APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Furthermore, if we yield Korea, Formosa will go before long and all Asia, including India and then the East Indies, will be ripe for a plucking by the Moscow-directed Reds. And then, it is only common sense that a Chinese Red army, freed from the necessity of further combat in Asia, would be moved under orders of Stalin to Western Europe to fight there for Russia, It {8 possible that the situation in respect to Korea is not as bad as it looks, and that perhaps we should not be as afraid of the Chinese Reds as many of us are. By Amert- can standards they are poorly armed and trained, and while all of us appreciate the enormous size of the Chinese population, how many men the Chinese Reds can place in the field as effective fighting men is a big question. If we are killing them off at the rate of 10 to 1, and if we have killed 100,000 of them up to now, as the battle reports in Korea in- dicate, then it might be our best policy to continue the battle in Korea, but only with the full-scale assistance of the 500,000 troops Nationalist China claims it can and will put in the field, if only permitted to do so. Not all Chinese are Communists by any means, and that is something that we should never lose sight of. The present world crisis that is contered in Korea is not a battle between nations. It is a war of wholly opposite ideologies— on one side, communism and slavery; no the other, freedom and human dignity. We are living in an era reminiscent of the days of the Crusades. That is why we cannot ad- here to the isolationism advocated by Mr. Hoover and Mr. Kennedy. Mr Hoover and Mr. Kennedy said we should pull out of Europe, but possibly maintain the detense of Britain as an Atlantic outpost. How long could Britain, although bolstered by all the aid that we could give her, hold out against Red hordes poised on the other side of the channel? And after Britain fell, or even before it, the Red aggressors would be on the march In Iceland, Ireland, and Greenland, down through the peninsula of Spain and Portugal, to the Azores and north Africa, and next in the line of march would be the West Indies, South and Central America, In the Pacific, with the Asiatic mainland under its domination, the Reds would con- centrate on Japan, Australia, and the Philip. pines and, to the north, the Aleutians and even Alaska, which Moscow says the Czar never had any right to sell to the United States. How well would we fare under those circumstances? As tragic as is the situation in which we now find ourselves, we have no alternative but to help all who are, or would be, our friends fight the Communists in both Asia and Europe. But we agree with Mr. Hoover that aid to Hurope should be conditioned on the determination of the Western European nations to fight to the bitter end for their own survival, And while we need all the aid we can get, we should not snub Spain. This nation fought the Reds once and is willing and equipped to fight them again. In respect to the Spanish dictatorship, we were not at all reluctant to take all the dictatorial ald we could get from Russia in the last war, and while we have no love for the present form of government in Spain, it does, at least, hate communism violently. One salutary and very desirable effect of the Hoover and Kennedy speeches, however, is that they should awaken free Europe and other UN powers to the need of giving us more aid on the battlefield. Considerable less attention to the remarks of both men would have been paid here in the United States if the feeling existed that we, in this country, were not being let down in Korea by our UN allies, who give us plenty of sup- port at Lake Success. And that ce:tainly in- cludes Canada, through which Russian armies ‘would almost have to march to reach the United States. Revolt Against Foreign Policy Inevitable EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. LAWRENCE H. SMITH OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 4, 1951 Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. Mr. Speak- er, I am including an article by Dorothy Thompson that appeared in the Wash- ington Star of last night: REVOLT 1n PoLicy INEVITABLE (By Dorothy Thompson) The overwhelmingly favorable response to ex-President Hoover’s speech does not sur- prise this columnist. A swing toward Isola- tionism was, in our opinion, bound to occur, the more violently because of the obdurate opposition of the administration and its Republican fellow-travelers to any discussion, even, of past and present foreign policy. Some weeks ago, while I was traveling in the Middle East, I picked up a week-old paper containing an attack by Mr. Acheson on the “reexaminists,” as disguised isola- tionists “incapable of any constancy of pur- pose.” According to Mr. Acheson the desire “to reexamine our programs and to see whether we should have started them, was like a farmer who pulls up his crops in the morning to see how they have done during the night.” Well, many nights have passed since the spring of 1945 when the present foreign pol- icy was seeded. The crop is now visibly above ground, and obviously it sprung from dragon's teeth. If fault can be attributed to the American people, it is that they post- poned their “reexamination” too long, and that the articulate international clique howled down every critic—~as this columnist has had occasion to know. Even while the present United Nations was in the formative stage of the Dumbarton Oaks proposals, to bring any criticism of its structure, or to speculate that far from as- suring peace with justice it was more likely to lead to a series of private wars of un- limited objectives. essentially purposeless, was practically to commit lese majesty. Yet, it was in March 1945, that I made my own predictions of the postwar world: "A grand scale Macedonia of Komitaji poli- ticlans, a perpetual devil's brew of despera- tism and desperadoism; open to interven- tions by foreign-controlled parties, crossed and rent by ideological conflicts not of armies in the conventional sense, but of armed bands * * * given over to social con- vulsions, forced and voluntary migrations, separatisms, throwing up petty contenders with revolutionary followers * * * an era of perpetual wars, all fought in the name of peace.” This, and much else, I wrote in my diary then—and got it published only in January 1948, in that superior weekly of small cir- culation, The Commonweal. The fact is that there has been no con- stancy of purpose because in 5 years nothing has been related to principles. Everything that has happened was, therefore, bound to happen. It {s the fruit of the seed: In the first step the assumption of peace based on a three- power alliance to keep late enemies and all future rebele suppressed; unconditional sur- A29 render—meaning the rejection of all re- straints; the partition of Poland, Germany, Korea, and Palestine; the total disarmament of Germany and Japan and the disastrous weakening of Italy, within no framework of real collective security, thus creating vacu- ums of fatal weakness in the very heartland of the Eurasian land complex. In the second, the inevitable rift in the grand alliance and the attempt, then, to make the United Na- tions what it was never designed to be, and for the United States to accept, on behalf of this fiction, commitments beyond the power of any nation to carry out. From the beginning every warning voice ‘was accused of rocking the boat, threatening the peace, or being defeatist—as this column was defeatist about Korea. A little ordi- nary honesty, some frank confessions of error—these would have cleared the air and would have done far more to increase con- fidence than the policy of keeping skeletons locked in closets and insisting that behind all the improvisations was some wise, far-seeing plan, There has been no wisdom and no foresight and now there ts a popular revolt——alao with- out wisdom or foresight—the blind revolt of the people who, at long last, know they have been morally betrayed. Price Ceilings on Meat EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JAMES I. DOLLIVER OF IOWA . IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 4, 1951 Mr. DOLLIVER. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rec- orp, I include the following letter: Burt, Iowa, December 28, 1950. Hon. James I. DOLLIVER, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dean Mr. Doutiver: Reports indicate the Government is considering the imposition of ceilings on meat. I farm and feed live- stock, and therefore venture to give my views on this proposal. There are now no governmental supports whatever to prices of beef and lamb. The old law of supply and demand establishes the price. Meat is now being produced in unprecedented amounts, and the supply is increasing. Possibly no other nation is 80 abundantly supplied with meats as the United States. To many people meat prices seem high, but so ig most everything else. Wages and other incomes are high. In 1949 our people spent only 5.5 percent of its disposable in- come for meats. The most they ever did spend was 7.1 percent in 1018. The National Industrial Conference Board finds that, “in terms of dollars and cents,” the price of round steak in 1948 was 370.6 percont higher than in 1914. Yet, in terms of work hours or work minutes, the 1948 round steak was 40 percent cheaper than its 1914 counterpart. Since then both wages and prices have advanced a little. The producers of meat in this country are not unionized. There is no collective bar- gaining. When a farmer or feeder sells his meat animals he competes with each and every other farmer doing the same thing. He is in the same position as other laborers would be if there were no unions and each individual engaged in cutthroat competi- tion with every other worker in selling his services.
It should always be remembered that the buying public regulates the price of meat. The farmer and feeder must accept as his portion what is left after marketing, proc- essing, end distributing costs have been deducted. In view of these facts, why should the Government attempt to steal, by means of ceilings, his produc’ The consuming public demonstrates with its purchases that it is willing and able to pay for its food. There is no justifica- tion for the Government in stealing the farmers’ products in order to give the con- sumer cheap meats. Such attempts imme- Qlately discourage the production of meats and soon effect to greatly reduce the meat supply. We suffered that harmful e mee dure ing and after World War II. We had cell- ings. Black markets sprang up. Legitimate meat all but disappeared’ from the retail stores. Many efficient packing firms were on the verge of closing down. The Na- tion’s meat situation degenerated into a discouraging mess. Some leaders in their stupidity urged the President to go out into the country and forcibly take m of all the livestock in the Nation, slaughter it, and thus placate a horde of voters with an orgy of low-priced meats, The President publicly stated at that time he seriously considered committing such shameful and brazen theft. The idea was abandoned only when it was pointed out that the Government had no adequate force and experience to perform that gigantic task of rounding up and caring for all those ani- mals. There are those who say we should co- operate and assist the Government after it has decided on a certain undertaking. I do not agree. If you were to see a stubborn and stupid person at the wheel of an automo- bile loaded with innocent people and at- tempting to drive off a 1,000-foot oliff, there is no point in cooperating with and assisting him. The sensible course is to either dis- suade him or change drivers. The livestock men of this country pro- duce vast quantities of good meats. They are a minority group. Other people deter- mine the price of their products. No good can come from despotic attempts to filch their produce by means of cellings. That is one sure way to discourage production and reduce the supply. We tried that shameful eteal once and failed miserably. Must we wallow in that morass of disillusion again? Without ceilings and rationing, we already have at hand two very effective means of holding down meat prices: 1, Allow the producers to continue to in- crease the meat supply. 2. Reduce the consumers’ expendable in- come—the Internal Revenue Bureau is about to do this by new and additional tax levies, Very truly yours, G. W. Parrmnson. Within Proper Limits Wire Tapping Evidence Must Be Legalized EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. KENNETH B. KEATING OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, January 3, 1952 Mr. KEATING. Mr. Speaker, near the close of the last session I introduced a bill to permit the use of evidence ob- tained by wire tapping in cases involving treason, esplonage, sabotage, and other crimes involving disloyalty to the coun- try. I have now reintroduced this measure, In my judgment, this is one of the most important steps in the fleld of civil defense which can possibly be taken. Under existing law, traitors, spies, sabo- teurs, and those who would deatroy our Nation are permitted to use telephones widely in their nefarious activities, while the FBI and other investigative agencies are precluded from using evidence against them which has been obtained by interception of their messages. This is certainly carrying the right of pri- vacy to an absurd and ridiculous length. No nation can survive which does not meet problems threatening its very ex-~ istence with more realism than this, Protection is afforded by this bill against abuse through the requirement that a Pederal Judge must grant permis- sion for the wiretapping in order to make the evidence obtained thereby admissi- ble. This is to prevent an overzealous investigator from infringing on the le- gitimate rights of innocent and loyal cit- izens so jealously guarded under the American system guaranteeing freedom of expression. If we are to cope successfully, however, with the Communist menace in this country, we must untie the hands of those charged with the responsibility of apprehending traitors or enemy agents who unfortunately infest our precious land. No time is to be lost. We should act at once. It has been suggested in editorial com- ment, like that in the Washington Eve- ning Star which follows below, that the bill should be broadened to include kid- naping and other crimes involving hu- man life. Iam not opposed to that mod- ification; indeed would be inclined to favor it. The important thing at the moment, however, is haste and no argu- ment over details should be allowed to delay the early enactment of legislation 8o vitally needed to save our country. I have urged that an early hearing be granted on this bill and earnestly solicit those Members who agree to express their views emphatically to the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and the leadership which will accord priority to the various measures necessary to pro- tect our country. Also under permission granted, I in- clude a letter to the editor of the Wash- ington Evening Star, which forcefully expresses the imperative need for this legislation: Wiar-Tar Br. Ig this “lame duck” Congress hes done nothing else during its recent term, by its unanimous passage of a bill to give “the FBI the authority to make arrests without war- rants in cases of felonies, especially those in- volving espionage, sabotage, and the national defense,” it has earned ite salary and the ever- lasting praise of loyal Americans everywhere. Now, if the coming new Congress will match this in January by passing the Keat- ing bill, or some similar bill, to allow the FBI to use wire tapping for certain purposes and under proper authority, it will provide one of the most vital defense measures that America has ever had. No loyal, law-abiding American citizen need fear that the FBI will ever destroy his APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD priceless rights or liberties, On the con- trary, these rights and liberties are mate all the more secure because of the FBI, as the record will prove. We cannot expect FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and his men to give Amterica the maximum security so vitally needed now if we are going to keep them handcuffed and shackled while we protect and defend Red spies, saboteurs, traitors, etc., with techni- calities, red tape, and smart lawyers. Cuagies F. Manrin. MINNEAPOLIB, {From the Washington (D. C.) Star] To Lecaliz Wmer-Tar Evivencr Although its sponsors assert that the pend- ing bill to control wire tapping in Washing- ton would permit use of wire-tap evidence in court, the fact is that the amended bill does not specifically authorize such use. Since introduction in court of evidence obtained by tapping communications has been defi- nitely ruled out by the Supreme Court under the Federal Communications Act, there is need for Congress to spell out a positive grant of such authority to law-enforcement agencies, The Neely-Darby bill, as amended by a subcommittee of the House District Commit- tee, would outlaw all wire tapping in the District except that done by District or Fed- eral officers in compliance with an order or warrant of District court. That is a step in the right direction. But the bill speaks only of interception of messages by law-enforce~ ment officers. The subcommittee, in its re- port, said the measure “makes it clear that divulgence or any use of any Information s0 obtained (by tapping wires) is not an ele- ment of the crime and thereby corrects exist- ing law.” It would have been clearer, how- ever, to have written this authority into the bill in so many words, in view of the fact that the FOO statute bars divulgence of in~ formation obtained by wire tapping. The courts have held that divulgense includes use of intercepted messages in a criminal prosecution. Representative Krave, Republican, of New York, has introduced a bill which would abolish the absurd restriction on use of wire- tap evidence in cases involving the national security. This measure would legalize wire tapping and, of equal importance, evidence derived from wire tapping, where there is due cauge to suspect enemy espionage. Per- mission first would have to be secured from 8 Federal judge. The two bills cover different felds and both have worth-while objectives. The local bill 1s designed to ban indiscriminate wire tapping in the District while the national measure would authorize wire tapping any- where in national security cases. The local pill should be amended, however, to leave no doubt as to the right of District police and other law-enforcement officers to divulge intercepted communications in court. And tt would be advisable to amend the Keating bill to include kidnaping and other crimes involving human life. Mrs. Norton Ends 26 Years in House EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. BURR P. HARRISON OF VIRGINIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 4, 1951 Mr. HARRISON of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my re- marks in the Appendix, I take great
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD pleasure in calling to the attention of the House an Associated Press article which appeared in yesterday's editions of the New York Times. It represents only the briefest review of the distin- guished career of our beloved colleague from New Jersey, the Honorable Mary T. Norton, I know that the regret is general in this House that she decided to bring her long and notable service here to a close. Our best wishes go with her in whatever she decides to undertake, for we feel confident her record of achievement has not been closed, Mrs. Norton ENps 26 YeARs In Hovss—Lzp Wacs-Hovun Brut Figur—MeEnrioNep FoR Distaict oF CoLumBia Post WASHINGTON, January 1.—“Fighting Mary” is tak'ng down from her office walls the array of news cartoons that portrayed the high spots of her 26 years in Congress. The dean of women lawmakers—Represent- ative Mary T. Norton, of New Jersey—won't be answering “aye” when the roll call opens the incoming Eighty-second Congress Wednesday. After winning 18 consecutive terms begin- ning in 1924, Mrs. Norton did not run for re- election in November. She was the Demo- crats’ first Congresswoman. She speaks of retiring and writing her memoirs. Accordingly, her office staff chipped in for a large new filing case. But the idea that Mrs. Norton really means re- tirement calls for a grain of salt. Her eyes still flash as they did in those hectic days when as chairman of the power- ful House Labor Committee she piloted the ‘wage-and-hour bill to victory. And she is be- ing mentioned for Presidential appointment as a member of the District of Columbia Commission. LADY MAYOR OF WASHINGTON That would not be a new field for Mrs. Nor- ton, for she served 7 years a8 Lady Mayor of Washington when, the first woman to head a congressional committee, she was chairman of the House District of Columbia Committee. It is difficult to imagine Mrs, Norton at a typewriter pounding out the memories of her lifetime of 75 years, for it is hard to keep her long in a reminiscent mood. She wants to talk about the present. Fearless when convinced of her course, she introduced in 19238 the first resolution in Congress to repeal the eighteenth amend- ment when many politicians side-stepped the prohibition question. A turning point in her career came in 1937 when the chairmanship of the important Labor Committee became vacant. William P. Connery, Jr., of Massachusetts, chairman of the Labor Committee, had died and some rather worrled men lawmakers found that Mrs. Norton, as the next Demo- cratic ranking member, was in line for the top spot. Despite the pleas and flattery of William B. Bankhead, the late Speaker, she refused to remain as District Committee chairman. As hers was an industrial district she said she felt she owed tt to her constituents not to side-step the responsibility. Taking the Labor Committee chairman- ship, instead, she championed the wage-and- hour bill, sponsored by the former chairman. It won after a 7-day fight on the floor. Mrs. Norton—'"Aunt Mary’ as through the years she has become known to the press—has a record of firsts. Besides being the Democrats’ first Congresswoman, she was the first woman chairman of a State political convention and first woman chairman of a State party. It was her interest in welfare that got her into politics, Her only child, a son, died in infancy. To lessen her grief, friends sug- gested she help with an enterprise, then new in Jersey City, the Day Nureery Association, that cared for children while their mothers worked. Her interest in civic affairs attracted the attention of political leaders. The Tidelands Grab EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EDWIN E. WILLIS OF LOUISIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 4, 1951 Mr. WILLIS. Mr. Speaker, the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in the Louisiana-Texas tidelands cases points up the necessity for immedi- ate legislation by Congress. This is so because admittedly the opinion does not settle the issues involved. The Supreme Court is composed of nine judges, two having recused them- selves. While four out of the seven re- maining jurists, in effect, held against the States, they did not finally determine the question of boundaries, title, and right to explore for the minerals, Here we have the anomalous situation of four members, less than a majority, of the highest Court of the land, announcing a previously unheard of doctrine of para- mount rights of the Government to minerals without adjudicating exactly in what off-shore area the minerals are located, really without solving the ques- tion of the title to the minerals and ad- mitting that under the judgment of the Court Congress must act before the Fed- eral Government can exploit the minerals. The boys in Korea may cry for oil, but they can have none under this decision. The States have proven that they are ready, willing, and able to continue to provide oil for the prosecution of the war, but the bureaucrats stand in the way. The irony of it 1s that these same bureaucrats are likely to use the war hysteria as a soap box to plead with Congress to implement the Supreme Court’s decision with legislation author- izing the Federal Government to develop the tidelands area. The truth is that it would take years to survey and delineate the so-called marginal belt, to develop a leasing policy by the Federal Govern- ment, and to set up the necessary facili- ties to produce oil, while the States are prepared to continue operations without interruption, if the bureaucrats will only step aside. Mr. Speaker, a majority of the Demo- cratic members as well as a majority of the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee reported out a bill during the Eighty-first Congress to quiet the title of the States, and I believe that a large majority and probably two-thirds of the Members of this body were prepared to vote for the bill. For some reason or another the bill was not scheduled for action on the floor last year. I intend to promptly bring up the bill again before the Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member, and I am calling A31 the matter to the attention of the House on the very first business day of this new Congress to alert my colleagues to this most important and far-reaching legis- lation. In this connection, I make a part of my remarks the following editorial which appeared in the December 14, 1950, edi- tion of the Times-Picayune, entitled “Federal Tidelands Grab”; Feprrat, TIOELANDS GRAB Last Monday's decision by the Federal Su- preme Court in the Louisiana-Texas tide- lands cases was not unexpected. Since a power-hungry agency of the Federal Govern- ment initiated the tidelands grab several years ago, majority rulings by the high Oourt have favored Federal seizure of those areas to which the coastal States have held and exercised title since the birth of the Republic. Transfer of that title by judicial interpreta- tion and decree at this late day amounted to @ reversal of precedent and national usage so novel and unexpected that the National Government finds it cannot exploit the grab unless and until Congress enacts enabling legislation, Thus far the Federal lawgivers not only have refused to pass the miscalled compro- mise proposal to consummate the seizure, but both Houses once passed a bill restor- ing the tidelands to their original owners, the respective coastal States. That measure, vetoed by President Truman late in a busy session, might have been passed over the veto, but action was deferred and the op- portunity to end the controversy in the right way was lost for the time being. As the matter stands now, Congress alone can restore the rights of the States and pre- vent further encroachments upon those rights if the precedent therefor should be established in the tidelands case. A vigor- ous effort to restore the constitutional di- vision and balance of State and Federal powers already is promised in the next Con- gress by Members of the Senate and House alike. Highly significant in this connection was the adoption by the National Association of Attorneys General Tuesday of a resolution pledging support to the coming fight for a Federal bill restoring the tidelands to owner- ship and control of the States. Representa- tives from 48 States voted for the resolu- tion despite long efforts of the Federal ex- pansioniste to break the solid front of the defense of their rights. The Governors and attorneys general, with few exceptions, rec- ognize the tidelands grab as an encroach- ment which, once established, can be ex- panded toward ultimate breakdown of the State powers and rights whose progressive seizure by the Federal Government is the objective foreshadowed hy the tidelands grab. Adoption of the Rules of the Eighty-first Congress EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. THOMAS B. CURTIS OF MI6BOURI IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, January 3, 1951 Mr. CURTIS of Missourl. Mr. Speak- er, on the motion to adopt the rules of the Eighty-first Congress a debate de- veloped upon the retention of the so- called 21-day rule which had heen adopted for the first time by the Eighty-~ first Congress. The 21-day rule is the
A32 provision whereby upon recognition by the Speaker the chairman of any com- mittee may ask that a bill which has re- ceived committee approval and been re- ferred to the Rules Committee and re- mained in the Rules Committee unacted upon for 21 days be brought before the House for debate and vote. The advocates of the retention of the 21-day rule through parliamentary ma- neuver forced a yote on the main motion without granting to the opponents of the measure an opportunity to present and explain their amendment. The advo- cates of the retention of the rule were defeated and an amendment to the rules of the Eighty-first Congress was pre- sented which reestablished the rule as it was, before the Eighty-first Congress changed it. The advocates of the retention of the 21-day rule argued that the old system placed arbitrary and dictatorial powers in the hands of the Rules Committee which permitted the committee to block any legislation the majority of the Rules Comm'ttee did not wish to see passed. Furthermore, it was argued the Rules Committee through this great power served as a cloak behind which Members hid so that they would not have to ex- press their views by vote on certain measures which were controversial and would hurt them before their constitu- ents. The advocates further argued that abolishment of the 21-day rule was an attack on our basic democratic system and it thwarted the will and rule of the majority. The advocates pointed out eight mearures passed by the Eighty-first Congress which the Rules Committee had not reported out, which were brought to vote through the exercise of the 21-day rule. The opponents of the 21-day rule pointed out that it was passed in a high- ly questionable procedure by the Highty- first Congress whereby all debate upon the matter was shut off and that actually the membership of that Congress had never had the opportunity to even read the 21-day rule amendment to the rules of the Hightieth Congress because Con- gressman Sazsats, the administration leader, proposing the change, had not prepared printed copies of the proposed amendment, but submitted a typewritten copy which had been drawn up just shortly beforehand; also that the ad- ministration leaders of the Highty-first Congress, with the flush of the 1948 vic- tory and their substantial majority, did not even consult thelr own party mem- bers in forcing the amendment through. The opponents pointed out that the author of the previous rule which had successfully operated for the past many years was none other than that great lib- eral George Norris, and was passed for the purpose of cutting down the arbi- trary powers of the Speaker, as built up by “Czar” Cannon, for many years Speaker of the House, and placing these powers in the hands ‘of a 12-man com- mittee, the Rules Committee. The opponents of the 21-day pointed out that far from having House membership could overrule the Rules Committee: Pirst, By petition of one-half the House membership. Second. By the majority of the com- mittee which had approved the bill tak- ing the bill up on Calendar Wedn-eday. Calendar Wednesday comes twice each month the House ts in session. Third. By vote to discharge. The opponents of the 21-day rule ar- gued that far from being an undemo- cratic rule thwarting the wishes of the majority, the 21-day rule gave power to the Speaker, who could recognize what- ever committee chairman he chose, and gave added power, and substantial power, to the chairman of the various com- mittees, instead of to the majority of the committee. The opponents further pointed out that the Rules Committee wes composed of twice the number of members of the majority party as there are minority party members. Both advocates and proponents agreed that a Rules Committee or pol- jey committee, whatever terminology one cared to use, was necessary to the proper functioning of the House, inas- much as the House committees approved three and four times the amcunt of leg- islation that the House membership could consider and vote upon intelli- gently in a session, and it was necessary for some committee to consider and study for decision what legislation should take precedence for considera- on, Congressman Sasatu, again leading the advocates of the 21-day rule, argued that the rule should be kept because the President of the United States should enjoy the privilege of having the legisia- tion he considered important and press- ing considered first and that the mem- bership of the Rules Committee, as con- stituted, would thwart the will of the President, the leader of the majority party. Other advocates of the 21-day rule expressed concern over particular bills which they had sponsored and which the Rules Committee had not given the priority they thought the bills deserved. I Hstened intently to all these argu- ments. The analysis of the arguments advanced, of course, has been put in my own words, and some of those who ad- vanced the arguments will perhaps not agree with the construction I have placed upon them. I feel I have been fair, however, in my interpretation. I voted against the 21-day rule know- ing full well that the administration had already carried their arguments through the so-called liberal press to the people and that already they had succeeded in getting across the impression to certain persons that, first, anyone voting against Democrats. Asa matter of fact, the ad- vocates of the rule actually accused the Republicans of being .a tail wagged by tld acroalae colleagues from the First of all, let me state that these arguments are in my opinion false and have been made to intentionally deceive ‘day. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the public. Actually, h leader desired to bring matters before the House confined to the Rules Com- mittee, he could have done so by bring- ing the matter up on Calendar Wednes- As a matter of fact, the majority leader of the House has deliberately de- stroyed the effectiveness of Calendar Wednesday over a period of time through devious parliameritary methods. Not once did the advocates of the 21-day rule attempt to answer the argument of using Calendar Wednesday. Second, the Constitution provides for a separation of legislative, judicial, and ‘executive powers. Mr. SaBATH’s argu- ment that the President, not the Con- gress, should decide what legislation it should enact is as dangerous as Mr. Tru- man's predecessor's remark to a Con- gressman to the effect that he should disregard any thoughts he might have upon the constitutionality of the meas- ure the President was then anxious to have passed by the Congress. Yesterday we Members of Congress all took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against domestic as well as foreign enemies. Too long have our recent Congresses been guided by expediency, forgetting what is good for the long pull in order to gain the immediate advantage. Too little have we heard discussion in these halls as to whether a particular piece of legislation is constitutional or otherwise. And, yes; I will say it, in the past Con- gress a bill of attainder which is express- ly forbidden by the Constitution, was passed in hysteria without any rea} voice raised against it on the ground that it was a violation of the Constitution, And the move to establish and retain the 21-day rule was more rule by ex- pediency, more rule by person instead of rule by law. The advocates of the 21- day rule are not motivated by the thought that that is a better way to run Congress, They are motivaved by the thought that they do not like the per- sonnel] of the Rules Committee. What rule they really object to is the rule of seniority but they do not care to sincerely face the question of, “Well, what system is better?” There is an old legal adage that “hard cases make poor law.” As far as I am concerned, it applies here. On civil rights matters I, too, do not like the per- sonnel of the Rules Committee. But I still respect orderly procedure and I am willing to fight my battles out fairly with the long view guiding me. I also respect the individual Members of this Congress and the individual members of the Rules Committee. In essence, what we have here is a cheap, but cleverly hidden, political trick. The Democratic Party has been fooling the people entirely too long. The Tru- man tion publicly cusses out the southern Democrats and privately works with them and together they divine yp the tremendous political spoils top-heavy Federal bureaucracy. pis the true thinking of the north- Democrat, coming, as he ffeqentiy doe, rom the bg ee where the gangster-gambler allied political machine dominates the acene and his political existence? ‘Yes, in St. Louis it