APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD taken from the Wall Street Journal of March 10, 1947, which deals specifically with this matter, and in a most intelli- gent manner. The title of this editorial ts “We-Face a Decision.” ‘WE FACE & DECISION A foreign policy is effective only to the degree that it has popular support. Under- standing is essential to support. At the moment, this country is in a place where the great necossity for understanding coincides with great difficulties in obtaining under- standing. It ts doubtful if the seriousness of the news from Great Britain is even now fully realized in the United States. The reason is that the drama from which that news hangs has very little to do with the tragedy that is revealed. The popular impression seems to be that a highly unfortunate break in the weather hag forced Britain to modify some policies. The real situation is more fundamental. It is foolish to suppose that some blizzards by themselves accomplished in a few days what hostile armies have falled to accom- plish in almost as many centuries. This is not a case where spring thaws and a revival of the spirit of Dunkerque will resolve the troubles—not at all. The role of the blis- zords has been to reveal that a comparatively trivial thing could upset a nation that was ®@ world power; the snow did not create a hollow shell but 1t exposed one. Had a conqueror occupied Britain to dic- tate terms of peace stripping the Nation of empire and world power, the significance and the impact on the world would be imme- diately clear. Something very like that has happened. Remembering all that America and western civilization owe Britain, ane is reluctant to set that down. But there it is. The British withdrawal from world affairs leaves vacuums. Vacuums do not remain. They are filled. We see such a situation now typified in Greece. Soon we may see it else- where. Does this Nation wish to fill the vacuums, or does it wish to see them filled by the only other force powerful enough to do so—that 1s, Soviet Russia? Ir this country chooses to fill them, it must assume a world role far beyond any- thing our extreme internationalists have en- visaged. If the country acts otherwise, it will be choosing an isolationism beyond any- thing our isolationists have visualized. It would be idle to aay that the latter choice cannot be supported. It can be argued vwal- idly that the American political forms and social organization are not suited to a nation Playing a world role. It is certainly true that such a roie is neither the wish nor the tradi- tion of many of the American people. Neither dependence on foreign supplies nor foreign markets absolutely require assump- tion of the role, as was the case with Britain. If there were promised only a struggle for power and spoils between states of similar civilization, professing similar ideals, the is0- jation argument might seem compelling to a majority of Americans fust as it did in the 1920's. But it is not just a game of nine- teenth-century power politics. It is in addi- tion to that a conflict between two ideas, each of which is basic to a form of social tion; on one side the idea of man the organiza as an individual for whose benefit state exists and the opposite idea that man is a functional existing for the benefit Of the state. These ideas are in a struggle for domination. So tt will be well, we think, to Ponier whether it is possible to teola: ‘3 eclf from an ides, or, if it is possible, whether it ia wise. At some piace it will be necessary to meet that idea, and a geographic maneuver wil not avoid the necessity. There will be people who say that they know the answer, in fact have been aware of it for a long time. It is not out of place to suggest that these people be leas confident. In the frst place, a smug and patronising attitude is the opposite of a contribution to the calm discussion that is needed. In the second place, these people who claim posses- sion of the right answers might reflect that the foreign policy which they have so largely guided has not been adequate to the situa- tion that now confronts this country. As a matter of fact, there has been no fore- sight comparable to the size of the change that ts taking place. Washington reports to this newspaper show how inadequate has been even the appreciation of Europe's need for food and other supplies. The depth of the political chaos has been underestimated. The weakness of Britain, which had been the stabilizing influence in many piaces, was mis- Judged evcn by the British. What all shades of opinion must recognize is, firat, that a choice of policies is possible. The choice must be intelligently made. Groping and biundering toward even a right decision may be as harmi{ul as making the wrong decision. It must be recognized that it is a choice between two extremes. There probably is no middie ground. Thus if the country ts to choose that policy commonly called inter- nationalism, halfway measures would be seized as a sign of weakness, an indication of the lack of conviction equivalent to in- ability to decide. It would be better con- seciously to take the other road. And the choice cannot be made in an atmosphere of rowdy recrimination and above ail it cannot be made except by a people in possession of all the facts which they can have only from their Government. Heretofore there may have been explana- tions for the lack of complete candor. But in the present situation there can be no injury to British susceptibilities by discuss- ing British conditions as they are. There can no longer be lack of frankness about Russia and the ideological gulf; certainly such things are no news to the Russians. Candor requires that the cost to America of an expanded worid role be told the American people, for the cost will be very great in gifts, jJoans, and military expenditures. If that information is withheid there is great danger that the country will rebel at same halfway point. It would be better not to take a course that must be retraced. There is no one among us who can say that he surely knows the right way. If there were such a one, his prescience would avait! nothing unless he could make the country understand and win its support. Illinois Alumni Commend Veterans’ Ad- ministration Survey EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. MELVIN PRICE OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 13, 1947 Mr. PRICE of Ilinofis. Mr. Speaker, some time ago I called attention of the House to the fact that the veteran stu- dents at the University of Iitinols were having a great deal of difficulty in re- ceiving their subsistence checks from the Veterans’ Administration. At that time, a large number of pro- tests were coming to me from the Uni- A1001 versity of Tilinois in every mail. Asa re- sult of an investigation into this situa- tion by the Veterans’ Administration at my request, I am pleased to report that remedial action has been taken. Under leave to revise and extend my remarks, I herewith include a letter which I have received from the Univer- sity of Mlinois Alumni Association com- plimenting the Veterans’ Administration upon the fine work that it did in correct- ing the causes of the complaints at the University of Illinois. It is gratifying to note that the Veterans’ Administration has demonstrated an earnest desire to correct any defects in its operating procedures wherever confusion exists. UNIvERsITry oF ILLINOIS ALUMNI ASSOCIATION, Urbana, Ill., March 10, 1947. Hon. MELvin Price, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Pulcr: Referring to our telegram to you of January 18, 1947, arking for imme- diate attention to the correction of delayed payments of subsistence allowance to veter- ans in attendance at the University of Illi- nois we wish to express our appreciation of your interest and prompt action. On January 16, 1947, the Veterans’ Admin- istration Branch Office No, 7 sent Mr. Willard M. Rokey, Chief Inspection-Investigation Division, to Urbana accompanied by Mr. R. M. Johnson, Chief Registration and Research Section of the Chicago Regional Office. These gentlemen were given headquarters space in the Iilini Union Building on the campus. They established contact with Mr. Robert G. Hughes and Mr. Arthur W. Tomp- kins, student veteran representatives on the board of directors of the Alumni Association, these students having made the report result- ing in our telegram to you. A total of 436 veteran students indicated there had been dclay in the payment of sub- sistence allowances. In most cases confu- sion seemed to exist in a misunderstanding as to the necessity of submitting reports of reentry into training by veterans who had completed the summer term and subse- quently entered the fall term. In many cases the veteran's claim file or his payment record were in other regional offices where the veteran had formerly re- sided and were therefore not available for prompt action. Several cases were duc to changed ad- dresses. This condition is particularly dis- tressing at the university becuuse of there being two cities, namely Urbana, the home of the university and Champaign, the home of a large percentage of the veteran students. The local post offices are prohibited by law from forwarding Government checks from Champaign to Urbana and vice versa, but must return them to the Treasury Disburs- ing Office from which they were issued. A request for our exception to this requirement was made by the university but was refused by the Chief Disbursing Officer of the United States Treasury. Another group failed to submit the report of earnings required by Public Law 679, Seventy-ninth Congress. In a few cases delay was caused by admin- istrative error by the Veterans’ Administra- tion and, in a few cases, to the inadvertent failure of the university to report correct information to the Veterans’ Administration. In some 65 cases the veterans’ complaints dealt with correctness of amount and ques- tions of dependency.
A1902 In our opinion the Veterans’ Administra- tion did a most commendable job in cor- recting a situation which was causing irri- tation among a cestain segment of the student body. We are enclosing a copy of a letter received from Mr. Charles G. Beck, Deputy Adminis- trator of the Veterans’ Administration Branch Office No. 7, Chicago, Ill. The officers and directors of the alumni association hope you will visit our offices whenever you are in the vicinity and we urge you to call upon us whenever we can be of service to you. Sincerely yours, Victor CULLIN, President, Lt. Col. Julian Killian EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WILLIAM J. MILLER OF CONNECTICUT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, March 10, 1947 Mr. MILLER of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, recently quite a few veterans have written to me protesting the pro- posed promotion of Lt. Col. Julian Kil- lian to the rank of colonel. While it is true that Members of the House will not have an opportunity to vote on the question of whether or not Lieutenant Colonel Killian should be promoted, I want to make the record quite clear that I am definitely opposed to any promotion for Lieutenant Colonel Killian. With thousands of well-trained offi- cers, many of whom have had combat experience and who now desire to stay in the Regular Army, I can see no justi- fication for keeping Lieutenant Colonel Killian in the Army with any rank what- soever. An officer, like every other citizen, is entitled to an opportunity to live down a mistake that he may have made. I can find no indication whatever that Lieutenant Colonel Killian is at all re- pentant. He should not be trusted with the lives and well-being of American soldiers. I hope some way will be found to elim- inate him from the rolls of the Army. Statement Before House Committee on Education and Labor EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOHN W. HESELTON OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 13, 1947 Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rrc- orp, I include a statement which I made last Monday before the House Commit- tee on Education and Labor, in support of House Resolutions 17, 34, 68, 75, and 6: . Representative Cas has presented a com- plete anal,sis of these five identical bills and of their objectives. It would be an imposi- tion upon you for me to duplicate that presentation. May I confine my remarks to one phase of this problem? There can be no dispute about the historical fact that the public health and public safety of this Nation has been endangered by labor disputes which have threatened the cessation or substantial curtailment of transportation, public utility, or communication services, or of the supplies of essential articles or commodities, We all recall the words of President Tru- man less than a year ago, on-May 25, 1946, at the joint session of the House and Sen- ate, when he described the railroad strike as one which threatened “to paralyze all our industrial, agricultural, commercial, and so- cial life,” and added that “food, raw mate- rials, fuel, shipping, housing, the public health, the public safety—all will be danger- ously affected.” Irrespective of differences of opinion as to the causes of that dispute or as to the wis- dom of the President’s proposal of legislation, no reasonable person can question the abso- lute truth of the President's description of the stark emergency facing the Nation that afternoon, Nor, can any reasonable person differ with the conclusion of our colleague, Congressman JOHN McCorMAcK, during de- bate that afternoon, that lack of action in the emergency then confronting the Nation would have impaired confidence in the Gov- ernment itself. I cannot share the confidence of those who oppose any proposal to meet realistically the possibility of a future great national] emer- gency of this character on the ground that it will never happen again. While I believe that these bills make careful and construc- tive provision for the voluntary settlement of such disputes, the single, vital question re- mains: What means is to be provided for the people, as a whole, through their Gov- ernment, to protect themselves in the ad- mittedly few, but crucially important, in- stances when public health or public safety would be endangered? We all hope that it would never be neces- sary to invoke the method here suggested. But, it seems to me, unless w? are willing to take the responsibility c’ leaving public health and public safety in jeopardy, we must provide a definite and effective method of meeting such a national emergency. We offer this as such a method. If it is not satisfactory, I submit that the burden is upon the opposition to present an alter- native. In the absence of any such alter- native before the expiration of the War Labor Disputes Act, the people of this country can be left helpless victims in such a crisis and their Government will be impotent to pro- tect them, H. R. 17 EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JAMES C. AUCHINCLOSS OF NEW JERSEY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 13, 1947 Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Mr. Speaker, under authority given to me to extend my remarks in the ReEcorp, I am includ- ing therein a statement made by me be- fore the Committee on Education and Labor on H. R. 17 on March 10, 1947. H. R. 17 is one of five identical bills introduced by Congressmen Herter, of Massachusetts; Hrese.ton, of Massachu- setts; Hatz, of Maine; and Casz, of New Jersey, and is generally known as Public Rights in Labor Disputes Act. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD I understand that the sponsors of these companion bills are placing the statements that they made before the Committee on Labor and Education in the Recorp, and I trust that the Mem- bers of Congress will take the opportu- nity to read them. The statement follows: Before considering the details of H. R. 17, it would be well to review to some extent the events which prompted its introduction in the Seventy-ninth Congress on June 28, 1946, by myself and four of my colleagues—Repre- sentatives HerTer, of Massachusetts; HESEL- TON, of Massachusetts; Hatz, of Maine; and Case, of New Jersey. It will be recalled that on May 25, 1946, the President appenred before a joint session of the House and Senate and made an ad- dress requesting emergency legislation to cope with the then threatened railroad strike. After his address, H. R. 6578 was introduced under the suspension of the rules, printed in typewritten form, and, under the limited debate of 40 minutes, was passed by a vote of 306 to 11, 111 not voting. This bill, urged on the Congress by the President of the United States, was about as drastic a piece of labor legislation as has ever been penned by the hand of man. The bill gave authority to the President of the United States to seize and operate any property where a strike was threatened or in progress and which would interfere with “public health or security.” Its main provi- sions were: (a) To authorize the institution of injunc- tive or mandatory proceedings against any union leader, forbidding him to encourage or incite members of the union to leave their work or to refuse to return to work, subject- ing him to contempt proceedings for failure to obey any order of the court made in such proceedings. (b) To deprive workers of their seniority rights who, without gond cause, persist in striking against the Government. (c) To provide criminal penalties against employers and union leaders who violate the provisions of the act. (dad) To provide that any employee who fails or refuses, without the permission of the President, to return to work for 24 hours after the finally effective data of his proclamation shall be inducted for service in the Army of the United States. (e) To provide that all profits of a corpora- tion seized by the Government shall go to the Treasury of the United States, even if the management is in no wise to blame for the strike. Everyone interested in the welfare of labor and a progressive and sound union movement would like to forget this proposed legislation, but in this discussion it is well that we do not forget it; rather it should be remembered and we should profit by that incident. I, with a number of others, voted for the measure, because the President stated that a sorious emergency existed and claimed that he was powerless to act. This claim of impotency ‘Was made in spite of the fact that under section 6 of the War Labor Disputes Act, generally known as the Smith-Connally Act, it is provided that it is unlawful for any per- son to “coerce, instigate, induce, conspire with, or encourage any person to interfere * ©* © strike * * * or other in- terruption with the operation” of any “plant, mine, or facility” in the possession of the United States or to aid any such strike by Giving “direction or guidance” in its con- duct, or by providing funds for its conduct or direction, or for the payment of strike, un- employment, or other benefits; and, gentle- men, this act expires soon. As a matter of fact, this provision of the law was called to the President's attention in a letter sent to him prior to his appeer- ance before the Congress and signed by 14
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Republican Members of the House, of whom I was one. It was the legislation proposed by the Pres- ident, H. R. 6578, Seventy-ninth Congress, which prompted the five of us to write a bill which would safeguard, as far as possible, the public interests in labor disputes. Therefore, on June 28, 1946, I and my colleagues intro- duced identical bills in the Seventy-ninth Congress, which bills were practically the same as those we have introduced in the Eightieth Congress. The drafting of this leg- islation was entrusted to Mr. Gerald Morgan, who is well and favorably known to many of ‘us as a former member of the drafting serv- ice of the House. At the time of the introduction of this bill in the Seventy-ninth Congress, we sent ccpies of it with a letter signed by all 5 of us to about 30 leaders of industry and economists throughout the country asking for their views and criticisms; the letter and copies of the bill were not sent to any representatives of labor because they had gone on record as being opposed to any legislation whatever. Replies were received during the summer months from practically all of the men to whom we had written, together with letters from others who had seen articles published in the press about these bills. I think it may be truthfully said that no two of these individuals agreed in their replies and there seemed to be an undercurrent of feeling that nothing should be done to interfere with labor and management in working out their own affrirs. Suggestions were made for the alteration of the Wagner Act in various particulars, for the establishment of so-called labor courts and so forth, but our efforts were confined to only one segment of this great industrial problem and our bills affect only disputes whcre the public health and safety are involved. On July 25, 1946, hearings on this ‘egislation were held by a subcommittee of the Labor Committee but no aciion was taken by the committee. The attitude of both labor and manage- ment reminded me of the days in the early thirties when legislation was being consid- ered affecting stock exchanges and the secu- rity business. I was an active participant in those discussions because at that time I was enguged in the security business in New York City and was a Governor of the New York Stock Exchange. It was the constant plea of the leaders of finance then that they be left alone to correct existing abuses in their own way and apply their own remedies. I did not agree to such a policy then, nor do I agree to such a policy today. Labor unions have become big business, affecting the eco- nomic life of the Nation, and the American people are demanding protection from their abuse of power. The public expects the Congress to do something about it and they would not be satisfied to have its solution left to either management or labor. I may say that it would be refreshing and helpful if the leaders of management and labor would consult to- gether and come forward with some plan which could be accepted as an effort to elimi- nate the strife and conflict so apparent in management-labor relationships. Briefly H. R. 17 and its companion bills provide: 1. That when the President of the United States shall declare that a “public emergency exists” because the public health and safety is, or is likely to be, in danger resulting from a labor-management dispute, he should order the parties at interest to cease or avoic all work stoppages and the Attorney General is authorized to enforce the compliance of the President’s order through injunction pro- ceedings in the United States district courts, 2. That if collective bargaining and volun- tarz arbitration have been tried and failed in the settlement of the dispute, then and only then is compulsory arbitration required and is provided for as follows: (a) A Labor Disputes Conciliation Admin- istration is created which takes over the Conciliation Service of the Department of Labor, in addition to other duties. (b) An Advisory Labor-Management Board of 14 members is created, made up of 7 indi- viduals chosen <rom labor and 7 from industry appointed by the President and con- firmed by the Senate. The duty of this Ad- visory Board is to consult and advise concern- ing the administration of the act and to rec- ommend to the President names of persons to serve on the arbitration panel. (c) An arbitration panel is set up which shall consist of not less than 30 members appointed by the President, recommended by the Advisory Labor-Management Board and confirmed by the Senate. Whenever the President shall declare the existence of an emergency, and all other efforts having failed after 30 days, a dispute must be submitted to arbitration. Each party to the dispute shall select an arbitrator from this panel of arbi- trators and the two arbitrators thus selected shall select a third arbitrator who may be either & member ot the panel or some indi- vidual not a member. The act provides that the decision of these arbitrators shall be binding on the parties in dispute for a period of 6 months unless modified by mu- tual agreement. If any individual does not wish to work under the terms of the arbi- tration, he does not have to, although the richt to strike is taken away. (d) Efther party who dees not accept or live up to the award of the arbitrators may be adjudged in contempt, and, if found guiliy, be punished in accordance with the law governing contempt. Representatives of both labor and manage- ment have expressed horror at the thought of compulsory arbitration. They look upon it as something un-American and to be avoided at all costs; but no one has yet sug- gested anything better than compulsory arbi- tration after all other efforts to scttle a dis- pute have been cxhausted. Compulsory arbi- tration seems to be the only alternative be- cause the welfare of our country will not permit matters to drift any longcr as they have in the past, resulting in a wasteful wake of inactivity, curtailment of production, loss of snvings, and gcneral demoralization of the workingman which has inevitably followed the strikes of the past year. If both management and labor are so bit- terly opposed to compulsory arbitration as provided in this bill, then the parties in dis- pute will exert the greatest efforts to reach an agreement before the inevitable final step of compulsory arbitration is taken. It seems to me that much good is coming from the hearings now being held by this great committee on this problem, because it 1s becoming more apparent as the days go by that in the final analysis no one gains by a strike. Management, with its loss of busi- ness, certainly does not; the workingman, with his income cut off for an indefinite pe- Tiod, does not; and, most of all, the gencral economy of the country suffers, and this af- fects every citizen alike, whether he be pro- ducer or consumer. However, I have yet to hear of a labor leader who has suffered by reason of his union being on strike; he seems to be the only one who does not lose. This bill and its companions are properly called the Public Rights in Labor Disputes Act because their entire purpose is to pre- vent a public disaster resulting from a strike which affects the public health and safety. This bill is simple, direct, and clear in its purpose, and while it may not be perfect in its provisions I am sure that those of us who have introduced this measure are ready to accept any constructive amendments. So far, we believe no one has suggested any- thing better, and I strongly urge the com- mittee to give these bills favorable consid- eration. A1003 Anniversary of the Birth of Luther Burbank EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CLARENCE F. LEA OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 13, 1947 Mr. LEA. Mr. Speaker, 98 years ago this month Luther Burbank was born at Lancaster, Mass. For many years prior to his death his residence was at Santa Rosa, Calif., where I live and had the Pleasure and honor of his friendship. His contribution to the development of plant life and to the improvement of vegetable and fruit products entitles him to be ranked among the great men of our country of his generation. Mr. Burbank was not a product of our conventional school or college system. His accomplishments were obtained be- yond rather than on account of conven- tional methods. With an intense de- votion to his work and with a patience that few men possess, he carried on with tireless energy and with a happiness that sprang from the love of his work. To his understanding nature revealed her hidden secrets for the blessing of man- kind. I am pleased to know that, on Monday evening, March 17, at 8 o’clock eastern standard time, the superb Lionel Barry- more will broadcast over the National Broadcasting System, giving a human- interest story of this great plant wizard. I am sure that those who are fortunate enough to hear will find an inspiration in listening to a brief sketch of the life story of this fascinating character. Flood Protection Is Vital to Kansas City EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ALBERT L. REEVES, JR. OF MISSOURI IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 13, 1947 Mr. REEVES. Mr. Speaker, the Con- gress has recognized the imperative need of flood protection in the vicinity of Kansas City, Mo., by approving a flood control program for the Missouri River at that point. Without such a program the municipal airport and a large indus- trial area are periodically subjected to the threat of flooding and tremendous damage. Funds made available for the purpose have been and are being expended to excellent advantage in partial comple- tion of the program. But it is of critical importance that the work be continued without interruption and completed at the earliest possible date. I urge that the Appropriations Com- mittee include, and that the Congress approve, funds necessary for the orderly and uninterrupted progress of the flood control plan at Kansas City. In this connection I have received from the
A1004 Honorable William E. Kemp, mayor of Kansas City, Mo., the following letter and resolution of the city council: OFFICE OF THE MAYOR, Kansas City, Mo., February 27, 1947, Hon. ALBERT L. REEVES, Jr., House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. REEVES: I am forwarding to you e resolution adopted by the unanimous vote of the city council of Kansas City with re- spect to the completion of the flood-protec- tion project in the Kansas City area. The urgent need for this protection is univer- sally recognized by everyone familiar with the facts. Upon the authority of the Army engineers charged with this work, piecemeal construc- tion is far more costly than a continued and uninterrupted prosecution of the work es- sential to the carrying out of the plan that has, as I understand it, received congres- sional approval. Until this plan is complet- ed we are faced with the annual recurring threat of a major flood that would do in- calculable damage to property, with the strong possibility of destruction of life as well. The engineers have pointed out that the ratio of benefits to costs is approximately four to one for the Kansas Citys. We sincerely hope, therefore, that you will, in harmony with the enclosed resolution, urge the Congress the importance of making sufficient funds available to permit this flood protection work in this area to go forward in an orderly and economical manner. Sincerely yours, W.E. Kemp, Mayor. Resolution requesting the Congress of the United States to make funds available for the immediate construction of flood pro- tection works for the northeast industrial district of Kansas City, Mo., and the cen- tral industrial district of Kansas City, Mo., and Kansas City, Kans. Whereas the flood control problem of the Greater Kansas Citys is nationally recog; nized by the United States Engineers as one of the most critical in the United States. The cyclic occurrence of major floods in this area indicates that a major flood can be ex- pected in any of the next few years, threat- ening calculable dumages from a major flood of at least $60,000,000 in the unprotected areas thus subject to overflow from the Missouri and Kansas Rivers; and Whereas the flood protection plan devel- oped by the United States Engineers for the Kansas Citys’ area, consisting of nine major units with a degree of justification repre- sented by the ratio of potential loss to cost of protection works, of more than three to one, has been approved by the Congress and authorized under the Flood Control Act of 1936, as amended by the Flood Control Act of 1944; and Whereas local coordination and prosecu- tion of the plan has been carried on for more than 12 ycars by the Flood Protec- tion Planning Committee of Greater Kansas City at considerable local expense defrayed by contributions and local public funds but the initiation of this work was delayed for many years due to causes beyond the con- trol of the present city government, and no unit has yet been completed, the work hav- ing been resumed in 1946 after being inter- rupted for 5 years, due to the World War; and Whereas Kansas City, Mo., has provided the rights-oi-way for the flood-protection works for the portion of the central industrial district within the city, and said works are partially constructed but cannot be made effective without the completion of the works in Kansas City, Kans., adjacent thereto and an essential part thereof, and Kansas City, Mo.,, is in process of acquiring rights-of-way for the levees for the protection of the northeast industrial district, and plans for the next series of protective works are ready for advertisement; and Whereas the slowness in prosecuting these works {s uneconomical and is costing the city unnecessary funds in furnishing its part in the cooperative effort, and the prog- ress of Kansas City is being impeded due to such slowness in getting these projects under way, so that many industries desiring to locate in this area have decided to locate in protected areas in other communities: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Council of Kansas City, Mo., That the council do, and does hereby, respectfully petition the Congress of the United States to make funds available suffi- cient to immediately initiate construction of the levees and flood-protection works for the protection of the northeast industrial district, Kansas Oity, Mo., and for the com- pletion of the flood-protection works for the central industria] district of Kansas City, Mo., and Kansas City, Kans. Reviewed by the city manager. . L. P. CooxkINcHaAM, City Manager. Approved as to form and legality. BrnJ. M. POWERS, Associate City Counselor. Authenticated as adopted this February 17, 1947. WruirAM E. Kemp, Mayor, FLoOURNOY QUEST, City Clerk, Homer R. DILte, Deputy City Clerk. [SEAL] Relief of Suffering in Europe EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. E. (EDWARD) A. MITCHELL OF INDIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 13, 1947 Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, about 10 days ago I received a letter from one of my constituents. I believe this letter is one of the finest I have had the privi- lege of receiving since coming to Con- gress, I think the lady who wrote this letter is an example of the true American spirit. I feel if there were more people in this world who were fortunate enough to possess the very fine Christian atti- tude which she has, we would soon be free from the problems of compulsory military training, atom bomb secrets and general distrust throughout the world. I am indeed honored to count this lady among my constituents. The letter follows: EVANSVILLE, IND., February 26, 1947. Representative Ep. A. MITCHELL: Recently from several sources we have been hearing of hunger in Europe even in American occupied territory. I am enclos- ing one source of information. Isn't there something more we can do to relieve this suffering? Personally I’d rather pay higher taxes than to know that my selfishness had caused suffering to someone else. Are as many orphans and displaced per- sons as can be assimilated being sent to America? It would seem to me that many, if not all, healthy orphans under 5 could be placed in American homes for adoption or boarded out. We have three orphans in our home via Welfare Department. If we were younger and financially able, I believe I'd ask for a APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD couple from Europe. We had five of our own, three in service during the war, one didn’t come back. Sincerely, Rusy M. PARKHURST (Mrs, CO, W.). Yenan Cathedral Used by Reds to Store Grain EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. THOMAS J. LANE OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 13, 1947 Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I include in the Appendix of the Recorp the following article by Rev. Patrick O’Connor, S. 5. C., special correspondent, National Catholic Welfare Council News Service: YENAN CATHEDRAL UsEep By REDS To STORE GraIn—So.e NATIVE PRIEST RESTRICTED TO Two ScHOOLROOMS FOR CHURCH, RECTORY; COMMUNISM REIGNS (By Rev. Patrick O’Connor, 8. 8. C.) YeNnaAN, Cu1na, March 5.—An armed Com- munist soldier stands at the gateway leading to the Catholic church on the outskirts of this remote capital of China’s Reds. It is the only church in Yenan and was the first building we saw from the plane as we flew down the long valley at the end of a cold, 8-hour flight from Peiping. Apparently few of the correspondents who have visited Yenan have made the dusty 5-mmile journey out of Yenan to inspect this church. I found Red troops occupying all buildings within the church compound except two rooms of the primary school. They are used as a chapel and a living room by the youth- ful Father Aloysius Liang, who was allowed to return here last May as Yenan’s first resi- dent priest in 11 years. The large church—St. Mary's Cathedral, of the Yenan diocese—is used to store grain by the Communist troops. Millet and corn are heaped up against what were once the side altars. I saw peasants carrying in sacks of grain, their tax for support of the Red Army. Inside Communist soldiers stood around watching me curiously. The high altar has been torn out. Every window has been broken. Dust and dirt lie thick on the wrecked sanctuary. Shreds of Communist posters adhere to the inner walls. Nothing religious is visible. Comrade Ma Mu-Min, Communist laison official, who neve: left me during my three visits to the church, hastened to explain: “These troops are only passing through. They must store their rations somewhere.” PRIEST IS GAGGED Father: Liang did not reply when I ad- dressed him in Latin. This amazed me, since Chinese priests ure noted for their fluency in Latin conversation. But you can’t be long in Yenan without guessing the explanation. Here it’s unhealthy to speak any language that the Communist listener does not under- stand. My conversations, therefore, were in my meager Chinese or in English with Mr. Ma translating. The church has served for various Com- munist purposes since the priests, Spanish Franciscans and Chinese, were forced to flee in 1985. The Reds used it for a party train- ing cchool and for Communist meetings. In 1944 the church was reopened briefly for re- ligious purposes when Father Cormac Shan- ahan, a Passionist priest whom the local Catholics remember gratefully as “Sia Shen-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD fu,” came to Yenan with a party of inquisitive United States correspondents from Chung- king. He was allowed to celebrate Mass twice here, Last March a French Jesuit, Father Bon- ningue, visiting Yenan on his way from Pei- ping, offered mass here. When Father Liang arrived in May the church apparently was made available to him, but in its unrestored condition. In November the Red troops re- occupied it. The Catholic orphanage building on an ad- jacent hill is now a Communist medical school. Prior to last November the Reds used the bishop's and the priests’ residences for hospital purposes. A Communist art school also used one of the mission buildings. Father Liang, who is a native of this vil- lage, was ordained in 1940 in a neighboring province and made post-graduate studies at the Catholic University of Peiping. He is the only priest in the Red-occupied area of Shenshi Province. There are five parishes here which have been without priests for 11 years. His nearest priest neighbors within this Communist-administered border region are each 8 days’ journey from him. One is a South American missionary in Kansu and the other is a Belgian in Ningshia. WOMEN KEEP FAITH ALIVE Cecelia and Mary, two black-garbed, pri- vately dedicated religious women, who have served the cause of religion everywhere in China for more than 20 years, came to Yenan from martyr-hallowed Taiyuan to conduct an orphanage. They had cared for more than 400 orphans when the Reds arrived. The orphans were dispersed, but Cecelia and Mary stayed on, living in the village first with one family and then another, keeping a spark of the Faith alight. They were probably in- strumental in obtaining permission for Father Liang to come here. Mao Tze-Tung, Communist chairman, and Gen. Chou En Lai have intervened twice to mitigate the disabilities of Catholics here. Mr. Mao had the two rooms painted for Father Liang and General Chou sent medi- cines to the religious women. Through the inescapable Communist in- terpreter, I talked to a Catholic from an- other village. “Most of my village used to be Catholic,” he said. “We had a priest, a church, and a school, Now we have had no priest since 19384. Some of the Catholic fam- ilies have moved away. Those who remain are not as fervent as when they had the priest.” His village now has no school of any kind. His son, age 14, has not made his first con- fession. “There is no priest for the sick and dying,” he said. Since his village is not very distant from here, it is clear that Father Liang 1s not free to circulate in outlying missiogs. I offered High Mass in his improvised chapel here pn Sunday. Some 70 persons, in- cluding, of course, Mrs. Ma, attended. About eight received Holy Communion. Few, if emy, teen-age boys and girls were present, but the congregation sang Missa de Angelis excellently. Study of Civil Government in Schools of Florence, S. C. EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOHN L. McMILLAN OF SOUTE CAROLINA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 13, 1947 Mr. McMILLAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I include in the Recorp a letter and a copy of a bill drafted and enacted into a law by Mr. George McLeod, a student in the Florence, 8. C., schools. Our Government is the only govern- ment in the world that is functioning satisfactorily at the present time. We have the finest country in the world, and this is due to a great extent to the type of government we have. I know that it will be gratifying to every Member of Congress and the Senate to learn that the young people in our country are tak- ing a definite interest in our Govern- ment. We all realize that the burden of carrying on our Government increases daily, and especially now since we have dedicated ourselves to become a part of a world government. Every student in the United States should be required to take courses in civil government so that he would be acquainted as to how his Government functions. I want to congratulate George Mc- Leod and the other students, and also the schools of my city of F'orence, S. C., on the interest they have expressed in their Government. The responsibilities of this Govern- ment will rest on the shoulders of the young men and women of this country within the next few years, and I am glad to know that they are getting prepared for this task. The letter and bill follow: Frorence, 8. C., March 4, 1947, Dear Mr. McMILLAN: I'll bet you will be surprised to find out that I have temporarily assumed the use of your name, and I hope that you will not mind. My seventh-grade class has just written and passed a bill Each of us had to choose the name of a real Senator or Representative. We went through all the regular procedures, having sessions of both Houses, committees, ete. Iam enclosing a copy of our bill as passed, and signed by the Speaker of the House, President pro tempore of the Senate, and President Truman. Sincerely, Grorcz McLrgp (Alias Representative John L. McMillan.) Whereas communism and its related fac- tions are fast becoming a threat to democ- racy in these United States; Whereas in future times, other enemies of democracy may rise, we do hereby propose the following: Item 1: The enforcement of this bill shall be under the guidance of a special division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Item II: Any candidate for a position in the United States Government or any em- ployee of the United States Government if so accused, must prove in good faith that he is not a member of, or in sympathy with, any of the aforesaid factions hostile to de- mocracy; Item Ill: Any Government employee charged with treason shall be deported: should the treason be of a serious and highly aggravated nature such as to warrant capital punishment this shall be so inflicted. Item IV: Treason charges against the aforesaid shall be duly executed in a Fed- eral court of Justice; the decision of the court aball be final except in such instances when just cause shall be shown for an appeal to the Bupreme Court. A1005 Signed, sealed, and delivered on the 27th or of February, in the year of our Lord JoszPH W. MARTIN, Speaker of the House. ARTHUR VANDENBERG, President pro tempore of the Senate. Harry 8S. TRuMAN, President of the United States. Efforts To Fight Communism With Dollars Seen as Futile Policy EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HOWARD A. COFFIN OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 13, 1947 Mr. COFFIN. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rec- orp, I include the following editorial from the Detroit Free Press of March 9, 1947: Errorts To Ficht ComMuNIsmM WiTH DOLLARS SEEN AS FUTILE POLICY Pleas by the Greek Government for sub- stantiol assistance to prevent that stricken country's economic collapse should be viewed realistically by the people of the United States, Sentimentally, our hearts go out to the Greeks, who are torn by civil dissension re- sulting from Great Britain's insistence that King George II. a Mstless and near-Fuscist ruler, be returned to the throne. We share also her fears of Russian aggres- sion and sympathize deeply with a gallant people facing up to the inevitable break- down of an already tottering economy. Since Great Britain, Greece's traditional protector, has served notice that she can no longer support a substantial army in Greece to preserve order, the problem is thrown squarely in our laps because we are so closely tied to British foreign policy. The State Department is apparently com- mitted to Greek asssitance in the amount of $350,000,000. It is explained publicly that a sum of this size is necessary to purchase food, clothing, and other emergency essentials. Additionally, the Greek note to the United States explained that American technical ex- perts are needed to help the country get to her feet. What neither the State Department nor the Greek diplomatic dispatch did say—and this is the real issue—is that American money, and perhaps her soldiers, must be used if we are to prevent the spread of com- munism throughout the Balkans and the rest of Europe. The argument, freely used by high officials and military leaders in off-the-record ses- sions with Washington newspaper corre- spondents, is “fight communism with dollars.” It is a cry that will be heard much more frequently and openly in the months and years to come. It is an assertion that should be sharply challenged before it becomes, through public inertia and Government propaganda, the pattern for our future foreign policy. Isn’t it high time that we came to grips with the facts? American dollars failed to resolve the polit- ical differences in China between Generalis- simo Chiang Kai-shek and the Communists. We threw away hundreds of millions in a vain effort to bring order out of chaos and came away with nothing but the bitter taste of another political retreat. George Weller, of the Chicago Daily News Foreign Service, says that the postwar policy
A1006 of “pay, preach, and retreat,” which has failed on a gigantic scale in China, has failed in the Balkans, too, and it has cost the American people in postwar aid nearly $500,- 000,000 to lose their political shirts at the “little table” in tiny Greece as at the “big table” in China. The Free Press favored the British loan as an outright gift, with no thought that it would ever be repaid. We believed that the gift of a few billion dollars would prove either that Great Britain could survive as a great power with this assistance or that her economy had disintegrated so badly that it could no longer be propped up, even with American financial support. The British are now back in the market for another “loan.” We made u very sizable loan to France, tim- ing it to provide a potent argument for the Rightists in the French elections. Yet France, with no semblance of strong leadership or direction, continues to drift gradually to the left. In the case of Greece, British insistence upon restoration of the monarchy prevented the people from having a government of their own choosing. We have backed the British experiment in Greece to the hilt and now find ourselves the unhappy legatees of a moral and material bankruptcy. Can we fight communism with dollars? The projected $350,000,000 gift to Greece is but another in a series of well-intentioned but utterly futile efforts to buy off the Com- munists at so much a head. The history of the world proves that indi- viduals with strong ideological convictions are not for sale at any price, except when it suits their purpose to be cooperative until the money has been spent. There might be some military justification for the Greek gift if, in return, we obtained a few naval bases in Greece and Turkey. Financially, it could be justified if Britain agreed to transfer Greek credits frozen in London to the United States so that Greece could buy some of the things it needs with its own money instead of borrowing from us. It might even be morally justifiable if it meant a thorough political housecleaning in Greece with new elections so that the people might select the type of government they prefer. But, as George Weller points out, we are in effect only throwing more money into the bottomless kitty of nations who have anti- communism for sale. Can we fight communism with dollars? For one, I am convinced that we cannot. The tragic plight of the Greek: can be al- leviated through privately supported groups such as the Greek War Relief Association, which has had years of experience in this field. Our Government should be ready to ship surpluses of food and supplies and let their distribution be supervised by trained and competent organizations which understand the problem. But the policy of paying Greece to support @ token force of British troops as a bulwark against the vastly superior Russian armies in the northern Balkans is unrealism at its worst. . For once, I agree with Senator CLAUDE Pepper in his suggestion that the Greek question be referred to the United Nations on the theory that it is a global problem vitally affecting the peace of the world. ' As time goes on and international diffi- culties increase, it will be impossible for the United States to patch up the remnants of shaky regimes and empires the world over. If the United Nations is to refute the rising tide of cynical comment that it is just another debating society, the Palestine and Greek problema must have its immedi- ate attention. At this point, someone may well ask: “If we are not to fight communism with dollars, what is the solution?” Unfortunately, the very simplicity of the question makes the answer more difficult. There seems to be almost universal agree- ment that communism is abhorrent to free- men. But who shall say that the people of any nation may not have communism if that is what they desire? If the ideological and military confilct with Russia is as inevitable as the wise men of the radio proclaim it to be, another little nation or two gone communistic won't prove to be the deciding factor in an atomic war. Let them demonstrate whether the com- munistic system can be successful. Let it be shown that people are happier without free speech, free elections, and freedom of oppor- tunity. The capitalistic system is under constant attack from disaffected Americans who cm- phasize its imperfections while enjoying all of its benefits. Perhaps the communistic system can pro- vide better living conditions, more abundant crops, finer curs, superior household acces- sories, and greater liberty than we have in America. Possibly some people could be happier liv- ing under the constant scrutiny of the secret police. Even a few of our sons and daugh- ters see considerable merit in the commu- nistic system. Let this be shown. We might all be convinced. Meanwhile, efforts to combat communism in the Balkans with American dollars are not likely to succeed. Then when we have bankrupted ourselves trying to bail out the staggering nations of Europe communism will have a field day in the United States. Of course, the capitalistic system will be blamed for the debacle when actually it is being drained so systematically that even today it has considerable less than an even chance to prove its worth. We have poured forth a golden and seem- ingly endless stream of American dollars in our policy of “pay, preach, and retreat.” With nothing to show for our immature generosity except more calls for help, the time has come to call a halt before we join our friends in the international bread line. JOHN 8, KNIGHT. Discriminatory Action of Interstate Com- merce Commission Against Pacific Coast Steel Plant EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. CHET HOLIFIELD OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 13, 1947 Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Speaker, dur- ing World War II, the State of California finally obtained the construction of a basic, independent steel-manufacturing plant. The great steel monopoly corporations opposed the entry of an independent steel company into the Pacific coast market. Every tactic of delay and ob- struction was used to prevent its being. Their opposition was overcome by the genius and persistence of the Henry Kaiser organization. The plant was con- structed, but the opposition continues. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD I submit the following facts for the RECORD: The ICC held a public hearing at 10 a. m., March 11, regarding a proposed freight-rate reduction granted only to the United States Steel Corp. for ship- ment of its steel products from its Geneva, Utah, plant to Pacific coast points. This rate was granted by cer- tain railroads to United States Steel even though Kaiser Co., Inc., and other com- panies for months—since July 1946—had formally requested comparable competi- tive reductions. This reduction will benefit only United States Steel and its favored customers. Kaiser Co. is fighting for reduced rates for all and is opposed to this favoritism to United States Steel. The Kaiser Co. is carrying on the fight directly to the ICC for lower western freight rates for all. As a means of ac- complishing these lower rates for all, Kaiser Co. has no alternative but to now contest this discriminatory rate reduc- tion. This freight-rate question is but one phase of a mighty struggle between the power of huge companies and the eco- nomic freedom of the West. The de- cision on this freight rate matter can well determine whether the West is to be free of monopoly and of the domi- nance of great corporations. The Kaiser Co.’s Fontana steel plant is the West’s only free, independent, integrated steel plant. It must fight this freight-rate favoritism to United States Steel and this discriminatory rate. The rules and procedures of the Interstate Commerce Commission are such that at this time we can only carry on the fight for equity of freight rates for all by filing a technical protest in the prescribed manner. This we have done. At the hearings before the ICC in Washington on Tuesday, March 11, counsel for Kaiser Co.—Thomas Mc- Carthy, of San Francisco—will appear and protest the reduction of the pro- posed freight rate to United States Steel alone. It will also be pointed out how prejudicial this reduction is to Fontana, the West's only independent, integrated steel plant. The following is a brief statement of events and facts pertaining to this mat- er: * First. Fontana applied to the railroads for lower rates at the same time United States Steel did—July 1946. Second. The railroad rate bureaus held several hearings on these applica- tions in 1946. Third No action was taken in 1946 by the railroud rate bureaus on either Fon- tana’s application or the United States Steel application. Fourth. While these applications for reduced rates for both Fontana and United States Steel were still pending the ICC in December 1946 authorized a 17.6 percent blanket increase in freight rates for all United States railroads ef- fective January 1, 1947. This increase added $600,000 annually to Fontana’s freight bill. The ICC authorized this increase to all United States railroads on a basis of need and necessity.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Fifth. On January 10, 1947, 10 days after the blanket increase became effec- tive, the railroad rate bureau reduced the Uliited States Steel’s Geneva, Utah, freight rate to the Pacific coast 31 per- cent. This reduction would result in a discriminatory advantage of from one to two million dollars a year, depending on the volume of Geneva shipments. Sixth. Fontana must still pay the higher rate. Seventh. Fontana believes it and other shippers are entitled to equitable and fair treatment. Eighth. The only legal way this can be brought to an issue before the ICC is for Fontana and others to protest this discriminatory reduction to United States Steel alone. Ninth. That is why Kaiser Co. filed a protest with ICC. This is why Kaiser Co. is appearing today before the ICC in this matter. It has no other recourse. Tenth. The California State Assembly on Friday, March 7, adopted a resolu- tion protesting the discriminatory freight rates in the shipment of steel from the Kaiser Fontana plant as between rates from the United States Steel Geneva, Utah, plant. The resolution requested the ICC to investigate and equalize the rates to eliminate discrimination. Public Rights in Labor Disputes EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CLIFFORD P. CASE OF NEW JERSEY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 13, 1947 Mr. CASE of New Jersey. Mr. Speak- er, under leave to extend my remarks, I include @ statement which I submitted oh March 10, 1947, to the Committee on Education and Labor in support of the proposed Public Rights in Labor Disputes Act embodied in the following identical bills: H. R. 17, introduce by Representa- tive AucHtncLoss, of New Jersey; H. R. 34, introduced by myself; H. R. 68, intro- duced by Representative Hate, of Maine; H. R. 75, introduced by Representative HesE._Ton, of Massachusetts; and H. R. 76, introduced by Representative HErtsr, of Massachusetts: Work STOPPAGES ENDANGERING THE PUBLIC HEALTH oR SaFsTy CANNOT BE PERMITTED— Some LEcmsLaTive SOLUTION Must BE Pro- VIDED Until quite recently disputes between management and labor were not a matter of great concern to the general public. Our economic system was relatively simple and the great majority of people were compara- tively independent economically of one an- other. Furthermore, labor was weak and in most cases strikes and lockouts were of short duration. The situation is completely reversed today. Our economic system is complex and highly specialized. The great majority of people are dependent upon the continuous activity of many others for their day-to-day existence. Our food, shelter, light, and heat, and in al- most every case our job, depend upon an un- interrupted supply of materials and of power, transportation, and distribution services. At the same time, organized labor has grown in strength and in staying power to the point where it can do battle on at least equal terms with management and work stoppages may result of indefinite duration, depriving the public of the goods and services on which our existence depends. Centralization of control in labor organizations has given a relatively few men, and in some cases a single indi- vidual, the ability to bring the entire econ- omy of the country to a standstill. Work stoppages can no longer be tolerated where the public health and safety are en- dangered. The wartime powers of the Gov- ernment, inadequate as they have proved to be, will soon expire. The situation requires that some machinery be provided to take their place. The public also insiste that this be done. The Government cannot be left impotent to deal with these situations. The question is no longer whether we should take action, the only question is what sort of ac- tion should be taken. WHAT FORM SHOULD SUCH LEGISLATION TAKE? Two general lines of approach have been suggested: (a) To weaken one party or the other to labor disputes so that that party either quickly capitulates or never dares risk a test of strength with its adversary: or (b) To prohibit by law work stoppages (whether strikes or lock-outs) by which the public health or safety would be endangered and, since no man can be compelled, in our free system, to work for or to employ another upon the latter’s terms, to provide some alternative means for the settlement of their dispute. With all deference to the suggestions made by Senator Bau and others, it is submitted that there is little prospect that the first al- ternative will be adopted. It appears, there- fore, that there is no choice but to adopt the second, We believe that our bill presents a method for dealing with the situation which would be both reasonable and effective. Before dis- cussing its provisions in some detail, however, I should like to suggest a few general prin- ciples which I believe should be followed in deciding what method of approach should be employed: 1. Every dispute which can be settled vol- untarily should be so settled, and every pos- sible encouragement and assistance to volun- tary settlements should be provided. 2. Where intervention by Government is necessary, State and local governments should have the responsibility and should be permitted by the Federal Government to ex- ercise the responsibility for handling just as many of these situations as it is possible for them to do. 8. Government seizure should not be re- sorted to in any event. : 4. When intervention by the Federal Gov- ernment is required, the machinery provided should be such as to minimize the danger of regimentation. Thus it seems highly desir- able that the adjudicating body should be neither a Government agency nor a perma- nent agency of any sort. Rather, each dis- pute should be decided on an individual basis by a group of persons brought together to settle that particular dispute and, as far as possible, selected by the parties themselves, A SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED PUBLIC RIGHTS IN LABOR DISPUTES ACT Our ‘bill has two broad purposes: A. The improvement of all labor-industry relations by strengthening the conciliation services of the Federal Government, Under this heading our bill would create a Labor Disputes Conciliation Administration as an independent Federal agency; the con- Ciliation functions of the Department of Labor would be abolished, and all Federal conciliation functions concentrated in the new independent Conciliation Administra- tion. The Conciliation Administration would be headed by an Administrator, appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of A1007 the Senate, with up to three Assistant Ad- ministrators, and such staff and personnel as appropriations permitted. The duty of the Conciliation Administra- tion would be to offer conciliation services in labor disputes affecting the public interest and to help the parties s ttle their differences by negotiation and agreement rather than by strikes and lock-outs. The conciliation Administration would have a labor-management advisory commit- tee, consisting of seven members representing labor and seven representing business man- agement, all appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The committee would meet at least every two months and advise the Administrator on the workings of the act. (The committee would also have another important function here- inafter referred to.) B. The other broad purpose of our bil) is to prevent work stoppages (and provide for their termination if they have already oc- curred) if the public health and safety would be endangered thereby. The bill would work this way: (a) The President must find: 1, That a public emergency exists or is imminently threatened by the suspension or substantial curtailment of transportation, public-utility or communication services, or supplies of articles or commodities essential to the public health or safety as a recult of a labor dispute affecting interstate or foreign commerce; 2, that the public health or safety is en- Gangered or likely to be endangered; and 3. that local governmental facilities to pre- vent the work stoppage are not being or can- not be effectively utilized. (b) Upon making such findings, the Presi- dent shall issue an order forbidding the work stoppage (or requiring its termination if it has already occurred) and requiring that the status quo be maintained (or that the situa- tion existing before the work stoppage, if one has already occurred, be reestablished and maintained) while the machinery which the bill provides for the settlement of the dispute is in operation. (c) The settlement machinery is as fol- lows: 1. The parties are given 30 days to reach @ voluntary agreement or to submi) their dispute to voluntary arbitration. 2. If the parties have not done one thing or the other within 30 days, the President may at once, and after 15 additional days must, direct the submission of the dispute to compulsory arbitration. 8. If compulsory arbitration is necessary !t shall be conducted by a | oard of three arbi- trators, one such arbitrator being chosen by each party from a permanent panel of at least 30 provided for by the bill, and the third by the first two—the Administrator to choose an arbitrator for either party if he fails or refuses to select his own. 4. The award of the arbitrators is binding upon both parties for 6 months unless modi- fied by mutual agreement. It may be en- forced in the same manner as 4n award under the United States Arbitration Act. (ad) The members of the permanent panel of arbitrators from which the parties would select the arbitrators for their particular dis- putes would be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The bill provides that the Labor-Management Advisory Committee, already mentioned, shall suggest names to the President for ap- pointment to this panel and if the President appoints persons other than those suggested by the committee he must give his reasons for doing so. (e) The President's orders prohibiting, or directing the ending of, work stoppages and Tequiring maintenance of the status quo would be enforced by injunctions issued by the United States district courts upon ap- plication only by the Attorney General of
A1008 the United States. In such injunction pro- ceedings the essential provisions of existing law with respect to que process, namely, pro- visions for verified complaints, hearings in open court before issuance of injunctions (other than temporary restraining orders), and jury trials for contempts are main- tained. (f) The bill contains nothing that could be construed to require any individual to perform labor or services without his con- sent. Indeed, it explicitly provides that no order of the President shall be construed to require any person unwillingly to perform labor or service. What the bill does prevent, so far as employees are concerned, is con- certed action by way of strikes in the very limited situations where work stoppages affecting interstate or foreign commerce would endanger the public health or safety. (g) To safeguard workers whose right to strike in these essential industries would be taken away the bill provides specifically that the arbitrators shall recognize that such workers should have at least as favorable a status in the matter of the terms and con- ditions of their employment as that enjoyed by workers in other industries. A WORKABLE SOLUTION, AVOIDING REGIMENTA- TION, WITH A MINIMUM OF GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTION We believe that our bill meets the tests outlined earlier in this statement. 1. It encourages voluntary settlements. In this connection it should be noted that it makes possible submission by the parties to voluntary arbitration if they prefer that method. 2. It gives local and State governments first opportunity to deal with all disputes within their jurisdiction if they can handle them adequately. 8. It does not involve Government seizure or operation of any business. 4. Finally, we believe that our bill avoids the dangers of regimentation. (a) It differs completely from proposals which have been made for labor courts or other permanent Government agencies em- powered to fix contract terms binding upon the parties to industrial disputes. Such pro- posals, we believe, would inevitably lead to decisions based upon political considerations, to the establishment of fixed and rigid wage structures and policies, and ultimately to governmental control over prices, allocation of products and services, and indeed all phases of our economic life. Our bill would provide an ad hoc method of settlement for each dispute. No two arbitration boards would be the same, they would in no sense be governmental agencies, no precedents would be established, and no governmental policies would be created. The Government could not in any way intervene in any dis- pute, nor could it determine the terms of its settlement. (b) Moreover, the application of our bill would be limited to the very few cases of great national emergency—in our view the remedy should be very sparingly applied or its effectiveness would be lost. (c) So far as regimentation is concerned, we believe that, unless action is taken by Congress to provide the Government with adequate power to deal with this vital but limited class of cases, there is great danger that the public will insist on some drastic form of regimentation applied on a much wider scale, perhaps to all labor-industry dis- putes. The great question, of course, is whether our bill will do the job. The usual argu- ment will be made that “you can't force a Man to work.” We admit that under our institutions a man cannot be compelled to work against his will. We don't try to make him by our bill. But, in the restricted situations in which our bill would apply, we can and would make strikes illegal. We believe this is nec- essary and proper and we are convinced that the great weight of opinion is in accord. Moreover, we make such strikes unnecessary by providing a substitute means of arriving at settlements of labor-industry disputes which we think is adequate and fair. We believe that the overwhelming majority of the public generally and of the people in labor's ranks will agree on this also. Public opinion will not tolerate, much less support, a strike by which the public health or safety is endangered and which it considers both illegal and unnecessary. Without public support no such strike would succeed and, we believe, few are likely to be attempted. If a few reckless and irresponsible individu- als should attempt one, it would quickly col- lapse under the force of public opinion and the sanctions provided by our bill. The substantial objection to compulsory arbitration on the part of management Is based on its fear of regimentation. We rec- ognize the validity of this objection and, as explained above, we believe our bill avoids this danger. The legitimate objections of labor must also be considered. They are based upon the fear that the right to strike cannot he taken away without depriving them of an essential means of realizing their just demands. Also labor hesitates to concede that the right to strike may properly be denied or limited un- der any circumstances for fear that a prece- dent will be established for denying or re- stricting strikes in all circumstances. We submit that our bill meets these ob- jections also. (a) The right to strike in the cases to which our bill applies is not necessary to se~ cure fair treatment for labor. The system of arbitration established by our bill provides ample assurance of such protection. Indeed, we insist that labor’s just grievances will have a much better chance of fair hearing and just solution by the boards of arbitra- tion created under cur bill than would be the cnse under machinery improvised after a crisis arises when public sentiment will be aroused and the chances for dispassionate and fair consideration of labor’s problems will be much less favorable. Again, atten- tion is called to the provision of our bill which requires that the arbitrators must recognize that labor is being deprived of its economic weapons in the cases where the public health and safety are involved and that any award made in such cases must take that fact into account and leave the em- ployees affected in at least as favorable a sit- uation with respect to the terms of their employment as those in other industries. (b) Labor's position generally will be much improved and its chances of accomplishing its legitimate objectives enhanced under our bill which would protect responsible leaders and the rank and file of labor against the adverse public reaction to all labor which in- evitably results when a few reckless and ir- responsible leaders misuse their power to the detriment of the public. (c) Unless some provision is made for deal- ing with work stoppages in the limited cate- gory of situations where the public health and safety would be endangered, there is great danger that, under pressure of some emergency, public opinion will demand and will obtain legislation far more drastic than our bill, under which the right to strike may be limited or denied in circumstances far beyond those to which our bill has appli- cation. CONSTITUTIONALITY It is submitted that our bill should, and I believe that unquestionably it would, be held constitutional. The bill applies only to labor disputes affecting interstate or foreign commerce. Thus it is clearly within the sphere of Fed- eral power under the commerce clause. The due process requirement is satisfied because the provisions of the bill are neither arbi- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD trary nor discriminatory—they are reason- ably adapted to meeting a definite, Nmited objective in which the public interest is clear, and they do so in a manner fair to both sides in any dispute. It is true that the United States Supreme Court held the Kansas Industrial Court Act unconstitutional insofar as it attempted to give power to a special court to fix wages in the coal mining and food and clothing in- daustries (Wolff Packing Co. v. Court of Indus- trtal Relations (262 U. 8. 522, 267, U. 8. 552, 1923 and 1925)). These cases, however, afford no precedent for holding that the pro- visions of our bill would be unconstitutional, for the following reasons: 1. The decisions involving the Industrial Court Act were clearly based upon the court's view that there was not a sufficient public interest in the continued operation of the plants and industries which that act placed under the jurisdiction of the special court to justify imposing so great a measure of governmental contro] of the parties in those plants and industries. The court empha- sized the small extent of the public incon- venience which would result from such in- dustries ceasing to operate Our bill, on the other hand, under its own terms, could be invoked only upon a finding by the Presi- dent that the public health or safety were endangered. 2. The situation in the early 1920's was very different from that prevailing today, in respect of the complexity and interdenend- ence of our economic life and of the strength and extent of union organization and the power of a few union leaders or even a single individual to bring the entire economy of the country to a standstill. 8. The Kansas Industrial Court cases were decided before the Supreme Court's decisions of the last decade vastly exnanded the scope of Federal power, and considerably modified early concepts of due process as applied to actions by both Federal and State Govern- ments, for example: (a) National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation (301 U. 8. 1 (1937) ), in which the Court upheld the con- stitutionality of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, with an opinion by Chief Justice Hughes specifically establishing the principle that acts which directly burden or obstruct commorce or its free flow are within the reach of the congressional power and that such acts are not rendered immune because they grow out of labor disputes. (b) Nebbia v. New York (291 U. 8. 502 (1934) ), in which the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the New York Milk Control Act which gave a State board power, among other things, to fix minimum and maximum retail prices of milk. The Court's opinion, written by Mr. Justice Roberts, clearly establishes that there is no closed class or category of businesses affected with a public interest and that the function of the courts in applying the due process pro- visions of the Constitution is to determine in each case whether in all the circumstances the regulation is a reasonable assertion of governmental] authority or is arbitrary or dis- criminatory. The following language has become classic: “If the Jaws passed are seen to have a rea- sonable relation to a proper legislative pur- pose, and are neither arbitrary nor discrim- inatory, the requirements of due process are satisfied * * *. With the wisdom of the policy adopted, with the adequacy or prac- ticability of the law enacted to forward it, the courts are both incompetent and unau- thorized to deal.” 8. There is a direct precedent for the fixing of wage rates. In Wilson v. New (243, U. 8. 322, 1917), dealing with the Adamson law, the Court held in a Nation-wide dispute over wages between railroad companies and their employees, with a general strike, commercial paralysis, and grave loss and suffering over-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD hanging the country, Congress had power to prescribe wages obligatory on both parties to the dispute for a reasonable time. The Adam- son law provided, among other things, that for a 7-month period the railroads should pay their operating employees for 8 hours’ work a wage not less than the one then estab- lished for a standard day, which had been generally 10 hours. Mr. Justice McReynolds’ dissent in the Wilson case is interesting in connection with our present discussion. After stating that he could not concur with the majority that it was within the power of Congress to enact the statute, he continued, “But, considering the doctrine now affirmed by the majority of the Court as established, it follows as of course that Congress has power to fix a maximum as well as a mini- mum wage for trainmen; to require com- pulsory arbitration of labor disputes which may seriously and directly jeopardize the movement of interstate traffic; and to take measures effectively to protect the free flow of such commerce against any combination, whether of operatives, owners, or strangers.” 4. Finally, it is clear that the right to strike is not an absolute right under the Constitu- tion, but that it may be regulated and, in certain circumstances, denied in the public interest. Truaz v. Corrigan (257 U. S. 312, 863 (1921, Brandeis, J.)); Dorchy v. Kansas (272 U. 8. 306, 311 (1926, Brandeis, J.)); Aikens v. Wisconsin (195 U. S. 194, 204-205); Carpenters Union v. Ritter’s Cafe (315 U. 8. 722, 724 (1942, Frankfurter, J.)). Strikes in hospitals that endanger life and health, in charitable institutions that with- hold relief to the needy, and in government and utilities that disrupt the life of a whole community may be regarded as in this cate- gory. Jewish Hospital v. John Doe (252 App. Div. 581 (New York, 1937)); Elizabeth Gen- eral Hospital v. Employees Local A. A. (4 labor cases, par. 60, 590); Western Pennsylvania Hospital v, Liehleiter (340 Pa. 382, 17 Atl. (2d) 206 (1941)); Arthur v. Oakes (63 Fed. 810 (1894) ). In Dorehy v. Kansas (1926, supra), Mr. Jus tice Brandeis said: “But a strike may be illegal because of its purpose, however orderly the manner in vanich it is conducted. To collect a stale claim due a fellow member of the union who was formerly employed in the business is not a permissible purpose. In the absence of a valid agreement to the contrary, each party to a disputed claim may insist that it be determined only by acourt * * *,. To enforce payment by a strike is purely coer- cion. * * ® Neither the common law nor the fourteenth amendment confers the abso- lute right to strike.” In Carpenters’ Union v. Ritter’s Cafe (1942, supra), Mr. Justice Frankfurter said: “The right of the State to determine wheth- er the common interest is best served by im- posing some restrictions upon the use of weapons for inflicting economic injury in the struggle of conflicting industrial forces has not previously been doubted * * *. But the petitioners now claim that there is to be found in the due-process clause of the four- teenth amendment a constitutional com- mand that peaceful picketing must be wholly immune from regulation by the community in order to protect the general interest, that the States must be powerless to confine the ‘use of this industrial weapon within reason- able bounds.” After discussing the precise limitation placed by the Texas court upon the picketing of respondent's restaurant, Mr. Justice Frankfurter then said: “We hold that the Constitution does not forbid Texas to draw the line which has been drawn here. To hold otherwise would be to transmute vital constitutional liberties into doctrinaire dogma. We must be mindful that the ‘rights of employers and employees to conduct their economic affairs and to com- bat with others for a share in the products of industry are subject to modification or XCILI—App.——-4 qualification in the interests of the society in which they exist. This is but an instance of the power of the State to set the limita- tion of permissible contest open to industrial combatants.’ Thornhill v. Alabama (310 U. 8. 88, 103-104) .” CONCLUSION The problem for which we have attempted to suggest a solution is a real, not an imag- inary one. The dangers are not past, they are here today, and, in a very few weeks, may be upon us in acute and critical form. Shall our Government face a telephone strike, for example, without even those pow- ers with which it attempted recently to deal with the coal situation? Can we view with equanimity the possibility of a renewed de- mand for the dangerous and drastic powers which the President sought under pressure of the railroad crisis less than 10 months ago? The answer is clear. The question as I said at the outset is no longer whether we should take action. The only question is what ac- tion should be taken. The experience which this committee has gained in the long course of its hearings may very well lead it to believe that some or perhaps many changes and im- provements can and should be made in the method of attack upon this problem which we have suggested. Naturally we would ac- cept any such changes and improvements wholeheartedly and will be glad to discuss them or any questions which the committee may have with respect to any provisions of our bill whenever it may be convenient for it to do so. We are interested only in assist- ing in the development of a solution which we believe that the situation demands and which the people of the country are anxiously waiting for this Congress to provide. American Destiny EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. FRANCES P. BOLTON OF OHIO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 13, 1947 Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the REc- orD, I include the following editoria] from the Washington Post of March 13, 1947: AMERICAN DESTINY What the President said to Congress had already been reported to some extent in ad- vance. But this did not mar the mussive impact of the message or alloy its grave im- port. Mr. Truman recommended a clear as- sumption of the world power which belongs to America. In itself this is nothing new. Since the middle of the war years such a statement has become a ritual in Presidential messages. But this time Mr. Truman spelled out a policy and sought to translate it into preliminary action. The key sentence is “It must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." This is breath-taking in its literal implica- tions, It takes into account and is aimed at countering the new technique of aggression. It 1s as much a tocsin as a policy, a weapon in itself as much as the threat of a weapon. The application of the policy could not be rigid, but would depend upon the place and the circumstances of the test. As a starter the President asks financial aid for the two countries that are imminently menaced by either armed minorities or outside pressures, viz, Greece and Turkey. Here the need to defend the principle that the President has enunciated is backed by the need to look after our selfish interests as a world power, A1009 Congress and the people will now have a chance of sober reflection on the responsi- bilities to which they have hitherto given lip service but which they are now called upon to shoulder. There had been some rescrvations in our approach to the President’s declaration of an explicit foreign policy. It had been said it might throw down the gage to Russia in a titanic Russo-American contest for power, This pitfall the President has avoided, in the manner of Metternich, by advancing a uni- versal principle—the principle of freedom— by way of opposing the forces of disruption The policy is antiaggression, but on its other face it is profreedom. This is its saving grace For nothing anti will survive in the struggle of ideas that makes the entire world a battle- field. Moreover Russia is not singled out, nor is communism. In the context of our key pol- icy, the aggression we will oppose is totali- tarian, not specifically communism. The dis- tinction is vital The modern tendency ts to think only of communism and Russia as the foe. If we were to take this position. we would be driven to line up with anti-Com- munists of the same Stripe of totalitarianism as the Communists themselves. Fascists are contemptuous of liberty equally with Com- munists. Against totalitarianism of the right and of the left this new foreign policy is ranged. Nor does the President wish to make this new foreign policy independent. It was good to hear him uphold the United Nations. Unt- versal organization of free men is the hope of the human race, and any whittling away of it would imperil what remains of civiliza- tion, Mr. Truman said he had considered how the United Nations might assist in meeting the Near Eastern crisis, and rejected the idea because “the situation is an urgent one requiring immediate action, and the United Nations and its related organizations are not in a position to extend help of the Kind that is required.’"’ We take the Presi- dent’s word for it, However, we hope that our like-minded friends in the United Nations were apprised beforehand of the momentous step upon which we propose to embark. It is entirely in the spirit of the United Nations. The Charter is the authority for all free nations to seck a reign of world law and strive for the protection of human rights. Thus we must build up the United Nations as a neces- sary complement and instrument of this foreign policy. The warning cannot be stressed sufficiently that we may fall into the habit of operating outside the United Nations. That would be a fatal reaction. Complete independence in the pursuit of our aims might saddle us with the redemption of blank checks presented to us instead of to the United Nations. Acceptance of the President’s credo would imply a high degree of American discipline. No longer dare we legislate, as in the case of our silver policy, without a thought of the effect elsewhere of our actions. Congress, moreover should hurry up consideration of the bill to integrate the armed forces in a single department topped by the National Security Council and the Resources Board. Finally, there must be a systematic effort to close the gap in our foreign trade so that the world will not be kept forever dollar- poor. A responsibility likewise falls upon the President If we intend to “give effect to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.” then he should see to it that the United Nations is no longer the stepchild in the organizational set-up of the State De- partment. but is recognized by the appoint- ment of at least an Assistant Secretary of State for UN affairs. First and foremost, however, Greece and Turkey must be shored up against an aggression which, judging from the President's statement, is bound to succeed unless we act.
A1010 Industry-Wide Bargaining—Abuses and Cures EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. RALPH W. GWINN OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 13, 1947 Mr. GWINN of New York. Mr. Speaker, industry-wide bargaining is an invisible guest at every dinner table. It cuts across the lives of every man, wom- an, and child in America, no matter how humble. It really means that this in- visible somebody has his hands in your pockets most of the time. Now, why is this? Industry-wide bargaining are just high-toned words for the concentration of power and compulsion—the destruc- tion of freedom on a Nation-wide scale. Here again, instead of capitalistic mo- nopoly, it is laboristic monopoly at work. A generation before us saw the barons of finance and industry building up and abusing monopoly power. They raised prices and corrupted Government. Your generation and mine must now deal with a greater, more widespread, more politi- cally corrupt power. What is industry-wide bargaining? Cutting through the double talk, indus- try-wide bargaining represents the join- ing together in one organization of all the employees in all of the companies in one industry or of all of the employees in one particular occupation in all the units of that industry. It goes even further. The steelworkers union not only cover all the steel manufacturers but at least 1,100 of their customers, in- cluding makers of everything from mat- tresses to mandolins. There are more union employees in the little customers of the steel] companies than in the steel companies themselves. The effect of what takes place under these conditions is a pyramiding of power. Finally, one man or a few sit on top. They start or stop everything from the pyramid. These are the real holding company monopolies of today. So we have a new name for an old device to establish and maintain per- sonal power. But contrary to the belief held by many, industry-wide bargaining did not originate in 1935 under the in- fluence of the Wagner Act any more than class hatred originated at anytime with- in the last decade. As a matter of fact, from the beginning of unionism in this country, there have been manifestations of industry-wide bargaining. However, these manifestations up to the time of the passage of the Wagner Act had al- ways been held under restraint by law and responsible leadership. Conse- quently their potential abuses were not generally apparent. They seldom trans- gressed the public interest. The Wagner Act was based on the un- true and vicious doctrine that the in- terests of employer and employee are so antagonistic and irreconcilable that the employee, in order to get equal or bal- anced bargaining power must have spe- Cial class legislation administered through deliberate statutory favoritism, Just as the Wagner Act sprang from this false doctrine, so abuses sprang from the Wagner Act, such as the denial to the employer of the right of free speech, while giving complete license to unions. It resulted in the denial of mens’ right to work by price fixing, mass picketing, violence, sit-down strikes, slow-downs, secondary boycotts, jurisdictional dis- putes and the closed shop monopolies. Under the antitrust laws, such abuses and combinations of power by industries were made illegal and subject to pun- ishment as crimes. Thus, the legalizing of this gathering together of one unit of power after an- other, until hundreds are included, and the reduction of the restraints on the exercise of such power by the Wagner Act, lead to abuses that have finally aroused the public to demand laws to stop these latest of all abuses of power. FAR-REACHING EFFECTS OF ABUSES Through the device of so-called indus- try-wide bargaining, Philip Murray, president of the CIO and of the United Steel Workers, was able to stop the work of more than a half million men in thou- sands of factories. Similarly, John L. Lewis was able to call out 400,000 coal miners while he ne- gotiated wages and working conditions for about 600 separate coal-mining com- panies. We are now threatened with a Nation- wide strike by 300,000 telephone workers in utter disregard of the public welfare and safety. Such abuses of industry- wide bargaining are well known. What is not so generally realized, however, is their disastrous effect on small busi- nesses. In a recent report entitled “Future of Independent Business,” made by the Senate Small Business Committee under the chairmanship of the Honorable James E. Murray, Senator from Mon- tana, appears the following: The growing tendency to first seek indus- try-wide labor contracts and then force their identical terms on small independent firms in the industry wherever they may be located or however much their problems may differ from the giants of industry, is freighted with extreme hazard for independent business, Many @ small firm with a splendid record of labor-management relations is sucked into the maelstrom of a national labor dispute with disastrous results for years afterward because they are not allowed to settle their labor problems in face-to-face relationships with their workers, Atthistime * * * {tis urged that full consideration be given in any proposals offered for legislation to the peculiar prob- lems in small business and the need for settlement of disputes at their initial stages in their local setting. This is from the Senator whose party enacted the Wagner Act which harbored death to small business. Industry-wide bargaining means that you are deprived of the benefits of com- petition as a factor in determining wages. This is the most powerful price- fixing combination yet developed outside of Government. For most industries, wages constitute the major part of the cost of production, often as high as 80 percent. Where there is competition in wages and prices there is an automatic limitation upon them APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD which gives you the benefits of improve- ments in products and wider access to the fruits of our industrial system. CURES What can be done? How can the abuses inherent in industry-wide bar- gaining be checked? How can responsi- bility and lability for abuses be intro- duced into the law covering so many Jabor dictators already entrenched in their power? The answer should be obvious. Bar- gaining should be between the only par- ties concerned, that is, the employer and the employees of his company or plants under one corporate management. All rights and privileges under the new Labor Relations Act should be confined to the employer-employee relations of their own enterprise, such as the corpo- ration, partnership, or individual con- cern. And I hasten to add that this does not mean that all of the existing industry- wide bargaining should be wiped out. It means that such industry-wide bargain- ing as may continue outside of the scope of the new National Labor Relations Act will have no benefits under the act. However, all monopolies and combina- tions in restraint of trade or to fix prices against the public interest whether by industry or labor should be subject to the antitrust laws. How a Notorious International Communist Duped Our State Department EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ALVIN E. O’KONSKI OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 13, 1947 Mr. O’KONSKI. Mr. Speaker, several days ago I revealed before this House the activities below the Rio Grande of pro-Communists who intend to destroy the United States of America in one way or another and how the pro-Communists want to break up Western Hemisphere solidarity. Today I will discuss specific individuals who have been and are employed in our State Department and who have actively participated in the Communist program to destroy our prestige with our neighbors south of the border. It is unnecessary for me to tell you how successful these foreign agents have been, for it is no longer secret that the Americas to the south are convinced that we have only imperialistic aims and that our interest in those nations is only materialistic. What I will say to you today is so fan- tastic, that it will be difficult to believe. If I told you that a man born across the seas, migrated to the United States in May of 1940, and in February of 1943 was appointed Auxiliary Foreign Service Officer in our State Department at Ha- vana, Cuba, was then stationed in Buenos Aires and finally returned to Washing- ton, D. C., at a salary of $8,000 per. an- num, as Assistant to Assistant Secretary
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of State Spruille Braden, you would lend me a courteous ear and not forget the entire affair. Yet, this is precisely what happened. And this is precisely how the United States was knifed out of South America to make way for the Moscow stooges. Believe it or not in the most trying times in our Nation’s history, our State Department picks up an alien—secretly arranges for this alien to become an American citizen in the short period of 6 weeks and appoints him as Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of State in charge of Latin-American affairs. If he were a loyal and trusted alien this might have been fine. But this particu- lar alien is one of the world’s most noto- rious Communists, skilled and trained in betrayal by Moscow agents during the Spanish civil war. Who is this notorious Communist who rose to such heights in our State Depart- ment? Who is this notorious Commun- ist who directed Latin American rela- tions? Who is this notorious Com- munist who has driven American good will out of Latin America and substituted in its place Moscow goodwill? He is none other than Gustavo Duran! If you were to ask the State Depart- ment for the credentials of this notorious Communist—here is the reply you would get: Gustavo Duran; born Barcelona, Spain, No- vember 14, 1906, high school, Madrid, 1916- 20; School of Commerce, Madrid, 1920-23; Madrid University, 1923-27; compulsory mili- tary service, Spanish Army, 1928; studied composition and musicology, Paris, 1929 33; employed, Paramount Pictures, Paris office, 1933-34; employed, motion-picture company, Madrid, 1934-36; reactivated in Spanish Army, 1936-39; reached the rank of lieuten- ant colonel, on combat duty throughout en- tire campaign; participated with Generals Miaja, Casado, and Menedez in elimination Communist-dominated Negrin government and substitution of non-Communist govern- ment under General Miaja; rescued by Brit- ish Government authorities and taken to England via British cruiser Galatea and Brit- ish hospital ship Maine; employed by Film Center, Shel-Mix Petroleum Co., London, 1939-40; migrated to United States, May 1940; director of music department, film Ubrary, Museum of Modern Art, April-~Octo- ber 1941; assistant director, music division, Pan American Union, October 1941-January 1943: accepted appointment as auxiliary Foreign Service officer February 1943; sta- tioned at Havana until May 1945; stationed at Buenos Aires, May-September 1945; as- signed to State Department October 1945; married December 4, 1939, Bonte Romilly Crompton, of Rye, N. ¥., and Wilton, N. H, This is the personal data which Gus- tavo Duran furnished the State Depart- ment. On the basis of this data, within 6 weeks it was arranged for his becoming an American citizen and appointed as Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of State in charge of Latin-American relations. This biographical data sounds con- vincing until placed under a microscope for examination. When placed under careful scrutiny the true character and past activities burst before your eyes like an atom bomb. The truth therein re- vealed is blinding. Because the War Department has an- other biographical sketch of this notori- ous Communist. Moscow also has an- other biographical sketch of Gustavo Duran. For example, the State Department records fail to state that Gustavo Duran reported to his party—the Communist Party—when the civil war broke out in Spain. The State Department discreet- ly neglects to mention that he was dis- charged by the Minister of Defense of the Spanish Loyalist Government, as head of S. I. M.—Madrid Intelligence Bureau— because he had appointed to sensitive positions members of the Communist Party. Nor does the State Department mention that when he was discharged from the S. I. M. that the chief agent of the Russian Government in Spain inter- viewed the Minister of Defense—Inda- lecio Prieto—and threatened to with- draw the support of the Soviet Govern- ment from the Spanish Loyalist Govern- ment, unless Gustavo Duran was re- turned to his post. The State Department discreetly states, in its biographical report that Duran aided in the overthrow of the Communist Government. Yet the fact remains after Duran was discharged from his Madrid post he was placed with a field army that was composed of non- Communists. But when the Communist forces during the last days of the struggle broke with the true Spanish Republi- cans, Duran was jailed by his own troops as a precautionary measure because he was peggcd by his own men as one of the most notorious Communists in al] Spain. All of these things are true, gentlemen, and today I intend to show how this in- dividual, a sclected protégé of Spruille Braden, aided and abetted the Commu- nist movement in South America to the detriment of the United States. What is worse, he was placec in a high posi- tion in our State Department to carry on his dirty work—to the detriment of Lat- in-American relations. I will begin this report with the dis- charge of Gustavo Duran from his post as Chief of the S. I. M. in Madrid. My authority for this dismissa] is the report by the Minister of Defense written in Spanish and transcribed by the Legisla- tive Reference Division of the Congres- sional Library. To refresh the short and convenient memory of Gustavo Duran, I will quote you from the official report of Idalecio Prieto to his party, when he, Prieto, was Minister of Internationa] Defense. I quote verbatim from this report. This report is known to the War Department, but if it is known to the State Depart- ment it is discreetly kept secret. I quote: It is true that I have had certain incidents with the Russians. Certain Russian tech- nicians proposed to me in Valencia, that a service of Military Investigations should be created. This was the Spanish counterpart of the NKVD. I confess that I opposed the project. But because of insistent pressure, I created the 8. I. M. I was especially con- cerned with choosing a chief, until I gave it to an intimate friend of mine, who had just come from France, where he was with his family. In entrusting him with the task, I gave him these instructions: “You are going to form the 8. I. M., care- fully, with elements of all groups of the Populer Front. Your only charges will be these two: Do not permit the new organ- ization to be converted into an instrument of the Communists and do not permit Rus- Al1011 sian technicians to gain control. Listen to the advice of these technicians and follow their orlentations, which can be very useful to you, but control must always be in your hands and in that of the Government, and of no one else,” I showed little tact in the selection of that comrade. A Republican named Sayagues came in fact to be the chief of S.1.M. Re- gional chicfs of the S. I. M were designated and they proposed to me 4 certain Gustavo Duran for the Madrid zone. It was not con- cealed from me that the person proposed was a Communist (Duran). I knew this, but in spite of that, he was appointed by me. In the decree creating the S. I. M. of August of 1937—a decree which I myself drew up, because I did not wish to follow in a slavish munuer the project which was handed me— there 1s an urticle by virtue of which the appointment of all agents of the S. I. M. rests exclusively with the Minister of Na- tional Defense. This was a guarantee which temporarily I wish to establish. No one could be an agent of the S. I. M. who was not in possession of the memorandum book which bore duplicute the signature of the minister. Duran having been appointed chicf of the demarcation of the army of the center, of his own accord and without power to do s0, appointed the agents who were under his orders, which to the number of some hundreds, were Communists and only four or five were Socialists. I fuced an in- tolerable situation, wherefore alleging, and with reason, that I lacked commanders in the army. I ordered that all milltary chiefs who were not in particular positions in the army should return to their former positions, and thus Major Duran had to return to his military function. Because of Duran's leav- ing the S. I. M. I received a visit from a Russian technician, of these services, who said to me: “RUSSIAN AGENT. I have come to speak to you about the dismissal of Duran. What happened? “Prieto. Nothing special, I lacked com- manders in the army and ordered Duran to return to it. “RUSSIAN AGENT. No. You discharged him becnuse he appointed Communists as agents in Madrid, “PrIETO. That is also sufficient reason, be- cause Duran absolutely lacked authority to make appointments. “Russian AGENT. Why did he not have the power to appoint agents? “Prieto. Because by virtue of the decree creating the S. I. M. that power is reserved exclusively to the Minister.” I read the decree and before the evidence of my statement my visitor alleged: “Russtan AGENT. Duran could make tem- porary appointments. “PrieTro Neither actual nor temporary. Here in Spain, moreover, the temporary is converted into the definitive. “RUSSIAN AGENT. Be that as it may, I come to ask you to immediately restore Major Du- ran as chief of the S. I. M. in Madrid. “Prieto. I am very sorry, but I cannot consent. “Russian AGENT. If you do not consent to restore Duran, my relations with you are broken. “Prieto. I am sorry, but Major Duran will go to the front of his division and will not return to the 8. 1. M. Your attitude is unjustified and I cannot yield to it.” I did not yield as a matter of fact, and my relations with the Russian technician, through his own wish, were absolutely cut off. I have not seen him since that scene. IDALECIO PRIETO, Minister of Defense. Gentlemen, this exposé of the associa- tions of Mr. Duran and the high regard in which he was held by the Soviet Gov- ernment is alarming, when you consider that this very same person is now to a
A1012 large degree responsible for our South American debacle and the success of the Soviet Government in creating a feeling of suspicion between the countries in South America and the United States, enabling the Soviet Government to enter into favorable trade negotiations with the Republic of Argentina, again at the expense of the United States. In fact, it was due to these machina- tions of our Embassy that Peron was able to coin a winning slogan: “A vote for Peron is a vote against Braden.” There is no question that the activities of our own foreign representatives were to a large degree responsible for the tempo- rary overthrow of the Peron regime and the jailing of Juan Peron himself. In fact, our State Department hailed this revolution as a vindication of America’s Argentine policy. This “vindication” was short-lived, as it failed to have the sup- port of the people of that Nation, and a few days later a labor front of some 600,000 demanded and secured the re- lease of Peron and his return to power. Our policy proponents in the United States Embassy and the then newly elected Assistant Secretary of State had been so busy in South America in de- stroying what they called the iron grip of Peron’s military Fascist regime that their reports to our State Department failed to reveal that Peron had the full support of the labor front. Action that followed by our State Department was the regretful calling off of the Rio Con- ference attempting to quarantine the Argentine regime. All of these actions were in complete accord with the Com- munist press and the over-all Commu- nist policy at that time and in complete accord with the Communist fellow trav- elers and pink journalists in America and in the State Department. Now for the Communist-led agitation to have the United States interfere in the affairs of Argentina in order to es- tablish ‘democratic government” in Buenos Aires on August 31, 1945, Izvestia published a violent attack on Argentina, full of the vitrolic condemnation with which Moscow attacks enemies of “free- dom” in countries outside her own bor- ders. However, long before this editorial in Izvestia three of Moscow’s leading agents in the Western Hemisphere had already begun to pay special attention to the informal politics of Argentina. These agents include Lombardo Tole- dano, who is the key man in the Com- munist-controlled Latin-American Fed- eration of Labor; Rudolfo Shioldi, the Argentinian Communist Leader; and the Brazilian, Luis Prestes, former member of the Executive Committee of the Com- munist International. Since the Com- munists are past masters in political and international timing, it may well repay the attention of this House to study chronological development of this Com- munist-inspired campaign for “demo- cratic freedom” in Argentina. Mr. Tole- dano’s efforts go back to 1943, the year when General Ramirez came to power in Argentina. I am now going to dwell upon that very phase of Mr. Toledano's communistic efforts. In a speech in Mexico City on August 28, 1944, he starts the propaganda line that Argentina is becoming the bridge- head for “world Fascism” ih the Western Hemisphere with a view to split the Americas in two parts, which will even- tually clash and start a third World War. Even when events showed that if a third World War comes—it is likely to start in regions far removed from South Amer- ics. Yet the year 1945 saw an ever-in- creasing and co-ordinated Communist propaganda campaign against Argentina, aided and abetted by our representatives in that country—Duran-Braden. On January 7, 1945, PM attacked Peron, fol- lowed by similar attacks. It is sympto- matic, however, that it was only after VE- day and VJ-day that the campaign got up steam and became an International Communist Demonstration. In July 1945, the Communist Party of the United States demanded America break with Argentina. On August 31, 1945, Izves- tia’s attack follows. Two days after South America’s notorious Communist, Toledano, had summarized his own ef- forts in the following statement: We have denounced and fought the Argen- tine tyrant in the resolutions of our Con- gress, in the great continent-wide solidarity strike of January, ‘fn our sponsorship of the Argentina resolution at the London Congress and the documented protests we sent to the Inter-American United Nations Conference. We next find Communist leader Tole- dano in ‘Paris in September 1945 at the World Federation of Trade Unions Meet- ing, where his Latin-American delega- tion got a strong anti-Argentinian reso- lution passed. In October the Chilean Copper Workers’ Union followed suit, and at the International Labor Confer- ence in November 1945 Toledano took the floor for another speech against Peron. The year 1945 ends by the denunciation of Peron by the Communist Party of Argentina on December 12, 1945. In the interim, a strange Communist tactical move was taking shape in Brazil, a mys- terious maneuver which I will return to discuss in a moment. I must, however, first call the atten- tion of the House to the startling reve- lation which Toledano’s house organ in Mexico City made in its issue of Decem- ber 3, 1945, where approval was given to Mr. Jacob S. Potofsky’s pressure on As- sistant Secretary of State, Spruille Braden. Who is Mr. Potofsky? He is the Russian-born assistant general pres- ident of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America. Mr. Potofsky has taken interest in Latin-American affairs because he heads the Committee on Latin-American Affairs of the CIO. In 1932 the same Mr. Potofsky ‘held the po- sition of secretary-treasurer of the Rus- sian-American Industrial Corp. headed by Sidney Hillman. If you will permit, I will transgress for a moment and go back into the early history of Mr. Hill- man and this same Potofsky who exerted such a strong influence in our State De- partment. In 1922 Hillman traveled to Russia and there gained the support of Lenin, for his Russian-American Industrial Corp. which was established to operate the textile and clothing industry in Rus- sia. Jacob Potofsky, Hillman’s closest collaborator, like his superior, was like- wise born in Russia. He was assigned the program of soliciting money from la- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD bor in the United States to promote the industrial control of the clothing and textile industry in Russia. The evidence clearly indicates that the Russian-Amer- ican Industrial Corp. had a_ politi- cal as well as a business interest in the Bolshevik revolution. On the corpora- tions’ envelopes there was printed in bold type the following declaration: ‘The key to the stability of the world lies in the economic reconstruction of Russia.” I bring this background to your at- tention as it is known that Potofsky and Hillman were intimates of Mr. Braden and that our State Department was in frequent communication with the Latin- American Affairs Division of the CIO, In fact, Potofsky was well aware of the Communist background of Mr. Duran and so informed everyone in his circle. I will now return to the approval of Jacob 8. Potofsky’s pressure on Spruille Braden, by Toledano, key Communist in the labor movement of South America, to agitate in good old Comintern style for a rupture of political and trade rela- tions between the United States and the Government of Juan Peron. The executive secretary of this CIO, Latin-American affairs committee is George Michanowsky, and it is a matter of record that this CIO committee on Latin-American affairs went to Mr. Spruille Braden to urge that sanctions be invoked against Argentina. This happened 2 months before the blue book appeared on the arena. Mr. Toledano's news sheet quotes CIO committee lead- ers as telling Mr. Braden: We told Mr. Braden that we believed pref- erence should be given to democracy in Ar- gentina and that the present dictatorship should not be allowed to inject additional poison into her neighbors. That this Communist-inspired pres- sure on our State Department was kept up can be gathered from a statement in the January 14, 1946, issue of the Tole- dano paper: The denunciation of Argentine fascism by Assistant Secretary of State Spruille Braden has aided Argentine democrats, but some- thing more than words is needed. Gentlemen, get this, quote: Something more than words is needed. Gentlemen, the blue book came on February 12, 1946. The blue book against Peron in Argentina was the “something more than words is needed.” The blue book issued by Braden was a CIO-Communist inspired and written document—put out under the seal of our State Department. It may well show it- self to have been one of the most tragic documents in the history of American foreign policy. Everything was wrong about that ill-advised publication. It does not contain anything startling, ex- cept sheer cheap and shoddy Communist propaganda—CIO inspired. As a matter of fact, according to dispatches to the New York Times on April 7, 1946, Chile asked for proof of the plot charged in this infamous blue book about Argen- tina trying to foment a revolution in such activity. The Chilean statement asserts that after investigation bv
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Spruille Braden, he informed them that the United States had no such proof in- volving specific persons in Chile. Chile’s reply to the questionnaire circulated by our State Department was forwarded to our State Department in March of last year, yet so far as I know this informa- tion has not been made known to the public here in the United States. The Government of Lima, Peru, in reply to the blue book, concerning charges of support by the wartime government of Peron to the Axis, merely stated that the election of February 24, 1946, was conducted in a legal manner and that the regime resulting from this election must. be considered. While on the subject of the blue book, let me point out that this document is @ poorly done job. Even its typograph- ical make-up is of such mediocre stand- ard that one refuses to believe that such a document was even presented to the Ambassadors and Ministers of the sister nations of this hemisphere. This is truly not a publication which does honor to the solemnity of the Monroe Doctrine, nor to the dignity of the foreign relations of one of the world’s great powers. I mention this detail of make-up and ap- pearance because it leads one to believe that the very decision to throw this book at the Argentine elections was as hasty as it has proven to be unfortunate, yes, tragic. It evidences where Braden got his inspiration and advice. You will note that up until the fall of 1945, the Communists throughout the world and the Communist-infiltrated CIO had carried on a campaign against the Farrell-Peron regime. Now all of a sudden from Moscow came new orders and the picture promptly changes. The Vergas regime of Brazil begins to look with favor upon the Argentine Govern- ment and Luis Carlos Prestes, leader of the Communist activity in Brazil, on February 19, 1946—New York Times, page 7—declares: The Argentine elections are the business of the Argentine people. On February 22, 1946, the executive committee of the Brazilian Communist Party warns the world: A war of this type, plotted by direct agents of fanatical capital like Braden and others, would undoubtedly be an unjust inter-im- perialist war directed against Latin-Ameri- can people, with the particular objective of annihilating the labor and popular move- ment in our countries. Thus in true Marxian style, the Soviet Government turns on its benefactors, Duran and Braden, and in their usual style completes the task of creating dis- sension in the minds of South Ameri- cans against their northern neighbor by sowing sceds of a threatening imperial- istic war. So today the Communists of South America are using their own blue book—issued by our own State De- partment—as a basis to poison the South American people against the United States. Do we now understand who engineered this clever scheme? First, we have the Toledano-Schioldi-Potofsky- Michanow- sky-Duran-Braden crowd of inter- American’ saboteurs. Together with PM and the official Communist organ, the Daily Worker, they demanded Amer- ican interference in another sovereign state’s internal affairs. They succeeded in their plot and got the United States Department of State to commit an unbe- lievable blunder. Whereupon the Mos- cow heroic defenders of democratic free- dom turn to a vicious attack upon these United States for trying to start a war to annihilate labor and freedom on this continent. Now the question is, how much of this was due to ignorance, lack of ability, or due to unwise counsel of persons who have in the past been active in the intcrest of the success of the Com- munist Party. We know now that when Russia was denouncing Argentina at the San Francisco Conference, their repre- sentatives were, at that very moment, en- gaging in advance trade talks which were culminated in a trade mission being sent to Argentina from Soviet Russia. Again, due to bad judgment or other reasons, the United States is placed in an unfor- tunate and unfavorable trade bargain- ing position because of the agitation conducted against a sister republic in the South. It is time that America awoke to the traitors without her own borders, and demanded a [foreign policy which is American, not in name only, but in spirit. When will the innocent sentimental Americans who are led by the nose, by fellow travelers, pink jour- nalists, and Communist agents in the labor movement, wake up to the fact that they are contributing to the destruc- tion of Latin-American relations. We abhor any form of fascism, but we are just as deeply filled with the moral hatred of double-crossing atheism—commu- nism. Finally, when will this great free Nation get a State Department which is intelligent and mature enough to work out a specific, clear, and democratic for- eign policy? Wein the House have bent over backwards in order to lift American foreign policy above party politics. But we learn that those responsible take their direction from Communists or left- wingers who have no Interest in the wel- fare of the United States or good- neighbor relations. If our State Department knew these facts in 1943, why choose the time of a national election in Argentina to do the ercatest conccivable disservice to the cause of a popular leader in Argentina? After this betrayal of South America to Soviet propagandists by persons in our State Department how can we hope the South American Republics to believe that the United States does not want to dominate or coerce or encroach upon the sovereignty of any nation in this hemi- sphere? This is surely not the way to build good will or unity. Such a short- sighted stupid policy—if it was not in- tentional—makes mockery of the Mon- roe Doctrine. But then what can you expect when the responsible persons go to the Communist-infiltrated Govern- ment of Spain for trusted advisers in preference to our home-grown Ameri- cans. An interesting side-light of the machi- nations of Mr. Duran is revealed by the interests which Messrs. Braden and Duran took in four Communist-Socialist labor leaders in Argentina. In the first place, it would be interesting to know A1013 who arranged for those four persons to come to America and to travel to Paris where they attended the completely dominated Communist union known as the WFTU. However, more _inter- esting is the fact that when these four persons returned from this Red labor meeting in Paris they stopped off in Washington and spent an entire after- noon in conference with Mr. Braden, Mr. Duran, James M. Wright, and Earl Spaeth, all of the State Department. Other Communist labor leaders attended this meeting. They were Francisco Pe- rez Leiros, of the General Federation of Labor, and the secretary of the munici- pal workers’ union, and a member of the executive committee of the Communist- controlled Cital of South America and Argentina, Ruben Iscaro, former secre- tary of the General Federation of Labor, and secretary of construction-industry union of Buenos Aires; Gulio Falasco, of the railwaymen’s union, trustee of funds, former delegate of Congress of Railway Unions, openly a member of the Communist Party and an old-line anar- chist; Antonio E. Cabrera, acting secre- tary of the construction workers’ union, and others. Cabrera is generally known as a Socialist with Communist associa- tions. All of the afore-mentioned belong to unions which come under the domina- tion of Lombardo Toledano, who must be well known to all of you by now. After this conference the four dele- gates returned to their hotel with Mr. Duran. Now it happens that a man stood outside the door who is capable of speaking and interpreting Spanish. We learn from this conversation that everyone was addressed in the good old Communist manner of “Comrade.” We further learned that they has discussed that afternoon the plan to be used to overthrow the Argentine Government. Actually these Communist agents re- cently returned from the Red World Union meeting in Paris had no intention of overthrowing the Argentine Govern- ment. They were merely setting up a program to get our Government to act against Peron, and then they would graccfully pull out and condemn the action of America as imperialistic. Now whether Mr. Braden became a dupe of these Red machinations I do not know, but the presence of a former Communist of the Spanish Loyalist Army and pet. of the Soviet secret police at these meet- ings makes me wonder. Oh, yes; Mr. Duran and Mr. Braden were later smeared by the Moscow press, but not until Duran and Braden had performed the task of laying the ground work for disunity between South America and the United States. That was the wish and forcign policy of the Communist state known as the U.S. S. R. That is how Duran and Braden did the chores for Moscow in South America. After they completed the chores, of course, the Mos- cow press had to attack its benefactors to hide the real object and purpose. It is a famous Moscow trick to attack its benefactors when a certain mission is fulfilled. It was Moscow's mission to break our prestige in South America. It was Moscow’s mission, through Duran, to use our own State Department to lay down the seeds for disunity. It was
Al1014 Moscow's mission to get a foothold in South America. Our State Depart- ment’s ClO-Duran-Braden blue book gave Moscow that foothold. The in- famous blue book today is Moscow’s Bible in South America. It is being used to turn South America against us. This is a true revelation of how a noto- rious Communist, Gustavo Duran, duped our State Department. For that duping, Duran was paid $8,000 per year by the taxpayers of America—as assistant to the Assistant Secretary of State. This is a story of how the international Commu- nists infiltrated into our State Depart- ment and plotted this disruption of Lat- in-American relations. This is how the Communists with the cooperation of our State Department succeeded in setting back Latin-American relations more than 50 years. What happened to Duran after this tragic episode? Was he relieved of his post? Only after a long series of pro- tests by honest Americans was he re- lieved of his post as assistant to Braden. Where is Duran now? In spite of duping his superior, Braden engineered a deal where Gustavo Duran is now a repre- sentative to the United Nations Refugee Committee. Gustavo Duran, the man who duped our State Department—the man who engineered the setting back of Latin-American relations 50 years— is now screening refugees and an em- ployee of the United Nations organiza- tion, where he can continue his work for good old Soviet Russia. We are now being told by our State Department that we must stop commu- nism in Greece. To that I answer, How about driving out the Communists’ hold on our own State Department first? What good is it to spend millions fighting communism in Grecce when Communists use our State Department to strengthen communism in South America. Before we go to Greece, let’s first oust the Com- munist stooges and their dupes in our own State Department. Let’s first clean the Communists out of their other high Government positions. Let’s first clean the Communists out of America and the Western Hemisphere. What good does it do to spend money and blood to save Greece from communism, only to find that communism strengthened itself right under our very nose—with State Depariment approval? To give an idea of how serious the hold of the Communists is on our State De- partment, I might mention just one in- stance. For some time now our War Department has been promoting the cause of Western Hemisphere defense. It has been urged by our authorities on defense to strengthen all of the Western Hemisphere by a uniformity of arms. What is holding up the progress of this plan? Believe it or not, it is our State Department. Braden still holds forth and blocks every attempt at Western Hemisphere solidarity. Is Braden serv- ing America in his continual blocking of Latin-American relations? Definitely not. He is still serving the same master he was serving when he issued the in- famous blue book. The spirit of Gustavo Duran still guides Braden in his words and actions. The same person and purpose who is holding up every attempt at Western Hemisphere solidarity is also holding up the long-postponed Rio Conference. In the name of common sense let us not begin with Greece. Let us begin with certain employees in our State De- partment. Most of all let us begin with Braden. No person in all of our history has been so universally despised by Latin-Ameri- cans as Spruille Braden. He has caused damage to Latin-American relations be- yond repair. Anybody can get elected to any office in South America merely by denouncing Braden. This shows the con- tempt with which he is held by the friendly pcople of South America. To prove my point, I would like to give you a translation from a Socialist paper in Argentina. This paper is anti-Peron. Therefore, its words should carry some weight. Here is the translation: The more Braden attacks me (Peron), the more evident he becomes. Braden’s hatred has 4 sure origin. In one of our first meet- ings he told me that the friendship of United States toward Argentina had a price, and, ig I was willing to pay it, my government and myself would have the firm and decided support of the American Government. “May I know, Mr. Ambassador, what that price is?” I asked him. “Yes, of course; the Argentine merchant fleet, the Argentine air lines, the railways.” I answered him: “Mr. Ambassador, in our country, whoever sells his country, or helps to sell it, is called, and forgive me for saying so, a son of a Pad Tho Ambassador turned pale and ran away, forgetting his hat. Next I sent him his hat with an orderly. This quotation from a Peron opposi- tion paper is typical of the attitude of South American people toward the man in our State Department who is in charge of Latin-American relations. Yes; these are critical times. Now, more than ever, the Western Hemisphere must be united. I am more concerned about this solidarity than I am about Greece. Iam more interested in keeping communism out of South America than I am about keeping communism out of Greece. We can take a long step forward if we begin at home right under our very noses. There is no reason or excuse to tolerate the machinations of Spruille Braden any longer. Why do we tolerate it? Do we want Latin-American relations to dete- riorate deeper? What good does it do for our President to go to South America to encourage friendly relations and soli- darity when right in our State Depart- ment a person is in charge who does everything to destroy that friendship and solidarity? We have a momentous decision to make in this Congress concerning our Nation's future action. Let us prove our sincerity in our action. Let us not go first to Greece. Let us begin right here at home—in our State Department. Let us get rid of Braden and unify and strengthen ourselves at home and among our closest neighbors. This should be our first step to stop communism—if we are sincere. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The Closed Shop EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. RALPH W. GWINN OF NEW YORK IN THE HCUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 13, 1947 Mr. GWINN of New York. The Ameri- can people are coming to grips at last with insidious tyranny and monopoly that lies behind the innocent words “closed shop.” This time it is not capi- talistic monopoly but laboristic monop- oly. The law dealt with the former evil 40 years ago. It must deal with the latter evil now. Through the recent hearings on labor legislation in the Committee on Education and Labor, the American peo- ple are getting a true picture of the law- lessness and the unconstitutional and bloody facts of the working of the closed-shop monopoly throughout the land. What do we find behind the bolted doors of the closed shop? First, an un- American atmosphere of Socialist totali- tarianism, personal intimidation, and freedom-killing compulsion. The closed shop means that an American worker is required to become a union member be- fore he can hope to get a job. For the right even to work, he is compelled to pay an initiation fee ranging from $2 to $2.000. I repeat—$2,000. Next, to keep his job he must pay all his dues, fines, and assessments. He is dependent upon his union boss for his promotion, seniority, and union rights. From Stalinism our union bosses have learned the trick of denying a worker the right to union vote by denying him mem- bership and giving him instead merely & permit to work. This device keeps down the number who, by their loyal voting, dominate the union and keep the leaders in office year after year. Thus, the noose is drawn around the liberty and dignity of the individual working- man. We did not realize what was happen- ing to the freedom of the workingman until many of our boys came back from the battleflelds and reported that they were expected to bow down at home be- fore labor commissars as rough and tough as those they fought abroad. They had to pay homage for the right to make aliving. And this in a Nation which pro- claims the policy of the open door in China, Greece, Palestine, and Korea, in the air, on the seas, and in world trade. When the inalienable rights of free Americans are taken away the whole so- ciety loses its freedom; and so it is hap- pening. For example, our carpenters, masons, plumbers, painters, our most re- spected and most skilled workers in the greatest of all trades—the building trade—have thrown around themselves the closed-shop ring. In a whole State, for example, in the State of New Jersey right now, no industrial building can go on—$34,000,000 is stopped now—and very little home building, because wages range from $17.50 per day of 7 hours to $21.50. That means farmers, veterans,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD school teachers, preachers, the white- collar workers, or retired persons cannot afford to build at all. The real low-in- come groups fall into slum conditions. Apprentices are prevented from learn- ing the trades. Nonunion men cannot work because of mass picketing and strikes. So the vise is tight. The next and last and inevitable step in such mo- nopoly conditions is threatened, namely, the Government itself takes over. The cry goes up from all over the coun- try, “We want houses; shame on us that our veterans are without homes.” For the moment, before the Govern- ment takes over, as some want, and others do not suspect, labor enjoys a monopoly and high wages. Wages that only a monopoly provides makes labor feel a degree of false power and tem- porary prosperity. No Government has ever tolerated such private exercise of monopolistic power. To illustrate, the public outcry for houses compels the Government even now to threaten to destroy the union security in favor o&the greater public needs for a vaster group whose votes exceed by far those of the closed-shop workers. Government must itself either become that monopoly, or it must free the individual workers and the public from the domination of the closed-shop monopoly. It must make all forms of monopoly illegal for the sake of freedom. There is no other choice. It is either freedom, the great source of houses, or collectivism, socialism, or communism, if you will, via Government monopoly housing. That is the stake the individual union worker, as well as the nonunion worker and the whole pub- lic, has in this legislation. We can only rejoice that in spite of the cries against restoration of equality before the law for all alike, the Amer- ican people are rising to demand an end to this new Lyne of tyranny. A Gallup poll of January 20, 1947, re- ported that a mere 8 percent of the American public favored the closed shop. Among union members, only 19 percent voted favorably on it. Again, a recent opinion research poll showed only 7 percent of the public vot- ing for the closed shop, while a poll by Factory Management proved that no less than 70 percent of the union members themselves advocate the outlawing of the closed or union shops. Hundreds of letters and telegrams received by mem- bers of the House Labor Committee from the rank and file of various labor unions support these facts. * However, over 4,000,000 jobs have al- ready fallen under control of the dicta- tors of a closed-shop arrangement. Em- ployment opportunities, wages, and prices for food and shelter and services are thus monopolized by the union under the absolute veto of labor bosses and very often with the consent of employers. Even so, these cover but a fraction of our 140,000,000 citizens. Unfortunately, this fraction is able, by the device of the closed shop, to take whatever they want from the other 136,000,000 in higher and higher wages and decreased hours, all the while leading themselves and the rest of us farther from traditional Americanism to Government-directed collectivism. Meantime, food and houses grow more scarce, rent, and farm ma- chinery and automobiles go out of reach for most of us, and for exactly the same reasons—the excessive costs of monop- olistic labor. Let us examine the effect which a sys- tem of fear and threat has on the in- dividual, on his capacity.to invent and produce. Threats of arbitrary expulsion from a closed shop effectively discourage him from voicing any opposition to un- ion policy or to a union leadcr. Under our American system, of free- dom and democracy we have always be- lNeved that a man is entitled to protest against what he sincerely believes to be wrong. In his heart, the average union member is still a freedom-loving Ameri- can. He doesn’t like to be forced to sup- port union policies which do not ex- press the will of the majority of the members. He does not like to be pushed around. He does not want to be herded into a strike when he does not want to strike; he balks at having to submit to rules which he has had no part in mak- ing and has no power to alter. But what does the closed shop do? The closed shop in and of itself tends to make union bosses dictators. These bosses permit no opposition to them- selves as commissars. From them there is no effective appeal, For leaders drunk with power are never known to be considerate of their followers’ convic- tions or liberties. Workers become known as “my people.” The closed shop under the one-sided Wagener Act has shackled American la- bor. It has come close to wrecking the American economic system, as literally hundreds of employers and representa- tives of public bodies have testified. The main objections to the closed shop, expressed by these witnesses, are: First. It deprives management of the opportunity to employ the most compe- tent people available, regardless of thcir membership or nonmembership in a union. Second. It compels industry to dis- charge faithful employees who have served the company long and well, at the mere request of the union, often on trumped-up charges. Third. It destroys discipline by mak- ing the employee more responsive to the wishes of his union officers than to the instructions of his foreman. Fourth. The closed shop encourages slow and inefficient production. The combined effects of all these char- acteristics of the closed shop are to place a@ premium on inefficiency, to discourage honest service, to encourage insubordina- tion, to decrease production, and to greatly increase the cost of living. It must now be apparent to all that the primary concern of some labor lead- ers, particularly in closed shops, is to keep the greatest number of union mem- bers employed at the highest possible wages. To achieve this objective, unions have resorted to spread-the-work meth- ods, chief of which have been limitations on output per worker. Under this sys- tem, more employees are required to turn Al1015 out a given volume, with the resultant in- crease in unit cost. Furthermore, full and efficient production is impossible when a worker has no incentive to excel. Under a closed shop, many workers are Satisfled to do only enough to get by because their opportunity for promotion is no longer related to a man's ability, but depends solely on his length of serv- ice and his union leaders’ favor. In the long run, it is the great unionized public that pays for the evils of the closed shop. They pay not only in excessive prices, but in cold and hunger. The un- organized part of the public pays in in- convenience, discomfort, and personal loss of income caused by unnecessarily increased prices. They have their milk, fuel, power, transportation, or telephone shut off. We have been forced to witness how a mere handful of men are able to imperil the health and safety of millions and to bring great cities to their knees. The closed shop by teamsters is being used to prevent farmers from bringing their own produce to market. It is a hold-up weapon used by racketeers who fasten their clutches on a labor union. They fight among themselves, even the best of them, in jurisdictional strikes, the secondary boycott, and industry-wide bargaining. Construction of a whole million-dollar building may be stopped while the carpenters dispute with com- mon labor about who may unload boards from a railroad car. As many as four locals belonging to the same interna- tional fight and strike against each other over who shall handle a load of ordinary building material. The closed shop removes any incentive for union officials to develop understand- ing among the workers of the legitimate purpose of a union, by making it unnec- essary for unions to sell themselves to workers on their merits or services. Present-day closed-shop unions have substituted dictatorial power over the worker for services to the worker. The right to work at an available job of a man’s own choosing and under con- ditions which he himself considers satis- factory is a precious American human right which American= have always valued highly. The closed shop of mod- ern unionism has destroyed this right. Any worker should have the clear right to join any union he wants to, as surely as he should also have the legally pro- tected right not to join a union, if this is his desire. Unions today have full and adequate protection under the law. This protec- tion should and must remain, But the monopolistic and unfair and unjust privileges of the closed shop are not needed, and they must go. To the con- trary, employees and the public alike need to be protected against the evil of the closed shop. In the interests of the American public, it is clear that this Congress must act decisively, ard at once, to outlaw the closed shop, if the arbitrary power of un-Americen labor leaders, rooted in the closed shop, is to be pre- vented from further robbing us as indi- viduals of our freedom.
A1016 Address of Hon. Chapman Revercomb, of West Virginia, to the Veterans of For- eign Wars EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CHAPMAN REVERCOMB OF WEST VIRGINIA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, March 14 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. REVERCOMB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp remarks I made before the Veterans of Foreign Wars at a meeting held by them in the Department of Commerce Building Audi- torium in this city on the evening of March 12 last. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Mr. Chairman and veterans, I appreciate very much the honor that you confer upon me in asking me to meet with you here to- night, and I want to say that I am delighted that you of the Veterans of Foreign Wars have now started upon your campaign to combat those insidious forces within our own country which would tear down our estab- lished form of government. You have fought in the name of your country; now you are determined that that country shall in truth be a land of independent people under sound laws and that you and your children shall enjoy the opportunities of life that a strong, free America offers. This heritage which has come down to us all brings with it a solemn and a definite duty to protect it. There is no part of our people to whom I would rather speak and with whom I would rather work in the preservation of the fun- damental principles of a government for free people than I would with the veterans who have served in the armed services. You have answered the hic hest call that can come to the citizen of a sovereign state in bearing arms in combat in behalf of your country. There has been impressed deep into your thoughts and into your very souls a genuine love of your country. That is real patriot- ism. It is that feeling which brought about the establishment of this Nation when the men of that day determined to be free; and it is that feeling that has made generation after generation since the establishment of this Government rise to defend it. If the young men of this country can be called upon to bear arms in time of war, cer- tainly they are entitled to be heard in time of peace; and the call now comes to you as veterans of your country to work in unified effort to eradicate from our own land those philosophies that are destructive of our es- tablished way of government and of living, and to stop the work of those whose objec- tive is to destroy this country. Subversive activities have generally been referred to as communism, fascism, and nazism. Basically, the danger in them all is the same. The final objective of each is to seize the Government for group rule and to control all men and women in their Lives and activities for the primary benefit of the group in power. That, of course, means de- struction of freedom for the public. That communism is extant in this land of ours cannot be doubted by those who have had contact with any phase of public life. Not only is the objective of communism bad, but the means of operation are subversive, hidden, and underhand. That its objective is bad for America has received official pro- nouncement in thé opinion of the Attorney General of the United States a few years ago when he advised the President that the Communist organization seeks the overthrow of the American Government by foroe. Had there ever been any doubt about the underhand and hidden methods of the Com- munist actors, such doubt would have been dispellec could the people have heard the testimony recently given before a committee of the Senate. Some of this testimony was by persons who admitted prior membership in the Communist Party. In achieving their ends, they are directly instructed to deceive by hiding their identity, by denying affilla- tion with communism, and even'to go under false names in carrying on their work. That communism is rampant in America, let me quote from an address made by Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as recently as Sep- tember 30, 1946, before the national conven- tion of the American Legion at San Fran- cisco, Calif.: “During the past 5 years American Com- munists have made their deepest inroads upon our national life. In our vaunted tol- erance for all peoples, the Communist has found our ‘Achilles’ heel.’ The American Legion represents a force which holds with- in its power the ability to expose the hypoc- risy and ruthlessness of this foreign ism which has crept into our national life, an ism built and supported by dishonor, deceit, tyranny, and a deliberate policy of false- hood. “It is a matter of self-preservation. The veteran who fought for America will be among the first to suffer if the Communisis succeed in carrying out their diabolical plots to wreck the American way of life. The divide-and-conquer tactics did not die with Hitler—they are being employed with greater skill today by American Communists with their ‘boring from within’ strategy. Their propaganda, skillfully designed and adroitly executed, has been projected into practically every phase of our national life. The fact that the Communist Party in the United States claims some 100,000 members has lulled many Americans into a feeling of false complacency. I would not be concerned if we were dealing vith only 100,000 Commu- nists. The Communists themselves boast that, for every party member, there are 10 others ready to do the party's work. These include their satellites, their fellow travel- ers, and their so-called progressive and phony liberal allies. They have maneuvered them- selves into postions where a few Commu- nists control the destinies of hundreds who are either willing to be led or have been duped into obeying the dictates of othors. “The Communist influence has projected itself into some newspapers, magazines, books, radio, and the screen. Some churches, schools, colleges, and even fraternal orders have been penetrated, not with the approval of the rank and file but in spite of them. I have been pleased to observe that the Com- munist attempts to penetrate the American Legion have met with failure. Eternal vigi- lance will continue to keep your ranks free of shifty, double-crossing Communist de- structionists. “We are rapidly reaching the time when loyal Americans must be willing «o stand up and be counted. The American Communist Party, despite its claims, is not truly a polit- ieal party. The Communist Party in this country is not working for the general wel- fare of all our people—it is working against our people. It is not interested in providing for the common defense. It has for its pur- pose the shackling of America and its con- version to the godless, Communist way of life. If it were a political party, its adher- ents could be appealed to by reason. Instead it Is a system of intrigue, actuated by fanati- cism, It knows no rules of decency. Its APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD unprincipled converts would sell America short if it would help their cause of further- ing an alien way of life, conceived in darkness and motivated by greed for power, whose ultimate aim is the destruction of our cher- ished freedom. Let us no longer be misled by their sly propaganda and false preach- ments on civil Mberty. They want civil license to do as they please, and if they get control HMberty for America will be but a haunting memory, for those who seek to pro- voke prejudice and stir up the public mind to angry resentment against our form of government are a menace to the very powers of law and order which guarantee and safe- guard popular rights.” Certainly if anyone would be familfar with the existence of these hidden activities and their purpose it would be Mr. Hoover, whose work is devoted to ferreting out the lurking dangers that are not apparent to the people as they go about their daily lives. Communist Party membership is a secret, but Life magazine for July 29, 1946, stated: “The American Communist Party origi- nated in 1919 with the split of left-wing groups from the Second, or Socialist, Interna- tional, following the Russian Revolution. In 1934 the party claimed 25,000 cardholders; in 1936, 40,000; in 1938, 75,000. The Moscow trials of 1936-38 and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of 1939 were body blows and the party lost heavily. Earl Browder’s wartime policy of subordinating everything to national unity brought membership back to 80,000 in 1944, mostly from the middle class; but Willlam Z. Foster's current radical program has lost many of the Browder adherents. The (4 membership drive may have raised the total to about 65,000—far short of the 1946 goal of 100,000.” It is worthy of note, however, that J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI, speaks of a Com- munist Party membership claim of 100,000. However, the effectiveness of the organization is not limited entirely by its membership. They plant what they call “cells” in every phase of life and work. “Cells” are secret workers, and from them flow the ideas that contaminate others around them. In addi- tion to the actual party members are those who accept the Communist line of thought and action. Thus the political disease is spread. The numbers affected and working are unknown. Further, upon the existence of communism in this country. we need but to resort to the files and records of the Committee on Un- American Activities of the House of Repre- sentatives. That committee has been ma- ligned in the public press and by certain radio commentators, but I am thankful to know that it continues in existence, and I trust that so long as there is any menace to this Government that it wil! continue to bring into the light for public sight the ac- tivities of those who hide and work and de- stroy within this land that has given them haven and which they tear down. One of the gravest questions which con- fronts your Government today is that of permitting the admission here of a large number of people from the war-torn coun- tries of Europe. There is a great appeal to the feelings of America to help the thou- sands of unfortunate people who have been uprooted from their homes by the destruc- tion of war. Some of them are doubtless good people who could be accepted into citi- zenship of this country and become valued members of our national family. Some of the greatest citizens of this land have been immigrants who entered here and who ac- cepted our ideals and traditions with genu- ineness. In fact, all of us, with the excep- tion of our native Indians, are either tmmi- grants or the children of immigrants, some removed by several generations. I do not speak out against anyone from another land
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD who has made hig home here and who has, in truth and in his heart, accepted the prin- ciples of America. On the other hand, we cannot be so blind and so thoughtless as not to see and to know that there are among those who seek en- trance here persons who cannot accept and will not accept American life and who take advantage of the freedom given them here to destroy their benefactors. They have been the principal preachers of communism in this country, and some who have come here have been the prime actors in its growth. We must and will answer the call of dis- tress anywhere. We will go to the suffering. But indeed is it not better that we aid them to reestablish themselves where they are or near their own native lands rather than to take them into our own household? Some carry political disease that already threatens here. Let the immigration laws stay fixed under our quotas so that those who enter may be properly tested and that a balanced entrance of people may come from the different na- tionalities of Europe. Oh, some may say that America is the great melting pot. Even so, let us take only those whom we can melt into the life of America and not those who cannot, in truth, become a part of us. We must give con- sideration to the time, to’ the condition of our own country, and the political thought and feeling of those who seek entrance. Unless we do this, not only will we fall to stop the growth of communism and other destructive ideologies by whatever name they may be called but we will strengthen a force that can destroy us. So, gentlemen, I am giad that you have started upon your campaign. I urge you to pursue it with fairness so that the innocent may not be injured; that you pursue it with a due respect to the rights of the individual who has become a part of American life; but, also, that you pursue it with a persistence and a vigor that will obtain your purpose of bringing into public view the lurking, hid- den threat of communism in this country. No greater service can be rendered this land and your countrymen than a genuine, hon- est service for this purpose. We are more concerned in truth with the activities of the Communist in America than we are with his activities in any other land. If they choose to go that way in their own countries that is their problem, but when they come within the bounds of our own country that is very much your problem and mine. William Z. Foster made a statement some- time ago in his efforts to gain the ear of the workers of this country which rather spe- cifically sets forth the views of communism, and this was his statement: “The workers of this country and the workers of every country have but one fiag— the flag of the revolutionary class, and we owe no allegiance to any other flag.” We, you and I, owe allegiance to another flag. We owe it and we hold it for the flag of the United States of America, and that allegiance to the flag is but a symbol of our allegiance and our devotion to this country. We want our people to continue to live in personal liberty and freedom under laws that are fair. We want every man to have the reward of his work and his ability, We want a freedom where men may maintain their homes and rear their families under their own guidance, We want the pathways of opportunity to be open to every boy and girl in America to rise through their own efforts to high achievements and to lives of service to their fellowmen. Yes, we owe an allegiance to these things and under that allegiance let us now move to make that course of life safe for the people of this be- loved land, Change in the Foreign Policy EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HARRY FLOOD BYRD OF VIRGINIA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, March 14 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr.BYRD. Mr. President, I ack unan- imous consent to insert in the Appendix of the Recorp an editorial written by Dr. Douglas S. Freeman, the editor of the Richmond (Va.) News-Leader, re- garding the new foreign policy proposed by the President. Dr. Freeman is one of the most bril- liant and distinguished of American writers. It 1s imperative that the people of America understand the full implications of the plan proposed in the President’s message, and I regard Dr. Freeman’s edi- torial as an outstanding contribution to such an enlightenment. Whatever may be our ultimate deci- sion, we must have a foreign policy sup- ported by an enlightened public opinion, as otherwise America may reverse itself in later years, and the consequences may then be calamitous. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Mr. TRuMAN ANNOUNCES A NEw POLicy The President's address to Congress yes- terday was in substance an announcement that our Government had abandoned the policy of attempting to conciliate Russia, Instead of pursuing that policy, Mr. Truman proposes that the United States actively re- sist the spread of communism. To this change from conciliation to resist- ance, our Government may have been mov- ing for many months. Evidence of the change has been apparent increasingly since General Marshall became Secretary of State. His experience in China convinced him that the foes of nationalism in China were re- ceiving their orders directly from Moscow. Every move made by General Chou was dic- tated from the Kremlin. General Marshall concluded that what Russia was doing to establish communism in China she was do- ing in the Balkans, in central Europe, and in every other country where communism could take root. The new Secretary must have convinced the President that the only way to halt the advance of Russian influence was to oppose it everywhere through every government that was willing to resist. This is the starting point of any objective treatment of the President's speech. He an- nounced a revolution in foreign policy and he asked Congress to support it. THE APPLICATION OF THIS POLICY The President, needless to say, did not state this new policy in cold terms of opposi- tion to Russia. He applied it specifically and positively to Greece and to Turkey, but he laid down this basic principle: “It must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting at- tempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressure.” He made no reservation, and he set no lim- itation, It is not merely a question of lend- ing Greece the equivalent of $40 for every man, woman, and child of the Greek popula- tion, in order that the Government may de- stroy an uprising by border bandits and A1017 troublemakers who number, as he says, “‘sev- eral thousand.” Even if this were all, the United States would have to ask whether the Government of Greece has the vigor and the popular support requisite for suppressing an insurrectionary movement which, under one name or another, has existed in Mace- donia for at least a generation. That aspect of the question may be considered at a later time. The broader application is to be scru- tinized now: Should it be “the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressure’? If we are to support free peoples in Greece, are we not committed to doing the same thing in other countries of the Near East, the Middle East, and the Far East? Do we not thercby set ourselves up to be the judges of what constitutes a free people? Are we not saying, in effect, that we intend to support the existing order, the status quo, wher ver we i1egurd a government as free or potentially in the American world? After having protested against the policy by which Russia has supported the radical ele- ment in Poland, in the Balkans, and in Hun- gury, are we not contradicting our own logic by saying, substantially, we, too, shall back to the .'mit the elements that subscribe to our ideology? The new foreign policy undoubtedly com- mits the United States to be the anti-Com- munist policeman of the world and the guar- dian of every government thut professes it- self thrcatened when we adjudge it free. Myr. Truman calls on us as a nation not only to take the place of Britain as general watch- man of the seas but also to assume the task of being shore patrol wherever Communist disorder threatens a government. WHERE DO THE UNITED NATIONS COME IN? In the application of this new, world-wide policy, Mr. Truman says no more of UN than this: “We have considered how the United Nations might assist in this crisis, but the situation is an urgent one requiring imme- diate action, and the United Nations and its related organizations are not in a position to extend help of the kind that ts required.” How can he justify that statement? Can- not he see that many devoted Americans will ask, Is not this hush-hush policy, this hurry-hurry call, made an excuse for avoid- ing reference of the issue to the United Na- tions? In the strictest sense, the San Francisco Charter may not provide any means for bole stering a disheartened and feeble Govern- ment to resist border attacks which it be- Neves of foreign inspiration, but in the large est sense the Charter provides machinery for reviewing conditions that threaten peace. Even if UN officials today agree that Mr. Truman’s statement is correct, the country is almost certain to resent the short-circuit- ing of an organization millions of us labored to create and to strengthen. If America con- temptuously disregards the United Nations when it suits her to do so, how can she cx- pect other nations to respect us when their special interests similarly are involved? CONGRESS WILL ASK MANY QUESTIONS All these questions and many others will be asked in Congress, and as vigorously in the House as well as in the Senate, because as an appropriation is asked, both Houses have equal rights of debate. Apparently, most of the Republicans to whom the Pres- ident spoke privately on Monday are ready to support him, though several of them make reservations and express doubts about the wide implications of the President's policy. We have not the least idea that a majority of both Houses will approve the whole of the underlying policy. It is doubtful whether they make the appropriations, but if they do that, they will hedge the expenditures about
A1018 with so many qualifications of policy that the intended warning to Russia will lose its point. The average Member of Congress al- ways is loath to support any policy that looks to intervention or to war even when the dan- ger is near. Prior to December, 1941, it would have been impossible to muster a majority for formal endorsement of the be- nevolent neutrality Mr. Roosevelt displayed. Congressmen were willing to let him give aid to Britain and, after June, 1941, to Russia, but they would not face the ayes and noes of a roll call that meant open war. Only the incredible stupidity of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor sufficed to bring the United States into the war. After all the hardships and sacrifices of that struggle, the President is demanding more than Congress will allow. WILL MARSHALL BE LET DOWN? The one circumstance that will make some Congressmen hesitate to say “No” to the President's proposal is the feeling that if the appeal from the White House is rejected, General Marshall will be let down in Mos- cow. Americans believe so completely in the integrity and in the wisdom of the gen- eral that they view sympathetically any pro- gram he advocates. Even this is not to be a decisive consider- ation. Members of Congress will realize, of course, that the President’s appearance be- fore Congress was timed to strengthen the Secretary in a firm stand at Moscow. The strategy doubtless is that when General Marshall formally offers a four-power non- aggression pact, he inferentially will present vigorous American action in the Near East as an alternative. He is to tell Mr. Molo- tov, almost in plain words, “Here 1s your choice: Either we will sign with you a 40- year nonaggression pact to stop propaganda, to preserve the peace, and to keep Germany down militarily, or else we shall resist you everywhere to the limit. Stop your infiltra- tion or expect our complete opposition.” Before that diplomatic strategy was adopted, the President and the Secretary of State should have been sure they could get adequate congressional] backing. Both may have miscalculated in one important respect: General Marshall in 1941-45 had a measure of support in Congress such as no man ex- cept Roosevelt has enjoyed in this genera- tion; but the general left the country in December 1945 and did not return until the second week in January 1947. During that time, the morale of wartime disintegrated. Control of Congress changed. While respect for Genera] Marshall remains as high as ever it was, his influence with the Nation's law- makers may have diminished, especially since he has entered a Democratic Cabinet. If, then, the President mistakenly assumed that General Marshall would command full sup- port in Congress, after taking a vigorous stand in Moscow, is Congress to be called upon to support a policy it disapproves sim- ply because the President erred in estimating the influence of General Marshall? More fundamentally, the question is not one of personal prestige but of sound national pol- icy. That should be the basis of the approach Congress makes to this critical issue. It will be ‘ad if General Marshall is discredited at Moscow; it will be infinitely worse if America takes the wrong turn in the road that leads to peace or to war. EVERY MAN MUST TAKE HIS STAND Thus far the News-Leader has attempted to review the President's policy in terms of the existing situation without reference to individual opinion. Now that we have re- ported, so to speak, we must take our stand— as every man must. In our judgment, the President has made a most dangerous mis- take. From motives above any possible question, he has approved a course of action that goes beyond the resolution and the re- sources of the American people. They are not prepared to say for an instant that in the Near East or the Far East or anywhere else they will support without reservation free peoples who are resisting attempted subju- gation by armed minorities or by outside pressure. In their impoverishment and misery, the economically disadvantaged classes in many countries are Nstening to the absurdities of communism and are grasping at the hope of betterment through the overthrow of a capi- talism that already is dead there. Other classes in those countries are too much weakened in body, in mind, and in resources to resist successfully the infiltration of com- munism. In our judgment, the entire region east of a line from the mouth of the Oder to the head of the Adriatic might as well be written off, for this generation, as the seat of any true democracy. What will happen in the Far East, none can foresee as yet. Neither there nor in the Near East can the United States determine the result by sub- Bidy, by the sale of arms, or by the support of governments too feeble to maintain them- selves. If we make the effort, we shall over- extend ourselves and, instead of becoming stronger in the event of another war, we shall be weaker. Financially and politically, America will bankrupt herself in trying to save bankrupts. Such help as we can give, we should devote to France and to the Brit- ish Commonwealth of Nations. Instead of bypassing the United Nations we should use the organization to the utmost and should seek to upbuild it. Our legislation best will be shaped to future emergency if it is con- centrated on peace and on our own defense. Soviet Cross Section—Review of Book by Richard E. Lauterbach EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. GLEN H. TAYLOR OF IDAHO . IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, March 14 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Rrcorp a review which appeared in the St. Louis Post- Dispatch of March 9, 1947, of the new book by Richard E. Lauterbach, the bril- liant foreign correspondent whose dis- patches in Life, Time, Harper’s, and other publications we have all read with so much interest. There being no objection, the review was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: SOVIET CROSS SECTION (Through Russia's Back Door, by Richard E. Lauterbach ) Two unexpected signs may foreshadow a changing trend in the popular attitude to- ward Russia. The Saturday Evening Post, pillar of the American middle class, runs a series of articles by Associate Editor Edgar Snow, and Harper publishes Lauterbach’s Through Russia's Back Door, both de- partures from the currently popular treat- ment of Russia, Snow and Lauterbach sug- gest that we stop and take stock. The Russia which Lauterbach pictures through the presentation of vivid, pertinent, and intimate details of his 5,800-mile train trip across that country is one whose people are tired of war, war which so recently took millions of lives, wrecked industries and de- stroyed agriculture. With 25,000,000 people homeless the Russia Lauterbach saw was in no position to wage war. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD We have done so much shrieking of “wolf,” says Lauterbach, that we have finally made the Russians the fearful, apprehensive peo- ple John Fischer pictured in his recent Har- per's articles. But Lauterbech points out that it is aggressive action on America's part which the Russians fear. And with Ameri- can occupation of Japan, the naval bases in the Pacific, atom bomb tests at Bikini, aid to Chiang in China, support of Fascist fac- tions in Greece, and our Navy partols in the eastern Mediterranean, it ts small wonder that apprehension exists in Russia today. Though factual and informative, Through Russia's Back Door is never heavy. Its characters: Poppa, the ex-ice skater; Ageev, the minor Soviet bureaucrat; Major Sokolov; and the rest are individuals even as they are symbolic. Lauterbach will please neither American Communists nor American supernationalists. He discloses with too great an impartiality both the poverty, squalor, and cheapness of life in Russia, and her brawn, stamina, her unquenchable spirit, and her considerable attainments. This much the book tells us: Two years of life exist in the world today; the Com- munists’ and ours. In a showdown fight, a third world war, in the near future, Ameri- cans would more than likely win. But the Russians, he says, have no taste for such a struggle. The book could teach us that if we have @ firm faith in the competitive system of free enterprise, the path for us to take is that of building our own ideals and prin- ciples into our system, making it what we like to believe it is. It could then defy ideological opposition from any other sys- tem. We might then give some validity to the impression we apparently have left with the Russian sailor whom Lauterbach over- heard saying, “America is a wonderful place. Everything is wonderful and right; nothing is wrong or bad.” When asked whether he would like to be in America, the sailor re- plied, “Oh, no. I am sometimes both wrong and bad.” R. I. Bricnam. Reorganization and Streamlining of Government EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HENRY CABOT LODGE, JR. OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, March 14 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Rgcorp an editorial entitled “A Complete Overhauling,” from the Lowell (Mass.) Sun, for March 10, 1947, and an article entitled “Stream- lined Government Aim of Senator Lopar,” from the Boston (Mass.) Globe, for March 11, 1947. There being no objection, the editorial and article were ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: {From the Lowell ror Sun of March 10, 4 COMPLETE OVERHAULING A proposal to rebuild th2 Government from top to bottom has been introduced in Con- gress by Senator Heway Casor Lopas, Jr., of Massachusetts, who has advised his colleagues that the present confusion and inefficiency gannot be eliminated unless a complete job lone,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD From time to time when glaring weak- nesses in the governmental structure have been exposed, hasty efforts have been made to correct conditions. Such discoveries of confusion and inefficiency have been coming with such alarming frequency that many observers, including the alert Senator from Massachusetts, have reached the conclusion that sporadic and isolated attempts to im- prove the Government are and will be in- effective. in the long run. The people of America have ample evidence of the futility of many branches of their Government, and it is safe to say that were Senator Lopce's proposals put to popular vote, there would be overwhelming support for the complete overhauling. Moreover, there is not too much time to lose. [From the Boston (Mass.) Globe of March 11, 1947] BTREAMLINED GOVERNMENT AIM OF SENATOR . LODGE (By John G. Harris) WASHINGTON.—If Senator HENry CABOT LoncE's plans are accepted by Congress and the President, there will be no frantic guess- work in the future as to how much Govern- ment expenses can be cut. Lopce would like to do for the sprawling, vast executive branch what Congress did to itself last year—streamline. Lopce would fix responsibility with certainty. He would even have Cabinet officers report monthly to the Congress to make clear an eye was being kept on the outgo of Uncle Sam's money. Lepce's plans are of extreme interest be- cause of the sort of blind-man's bluff we've been watching on Capitol Hill. The Congress has passed no appropriation bills. It has not been able yet, because there has not been time to go into the details of the amount of money that will be needed to maintain Federal services. Yet Republicans in the House and the Sen- ate have tried to settle upon some figure by which they say they will cut appropriations this year. Naturally there has been no agree- ment because data on which agreement could be reached are not at hand. The House voted for the popular $6,000,- 000,000 cut. Some say it could be larger. Beardsley Ruml, father of the present pay- as-you-go income-tax plan, goes as high as $8,000,000,000. Our two Senators, LopcE and SALTONSTALL, went along with 4,500,000,000. Keep in mind that none of this is an actual cut. It is just what it is hoped can be done. Lonce referred to the entire business as working in the dark. What he and SALTON- STALL foresaw was that the Nation may yet have to undertake unseen expenditures that would knock out the predicted budget slash. Developments now on Greece bear out the concern of the Senators. The President, when he goes before Congress, is expected to seek as much as $350,000,000 to back an American foreign policy being shaped to meet the emergency sprung by the financial de- cline of the British. What funds may eventually be needed to see this policy through is anybody’s guess, But one thing is quite clear. Any budget pledge to cut by an arbitrary figure runs a strong risk of being badly upset by events. Lodge wants Congress to tackle Govern- ment waste with eyes wide open. He wants a 12-member commission, 4 to be appointed by President Truman, to devote until next January to a study of the executive branch. Despite multiplicity of units the executive branch has not been reorganized since the war. Congressman RICHARD WIGGLESWORTH, one of the best-informed men in Washington on these facts, says if you leave out the Army and Navy there are today more Federal employees still on the pay roll than there were VJ-day. Lopez would have the commission fine- comb departments, bureaus, agencies, boards, commissions, Offices, etc., to bring expendl- tures to a minimum, end duplication, con- solidate and abolish where necessary. Lopce emphasizes that Congress must have facts to act effectively. In the past when Congress has decided to cut an appropria- tion, in many instances it has not been able thereby to cut waste. Instead smart tempo- rary help have been lost. Bureaucrats re- main. “Business management is what is needed,” say Longe. Right now it is hard to affix re- sponsibility because generally control of a department's finances and personnel is di- vided. Lopse, working for early action on his plan, says he has been assured the cooperation of Senator Grorce AIKEN, of Vermont, chair- man of the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Department. Income-Tax Reductions EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. GLEN H. TAYLOR OF IDAHO IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, March 14 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the REcorD an article dealing with the question of income-tax reductions, written by Peter Edson, and published in the Washington Daily News of Wednesday, March 12, 1947. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: Nuts To THF KNUTSON PLAN, Says PETE (By Peter Edson) This being the week when everybody sweats, bleeds, and cries over his income- tax return, any news about possible reduc- tions for the last half of this ycar and there- after should be more welcome than the flowers of, spring. But the sad fact is that the one major tax-cut apple before Congress is full of worms. This is Minnesota Republican Rep- resentative HAROLD KNUTSON's proposal for a flat 20-percent tax cut on all incomes below 303,000. Above this level the cut would become gradually smaller till it reached a minimum cut of 10 percent on incomes above $5,000,000 a year. TWO MONTHS LATE Hearings on this tax-cut plan are getting under way before the House Ways and Means Committee, of which KNuTsON is the new chairman. The hearings are only about 2 months late. Tax cutting was going to be the first order of business when the Repub- licans came into power, 80 they said. But they never got to it. KNUTSON has talked about this 20 percent across the board cut ever since way before last November's election. He said it was easi- est to administer. And while the flat 20 per- cent cut at first sounded good, particularly when coupled with the statement that it would reduce the Nation's tax bill by an esti- mated $3,600,000,000, that’s only part of the story, Tax experts who have had time to do some really sharp pencil figuring on this idea have come up with some facts which show what a really vicious proposal it is. By cutting all taxes 20 percent, instead of on a graduated scale, the fellow or the family with the lowest income gets the least relief. A1019 The reason it works out this way is that in- come tax rates are lower on the low incomes. HOW IT WORKS OUT Present tax rate on a $1,000 income is 9.5 percent. On 810.000 it’s 18.8 percent. On $1,000,000 it’s 63.5 percent. Cut these per- centages by 20 percent and naturally the man paying the highest percentage will get the biggest tax reduction. To get the feel of this, tax experts say that the amount of tax relief which the Knutson plan would give must be measured against the percentage by which take-home pay would be increased. For this purpose, the taxpayer's net income after payment of taxes under present law must be compared with the amount which take-home pay would rise under the Knutson plan. For an unmarried taxpayer with no de- pendents, the figures shape up like this: Tax {Increased | Percent- Net annual | Present under take- age in- income taxes | Knutson} homo come plan pay inercase $800 .. $10 $15 $4 07 $1,200. 05 76 ly 2.1 $2,500. 3x0 304 76 3.6 $5,000. N22 737 IRS 4.5 $10,000. 2, 347 1,878 469 6.1 $25,000 | 9, 362 7, 490) 1, 872 12.0 $50,000. _ 25, 137 20, 110 5, 027 20. 2 $100,000. 200. Gs, 641 50, B82 12, 700 34,9 $408,000.00... 237, SOO 190, 000 47, 100 72.6 What this table shows, in brief, is that under the Knutson plan a taxpayer with an average income of say 82,500 a year would have his taxes cut and his take-home pay increased by 876 a year. This would be equivalent to a 3.6-percent raise in pay. At the other end of the scale, a man with a $303,000 income would have his taxes cut and his take-home pay increased by 847,500 a year. This would be equivalent to a 172.6- percent increase in pay. For a married man with two dependents, the figures are these: Tax |Inercased | Pereent- Net annual | Present | under take- age in- income taxes {| Knutson| home come plan pay increas $2,500. gon $76 $19 0.8 $5,000 fay 47) 118 2.7 $10,000 1, 862 1,49) 372 4.6 $25,000. 8 522 6, 818 1, 704 10. 3 $50,000. _ - 24,011 19, 240 4, 822 18.6 $100,000. 000. 62, 201 40, 841 12, 460 33.1 $304,000. 237, 600 | 190, 000 47, 600 71.0 With reductions on these cockeyed scales, chances that the Knutson plan will be adopted should be slim. There is plenty of opposition to it even from Republicans, in spite of campaign promises, which weren't carefully thought out before they were uttered. What will probably get by will be a gradu- ated tax-reduction scale that will give a cut of 20 percent or more to the lower-income groups, but something less than thut to the higher brackets. Old Lamps for New EXTENSION OF REMARKS Or HON. ALBERT W. HAWKES OF NEW JERSEY IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, March 12 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. HAWKES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have inserted in
A1020 the Appendix of the REcorD an ad- dress delivered by my friend, James A. Emery, to the annual dinner group of the Los Angeles Realty Board, at the Hotel Ambassador, Los Angeles, on Feb- ruary 21, 1947. The subject of this great address was “Old Lamps for New.” James A. Emery is a great American who has as deep an interest in supporting our form of Gov~ ernment and way of life and as great a desire to preserve it as any American with whom I have ever come in contact. Americans all would do well to read and ponder his words of wisdom regard- ing the preservation of individual free- dom versus the trading of such freedom for a system of dictatorship which promises much and delivers nothing but misery. Mr. President, I find that the address will occupy in the Recorp a quarter of a page more than the limit allowed without an estimate. I have received an esti- mate of cost, which is $159.75. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Arising at an hour when guests and grave- yards, alike, begin to yawn, I should seek your attention with trepidation, but for the fame of your courtesy and the generous words of your toastmaster. Moreover, the leaders of a community that brought the ocean to ita door, considers Hawaii a suburb, and made the turbulent Colorado a tributary of its household faucets, are little troubled by time or space. Beneath the sparkling surface of this splendid gathering lie fresh memories of that titanic struggie that made all the world its stage and all mankind participants. Victor and vanquished, alike, confront the awful fruits of triumph and defeat for they can- not avoid the effect upon the minds and re- lations of men and nations of the most far-reaching social catastrophe in the annais of the human race. Even now, the repre- sentatives of fifty nations confer in appre- hension, to mold a new international order, harried as never before by the awful prospect that in any future clash of arms, the science of military defense will be the science of mutual annihilation. Meantime, the agencies and concepts of communism and state socialism are over- whelmingly the proponents of popular gov- ernment and parliamentary institutions in the struggle for control of reorganized na- tions, while the mother of parliament is learning whether a labor government can govern labor. What influence are we to exert in this dangerously intimate neighborhood of na- tions, and how? For four long years, the business of life has been the production of death. Twice within a generation, at awful sacrifice of men and treasure, we have supplied the crit- ica’ balance in wnsought war to save the Old World and the New from inevitable defeat. We have mortgaged our future to finance international victory and rehabilitation. But neither short-lived gratitude nor fear of our power has been the source of our influ- ence. From their establishment, it was our political ideas and institutions and their en- ergizing influence expressed in accomplish- ment that captivated the minds, excited the imagination, and aroused the hopes of man-~ kind. For we made individual freedom a splendid working success in the everyday lives of men. For a century and a half, un- der principles developed out of natural right and Christian morality, we exemplified their practical advantages when recognized and molded into ordered liberty, struggling, sometimes awkwardly, but always onward and upward to reconcile personal right with social progress, under self-imposed restraint. If we are to play well the great part as- signed by tragic events, our first conoern is the retention, unimpatred, of those essen- tial principles and institutions of constitu- tional government which inspire our growth and influence. “To preserve them,” said Washington, “must be as necessary fis to in- stitute them.” Standing tonight, by your courtesy, within the shadow of that great and unique Ameri- can whom you commemorate. I recall the words of a distinguished European philoso- pher, “The greatest and most far-reaching revolutions in history are not consciously ob- served at the time of their occurrence.” And the admonition of an American jurist, “It is with governments as with religions, the form oft survives the substance of the faith.” As a humble but observant member of the only profession taking a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, I believe that for nearly two decades we have lived through a by no means aban- doned endeavor to impair or subvert major principles of this Government. I do not refer to the continuing searching Challenge to which many long-held eco- nomic theories have been subjected nor to critical reexamination of accepted principles. Washington urged us to revert to them and reflect upon them. He knew they would stand the test and ever be as new as laughter, as old as tears. His solemn words of fare- well sound as though they envisioned con- temporary events. He urged us not only to “discountenance irregular opposition” to the Government, but to “resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, how- ever specious the pretext.” He feared “the spirit of encroachment tending to consolidate the powers of all the departments (of gov- ernment) into one, and then to create, what- ever the form of government, a despotism.” He warned, “if, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the con- stitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way in which the Constitution desig- nates, But let there be no change by ursurpation.” “It is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” I fully recognize the proprieties of this occasion. The things to which I refer in- fect the bloodstream of the Nation. I have no thought or desire to excite or appeal to partisanship. The issues I suggest trans- cend it. They have aroused the serious ap- prehensions of private citizens and public men of all shades of political opinion. Their proponents have pressed some proposals with such intensity as to threaten, and attempt, the political assassination of leading party associates who refused support to their pro- gram. Let us turn to what has been and is being done to some elementary constitutional prin- ciples. Time will not permit detailed con- sideration. I can but cite major examples and illustrate their operating effect. I submit (1) the vast expansion of execu- tive authority, by deliberate impairment of the tradition of limited tenure of office and the frank, repeated, and often successful in- vasion and subordination of the legislative and judicial departments. In the former case, by the selection and command for “must” legislation and the insistence that no “reasonable” doubt of its constitutionality must stand in the way of enactment. Further, by the creation of innumerable executive agencies exercising quasi legislative and judicial powers in the execution of social policy through a multiplicity of often un- identifiable, and frequently anonymous, ruies regulating with the force of law the most fundamental rights of persen and property; usually formulated without notice or hearing to the interested parties, gener- ally impervious to judicial review, and not APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD rarely administered by officials carefully selected for prejudiced devotion to the poli- cies they were appointed both to adjudicate and execute; scornful and bitterly resistant to effective legal control; constituting, in the language of the venerable Dean Pound of Harvard, a movement “nothing short of revo- lutionary in our American polity” and un- hesitatingly acknowledged and praised as such by its sponsors. The similar abuse of administrative law in Great Britain was characterized by Lord Chief Justice Hewart as The New Despotiam. This condition of executive absolutism reached its zenith in 1986, in the “hot oll case.” There the Supreme Court found in litigation before it “the persons affected, the prosecuting authorities, and the courte were, alike, ignorant of the fact” that the section of the oil code at issue was repealed before the action began. At about this time, despite the multiplicity of Executive and administrative orders, we were the only modern Nation without an Official gazette for their publication. Five months after the Hot Oil Case (293 U. 8S. 388), Congress authorized a Federal Register to have custody of and publish Federal procla- mations, rules, and regulations. The Act had to be amended and did not become fully effective until 1938, because it was found that from March 4, 1933, to June 1934, some 674 Executive orders, comprising 1,400 pages, in conjunction with 2,988 regulations and orders issued under the National Industrial Recovery Act were to be found only within 5,991 press releases. Not until June 1938 was a codification board enabled to publish nearly 20,000 pages of Executive orders and administrative rules and regulations, em- bracing 50 titles and affecting the conduct and property of our citizens, and hitherto substantially unknown to the millions for whom they were the law of the land. A congressional attempt “to regulate the regulators” in 1940 was vetoed. In 1946. a second attempt received Executive approval and awaits its test. You are familiar with Executive criticism of a disagreeing Supreme Court and the frank and determined effort which followed, like that of King James, to reconstruct a judicial tribunal that would cooperate with the Executive view of what the law ought to be rather than find in the exercise of Execu- tive absolutism and the dispensing power what Justice Cardozo described as “discre- tion run riot.” Repulsed but not defeated, the successful partisan coloring of the ju- diciary is suggested by the factual summary of the Department of Justice made last Oc- tober. It revealed that since 1933, there had been appointed to the United States Su- preme Court 9 Democrats and 2 Republicans; to the 10 circuit courts, 46 Democrats and 2 Republicans; to the district courts, 146 Dem- ocrats and 2 Republicans. All appointments to the Federal courts during that period com- prised 222 Democrats and 9 Republicans, the present composition of the Federal judiciary being 191 Democrats and 6 Republicans. I have no desire to suggest that membership in one party rather than another ts any test of either learning or integrity, but against a background of determined effort to establish an Executive influence over judicial opinion, it reminds one of the conclusion reached by Mrs. Joe Gargery in Dickens’ Great Expecta- tions when, upon inspecting little Pipp, she remarked: “If sitting on the bank of the river was a capital offense, the evidence on the seat of your pants would hang you.” The eecond step in the impairment of fundamentals, I suggest, is found in what radicals and the most advanced progressives have hitherto consistently denounced as Judicial legislation. In a brief period, the Court has overturned prin- present ciples of law as old as Sina!l, and constitu- tional interpretations as old as the Court. ‘Whether we agree or ‘with the wis- dom of the result, the fact remains that over