APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD @ moment. Never before in history has a nation financed a major war entirely out of taxes, Now we are undertaking to do what is the equivalent of that. The American tax- payer is told that the Government expects him to provide the prodigious sum of $71,- 600,000,000 in taxes to finance the defense effort in 1951-62. And the Nation’s chief stabilizer, appearing before the Ways and Means Committee in behalf of the program, warns that “failure to tax—and tax hard now—will be perilous to our country's strength and safety.” It will not be possible, this spokesman for the administration tells us, “to hold the inflation line unless Con- gress votes & tax bill sufficiently high to pay for our defense program as we go.” Yet this witness, the chief stabilizing authority of the administration * * * apparently sup- ports the powerful farm bloc in giving a special posttion of favoritism to farm prices in the stabilization program, Asked whether legislation now being considered would in- volve any change in this section of the De- fense Production Act, Mr. Johnston is quoted as replying: “I didn’t aay that. The farmer is certainly entitled to his parity.” Does Mr, Johnston know that farm prices as a whole are already above parity in relation to No» vember farm prices? And if he regards par- ity as a sacrosanct concept, does he believe it works both ways? Does he believe that farm commodities that are selling far above parity should be rolled back to that level? Mr. DiSalle is quoted to the effect that “we ought to be able to do better than the OPA did in World War IT, when it held the rise in the cost of living to 9.1 percent in the first year.” One wonders how America's house- wives must feel now. A day or two ago Sec- retary Brannan assured them that the spe- cial dispensation to subparity farm prices would mean an annual addition of only 64,- 000,000,000 to their food bill. Now they are consoled with the thought that their cost of living should be held to a rise of less than 9 percent over the next 12 months. By the figures of the OPS Itself, that maximum comes to the fairly generous figure of $18,- 000,000,000 It is time the administration realized that pay-as-you-go means something more than simply imposing back-breaking taxes on the American public. If, as Mr. Johnston says, it is impossible to stabilize the economy without high tuxes, then it Is little less than fantastic to propose a program of pay-as- ycu-go taxation while conducting the price- wage policy on the basis of giving a minimum of political offense to every group in the econ- omy. General Eisenhower’s Earlier Appearance Before Congress EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EDWARD MARTIN OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, February 21 (legislative day of Monday, January 29), 1951 Mr. MARTIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp a statement entitled “General Eisenhower’s Earlier Appearance Before Congress,” published in the Army-Navy-Air Force Journal of February 3, 1951, The article discusses the demobilization of the Army at the end of World War II, and a statement made at that time by General Eisen- ower, There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Racorp, as follows: General E1sxNHOWER’s Fartizrg APPEARANCHS Berorze Concress General Elsenhower's appearance before the Congress this week recalls that once be- fore, on January 18, 1946, he also addressed the joint House and Senate membership. It is with some irony that one recalls that 6 years ago General Elsenhower, as Chief of Staff of the Army, was called upon to explain to the Legislature why the troops were not being demobilized faster. His opening sen- tence at that time is significant in light of developments since. He said: “I have come here this morning because a very human desire has clashed with the Army’s manpower needs to do the job which has been assigned to us by the Government.” What was the situation then? General Eisenhower said: ‘Now just where does this leave us? On VE-day we had 8,800,000 troops. We have already discharged 5,000,- 000, and by July 1 we shall have discharged another 2,750,000 men who were in the Army the day Germany collapsed. This leaves but half a million or so of the VE-day men. Ex-~ cept for veteran volunteers, that is all that will be left of our own VE-day Army on July 1, 1946, less than 14 months after the last shot was fired in Europe. All the rest will be recruits. It is with this relatively un- trained Army in the throes of reconversion that we must undertake the grave tasks still ahead. * * * My sole purpose, which I am certain you share, is that the Army that did so much to win the victory will be left fit to preserve it.” It is dificult to tell how much the rapid break-up of our World War II Army (which in those days included the Air Force) con- tributed to our present dilemma. Caen eemeenenanal Rev. Martin Niemoeller’s Opposition to Rearmament of Germany EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WILLIAM LANGER OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, February 21 (legislative day - of Monday, January 29), 1951 Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an editorial entitled “Niemoeller’s Visit,” published in the Washington Post of today. I sug- gest that any Senator who is interested in obtaining the German viewpoint re- garding rearmament read the editorial. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: NizMoxr.iee’s Vistr When General Hisenhower administered the coup de grace to the arming of Germany asa primary object of American poltoy toward Atlantic defense, that aspect of the policy was already moribund, as a result of an opposition which arose in Germany itself. The opposition sprang from a one-man cru- sade conducted by that extraordinary Lu- theran cleric, Martin Niemoeller. Pastor Niemoeller, who is a presiding bishop of United Protestantism in Germany, came to ‘Washington for the day on Monday. He waa on his way to other parts of the country on @ tour arranged by the National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of A919 America. The. State Department knew he was coming. Whether he was asked to call or whether he asked to be received—he visited the Department, but was received by several subordinates headed by the deputy of the official in charge of the German desk. Un- doubtedly Pastor Niemoetler was put out, though the Department might have a good case for what seemed a slight, in view of the curious and unique position of Pastor Niemoeller as a leader in the oppoaition to the established government at Bonn. Pastor Niemoeller has been in the habit of speaking his mind freely throughout his tempestuous life, and suffering for tt. Since the war he seems to have expressed the thoughts of millions of his countrymen. Such a man, with his hold on so many people in Germany, cannot be ignored. He has to be understood, or Germany itself will not be understood. Even a minimal  curtosity should have caused the policy makers to make some effort to get at first-hand his observations and conclusions and an ap- praisal of the man himself. Why did he raise his powerful voice agalnst a proposal which would have recreated a German army? Whence his ability to make that voice whisper throughout Germany, East and West, and have it echo back as the convic- tion of millions of Germans? The answers go to the heart of things in the east-west struggle. Pastor Niemoeller believes that diplomatic resources are not yet exhausted, and that even if those resources are spurned in Moscow, the west must always keep ita eye on the impact of its diplomacy upon public opinion. He fears that the Stalinists are increasing their lead in the battle for the public mind. On defense he believes that the proper approach is the development of a European army; indeed, he thinks that all measures of defense should be dovetailed in the bullding up of a united Europe, The policy on the rearmamont of Germany seems to have developed in a vacuum by per- sons who felt that the Germans themselves could be ignored. Niemoeller merely re- minded the world that there are Germans in Germany, not milltarlly worthless pup- pets. The problem of talking to opposition- ists is a thorny but by mo means an ine superable problem. It has arisen before in respect of important personalities—Rene Pleven, when he was here as De Gaulle's representative; Yukio Ozaki, the perennial oppositionist in Japan; and Feng Yu-hsiang, the vice generalissimo to Chiang Kai-shek before the split in the Kuomintang. Policy in foreign affaira should rest upon knowl- edge of the forces at work in the countries in which we are operating, and some means should be found for knowing non-Commu- nist oppositionists to Allied policy as well as Communist oppositionists to Stalinist policy. Vanishing Surpluses rronenty EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EDWARD MARTIN OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, February 21 (legislative day of Monday, January 29), 1951 Mr. MARTIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an editorial entitled “Vanishing Surpluses,” pub-! Ushed in the Washington (Pa.) Observer of recent date. In this connection I call the attention of my colleagues to the danger of having to depend upon a crisis, of war to keep up our economy,
920 There being no objection, the edito- rial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, 28 follows: ‘ VANISHING BURPLUAES Impact of war and preparation for war on the Nation's economy is illustrated by the change {n farm surpluses. A few montha ago they were a mounting problem calling for ® new approach. New Government holdings of cheese, but- ter, cotton, and wool have almost disap- peared and the surpluses of the major gratos—corn and wheat—ere so highly re- garded they are being stockpiled against fu- ture emergency. The Government has al- ready called upon the farmers to produce more of them. Potato control has been abandoned. Wheat ts needed against the possibility of feeding allies in a war, and there is a high priority on corn to keep meat supplies ade- quate. The changed prospect is reflected in prices, wheat quotations being at their high in several years despite a large surplus. The Commodity Credit Corporation claims a loss of only $773,000,000 in its 17-year his- tory. This, however, does not include ad- ministrative costs, interest, and storage charges, which exceed the sales losses. CCO ,has authority to use nearly 85,000,000,000, and currently has $2,888,000,000 invested in price supports. It would appear that a con- aiderable saving could be effected in this field, holding the budget down and avoid- ing sOme of the proposed new taxes. This general situation of challenging eco- nome problems that can be solved only by war calls for searching analysis. Is the Amer- jean economic system so decadent that it must be supported by emergency after emer. gency to keep it working at top speed and stave off collapse of the standard of living? And what happens when the Nation runs out of emergencies? Will it then be necessary to create another? Proposed Amendments to Selective Service Act EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. LYNDON B. JOHNSON OF TEXAS IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, February 21 (legislative day of Monday, January 29), 1951 Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Presi- dent, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Recorp several editorials regarding the proposed amendments to the Selective Service Act. These include editorials from the Washington News, the Washington Post, the Washington Star, and the Birmingham Post-Herald, There being no objection, the editorials were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows; [From the Washington (D. ©.) News of January 15, 1981] " Too Many Derzamenrts 2 Overheuling of the draft law, with a severe tightening of the present deferment Policy, will be one of the most pressing problems before the new Congress. The grim fact is that under the present set-up Selective Service is going to have a hard time enough men to pro« vide an army of 8,600,000 by next July, President Truman's goal, As in the case of so many other problems of the emergency, the whole question of manpower supply is still in the discussion stage, with no firm policy taking shape. Selective Service is operating now under & l-year extension, to next June 30, of a postwar draft law altogether too lenient and top-heavy with exemptions. Bypassed are the World War It veterans, all fathers, men with dependenta, students, youths under 19, and men over 25, and those mentally or physically unfit for general service. Certain occupational deferments are alao permitted, mostly agricultural. At the current rate of demand, under these limitations, Selective Service will be running out of men before summer, In that light, and in the face of the com- pelling need, we don’t think much of the proposal advanced last month by one of Selective Service’s own advisory groups. It would defer indefinitely “superior” university students so that they could continue their studies. Their superiority would be deter« mined by giving them an aptitude test sim. flar to that now given by the armed services and certifying them as “promising students.” The time is past for such unfair and un- equal selectivity. The need now is for men, and in large numbers, regardless of bow “promising” they may be as plotted by an “aptitude” test. General Eisenhower, who is still adding to the luster of his name, as the preceding edi- tortal points out, was not particularly “prom- ising’ as a student. He was in the lower half of his class at West Point. And it took General Patton 5 years to get through, (From the Washington (D. C.) News of January 20, 1951] Don’t Wrakrnw UMST The long-awaited bill for universal mili- tary service and training finally has been introduced in Congress, In recent hearings before the Senate Pre- paredness Subcommittee, the main target of attack has been the starting age—the draft of 18-year-olds, This opposition undoubtedly reflects the sentiments voiced in letters that have been pouring in on en from parents who, understandably, dislike to see their youthful sons called into service. Yet this newspaper believes the principal arguments against the draft of 18-year-olds have been categorically and satisfactorily an- awered by competent witnesses before the Senate committee. These facts seem to have been established: There are barely enough men in the 19-to« 26-age bracket to provide an army of 3,500,- 000 men, and not enough if that goal is raised or the present call-up rate is increased, The alternatives are to take fathers, yvet- erans, or 18-year-olds, And, as Draft Direc- tor Lewis Hershey pointed out: “The mort« gage ts on the 18-year-olds since they’ve got to serve at 19 anyway.” Young men drafted at 18 would, in most cases, return to civilian life between their twentieth and twenty-first birthdays—still ung enough to get a college education, ose in high school would not be drafted until they had finished, or reached age 10, whichever came first. Youths in college be- fore they became 18 could finish the school ar. In addition, each year 75,000 promis- students would have their active mill-< tary service deferred to study a wide variety of courses for specialized training, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD least four, and possibly six, months of basic mili training. The i6-year-clds are not yet an fmpor- tant factor in the country’s labor force, Their induction would not greatly disrupt Indus- try’s manpower. The stamina, endurance, and recuperative powers of 18- and 19-year-olds unquestion- ably make them superior soldiers. By start- ing their training early they improve their own chances of survival if eventually they must be sent into combat. And, important from a long-range view, UMST beginning at 18 will provide the coun- try with an ever-expanding pool of trained reserves for the next 10 years. Yet the system is fiexihle enough to meet any world change for the better—the President can re- duce or eliminate service requirements as the emergency eases. This newspaper believes that Congress should enact UMST promptly without change or compromise on the 18-year-old age ree quirement. — [From the Washington (D. C.) Post of Janu- ary 13, 1951} HIGHTEEN-Yrar-OLDs The harshest and most far-reaching sac- rifice required in the interest of national security has now been set plainly before Congress. It entails something unprece+ dented and profoundly unwelcome in Ameri- can life—the peacetime impresament into military service of all physically At youths reaching the age of 18. This means not only hardship for the boys called into uniform and heartache for the families they must leave, but also a profound wrench to the traditions of a country which has always abhorred militarism and has never until now considered a large standing army in peacetime necessary to ite safety. Only necessity could justify such a course. Une happily, the necessity appears to be at hand,: Secretary of Defense Marshall and Assist ant Secretary Anna Rosenberg, who presented the plan for universal military service and training to the Senate Military Preparedness Subcommittee, made no attempt to gloss over its harshness, ‘This break with the past is not likely to be of brief duration. The Sec. retary spoke of it a# a 10-year burden. But there is no way to measure its duration just ag there is no way to measure the duration of the world crisis compelling it. As General Marshall observed, “There is no cheap or way solution to our present security prob-« ems.” We need to create speedily an armed force of 3,200,000 men and we need also to main- tain a large corps of trained reserves. Pat« ently the best way to accomplish both of these aims is to induct and train the young. est mon ft for military service. They make the best fighters, their induction will ental the least diglocation of the national econ. omy and the least disruption of family life,’ and they will be available longest for the defense of the Nation. The alternative, ine duction of older men now deferred, would impose even graver hardships. The UMST program outlined by Defense Department officials appears to have taken dato account intelligently the importance of continued education for some of the young men to be calied to duty. It would permit gtudents now in college to complete their gcademio year, It would provide for a re- turn to after basic training of perhaps 200,000 to 128,000 of the most apt students arta nna that the national need for scientific workers and for educated gaen squipped to assume the responsibilities Of future leadership would not be ignored. Whether induction should be authorized to begin at 18 or, as Senator Lynnon Joun- @on has suggested, at 18%, and whether the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD term of service should be for the full 27 months requested by the Defense authorities or limited to 2 years, are details which Con- gress will need to study carefully, What we do in the present crisis will be looked upon by the rest of the world as a demonstration of our resolution. It will be taken as a standard, no doubt, by those nations upon whom we are urging increased military pre~ paredness. We cannot afford at this stage to falter or to equivocate in our own program. [From the Washington (D. C.) Post of January 22, 1951] CoLuraz Programs American colleges have already been hit very hard by mobilization. The uncertain- ties of the draft situation have led great numbers of young men to leave their cam- puses or to forego higher education in order to enlist in the armed services. If universal service for 18-year-olds {gs made a national policy, it is estimated by the executive director of the Association of American Col- leges that enrollment of male students will drop by as much as 80 percent. The needs of national defense are paramount, of course. And there does not seem to be any way short of a no-deferment program to raise an army of three and a half million, But the cost of such a program in terms of its impact on education ought to be reckoned realistically. One effect of a sudden drop in student enrollment will perhaps be the destruction of a number of colleges—particularly those ' without large endowments and dependent for their operation on income derived from tuition fees. A number of institutions have already been obliged to reduce the size of their faculties. They may, if the pinch be- comes severe enough, be obliged to close their doors altogether. This loss of educa- tional facilities would entail a very severe cost to the Nation. Universal military service would also mean a serious gap in the training of young men for future professional careers. Four or 5 years hence this might present the Nation with a disastrous shortage of doc- tors, engineers, research chemists, physt- cists and experts in other flelds where knowledge cannot be acquired quickly. In a world where military strength is to a great extent dependent upon scientific su- premacy, we can scarcely afford to be in= different to the supply of skilled scientists, Nor can we recklessly forsake the training of young men for future national leadership. Provision for a student training program in the universal military service and train- ing plan submitted to Congress by the De- fense Department is a wise form of con- servation. It will help substantially to stabilize the country's educational structure. The colleges themselves, however, will Le obliged to make important adjustments vo the hard realities of the present situation. President James Bryant Conant, of Harvard University, recognized the need tn his annual report to the board of overseers just released. Planning for the future, he declared, must be based on the assumption “that we shall be partially mobilized but not in a global war for many years.” The situation today is not analogous to that which faced us after Pearl Harbor when education as usual was abruptly suspended and teachers as well as students enlisted for the duration. The duration now is indefinite. After the transitional period of draft induction, col- lege enrollment will probably return to nor< m.al or even in excess of it as young men are released to resume their studies, Speeded programs may be necessary for them, al- though Mr. Conant considers the 3-year col- lege course, improvised after the last war, Unsatisfactory; professional schools will have to make some modifications, toa; and facul- ties will have te ration thetr contributions to Government service in order “to prevent & dissipation of their highly epecialized man- power.” Colleges are a national! asset far too valuable to be lightly or needlessly sacrificed. (From the Washington (D. C.) Post of January 21, 1951] TEEN-AGERS IN BATTLE One of the reasons most frequently given for opposition to the lowering of the draft age to 18 ts the fear that youngsters might be sent into battle without adequate train- ing. That is an understandable fear, but it needs analysis. Why were 18-year-olds pressed hurriedly into combat during World War Il? Because a sudden desperate need for fighting men arose, and there was no time to train the teen-agers or to bring in rein- forcements from elsewhere. There can be no sure guaranty that such an emergency will not arise again. But there is a protection against unpreparedness. That 1s to make gure that every young man re- ceives ample training as a matter of course. That means universal training and service starting at 18, It is a tragedy whenever men go into battle unprepared; whether they are 18, or 19, as is now legally possible, makes little difference. The aim of current legisla- tion is to build military strength and a reser- voir of trained men so that this will not happen, Eighteen-year-olds are needed to keep the Armed Forces at strength and to place the reservoir of trained men on a sus- taining basis. No wishful thinking can blot out the fact that international tension is likely to be with us for a long time, The kindest thing that can be done for the 18- year-olds, who sooner or later would be in- volved anyhow, is to train them adequately to meet their responsibility. [From the Washington (D. C.) Star of Janu- ary 12, 1961] ComBINING TRAINING AND SERVICE Defense Secretary Marshall has presented to Congress a combined military service and training program that has the advantage of meeting both immediate and long-range manpower needs of national defense. 1t would supply the trained men required in the present emergency to build our military strength to 3,200,000 men. Yet the program would be flexible enough to provide uni- versal training facilities after immediate goals of the armed services are attained. The plan, therefore, would end what Chairman LYynpon JoHNsON, of the Senate Prepared= ness Subcommittee calls the dungerous luxe ury of sporadic, plecemeal manpower meas- ures to which we have become addicted. As outlined in general scope by General Marshall and Assistant Secretary Rosenberg, the plan calls for the induction of 18-year- olds for training and service in the Regular Estabiishment or assigrment to Reserve components. Induction now begins at 19. All physically fit 18-year-olds would be given from 4 to 6 months’ training before being sent on to one of the regular fighting branches. The policy would be not to send men under 19 overseas except in dire emer- gency. The training and service period would cover 27 months, after which they would become members of the Reserve for from 8 to 6 years, the Reserve term depending on whether membership was in an organized unit or an Inactive class. Once the emergency needs of the Regular services are satisfied, however, the induction machinery would become more a source of trained reservists than of regulars. The President would have authority not only to reduce service requirements but to elimi- nate them altogether if conditions war- A921 ranted. Thus, the Defense Department's plan would be adaptable to the long-view program of building up a strong body of re-~ servists in all branches. The theory is that the larger and stronger this stand-by citi- wens’ reserve, the less need there will be for Maintaining a huge standing army at great cost to the Nation. Even this compromise between develop- ment of a garrison state and the inede- quacies of past and present patchwork meas- ures will be costly and inconvenient, It will mean readjustments in the home, in education, and in industry. If the pro- gram is made truly universal, it will, in effect, ration the services of all of the country's manpower, young and in the older brackets. But, as General Marshall told the Johnson subcommittee, this is a reasonable price which “a resolute people will be willing to pay for their liberties.” [From the Washington (D. C.) Star of January 10, 1951] UMT StiLu NECESSARY Many persons share Senator Tarr’s miagiv- ings over the maintenance of a large stand- ing Army in this country in time of s0- called peace. He told the Senate he had heard talk of an American Army twice the size of that now planned and warned that such an increase in armed strength as a long-range program would put the Nation perpetually on a deficit basis. In addition, he said, "It would pose serious problems in the fields of military morale and industrial manpower.” There is an alternative, however, to what the Ohio Senator termed “a garrison state.” Universal military training would provide a constant reservoir of trained manpower that would enable the country safely to reduce the size of its Regular Army. It is the lack of such a training program in the past that has complicated the task of raising the min- imum Armed Forces required in the present emergency. And, still lacking such a pro- gram, there is no satisfactory source of trained manpower except selective service and the system of camp training now under way. Once the required strength is attained, induction of men for training and service in the standing Army is the only method which Congress has provided to keep our strength at the level deemed necessary for security. General Bradley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefa of Staff, and other authorities have told Congress repeatedly that the only way to avoid the burdens of a large standing Army in time of peace—and yet remain po-~ tentially strong—is by creating a stand-by reserve of young men trained in the rudi- ments of warfare. Such a permanent reserve could be built up within a few years under &@ universal military-training program of the type advocated by defense officials on nu- merous occasions in the past. It has been said the UMT would not be feasible right now, because of a shortage of instructors and camp facilities. It is true that these facilities are being taxed beyond capacity by the selective-service remobilization pro- gram. There is no good reason, however, why the new Congress should not pass stand-by legislation of the type just intro- duced to affthorize UMT whenever facill- ties for carrying out the plan become avail- able. We would be far better prepared to meet aggression today had we started the training of our youth before the emergency developed. [From the Birmingham (Ala.) Post-Herald of January 18, 1951] Tux Sooner, THE Berren Defense Secretary Marshall and his man- power assistant, Mrs. Anna Rosenberg, made
A922 two impressive points when they presented the broad outline of a universal military servioe and training program before & con- Gressional committee this week. They made clear that UMST ts at once the least costly and the most effective means of attaining immediate partial mobilisation and at the same time assuring a vitally necessary pool of trained men for the next decade. It is, as Mrs. Rosenberg summed up, the only device “for providing a sound defense now and in the future at a price we can afford to pay.” Economically, there ts this consideration: Y we don't draft the 18-year-oldsa we shall have to tap the young married men, with and without dependente, who are now ex- empt. There are now 680,000 of these in the 19-26 age group potentially available for in- duction. If they were called up it would cost the Government @979,000,000 a year in- cluding thelr pay and dependency allowances. If, instead, an equivalent number of 18- year-olds were taken—as proposed under UMST—since they are almost uniformly without dependents, the cost for a year at the proposed pay rate would be $466,000,000. Thus the annual payroll savings alone would be $513,000,000—not counting the joss to in- duatries and farms and to the purchasing power of families that would be involved in calling up married men. But something much more tmportant than money ts involved. Prom his experience {n World War II, General Marshall seid that men of 18, 19, and 20 unquestionably made the best sol- diers. They have stamina and recuperative power far beyond that of the older groups. By starting the training of our young men at 18—instead of 19 as at present—we not only immediately solve the problem of reach- ing the 8,200,000-man Army goal by next July, we also start an ever-expanding flow of well-trained men into the Reserve com- ponents. It is this important reserve pool, now lack- ing, from which an army in being could be doubled or tripled almost overnight. It is the cushton, or “durable layer of military Protection,” that would survive the alternate moods of grave public alarm and compla- cency over the next decade. It could mean the difference between national survival or total defeat. At the same time, these youths whose combat training started at 18 will have greatly enhanced their own chances of sur- vival t& they are required to go into battle. The urgency of the situation is beyond question. The sooner UMBT is put into ef- fect the greater will be our national security and the stronger our voice for lasting world peace. Congress Should Insist on a Share in Policy Making EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. HENRY J. LATHAM OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRISENTATIVES Wednesday, January 31, 1951 Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I wish to in- sert in the Comarmssionan Rzcorp an editorial appearing in the January 27 is. sue of the Saturday Evening Post: Congates SHovuto livswr on a Swans or Pouicy Maxine The constitutional crisis through which We are supposed to have been passing is not so much a constitutional crisis as a crisis ef confidence. Few people seriously belfeve that the President lacks legal power to send troops abroad for specific missions, although his right to involve the country in a major undeclared war is certainly questionable. What is definitely doubted by millions of Americans 1s the abtiity of President Tru- man, Secretary Acheson and our leaders gen- erally to decide where to send anybody. The November elections constituted a repudia- tion of the administration which neither the people nor Congress is in a position to carry through to a logical conclusion. That is the source of the erisis which does involve dif- ferences in constitutional interpretation, but is actually brought about by doubts regard- ing our present leadership. In theee circumstances it is not only natu- ral but necessary that Congrees should more and more edge into the picture and insist on @ larger share in planning and responstbility. Korea gives the leadezs of Congress thelr op- portunity and points out their duty. In ad- dition to merely consutting with the State Department and saying “Yes,” Congress will have to exert pressure. Specifically it might well insist upon an explanation of our per- sistent refusal to release the troops of Chiang Kai-shek for an attack from Formosa, and the etrange ins and outs of our attitudes on the proposal for a cease fire in Korea. The State Department first consented to a pro- posal for a conference on Korea which ex- cluded from the proposed discussions the Nationalist government of China, the regime which we recognize and which has a seat on the Security Council, Later the United States representative at Lake Buccess re- versed our position and inatsted that Chiang Kai-shek be represented at any conference about Asta, ; The official explanation at the time was that we had no expectation that the Chinese Reds would consent to the cease-fire pro- posal, and that when it had been rejected we could proceed to tell them off as aggres- sors. But it is strange diplomacy which an- nounces in advance that we are not acting in good faith, but only to prove a point that ‘we have decided already. And suppose the Chinese Cor:munists had accepted, and we had found ourselves in a conference stacked three to one against us; were we prepared to hand over Formosa and a UN membership to the Communists as the price of a toehold in ae unprofitable Korea? Or what was the The State Department's attitude on the Formosa question has been explained by a commendable desire not to become further involved in an Asiatic war. It is also a sur- vival of the left-wing nonsense to the effect that we must have no traffic with Natlonal- ist China lest we alienate our friends in Asia. Now that our friends in Asia are re- vealed even to the moat “eyed as our enemies in Asia, Congress t well ask why we can’t ald the enemies of our enamies even if Mr, Acheson and his group aren't prepared to treat them as friends. Here again there has been a mighty change since the January slap by Mao Tse-tung. For- mosa is apparently to be regarded as esson- tal to American security, after all these years of State Department insistence that it wasn't. There are indications that Congress is alive to this. Senator McCarran, of Nevada (Democrat), has introduced a resolution calling for aid to Chiang Kai-shek, and Sen- ator Paut Dovatas, of Illinois, one of the ablest on Mr. Truman's side of the floor, also ‘urges support of Chiang, Franco, and Tito, not because they are Democrats, but be- cause they are anti-Communists. Here it might be observed that the State Depart- ment's eagerness to help Tito, who prides himself of betng a purer Communist than Stalin, ts in curious contrast to its atti- tude toward Franco and Chiang. These are items in our foreign policy which Congrees might well probe. There must be some reason behind attitudes so defiant of logic, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The Dilemma of the Free World —_ ee EXTENSION OF REMARKS oo HON. HENRY CABOT LODGE, JR. OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, February 22 (legislative day of Monday, January 29), 1951 Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Recorp an address delivered by Gen. Carlos P. Romulo, Foreign Secretary of the Philippines and Permanent Dele- gate to the United Nations, when the honorary degree of doctor of laws was conferred upon him by Boston Univer- sity on January 31, 1951. General Romulo was cited by Boston University as one “whose life and achievements reflect glory and honor upon that island country” and as a “patriot who has held the freedom of native land dearer than life, and whose fervent patriotism now encompasses all mankind.” The c:tation also said that General Romulo is a “soldier whose effi- clency and loyalty have been proclaimed by promotion to the rank of brigadier general, a diplomat who knows that ‘peace hath her victories, no less re- nowned than war,’ and who is winning renown by the consecration of superb mental and personality powers to the establishment of peace on earth and good yn among the nations of the ear ” His speech entitled “The Dilemma of the Free World” was favorably com- mented upon editorially by leading American newspapers, because ft under- scores the fact that the objectives of the free world of today are to keep alive the will to. freedom and the will to resist those who would destroy freedom. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Rrcozp, as follows: Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, if we go by the allotted span of human life, silver anniversaries are not a rare or unusual ob- servance. The Biblical threescare and ten, if cherished with care and busbandsed without haste, do permit a man the proud achieve- ment of sticking to something—a useful professian or @ beloved spouse—with fidelity and affection, and in the end receiving the plaudits of admiring friends and neighbors, The achievement of Dr. Daniel L. Marsh is rare in this; That, having passed the Biblical Span, he can point to 35 years of faithful service as a university president in the no- blest profession there is—a profession to which he ha: been wedded as to a beloved spouse—and that, having reached this mile- atone, he has yet the vitality and the vision to go from hence toward a future of un- Giminished usefulness to bis country and people. Anyone can have a aliver anniver- sary of some kind, but the pleasures of a ailyer anniversary as one of the great edu- cators of America are given to but a few. ‘You, Dr. Marsh, ate one of these fortunate paying you this just and affectionate trib- ute of admiration. Humbly, yet sincerely, I add my voice to the af that comes to you today from all those, in this land and in other lands, who have watched Boston University flourish into greatness un« der your patient and devoted leadership. Manila is almost halfway around the world from Boston, But the world has be-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD come go small and history has moved so fast that while Boston, 200 yeara ago, was the farthest outpost of western civilization in the New World of America, Manila, today, is the farthest outpost of western ctvilization in the Olid World of Asia. The expanse be- tween Boston and Manila represents the area covered by the advancing wave of western culture. If that area is to be held and de- feaided as an area of freedom, the common faith and ideals of these two cities, and of the lands for which they stand as symbole, must remain strong and enduring as hoops of steel, The outpost in Manila will be held if the people of Boston keep the faith. This is not a modern Tale of Two Cities. It is an attempt to reduce to simple terms the dilemma of the free world. America, which has become the arsenal of the free world, must scon make a difficult choice. America must choose between a policy of withdrawing to its frontiers to safeguard its freedom and its way of life, and a policy of assisting free peoples everywhere to defend their freedom against the menace of a new and more terrible despotism. America must choose between defending its own freedom in Boston and San Francisco and defending that same freedom in Paris and London, in Sydney and Manila. Whatever the decision, {t will not be an easy one to make. But the difficulty should be the measure of our invention and imagi- nation. This Nation was made great through courage and vision. These same qualities will be needed to defend and protect it. To follow the counsel of fear is to embark on the road to disaster. Last night, at Lake Success, there took place an event of truly historic proportions. After 2 months of protracted debate and much searching of hearts and consciences the Political and Security Committee of the United Nations General Assembly decided by & substantial vote to pin the label of ag- gressor on the Government of Communist China, The decision is not so simple as it sounds. What make it significant are the premise on which it stands and the united action that now must follow it. The free world has had the courage to identify the aggressor and stands ready to take additional measures to meet the aggression, The United States should be proud of the leadership it assumed in the making of this historic decision. The emotional pressures that tended toward a rash and impulsive de- cision were greater than any nation in a similar situation has ever borne. But the patience and forbearance of the United States have been rewarded by the support of its friends and allies. Today the free world stands forth united and strong in the sight of the aggressor. The Philippines 1s one of the two states of Asia (Thailand being the other) that re- jected the repeated invitations to weakness and surrender. Though they frightened us with new threats by the aggressor and scared ws with the danger of another world war, we stood firmly by the conviction that the surest way to whet the appetite of the aggressor and to bring on the tragedy of another war ls to surrender to intimidation and blackmail. I cannot say, standing here before you, that by this decision we in the United Na- tions have avoided the risk of war. But I do say that if this risk does exist we could not avoid it by bending the knee to the aggres- sor, What we have done is to give notice to the that the free world has made up its mind to resist his further aggressions or attempts at aggression, as we resisted them a few years back in Iran, Greece, and Berlin, This time, instead of half-hearted resistance or unilateral decisions to resist, we have proclaimed our untfied and d¢e termination to maintain the peace and secue rity of the world. My countfy made a difficult decision in breaking away from the group of 12 Asian and Arab states which favored further nego- tiations with the aggressor in Korea. This decision ts symptomatic of what is going on in the mind of Asia. Back of the neutralism of Asia and its reluctance to join forces with the west are the fears and suspicions which centuries of unhappy contact with the West- ern Powers have bred. Almost alone in Asia, the Philippines was spared this expe- rience and memory of colonial subjection and exploitation. The United States must feel proud that today, once again, as in the days of Bataan and Corregidor, the people of the Philippines have decided to stand beside the people of the United States in the great po- litical crisis of the United Nations. Nevertheless, the problem of keeping the free countries of Asia within the democratic camp remains urgent and pressing. If the Philippines remains an outpost and promon- tory of the free world in Asia, then it must be held not only for {ts own sake but also for the sake of advancing the cause of freedom and democracy in that part of the world, To this end the United States must do two things. It must insist that the American experiment in the Philippines become the measure of the present and future colontal policy of the Western Powers in Asia, And the United States must act in regard to the Philippines in a manner to reassure the other countries of Asia of its friendly and generous intentions. The Philippines is the pilot plant of frvc- dom and democracy in Asia, and what Awer- ica does there in terma of friendly undel~ standing and fair dealing will have a vastly more persuasive effect upon our neighbors than the broadcasts of the Voice of America and the squadrons of American bombers and battleships. The true power of America does not rest on the dollar and the atom bomb. If these were the only source of American power, it would not last. The strength of America still rests on the conviction held by the free peoples of the world that America stands for justice, for freedom, for equality, for progress, for all the great humane values of our civill- gation. If this faith in America is lost, the dollar cannot redeem it and the atom bomb cannot restore it. 1 The dectsion that was’ taken last night at Lake Success reveals the true dimensions of the problem that America must face. Amer- ica's responsibilities aa the leader of the free world cannot be met by military strength alone. Those responsibilities can be met only if its relations with the free countries of the world are placed on a basis of mutual consideration and respect, and if its legiti- mate concern for the security of Europe end of European interests in Asia does not over- shadow its equally legitimate concern for the freedom and progress of the Asian peoples. Some bitterness will have been caused by the refusal of the majority of the Asian countries to support the antiaggression reso- lution of the General Assembly, but I trust that American statesmanship will overcome this natural disappointment and resolutely apply iteelf to the vital task of repairing the rifts that have appeared in the ranks of the free world. I dare, above all, to express the fervent hope that retaliatory measures shall not even be thought of, that the American policy of assisting the underdeveloped coun- tries shall not suffer as a consequence, and that food or any other form of relief and assistance shall not be used as @ weapon of itical pressure or as an instrument of nae fonal policy, Tolerance, not resentment, becomes as of today the essential ingredient of the common faith and purpose of the free ‘world. The crisie that confronts us will bring with it the evil of narrow perspectives and short-term objectives. Though these may A928 assume the appearance of necessity, they cannot take the place of wisdom. A basic ingredient of the wisdom which we now re- quire {s the capacity to fix our eyes on the long-term objectives of the tree world, Those objectives are to keep alive the will to freetom and the will to resist those who would destroy freedom. In this city of Paul Revere, it is a super- erogation to stress the virtue of alertness to danger. We have been awakened to the peril of aggression and the risk of general war. The modern Paul Reveres of the press and the radio have done their job well, so well, in fact, that we seem to fee) the need of a little serenity and reassurance. We need to order our thoughts, to ponder our course of action, to look beyond the horizon, to lift our eyes, as the Psalmist said, to the hills whence cometh our help. We need, above all, to avold the pitfall of despair and the rash actions which despair inspires. If American freedom was born at Bunker Hi, it is well to reme-aber that Bunker Hill commemorates 4 military defeat. Even so was the freedom of the Philippines assured at Bataan, though Bataan brought only tragic disaster to our arms, That we may lose the first encounters with the enemies of our freedom is not an occasion for despair. The principle of free- dom will triumph in the end because we have refused to bargain with it, because from the first, as on Bunker Hill and in Bataan, we have resolved together to cherish 1t with courage and devotion till final vic- tory is won. (Dr. Marsh at this juncture conferred upon General Romulo the degree of doctor of laws, honoris causa. It was the second time in its history that Boston University awarded an honorary degree at special exercises, Five years ago Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower was similarly honored.) Dr. Marsh, that this day should have been chosen to invest me with the honorary degree of doctor of laws is pleasure and satisfac- tion enough. It is like being served a rare and delicious fruit that is not in season. But to savor such a fruit in this company and on such an occasion is to compound the value of the gift. The persona] honor that I tee] I lay before you, Dr. Marsh, as a token of my high personal esteem and regard. But the honor that this award signifies for my country and my people I lay before this great Nation as a symbol of the mighty bonds of affection and gratitude that shall unite forever the people of America and the people of the Philippines. Wage-Price Fiasco Another Symptom of ‘Anarchy EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. JOHN L. McCLELLAN OF ARKANSAS IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, February 21 (legislative day of Monday, January 29), 1951 Mr. McCLELLAN, Myr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed gn the Appendix of the Rzcorp an arti- ele entitled “Wage-Price Fiasco Another ymptom of Anarchy,” by Ralph A. Lee, anaging editor, which appeared in the Southwest-Times Record, of Fort Smith, Ark., in the issue for Sunday, February 18, 1951,
AQ24 There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recon, as follows: Wace-Pares Frisco Axor SrMrrom oF ANARCHY—Govenn ment Arrears Decaramc Now or Destine Wrrn Forces fr Szt tr MOTION {By Ralph A, Lee) In view of the wae price fiasco and other disquieting symptoms approaching ansr- chy, there 1s a real question whether Govern- ment as now constituted is capable of desl- ing with the disruptive forces that are de- veloping. Legislation by faction and by ballot pres- sure bas grown so enormoualy that there is a question now whether Government creates circumetance or Is the creature of ciycum- stance. In the lackadaisical and belated attempt at wage-price control, Government obviously is a captive of some af the very circumstances It created, Government is laying the basis for its even- tual destruction when it delfherately prosti- tutes fteelf to the prejudices and the political fmnacence of its voters. Decadence ts hastened when the electorate learns that by voting group interests tt can obtain tem- porary benefits not available by voting indi- vidual convictions with only the general welfare In mind, : When a republic is subjected to this con- tamination, it gradually loses character and degenerates by degrees from one nameless form to another, ending usually m absolute dictatorship. Tho tragic story has been re- Peated time and again in htstory. From all sides, there are warnings that in- flation cynically set in motion 18 years ago is on the verge of getting completely out of hand. There is abundant evidence also that neither Congress nor the administration knows quite what to do about it. The wage-price cantrol effort has bogged down in a fruitless chicken-and-egg argu- ment between labor and industry. Labor argues that wages have not caught wp with ices, and for the wnorgantzed majority this true. It will bo true « year from now, for it is the history of every inflation that wages At this point the siz members of the Wage Stabliization Board representing industry aad the public voted approval of a forsauls iim- iting increases to 10 percent, and the three labor members zasigned in protest. The 10- percent formula which produced the labor resignations was inflationary in itself, of course, and would Neve entalled an tnmume- diate increase in prices. = Without representation on the Board labor will feel itself under no obligation to abide by any of the Soard's decisions. There will be atrikes as usual, culminating as usual tn further wage increases and further price increases. No one wine or pouscsses even a worth- While temporary advantage in this insane roundelay, but it will continue as long as people continge to think strictly in terms of group interests and without regard for the welfare of the country, In the farge sense, however, the ‘temporary sucoeas of any wage-price scheme would have no important bearing on the basic forces which threwten disneter. only in one direction, and that direction is Up. Public and private debt is accunrulating to such an astronomical extent that tt can be supported only in terms of dollars which are deprectating in value proportionately ‘to the debt mncrenac. AB 8&8 matter of practical economics, tt would not be posstble for this country to support its extstmmg debt tn terms of round Qollars of inflexibie vatue. Anp real attempt to stabilize the dollar at this polit woult tend to freeze the business expansion which has produced consturthy increasing tax reye- nues and made munitipal, State, and Fed- eral debt management possible. At the municipal and State levels a point of dtmintshing returns already is appear! and there are serious diffienittes tn the maintenance of governmental functions and in the provisions of debt service. As the inflation continues thes subdivisions of gov- ernment will bog down tn fiscal chaos, ond there will be pressure for the Federal Gov- ernment to assume the responsibilities that the municipalities and Stwtes are unable to discharge. ‘ With tts own affairs in disorder, the Fed- eral Government could not assume new re- Spongibilities unless it disregarded com- pletety the conflicting wills of the people and thelr pressure organizations. Along that road lies rule by bullet ant not by ballot. "The Atlantic Union Resolution EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ESTES KEFAUVER OF TENNESSEE EN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, Febreary 21 (tegistative day of Monday, January 29), 1951 Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to hare printed in the Appendix of the Reconrn an excelient editorial about the Atlantic Union reso- lution which appeared in the January 18, 1951, issue of the Brooklyn W. Y.) Basie. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed tn the Racoon, as follows: Comgazes ACTION ost AlLAwTIc Unuon MORE Gaeewr 48 Rp Cams Gaows The Atiantic Unéon resolution, which we entormd when t% was tnireduced in Con- @ress more tham « year ago, has again heen put forth by a iange group of Gemators and Representatives. The changed character of world effairs das given the sponsors of the resolution a deeling of urgency in their pro- posal. © feeling which seems completely jus Who oan deny that the ward is at threshold—indeed, well into the area of dan~ get—where the straggie is clearty fyeemen and the enslaved puppets of tyr- anny? Whether the ultimate victory will lie for their own salvation. 2% ts this historic division which the At- imatic Union reeciution aims 60 cormect. The APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD sponsors, Senators Lerman, Grorcn, AMrn, Nixon, Exvavvar, and 22 others, are practical, hrard-headed men. A mere military alliance, such ag that under which General Eisenhower must collect his force against aggression, does not seem etrong or fnel enongh to these men. Tt ts too exsity broken, too confusing and im- permanent to guarantee success. Sven General Eisenhower himself expha- sizedi this need tn Lontion early this week when he said “the only way the free world can defend iteel! is for the free world to stick together.” Surely we mre not so politicatty immature as to refuse to explore the best way of arco nsting ats. The present mee must be given poitti- cal and economic force. The loose, 12-head- ea Attantic Council which advises fisen- hower must be forged into a civil power with ethesion and strength. The question is this: Which type of vaior ts the best course for the democracies: To drown reparatety, though gullantly, In the sweeping tide of Communist tmperiatism or to unite and stem the tide with the same principles of free federal union which launched Into the wortd this great Federal Union we now call the United Stutes? Nousegregation Policy Vindicated in Combat EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. JACOB K. JAVITS OF NEW YoRkK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 19, 1951 Mr. JAVITS. Mr, Speaker, clear evi- dence that a policy of nonsegregation in the Army pays off to the country is found in the appended dispatch in the New York Times of February 9, 1951: Mixes ov GI Owes Pats Orr m Komma— Many CoMMANDERS Ham Zep or Nego StaamoatTton as Amp rx Racenr Vicroems (By George Barrett) Witm tar Eicuta Army, East or Suwon, Korea, February 8.--United States Army in- tantry outfits that are discarding Negro seg- regation practices in Korea are discovering that removal of the oolor line among fighting troops ia paying good dividends both in morale and in battle. For some weeks now the Army has heen 1 i : +f i & i: i 3 | |
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD forward during the bitter fighting to lead a platoon that had been badly battered was killed in action. The regimental commander 1s Col. Dennis M. Moore, of Clarksville, Tex., a veteran of the Corregidor fighting and a survivor of the Bataan death march. Colonel Moore said the Negro unit had as nasty an aseign- ment as any United Nations outfit in Korea and had done a good job. NO BAR TO FRIENDSHIPS As the replacements intermingle more and more in the units, the officers are finding out that the new friendships are in nowtse hampered by the soldiers’ color. One lieu- tenant asked for volunteers and got the choice of one team of buddies—a Negro and a white soldier—or none. One regimental surgeon on another sector is a Negro Heu- tenant colonel and the other is white. To the Negro soldiers in the regiment both are respectfully known as Doc. There are instances now of Negro officers having command of white troops and Negro officers outranking white officers, without any special friction in either case. Probably typical of most white officers and soldiers is Lt. George M. Richardson, of Macon, Mo., who told this correspondent that when he was assigned to work with Negroes and whites together he told his su- periors that as a deeply indoctrinated south- erner he would try his best to go half way and even more. Actually, he added, he found he had never had a single case where he had to go more than half way. In most cases, he was not conscious of making any special effort at all. He said that in combat in Korea the prin- ciple of mixed ranks had proved itself many times, but he predicted it would still be a long time before it would be accepted as & practice at home by the officers and men who were close in Korea. Un-American Handwriting on the Walls of the House of Representatives REMARKS HON. JOHN E. RANKIN OF MISSISSIPPI IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 14, 1951 Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, I have today introduced a resolution to remove from the walls of the House of Repre- sentatives those ancient caricatures with which we are confronted, and to replace them with figures of distinguished Americans. Those alien figures are merely the handwriting of un-Ameri- canism on our walls. There has been a concerted effort on the part of a lot of radicals in some of our educational institutions for 20 years, or more, to de- stroy American history and to discredit those great Americans who helped to es- tablish and build this great Republic. Today we are told that two-thirds of the colleges in this country do not require any knowledge of American history. I wonder why. Now, let us take some of the individ- uals whose supposed likenesses have been placed on the walls of this House, at the suggestion of some of those radicals, and see how great Americans have been by- passed by this stupid procedure, In the first place, that distorted figure of the American eagle overhead, which looks as if Stalin might have stamped on it, should be removed and replaced by that splendid figure of the American eagle which appears on the Government seal, We could easily select from the list of great Americans who have served in this body, and whose names will ring down the centuries, regardless of the attempts now being made to undermine and de- stroy them, figures to fill every space oc~ cupied by these imitations of alleged an- cient leadership. We might place the figure of Christ up there beside that of Moses, to remind the world that this is still a Christian coun- try. If Moses had lived during the time of Christ the chances are that he would have been the greatest Christian leader of all time. Prior to the turn of the last century there were 18 Presidents of the United States who had served in this House or in the Continental Congress. George Washington not only served in the Continental Congress but led our forces in the Revolutionary War, pre- sided over the Constitutional Conven- tion, and served 8 years as President of the United States. We have that glori- ous painting of Washington before us, delivering his Farewell Address to the American people. God grant that his majestic figure may forever be before the eyes of Members of this House. His Farewell Address was the greatest mes- sage of its kind ever issued. It warned us against the very dangers with which we are now threatened. But if Washington were here today, he would be branded as an isolationist. Thomas Jefferson served in the Conti- nental Congress, as Governor of Virginia, Minister to France, Secretary of State, and Vice President, and then served as President of the United States for 8 years. The figure of Jefferson is already before us, 80 we need not worry about him. He followed the policy laid down by Washington in his Farewell Address and warned us in his first inaugural ad- dress that our foreign policy should be that of “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” He would also be called an isolationist. We had better follow his sage advice, if we expect this Nation to endure. He and George Mason are the only two Americans in that entire panorama. Let us keep them there. We might remove that caricature of Hammurabi, who is said to have reigned in Babylon about 2,000 years before the Christian era, more than 1,000 years be- fore Belshazzar’s feast, and 6vU years before King Tut began his centuries of peaceful slumber, and replace him with the likeness of glorious old Ben- jamin Franklin, one of the wisest men that ever lived. He served in the Conti- nental Congress that declared our inde- pendence, and also in the Convention that wrote our Constitution—which has been described by one of the leading English statesmen of all time, as ‘‘the greatest document ever struck off at a A925 given time by the brain and purpose of man.” You might replace that mythical figure of Lycurgus, a reputed Spartan law- maker, who is said to have lived eight or nine hundred years before Christ, with the likeness of John Adams, who served in the Continental Congress, served as Vice President of the United States, and then served as President for 4 years. Remember it was John Adams who seconded the motion for the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. James Madison served in the Conti- nental Congress and in this House of Representatives, served as Secretary of State for 8 years, and then served 8 years as President of the United States. We might well substitute him for that figure of William Blackstone, said to have been placed there because of his commentary onthe common law. AS a matter of fact, Blackstone was a Member of Parliament just prior to the Revolution, and one of the greatest enemies the American Colo- nists ever had. He did not write the com- mon law, but merely wrote a commentary on it. We might as well have used the figure of Greenleaf and credited him with having originated the Rules of Evidence because of his great work on that sub- ject. I would suggest that the figure of Blackstone be removed and be replaced either by James Madison or by John Marshall, a former Member of this House, a brave soldier of the Revolution, and the greatest Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States this Nation has ever known, ‘We might remove that ghastly figure of Maimonides, who is said to have been a Jewish Rabbi in Egypt about 900 years ago. We could afford to replace him with Alexander Hamilton, one of the leading Members of the Continental Congress, a hero of the Battle of York- town, and a great Secretary of the Treas- ury under George Washington. He was largely responsible for the development of our monetary system. Or we might replace him with James Monroe, one of the greatest Americans of all time, who was father of the Mon- roe Doctrine which has protected all American countries from invasion for more than 100 years. He was a Mem- ber of the Continental Congress, a Sen- ator from Virginia, Minister to France, Governor of his native State, Minister to England, Secretary of State, and Pres- ident of the United States for 8 years. We could not find a better figure to fill that vacancy. Why not remove that antiquated figure of Papinian up there, who is said to have been a great Roman lawyer more than 1,700 years ago, and replace him with old Patrick Henry, a Member of the Con- tinental Congress, whose famous appeal for American independence stands today as the most powerful speech of its kind ever delivered in the same number of words in all the history of mankind. Or, we might replace him with the figure of John Quincy Adams, a former President of the United States, and the only man who ever served in that capac- ity who later became a Member of this
‘A825 House of Representatives, In which he served with honor and distinction up to the time of his death. That figure of Napoleon Bonaparte up there by the side of that of Thomas Jef- ferson would probably make Jefferson turn over in his grave. Jefferson knew Napoleon personally, but did not admire him, Why not replace him with the figure of Henry Lee, known as Gen. Light-Horse Harry Lee, one of the great heroes of the Revolution, as well as a great member of the Continental Congress, who led the fight in his own State for the adoption of the American Constitution, and who paid that great tribute to Washington in which he said he was “First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen.” He was also the father of Robert EF. Lee, who has long since been recognized as the “greatest commander of the Eng- lish-speaking race.” Or, we might replace him with the figure of one of the greatest Presidents, as well as one of the greatest soldiers this Nation ever saw—Andrew Jackson, of Tennessee, who served as a Member of this House, led our forces to victory in the War of 1812, and served as President of the United States for 8 years. Why leave him out and place the figure of Napoleon Bonaparte on the walls of this Chamber? The American people would applaud such a change. That ghastly figure of Solon, who is said to have been an Athenian states- man and lawgiver more than 600 years before Christ, might well be replaced by John Jay, a member of the Continental Congress from New York, Governor of New York, and the first Chief Justice of the United States, upon whose motion the Legislature of New York approved the Constitution of the United States on July 9, 1776, Or, we might replace him with the figure of William Henry Harrison, a former Member of this House, who served as President of the United States, or that of his successor, John Tyler, who had also served as a Member of this body before he became Vice President, and who succeeded William Henry Harrison as President. If you want the figure of a real Chris- tian leader who was a real patriot and who served with distinction in this body, we might remove that figure up there of Innocent TI, who ts said to have lived about 800 years ago, and replace it with the figure of Frederick August Conrad Muhler.berg, a great Christian minister from Pennsylvania, a leading member in the Continental Congress, president of the State constitutional convention in 1777, and the first Speaker ever to preside over this House of Representa- tives under the Constitution of the United States. His people have been leaders in that State yrom the Revolu- tion down. At least four of them have served in this body, the last one being his great, great grandson, Frederick A. Muhlenberg, who served in the Eightieth Congress. Or, he might be replaced with the figure of James K. Polk, a former Speak- er of this House, who later became Pres- ident of the United States, or with that of William Jennings Bryan, one of the greatest Christian leacers of all time, who also served in this body, and whose famous lecture on the “Prince of Peace,” will ring down the centuries as one of the outstanding Christian lectures of all time. Jonathan Trumbull, of Connecticut, aide de camp to General Washington and Speaker of this House of Represent- atives in the Second Congress, might well replace that ancient figure of Gaius, a Roman lawyer or jurist, who lived 1800 years azo. Or, his likeness might be replaced with that of Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, or James Buchanan, all of whom served as Members of this House, and later served as President of the United States. We might replace that figure of Greg- ory IX, who was Pope of Rome about a thousand years ago, with that of Charles Carroll, of Carrollton, a member of the Continental Congress, signer of the Dec- laration of Independence, who later be- came a leading Member of the United States Senate from the State of Mary- and. Or, we might replace him with the figure of either Abraham Lincoln or Jef- ferson Davis, both of whom served in this body, and who fought together in the Blackhawk War. Lincoln later served as President of the United States, and Davis as President of the Confed- eracy. I can think of nothing that would more clearly indicate that we have a reunited country than to place the fig- ures of those two great Americans on the walls of this House, in which they both served, We might replace that figure of Jus- tinian over there, a Roman emperor who lived more than 1400 years ago, and also that of Tribonian, one of his chief flunkies, with Rutherford B. Hayes, who served in this body, and who later be- came President of the United States. It was his order taking the Federal troops out of the South that did more to re- unite the country than anything else that had taken place up to that time. We might remove that deceptive figure of Simon de Montfort, a British earl, who lived more than a thousand years ago, and whose main claim to distinction is that of being on both sides of a great issue. We might replace him with James A. Garfield, a former Member of this House, who also became President of the United States, or William McKinley, one of the leaders in this body, who later became President and served until his assassination by a ruthless anarchist who seemed to be a pioneer in this commu- nistic movement to destroy the Govern- ment of the United States. We might remove that alleged likeness of Louis IX, who served as King of France about 900 years ago, and that of Al- phonso X, who is said to have served as King of Spain about the same time, as well as that of Edward I, who once served as King of England and failed in his life’s APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ambition to overrun and conquer Scot- Jand. We might replace either one of these three figures with Henry Clay or James C. Calhoun, both great Americans who served in this body and later served in the United States Senate with honor and distinction, It might not be a bad idea to replace a couple of them with the fizures of U. S. Grant and Robert E. Lee, the two great military leaders in that unfortunate conflict known as the War Between the States. Then there is the figure of Suleiman, Sultan of Turkey about 500 years ago, and Grotius, a Dutch humorist, accord- ing to the description in the Recorp, and Colbert, a French politician, who lived more than 300 years ago and of whom the average American never heard, and Pothier, a French professor, who lived a hundred years before the American Rev- olution—they should all be removed and replaced by distinguished Americans who have served in this body, such as Daniel Webster, of Massachusetts, one of the greatest orators of all time, Ben- jamin H. Hill, who also served in this body, as well as in the United States Sen- ate, and whose tribute to Robert E. Lee is unsurpassed, and hardly equaled, in all literature. We might replace one of them with L. Q. C. Lamar, a great leader from my own State, who served in this body, as well as in the United States Benate, in the Cabinet, and on the Su- preme Court of the United States. That would still leave us an almost in- exhaustible list of great Americans who have served in this body, including Alex- ander H. Stephens, who served as Vice President of the Confederacy during the War Between the States, John J. Engles, whose tribute to Benjamin H. Hill will go down the centuries, or James G. Blaine, whose tribute to Garfleld is one of the greatest orations ever delivered on the life of a great American. We could come on down, Mr. Speaker, and invade the State of Texas and take glorious old Sam Houston, who served in this body, served as Governor of his great State, led the forces of Texas in their war for independence, served as President of the Texas Republic, and as & Member of the United States Senate. Why not substitute the likeness of Sam Houston for that of some of these an- cient figures with which we are now con- fronted—or that of David Crockett, who also served in this body, and who gave his life at the Alamo that Texas might be free. Mr. Speaker, I could go on and name almost an endless list of great Americans who have served in this and the other body, or who have served our people with credit, honor, and distinction, in private life, such as Thomas Alva Edison, the greatest inventive genius of all times, who flluminated this old earth and made 4t mock the starry splendor of the skies, or Walter Reed, who probably did more to improve the health of the world and to relieve human suffering than any other man who ever lived. It was he who showed the world how to get rid of yellow fever, one of the greatest Plagues the world ever knew, and inci-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD dentally, how to prevent malaria, typhoid, and other similar diseases. He deserves a monument almost as high as that of Washington's. I could name other great Presidents, as well as great Members of this body or of the United States Senate, great mili- tary leaders, great writers, great invent. ors, and great religious leaders, who are far more entitled to the distinction of having their figures placed upon these walls than are these ancient representa- tives of foreign lands, alien tongues, and anti-American sentiments with which the walls of this magnificent Chamber are now disgraced, We should replace them all with the figures of great Americans. .* A Reminiscence of Grover Hall by Carroll Kilpatrick EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. LISTER HILL OF ALABAMA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, February 22 (legislative day of Monday, January 29), 1951 Mr, HILL, Mr. President, we in Ala- bama are proud of having given to the Nation the late Grover C. Hall, editor of the Montgomery (Ala.) Advertiser. Grover Hall was a brilliant warrior for the freedom and dignity of the indi- vidual, a Pulitzer prize winner, and an editor acclaimed throughout the Nation. His one-time associate, Mr. Carroll Kil- patrick, of Alabama, a distinguished au- thor, has done a portrait of Grover Hall for Nieman Reports, January 1951. I ask that the article be printed in the Appendix of the Recorp, There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Portnalt oF A NaTive—-A REMINISCENCE OF Grover HALL (By Carroll Kilpatrick) One hot summer day in Montgomery, Ala., nearly 16 years ago, a distinguished looking man in a handsome double-breasted sult, a cane on his arm, and a talisman rose in his buttonhole, walked spryly down the main street, attracting much attention. He tipped his hat to his friends, who looked a bit startled but warmly returned his greeting. Not until he sat down in his favorite res taurant did he realize why there had been so many lifted eyebrows. His carefully trimmed mustache was in order, but he had left his collar and tie behind, hanging on the old-fashioned hatrack in his office, under the portraits of Lee, Jackson, and Cleveland. That was one of the few times that Grover Cleveland Hall, editor in chief of the Mont- gomery Advertiser, was not equal to the occasion. Grover Hall was one of the South’s great- est editors in a day when fighting, personal editors were largely a thing of the past in American history. He was a human being with a greater passion for life and people— and a greeter passion for the basic human decencies—-than anyone I have known. His religion was freedom—freedom of the human spirit—and he practiced his religion faith- ~ fully and fearlessly. For so doing he was honored with the love of thousands of peo- ple, and he won Nation-wide applause. Hall was the product of our eroded soil. He lived all his life in a State once ruled by the Ku Klux Klan. He had only a meager education and he was untraveled. But he believed in the dignity of man, and he spent his life trying to lighten the burdens of his fellow men. In his youth, Hall knew the deepest poverty. His later life was not without tragedy, for his wife was long an invalid. Yet this man, without inheritance except the great freedom to make his own life, was an example of the blessing that freedom can be and of how it can enrich our soil. To a whole generation who knew his tre- mendous buoyancy, his relish for life and hie essential goodness, Hall was a symbol and a guide. In this present time of trou- bles, when we are confronted with another terrible challenge to our faith in our heritage of freedom, the thing that Hall was and the faith he maintained stand as proof of the genius of this free land. Hall was born in 1888 on a farm in one of the poorest parts of Alabama. It was 9 miles from his home to the nearest railroad, His town had never known, he once said, a foot~ ball player, a Roman Catholic, or a Harvard graduate. When still a plowboy in Henry County, he was invited by his older brother, then editing a paper in Dotham called the Dally Biftings, to join the paper as a printer's devil. Not long thereafter the paper folded and Hall spent several years on several different nearby small town papers. In 1910, he moved to the capital of his State to become assoclate editor of the Mont- gomery Advertiser, a vigorous, conservative newspaper with a strong political bent. His first editorial was in defense of the right of Alice Roosevelt to smoke cigarettes. From that day on he fought against prohibition and blue laws, against antisedition and anti- evolution laws and for the right of man to govern himself. He continued as associate editor until 1926, when he became chief edi- tor of a paper that always gave the editor very great freedom of action. When Hall moved into the editor's office at the age of 38, Alabama was dominated by the KKK. Senator J. Thomas Heflin, Gov. Bibb Graves, a large part of the legislature, much of the Baptist and Methodist clergy, and many of the small-town editors were pro-Klan. Hall attacked them all, savagely and by name. Physical floggings increased, Night riders could be seen almost every week performing their vicious missions against the weak and unprotected. Hall's vigor and his anger were equal to the challenge, and he gave no quarter. He wrote powerful, vitriolic editorials, highly readable and effective. “What a callous and wretched demagog Heflin is,” he wrote. Finally, the inevitable threat on Hall's life was made one night in a telephone call as he worked late, as usual, in his office, Hall bought a pistol and carried it for 2 days. “Then I put it aside with scorn and shame,” he told me later. “I’m no gunman, any- how. I can’t shoot.” He was never threat- ened again. But the violence of the fight continued. In January 1928, as if to throw further defiance at the Klan, Hall declared for the nomination for President on the Democratic ticket of Alfred E. Smith, a Catholic and a wet and a darling of the anti-Klan forces throughout the country, Tom Heflin immediately went after Hall and the Advertiser. “When I said the Ad- vertiser had come out for Al Smith,” Heflin solemnly informed the United States Sen- A927 ate, "I sald the whisky interests and the Roman Catholics had gone down there and put sugar in their coffee.” Heflin later \ pledged more than 85 large audiences to boy- cott the Advertiser. But the paper's circu- lation increased steadily as the campaign developed, and Smith carried Alabama in November. His majority was assured by the vote he won in the middle- and south-At- lantic counties where the Advertiser was the Democratic bible. Hall's unrelenting fight against Heflin and the Klan won him the Pulitzer prize for the best editorial writing in 1028. His cam- paign against gangism, flogging, and racial and religious intolerance had brought him national attention. Two years later the victory was complete. Hall saw Heflin’s strength as a towering Ala- bama politician broken at the polls, and the Advertiser's candidate for governor on an anti-Klan platform carried the State. The new Governor unmasked the Klan, broke its grip on the jury boxes, and re- formed the primary voting laws which had made many Klan victories possible, The Klan was a thing of the past in the State which once had been the home of the Con- federacy. A few years later, Hall, sentimental hu- man being that he was, appealed to Ala- bama’s Senators to help Heflin find a job. The two old enemies, who bad little in com- mon but their love of politics and good yarns, became reconciled. But when Heflin later tried to make @ po- litical comeback, Hall dipped his pen in the old ink and helped block the former Sena- tor’s last attempt to gain public office. “Hef- Un {ts Heflin, a buffoon, and a hog-bladder,” Hall wrote in summarizing his opposition to Tom. “I know I'm a softie,” Hall used to say after spending a few hours swapping stories with Heflin. “I have never really hated any- one—and I've known some of the lousiest men ever born of woman, Stump speakers have called me variously ‘liar,’ ‘buzzard,’ ‘kept,’ ‘atheist,’ and ‘Roman Catholic.’ But most of them have been courteous and gen- erous, and we usually became friends in the end.” The Klan in Alabama in the twenties was primarily anti-Catholic, directing only sec- ondary attention to the Jew and the Negro. It was the effrontery of a majority attack- ing a tiny minority that aroused Hall’s burn- ing contempt. Hall's anger was aroused again a few years later when the Nazis sought to make a scape- goat of the Jew. “In Nazi Germany,” he said, “I should probably be accounted eligible for all the current benefits of citizenship. My line must have been purged soon after the panic in the Garden of Eden. I am Anglo-Saxon-Pict-Celt-Welsh, out of an in- terminable line of deep-water Baptists. My forebears on both sides ‘Lindberghed’ across the Atlantic, the biggest ocean then known to them, and some of them later became involved in the American Revolution.” Hall said he was either born tolerant or’ learned tolerance early. “At any rate,” he wrote, “I came early in my days to like mi- norities and to distrust majorities with re- gard to all questions involving delicate human relationships and prejudice. I had Jewish neighbors along with Catholic and Protestant neighbors, but that was after— or maybe it was how—I came to know that Jews were people like other people, a part of the warp and woof of the same country that had nurtured my ancestors and me.” Despite his qualifications in forebears, Hall could not have survived a day in a country where one group ruled over another and where one man claimed superior wisdom. If he had not been shot for defying the regime, he would have died of suffocation, In a
A928 letter to me that could apply just as well today to another monstrous totalitarianism, Hall outlined hte basic philosophy. “The Advertiser,” he said, “has but one dogma—freedom of the human spirit. It pelieves in the right of each and every bu- man being in the two hemispheres to think and sey what he likes, and it will angrily attack anyone who questions that right. “With reference to all other social and political questions, the Advertiser is purely pragmatic. It supports what {t likes, rejects what it does not like. The Advertiser pleads always for the utmost freedom of the hu- men mind, at last the only friend of man, the only known link with what we call God. It affirms that the man has not yet lived who has the right to say what another human being, however lowly, shall think and say. This is the Advertiser's primary a When Hall offered me his old job as asso- clate editor, he said I would never be saked to write anything I didn’t want to write except the anniversary and “drive” editorials, "You would be expected to whoop for the YMCA, the Salvation Army, and the Com- munity Chest once a yeer,” he said. Hail thoroughly disliked the task of writing an- niversary and “drive” editorials, He had done only one that had really pleased him—- ° & Christmas editoriel 14 words long, written one year when he was engaged in a particu. larly bitter fight with a couple of political bosses. Hall’s editorial that Christmas morn. ing said: “With one or two well-chosen exceptions, ‘we wish everyone a very merry Christmas.” Everyone got the point. The anniversary that almost proved Hall's nemesis (and confirmed his opposition to anniversary editorials) was a Fourth of July—a Fourth that Hall never forgot. Just before the holiday he stuck his head into his essistant’s office and said: “We have a lot of Fourth of July fans. I think I'll write a plece in honor of the great day.” He did. He wrote « long, glowing editorial about the birth of the Federal Constitution, The next morning as he drank his coffee he looked over his handiwork. “T read the editorial and nearly fainted,” he confessed afterwards. ‘As soon aa I saw it I realized that the Fourth ts the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, not of the Constitution. I to be kldded outrageously from one end of the State to the other, But my original theory was con- firmed—nobody takes note of an anniversary editorial.” The next day Hall wrote ® nice editorial about the Declaration of Independence, but he did not stop to expiain that the day to celebrate the birth of the Constitution is September 17, not July 4. Hall's lighter side, which endeared him to thousands of people and won him an amaz- ingly large audience, found its best vehicle in Olarabelle. One day as Hall sat st his typewriter in the old building that had been a hotel during the Civil War he was inter- rupted by a purring noise. A stray cat, dirty and hungry, hed made its way to his office. Hall fed the visttor, gave her a name, and began writing oceasional short paragraphs about her activities. The reaction of his readers was spontaneous, “We have decided to name the office oat Clarabelle,” he wrote, “put actually she does not deserve 80 ewell and lovely a name. She has dirt all over her bedy. She ts the most ungrateful bum among all the retainers of the Advertiser.” To satisfy the demands of his customers, Hall wrote more and more about the cat, of her views on Hitler and other disturbs of the peace. Before long his matl became so heavy with comments about his feifme visi- tor—one reader sent him a cat encyclo- pedia—that he threatened to be rid of the animal, But Clarabelle was an institution. “The Advertiser i# asked to write mere about Clarabelle,” he said one morning. “But what ia it to say of such an unworthy, unreliable member of the staf? She comes by this office only to eat her beef and stp her cream and take & nap.” For 2 years, Hall reported on Ciarabeile's love life, her offspring, which were numerous, . her unruly disposition and her ability to ab- sorb great quantities of coffee cream. Whenever Hall made a speech, there were demands from the floor for the latest inteil!- gence on Clarabelle. Hall spent hours try- ing to pet the sullen cat, all the while instst- ing thet he did not like cats, Once, when be couldn't find her kittens after he had promised one to a neighbor's child, he wrote: “Olarabelle never hides herself, being with- out reticence, but always hides her kittens. She its @ chiseler, a cynic and o dead-beat. The Advertiser is on the point of breaking with her once and for all.” But as long as Clarabelle survived, she was fed and humored—and talked about where- ever Advertiser readers lived. Hall loved the cat, but his greatest love was the newspaper business. He thought that it was favored above all others. And he thought that newspapermen were & race apart. Bvery young writer had Hall's help and encouragement, “Read David and Solo- mon,” he would say to them. ‘They were the best columnists of their time. They could go their stuf and bring down the curtain in a fiash. “Pour your souls into your work. Write no witticism that does not spring from con- yiction, or aome principle of philosophy, but take liberties with style. Get fresh about pompous utterances of vast wigs. Speak softly of the sad—and quit when you are through. Spoof, sympathize, tnterpret—but quit writing when the sap stops flowing.” When the time came to speak softly, Hall could speak as Father Montgomery. When a local dignitary deserved honoring, Hall knew how to do it well, When a friend died, he was deeply shaken and his obituary editorials came from the heart. Here is the first para- graph of one on the death of a local clergy~ man: ' “Dr. Charles A, Stakely came quietly into this strange world, remained for 78 years to study some of its mysteries, but never to be bowed down by any of them, and then at Jast breathed softly and made a characteristically quiet exit. He was a compassionate won- drously understanding man. He never said a harsh thing about those who were destined to live this unpredictable life. He counseled them and strengthened them, but he never condemned them beyond thelr grace to bear. The Advertiser was founded in 1628 by a Jacksonian editor, who soon thereafter was run out of town by the Whigs. “The Ad- vertiser remained from its birth until 1929 a hardy States-rights newspaper, always under vigorous editorship,” Hall once told me in the mid-thirties. “But after the depres~- sion I compromised to conform to the un-' expected needs of society, and todey I do not know whether we are for States rights or human rights first. Lately I heve en- deavored to reconcile Bourbons to the facts of a changing life and a novel experience.” Hall was a poor economist, however able he may have been as & philosopher. He was bered by statistics. He was often swryed’ more by human appeals than by factual analyses. The New Deal often disturbed and exed him, but the personality and hu- manity of Roosevelt won him. Hall sup- ported Roosevelt in three elections and un- questionably would have « fourth time had APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD bave people around me who need bossing. I like gentlemen who love their work and will respond to suggestion and their native in- stincte.” The publisher of the Advertiser and Hall ‘were on good terns, but Hall aid not hide the fact that he looked askance at business- Office publishers. Once he was invited to address the American Society of Newspaper Editors on the subject The Problem of the American Editor. A few days after he ac- cepted the invitation to make the speech, he received a telegram explaining that he would have to keep it to 16 minutes, “I don't need that much time to expound the problems of the American editor,” Hall replied. “The problem can be put in one sentence, to wit, how to get the publishers out of the second grade.” Grover Hall's heroes were the famous per- sonal editors—Frank Cobb, Henry Watter- son, William Allen White. He had their gift of an easy, readable style as well as a Menc- kenesque invective when the occasion war- ranted. Hell did not feel a close kinship with the latter-day editors of some of the more serious and solemn dailies. “They have native wisdom and acquired culture,” he said. “They are bright and en. tertaining. But they lack passion.” And that is what Grover Hall never lacked. Senator Frear: Delaware’s Man of the Year EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ERNEST W. McFARLAND OF ARIZONA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, February 22 (legislative day of Monday, January 29), 1951 Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recozp an edi- torial from the Dover (Del.) Index re- lating to the activities of the distin- guished junior Senator from the first Btate [Mr. Brean]. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Tue Man or THE Year Even though 1951 {s oniy 7 weeks old, we've Just about made up our minds that Dela- ware's man of the year is United States Sen- Carthy headline technique to win recogni- tion for Senator Ferran in this present ses- sion of Congress, It took the realisation of
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Eighty-seccnd Congress offered him two prize political leadership posts on the floor of the United States Senate—and he turned them down to maintain thet independence of action that has won him the respect of Dela- wareans from one end of the State to the other regardleas of political affiliations. Senator Frear is a member of the most important and powerful committees of the Congress there are today. The fact that a Senator from Delaware—considered a “po- litical nobody” because of his State's small- ness in size and population—should achieve such important assignments is indeed indica. tive of the respect Washington has placed upon Senator Frear, Last Friday night Senator Frrar addressed the Nation from coast to coast on an im- portant issue in the present economy of our country which is gearing itself for all-out defense production. He spoke of the im- portance of defense housing needs. But unlike most speakers from the congressional seats, he told the Nation about his own State and how its problems in a little boom town like Newark could be applied anywhere in the Nation. In that one broadcast, Senator Frean became a one-man chamber of com- merce. We have a feeling that Senator Frear will be called upon more and more to take before the people of the Nation the important prob- lems that face our country. We feel that when Senator Frear does present these prob- lems, the listeners of the United States can be assured that they are not listening to & mouthpiece for an admintstration or po- litical party, but to an able leader with the sincerest confidence in the problems he pre- sents, Indian Bureau Administration EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. DENNIS CHAVEZ OF NEW MEXICO IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, February 22 (legislative day of Monday, January 29), 1951 Mr, CHAVEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be placed in the Appendix of the Recorp an article under the headline “CHAvez scores Myer’s control,” dealing with the Indian Serv- ice, and published in the Denver Post of February 14, 1951, There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: CHavrz Scornss Myzr’s CONTROL ALBuQuERQuE, N. MeEx., February 14.—~ Strong criticism of Indian Bureau Adminis- tration was voloed here Tuesday by United States Senator Dennis Onavez (Democrat), of New Mexico, He indicated that a shake-up of Indian Bureau officials was in the wind and that he was dissatisfied with the work of Indian Commiscioner Dillon 8. Myer. “There's been entirely too much attention to the interests of the Indian Bureau and not enough attention to the interest of the Indians,” Craves said. “When I return to Washington I intend to look into the matter thoroughly.” The senior New Mexico Senator said that the purpose of the Indian Bureau is to advise, not control, the lives of the Indians, INDIANA PROTESTING “¥f you needed a doctor or a lawyer or a dentist,” Onaves said, “you shouldn’t have to go to the Government to find out which one you should employ. I understand that XCVII—App.—§+0 Commissioner Myer ‘has now made it im=« possible for an Indian to consult an attore ney of his choice without the consent of the Indian Service.” In the last few months both Navajo and Mescalero Indians have voiced strong pro- tests of Federal management of their affairs. The Navajos have been particularly bitter since uranium has been found on their lands and little has been done by the In=- dian Bureau to aid them in obtaining min- ing equipment or attracting outside aid, “TI feel sure,” Cuavez said, “that the entire New Mexico congressional delegation will be solidly behind any investigation to protect the Indians in all their rights, personel or property, And if there is any attempt being made to exploit his rights in minerals or other details, it is high time we looked into the situation.” Onavez cited several cases where Indians capable of caring for their own affairs are being harassed by bureaucratic dictation. He said that the Indians need education, water rights, and medical care, and beyond that a nearly free hand in their own admin- istration. “We have Indian boys fighting in Ko- rea,”’ CHAvrz said, “and we had them fight- ing all over the world in the last war. If they are good enough citizens to fight in our Army and Navy, then it’s high time we realized that they are citizens in the full sense.” URGES LESS CONTROL He advocated immediate Nmited sclf-gov- ernment for most of the Indian tribes. He was more definite about the Navajos of New Mexico and Arizona, “The Navajo can be made self-sufficient by protecting his property rights and train- ing him to }.1s duties as a full citizen,” the Senator declared. “But the biggest thing we can do for them,” he added, “is to leave them alone.” Presidential Pettiness EXTENSION OF REMARKS o HON. JOHN J. WILLIAMS OF DELAWARE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, February 22 (legislative day of Monday, January 29), 1951 Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an editorial entitled “Presidential Pettiness,” pub- lished in the Washington Evening Star of February 21, 1951. The editorial speaks for itself. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: PaEsIDENTIAL PEertINgess If it be true that the small things a man does are apt to reveal his true stature, there is not much comfort for anyone in the Presi- dent's latest tilt with Senator Bran, As President of the United States, Mr. Tru- man occupies what is certainly one of the most important offices in the world. It is not an exaggeration to say that the decisions be makes can and probably will have the most profound effect on the future of our civilization. What is one to think, then, when the President stoops to a level of petty politics that would be unworthy of a county political boss? After a 2-year feud with southern Demo-~ crate, Mr. Truman last week sent to the Ben-~ ate a long list of postmasterships, Included A929 were eight that had been recommended by Representative Bont Hanamon, of Virginia. But a ninth Harrison recommendation—that for Berryville—was held up. Berryville, of course, is Senator Brap's home town, and the withholding of that nomination was a slap at him. Actually, Senator Bray did not make the selection. Ordinarily Representatives make the recom- mendations for postmasters, but as 8 matter of courtesy they defer to the wishes of a Senator where his home town is concerned, In this instance Senator Bren made no rece ommendation of his own, merely concurring in Mr. Harrison's preference. So the rebuff intended for the Senator falls somewhat wide of the mark. An injury, however, has been done, al+- though not to Senator Bravo. If Mr. Truman thinks he can undermine the Senator in Virginia by such smali-minded tactics as this, he had better think again. But the postmaster in question, one H. B. Harris, will have to continue on an acting basis, which means that he cannot earn retirement credit despite the fact that his service has been wholly satisfactory. So Mr. Harris, because he serves in Senator Brrp’s home town, will suffer to some extent. The real victim, however, will be the office of the President of the United States. It is hard to think of anything more damaging to the prestige of the Presidency, or more likely to impair confidence in the stature of the man who holds the office, than such petty, picayunish politicking as th’ George Washington’s Faith in Freedom EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ISIDORE DOLLINGER oF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, February 8, 1951 Mr. DOLLINGER, Mr. Speaker, once again we celebrate the birthday of our first President, whose military genius won for us our independence, and whose wisdom and love for freedom safely guided our struggling new Nation through the crucial early years of its ex- istence. He fought for liberty with the sword, and once having gained it for his people, he devoted his life to preserv- ing it. We have revered the memory of the father of our country for so many gen- erations that it is difficult to realize that he was made to suffer heartache because of his zeal to preserve liberty for the people of his country. Walter Winchell, outstanding colum- nist, gives us a most enlightening and touching account of the outrageous as- saults directed against Washington while he was serving his country and the first President’s reactions to the attacks. In his column, Washington Meets the Press, Mr. Winchell shows us the man Wash- ington setting the example of preserving liberty, although at untold cost to him- self in frustration and personal anguish. It is such an inspiring article that I urge all Members of Congress to read it: [From the Washington rom of February 22, . 195 WasHinaTon Mrers Tu Prres (By Walter Winchell) The military genius of our initial Chief Executive has been faithfully recorded and
A930 rightfully acclaimed. The shimmer of the 48 stars reflects the gleam of his sword. How- ever, his triumphe did not end at Yorktown. Some of Washington’s most inspiring vic- tories were attained on the bloodless battle- ground of political strife. In some ways the battles in this field inflicted deeper spiritual agony than the physical rigors at Valley Forge. A lie can cause more pain than bruised flesh—the flesh heals more quickly than the spirit. He was the victim of out~ rageous journalistic assaults. A portion of the criticism was honest—but most of the attacks were sheer vituperation. It is the measure of Washington's greatness that his devotion to Mberty was not undermined by Americans who perverted it. Despite the savagery of editorial blasts, he not only struggled to keep freedom intact, but sought to strengthen it. The virulence of the abuse directed at Washington has seldom been surpassed. The personal vilification also extended to his family.’ But he rejected the counsel of ad- visers who urged him to suppress the ine stigators of the venomous press campaign, ‘Washington never condoned treason, sedition, or lawlessness. When Pennsylvania citizens defied an excise law and threatened insure rection, he used force to crush the rebellion. His restraint in dealing with press attackers stemmed from his faith in liberty and the knowledge that freedom is indivisible. He knew that suppressing opposition newspapers would shatter the keystone of the democratic structure. He noted: “Freedom will survive a minority who do not use it wisely. It gives wisdom to the majority who love it deeply.” He retaliated against vilifiers with a crack- ling display of wit. When one detractor ranted: ‘Washington is suffocating the truth,” he calmly responded: “My enemies say I suffocate the truth. My friends know that I embrace it.” He had journalistic defenders as well as belittlers, of course. J. W. Fenno, a pro- Waehington editor, once whipped the critics with this lashing: “They are the most base, false, servile, and venal publications that ever polluted the fountains of society—their editors the most ignorant, mercenary, and vulgar automatons that ever were moved by the continually rustling wires of sordid avarice.” Whew. The following is Editor D. C. Claypoole’s description of his quaint interview with President Washington: ‘He received me kindly, and after paying my respects to him, desired me to take a seat near him; then, addressing himself to me, said that he had for some time past contemplated retiring from public life, and had at length concluded to do so at the end of the present term. He had some thoughts and refiectiona on the occasion, which he deemed proper to com- municate to the people of the United States in the form of an address, and which he wiahed to appear in the Daily Advertiser—of which I was editor. He paused and I took the opportunity of thanking him for having pre- ferred that paper as the channel of com- munication with the people, then I quietly withdrew.” Such was the formal dignity of eighteenth century interviews. The result of that in- terview was a historic scoop. But Editor Claypoole didn't rush into print in the fren- gied manner of modern journalism. It took over @ week for the big news to reach print— when the Gazette published Washington's Farewell Address. When the scurrilous press campaign he- gan his reaction was expressed in a letter to @ friend; “But in what will this abuse ter- minate? For the result, as it respects itself, I care not; for I have a consolation within that no earthly effort can deprive me of, and that is that meither ambition nor interested motives have influenced my conduct. The arrows of malevolence, therefore, however barbed and well pointed, never can reach the most vulnerable part of me; though, whilst Iam up as a mark, they will continually be aimed.” The foregoing analysis of his bitter battle with the press was correct. But the constant barrage of invective finally shattered his philosophic calm, A man of great dignity, Washington was unable to descend to the level of meeting mud with mud. The result- ing frustration caused deep personal an- guish. Shortly before he retired to Mount Vernon, he made his private heartache pub- lic by declaring: “I never dreamed that I should be accused of being the enemy of this Nation, that every act of my adminis- tration would be tortured, and the grossest and most insidious misrepresentation of them be made as could scarcely be applied to a Nero or a common pickpocket.” Amidst the storms of vilification Wash- ington never lost sight of the essential need for a free press. He always endeavored to extend the beams of liberty's beacons. He knew the greatest wealth of a free nation was not in its farms and factories—but in the liberty of its people. That is our price- less legacy, and Washington sought to pre- serve the treasure—by helping newspapers enlighten the people. He urged Congress to repeal the transportation tax on newspapers by reminding the legislators: “‘No resource is so firm for the Government of the United States as the affection of the people, guided by an enlightened policy; and to this pri- mary good nothing can conduce more than @ faithful representation of public proceed- ings, diffused without restraint throughout the United States.” Washington's exalted position today makes it difficult for us to believe the wide- spread bitterness engendered by the torrent of abuse. His pictures were publicly de- faced; he was denounced at mass meetings; and there was one assassination attempt. Not a dirty trick was missed by his attack- ers, A New York Gazette published forged letters in an effort to embarrass the Pres- ident. When the fraud was exposed Washington observed: ‘Falsehood can wound @ man, but truth strikes the final blow.” Brotherhood Week EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. KENNETH B. KEATING OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 15, 1951 Mr. KEATING. Mr. Speaker, Brother- hood Week this year is particularly timely, because of the stress of the crit- ical position in which this country finds itself. In such periods of tension and danger, it is especially vital that we face the crisis as a united people, as citizens of the Unites States first and foremost. We cannot afford to be weakened by prejudices and rreconceived ideas. For this reason, Brotherhood Week takes on added meaning for all of us this year. Being unified, however, does not mean being stereotyped or being reduced to a common denominator in which we would lose all our individuality. Rather, bhe- ing unified means the recognition of the true and inimitable worth of individual- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ity. Unity through tolerance and free- dom from prejudice means recognition that religious faith and racial origins contribute to each person’s make-up, his unique personality, but only contribute. They are not the only molding factors which cause a person to think and react as he does, A person is a complex com- bination of all his family background, re- ligious and secular teachings, plus all his experiences since the date of his birth, Each human being is a completely irre- placeable and separate entity and an entity of priceless value. Thus, the deepest meaning that Brotherhood Week can have for us—the greatest lesson it can teach—is that each person has the inalienable right to be judged as an individual, not prejudged because of his origin, religion, or racial background. Human and therefore fal. lible, all of us need to be reminded of the ideals on which this country was founded and which constitute our moral and spiritual heritage. “All men are created equal’’—that is the meaning of Brother- hood Week. Because we need reminding oecasion- ally, I have introduced a resolution desig- nating the fourth Sunday in September as Interfaith Day. This resolution— House Joint Resolution 22—sets forth the basic principle that the fomenting of antagonism between Americans on the basis of sectarian creed is contrary to American traditions and to the spirit of the guaranties of freedom of worship embodied in the Constitution, and since it should be the policy of Congress to encourage mutual understanding of all people of good will, that this September Sunday shall be observed as Interfaith ay. America is the guardian and strong- hold of freedom, equality, and tolerance in this troubled world. Anything that can be done to encourage and strengthen the practice of these prime virtues must not be neglected. If we are to succeed in the spiritual and moral battle for men's minds—if we are to succeed in sell- ing this democracy, equality, and free- dom abroad—-we must maintain our do- mestic vitality and strength by the daily practice of these fundamental principles at home. Under leave to extend my remarks, I include an editorial from the Rochester (N, Y.) Democrat and Chronicle: Test oF AN IDEAL Many moving phrases will be penned this week to the ideal of Brotherhood Week, in which annually the National Conference of Christians and Jews tries to strengthen the family ties that unite all peoples, everywhere. The real test of an ideal is not the homage that is paid to it, but the concrete results that can be measured from it. By that test we believe all Americans this week may take renewed heart, for by all standards we are a more tolerant, united, and understand- ing people than were our ancestors in the Gays of slavery, religious rivalries, and the Ku Klux Elan, Reminders of the old evils exist, too abundantly, yet all in all we are less con- cerned about our neighbor's religion today, more concerned about his character and worth, than were earlier generations. Peo- ple of all faiths work together, serve side by side in humanitarian causes, form firm
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD AS31 friendships. In diviaions based on color and race we have farther to go, yet even there the new laws continually added to our statute books and the widening front of the battle agiinst prejudice are heartening signs of progreas. Brotherhood in {ts highest conception 4s world-wide, and we Americans, who repre. sent almost all the national blood lines of the world and who have made democracy work, are the people who ought to take the Jead in showing the world what can be done. The world may take note from us that brotherhood does net mean giving up indi- Viduality, 1t does not mean agreement on everything, it does not mean planing every- one down to & common pattern. The germ of what brotherhood really does mean is tn the United Nations. People can be united and at the same time have their national characteristics. They need not all be alike; they need only recognise their common hu- manity and the right of every nation to its own way of life. A certain lawyer, thinking to trick Jesus, asked Him, “Who is my netghbor?” And Jesus proceeded to tell of the Samaritan who came upon a wounded man by the roadside, and without asking any questions picked him up, tended him, and got a room for him, Really, that’s about all there ia to brother+ hood. It is trite but eternally true to remind ourselves that if it were put to practice everywhere, we would not today be scram- bling on the brink of disaster. A Spokesman for Democracy EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. MICHAEL A. FEIGHAN OF OHIO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 7, 1951 Mr, FEIGHAN. Mr. Speaker, during the debate in the United Nations on the Korean cease-fire question, Gen. Carlos P, Romulo, Foreign Secretary of the Philippines and permanent delegate to the United Nations, led in the discussion te brand Communist China an aggressor. Long before this debate, however, on December 7, 1950, General Romulo re- pled to the accusations against the United States made by Chinese Com- munist Delegate Wu in a manner that won for him the admiration and the gratitude of the American people. His speech in reply to Wu was inserted in the Appendix to the Recorn tn volume 96, part 18, pages 7892-7894. Under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I wish to include two edi- torials, one by the Daily Mirror of De- cember 9, 1950, and another by the New York Times of December 10, 1950, both of which I believe accurately express the sentiments of the people of the United States regarding General Romulo’s cou- rageous and forthright stand: [From the New York Daily Mirror of December 9, 1950] Goon Furewn Car.oa That wonderful big guy, Gen. Carlos P, Romulo, foreign secretary of the Pbilip- pines, gave it to the Russians in their teeth at the ON Thursaday—an Asian speaking to Asians, exposing the Red ijars’ biackest lie. “I eay, sir, that you can make this false accusation against so-called American im- perialiam in Sussian, but you cannot say it in Chinese. ‘opaganda. General Romulo then related the story of American imperisiism in the Philippines; “Instead of of the people, they taught them to cherish freedom. Instead of ruling the country with an iron hand, they trained the people in the art of self-govern~ ment. Instead of keeping the people tn ignorance, the better to keep them docile, they built schools, ifbraries, colleges, and state university. Instead of destroying their national! consciousness, they developed the people's pride in their own history and tra- ditions. And as for profits, it is a matter of record that America never di@ make money in the Philippines, Even the American troope stationed there never lived off the land or the taxes of the people; they were paid out of the United States Treasury. “In 1946 * * * the United States ful- filled its pledge to the letter and recognised the independence of the Philippines.” The Voice should get this statesman's speech to all Asia. One million coptes of it should be dropped over the Communist Chinese army. General Romulo te a true friend of ours— and of freedom’s. [From the New York Times of December 10, 1950} TESTIMONY Prom Asia The western powers in general and the United States in particular are placed in a somewhat embarrassing position by the bar- rage of false Communist propaganda in re- apect to thetr imperialism and aggressive intentiona. They have given assurances and these are ignored. They can protest against falsehood but they cannot justify themselves in detail without the appearance of self« righteousness. Into this altuation General Romulo stepped on Thursday with an eloquent and detailed answer to the Chinese Communist Giatribe against the United States. He made it plain that he was speaking as an Astean for the benefit of other Astans. He recounted his first-hand tance with American impertaliam end its fruits in the Philippines, He contrasted American actions, both there and in China, with actions of the Soviet Union “tn the same region ang at the same point of time,” he said, because he believed this was “the most effective way to refute the charges of so-called American imperial- tem in Asia.” It was this record that he presented to the Chinese Communist representative in these words: “T say, sir, that you can make this false accusation against eo-called Amertcan tm- pertaliem in Russian, but you cannot say tt in Chinese. You cannot say it in Chinese unless you are speaking in transiation from Russian. ‘You cannot say tt in Chinese be- cause no Chinese who knows the history of his country and who is aware of the long historic friendship between the Chinese peo- against thetr traditional enemies--the Jap- anese and the Russians—which has gener- Chinese cept the expressions of good faith West, the Chinese people, whom they mis- represent, may eventually hear the tones of other voices. This certainly is General Rom- ulo’s belief and {it is for that reason tha he speaks. It will serve the cause of free- dom if more and more perceptive Asians will yaise their voices to join him in bis expres- sion of faith and hope when he says: “Im the face of the historical iacte and the facts of record we do not believe that the peoples of Agia and, in particular, the Chinese people will remain deceived for a long time regarding the motives and policies of the United States and the Soviet Union, We understand full well that today the Chi- nese people are not free, that access ta these facts has been barred to them by the machinations of vicious and lying propa- ganda.” ra A Message to the People of Western Europe by Hon. H. Alexander Smith, of New Jersey ————aeee EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. H. ALEXANDER SMITH OF NEW JERSEY IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES | Monday, February 26 (legislative day of Monday, January 29), 1951 { Mr, SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Pres- ident, last Wednesday, February 21, I recorded a message to the people of ‘Western Europe, in which I discussed the efforts of the Atlantic community to. strengthen itself against Russian Com-. munist aggression and the importance of the so-called war of ideas. This is one of a series of messages by Various individuals in American public life which the World Wide Broadcasting Corp, in- tends to broadcast by short wave to Eurape, ' I ask unanimous consent that the text of this broadcast be printed in the Ap-. pendix of the Recoxp. | There being no objection, the message | ‘was ordered to be printed in the Recoap, as follows: A Mrssaog Tro Tig Prorir or Western Evrors This is United States Senator H. Auzxanpan Surre. I am a member of the Foreign Rela- tions Committee of the United States Benate and in connection with my responsibilities on that committee I am, of course, very much concerned with all matters of American for- eign policy. Iam happy, therefore, to have this opportunity to speak for a few minutes to the people of Western Europe. My own ancestors, on both my father's side and my mother’s side, came from Western Europe. 7 believe that blood flows in my veins from all the countries whose people may be listening to this broadcast. For many years I have been deeply inter- ested in foreign affairs, and beginning over 80 years ago at the time of World War I, f have been much concerned with the problem of war and peace and I have Deen devoting my thinking and efforts to trying to discover ways by which our international diffieuities might be settled by the rule of law and jus- tice and not by the rule of might,
A932 As a participant in World War T and as a friend of many years’ standing and a great admirer of President Woodrow Wilson, who was the author of the League of Nations, I felt from those days that there must be ways and means to preserve the peace that would prevent these ever-recurring struggles which have brought such suffering to the world. From my experience both tn World War I and in World War II I have come to the conclu- sion that had it been known before both of those wars began that the United States could mobilize its resources and would be a part in the big struggle, the wars might ac- tually have been prevented. Certainly the Kaiser of Germany would not have precipi- tated World War I if he could have foreseen that the power of the United States would be added to that of his enemies in Europe, I think the same could be said of Hitler in the case of World War II. Because of my deep feeling on this matter I was determined after victory was won in 1945 that my efforts in the United States Senate, in which I was then a new member, would be directed in support of all efforts to organize the world to preserve the peace. I ‘was a strong supporter of the steps leading up to the final ratification of the United Nations Charter. I was a strong supporter of the so-called Marshall plan, the European recovery program, which I felt was necessary if our former allies were to recover their eco nomic stability and play their full part in the effort to build peace and freedom in the world. It will be recalled that when Secretary of State Marshall first suggested the program for economic recovery in Europe he included all the European countries and that meant Russia and her satellites as well as those countries which ultimately took part in the Marshall plan. We were all deeply concerned when it became clear that Russia would not join in this collective effort and that she was using her control of her satellite countries to keep them from participating. We were perfectly well aware that Poland, Finland, and Czechoslovakia desired to join the Marshal) plan countries and participate in the recovery program, and we were aware that it was only the power of Russia that prevented them from joining. It soon became apparent that the policy of Russian communism was to sow seeds of discord and hatred among the non-Commu- nist European countries with the intention of so disrupting the economies of these coun- tries that in despair they would go over to the Communist ideology. Yet in spite of the efforta of Moscow the Marshall plan suce ceeded dramatically and served as a power- ful bulwark against the spread of Russian communism in Europe. I am sure that my hearers will agree that the success of the Marshall plan in restoring economic sta- bility had much to do with preventing the spread of communism in Europe, and espe~ cially in such countries as France and Italy, whose economic situations were so desper- ately serious. With the success of the Marshall plan in its early days in Europe we were all hopeful that we were on the road to recovery in spite of Russian opposition, but we were soon disillusioned when we discovered Russia was using another weapon in her movement for world domination by attempting to cut of the Allied Powers in the free zones of Weat~- ern Germany from all access to Berlin, and thus to absorb that free city in the Com- munist empire. From this experience we realized cleariy that Russia was prepared to ‘use force ff necessary to attain her ends where economic disruption. was successfully Opposed. Here again we were able to out. maneuver the Russian Communist attempts by the miraculous Allded airlift which was Geveloped immediately to take care of our friends in the free western part of the city of Berlin. The Berlin airlift was victorious, but the attempt by Russia to take over Berlin by force was & warning of the danger that we were all in. We saw clearly that Western Germany and our Marshall-plan partners in Europe were in real danger of an aggression by Russia. The Russian military divisions in the west were being maintained in large numbers and satellite armies also were being built up, ready to strike at an appropriate time by military force if the methods of Communist subversive infiltration did not succeed in taking over these countries. This realization and the Berlin airlift experience brought about the deliberations that ulti- mately led to the setting up of the so-called North Atlantic Pact. This pact, which was a defensive treaty between the cooperating countries concerned, provided simply that an attack on one of these countries was to be looked upon as an attack on all and that the countries participating would join in bulld- ing up a collective defense to meet any pos- alble aggressions. The 12 nations which joined in this North Atlantic Treaty thus announced to the world that aggression by force against any one of them would be resisted by all. Thus we es- tablished for the whole North Atlantic com- munity the principle of preserving peace through collective security which had been frustrated in the United Nations by Russian obstruction. We confronted Stalin with the very kind of clear warning which had never been given to the Kaiser or to Hitler, as I mentioned a moment ago. I am convinced that by this action we greatly strengthened the prospects for peace. While these defensive moves were being developed among the Western nations we were suddenly aware that in the Far East another danger loomed because of the swift conquest of China by Russia, through the usual methods of subversive infiltration fol- lowed by taking over by force. While we were concerned with our dangers in Western Europe, the same danger swept over Asia and poor defenseless Chins was the first to be the victim. This has led to the sub- sequent Korean problem and the doubts and uncertainty that surround the entire far-eastern area, including Japan, the Philip- pines, Formosa, and the other countries in southeast Asia, yearning to be free from superimposed controls such as the new Re- public of Indonesia, Indochina, Thailand, Burma, Malaya, and even India and Pakistan, The threat of world conquest by Russian communism by force of arms is very real. I have tried to indicate in this broadcast the developments of these critical dangers, but before I conclude I wish to emphasize to those of you who are Istening that al- though I consider military defense of vital importance, the really great battle that is going on in this world of ours is the battle for the minds of men and women. It is what is called an ideological struggie, the battle of ideas. Up to this time the very skillfully managed Russian propaganda has seemed to be winning this battle for the minds of men throughout the world. The Moscow radio has dramatized a picture of dts own invention, which seems to portray to the world a struggle between two great powers-——Russia with her communism on the one hand, the champion of the downtrodden and exploited people of the earth, against @ great rich imperialistic, capitalistic America, aligned with onpitalistic powers trying to control the destinies of all people. We all know how false this picture of the world struggle is, We all know that the countries that have become great under the western tradition have become so because our forefathers yearned for those human freedoms which alone can make great civil- igetions possible. The story of America ts a APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD story of men and women of European origin who were willing to make any sacrifice in order that they might be free from the dom!~ nation or control of any human power and that they might be free to worship the God in whom they believed and follow their faith in the divine guidance of all human destiny. America's growth, America’s success spring from the same source as the greatness of modern Europe—faith in those fundamental principles of human freedom whitch our ancestors brought to the new world. With this truth, which is nothing less than free- dom under Almighty God, we in America have gone back to the countries of our ancestors and have asked them to join with us in preserving the supreme values which all of us cherish in common. The really great issue in the world today is not communism versus capitalism or ime perialism, as Moscow would have us believe. It is the atheistic materialism of the totalt- tarlan state versus the idea of freedom under God, the idea of self-governing peoples who believe that the state js made for man and man's emancipation and that man is not made merely to be subservient to the state. This is the great challenge to free men everywhere. This Js a cause to which the people of the west European countries who are joined together in the North Atlantic Pact, can well dedicate their lives and their destinies, Address by Hon. Leverett Saltonstall, of Massachusetts, Before Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North America EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WILLIAM F. KNOWLAND OF CALIFORNIA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, February 26 (legislative day of Monday, January 29), 1951 Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the ReEcorp, a very able address delivered by the senior Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Sau- TONSTALL] before the Conference of the Grand Masters of Masons in North America at the Hotel Statler, Washing- ton, D, C., on February 20, 1951. I com- mend a reading of the address to the Members of the Senate and to the people of the entire country. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Tak Berorr GRAND MASTERS OF MASONS The answers to the problems that face us now as we strive for peace in the world and security in our country must, I believe, be based on six general principles which I offer as & suggested chart for America as we strive to set a true course. Upon these our think- ing and our decisions must rest. Certainly there must be an end to indecision and the feeling of insecurity that comes with inde- cision. 1, We can never gain our security through & program that leads to isolationism. 2. We oan never gain our security by a program that follows a path of appeasement, 3. We can only gain our security by sup- porting our agreements by our actions, at least until we know that the other parties to those agreements do not intend to do their share.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 4, We must move ever forward on a pottey of strength and confidence. Gur actions carmnot be dictated by fear. We have the strength, the resources, and the tradition, matertally and spiritually, to take the initia- tive agninst all threats to our securtty. 5, We can never make this Nation secure by hesitation, faltering, backing-and-filling. 6. We must strive for unity of purpose and of action even as Lincoln did in the darkest of Utvil War days. There is a tremendous @ifferance, as he knew so well, between hon- est criticism and mere obstructiontem. The former is vital in a democracy at all times. The latter cannot be tolerated when the safety of our country and the security of our citizens are at stake. At the moment, there are two issues in the forefront of everyone’s mind here in Washington: our policy in Asia and our pol- icy in Europe. These two issues are now constantly before us in the United States Senate. Questions being thoroughiy dis- cussed regarding these issues are many. Should we get out of Korea? Should we aid Chiang Kat-shek and the Nationalist forces? Should we declare eanctions agsinst the regime of Mao Tse-tung in the United Na- tions now that the United Nations has final- ly proctaimed that regime to be the aggres- sor? What are our responsibilities in the Far East? What steps should we now take tn Europe? What is the best way for us to protect the safety and security of our country against a possible Russian advance in Europe? Should we send ground troops to Europe? Should we merely support Europe in the alr and on the sea? Should Congress ap- prove before troops are sent to Europe un~- der the North Atiantic Treaty? These two great issues also raise many questions of domestic policy here in the Gongress is now asked to reise our Armed Forces to 3,600,000 men. The President has recommended huge ap- propriations, increases in taxes, Tt has be- come only too clear that controls of our eivilian. economy must be firmly adminis- tered if we are to arm and equip this large increase in our ermed strength adequately, and at the same time provide mfiitary equip- ment to our allies of the North Atlantic Treaty. ‘These are truly tomgh decisions. Moking them is not easy. The results of these decisions certainly will entafl sacri- fices on the part of every citizen. Today every thoughtful American citisen fe worrted. ‘That can't be denied. Many ere greatly disturbed and thowe ‘who have lost their loved ones tn Korea are heart- broken. But if we are to live up to our re- sponsibilities as the leaders of the freedom- loving peoples of the world, we must bulld ‘that confidence that inspires faith in our Ultimate euccess—that gives the feeling that our actions are based on the calm judg- ment of prudent men. From the present safety of our own land, we have watched the troops of the United Mattons in Korea defend themselves bravely as they were pushed back lnct summer to Pusan. Then we witnessed a drififant ad- vance through practically ail of Korea. We haye followed grimly in recent weeks alter- nating retrewts and advences which etill leave the issue much in doubt, The brave mcn assembled under the banner of the Untted Nations have proved they know how to fight the advancing hordes of Communists and will fight to the death if need be. They are daily demonstrating the superiority of our fire power and the speed and maneuver- ability of our airplanes. But there is grave doubt in the minds of many of those boys and in the minds of many of our eftizens as to why we are now fighting in Korea, When the North Koreans, stimu- lated by Chinese and Russian Communists, orcased the thirty-eighth parallel lest dune, they became aggreseors under the terms of the Unite Nations Charter. If the Tntted Nations is to be a lasting force for perce, the violators of ite resotuttons must be resisted. The Becurity Council of the United Nations immetiatety ordered the Korean aggression resisted. Our boys are there to fight aggres- sion, to make the United Nations a force for peace in the world. They are fighting to preserve life as we know it here at home and to make the future more secure for Ws all. We must win that battle which they are waging so valiantly, even if ft cannot be won m Korea. Certainly we cannot win it by appeasement. Most recently, the Chinese have been overwhelmingly branded by the United Nations as aggressors themselves. That is a true statement of fact—it is not a yielding to false nda, Certainly it would seem to be much wiser, hard though it may be to do so, to leave Korea if our military leaders say that we cannot expect witimately to win there, or if the fighting drags out to a etalemate, but be unfettered by any agreements favorable to the Communists—iike the proposed cease- fire suggestion—as would undoubtedly end in the loss of Formosa and the ultimate recog- nition of the Chinese Communists in the United Nations, This would be 100 percent appeasement. Meanwhile, elsewhere In Asia the forces of communism are weakening by intrigue what cannot be cvercome by military vio- Jence. Tibet has been invaded. The infil- tration of Iran reportedly is taking place. While the situation in Indochina is bad, the French have become more aggressive. Under the inspired leadership of General de Tas- signy, they are recovering some of the gains of the Communists, But final success is stil) far in the distanoe. On Formose, Nationalist Chinese forcas are in active training and are, we are told, pre- pared for vigorous fighting. Our Navy is under orders to prevent these forces from engaging in commando raids or amphibious attacks on the mainiand. They are equally under orders to prevent Communist attack on Formosa. Formosa is one of those islands fn the Far Bast that are considered part of our line of security with Japan, Okinawa, and the Philippines. The present National- ist forces are prepared to defend it. ‘They may be able to sttmulate commando raids and amphibious attacks or assist guerrilla efforts on the Chinese mainland. We should certainty encourage these undertakings in every Wray we can. Possibly our Navy should blockade the Chi. nese coast if the Communists insist in their efforts on Korea or in other parte of Asia. But there are many difficulties involved in such a blockade. Certainly we should not put troops in China at the present time, nor should our Air Force make bombing sorties on the mainland of China. But that does not mean that we have to prevent the Na- tionalist Chinese forces from making active efforts to the limits of thetr own strength. That does not mean that it may not be wise to provide them with arms and equipment. Certainly it does not mean that we should turn over Formosa to the Chinese Reds at any United Nations conference tabie or eise- where. In Berlin and throughout Western end Southern fLurope, the free nations stand con- stantly on the alert against possible further aggression by Communists. They look to us for that strong moral and that material sasistance they feel certain we can give them. ‘Tremendously tmportant decistons are now in the making as to the extent of and the manner in which we are to provide assist- ance to Europe. Under our Constitution the President is the Commanser tn Chief of our Armed Forces. He has the responsibility of deciding whether to send forces outside of the continental United States in the inter- ests of cur security. Congress has the re- * A933 sponsibility of appropriating at tts discre tion the funds with which opr forces are maintained and supported. Our Government has signed and the Sen- ave has ratified the North Atlantic Treaty. Under its terms we have organised! the mili- tary assistance pact. But, the North Atian- tic Treaty does not provide apectiically fer sending men abroad except to repel egyres- sion. Consequentty, the question arises: Can the President send troops as well as equipment under articie 3 of the North At- lantic Treaty without prior approval of Con- gress? When the North Atlantic Treaty was ratified, the administration definitely stated that under article 3 materials bu¢ not men were intended. WNow the President has stated that he expects to send men also. General Eisenhower has testified that he believed we should send men, although at the same time he stated that the bulk of the manpower must necessarily come from the countries of Europe. While the interpreta- tion given to the Senate by the adminis- tration when the treaty was ratified clearly did not include men, the Senate can in its wisdom join with the President in broaden- ing that interpretation or it can appropriate funds under its constitutional power to permit the President under his constitutional power as Commander in Chief to send troops to Europe. Personally, I believe that a wiser move wov'd be to recognize a more liberal interpretation of the North Atlantic Treaty. Secretary Acheson has testified that he be- eves the Executive and the Congress should move forward in accord, With compelling sincerity General Eisen- hower stressed the need of our setting an example of vigorous leadership, for only by such vigorous leadership can we hope to in- spire our European friends to thelr maximum eforts. Only by our example can we expect their woubts to be resolved and thelr ener- gies to be fully channeled Into our common cause of a mutual defense of freedom. It gave me personally much confidence to have him state his conclusions regarding man- power and production from first-hand obser- vations, for I have felt for many weeks that Europe ts our first line of defense and that gs such we must contribute not only leader- ship but matertals, energy, and some men, General Marshal] now states that the plans call for four more, or a total of six, divisions to be stationed in Europe. We all know that the implementing of the North Atlantic Treaty has gone ahead far too slowly in Europe. But there can be no doubt that our friends In Europe need us and we need our friends in Europe. Wo have made commitments in the form of a treaty. We have implied commitments from a moral point of view. We cannot go back on these obligations, expressed or implied, no matter how difficult the days ahead appear to be. ‘To do so might well lose us the respect of the other nations of the world forever. If on the other hand it becomes clear that these nations do not tntend to live up to their side of these mutual obligations, we cannot and must not attempt to help defend Europe. We must review our position in that light when we know those are the factors’ upon which our decisions must rest, but until we do, we must go ahead with inspired Jesdership and renewed efforts and sacrifices that come with those efforts if we are to expect those who have suffered so much in World War II to do the same. Tf we are to win through to victory over these grave threats to our Nation’s freedom, we must look clearly and with courage at the , problems which we face—problems that arise here in the United States very largely De-. cause we are not prepared for an emergency. The price of that unpreparedness we must now pay regardiess of cost. And to those who bear the administrative responsibility for thet un , We look with more critical eyes. A Untversal Military Training
A934 and Service Act is now made necessary by certain self-evident realities: (1) The United States is now a participant in a struggle for survival, the dimensions and duration of which cannot be accurately calculated; (2) ‘we do not now have under arms sufficient manpower to sustain a respectable military posture nor to provide a defense adequate to the immediate peril; (3) so long as the fight- ing continues in Korea, and the outcome of the struggle with our enemy remains unde- cided, there exists an ever-present need for readiness to increase the strength of our armed services; (4) we must build up 4 force of trained reserves so that we will not be caught again by another Pearl Harbor. Qur present laws authorizing the mo- bilization of manpower are inflexible. Con- gress has removed the statutory ceilings on the size of our armed services, But more leg- islation is needed to provide the manpower to build our forces to the needed level of strength, The Joint Chiefs of Staff have determined that our minimum defense requirements necessitate an armed force of approximately 8,500,000 men by June 1951. This determi- nation is the result of their best military judgment, If we accept that judgment, then wo must provide the minimum manpower which these responsible officers have deter- mined to be our need. Reduced to the simplest terms, the two most pressing needs for this legislation are (1) the security of the Nation requires the most prompt possible build-up of our Armed Forces, and (2) we must now decide upon an enduring system of training and manpower readiness to meet the demands of a danger” which now has no foreseeable end. The bill proposed by our Armed Services Committee makes the manpower available so that if a further emergency arises it will not be necessary for Congress to act hastily in broadening eligibility to increase the pool of strength available. We believe that for the best interests of national security, it is imperative that the piecemeal manpower mobilization approach be abandoned and this more flexible approach substituted. Right now to get that build-up and to maintain it will take all the qualified men from the Selective Service pool, the married nonveterans, husbands, some now in the IV-F group, and some now deferred as students, and finally about 400,000 not yet in the selective-service pool. So Congress has not many alternatives if it agrees with Secretary Marshall and the Chiefs of Staff that a force of 3,500,000 men is needed. Economically we must expect a drastic change in our manner of living if we are to provide our defenses with needed materials and manpower. The solid solution of this problem is to raise to new levels our produc- tion of essentials. In the meantime, controls are inevitable. It seems to me entirely likely that if we im- pose and accept adequate controls on our civilian economy now, we may in a shorter space of time than we now believe poasible find ways and means of returning thereafter to @ more normal situation, perhaps even in 2 years. It is estimated that the demands for our military production for 1951 and 1952 will amount to probably 50 billions of dol- lars in each of these years. When we cone sider that our present national gross product amounts to about 275 billions of dollars and realize that this military burden represents an addition of almost 18 percent to that fig- ure, the enormity of the problem before us is clear. Needless to say, this means sacrifices and & lower standard of living until we build up these military defenses, having allowed them to get much too low. It {9, however, equally clear, a burden that must be carried if wae are to survive as a free nation. When the build-up has been accomplished and if no war has come, just think how much more productive facilities we will have than we now possess, Congress can pass legislation, but the order to freeze prices and wages must be issued by the administration. Congress can pass laws regarding enforcement of such orders, but the Executive must set up the machinery to enforce them. That machinery is even now not yet adequately in being. It should be implemented at once with proper and ade- quate powers and with forthright action on the part of its administrators, Let us never forget that no sacrifices made by any individual or group here on the home front can be comparable to those being made and perhaps to be made by our soldiers on Korea's frozen hills and plains. Economic justice can always be restored; it is different with the life of a man. In recent weeks a number of patriotic and well-intentioned proposals have been made for our guidance in the days to come. We Members of Congress welcome friendly and open discussion of our policies overseas and at home, but that does not Mean necessarily that we agree with them. I find myself un- able to agree with any proposal which recom- mends a backyard defense of this country. If we subscribe merely to a theory of the defense of this continent, we will surely find ourselves trying to protect North and South America and a few islands offshore against the strength and resources of all the rest of the world. Can we survive in the United States with Burope with all its people and their resources in Communist hands? Such a theory and such a situation are unthinkable. Nor can I agree that an increased armed strength may provoke the Communists to more ag- gression in the immediate future. If this view is right, then why do anything? Why don’t we drop our hands to our sides and let the blows fall? If aggression is to be pro- voked, I want to see that aggression pro- voked by strength and not by weakness. In two world wars we have sent our man- hood and our treasure overseas. Thousands and thousands of American boys have died on the European battlefields. Shall we now abandon all that they fought for, side by side with our European allies? Shall we willingly yleld the Ruhr and the Saar, with their tremendous industrial potential, to the Soviet Union? Shall we say to Great Brit- ain and France and Denmark and Holland and Belgium and the other countries of the North Atlantic Treaty that we didn't mean what we said when we joined with them to try to contain communism? Shall we abandon Rome to barbarian in- vasion? Shall we hand to the Reds—on what would amount to a uranium platter— the vast ore deposits of Africa? What are we going to do about the great oil resources of the Middle East? Most important of all, shall we leave completely in the lurch, by withdrawing behind our own continental de- fenses, those valiant peoples of Europe who have so long looked to us for strength and help? American leadership, if it is to be worthy of the name and the things for which America has always stood—freedom and fair play—must be moral always, as well as mill- tary, diplomatic, and economic. We cannot and we must not go back on our word. To do otherwise makes us indistinguishable from the enemy we face. Our paramount object in our struggle to- Gay is to preserve peace in order that our Nation may go forward in security and per- mit the undertakings of free men to make us happler, healthier, and build up the standard of our way of life. This unity ts an expression of an all-American effort. We must have that “enduring system of de- fense” that General Marshall has described. We must be fully prepared for further sacri- fices on the part of every one of us. We can never subscribe to a backyard defense of our country and our homes, We APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD can never abandon to barbaric violence the Sree peoples and the free institutions of the free world. We must never go back upon our pledged word. Such an effort is one dic- tated by an enlightened self-protection on our part and that of our allies. The clear minds of the people of our country and their clear voices can make their impact felt all over the world if dedicated to that single end. In this time of our trial, Abraham Lin- coln's voice saying, “My paramount object in this struggle is to preserve the Union,” has thrilling echoes for every American citizen, Republican or Democratic, for it means in this day and age the preservation of these United States as a free and inde- pendent country. By our determination, with God’s help, it will be done. Linco’n Day Dinner Address by Governor Lodge, of Connecticut EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EDWARD J. THYE OF MINNESOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, February 26 (legislative day of Monday, January 29), 1951 Mr. THYE. Mr. President, I ask unan- imous consent to have printed in the Recorp a Lincoln Day dinner address delivered by Gov. John Lodge, of Con- necticut, in Minneapolis, Minn., on Feb- ruary 17, 1951. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Governor Youngdahl, distinguished guests, ladies, and gentlemen, it is a very real pleas- ure for me to come to your great city of Minneapolis and join with you on this sige nificant occasion. To us in the East, the words “Minneapolis” and “Minnesota” are freighted with mean- ing. The unsurpassed scenic beauty of your Btate, with its vast natural resources, your storied Mesabi Range, your useful and varied industries, your turbulent early history, and your sturdy and self-sufficient citizenry all go to make a legend upon which we dwell with pleasure and interest. I may say also that we in New England have long been aware of Minneapolis as a cule tural center. Your writers, like Sinclair Lewis and others, have deeply enriched American thought and literature. The fame of your great university and other Institue tions of higher learning is well known to us, We are familiar, too, with the renown of your symphony orchestra; and may I say that we are grateful to you for sending us an Ormandy and a Mitropolous to lead our own famous orchestras to new heights of accomplishment, Hence, my own great enjoyment in being privileged to visit Minneapolis and to have ths honor of addressing you here this evening. We are gathered to observe the one hun- @red and forty-second anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln. Yet this occa- sion should not be merely one of commemo- ration but should be rather a time for our rededication to the timeless truths for which Lincoln worked, for which he suffered and for which he died. These truths have, I think, been well understood by many people in Minnesota. For you have, during the past tew years, elected to the high office of Governor of your great State such out- standing public servants as Harold Staasen,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD now president of the University of Penn- syivantia; owas Tru, now United States Senator, and your present great humani- tarlan, Luther W. Youngdah!. These are all men of whom the State of Minnesota can be justly proud, They have shown that they truly understand the function of the Republican Party. During a time of rapid change and increasing international ten- sion they have demonstrated a vigorous com- prebension of the needs and asptrations of the people of our country. I have read with deep interest and real profit the penetrating inaugural address of Governor Youngdah! to your legislature. He speaks from tested warm and understanding heart. The people of Minnesota are fortunate to have a man of his calibre at the head of the State. It has been my privilege and pleasure to serve during my 4 years in Congress with the Congressmen whom you have sent to represent you in Washington. In I have had the stimutating pleasure of serv- ing as & member of the Committee on Por- eign Affairs with the Representative from the Fifth Congressional District of Minne- sota, WaLTer H. Jupp. Ho ts my good friend, When I decided to run for Governor of Con- necticut one of the real regreta which I had was that I would no longer be tn and close contact with this splendid man. Theres can be no more rewarding experience in life than that of a fine friendshtp. Dur- ing my time in Washington I developed for Watter Jupp not only a high regard but a real affection. Watrer Jupp’s standard of service is truly Lincolnian in its high-mind- humanity, not only a sest for work, not only unimpeachable honesty, not only a deep sense of honor but in addition a Itvely under- standing of the problems which affict man- kind and a breadth of vision in the field of foreign affairs which have marked him as @ leader. He is the first to deplo recent events have proved him to be tragi- cally right. It is a tribute to the people of his district that they have understood majority, sion of confidence. He is a shining light of truth and honor in a world which has & desperate necd of both. Wars Jupp is the kind of Republican who atte in the true apixit of Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln, the sixteenth President of the United States, is very much alive. Ina real sense he belongs to the ages, to our age, For in his 6@ years of life he stamped an image of himself on the tapestry of history and made an enduring tmpreesion on the minds of men and women the world over. He was a pioneer. He pioneered in the re- mote reaches of uncharted thought; in the field of action, and in the lonely depths of the human soul. His memory has a very special meaning in thts fateful year. It hes a meaning particularily for us Republicans who, while we bear much responsibility, have not yet received from the people sufficient power to discharge it. Lincota felt humble before tis grave re- sponsibilities., We feel humble as we con- template his towering figure. But it is not to talk about Abraham Lincoln— enough the Republican Party must act like Lincoln. We must translate into effective action the inarticulate aspirations of miltions of Ameri- cans in order that we may meet the challenge of leadership which is presented to us. Yineon said: “The of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion ie piled high with and we must rise with the occasion. As our case ts new 90 we must think anew and act anew. We mist disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.” I believe that our Republican platforms, both in Minnesota and in Connecticut, re- fiect an urgent understanding of this in- aspiring exhortation. The wards of Lincoln constitute a veritable bibte for the guidance of our party. We must think of freedom not as a right to be used, but as # privilege to be earned and prased on undiminished to those who come after us. We must be alert to defend and deserve that privilege. We must recog- nize that the concept of freedom Is still the most modern, the most revolutionary idea which man has discovered as a basis for his spiritual, political, and economic life on this planet. We must so lead our individual lives as to vindicate the enormous sacrifices made in the cause of freedom by millions of peo- ple. We must fulfill our dally obligations to the system which we exjoy in order that when we have been gathered to our fathers we shall have made a lasting contribution to the cause of liberty—in order that we too shall have earned for our generation a grateful remembrance. We must give more than Itp service to the memory of the great mean whose birth we are gathered here to celebrate. The Republican Party was born in 1866 in the midst of the turmoil and terrible dis- agreoments which preceded the Civil War. In this year of crisis the Republican Party must inspire a fresh, vital, and vigorous approach to the problems which face our people in order that a ravaged and devastated world may have a new birth of freedom. In 1951 as in 1861 the issue is freedom or slavery. Never before in the history of our party, never since this Nation was founded, has any group had euch a magnificent opportunity for service and leadership as the Republican Party has today. If we Republicans fail to grasp that opportunity our fatiure will be as final as the opportunity is fleeting. If we fall Amertca fafls. If America fails then western civilization with all its culture and capacity for growth will be swallowed up in the maw of godiess Soviet aggression. Accordingly, we are faced with exciting opportuntties for service to mankind which are equalled only by our responsibilities in this trembling hour of destiny. Lincoln's deep understanding of human affairs can and must serve as a beacon light to guide our troubled f . “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.” We shall find the truth tn Lincoln. “The ate object of government,” said Lincoln, “is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do st all, or cannot so well do for themselves In their separate and individual capacities. In all that the people can indi- dividualty do as well for themselves, the gov- ernment ought not to tnterfere.” How admirably this expresses the true function of government. How brililantly it declares the right of the lican Party. That we are not faced with the choice of betng horse-and-buggy die-hards on the one hand or advocates of the me-too philoso- phy on the other fa {ltustrated by the mod- ern-minded programs under way in Minne- sota and Connecticut. Yor example, we Re- publcana in Connecticut declare: “When- ever soctal or economic problems can be scived only by public effort, we betieve the power of government should be used in their fui solution.” Tt is not enough to do a8 so many Demo- crate suggest—turn our social problems over to the Pederal Government; nor should we turn owr backs on these problems. There ts & happy middie ground for industrious, re- A935. , @rd creative action. Certainty But the Tincoln. Ours is not to imitate and follow while others lead. Neither should we oppose the tion when if ts doing something Tight. It ia not enough to criticise and con- demn. We must, above all, conserve, con- struct, and create. Lincoln recognized the dangers inherent in the high cost of government. He had e systematic interest in the problems which face the working le. He said: “To se- cure to each laborer the whole product of his labor or as nearly as possible is a worthy ob- ject of any good government.” We know how large a share of the worker's salary is ab- sorbed in Federal, State, and munictpal taxea. We know, too, that the function of govern- ment is to perform services for the people. But in order to retain the right to enjoy the fruits of their labor, it is imperative that the working people should not be weighted down with exhorbitant taxes. Of course, we canont pay for the defense of our country without levying higher taxea. But I deplore the fact that, in the President's 671,500,000,000 budget, the items for non- essential spending are larger than at any time in our history. These can and should be substantially reduced. We must hold in abeyance some of our cherished plans in order to create e world in which these plans can be fulfilled. Linooin understood that there ja no nat- ural antagonism between capital and labor. The interests of the people who work come ahead of the interests of capital and this, may I remind you, te traditional Republican policy. Lincoln said: “Capital ts only the fruit of labor, could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital and deserves the much higher consideration.” But he went on to say that it is right: “That men who are industrious and sober and honest in the pursuit of their own interests should, after ewhile, accumulate property and after that should be allowed to enjoy it in peace.” Labor and capital are component parts of a cooperative effort. Stressing the community of interest which binds the several segments of our society together, Lincoln said: “Let not him who is houseless pull down the hour: of another, but let him work diligently and butld one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.” This community of interest is founded on equality of opportunity. Listen again to Lincoln: “We feel, therefore, that all legal distinction between individuals of the same community founded in any such cirevm- atances as color, ortgin, and the like, are hostile to the genftts of our institutions, and incompatible with the true history of Ameri- can liberty.” I have grown weary of the hypocritical in~ cantations on the alter of civil rights in which the Democratic Party seasonally tn- duiges. The Democrats find this a conven« jent issue to drag out during election years, to kick around for yote-getting purposes and then put back on the shelf to gather dust while they are in power. The Republican Party traditionally has stood for equality of opportunity. It stands for equality of op- portunity today. Lincoln said: “Let us dis- cara alt thts quibbling about this man and the other man, this race and that race and the other race, being inferior and therefore they muet be placed in an inferior positton. Let us discard ail these things, and unite as one people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal.” Let us enlarge our concepta to the circle of our duties. Men who are good enough to
A936 die for their country are good enough to re- ceive equal treatment under our laws. Lincoin belteved in the dignity of the in- dividual, He believed that the individual 4s the complex heart of society. He was an eloquent exponent of the whole concept of individual freedom. We must not allow the rigors of the present emergency to obscure the central truth that freedoms and respon- siptlities are inseparable. Indeed the world-wide attack on freedom by the ruthless forces of Soviet imperialism underscore the validity, the urgency of this thesis. Just as we must continue our efforts to assure equal freedom in our own land 50 after two world wars we must now be con- vinced that we in the United States cannot remain indifferent to a threat to freedom in other parts of the world, We know deep down in that region of the heart in which wo dwell alone that a world contracted by acience must be united by freedom if peace is to prevail. On the subject of foreign affairs also we find that Lincoln had profound and chal- lenging thoughts. He sald: “In our dealings with other nations let us by all means give & little here and give a little there but never should we do all the giving. Rather in the case of a long and threatening emergency let us prepare for the worst and work for the best.” We are preparing for the worst in Minne- sota and Connecticut. I know that in ad- dition to safeguarding human life and prop- erty you in Minneapolis have the problem of protecting a large and important ratl- way center and defending key industries against sabotage and enemy assault. In Connecticut we also are concerned with the safety of our citizens and with the secu- rity of factories vital to the defense effort. In spite of the prolonged lack and guid- ance from Washington, civil-defense plans are now under way in most of our States. Interstate compacts are being signed. Al-~ though the Federal Government will pro- vide financial assistance in certain aspects of civil defense the problem of protecting the homes, the lives, the industries of the people of Minnesota and Connecticut is pri- marily a State problem. I commend your distinguished Governor for all that he is un- dertaking in this field, We must prepaie for the worst in other ways also. Our economy cannot be effec tively mobilized in a period of inflation, This means that the Treasury Department should stop forcing Government bonds at low-interest rates into the Federal Reserve System. It means that the President should make better use than he has yet made of hia control powers so that the consumer with fixed wages and fixed income is not heavily penalized. We must create a spirit of national unity. This means discarding the discredited, threadbare plan for social- ized medicine, It means taking labor legis- lation out of politics. It means really cut- ting nondefense to the bone. It means true bipartisan tation in the field of foreign affairs, means the mo- bilization of our manpower jor our Armed Forces in sufficient strength to discharge our international commitments and to insure our national security in a dangerous world, It has been the fashion in recent weeks to talk about the great debate that is going on regarding our foreign policy. And yet if we examine this debate closely, we find that the area of agreement is much larger than the area of disagreement. We find for instance that despite the heart- breaking ebb and flow of battle in Korea there ig no public clamor for the withdrawal of American troops. Yet we cannot long post. pone a high policy decision regarding this anxious question. We find that there is substantial agreement as to the need for collective action in Europe in case of war, There is substantial agreement that we must have a vast rearmament program, that we must render military assistance to the At- Jantic Pact nations and to the French in Indochina. It is not suggested that we should cut either our own military budget or the amounts provided under the Mutual Defense Assistance Act, There is some dis- agreement regarding the part that Western Germany should play in the defense of West~ ern Europe. There is also some disagree~ ment regarding the number of troops which we should send to Europe. Oertainly we should not have to bear the full load of com- bat alone, Certainly we should accept and encourage help from the anti-Communist forces in Formosa and in China, from Greece, from Yugoslavia, from former enemy na- tions, from Turkey and Spain, from all for- mer neutral nations, and of course, from our allies in the Atlantic Pact. We should also make it possible for anti-Communists from countries now under Soviet domina- tion to play their part in the struggle. We need all the friends we can get. It is a tragic fact that our lamentable far- eastern policy has resulted not in stability but in a war which so far has cost us the frightening total of 60,000 casualties. Those who are responsible for that policy are fond of saying that the Republicans who attack their far-eastern policy are the same Re- publicans who are isolationists when it comes to Europe. While the word “isolation” has become a weasel word through much misuse and abuse, I can say that I know many Republicans in Congress, including by good friend Wattsr Jupp, who have not found it necessary to forget Europe while looking at China. We favored Marshall- plan aid, aid to Greece and Turkey, the At- lantic Pact, the Mutual Defense Assistance Act, and many other measures which have as their purpose the creation in Europe of & political climate propitious for the preserva- tion of freedom. The inconsistency rests with those in high office who chose to label the Communist surge in China as simply an agrarian reform movement and who were opposed to Chiang Kai-shek because, said they, the anti-Communist forces had lost their will to fight. How much will to fight would there be in Europe, I ask you, if we were to withdraw our support? I favor aid to anti-Communist China. I favor aid to the anti-Communists in Europe. I believe that it is not only in our national self- interest, that it is not only in accordance with our commitments but that it is our moral obligation to help our friends in Europe to withstand the Red tide. For us to postpone our assistance until they have erected a sure dam against the Red flood is to postpone it until such aid is no longer necessary. Moreover we need the bases; we need the manganese and other raw materials which might well be denied to us if West- ern Europe were to succumb; we need their manpower. We need to encourage thelr will to fight just as we should have done in Asia, Certainly the people of Western Europe can provide manpower and skills even though they cannot provide dollars or all the equip~ ment and arms which they need. Certainly also they need to know that we will not wait until they have been conquered before we take action, that our policy is not one of liberating Europe but one of protecting Europe from conquest. They need the as- surance that this whole affair is a copartner- ehip. Because of our predominance and gen~ eral national health we must provide the leadership. I do not believe that the Congress ts in ® position to decide on the exact number of our troops which should be sent to Europe, although the decision to send them ts a mate ter of the highest policy on which the Con- gress should be consulted. I am content not to linger over past mis- takes. I have no desire to rake over the old dead coals of Yalta, Tehran, Potsdam, and the arrangements by which the city of Berlin APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD became an island completely surrounded by Red territory. I am glad not to stress the lack of vision and the appalling series of blunders and betrayals which permitted the Soviet empire almost unimpeded to swallow up one-third of the world's total population, But I do think that our leaders in Washing- ton should stop defending these indefensible acts, should stop trying to justify their in- credible mistakes and should instead at- tempt to create unity by trying to correct these errors. This is a time for concerted and resolute action. We must mobilize, yes, but we shall not win this struggle without generating in our own land the great motive moral forces which for 80 many decades have guided our people onward on their great adventure. We know that our material world will crash in splinters around us unless it has some lofty thoughts to hold it up. There is a need for unity, yes, but there is an even greater need for the spiritual fervor, the deep convictions without which we cannot emerge Victorious. Peace is a product of strength; war is a derivative of weakness. Our salvation lies in ® dynamic faith in freedom. It lies in our determination not to yield or to be over- come. It is inherent in our resolve to ignite throughout the free world the temper, the energy, and the zeal which alone can bring ‘us peace. This, I believe, ts the challenge confront- ing us this evening as our thoughts turn toward the great founder of our party. Let us hearken anew to Lincoln’s luminous words: “Theirs (our American ancestors’) ‘was the task—and nobly they performed it— to possess themselves, and through theme selves us, of this goodly land, and to uprear upon its hills and its valleys a political edi- fice of liberty and equal rights; ‘tis ours only to transmit these—the former unpro- faned by the foot of an invader, the latter undecayed by the lapse of time and untorn by usurpation—to the latest generation that fate shall permit the world to know.” If we are to avoid the “twin gulfs of im- morality and inefficiency,” if we are to meet the challenge of leadership in this troubled world, if we are to maintain America as a bastion of liberty, if we are to bestow the blessings of freedom on those millions who are languishing in bondage, a revitalized, vibrant and enlarged Republican Party must take the helm and press stanchly forward to new frontiers of achievement. On this historic mission we shall be propelled by the mighty spirit of an enfranchised people and inspired by the simple greatness of Abraham Lincoln. We, the Republican Party, have the will; ‘we have the vigor; we have the talent to match with consummate leadership the towering challenge of our time. We awalt only the mandate of our fellow-citizens, And when that Nation-wide mandate comes, @s come soon it must, let us be ready, full- girt and resolute, to pilot America, her peo- ple, and her beloved institutions, safely across today’s darkling waters to the longed- for haven of a peaceful, prosperous, and con« fident tomorrow. American Committee on United Europe EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. H. ALEXANDER SMITH OF NEW JERSEY IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, February 26 (legislative day of Monday, January 29), 1951 Mr, SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Presi- dent, on Tuesday, February 13, at the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Belvedere Hotel in Baltimore, Mr. How- ard Bruce, formerly Deputy ECA Admin- istrator, was host to a large gathering of civic leaders of the city of Baltimore. Mr. Bruce’s guest of honor was the Hon- orable Paul-Henr! Spaak, formerly Prime Minister of Belgium, and who is now President of the so-called European Council, which is undertaking the unifi- cation and integration of the European states. Mr. Spaak, who was introduced by the Honorable Paul Hoffman, formerly ECA Administrator, spoke under the auspices of the American Committee on United Europe. Mr. President, I consider the address of Mr. Spaak of such importance in the present crisis that I ask unanimous con- sent to have it printed in full in the Appendix of the Rscorp. The Public Printer advises me that the address will cover about 344 pages of the CONGRESSIONAL ReEcorp at a cost of $287. I call the special attention of my col- leagues to the closing portion of this sig- nificant address which deals with the subject of rearmament of Europe, a mat- ter of urgent interest to all of us at the present time. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Ladies and gentlemen, a year ago I had the honor of being a guest of the University of Pennsylvania. Reading the speech I made then, I quote the few sentences that follow: “In my eyes nothing is more important for the future of our civilization and for the peace of the world than a strong solidarity between the United States of America and Europe. “Misunderstandings can arise between us; our relations could become iess frank, less friendly. It must not happen. It would be @ great misfortune. “For Europe to understand and know the United States of America, for the United States of America to understand and know Europe is one of the greatest topics of our times.” As I read these lines again, two thoughts come to my mind: First, that I was more than right to emphasize that nothing was more important than a close understanding between the United States of America and Europe, swiftly. T want to speak very frankly to you. If you sometimes feel that I am wrong in my judgments or if I hurt your feelings, do not bear me any ill will, my intentions are good. What I want is both to enlighten you about certain problems and to enlighten myself by studying your reactions, I shall therefore say at once, somewhat bluntly: for a year the relationship between the United States of America and democratic Europe has been spoiled. A deep gap of mutual incomprehension has widened be- tween both continents. Nothing can be more dangerous. For me, it is the great problem at the beginning of this year. Were this ill will to increase, were we to prove un- able to go back, we would face disaster. It is the duty of the Europeans who love the United States of America, just as it is the duty of the Americans who love Europe to consider that problem and above all to speak frankly to each other, 60 as to have a thoroughly loyal explanation and make a great effort of comprehension. if 1 had to summarize my opinion of the Present situation, I would say that we are today, in Europe, in the position in which your isolationists found themselves in 1014 and, second, that events travel and 1939, They did not believe then that to ght against German aggression was to fight for the freedom of the United States, We in turn have nowedays some difficulty in making the people in Europe understand that to Aaght in Korea is to fight for European independence and that we must not mis- trust a forward America, in the front lines of battle, as we ourselves were twice. As for you, it seems to me that your confi- dence in Europe's vitality has greatly dimin- ished; that you doubt her possibilities and even her willingness to share in the struggle against communism; that you suspect her of wanting an Asiatic Munich; that you feel that the efforts you have made to help her both economically and militartly are not in proportion with the results that have been attained and, little by little, a NMttle sad and perhaps a little scornful too, you are ready to withdraw within yourselves. If the problem is thus well stated, I would now like to develop it and the first part of my demonstration ought to be called: Intro- duction and defense of Europe. For you will no doubt agree with me: before Judging Europe, you must know and understand her. You must never forget that in the course of 25 years she has been through two terrible wars. I do not Hke to burden you with figures and statistics but I wonder if it is generally understood by the people of your country how great a trial the two World Wars consti- tuted for Western Europe. Let us take the example of France. Do you know, or do you still remember that during the First World War, France lost 1,400,000 killed, which represents a propor- tion of one killed for every 27 inhabitants. That to this million and a half dead, one must add 4,286,000 wounded, 537,000 prison ers and missing, or a total of 6,160,000 men * stricken in their flesh, in their physical ine tegrity for a population of 40,500,000. What @ dreadful loss of her very blood. A loss from which the France of 1989 had not yet re:overed, a loss which is at the root of her defeat, The balance of the Second World War, in loss of lives, wounded, disabled 1s fortunately slightly less cruel, but this time material de- structions have been tremendous, The total amount of these losses for France alone is more than €21,000,000,000. The losses of Great Britain are even more important. In the Firat World War their casualties were over 3,000,000; in the Second World War over 1,000,000, And for the second war the total amount of her material losses $29,000,000,000, To understand what happened, one must add to these losses of the allies, those of Ger- many. More than 7,000,000 German casual- ties {n 1914, more than 20,000,000 in 1940 and for the Second World War, the material losses are estimated at #48,000,000,000, Before finishing with this picture of Europe, I owe it to myself to ask the Amerie cans to think about one of the characteristics of the war in Western Europe: I want to speak of the occupation of certain countries by enemy armies. Those who never knew occupation cannot measure the ordeal it represents for a coun- try: her whole administrative structure dis- rupted, her unity both political and moral threatened by those who collaborated with the enemy; hatred which sets in and divides, and in her very flesh the wound that those condemned for disloyalty will constitute for years and years. It is something of a miracle that countries lke France and Belgium, who in a quarter of a century have known such a trial twice have nevertheless managed to rise again, to regain their unity, and to start living once more, It is of this that you have to think, Amerie can friends, when you think about Europe, But you are going to tell me; Haven't we felt these misfortunes, this tragedy? Didn't we come to Europe's help in war and in A937, peace? Did we not send our sons in 1917 and 1942? Are they not numerous those who died on the heights of the Meuse, and on the beaches of Normandy? Did we not accept the heav’ burden of lend-lease, of UNRRA, of Marshall aid? Have we not lent, given, in- vested in Europe since 1920 hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars of which very little will be paid back to us? What was the ‘use of all this? Are people even grateful to ‘us for it? To this last question I immediately answer in the affirmative. European people, everyone of those who think and reflect, everyone of those who have some education and some knowledge, are aware of what Europe owes to the United States of America and are deeply grateful to them. Of course, there is criticism, but it ia only sup*rficial and does not reach the real depth of the matter. It does not go further than the criticlam Europeans have for one an- other. As for the practical result of the United States policy of material aid to Europe you would be very much mistaken if you believed that it has been useless or even of very little use. First of all, and this is essential, without this aid Europe would not have been able to solve the problem both economic and political presented by her reconstruction in 1945. Without this help it seems undispu- table to me that Europe would have known years of dark poverty, a situation even harder than the one she had to bear during the war itself, and her entire population would have known a moat inadequate standing of life with the triumph of communism as an almost inevitable consequence. Thanks to Marshall aid, communism, still powerful in France and Italy, it is true, is nonexistent in Great Britain. In the Scan-«° dinavian countries, Western Germany, the, Netherlands and in Belgium {t suffered such | set-backs during the last few years that it, has practically ceased to be a political factor. | However, it would be a mistake to look at the results of that policy from the single viewpoint of resistance to communism. | The truth is that Western Europe has i made the most of Marshall aid and notwith- standing what is sometimes said in ‘America, | her recovery has been awift and even spec- tacular. Of course, Europe's situation immediately after the Second World War was frankly. bad. i The statement of her balance of payments can best make things clear, { In 1947, Europe showed a deficit of $6,500,- { 000,000. This deficit is estimated at $2,300, | 000,000 for 1950-51, which means a profit | of $8,700,000,000 tn 2 years, This is the re- sult of increased production and produce! tivity in every field. \ While the general index of production for the countries receiving Marshall aid was 86 in 1947, it 1s 124 in 1950, say an increase of §0 percent and this general and favorable indication can be found in every sector, In- dustrial as well as agricultural. Therefore, not the slightest doubt must remain in the minds of the Americans: The policy of ald has had important results, Those have been recently characterized by the rather spectacular fact of Great Britain's statement that she can dispense with Mar- shall aid from now on, and Sweden followed her example. This great success is due to those who generously and intelligently conceived the plan, to General Marshall first of all; but it is also due to those who executed it. How can I let pass the occasion offered me this evening to say publicly how grateful I am to Mr. Paul Hoffman? He gave himself devotedly to the work of rebuilding Europe. Hie accomplishment was enormous. It would be greater still if some of those to whom he gave advice had better followed it, Let us summarize the situation: Europe, horribly hit by the war, ruined, driven to a position that seemed hopeless in 1046, has
A938 mightily risen again; she has carried very far the reconstruction of her damaged prop- erties; she has, in many countries, consid- erably bettered the standard of life of the working classes, and she could see ahead & more favorable future if it were not for the uncertain political situation and the threats of war, Honestly, I must underline this progress: But, if looking at the situation from an- other angle, people were to ask me: Are these results sufficient? Shouldn't they have been bigger still? Then, with the same frank- ness, I have to answer; Yes, they could have been better. Here we are at the heart of what I do not fear to call the European tragedy: In spite of her recovery, it is obvious to me that Europe is going through a serious crisis. She no longer has, and by far, the place that used to be hers in the world, in the course of past centuries. For 25 cen- turies of history, Mediterranean and West- ern Europe was the center of the world. Athens, Rome, Medrid, Paris, London have been, one after the other, the capital cities where political strength as well as economic power and spiritual radiance were concen- trated. Today, all this is nothing more than & very brilliant memory. The center of the world has moved. It is now in Washington, but it is also in Moscow, that major deci- sions are taken, from which will determine in the end, for us Europeans, our fate, our very life. It is in the United States of America that we find the United Nations. It is an Ameri- can general who is going to lead the armed forces in Europe. It is the United States who recently gave $10,000,000,000 to Europe in less than 2 years. It is also an American writer who was awarded the Nobel prize for terature, It is on the possible conflict be- tween Russian communism and American democracy that the future of the world de- pends. Europe plays but second fiddle. It is obvious that in her present state of affairs she is unable to solve properly the economic problems that confront her, crushed as she is between the all-powerful United States and the U. §. 8. R. and the development of new countries. It is even more obvious that she is incapable of solving alone the problem of her defense against an invasion coming from the U. 8. S. R. It is with a dreadful anguish that the clear-sighted minds of Europe are obliged to acknowledge these facts. Having done so, there remains for them but the choice be- tween two positions: Either let things go, Teact no longer, resign themselves, hoping only for a miracle, or, on the contrary, pull themselves together, rebel, and, having made the balance of Europe's forces and the critical survey of her position, decide to save herself by putting an end to her obsolete di- visions by uniting her at the beginning and unifying her in the end. What its magnificent and thrilling about this task is that it is practically possible. Fundamentally, the situation of Western Europe ia far from being desperate. The point is to organize her on a new basis, to take better advantage of her wealth and to rationalize her efforts. What gives the right to speak with such assurance? The mere examination of some btatistical data. We Europeans look toward the United States and admire their might, the prodi- Gious development of their economy, the standard of living of their population; but if we count up our own resources, our own &ssets, we have no cause for jealousy; we ust however confess that here, much more as been made of the possibilities than at home, in Hurope. ‘ Let us make a few comparisons. The United States covers an area of 3,027,000 fquare miles. Western Europe has an area of 1,000,551 square miles, but the compari- son is nevertheless to the advantrge of Eu- rope, if to the purely European territories one adds those controlled in Africa by Eu- ropean powers. There are 160,000,000 Americans; there are 290,000,000 Europeans in Western Europe, On these bases, Europe produces 451,000,- 000 tons of coal and the United States of America 570,600,000 tons. Europe produces 65,000,000 tons of steel and the United States 100,000,000. Europe uses 198,000,000,000 kilowatt-hours yearly and the United States 385,000,000,000. Why? Essentially, because in the United States for 150,000,000 inhabit- ants, there is 1 border, 1 market, 1 economy, 1 currency, and because in Europe, for 290,- 000,000 inhabitants, there are 15 borders, 15 markets, 15 economies, and 15 currencies. Let us have the courage and the audacity to do, today, in Europe, what the Americans had the audacity and the courage of doing in the second half of the eighteenth century, and our problems are solved. Western Eu- rope can then hope to become as powerful as the United States of America and more powerful than the U. S. 8. R. and her satel- lites, and most certainly the alliance of the United States and the new Europe will con- stitute a force sufficient to hold communism in check and to maintain peace. Here is the stake of the battle, here is the victory that we may win without waging war. But it is evidently much easter to state the problem than to solve it. However, it is already a great deal to know that a solu- tion exists, Evidently, in the course of action one comes across every kind of difficulties, both intellectual and material. National feelings are still extremely strong in Europe. We must not forget that the people of Europe have been waging war against one another with a terrible con- tinuity. Between 1790 and 1945, that is to say during 150 years, there were 40 years of war. It is obvious that it left traces, bad memories, susceptibilities that are still alive. . There is in Europe the very serious draw- back of the different languages. At first, it may seem but of little importance, but when one thinks more seriously about it, what an obstacle it constitutes to mutual under- standing; try to realize what would be your life, here in the United States, if all over your territory people spoke 15 different lan- guages. Well, this is the case of Europe. But there is even worse. When in the eighteenth century the 18 States of America decided to unite, their national life had been relatively short, their economy was in the middle of evolution. At home, in Europe, it is a world that became conscious of itself more than 1,000 years ago that we have to change, and there are age-long private inter- ests that have to be modified and sometimes upset. Protected by borders, customs duties, industries more or less artificial were created, iving work to thousands of workmen and elng sometimes a source of wealth for an entire region. A new organization of Eu- rope, more rational, mainly more rational, could very well cause the collapse of all this, neceasitating a long and probably painful readaptation. There is no doubt about it, and everybody tMaust know it: To make Europe is first of all to accept some sacrifices. To make Europe is to bring into being the most difficult of all policies, one that demands the maximum of wisdom, one through which one has to ac- cept to lose something at once, but with the certainty that the whole collectivity will get back its equilibrium later on, and at a much higher level. I have the impression that here in the United States many people think that Europe is incapable of making such an effort. Many people somewhat deceived by their own his- torical knowledge wonder why they do not ges once more in twentieth-century Europe make the American experience of the elght- eenth century, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD I have tried to show that to reason thus was to see things from a much too simple point of view, and without trying to deny what is similar between the two situations I fee] that it would be a grievous mistake to consider them as identical. Nobody knows exactly how the new Europe will be made, but personally I am convinced that she will be made, and I can honestly say that, in spite of appearances, she is already in the making. It is at this point of my statement that I must thank the members of the American Committee on United Europe, who have or- ganized the series of lectures that I am going to give under their auspices. It is a most remarkable thing to see so many important and distinguished American citizens, and I shall not name any of them because I should have to name too many, understand the paramount importance of the idea of a new Europe, and to see them give s0 much time, show s0 much faith, and spend so much money for the defense of that idea. They are, here, the correspondents of the Members of the European movement of which Messrs. Churchill, de Gasperi, Schumann, and myself are the honorary presidents. When the new Europe has become a reality people will understand what was the share of the Euro- pean movement in that great undertaking. It is the European movement which in the apring of 1948 convened at The Hague a con- gress of historical importance. Of course, it was not the first time that men had assem- bled to discuss Europe’s future, but it was the first time that one could see, seated on the benches reserved for the members of a congress, some of the most prominent Euro- pean statesmen, such as Winston Churchill, of Britain, Paul Reynaud, of France, van Zeeland, of Belgium, whose sole presence meant that the unity of European countries was no longer a dream that was supposed to come true in a hundred years, but a problem of the day the solution of which was urgent. The Congress of The Hague separated aiter voting a resolution asking for the creation of an extra-European organization cntrusted with the study of the European problems and capable of submitting some solution to them. The idea was accepted and taken up by the Governments of France and Belgium. A draft was proposed to the signatories to the Brussels pact and in the spring of 1949 the texts creating the Council of Europe were accepted by the government of 12 states. After rather long and laborious talks, it was decided that the Council of Europe would be composed of two organizations, a Consultative Assembly to formulate recom- mendaticns and a Council of the Ministers to examine them. The first session of the Council of Europe was held in Strasburg in August 1949. Some greeted it with enthusiasm. The others were skeptical and doubted that this new parliament could work. They did not be- lieve it possible to get such different repre- sentatives to work together. The First Assembly was not a triumphant success, but it gave honest results. First of all the skeptics were wrong. An efficient method of parliamentary work was very soon discovered and the machinery atarted working without too many shocks, Then it appeared, and that was very comfort- ing, that a certain number of the delegates quite often very prominent men in their own countries were willing and capable of study- ing certain problems from a truly European point of view. In a way, this first session was character- ized by the revolt of the Assembly against the Council of the Ministers whose powers are immense but whose tendencies are ex- tremely moderate and, let us say it, over- cautious. To tell you the whole truth, the second session of the Assembly which was held in August 1950 started in a real atmosphere of ¢risis, the basic cause of which Hes in Great Britain's attitude towa.d Durope.