Ail4 the forces and the conduct of the cam- patens—Ex parte Milligan (4 Wall. 2 139): Swaim v. United States (166 U. S. 553). Calling the war in Korea a police ac- tion should not change this principle. IV, PUBLIC OFINION Whatever remonstrance is made by Congress or the people against any de- cision made or action taken by the Pres- ident within his lawful p2wers can only serve to infiuence him in his further de- cisions as Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces, The exercise of such in- fiuenee by Congress and by the people can be far-reaching and quite effective and the views and the influence of the people are generally sound and very helpful. But there have been some noted results of the exercise of such in- fiuence that were not helpful in build- ing our national security, for example, ‘the rapid demobilization of our Armed Forces at the end of World War II and the rapid disposal of our supply of arms and ammunition in the years following. The error of judgment by the people in 1945 however should not be considered as proof that the people are today wrong who advocate withdrawal from Korea and concentration on the more rapid and extensive building of our Armed Forces. Be that as it may, the power to make the final decision is the Presi- dent's and he can either accept or decline to accept suggestions. VY. AUTHORITATIVE VIEWS BEGARDING PRESIDENT’S POWER There has been surprisingly little au- thoritative writing on the matter of the power of the President as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces but I gathered together a few statements of interest and included them in my debate in Congress on the proposed compulsory service legislation, August 14, 1940. I shall here repeat a portion of my 1940 discussion in the hope that it may be helpful to those who are interested. Charles Warren, in his book The Mak- ing of the Constitution, at page 530, makes the following statement: On August 27, 1787, another power sug- gested by the committee was granted to the President, without debate (so far as appears from Madison’s notes) that of “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States and of the militia of the several States when. called into the actual service of the United States.” Such a power had been veat- ed in the State governors in practically all the State constitutions; and in some the gov- ernor had few powers or functions other than military. The foregoing statement explains why they did not debate the matter very thor- oughly in the Constitutional Convention. So going back to the Constitutional Con- vention you cannot find any very great light on the division of power between the President and the Congress in the matter of national defense. The word- ing of the Constitution, of course, is quite general. The annotations of the Constitution of the United States have few references therein to discussions by our Supreme Court of the peacetime power of the President. In some of these cases the statement is made that Congress has the power not only to raise and support armies and to make rules for their gov- ernment and regulation but to devlare war and that it has therefore the power to provide by law for carrying on war. The Court in these cases states further that the command of forces and the con- duct of campaigns are powers derived from the Constitution, but inasmuch as neither is defined by that instrument, their extent must be determined by their nature and by the principles of our insti- tutions. The Court states also that the power to make the necessary laws is in Congress and the power to execute is in the President, and each includes all au- thority essential to its due exercise “but neither can the President, in war more than in peace, intrude upon the proper authority of Congress, nor Congress upon the proper authority of the President’— Ex parte Milligan .4 Wall. 2, 139 (1866) ) ; Swaim v. United States (28 C. Cls. 173, 221 (1893), affirmed 165 U. S. 553 (1897)). Prof. Edward 8, Corwin, on the Presi- dent’s control of foreign relations, states: I conclude that the Presidential power un- der survey (the right to perform acts of war without congressional authorization where the question {s as to his right to take meas- ures which are technically acts of war in protection of American rights abroad) is somewhat analogous to the so-called right of self-preservation at international law. Theo- retically the power is a defensive power and reserved for grave ond sudden emergencies. Practically, the limit to it is to be found in the powers of Congress and public opinion. Elihu Root, in a famous debate in the Senate in 1912, made the following state- ment: In my judgment, there {s no law which for- bids the President to send troops of the United States out of this country into any country where he considers it to be his duty as Commander in Chief of the Army to send them, unless it be for the purpose of making war, which, of course, he cannot do. Doubtless, Congress could by law forbid the troops being sent out of the country; doubtless Congress has not done it; and I apprehend that any Congress which under- took to do it would find a general protest from the people of the United States against depriving the Commander in Chief of the Army of the power to protect our citizens under those circumstances which exist widely throughout the world, in countries whose governments have not the power to maintain order within their jurisdiction. From time immemorial it has been the prac- tice of civilized nations to send troops into those countries whose governments were too feeble or too ill-organized, too deficient in power to enforce their laws and protect foreigners. This has primarily to do, of course, with protecting our own citizens abroad. Prof. Clarence A. Berdahl, in his book, War Powers of the Executive in the United States, has the following to say: An eminent authority [Zlthu Root} thinks that Congress could probably by law forbid the troops being sent out of the jurisdiction of the United States in time of peace; but in time of war the authority of the President is recognized as being absolute as to where the war is to be conducted, whether to await the onslaughts of the enemy and wage & purely defensive war within the boundaries APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of the United States, or to send the Armed Forces of the United States out of the coun- try to carry on an offensive war in the enemy territory, in the territory of an ally, or per- haps even in the territory of a neutral. William Howard Taft, in one of his lectures on Our Chief Magistrate and His Powers, had the following to say: The President is the Commander and Chief of the Army and Navy, and the militia when called into the service of the United States. Under this he can order the Army and Navy anywhere he will, if the appropriations fur- nish the means of transportation. Of course, the instrumentality which this power fur- nishes, gives the President an opportunity to do things which involve consequences that it would be quite beyond his power under the Constitution directly to effect. Under tho Conatitution, only Congresa has the power to declare war, but with the Army and the Navy, the President can take action such as to involve the country in war and to leave Congress no option but to declare it or to recognize its existence. This was the charge made against President Polk in beginning the Mexican War. War as a legal fact, it was decided by the Bupreme Court in prize cases, can exist by invasion of this country by a foreign enemy or by such an insurrection as occurred during the Civil War, without any declaration of war by Congress at all, and it is only in the case of a war of our aggres- sion against a foreign country that the power of Congress must be affirmatively asserted to establish its legal existence. What constitutes an act of war by the land or naval forces of the United States is sometimes a nice question of law and fact. It really seems to differ with the character of the nation whose relations with the United States are affected. The unstable condition as to law and order of some of the Central American Republics seems to create different rules of internattonal law from those that obtain in governments that can be depended upon to maintain their own peace and order. It has been fre- quently necessary for the President to di- rect the landing of naval marines from United States vessels in Central America to protect the American consulate and Ameri- can citisens and their property. He has done this under his general power as Com- mander in Chief. It grows not out of any specific act of Congress but out of that obli- gation, inferable from the Constitution, of the Government to protect the rights of an American citizen against foreign aggres- sion, as in the Kotza Incident, cited by Mr. Justice Miller in the Neagle case. In prac- tice the use of the naval marines for such a purpose has become so common that their landing is treated as a mere local police measure, whereas if troops of the Regular Army are used for such a purpose, it seems to take on the color of an act of war. Thus it would be difficult to explain the landing of our Army in Vera Cruz by force as anything but an act of war to punish the government of Huerta in Mexico for ita re- fusal to render what was deemed by Presi- dent Wilson as a proper apology for a vio- lation of our international rights in the arrest of some of our sailors. This act was committed before authority was given by Congress, but the necessary authority for it had passed one House and was passing another at the time, and the question as to the right of the Executive to take the ac- tion without congressional authority was avoided by full and immediate ratification. In Nicaragua in my administration an ‘msurrection had led to the immurement of American citizens by insurrectos and the threatened destruction of American prop- erty. The President of Nicaragua, whom we had recognized and whose minister we had
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD received, called upon us to protect our own eltizens and their property because he was unable to render them the protection which their treaty rights gave them. This led to the landing of marines, and quite a cam- paign, which resulted in the maintenance of law and order and the elimination of the insurrectos. This was not an act of war because tt was done at the request and with the consent of the lawful authorities of the territory where 1t took place. Food Is a Weapon of War EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. WALTER S. BARING OF NEVADA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, January 12, 1951 Mr. BARING. Mr. Speaker, in voic- ing the opinion of a constituent of mine, as well as many of the service clubs of Nevada, urgently contacting my office, I strongly recommend that all possible action be taken to draw attention and action of the administration to the im- mediate use of surplus food as an impor- tant weapon of war. In time of war, food supplies are one of the most valuable tools for victory. Many wars have been won or lost on the single issue of food supplies. We are told that the Russians have been feverishly storing vast stocks of foodstuffs ever since 1945. And, if we become involved in a great war, the ultimate decision may well hinge on the extent of our reserves of food. It so happens that our Government, in its tremendous price support and sta- bilization programs in recent years, has acquired vast stocks of all kinds of foods. We have purchased this food and now own it. Food commodities held in stor- age by the Federal Government are esti- mated as follows: Pounds Dried milk___-....--.----.-- $20, 700, 000 Cheese ...~-.------.~-------- 106, 100, 000 Butter ..-.---...--.-------- 191, 800, 000 Dried eggs ...---~----------- 110, 595, 296 Beans, dry, edible 942, 700, 000 Peas, dry, edible._...--- 76, 600, 000 Rice, rough...-....---- 7,500, COO Mexican meat. 52, 623, 504 Grain sorghum.....-..-.---- 8, 052, 500, 000 These stocks are spread in a hit or miss fashion throughout the Nation. They exceed food storage capacities and we have the incredible situation in which thousands of tons of grain lie unpro- tected from the weather and subject to spoilage. We also have the unbelievable situation in which one of the prime sinews of war—foodstuffs—is allowed to stand in great concentration without protection from sabotage. At this time much of this materia] is not under guard of any kind. Certainly food storage has always been a legitimate objective in wartime, and surely our food stocks will be one of the first aims of Communist sabotage in this country. This material should be placed under guard immedi-~- ately. The damage could start at any hour. We have been told that Russia may have the power to overrun much of Europe, Whether true or not, certainly it ts the part of wisdom to have large stocks of food in Europe before warfare breaks and before submarine activity may sink much of it en route. This American surplus food might well be stored in Britain, and behind the Pyre- nees Mountains in Spain. The outbreak of open warfare, if it comes, will place great premium on shipping space. The saving in time and space of having huge food storage already in Europe would be highly practical. It should of course be properly protected against sabotage and weather. We are now preparing a vast civil- defense program on a Nation-wide basis, Certainly reserve food storage, using this surplus food, should be a part of this program. The dispersal of this food throughout the Nation would secm wise. The placement of it for use by communi- ties most likely to be subject to attack, or along routes most likely to be used for civilian evacuation would be most timely. It should of course, be protected from the weather, animals, deterioration, and sabotage. It is vital that we demand that our surplus food supply be protected im- mediately from sabotage, waste, and de- terioration. We must further demand that large stocks of our food supply be shipped abroad immediately to those spots deemed most strategic by our mili- tary—not diplomatic—authorities, and given the same protection before men- tioned. We must also demand that large stocks of our food supply be shipped and stored under protection in those areas of our own Nation deemed by our military authorities to be most likely to be subjected to enemy action, or to be used as routes and staging areus in possi- ble evacuation of large elements of our population. Food as a weapon of war must be taken into consideration in our program of defense. TAT The Good Life EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. WAYNE N. ASPINALL OF COLORADO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, January 12, 1951 Mr. ASPINALL. Mr, Speaker, it is mentally refreshing and invigorating in these days of national and international stress and strain, when so many persons are voicing complicated procedures by which we may be able to escape from the dangers lurking around us, to be able to read an editorial direct from the grass roots of American thinking—an editorial so simple and fundamental that it can easily be understood and appreciated by all, and, an editorial which presents a most constructive way by which the peo- ple of America can protect their price- less heritage in the enjoyment of our in- herent freedoms, A115 Under leave to extend my remarks, I include the following editorial from the Eagle Valley Enterprise, Eagle, Colo., of January 4, 1961: Tx Goon Lirs For the first time since the American Revolution, with the exception of the War Between the States, the people of our country are faced with a stark test of faith. The conflict with world communism now is not to save the world for democracy, but to repel an ehemy who is determined to destroy in our own land the Christian ideal of human dignity and individual liberty and the politi- cal system which upholds that ideal. Our falth and our strength is this ideal. As a Nation, we came through World War TI with little discomfort. Living standards have risen to record levels. So has the pub- lic debt, which is exacting its toll in depreci- ating money. However, it is evident that devalued dollars have not yet cramped our style. Last year, according to the Oom- merce Department, United States citizens spent a staggering $178,832,000,000. The fabulous American way is well illustrated in a current joke which defines a pedestrian as a motorist who has found a place to park his car. The list of American “haves” could go on indefinitely. Already there are 8,000,000 television sets in our homes—homes which are equipped with tens of millions of deep freezes, refrigerators, electric stoves, radios, washing machines, etc. In retrospect after nearly two centuries of freedom and the boundless progress that only freedom could have achieved, it would be a wonder if we were not confused when suddenly confronted with the prospect of a fight for actual survival. But the time when we can afford confusion has nearly run out. These words of Lenin, uttered 30 years ago, are to be considered: “As long as capitalism and socialism remain we cannot live in peace. In the end one or the other will trlumph— @ funeral requiem will be sung either over the Soviet Republic or over world capitalism. We have to use any ruse, dodges, tricks, cun- ning, unlawful methods, concealment and veiling of the truth.” This is the ruthless concept, backed by vast military force which is confronting America and the world. To meet it we will need more than arms and men. We will have to lay our eights on primary objectives and keep them there. We must forget the adolescent notion that nraterial security is an unqualified right. The rights embodied in the American idea! are few and elemental. They inelude equality of opportunity, free- dom of speech and religion, and the protec- tion of private property. They are the tools with which the individual may achieve life, liberty, and pursult of happiness. Our country was not founded to furnish glamorous offices for politicians, or to pro- duce goods and services, or hand-outs of easy money—this country was founded to make men tree. In the wealth of material comfort we have enjoyed so long, we have tended to forget the truth—we must return to the fundamental-—-this country was founded to make men free. We must fight with all we have against our enemies outside. And, while we are under- going all the sacrifices and trials that may involve, we must keep our people free. One of the greatest dangers from within is that we may grant so much unlimited authority to the Government that the system of check and balance which stands between us and tyranny will be permanently destroyed; economic controls should be imposed only if they are clearly necessary in the war ef- fort—not control for control's sake, which is the essence of dictatorship. Control only tends to cripple productive capacity, and what is far more important, we will no longer
A116 be @ frea people, we have lost the battle at home, through our own Government. We cannot go on under the full Govern- ment control which had its birth 20 years ago—the aftermath af a world-wide war— and which has been nourished by the Second World War to be fattened on a third. We Americans have come to a climactic phage in the history of the good Nfe. It is our duty to hold together for future gen- erations the framework of freedom which made that good life possible. We must push aside our eelfish wish for greenback-lined pockets, presented to us by Government dole and return to the initiative of our forebears who established this country on a firm foundation of free enterprise, with the right of self-control. Result, Minus Nothing EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WAYNE L. HAYS or OHIO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, January 12, 1951 Mr. HAYS of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, last year, by availing myself of a parlia- mentary device, I delayed for some time an additional appropriation of funds for the so-called House District Crime Sub- committee on the grounds that the chief legal counsel employed by them, a Hyman Fischback, of New York, was not doing a good job and that his past his- tory indicated that he would not do a good job. Under leave to extend my remarks I am inserting an editorial from the Wash- ington Daily News of Thursday, January 11, 1951, which indicates that my fears at that time have been borne out. I will have more to say about Mr. Fischback and the results of his alleged crime investigation at a later date. The editorial follows: Resvit, Minus NoTHING The Kefauver committee investigating Nation-wide crime pays its counsel, Rudolph Halley, 96,066 a year. The special House District Subcommittee which made an abor- tive investigation into a relatively limited phase of local crime has already paid its counsel, Hyman I. Fishback, 810,000 for serv- ices from October 28, 1049, to September 18, 1960. In addition, Mr. Fischback was reimbursed 61,700 for money spent here on lodging, meals, taxis, telephone calls, and travel back and forth to New York, where he continued to conduct his private law practice. And he has presumably submitted another Dill for $5,000 for professional services from Sep- tember 18 to December 81, 1980, when the subcommittee made its report. The Kefauver committee has smoked out & good many of the notorious underworld leaders and will send some of them to jail for contempt, if nothing else. The Davis subcommittee amoked out a lot of warmed-over statistics and a goodly crop of platitudes about District ertme condi- tions, It quickly dropped its investigation into gambling when things began to get really There is reason to believe that the loose way the investigation was conducted scared off witnesses who gave confidential infor- mation, They backed away when they dis- covered their confidences had been abused. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD In any event, the Davis subcommittec’s final report turned out to be nothing but high-sounding double talx. Net effect of this costly investigation seems to be that police de nt morale is at an even lower level than 1t was when the subcommittee first set up ahop. The subcommittee’s own laxity 1s force- fully high-lighted by the slaying of the underworld “finger man,” George Paul Hard- ing, in the Hide-Away Club. This was one of the after-hours clubs investigated by the subcommittee as far back as last February. Police officials admitted at the time that these places were “breeding places of crime.” Yet, the subcommittee let 10 months go by without doting anything about it. Then it proposed a law to permit police to deal with these clubs as public nuisances. That legislation is now before the new Congress, and it will take several months to enact into law. The subcommittee—if it had been on its toes—could have pushed through such s law last year, and perhaps headed off yesterday's flare-up of gangsterism. Vital Importance of the Community Hospital EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EUGENE J. KEOGH or NEW YoREK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, January 12, 1951 Mr. KEOGH Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rec- orp, I include the following address by Hon. James A. Farley at the opening rally for the Good Samaritan Hospital building fund at Suffern, N. Y., on Janu- ary 4, 1951: ViTaL IMPORTANCE OF THE COMMUNITY HosprTaL Again and again, we Americans have heeded the sacred injunction that we be our brothers’ Keepers. Without question, we extend this doctrine to our fellow men of other races and other continents. We ex- pend billions of dollars to sustain and re- habilitate whole nations of men--even those who were but yesterday our dread enemies. How much more ready should we be to do the aimple needful things for our families, friends, and neighbors, to give unstinting support, for example, to those institutions which serve our common well-being—and especially our hospitals. Too often, most of us know too little about our community hospital. Consctously or unconsciously, we may look upon our hospital as a place to stay as far away from as possible. But this is an old-fashioned attitude. All is not suffering in our hos- pitals today. The modern hospital's purpose has been extended far beyond the alleviation of sick- ness or injury. So far, in fact, have its from the pr habilitation of the disabled and chronically Nl, They are centers of health in our com- munities, invigorating the entire population of the areas they serve. It is up to all of us to see that they have everything they need to keep us healthy. How the principle of preventive medi- cine works is illustrated by a story I heard recently, from a great author, about a 12- year-old boy who had developed a slight hoarseness, & mild impairment of hie voice. The boy, though nervous, seemed perfectly ‘ well. At first hia parents thought he had merely overstrained his throat shouting at a ball game. They were treating the condi- tion with simple home remedies when, on a fortunate impulse following the suggestion of a neighbor, they took the child to the out-patient department of the local hospital. Here in the friendliest possible way, in @ manner calculated to allay his timidity, the young patient was subjected to a variety of highly scientific tests. The diagnosis was serlous—it was determined beyond doubt that the boy was suffering from incipient tuberculosis, Fortunately adequate steps were taken immediately and in 6 months he was cured. But for that timely visit to the hospital the infection probably would have spread and taken firm root, with perhaps fatal results. It 1s not long since this new concept of preventive hospital care has caught on. For- merly, the hospital took care of the 11] and injured who were taken to it. Today, it even takes care of those who haven't the sense to go to the hospital. Through its clinics and in cooperation with the medical profession, it goes out to schools and factories to prevent sickness and accidents. The hos- pital ts, therefore, more than a building. It is a force working for the conservation of life and health throughout a wide area. The well-being of thousands of people and whole communities are its responsibility. The doctors, the nurses, the latest techni- cal equipment, the instruments of amazing delicacy and perception, the great stores of the modern “wonder” drugs, the numerous laboratories equipped to make elaborate and exacting teste, and last but not least, the faithful service and housekeeping depart- ments are all part of your hospital arma- ment—all important factors in the unceasing battle for your better health. Better health for all !s the goal we should all keep before us. It is the vision which medical progress and our modern hospitals are bringing to the present and future gen- erations. In the glow of this vision, we should ali readjust our own personal attitude and think of our own hospital not as a place of fear, not as a hostile stranger in our lives— but as a warm hearth and true friend. Today, hospitals are also serving our com- munities as civilian rehabilitation centers. Until recently, the hospital had considered it had done its job for the bed patient when he was discharged and able to go home. The work of restoring him to the best possible health and vigor was left to nature and his family physician. In recent years, hospitals have recognized the need for special equip- ment and techniques to restore discharged patients to productive living, and, if possible, to their jobs. They are becoming aware of their community responsibilities in this new phase of medicine. The Baruch Committee on Physical Medi- cine has approved the following recom- mendations with regard to the rehabilitation of the patient after his discharge from the hospital: 1. There is a crying need for a community rehabilitation service and center program. Large, highly specialized urban rehabilita- tion centers are necessary but are not enough, and tn order to carry opportunity to the iso- lated disabled, a system of mobile consultant elinics in rural communities, and similar services must be set up, comparable to those which have been utilised in the care of crippled children gnd in the cancer program. 2. Certain activities can be carried on in smaller communities using the facilities that are avaliable, but rehabilitation clinics, geo- graphically located, must be established to carry out the specialized procedures that are necessary to the rehabilitation of those se- verely handicapped. The best place for doing a direct and ef- fective job of restoring the severely handi- capped to usefulness is the modern hospital.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Tt ts ideally equipped to perform the func- tion of bridging the gap from the bed to the Job. It can turn patients who formerly would become public charges into self-sup- porting citizens. And, if this country is plunged once more into the darkness of war, hospitals located near areas which may be strategic targets for “A” or other bombs will be vital links in the chain of civil defense. Our physicians, our nurses and technicians will know what to do for the sick and the injured. They will be able to care for large numbers from small but properly equipped bases beyond the bombed-out areas. This trained personnel is the most important single factor in de- fense against the total results of atomia bombardment, but they must have the tools to work with. Therefore, in preparing for the possible onslaught of war, our small city, suburban, and rural hospitals take on more than a local significance—they are vital to the defense of the Nation. In the hospital the quality of service to all the people is basic. As bricks and mortar do not make good hospitals, neither does a suf- ficiency of beds. Medicine has come a long way since the “horse and buggy" days. Today a doctor requires the facilities of a modern hospital to give full and proper care. Essen- tial to his work are the hospital's costly lab- oratory, X-ray, and other diagnostic facilities and equipment. He depends on its trained nurses and technicians. Today’s medicine is a tripod. Remove any leg—the physician, the facilities, or the trained nursing and techni- cal aides—and the structure of modern medl- cine collapses, Hospitals that serve the small, urban com~- munity and the surrounding area bear the brunt of the constant attacks which disease and accident bring upon our population. Upon their number, capacity, and, above all, thelr quality, the health and safety of a large proportion of our people depend. Victims of acute illness and accident rarely choose a hospital—they go or are taken to the nearest. If that hospital is a good one, the victim has a much better chance of quick recovery. It is said that every citizen is reached by service of his-community hospital at least once every 8 years. It would appear to be good business to safeguard ourselves by see- ing to it that the hospital which will serve us when we need it is up to date. And speaking of good business, it may in- terest all of you to know that hospitals are our Nation’s fifth largest industry. Like all the other leading industries, our hospitals when first established were largely financed by a few people. But even as industry gene erally 1s now recruiting capital from thou- sands of small investors, 80 have hospitals become dependent upon the gifts of all citi- zens in order to continue to serve their com- munities. Some of you may wonder how I can speak to you with even a superficial knowledge of such a complex subject and one with which I am not usually identified. Well, for the past few years I have been devoting consider able time to the great New York University- Bellevue Medical Center development, a $32,000,000 project which is rapidly becoming one of the greatest medical centers in the world, It has been a good school and a re- freshing experience. In the main, however, this center's services are comparable to those of the small community hospital. The dif- ference is one of size and not of quality or scope of work. If we all agree that what the hospital does for us is worthy and vital and irreplaceable, let us try to do something in return for the hospital. Let us see that the hospital has everything it must have to keep you and me and all those we love in as good health as it is possible to be in this last half of the twentieth century. The Russian Fear EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. J. CALEB BOGGS OF DELAWARE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, January 12, 1951 Mr. BOGGS of Delaware. Mr. Speak- er, as a public service the International Latex Corp., of Dover, Del., reprinted in the New York Times on Thursday, Janu- ary 11, 1951, an editorial from the Wall Street Journal entitled “The Russian Fear.” The International Latex Corp. in my opinion, is rendering a valuable service by calling public attention to expressions of opinion on important public issues. The editorial is as follows: THE Russian FEAR (Presented as a public service by Interna- tional Latex Carp,, Dover, Del.) A man may attack what he fears and de- stroy it, if he thinks he has the strength to do so. But even a man who has that strength still does not like to be confronted by what he fears; a person who could easily destroy a mouse still may not like to meet up with @ mouse, There are many signs that what the men in the Kremlin fear most ts an armed Ger- many; apparently they fear that more than the atomic bomb or the industrial strength of the United States. Oonsidering what armed Germans have done to the Russians the fear is understandable. One of the signs of the Russian state of mind is that they have issued a warning which intimates that they will retaliate against German rearmament; they have not otherwise made any threats to throw their military machine into action. Our own diplomatic officials seem inclined to minimize the Russian warning. Those who may know the Russian mind better take the warning a great deal more seriously. Marshal Tito, of Yugoslavia, who certainly is in position to know how the masters in the Kremlin think, in an interview with the United Press, counsels that the western pow- ers think again on the German rearmament proposal, The French have similar misgivings. It 1s true that the French are not enthustastio about German rearmament for many rea- sons but that is not to discount their views on the Russian reaction. After all they have been dealing with the Russians both as friend and enemy for some centuries. The Germans who have lived next door to the Russians for a long time also think the Russians will not stand idly by if rearma- ment takes place. Once you know what & man fears you have a lever to move him. You can cause him to act hurriedly and irrationally. You can also by different procedure cause him to back up. Is it not then within the realm of possibility that the Russians would give something not to have Germany armed? We don’t know. We do suggest that the idea may be worth consideration. There are two ideas about the Russian intentions. One is that they mean to at- tack Western Europe. The other is that they believe their own propaganda which teaches that the non-Communist world will finally explode from its own internal stresses but not before these stresses seek an outlet in an attack on communism. If the first view is right, that is if the Russians intend to attack, they will be mov- All7 ing shortly and it is highly improbable that the Germans could be armed in time to present any considerable obstacles to them. But if the second view is right, that is if they expect an attack, we have a great deal of evidence that they might consider an armed Germany the provocation, the final evidence that thelr theories were in- deed correct. What can be gained from hurried rearm- ing of the Germans we fail to see. The Ger- mans are not ready for it and the United States and its associates are not ready, in- deed not fully agreed. We also fail to see what could be lost by a diplomatic probing operation to determine whether the Russians will trade something for an unarmed Germany and what they will trade. It may very well be that they will trade nothing, that they are so confident of their power that they believe they can forbid Ger- man arming without giving anything in re- turn. But even if that is their state of mind, the situation would still be better in that we would Know more about Russian intentions. The Western World, particularly the United States, has come to believe that the Rus- sians hold all the trumps and that state of mind reveals all the weaknesses and the fears to the Russians. We have come al- most to the absurd notion that the Rus- sians have no weaknesses or fears of their own, Of course they have many. We know that the Russians fear the Ger- mans and we know that they have wholly misjudged the regenerative powers of the Western World. Is 1t not possible to exploit the fear to win a truce in which the regenerative powers can do their work? Repatriation of Army Families EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. M. G. BURNSIDE OF WEST VIRGINIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, January 12, 1951 Mr. BURNSIDE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following letter written to the editor of the New York Times on January 5, 1951: To REPATRIATE ARMY FamMILizs To the Eprror or THE New Yoru Times: There are many thousand families of service personnel in the European and other overseas commands who not only are in a dangerous spot for themselves but are a li- ability to the troops who must protect and evacuate them in case of trouble. They should all be sent home willy-nilly, and many of them are desirous of going any- way, except that they have no place to go. Very few of the service families have any homes of their own. Very few could find space to live with relatives. The majority, 4£ sent home ahead of their “sponsors,” or heads of families, would be forced to go into the rental market at a most unpropi- tious time, and they can ill afford to pay the rents now demanded for the few vacan- cies available, The result is that they want to remain overseas as long as possible, re- gardless of the danger to themselves and to the United States troops protecting them. Since the President has declared a state of emergency and has asked for all-out do- votion to the war effort, would it be out of place for the Government to take over a suff- clent number of recreation spots and make