A4122 HEADS CF THEOLCGICAL SEMINARIES Dr. I. H. Alston, Allen University Divinity School (AME), Columbia, S. C.; Dr. Edward R. Bartlett, Diff School of Theology (Metho- dist), Denver, Colo.; Dr. Conrad Bergendoff, Augustana Theological Seminary (Lutheran), Rock Island, Ill.; Dr. W. Barnett Blakemore, Jv., Discipies of Divinity House (Disciples) , University of Chicago, Chicago, Tl; Dr. Ahva J. CO. Bond, dean, Alfred University School of Theology (Seventh Day Baptist), Alfred, W, ¥.; Dr. Stephen J. Corey, acting president, College of the Bible (Discizies), Lexington, Ky.; Dr. Raymond L, Cramer, Simpson Bible Institute (Christian and Missionary), Seattle, Wash.; Dr. EB. BE. Flack, Hamma Divinity School (United Lutheran) of Wittenberg College, Springfield, Onio; Dr. fandford Fleming, Berkeley Baptist Divinity School (Protestant Episcopal), Berkeley, Calif.; Dr. Rugene B. Hawk, dean, Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Tex.: Dr. J. Arthur Heck, president, Evangelical School of Theology (Evangelical United Brethren), Reading, Pa.; Dr. Bernard J. Holm, Wartburg Theological Seminary (American Lutheran), Dubuque, Lowa; The Very Reverend Alden Drew Kelley, dean, Sea- bury Western Theological Seminary (Protes- tant Episcopal), Evanston, Ill; Dr. M. B. Lanier, Simraons University (Baptist) , Louis- ville, Ky.; Dr. Bernard M. Loomer, Divinity School (Northern Baptist), University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill.; Dr. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, Jr., president, Chicago Theological Seminary (Congregationalist), Chicago, Ill. L-. Walter Muelder, Boston University School of Theology (Methodist), Boston, Mass.; Dr. Algoth Ohlson, North Park College Theologi~ cal Seminary (Evangelical), Chicago, DL.; Dr. O. R. Reuben, Morris College, Theological De~ partment (Northern Baptist), Sumter, S. C.3 Dr. Harry V. Richardson, president, Gammon ‘Theological Seminary (Methodist), Atlanta, Ga.: Dr. Ralph W. Riley, American Baptist Theological Seminary (American Baptist), Nashville, Tenn.; Dr. Thomas D. Rinde, West~ ern Theological Seminary (United Lutheran), Fremont, Nebr.; Dr. Wallace W. Robbins, Meadville Theological Seminary (Unitarian), Chicago, Til. Dr. Walter N. Roberts, president, Bonebrake Theological Seminary (Evangelical United Brethren), Dayton, Ohio; Dr. Lawrence Rose, General Theological Seminary (Protestant Episcopal), New York, N. ¥.; Dr. George Ww. Sadler, acting president, Baptist Theologi~ cal Seminary, Zurich, Switzerland, secretary, Foreign Mission Board, Southern Baptist Conference; Dr. Wilbour Eddy Saunders, Col- gate Rochester Divinity School (Northern Baptist), Rochester, N. ¥.; Dr. F. W. Schroe- der, Eden Theological Seminary (Evangeli- cal Reformed), Webster Groves, Mo.; Dr. Henry H. Shires, the Church Divinity School of the Pacific (Protestant Episcopal), Berke~ ley, Calif.; Dr. Lorin J. Sieck, Concordia Sem~- inary (Lutheran), St. Louis, Mo.; Dr. Willard L. Sperry, Harvard Divinity School (unde~ nominational), Cambridge, Mass.; Dr. Rus~ sell Henry Stafford, the Hartford Seminary Foundation (interdenominational), Hart~- ford, Conn.; Dr. W. R, Strassner, Shaw Uni- versity School of Religion (National Baptist), Raleigh, N. C.; Dr. Charles L. Taylor, Jr., Episcopalian Theological School (Protestant Episcopal), Cambridge, Mass.; Dr. G. H. J. Thiboudeaux, president, Lampton Theologi- cal School, Campbell College (African. Meth- odist Episcopal), Jackson, Miss.; Dr. J. S. Ladd Thomas, dean, Theological School, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pa.; Dr. Harold W. Tribble, Andover Newton Theo- logical School (Northern Baptist), Newton Centre, Mass.; Dr. Harry Trust, Bangor Theo- logical Seminary (Congregational Christian), Bangor, Maine; Rev. Percey L. Urban, dean, Berkeley Divinity School (Protestant Epis~ copal), New Haven, Conn.; Dr. Guy L. Van~ nah, New England School of Theology (Ad-~ vent Christian), Brookline, Mass.; Dr. George Ross Wells, dean, Hartford School of Reli~ gious Education, Hartford Seminary Foun- dation, Hartford, Conn.; Dr. Alexander C. Za- priskie, dean, Protestant Episcopal Seminary, Alexandria, Va. PROTESTANT EPISCOPALIAN CLERGYMEN AND LAY LEADERS Rey. Melvin Abson, East Syracuse, N. Ys; Rev. Roger W. Bennett, Newton Lower Falls, Mass,; Rev. E. A. De Bordenave, Tappahan- nock, Va.; Rev. Dillard H, Brown, Washing- ton, D. C.; Mrs. John K. Burleson, Berkeley, Calif.; John K. Burleson, Jr., Berkeley, Calif; Katharine A. Burleson, Berkeley, Calif.; Miss Gertrude C. Bussy, Baltimore, Md.; Rev. Thomas H. Carson, Texarkana, Ark.; Rev. Thaddeus Clapp, Worcester, Mass.; Rev. David R. Covell, Jr., Cleveland, Ohio; Miss Grace A. Crosby, West Barnstable, Mass.; Rev. Gardiner M. Day, Cambridge, Mass.; Rev. George H. Haster, St. Louis, Mo.; Dr. John H. Fitzgerald, secretary, the House of Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church, Brooklyn, N. Y.; Prof. Joseph Fletcher, Cambridge, Mass.; Rev. Kenneth Ripley Forbes, Philadelphia, Pa; Rev. George Lorenzo Grambs, Bast Orange, N. J.; Rev. William Grime, Great Neck, N. Y.; Rev. John M. Groton, Westerly, R.1.; Beatrice M. Ham- ilton, Boston, Mass.; Rev. Robert Hampshire, Farmingdale, N. Y¥.; Rev. Robert Hatch, Waterbury, Conn.; Rev. William Heath, Buf- falo, N. ¥.; Rev. F. Douglas Henderson, Min- neapolis, Minn.; The Very Reverend Louis M. Hirshon, dean, Christ Church Cathedral, Hartford, Conn.; Davis R. Hobbs, Tunkhan- nock, Pa.: Rev, J. Ogden Hoffman, Jr., Mon- * rovia, Calif.; Rev. Kenneth DeP. Hughes, Cambridge, Mass.; Rev. Philip W. Hull, Mar- tins Ferry, Ohio; Rev. David R. Hunter, Boston, Mass.; Miss Ruth Jackson, Littleton, N. H.; Rev. Gordon M. Jones, Toledo, Ohio; Rev. Orrin F. Judd, Upper Montclair, N. J; the Very Reverend John M, Krumm, dean, St. Paul’s Cathedral, Los Angeles, Calif.; Mrs. Mary Leakey, Hawthorne, N. J.; Rev. Henry Lewis, Ann Arbor, Mich.; Rev. Charles W. Lowry, Chevy Chase, Md.; Rev. Hugh Mc- Candiess, New York, N. ¥.; Rev. Robert Magill, Lynehbburg, Va.; Rev. William H. Marmion, Birmingham, Ala.; Miss Lucy Ran- dolph Mason, Atlanta, Ga.; Mrs. Mortimer Matthews, Glendale, Ohio; Mrs. Stanley Matthews, Tucson, Ariz.; Rev. Randolph C. Miller, Berkeley, Calif.; Rev. A. T. Mollegen, Alexandria, Va.; Mrs. John F. Moors, Brook- line, Mass.; Rev. J. Brooke Mosley, Wilming- ton, Del.; Deaconess Elizabeth Newbold, Burlington, N. J.; Rev. Thomas F. Opie, Great Barrington, Mass.; Rev. W. Norman Pittenger, New York, N. Y.; Rev. Richard Greeley Preston, Worcester, Mass.; Robert J. Riddle, Philadelphia, Pa.; Rev. Robert N, Rodenmayer, Northampton, Mass.; Rev. Wal- lace E. Rollins, Sweet Briar, Va.; Rev. Wil- liam B. Schmidgall, Tunkhannock, Pa.; Miss Vida D. Scudder, Wellesley, Mass.; Rev. Oscar J. F, Seitz, Gambier, Ohio; Rev. Massey H. Shepherd, Jr., Cambridge, Mass.; Rev. Arthur M. Sherman, New York, N. Y.; Mrs. Mary K. Simkhovitch, New York, N. ¥.; Rev. C. H. Simpson, New York, N. ¥.; Rev. Robert E. Smith, Trenton, N. J.; Rev. C. E. Snowden, Philadelphia, Pa.; Rev. William B. Sperry, Detroit, Mich.; Miss Lucy ©. Sturgis, Boston, Mass.; Rev. Malcolm Taylor, Brookline, Mass.; Mrs. William G. Thayer, Boston, Mass.; Rev. Cornelius P. Trowbridge, Morristown, N. J.; Rev. Luther Tucker, Cincinnati, Ohlo; Rev. Charles E. Tuke, Lansdowne, Pa.; William C. ‘Turpin, Macon, Ga.; Rev. William M. Weber, Littleton, N. H.; Rev. Theodore O. Wedel, Washington, D. C.; Rev. Walter N. Welsh, Syracuse, N. Y.; Rev. Bradford Young, Man- chester, N. H.; Mrs. Robert Zava, Laguna Beach, Calif. COLLEGE PRESIDENTS Dr. A. H. Compton, Washington University, St. Louis, Mo.; Dr. George L. Cross, Uni- versity of Oklahoma, Norman, Okla.; Dr, Wil- liam W. Edel, Dickinson College, Carlisle, Pa.; Dr. Bryn J. Hovde, New School for Social “Esther Holmes Jones, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Research, New York, N. ¥. Dr. D. W. Ma- lott, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kans.; Dr. Henry B. Trimble, Emory University, Em- ory University, Ga.; Dr. Charles J. Turck, Macalester College, St, Paul, Minn, UNITARIAN CLERGYMEN Rev. Waldemar W. Argow, Baltimore, Md.; Rev. Joseph Barth, Miami, Fla.; Rev. Dr. Leon M. Birkhead, New York, N. ¥.; Rev. Raymend B. Bragg, Boston, Mass.; Rev. Edward A. Ca- hill, Nashua, N, H.; Dr. Dale DeWitt, director, Middle Atlantic States Unitarian Association, New York, N. ¥.; Dr. Frederick May Eliot, president, American Unitarian Association, Boston, Mass.; Rev. Samuel Atkins Eliot, Cambridge, Mass; Rev. Norman D, Fletcher, Montclair, N. J.; Rev. Donald Harrington, New York, N. ¥.; Rev. Ralph N. Helverson, Ithaca, N. ¥.; Rev. Dr. John Haynes Holmes, New York, N. Y; Rev. Duncan Howlett, Boston, Mass.; Rev. Charles R. Joy, New York, N. Y.; Rev. Robert Killam, Cleveland, Ohio; Rev. Leon R. Land, Flint, Mich.; Rev. John G. Mac- Kinnon, Wilmington, Del.; Rev. Jack Men- delsohn, Jr., Rockford, Ill; Rev. Wilburn B. Miller, Cambridge, Mass.; Rev. Leslie T. Pen- nington, Chicago, Ill.; Rev. Palfrey Perkins, Boston Mass.; Rev. Charles Francis Potter, New York, N. Y.; Dr, Curtis W. Reese, dean, Abraham Lincoln Center, Chicago, Ill.; Rev. Alson H. Robinson, Princeton, N. J.) Rev. Hugh Weston, Natick, Mass. RELIGIOUS LEADERS (MISCELLANEOUS) Rev. H. Parr Armstrong, Fort Worth, Tex.; Dr. Roger D. Bosworth, Columbus, Ohio; Rev. Rogers T. Burton (Congregational), Irvington, N. J.; Rev. Charles H. Campbell, Flushing, N. Y.; Rev. Donald B. Cloward, executive secretary, the Northern Baptist Convention, New York, N. ¥.; Rev. Henry H. Crane (Methodist), Detroit, Mich.; Rev. E. F. Farnham, Los Angeles, Calif.; Rev. Dr. Theodore Ainsworth Greene, New Britain, Conn.; Rev. Harvey W. Hollis, Executive Sec- retary, Federation of Churches of Christ in Albany and vicinity, Albany, N. Y.; Rev. Dr. Roy M. Houghton, New Haven, Conn.; Mrs, Philadelphia, Pa.; Rev. Donald G. Lothrop, Boston, Mass.; Rhoda E. McCulloch, New York, N. Y.; Rev. Dr. Charles §. MacFarland, Mountain Lakes, N. J.; Rev. Dr. William Pierson Merrill, New York, N. Y.; Rev. Frank N. Miner, Executive Secretary, Flint Council of Churches, Flint, Mich.; Rev. Dr. Wilhelm Pauck, Chicago, Ill.; Rev. Rockwell Hammon Potter, Hart- ford, Conn.; Rev. Ralph H. Read, Maple- wood, N. J.; Rev. Dr. Paul Scherer, New York, N. Y.; Rev. Dr. G. Vaughn Shedd, Boston, Mass.; Rev. Dr. Harold Paul Sloan, Phila- delphia, Pa.; Dr. Norris L. Tibbetts (Pres- byterian), New York, N. Y.; Dr. Joseph King Vivien (Methodist), Nashville, Tenn.; Whit- ney S. K. Yeaple, Executive Secretary, New Hampshire Council of Churches and Religious Education, Concord, N. H.; Rev. Dr. Reuben K, Youngdahi, Minneapolis, Minn. COLLEGE PROFESSORS Dr. James Luther Adams, University of Chicago, Chicago, Il.; Prof. John L. Childs, Columbia University, New York, N. Y¥.; Prof. George S. Counts, Columbia University, New York, N. Y.; Prof. Clyde Eagleton, New York University, New York, N. ¥Y.; Prof. Henry Pratt Fairchild, New York University, New York, N. Y.; Prof. Leland M, Goodrich, Brown University, Providence, R. I,; Prof. Paul L. Hanna, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla.; Dr. Georgia Harkness, Garrett Bible Institute, Evanston, Ill.; Dr. S. Ralph Harlow, Smith College, Northampton, Mass.; Dr. Al- vin Johnson, New School for Social Research, New York, N. Y.; Prof. Horace M. Kallen, New School for Social Research, New York, N, Y.; Dr, Frederick D. Kershner, School of Religion, Butler University, Indianapolis, Ind.; Dr. Halford E. Luccock, Yale Divinity School, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.; Prof. Reinhold Niebuhr, Union Theological Seminary, New York, N. Y.; Dr. Harry A.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Overstreet, Mill Valley, Calif.; Dr. Thomas Clark Pollock, Dean, Washington Square Col- lege, New York, N. Y.; Prof. Harris Franklin Rall, Evanston, Ill, Dr. H. Shelton Smith, Duke University, Durham, N. C.; Dr. Leonard A. Stidley, Graduate School of Theology, Oberlin College, Oberlin, Ohio; Dr. Henry U. Wieman, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oreg. WRITERS AND EDITORS William Rose Benet, New York, N. Y¥.; Dr. Henry Seidel Canby, editor, Saturday Re- view of Literature, New York, N. Y.; Marshall N. Dana, editor, Oregon Journal, Portland, Oreg.; Oscar Hammerstein II, New York, N. Y¥.; Spencer D. Irwin, editor, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Cleveland, Ohio; Freda Kirch- wey, editor, the Nation, New York, N. Y.; Archibald MacLeish, Boston, Mass; Dr. Thomas Mann, Pacific Palisades, Calif.; Rex Stout, Brewster, N. Y. DISTINGUISHED AMERICANS (MISCELLANEOUS) Dean Alfange, New York, N. Y.; Mrs. David Alter, Pittsburgh, Fa.; Mrs. Sherwood An- derson, New York, N. Y.; Dr. Henry A. Atkin- son, secretary, the Church Peace Union, New York, N. Y.; Dr. Frederick T. Bertram, Wil- limantic, Conn.; J. M. Blalock, Columbia, S. C.; Mrs. Jeanetta Welch Brown, president, the National Council of Negro Women, Wash- ington, D. C.; Dr. Hugh Chamberlin Burr, Rochester, N. Y.; Miss Elisabeth Christman, secretary, National Women’s Trade Union League, Washington, D. C.; Bartley C. Crum, member, Anglo-American Commission of In- quiry, New York, N. Y.; Representative Helen Gahagan Douglas, Washington, D. C.; Dr. Clark M. Eichelberger, director, American Association for the United Nations, New York, N. Y.; Frank B. Frederick, Boston, Mass.; Mrs. Louise S. Freese, Sioux City, Iowa; Lloyd K. Garrison, New York, N. Y.; Dr. Charles Hartshorne, Chicago, Ill.; Sidney Hollander, Baltimore, Md.; Dr. John Paul Jones, president, National Peace Conference, Brooklyn, N. Y.; J. M. Kaplan, president, Welch Grape Juice Co., Westfield, N. Y.; John F. Lewis, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa.; Dr. Walter C, Lowdermilk, Berkeley, Calif.; Marshall Mc- Duffie, New York, N. Y.; Dr. Victor Oben- haus, Chicago, Ill.; Rita Ochmann, Cleve- land, Ohio; Mrs. G. Edgerton Parsons, New York, N. Y.; James G. Patton, president, Farmers Educational and Cooperative Union, Denver, Colo.; Judge Harry N. Peterson, St. Paul, Minn.; T. Edwin Quisenberry, Chicago, Ill.; Walter Reuther, president, United Auto- mobile Workers of America, Detroit, Mich.; Quentin Reynolds, Longmeadow, Mass.; Wil- liam Rosenblatt, vice president, Advisory Council, the Nation Associates, New York, N. Y.; James H. Sheldon, administrative chairman, Non-Sectarian Anti-Nazi League, New York, N. Y.; Mayor Paul H. Todd, Kala- mazco, Mich.; Dr. Charles Trexler, New York, N. Y.; Sumner Welles, Oxon Hill, Md. In Fact Exposes $200,000,000 Advertis- ing Kitty—Spurs Six Big Magazines. To Join Anti-Welfare-State Smear Orgy— 26,000,000 Readers Propagandized by Popular Weeklies, Plus Monthly Read- er’s Digest EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. GEORGE G. SADOWSKI OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, June 1, 1950 Mr. SADOWSKI. Mr. Speaker, it is only too obvious to everyone that the Republicans have been engaged in a ter- rifying campaign of smear and vilifica- tion, the lowness of which we have never witnessed before. Every low breed of character assas- sin—immoral and discredited ex-Com- munists, stool pigeons who are proven wife beaters and who deserted their small children—any hireling who will lie for money, is being used in this desperate campaign by the Republicans. The injustice, misery, the broken ca- reers and ruined reputations of decent courageous Americans, caused by these spiteful and unfounded charges, arouse our anger and indignation. The method employed by these Repub- lican accusers to injure or eliminate peo- ple who differ from them in their politi- cal views is nothing novel. It was used by the ancient Romans against early Christians. The guide will tell you an interesting story as he takes you through the catacombs at the Franciscan Monas- tery in the city of Washington, and of course we all remember how the Nazis used it on a gigantic scale against the Jews. That is why it is important that everyone read the following article that appeared in the little, but fearless, maga- zine, In Fact, on May 29, 1850. It clearly shows how the Republicans, big business, and big propaganda are all tied in to- gether: Two HunpreED MILLION DotLar ADVERTISING Kitty Spurs Six Bic Macazinss To Jorn ANTI-WELFARE-STaTeE Smear Orncy—26,000,- 000 READERS PROPAGANDIZED BY FOPULAR WEEKLIES, PLUS MONTHLY READER’s DicEst Papers shape public opinion with reaction~ ary propaganda. This fact is not only well known, but is probably accepted by many of the 52,000,000 Americans who each day buy that many copies of the 1,750 dailies published in the land. “You can’t believe what you read in the papers,” has been an accepted adage for a long time. Fewer readers, however, are aware that the popular weekly magazines do much the same propaganda job, disguising their work be- hind a subtle, sugar-~coated facade of slanted news, entertaining fiction, photos and fancy four-color ads. Yet analysis by this weekly of just six of the more popular weekly magazines, plus the Reader’s Digest, shows that more than 26,000,000 Americans who buy each issue are actually buying the political, social and eco- nomic views of the powerful groups fighting the public welfare. PUBLICATIONS ASSAIL MAGAZINE BIAS, SMEARS “For perhaps the first time in this coun- try’s history big magazines of wide circula- tion, supposed to be entirely free from bias on political and economic issues, are becom- ing bitter and untruthful organs of propa- ganda,” the railroad paper Labor noted April 8. In an article headed: “Big magazines go on smear orgy.” the paper continued “Heaven knows the daily press is bad enough in its attempt to confuse and mislead the public, but the magazines are going still fur- ther. They are generally subtle and always utterly unscrupulous.” . In a special editorial May 6, the Madison (Wis.) Capital Times, one of the few dailies which speaks for the general welfare, also took note of the increasing amount of propa- ganda in the magazines as well as the news- papers—one of the few times a daily news- paper has said anything in criticism of pa- pers and publications. In an editorial head- ed: “Spotting propaganda,” the paper said it would begin a reguiar series to “expose the trisks of suppression, distortion, deem- phasis, and overemphasis given to current A4123 developments, * * * It is our purpose to expose treatment of the news that creates an unfair and biased opinion in the public mind. The instances of biased reporting and editorial comment which ignores im-~ portant facts are becoming more numerous. The Capital Times believes that these efforts to propagandize the American people should be exposed.” ARTICLES ECHO BIG BUSINESS PROPAGANDA LINE This weekly’s investigation of the leading magazines engaged in this activity shows that in each case, the weeklies are well paid for their work on behalf of big business. The six slick weeklies last year received 201,290,267 in advertising revenue. In each instance, the propaganda campaign in the magazines’ columns paralleled the propa- ganda campaign of the business organiza- tions, such at the NAM, or the political party of these interests, the GOP. The only instance of a big magazine not in on the advertising payoff is the Reader’s Digest, which accepts no advertising for its domestic issues, but believes in reaction as a matter of principle. Here is the line-up of the six weeklies probed by this weekly, plus the Digest, and the amount each received, as well as the number of buyers each fools with every issue. P Circula- | 1949 advertis- Magazine tion 1 ing revenue Life__..2 een 5, 341, 626 $76, 346, 727 Saturday Evening Post. .... 4, 034, 169 59, 259, 119 Collier’s...-.--~----------.- 3, 072, 298 17, 064, 959 Li 15, 064, 179 23, 771, 730 9, 788, 562 ?) Total_----....-----~.-| 26, 708, 805 201, 290, 267 1 Latest available figures, 2No advertising. COLLIER’S HITS MONOPOLY PROBE, REASON PARED One of the best examples studied by this weekly is Collier’s, exposed several years ago as closely tied to the J. P. Morgan banking and industrial empire. In recent months, faced with tough competition from the Sat- urday Evening Post, Collier’s “jazzed up” its format, made a big appeal for popularity by aiming its material toward the common man. But analysis of current issues shows that scarcely a week goes by without a Col- lier’s assault on some phase of the common man’s welfare. Here’s just part of this year’s picture: January 7 issue: An editorial: Let’s Not Chop Ourselves Down, an attack on the monopoly investigation in Congress headed by Representative EMANUEL CELLER. Inas- much as all monopoly probes over the past decade have shown that the House of Morgan is the single most influencial and dominant outfit in the field of banking, industry, and utilities, by last count controlling more than $30,000,000,000 worth of assets, among them 13 giant industries with hundreds of sub- sidiaries, 12 utilities with dozens of sub- sidiaries, 7 major railroads, and 3 of the country’s largest banks, the Collier’s attack on the Celler monopoly probe could hardly be described as one from an objective or disinterested observer. (For the benefit of people who can’t visualize how much a bil- lion is, Frederick H. Ecker, chairman of the multibillion Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., recently offered this definition: “If you were to count every minute in every day since the birth of Christ, you would just about reach a billion. We (Metropolitan) have ten of those.” And the Morgan empire has 30.) LABOR, SCHOOLS, HEALTH AMONG MAGAZINE'S TARGETS January 14 issue: Another editorial: We Are for Taft’s Reelection, describing the co- author, of the Taft-Hartley law as just an old-fashioned liberal.
A4124 March 4 issue: Article by former Secretary of State James F. Byrnes, now a powerful force in the Dixiecrat movement, attacking Government spending—the old line of big business for curtailing spending for social services while increasing expenditures for arms, April 8 issue: Article by Senator Tart, Is President Truman Taking Us Down the British Road? This was an attack on the welfare state, the smear word with which re= action hopes to block and defeat proposed Fair Deal legislation like housing, health, FEPC, and so forth. April 22 issue: An editorial headed, “Let’s win the cold war,” a play on words. The editorial was not concerned with the East- West propaganda war but with the campaign to expose antihistamine pills as useless and harmful. “The hot campaign against cold pills seems both exaggerated and unworthy,” the editorial said. It did not say that the patent-medicine manufacturers are among the Nation’s biggest advertisers, nor did it approve the action of the Federal Trade Com- mission in accusing five of the most widely advertised pill makers with false and mis- leading advertising. April 29 issue: Article by Maj. Benjamin H, Namm, Brooklyn department store owner and one-time endorser of Mussolini, head- ed, “Would you enter a door marked social- ism.” This was another attack on the wel- fare state, this time with an appeal for an even greater propaganda offensive by big pusiness to force their concept of the Ameri-~ can way down the Nation’s gullet. Text- books which question the wisdom of the NAM’s philosophy should be banned from schools, teachers who don’t praise without stint the laissez faire concept of free enter- prise should be purged, and every propaganda medium should be used to ram home Namm’s and NAM'’s beliefs, the article said. LABOR DISSECTS TAFT-COLLIER’S FAIR-DEAL SMEAR It isn’t very often that a small publica- tion will take on both a goliath magazine and a political sacred cow, but the railroad weekly, Labor, last month did a job on both Coliier’s and Senator Tarr worth mention~ ing. Commenting on Taft's anti-welfare- state article in the magazine, Labor wrote (April 8): “The article constitutes the maddest kind of effort to fill the hearts of Americans with fear and suspicion. “First, Tarr gives a highly distorted pic- ture of what’s happened in Britain under what he calls the Socialist program of the Labor Party. Then he claims President Tru- man’s Fair Deal proposals ‘parallel almost exactly the measures enforced by the Labor government of Britain.’ “What’s his proof? The answer would be funny if not so serious. His first piece of evidence is that Truman made a postwar request to Congress for certain temporary price-fixing powers to curb inflation, which was a direct result of the war. Yet Tarr tries to make it appear that the President wanted permanent peacetime price-fixing. That’s a plain lie. “Next Tart claims Truman sought power to go into business. What are the facts? Truman in a message to Congress asked authority for a study of production facili- ties which are in short supply, such as steel ‘and, if found necessary, to authorize Gov- ernment loans for expansion of production facilities to relieve such shortages.’ “At that time the steel industry wasn’t meeting the needs of private business, and so Truman sought some tentative means of overcoming the bottleneck. That’s a far ery from the kind of Government national- ization which Tart portrays. “The Ohio Senator really reveals his hand in his third exhibit. He cries that Truman wants to establish more TVA’s around the country to develop cheaper power, as well as build transmission lines and finance gen- erating plants for the Rural Electrification Administration cooperatives. “Clearly, in his attack on the TVA and REA and the farmers co-ops, Tarr is cud- dling right up to the power trust. One won- ders what the farmers of Ohio and the Na- tion will think of a Senator who cries so- cialism at a Government which entered the field to give farmers electric power at rea- sonable prices through the REA because pri- vate companies had refused to do the job. ee Ok “Finally, Tarr comes to Truman’s propos- als for health insurance, disability insur- ance and Federal aid to the States for the care of the needy. All these he lumps under his blanket bugaboo of socialism, British style.  etnat and more pure, unadulterated propaganda fills the article, and_Collier’s gives it the leading position. We don’t question the right of Collier’s to run an ar- ticle glorifying Tari, but if it professes the least claim to impartiality its columns should also be opened to the other side. “There’s little chance of that. Collier’s, along with the Saturday Evening Post and Reader's Digest and other national maga- zines, have been carrying a flood of propa- ganda articles smearing organized labor and the Fair Deal program, while closing their pages to anything remotely resembling a de- fense of the labor movement or of progres- sive legislation. That’s not what Americans call fair play.” . LUCH’S TIME-LIFE MAJOR FORCE IN PUBLIC OPINION As the publisher of the biggest, richest, and lushest weeklies in America, Henry Luce and the arrogance of his Life-Time maga- zines have long been a topic in journalism circles. With an advertising income of more than $100,000,000 annually from just the two publications, it is small wonder that Time-Life always champions the cause of what Heywood Broun called the upperdog. “Often wrong but never in doubt,” has been a suggested motto for Time-Life jour- nalism for many years. Of Luce himself, New Republic, March 27, said, he has a conviction that his periodicals are saying what God would say if God had all the facts. Typical of Luce’s Life-Time approach to their readers was his picture magazine’s spe-~ cial midcentury issue last winter. Adhering to the Luce concept that the American half century was solely the work of big-business men and politicians, with a sprinkling of professional entertainers and sporting characters, Life selected as its typi- cal, average American, a salesman earning slightly more than $10,000 a year, living in the most modern equipped house in one of the best neighborhoods and enjoying all of the luxuries and comforts which are de- scribed in the $100,000,000 worth of four- color ads featured in Life~Time last year. Also in keeping with the big business theme that America is perfect, and anyone who mentions the defects in the system and seeks to correct them is either a Red or at least a fellow traveler, Life has joined the campaign to oust Secretary of State Acheson. “Mr. Acheson has great virtues, but they do not include a confident belief in America,” the magazine pontificated in March, when the McCarthy attacks on the State Depart- ment got under way. SATURDAY EVENING POST Is SLICK ORGAN OF NAM PROPAGANDA Like its main competitor, Collier’s, the Saturday Evening Post can also boast to its advertisers that in return for the $59,000,000 it received last year, scarcely a single issue hits the stands without some attack on the welfare state or its component parts, par- ticularly organized labor. In recent weeks it featured several hoaxes to put over its reactionary propaganda line. One story, The Federal Snoops Are After Me, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD told in tear-jerking fashion how an unhappy publisher of a weekly paper was terrorized and victimized by the Government which took a dim view of his employing children to fold papers after school for a “lark,” for “cider, cookies” and a “little pin money.” Upon investigation after the story appeared in print, the Labor Department revealed that the great-~-hearted publisher, Robinson McIlvaine, had hired children as young as 11, worked them as late as 11:30 p. m., and paid them as little as $1.25 for 8 hours’ work, The Saturday Evening Post story reached over 4,000,000 buyers. The Labor Depart- ment correction made a few labor publica~ tions. The great Saturday Evening Post re~ fused to print a correction. Controlled by Walter Fuller, a past presi-~ dent of the NAM and now an active member of its governing board, the Saturday Evening Post has always followed the NAM line, Today, the NAM campaigns against the wel- fare state, Government spending, and be~ wails the success of left-wing agitators in promoting Socialist measures. Analysis of the Saturday Evening Post’s articles and edi- torials over a period of months shows sub- stantially the same expressions of alarm. SMEARS LAEOR, REJECTS REPLY, FACTS CITED In a story headed: “SEP lies again in dirty campaign to defame labor,” the railroad weekly took note of a current Saturday Eve- ning Post editorial a little more outrageous than some of its others. “An extraordinary drive to smear organ~ ized labor and labor legislation has been started by the Saturday Evening Post. Ordi- narily it would be called a propaganda cam- paign, but it’s worse. It’s a campaign of outright lying,” the paper said. It went on to take apart the Saturday Eve- ning Post’s editorial, Must Propaganda Be the Monopoly of Our Leftists. Among those it described as leftists were the AFL and its League for Political Education, and the CIO’s Political Action Committee, the Amer. icans for Democratic Action, and the Amer~ ican Farm Bureau Federation, which is ad- mittedly far over to the right in the politi- cal spectrum. The AFL sought space in the magazine to refute the charge, but like the Labor Depart- ment, was turned down. In the answer, the AFL’s radio commenta- tor, Frank Edwards, described the editorial as a magnificent piece of piffle, adding: “Big business and big banking spend eight times as much for lobbying as all their so- called leftist opponents combined. Free speech is so nearly nonexistent that it exists only in fragmentary form where it can be found at all. You can count the real inde- pendent newspapers of this country on the fingers of one hand.” Among the facts contained in Edwards’ de- tailed refutation of the Post’s charges was a section dealing with radio, which the Post said was being monopolized by labor. “There are 3,000 broadcasting stations in the United States; we reach about 150 of them,” Edwards said. “The Post calls that pressure. What kind, gentlemen. Low pressure?” The American Economy: Freedom’s Test EXTENSION OF REMARES oF HON. LOUIS C. RABAUT OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, June 1, 1950 Mr. RABAUT. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend by remarks in the REcorD I wish to make known to my colleagues |
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD that there exists in Detroit the Economic Club and it is most ably presided over by its president, Mr. Allen 3B. Crow. Through his administration there has been brought to the city of Detroit from time to time some of the outstanding stu- dents of the country, and the member~ ship of the Economic Club constitutes a roster of Who’s Who in dynamic Detroit. It is indeed a pleasure for me to insert in the Recorp the able remarks of Mr. Leon H. Keyserling, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, on this most fil- ting subject, Freedom’s Test: Mr. KEYSERLING. Mr. Chairman, and all of you who have been kind enough to come and talk together today, I wish that Mrs. Keyserling were here, because then I would have a chance to straighten out one of my domestic problems. That problem arises out of the fact that on a recent occasion when I had to make a talk, and Mrs. Keyserling was present, the person next to her asked her what I was going to talk about and she said, “I can’t be at all sure, but you may be sure it isn’t the topic assigned to him.” Well, I could straighten myself out a little bit if Mrs. EKeyserling were here today, be- cause I am going to try very hard today to talk about the topic assigned to me, The American Economy: Freedom’s Test. And let me say at the beginning that I wish it were practical to organize meetings of this kind in a manner that would permit more freedom in the course of the meeting itself. By more freedom, I mean that I would like it if we could start a meeting of this kind by having those of you across the table raise points for discussion, because it is perfectly obvious that the American economy and its problems are so vast, so complex, that it is awfully hard for some- one in my spot to know even where to begin Without knowing just what is on the top of your minds at the present moment. So I do cherish, as one of the most valuable parts of a meeting of this kind, some opportunity, not for a question period but for a discus- sion period at the end, and I hope that you will begin sharpening your pencils so that although the time allotted to us is not too long we may have that give and take, that exchange of ideas and frank :esponse, which seem to me of the essence of our kind of free society and free economy. The fact that I think the American econ- omy presents a test of freedom is the reason why I’m interested in economics at this time. For if the problems of the American economy related only to the question of our daily bread, only to the troublesome ques- tion of meeting payrolls, or meeting the cost of living, these problems would be important indeed but they would seem in some respects secondary compared with the vast, looming, overwhelming problems which face our Na- tion of 151,000,000 people—if I forecast the census correctly—in a world of something like 2,250,000,000. But when we look at our- selves in the context of the current world situation, we realize that the American econ~ omy is indeed freedom’s test, we realize that whether we shall survive, whether we shall prosper, whether we shall be able to hold on to those freedoms which we all value more than anything else—the fundamen- tal freedoms of human beings, in their busi- ness lives and in their personal lives and in their social and political lives—we realize that the outlook on all these momentous issues depends very much on the strength and stability and progress of the American economy. And that is why I think the prob- lems of our economy are so transcendently important, because I think that how effec- tively we deal with them will determine more than anything else how fully all that we cherish most does survive here and else- where in the world. ACVI—App.- 2AN I don’t think that the most important aspect of this issue is whether our economy is strong enough to maintain national se- curity or defense measures. It is. Nor is it whether our economy is strong enough to maintain its international programs and obligations. It 1s. In a more fundamental sense, our future depends on how well we thrive and prosper in the advancement of our own economic system because the other peoples and the other nations of the free world are looking to the United States as the demonstration of that blend of free en- terprise and free government which has made us strong and to which we look to keep us strong. And if we should per- chance, through neglect or mishap, give even a temporary demonstration that we cannot retain this economic strength in full, then we shall have removed from the eyes of the other peoples of the world the thing which gives us more influence, which gives us more leadership, which gives us more prospect for success, than armaments and other things— although those, too, are important. In this connection, we have to take ac- count, as realistic people, of how we are judged by others. And I think it very im- portant to recognize that they do not judge us always by the tests that we apply to ourselves. It is not satisfactory to them to say, although 1t is important, that we are economically more powerful than the rest of the world—although we are; that we're infinitely more productive and more ingen-~ ious than other industrial nations—although we are; that we have the highest standards of living and have made the most progress. All this is true, but I think we will ke judged primarily in the eyes of the world—not to speak of in the eyes of our own people—not by what we have, for which there are many historic and other reasons for which we should be thankful, but rather by what we do with what we have. After all, the test of the salt of a man is not the talents he was born with but how well he uses what he has. We all prefer the industrious hard- working person of reasonable ability to the person blessed with great ability who wastes his time and accomplishes little. So the test of the American economy will be, not whether we have more than others, but what we do with what we have. And that test will be posed primarily—in the cyes of the free world, I say again—in terms of how well we are successful in avoiding what others have come to think, rightly or wrongly, has keen one of the liabilities of the American economy, its inability to achieve a reasonable measure of stability and a reasonably steady rate of growth. That liability from time to time has cut across the path of our economic progress; it has created from time to time a degree of unem- ployment of plant and resources and man- power to an extent which has made those in other places, and some within our own country, look askance at our rescurces and at our institutions. Thus, I think that the greatest task we have in the years ahead is to find the ways—I say “the ways” because there is no one way or no one panacea to bring more stability and growth into the American economy than it has shown in peacetime years in the past. I say ‘“more’’ advisedly. I don’t say “per- fection,” because let me make it clear at the very beginning that I realize that while there is no absolute conflict there needs to be some reconciliation between security and stability and the dynamism which has made our economy grow the way it has. Perhaps if we sought for absolute security, if we sought for absolute stability, we would have to sac- rifice too large an amount of the initiative and of the dynamism and of the drive which in the long run have enabled us to accome- plish such great results. But there must be some reconciliation, at least to the extent of. not paying a price for our progress so AA125 high that from time to time it unduly jeopardizes our progress. If there is any one thing upon which I think the majority of us would be in agreement, it is that we could not afford a degree of instability which might bring to our economy, in terms of its cur- rent size, anything even roughly comparable to the degree of instability, or the degree of unemployment that we have had measured against the size of our economy in the past. To make myself clear when I talk about unemployment, let me say that I’m not talk- ing si" ¢* ut jobless workers. I’m talk- ing w+. 2 .1., unemployment of managerial Skill, unemployment of our plant and re- sources, Unemployment of our financial re- sources, which are really the counterpart of unemployment of manpower. For let us always remember that manpower itself has no weaith-creating value in our economy except insofar as it is united and wedded to man- agerial skills, to plant and equipment, to fi- nancial resources, and to business know- how. So when I use that simple word “un-= employment,” I’m talking about our econ- omy as a whole and not talking only about jobs. Yet I do think that jobs are one of the imptrtant measures of unemployment, and tue 1eceon for that goes beyond purely ma- terial things and gets into certain other values. Certain trends are taking place in thinking within our own country, not to speak of the rest of the world, to the effect that a high level of joblessness cannot be Gefended. Even if on strictly economic grounds we were to accept the view—which I emphatically do not accept—that our sys- tem might become more efficient with five or six or seven million unemployed, or at least could support this number without strain, public opinion holds otherwise. I think it is part of practical and realistic business pecple not to argue a question which is already determined in the public mind. We must recognize as a given factor in the situation, just as surely as rain is a given factor in a situation, that if unem- ployment does rise above a certain level, the composition of freedom about which we have been talking cannot so easily be assured. No one can look with confidence upon any ad- vent of high and sustained unemployment. I would be the first to say that in such a period, as in the past, the combination of experimentation, of rapid change, which is forced upon the people and the Government by that kind of situation, does not provide a full solution even though it brings some improvements. Therefore, 1t seems that the first prerequi- site of trying to maintain and advance our freedom, to maintain those values which are the hallmark of the American economy, is to start at the rewardingly high economic levels where we are now and try to avoid any critical downturn; because the hour of crisis necessarily produces rapid improvisation and experimentation. We should try to avoid the advent of conditions which, as they be- came more severe, would become harder and more dangerous to deal with. In fact, we must strive for still higher activity and for much lower unemployment. Let me try briefly to cite just a few fig- ures—I don’t want to bore you with many— as to the size and nature of the problem of maintaining reasonably stable growth in the American economy. Many people wonder why, with our economy for 1949 as a whole only 1 percent below 1948 in total level of real output (after adjusting for price changes) unemployment which averaged about 2,000,000 in 1948 changed to about 3,- 500,000 in 1949 and was about twice as high at the end of 1949 as at the end of 1948. Why did that great change in unemployment take place, when 1949 as a whole was only 1 percent below 1948 in total output of goods and services? The reason it took place was twofold, and in those twofold conditions we have evidence
A4126 not only of the strength and the magnifi- cence and the awe-inspiring quality, but also of the central difficult problem, of the Amer~ ican economy. These twofold conditions are: Increases in orcductivtv, which means being able to do rore t..1 ithe same number of people, and second, growth in population and in the labor force. Now we come into 1950 and we see, in the first quarter of this year, at roughly speaking the levels of business activity of the latter part of last year, a further increase in un- employment, and for the same two reasons. I well recall that in the years 1946 through 1948, when I talked with many business econ- omists about productivity, in view of their concern as to whether productivity was really going to increase, I said: “I think enough of the American system of business, of its enterprise and its yudgment, to be absolutely incredulous when it is said that an American industry which invests more billions of dol- lars than ever before in peacetime history in the fundamental improvement of plant and equipment will not achieve vastly increased productivity when we settle down from the immediate postwar situation and when we have a time to digest the results of that improvement.” While the indexes of productivity are al- ways slow in coming in, that increase is now taking place, and I believe that 1950 and 1951 and 1952 will bring ever-increasing evi- dence of a new release of productivity forces which should ‘at least maintain the best records that we made in any comparable number of peace-time years in the past— and I wouldn’t be at all surprised uf it ex- ceeded them. Let’s just look a very few years ahead and see what this current and potential increase in productivity, plus the growth in the labor force, put before us as the central problem of the American economy. Let’s just take a period of 5 years, roughly speaking, to 1954, Now, that may seem like stargazing, but is it really a long time in the life of a great nation? Does it seem to us a very long time ago that the war ended? And that was almost 5 years ago. Over a 5-year period, if we maintain the increase in productivity which our past record (even when averaging periods of de- pression as well as-prosperity) would indi- cate, and maintain only the same level of business activity and the same level of total national output which we had in 1948 (which seemed to us like a phenomenally produc= tive year) then we would end up within four or five years with ten to twelve million unemployed. To make myself perfectly clear, Im not predicting ten to twelve million un- employed. I don’t think we’re going to have it. I think we've got to avoid it. I think we will avoid it. But I’m merely using this statistical illustration to show that the great and most important law of our kind of economy is that it cannot be stable by standing still. It must grow in order to live and thrive and prosper. Therefore, if I may say so, when I hear people saying, “Well, conditions are perfect because na~ tional income, output, employment, are just as high as they were in 1949, and that was a good year, and pretty nearly as good as 1948 which was the best year we ever had, and 80 we're all in the clear’—when I hear this said, I must register my dissent. The fact is that if employment and output and level of business activity remained constant, even at the highest levels we have ever known, we would year by year accrue more unemploy-~ ment of business resources, of financial re- sources, and of manpower. And we would accrue all of the problems that go with such increasing unemployment. Let me illustrate that in just one more way, and then get to some questions of pro- gram and analysis. Suppose we take it in dollar terms instead of taking it in job terms. If between now and 1954 we achieve that minimum desirable rate of steady growth, about 3 to 4 percent a year, which is necessary to prevent unemployment of ail kinds from rising constantly above its pres- ent base, our national income over the next 5 years in the aggregate would be approxi- mately $125,000,000,000 higher than if we stabilized output and income at current levels, and would be about $300,000,000,000 higher than if over the next 5 years we went up and down as in some cyclical periods in the past. Over a 10-year period, the respec- tive figures would be around $500,000,000,000 and $8C0,000,000,0C0. These figures are a measure of the size of the problem of ex~ panding our markets to absorb the potential output of our technology and our business resources and our skills and labor force at reasonably full employment. And when we think of these figures measured against the cost of the last war, measured against the size of the national debt, measured against the best national income that we ever had in any year before the war, then we appreci- ate the size of tre ~r-h'em o problem of business analysis ‘:d)o by .. ss action in exploring and encouraging and developing prospective and potential markets. It does stand to reason that, however much ‘we may look across the seas for the further development of those markets, we must find most of them fundamentally within our own shores. The very simple reason for this is that, in the long run, as a simple proposition of economics, if our foreign trade of what- ever size it may be is to be on a stable basis, it must in the long run be balanced—and I won’t go into all the complexities and de« taus—by an inflow as well as by export of materials and goods and services. There may be some variance, depending upon un-« disclosed items and upon a lot of technicali- ties, but broadly speaking as we expand our markets abroad they must be balanced in one way or another by imports because if they are not we are simply compounding a problem rather than moving toward solving it. And since that rough balance must take place, the fact remains that in the long run, we still have the problem here at home of finding domestic markets roughly approxi- mating our domestic output. I always like to mention this, because I hear in so many places that facile assumption that if in some way we can exploit foreign markets, if in some way we can develop undeveloped areas, then we will no longer have the funda-~ mental problem of the relationship between our home product and our home output. So as not to be misunderstood, I do not mean by this that a program of developing world trade is unsound. I think it is neces- sary. I do not mean that such things as the point 4 program have no point. I think they’re good and desirable. I think we need a healthy world economy and a healthy world trade, but let us not confuse that fact with the assumption that if we are successful in that problem we can avoid the central prob- lem here at home. Now, coming finally to the question of what broad problems confront us as we are faced with the challenge as to whether over the next 5 years we can very substantially reduce unemployment below the 4,700,000 figure of February 1950, or whether we face & rise to six or elght or ten or twelve million. Economics is a peculiar science. It’s a science of words as well as of facts, and when someone talks words alone one gets many different answers to problems and much seeming disagreement. But when one talks facts, 1¢ is surprising to note the extent to which businessmen, labor people, economists, and others in the long run identify the prob-~ lem rather similarly. They identify the problem as one of balance among the vari- ous forces of the economy. By that balance they mean, first of all, that our price struc- ture, our price machinery, which is really the operation of our economy, yield enough APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD in profits to business to provide both the funds and the incentives—and I use both advisedly—the funds and the incentives to continue the improvement of its plant and equipment, to continue its basic expansion, to continue the maintenance of its necessary reserves, at those levels which make full use of our great technology. If business income, as a part of the total flow of national in- come, is not high enough for these purposes, we may temporarily have a high and reward~ ing level of consumption, but we will be im-~ poverishing that central basic resource, our technology and our plant and equipment, our industrialization, in other words, which enables us to progress in the long run. As a corelative those of this problem of balance, if it happens that business income is higher than 1s necessary for these pur- poses, and other forms of income correspond~ ingly too low, we have that deflation which results from inability to clear the markets of goods. Looking at the other side of the coin, with respect to personal incomes of all kines all over the country, which are some- times called consumer incomes, if they get too high in relation to output we have in- flation and overdemand for the products available. But if they get too low, I repeat, we have deflationary pressures. In this task of seeking balance—a balance which will never be a perfect one, but which must be kept within workable limits if we are to have reasonable stability—what forces have we at work in the private economy? We have three great forces. We have the powerful force of organized labor, organized both on the political and on the economic front. We have the great force of farmers, organized not so much on the economic front because the nature of their industry does not permit that, but certainly organ- ized on the political front for the seeking of a larger share of national income than they would get if the programs which they favor were not adopted. And then we have organized business, which in its various ways is seeking self-protection and self-advance- ment. There are only two ways in a free economy by which those three great forces may seek adjustment. One way is through conflict. Conflict on the economic front, through the breakdown of collective bargaining. Con- flict on the political front, through the bidding of favors, based upon the delivery of votes. We have gotten along thus far despite this kind of conflict, and we would certainly none of us surrender all of this kind of conflict for anything that might take its place. We would rather have the conflict, we would rather have the headaches, we would rather have the trouble, than to have the suppression or the restriction or the national planning which could be the only substitute in the kind of economy we have for some of this conflict. But I think many of us are coming to realize increasingly that some of this con- flict must be replaced, or at least ameliorated, or at least reduced, by a second way. This Involves use of certain other guides to the conduct of freemen in a voluntary free enterprise economy. What are these other guides? In the final analysis, they cannot be self-denial or self- sacrifice or altruism, because in the final analysis it is the very definition of our kind of economy that the pursuit of gain, the fol- lowing of self-interest, is the motivating force which drives the economy forward. Those people who go around saying that la- bor should be unselfish, that farmers should be unselfish, that businessmen should be un- selfish, seem to me to propose no solution to the problem. It seems to me that thev don’t even state the problem. The problem is rather to find some restatement of this os- tensible conflict so that it is made Clear that there are many areas in which the self-in-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD terests of one and the Self-interests of the other coincide. In other words, we must find more ways of stating what I believe to be an ultimate truth about our economy— that in the long run, for our economy to grow and thrive and prosper and be reason~ ably stable under a free system, there must be more and more areas where labor and business and farmers appreciate that their real interests do not conflict in the long run. If a farmer should achieve a price-support program which holds out to him the hope of a higher portion of the national income than is consistent with that level of wages or that level of profits which is needed for a healthy industrial system, if he should get a level of supports which holds out to him the in- ducement to a volume and composition of agricultural output which our economy sim- ply cannot digest, then the farmer in the long run will not benefit thereby. And the same thing applies in the case of the busi- nessman and the worker, neither of whom can benefit in the long run by getting more than the economy can afford to give. How can areas of mutuality of interest be more carefully defined? It depends upon men of good will, and I believe, despite any- thing that may be said to the contrary, that a majority of the responsible leadership in all of the vast groupings of the American economy are men of good will. If we don’t start with that assumption, we can’t get anywhere. There are the troublemakers, there are the recalcitrants, there are the ad- venturers, but we must start with the as- sumption that most of the leadership is made up of men of good will who are grop- ing for answers that will be workable an- swers in a free economy. It seems, under these circumstances, that to get this reconciliation of interest so that there will be more areas of agreement, lesser areas of conflict, and at least a reduction of the areas of conflict upon some of the most dangerous ground, we must all try through improved economic study and analysis to define more carefully how the whole economy works in its main parts, and how its related parts Synchronize and fit together. This does not mean national planning. This does not mean the adoption of laws to put all or most of these things into effect, although laws in some areas of national pol- icy are necessary. Let us remember that, in our kind of free economy, even laws must rest upon majority agreement and the broad- ening of areas of consent because without these you don’t get the laws enacted in the first place and you certainly don’t get them effectuated even after they are enacted. So those who say “Let’s substitute law for volun- tary study, for agreement on a voluntary basis” are just avoiding the problem because the problem exists in either event. The most promising approach to this wid- ening of areas of agreement, involving man~ agement and labor and farm groups, is to try to define over some reasonable period of time what a few broad requirements and prospects of our economy are—prospects which we all sense and should share. For example, suppose we start with the proposi- tion that a 300 billion or higher annual nat- ional output within 4 or 5 years is not a pipe dream, is not ple in the sky, but is simply a factual definition of a goal that we have to reach if we are not going to be in serious trouble. And then suppose we try to use improved analysis and economic study to examine candidly and frankly, for example, what kind of funds business needs for in- vestment in plant and equipment, what kind of output of steel and of agricultural pro- ducts are broadly consistent with these ob- jectives of a free and growing economy, and what all this implies for certain price ad- justments and for certain wage adjustments and for certain farm policies. There would still be a range of conflict. I think it would still be true that each group would try to shape and edge its analysis a little bit to its own particular point of view. But I also think that through some such method of voluntary approach and consultation there would gradually emerge some broadening areas of agreement which would reduce the conflict and which would provide guides to viable, voluntary decisions in a free economy. What does that optimism arise out of? Not simply out of a Pollyanna feeling. Let us look back to the first half of 1949. There then appeared many of those factors which in the early 1920’s and again in the late 1920’s and early 1£30’s produced a very ser- ious and prolonged decline; there was a sharp commodity break, a sharp farm price drop, and a rapid decline in profits in many in- dustries, a sharp rise in unemployment. The business sentiment that was accruing at that time was fraught with uncertainty. Yet we came through that test in 1949 much bet- ter than in earlier periods. Why? Because, throughout the economy at many main and strategic sectors of the business community, there were voluntarily practiced and put into effect improved economic judgment and knowledge based upon broader horizons and wider study and more information than had been available 15 or 20 or 30 years ago. In the handling of inventories, in the manage- ment of prices, in the handling of payrolls, and other items too innumerable to mention in the short time here, I think there was a very decisive change for the better as against years ago. At these various strategic points in the economy, there was more impartial study, more analysis, and more effort to relate the problems of each particular industry to the country as a whole. Finally, we come to Government policy, which I have not the time to discuss at great length here. By defining these common ob- jectives in broad areas, we could undertake a practical, business-like and economic ex-~ amination of how Government programs, de- signed initially with the narrow purpose of raising revenues or supporting farm income or paying social security benefits, would be tested by their effect upon the wealth and the health and the stability of the economy as a whole. They would be tested by the in- centives which they provide for general growth and stability and expansion through the normal channels of voluntary trade. Applying that approach to tax policy, T think that a primary judgment of tax policy should be, not only how much revenues it raises on paper in the first instance, but also what its effect upon the whole economy is—how it affects incentives, how it effects growth, how it affects initiative, and many other matters of that kind. And while those responsible for tax policy would still in the final analysis have to make certain recon~ ciliations of Judgments, they would have a star to guide themselves by, which I think now is partly lacking. So that both in the area of private policy and in the area of public policy we have need for this study, this refinement, and this redefinition of the vast and inspiring and realizable goals of the American economy. In closing, I want to say just one thing about how that might affect business policy. The businessman is always torn by the prob- lems of tomorrow as against the problems of next year. So long as the business commu- nity focuses entirely on the problems of to- morrow in a literal sense, on how the next strike may be settled, or on how a current strike may be settled, on whether a majority of economists or others guess that the next 6 months will be good or bad—I think that so long as attention is focused solely upon these very short-run considerations alone, there will be a tendency for businessmen to take the kind of action which in itself tends to make the economy somewhat more unstable. For example, if a large group of business- men, strategically located, should feel that the economic outlook over the next 6 months or over the next year is not good, then their A4127 policies of investment—which seem to me to be a primary conditioner of the economy— would trend in the direction of liquidity rather than in the direction of use of funds. This, if in large enough volume, would in itself exert a pronounced downward-pressure factor. If, on the other hand, wide and stra- tegic sectors of the business community look more years ahead, recognize that in the long run we have not begun to tap the full poten- tialities of our markets, that our standards of living are not a fixed thing, that our inge- nuity in the development of new products is not a fixed thing, that our capacity to adjust Prices to markets is not a fixed thing—if the business community looks ahead in this way and realizes that America should not be sold short, then the investment and pricing poli- cies of business, as well as the policies of other organized groups, would move in step with the long-range upward movement of the American economy. If there is any utility in the enterprise in which some of us in Washington are engaged, it is not in anything that we may ourselves arrive at in an “ivory tower,” it is not solely or mainly in what the Government may find or decide to do, but it is rather in having some slight effect upon stimulating through- out the economy in all its parts a real sense of the things which unites and hold together the American people. These things which hold us together, in world terms, are vastly more important than the things which seem to divide us. The questions which we need to solve together are much more important * than any questions which the faint-hearted may think are insoluble. The record of our past is, on the whole, inspiring regarding our capacity to move ahead. If we can bury the hatchet, define our problems commonly, apply to them the best judgment and the best thought of our business analysis and our economic study, and try to arrive at more agreements and wider common consensus as to what needs to be done, then we have never lacked and we never will lack the technical ingenuity and the skill and the resources to go abead to a successful conclusion. [Ap- plause.] Mr. Crow. Dr. Keyserling, I have a few questions here. Two TI shall read as one be- cause they really express the same idea. (Reading question:) “As a realistic and presently a prosperous people, how long can we stand deficit spending and $42,000,000,000 budgets?” The other, bearing on the same issue. (Reading question:) “Do you not think it important for the Government to begin to reduce its expenditures and live within its income, as private enterprise must do?” Mr. KEeYSERLING. Those two questions are fundamentally the same, and it’s perfectly obvious that I couldn’t answer either of them to my satisfaction, not to speak of yours, in a@ very short period of time. So I will just make a few very brief points. In the first place, it is the objective of the- Government, as I understand it, to balance the budget as rapidly as feasible. I think that the level of national income and general prosperity are now high enough to justify a balanced budget and a surplus for the reduc- tion of the national debt. At the same time, our economy adjusts itself slowly to change, and the decisions on the tax side and the decisions on the expenditure side which have been made in the past would seem to me to make it unwise to try to achieve a complete budget balance overnight. Let me illustrate by one simple example. I might believe that, if taxes had been re- duced by $3,000,000,000 instead of 5 or 6 in 1948, we would now be closer to a balanced budget and our business system would not have been appreciably worse off if the tax reduction had been smaller. But it would not necessarily follow from this—in fact, it does not follow from this, that I would believe that taxes ought to be increased by $3,000,- 000,000 now, because in the current stage
AA4128 of the economy the increase of taxes by $3,000,000,000 now would, I think, do a great deal more damage than if we had reduced taxes by $3,000,000,000 less than they were reduced 2 years ago. I use this merely as an illustration. Realis- tically, looking at a cross section of the situ- ation in where we are now, I think we ought to try to balance the budget as rapidly as feasible by moderation in tax policy, and by economy in expenditures. We should not think that if we reduced public outlays by 85,000,000,000 tomorrow, we would immedi- ately bring the budget into balance. The fact is that either one of those two things— I shouldn’t say the “fact” because it can’t be proved—but the prospect is that either one of those two extreme things would hit the economy a blow more rapidly than it can absorb the blow. Therefore, I think we should move gradually along various paths to a balanced budget. But let us always remember, realistically, that the most important path of all toward @ balanced budget is a resumption of the normal growth pattern of the economy. With profits being the most volatile part of the income structure, the drop in revenues which results when there is even a slight cessation of the upward movement o the economy affects the Federal budget very ad- versely. We can easily balance the budget over & 8~ or 4-year period, even with some tax reduction in the totality, and even if current levels of expenditures should not ‘change, if the economy resumes its normal growth pattern. But if the economy does not grow, if unemployment increases, you have two results: You have, first, a greater drain upon the public purse, which would be im- posed—and you all know realistically that it will, whether you would be for it or not—at Federal, State, and local levels; second, you would have much lower tax revenues at any given level of tax rates in a declining econ- omy. . That is why I think we must always center upon those policies which will do most to re- sume the normal upward growth trend of the economy as the most important step to- ward @ balanced budget. We should prac- tice economy in expenditures in all those areas where this can be safely and prudent- ly done, but some of the figures running into five or six billion dollars as to what might be accomplished through administrative im- provements in the government, are just not borne out by the facts. Mr. Crow. We're getting some good ques- tions here, gentlemen. (Reading question:) “It was an accepted concept of the New Deal that we were faced with a contracting economy. What occa- sioned the Fair Deal to accept the concept that our economy is an expanding economy?”’ Mr. KerySERLING. Well, that is just be- cause knowledge comes but wisdom lingers. As we go along we make progress. And I think that there are many respects in which the American people—the business system, the labor system, the farm system, the gov~ ernment system—learned a lot from the ex- perience of the 1930's, There are two very important things we learned. One of these very important things is that the most dangerous thing to do is to wait until you have a serious economic crisis before applying thought and action to the problem before us. And this is the greatest present test of freedom in our de~ mocracy. As a democracy, we have always been able to rally after the crisis appears. After we’re bombed, after we have a depres- sion, we work our way out of it. But I don’t think that either in the international field or in the domestic field can we safely afford to wait for a crisis again because the first bombing might be more serious. The im- pact of a depression might be more serious, And, therefore, the first thing we learned from the New Deal period is that we can- not again indulge in that process of waiting. The second thing we learned is that if the economy moves too far downhill, it doesn’t seem that the range of governmental meas- ures which may be then used are in them~ selves sufficient to bring about complete re- covery. I haven't time to document this. Some will say that this was only because these measures weren’t on a large enough scale, but I don’t think that’s the case. I think it’s rather because our economy is so predominantly a private-enterprise economy that unless there is reasonable health, and unless there is full attention to the prob- lems of stability in that private enterprise section of the economy, the complementary action of government while important, can- not alone do the job. And that’s why I think we are quite validly placing a great deal more stress upon what combination of programs, private and public, will do most to create and to promote an environment in which reasonable stability and a reasonable rate of progress will be attained in our private enterprise economy itself. That is one of the reasons why there has been a shift, and I think a legitimate shift, from what was called the theory of stagnation to a recog- nition that we have by no means even begun to reach the frontiers with respect to the growth and the expansion, the fair profit return, the enlargement of employment, the enlargement of markets, which can be at~ tained within that great and predominant sector of our economy which is and should remain privately operated. Mr. Crow (reading question). “How much unemployment can be accounted for by an educational system that turns out too many unemployables?” [Laughter.] Mr. Krysrriine. I think that anyone who carefully studies the facts of the past few years will find a correlation between business trends and unemployment trends which will show that unemployment results primarily from a decline in the levels of business activity, or, in the alternative or together with it, a failure of fundamental business activity to grow fast enough to provide a larger number of jobs. There may be some unemployment caused by attitudes among the unemployed. But I don’t think that this Is the basic thing, and I think that those who feel that it is the basic thing may perhaps be distracted from the real problem. For the most part, when our industrial system is growing and thriving and expanding, the number of jobs increases. For the most part, when our eco- nomic system is faltering or hesitating or moving backward, the number of unem- ployed increases. And, after all, this is a two-sided problem. It isn’t only a problem of the person being adjusted to the job. It’s also a question of the job being adjusted to the person. For example, I think we have witnessed over the years, and I think we are going to continue to witness a growth in the number of people over 55, or over 60, or over 62. That’s just the nature of our popu- lation. We are going to continue to witness an increase in the number of people over 40. We are going to continue to witness an im- provement in general education, which will make fewer people willing or sulted for cer- tain types of work which 25 or 35 years ago people were willing to do, or at least did. As these changes are taking place, and they are going to continue to take place, they impose a responsibility, not only upon the educator, not only upon the physician, but also on the business system itself, gradu- ally to realize that through its training pro- grams, and through the whole scope of its business management, some adjustments must be made and some new thinking done. Mr. Crow. We have just time for one or two more. Here’s a very fundamental one. (Reading question:) “Do you believe that this better balance between agriculture, labor, and management can be attained . these three as one, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD without enforced Government quotas and the control of wages and prices?” Mr. KEYSERLING. I think that a great deal of progress can definitely be made, in times of peace, without enforced government con- trol of quotas and prices, and I think that’s freedom’s test. I don’t think, though, that you dispose of a problem by showing that it’s difficult. In some ways it’s more difficult to do things through consensus than to do them by force. Bis the whole nature of our economy, the whole nature of our Govern- ment, and the whole nature of our free so- ciety, is that we have always elected, and will always continue to elect, I hope, to do as many things as possible through con- sensus, and as few things as need be through force. That makes it harder to do, in some ways, but I think it’s the better way. I think it’s the way that has made our economy what it is, and the way that we must con- tinue with increasing efforts to try for in the future. Mr. Crow. Here are two more questions that again mean about the same. (Reading question:) “What part would prices play in attaining the $400,000,000,000 or $800,000,000,000 national income? That is, the inflationary factors.” (Reading question:) “Why should we have @ $325,000,000,000-a-year national income when, in the light of the past, prices will in- crease proportionately, thereby penalizing the thrift of individuals and the people who are on pensions?” Mr. KEYsERLING. Well, in the first place, the second question involves, as I under- stand it, a mistake of fact. If prices gen- erally had increased proportionately with growths in dollar national income, the real output of the economy and the real standard of living would not be higher now than it was before the war. That is palpably not the case, because if you compare 1949 or 1950 with 1939 or 1929, or any other year that you choose, even after making adjustments for changes in the price level—in other words, even when you deflate the gross national product—you still find a real national output which is ranging between 1% and 24% times as high as before the war. When you adjust this for increases in population, you find an actual improvement in standards of living, or per capita consumption as a whole, which is about 40 percent or more higher than before the war. So, my first point would be that it simply is not true that we haven’t made real progress in national growth in any period in the past long enough to overcome the effects of short range instability—in other words, the de- pression eras. Secondly, it is true that if real national progress is made but is accompanied by an increase in the price level, rather than by a general decrease in prices, there are hard~ ships placed upon fixed income groups, That’s perfectly true. I think this simply means that we have to look to the question of whether certain supplementary programs might not be helpful in alleviating their lot to a certain extent. I think anybody who would say that, in order to readjust, we should have a return to the price level of 1939, or even two-thirds or one-half or one- third of the way back to the price level of 1939, would be committing us to about as big @ recession as any that we have known. I think we have reached a plateau of a higher price level than we had before the war. And I think that if we can reasonably stabilize at this point, and make some further mod- erate adjustments, we have reached a sufe enough foundation in most areas to move ahead to rounded growth. There is another part to that question that I think I didn’t get. Mr. Crow. Well, I'll give you three more and we'll clase with them. You can answer (Laughter. ]
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD (Reading question:) “What is the compo- sition of the present unemployment figure? Isn’t some degree of unemployment normal in a capitalistic society?” The other two bear on the same question. (Reading question:) “How many presently ‘unemployed’ are retired or institution- alized?” (Reading question:) “Aren’t there at least 5,000,060 Americans who are more or less nuts—including some Republicans, as well as many Democrats?” [Laughter and applause. ] Mr. KEYsSERLING. Well, I wouldn’t applaud the assertion that a lot of Americans are nuts. If it were true, I would be worried about it. [Laughter]. But, more seriously, the estimate that I made that over the next 10 years we would have to have a total aggregate national out- put $800,000,000,000 above the level of what it would be in a period of cyclical instability was not an estimate based upon changes in the price level. It was merely the trans- position of a constant price level into real output of goods and service. In other words, if you simply start with the national output as around $250,000,000,000 in 1948, and cal- culate the 8 to 4 percent growth per year (which, of course, compounds from year to year because you’re starting from a higher base each year) which would be necessary to hold unemployment to low levels, and then you add up your results over the next 10 years and measure the total against an out- put over the next 10 years which fluctuated as it did between 1929 and 1939, then you would arrive at the figures I have given. So these figures are the real measure of the economic problem confronting this Nation over the next 5 or 10 years, and they are not based upon a rising price level. Of course, if you had some rising price level during that period, your dollar figures would be bigger, and if you had some falling price level they might be somewhat smaller. Now, coming to the question of the compo- sition of the unemployed and whether we need unemployment in this country for various reasons, I would say this: I am per- fectly willing to have that question asked, so long as those who ask the question realize that among those entitled to answer the question are the unemployed themselves. In other words, so long as you realize that the four or five or six million people who happen to be unemployed shall also be asked what is a healthy level of unemployment, and that they have quite as large a stake and quite as large an interest in that prob- lem as those who are employed, then I think it’s a sound question. That isn’t based upon sociology or morals. That is simply based upon the fact that we live in the kind of society—and I happen to be glad that we do—where people who are unemployed, pro- vided that they are able to hold jobs, feel that they are entitled to an opportunity to hold a job. And I’m also glad that we live in the kind of society where there are enough other people besides the unemployed who feel the same way. In any event, that senti- ment is a given fact, and I think the faster we recognize realistically that it is a given fact the safer our business system will be and the safer our free society will he. As to the exact desirable level of unem- ployment, some people will set two million, some will set three, some will set three and one-half, and some will set four, as the safe or maintainable level, I think that the safe or maintainable level needs to be lower, rela- tive to the size of the labor force, than it was during the 1930’s because I don’t think that during the 1930's we had a sufficiently stable and sufficiently prosperous economy. And, also, I think that because of world events a ratio of unemployment to the total labor force and to total population even somewhat but not much lower than it was in the 1930’s would impose a very severe test upon our basic freedoms as I have defined them. Therefore, I should say that it shou'd be our goal to try, through a composite of pri- vate and public actions, to hold unemploy- ment down to levels ranging between two and three million. I would set that as the prime goal. I certainly think that, what- ever the optimum desirable level may be, a situation where unemployment is growing, as it has been growing now-~allowing for seasonal variations—for about 15 months— I think that is disturbing. I think that’s our great central national economic prob- lem. And as I have said before, this isn’t only an unemployment of manpower, it’s also unemployment of business resources be-~ cause business resources are not fully used until they are wedded to labor in the pro- duction of goods and services. [Appiause.] Mr. MarsH. Thanks for that audience par- ticipation, and thank you Mr. Keyserling for coming here and presenting those viewpoints of yours. The meeting is adjourned, Adjournment. Poland Looks Toward Peace—Peoles Seen Stressing Industrial Pregress Over Military Plans EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. GEORGE G. SADOWSKI OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, June 1, 1950 Mr. SADOWSKI. Mr. Speaker, I wish to submit for the REcorp a very interest- ing article that appeared in the Wash- ington Star Tuesday, May 30. It is an article by Daniel De Luce, a very repu- table Associated Press foreign corre- spondent. This information confirms reports that the Poles are putting their energies into reconstructing and re- building their much destroyed nation and not into a military-armament program. The article follows: PoLes SEEN STRESSING INDUSTRIAL PROGRESS OveR MiniTary PLANS (By Daniel De Luce) Warsaw, May 30.—Poland, a cornerstone of the Soviet bloc, apparently counts on a long peace in Europe. Military preparedness is directed by Pol- ish-born Soviet Marshal Konstantin Rokos- sovsky. But it is taking a back seat at pres< ent to the 6-year economic pian. For rebuilding Warsaw, the Government this year is spending as much as for the com- bined armed forces. For industrial developments, three zlotys are appropriated to each one given Marshal Rokossovsky’s Defense Ministry. The military share of the Polish annual budget is 10 percent—equivalent of $214,- 235,000. Western sources describe Poland’s military situation as typical of other bloc powers. None has been armed to the teeth except Yugoslavia, which subsequently broke with Moscow. In sight is a gradual build-up of eastern armies during the 1950’s. Each will try to indoctrinate all ranks with communism and political officers will exercise great authority. There will be standardization of weapons and tactics with Russian help. RECONSTRUCTION HAS PRIORITY Yet reconstruction has priority over re- militarization. That includes, of course, the creation of strategic heavy industries, stecl A4i29 above all, in once backward agricultural countries. Soviet military tutelage is by now com- monplace in the bloc. Poland’s invitation to a Soviet marshal to join her government and politburo, however, seems likely to re- main unique. When Marshal Rokossovsky turned up in Warsaw last November, he was no stranger. He had led a Soviet army group, including the Folish First Army, in liberating a large chunk of Poland from the Germans. Since the war, he has stayed in Poland as com- mander of the Soviet line of communication through Silesia. Marshal Rokossovsky was born in the War- saw area in 1896, when it belonged to the Russian Empire. A Communist-approved biography relates that his father was a loco- motive engineer, his mother was a school teacher, and he was left an orphan at 13. By turn a factory apprentice, stonemason, and Czarist military conscript, he was barely out of his teens when the Bolshevik revolu- tion flared up. He joined the Red Guards and won distinction as a cavalry Officer. Years later, he showed the same dash as a tank force commander outflanking the enemy at Stalingrad. TITOISM WAS RUMORED Rumors of Titoism (nationalistic be-= havicr) circulated here concerning some key Polish officers before Marshal Rokossovsky took control. Retirements instead of crim- inal trials have marked a quiet shake-up in the general staff. Marshal Rokossovsky exercised special care in naming a new chief of political leader- ship in the armed forces, his choice being Brig. Gen. Edward Ochab, a fellow member of the politburo. The regular strength of Poland’s armed forces was 160,000 men last year and may have been increased to 200,000. During sev- eral postwar years, they were outnumbered by the security police. Marshal Rokossovsky appears in Parlia- ment wearing a Polish uniform devoid of medals and ribbons. Six feet four inches tall, and ramrod straight, he seems tactful and modest behind his military reserve. He has tightened up security. Important frontier zones have been sealed off from ci- vilian tourists. Tanks, aircraft, truck borne rocket launchers, and field guns have been sent to him by the Kremlin. But the main attention of the Warsaw government, despite Marshal Rokossovsky’s presence, is not on remilitarization. It is on a thousand and one industrial targets to be hit by 1955. The question is not guns or butter. blast furnaces. Tt is So You Want To Write Your Congressman? EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. EARL C. MICHENER OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, June 1, 1950 Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Speaker, many groups and associations are urging their members to write directly to the Con- gressman concerning legislation in which these groups are interested. ‘This attitude on the part of these associations has undoubtedly increased congressional mail manyfold. A constituent has called my attention to an article in the Link, published by
A4130 Carter Oil Co., and pursuant to the per- mission granted by the House, I am in- cluding that article, which is as follows: So You WANT TO WRITE Your CONGRESSMAN? So you would like to write your Congress- man? Equally interesting 1s the fact that your Congressman would enjoy getting your letter. Hundreds of thousands of letters are cas- caded upon the desks of Congressmen in Washington each week. But millions of other Americans have never written their Congzessman. Many of these citizens at one time cr cther have felt a desire to make their views known on imsortrn+ questions but have hesitated to write .© t.cr Senator or Representative. As a result, vocal minority groups have profoundly influenced legis- lation, while the great majority of Americans sat idly by in indifferent silence. “Next to voting in elections, writing letters to Congressmen—Senators or Representa- tives—is the highest privilege a citizen has in fulfilling his part in the Democratic process. Every citizen has this privilege and can exercise it as often as he pleases. Those who sit back and say to themselves that it 1s useless to tell their Congressman how they feel about pending legislation are failing in their duty and missing the right to grumble when things don’t go as they wish.” The quotation is from the ConcGREssIoNaL Recorp—Appendix issue of Monday, March 8, 1941, and was an extension of remarks of Hon. Fritz G. Lanham, of Texas, in the Hous: c? Reovwcnw ante tives A eviincus iy. cl wedi. 2 information in the remarks follows: Congressmen. are profoundly fluenced by their mail. More often than not it deter- munes how they will vote on vital legislation, An avalanche of correspondence on one side or the other usually affects their vote. They contact their party leaders to find out what it is all about and often, if there are com- plaints against an administration measure, take their problem directly to the President. When you have something worth while to say to your Congressman, feel free to write. He expects you to write when you want to express your views on important matters. The average Member gets 200 letters a day—and woe to him if he ignores them. He knows that every letter represents a po- tential vote, and unless he is a rare excep- tion, he wants to keep his seat. Also, many Representatives have their eyes on the Sen- ate, and many Senators have theirs on the White House. But, even forgetting their personal ambitions, they know it is their duty to reply to their constituents and to others interested in their activities. So imvortert ao Congressmen consider this d- - '".. iLen try to answer all letters within 24 hours. An average of half of each day is devoted to reading them and dictating replies. Often they work late at night. They are impressed by well-written letters, but the contents of your letter are what count. There is an art to writing a Congressman, Here are the fundamentals: Address him correctly, using the accepted forms: Thus: Hon. Robert D, Jones, United States Senate, Washington, D. C.; and the salutation is My Dear Senator. Or: Hon. John Smith, United States House of Repre- sentatives, Washington, D. ©.; Dear Mr. Smith. If you don’t know your Congress- man’s name, write to the Secretary of the Senate, or to the Clerk of the House, and ask them, respectively for lists of the Senators and Representatives by States and districts. They will answer by return mail. Or ask your local newspaper editor who is well in- formed on such matters, Make your letter express your individuality. If you are joining others in writing on a cer- tain subject, use your own words. Don’t let anyone else write your letter. Be brief and to the point. State your case as concisely as possible in the first paragraph. In the second, if you are not a personal friend of the Congressman, identify yourself; who you are, your business connec- tions, your reasons for being interested in the question, your family connections— especially if any relatives are in politics. This information may be vital to the Con- gressman in casting a vote. Be sure to give your address and sign your name legibly. A surprising number of per- sons neglect this and bear lifelong grudges against Congressmen who have been unable to reply. If you are a woman, tell about your family connections; the Congressman may be a friend of your husband, father, or brother. Also, if your given name could be either feminine or masculine identify your sex. Letters generally are more effective than telegrams except where time and distance make a wire imperative. There have been instances in recent years when investigations have disclosed wholes¢tr <5c¢-* so tele- grams by Members of Cv ..-- “'2.' the names of persons who have denied ever send- ing or authorizing such messages. If your Congressman votes the way you wish, or does you a favor, write him a thank you note. Congressman are often criticized for the way they vote; they seldom receive praise. Accordingly they often get a one- sided view of public opinion, and switch their votes under the erroneous belief that they are doing what the public wants when actually they may be following the desire of a@ carping minority. A note of onpreciation will make the Con- gressman romemocr you favorably the next time you write, and if it has to do with a favor done you, it will enable him to close his files on your case, thus helping him in the orderly conduct of his office. If you have a problem with any of the Government departments, bureaus, commis- sions, or boards, write your Congressman and get his advice about procedure. He knows how to cut through governmental red tape. And there are a number of things you should not do in writing your Congressman: Don’t apologize for writing and taking his time; it is his job to give you a hearing. Don’t begin with “as a citizen and tax- payer”; he assumes that you are not an alien and he knows you pay taxes, Don’t say, “I hope this gets by your secre- tary.” The secretary always reads the mail first, unless it is marked “personal,” and you are implying that the Congressman does not know how to run his office. Just because you disagree politically with your Congressman don’t ignore him and write to one from another district about egy cthinn the+ nerins to your own com- ryiy oo esr res or *" courtesy calls for the delivery by the recipient of such a letter to the Congressman from the district involved. Thus, lt is wise to write to him direct. If you write the two Senators from your State, don’t send your Representative a car- bon copy; write to him also—it’s the courte- ous thing to do. When a measure in which you are inter- ested is pending in the House, write your Representative; don’t write your Senators until it has passed in the House and reached the Senate. Never threaten a Congressman by saying, “T’'ll never vote for you if you don’t do such and such.” He will probably tell you that he doesn’t want a vote of that kind. Former Vice President Garner, veteran of 38 years in Congress, had this to say about his mail: “Letters are a Congressman’s bread and butter. If they fall off, he is Uke a movie star about his fan mail. He thinks he is losing his popularity. Throughout my long service, I have made it a point to reply to every letter and to ask the writers for in- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD formation and what they believe and think about national questions.” It is after all the straight-forward letter, carrying the appeal of earnestness that com- mands the interest and respect of Members of Congress. A Congressman never tires of hearing from constituents who have some- thing to contribute to the welfare of the Nation. He knows they write straight from the heart, that he is their voice in Washing- ton and their friend at court. Epitaph for Rufus Woods—American Idealist EXTENSION OF REMARKS F HON. HENRY M. JACKSON OF WASHINGTON IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, June 1, 1950 Mr. JACKSON of Washington. Mr, Speaker, the West—and particularly the Northwest—was saddened by the death, this week, of one of its outstanding citi- zens and journalists—Rufus Woods, edi- tor of the Wenatchee Daily World, in the State of Washington. Thomas L. Stokes, in a column that appeared on May 31, in the Washington Evening Star, has captured the spirit of Rufus Woods, a true American vision-~ ary who lived to see his vision become a reality. At a time when idealism and vision~ aries are frequently the objects of ridi- cule, the story of Rufus Woods is partic- ularly worth noting and remembering. I feel privileged to insert in the Rrcorp Mr. Stokes’ article: New FRONTIERS AHEAD—GREAT DREAM OF SMauL-Town Epiror CaME TRUE IN CRAND CovuLer Dam (By Thomas L. Stokes) A fellow named Rufus Woods died this week, You may not have heard much about him. He was a hustling, bustling, alert, constantly curious editor of a small-town newspaper in a still new country—the Daily World of Wenatchee, Washington, He was a dreamer and a true pioneer of our new frontier, a man-made frontier of great dams that pro- vide cheaper power for homes and industry and water for reclaiming arid lands to offer new opportunities for our people. He is part of the saga that has made us a great Nation. Rufus Woods leaves his monument, al- ready built, in Grand Coulee Dam, of which he had been called the father. He was far away from there, at Toronto, Canada, on a trip with his family, when he was stricken— still searching, looking into apples for cul- tivation in the great agricultural area that Grand Coulee has opened up, and into power development problems. He closed a full life of service at 72. GREAT DREAM CAME TRUE This reporter recalls the first time he met the buoyant, energetic editor, back in 1937, on, a trip with President Roosevelt to Grand Coulee Dam, then in the process of construc- tion. Rufus Woods was an excited, eager man that day; his great dream was coming true. He got on the Presidential special train, his arms filled with copies of his news- paper containing reprints of an article he had written 19 years before, with the long headlines familiar to small papers of that era, but telling concisely the whole story: “Formulate brand-new idea for irrigation grant, Adams, Franklin Counties, covsring
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD million acres or more, Last and newest and most ambitious idea contemplates turning of Columbia River back into its old bed in Grand Coulee, the development of a water plant equal to Niagara and the construction of the greatest irrigation project in the world, first conceived by William Clapp, of Ephrata, Wash.” Beside the reprint was a box: “On July 18, 1918, appeared the first ar- ticle ever written on the Grand Coulee Dam, The Wenatchee World editor had gone to Ephrata, where he met W. Gale Matthews. Gale said ‘Come with me. Let’s go over to Bill Clapp’s office. He has a story for you.’” Rufus Woods got the story, the conception of the Grand Coulee project, and from that day in 1918 he began a crusade that eventu- ally brought the hundreds of men we saw that day 19 years later in 1937, tiny ants far below in the Columbia River bed, working at the dam which since has been completed and which President Truman visited again on. his recent trip to the Pacific Northwest. MET USUAL SKEPTICISM Rufus Woods met the usual skepticism of the pioneer. One of his friends, Judge P. S. Steiner, of the Supreme Court, wrote him after reading his story in the newspaper: “You are proposing damming the Columbia. Verily, Baron Munchausen, thou art a piker.” But in 1922, Rufus Woods got Gen. George Goethals, builder of the Panama Canal, out to inspect the site, and General Goethals said it was practical. Presidents Coolidge and Hoover said it should be done, but did noth- ing about it. It was not until Franklin D. Roosevelt came along that it found the dy- namic creator and dreamer who pushed it forward, another part of his great plan for our new frontier which saw creation of TVA in the Tennessee Valley, Bonneville in Ore- gon, the Central Valley project in California, and envisioned other great projects still wait ing for realization—an MVA for the Mis- souri Valley, a CVA for the Northwest, tying together in one great system Grand Coulee, Bonneville, and other developments along the mighty Columbia, and the St. Lawrence- Great Lakes waterway, among others. It is a good time to think of Rufus Woods, his idealism, and his unselfishness, and his unflagging persistence. We have got to keep our new frontier mov- ing forward always. Fiat Money and Its Consequences EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. DANIEL A. REED OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, June 1, 1950 Mr. REED of New York. Mr. Speaker, our Government is operating under a de- bauched currency. The present system of cheap devalued money is cheating the farmer, the wage earner, the pensioner, the annuitant, and the life-insurance policyholder. . Unsound currencies have brought ruin unspeakable to nations throughout the centuries. The Biblical injunctions in Deuteronomy xxv: 13, 14, 15 warns in these words: “Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small. Thou shalt not have in thy house divers measures, a great and asmall. But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou ave.” I have introduced a bill (H. R. 3262) to restore the right of American citizens to freely own gold and gold coins; to return control over the public purse to the people; to restrain further deterio- ration of our currency; to enable holders of paper money to redeem it in gold coin on demand; to establish and maintain a domestic gold-coin standard, and for other purposes. Under leave to extend, I am inserting as a part of my remarks an address by Dr. Walter E. Spahr, executive vice presi- dent, Economists’ National Committee on Monetary Policy, entitled “Federal Mon- etary Policy’: FEDERAL MONETARY POo.Licy (By Walter E. Spahr, executive vice president, Economists’ National Committee on Mon- etary Policy, professor of economics, New York University) Dr. Spahr, asserting our monetary policy aims at easy and cheap money, attacks pres- ent irredeemable monetary system as dis- honest and as depriving people of power to exercise direct control over public purse. Holds our irredeemable currency system opens gate to socialism and yields to demands of selfish pressure groups, in addition to foster- ing destructive disease of inflation. Con- tends, because of our money system, we no longer have a healthy economy. Our Federal monetary policy is that of easy or cheap money. Practically every device known to man for providing a people with a depreciated and cheap money was employed by our Federal Government in 1938-34. Provision was made for the issuance of fiat United States notes, for depreciation of the dollar by suspension of redeemability of all currency except silver certificates, for de- valuation of the dollar, for expansion of our currency by means of various silver laws, Pump-priming programs and deficit financ- ing by the Federal Government contributed much to the great expansion of our deposit currency. The Government’s cheap money policy, since the devaluation of the dollar in 1934, and aside from the relatively minor effects of our silver laws, rests upon our system of irredeemable currency as a foundation. Such a currency provides the Government with what is perhaps the most subtle device thus far discovered with which to get control of a people without revolution, without their approval, and without their understanding until it is much too late. It is probably the most important device a government can employ in instituting government manage-~ ment of a people and their economy. KEYNES ON DEBAUCHING THE CURRENCY The late Lord Keynes, who gave so much attention to these matters and who con« tributed so much to the institution of gov- ernmentally managed economy in this coun- try and England, stated a fundamental truth in 1919 when he said in his book, The Economic Consequences of the Peace (Har- court, Brace, and Howe, New York, 1920), pages 235-236, that “There is no subtler, no surer, Means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the cur~ rency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of de- struction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to di- agnose.” An irredeemable currency is a debauched currency. And Keynes’ assertion that not one man in a million is able to diagnese the manner in which a debauched currency op~ erates on the side of destruction of a private- enterprise economy seems to be borne out in this country in high degree. The execu- tive department of the United States Gov- ernment, the Treasury, most Federal Reserve authorities, the majority of Congress, and, A4131 of course, the general public, including a large number of economists and newspapers of the social, pro-Government-management variety, are all doing their best to perpetu- ate an irredeemable currency in this coun- try. Some of those people know what they are doing—they want a governmentally man- aged economy. Others do not understand; they fall in that large group, mentioned by Keynes, who are unable to diagnose the evils in an irredeemable currency. Perhaps there is another group—those who understand the evils of statism and do not want it, yet who, for reasons of personal gain, wish to keep the good will of, or obtain favors from, our Federal Government and therefore fawn upon it. They do nothing to fight off statism; and they either embrace, or fail to eppose, an irredeemable currency. Keynes made another observation that is pertinent to such people—and he was not referring to the great mass of pecple who do not understand the principles of mone- tary standards and system; he was referring to what he called the great capitalist class. Said Keynes (ibid., p. 238): “They allow themselves to be ruined and altogether un- done by their own instruments, govern- ments of their own making, and a press of which they are the proprietors. Perhaps it is historically true that no order of scciety ever perishes save by its own hand.”’ OUR CURRENCY IRREDEEMABLE The nature of our variety of irredeemable currency needs to be understood by the re- sponsible men and women of this country who wish to save the United States from the evils of a governmentally managed economy. Domestically, all our currency—money and deposits—is irredeemable insofar as gold for domestic monetary use is concerned. Silver certificates are redeemable in silver for monetary purposes; but the silver money is not directly redeemable in, or convertible into, gold. Internationally, we are on a restricted gold bullion standard. We permit foreign central banks and governments to sell gold to the United States for dollars, or to re- deem their dollars in gold bullion at the statutory rate of $35 per fine ounce under Treasury regulations. Other foreign holders of dollars do not in general have this privi- lege. EVILS OF IRREDEEMABLE CURRENCY The evils in our system of irredeemable currency, with the right of redeemability denied to all but foreign central banks and governments, may be summarized as fol- lows: 1. It is a dishonest currency. It gives our Treasury and Federal Reserve authorities ‘privilege without corresponding responsi- bility. They are authorized to issue prom- ises to pay which they do not intend to re- deem and do not redeem. They cannot be held to an accounting by the holders of these so-called promises—foreign central banks and governments excepted. Although a promise to pay is one thing, and the thing promised is something else, these so-called promises to pay (except in the. case of silver certificates) are merely re- Geemable in other equally irredeemable promises. The thing promised becomes nothing but the promise itself. The essence of the issue involved in this confusion of promise and performance was stated by Chief Justice Chase in the case of Bank v. Supervisors (7 Wallace, 31 (1863) ) when he said that “The dollar note is an engagement to pay a dollar, and the dollar intended is the coined dollar of the United States. * * *” Similarly, Justice Bradley, in the Legal Tender cases (12 Wallace, 560 (1871)), said: “No one suppose that these Government certificates are never to be paid; that the day
A4132 of specie payments is never to return. And it matters not in what form they are is- sued, Through whatever changes they pass, their ultimate destiny is to be paid.” Said Secretary of the Treasury John Sher- man in 1877—it was John Sherman who did so much to make the greenbacks redeemable in 1879:.“There is a large class of people who believe that paper can be, and ought to be, made into money without any promise or hope of redemption; that a note should be printed: ‘This is a dollar,’ and be made a legal tender. “T regard this as a mild form of lunacy, and have no disposition to debate with men who indulge in such delusions, which have prevailed to some extent, at different times, in all countries, but whose life has been brief, and which have shared the fate of other popular delusions.” This form of lunacy prevails in this coun- try today; and the fact that 1t is a popular delusion that ends in national tragedy, if not overcome by statesmen, 1s not yet understood by a majority of our Congress. 2. When the Federal Government in 1938 deprived the people of the United States of a redeemable currency it also deprived them of their power to exercise direct control over the Government’s use of the people’s public purse. When our people had a currency re~- Geemable in gold, every individual had power, to the extent he possessed money and de= posit currency, to register his disapproval of the policies and practices of the banks and Treasury by demanding redemption of their promises to pay. Each individual had the power to send his message of disapproval to the central signal system in the Treasury and Federal Reserve banks—to their gold re- serves—over the golden wires, as it were, provided by a system of currency iedeem~ able in or convertible into, gold. When dis- trust of the value of the banks’ and Treasury’s promises spread, the number of warning sig- nals increased. Every demand for redemp- tion was recorded by a drawing down of the gold reserves of the Federal Reserve banks or Treasury. No individual needed to join with other individuals in some organization for the purpose of sending a plea to the Reserve banks or to the Treasury or to Con- gress in behalf of sounder monetary or fiscal procedures; each individual could act alone and could record his judgment directly. With the institution of our system of irredeemable currency, all the golden wires, ru-rin~ f"3™ all our people to the central sit " -.¢etyr, were cut. The power of the people to record, in ‘an effective manner, their approval or distrust of bank, Treasury, and Government monetary and fiscal practices was destroyed. The signal lights went out both at the central signal board and for the people of the United States. It was as though our people had been deprived of the right to vote. The right to record their prefer~ ences for different types of dollars is prob- ably as important, as a method of controlling the public purse, and, therefore, the Gov- ernment, as is the right to vote one’s poli-~ tical preferences. Power to control the pub- lic purse by direct pressure of the indi- vidual is imperative if the individual is to retain his freedom and is to be able to record nis preferences in any effective manner. We need to consider the fact that individual freedom, private enterprise, and freedom of international trade and exchange reached their greatest period of development when nations had redeemable currencies. Since the golden Wires to the central signal system were cut in this country in 1933, our people have only had the power to protest and to appeal through other devices— through organizations, appeals to Congress- men, letters to the press, and so on—all of which efforts have been ineffective because they can be, and have been, ignored When a government deprives a people of the power to exercise direct control over its use of their public purse, it frees itself from responsibilty to them; it can and generally does ignore their protests; and it can, and often does, become their boss. 8. The use of irredeemable currency has enabled our government +o purchase the support of vote-delivering pressure groups and to put the people’s purse at their dis- osal. P When a government frees itself of the possibilities of direct control by the people over its use of their purse, it cannot be held effectively to an accounting and, if so dis- posed, it can use the people’s purse to buy the support necessary to keep itself in office. A basic policy then is to gain the support of large vote-delivering pressure groups. The people’s money is distributed in a manner designed to insure the desired political sup- port, Vote-delivering pressure groups soon perceive that monetary favors are to be ob- tained in exchange for political support and rush to Washington to make the best terms possible, One result is that the Government ‘becomes the prisoner of those whose support it can purchase, and the people’s purse is passed by Congress to the control of the vote-delivering and favor-seeking pressure groups. That is, in the main, the state of affairs that prevails in the United States today, the basic cause of which hes in the institution by the Federal Government in 1933 of our system of irredeemable currency. Pressure groups need to be dealt with in accordance with the standards of statesman~ ship rather than in accordance With those of the politician. The latter is a self-server; the statesman considers the national wel- fare solely. Statesmanship requires the brand of character revealed by Governor Lee, of Utah, who is reported to have said regarding government support of farm prices: “I would say to the farmers, ‘The price of freedom is the same to you as it is to everyone else—a little hardship when times are adverse.’” (Time, April 24, 1950, p. 28.) Since statesmanship does not characterize the majority of our Congress, the people of this country have seen their purse put in the hands of favor-seeking pressure groups by pctiticians: and our system of irredeemable cirrercy Aas made it impossible for our people to correct this state of affairs. OPENS GATES TO SOCIALISM 4. Our irredeemable currency opens the gate to, and invites, socialism. The purchase of the support of vote-delivering pressure groups places the Government on the road to socialism in high degree or in a thorough- going manner. Incomes of helpless groups must be funneled to the members of these pressure groups. Wealth must be taken from some and Lé given to others as bene- fits. Projects pleasing to the pressure groups must be undertaken. Competitive markets must be hampered, circumvented, or de- stroyed in order to extend favors in the form of price controls, subsidies, rent controls, monopoly powers to organized labor, and so on, to those whom the Government en- deavors to favor. The Government enters into unfair competition with private enter- prise by engaging in productive activity, free of tax and similar burdens borne by private enterprise; by lending the people’s money to unprofitable enterprises at non- competitive rates; by extending other favors and services at prices below those of compet- itive markets. This great variety of Government under- takings, most or all of which constitute steps in the direction of socialism or paternalism or totalitarianism, is made easy, and is invited by our system of irredeemable cur- rency. Since the Government is freed from accountability to the people, money is made easy for the Government and its benefici-~ aries to get; and the favors of pressure groups APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ean be obtained without the central signal board flashing any lights of protest and warning. There is, apparently, no instrument as po- tent, or as fundamental, or as necessary, as an irredeemable currency if a government is disposed to lead a people into socialism, Conversely, there is probably no more efiec- tive device that can be employed to arrest a@ march into socialism than to make the people’s currency redeemable, thus restor- ing to them the power to exercise direct con- trol over the Government’s use of their purse. The evidence seems overwhelming that a defender of irredeemable currency 1s, wit- tingly or unwittingly, an advecate cf so- cialism or of government dictatorship in some form, So long as a government has the power over a people, that is provided by an irreceem- able currency, all efforts to stop a govern- ment disposed to lead a people into social- ism tend to be, and probably will prove, futile. The people of the United States have observed all sorts of efforts, organized and individual, to bring pressure upon Congress to end its snerdirg orgy and processes of socialization. It snould be amply clear by this time that none of these efforts has suc- ceeded. Moreover, there is no good reason for supposing that any of them, except the restoration of redeemability, can succeed in arresting our march into socialism. A gov- ernment possessing the powers given it by an irredeemable currency can ignore the pleas and protests of such groups and in- dividuals. And, if it be disposed to lead a people into socialism—which appears to be the policy or tendency of our Federal Gov- ernment—it does ignore such groups and individuals. If, therefore, the majority of Congress would spare the people of the United States the suffering and disasters inherent in so- cialism, that majority must face the fact that the first and necessary, and possibly the only, means of doing this lies in the re- storation of redeemability in our currency. 5. Our Government’s move toward social- ism and its yielding to the demands of self- serving pressure groups has resulted in prof~ ligate spending and dissipation of our na~- tional patrimony. There seems to be no good reason for supposing that this spending and dissipation can be ended so long as the majority of Congress is composed of politi- cians and so long as they have an irredeem~ able currency at their disposal, These politicians have been and are con- verting our Federal Government from what should be the responsible agent of the peo- ple into their autocratic boss. The fact that our United States Government is, constitu- tionally, a government of restricted and dele- gated powers, while the States have govern- ments of general powers, seems today to be ignored. The implication of that should be pondered by us all, This most basic concept in our constitutional arrangements is treated today as though it does not exist. One may ask: What has become of constitutional law in this Nation? When constitutional law dies and the people are deprived of the power of control of their public purse, that nation is on a road that has led many another country to catastrophe. There seems to be no valid reason for supposing that if the United States continues on such a course it will be immune from these common consequences. 6. Our system of irredeemable currency has enabled our Government to build a huge bureaucracy, national and international, that cripples private enterprise domestically and in foreign trade and exchange. Since gold imports and exports, legally made, are under the control of our Federal Reserve banks and Treasury, these and other Gov- ernment-owned or dominated institutions automatically gain control of all legally
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD conducted transactions in foreign exchange. Such control reaches to exchanges of goods to investments, and to travel, and subjects the ingenuity of private enterprise to the crippling impedimenta of government regu- lation. This is an important part of gov- ernment management ct a nation’s people and economy. It is totalitarianism at the international boundary line; and, from that point of vantage, government control is re- flected back into the internal economy of our country in many and often subtle and far- reaching ways. MULTIPLE QUOTATICNS OF DOLLAR 7. Our system of irredeemable currency has provided mult:ple quotations for our dollar at home and abroad. This is a characteris- tic of weak currencies. After resumption of specie payments, beginning January 2, 1879, Secretary Sherman, one of our greatest stu-~ dents of monetary principles, said in May of that year: “I want to convince everybody that * * * the United States is not bound to have its notes hawked about at a dis- count, but that a note of the United States may travel about the world, everywhere re- ceived as equal to gold coin, and as gosd as any note ever issued by any nation, either in ancient or modern times.” Today our Gov- ernment cannot correctly make that claim. It cannot and does not prevent the so-called promises of our Treasury and Reserve banks, in the form of irredeemable money, from be- ing hawked about at a discount. 8. Under our hybrid system of irredeemable currency and restricted international gold bullion standard, the gold reserves in the United States Treasury are usable only by foreign central banks and governments. Al- though the gold certificate reserves in Fed~ eral Reserve banks are computed against all their Federal Reserve notes and deposits, only foreign central banks and governments can obtain these reserves, and, through them, the Treasury’s gold. All other holders of Federal Reserve notes and deposits are denied this right. Our people and institutions, with claims against those reserves of precisely the same kind as those held by foreign central panks and governments, are denied access to those reserves, while they are placed at the disposal of foreign banks and governments. That sort of discrimination cannot have any valid defense. If there must be discrim- ination—and normally there should not be— it surely should be in favor of our people and institutions. During World War I, we suspended gold payments in our dealings with foreign countries, but we maintained freedom of redemption at home. Since 1933, we have reversed this procedure; we have maintained redeemability for foreign central banks and governments while denying it to our own people. This is merely one aspect, but an important one, of the obsession in behalf of internationalism that has swept this Nation like a mania. CONSEQUENCES OF IRREDEEMABLE CURRENCY The consequences of our use of an irre- deemable currency have diffused themselves throughout our economy in a multitude of ways. Money is the bloodstream of a nation. An irredeemable currency is a diseased and corrupted bloodstream. Secretary Sherman said of it in 1877: “A depreciated paper money cheats and robs every man who re-~ csives it of a portion of the reward of his labor or production, and in all times it has been treated by statesmen as one of the greatest evils that can befall a people” (Recollections, I, p. 589). Keynes said in 1919—-and he assumed he was quoting with approval a statement supposed to have been made by Lenin—that by “* * -‘* a con- tinuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an Im- portant part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually en- riches some * * *” (Op, cit., p. 235). Irredeemable currency, easy money, and a depreciating purchasing power of the mone= tary unit constitute a destructive disease— subtle and far-reaching in nature. Never- theless, the popular demand is for more and more of a depreciating currency—-for the very thing that injures. As the artificially stimulating effects of a depreciating cur- rency wear off and as maladjustments and hardships multiply, the popular demand for this narcotic becomes more intense. In due time great distortions appear, fears become widesvread, and the rate of depreciation tends to increase. Productive machinery stalls, savings disappear, and unemployment, hunger, and distress stalk the land. We in this country seem to take the posi- tion that we shall escape these evils. There is perhaps no way at this date to estimate with accuracy what the final outcome for us is to be if we continue with the poison inherent in an irredeemable currency. Our disease is of the creeping variety, and ex- tremely deceptive, because of the hybrid nature of our irredeemable currency system. Nevertheless, we have our powder kegs. For example, besides the basic evils mentioned, there are the great potential dangers which exist in the huge surplus of reserves in our Federal Reserve System. These could sup- port an expansion in our bank deposits to the extent of £360,000,000,000 in addition to the present $162,000,000,000. The annual rate of turn-over for our great volume of bank deposits is relatively low (12.3 for 332 reporting centers as compared with the rate of approximately 30 in 1929). Should the rate rise to that of 1929, prices could reach fantastic levels in this country. The ex~ pansion of consumer credit is now two and a half times that of 1929. ‘WE NO LONGER HAVE A HEALTHY ECONOMY A healthy economy is one in which the maximum harmony in relationships exists among the agents of production and the forces operating in the exchange of our goods and services, in consumption, and in the distribution of income. Today we have a mixture of the healthy and unhealthy with the two sets of forces apparently almost in balance. Among the unhealthy forces at work, our irredeemabie currency, easy~- money policy, and various governmental policies—particularly those involved in gov- ernmental management of our economy-— are eating more and more deeply into our structure. As the maladjustments grow relatively more important as against the forces that contribute to harmonious rela- tionships in our economic system, we should expect a corrective reaction to set in. If at that time additional injections of cheap money should be made by Government planners in an effort to overcome falling prices and losses, the poison in the economic system would merely be increased and the painfulness of later readjustments would be magnified. It needs to be emphasized that national well-being and harmonious relationships are not necessarily indicated by expansion in such aggregates as the volume of money and deposits, total spending, and national in- come figures. Aggregates of that type may reveal nothing as to economic harmonies or maladjustments. When a nation’s currency is depreciating rapidly, as, for example, in Germany in 1920-23, such aggregates would reach great size. But no sensible person would suppose that they would reflect eco- nomic soundness or prosperity. Economic collapses can start from any high point in any major index of production or price ex- pansion when a sufficient number of strate- gic factors are pinched between costs and prices and severe distortions overbalance the forces struggling for harmony. Much attention is being directed these days to such aggregates as national income, national product, total volume of wages paid, total profits, total savings, total spending, and so on, These aggregates are a favorite tool of A4133 the Keynesian economists and economic planners. The concepts commonly involved, and the manner in which these aggregates are often used—to say nothing of the unre- liability of the data—frequently will not withstand careful analysis. The inferences sometimes drawn are too simple to fit the facts; and sometimes they have dangerous implications because of what they obscure. It is with harmonies and disharmonies in our economic system, rather than with ag- gregates, that we should concern ourselves chiefly in our analyses of business condi- tions and economic well-being. We also need badly to stop our practice of looking at assets while ignoring liabili- ties. The debt of our reople is stupendous. Any individual with wealth to mortgage can create the appearance of a great increase in his well-being by borrowing to the limit and spending freely. He may increase his assets and his productive activity, and he may easily demonstrate that he is better off— if he will ignore his liabilities. A great pro- portion of the analyses and discussions of our economic well-being is concerned solely with assets while the liabilities, which may become the ruthless bosses at any time, are ignored. It also needs to be emphasized that har- monious ‘relationships are fostered only when objective standards of appraisal are given free play, and that the only objective standards that exist as to what is the proper price for a commodity or service are those provided by the operation of the forces of supply and demand under conditions of free and fair competition. The price of a bushel of wheat is proper when all buyers and sell- ers involved determine it in a freely com- petitive market. Every other notion as to what is a proper price for a good or service is subjective. The employment of subjective standards is the device of the wishful thinker and the dictator. When a government sub- stitutes its judgment as to what prices should pe, in lieu of their determination by all buy- ers and sellers in free markets, it is institut- ing dictatorship. There is no objective or scientific standard of appropriateness in- volved in a subjective standard. The latter is merely a matter of the wish and of the will of the authority which has the power to enforce its will. Government dictatorship creates economic maladjustments rather than greater har- monies in economic relationships. Govern- ment prescription of minimum wages, of prices for farm products, of interest rates, of profit margins are all acts of dictatorship. The management of a nation’s currency, as it is done when the currency is irredeemable, is an act of dictatorship at one of the most sensitive nerve centers in a nation’s econ- omy. There has been a rapid increase in the in- fliction of the subjective standards and will of Government officials on the people of this country in recent years. We are in the midst of a struggle between those pushing for Government dictatorship and those who de- sire free markets and the objective stand- ards they provide. When President Truman stated recently that he proposed to claim credit for such prosperity as we now have, he revealed, per- haps inadvertently, that he thought we had already attained a sufficiently high degree of Government management of our economy for the party in power to claim credit for what he seemed to regard as a healthy prosperity. The implication of his claim seems to have been lost upon the people of this country. Since a healthy economy rests upon the determination of values and price by the ob- jective standards of the free market, rather than by the employment of the subjective standards inherent in dictatorship, it is the duty of a good Government to provide the people with objective standards for meas- urement. A good monetary standard re- quires that there be a monetary unit of
A4134 fixed weight and that all substitute monetary promises be redeemable in the standard monetary metal—if standards of honesty are to be respected. Tampering with a standard of measurement after it has been prescribed, whether it be the foot, the gallon, the pound, or the dollar, has no defense. Such manipu- lation is an attempt to substitute subjective desire and will for the objective standards on which all science rests. The unsound in Federal easy-money poli- cies and in many other aspects of our econ~ omy cannot be eliminated so long as we at~ tempt to operate with an irredeemable cur- rency which is a basic feature of a govern~ mentally managed economy which, in turn, rests upon subjective evaluations—the tools of dictators. SUMMARY OF SOUND MONEY BENEFITS The benefits to be obtained from the insti- tution of a redeemable currency may be sum- marized as follows: 1. Our people would once more have an honest currency; and Treasury and Federal Reserve officials would once more be con- forming to accepted standards of honesty in respect to honoring promises to pay on demand. Dishonesty is a fatal element in the so- cial and political fabric of a nation. Its consequence is trouble. There is no valid defense for this current manifestation of dishonesty in officialdom. When the bonds of integrity are loosened at official levels, the disease spreads rapidly through the founda. tions of society and its social institutions. Secretary of the Treasury John Sherman stated correctly in 1877 (Recollections, I, p. 589) that “There are times when such [irre- deemable] money is unavoidable, as during war or great public calamity, but it has ale ways been the anxious care of statesmen to return again to the solid standard of coin. Therefore it is that specie payment * * * is pressed by that great body of intelligent men who study these questions, as an indis- pensable prerequisite for steady business and good times.” Sherman made another pertinent observa- tion: “Why ought not anyone who issued a promise to pay on demand be made to pay it when demanded, or pay interest there- after?” (Ibid., p. 591.) . 2. Power to control the Government’s use of the people’s purse would be returned to their hands where such power belongs. The fact that they might exercise that power slowly or too late, as has been the case some= times in the past, does not alter the fact that the constant threat of its use tends to Keep a Government and the banks within bounds which do not raise fears. Every in- dividual would be free to exercise his own Judgment as to what percentage of his dol~ lars he would prefer to put in gold in an effort to protect the value of his savings. If, with this freedom of choice, people are mis- led and fail to take the proper protective measures, they cannot charge their misfor- tune to a lack of power to use their own judgment. With a redeemable currency at their disposal, they would have a power not possessed today, and it seems reasonable to suppose, if our Government should continue with its programs of profligate spending and dissipation of our national patrimony, many people would begin to exercise their power to protect their savings and to this degree tend to bring this practice to a halt. 8. Multiple quotations for different kinds of dollars should disappear. All our cur- rency would be convertible into, and have equal value with, gold. Restoration of re- deemability would be somewhat like the re< placement of a weak and dangerous founda- tion of a tall building with the best and strongest foundation materials known. 4, The introduction of redeemability should instill confidence and provide incentive for more saving, more investment, more trade and, consequently, more and safer prosperity. The consequences would depend much upon the management of credit and the behavior of all the other forces that affect production and prices. A good basic monetary system, like good strong rails on a railway, is a great facilitating instrument and, moreover, con= tains some elements of safety. But neither provides an insurance against the conse- quences of human foolishness or stupidity or recklessness or bad management. Al- though the institution of redeemability should invite great social benefits, bad fiscal and banking policies and practices could precipitate a serious situation despite the existence of a gold standard and redeemable currency. The problem is to get good mone- tary management under the restraints of a redeemable currency. The solution to the problems inherent in the uses of credit is not to be found in freeing money managers from the restraints provided by a redeemable currency. Said the wise John Sherman: “To resume is to recover from illness, to escape danger, to stand sound and healthy in the financial world, with our currency based upon ‘the intrinsic value of solid coin. “Therefore I say, may resumption be per- petual. To wish otherwise is to hope for war, danger, and national peril, calamities to which our Nation, like others, may be sub- ject, but against which the earnest aspira- tions of every patriot will be uttered.” (Recollections, II, p. 704.) 5. Return to a thoroughgoing gold stand- ard and redeemable currency would permit a free flow of all our money into and out of the country. Private individuals, free to go when and where they can and will with their dollars of all kinds, should revive and stimulate foreign exchanges of goods and services in every form. Private ingenuity could go to work once more; and, when millions of interested people, in search of profit and pleasure, are given freedom and opportunity to accomplish their purposes, they usually manage to succeed in high degree. No Government agency or Govern= ment plan can match the accomplishments of private individual initiative in the de- velopment of international exchange of goods and services. 6. With the great benefits of private in- genuity freely available once more in inter- national exchange, and with all our dollars freely interchangeable with gold at a fixed rate, at least those aspects of the difficulties in exehange which now exist between us and the rest of the world because of the irredeem- able features of our currency, would be elimi- nated. The great benefits of our return to redeemability, which should soon be ob- vious, should set an encouraging example for other countries, should hasten the removal of restrictions by them, and should in the end make their road back to redeemable cur- rencies much easier. 7. Arestoration of redeemability could not and would not insure people against sharp ups and downs in productive activity and prices, All that it could do is to provide the best type of currency known—one that, by its nature, does not cause a country to take the course to disaster made possible by an jrredeemable currency. Before that unfortu- nate course can be taken the redeemahility of a currency must be destroyed. Business and price fluctuations are the re- sult of a multitude of forces. ‘The part played by a redeemable currency might well be of minor or negligible importance in the fiuctuations of production and prices. In no event could it be the controlling factor. In high degree it is a facilitating instrument, a self-liquidating, and therefore sound, medium of exchange—a pagsive factor. It is an irredeemable currency that becomes a potent causal force because the elements of depreciation and the potential dangers in- herent in such a currency enter into people’s APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD calculations and plans. A gold standard and redeemable currency, on the other hand, do not carry these germs of disease; they must come from outside—from abuse in the use of credit. There is perhaps no single act of Govern- ment that could bring more important bene-~ fits to the people of the United States than a restoration of redeemability of our currency at the present statutory rate of $35 per fine ounce, Responsible people who wish to serve their country well probably could do nothing sO 1mportant as to persuade their Congress- men and Senators to pass the Reed bill (or Hale bill) which provides for such redeem- ability. Shortly after the institution of re- deemability the multitude of distortions and evils caused by irredeemable currency and by the Government’s easy money policy should begin to disappear; our persistent march into the Death Valley of socialism should be brought to a halt; and our Nation should be back on the course that should lead to better days for the people of the United States. Chicago Leads Again EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CHESTER A. CHESNEY OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, June 1, 1950 Mr. CHESNEY. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I would like to insert the fol- lowing article which appeared in the June issue of the American magazine. Further articles on this great move- ment started in Chicago appeared in February’s issue of Red Book, May’s issue of the Reader’s Digest, the Catho- lic Digest, Good Housekeeping magazine, and many of the country’s daily news- papers. I believe that this article, and the information contained therein, merits the attention of all of us: THEY MEnD BROKEN MaArRIAGES Several months ago, a couple went to At- torney Samuel M. Starr, of Chicago, MI1., seeking @ divorce. Their bitter wrangling drove Starr out of his own office. In an adjoining room was waiting one of his for- mer clients, a divorcee, who had had a prob- lem similar to that of the pair in his office. On an impulse, Starr asked her to talk to the quarreling couple. She agreed, and the next thing Starr heard, the couple had patched up their differences and were sec- ond honeymooning. The success of this chance meeting prompted Starr to form a unique organiza- tion in Chicago called Divorcees Anonymous. It consists of 100 ex-mates who voluntarily give time and efforts to help others save thelr marriages. These women range from business executives and insurance brokers to school teachers. All have one thing in com- mon. They know first-hand the loneliness and frustration, the social and economic dis- location that follow divorce, and have fre-. quently found these to be worse than the problems that broke up their marriages. When a wife goes to Starr asking for a divorce, he first asks her if she wants to save her marriage. If she does, he introduces her to a DA member with a similar person- ality, one who had a similar problem in her own marriage. The member becomes the woman’s sponsor, and not only points out the disadvantages of divorce, but also offers cone structive heip to save the woman’s marriage.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Starr says the chief causes of divorce are the “other woman,” money, and liquor. If the DA finds that the troubled wife has “let her appearance go,” she suggests ways to correct it. She helps work out family budgsts. The sponsor will take the woman to DA meetings. Starr presides at all meet- ings, and when a man’s touch is needed, he talks to the husband alone, or to the wife. Most members of DA, he says, feel that if they had it to do over again they could save their marriages. While the organization is in Chicago, Starr helps out-of-towners by mail. Starr and the DA’s give their time without pay. Min- isters, divorcees, and lawyers in other cities have sought out Starr with the idea of start- ing chapters in their own cities, having heard of the movement through word of mouth. Starr is a divorce lawyer exclusively, is happily married, himself, and the father of three children. When away from divorce problems he enjoys fishing, golf, and base- ball. A Witness Would Correct the Record EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EDWARD T. MILLER OF MARYLAND IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, June 1, 1950 Mr. MILLER of Maryland. Mr. Speak- er, in an extension of remarks by the distinguished junior Senator from Vir- ginia, under the title of “Lynch Law for Ducks and Geese,” which appears in the Appendix of the CoNGRESSIONAL RECORD of May 24 last, certain references appear to a speech made by Hon. William C. Coleman. In prefacing his article, the author says: It deals with a meeting of sportsmen in Baltimore for the discussion of shooting regu- lations, at which the senior Federal judge of Maryland, Hon. William C. Coleman, of Baltimore, is alleged to have made the as- tounding statement that he did not intend to enforce the Federal regulations which pro- hibit the shooting of'’ducks and geese over baited waters. In fairness to all concerned, the record should be put straight. As one of those in attendance at the meeting in ques- tion—which took place in Annapolis, not Baltimore—and who listened closely, I know that no such statement was made directly, or by implication. To the con- trary, Judge Coleman, speaking in- formally by request of the chairman, as an individual lover of sport, clearly stated as preamble to his remarks, that as a judge he would continue to enforce all laws regardless of his personal views as to their merits. William C. Coleman’s long record of scrupulous integrity and ability as a judge, lawyer, and citizen, makes any de- fense of him personally superfluous. However, the Senator from Virginia, for whom I have high regard, has been mis- led by loose reporting and interpreta- tion of the forthright statement made by the judge at the public meeting, which was held under the auspices of the United States Fisk and Wildlife Service in An- napolis, Md., on April 28. The purport of the pertinent portion of his remarks was that Judge Coleman frequently found the evidence produced with respect to alleged baiting violations too nebulous to warrant conviction in a criminal case, or to even justify prose- cution. He stated there was widespread evasion of the law in the Chesapeake Bay area; and that he considered it ill-ad- vised and unfair to hunters who strictly conform to regulations, and that as an individual he believed the law should be changed. He compared the situation to the lawlessness that developed during prohibition when lack of public support resulted in a worse condition than that which the law sought to imprcve. The meeting in question was largely attended, and those present included leading sportsmen, hunters, and conser- vation authorities from many localities. Not a single voice was lifted in criticism of the judge’s comments. His views were enthusiastically received. It is to be re- gretted that there was no transcript made of the proceedings. Were one available, Iam confident that the Sena- tor would read the judge’s remarks with interest and appreciation, if not with ap- proval. Some Thoughts on Savings Bonds EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. HAROLD H. VELDE OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, June 1, 1950 Mr. VELDE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following editorial from the Peoria Star of May 29, 1950, entitled ‘‘SSome Thoughts on Savings Bonds”: Some THOUGHTS ON SAVINGS Bonps The United States Government is now pushing another savings bond drive and the ponds, without doubt, are an excellent in- vestment. We would have no comment here interpreted to mean anything else. But there are complicated problems back of the savings bond drive and it is interesting to glance at them. Ten years ago, savings bonds, returning in 10 years four dollars for each three in- vested, were sold to the public. Since this is the maturity year, almost three-fourths of a pillion dollars will have to be paid to holders of the bonds issued in 1940. How is the Government to raise the money to redeem these bonds? ‘The current sale of savings bonds is the answer. The Government is simply making an effort to sell the bonds back to the people. A similar but greater effort will have to be made in 1951 when the number of maturing ponds will be double those of this year. In 1952, the Government will have to sell almost $4,000,000,000 worth of the bonds back to the people, or find some other source of revenue for redeeming them. In 1953 the amount will be $6,800,000,000; in 1954, $8,700,000,000; in 1955, $7,500,000,000. And in the next 5 years they will level off at around $5,000,000,- 000 a year. In the next 10 years, the Govern- ment is faced with the problem of refinancing $57,000,000,000 worth of savings bonds. During the war, people bought bonds for patriotic reasons. That motive does not now exist. Buyers now appraise the bonds for their value as investments. They will be in competition with other kinds of investments, A4135 How can the Government meet the competi- tion? Not by offering a higher rate of interest, because that would depreciate the value of all outstanding bonds. Nor can the Govern- ment heavily emphesize the virtue of invest- ing $3 now and getting $4 in return 10 years from now; because people are learning that unbalanced Federal budgets inflate the cur- rency, and $3 today may buy more than $4 (or even $5 or $6) 1n 1960. With the Government committed to a policy of deficit financing, it would seem an utter impossibility to redeem $57,000,060,C00 in savings bonds in the next 10 years except by borrowing through negotiable bonds, the Kind that find their way to banks and become the basis of further currency inflation. Yet the savings bonds were originally offered to the public for the avowed purpose of avoid- ing wartime and postwar inflation. A couple of weeks ago, President Truman was offering to double the income of the average American family. It is just such things as this savings bond ~~or'cm *ret make the President’s promise soucd noi, For the same process that would double the average family income by 1960 would return the equivalent of $2, instead of four, for every three invested in savings bonds this year. The Accumulation of Dried Skim Milk Is Not Surprising EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. REID F. MURRAY OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, June 1, 1950 Mr. MURRAY of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, the fact that the CCC has now accumulated 280,000,000 pounds of dried skim milk worth a value of some $33,C00,- 000 is not surprising. Why is this prod- uct accumulated? Before World War II the annual pro- duction of dried skim milk was between four and five hundred million pounds for animal feeds and human consumption. The 1949 production was 937,000,000 pounds. This adjustment was a means of providing additional food during the war. Farmers were asked to: First, sell whole milk; second, the dairy plants were asked to divert dried skim milk from animal feed to a product for human consumption. The dairy farmers and the dairy plants conformed to this re- quest with the result that a large ac- cumulation prevails. There is a support price of some 12 cents per peund. It is the cheapest form of animal protein. It contains 35.6 percent of digestible protein. This is twice as much protein as in meat costing up to a dollar a pound. While considerable quantities have been used in the baking and other industries, a method of finding a ready, desirable and expanding market for this good product has not been developed. One of the drawbacks and hindrances of finding an expanding market for this skim milk has been the trade barrier or embargo that has been erected in our cities. Take Washington for ex- ample, skim milk from grade A milk or milk reconstituted and made from grade A milk cannot be legally sold in this city the only city in the United
AAI36 States where the Congress controls the legislation. It is a ridiculous situation. We have distributed millions of pounds of cried skim thru the school lunch program to millions of American chil- dren including those in Washington and yet the same product is denied millions of Americans on phony trumpt up public health requirements. If the Congress put a support price on a product and then prevent the same product to be sold on the market how can one expect anything but an accum- mulation of the product? It was evident that this dried skim would be in abundant supply when the ECA was passed. I introduced an amendment that earmarked $65,000,000 for purchasing this most excellent food. The amendment was deleted in the other body. No doubt it was one more ex- ample of the influence of King Cotton since over $500,000,000 worth of this product was purchased. During the past years over 100,000,000 pounds of this product was sold through the ECA for 3 cents per pound, leaving the farm program the opportunity to take a $9,000,000 loss to be charged up to the agricultural program. My under- standing is that the ECA is just waiting for Congress to adjourn so that another one of these deals can be made. In the meantime, I presume additional thou- sands of bales of cotton will be shipped at parity of above parity prices. We can expect to hear additional crit- icism of these accumulations but keep in mind that the domestic trade barriers that are and have been erected and also realize the facts that millions of pounds are and have been imported. Anytime the public wishes to demand that this product has the same market- ing consideration that the Coca-Cola en- joys and anytime these trade barriers and embargoes are removed, this won- derful product will find its way in the channels of trade. Until then of course the metropolitan press will have a topic to discuss and I hope with all the facts in mind. In the meantime a visit to an automat should provide a method of providing mass consumption of this great product. We should also keep in mind the mil- lions and billions involved in readjusting the business and labor postwar domes- tic and foreign programs. In compar- json, the cost of the agricultural read- justment has been small. Ten Little Free Workers EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. LAWRENCE H. SMITH OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, June 1, 1950 Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. Mr, Speak- er, this is the story of 10 little free workers in our free land. These are the workers: Reddy, doctor, railroader, miner, steelworker, farmer, lawyer, grocer, sales clerk, and reporter, Ten little free workers in this country fine and fair. But if you cherish your freedom—worker have a care! Ten little free workers—Reddy was doing fine Until the Socialists got him—then there were nine. Nine little free workers laughed at Reddy’s fate Along came Federal medicine—then there were eight. Eight little free workers thought this country heaven But the Government took over the railroads, then there were seven. Seven little free workers ’til the miners got in a fix Uncle said coal’s essential and took over, leaving six. Six little free workers til the day did arrive The steel mills too were federalized—then there were five. Five little free workers—but the farmers are free no more The farms have been collectivized—that leaves only four. Four little free workers the Government did decree All must have free legal advice—then there were three. Three little free workers—the number is getting few, But with Government groceries selling food— then there were two. Two little free workers—our story’s almost done, With clerks at work in Federal stores—that leaves only one. little free son-of-a-gun Musn’t criticize Government—so now there are none. Ten little workers—but they are no longer free They work when and where ordered, and at a fixed rate you see, And it all could have been prevented if they’d only seen fit to agree And work together instead of saying, “It can never happen to me!” One worker—the reporter What Your Dollar Is Worth EXTENSION OF KEMARKS HON. HAROLD H. VELDE OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, June 1, 1950 Mr. VELDE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the ReEcorp, I include the following editorial from the Peoria Journal of May 28, 1950, entitled “What Your Dollar Is Worth”: WHat Your Dotztar Is WorTH President Truman delivered an address at Kansas City last September 29 in which he declared that the national income of the United States could be raised from $200,000,=| 000,000 to $300,000,000,000 and that each fam- ily with a 1949 income of $2,000 a year then should have $4,000. The President didn’t explain whether he was speaking of income less taxes. Nor did he promise that when the national income went to $300,000,000,000 that the price level would remain unchanged, These conditions would make a consider< able difference in the effectiveness of a $4,000 APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD average income for the families of the United States. If prices or taxes go up along with the national income, the family with a $2,000 income today won’t find that a $4,000 income gives them twice the purchasing power that they have with $2,000. It the dollar continues to devaluate as it has in the last 10 years, the man with Mr. Truman’s $4,000 income won’t be much bet- ter off than he is now with only $2,600. The dollar on April 15 last, according to Editorial Research Reports, was worth in consumer purchasing power only 59% cents of the 1989 dollar. The average family with an income of $2,000 in 1929 needed $3,865 on April 15, 1950, to buy the same goods and services as 11 years before. : A break-down in consumer purchasing power of the dollar on April 15, 1950, as com- pared with the 1939 dollar, is as follows: Cents All items_...--.----.----~---------- 59.5 Food... -.----------- =~ en ee eee 48.5 (Meats, 43 cents.) Wearing apparel Rent Fuel, electricity, refrigeration.-..-.--- (Gas and electricity, $1.02.) House furnishings.-._.--_.-------..-- 54. 0 Miscellaneous ~~--~~--.-~---~-~------ 65.0 Then, in addition to having a devaluated currency, there is the matter of increasing income taxes that also take a nibble at the family dollar. To consider only the Federal income tax, in 1989 a married man with only his wife to support paid nothing on a net income of $2,000. En 1950 his Federal income-tax obli- gation is $101. A single person with no de- pendents and a net income of $2,000 paid $32 for 1939 Federal income tax; he pays $201 on that income now. Looked at in the light of a depreciating currency, assailed by increasingly high taxes, Mr. Truman’s $4,000 average family income and $3800,000,000,000 national income don’t look as big as he would like them to. If the trend which has developed under his admin- istration continues, we will need that much and more just to keep even. Biggest Story EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. KATHARINE ST. GEORGE OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, June 1, 1950 Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Mr. Speaker, un- der unanimous consent to extend my re- marks in the Appendix of the Recorp, I include the thirty-eighth article by Mr. Frank C. Waldrop on the infiltration of communism in our country: Bicczst Srory (By Frank C. Waldrop) The first really full-scale, carefully drawn project to organize all life in Russia on a pat- tern of scientific socialism began on Octo- ber 1, 1928. Up to that time, the Communists were only temporizing from day to day. They were preoccupied with getting a grip on the organs af control at home and on setting up their Communist Internationale, to produce revo- lutions in every other country, But in 1928, they uncorked the first great 5-year plan, to socialize all the means of pro- duction and distribution, To get the factory system going, they im- ported a considerable force of foreign engi- neers and technicians. The most famous of* these was an American, Col. Hugh Cooper.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Colonel Cooper built the best of all the Soviet industrial weapons, the great Dneprostro:, a hydroelectric dam across the Dneiper River in the Ukraine, that supphed power for development of the coal and iron system in the Donetz Basin and set the pace for further development at Magnetogorsk, a sort of Siberian Pittsburgh behind the Ural mountain chain, but lacking any qualities of decent living for the unfortunates con- demned to duty there. The Dneprostroy was the key and arch supporting the whole Soviet industrializa- tion program, and except for it there could have been nothing improved at all. In 1842, incidentally, the Russians blew it up to keep Hitler from using it and not until 1947 was it even partially restored to operation, The Dneprostroy was the greatest single achievement in Russia between two wars, and it was American in concept, design, and execution, Stalin’s government accomplished noth- ing within sight of it, though visitors at the New York World’s Fair who saw a model Dneprostroy there with running water, lights, and factories around it, were never told so. Stalin’s government showed its ability in supplying the manpower and operational talent for the industries built by American, British, and German technical genius. The first of the great Soviet trials and shooting campaigns under the 5-year plan began early in 1930. Factory managers walked in fear of their lives, and with good reason. Moscow set production schedules, failed to supply the means of achievement, and then held the manager guilty of sabotage for any deficiencies. Stalin’s withering touch next was felt on the farms. In the old days of propagar-dizing against the czars it had been standard policy for the revolutionaries to promise bread, peace, land. In a region where vast undeveloped empti- ness ‘ay all around the monarch held title to more real estate than did any combination of his subjects. Collective farms were a long-established imperiaypractice and the people hated them, just as they hated the imitation czars of the nonroyal nobility. And so it was that in the early years of the Soviet regime the farm population was paci- fied by allowing it to think the land it worked so hard and fiercely was the people’s own property. Then Stalin, in the application of the great 5-year plan, lifted his blood-dripping finger. The small landholders soon found them- selves enemies of the people. Off they were dragged to work on construction jobs at the other end of the empire. Their families were broken, their lives came to nothing. They were just horses to be worked until dead. Once more the czar, Stalin, took back the land in accordance with the local variety of the Brannan plan of government agriculture. The farmers fought back in their own way. They refused to turn in their crops. They killed their cows and ate them, also their sheep and pigs. . The Russian domestic animal population, already far below the 1913 census, took an- other catastrophic plunge. It has not fully recovered to this day. Stalir sent troops into the Ukraine, Rus- sia’s richest growing region, and confiscated the produce. Meanwhile there came one of those famines pericdic in the Russian wheat country, a combination of very cold winter and no rain. The result: Some 12,000,000 people died in the Ukraine and Caucasus Basins while Mos- cow held onto the food seized the year before. As in the factories and on the farms, so in the Moscow palace politics. The first of the great serles of trials and executions of Com- munists by other Communists began in 1929 with the case of Nicholas Bukharin, the head of the Comintern (Communist Interna- tionale). This was as 1f Mr. Truman, after his famous Quarrel with Secretary of State Byrnes, had set the FBI on him. Something He Overlooked EXTENSION OF REMARKS Or HON. J. HARRY McGREGOR OF OHIO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, June 1, 1950 Mr. McGREGOR. Mr. Speaker, un- Ger lez.ve to extend my remarks in the REcorD, I include the following editorial from the Mount Vernon (Ohio) News: SOMETHING HE OVERLOOKED President Truman denounces as obstruc- tionists and mosshacks those who oppose his Fair Deal program or any part thereof. His impheation is that these obstruction- ists are standing in the way of progress and are, for selfish reasons, fighting measures de- signed for the general welfare of the Ameri- can people. But the President doesh’t tell the whole story; he has overlooked something, either intentionally or unintentionally. That something is the cost of the program ke advocates. The Senate Committee on Ex- penditures in the Executive Department has just completed a study of the cost of Mr. Truman’s proposals. Fifteen proposals in this program are now under consideration by Congress. If all fifteen received the approval of Con- gress, $7,000,000,000 would be added to the Federal budget for the fiscal year 1951. That would be just a starter, however. Within 5 years, the study revealed, they would add more than $25,000,000,000 to the annual budget, bringing it to above $65,000,~ 000,000 a year, The 15 proposals and their first-year and subsequent yearly cost, respectively, are: National health insurance, $15,000,000 and $'7,000,000,000. Social~security extension, $250,000,000 and $6,000,000,000. Industrial safety program, $3,000,000 and $5,000,000. Aid to education, $300,000,000 and $500,- 000,000. National Science Foundation, $15,000,000 and $100,000,000. National Commission Against Discrimina- tion in Employment (FEPC), $600,000 and $5,000,000. Special assistance for rental and coopera- tive housing, $10,000,000 and $50,000,000. Labor Extension Service, $3,000,000 and $27,000,000. Universal military training, and $3,000,000,000. St. Lawrence seaway (operating costs), $8,000,000 and $30,000,000. St. Lawrence seaway (construction costs), $100,000,000 and $1060,000,000 (for 10-year period). Military housing and public works, $600,- 000,000 and $1,400,000,000. Assistance to underdeveloped areas (point 4), $35,000,000 and $500,000,000. Brannan farm plan, $5,000,000,000 and $6,000,000,000. Commercial production of natural re- sources, $11,000,000 and $400,000,000. Incentive payments for development of minerals, $70,000,000 and $70,000,000, $600,0C0,000 AAI37 The grand totals are: For the first year, $7,020,600,000; and for subsequent years, $25,187,000,000. Some of these proposals have merit, some are in the questionable status, and some should under no circumstances be enacted. But the wisdom of taking on the added expense of even the meritorious proposals is to be doubted. The United States, along with the rest of the world, is passing through a critical stage of history. This country, in its role of leader of the free people of the world, is committed to extraordinary expenses, such as maintain- ing a huge defense force in time of peace and helping friendly nations with economic and military aid, at great cost. Our first responsibility is to build defenses of such strength that they will deter the Communists from aggression, or, failing in that, assure that democracy will survive the onslaughts of communism or any other ism. We cannot do that and have all the “progress” Mr. Truman advocates simply be- cause the American people cannot afford to undertake this double burden. If we neglect our defenses to finance the Fair Deal program, all the “progress” gained by these expenditures would be quickly nulli- fied if it came to a test with some totali- tarian power, as it undoubtedly would if our attention were diverted from building our defenses by concentration on the Fair Deal program. Character Assassination: Disloyalty Charges EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. GEORGE G. SADOWSKI OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, June 1, 1950 Mr. SADOWSKI. Mr. Speaker, an in- teresting book entitled “Character Assas- sination” has just come off the press, The author is Jerome Davis, who him- self won a libel suit against one of Amer- ica’s most popular magazines for label- ing him as Communist. The enclosed article is a review of the book by Ernest Pisko in the Christian Science Monitor: DISLOYALTY CHARGES: ILLUMINATING SURVEY (By Ernest Pisko) Those who are libeled today as “disloyal,” “un-American,” and “Communist” are in distinguished company. In George Washington’s own words, every act of his administration was misrepresent- ed so insidiously as to make him appear a Nero or a common pickpocket. Thomas Jefferson was called a traitor who first gave the stab to American liberties, Abraham Lin- coln was called hater of the Constitution, and pledged to subvert it. Franklin D. Roosevelt was charged with being a dictator, Communist, and Fascist. It is likely these four Presidents were con< fident in their more serene hours that history would vindicate their actions and that the mud splashed upon them by their contem- poraries would crumble, fall, and allow the true flame of their character to serve as bea- con for coming generations. But to people in a less exalted position, the thought of posterity does not offer the same measure of consolation. They are more de- pendent upon, and therefore more concerned about, the reputation they have in the eyes of their fellow citizens. While a Lincoln
A138 could shrug off the charge that he was dise loyal to the Constitution, a civil servant, teacher, or businessman—publicly accused of disioyalty—may soon find his career broken and his economic existence gravely threat- ened. The records of the past 5 years show hundreds of cases where this happened or almost happened. We read abcut them in our newspapers, hear of them from our favorite newscaster, put rarely is our reaction more than short- lived indignation. Still less do we try to visualize the suffering that slander inflicts upon its victim. That is why Jerome Davis’ book Character Assassination must be earnestly recommended as a guide to what lies behind the headlines of recurrent Wash- ington disloyalty stories. It is a poignant and a disturbing report on the injustice and misery resulting from doubtful, unfounded and c*to- “inmiy malicious charges of a quite i" ¢.." - “un~Americanism.” The method “thus employed to injure or eliminate people who differ from the accuser in their political views, their religion or their race, is nothing novel. It was used by an~ cient Romans against early Christians; by the Roman Catholic Church against all Kinds of heretics; by the courts of the Holy Al- liance against liberals; by the admirers of Johannes Brahms against the admirers of Richard Wagner; on a gigantic scale by the Nazis against the Jews; and in the United States, as in many other countries, against the advocates of social progress. Mr. Davis, who himself won a libel suit against one of America’s most popular week-~ ly magazine for labeling him as “Commu- nist,” analyzes the technique of character assassination as employed against groups— labor, Negroes, Jews—-as well as individuals. His documentation is comprehensive, his presentation unemotional, That in many past instances the methods and basic at- titudes of the Congressional Committee on Un-American Activities, and of some in- dividual Senators, appear rather close to those of obscure “masters of the smear brush” outside Congress, is not the author’s fault. As the great Russian satirist Gogol wrote: “Don’s blame the mirror if you dis- like the face it shows you.” In his concluding chapter, Recovery of Faith in Freedom, Mr. Davis makes several valuable suggestions as to how to insu- late our minds against intolerance. While general adoption of these suggestions would be desirable as a means to insure cleaner fighting, it would not, as the author ap- parently believes, render fighting altogether obsolete. Not all disagreements spring from intolerance. There is such thing as an hon- est difference of opinion. And there are limits to the freedom to differ for which Robert M. Hutchins, of Chicago University, pleads in his introduction to Mr. Davis’ book. Within these limits, however, a healthy de- mocracy will be harmed less by vigorously expressed differences between its citizens than by their mutual indifference, The Climate Is Better Than the Day’s Weather EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. BARRATT O’HARA OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, June 1, 1950 Mr. O’HARA of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, for years in Chicago Charles E. Merriam has been an institution. His fame is in- ternational As the Martan TD Full dic tinguished service professor, now emeri- tus, at the University of Chicago, he con- tributed a mighty force to the molding of the political thought of several gen- erations. As counselor to Presidents, governors, mayors, and others in high public office, his influence upon the de- velopments of his tumes has been large. Today as an elder statesman, as it were, he occupies a unique and enviable posi- tion of eminence. From Charles E. Merriam has come the contribution of a phrase that might well be an accepted expression of the American outlook on the present trou- bled sea of international affairs. Mr, Merriam, trusting in the loftier and mightier powers of justice and brother- hood, is undisturbed by the menaces of the eold war and the ugliness of the clouds. To him they constitute merely the weather of the day and the climate, he adds hopefully, is better than the day’s weather. I am happy to bring to the attention of the House the following excerpt from an article on world government by Mr. Merriam in Common Cause magazine in which this phrase is used: The inventiveness of mankind is equal to the demands made upon it for creative de- velopment of legislative and representative agencies, adequate to the lofty purposes of emerging world order. A yes or no to the problem of the precise locus of power, mili- tary and fiscal, is not likely to be found with- out the helping hand of human fraternity, inspired by the hope of realizing the highest ends of humanity. These balances are im- portant, no doubt, but reliance upon the means rather than the ends of world order will prove very difficult and even disastrous. But this is no reason why energy and in- ventiveness in other areas than those of steel and gold should not be applied to the tests. Complex and baffling as this problem may be, the alternative of world chaos staggers the imagination. The dreadful poss ‘vilit:es of colermity quicken our pace 10we1d a wold ecmmumiy and commonwealth in which jus- tice and right preside. After all, hope is a more powerful motive than fear in leading us to the realization of the highest destiny of man. As a long-time student of govern- ment, I do not counsel surrendering to hate, violence, duress. I look to and trust in lof- tier and mightier powers of justice, liberty, welfare, brotherhood, The climate is better than the day’s weather. — Address of Vice Adm. C. E. Rosendahl EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JAMES C. AUCHINCLOSS OF NEW JERSEY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, June 1, 1950 Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Mr. Speaker, un- der permission granted me to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I am giad to call the attention of the House to a memor- able occasion in Ocean County, N. J., which took place on May 24, 1950. On that day the governor of the State and other high officials dedicated the new bridge across Barnegat Bay between Sea- side Heights and Island Heights and it wae nfficially nnonad to traffin Thie nanr APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD bridge has taken the place of an old wooden bridge built in 1914—36 years ago, under the sponsorship of the man whose name the new bridge bears— Thomas A. Mathis. It was a fine occasion in which many citizens took part and it will do much to enhance the many attractions of Ocean County and make them more available to the public. It is significant to note also that this year marks the centennial year of the founding of Ocean County and it is most appropriate that this bridge should be available for use of the public at this time. Vice Adm. Charles E. Rosendahl, re- tired, whose record in the Navy is well known as the most prominent advocate of lighter-than-air craft, is chairman of the Ocean County Centennial Commit- tee and he made the principal address at the official opening of the Thomas A. Mathis Bridge; I am very glad to include it in my remarks. Your Excellency Governor Driscoll, Con- gressman Auchincloss, Commissioner Mil- ler, Captain Tom, Mr. Hansen, citizens and friends of Ocean County, the County of Ocean, one of the jewels of the necklace of the State of New Jersey; land and sea of ro- mance, sportsmanship and tradition, heart- ily welcomes you here on this milestone occasion in our history. This year of 1950 is our centennial as a major political entity of the State; but this is only one of the recent facets in the his- tory of this vicinity, You recall that New Jersey itself was one of the original thirteen Colonies. But our part of the State gained recognition as far back as the year 1609, yes, 1609, when the Dutch sailing Captain, Henrik Hudson, sailing in the Half Moon, sighted a section of southern Ocean County where now is located our world-famous Barnegat Light on Long Beach Island. Writing in his log-book of this sighting, Captain Hudson said: “A pleasant place to see and a good land to fallin with.” With that we all agree, Another Dutch sailing captain, for whom Cape May was named, gave the name of Barendegadt (in the true Dutch svellirc) to the inlet since of that name, 11. ine ing waters.” The famous yac. 7 ity, Clarence Lovejoy has called ‘Barnegat Bay, “the finest shallow bay in America,” And while time does not permit my men-= tioning here the many other outstanding features of our county, I hope you will for- give my slightly prejudiced mention of the fact that Lakehurst was one of the very first international transoceanic airports in the world. If one really tried, he could stand almost indefinitely and boast of our county, but there are others better at that than I. How=- ever, one cannot omit mention of the promi- nience of our waters in the sailing world; that some of the best beach bathing and sunburns; some of the largest fish—and understandably some of the tallest fish stories—spring from our waters. We may not have an actual “fountain of youth” but surely something just as good. For here today in our midst is our county’s oldest living citizen, Martin Schwarz, Sr., now in his ninety-second year; and still going strong at his market he has operated in Toms River for now over 62 years. Some- thing besides business must have been good to him all these years. And to prove that we still turn out sturdy * men in this county, in this parade today we had William Richard Waller, Jr., of Seaside ‘Heights, born exactly 4 days ago. To at least two other distinguished men also here, this must be a sentimental and heartenina ananacian Dae AIA fatand Man
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD tain Tom Mathis, is one of the two men still alive who privately financed the present— and soon to become the past wooden bridge alongside us, put into service in the year 1914. And in proof that progressive mental and technical growth are still rewarded, it is no mere coincidence that the builder of this fine modern edifice being dedicated today, is none other than the same Ole Hansen who in 1914 built the lift bridge alongside us— still functioning perfectly today—both Mr. Hansen and the lift. A centennial year is not a bad occasion to ponder where we can go from here in other developments as well. Let me mention but one suggestion. To land travel, this fine new edifice we are dedicating today is a great asset and adjunct to our county and State. -But let us not forget that the abundant waterways in our midst, also are both pleas- ant ent rres+sh's travelways, and we should not « we * comparable development. To Captain Tom and his ecrtermoverice it must be heartening to real.zo mn Ora en County has certainly not stood still in the 86 years since the adjoining wooden structure was the last word. Indeed, this new modern cousin is the most dramatic illustration pos- sible, of the progress of Ocean County, This strong, sturdy, sinew is striking evidence that we are still young and growing stronger. Let us not forget that this bridge will be utilized and enjoyed not only by ourselves but also by the many thousands of visitors who come from far and wide to share with us the beauties, pleasures and resources nature has bestowed upon us. By coinci- dence, it was on the 24th of May, 1883, some 67 years ago that the Brooklyn Bridge was dedicated, to become a household word and known to countless millions. Who can esti- mate the millions who will come to know our most modern bridge in six decades to come? I assure you, Governor Driscoll, Commis- sioner Muller, C>~*ain Tom, Mr. Hansen, and all the ovher ‘.‘-"._. tcc. men responsible for this splendid accomplishment, that we of Ocean County are indeed grateful for your efforts in providing us with this modern facility for these modern times. So, in behalf of the Board of Chosen Free- holders of Ocean County, and as national chairman of the Ocean County Centennial Commission, I hereby express to New Jersey the gratitude and appreciation of our people for this fine bridge, dedicated as it shall be to the peaceful pursuits and healthful recrea. tion of all who live here or come here. This is indeed a most outstanding day in the history of Ocean County, and we are grate- ful to you for it, Thank you. Address of Gen. George C. Marshall EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOHN KEE OF WEST VIRGINIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, June 1, 1950 Mr. KEE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following address by Gen. George C. Marshall at Memorial Day Services, Arlington National Cemetery Amphitheater, May 30, 1950: This is Memorial Day—a day dedicated some years ago to the stirring of our mem~ ories of those who fell in the country’s battles, many of whom surround us here in Arlington Cemetery. There have been many Memorial Day addresses here and there will be many more, but as for me, my memories go back to a certain day where in an Olive grove on the scene of a fierce battle which had just terminated in a great allied victory, I joined with troops resting from the ordeal of battle on that field. They observed their Memorial Day on the ground they had first fought for and where their fallen comrades had but a few days previously been laid to rest. There we were not talking of the remote past—our thoughts were centered on the scenes of fury and devastation around us and the certainty of greater struggles soon to follow. Many of the men in that particu- lar regiment, an unusually large percentage as a matter of fact, fell in the further fight~ ing, and it was evident that each man was thinking of the sacrifice he very probably ‘would too soon be called upon to make. The setting that evening, the expressions on the faces of those men, and the prospects of the immediate future made a profound impres- sion upon me which I would recreate in your munds today, if it were possible for me to translate the emotions of that hour. Those men quite evidently looked to us to redeem the sacrifices their comrades had already made and that they felt they were soon to make, as so many did. The situation was concrete and very much of the present, and not a retrospect of the past as is largely ours today. As chairman of the Battle Monuments Commission I am concerned with plots of ground all over the world where our men lie buried, young men brought to a sudden end- ing of life in the fight'to maintain our way of life. Our great responsibility to them is to protect their loved ones and their friends from the agonies and miseries of war. Their living comrades, the veterans of today, alone know what war really is—that there is noth- ing to be said in favor of war except that it 1s the lesser of two evils. For it is better than appeasement of aggression because ap- peasement encourages the very aggression 1t seeks to prevent. And it is far better than submission to tyranny and oppression, be- cause without freedom and respect for hu- man dignity life would not be worth living. Unless we are faced with the choice of these terrible alternatives, I think we should concentrate on finding peaceful solutions to the world’s problems. Peace should be a dynamic force and not a negative condition that is merely the absence of armed hostili- ties. We should support to the full every existing instrument to the building of a more stable world. So long as there is a forum for open discussion of international disputes, the United States should be a participant. So long as there remains a con- ference table around which the nations can gather, the United States should be the first to attend and the last to retire. Only thus can we earn the right to stand here in the presence of the graves of these many men who were cut off in their youth from the life we enjoy and say in good conscience, “We are doing our best to justify your sacri- fice.” A most terrible aspect of war is the toll it takes of the youth of the country. The aver- age age of the men of the armed forces in the last war was about 26 years. The average age of those who perished would probably be less since the older men in service were not generally employed in combat. And so, we lost almost 300,000 of the Na- tion’s youth. Repeated depletion of vigorous and pro- ductive manpower has been the undoing of many civilizations. We have been relatively fortunate in that our wars have not resulted for us in wholesale destruction. But we can-~ not be certain of the future. It would be unwise, it seems to me, to con= sole ourselves with the thought that we would ultimately win if hostilities should break out again, because I fear that the vic- torioues power in another war will stand A4139 amidst its own ruins with little strength left to reestablish itself or to offer assistance to its neighbors, It will only enjoy the empty triumph of inheriting the responsi- bility for a shattered and impoverished world. To one who follows the current trend of thought among the western European powers it is evident that they are well aware of this. They realize that whoever wins an-, other war, their generation will lose it; they know that peace is a condition necessary to their survival and they look to this country not only for material and military strength to offset the probability of war, but more importantly I am sure that they look to us for a clear restatement of the moral princi- ples we feel are essential to a peaceful inter- national scciety. Some have suggested that the United States should take the lead in dissolving the United Nations and in setting up a new or- ganization composed only of like-minded na- tions. Personally I think it would be un- fortunate for the peace of the world delib- erately to upset the precarious equilibrium that now exists. The United Nations sym- polizes one of mankind’s highest aspira- tions—an international house of democracy, a true brotherhood of the nations. We should not, it seems to me, “.}..6..7) tu bt away from that symbol, else v-"* our moral position before the world and sur- render at least a part of our leadership in the fight for peace. One of the things for which our comrades gave their lives was to bring fellowship closer to reality. We have not realized that dream. Admittedly the United Nations is an imper- fect organization. But remember it does provide a forum where words can he used instead of bullets. And so long as this forum remains open there are cracks in the iron curtain through which some of our ideas will penetrate. Those who have lost faith in the organiza-~ tion profess alarm because the eastern pow~ ers use 1t as a platform for the dissemination of Communist propaganda. But we also have the privilege of telling our story through the same medium. And in any contest of ideas I think honesty will finally win in the long run, for truth must prevail, and I'll wager my money on American principles of freedom and equality under law, and toler- ance and justice for all men. . Then, too, we have much the better story if we tell it well and tell it affirmatively. We have taken the offensive regarding commu- nism. But we should constantly remind all people that no nation has ever embraced any form of totalitarian rule through exercise of the popular will. However, the ferment that is stirring around the world today is not all Commu- nist-inspired. A large part of it, I believe, results from an upsurge of peoples who have long suffered in poverty and misrule. And the millions who live under such subnormal conditions are entitled to a fair share of the God-given rights of human beings. It is a challenge to the more favored nations to lend assistance in bettering their lot. Furthermore, self-interest demands that we give close attention to these peoples, for their situation is the seedbed for either one of two ways of life—democracy or commu- nism. If we act with wisdom, we can guide this yearning to the better things of life through democratic channels. We must present democracy as a force holding within itself the seeds of unlimited progress for the human race. We should make clear that it is a means to a better way of life within nations and to a better understanding among nations. Tyranny in- evitably must fall back before the tremen- dous moral strength of the gospel of free- dom and self-respect for the individual. But we must have in mind that these democratic principles do not flourish on wegen
A4140 empty stomachs. And that people turn to the false promises of dictators because they are hopeless and anything promises better than the miserable existence they endure. However, I am certain that material as- sistance alone is not sufficient. The most important thing for the world today, in my opinion, is a spiritual regeneration which would restore a feeling of good faith and good will among men generally. Discouraged people are sorely in need of the inspiration of great principles. Such leadership can be the rallying point against intolerance, against distrust, and against that fatal insecurity that leads to war. I hope that we will provide that leadership. But we will have to get back to first principles if we are to speak with a voice that will kindle the imagination and rouse the spirit. We have made much of America’s strength and material prosperity. We have talked a great deal about the American way of life. But our material prosperity may or may not be exportable, A dynamic philosophy, on the other hand, knows no restrictions of time or space. And we do have an American creed that comes to us from the deep roots of the past. It springs from the convictions and hopes cf men and women from many lands who founded this Nation and made it great. You will find that creed, that heritage in the Declaration of Independence and the Con- stitution with its Bill of Rights. Although it may have been without a clear realization, those were the things for which our men fought and died; those are the ideals which we can offer to the world with the cer-~ tainty that they have the power to inspire people and to impel them to action. I do not mean that we should try to per- suade other people to accept our form of Government, but rather the great funda- mentals om which it is based. I mean that the basic principles on which our Govern- ment was founded are timeless and have validity for all mankind. But it must be remembered that raising our voice to the world imposes upon us a most serious obligation. We cannot con- vince others unless we are true to ourselves. We must be satisfied in our own hearts that we give more than lip service to these prin- ciples we profess. When we call for our great individual free- doms, we must be sure that no infringement of these rights is permitted or tolerated be- cause of emotions of the moment, In some such spirit let us devote ourselves to a generous service to our fellow men just as these dead about us dedicated their lives to that service. I believe that our lost com- rades would want it exactly that way. We have before us the greatest task ever faced by any generation of men in the fight to preserve peace. War, I say again, is no longer just an evil. In this age it seems intolerable. Our greatest tribute to our dead will be a devotion to the resolve that war must not happen again. But we must not-—I empha- size, we must not, as we invariably have done in the past, render ourselves impotent, an invitation to the ruthless aggressor. Also, we should not place complete dependence on military and material power. It is a difficult road we have to follow but we have a wealth of lessons from the past and with clear heads and with genuine willingness to support our efforts, I think we can lead the world into a better life than now seems apparent. “With malice toward none; with charity for all; * * * let us strive on to finish the work we arein * * * to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan * * * to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations.” Reckless Misgovernment EXTENSION OF REMARKS HCN. LAWRENCE H. SMITH OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, June 1, 1950 Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, as part of my remarks I am in- cluding an editorial by Arthur Capper on the subject of Government spending. He calls attention to the fact that a Nation which accumulates a deficit of $12,000,000,000 in two peacetime years is recklessly misgoverned. I agree. I am including the article at this point: A Nation that runs up a deficit of $12,000,C00,000 in two peacetime years is being recklessly misgoverned. It seems probable that deficit spending by our Federal Govern- ment will amount to that huge sum before June 30, 1952. The deficit this current fiscal year is estimated at six and one-half bil- lions. ‘There is nothing to indicate that spending Guring the next fiscal year will ne much reduced—it seems more likely to be increased—and the deficit in 1951-52 easily could exceed $6,000,000,000. The 2-year total probably will not be less than 12 billions and might be a billion or two higher. Incurring such deficits, without doing any- thing about it, is evidence that those in authority are indifferent to the dangers that such a course creates—dangers of inflation, of crushing debt, of a weakened economy that may, in a future emergency, be unable to survive. All over the United States today the spend- ers are in the saddle and are riding high. If they can’t get cnough money from the people through taxes, they borrow it. Emergencies which can be used to justify additional spending appear in Washington in endless procession. And it is not much different in some States. The spending racket has been thoroughly organized and perfected during the last 18 years, and even the small fry in Government have muscled in on it. But the blame is not all on public officials, guilty as many of them are. It comes right pack to the folks at home. Everybody seems to be grabbing for Federal money. Chambers of commerce, city administrations, civic groups, airport officials, State governments, colleges, hospitals, schools, highway commis- sions, corporations, farmers, businessmen, individual citizens—all have their hands stretched out in the direction of the Federal Treasury and they are clamoring for hand- outs, These folks constitute the biggest, the most powerful lobby in the United States. It puts tremendous pressure on both the legislative and executive branches of Govern- ment. The projects being promoted usually are desirable, even though they may not be essential. But the sad part of the situation is that these folks, most of whom are wor- ried by high taxes, great debt, and deficit spending, don’t seem to realize that the de- mands they continually make have much to do with keeping the spending spree going at top speed. Mr. Average Citizen is the fall guy. He works. He pays taxes. He votes for the per- sons who so recklessly spend his earnings. He has a $257,000,000,000 Federal debt bur-= den on his back, not to mention his personal debts and those incurred by States, coun- ties, and cities, Bad trouble lies ahead if we continue on this course. It almost seems, sometimes, as if a deliberate attempt was being made to APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD bankrupt our country, to bring about an economic crash that would destroy our free enterprise system and overthrow our demo- cratic form of government. Whether this is true or not, the end result will be the same, No nation can follow the course we are trav~ eling along the reckless spending trail and not eventually go on the rocks. Any citizen knows that. His good sense will tell him so, What can you do about it? You can doa lot. You are the only one who can do any- thing about it, you and other folks who are paying taxes and shouldering debt to keep the spenders going. Here are some of the things you can do: You can protest to your Congressman and Senators and urge them to vote against new spending and to support every move for economy. ‘ You can refuse to ask for Treasury hand- outs, either on your own account or as a member of a group. You can vote against the spenders in city halls, in county courthouses, in State capi- tols, and in Washington. You can protest about high taxes. You can talk to your neighbor and per- suade him to follow your lead. This reckless spending will stop when the people demand it and not until then. It is up to you. ARTHUR CAPPER. An Experiment in Higher Education Expands EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. BARRATT O’HARA OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, June 1, 1950 Mr. O’HARA of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that I voice the sentiment of my colleagues from Illinois in express- ing regret over the loss of the Illinois colony in the National Capital of Aaron J. Brumbaugh, and his brilliant wife, who has been so active in the fight for home rule in the District and in other civic causes. As vice president of the American Council of Education, Mr. Brumbaugh rendered a distinguished service to the cause of education, the effects of which will be lasting and will be reflected in educational thoughts and patterns in countries far removed as well as in our own United States. The new work to which he is going holds a challenge that was understandably irresistible to one whose life work has been to bring within the range of an ever greater number of people the cultural influence of higher education. It will be recalled that during the presidency of Robert M. Hutchins, now chancelor, at the University of Chicago a bold experiment in admitting to col- lege courses students who satisfactorily had completed 2 years of high-school work attracted wide national attention. The curriculum, having met the test of practical experience in the colleges of the large university, is now being extended under the direction of Mr. Brumbaugh to a small middle western college, with @ rich historical background.