be determined whether or not Austria will be a free and friendly power or an armed satellite of Soviet Russia, it is impossible to know what use will be made of this port as an outlet for Austria. Those who are familiar with the problems of this area realize that it will be a powder- keg and that in fact no real concession has been made to the American view. I realize full well under what difficulties Mr. Byrnes labored, and I give him credit for slowing down the onward march of Soviet imperial- ism, But I feel that we now have an oppor- tunity to judge these conditions again in the clear, empty light of reason. We can make full use of the flexibility of our sys- tem. The Senate is our second line of dip- lomatic defense. The services rendered by Secretary Byrnes and Senators Vandenberg and Connally and their colleagues did not even, according to them, provide solutions. They did give us a breathing spell. Surely it will solve nothing to uproot scores of thousands of Italians and add them to the displaced Europeans now crowded into arti- ficial “national enclosures” throughout the continent, The practical effect of such herd- ing of peoples on the basis of their ancestral origins is to create a system of physical and mental ghettos not only for Jews but for all of the displaced persons of the smaller nations. It is not only ill-advised, it is in- decent, Far from promoting political tranquillity, such a practice and program will inevitably produce political explosions as a result of the rivalries engendered by sO intolerable a violation of moral law. Will the provisions of the proposed treaty improve the economic condition of the vari- ous peoples in the area? The answer to this question is also “No.” The economic effects on the Italian people will be cataclysmic. Viewed realistically, its effect will be to reduce them to beggary. In fact it is to be wondered whether this may not have been the purpose of some of the powers participating in these agreements. Under their terms the Soviets will have what amounts to a mortgage on Italian labor and will have the power so to manipulate the economic clauses of the treaty as to per- petuate this condition. In other words the Soviets can prolong the responsibility of this country and other countries to assist the Italian people in discharging its reparations obligations to the two Soviet powers. Furthermore, the reparations payable to Yugoslavia will not benefit the Serbian, Croatian, or Slovenian peoples who are Marshall Tito’s subjects, There is over- whelming evidence that people of any kind who come under the control of this regime are used for one purpose only; to bolster the political and military power of Marshal Tito and his Communists in exactly the same manner as supplies and moneys entering Germany after 1934 were used to bolster the political and military power of Hitler and his Nazis. The people of Yugoslavia will not benefit economically from the ruin of the Italian people. On the contrary, the Yugoelavs will receive guns instead of butter, bombs in- stead of clothing, tanks instead of houses, and in the end will be driven by sheer want to sovietize other peoples. There will be others not directly included in the terms of the treaty who will also be its victims, The unlimited power of growth given to Yugoslavia by the treaty will cut off from all access to the sea Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and southwestern Germany. The question as to an increase or decrease of American responsibility in the Italo- Balkan area by reason of this treaty must also be answered. It will not decrease our re- sponsibility unless we cut them off with an iron curtain of our own, and, retiring into isolation, try to erase the memory of those millions of people to whose desolation and degradation we shall have contributed. Failing this ignoble and unacceptable so- lution, it 1s plain that we shall have agreed to a great increase of responsibility, moral, financial, material, and perhaps eventually military. Let us remember the 1930's when our surplus raw materiale—our surplus A699 money—helped the Germans and the Japa- nese to build up their war machines. -Marshal Tito has a standing army of 600,- 000 men, well equipped, well uniformed, and with a considerable quantity of mechanized transport and armament. Yet in nearly every district of Yugoslavia there is lack of food, clothing, and proper shelter. Should our tax-burdened people help to support Tito’s army? Should Americans work and save to build a war machine which may destroy the very things for which World War II was fought? Are we so confused in our frantic desire for peace that we shall continue at considerable sacrifice to finance and abet what we have pledged ourselves to oppose? Will the judgment of history be that the United States relied so blindly on the power of appeasement that it sacrificed moral prin- ciple in order to commit national suicide? We in America know how much it costs to maintain a large military establishment. Apparently both the Yugoslavs and the Rus- sians can afford such expenditures, yet they cannot adequately feed, clothe, and house their own people. Our good intentions will avail us little when we are faced with overwhelming power which we have helped to build. Ladies and gentlemen, let us think again and deeply before we consign Italy to the same fate as Poland. We cannot afford to participate in another betrayal. The Gov- ernment of the United States gave its pledge that it would assure the preservation of the essential nationhood of Italy. This pledge, backed by the Atlantic Charter and our fre- quent declaration of war aims, entitles the Italian people to maintain themselves as a nation and to resume the position on the European scene to which she is entitled by her attainments. This is a result devoutly to be wished. It is an opportunity richly de- served by a nation which for many months fought gallantly at our side. This treaty should guarantee that this will be made pos- sible. Instead it constitutes virtually a death sentence of Italy, as a nation. It is stipulated that Italy is to disarm, and that Allied forces are to withdraw. Does any- one seriously imagine that we are in this manner guaranteeing the nationhood of Italy when Tito has 600,000 armed men across the border? Are we not instead creating another power vacuum to be invaded and brought under control at an appropriate time by those very forces with whom we are in continual disagreement? Ladies and gentlemen, there is every indi- cation that ratification of the Italian treaty by the United States will be widely viewed as a capitulation to the totalitarian forces; that it will be regarded as an admission by us that virtually all of Europe is to be a Communist province. And so, under the guise of participation in international affairs, we shal] under this treaty, return to isola- tion. We shall cease to have a voice, though we shall pay for our weakness by assuming 8 large share of the burden we shall have im- posed on others, Responsibility and power will be vested in the creditor nations, principally Soviet Rus- sia, and Italy's next-door neighbor—Yugo- slavia. Ladies and gentlemen—America is still the best hope of the world. We can still salvage at least some of the blood-soaked principles which we so recently fought to maintain. We have another God-given opportunity to redeem our pledges—to demonstrate to a desperate world that we can and will exercise the leadership which Divine Providence has thrust into our hands; that America is not only a land of military and industrial power, but of moral power as well. General Marshall in a speech at Princeton University the other day vigorously called
A700 attention to the great crisis in which we are living. He asked for the same unity of pur- pose which brought victory to our arms. My friends, this is no time to grow tired—this is the time for greatness. Lest We Forget EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JAY LeFEVRE OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 24, 1947 Mr. LEFEVRE. Mr. Speaker, under unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include an article by George E. Sokolsky, appearing in the February 14 issue of the Kingston Daily Freeman. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sokolsky’s article sets forth, in the layman's language, the labor situation in this country. Here we have the attitude of the better rank and file of the union worker who can quietly vote without jeopardizing his present union position. Members of Congress must not forget the mandate given to us last November 5. The power presently in the hands of radical labor leaders must be curbed. It is only natur- al for these leaders, drunk with power, to bellow against all kinds of labor legisla- tion. Of course, they must be heard and their views before the Committee on Education and Labor must receive fair and just consideration, but I believe the rank and file of American labor is actu- ally crying in despair to be unshackled from the present labor heirarchy. Turse Days (By George E. Sokolsky) A WORKER SPEAKS I received this letter from a worker in Pittsburgh whose name and address I am withholding for his safety, for should he be expelled from his union he could not exer- cise his right to work at his trade: “I have often wondered Just how much you big well-known writers were interested, real- ly and truly interested, in the plight of an unknown individual who wants to work daily, every working day, from whistle to whistle. So let us take my case. I think it is typical because I know hundreds of men with whom I work and we are all in the same boat. I am unknown, Iam a nobody. I work in one of the mills belonging to the United States Steel Corp. I have worked there for years. I know my job and I do it to the satisfaction of all concerned. Iam a union man and at- tend nearly all the meetings of my local. I hold no office. “Just about a year ago Phil Murray called ‘us out on strike. My hourly rate then, before the strike, was 9214 cents. As you recall, the company offered a raise of 1514 cents an hour. But that did not suit Mr. Phil Murray, so out we went. I lost nearly & weeks of work. I did my share of picket duty. There was no money of any kind for picket duty, strike pay, or anything. We went back to work. The strike was settled for a raise of 1814 cents per hour. Actually, we were striking for a differ- ence of 8 cents an hour, 24 cents a day, $1.20 a week, or a total of $6 for the 5 weeks. Silly, wasn’t it? “We used to discuss it while doing picket duty. I went back to work February 20, 1947. From then on it has been ‘in and out.’ The coal strike and the Pittsburgh power strike caused more shutdowns. In all I lost 63 working days last year due to labor trouble. My total earnings in 1945 were $2,805.98. My total earnings in 1946 were $1,729.73. My raise cost me 6576.25. That is what this union labor racket cost me. Were you in my place, how would you feel? I cannot afford another raise. I speak only for my- self but I do know how many more feel about this. How do you suppose I voted November 5, 1946? How do you suppose hundreds of thousands of my fellow workers voted? We had enough! Yes sir, enough! “Now the question is: What is the Con- gress going to do about it? Are the ‘master minds’ in Washington going to continue to listen to Phil Murray, Bill Green, John L. Lewis and the rest of the social parasites? Or are they going to be guided by the results of November 5, 1946, and do something about it? Are they going to bust up this labor monopoly and labor dictatorship and restore the rights of an American citizen to a person who must work in order to live? Fire is a good servant but a poor master. That goes for labor unions, too. “There is one simple little thing which, if done, will clear up this labor situation in not more than 90 days. Make illegal the closed shop, the check-off, and the mainte- nance-of-membership clause in all contracts. You need not worry about anything else. The voluntary membership of the unions would soon clean house. Make labor unions subject to the same laws as corporations— combinations in restraint of trade—income taxes—publish financial statements—cam- puign contributions, etc. Of course Phil and Bill and John will not like this but millions of other Americans will. “And that, Mr. Sokolsky, is how I feel. I not only hope but I pray that something 1s done. I do not want to put in another year similar to last year. That was bad. That was bad for everyone except those in on the labor racket. “Now what do you think?” This letter tells the story better than I fave seen it anywhere else by any “big well- known writer.” Address of Hon. Kenneth C. Royall, Under Secretary of War EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CHARLES B. DEANE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 24, 1947 Mr. DEANE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I wish to include an address delivered by Hon. Kenneth C. Royall, Under Secre- tary of War, before the Chamber of Commerce, Henderson, N. C., on January 31, 1947: I want to talk tonight about one aspect of the peace that has followed World War II. That war was the greatest in history and our victory over the Axis was complete. We should not lose sight of the real value of that conflict, or forget what would have been the fate of America if totalitarianism of the Ger- man and Japanese brand had ruled the world, as appeared at least possible only five short years ago. But the war, though saving us from a worse fate, has still left its scars—in the loss of the lives of many of our best young men—in the burden of a truly incomprehensible national debt—and in the problems of a troubled world and in some respects a troubled nation. It is time to take stock of the resources of America which are available to heal those APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD scars as far as possible and to meet the prob- lems which confront us. We have a great country in expanse and in natural products, but we are neither the largest country of the world nor the richest in the capacity of our farms or mines. And if we were, this would not solve our problems. Men, more than materials, make a nation. A pound of iron ore imbedded deep within the earth is worth only a fraction of a cent, but if brought to the surface by human effort, converted and refined into steel by the work and ability of men, and machined with me- chanical skill into delicate instruments of precision, it is worth many thousands of dol- lars. The future of America depends upon its people, depends upon their physical health and mental alertness, their education and training, their willingness to work, their character and patriotism. I would examine an important human as- set of America today—the more than 10,000,- 000 young men from 20 to 30 and younger who served in uniform in World War II. I have said many times, and said with emphasis, that the recent war was an all- American war in which every citizen—in uni- form and out—played an integral and a nec- esary part. The problems of peace are no less all-American. So it is with no disparage- ment of other citizens that I direct my at- tention tonight to the young men who played the most direct part in the recent conflict. These young veterans include the larger Ppart—more than 75 percent of America’s young manhood. They, with their older brothers in arms and their fellow veterans of World War I, number 18,000,000—two out of every five adult American men. They touch Henderson as they touch every part of Amer- ica. And this group will be, and must be, the leaders of our Nation in this and the next generation. Upon them will rest the primary responsibility for preserving our future. You have been reading and hearing stories about these young men; some of them true stories, and some the products of malcon- tents, sensationalists and Mrs. Grundys. Perhaps a few are worried about this new generation. But whether you are worried or not, I am sure you would be interested in some facts about them. They entered the service of their country as a true cross-section of American youth. They included many men of character and some of nocharacter. They included untried youths and those of proven merit, and a few with criminal records or criminal tendencies. They included workers and idlers, successes and failures. They have now largely returned to old tasks or have entered upon new and some- times strange ones. A few are worse men than when they entered, others—and I am emboldened to believe many others—are bet- ter men. If there had been no war some would have gone forward and some backward. To make a fair appraisal we must look at averages and judge the influence of military service quality by quality. What was the physical result of such serv- ice? While the time-consuming job of a complete medical record of the war has not been completed, it is already indisputably proven that life in the Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps increased the physical strength, the stamina, the life expectancy, and the general health of the men who served and who came out alive and un- wounded. In fact, even including the wounded, the average physical improve- ment of all living veterans is on the credit side of the ledger. The fact that the American soldier and sailor and marine were the best fed in the world, that they kept regular hours, that they were well clothed and well housed, that they had open-air exercise and recrea- tional facilities—these facts paid splendid
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD dividends in making our military youth the healthiest group of men—not only in the world today—but the healthiest in world history. The death rate from disease of men in the service was about one-third that of civil- . fans of comparable age, and many veterans will carry with them into civilian life health and food habits and training in preventative precautions which will safeguard them and prolong their lives. But the benefits were not merely physical. They were also intellectual, The American Army and Navy were a well-read Army and Navy. Many boys who but for the war might have scoffed at literature, learned to enjoy good books. Many with no original interest in the world or its history, had their curiosity aroused by visits to strange lands and avidly read of these and other nations of the world. Through newspapers and magazines and radio service the American soldiers and sailors were afforded an opportunity—which most af them seized upon—to become—and to keep—informed about current events. The armed forces conducted during the war the largest mass educational program ever known—conducted it all up and down the line. Iliterates were taught to read and write. High school and junior high school courses were afforded those who needed them. - Specialized training was given in mechanics, aeronautics, radio, electronics, and other fields. And, finally, nearly 1,500,000 service men and women enrolled in the Armed Forces In- stitute, and made their selections from 250 correspondence courses prepared by 8&3 Amer- fean colleges. Off-duty classes along the same general line attracted 1,750,000 service per- sonnel. College credit was allowed for most of the completed work. Perhaps the best indication of the war's educational effect is the avidity with which war veterans have seized upon the educa- tional rights given by the GI bill. Our col- leges are more crowded than ever before, arid informed authorities believe that this in- crease in students is permanent—at least for the present college generation, The young men who served their country in uniform now make up—and will continue to make ‘ up—America’s most highly educated genera- tion, academically and technically. That ts not all. The American servicemen surprised the military authorities—and sur- prised the cultural and entertainment frater- nity itself—by their widespread appreciation not only for clean humor and amusement but also for good music and good drama. I never will forget the thousands of American boys— ‘ boys from every section of the country, from rural and from urban districts—who in Italy and in the Middle East fiocked—and some- times pushed and crowded and fought—to hear Lily Pons sing. As for the character of our veterans, de- spite the wide publicity given some notorious cases and the conclusions hastily drawn therefrom, the American soldiers and sailors and marines have returned to civilian life more law-abiding, more orderly and with better principles and morals than the aver- age civilian youth of America had before the war or during the war. The records of the FBI show that from 1948 to 1945 approximately 8% percent of the civilian population of America was in- volved in one way or another in the com- mission of crime. During these same years only three-tenth of 1 percent of the Army's men were involved in similar crimes. And even if we include military offenses which have no civilian counterpart—such as ab- sence without leave—there were still four times the percentage of civilian criminals as there were Army criminals, You have heard a great deal about the venereal rate in the Army. It is too high, particularly overseas, and every effort is still being made to reduce it. But, despite the _ lax morals and prevalent disease of many countries where American boys have served, the venereal rate of the Army in the 1941-46 period was not disproportionate when com- pared with the estimated rate of the civilian population in America. And a vast majority of chaplains—as well as other qualified ob- servers—will bear testimony to the fact that in the Army and Navy the percentage of good, moral boys, greatly exceeded the civilian percentage. And the young serviceman learned other things during this war—learned, for example, to save money as never before and to improve the financial security of himself and his family while developing at the same time a valuable trait for his future life. In the Army alone, the voluntary allot- ments made by the soldiers for bonds or for deposit in banks or for transmission to relatives—largely for savings purposes or for incluston in soldiers’ deposite—totaled, dur- ing the war years, the enormous sum of $1,500,000,000, in addition to $5,500,000,000 allotted for national life insurance and the $6,600,000,000 of statutory family allowances. Compare the totals with all the bank deposits in North Carolina or in the whole Southeast and you will get some idea of the size. Some of the gains which the youthful vet- erans have attained involve the subtler as- pects of human character and qualities. They have broadened their horizons mentally and spiritually. Ingrained provincialism has tended to disappear. They can see their own personal problems and those of their busi- nesses or occupations in a truer perspective, realizing that the rest of the Nation and even the rest of the world will play an ime portant part in their personal successes or failures. Many have acquired—perhaps the hard way—a self-confidence and an assurance which might never have been theirs. They have learned the value of self-discipline. Under the stress of necessity—or of personal danger—they have found how important it is to work as a part of a team, have discov- ered that the coordinated effort of a few will often accomplish more than the separate and unrelated efforts of the many. They were thrown in daily contact with men of al] occupations and all backgrounds and all religions, and the rough edges of prejudice and ignorant misunderstanding were rubbe‘1 away in the contact. They have developed a true sense of patriotism which cannot be concealed even under the veneer of petty complaint and criticism, so typical of youth in and out of the Army. They have acquired a commendable impatience at the selfishness of groups at home who had put their own welfare above that of the fighting men and of the Nation itself. And believe it or not, the young American veteran is not regimented. Army discipline aid not break his spirit or deprive him of the independence which is such an asset in war and in peace. Hard as it was at first, he learned to see military life in its per- spective by ever looking forward to the day when temporary distinctions of rank would disappear. He pictured himself as once more a free agent, and today he is enjoying and asserting that freedom. I recently had my attention called to a study made of 199 veterans attending Prince- ton University. This is a small group, statistically speaking, but I believe the find- ings are typical. Eighty percent of them responded to.a questionnaire by stating that as a result of their war experience they felt more independent and better able to make their own decisions. For those with combat experience, the percentage was even higher— 85% percent. Another significant index of the high opinion most veterans have for the Army in which they served is the large number— about 135,000 to date—who have applied for commissions as officers in the postwar Reg- A701 ular Army. This is more than five times the number of places to be filled—that is, the 25,000 additional officers authorized by Con- gress last year. To sunf it up—the average young veteran of World War II is a better man physically, mentally, and morally because of his service. And that is only another way of saying that he is better qualified to serve his employer, his associates, his community, his State and his Nation. This then is the asset which is in the hands of America for future progress and development—an asset in the form of a better and stronger youth with real ability to meet any problems which confront them or confront the rest of us. But the value of this asset depends in large part upon the use that the rest of our Nation makes of it. If ignored it may well be diseipated—or at least greatly reduced in value. The Nation has shown its gratitude to these boys who served—shown it in a mate- rial and a substantial way. Under the able administration of General Bradley we are spending at the rate of more than $7,000,000,- 000 per year on our veterans for care and rehabilitation of the disabled—for continued education and training of the ablebodied— and in many other ways. Much of this assistance continues to add to the qualification of the veteran; to make him a better citizen and a more competent one. But this contribution of the Govern- ment does not relieve its citizens of their Tesponsibilities. It does not answer the fundamental wish of the average veteran, the wish to be taken into the life of the com- munity in which he lives, to become an in- tegral part of that life, and to be given an opportunity to work and to progress in ac- cordance with his abilities. The greatest service that you men of Henderson, or the citizens of our State and Nation, can render to our young veterans, is to give them a chance to develop their talents as integral parts of their communi- ties. And once given this opportunity, I have no doubt that on the whole this youthful group will move rapidly to the forefront in the business and civic affairs of every part of America; that the group will take the lead- ership to which its ability and experience and training entitle it, And to give the young veterans this oppor- tunity is not to ask for any real unselfishness and sacrifice; is not to beg or plead for any sentimental preference. The country needs these veterans and their ability and needs to utilize them to the fullest. r upon such use and upon the success of this group of young men in measuring up to the responsi- bilities given them lies the principal hopes of America and of North Carolina during the coming generation. To be specific, if every nonveteran em- ployer here tonight—if every man who needs an associate or a partner in business— would look over first the available disabled vet- erans and then the able-bodied veterans and give them full and fair consideration, you would not only be adding value to a great human resource of our Country but you would also find, and sometimes be surprised to find, how well qualified, physically and mentally, these young men are and how well trained they are for the job or occupation for which they are selected. Making a place for the qualified veteran is not merely a manfestation of patriotism. More often than not it will prove to be a sound investment. Naturally, there will be some exceptions— some boys who never had and never will have the right stuffi—some professional vet- erans who want to ride the Government or spend the rest of their lives living on genuine or simulated military accomplishments. But these are few and far between and you caa usually spot them. They merely prove the rule that the average young veteran is ear- nest, serious, determined, and possessed of energy and good ability.
A702 And do not forget the young professional man who served in the war. I am thinking, for example, of the young doctors who con- tributed to the glorious medical record of World War II, in which war alntost 96 out ‘ of 100 hospitalized men recovered, as com- pared with about 94 out of 100 in World War I and about 93 in the Spanish-American War. The return of these doctors to civilian life presages better medical care for the whole Nation. And a word for the lawyers in the Army. Most of them did not serve in a legal ca- pacity. But they had a remarkable record for leadership and devotion to duty in the line and behind the line. You will find them as a whole earnest, hard-working, sincere, efficient, courageous, and single-minded in the interest of their clients. They are good enough for my money. And 50 it goes with other professions—ministers, educators, en- gineers, scientists, and all the rest. There are about 400,000 veterans in North Carolina, a large majority of them the young men of whom I speak. The efforts to inte- grate them into our normal civilian life and to give them the maximum of support and the greatest chance for service is, and must be, a continuing concern of our State. Over the course of years after the First World War I was impressed by the fact that North Carolina moved more slowly than most States—perhaps more slowly than any State—in pushing forward the veterans of that war—more slowly in giving him business or civic opportunities. Of course, this group eventually forged to the front, because they comprised the most vigorous and capable class of men of their generation. But they would have been better off—and the State would have been better off—if they had been given wider and earlier opportunities in busi- ness and commerce and manufacture—in civic service and in every activity of the Btate. I do not believe that this error will be re- peated again. I am confident that the State will realize, more clearly than it did before, the peacetime value of the military service of its young men. The impact of numbers would almost compe) the realization that the new young veterans are a major factor in the future of the State. In 1919 the 4,000,000 ex-servicemen of the country were a small proportion even of the Nation’s youth. But 14,000,000 new veterans, fully supported by the old, present a different picture in relation to America and its States and communities, And the veteran himself has a responsibil- ity. It is not a one-way street. If he is given an opportunity he must measure up to it or suffer the consequences. Millions of able- bodied men cannot remain wards of the State; with few exceptions, they do not want to. Ifa veteran has a job he must perform it. If he is entrusted with civic leadership he must serve his community and his State well. I have no fear but that the young ex-serv- icemen will do their full part. The genera- tion that gave the lie to Axis sneers of soft- ness and decadence has been further refined in the crucible of war. These young men, victors in the greatest and most complex war of history, will, I am certain, prove them- selves no less invincible in overcoming the problems of peace. Among other things, they know and in- tensely feel that we must not have another war. They realize—particularly those who have served abroad—how much the other democratic nations of the world look to and Gepend upon the United States for strength and leadership in making permanent the peace that we have won. They know that a strong America—not only strong in military potential but strong in industry and in production of farms and mines—and strong in physically and men- tally qualified citizenship—that a Nation with such strength is necessary to preserve the peace of the world and to bring prosperity to our own homeland. Unveiling ef Portrait of James F. Byrnes EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. OLIN D. JOHNSTON OF BOUTH CAROLINA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, February 24 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp a transcript of the proceedings at the unveiling of a portrait to James F. Byrnes at Columbia, 8S. C., on February 19, 1947. There being no objection, the tran- Script was ordered to be printed in the RecorpD, as follows: UNVEILING OF PORTRAIT OF JAMES F. BYRNES The president was presiding. Proceedings were opened with prayer by the Rt. Rev. John J. Gravatt, Episcopal bishop of upper South Carolina. The senate and guests stood and were led by Mrs. W. J. Gooding, Jr., with Mrs. Curran Jones at the piano singing “America.” The president read the following telegram: “Hon. Grorcr BELL TIMMERMAN, Jr., “President of the South Carolina Senate, “Columbia, S. C.: “I send hearty greetings to you and through you to the members of the senate on the happy occasion of the placing in the senate chamber of the portrait of South Carolina's distinguished son, James F. Byrnes. He has rendered high service to his State, to the Nation, and to the cause of world peace, and it is particularly fitting that his portrait should be placed with the portraits of states- men of other generations in whom South Carolinians have such rightful pride. “Harry 8S. TruMan.” HON, BURNET 8. MAYBANK Mr. MAYBanx read the following letters: Pesruary 15, 1947. Hon. Burner R. Maysanx, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. Dear SENATOR MayBANK: I have been ad- vised that the State Senate of South Carolina has provided for the unveiling of a portrait of the Honorable James F. Byrnes on Wednes- day, the 19th of February, in the senate chamber at Columbia, It would give me the keenest pleasure to be present on this occasion, if circumstances would permit such a visit. Please be assured of my sincere regret that I cannot personally attend. When I came to the House of Represent- atives in 1917, “Jimmie” Byrnes had been a Member of that body for some years. He was an able and efficient Member of the House of Representatives. I have known him constantly since that time and there always existed between us the most cordial and warm friendship. He has had an unusually distinguished career. When he came to the United States Senate in 1931, I was also a Member of that body, and served with him many years. He performed his duties with great ability, energy, and enthusiasm. President Roosevelt nominated him to the Supreme Court and he was promptly con- firmed. While his tenure in that great post was only for a short period, he left his im- print upon the records of that Court. Later, he was drafted by the President and filled with honor two very high positions in the stabilization and economic fields. President Truman appointed him Secre- tary of State, to succeed the Honorable ‘Edward R. Stettinius, Jr. In this lofty sta- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD tion, he rendered outstanding service to the Government of the United States and, in a large way, to the peoples of the earth, in contributing toward the peace of the world. As a member of the Council of Foreign Ministers, he had a vital part in the negotia- tion of the peace treaties of Italy, Bulgaria, Rumania and Hungary. He was a compelling influence in the Council of Foreign Ministers. Secretary Byrnes preserved the finest tra- Gitions of the State Department. He had a@ wide grasp of the international relations of the United States, and stood firmly for the rights of his country in these conferences. “Jimmie” Byrnes has been a great public servant. He has given much to his State, to his Nation, and the world. I congratulate the Senate of the State of South Carolina in providing for his portrait. How greatly I wish that I might be present at these auspicious ceremonies. With cordial good wishes, I am Sincerely, Tom CONNALLY, Untrep States SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, February 13, 1947, Hon. B. R. MaYBanx, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. My Dear SENATOR MAYBANK: I deeply ap- preciate South Carolina's invitation to be present next week at the unveiling of the portrait of her distinguished son, James F. Byrnes. Nothing but imperative public duties here in Washington could prevent my presence upon this historic occasion. It will always be a joy to me to embrace any oppor- tunity, any time, anywhere, to register my unreserved conviction that your great citizen has richly earned the total gratitude of all the American people. He has ably served them in many capacities—always with high honor, always with complete integrity, always with intelligent efficiency, and always with advantage to the common weal. I happen to know intimately about his most recent assignment in the peace councils of the world. It was my rare privilege to be associated with him in a subordinate role in these grave responsibilities, He was a Sec- retary of State in the finest American tra- dition. He served his difficult and burden- some task with relentless and courageous loyalty to our proud American ideals, Through it all, he has remained the simple, modest, kindly Jimmy Byrnes whose pre- cious friendship is a benediction upon all who come within his touch. I congratulate South Carolina upon her privilege in acknowledging the genius of her great son, and in making a partial payment on our national debt to a great and brave American. I deeply regret my inability to be present in person to present my affection- ate compliments to him and to his State. With warm personal regards and best wishes, Cordially and faithfully, A. H. VANDENBEARG. The president presented the Honorable Bernard M. Baruch and his daughter, Miss Belle Baruch; the Honorable Richard 8, Whaley, Chief Justice of the Court of Claims; Hon. A. L. M. Wiggins, Under Sec- retary of the Treasury; Senator Johnston; Hon, Donald Russell and Mrs, Russel], who later unveiled the portrait; and other dis- tinguished South Carolinians and others. PRESENTATION OF GRACE ANNETTE DU PRE The Parsiwrnr. We are assembled on this occasion to unveil a portrait of one of South Oarolina’s most illustrious sons, the Honor- able James F, Byrnes, The artist who painted this portrait is a mative of Spartanburg, 8. C., where Mr. Byrnes now resides, the daughter of David Allston DuPre, who was professor of sci- ence at Wofford College, and a kinswoman of Washington Allston, a South Carolinian
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD who gained fame as a painter during the early days of th! Republic. She is an artist who has established an enviable reputation as a portrait painter. The senate was most fortunate in its selec- tion of her to paint the portrait of Mr. Byrnes. It is my pleasure to welcome her back to the State of her nativity and to present her to the people of South Carolina. Ladies ‘and gentlemen—Grace Annette DuPre. ADDRESS BY MR. BROWN The Pazsment. The senate has Selected one of ita distinguished members, and one with a long record of service in the general assem- bly, tc present the portrait of the Honorable James F. Byrnes to the people of South Carolire. He has served as member and as presid- ing officer in each house in the general as- sembly; and, he 1s now president pro tempore and chairmen of the finance committee of the senate He has been active for years in Democratic party councils, as a member and as chair- man of the State committee of the Demo- cratic Party of South Carolina and as delegate to many National Democratic conventions where he served on important committees. {t is now my privilege to present the Hon- orable Edgar A. Brown, senator from Barn- well, who will present the portrait to the people of South Carolina. Mr. Brown. This State in its long proud history has contributed much to the great- tess of this Nation but in my opinion its most priceless gifts have been in distin- guished sons who dedicated their lives to the common good. The fields of endeavor en- riched by these contributions have not been limited. Whether it be as statesmen, soldiers, scientists, or scholars her sons have left the imprint of achievement imbedded in the life of the Nation Rutledge, author of much of the Constitu- tion, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and first and only President of the Republic of South Carolina; Pinckney, soldier, statesman, and diplomat, leader of the Federalist Party and their candidate for the presidency; Cal- houn, Vice President, Secretary of State, Sec- retary of War, and champion of the rights of the States; George McDuffie, William C. Pres- ton, Robert Y. Hayne, great orators and statesmen. The immortal Hampton, soldier, statesma.,, and benefactor of mankind. Such as these have been the gifts of the State to the Republic. A Roman mother once said that her bright- est jewels were her children. Our State can say the same but in so doing must acclaim the son we today honor as the brightest of all her jewels, for it can be truly said of him that in his life of service and achievement is to be found a recapitulation of the services and achievements of those who have gone before. In both Halls of Congress he attained a preeminence of position reached by few statesmen of his generation. From thence he was called to a place upon the Supreme Court, to leave it only to become the advisor and assistant to the President. In the most criti- cal period of world history he was drafted from his retirement to head the Department of State. As such he carried into all of the great capitals of the world the hopes and prayers of oppressed people everywhere. Whether in Paris or in London, whether in Moscow or New York the eyes of the world were upon him as he went forth bearing aloft the sacred torch of freedom. For days, for weeks, for long drawn weary months, he matched his wisdom and patience against every oonceivable scheme of wrong and ag- gression and these in the end he frustrated or defeated. The British lion ceased to roar and the Russian bear became contained. The Herculean labors of this remarkable man have now borne fruit and for the first time in history this country has a positive, @ definite, and a well-established foreign policy—a policy understood and respected throughout the world. Behind this policy stands a united people. Whether they may be Democrat or Republican it is their policy, their country’s policy. As the result of a foreign policy thus wisely built by this great and good man, definite world leadership has finally come to this Nation and in this scheme of things even the defeated people of Germany, Italy, and Japan look to it to show them back to ways of peace and national respectability. . We are today the privileged witnesses to a Just recognition of his many achievements and services to mankind, a recognition which has come while he yet lives and which has not been postponed to the future judgment of world history. Some time ago a great artist was com- missioned to paint a portrait of him in whose honor these services are held, in order that his likeness might be handed down to posterity. This work has been finished and now on behalf of the senate and to the State he loves so well, I present this portrait. Mrs. Donald Russel] then unveiled the portrait. ADDRESS BY THE HONORABLE CECIL C. WYCHE The PresIpeNT. To accept the portrait of the Honorable James F. Byrnes for the people of South Carolina, a distinguished son of South Carolina, an intimate friend and a professional associate of this illustrious South Carolinian, has been selected. He was a soldier in the First World War and he has served in the general assembly of this State. While still a young man, he was appointed United States attorney for the western dis- trict of South Carolina. He served in that capacity until he was elevated to the Federal bench where he has served and is serving with eminent ability and great distinction. It is my honor to present the Honorable Cecil C. Wyche, United States judge for the western district of South Carolina, ho will accept the portrait or behalf of the people of South Carolina. Judge Wrcue Mr. President, members of the senate, and distinguished guests, this is not an occasion to evaluate the life and work of the man we honor today. The time has not yet come to appraise properly a career 80 unusual and so far reaching in its influence. It is impossible for me, in so short a time, to do justice to a man with so full a life. I can, therefore, do no more than allude, in a general way, to some of his achievements in his more than 40 years of public service. James Francis Byrnes was reared by his widowed mother, who, like mothers of so many men of eminence, was a woman of more than ordinary intellect, and possessed a force of character which was felt by all who knew her. She was kind, quiet, gentle, and dignified, and her son inherited from her his gracious and charming manners; the suc- cess attained by him may well be traced in part to her early teaching and wise guidance. In 1900 Mr. Byrnes was appointed ste- nographer for the second judicial circuit. While serving in this position he studied law under Judge James Aldrich, and in the office of the late Dan 8. Henderson, an able and dis- tinguished lawyer of Aiken, S. C., and was ad- mitted to the practice of law in 1903. It was in Aiken that he met and married Maude Perkins Busch. This marriage gave him a helpful partner, who has sustained and fortified him throughout his long career. In 1908 he was elected Solicitor of the Sec- ond Judicial Circuit. In that office he won national recognition as a fearless and able prosecutor. In 1910 he was elected to Congress and served for 14 years, 8 of which were during the progressive and momentous administration of President Woodrow Wilson. Congressman A703 Byrnes took an active part in drafting the bill for Federal aid for the improvement of pub- lic roads; he assisted in the framing of the Federal Reserve Act, especially the section providing for the rediscount of notes secured by agricultural products; he advocated meas- ures of preparedness, and when we entered World War I, he rendered valuable services to his country as a member of the important Committee on Appropriations. After an unsuccessful campaign for the United States Senate in 1924, he accepted an invitation to become a member of the law firm of Nicholls & Wyche at Spartanburg, 8. C. As a member of the new firm, Mr. Byrnes took a prominent part in the trial of many important cases, both criminal and civil, and handled successfully quite a number of com- plicated tax cases before the Treasury De- partment in Washington. He was especially skilled in cross examining witnesses, and was very effective and successful before the court, as well as before the jury. This partnership was blessed with two excellent trial lawyers, the late Sam J. Nicholls, and James F Byrnes, who, as trial lawyers, mutually excelled each other. In 1930, he was elected to the United States Senate. He was reelected in 1936 by a major- ity of more than two hundred and fifty thousand votes. When Senator Byrnes arrived in the Senate on March 4, 1931, he was no stranger. His 14 years of service in the House of Repre- sentatives had made for him close personal friendships which were in later years to prove most valuable. Waiting to welcome him in the Senate were such old friends and col- leagues as Joe Robinson, Pat Harrison, Carter Glass, Key Pittman, Alben Barkley, Cordell Hull, Carl Hayden, and other Democratic stale warts. But these friendships and personal associations, upon which life itself so often turns, were not confined to the Democratic side of the Senate; sitting on the Republican side were his old friends, George Norris, Wil- liam E. Borah, Hiram Johnson. Charles Mc- Nary, Jim Watson, and George Moses At the very beginning of his term Senator Byrnes was assigned a place on the all-power- ful Committee on Appropriations. Senator Byrnes took u prominent part in the national conventions of the Democratic Party and in the national elections. In Chicago in 1982 he took a leading part in swinging the necessary two-thirds majority to Franklin D. Roosevelt for the Democratic nomination for President, and contributed in a large measure to his subsequent election. After the election in 1932, and before and after his inauguration, Roosevelt kept jn close contact with Senator Byrnes and conferred with him frequently regarding the program of the new administration It was .s.evitable that certain jealousies should develop in a first-term Senator having the ear of the new President, but by staying in the background and moving cautiously Senator Byrnes maintained his position and kept his friends. Had he not understood human nature so completely. had he not been versed so fully in the customs and jealousies of the Senate, had he not cataloged so com pletely the likes and dislikes of individual Senators, Senator Byrnes’ influence and prestige as the unofficial spokesman and leader for Roosevelt would have been de- stroyed. Instead of winning headlines by getting out in front to carry the torch. Sena- tor Byrnes recognized the Members of Con- gress who by position should sponsor the various legislative measure desired by the Roosevelt administration, and took pains to keep in, constant touch with such con- gressional leaders. Senator Byrnes believed that the place to fight party battles and argue against pro- posals of Roosevelt which he did not like was within the party caucus. He did not always agree with, and sometimes vigorously opposed, some of the proposed legislation
A704 However, he worked on the premise that legis- lation was the result of compromise, and it was his ability to bring together divergent schools of thought which enabled him to obtain many successful results. Another characteristic which made Senator Byrnes go effective was the fact that he never allowed himself to display anger. Senator Byrnes seldom raised hig voice, and never in a Senate debate became personal, or said anything offensive that would cause an op- ponent to harbor a grudge against him. Re- gardiess of the flerceness of the battle, when the vote was counted, Senator Byrnes had left no darts of venom. Better than any other Senator of his time, he realized that today a Senator might be against him on a cer- tin bill, but tomorrow, the same Senator might be with him. on another bill, and be- cause of this trait, time and time again, his opponent of today became his supporter of tomorrow. As we look back, it seems that Senator Byrnes had a remarkable intuition which led him to membership on committees and sub- committees which were destined to handle important legislation and investigations. Of course everyone knows the importance of the Committec on Appropriations. But when Senator Byrnes went on the Banking and Cur- rency Committee some of us in South Caro- lina wondered why. When this committee began its investigation of the House of Mor- gan and Wall Street, and began reporting out such banking and security reforms as Guarantee of bank deposits, the Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Housing Administration, the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, we understood why Senator Byrnes was there. When there was a widespread demand to end unemployment, we find Senator Byrnes chairman of a special Senate committee dealing with the subject. When the cry came up for more efficiency in Government, we find Senator Byrnes chatr- man of a committee on governmental reorganization. A man of world travel, Senator Byrnes, long before many of his colleagues, saw the war cloud gathering on the horizon. As a member of the Naval Affairs Committee and the Committee on Appropriations, Senator Byrnes piloted through legislation to strengthen the American Navy which had been crippled after the First World War in accordance with the terms of the Disarma- ment Conference. Unprepared as we were at Pearl Harbor, the Japs might have had an open sea to America had it not been for Senator Byrnes’ efforts in rebuilding our Navy. When the new Congress met in January 1941, Senator Byrnes was assigned to the Foreign Relations Committee. He could see around the corner and knew that certain legislation which grew out of our jsolation policy after the First World War, had to be repealed. We find the junion Senator from South Carolina on this committee handling this important legislation. In peace and war, in good times and bad, James F. Byrnes as a Senator was always where he could be most effective and useful and could render the greatest service to his country, to his State, and to his party. What he did for South Carolina we here know and appreciate. But his greatest serv- ice was to the Nation as a whole. In 1941 James Francis Byrnes was ap- pointed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Soon after his appoint- ment he earned the friendship, confidence, and admiration of every member of that Court. His first opinion was rendered in the case of Edwards vy. California. In that opin- ion he demonstrated that he possessed judi- cial ability of a high quality. The foundation for his success as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court wag laid in his varied and successful work as a practicing attorney in the State and Federal courts, together with his wide knowledge of public affairs, which he had gathered while serving in the House of Representatives and in the United States Senate. He was a harmonizing influence upon the Court. He felt that nothing should happen to weaken its influence or reduce the traditional respect for it. He respected the views of his colleagues however far removed from his own. His opinions were well- reasoned and supported by the weight of authority and were couched in simple and clecr language calculated to clarify and con- vince. He was happy as a member of the Court and enjoyed the work immensely. When a sense of duty impelled him to resign from the Supreme Court to accept another appointment the remaining elght members expressed their regret in the following letter to him: “We learn of your resignation with @ deep sense of the loss which it brings to the Court and to all of us personally. In the all too brief period or our association since your appointment to the Court we have come to value highly your contribution to its deliberations, drawn from the wide knowledge of affairs which you have gained in the course of a long and eminent public service. We cherish the happy personal re- lationship which that association has estab- shed. All of us part with you reluctantly and with regret. We are reconciled to your going only by the realization that you are moved by a sense of duty to render a needed service of public importance in a time of ercat national emergency. We wish you all success in this new and arduous undertaking, and that you may find in it that durable satisfaction which is the true reward for a Great task greatly performed.” When Mr Byrnes took the oath of office as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, President Roosevelt said: “I wish it were possible to cut Jimmy Byrnes into two parts. If this were possible, I would keep one part in the Senate and put the other part on the Court.” After Pear] Harbor the President, disre- garding custom and tradition, turned for help to those he trusted and who he knew could make a contribution in those dark days when none of us was too ture the Axis powers could be defeated. The President wanted Justice Byrnes in his official family but he hesitated to ask him to give up the security of the Supreme Court. Finally, one night, the President asked Jus- tice Byrnes to come to his study at the White House for a talk. After discussing the prob- lems at hand, the President turned to Justice Byrnes and said: “Jimmy, how about your taking leave of absence from the Supreme Court and coming down here to help me?” Justice Byrnes did not hesitate or ask to sleep over the matter. He promptly replied: “Mr, President, there is no such thing as leave of absence from the Supreme Court. I do not believe that any man while serving as a Justice of the Court should perform duties requiring decisions of a_ political nature. “If you think, however, in this crisis I can be of service to you, as Commander in Chief, then you do not have to draft me. I want to make whatever contribution I can in help- ing win this war. I will resign, but the resig- nation must be without reservations.” Justice Byrnes asked for paper and pen and then and there submitted his resigna- tion as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. The President then offered to leave unfilled the vacancy created by Mr. Byrnes' resigna- tion, but Mr. Byrnes declined to agree to that course, because of his belief that it would affect the administration of the Court, and be unfair to the other members. The next day the President made the an- nouncement, and before the sun was down former Justice Byrnes moved his offices to APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the east wing of the White House and as- sumed his duties as Director of Economic Stabilization. One of the paramount problems confront- ing the Nation at this time was inflation. Some bold stroke had to be made. Under the broad powers given the President and the Director of Economic Stabilization, Director Eyrnes prepared the famous hold-the-line order which froze wages and prices. The or- der brought down upon Director Byrnes and the White House every conceivable pressure, but day by day, and month by month, Direc- tor Byrnes, instead of permitting the order to be weakened, strengthened it. With the backing of the President, Director Byrnes en- forced that order and subsequent orders to stab:lize economic affairs, and in so dvuing saved this country from the ravages of jn- flation. Wien Director Byrnes took up his White House duties, great confusion existed in the Government at Washington. The President had delegated various powers to different People and there was general confusion and dissatisfaction. The President was s0 oc- cupied with his pressing duties as Com- mander in Chief that he did not have time to sec people who needed to be seen and to make the decisions necessary if the domestic front were to produce for victory at the battle front. Stepping down from the Supreme Court gave Director Byrnes great prestige. Also, when the President placed Director Byrnes in the White House he gave him absolute au- thority. Thercfore, it was only a short time before high officials, unable to see the Presi- dent, were coming to Director Byrnes for decisions. Director Pyrnes had free access to the President. Decisions began rolling out of the White House and order was brought out of chacs. No one questioned these de- cisions and not once did the President fail to back up decisions made by his Assistant President. Another problem Director Byrnes inherited was the terrific battle between the War Pro- duction Board and the War and Navy Depart- ments. This controversy over how much of our prceuction would go to the military serv- ice, and how much would be retained for Civilian use was a continuous threat to the mobilization prob’em, Realizing this, the President created an 1l-man over-all Board of War Mobilization on which were the President and the various department heads concerned with the prob- lem. Director Byrnes was made Director of the Office of War Mobilization with full power to direct. History alone will reveal the tremendous contribution Director Byrnes made in help- ing to win the war by mobilizing the home front. His political, legislative, and judicial background, together with the absolute trust and confidence which the President had in him, enabled Director Byrnes to perform duties at the White House with dispatch. suc- cess, and satisfaction. No man in peacetime or wartime, except the President, has ever carried the load which Director Byrnes did while at the White House. He put his duty to country above everything else, and at times with a heavy heart and keen disappointment, carried on like a good soldier. With the War Mobilization program well under way, the President asked Director Byrnes to accompany him to the Yalta Con- ference. There the decisions were made which sealed the doom of the Axis powers, and there definite planning for the postwar period was begun. Production on the home front was the basis of many of these decisions, But at Yalta, Director Byrnes was gaining background and knowledge which were to serve him well in as different and wider field. Director Byrnes returned from Yalta con- vinced that the end of the Buropean war
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD was in sight. His mind was made up. He would continue until it was certain the war in Europe was over; then he would retire, having no intention to stay in office for the job of demobilization, By this time Con- gress had passed the Mobilization and De- mobilfvation Act. Director Byrnes had the task of continuing mobilization at full pace, and at the same time preparing plans for demobilization. This he did. But he had determined that whoever was to succeed him should take charge before the German sur- render so that person could participate in framing the postwar policies he would have to administer. He made his resignation ef- fective April 1, and returned to Spartanburg April 2, 1945. Upon the death of President Roosevelt 10 days later, President Truman immediately called Mr. Byrnes to Washington, and after a conference, President Truman determined to appoint Mr. Byrnes Secretary of State as soon as the United Nations meeting in San Prancisco came to an end. When President Roosevelt insisted upon Di- rector Byrnes accompanying him to the Yalta Conference, he may not have realized it, but he rendered a great service to the cause of pence. It enabled Mr. Byrnes to hear the con- versations preceding the Yalta agreements which have been discussed ever since by the Foreign Ministers. It was the South Caro- lintan’s first international conference, but as Director of War Mobilization he was almost daily in conference with President Roosevelt as to the various phases of the war effort. He was a Congressman during the First World War and was a stanch supporter of Woodrow Wilson and of the League of Nations. He was in Paris when the armistice was signed in 1918, and had an opportunity to see how big politics were played to the detriment of a lasting peace; he witnessed the pitfalls into which President Wilson fell which wrecked his dream for world peace. This experience enabled him to be an informed negotiator. It is certain that the unfortunate experience of President Wilson influenced Secretary Byrnes to establish his bipartisan policy. Ten days after taking office, Secretary Byrnes accompanied President Truman to the Potsdam Conference. He furnished the Presi- dent a transcript of the shorthand notes he had made at Yalta. which helped the Presi- dent to pick up the threads of the peace negotiations. At Potsdam it seemed there would be no agreement, the Big Three being unable to settle their differences as to German repara- tions, the Balkan problems, and the Spanish problem. Drawing heavily from his long ex- perience around the conference table in the Congress, Secretary Byrnes worked night and day to prevent the failure of the conference. Finally, as a result of private talks by the Secretary with Stalin and Molotov complete agreement was reached. At the last meet- ing Stalin asked for recognition, and to the surprise of those present, said he wished to attribute to the Secretary of State the suc- cess of the conference because, to use Stalin's words, ‘Mr. Byrnes brought us together.” At Potsdam many momentous decisions were made, but none were more important than the decision to use the atomic bomb. Secretary Byrnes was one of the few men who during the war knew of the development of the atomic bomb. When President Tru- man was advised by the scientists that they believed the problem had been solved, the President appointed Mr. Byrnes as his rep- resentative upon a committee which worked in secret for weeks providing for the test in New Mexico and discussing the possible use of the bomb. At Potsdam he partici- pated in the conferences which led to the decision to use the bomb in order to save the lives they knew would be lost in the planned effort to invade Japan. The Secre- tary returned from Potedam just in time to exchange communications with the Japanese Government as to the surrender. XCIII—App.——45 Shortly thereafter he was in London at the first meeting of the Conference of For- eign Ministers. There he set the pattern for his policy of patience and firmness with Russia, During the war there was no diffi- culty in reaching agreements with Russia, because she needed our assistance. With the cessation of hostilities there was no more lend-lease to promise, and Russia could not well ask for any more territory from the enemy states. Agreement became difficult, The Soviet representatives differed with the other representatives on every issue. Sec- retary Byrnes declined to agree to Bive to Russia one of the Italian colonies which they desired for a naval base in the Medi- terranean. He insisted that they live up to their pledges as to the Balkan States. He refused to agree to excess reparations against Italy and to the cession of territory urged by the Soviets, declaring that a cruel peace would not be a lasting peace. He urged the calling of a peace conference so that ail the nations that fought the war might partici- pate in making the peace When the Soviets refused this last proposal the Secretary ad- journed the conference, declaring that he could not sacrifice a principle of this kind merely for the sake of agreement. This deci- sion required courage. He realized that he would be criticized for the failure to agree at his first conference with the foreign min- isters, but he had faith in the people. When he returned and informed the people that the issue was whether the peace should be dictated by the big powers to all of the United Nations without giving them a chance to do more than sign on the dotted line, the people rallied to his support. He became the champion of the smaller states. Two months later he suggested a meeting in Moscow. Real progress was made. The peace conference which the Soviets would not agree to at London, they finally agreed to at Moscow. He also induced the Soviets to join the United States in sponsoring the resolution providing for international control of atomic energy. In January the Secretary went to London and succeeded in having the General Assem- bly of United Nations unanimously agree to the atomic energy resolution first suggested by the United States. It soon became ap- parent that the Soviets had adopted a policy of expansion. They were not satisfied with puppet governments in the Balkans and with the control of the Baltic States. They re- fused to withdraw troops from Iran and conducted a war of nerves with Turkey. Secretary Byrnes resorted to open diplomacy and in a series of speeches he made plain that the United States meant business when it pledged its support to the United Nations, and to prevent aggression by any state. The Soviet policy caused great unrest throughout the world, but particularly in Europe. The situation continued until late summer, Sec- retary Byrnes, realizing apparently that the Soviets were endeavoring to win the favor of the defeated and disheartened Germans, and that they were advising the Germans that the Americans would return to a policy of isolation, went to Stuttgart to declare our German program. It was heartening to the Germans who wanted, in any event, to know their fate. At the same time the Secretary gave notice that we would not return to isolation as we had after the First World War; he gave notice to all concerned that as long as there was an army of occupation in Ger- many, the Army of the United States would be in Germany; he gave courage to France, to Turkey and other countries, where the Soviets were conducting a war of nerves, In New York, at the end of the year, he saw his policy pay dividends. For 3 weeks the Soviets refused to agree to any of the proposals recommended by two-thirds of the governments that attended the peace con- ference in Paris. They demanded more con- ceasions. Secretary Byrnes refused their de- mands. Finally they concluded that he said A705 what he meant, and meant what he said. Their attitude changed. They agreed to all of the recommendations of the peace con- ference; they adopted a conciliatory attitude in the United Nations; they abandoned their threats against Iran, the relations of the Allies were placed on a sounder basis, and the prospect for permanent peace became brighter than at any time since VJ-day. The opinion of the people in many coun- tries was well expressed by the London Ob- server in an editorial stating: ‘It must there- fore be reckoned among the year's major events that 1946 has °* * * produced the beginnings of a recognizable nonparty and long-term American foreign policy. This is the work of Mr. Byrnes, easily the most con- siderable Secretary of State America has had in this century.” As Secretary of State he gave the necessary impetus to get the United Nations Organiza- tion well along its way to success. In a year and a half he made seven trips across the ocean. It was a terrible strain, but had he not done it he could not have kept in touch with the problems of the State Department that constantly demanded attention. He sponsored the Foreign Service Act of 1946. His relations with the Congress contributed to the passage of the bill. The bill has given heart to Uncle Sam's sentinels throughout the world and its beneficial effects will be evident in the days to come. He established for the first time broad- range policy statements for every country in the world, so that the Army, the Navy, and our Ambassadors in the field have a written statement of the policy of the United States, which policy is revised as necessity requires. Secretary Byrnes’ last official act was the signing of the treaties he labored 80 suc- cessfully to achieve, and which so magnifi- cently chart the road back to peace. The cause of world peace to Secretary Byrnes was far and beyond person or party. Encouraged by President Truman and en- thustastically supported by Senator VANDEN- BERG and Senator CONNALLY, he has be- queathed to the American people a concept of American foreign policy that transcends partisanship and is the unquestioned voice of America in the council halls of the world. It should ever be the prayer of a peace-loving America that this ideal of a nonpartisan for- eign policy, so boldly conceived and so care- fully nurtured by him, may never be de- parted from and that the storms of partisan Strife may never again darken or obscure American foreign policy. The division of the world among the great powers under the disarming slogan of “spheres of influence” the inevitable breed- ers of future wars, he rejected as violative of the whole concept of the United Nations. On the contrary, he accepted for America the role of the unylelding guardian of in- ternational justice and right. Speaking for America, he became the outspoken champion of the weak against the powerful, of the small against the large, of the just against the strong. He declared relentless war on ag- gression, whether by friend or by foe. Never has an American Secretary of State so openly stated and so bravely upheld Amer- ican foreig: policy as he did, in the meetings of the United Nations and in the peace con- ferences. He bravely removed the cloak of mystic secrecy from diplomacy and enlisted public opinion and the endorsement of the nations of the world for his program. He truly gave refreshing reality to the Wilsonian doctrine of “open covenants openly arrived at.” No period in our national history has been fraught with so many momentous problems as that during which James F. Byrnes served in the National House of Representatives, the United States Senate, as Director of War Mobilization, and as Secretary of State. By reason of his service and achievements he has already taken his place in the moving stream of history as a great American, and
A706 is entitled to ranx along with John Rutledge, John C. Calhoun, and Benjamin R. Tillman as South Carolina’s most outstanding states- men. It is, therefore, fitting and appropriate that the Senate of South Carolina should place his portrait in the senate chamber to remind future generations of his many and varied achievements in the service of his State and his country, and to inspire future sons of South Carolina to noble efforts of service. To the artist, Grace Annette DuPré, I say, You have produced a wonderful likeness, and an excellent piece 0’ art. . I am glad to have the honor to accept it on behalf of the people of South Carolina. HON. JAMES F. BYRNES The PresipENT. Ladies and gentlemen, we now come to the highlight of this occasion— the presentation of South Carolina's most distinguished statesman and eminent jurist, and best beloved citizen, the Honorable James F. Byrnes. Mr. Byrnes. Several weeks ago, I advised a member of the senate committee that while I deeply appreciated the invitation to attend these exercises, that I really thought I should not be present to hear myself eulo- gized. He insisted, and my presence indicates that my sense of appreciation is greater than my sense of modesty. However, I am modest enough to be quite embarrassed by the words of praise that have been showered upon me by my good friend, Edgar Brown, by the lieutenant governor, and particularly by my friend, Judge Wyche. On an occasion of this kind, the speaker is expected to be eloquent and he is expected to show a reasonable disregard of facts. Judge Wyche has fulfilled both expectations. His reference to my political career prompts me to say a few words about public office. In my opinion, no man should become a candidate for public office for financial re- ward or even for the honor of the office. In either event his motive is a selfish one. A man who plans a public career should do so only if he honestly believes he can render a service to the people, and he is truly anxious to render such a service. Those of us with long political experience would say to such a man that the only real compensation he would ever receive is the knowledge that he has been able to accom- plish something helpful for the people, and the knowledge that his efforts are appreciated by those people. That Knowledge is a source of great satis- faction to a man in public life. If in my public career, I have made any contribution to good government; if as Director of the Office of War Mobilization I have contributed in any degree to the successful prosecution of the war; and particularly if as Secretary of State I have contributed any toward the lay- ing of a firm foundation on which there can be built a structure of just and lasting peace; then, happy will I be in all the days ahead of me. That happiness must be shared by the people of South Carolina, for after all it is you who gave me the opportunity to render this service. Your confidence and your support have been comforting to me through all the years, but never more s0 than in the last year and a half during the period I spent most of my time Overseas attending international conferences. In such conferences no man can succeed un- leas he has the support of the vast majority of the people at home, There were times when I was not certain of that support, and in that period, in those trying days for me, it was comforting to hear from South Carolina: for whenever I heard I learned that whatever doubts others might have, the people of South Carolina still retained their confidence in me. Fortunately for me, thihgs changed, and in the last 6 or 8 months I have been made happy and humble, too, by the evidences of good will and support that have come to me from people in all walks of life, residing in all sections of the Nation. Today, I know those good friénds will not take exception when I speak the truth and say that much as I appreciate their confidence and good will, still more do I appreciate the confidence and good will of the people of South Carolina, my native State. You people of South Carolina have been kind to me, much kinder than necessary. I can never repay you, but I can and will pray that God will bless and will keep you always. The Labor Relations Problem EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WAYNE MORSE OF OREGON IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, February 26 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the ReEcorp a very able speech on the subject of labor relations problems, delivered by Mr. Sid Woodbury, of the Portland Chamber of Commerce, before the Medford (Oreg.) Chamber of Commerce on January 18, 1947. I think it is particularly apropos that this speech be printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD because of the legislation that is now pending before the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. There being no objection, the speech was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Members of the Jackson County Chamber of Commerce, ladies, and gentlemen, Mrs. Woodbury and I are very happy that we were invited to attend this memorable dedication of the Rogue Elk Forest and tonight's meet- ing of the Jackson County Chamber of Com- merce. It has been instructive for us, and most inspirational as well. Please remember that our latchstring in Portland also is al- ways out. May I congratulate all concerned in the re- forestation program, of which today’s dedica- tion is a forerunner of many to follow. Its import is epochal, because in no other way can you provide lumber needs for future generations. The challenge to this age is inescapable, and you are proving your birth- right as American citizens by accepting it, No other part of our country is as favored as the Pacific coast by nature for quickly re- Pairing the ravages of a spendthrift industry, Up in our part of the woods, or, rather, what once was our woods, we also are con- cerned with reforestation. The great stands of timber in the Columbia River and Tilla- mook and Grays Harbor areas, once consid- ered inexhaustible, are a mere shadow of their former magnificence. Our more for- ward-looking companies, whose future de- pends on forest products in their different ‘uses, are now cutting on a selective basis and repairing, so far as possible, by tree planting, the inexcusable waste of the past 50 years. Now, speaking as the newly elected presi- dent of the Chamber of Commerce of the City of Portland, I should like to say I am beginning to sort out the main from the minor objectives of the job, and it is ap- parent to me that presidents of all cham- bers of commerce in our State could well serve their members by spending a major portion of their time this year on two prime objectives. One is to visit as many chambers of com- ‘merce in the Oregon country as we possibly can, and to encourage officers, directors, and APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD members of other chambers, to visit us, We have much to jearn from each other, and can be of great practical assistance to one another, The second objective, and perhaps of its immediate necessity, the more important, is to do our part in the institution of equi- table labor-management relations in the State of Oregon. Right at this moment, when nationally, certain irresponsible per- sons and groups are jittery, while others are deliberately misinterpreting the results of our November election by reading into it a public mandate that is not there, grave Ganger existe that the vigorous and healthy labor tone that has been built up in Oregon in the past decade particularly, might be strained or thrown out of balance. To know how workable and harmonious it is at pres- ent, we have but to compare it with the sour notes heard in other cities of similar size and industrial potential. During the past hectic war years, condi- tions could not help but create extraordinary wage ceilings, and many unbalanced work standards. All of us recognized that not all of these were compensatory or sound, or even intended to be permanent, but now reason and calm thinking must correct the inequities without rancor or too much speed. In other words, the public as well as man- agement, labor, and the Government, should clearly understand the basic and moral ts- sues involved before advocating drastic change. If the general premise I have just given is fair, no one should have any objection if we tried to localize it, and in Portland we are going to do just that. We are blessed with an understanding, sensible, and cooperative labor group, which springs from a home-owning, intelligent citizenship, and we do not look for any precipitous action, or wild swinging, that will disrupt our present harmonious rela- tionship. In fact. we look for quite the op- posite effect—a more binding and closer co- operation, for the reason that management and labor have increased confidence in each other because of mutually satisfactory per- formance in the war years. Both realize that sentiment in some quarters nationally has been aroused to belligerence, and they do not intend that it spread to Oregon. Both employee and employer realis that they are natural partners in a free capitalistic system that requires the deep and continuous ear- nest effort of everyone concerned. Both real- ize that certain adjustments and correc- tions must and will be made, but with as little friction as possible, and without unfair restraint to any interest. I hope none of you are hopeful that I am prepared to now suggest a cure-all solu- tion for industrial peace. I wish I was the seventh son or @ seventh son s0 I could pull 1t out of the hat. I do, however, have the benefit of witness- ing for the past several years the profitable and harmontous relations existing in the labor-management committee which has been functioning in the city of Portland. Within the framework of this committee, la- bor and management have served to promote industrial peace for the past 5 or 6 years. Throughout this period the committee dedi- cated itself and its activities to these main objectives which made for prosperity in the Portland area. First. The promotion of industrial peace by mutual cooperation. I need not amplify this statement except to say that in the Columbia River area, there were no strikes during the entire war. The location of new industry into our section of the State was greatly en- hanced because it became a recognized con- clusion that strikes were not prevalent in our area. Governmental and private plants came freely to Portland, and in preference to other locations, because they knew that production of strategic war materials would not be hampered by disrupting work stop-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD pages. Portland had one of the finest, if not the outstanding record, of the larger metro- politan areas of our Nation. The second ob- jective was the promotion of additional job and business opportunities, which was ac- complished by the establishment of new in- dustry, in addition to the expansion of prac- tically all of the enterprises then in opera- tion. In this phase of their activities, the com- mittee, with the assistance of congressional delegations, congressional committees, and top Government officials, received favorable action on such projects as the unfreezing of flood-control moneys, congressional appro- priations and authorizations of many kinds; the reestablishment of freight rates; the de- velopment of sane power projects, housing developments, ship-scrapping projects, etc. Our congressional delegation from Oregon respects, and in many cases relies, on the information and recommendations of a unanimous labor-and-management group meeting together to unite in action for the common good. Recommendations, when made, must benefit from a community standpoint and must contain the necessary attributes of integrity, honesty, and sincerity of purpose. Oregon can always be counted upon to lead in any movement when a state of emergency exists that has to do with State and National welfare. Our citizens likewise fee] that we have the same responsibility in ‘times of peace, and we sense an emergency for Jeadership in one of the most important issues before the American people at this time. This thinking in metropolitan Portland, a city of 500,000 inhabitar.ts, has been resolved just last Friday, in a decision to continue the Labor-Management Bureau as a perma- nent peacetime organization. The program, decisions and recommendations will be made by equal representation of labor and man- agement. Labor and industry will bear equally the expense of the Bureau, which will be managed by Lee C. Stoll, who so suc- cessfully and impartially guided the same committee under governmental sponsorship during the trying war years. Actuated by singleness of main purpose, guided by the best thought of employee and employer, and motivated by the same desire to serve the public and our country, and to make Oregon the best State in the Union in which to work as well as to live, the plan cannot fail. I feel proud that organized labor and in- dustrialists in our city wish to recognize the important function of chambers of com- merce in representing all interests—labor, management, the Government, and the pub- lic—by giving me permission to be the first to announce this most sensible and practical arrangenent at this meeting of the Jackson County Chamber of Commerce. Let us hope it might steady the thinking of other communities. Thank you for listening. Lilienthal: A Stabilizing Influence EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ESTES KEFAUVER OF TENNESSEE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 26, 1947 Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I include an editorial which appeared in the Knox- ville News-Sentinel and the Memphis Press-Scimitar February 25, 1947. The editorial is written by Edward J. Mee- man, editor of the Memphis Press- Scimitar. Mr. Meeman is one of the country’s finest journalists. His opinion is entitled to great weight. The editorial is as follows: TVA PROGRAM IS PROOF LILIENTHAL IS STRONG INFLUENCE AGAINST COMMUNISM, SAYS EDITOR Significant was the letter which Dr. Karl T. Compton, president of Massachusetts Insti- tute of Technology and a leader in the devel- opment of the atomic bomb, sent to Senator VANDENBERG. Dr. Compton said that scientists would quit en masse and the atomic energy program would become “a hollow shell” if political and special interests won their fight against David E. Lilienthal. Already scientists have quit their jobs at the atomic projects at Los Alamos, N. Mex., and at Oak Ridge, he-said. This points up a situation which it is im- portant to understand. Instead of being a Red, as his critics say, Mr. Lilienthal is one of the strongest influences against commu- nism in this country. Communism has a strong appeal to dis- illusioned idealists. Seeing inconsistencies in the free, democratic society, they fall for communism's siren promiser to solve all problems and establish a utopia. In fact, communism does r3t solve the problems, and the Communist social order, instead of being a utopia, is a hell of poverty, of prop- aganda and lies, and secret-police terror. But the wholesale promises nevertheless do appeal to many idealists, especially to scien- tists. An example of this is the Canadian scientists, one of them wealthy, who gave their country’s military secrets to spies of Soviet Russia. David Lilienthal has a philosophy and a personality which counteract this trend. An idealist himself as well as a superb business executive, he appeals to idealists. He shows how we can build a better order under de- mocracy. He has shown how Government operation can be free of patronage and bu- reaucracy through the merit system and de- centralization. At the same time he is an ardent believer in the virtues of free enterprise. Free en- terprise has thrived in the Tennessee Valley under stimulation of the TVA as directed by Mr. Lilienthal. Businessmen in the valley do not think TVA is a threat to them, but a friend and helper. It is a demonstration of the value both of Government uvwnership in its right place and of private enterprise in its right place. This writer believes that our free order at its worst is better than totalitarian com- munism at its best. Nevertheless, we will not keep this free order if we do not make our idealists and scientists feel at home in it and give them an opportunity to work in confidence that their efforts are building a better social order. David Lilienvhal has a unique ability to inspire that confidence, and TVA is a living proof that there can be @ great progress without sacrifice of indi- vidualism. Therefore Mr. Lilienthal is actually a sta- bilising influence. Conservatives, who want to preserve our system of individualism, as well as liberals, should support him. O’Dwyer’s Labor Plan Hailed as Model EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EUGENE J. KEOGH OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 26, 1947 Mr. KEOGH. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rrc- A707 ord, I include the following article which appeared in the New York Times of Fri- day, February 21, 1947: Crry’s LaBor PLAN Har.ep as MopEL—O’DwyER Views ON INDUSTRIAL Pace SENT TO Busi- NESS AND STATES’ LEADERS In the hope that: the methods that have helped minimize labor strife in New York City will prove beneficial in other parts of the country, 32 jurists, industrialists, and labor leaders joined yesterday in sponsoring publication of a 16-page brochure entitled “The O'Dwyer Plan for Industrial Peace.” Thousands of copies of the pamphlet, which bears on its cover an olive branch superimposed on New York’s industria) sky- line, will be sent to Members of Congress, the State legislature, governors, mayors, cham- . bers of commerce, labor unions, publishers, commentators, and other persons from Maine to California. The sponsors of the brochure are all mem- bers of panels appointed by the mayor to settle labor disputes ranging from the gen- eral trucking strike of last fall to the metal lathers’ strike, which was settled at city hall Tuesday night. In making copies public yesterday morn- ing, Thomas J. Shanahan, president of the Federation Bank & Trust Co., said that the panel members were so impressed by the sim- plicity and effectiveness of the plan evolved by the mayor and his labor relations director, Edward C. Maguire, that they wanted the whole country to know about it. “We hope it will serve as a mode) for the country,” Mr. Shanahan said. ‘We think it’s that good.” POLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE SEEN However, the wide circulation given the pamphlet and the emphasis put in it on the mayor's personal philosophy of labor rela- tions stirred speculation that some of his friends saw in the success of the O'Dwyer Plan an opportunity for heralding the mayor's availability for higher political office on a State or national level. Such thoughts were disavowed by mem- bers of the sponsoring group and by the mayor's personal staff, who said the pamphlet was entirely nonpolitical, but Mr. Shanahan acknowledged that the copy had been written in Mr. Magutre’s office and that the mailing list was being made up there. The banker, 8 close personal friend of Mr. O’Dwyer said he was acting as ‘“‘work horse for the mayor" on distribution of the booklet. The essence of the O'Dwyer plan, as out- lined in the pamphlet, is the appointment of tripartite committees made up of representa- tives of the public, industry, and labor, to help adjust industrial conflicts that threaten vital city services. Reliance is put on volun- tary agreement by the disputing parties rather than on settlements imposed through force, “The O'Dwyer plan committee members are chosen because of their skill, knowledge, and standing within their special fields,” the booklet says, “but committee members act as a team using their combined skills, knowl- edge, and prestige on behalf of the whole community.” NO “SIMPLE, EASY PANACEA” The text stresses that neither the mayor nor his associates believe that the plan is “a simple, easy panacea which will end all industrial strife.” “They know,” the booklet says, “that it is not a quick cure-all that will bring magic results if applied according to simple direc- tions. They do know that for and in New York City the plan has worked, has saved untold millions for workers, employers, and the New York City business community. They also know it has worked because Mayor O'Dwyer, the men of the division of labor relations, and the many citizens he called upon for help have put their best