APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD on transocean traffic into the Great Lakes to make the project self-liquidating. Even the Chicago Tribune, long a foe, thinks the time has come to reexamine the proposal, The Chicago Tribune indicates it May support the seaway for the power de- velopment which would be a part of the project. Such a power supply could help overcome the threat of recurring coal short- ages, the Chicago newspaper says editorially. But the 27-foot channel from the lakes to the sea is the primary reason for the under- taking, which would take 4 to 6 years, involve 83,000,000 man-hours of work, and cost some- thing over half a billion dollars. The canals between the lakes would have to be deepened, new locks constructed. Then 27 cities of the interior of the continent, including Duluth and Superior, would become ports into which all but the largest ocean-going ships could sail. Julius H. Barnes, president of the Erie & St. Lawrgnce Corp., announced in Minne- apolis recently that his shipping company would begin regular package freight service between Duluth and New York this spring. With the seaway, similar service for any freight could be established between Minne- sota and any part of the world. Congress has heard all the arguments on the seaway many times. There is no need for another long committee session, But there is need for an affirmative vote. As a defense measure alone, the Nation should have this added access to the sea, Lithuanian Independence EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. THOMAS D’ALESANDRO, JR. OF MARYLAND IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, February 18, 1947 Mr. D’ALESANDRO. Mr. Speaker, I demand that the five points expressed in the following resolution be carried out by our State Department: Counci. oF LITHUANIAN SOCIETIES, Baltimore, Md., February 17, 1947. The Honorable THomMASs D'ALESANDRO, Jr., House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Sir: Kindly find and note enclosure con- taining copy of the resolution passed on the occasion of the commemoration of the twen- ty: ninth anniversary of the declaration of independence by the people of Lithuania, held at the Lithuanian Hall on the 16th day of February 1947. Respectfully yours, ANTHONY J. MICELKA, President. RESOLUTION UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED AT THE TWENTY-NINTH ANNIVERSARY OBSERVANCE OF THE “REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA INDEPENDENCE DAY"; ALSO STATE OF MARYLAND GOVERNOR'S PROCLAMATION HELD UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE COUNCIL OF LITHUANIAN SOCIETIES OF BALTIMORE ON FEBRUARY 16, 1947 ‘Whereas the oppressed. people of Lithuania are unable to express their grievances, defend their rights, and voice their view in protest against the incorporation of Lithuania into the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics; and Whereas we, as citizens of the United States of America, are deeply concerned with the destiny of Lithuania and especially her right to be recognized as a free and inde- pendent nation: Now, therefore, be it and it is hereby Resolved, That we urgently appeal to the Government of the United States to fulfill- XCUI—App.——38 ment of its policy declarations and in par- ticular the following: 1. To continue to recognize the sovereignty of the Republics of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia; 2. To protect and assist Lithuanian refu- gees in Europe; 3. To insist that free and unfettered elec- tions be held in Lithuania; 4. To adhere to the twelve points, as ex- pressed by President Truman; 5. That Russia immediately withdraw her armed forces and secret police from Lithua- nian territory. ANTHONY J. MICEIKA, President. ‘VERA MIKUSAUCKAS, Secretary. Keep Our Synthetic Rubber EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. HENRY D. LARCADE, JR. OF LOUISIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 17, 1947 Mr. LARCADE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the REc- orb, I wish to submit an editorial from the Washington Times-Herald, of date February 17, 1947, entitled “Keep Our Synthetic Rubber,” as follows: KereEp Our SYNTHETIC RUBBER The average American got two, maybe three, new tires for his car last year. And things like rubber overshoes, hot-water bot- tles, raincoats, golf balls, and garden hose have been showing up in the stores. So most of us aren't worrying about scarce rubber any more. And some of us have probably for- gotten that, just a few years back, we came too close to losing a war, one embarrassing reason being that the Japs caught us with our rubber pants down on December 7, 1941. That's why we're glad that President Tru- man, the other day, sent a second reminder to the Congress, expressing the hope that our lawmakers would give careful consideration to our rubber problems and take speedy-as- possible action on same. The President said first, and politely, that the Strategic and Critical Stockpiling Act, passed by Congress in 1946, had already given us a permanent stock pile of rubber. The Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which handles all sules in imported crude rubber, is holding onto a reserve of at least 160,000 tons. Mr. Truman seemed to think that was all right. SYNTHETIC RUBBER CALLED ESSENTIAL Mr, Truman next made his most important request, for a continuation of the Second War Powers Act, or those parts of it pertaining to our continued production of synthetic rubber. We spent $700,000,000 to build 52 synthetic-rubber factories, he reminded Con- gress. Over half of them are still going at full blast. But the British and Dutch have been shipping us record-breaking cargoes of natural rubber for some months, and by early 1948 may be getting enough crude rubber from their Malayan and East Indian planta- tions to supply us with everything from tires to rubber bands. In the meantime our production of syn- thetic rubber has dwindled a bit, from 820,000 tons in 1945 to 750,000 in 1946. The experts Bay we'll need only about 478,000 tons in 1947, And, as mentioned by Mr. Truman, come 1948 we could rely on imported rubber altogether, and simply scrap our synthetic plants—assuming that we have forgotten all A593 about Pear] Harbor, and gone a bit nuts to boot, The President, backed up by the Army and the Navy, suys that we should keep our syn- thetic rubber production going at about 250,- 000 tons per year, with enough emergency plants standing by to give us 350,000 tons more, on quick notice. Our synthetic fac- tories as they stand are geared to produce 1,000,000 tons per year, but the experts seem to believe that 600,000 tons, plus our stock piles, will fill the bill, Our rubber technicians have done a fine job of improving the quality and versatility of our synthetic products. Nearly all of our rubber is now derived from petroleum, rather than the alcohol which some scientists recommended in the beginning. Cheap, ready petroleum is now giving us no fewer than 47 varieties of synthetic rub- ber, all good. Some species have completely replaced natural rubber, which can't be used successfully in contact with oils and certain chemicals. Natural rubber is still better for heavy duty truck and bus tires, but synthetic may catch up there, too. The rest of Mr. Truman’s thoughts on rubber did not deal directly with our na- tional security, but they are nevertheless of interest to all of us citizens of the Temperate Zone, where rubber doesn’t grow. CRUDE PRICES WERE RIGGED We American tire and tube buyers still haven't forgotten the fancy squeezing which the British-Dutch-French cartel boys gave us back in 1928. That was the year when this jolly foreign monopoly took us over the barrel for $1.25 a pound, which we had to pay, or else. Our squawks that this 61.25 rubber was worth only about 6 or 8 cents at the plantation just didn't change the price. Right now crude rubber is selling at 2534 cents, as compared to 1813 cents for our synthetic. But within a year or so, the traders say, our British and Dutch friends may be offering their rubber at a dime or less, whereas we'll have difficulty in getting our synthetic costs down below 14 cents. But, for national security, and because it’s common-sense business, we hope Congress will keep about 25 percent of our rubber plants running, with more ready to swing into action. These Government-owned, privately operated factories cost us $700,000,- 000 but, so far, they have been one of World War II's few good investments. Let's hang onto them. The Lilienthal Nomination EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. HALE BOGGS OF LOUISIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, February 18, 1947 Mr. BOGGS of Louisiana. Mr. Speak- er, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following ar- ticles from the Washington Post of Feb- ruary 14, 1947: WASHINGTON CALLING (By Marquis Childs) GRUDGE FIGHT While the question of the confirmation of David Lilienthal is important as an issue of immediate policy, it is even more important as a symbol. So much of the confusion and conflict of our time adheres around it, It cuts s0 many ways. On the political side, it puts an important segment of the Republican leadership in the
A594 strange position of following the lead of vin- dictive Senator KENNETH McKELLAR. Sena- tor KENNETH WHERRY would have it other- wise, but the facts speak for themselves. It was MCKEULaR’s grudge fight, abetted by the Hearst-McCormick-Patterson press, that set this policy. The Republicans who fol- low along are merely saying, “Me, too.” Except in a glancing way, the core of this controversy has not really been touched on. Behind the noisy clamor over “communism” is a struggle to get all power production back into private control. Not Lilienthal but the Tennessee Valley Authority is the real target of this attack. Back of that is an even more significant triangle of conflict. Private control over atomic power is the objective of a little group who, if the whole story could be bered, would be seen to be inspiring the fight egainst Lilienthal. That helps to explain the otherwise inexplicable anger with which cer- tain Senators turned on Under Secretary of State Dean Acheson when he went before the Atomic Energy Committee. Their anger was directed at Acheson for releasing the Acheson-Lilienthal report which recommended putting control of atomic energy under an international au- thority. The group that helped to draft that report included distinguished scientists and businessmen who worked under the chair- manship of Lilienthal. They concluded, in effect, that this power ‘was 80 overwhelming it could not be left to the exploitation of private interests. Pri- vate competition would inevitably mean private monopoly. And a monopoly of that kind would finally be a dictatorship. Under the plan they proposed, atomic power would be available to private business Just as TVA power is available at a low cost to private business throughout the Tennessee Valley. It was TVA power which made pos- sible the expansion of the private aluminum industry and the production of more air- planes by private firms than the world had ever dreamed possibile. TVA is grounded in a natural resource— in the rivers that run to the sea. In the game way, atomic power derives from the very stuff of life and from the complex knowledge and skills of thousands of men and women. Incidentally, the atomic power project that ts a going concern today cost $2,000,000,000 of the taxpayers’ money. It would be interesting to be able to identify those who are exploiting the attack on Lilienthal. They, of course, keep dis- creetly in the background. They know how to employ the technique of the amear and the irrelevancy. For example, the irrelevant, trivial complaints that came years ago from A. E. Morgan, a former member of the TVA Board. These complaints were shown to have been without any substance whatso- ever. Yet Morgan is brought back before the congressional committee, and the old jeal- ousies and rivalries are aired once again. One thing this controversy demonstrates is the way in which communiam can be used to distract and divert us. It can con- dition decisions that should be made on the basis of what is best for us as a nation. The reality of communism is ane thing, as we learned, or should have learned, from the espionage case in Canada, where the matter was handled with dispatch and efficlency. But the hysteria provoked by the smear is something quite different. Hysteria can cor- rupt our decisions, 20 that we act in fear and not in reason. The probability is that Lilienthal will be confirmed. If he fails of confirmation, then the possibility of finding other civilians who would be willing to submit to this form of Indian torture is slight. That raises still another point. The shad- ow of stalemate between a Republican Con- greas and a Democratic Chief Executive has already fallen across this critical year. If the next 18 months are to be given over to futile wrangling, then our position and pres- tige before the world will rapidly vanish. At times you have a little of the feeling that it was at this point in the movie that you came in. Perhaps the film of the 1920's ts to be run off again, but faster, much faster this time. MarTzr or Fact (By Joseph Alsop) THE SENATE PLAYS WITH DESTINY It 1s not too much to say that the Ameri- can future may hang on the outcome of the fight on David E, Lilienthal’s confirmation as chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. Soundly developed, the incalculable force of atomic energy is capable of revolutionizing the world's sorry economic pattern, and lay- ing the foundation of general plenty within the foreseeable future. Lilienthal and his colleagues, who are not simpletoms, have frankly said as much after their survey of the Manhattan District's facilities and in- stallations. Sumner Pike, who is a New Eng- lander, a Republican and a businessman who quite successfully “met a pay roll,” virtually testified to this effect at the Senate hearings. Sound development of these immeasurable potentialities tn this country will, in turn, vastly strengthen the American effort to place atomic energy under international con- trol. And here we see the other side of the medal. For atomic energy is not only the means of life; it is also the means of death. And if control is not achieved, wise and in- formed men must join the Seventh Day Ad- ventists and the Shakers of the old days, in making ready for something not too unlike the end of the worid. These grim facts, which are all too easy to forget, provide the almost melodramatic background for the sordid scene now being enacted in the Senate Office Bullding’s No. 2 hearing room. In Lilienthal, President Tru- man selected one of the two or three men who have in recent years earned the title of great public servants. He has conserved the TVA resources, and raised the level of life in a whole vast region of this country which nad been sinking into poverty and devasta- tdon. In the Tennessee Valley, furthermore, he has set an example of decentralization of Government power, of democracy in action, of constant, friendly responsiveness to the will of those he served. When he was named, the immense majority of Americans told themselves, with a sigh of relief, that the President had chosen the best man avafiable to handle the biggest administrative job in the country. He is now under attack by a survivor of the Paleozoic era of American politics, an aged Senator who has lived all his potitical life by the greedy pursuit of pork and pa- tronage, and hates Lilienthal only because these insatiable appetites of his were not ade- quately catered to by the TVA. Yet a suf- ficient number of other Senators are joining Genstor Kenunera MocKewusr to make it doubtful whether Lilienthal will be con- firmed. They are doing so, moreover, al- thought they well understand McKx12.2's motives; although they know the charges against Lilienthal are trumped-up nonsense; and although this man, accused of commu- nism, has answered his accuser with the best etatement of the meaning of Gemocracy that America has heard in the past decade. That, Quite, literally, is the scene that meets the eye these days at the Capitol, with the omi- nous question of life or death for its dark backdrop. ‘What is the explanation? The mere pres- ence of McKearz in the Senate has made most of his colleagues reasonably seif-con- acious for a good many years. If no one be- Nieves his charges, and no one admires his character, where on earth does his support come from? The answer, which is very simple, comes in two parts. It is significant, first of all, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the firat voice to be raised against Liitenthal after that of MCEKXELLar should have been the voice of Senator Srvias Bamoss, of New . Bemexs’ burning conviction that the views of the power lobby were the also significant that one of the two or three atomic committee members probably op- posed to Lilienthal should be Senator Racxu- ARD Russet, of Georgia, which is about the only remaining State where the power peo- pie have a real grip on local politics, These are straws in the wind which paint to an important truth. The majority of the American power industry has gained in wiedom in the past 14 years. atill a strong minority who talk of free en- terprise and mean freedom to behave in the manner of Samuel Insull, and blather of bling hands they regard as safe. Secondly, a good many Republicans are beginning to be gripped with a reaction of piain, narrow partisanship. Even Senator Roser A. Tart, the Republican leader, ts an- derstood to favor rejection of Lillenthal's nomination on the stmple ground that he ts a New Dealer, without furthe- reference to the merits of the case. The idea is that the Sen- ate must teach President Truman a lesson. Truman must be shown that nothing even faintly tinged with any reminiacence of the accomplishments of the last 14 years will be tolerated for an instant. It may or may not be true that Senator Tarr subscribes to this extraordinary doctrine which implies that the golden age ended with the defeat of President Hoover. But a good many Sena- tors, such as the loquacious former under- taker, KennerH Werery, have taken this position. Thus far, on the other hand, there is every indication that Tarr’s coleader, Senator ArR- THUR H. VaMDENSERG, will show in this con- nection the same grasp of the realities of modern life that he has shown before. It is difficult to believe that he or ahy other sen- sible Republican can expect the party to forge on to victory bearing a banner with the strange device: “Back to Herbert Hoover, Caivin Coalidge, and Warren Gamatiel Harding.” Xen Hicks, Senior Circuit Jadge, Sixth Cir- cuit, One of America’s Great Jurists EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ESTES KEFAUVER IN THE HOUSE OF REP: TATIVES Tuesday, February 18, 1947 Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. Speaker, Judge Xen Hicks, whose home is at Clinton, Tenn., is one of the Nation’s most capa- bie and well-loved jurists. The February 1947 taeue of the American Bar Associa- tion Journal contains an excelient sketch of Judge Hicks. In his serenty-fifth year, he is completing 34 years of dili- gent service in the courts of Tennessee and of the United States. He has served 24 years on a Federal bench, nearly 19 years of which has been in his present court. His long, capable, and splendid service has gained for him the admira-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD tion and respect of members of the bar, not only in his own circuit but through- out the United States. The American Law Journal’s article is as follows: SKETCH oF JUDGE HICKS While five senior circuit judges have served longer than he on the Federal bench, only one received his judicial commission before Judge Xen Hicks began his career in the State courts of Tennessee. Judge Hicks is a product of east Tennes- see—a region unique and celebrated in song and story. Most east Tennesseans are indi- vidualists, have strong convictions, and are undisturbed by their nonconformity to the mores of the State's other two “grand divi- sions” as they are referred to in the Ten- nessee Constitution—middle and west Ten- nessee. They have adhered to the Republican Party since its formation and at each bien- nial session of the Tennessee General Assem- bly their senators and representatives form an articulate and effective minority. During the Confederate War the east Tennesseans were not only overwhelmingly Unionist in sympathy but no area with a comparable pop- ulation furnished more volunteer soldiers to the Northern armies. A native east Tennessean who served 4 years as a Federal soldier was Judge Hicks’ father, William R. Hicks. After the war he was elected judge of the circuit court—Ten- nessee's nisi prius court of general jurisdic- tion. He must have accomplished the diffi- cult task of giving general satisfaction to the lawyers of his circuit, for Judge Hicks is the possessor of a gold-headed cane which the bar of the circuit presented as a token of esteem to his father. Judge Hicks was born 74 years sgo—l4 yeurs before his father went on the bench—in the small mountain town of Clinton. At 19 he was graduated from a nearby college, sig- nificantly named for Gen. U. S. Grant. For his law course he went to Tennessee's blue- grass country and the law school of Cumber- land University, then one of the most re- nowned of the South. He and his classmate and roommate, Chief Justice Grafton Green, of the Supreme Court of Tennessee, received their LL. B.’s in 1892, Shortly thereafter Judge Hicks returned home and entered upon active practice. CONDITIONS OF HIS EARLY PRACTICE While Judge Hicks has always maintained his home at Clinton, in his practice he rode the circuit through several east Tennessce counties. His career at the bar fitted him to meet the most rigorous requirements of those who believe that trial experience is an essential qualification for any judge. Op- portunities were abundant. One proposition from which no Tennessee appellate judge has ever dissented is that more litigation orig- inates in east Tennessee than in all the rest of tne State combined; indeed, some have gone so far as to hold that during the period when Judge Hicks was at the bar, all major controversies of the mountaineers and most minor ones eventually found their way into court. The east Tennessean is inclined to the view that no lawyer is entitled to retain his license unless he is able to hold his own in the give and take of the courtroom. Physically and mentally vigorous, fearless and forceful in advocacy, Judge Hicks participated in the trial of probably every kind of a case—civil or criminal—that later came before him as a State or Federal trial judge. His capacity for work is demonstrated by the fact that during this busy period he found time to serve in many public posi- tions—among others, city attorney, county attorney, member of the State senate, and assistant prosecuting attorney. In the two Gecades of his practice he permitted himself only one sabbatical year during which he served as a captain in the Sixth United States Volunteer Infantry in the Spanish-American War. TEN YEARS OF SERVICE ON THE STATE BENCH In the last half century Tennessee has had only two Republican Governors. Of these, Ben W. Hooper was a highly controversial character, but even middle and west Ten- nessee Democrats are said to admit that he performed some creditable ucts. One of these was his selection in 1913 of Judge Hicks as Judge of the criminal and law court of the second circuit. The appointment evidently met with the approval of the pcople of the circuit, for when the court became a circuit court, Judge Hicks was in 1914 elected circuit judge without opposition, and in 1918, again without opposition, reelected for a second term. He served an-even decade on the State bench, until he was appointed United States district judge in 1923. . These were full years. Most of the circuit was mountainous, Two of its counties were inaccessible by railroad, and at that timé few of the highways were even graded. To get to Hancock County, Judge Hicks had to travel overland for 40 miles over one moun- tain and across two rivers which were fre- quently swollen. Fentress County was equally inaccessible. HELD IN HIGH RESPECT BY THE PEOPLE These mountain people liked Judge Hicks and he liked them. He once described them as “on the whole honest, intelligent, debt- paying, God-fearing folk." They had great respect for the courts. Young and old alike stood uncovered in Judge Hicks’ presence and all made way for him as he walked from his lodgings to the courthouse. Typical of these people is Alvin York, who was born and still lives in Fentress County. Judge Hicks, of course, knew Alvin York and all the members of his family, for he was as well acquainted with the people of his circuit as he was with his fellow townsmen at Clinton. The difficulty of travel was not the only burden imposed by this rugged circuit. The dockets were heavy, and Judge Hicks had hard work in disposing of them. Some of the counties were criss-crossed by railroads and dotted with coal mines and other in- dustries which gave rise to intricate and im- portant litigation. So absorbing were Judge Hicks’ duties that he was at home only 3 or 4 weeks a year. Many of the cases tried before him were appealed to the Supreme Court of Tennessee, but few were reversed. Nineteen twenty was an especially onerous year for Judge Hicks; that year he presided in 20 trials for murder, resulting in 18 con- victions. All of the death sentences were appealed and affirmed, and there were seven electrocutions, APPOINTMENT AS A FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGE It was because of his excellent record as a State trial judge that President Harding in 1923 nominated Judge Hicks as United States district judge for the eastern and middle districts of Tennessee, to succeed Judge Ed- win T. Sanford, who had been elevated to the Supreme Court of the United States. The transition from the State to the Fed- eral bench was quickly accomplished. Most of Judge Hicks’ work had been done in the eastern district, which embraced the entire east Tennessee “grand division” of the State, including Judge Hicks’ old circuit. Except for those which contained the cities of Knox- ville and Chattanooga, most of the counties of the district were similar to those with which Judge Hicks was already so intimately acquainted. He therefore came to the Fed- eral bench with a thorough knowledge of the people, the problems, and the business of his district, Moreover, he had previously had consid- erable practice in the Federal courts, and was familiar with all the categories of litigation A595 which were likely to come before it. On the State bench Judge Hicks had become well versed in the judicial process and had proved himself extraordinarily capable. However, for 10 years he had had no contact with Fed- eral practice and procedure. Cases tricd under the Conformity Act gave him no con- corn, for his varied experience as circuit judge had made him an expert in Tennessee practice. But he was required by force of circumstances to master quickly the unique intricacies of the old Federal practice, for he was confronted with a heavy task. When he left the district bench its docket was current, That this was accomplished without any sacrifice of justice is evidenced by the fact that of 57 of his decisions which were appenied, all but 6 were affirmed. ELEVATION TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS On the nomination of President Coolidge, Judge Hicks became a member of the circuit court of appeals on June 12, 1928. For 9 years he has been the senior circuit judge for the sixth circuit. Since the organization of the circuit courts of appeals in 1890, the sixth circuit has con- sistently had an excellent record in the ad- ministration of justice. Above the bench in the courtroom at Cincinnati are the por- traits of three judges (Howell E. Jackson, Horace H. Lurton, and William R. Day) who went from it to the Supreme Court, and of one (William Howard Taft) who became Chief Justice of the United States. MARKED DIVERSITY IN THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No doubt one reason why its opinions are So frequently cited is the great variety of the questions with which it has dealt. This is the result in part of the marked diversity of the area which comprises it. It slices the heart of the Nation from north to south— from the Canadian border to the north line of the Gulf State—Mississippi. Cases come to it from “the western waters’—the Ohio and Mississippi; from the Great Lakes; from the Ohio farm lands and the cotton planta- tions along its southern boundary; from the blue-grass country and the mountains of Kentucky and Tennessee; from the great in- dustrial cities of Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Detroit. The sixth has escaped few problems that have been posed for any other circuit court of appeals east of the Mississippi. It has had its quota of cases in the specialized fields of admiralty and patent law. Some of the sea- coast circuits have decided more admiralty cases, but the sixth is near the top in dealing with important patent litigation. Although when Judge Hicks became a cir- cuit judge he had had little experience in patent work, he demonstrated his balanced judicial competency by quickly mastering its intricacies, and has written 48 percent opin- ions, covering a wide range from foundation garments for women to a method of carbure- tion for multiple-cylindered engines. The work of the court has constantly in- creased. Prior to Judge Hicks’ appointment it consisted of three judges; he became the fourth member when Congress authorized an additional judge. There are now six circuit judges and during the same period the num- ber of district judges in the circuit has been increased from 10 to 20. SCOPE AND VARIETY OF JUDGE HICKS’ OPINIONS During his incumbency as circuit judge, Judge Hicks has sat in 2,180 cases and has written opinions, including dissents, in 467 cases. Unlike some judges, he has specialized in no particvlar field’ one of his salient characteristics is his versatility in dealing with significant cases of first impression. He presided over the initial sitting of his court en bane and wrote the opinion in the first treason case to reach a United States appel- late court—an opinion that admirably dis- closes the meticulous care he exercises in disposing of every substantial insistence
A596 made in an important case. He interpreted the Lindbergh (Kidnapping) Act, holding that the jury was warranted in recommend- ing the death penalty under the facts of the case and affirming the sentence. He es- tablished liability for double assessment of stockholders of a hokitng company which in turn owned the stock of defunct national banks. He limited the bargaining rights, under NLRA, of armed guards and others who had taken an oath as military police of the United States Government, empha- sizing the obligation of the Nationa) Labor Board to perform its duties in the interest of the public. Only one of Judge Hicks’ opinions negates the validity of an act of Congress. This he'd unconstitutional, on the ground that there must be a logical connection between the proven and presumptive facts, a ttatute enacting that a flrearm found itn the posscs- sion of one who had been convicted of a crime of violence would be presumed to have been transported in interstate commerce in violation of the Federal Firearms Act. Nor has Judge Hicks been inclined to invalidate State legislation. Typical of this attitude 1s his opinion holding the Tennessee poll-tax requirement for voting constitutional, even as to election of a Federal official, In this in- stance a Representative in Congress. Although few circuit judges have more frequently voted to affirm criminal cases, Judge Hicks is always alert for any substan- tin) invasion of the rights of the accused. He is inclined to pay close attention to any claim that evidence has been improperly obtained, and is not reluctant to reprehend Officers for the improper or careless use of firearms. In such cases his conclusions rest—to use the language of Judge Joseph C. Hutcheson, Jr., which he once quoted— “not so much upon a higher critical exami- nation of the accumulated decisional gloss as upon a common-sense determination.” Thus, in a case where the Supreme Court reversed because the record suggested that confessions were improperly obtained, he did not upon another appeal hesitate to write an affirmance of a second conviction when he believed that on the new trial the Government had sufficiently proved that no atatutory or constitutional right of the accused had been invaded. An opinion of Judge Hicks’ which is fre- quently cited and relied upon is an excellent exposition of the scope of review by an appellate court of an order of the National Labor Relations Board. Judge Hicks has always enjoyed the equity side of the dockets in both the district and appellate courts; he has also maintained his keen interest in questions of practice and procedure. In an involved reorganization case he welcomed the opportunity to discuss the weight to be given the findings of the master and district judge, writing as always succinetly and with admirable lucidity. The reluctance of the Supreme Court to deal with common-law questions has so in- creased that only 1 of its 137 opinions delivered during the last term was without some Federal question. The result is that the circuit courts of appeals have become in reality courta of last resort for a large number of cases in which the jurisdiction of the district court was based solely upon diversity of citizenship. Judge Hicks’ 10 years as a Btate judge and 5 years as a dis- trict judge have admirably equipped him for deciding cases of this nature. Ilustrative of his approach and reasoning are his opinions in three leading cases: One fixing the common-law liability of bank directors for negligence in supervising the activities of the bank's officers; another con- atruing a clause in an insurance policy deny- ing recovery of double indemnity for death where insured “participates in aviation or aeronautics” so as to permit recovery where death of a passenger resulted from the crash of a commercial air liner; and a third apply- ing the law of libel to almost incredible facts of mistaken identity. Judge Hicks, despite the eminence to which he has attained, does not flinch from laboring in the dreary fields of “facts.” His training and experience have conditioned him to respect the realities; he does not de- cide cases in vacuo. Rather, with painstak- ing care and self-effacement he examines the data included in the printed record; he mar- shals, rearranges, analyzes, synthesizes it; he brings it to life and traces it from a defi- nite point of beginning through a charted course to a point of conclusion—and inexor- ably his legal conclusions are shaped by this process, Cases that turn upon the common law probably most accurately disclose Judge Hicks’ methods and best illustrate the style of his opinions. There is always a willing- ness to follow binding authority; there are few citations, and these only of cases directly in point; no authority is relied upon without having been carefully examined—not even an earlier opinion written by himself. When the law is not definitely settled there is rarely an attempt to deduce a rule from a multitude of conflicting cases or from obligue opinions of other fudges; instead, the holding is based upon reason and the dictates of justice. There is no pontification, no generalization, no dictum. The sentences are lean and de- void of ornament, the opinion succinct. Words are used for their precise denotations, not their sugerestive connotations. Clarity, not fine writing, ts the objective. His métier is neither the sparkling epigram nor the quotable phrase, but exact exposition, He is of the schoo] of Hughes, not that of Holmes or Cardozo, TERSENESS AND RESTRAINT ON THE BENCH Always there ts a terseness amounting al- most to reticence which is characteristic of Many east Tennesseans. On the bench he is not an overspeaking judge. If he does not gO quite so far as St. Paul and suffer gladly those who speak unwisely and beside the point, at least he does suffer them patiently. He always permits counsel to open his case fully; indeed, he rarely at any stage interjects a@ remark or question, and then only when the thread of argument disappears in a fog of obscurity or when there is an obvious waste of time. This reserve of Judge Hicks’ is not @ recently acquired trait. Not only was it noticeable when he first went on the circuit bench, but he was never loquacious as a dis- trict judge. The young lawyer who appears at the open- ing of court at 9 a. m. for enrollment and im- mediately thereafter argues his first case is usually so impressed by Judge Hicks’ dignity and silent restraint that he thinks he senses about the senior judge and the court an aura of austerity. Experience, however, soon con- vinces him that the stxth circuit court is @ delightful tribunal before which to argue a case. That experience almost always begins that same afternoon, when he is taken to Judge Hicks’ chambers for a personal intro- duction. He is likely to find the dignified gowned judge of the morning with his coat off and his office in disarray, hard at work on _an opinion or some probiem of court admin- istration. Genial and companionable as well as infer- mal, Judge Hicks is never too busy to greet either an old friend or a young lawyer. No one meets him without being impressed by his naturalness and his unaffected interest in individuals, and few leave him without having enjoyed his quiet humor. The for- tunate learn that he ts a gifted raconteur with a seemingly inexhaustible fund of fresh and pungent stories, racy of his beloved mountains. When one reflects that this senior judge has not only a gentle sense of humor and liking for and understanding of people but APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD is a practicalist, not a dogmatist; is tolerant of the views of others and always willing to have his own challenged; that he wears no pride of office; then perhaps one has in part at least the clue to the unusual harmony which prevails in the sixth circuit court of appeals. If one could penetrate the con- ference room one would find the presiding judge always poised and quietly attentive to the divergent views expressed by his col- leagues and would hear them affectionately refer to him as the Captain. No lawyer at least will argue that any mundane judge has ever been invariably right; but Judge Hicks’ admirers can claim for him that he has never been betrayed into any hasty or insufficiently considered utterance or action on the bench, in conference or in performing his adminis- trative duties. Those who know him best will not be surprised to learn that of the 208 opinions which he has written since he has been senior judge only 7 have been dissents, or that in the 940 cases in which he has sat during that time only 27 dissenting opinions have been filed. Even more revealing is the fact that not one of these dissenting opin- jons, by whomever written, contains any ill- tempered language or caustic reference to the views of any other member of the court. Judge Hicks can spare little time from his Judicial duties for outside activities. When he is in need of rest or recreation some Antaeus-like instinct sends him buck to his old home at Clinton. On its spacious grounds there is a magnificent grove of ancient trees which the judge refers to as his judicial forest. Many of the oaks and elms have been named for those he admires in the judiciary. A mighty elm, towering above all the others, he long ago christened “Old John Marshall.” Resolution of Council of Lithuanian Secieties ef Baltimore EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. LANSDALE G. SASSCER OF MARYLAND IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, February 18, 1947 Mr. SASSCER. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I include in the Recorp the attached resolution of the Council of Lithuanian Societies of Baltimore. I hope that our Government will wholeheartedly support the principles and objectives of this resolution, and that we will not only continue to recog- nize the sovereignty of the Republics of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia but that we shal] exert our effort and influence to the reestablishment of those Republics. The resolution follows: RESOLUTION UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED AT THE TWENTY-MINTH ANNIVERSARY OBSERVANCE OF THE “REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA INDEPENDENCE DAY,” ALSO STATE OF MARYLAND GOVERNOR'S PROCLAMATION HELD UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE COUNCIL OF LITHUANIAN SOCIETIES OF BALTIMORE OM FEBRUARY 16, 1947 Whereas the oppressed peopie of Lithuania are unable to express their grievances, de- fend their rights and voice their view in against the incorporation of Lithu- ania into the Onion of Soviet Socialist Re- publics; and Whereas we, as citizens of the United States of America, are deeply concerned with the destiny of Lithuania and especially her right to be recognised as a free and inde-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD pendent nation: Now, therefore, be it and it is hereby Resolved, That we urgently appeal to the Government of the United States to fulfill- ment of its policy declarations and in par- ticular the following: 1. To continue to recognize the sovereignty of the Republics of Lituania, Latvia, and Estonia; , 2. To protect and assist Lithuanian refu- gees in Europe; .8. To insist that free and unfettered elec- tions be held in Lithuania; 4. To adhere to the twelve points, as ex- pressed by President Truman; 5. That Russia immediately withdraw her armed forces and secret police from Lithu- anian territory. ANTHONY J. MICEIKA, President. Vera MIKUSAUCKAS, Secretary. Address by Hon. George D. Aiken, of Vermont,-on Problems of Today EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CHARLES W. TOBEY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, February 19, 1947 Mr. TOBEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have inserted in the Appendix of the REcorp a thought- provoking address delivered by the dis- tinguished senior Senator from Vermont (Mr. AIKEN] before the Vermont State Legislature on February 4, 1947. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: At no time since history began have the people of the world been faced with such complex and multiple problems as they are today World War II resulted in the elimination of distance; in the development of the means to destroy entire cities or nations from re- mote points of vantage, and in other devel- opments of science far beyond the stage which we have reached in our social and moral progress; Regardless of where scientific knowledge Originates today, it soon becomes known in all parts of the world. Race and color are no barriers in the ac- quisition of such knowledge. Conflicting ideologies of government have divided the world into nationalistic groups, distrustful of one another. The peoples of the Orient, comprising half the world's population, are seething with restlessness, a restlessness accentuated by the scientific advancements of the war and the political promptings of strife-provoking ideologists both from within and without. Seventy-five percent of the world’s inhabi- tants are chronically in fear of famine, and they look hopefully and enviously, even covetously, upon those few nations where fortune has smiled more generously. The United States holds the paradoxical position of being the most fortunate nation on earth today, while at the same time we would be the first great nation marked for destruction in the event that human minds cannot devise a means of preventing fur- ther war. Our people comprise about 7 percent of the tvorid’s population. We own only 9 percent of the world's re- sources and yet control over the concen- trated wealth of the world lies largely in our hands. We have tremendous political and eco- nomic power today—power which if used wisely can lead the world to a better day for all. Yet, with this clear obligation to lead before us, we are, as a Nation, confused in our thinking and conflicting in our policies. Since fortune has placed in our hands a power and a duty such as has never rested in a naticn before, we ought, above all else, to maintain the ability to continue this leadership and to exercise it wisely. That means we must, first of all, keep our own Nation strong. Such determination will not conflict in the least with our duties to the rest of the world. Uniess we maintain strength commensu- rate with our responsibilities, we cannot ex- pect to retain such leadership. How can we continue to keep the United States the strongest nation in the word? We can do this by simply making use of the resources which we possess. The first and most tmportant of these re- sources is our human wealth—the men and women who make up our population. Upon them all else depends. Taerefore, it is our duty to see that we are prepared not only to accept our responsibili- ties as a nation but that as individuals we are prepared mentally, morally, and physi- cally to perform our duties in this respect. No matter is of more vital importance thau the adequate education of our children. We are learning to our sorrow what failure to give heed to the needs of education means to cur country. It cost us untold billions of dollars during the late war. I am told that it cost the Army $175 per month per person to teach grown men how to spell “cat” and “dog” with wooden blocks, ag compared with a cost of $100 per year to provide a fairly good education in childhood. Education in the United States today is backed up against the wall. Only a very small percentage of our young people are willing to embark upon the teaching profes- sion. Since 1939, 350,000 public-school teach- ers have quit their work. We must face this problem, and face it without delay. It is very gratifying to see that Vermont is cognizant of this situation and intends to do something about it. Education, however, is not a matter for each State to deal with by itself, but has become a first-grade national problem. A large percentage of our people do not settle down and make their living in the State where they received their education, and an uneducated person from New England may become a human liability in some other part of the country in later years. Further than that, the wealth of our Na- tion, although created in all States, has be- come largely concentrated in a few populous centers. I believe that while States and communi- ties should never be relieved of the respon- sibility for educating their children and should have the duty and authority to do this, that the time has come when, through the Federal Government, we should tax the wealth of the Nation wherever it is to be found and redistribute such funds collected wherever the need is. It was this belief that prompted me to introduce a bill into this Congress which would put a floor of $100 per pupil under the education of every child in America and insure this minimum education to all our boys and girls. I would eventually have the Federal Gov- ernment be responsible for collecting and distributing funds equal to about one-third the cost of all education in our elementary and secondary schools. A597 This would be accomplished through the ultimate contribution of 860 per pupil to the education of every child in the public schools of every State. Every dollar of such contribution would be spent under the authority of the State itself. I also hold that the health and welfare of each child is of equal importance to us na- tionally, regardless of where he attends school. Therefore, I would also make available a contribution which would provide from $20 to $30 per pupil toward the maintenance of health and educational facilities in non- taxable, nonprofit private schools, of which Vermont has a great many. The proposals embodied in my bill will cost the Nation considerable money in terms of dollars, but actually less than 1 percent of our national income. Those who advocate a floor of 640 per pupil for education are proposing a totally inadequate means of meeting the situation, for the State that spends the least per capita on education today spends 643 per pupil. We must decide whether an adequate edu- cation for all is worth the cost. I balieve it is. I believe that such an expenditure would be an excellent investment which would yield returns far out of proportion to the cost. I do not know what the Co ‘gress will do about Federal aid to education, but I be- lieve that whatever we do, we should do right, with a view to having the best-edu- cated nation in the world and not to offer this aid as a political sop to a restless voting public. Next to an adequate education, in the conservation and development of our na- tional resources, I would place the health of our people. We learned during the war that by neg- lecting the health of our youth we had wasted resources of a greater value than the entire cost of providing adequate medical and hospital care to all our people would have been. We ought to be shocked and chagrined at the revelations which exposed our neglect of this resource. I am particularly pleased that your Gov- ernor has placed so much emphasis upon the maintenance of good health in our schools, and I don’t believe that Vermont is going to further neglect this obligation as far as it lies within the State’s power to meet it. The Federal Government is doing much toward this end. The present Congress will continue to make contributions to im- proved health now that the need has been so tragically shown. Next to the conservation of human re- sources, the proper utilization of our natu- tal resources is of vital importance. Our soil, our mineral, our forest, and our water resOUrces must command our atten- tion if we are to remain nationally strong and prosperous. Although America has produced record- breaking crops during the last few years, we have now exhausted the virgin fertility of the soil until this year nearly every part of the United States is demanding large amounts of commercial fertilizer in order to maintain food production on a level which the needs of the world demand. Only a few short years ago, the use of commercial fertilizer was practically un- known in the grain-producing areas of this country. We must restore and maintain soil fer- tility if we are to avoid the predicament of many overpopulated Old World nations. An effort will be made in the Congress to reduce the soil-building program by one- third. The President has recommended it in his Budget message.
A598 I believe it would be a shortsighted policy to further deplete our topsoil, on which the life of the individual and the Nation ulti- mately depends, in order to save $100,000,- 000. Our soil and our forests are basic founda= tions of our economic life which must be preserved at all costs. One of the greatest problems facing the Nation today is the shortage of electrical energy. Even those areas where a few years ago it was thought the power supply would be adequate to meet demands for many years into the future are now beginning to feel the pinch. This lack is likely to be felt most keenly in northeastern United States, and particu- larly in New England. I recently made an inquiry of the Federal Power Commission regarding the supply and demand of the power companies doing busi- ness in Vermont and was advised that the demand has already exceeded the dependable supply. Tre area covered by these compa- nies covers all New England States, except Maine. Let me quote from the letter which I received from the Federal Power Commis- sion: “The conservatively estimated peak load of 686,540 kilowatts for 1946 exceeds the pres- ent assured capacity by 9 percent and is actually higher than the scheduled capacity for 1947, which will not be available until the latter half of this year.” Thus it appears that, with a rapidly in- creasing need, there is virtually no possi- bility of an expansion of industry using sub- stantial amounts of electric energy in Ver- mont and no possibility of supplying all farm homes with the power they will need when electrical equipment becomes available and hundreds of miles more of lines are con- structed, unless we develop additional sources of power, The only sites in the Northeast offering large sources of power which can be devel- oped at low cost are those on the St. Law- rence River and the Niagara Falls. Here is approximately 2,000,000 horsepower going to waste while our industry and our farms and our homes are restricted. Right now our industries can find markets for all they produce; but, once production equals demand, many of them will be unable to meet the competition from more favored sections and will have to move away or go out of business unless our power and trans- portation facilities are improved. It seems so foolish for us to tolerate the obstruction of developments which would bring to us the greatest industrial advan- tages enjoyed by any part of North America. In addition to the need for electrical energy, we need better transportation facili- ties of all kinds not only in Vermont but in the entire Nation. The highway-building program must be expanded. The development of airports of all sizes must go on. Waterways which will provide cheap trans- portation for certain kinds of freight must be developed. Yet, down in Washington high-paid lobby- ists are at work day and night to prevent the expansion of these transportation facilities upon which the greater future of the United States depends, For a generation, the over-all growth of Vermont has remained stagnant, and it will remain so until the people of this State join with the people of other States in sweeping aside obstructionists and the disciples of scarcity and high prices. Any discussion of the work lying before the Eightieth Congress would, of course, be incomplete if no mention were made of the great mass of proposed labor iegisiation which confronts us, Legislation of this nature ie uppermost in the minds of a great many people. During the years of war, labor and industry tolled heroically and almost without inter- ruption to set a record for production far beyond anything the world has ever seen. Although both wages and profits were high, the strain of the war left its marks upon the industrialist and upon his employees. Nerves on both sides were taut, and, with the ending of the war with Japan, tempers which had heretofore been restrained flared up and disputes which had so far been adjudicated solely by Government orders again erupted. Millions of civilian workers and employers who had been afflicted with war nerves and laboring under Government controls and restraints threw off these shackles and the accumulated grievances of 4 years of war burst into the open. The series of crippling strikes which oc- curred late in 1945 and the year 1946 were part of the price we had to pay for war. The coal miners’ strike of December 1946 brought home to both employers and em- ployees the realization that a continuance of these strikes would inevitably bring about a change in our form of government. This realization apparently had a sobering effect upon all believers in democracy and the free enterprise system. Right now there 1s a greater willingness to practice genuine collective bargaining on the part of both employers and the unions then there has been for years. There is rapidly increasing evidence that labor and industry are more willing to settle their differences the Vermont way, which is aimply the application of common sense on the part of both. The country is virtually rid of strikes to- day and there is good reason to believe that we can enjoy a long “period of prosperity for both industry and labor. However, the paralyzing effect of the coal strike created an almost universal demand for Congressional action to protect the Na- tion in the future. Congress now has dozens of bills before it for action. Some new laws will be en- acted. Labor leaders privately admit that some of the positions they have taken in the past are untenable. Industry as a whole is more interested in continuous and profitable production than it is in getting even with certain union leaders. I believe that the Congress will enact legis- lation which will make clearer the responsi- bilities which both employers and the unions have to the Nation. I do not believe that any legislation which would destroy the unions or deprive the workingman of the rights guaranteed him by our Constitution will become law at this session of Congress. In considering the over-all problems of la- bor relations, we should divide labor dis- turbances into two classes—those which cause national paralysis, such as strikes in coal mines and railroads, and strikes of a different nature where the controversy lies principally between a private employer and those who work for him. The problem of the Congress is to find some way whereby strikes causing national paraly- sis will be eliminated from the economic scene without doing violence to our form of government, The correct solution is not easy to find, but I feel that substantial progress will be made in eliminating the threat of disastrous labor disturbances for some years to come. In addition to these issues IJ have men- tioned, there are other categories of work which will devolve upon the new Congress. There is, for example, the question of clari- fying the relationship between the Federal Government and State governments, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD For nearly 15 years the State as a unit of government has been relegated more and more into a subordinate status while po- litical power has been concentrated more and more with the Federal Government. In the Eightieth Congress, however, we will undoubtedly see a greater clarification of the functions of both the State govern- ments and the Federal Government and a clearer definition of the responsibilities of each. The trend today is distinctly toward a re- turn of authority and responsibility to State and local governments. Perhaps this ts because State and local governments in general are better prepared financially to accept responsibilities than they have been for many years past. I do not mean to infer that the Federal Government is going to assume less impor- tance. Such a statement would not accord with the facts, but I do mean that State and local governments ought from now on to prepare themselves to accept greater respon- sibilities and to rely less upon Federal agen- cies when they become involved in difficulties. It so happens that one of the duties of the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, of which F am chairman, is to study the relationship of the Federal Gov- ernment to the States. I am fortunate in having on my commit- tee five ex-governors besides myself, who are amply qualified to make such a study. We are authorized under the law not only to study State-Federal relationships as re- late to grant-in-aid, but also such other matters as a division of the fleld of taxation between the States and the Federal Govern- ment. I do not want anyone to expect too quick results from this study because it is a Jong, hard job in itself, and is only one of the many duties which devolve upon this com- mittee. You may be interested to know that the committee is also charged with the duty of studying the operations of government at all levels, with a view to determining its effi- ciency and economy. I sincerely hope that before we get through we may be able to imbue the Federal Gov- ernment with some degree of the economy and efficiency for which the Vermont Btate government is traditionally well known. This does not mean that we should blindly oppose the spending of money—even the taxpayers’ money. Through tax money well spent, we are able to obtain benefits for all of us which we could never hope to achieve as individuals or groups. Our aim should be, and the aim of my committee will be, to see that we get the max- imum value possible out of every dollar spent; to see that every dollar spent by Government is spent as an investment which will yield satisfactory returns on that dollar. This thought brings me to the subject which is perhaps most widely discussed in connection with the Eightieth Congress. That is the subject of tax reduction, debt re- duction, and lower expenses of Government, After last fall‘’s election, I was disturbed when prominent leaders of my party an- nounced that we would seek a reduction in the budget to §80,000,000,000 or lees and would give the income-tax payer a flat cut of 20 percent straight across the board. Perhaps it was the flush of victory that prompted such promises and predictions, but now that the Congress is in session, we are faced with the cold, bare facts and must realise that we can neither cut the Federal spending this year to less than $30,000,000,- 000 nor reduce taxes 20 percent across the board if our governmental economy is to ree main on a sound basis. The principal expenses of the Federal Gov- ernment today are for interest on our na- tional debt, payments for services to veter- ans, and the expenses of maintaining our
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD armed services both here and throughout the world, The budget request for these items alone amounts to about $24,000,000,000, or three times the total expense of the Federal Gov- ernment before the war. Add to this the amount needed for tax refunds, for fixed foreign commitments, and for social security payments required by law, and you have $30,000,000,000 right there. With the exception of national defense costs, there is no chance of reducing these fixed commitments. While the request for the armed services will probably be cut somewhat and there is an opportunity to eliminate wastefulness in these services, yet the world today is not in such condition politically that we can afford to weaken the defenses upow which the se- curity of our Nation depends. Besides these items, all the rest of the re- quests for Government expenses this year amount to only between six and seven bil- lion dollars. There is undoubtedly a chance to reduce these amounts somewhat, but we cannot ap- proach very closely the post-election enthusi- asm and optimism of those who predicted a reduction of over $10,000,000,000 in Govern- ment expenses this year. Not only should we not gamble with the safety of our country, but we should make adequate provision for a substantial reduc- tion in the two-hundred-and-sixty-odd-bil- lion-dollar national debt which hangs like a “millstone around the neck of every American citizen, After we do this, we will know how much taxes can be lowered. We will reduce expenses. We will reduce ‘taxes somewhat, but we must not reduce them below the point which means the mar- gin of safety for all of us. In this talk today I have tried to call to your attention some of the more pressing problems with which the Nation and the Congress are confronted. They are not the only ones, by any means, and perhaps not the most serious ones, but they are indicative of the great task that lies before us. If one chooses to look only on the dark side, the future may seem very depressing indeed. However, we have had seemingly insoluble problems before. There have been times when things looked as hopeless as they do now and somehow or other we found the means to cope with our troubles and to come through stronger than ever before. I am confident in our ability to do so again, in spite of the fact that these prob- lems are more complex and of wider scope than ever before. I am optimistic that the entire world will emerge from the fog of uncertainty and dis- trust into a field of expanded social, eco- nomic, scientific, and political progress. We should not be depressed by the con- fusion which now engulfs us, but should lustily accept the challenge to bring about a healthier, happier, and more prosperous world. Wendell Willkie EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. WAYNE MORSE OF CREGON IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, February 19, 1947 Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, last night in New York City I delivered a speech commemorating the fifty-fifth anniversary of the birth of that great American whom I considered one of the greatest members of our party—Wen- dell Willkie. The speech is entitled “Wendell Willkie—One of the Great Ones.” I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Appendix of the REcoRD. There being no objection, the speech was ordered to be printed in the Rrc- ORD, as follows: WENDELL WILLKIE—-ONE OF THE GREAT ONES It is a great honor and a solemn, respon- sibility to speak words of tribute to the memory of Wendell Willkie. I am humbled by the honor. I fear that I cannot meet the responsibility except insofar as my lips freshen your memories of some of Wendell Willkie’s great words which were so pro- phetic of the issues and struggles which con- found the Nation and the world today. I speak not only out of deep admiration for Willkie as a man and a leader of men but also from the depths of my conviction that the dynamics of Willkie's social and political philosophy point the way to eco- nomic stability within our Nation and to peace among nations. Willkie’s abiding faith in the principles of human rights, civil liberties, racial tolerance, equality of economic opportunity for all, free of unfair discrimination because of race, color, or creed, the superiority of the dignity of the individual over liberty-destroying claims of the state, the importance of free education to free minds, is beautifully epitomized and memorialized in the living actions and humanitarian programs of Free- dom House. His code of human rights was the founda- tion upon which he built his “one world” philosophy. He knew what so many here at home, as well as abroad, still have to learn— that human rights cannot be nationalized or become the monopoly of any nation or any group within a nation because in their true essence they are the teachings of God. Willkie also knew that any political party which barters, sacrifices, or exploits human rights is bound, sooner or later, to write its own political doom. He warned us that in the new, and now very small, “one world,” that since his death has been made even smaller by the atomic bomb, no nation can live unto its selfish interests alone. Would that my Republican Party, through its lead- ers in Washington today, could grasp the full significance and true meaning of the great principles, teachings, and warnings which Wendell Willkie gave to his party and to his country. I wish to mention a few of them tonight, but before I do that I want to answer the small critics of that great man—some of them being so-called profes- sional liberals—who have tried to picture Willkie as a man who had changed. They describe him as an opportunist in business and as a naive amateur in politics who took a trip around the world, at the suggestion of Mr. Roosevelt, and suddenly learned some great principles. They charged that he had gotten religion. This myth was spread by such propaganda forces of reaction and blind nationalism as the Chicago Tribune. Nothing could be further from the truth as any seeker after the truth can see for himself if he studies the life of Wendell Willkie from boyhood until his untimely death. As a boy and as a student he had a deli- cate sensitivity for human wrongs. He be- leved that democratic government exists primarily to promote and advance human rights rather than the selfish economic in- terests of those who would return us to a laissez faire economy which feeds upon the exploitation of human beings for profit dol- lars. Wilikie’s liberalism was his convic- tions of youth put into adult practice. Thus between 1928 and 1926 he was a leader in northern Ohio against the Ku Klux Klan. He actively joined in fighting a great fight A599 against the Klan, which sought to gain con- trol of the schools in Akron. He was the manager of the campaign for the election of independent school-board commissioners who dared to oppose the Klan. Willkie, as a sound liberal back in those years, won that fight. Many of his liberal economic views and balanced understanding of labor problems undoubtedly developed from his association with his father, who was a labor lawyer in Indiana. Willkie’s one-world philosophy was a reiteration of principles that he had enunciated for many years. He greatly ad- mired Woodrow Wilson and was an ardent advocate of Wilson's League of Nations pro- gram. In fact, Philip Willkie has told me that his father made more than 1,000 speeches in Ohio and Indiana during the years 1919 and 1920 in behalf of the League of Nations. Yet there are those detractors who, for their own political purposes, want a Nation to believe that Wendell Willkie’s one- world philosophy was not deep-rooted in his convictions. No; the great leader who won the nomination of my party in 1940 in one of the few, if not the only, unbossed, spontaneous conventions in the history of the Republican Party, was a liberal all his life. A man of independence of judgment, who dared to stand up for his convictions against the hysteria of the crowd, a political leader who recognized that it is the duty of @ political party to stand first for sound principles and second for election. He knew that standing for just anything for election's sake in order politically to capitalize upon the prevailing prejudices and misinforma- tion of the people is the surest way to weaken and betray a political party. Some Republican leaders in Washington these days are beginning to comprehend the significance of that principle. It is not too late for the rank and file of Republicans throughout the country to make clear to those leaders that a return to the economic mistakes of the Republican Party of the 1920's will and should mean the repudia- tion of the Republican Party in 1948. I am convinced that the only long-time hope for the Republican Party and for the Nation is in a forward and not a backward direction. The heights to scale, the barricades to sur- mount, in the ever constant struggle but for- ward march for liberty and human happi- ness are still those so frequently referred to by Wendell Willkie. For those who will read and think, he has left a heritage not only of great words but of great challenges—chal- lenges of the ages, it is true, but we of this generation will record our progress or retro- gression by what we do toward advancing the causes of human freedom, which, in the last analysis, must rest upon a one-world philosophy of permanent peace. . This is no partisan challenge and no po- litical party should be allowed by the people of America to make the challenge of peace a partisan issue. One of Willkie’s great quali- ties was his nonpartisan ability to place country above party. Thus he joined with Franklin Roosevelt in supporting selective service, in approving the transfer of 50 de- stroyers to Great Britain, in urging the Na- tional ‘Defense Act, in supporting lend-lease, and in favoring the other defense programs so necessary in those dark days if America was to secure the precious time necessary to get herself ready to strike victorious blows in defense of human rights everywhere. He was bitterly assailed by those forces of re- action and isolationism for which some Re- publican leaders were spokesmen. However, Willkie refused to play partisan politics with the destiny of our country. In my opinion, his nonpartisanship on international issues was the highest type of loyalty to the Republican Party; was proof of his statesmanship in contrast with the parti- sanship of those Republican leaders who sought to play politics with national defense.
A600 I hope that the rank and file of my Repub- lican Party today will recognize that we have yet to win the peace and that we can- not afford to adopt a course of ac- tion on the national budget or trade policies or international economic responsibilities to &® war-torn world which may threaten that peace. On such issues all leaders in both of our great parties need to heed the lessons taught by the statesmanlike nonpartisanship of Willkie. Thus let me speak to you some of the words of Wendell Willkie. On March 21, 1044, he said: “There is an even better way to destroy a political party than by adopting tactics of negative partisanship, and that is, to take no stand on the issues at all. Men who view & political party as nothing more than a piece of machinery for gaining office are apt to resort to this tactic. * * * “In times of crisis, the American people have always been more concerned with is- sues than with personalities. A political party, therefore, which aspires to lead the country, in time of crisis, must face the issues and provide solutions for them. At such times trimmers and dodgers lead their party to destruction.” May I digress to say that one of my great disappointments and great disillusionments in politics has been the extent to which political leaders in both parties, and too fre- quently the party organizations themselves, evade the responsibility of intellectual hon- esty in dealing with issues. Wendell Willkie did not believe in being all things to all men. Neither did he believe in the political strat- egy of keeping them in doubt as to where you stand on an issue until after the votes are counted. Thus on one occasion he said: “This means that the leaders of the party must earn and hold their leadership, not through the manipulation of its machinery, but by dealing openly ani constructively with the issues of the time. And it must not determine its convictions about these issues by the poll-taking method.” In that last-quoted statement Wendell Willkie pointed out one of the greatest dan- gers that threatens representative govern- ment in America today, namely, pregsure- group politics. The notion is too prevalent that the men in the Congress of the United States should vote in accordance with the results of national polls or the pressure mail that they may receive on a given issue. When such polls of public opinion or such pressure-group tactics cannot be justified on the merits of the issue, then clearly the Willkie principle of voting one’s convictions born from the facts on the issue becomes the clear duty of a public official if he is to follow 8 course of political leadership rather than political fellowship. Last Friday I stated this Willkie principle on the floor of the Senate, when in a speech in opposi- tion to a blanket $6,000,000,000 cut in the budget, proposed by some Republican leaders, I said: “I do not know what businessmen as a whole, workers as a whole, or farmers as a class would say in a referendum on that issue if all the facts were presented to them, but I think it is my obligation as a Member of the Senate of the United States to consider all the economic facts and to reach an honest, independent judgment as to what is best for tke economic future of my country, and then vote accordingly. It is my duty to cast such a vote, even if an overwhelming majority of the American people think I should vote the other way. That happens to be a conviction of mine as to what the responsibility of a Member of the Senate is, because I do not share the notion that I should vote in accord- ance with pressure politics, All of us have seen American public opinion change over- night once it came to understand the real iasues at stake in a problem. My confidence in the long-time judgment of the American voters is so deep that I believe I can hear them saying to me by the millions, ‘Vote what you think the facts on this fiscal policy dictate.’” I think one of the greatest utterances of Willkie on the duty of a political party to adopt a progressive course of action was aet out by him in these words: “And this leads me to what is perhaps the most fundamental point of all. Life moves around us. Old problems are solved, new ones arise. New needs are created; new vistas are opened. Therefore a politica] party can never stand still. However great its achievements in the past, these alone do not entitie it to regard in the present. Its most cherished doctrines must all be subject to constant reexamination, constant revision. Those leaders of a party who insist on apply- ing old formulas to present problems merely because those formulas worked in the past are damaging the party and will eventually destroy it. For they are standing still, where- as the world around them moves.” One of the statements of Willkie's that I highly cherish, the rich meaning and sig- nificance of which I would like to have you share with me tonight, is the statement he made in answer to the charge that was raised against him that his liberal program of hu- man welfare could be accomplished only at the sacrifice of our American system of eco- nomic incentive and free enterprise. His answer to that argument is one which every member of the Republican Party should con- template today, because I consider it a com- plete answer to those reactionary forces with- in the Republican Party who are trying to lead this Nation backward to the mistakes of the 1920's. Here is what Wendell Willkie said on this issue: “The total result, consistently fostered by the administration, has been the illusion that there is an irrepressible and inevitable con- flict between a society built upon economic incentive and a society of human welfare. “This is not alone false; it is impossible in a free society. “Too long and too often have we been led to regard human values as the opposite rather than the supplement of the incentive system. We have been presented with the two alternatives. “Do you want security, or initiative? “Do you want protection, or adventure? “This is a factitious issue. We need both. Indeed we cannot have one without the other. We cannot have security in terms of an advancing standard of living without re- sponsible enterprise. We cannot have the Initiative and energy we need for an expand- ing economy without preserving and in- creasing the vigor of our human resources. “The Republican Party, alert and evolv- ing, must recognize this fact if it is to win the confidence of the people.” I hope that the great American business forces, sometimes referred to as big business, will recognize the soundness of this last- quoted statement from Willkie because they as well as the Republican Party, and the two are not synonymous—at least not yet—must be made to see that the strength of our pri- vate property enterprise system rests on the Gegree to which business working in coop- eration with a friendly government provides economic security and promotes the social welfare of all of our people. Let big business and both political par- ties never forget that the right to individual initiative and the lure of economic adven- ture provide little seourity or protection in the depths of a depression such as the busi- ness and political mistakes of the 1920's visited upon the American people in 1929. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Thus I might go on quoting from Will- kie's writings ene great tenet after an- other which embraced his sound political philosophy of true liberalism and which stemmed from his abiding faith in our sys- tem of political and economic democracy in America; a faith which recognized that Mberty for the individual will be lost in America if we ever sacrifice either our pri- vate-property economy gueranteed by the Constitution or the bill of human rights set forth in the Bill of Rights of that great charter of free government by freemen. However, I prefer to close not with Will- kie's words but with the words of Frances Holmstrom, who, with poetic beauty, paid great tribute to men such as Wendell Will- kie when she wrote her poem entitled “The Great Ones” if these words: “I know such souls—a few such souls—as these, Akin in grandeur fo the lonely trees Upon the mountain top; they breathe an air We of the valleys are too tame to share. They root in rock as we in well-tilled sod. They look afar, they stand nearby to God. They vision greatness that we may not know In sheltered quiet. When the tempests low The shock is theirs; they but repeat the tale Softly unto the dweller in the vale Who does not sense the struggle, till at last They yield themselves up to some mighty blast, And we emall folk, who hear the groan and fall, Bay, ‘In the night a tree fell.’ That is all.” David E. Lilienthal EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CHARLES W. TOBEY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, February 19, 1947 Mr. TOBEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp a very forth- right article by the esteemed corre- spondent and writer for the Baltimore Sun, Frank R. Kent, calling the atten- tion of the Congress, and particularly Members on my side of the aisle, to the opportunity they have to confirm the appointment of Mr. Lilienthal as a most constructive act. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Tue Great Game or Portrics—Potitica, Op- (By Frank R. Kent) In a few days now, after an intensely ugly and bitter fight which has aroused feeling in all parte of the country, the United States Senate will decide whether to confirm or reject the President's appointment of Mr. David E. Lilienthal, former head of the TVA, to become Chairman of the extremely vital Atomic Energy Commission. This is a fight which never should have taken place, It never would have taken piace save for the personal animosity Mr, Liltenthal of Senator McKxt1az, Democrat,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of Tennessee, one of the least admirable or esteemed Members of the Senate. For years Senator McKExiar has waged un- ceasing warfare upon Mr. Lilienthal. The original cause of his resentment was the re- fusal of Mr. Lilienthal to accord him pa- tronage rights in TVA appointments, which was certainly to Mr. Lilienthal’s credit. Since then Senator McKEtuar has missed no chance to strike at Mr. Lilienthal. Notwithstanding, Mr. Lilienthal has estab- lished an outstanding reputation as an able and efficient administrator. His character and courage as well as his competency also are generally recognized. In addition to these attributes, he is particularly qualified for this position by his knowledge of the subject, reflected in the Acheson-Lilienthal report, concededly the basis of the Baruch report. Indorsed by Secretary of War Patterson, Dr. Vannevar Bush, Bernard M. Baruch, and many others, he seems unquestionably the best qualified and available man for the job. The degrading efforts of Senator McKeELLar to Smear him, by themselves, would not have affected his overwhelming confirmation. But, unhappily, last week Senator MCKEL- LAR found unexpected support. First, there was a charge that the TVA under Mr. Lilien- thal had been infested with Communists and that he had done little about it. This charge was exploded long ago by the report of Rep- Tesentative STarnes, of Alabama, who, as chairman of a subcommittee operating under the eye of the vigilant Mr. Dies, made an in- vestigation and found it false. NOT CHARGED AS COMMUNIST No one, of course—not even Senator Mc- Kexrar, whose hatred of Mr. Lilienthal makes him willing to do pretty nearly anything— has charged that Mr. Lilienthal himself is sympathetic with Communism and no one could read his recent statement and enter- tain any doubt as to the undiluted quality of his Americanism. Actually, the only allegations at this time against Mr. Lilienthal, susceptible of proof, are that he was a devout follower of the late Mr. Roosevelt; that he was a strong New Dealer; that is, in fact, a “true liberal.” For these reasons apparently, most of the conservative Republicans and some conserva- tive Democratic Senators have swung against him and his confirmation is in doubt. Certainly, the writer of this column is not one to regard devotion to the late Mr. Roose- velt, the New Deal, and the “true liberalism” as desirable assets for public men in high posts—quite the reverse. Certainly, it is not the rule for men who can be thus classed to be noted for either unusual character or un- usual capacity—rare, indeed, when they are adequately endowed with both. But there are such men, and the over- whelming and convincing testiriony is that Mr. Lilienthal is one of them. When to this is added his special experience and attain- ments in the field of atomic energy, opposi- tion of the conservatives on the ground that he was a Roosevelt man and a New Dealer seems indefensible. If President Truman, for personal or politi- cal reasons, had passed over a better or as good a man as Mr. Lilienthal for this place there would be sound ground for opposition. But that is not the case and his rejection would render inevitable the nomination of an inferior man. WOULD PUT GOP IN BAD POSITION Obviously, Mr. Lilienthal’s present Senate ordeal would make the top men still more reluctant to serve. Under the circumstances, defeating Mr. Lilienthal would put the con- servatives—particularly the Republican con- servatives, because the blame would be on them—in a bad position. It will make them seem sO narrow, partisan, and prejudiced that they pushed aside the best available man in the Nation for this supremely important post, That is exactly what the late Mr. Roosevelt did in the recent war when, despite the fact that Mr. Herbert Hoover was concededly the most experienced and equipped man in the world to deal with the problem of food, he refused all suggestions to make him food administrator, turning the job over to in- competents who botched it dreadfully. Clearly he sacrificed the national interests to his personal spleen. It was a vindictive, petty, and discreditable thing to have done. If now, for a no better reason than that he was @ Roosevelt New Dealer, the Republicans deprive the Nation of Mr. Lilienthal's services, the same indictment can be made against them—and should be. It will not lie in their mouths to criticize Mr. Roosevelt if they equal him in pettiness and prejudice. In addition, theirs is a ‘fool- ish complaint. Conceding that Mr. Lilien- thal is a “liberal,” look at the other members of the commission. There is Mr. Lewis Strauss, the banker; Mr. Waymack, the edi- tor; Dr. Bacher, the physicist. They constitute a majority, and “true lib- erals” is not the way to describe them. If the Republicans cut Mr. Lilienthal down without better reasons than now exist, it will be an act of great stupidity, which they will rue in the next campaign, when they will have to defend it. Wanted: A United States Congress EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOHN DAVIS LODGE OF CONNECTICUT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 19, 1947 Mr. LODGE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following article by Stanley High from the Reader's Digest for March 1947: WANTED: A UNITED STATES CONGRESS (By Stanley High) A major source of waste and ineffective- ness in United States Government and a major cause of disunity in the Nation is the self-serving localism of so many Members of Congress. This localism stems from the legislator'’s conviction that his foremost duty is to get himself reelected. Like the time- wasting business of being errand boy for his constituents, it is part of the venal political system by which too many congressional seats are bought, with free use of public money and scant regard for public weal. A Member of Congress should of course hold himself accountable to his own con- stituency, and the problems and legitimate interests of that constituency should be his special concern. But localism is a perver- sion of that responsibility. In the practice of localism a Member of Congress puts his accountability to his separate political local- ity ahead of his accountability to the Nation. What he seeks to get for his constituents is of greater concern and takes more of his time than what he seeks to do for the well- being of all the people. Asked how he knew how much public money he should try to get for his constitu- ents, 8 Congressman replied: “I just get all Ican.” Another Congressman had imprinted on his stationery, in an election year, the legislative services which he thought justi- fied his reelection. These services added up A601 to $100,000,000 in various appropriations for his district. For postage-free circulation in last fall's campaign, a Congressman listed 10 juicy financial benefits which he had won for his city constituency, and added: “It would be immodest of me to go further in any listing of what I have done for my city; the record speaks for itself.” In the House of Representatives last June, the Rivers and Harbors Committee—long a lush pork barrel—presented a bill which, among 520,000,000 worth of undertakings in 35 States, included a project which re- quired large Federal expenditure in Tennes- see. A courageous Tennessee Congressman, JOHN JENNINGS, Jr., opposed the bill on the ground that the need for Government econ- omy was more important than Tennessee's need for this project. “The time has come,” he said, “to quit wasting at the bung and saving at the spigot and to balance the Budget.” The spirit of localism was never more clearly summed up than in the reply of an angry colleague: “How any man from Tennessee can oppose this great waterway is more than I can understand. With the exception of the TVA, this is the greatest project ever proposed, so far as Tennessee is concerned.” Localism carried the day. In both House and Senate the project was approved. The Member of Congress who puts responsi- bility to his State or district ahead of re- sponsibility to the Nation readily comes to regard himself as a special ambassador of a bloc or minority interest, bent on promot- ing its advantage and dependent on its favor. Thus there are silver Senators and cotton Senators and wheat Senators and Jabor Sen- ators and big-business Senators—and too few United States Senators. “Is that special legislation for cotton?” inquired a wheat-State Senator of a cotton- State Senator in last summer’s debate on commodity prices. “If the Senator wishes to call it that, he may do so,” replied the cotton-State Sena- tor. “Why not include wheat?” wheat-State Senator. “I do not say there is any objection to doing so.” Cotton and wheat got their “special legis- lation.” A beet-State Member got the same for sugar beets; an oil-State Member for oil; a spokesman for the poultry interests for poultry; a Member from an automobile- producing State for automobiles; the wool- States bloc for wool; the dairy-States bloc for dairy products; the silver-States bloc for silver. “Mr. Speaker,” said a Member of the House during last year’s debate on housing, “I do not know of any Member of the House who does not want to get on the veterans’ band- ‘wagon because there are several million vet- erans who are going to vote at the next elec- tion. I am going to get on that bandwagon just the same as all the rest.” Thus Congress becomes an instrument of special favors. The Nation comes to regard it not as a dependable source of good gov- ernment but as a dependable source of local, bloc, and sectional largesse. By this perver- sion of responsibility, representative govern- ment itself is brought into disrepute. Chief responsibility for this evil belongs to Con- gress. Only Congress can cure it. Materially and mechanically, the present Congress is one of the best equipped in United States history. By the passage of the La Follette-Monroney bill, last summer, congressional machinery has been stream- lined for stateamanship. Members of this Congress get more pay plus a pension, have more technical and expert help, have fewer committee assignments and are leas burdened with legislative trivia than their predecessors. But better congressional machinery does not asked the
A602 cure the evil of localism; indeed, it may pro- vide many members with more time and better facilities for ite practice. The truest definition ever made of the function of the responsible legislator in a national assembly was given by Edmund Burke in his historic address to his constitu- ents in the English city of Bristol in 1774: “Certainly it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strict- est union and the most unreserved commu- nication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him, their opinion high respect, their business unre- mitted attention. “But Parliament is not a congress of am- bassadors from different and hostile inter- ests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; Parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where not local purpose, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good. You choose a member, indeed. But when you have chosen him he is not a member of Bristoi, but he is a Member of Parliament.” I believe that an overwhelming mafority of Americans want that kind of man in Con- gress, dedicated not to local purpose but to the general good. Because he put the general good ahead of local purpose, practitioners of localism free- ly predicted the defeat of Jouw Jennrines, Jr., in Tennessee. With a record-breaking vote he was reelected. I believe that most American communities are like Cushing, Okla., which last fall helped to reelect Mrkzr Monrzonrr—coauthor of the La Follette-Monroney bill. “Congressman Monroney hasn't done anything big for Cushing,” said a front-page editorial in the Cushing Daily Citizen. “But he has stood out from the rubber-stamp politicians by vot- ing as his conscience dictated, rather than as party leaders suggested. We need to vote for the best man for our Nation, rather than the best man for our occupation or our district.” The roots of congressional localism are deep, its vested interests powerful. But against this evil there are enough nation- ally minded legislators already in Congress to reaffirm the principles of the general good and, by example, begin its reestablishment. Such action must be concerted and ag- gressive. It will require the speedy enlist- ment of many of the 136 new Members of the House and Senate, who have not yet fallen victim to the demands and pressures which put local and sectional interest ahead of the Nation. The time to act is now. Such action would be a congressional vote of confidence in the good faith and sound purpose of the American people. It would help to unite the Nation. It would be heart- ening reassurance—to America and to the world—that the fateful issues confronting us will be met on a level of wisdom and vision in keeping with our national aspirations. Address Prepared by the Late Senator Josiah W. Bailey, of North Carolina, for Delivery to the People of North Carolina EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. CLYDE R. HOEY OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES tnesday, February 19, 1947 Mr. HOEY. Mr. President, my late lamented colleague in the Senate from North Carolina, Hon. Josiah W. Bailey, was ill for several months preceding his death on December 15, 1946. Dur- ing this period he reached a decision not to become a candidate for reelection to succeed himself in 1948, and prepared an address to the people of Norta Caro- lina apprising them of his determination and making a statesmanlike review of our present situation and expressing his views in his well-known fearless and courageous manner. He intended to is- sue the statement early in 1947 after Congress convened, when he expected to be present for the opening session. Since his death occurred before that date the statement which he had prepared and signed was released through Claude Ramsey, special Raleigh correspondent of the Asheville Citizen, last Sunday by James H. Pou Bailey, son and law part- ner of Senator Bailey. The address has been read with profound interest by the people of North Carolina. I feel that his former colleagues in the Senate would like to read this able and thoughtful ad- dress, which is veritably his last will and testament on public questions, and I therefore ask unanimous consent to have it inserted in the Appendix to the Recorp, including the summary of the high lights of Senator Bailey's address. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. I am sure that the Senate will unanimously agree to the request of the Senator from North Carolina. There being no objection, the address, including the summary, was ordered to be printed in the Rwzxcorp, as follows: SIGNIFICANT REMARKS IM BAILEY STATEMENT Some of the most significant high lights in Senator Bailey’s statement follow: “The question tn America today is whether this country shall be run by the people or by labor leaders not responsible to the people. The question must be settled and settled rae working men ought to be free. They Ought to be free to join a union or not to join one. Employers ought also to be free. “The labor unions can be made to do bar- gaining and prevented from dictating. They are now not bargaining but dictating. “A government that will not put an end to this sort of thing is not worthy to be called a government. “Labor has no more right to interfere with commerce than anyone else and it is the duty of the Congress to protect commerce and to preserve its freedom. “If collective bargaining shall be preserved, the labor unions must be required to per- form their contracts or be held liable in damages. “So far, Russia has made a policy of dis- sent and obstruction. There are those who think that Russia does not intend to destroy the United Nations organization, It is my opinion that Russia does not intend to go along with it unless Russia can have her way. She means to dominate Europe and Asia, and then the whole world. “No country has ever spent the carnings and the substance of ita people as this coun- try has without ruining iteelf and its in- habitants. * * * We must stabilize our currency and our economy at the earliest moment possible if we are to avoid disaster and chaos.” fo the People of North : XT shall not be a candidate in 1948. Phys!- clans aciviee that I may recover fully from my Tecent illness and be able to perform the duties of a Senator through the remainder of my present term. This I hope to do. I would be unwilling to attempt more. It will be better to elect in 1948 to the Senate APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD in the full vigor of the prime of GRATEFUL TO PEOPLE In making this decision I have been moved to tssue a statement which follows: I shail always be grateful to the people of North Carolina for the great honor they gave me and the trust they reposed in me. It seemed to me from the outset that the least I could do by way of appreciation was to be honest with them. This I have done. I could not support a considerabie number of measures put forward by President Roose- velt because upon reading them it was plain to me that they were unsound and the long- run consequence would be bad for the people. I voted against the Wagner Act, for example. Tt was and ts a plain piece of political class legisiation. We now see its consequences. Purporting to avoid strikes, it is an induce- ment to strike. Proposing to free the work- ing men, it has placed them under the power of labor bosses. The question in America today is whether this country shall be run by the peopie or by the labor leaders not responsible to the people. This question must be settled and be settled right. No man should be elected to the Senate from North Carolina who does not ring clear on this issue. PREDICTED REFORMING OF ACT The act can be reformed and I think it will be. It would have been reformed long ago but for the power of the labor organizations in the Senate. The working men ought to be free. They ought to be free to join a union or not to join one. Employers ought also to be free. The labor unions can be made to do bargaining and prevented from dictating. They are now not bargaining, but dictating. Certain of the railroad unions went so far as to vote for a strike against this Government in the midst of the war. It was a plain and shameful threat to deliver the country over to our enemies unless the labor leaders should have their way. They would have deprived our fighting men of food and munitions on the fields of battle. Recently they and others have been inflict- ing untold injury upon the entire popula- tion. They were paralyzing the American economy. Their demands are demands upon every person. They should not have this power. Regardless of the merits of their demands they ought not have power to injure the people of this country. None may be trusted with such power. NO REASON FOR CONFUSION They are not putting forward any argu- ment for these demands, but saying in plain language we must have our way or the American people must pay the price of suf- fering and ruin. There ts no right to do this or anything like it. Any individual has a right not to work at any given task, but no group of peopie has a right to injure and punish others in order to dictate terms to their employer. Woodrow Wilson was clear enough on this subject in 1016, and there ts mo reason for confusion. There is no moral right for a group of men to strike and hold up the people of this country, prevent- ing others from working, and inflicting un- told injury upon millions. A government that will not put an end to this sort of thing is not worthy to be called a government. The fact is that the American people have never fafie@ to re- spond appropriately to such a challenge; whenever any group has assumed power to subordinate the general welfare to its spe- cial interest, people, President, and Congress have taught it the necessary lesson; and so long as this shall be their way, this Re- public is secure as a Government of and for the people. This is precisely what has just happened, and !t is most heartening. LOSE GOOD WILL THROUGH LEADERS The workingmen ought to bear in mind that they always have the sympathetic good life.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD will of their fellow men, and that they lose it only when they permit unwise leaders to put them in the position of ignoring the public interest. We can apply our antitrust laws to mo- nopolistic practices in lubor relations just 8 we can apply them to any other relations affecting commerce among the States—and we should, do it. We ought to restore the remedy of injunction to prevent irreparable injury. The labor leaders have repudiated collective bargaining and undertaken to sub- stitute dictatorial demand for it. Labor has no more right to interfere with commerce than anyone else, and it is the duty of the Congress to protect commerce and to preserve its freedom. Only the Con- gress may regulate interstate and foreign commerce. It has plenary power to do so. Employers have a right to present their case to their employees and they also have a right to select their employees. Granted 4 man has a personal right to strike, he has no right to a job he has left. As matters now stand a man has to belong to a union and obey its boss in order to get a job. There can be no right to prevent others from working. This is not freedom, it is coercion. Nor do men have right to join in a mutual movement to stop production and thereby paralyze commerce. UNIONS MUST BE HELD LIABLE If collective bargaining shall be preserved, the labor unions must be required to per- form their contracts or be held liable in damages, Controversies ought to be settled in our courts of justice, and not by boards, com- missioners, or panels. The CIO and the PAC are now invading the Southern States and in particular they are invading the Democratic primaries. They have captured the Democratic Party in the North and propose to capture it in the South. The CIO and PAC are political parties and they are united in the American Labor Party—confessedly a radical class party. The American people will be well advised to realize that the professional Communist proceeds by way ot deceit. He will profess to be a Democrat in order to carry his point. He intends that the American Labor Party shall take our party over, The people of North Carolina will do well to suspect any candidate who is supported by the CIO or PAC, whether in the primary or the general election. They have drawn the issue and we must meet it. It is an issue we must meet squarely and in the open, and any man who runs for office without frankly stating his position ought to be voted against. Amongst other things they propose to overthrow white supremacy in the South, and vote great masses of the ignorant for their foul pur- poses, GRAVE PARTY DANGER SEEN If this movement by the CIO-PAC shall succeed there is grave danger that the Dem- ocratic Party will go the way of the Liberal Party in England; that is, be absorbed by the Labor Party. I have been greatly disturbed by the in- ternational situation. So far Russia has made a policy of dissent and obstruction, There are those who think that Russia does not intend to destroy the United Nations organization. It is my opinion that Russia does not intend to go along with it unless Russia can have her way. She means to dominate Europe and Asia, and then the whole world. There is evidence that Russia is operating in this country now by way of propaganda and infiltration. Her partisans are everywhere professing on some occasions to be Republicans, and professing on others of being Democrats, but being at heart Com- munists loyal to Russia and not to the United States. This issue is drawn in this country and in the world, If the United Nations organization fails, this does not necessarily mean war. It does mean that it will be necessary for us to get along in a world not fully organized for peace, which will be most difficult. We must avoid war, engaging therein only when the inde- pendence of this country and the security of our people are plainly at stake. Isolation is obsolete. But internationalism does not predicate that our country must have a hand in every controversy or that we should as- sume responsibility everywhere. Let us press in all events for a world organization to pre- serve peace throughout the earth. NEED MIGHTY ARMY AND NAVY This country can get along in the existing circumstances only by way of being armed to the tecth. We must have a mighty Army and a mighty Navy and a mighty Air Force, and a mighty industrial and agricultural capacity, and everything in armaments that will give us superiority. The way to peace for America in such a world is by way of being so strong that we will be able to beat down into the dust or ruin any nation that attacks us—just as we beat Japan down and Germany down. They will not attack us again. They attacked us because they thought we were weak, If they had known we were strong they would not have dared lift a hand against us. If they had known 5 years ago what they know now there would have been no world war, and we would have been delivered from the ordeal through which we passed in great tribulation. We must not run the risk of being attacked again. We must avoid war and establish our peace. And in order that we may, we must be so strong that every na- tion will know that we have the power to crush and to destroy any who rise against us. This is hard doctrine, but it is necessary. We may hope for a time when the nations disarm in the interest of peace, but we must not be the first to disarm. We must not disarm until we know that every other nation is dis- arming. This is why I am for the selective service and compulsory military training. I am for the peace and security of our country. SHOULD ACT IN SELF-INTEREST I do not think we should tie ourselves up with the destiny of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. We should be as friendly as Possible with every nation, but should act only in our own self-interest. I voted for the lend-lease bill in order to get time in which to prepare this country for the war which was surely coming. Mr. Roosevelt felt that he could head off the war. I followed Mr. Roosevelt in his measures of foreign policy prior to and throughout the war, This was because I was persuaded that he was doing everything to keep this country out of the war, and once in he was doing all Possible to win. He was mistaken because he did not give Japan credit for the ignorance under which that country was laboring. There is no reason why we should attach our fate to the United Kingdom of Great Britain, We cannot fight her battles, nor can we afford to make her foreign policy ours. We must have our own foreign policy—the policy of being strong, firm, and peaceful, and of getting into no controversy except in clear defense of our own country. DIRECT LOANS NOT WISE POLICY I am not opposed to the loans to foreign nations, except through the International Bank authorized by the Bretton Woods agree- ment. I was paired against the loan to Great Britain. I shall not support a direct loan for Russia nor for France nor for any other country. It is not wise policy. I question whether we have the right in time of peace to tax the American people for the sake of the economy of any other nation. Other nations will depend upon us and call upon us again and again as long as they find we can be persuaded to borrow money and send it to them. We owe too much now. We have enough here at home to take care of A603 our own people and their security without undertaking to fight either the domestic or foreign battles of other nations. Our true course is to play the role of umpire in the United Nations organization in matters of no import to us, undertaking to see that justice is done and that the American se- curity is protected. We cannot be a disin- terested umpire in all cases We must resolve every doubt in favor of the security of our country. I do not think we should be in- volved in the small quarrels of the little na- tions of Europe and other portions of the earth. Their interests and ideas are entirely different from ours. We should protect the Western Hemisphere and we will have our hands full doing that. It is no concern of ours what sort of government Spain may have, or whether Russia is communistic or not, or whether France is communistic or not. Let them have such a government as they please. Let us preserve the American Republic as received from our fathers and proved by experience. WAS FOLLOWER OF WILSON When I took the oath of Senator I was re- solved to preserve this Republic in the true character in which it had served our people 80 well for 150 years. I was more a follower of Woodrow Wilson than of any other person. It seemed to me he understood the character of our Government and was determined to preserve it. I read all of his works in the in- terim between my nomination and the time I took my oath as Senator. I do not regret the fight I made, but I do not think it was won. I did my best. We will never know what was averted. I do not think the fight has been lost, although I realize our Republic has been changed to a great degree and very much to its injury. Much may be retrieved that now seoms lost. Let me conclude with one remark: Before the war our country had run a deficit of about #€3,000,000,000 every year since 1932. ‘No country has ever spent the earnings and the substance of its people as this country has without ruining itself and its inhabi- tants. The war expenditures were necessary, but there is absolutely no excuse for the ex- travagant civilian expenditure during the period in which I have been Senator. We must have an end of it and without further delay. We must stabilize our currency and our economy at the earliest moment possible if we are to avoid disaster and chaos. No man should be elected to the House or Senate until he has pledged that he will reduce ex- penditures and balance our budget and keep it balanced. An eminent historian prophe- sied early in the nineteenth century that our Republic would be plundered in the twen- tieth century not by a foreign invader but by its own people. That plundering is now and has been for several years going on. It seems to me to be appropriate that at this time I should lay this statement before our people. These are my views, honestly expressed, and I express them in part dis- charge of the great debt I owe the people of our State. JosiAH W. BAILEY. Article by Senator Wiley on Evaluating Members of Congress EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ALEXANDER WILEY e OF WISCONSIN IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, February 19, 1947 Mr, WILEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be printed
A604 in the Appendix of the Recorp the text of an article which I contributed to the February 1947 issue of the magazine Tax Outlook, which ts published by the Tax Foundation of New York. The subject of this article is a consideration of the standards by which a citizen may evalu- ate Members of Congress. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Rzcorp, as follows: FIFTEEN TESTS FOR YOUR CONGRESSMEN ‘By ALEXANDER WILEY) How good are my Congressmen? This isa crucial question for every American to ask himeelf. It is especially important today, as the Eightieth Congress delves deeper into the economic problems of the Nation. To busi- ness leaders, who have the ultimate respon- sibility of keeping the national ecorfomy in healthy working order, it is a question which demands the most careful consideration. It is as important for the businessman to evaluate correctly his two Untted States Sen- ators and his Representative in Congress as i+ is for him to evaluate his own business partners or his colleagues on a board of di- rectors. Because, ae ati enlightened business- men know, their lawmakers in Congress make as many decisions which influence a given firm’s profits, taxes, labor relations, and wage levels as do the men who head up that firm. I believe that all citizens—and business- man espetially—should have an objective ertteria with which they can evaluate their lawmakers. The results of these evaluations should be borne in mind when legislators are discussed, as well as on election day. As both a businessman snd a legisiator, I am personally interested in seeing to it that businessmen, like every other group, learn to make such evaluations discerningly, I am convinced that citisens are learning this lesson. Only when people are able to make such evaluations can legislators be put on their finest mettle, and live up to—and surpass—the necessarily high standards for their conduct. The citizen's responsibility for knowing his lawmakers mn Congress does not begin a week before election day, nor does it end when the polls close. It is a responsibility every day, every time the citizen looks into a newspaper or magasine or listens to the radio to learn the facts about his lawmakers’ actions. Did somebody say that we are all very busy these days, and that we do not have time to be studying the news from Washington? The answer to that is clear: The decisions made in Washington today vitally affect every aspect of Hfe in America. Those who are the builders, the creators, the employers, cannot stand aside while their efforts toward creation of a better America are handicapped by lawmakers who are indifferent toward their efforts. Establishing standards for judgment is a hazardous undertaking—particularly for any- one who himself will be Judged by them. To some extent, standards for passing on Con- gressmen must be subjective; some legisla- tors just strike the consctentious citizen as being sound leaders, whereas others (despite many objective virtues) simply cannot gain the citizen's confidence. I think it is important to remember that no Congressman will win a 100-percent rating on any fair test. Nor is this important, be- cause one category of Judgment may be more important than others. A few outstanding virtues may compensate for many small de- fictencies. It is up to the citizen to decide which combinatton of virtuem is all-im- portant, Here are the 15 standards I suggest for evaluating a Congressman: 1. Americaniam: Does the Oongressman be- lieve in and the American system of constitutional government through checks and balances? 2. Freedom: Does he believe in free enter- petse and in opportunity for the diligent to earn rewards? 3. Allegiance: Does he believe that the weil- fare of all the American people is more tm- portant than the welfare of any group or any section of the Wation or of any political party? 4. Tolerance: Is he free from racial, re- ligious, or class prejudices? 5. Perspective: Does he believe in satisfying the needs of the America of tomorrow, rather than in mere temporary epedients for the present? 6. Selflessness: Does he belseve in doing an honest job for the American people, rather than looking out for his own welfare? 7. Independence: Does he prove in his ac- tioms that he follows his own judgment, rather than merely serving as a Charlie Mc- Carthy for some pressure group? &. Integrity: Does he support causes he be- lieves in, although they may be temporarily unpopular? 9. Self-discipline; Does he avoid rash promises, foothardy predictions, and prema- ture judgments? 10. Faith: Does he have a belief in the wisdom and honesty of the American people? 11, Leadership; Does he help to mold pub- Me opmion, rather than merely being con- tent to follow it? 12. Constructiveness: Does he sponsor leg- tslation which is well thought out and constructive? 18. Perseverance: Does he apply industry and ingenuity to advanc: legislation which may be blocked by legislative techni- calities? 14. Skill: Does he diaplay parliamentary adroitness in ing his objectives? 15. Loyalty: Is he loyal to his work and consistent with his announced policies inso- fer as humanly posstble? Those are the 15 tests I should like to believe American citizens were applying to their lawmakers. There are others which might be added. Does a lawmaker keep in touch with the peo- ple he represents, and does he give them prompt help with their probterns? Does he contribute to the moving of the legislative machinery? Does he use tact and persta- sion in the necessary give-and-take in work- ing with lawmakers of different viewpoints? Does he associate only with persons and organizations of untmpeachable characters? Really, of course, the kinds of standards selected are less important than the fact that standards are set up. For all too often & citizen gives support to a lawmaker be- cause he voted for (or against) some meas- ure in which that citizen was perticutarty interested. There is probably no worse way to fudge a Congressman. The citizen will do his job—and the citi- zen does, indeed, have a job—if he will for- get the one or two or three pet measures in which he is interested. He will remember that his fellow citizens had their pet meas- ures, too, probably different from his. He will think of his Congressman’s action on all measures. He wilt think, in short, of what is best for the Nation, rather than what is best for himself. Then he will intelligently decide: “How good are my Congressmen?” Don’t Cheer Yet EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOHN D. DINGELL IN TH OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 19, . Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, K is tn- teresting to note that my advocacy of a APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD tax cut for 1948 finds strong and intelli- gent support in the editorial published in the Washington Daily News of Febru- ary 12. Events subsequent to my tax speech as reviewed in the editorial con- firm my position. The editorial! con- forms with my expressed views and ac- tions. The editorial follows: DON’T CHEER YET Republicans in Congress have prepared a legislative budget $6,000,000,000 smaller than President Truman’s 887,500,000,000 executive budget for the coming fiscal year. Many of them seem to feel that, having done this, they are all set for the pleasant job of cutting taxes. But don’t cheer yet. Adoption of the legislative budget, re- quired for the first time this year under the La Follette-Monroney Reorganization Act, will be an important forward step. It will give Congress a definite economy target to shoot at. However, it will be only a hopeful promise, not a guaranty of performance. The Republicans don't yet Know how, where, or whether they can stash six bil- ions from Mr. Truman’s spending esti- mate. They won't know until Congress gets through passing appropriation bills, $ or 4 months hence. A tax cut voted now, in the pious hope that the legislative budget wouldn't be exceeded, might put and keep the Government in the red for another fiscal year. So we don’t wonder that cautious Senator Tarr has proposed waiting until July to make any itncome-tax reduction effective. But wouldn't it make sense to go farther than that, wait until January 1, 1948, and be sure that the actual budget is balanced with leeway for substantial payments on the huge nationa)] debt? One of the most trritating and damaging phases of our tax-legislating technique ts its retroactive aspect. Congress usually spends a big part of a calendar year revising taxes for that same calendar year. Result: uncertainty, inability to plan with assur- ance for the future. It would be much better to say: “This is what taxes will be for the 12 months begin- ning next January,” than, “Here are new taxes for months that are past and gone.” The certainty gained for 1948, we think, would more than offset the tax cut that might not come for 1947. And bear in mind that there's a place to put any money the Government might save by not cutting taxes this year—that place being a payment on the debt. Brotherhood Week and Democracy EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. WILLIAM H. STEVENSON OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 19, 1947 Mr. STEVENSON. Mr. Speaker, un- Ger leave to extend my remarks in the Appendix of the Rscorp, I include an outstanding editeriat on the subject, Brotherhood Week and Democracy, from the La Crosse Tribune, of La Crosse, Wis., as follows: BROTRERMOOD WEEK AND DEMOCRACY Americans are convinced that @emocracy as we know it here, with Mberty and justice for all, is the most perfect form of political community yet known. We were warned some years ago by totall- tarian leaders abroad that democracy might
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD suffice in peace but could not win a war. But democracy has demonstrated its efficiency in war as in peace. No one knows better than ourselves the dangers that dog the steps of democracy, the weaknesses in its structure that need buttressing, but we cherish it and choose it for ourselves and our children. We are not so blind, moreover, as to be unaware that in the kind of a world in _ which we are living democracy is not alto- gether safe. A large part of humanity still lives under some form of autocracy. There are influences in our own land which, un- checked, would undermine democracy. If our democracy is to be preserved we must uphold it with vigilant and sacrificial devo- tion. We must be vigilant to detect and resist all who are at work among us to spread dis- trust among the groups that make up our Citizenship. Distrust is a subtle poison. It dissolves the bonds that hold us together asa people. No hostile influence from with- out can disturb any nation where citizens have learned to trust one another. Patriotism, loyalty to America and her in- stitutions, is not the exclusive prerogative of any group in our country. However citi- zens may differ as to race, religion, or na- tional origin, the war from which we have emerged has taught all of us that we all, alike, love America. To recognize that and freely to acknowl- edge it is essential to national unity. We must have a patriotism so great that one citizen cannot hate another on the pretext that he is not a good American. America is a composite of many racial and Teligious groups, no one of Which can truly claim superior loyalty. Each of these groups has made its own distinctive contribution to the national life. America would be the poorer if any one of these groups should be eliminated. We need them all. That a nation is strong in proportion as differences are suppressed and its people cast in a single mold is a fallacy congenial to totalitarianism. It has no place in democ- racy. Variety is a source of strength to the nation. Variety, with mutual tolerance, has a@ vigor that enforced uniformity can never hope to gain. Our country is founded on the faith that men may differ in religious convictions and yet unite in defense of American liberties. That faith has been justified in the history of the Republic. Democracy is a term that is obscure until it has been defined. It has become increas- ingly plain in recent months that in Russia democracy means something quite different from democracy in the United States. By democratic liberties we mean freedom for all, whatever their religious affiliation. The American liberties are guaranteed by the Federal Constitution and by every State to Citizens of all faiths equally. Bound up thus in one life, therefore, every Aistinctive group in America is interested in the maintenance of liberty, not only liberty for themselves but for every other group. For whatever threatens the liberties of any of our people threatens those of all. Overton-O’Mahoney Formula for Federal Contribution to the District of Columbia EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOHN H. OVERTON OF LOUISIANA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, February 19, 1947 Mr, OVERTON. Mr, President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an article entitled “Measuring an Obligation,” written by John W. Thompson, Jr., and published in the Washington Evening Star of February 8, 1947. The article deals with the question of how the Over- ton-O’Mahoney formula would work in deciding what the Federal Government should contribute toward the expenses of the District of Columbia. I also ask that a letter which I wrote to Mr. Thomp- son be printed following the article. There being no objection, the article and letter were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: MEASURING AN OBLIGATION—HoOW THE OVER- TON-O'MAHONEY FORMULA WOULD WorkK IN DecrwING WHAT THE NATION SHOULD Pay (By John W. Thompson, Jr.) District hopes for a bigger annual Federal payment toward city expenses today are wrapped up in the Overton-O’Mahoney- Hébert formula. This is the only plan pending under which the United States would assume a proportion of the cost of city operation instead of ap- propriating each year an arbitrary lump sum, In the Senate the measure is being spon- sored b” Senator O’Manoney, Democrat, of Wyoming. A companion bill in the House has been introduced by Representative Hisert, Democrat, of Louisiana. Senator Overron, of Louisiana, first proposed the idea and worked it into shape. The principle of the formula is to repay the District for the large amount of land which the Federal Government owns here tax free which in private hands would be taxable. HOW IT WORKS Reduced to a percentage, it asserts that the Federal Government owns 18.66 percent of the total area of the city exclusive of parks, streets and alleys, and District govern- ment holdings. Under the plan this percentage figure—to the nearest percent—would be multiplied by the total tax income of the last completed fiscal year to get the amount of Federal pay- ment. For example, should the bill be passed this year and the formula used in the new District budget for the year beginning July 1, District officials would add up the total tax collections for the fiscal year ended last June 80 in the three city income funds—water, highway, and general. They would then multiply by 19 percent to get the total Fed- eral payment, which would be about $11,666,980. This payment would then be split across the three funds according to the percentage each represents of the total revenue figure. There is a double safeguard to the city in this formula. It would increase the Federal payment as Federal land holdings increase. It would also boost the national share as new or increased taxes boost the total reve- nues. In any case it would yield more than the $8,000,000 lump-sum payment made this year and the $6,000,000 payments of the pre- ceding 7 years. WHY THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD HELP But why should the Federal Government pay anything toward the city? The answer is that the obligation is first a moral one, secondly a practical one, and thereby hangs a tale. It harks back to June 19, 1788, when a band of soldiers gathered outside Inde- pendence Hall to present grievances to the executive council of the State of Pennsyl- vania, The Congress of the Confederation was meeting in the same building at the time. Its members appealed to the Pennsyl- vania Council to suppress the disorder but no A605 action was taken. Congress then adjourned to Princeton a few miles away. To this incident historians attribute the decision of the Confederation leaders to es- tablish a capital outside existing cities where Congress would have exclusive authority and control. It was so ordered in the Constitu- tion. In line with this decision, original owners of the area selected along the Potomac River donated five-sevenths of the city soil on the understanding that the Nation would here develop a magnificent headquarters at its own expense. Part of the cost was to be made up by the National Government through the sale of the donated lots. The moral case for Federal payment thus rests on the principle that with exclusive con- trol and paramount national interest goes the Obligation to support that interest. It also arises from the deal under which the Gov- ernment obtained the land. A capital be- longs to a nation, not to its local inhabitants alone. The practical argument is that community resources alone are not enough to develop Washington according to the Federal plan for it From 1800 to 1835, the city, neglected by the Federal Government, ran into debt to the point where it had to be rescued by Con- gress. Forty years later the same thing hap- pened again resulting finally in recognition of the obligation by Congress in the act of 1878. The Federal Government agreed to match the community dollar for dollar in Capital development. This was the high point in Federal-city re- lation—the best deal Washington ever got from Uncle Sam. It remained effective until 1921 when Congress reduced the Federal share to 40 percent. Four years later a hostile House shoved through the arbitrary lump- sum payment that now prevails regardless of need or of mounting city expenses. And once again the city is rushing toward a debt. The principal factor in community ina- bility to pay—even if the moral obligation were Otherwise—is the Federal requirement of magnificence on the one hand and the Federal withdrawal of tax resources on the other. Land is historically a basic item in taxation. Yet the Federal Government has fixed the area of Washington beyond possi- bility of extension and then grabbed 42 per- cent of it, including the parks, for Federal purposes. Diplomatic missions here for purely Federal purpose retire more land from tax- ation, so that today less than half the city is available for real-estate levy. When the city has tried to branch out into Other taxes such as sales or income levies to compensate for this situation, Congress in the exercise of its exclusive authority has either killed them or mangled them in an effort to steer the burden away from them- selves and their constituents. A city in this predicament cannot afford large park areas, or a fort drive. It cannot afford to build a Federal courthouse equal in magnificence to the Supreme Court and more expensive. It cannot afford to pay for the millions of gallons of water used annu- ally by the Federal Government. Yet every- thing it does must not only meet a need but be upon a scale of grandeur imposed by the Federal pattern. Thus practically and morally the Federal Government should pay heavily toward city expenses. That payment should be propor- tional because it should increase as expenses increase. Even in the early stages of lump-sum pay- ment the District fared better than it does now both in amount and purchasing power of the Federal share. From 1925 to 1930 the payment was at least $9,000,000 in prewar dollars and in days when total District ex- penses amounted to less than 850,000,000. In 1981 and 1932 it reached an all-time high of $9,500,000 and in 1937 a low of $5,000,000 which was continued through 1939.
A606 Today the District is receiving $8,000,000 t total expenses which will exceed $85,000,000 by June 30. THEY PREFER THE OVERTON PLAN While District officials are 100 percent be- hind the O’Mahoney formula, and it has the endorsement of the White House, it is less advantageous to the city than the old Over- ton plan out of which it grew. The earlier plan, developed by Senator Overton, Democrat, of Louisiana, carried a similar land-based formula with these dif-_ ferences: 1. Only excess parkland over the normal in comparable cities was deducted in figur- ing the percentage. 2. The percentage figure was to be multi- plied by general-fund appropriations, rath- er than the tax income of the three funds. 3. The total amount of Federal payment was to go to the general fund. Under the Overton formula the city would get some $14,854,780 from the National Gov- ernment this year on the basis of Budget expenses. In general, District fiscal officials would rather have the money go entirely to the general fund, because they think that is where it is really needed. It is also where the present lump sum is credited. The highway and water funds are sepa- rate, self-sustaining funds, with their own sources of income. The highway fund espe- Cially has access to Federal grants On a matching basis similar to the several States. If the O'Mahoney plan js approved, Dis- trict officials feel it will complicate their efforts to have the Federal Government pay the water fund for the water it uses. They feel Congress will look upon O’Mahoney money going to the water fund as payment for the water. Unrrep StTatms SENATE, Washington, D. C., February 14, 1947. Mr, Jonn W. THOMPSON, Jr., The Star, Washington, D. C. My Dean Mr, THOMPSON: I have just read your story entitled “Measuring an Obliga- tion,” appearing in the Star under date of February 8, 1047, with respect to the Overton formula of Federal contribution as revised under the O’Mahoney-Overton substitute. 1 Congratulate you upon it. It is the most comprehensive and at the same time the most succinct statement that has as yet been made in regard to the much discussed for- mula. Even Mr. McKelway, whom I regard as an expert in the fiscal relations between the Federal Government and the District of Columbia, has never written editorially or otherwise anything better than your contri- bution. Now, the purpose of this letter is not only to congratulate you but to suggest that you have tear sheets of your article sent to each member of the House District Committee and also to members of the Senate District Com- mittee. I shall, next week, have it inserted in the CongarsstonaL \. Very truly yours, Joun H. Ovgrron, United States Senator. National Freedom Day Address of Hon. Robert N. McGarvey, of Pennsylvania EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HARDIE SCOTT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 19, 1947 Mr. HARDIE SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following speech made by the Honorable Rosrrt N. McGakvey, Congressman, Second Dis- trict of Pennsylvania, at the Academy of Music in Philadelphia, on February 2, 1947, in honor of Nationa] Freedom Day: Mr. Chairman, honored guests, ladies and gentlemen, I am happy to be here tonight to celebrate National Freedom Day. I was honored when Maj. R. R. Wright asked me to introduce a resolution in the Fightieth Congress requesting the President to pro- claim February 1 as National Freedom Day. When Abraham Lincoln signed the joint resolution proposing the thirteenth amend- ment to the Constitution, he must have had @ vision of the great work which the race he had liberated would do. Unfortunately, he never lived to see them take even the first stride toward the distant goal he had envisioned. One of the great men of the Negro race, Booker T. Washington, in 1901 wrote a book called “Up From Slavery.” Those three words are very significant. They could be taken as the theme of the Negro race in America, for surely no other people could have accomplished what the Negro has in the 80-odd years since he has been freed from serfdom and utter oppression. You have made great strides in the fields of medicine, having Negro doctors and clinics run by people of your race for your race, Negro lawyers helping those oppressed as they once were. But perhaps the greatest accomplishments have been made in the fields of religion and education. The Negro has always been rec- ognized as a deeply religious race. You must be thankful that this is still true in these troubled days when your ministers and priests, your missionaries in far-off lands are guiding people once more to God. As we look about us, we see Negro achools, colleges, and universities. We read books by distinguished Negro authors and benefit by the research of Negro scientists. Our cul- ture is enriched on all sides by Negro artists. These facts are surprising when one con- siders that the group that accomplished all this lived in almost total ignorance 80 years ago, What makes it almost unbelievable is the fact that to do so, they had to struggle against the overwhelming forces of ignorant intolerance and oppression. Yes, “Up From Slavery” to the present day when we celebrate National Freedom Day to mark the great accomplishments of the Ne- gro race. The importance of national free- dom day is doubly significant this year when the nations of the world are seeking to main- tain a just and lasting peace, to abolish all war so that we shall never again have to un- dergo another such as this last, terrible con- Aict. I must mention here the contribution of the Negroes who fought in the armed serv- ices in World War I and pay tribute to those who died for their country. These silent dead are perhaps the strongest that National Freedom Day has for recognition. For surely, if white and colored can die to- gether for the ideals of American democracy, then they can live together striving for those same ideals, embodied so well in the words of Maj. R. R. Wright, which I quote: “* * © the fundamentals of good citizenship * * * affrm(s) and advocate(s) that neither discrimination nor segregation should be tolerated in our free Republic; that every step or act in such direction is not only thoroughly inconsistent with freedom but absolutely antagonistic to the peace, progress, and happiness of every citizen of our com- monwealth.” X am honored to be a Member of the Fightieth the peace aims of America and therefore of the world. America, our great country, which is dedicated to the principle that all men are APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD created equal, will have perhaps the strongest voice in determining the future of the world. Let us hope so. For a country which has always decreed liberty and freedom for all could make of the new world on whose threshold we stand a world of peace, justice, and security, where all men would be equal regardless of race or creed, Before concluding I must pay special tribute to Maj. R. R. Wright, an honored leader of his race, who conceived the idea of National Freedom Day. It is he who has made tonight's celebration and past celebra- tions possible. I am proud that Major Wright chose me as the Philadelphia Congressman to introduce the resolution to the Eightieth Congress, for he is a distinguished American, whom al] his fellow Americans should honor. I congratulate him and all here gathered tonight for your great work in behalf of Na- tional Freedom Day. We have all worked to- gether to make America the great country that it is and in years to come may we strive toward the goal of a better world. EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. JOHN J. SPARKMAN OF ALABAMA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, February 19, 1947 Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, there have appeared in various newspapers of the country a great many fine and strong editorials endorsing the appointment of Mr. David E. Lilienthal as Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. One of the best and strongest was published in the Washington Times-Herald of Octo- ber 29, 1946. I ask unanimous consent to have the editorial printed in the Ap- pendix of the Recorp. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: LILIENTHAL AS ATOM CHIEF David E. Lilienthal has been named by the President to head the five-member United States Atomic Commission. This Commis- sion is to have over-all charge of the devel- opment of nuclear energy in this country for both military and peaceful purposes, The nomination looks good to us on the strength of Lilienthal’s record. He is the man who has been in charge of the Tennes- see Valley Authority for the last 13 years. In that job, Lilienthal could have yielded to the ambitions of Senator Kenner MoKsuiarn (Democrat), of Tennessee, to turn the TVA into a big Lilienthal could have knuckled under to a horde of idealists, doctrinaires, Socialists, and Communists who have long wanted to use the TVA primarily as a device for hurrying this country toward collectivism. Lilienthal did neither of these things. He has run TVA on businesslike principles, thereby thwarting the radicals, and he kept it from becoming a political football, to the great and continuing rage of Senator MORELLAR , who says he will ight this nomi- nation. We need a man of Lilienthal’s character to head the Atomic Commission. He is further recommended by the fact that he led the group which got out the atomic energy report utilized by Bernard M. Baruch im formulating the Baruch plan for eventual international control of atomic energy and t. The Beruch plan is the one the Russians don't like, because it calls for the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD United States to be 100 percent sure that no other nation will cheat, before we tell any other nation how to make atom bombs. With a Baruch plan sympathizer as Chair- man of the Atomic Commission, we should be much safer for the next few years than if the Chairman were a Wallace-minded gent anxious to cut the rest of the world in at once on our technical atom-bomb secrets. All in all, we don’t know of anybody we'd rather have seen appointed to this enormous- ly important post than Lilienthal. A Staggering Blow at Religious Liberty EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JAMES C. DAVIS OF GEORGIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 19, 1947 Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention is Dr. Loulfe D. Newton, pastor of Druid Hills Baptist Church in Atlanta, located in the district which I have the honor to represent. Dr. Newton has served in many capacities and of- ficial positions in local, State, regional, and world Baptist organizations. Large- ly because of the esteem and affection in which he is held by all Baptists every- where, and as a tribute to his Christian personality, the World Baptist Alliance several years ago held its world-wide convention in Atlanta. His Christian service is not confined to members of the Baptist denomination. Because of the fact that he works for the advancement of the kingdom of God with all races and denominations, he is beloved by Jew and gentile, Catholic and Protestant, white and black. He is recognized everywhere as an apostle of true Christian brother- hood. Dr. Newton is known as a leader who has the courage of his convictions. He was in Washington last week when the Supreme Court handed down its decision concerning transportation of school chil- dren to schools other than public schools, and is seriously concerned with the pos- sible effect which this Court decision may have upon the principle of separation of church and state, one of the founda- tion stones upon which our form of gov- ernment is built. For the information of Members of Congress and the public, I am inserting Dr. Newton’s statement, which follows herewith: I listened to the majority opinion of the Supreme Court's decision in the New Jersey case this afternoon, as read and argued by Mr, Justice Black, and I could not disasso- ciate the name of the eloquent jurist with a shadow, now no larger, it may appear, than @ man’s hand, but portending a great and terrible cloud that may be drifting out over every hamlet and dale from Plymouth to the Golden Gate to darken the torch of religious liberty in our beloved land. I also listened to Mr. Justice Jackson as he rendered the minority opinion and referred to the Court as turning back the hands of the clock to those dark days of ecclesiastical dominance and tyranny which finally prompted Jefferson and Madison to write the first amendment into our Constitution. While acknowledging the frightening effects of the majority opinion, as it will be seized to further hammer down the wall that separates church and state in our coun- try, I do take courage in the fact that the minority opinion restates the case in the full light of history and in terms of invin- cible logic. I hope and pray that this omnibus deci- sion may serve to arouse the freedom-loving People of this Nation to prompt and uncom- promising action by which the pressure of ecclesiasticism shall be finaily lifted from the administrative, legislative, and judicial branches of government, local, State, and National. The next battle in this war on the time- honored citadel of religious liberty in the United States will take place in the Congress, when pending bills to provide Federal funds for education, with loopholes for use of such funds in parochial schools, are argued. Remembering that public opinion is the final court of appeal in a democracy, it is still our Privilege to let our lawmakers and public servants know how we believe and feel on this vital issue. Control of Atomic Energy EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. MELVIN PRICE OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 19, 1947 Mr. PRICE of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, in this day of hysterical discussion of the atomic bomb and its implications, I de- sire to include in the Rrecorp a very sober letter that was written to Mr. J. H. Leib, of A-lington, Va., by the Honorable War- ren R. Austin, United States Delegate to the United Nations. Mr. Austin in a very few paragraphs very convincingly deals with the necessity for adequate controls of atomic energy. Icommend the statements of Mr. Aus- tin to those who habitually think of atomic energy only in terms of a weapon. We cannot fail in our determination that our Nation shall participate in col- lective action to control this indefensible weapon. As Mr. Austin says: I am confident that with patient and per- sistence we shall find a means for an agree- ment on the control of atomic energy. The letter follows: UNrrep STATES DELEGATION TO THE UNITED NATIONS, New York, N. Y., February 10, 1947. Mr. J. H. Ler, Arlington, Va. . Myr Dear Mr. Lez: Thank you for your frank letter of January 29 asking my views on the likelihood of a future war. If I thought war was inevitable or even very likely, I would not be devoting myself completely to the work of the United Na- tions. I believe in the United Nations as the best hope the world has for making peace- ful progress. It cannot guarantee peace but it does offer us political, social, and eco- nomic institutions through which peoples and governments can create the conditions of peace and the collective enforcement of the charter. I do not think that any nation aside from our own has the facilities for making atomic bombs, but the scientists are certain that other nations can secure these facilities within a few years. It is, therefore, of first importance that we get agreement on the A607 control of atomic energy for peaceful pur- only. T am confident that with patience and per- sistence we shall find a basis of agreement on the control of atomic energy. If we can do this, we can also work out a system of inspection and control for other major weapons. . We have a greater stake than any other nation because our concentrated industrial society is most vulnerable to this weapon and we do not know of any defense against it. This fact should not make us hysterical because in such a mood we are likely to do the wrong thing and make matters worse. Rather, we must have a public opinion which is sober and responsible, ready to take the practical next steps, using what we have, to achieve the best results we can. In the last analysis, the hope for peace rests with the people. If they are ready to support their governments in collective ac- tion to create the conditions of peace through intelligent collaboration for economic sta- bility and world prosperity and, at the same time, for the employment of collective mili- tary power against any threat of aggression, we will have peace. I hope these brief comments will answer your letter. Sincerely yours, ARREN R. AUSTIN. MVA: A Lifesaver for New Hampshire Users of Electric Power EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. THOMAS J. LANE OF MASEACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 19, 1947 Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I wish to include herein my remarks with reference to a statement made by Avery R. Schiller, president of the Public Serv- ice Co, of New Hampshire: As sponsor of the MVA, or Merrimack Val- ley Authority, bill in the present session of Congress, I want to take exceptions to the criticism of this measure made by Mr. Avery R. Schiller, president of the Public Service Co. of New Hampshire, which sells power and light to such representative cities as Manchester, Nashua, Berlin, Keene, La- conia, and Rochester. He says, among other things; “Let us per- mit private capital to do these jobs which long experience has shown that private capi- tal is best qualified to do.” I will amend this to say that private power utilities are doing a job on the people of New Hampshire. Here are the facts, quoted from a 1946 re- port of the Federal Power Commission: On average monthly bills for cities of 2,600 population and more, New Hampshire ranks last among the 48 States in the matter of reducirg 100 Kilowatt-hours residential service, Tennessee, home of the TVA, ranks first. Breaking it down more specifically, let us see how the people of Manchester, serviced by Mr. Schiller’s company, are doing with their electric bills. When we look into the report we find rea- sons why Mr. Schiller is opposed to an MVA. During the period January 1, 1936, to January 1, 1946, all except five of the cities of 50,000 or more population in the Nation had reductions in two or more of their typical bills for residential electric service. Among the five who failed to give a break to their consumers was Manchester, N. H.
A608 Among the communities cited where monthly bills showed no change for 25 kilo- watt-hours residential service, Manchester tops the list with the highest average, $2; while Washington, D. C., of whose intentions Mr. Schiller is so suspicious, has a rate of only 98 cents, In another category—100 kilowatt-hours residential electric bill reductions for the 10-year period—the utility servicing Man- chester stubbornly resisted any decrease. Of the cities showing no change, Manchester again has the dubious distinction of head- ing the parade with the highest rate—@5 for 100 kilowatt-hours. Coming to the third category—250 kilo- watt-hours residential—Manchester, the leading contender for high rates, again shows no decrease and once more tops the list with a@ charge of 68. In view of these facts, which prove that the people of Manchester are paying through the nose for their electricity, is it any wonder that Mr. Schiller is opposed to the MVA. Purthermore, about 3,000 New Hampshire farms still are without electric service. They are not being served because they are not considered profitable by normal power com- pany standards. When, however, the Fed- eral Government began to encourage the de- velopment of nonprofit cooperatives in these rural areas, the commercial power companies opposed construction of Rural Electrification Administration lines. They suddenly be- came interested to the extent of constructing spite lines. It appears to me that some of these companies are afraid that they are going to be exposed by cheaper rates. Mr. Schiller carefully avoids the fact that a private company recently purchased a float- ing power station from the Federal Govern- ment to anchor in Portsmouth Harbor, as insurance against the possibility of an elec- trical famine which would cripple the south- ern part of New Hampshire. It is odd that, coming from the State of Washington, he should be suspicious of a New England-born Congressman who does not want to see our one natural resource go to waste, A Congressman from Tennessee—home of the successful TVA—and a Senator from Mr. Schiller’s native State of Washington, where federally sponsored hydroelectric develop- ments have brought great benefits to in- dustry and the people, have both congratu- lated me on my plea to establish a Merri- mack Valley Authority. In both cases they said: “It's about time that New England woke up.” Mr, Schiller speaks guardedly about States’ rights. Fine for certain purposes of govern- ment, but the 5,000-square-mile basin of the Merrimack, with all its economic poten- tialities, was fashioned by the hand of God and cannot be split up and isolated by States’ rights. The South once believed passionately in States’ rights until the TVA showed them a better way, in which the people of several States get together to share a much-needed development of their common wealth. And who has a greater claim to the efficient serv- ice our rivers can give than the people? When men like Governor Dewey, of New York. and General Marshall, among others, urge more projects like the TVA, I should think that Mr. Schiller might heed their advice. ‘Instead of vaulting to the need of “one world,” let us make a modest and practical beginning. Through support of the Merri- mack Valley Authority, we shall not only get more and cheaper electricity for all (includ- ing private utilities), but we shall show our capacity to solve, through democratic meth- ods, the economic challenge of our times. We've got to produce and distribute and pro- vide the lowest | ossible prices for electric power and light for all of the people. EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CLAUDE I. BAKEWELL OF MIsSOURI IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 19, 1947 Mr. BAKEWELL. Mr. Speaker, un- der leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I desire you to include the fol- lowing transcript of the testimony given by my fellow Missourian, Gen. Omar Bradley, the distinguished Administra- tor of the Veterans’ Administration, be- fore the Veterans’ Affairs Committee of the House on Tuesday, February 18, 1947: In view of the confusion that has again and again obscured the fundamental is- sues at stake in public discussion of Job- training ceilings, I am glad of this oppor- tunity to offer my views freely and in open session before your committee. During previous executive committee hearings of the Eightieth Congress, I have purposely avoided any reference whatso- ever to this controversial question. I have likewise refrained from any previous expres- sion of opinion before this or any other committee on pending legislation which would increase or remove ceilings estab- lished by Public Law 679 on the subsistence allowances paid veterans in education or training. There is a direct involvement of public interest here that goes far beyond the hun- reds of millions of dollars at stake. For the principle of a ceiling reaches deeply into the basic intent and the fundamental objectives of the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act. It cannot be resolved—or even under- stood—until the issue is approached as & vital question of national policy. I have already submitted to your commit- tee the formal report requested on H. R. 488 and H. R. 870, both of the Eightieth Congress, together with my comments on 17 other bills proposing changes in existing laws on the payment of subsistence. This report was accompanied by a statement ahd factual study on findings of the Veterans’ Administration in the enforcement of statu- tory ceiling limits. There was also attached @ comparative chart summarizing the prin- eipal features of each of the 19 bills now before your committee. I likewise included a statement on the historical background of administrative policies pursued by the Vet- erans' Administration in the conduct of edu- cation and training prior to the passage of ceiling controls. I respectfully ask that this material be inserted in the record at this point, In that formal report, I said that ceilings were devised not to restrict application of the Readjustment Act but to channel tax moneys into sound and useful job-training programs that would honestly benefit vet- erans seeking wage-earning skills. I stand by the theory of a ceiling, not be- cause we are irrevocably committed to one in the administration of our laws, but be- cause I do truthfully believe a ceiling is needed to establish national policy in de- termining how far we shall go in the pay- ment of subsistence to veterans, Without some such determination from the legislative branch of the Government, the Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs is given power actually to determine national policy. In the arbitrary exercise of that power, one man could conceivably commit the Gov- ernment to the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars in excess of that en- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. visioned by Congress. One man oould re- strict the opportunities for training to the eventual detriment of thousands of veterans. Or, in declining to exercise that authority, one man could undermine the basic training objectives of the educational provisions of the Readjustment Act. I believe it is un- wise to concentrate that power in the hands of one man, To understand the importance of this stat- utory ceiling limit, it is necessary first to understand the sequence of events that brought it into being. During the war, we faced a national crisis when manpower reserves failed to meet pressing military requirements. As a re- sult, the draft law was extended to include youths of 18. Many of them were students in high school or college. Others were work- ing, but only a negligible few had acquired Job skills or experience suited to their peace- time needs. There was the danger that this wartime dislocation might easily result in permanent loss of their opportunity for edu- cation and training. It was this realization that contributed to the early proposals for a Government-sponsored program that would provide incentives to resume education and training. Such a program would not only benefit the individual by equipping him for a productive and self-supporting life, but it also promised to increase the wealth of the Nation by enlarging our reservoir of employ- able skills among this age group. When the Servicemen's Readjustment Act was enacted by Congress, it provided liberal opportunities for veterans whose education or training had been interrupted by war. To insure liberal interpretation of this provi- sion of the law, the Readjustment Act estab- lished that interruption of education would be assumed in the case of any veteran who ‘was under 26 at the time of entry into service. At the same time, the law extended beyond recognized institutional education and established apprenticeship courses to in- clude the indeterminate “other training on the job.” In theory this was a program of readjust- ment devised to heal the economic scars of war in the lives of these young men. It gave them opportunity for greater economic self- determination. It sought to restore lost learning and skills with fresh opportunities for education and training. And it mini- mised cost as the controlling factor in a young man’s selection of his lifetime career. When the war ended and the Readjustment Act was put to a practical test, there soon de- veloped wide misunderstanding of its actual ons. Although the original law provided benefits to veterans on the theoretical basis of need resulting from interrupted training, public opinion soon swung to the support of a prin- ciple that would open education and train- ing to all veterans, irrespective of age, and irrespective of whether or not the war had interrupted their training. At the same time rapid increases in the high cost of living had the effect of dimin- ishing the real value of subsistence allow- ances, These were established in 1944 at the rate of $50 for a veteran without dependents and 675 for a veteran with dependents who was engaged in full-time courses of educa- tion and training. The Seventy-ninth Congress thereupon amended the original Readjustment Act with Public Law 268 on December 28, 1945. Among its other changes this law eliminated the 25- year-age presumption on education and training, opening benefits of the Readjust- ment Act to include all eligible veterans. This amendment likewise increased the rate of subsistence payments to $65 and $00 a month, In addition to these several changes, Pub- lio Law 268 repealed section 1605 of the Readjustment Act, which had previously
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD provided that the value of benefits received by veterans be deducted from any allowance which might thereafter be voted them in the form of adjusted compensation for their war service. While these modifications in the original t Act did not alter the basic philosophy of that law, they did cause con- fusion in the public’s understanding of its objectives. This confusion soon resulted in widespread misunderstanding of the pur- poses to be served in the payment of subsistence. The abandonment of the 25-year age limit in establishing the eligibility of veterans for education and training did not also mean the abandonment of the requirements for training as such. And the increase in rates of subsistence allowance did not mean that Congress had discarded its original intent to limit subsistence allowance to a moderate measure of support to veterans in education and training. Nevertheless, there developed in the minds of many people the erroneous concept that the subsistence allowance had been de- vised as a form of adjusted compensation. They believed it should be paid to any job- holding veteran as compensation for the time he lost in service. If this view is to hold, there are comparatively few among the 10,700,000 job-holding veterans today who could not qualify for subsistence payments. In moat cases, they would be restricted only by their employers’ reluctance to designate their jobs as training programs. Unless the payment of subsistence allow- ances is limited in on-the-job training to actual courses of training within the mean- ing of the law, subsistence allowance can be exploited as a bonus. Early in 1946 a definite trend developed wherein full-time gainful jobs were being labeled courses of training in order to en- able veterans to receive subsistence-allowance payments. In some instances, veterans ex- erted pressure on their employers to estab- lsh training courses which would permit the payment of subsistence. In other cases, employers themselves devised training courses to create higher income inducements for qualified veteran employees. Our effort to prevent the development of this trend was complicated by the Federal- State relationship that exists in enforcement of the job-training program. When Congress drafted the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act, it specified that the approval and supervision of institutions selected for the education and training of veterans on Federal funds be left to the 48 separate States without the further establishment of training standards. In this connection the law says: “8, No department, agency, or officer of the United States, in carrying out the provisions of this part, shall exercise any supervision or control, whatsoever, over any State educa- tional agency, or State apprenticeship agency, or any educational or training institution.” At that time, there was no indication of the astonishing present-day growth of “other training on-the-job.” Within 1 year, from July 1945 to July 1946, while veteran en- rollment in schools and colleges increased 82 times, veteran enrollment in job-training courses increased 200 times, There is noth- ing in the legislative history of the Service- men's Readjustment Act which anticipated the problems soon to confront us in the ad- ministration and control of this job-training rogram, Similarly, there is nothing in the legisla- tive history of Public Law 268 which sug- geste that the effect of the repeal of age restrictions on “other job-training courses” could have been anticipated. States which readily fulfilled their approval and supervisory duties in institutions and apprenticeship courses under the Readjust- ment Act found themselves hard pressed to XCITI—App.——39 @ischarge their responsibilities adequately in rapidly mushrooming job-training courses, Inadequate staffs and insufficient funds often resulted in cursory review and automatic ap- proval of these training programs. Forbidden by law to interfere in this prerogative of the States, the Veterans’ Administration could resort only to offers of aid. Supervision of the veteran himself could not have remedied the situation that de- veloped. The supervision permitted us under the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act ts con- fined to the progress and attendance of the veteran in a course already designated as a course of training by the State approval authority. The Veterans’ A tration was given no authority under the law to determine whether a course of training al- ready approved by the State agency was actu- ally bona fide. Shortly before the close of the Seventy- ninth session of Congress, a bill, 8. 2144, thereafter incorporated in Public Law 679, was introduced in the Senate. This bill pro- posed reimbursement to the States of funds required in the approval and supervision of education and training courses to be pro- vided veterans under the Readjustment Act. After coordination with the Bureau of the Budget for clearance with the program of the President, a report was duly made to the chairman of the Senate Finance Commitice. We were already convinced, on the basis of our experience, that the lack of funds and the lack of adequate standards in many of the States had already caused the job-train- ing program to suffer greatly. Recognizing that the annual cost of this job-training program would run from a min- imum of $350,000,000 to a maximum in ex- cess of $1,000,000,000 in any one year, we agreed that the Federal Government could not logically take the position that the mat- ter was entirely outside its jurisdiction sim- ply because of the phraseology of the Serv- icemen’s Readjustment Act. The two basic shortcomings that conspired to weaken control of on-the-job training were the lack of sufficient funds and the lack of adequate training standards. Although 8. 2144 sought to remedy the first, it offered no solution for the latter. Accordingly, we submitted our report on the Senate bill with amendments to the orig- inal proposal for the relmbursement of funds to the States. One change established an acceptable Nation-wide table of standards for other job-training courses. This includ- ed a 2-year limitation on job-training courses other than those ordinarily recognizable or otherwise approved by the Veterans’ Admin- istration as being apprenticeable in charac- ter. Another established a ceiling on the contributions to be made by the Government in subsistence allowances paid to jJob-hold- ing veterans whether training in schools or on the job. This amendment made it pos- sible for a student to receive subsistence al- lowance even though employed in a full-time job not a part of his educational course. I believe that in their establishment of the educational and training program of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act, the Ameri- can people have not only sought to repair the damage caused by war to the lives, ca- reers, and the job security of numberless thousands of veterans, but I hold they have also prescribed a new and daring charter for human welfare that cannot only repair but enrich beyond measure the lives of these young men. For by creating opportunities for education and the restoration of useful job skills, the American people have granted the veteran his right to share fairly in the wealth of this Nation by honest reward for productive labor. In on-the-job training, we are administer- ing a program specifically designed to help the veteran help himself by acquiring useful A609 and marketable job skills. We have a double- edged responsibility both to the veteran as a recipient of these benefits and to the vet- eran as part of the tax-paying public. To benefit the veteran permanently and to as- sist him in offsetting the economic penal- ties of his service, we must carry out these ns of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act aggressively and with sufficient imagina- tion to accomplish its objectives. Education and training opportunities have been pro- vided by Congress not simply as rewards but as tools that will enable veterans to achieve their own vocational and economic self-suf- ficiency. At the same time, in fairness to the more than 10,000,000 job-holding veterans whose circumstances do not permit or require the use of these training benefits, and in fair- ness to all the American people who must eventually pay for their cost, it is our re- sponsibility to safeguard the integrity of this program and make certain that it shall not be diverted from its sound economic ob- jectives. Shortly after adoption of the job-train- ing standards specified in Public Law 679, it was alleged that the Veterans’ Adminis- tration possessed the necessary machinery for proper control of this program without resorting to the principle of a statutory ceil- ing on the payment of subsistence. With the facts at my disposal, I cannot concur in this conclusion. I cannot, because in exercising any authority given me to limit the payment of subsistence, I felt that I would be preempting the responsibil- ity of Congress in the establishment of na- tional policy. Without attempting to adjudge the ade- quacy of existing statutory ceiling payments, I believe the principle of the ceiling is nec- essary to establish national policy on the payment of subsistence in the job-training program. If we accept the theory of sub- sistence as a moderate contribution to the support of the veteran in training, we must likewise accept the principle that there is some point at which Government subsistence is no longer morally warranted in the vet- eran's economic readjustment. For I believe it was the intent of Congress and the Ameri- can people that these provisions of the Serv- icemen’s Readjustment Act be used as a tool to accomplish this economic readjustment and render the veteran self-supporting. Without a statutory ceiling limit in the payment of subsistence, there is nothing in the standards prescribed for on-the-job training courses that would deny Govern- ment contributions to veterans in training courses in the higher income brackets. I sincerely question whether we can justifiably condone the payment of such subsistence as @ measure of support when we remember that the great majority of wage-earning veterans are participating in no way whatsoever in benefits of the job-training program. To sanction comparatively high-income train- ing courses would simply encourage the du- plication of those courses throughout the country. Ceilings on the payment of subsistence were devised, therefore, as one instrument of control in the job-training program. They were devised not to restrict operation of the Readjustment Act, but to channel tax moneys into sound and useful job-training programs that would honestly benefit vet- erans seeking wage-earning skills. It is only by guaranteeing that veterans receive useful job skills in the expenditure of their eligi- bility that we can hope to steer them toward 8 well-adjusted state of self-sufficiency. This I believe to be the eventual objective of the Readjustment Act. The allegation was made before this com- mittee that the ceiling imposed on subsist- ence payments by Public Law 679 is, in fact,
A610 an actual ceiling on the earnings of veterans. That statement is not true. A ceiling on the payment of subsistence does not limit the amount of money that a veteran may earn. It simply fixes a point on his wage scale above which the Federal Government no longer considers it necessary to furnish assistance. If Congress elects to retain the principle of & celling, the level at which it should be set will depend upon that reasonable and mini- mum point at which it considers the veteran in training to be decently self-supporting. The allegation was also made that appli- cation of subsistence payment ceilings would wreck the job-training program. As of July 81, 1946, 8 days before the ceilings became law, there were 400,527 veterans enrolled in apprenticeship courses and other training on the job. By January 31, 1947, this en- rollment had increased to 632,000 veterans. If the Eightieth Congress elects to repeal the principle of a ceiling, the Veterans’ Ad- ministration wil] be left without any legis- lative guide to determine at what point it should exercise its power to reduce the pay- ment of subsistence in job-training courses. As I indicated to you earlier in this state- ment, the decision is a oritical one of na- tional policy, too important and too far- reaching to be entrusted to the judgment of a single man. If the principle of the ceiling is repealed or if the statutory ceiling is too materially increased, I venture to predict that em- ployers will be subjected to great pressure to convert their production jobs into courses of training. This pressure in turn would be exerted on State approving agencies to en- courage approval of such training programs, Based on the training programs now in operation, the estimated cost of repeal of the celling for the first year is $161,352,000. If the law were amended prior to the be- ginning of the fourth quarter of the fiscal year 1947 there would be an additional cost of $43,766,000. It is not possible for us to estimate the additional cost of new training programs that might be established if ceil- ings are removed or materially increased. Much of the opposition directed against a ceiling on the payment of subsistence is aimed not at the principle of a ceiling but rather at the existing statutory ceiling levels. As the law now stands, a veteran may re- ceive subsistence allowance only when he is enrolled in and pursuing a course of educa- tion or training. He may earn as much as he can. But when the trainee with no de- pendents earns $175 or more per month the Government ceases to contribute subsistence on the theory that a moderate measure of support is no longer needed. When earn- ings of the trainee with dependents exceed $200 or more per month the Government likewise withdraws its partial contribution to his support. Where the veteran’s earnings are less the Federal Government will pay him subsistence but not to exceed $65 or 890 a month. Where the veteran is receiving compensation for productive labor performed as part of his apprenticeship or other training on the job the amount of his subsistence when added to his current monthly salary or wage, based upon the standard workweek and exclusive of overtime, shall not be in excess of the standard beginning salary or wage payable to a journeyman workman or a trained em- ployee in the occupation or trade for which the training is being provided. Here, too, the rate of such allowances when added to the compensation received for productive labor shall not exceed $175 or $200 per month. When the Veterans’ Administration first considered the principle of a ceiling as an adjunct to the job-training standards sub- mitted in its report on S. 2144, Seventy-ninth Congress, I was not inclined to suggest a specific ceiling level. I felt then—as I do now—that this determination is properly the legislative responsibility of Congress as a matter of national policy. Because this ceiling level is of direct per- sonal importance to the living standards of thousands of veterans, I believe that it should be fixed by statute rather than by the deci- sion of the Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs. However, the Veterans’ Administration suggested the existing statutory ceiling lim- its of $175 and $200 in the proposed bill attached to the letter addressed to the chair- man of the Senate Finance Committee on July 19, 1946. In reaching this conclusion, the Veterans’ Administration considered the following three factors: 1. The $100 limitation placed in the law affecting the payment of self-employed allowances. 2. The $1388 a month compensation paid to totally disabied veterans. . 3. The average earnings of all workers, in- cluding those in agricultural occupations. There are now before your committee seven bills in addition to the basic H. R. 870, Eightieth Congress, providing for ceiling levels that reach from $250 to $350 per month for a veteran without dependents, and from $300 to $400 per month for a veteran with dependents. Here again, if Congress elects to retain the principle of a ceiling in the control of on-the-job training, it must determine at what point the veteran in training can be presumed to be independent of government aid in the maintenance of a decent standard of living. It is estimated, on the basis of enrollment in the present program, that the total in- creased cost for the upward revision in ceiling levels proposed as a change in law by H. BR. 870 would amount to $156,492,000 for the first year—assuming that current subsistence al- lowances remain as they are. If the law became effective before the beginning of the fourth quarter of the fiscal year 1947, there would be an additional cost of $42,448,000. Again it is not possible to estimate the addi- tional cost of the training programs that might be established i* ceilings were mate- tially increased. Section 2 of H. R. 488, one of the basic bills under discussion, would repeal that provi- sion of Public Law 679 establishing a lim- itation of 2 years on full-time training on the job. The 2-year limitation prescribed for on- the-job training in the amended Readjust- ment Act does not apply to apprenticeship courses, Nor does it necessarily apply to those courses of trgining which ordinarily are not recognized by State agencies responsible for the approval of apprentice training pro- grams. The Veterans’ Administration under its instruction 8, dated August 27, 1946, pro- vides that courses not ordinarily recognized and approved as apprenticeships can be 80 recognized and approved by the State author- ity or by the Administrator of Veterans’ Af- fairs where they possess the common attri- butes of apprenticeships. This regulation has the effect of extending to additional bona fide training courses exemption from the limitation of 2 years. In other courses which presumably are not apprenticeable in character, the 2-year limitation would prevent the exploitation of job-training procedures in positions ordi- narily considered as part of the normal flow of promotion in business, industry, agricul- ture, and finance, It would prevent the sub- sistence allowance from being employed as compensatory adjustment pay for the benefit of comparatively tew veterans at the expense of the majority. Experience has shown that the 2-year limitation does not work a hard- ship on those veterans who did not elect an apprenticeable course of training. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD H. R. 870, Eightieth Congress, again one of the basic bills under discussion, would in- crease subsistence allowances for the 2,232,- 000 veterans in training under Public Law 846 as of the end of January. By the terms of this bill, subsistence allowances for vet- erans would be increased from 665 and $90 per month to $100 and $125 with $10 more for each additional dependent. It is perfectly clear that in most areas the present subsistence allowance is inadequate to cover the over-al) living costs of veteran students and their dependents. The legislative history of Public Law 346, as amended, suggests that it was the original intent of Congress to contribute a moderate measure of support to veterans in education or training. In its theory, this concept did not admit the obligation of Congress for the complete support of those students. The upward revision in subsistance allowance provided by Public Law 268, Seventy-ninth Congress, resulted from the higher cost of living and helped to reduce in part the hard- ship caused students by rising prices. The question as to whether Congress shall elect to increase this allowance, as proposed in H. R. 870, will depend on whether Con- gress is willing to undertake responsibility for defraying a greater portion of the living costs of veterans and their dependents while in training. At this point, however, I must make this pertinent observation. If justification can be given the need for an increase in sub- sistence allowance to able-bodied veterans in education or training, I do believe that we are also obligated to resurvey the special needs of totally disabled veterans whose com- pensation amounts to $138 per month. By the same token, consideration is also due all of the 2,186,000 disabled veterans drawing monthly compensation in varying amounts. However, I feel that the rate of subsistence allowance to be paid veterans in training is a@ matter of national policy and is a matter for determination by Congress. Since the raising of subsistence allowance would affect both Public Law 16 and Public Law 3846 trainees, it is estimated that the total costs of the changes in subsistence rates proposed by H. R. 870 would amount to $1,123,638,000 for the first year. If the law became effective before the beginning of the fourth quarter of the fiscal year 1947, there would be an additional cost of $308,589,000. If you have any questions, I shall be glad to try and answer them. Johnson & Johnson’s Industrial Peace ——e EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JAMES E. MURRAY OF MONTANA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, February 19, 1947 Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an article entitled “Johnson & Johnson’s Industrial Peace” by Benjamin L. Masse, which was published in the magazine America for January 25, 1947. The article shows how industry may contribute to industrial peace. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: JOHNSON & JOHNESON’S INDUSTRIAL PEACE (By Benjamin L. Masse) Practically everybody knows and uses some of the products of Johnson & Johnson—Red
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Cross cotton and bandages, Tek toothbrushes, the handy and invaluable Band-Aids. The world's largest manufacturer of surgical dressings, Johnson & Johnson is accepted everywhere as synonymous with quality where quality may mean the difference be- tween life and death. Eut if Johnson & Johnson is known to doc- tors and nurses, and even to the general public, it is no less well known to students of industrial relations. New Brunswick, N. J., where the home plant of Johnson & Johnson is located, has long been a place of pilgrimage for those seeking the last word in the manufacture of sutures or adhesive plaster or baby products. It is now becoming @ magnet whic. attracts personnel directors, labor leaders, professors, writers, and vice presidents in charge of industrial relations. For at a time when industrial strife has reached such a bitter stage that men shake their heads and wonder whether warfare after all, as Karl Marx said a century ago, is endemic to an industrial society based on private property, Johnson & Johnson is an oasis of harmony and peace. And so it happened not long ago that the writer went to New Brunswick to find out what made industrial relations at Johnson & Johnson tick. I spent the better part of 2 days there visiting the main plant and several of the subsidiaries, talking with workers and managers, watching the opera- tion of the system on the spot. It was an encouraging and worthwhile experience and IT came away feeling that if Johnson & John- son has not found all the answers to the problems of industrial relations, it has dis- covered enough of them to make life rea- sonably pleasant and profitable for the 10,- 000 people it employs. “Are you satisfied here?” I asked one young lady who was working on sutures, and she replied: “If one has to work, this is the best place I know of.” For an employe who probably had her heart set on marriage and a home and who looked upon all factory work as a necessary evil, this was high praise, indeed. Successful industrial relations are the prod- uct of both tangible and intangible factors, and since it is easier to get your teeth into the tangible factors, let us start there. First of all, most of the Johnson & John- eon employees in New Brunswick are repre- sented by the Textile Workers of America, CIO. In a foreword to the last collective- bargaining agreement signed by the union and the company this paragraph occurs: “The company approves of collective bar- gaining and believes the TWUA is an honest and well-conducted organization and joins the union in urging every affected employe to study this agreement and to be familiar with its contents.” Strange as it may seem to some industrial- ists, Johnson & Johnson really believes that, and skeptics who have their doubts about collective bargaining ought to sit down some time with Brig. Gen. Robert Wood Johnson, chairman of the board, or Richard Mulligan, who handles industrial relations for the main plant in New Brunswick, or Robert Dixson, who has the same responsibility for the company’s Chicopee cotton mills. These men will tell you that the union has helped the company as much as it has helped the employees, and they mean it. Put down whole-hearted acceptance of the union by management as an essential part of good industrial relations at Johnson & Johnson. It is no accident that the union contract is always called the agreement at Johnson & Johnson. Agreement connotes a meeting of hearts and minds, contract suggests hardness and legalism; and General Johnson believes ir. a meeting of hearts and minds and is allergic to hardness and legalism. For this retson, also, the agreement is printed in two parts: the first is the contract itself replete with legalisms; the second, entitled “Here's ‘How To Use the Labor Agreement,” is a down-to-the-earth paraphrase of part I which any employee can read and under- stand. Because it regards the agreement as the basis of its industrial-relations program, Johnson & Johnson goes to unusual and per- haps unique lengths to make sure it is under- stood. Other employers take special pains to explain the labor-management contract to their foremen, but the present writer knows of no other case where the explanation as well as the making of the contract is a joint labor- management enterprise. After the contract has been signed at Johnson & Johnson, the company’s supervisors sit down with the union's stewards and discuss together its meaning and interpretation. These sessions are held on the company's time with top union and management officials available in case their help is needed. The result is bet- te: understanding of the agreement on both 8.des, more interest in it, and smoother work- ing of the grievance machinery. The second tangible factor in harmonious industrial relations is the traditional trinity: wages, hours, and working conditions. In all these respects the workers at Johnson & Johnson seem satisfied. The 40-hour week is in force, of course, with time and one- half for all work done on Saturday and double time for work on Sunday. There are six paid holidays a year, and paid vacations of 2 weeks for all employees who have been with the company more than 8 years. For those with less seniority there is a 1-week vacation with pay. The minimum hiring rate for women is 81 cents an hour; for men 96 cents. Wuges are paid on both an hourly and a piecework basis, and exceptional pains are taken in setting up job procedures and making time studies. The union has access at all times to the company’s time studies and in case of dispute is free to bring in its own engi- neer to study the job in question. Wages at Johnson & Johnson are above the average in both the community and the industry for similar skills, At the present time the company and union are working on a plan for severance pay for workers laid off on ac- count of physical incapacity or technological improvemerts, and are exploring the possi- bility of guaranteed employment. But wages are only part of the mcterial compensation paid to Johnson & Johnson employees. Every employee has the follow- ing insurance paid for by the company: A $500 life insurance policy, a $500 accidental death and dismemberment policy, an acci- dent and health plan with weekly benefits ranging from a minimum of 812 to a maxi- mum of 830, a hospitalization plan with daily benefits of 64, maternity benefits of $148 minimum and $256 maximum, and surgical benefits up to $150. Under the slogan “All work and no play is not the way at Johnson & Johnson,” the company provides a recreation program planned jointly by the employees and the personnel department. Members of the ar!- tan Athletic Association—membership @¢ a year—can engage in the following sports without further expense: Archery, basketball, bowling, fishing, golf. ping pong, rifle, soft ball, and tennis. If the employees want to indulge in horseback riding or swimming, the company, through the association, will pay half the fee. Without in any way deprecating the im- portance of these tangible factors—and some have been omitted for lack of space—I do not believe that they are the real explanation for the success of Johnson & Johnson per- sonnel policies. Other corporations pay good wages, provide various kinds of insurance, sponsor recreational programs, even recog- nize the union and still know nothing better than a truce in industrial warfare. It is the spirit which gives life to dead matter, and if we would seek the explanation for the fine state of affairs at Johnson & Johnson, we must look behind the tangible factors for A611 the intangibles which animate them. And this brings us to Robert Wood Johnson, chairman of the board, and the center around which all the corporation's far-flung activi- ties revolve. In big-business circles General Johnson is something of a controversial figure. (The commission was earned during the war as Army procurement officer for the New York area and later as Chairman of the Smaller War Plants Corporation.) If business ortho- doxy is determined by the National Associa- tion of Manufacturers and other reactionary organizations, then the trim, kindly but blunt-spoken head of Johnson & Johnson is quite simply a heretic. This itself would not be very extraordinary, since there are more heretics roaming around the business world than the average citizen might suspect. But these heretics are mostly silent, for very un- derstandable reasons, and hence do not at- tract attention. General Jchnson is a vocal heretic, and that’s the trouble. When the National Association of Manu- facturers was busy last year opposing an in- crease in minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act to 75 cents an hour, Johnson & Johnson's chairman of the board was just as busy supporting it. He actually dared to testify before the Senate Labor Com- mittee, which was holding hearings on the proposed amendment, and as usual he said exactly what was on his mind. Here is an excerpt: “There have always been more underpaid employed than unemployed. I suppose it would be fair to estimate that, given six to eight million unemployed, we would in the past expect fifteen to twenty million under- Paid. “I suggest that this committee should take the position that the average American work- man cannot keep body and soul together on less than $30 per week anywhere in the United States.” Not long after this performance, General Johnson addressed some candid words to a meeting of the American Management As- sociation in New York. This is what the Startled industrialists heard: “The first real opportunity organized busi- ness ever had to cure the ills of underpay- ment was under the NRA, the hated NRA. We could then have tried to establish a rea- sonable minimum. But what do the records still in the vaults reveal? American busi- ness went to Washington and plunked for the lowest wages and the longest hours it could whittle out of Hugh Johnson. That is the record of American management at that point. “In the years that followed, one good way to put a bill through Congress was to be sure that the chamber of commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, as then constituted, were opposed to it. That was the greatest lobby of all, since it was absolutely automatic. And it worked just as well in reverse; anything those organiza- tions supported was automatically opposed.” Now that is the sort of thing which busi- ness standpatters find it hard to forgive. Like some of Eric Johnston's pronouncements and Charles Luckman's challenging talk last November in Chicago, it smacks of downright treachery. It is important to understand that in set- ting his face against certain aspects of so- called business “orthodoxy” General John- son is not seeking publicity. Only a man addicted to heroics would want that sort of publicity anyhow, and Robert Wood John- son is not addicted to heroics. I imagine that this essentially modest man braves the wrath of his brother industrialists because he has formed certain convictions about industrial relations which he thinks are true and which he regards as important enough to fight for. That js all there is to it. Anyhow it is these convictions which give life to industrial relations at Johnson &