A1100 the low-income groups could be made with- out cutting them off the tax rolls, A final strong objection to the Knutson pill is that it deals only with a part of the tax system. When the time is ripe for tax reduction, a comprehensive revision of the tax system should be undertaken, covering excises, corporate, and other taxes as well as the individual income tax. That is the only way in which we can hope to work out @ well-balanced tax system that will give due weight to rival claims for tax reduction. St. Patrick’s Day Speech EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. THOMAS J. LANE OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 18, 1947 Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I wish to include herein the following speech I delivered before Division 14, Ancient Order of Hibernians, Haverhill, Mass., at their communion breakfast at GAR Hall, Sunday, March 16, 1947: We of Irish descent are not the largest group in the United States, but we come close to being the most influential. And Iam not thinking in terms of politics when I say this. Our fellow-Americans of Italian, French, Polish, Jewish, and other origins have their special days when we honor with them. However, I do not believe I exagger- ate when I say that St. Patrick's day has a unique sentiment that cannot help but charm others who are not privileged to trace their lienage to the Emerald Isle. It warms our hearts to hear the cheerful greetings of those who do not look Irish, but who certainly enter into the spirit of this day. The radio is full of Irish songs and melodies that have been taken to heart by all and have indeed become a part of America. In the pride and happiness and music of this day which so many of us take for granted, we seldom inquire into the main- springs of our emotions. Who was this St. Patrick whose name is being spoken by tens of millions? Surely, it is but right that we devote a few minutes of our time to the life of a man who by his deeds, won the rare crown of sainthood. St. Patrick was born about A. D. 389, the son of a small land-owner who lived at @ place called Banna-nuenta. He was brought up as a shepherd and tended the flocks of a chieftain by the name of Milchu on the green hills of County Antrim. At the young age of 16, while tending the sheep, he was set upon by bandits. They took the young shepherd and his drove of sheep into Connaught and kept him captive there for 6 years. At the end of that time he made his escape on a ship used for ex- porting fierce Irish wolf hounds. He landed on the cost of Gaul and eventually made his way to a monastery where he lived for sev- eral years and studied the principles of Christianity. . While in the monastery, he saw in a dream @® man named Victorious, bearing many epistles in his hands. On one of these, Bt, Patrick read the words, “The Voice of the Irish,” and imagined he heard his people say: “We pray thee, holy youth, come and walk among us as before.” This vision in- spired him to return to Ireland as a mis- sionary, He spent about 14 years prepar- ing himself for his mission and, after being ordained a deacon, went back to teach his people. At first the Irish were ready to stone him for attempting an innovation in the re- ligion of their ancestors. He obtained a hearing, however, and to explain his point picked up a shamrock from the roadside, using the tree leaves on one stem to illus- trate the principle of the Holy Trinity. This simple comparison so greatly impressed his hearers that they allowed themselves to be baptized there and then. For, as St. Patrick said: “Is it any more strange that these persons should be united in one God than it is for three leaves of clover to grow upon one stalk?" This faith which St. Patrick taught the Irish, and which we practice today, has been the strength and inspiration of the Irish people through centuries of toil and hunger and suffering under the yoke of an alien rule. The faith of Irishmen in Christianity could never be shaken. It has not only been a consolation to them in time of trouble, but it has enabled them to face the trials of this life with grace and beauty and an abundant heart for their fellowmen—thanks to their spiritual leader, St. Patrick. During his long ministry, he founded many churches, and the story of his good works spread through the land, and his was the name that brought spiritual unity to the people. With the inspiration of their true faith, the Irish blossomed forth with a cul- ture and a zest for learning that became the model for European civilization. After reaching a ripe old age, St. Patrick died at Saul, County Down, on March 17, and was buried in a shroud made by St. Brigid. Each of Ireland’s counties was then ruled by a chieftain, and it was within the dun, or fort, of the Down Chieftain, that the blessed patriarch was buried. To St. Pat- rick’s funeral came, from all parts, bishops, priests, and people of all ranks, who gathered in prayerful reverence around the tomb of the father of their faith. Nearly 1,500 years have gone since that memorable day. The same spirit of reverencing the anniversary has survived in the hearts of all true Irish- men. We rejoice in the true faith which he brought to us, knowing that it gives strength and meaning to our mortal life and pre- pares us for our just reward in the life to come. St. Patrick was preeminent]y the spiritual leader of the Irish people. But the Christian doctrine which he preached, had in it the seeds of liberty and independence which have left an indelible impression on the Irish char- acter. This belief in the dignity of human personality, as made in the image of God, has been a prominent factor in the development of our American democracy, which all of our great men have recognized. On the night of March 16, 1776, George Washington issued special orders permitting liberty to all of his soldiers wishing to make merry on the 17th. “Boston”"—by Washing- ton’s command—if spoken to an officer of the guard, immediately gave the individual sol- dier permission to leave camp for the day, the words “St. Patrick” being the counter- sign. Washington understood the meaning of this observance for so many who fought under him. As a consequence, he selected as Brigadier General of the day, Gen. John Sullivan, who played such an important role in the siege of Boston. The Irish personality is blessed with many gifte and so, on this day, we experience many emotions. First, we give thanks to God for the supreme gift of faith. And then, in song and story, we express our happiness. The Trish are a witty people and imaginative too. And from the folklore of the race, we draw Upon a rich store of fancy, particularly the one which tells of St. Patrick driving the snakes out of Ireland. True enough, there are none of these evil creatures in the land APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of our forefathers. For St. Patrick ‘drove them into the bogs, and banished all the vermin.” From which, if I may be permitted, I would like to draw a parable, Just as Ireland is one of the very few countries in which there are no snakes, by the same token it is one of the few that are not menaced by the poisonous bite of communism. There are two, and only two systems in the world of today, which are powerful enough to attract the political allegiance of the confused human race. One is the Chris- tial Democracy in which we live. The other is the modern form of slavery called com- munism, in which man is promised the ma- terial comforts of this life, if he will forfeit his independence of mind and spirit to the all- powerful State. Let us not underestimate the strength of this atheistic creed which is spreading over the world. In the short span of 30 years, more than one fifth of the world’s land mass has passed under its influence, Even here, in our own country, they are busy boring from within, setting class against class, skill- fully plying their destructive technique, and getting ready for the day when they hope to seize power out of chaos. Some of you may scoff at this statement, saying: “The Communists in the United States are few in number, so few that they are difficult to find.” To which I reply: “You are right as far as you go, but don’t stop there.” Remember that an organized few, knowing where they are going and inspired by a fanatical zeal, are more effective than the many who are not ware of what is happening until it is too ate, And remember that there are many sine cere, though gullible Americans whose opin- jons are close to the Communist line, even though they don’t realize it. Let us face the issue squarely. All the peoples of this world, in these tempestuous times, are desperately seeking security. We in the United States, with tragic memories of boom and bust and depression and war, are striving to win freedom from fear and want. But to win that goal we must not, and shall not, surrender our faith in God and in the democracy which comes closer to fulfilling His divine law. Whatever the problems which crowd the American scene—and we frankly acknowledge them—they will not be solved by plans alone. For man is not a mere cog in the wheel of a machine. He is a creature made in the image of God, with the spirit in him to rise above his weaknesses through prayer and constant Christian effort to live up to the moral law. Since the beginning of this century, when man was dazzled by the scientific toys which he had invented, he began to think that in science he would find all the answers to the mystery of life. Carried away by his _ own ego, he turned his back on God. And now he faces here on this earth the grim possibility of a day of reckoning. He has invented a Frankenstein which threatens to destroy him. Before the awesome power of atomic energy he stands worried and help- less. There is no scientific answer to the control of this tremendous force. A few men in positions of responsibility have the fate of civilization in their hands. You and I and hundreds of millions of others are appalled by the fact that a few men could destroy us, a few men seized by a sudden and overmastering human weakness. We are thankful that this secret is pres- ently known only to a few leaders of our country who have been reared in the God- fearing tradition, Burdened by this respon- sibility, they are working mightily to per- fect a system of international controls for the protection of all nations and all men, so that this power may be employed for the advancement of man and not for his de- struction.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD But other nations, lustful for the enjoy- ment of power at the expense of moral law, may be on the verge of knowing this secret before international controls are established. Then what? , In our prayers let us ask that God's grace may come to those who have turned their backs on Him, and whose only law is vic- tory at any price, not alone that of property and life but of all the spiritual truths which man has come to know through ages of trial. And in our daily living let us work to make America strong in body and in soul. The viclous doctrines creeping over the world are reaching toward us. Somewhere we must stand up and say “Stop,” and I fear the time for that is near at hand. All of us deplore war, but recent experi- ence should have taught us that appease- ment is the surest road to war. Better for ourselves and our children that we be clear and firm about this now, than pay a fright- ful price for our weakness later on. Communism is spreading and gaining power. It is aggressive because it believes that Americans have turncd back to personal living, closing their eyes to the reality of the world outside the borders of their country. There are only two big powers in the world of today—Russia and the United States. A fateful decision is shaping up at Washing- ton, a decision which you, th people, should help to make, and that is, What shall be America's foreign policy on the global scale? We cannot sit idly by and allow communism to extend its control over the rest of the world, for then we shall stand pitifully alone. Fanatic Communist Parties are active all over Europe and in many parts of Asia and South America, and communism is the foe of democracy and religion. We would be disloyal to our Christian faith, which is the heart of our American life, if we refused to face this fact. We, of Irish extraction, are a sentimental people. On St. Patrick’s Day, we like to recall the ancient glories, and it is well that we do. The dauntless faith and love of free- dom, so characteristic of all Irishmen, must be nourished at the fountain of the past, to strengthen us for the duties which we must meet today and tomorrow. By the grace of Holy Communion we have cleansed our hearts before God. Tomorrow, the happy 17th, we shal! re- kindle memories of the great saint whose vision and courage banished paganism from the land our ancestors came from. Pollowing the cross of Christ in which our American democracy has faith, we, in this year of 1947, cannot falter in our step. A new paganism is challenging the world and all the truths that we hold dear. True to St. Patrick and the shining ex- ample which he gave us, we, in whom the freedom-loving blood of the Irish flows, will be alert to our danger. In common with our fellow Americans, and the oppressed of all Jands who look to us for moral leadership, we shall be firm in the right, as God gives us to see the right, and be vigilant in defense of our liberties. Before the rock of our faith the evil tide of communism will press in vain. Two Views of the Greek-Turkey Loan, Both Important EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. GORDON L. McDONOUGH OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 18, 1947 Mr. McDONOUGH. Mr. Speaker, President Truman has requested that the foreign policy of the United States be revised and that American money be used as a political weapon to defeat the inroads of communism abroad. The re- sponsibility for a decision on this pro- posal, the effects of which may change the destiny of our Nation, lies with the Eightieth Congress, and no issue of more momentous import has ever been placed before the representatives of the people of the United States. Two recent articles by established po- litical commentators present careful studied reviews of the issues involved and two different approaches to the Com- munist problem. The first article, entitled “Start at Home,” by Mr. Frank C. Waldrop, pre- sents the position that I personally sup- ported by the introduction of my bill, House Resolution 99, which would legally define communism and open the way for legai action through the Department of Justice against active Communists who are exerting every effort to undermine our Government and abolish our estab- lished freedoms through the substitution of communistic principles and policies, Mr. Waldrop advises us to halt com- munistic activity at home before we un- dertake a global purge of communism. He believes it is important to drive com- munism from the United States before we appropriate money for an attempt to evict communism from Greece and other foreign territory. The second article is written by Mr. George Sokolsky. It attacks the problem of stemming the Communist wave from an international perspective, and points up the need for a firm unyielding stand by the United States to halt communism abroad. Mr. Sokolsky draws a verbal blueprint of the Communist movement in the world to date and undcrlines the at- tendant dangers to our Nation, if a halt is not called now. The decision rests with the Congress. I believe we must give this problem se- rious study and consider it from every angle. Our decision will set the foreign Policy of the United States. Once the decision has been made, there can be no turning back. I bring these two articles representing differing viewpoints on this issue to your attention. I urge you to read them care- fully and weigh the facts before the vote is cast: START AT HOME (By Prank C. Waldrop) Mr. Truman has discovered all of a sud- den that the Communists of the world are dangerous people, and so they are. But why is it the Communists are more dangerous in Greece and Turkey than they are in Washington, D. C.? Here he comes to Congress and asks ap- proximately half a billion dollars to start an anti-Communist program abroad that says to Russia plain as day, “If you want a war, we're ready.” Yet right now, today, this very Sunday, there are on the pay roll of the taxpayers of the United States Communists who are for Russia first, and have been ever since Mr. Truman came to Washington a freshman Senator from Missouri. In fact they were in Washington long be- fore him. They came here with his predecessor in the Presidency and laughed at Roosevelt as the Kerensky of our revolution. Al1101 They demonstrated thelr power in the Roosevelt administration right at the start. ‘Who remembers the late Dr. William Wirt, of Gary, Ind.? Dr. Wirt was a distinguished and liberal educator of world renown. He came to Washington to see what the brand New Deal was like. He didn’t come as &@ pay-roll patriot but as a plain patriot, wanting to find out what kind of people had risen to power. That crack about Roosevelt being the Kerensky of the new American revolution wasn't the kind of thing he was used to in American government and, having heard it one night at a New Deal dinner, he stuck around to find out more. What he found out was tha‘ the Commu- nists and their fellow travelers had at last, with Roosevelt, got themselves into places of power and importance in our Government. So he gave warning. Did the newspaper editors and college pres- idents and Members of Congress and other such opinion makers take him seriously? Well does this writer remember how, for in- stance, the distinguished Baltimore Sun and New York Times gave out gentlemanly haw- haws at Dr. Wirt and how college presidents the country over followed up the cue. As for Congress, it was just as guilty as Roosc- velt in those days, and it deliberately made Dr. Wirt a laughing stock. He went to his grave a bitter and frustrated man while the editors of the Baltimore Sun and the New York Times and all such noble- minded heavy thinkers continued to say that we must worry about fascism and nazism abroad, but as for ccmmunism, why it is not a problem, and besides to criticize Com- munists would be Red-baiting, and who wants to be a Red baiter? Meanwhile the Communists climbed aboard the taxpayers’ shoulders. They came in via the NYA, the NRA, the PWA, and the WPA, the CCC, the SEC, the FHA, and all the other early alphabetical Trojan horses. They have never left. For when the war came on they simply shifted over to the OWI, the OSS, the OPA, and so forth. They put the President’s wife to work for them. They knocked down the barriers then even in the War and Navy De- partments. Communists became officers in our armed forces. And in time they showed their power by fomenting riots, rebellions, and mutiny in our forces abroad. Has it been forgotten already how United States soldiers bnrely a year und a half ago gathered on the front steps of the United States Army headquarters in Frankfurt, Germany, and booed the commanding general, Joseph T. McNarmey? All in plain sight of the con- quered Germans. That, citizens, is a thing to think about if you wonder whether Communists have ever got into the Government of the United States in a significant and serious way. Well, and when OSS, OPA, etc., began to fade, what happened to our Communists on the Government pay roll? Gen, C. Marshall, Secretary of State, less than 8 weeks ago, admitted to a com- mittee of Congress that the reputation of the once great United States State Department has fallen “very low,” since the O8S, OWI, etc., crowd had been blanketed into it by the thousands. For in with the rest, went the Communists, their fellow travelers, sympathizers, dupes, dopes and tools. Such as these were the oncs who enmeshed Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt in the Hanns Eisler passport case, of which you will be hearing details before very long. Hanns Eisler, in case you may have for- gotten, is the Hollywood musical composer- brother of Gerhard Eisler, now accused by thc House Un-American Activities Committee us a leading Russian spy. The same committee promises a full pub- lic hearing on the queer details of Hann’s own story in a few days, and instructive it will be, too, as a lesson in how things were going around here in the Roosevelt heydey.
A1102 And the trouble is that Mr. Truman has not brought a substantial change. He is making ferocious talk at the Communists in Greece, Turkey, Germany and so forth. It is the kind of talk that brings on war, as anybody who was alive and reading the papers from 1933 onward can realize. But what is he doing about the Commu- nists on the pay roll of the United States right here in Washington, D.C.? What is he doing today and what was he doing this time @ year ago? The Communists certainly are dangerous people, declared enemies of our constitutional government which it is their aim and purpose to overthrow by force and violence. Why has Mr. Truman tolerated them, then? They were just as dangerous a year ago as they are today and they were just as dan- gerous 10 years ago. Yet here they are and here they were, all the time. How about letting the Federal Bureau of Investigation loose on these beauties? J. Edgar Hoover has been an expert on the Com- munists for 38 years. He knows more about them than any other American and he has the best record against them of any Ameri- can. And when he speaks he deals in facts, not oratory. How about Hoover making a series of de- talled addresses to the whole Nation on com- munism while President and Congress listen to a man who knows his business? And then how about following Hoover's outline to kick the Communists out of our own United States of America before we get tan- gled up in any more bloody affrays abroad? THESE DAYS (By George E. Sokolsky) Admittedly, President Truman’s speech was a sharp, tough, undiplomatic bill of par- ticulars, charging Soviet Russia with crimes and misdemeanors and announcing that the United States was sick and tired of being played for a sentimental sucker. Admit- tedly, in other times, such a speech might have been regarded as a declaration of war. Even so, the Russian bluff had to be called sooner or later and had it been called at the Tehran Conference, it would have cost less. But this must be recognized: The Russians forced the issue. I do not suppose that there is an instance in history which parallels the abuse, the badcering, the umbrage that this country has taken at the hands of the Rus- sians since VJ-day. It is beyond belief that any powerful and proud nation could be so publicly humili- ated—and accept the humiliation, even giv- ing the appearance of liking it. Take, for instance, the atom bomb. In- cluding all the fear propaganda of the hys- terical scientists, the facts are that the United States first produced and used the atom bomb. Others nearly made one, but we did make bombs and no one else has made them. At Potsdam, our delegation agreed to release our knowledge. The Acheson-Lilien- thal report was a gesture of unnecessary and unwise nobility of purpose. The Smyth re- port put the principal data on the table for anyone to see. Then Bernard Baruch went into UN with ® proposal that was excessively generous. This country would turn what was its own over to UN on condition of universal control and inspection. The Russians have been kicking that proposal around as though we owed them something. They have been ar- rogant, impudent, outrageous in their atti- tude and conduct. Under other circum- stances, this Nation would not have taken such insults as it has even smilingly taken from Gromyko. But patience does wear. Or take the instance of the implementa- tion of the Yalta and Potsdam agreements. The liberated nations were to have free end unfettered elections and to sclect govern- ments of their own choosing. The Russians have forced Communist gov- ernments upon the liberated nations and have even forced most of them. to become. abject Soviet satellites, controlled by officials appointed by the Kremlin. Poland, Rumania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and even Austria and Hungary, have suffered from this vicious be- trayal of the Yalta and Potsdam agreements by Russia. And when the United States protested Russian misconduct, the Russians resorted to ® propaganda of abuse, even utilizing their own agency in the United States, the Com- muntst Party and its various front organiza- tions, to defame the United States, to le about this country, to create disorders. Im- agine a nation that permits a government owned, operated, and edited press to say that our contributions to the war were trivial, that Sovict Russia won the war without us, even in the Far East where Russia was neutral until 6 or 6 days before the war was ended. Or take the abuse of American charity and benevolence, this country having contributed 72 percent of the cost of UNRRA and Soviet Russia and her satellites getting the prin- cipal benefits, up to nearly 80 percent. Soviet Russia contributed practically nothing to UNRRA. Yet because UNRRA was operating on territory controlled by Soviet Russia, food and other goods were used politically to strengthen the Soviet control of the peoples whom we were saving from starvation and death. This became such a scandal that UNRRA had to be abandoned and Herbert Hoover was sent on his two trips to discover what we ought to do to feed the needy who were being betrayed. Finally, we know beyond question that what Sovict Russia is attempting to do in Greece she is also trying to do out of Cuba and Mexico, namely to foment Communist revolutions to kcep the world in disorder, to prevent the liquidation of the war. And even here in the United States, serious strikes in crucial industries have been Com- munist in origin, designed to prevent the United States from achieving full recovery. A halt had to be called sooner or later to the conquest of the world by abuse and po- litical infiltration. Harry Truman did not act too soon. It had to come. Limitations of UN EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. FREDERIC R. COUDERT, JR. OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 18, 1947 Mr. COUDERT. Mr. Speaker, since the President’s message of March 12 dealing with Greece and Turkey there has been much discussion of the role of the United Nations in this matter. Mr. James Reston, a most respected member of that distinguished group of New York Times’ experts on foreign affairs, has written an exceedingly enlightening article on that subject this morning and points out clearly the limitations of the United Nations in the present crisis and the reasons therefor. I think it of suffi- cient interest to call to the attention of all Members of Congress: UN HE tp A PooR SCAPEGOAT IN DEBATING NEW UNITED STATES POLICY—ORGANIZATION Lacks Funps, TROOPS, AUTHORITY—SOVIET BREAKING OF COMMITMENTS CITED (By James Reston) WASHINGTON, March 17.—Whenever the United States is faced with a difficult deci- sion, as it now is over the loans to Greece and Turkey, the popular tendency is to evade APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD . the decision if possible, and. if.not possible scapegoat. to. toss it to some amenable : That is where we are now in Washington. We are in the middle of a hunt for scape- goats. First on the list, of course, are the British. Until a month ago they were blamed for being in Greece; now they are blamed for Proposing to get out. The Congress blames the Administration for raising the questions so quickly. and. the Administration quietly blames the Congress for not dealing with the question sooner; for example, at the time of the British loan de- bate. Another popular candidate is the United Nations. Why doesn’t the United Nations deal with this? it is asked. Wasn't it sup- posed to maintain peace and security. SOME PERT’'NENT ANSWERS These questions about the United Nations are asked not only by those on Capitol Hill who want to find an excuse for doing nothing or very little about President Truman's pro- posals but also by some persons who are sincerely worried that the Truman doctrine sabotages the new security organization, It therefore may be useful to record the answers that are given here to the United Nations questions. The first answer is that the United Nations cannot deal with the broad problem of post- war economic reconstruction because it has no money. It recetved authority to study economic problems and make recommenda- tions on how to deal with them, but it can- not even get enough money out of the mem- bers to do its recommending job properly, let alone get money to reconstruct Europe and Asia, Secondly, the United Nations cannot deal with the fighting along the Greek-Yugoslav border because it has no troops at its dis- posel, It can send commissions of inquiry to the region, as it has done, and it can focus public opinion on the activities of the Com- munists and Royalists there, but both the Communists and Royalists are singularly in- different to argument, and even the United Nations commission of inquiry in Greece has not been able to halt the border skirmishes, Thirdly, the United Nations cannot halt the expansion of communism even when it does get the forces and facilities that were supposed to be allocated to the Security Council long ago. It cannot do so because it was not designed to punish the big nations and it could not get authority to send its troops to an area to maintain order unless it can get the approval of all the big states in- cluding the Soviet Union. SOVIET ACTIONS CITED Those who wish to see the United Nations deal with the military aspects of the prob- lem, therefore, need merely look at the Teasons why the United Nations does not have any forces behind it, and ask them- selves whether they honestly believe that the Soviet Union would vote to send United Nations troops to Greece if there were any United Nations troops. For 6 months after the Military Staff Com- mittee of the Security Council started op- erating in New York last spring, the Soviet Union not only refused to come forward with @ suggestion about how the United Nations forces should be established, but even re- fused to discuss the principles that should govern the creation of the United Nations forces. Now the Russians have agreed to discuss the principles of establishing such a force, but there is no agreement on these prin- ciples, and there is little likelihood that there will be such agreement in the neur future. This, therefore, blocks military ac- tion by the United Nations, even if we as- sume that the Soviet Union would agree to allow United Nations contingents to police the Greek Communists. The central point about the United Nations and the two problems raised by President
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Truman last week—the problem of eco- nomic reconstruction and the problem of ag- gressive communism—is that neither prob- lem would have arisen if the Soviet Union had lived up to its commitments under the United Nations Charter. THREE BASIC PREMISES This charter was based on one fundamental belief and two basic assumptions. The be- lief—it would be more accurate to call it a promise—-was that the five major powers— United States, U. 8. 8. R., Great Britain, France, and China—would and could achieve unity among themselves. The two assumptions on which this prom- tse rested were, first, that all the nations really wanted peace and were prepared to cooperate with each other to achieve it, and, second, that they would “fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accord- ance with the present charter.” The obligations they assumed under the charter were quite specific. They said they would “refrain in their international rela- tions from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independ- ence of any state.” They said they would “settle their inter- national disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and se- curity, and justice, are not endangered.” They said they would ‘develop friendly re- lations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-deter- mination of peoples.” They said they would exhaust all means of reaching agreement before bringing their cases to the United Nations, and that they would use the new organization as a “center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.” STALIN’S VIEWS RECALLED Because the big states said they would do these things, and because they made clear that they would not join the organization unless the other nations took them at their word, what was established was not an or- ganization to police or punish the big states but an association of independent states to police and, if necessary, to punish every- body but the big states. Unfortunately, however, the promise was not kept by the Soviet Union in Iran, Greece, Poland, Bulgaria, or Rumania. Unity was not achieved. Political sovereignty was not ted. If the promise had been kept, the United Nations would have been able to deal with the security aspects of the Greek question because these aspects of it would not have arisen. Premier Stalin agreed that the British should go into Greece and organize the re- construction there in the first place. When they did go in, a civil war, fomented mainly by the Communists, broke out, despite the fact that the Communists at the time were part of the Greek Government. At Yalta, despite the anti-British propa- ganda on the Soviet radio, Premier Stalin expressed his “complete confidence” in the British policy in Greece. Later, on July 81, 1945, Foreign Minister Molotov, after com- plaining at Potsdam about the British pol- fey in Greece, reviewed a memorandum by former Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden on the subject and again agreed to drop the subject. The Soviet attacks, however, went on and two attempts were made to solve it through debates in the United Nations. But the problem continued because the principles of the United Nations Charter were not re- spected, and the problem continues today. There are many criticisms that can be made of United States policy in dealing with the Greek-Turkish problem and the world economic reconstruction problem in the past, and many more that can be made about the way in which it is being dealt with now. But the United Nations is a poor scape- goat. It cannot be blamed for failing to deal with problems it never was designed to solve. And its principles are not invalid Just because the Soviet Union will not abide by them. The School-Lunch Program EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. JOHN A. BLATNIK OF MINNESOTA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 18, 1947 Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, the schools of Minnesota and of the Nation are facing a serious problem because of the exhaustion of Federal funds to carry out obligations entered into under the National School Lunch Act of 1946. This was one of the best and most useful measures passed by the last Congress, and has contributed a great deal to the health and well-being of our children especially in rural areas. I appeal to the distinguished members of the Committee on Appropriations to act quickly on a request from the Secre- tary of Agriculture for additional funds for this program. This request for funds I am advised should come to the com- mittee at an early date, and I hope that an appropriation for the school-lunch program wil] be included in the next ur- gent deficiency bill. The letter which follows sets forth better than I can the usefulness and real need for this program in the State of Minnesota: STaTE OF MINNESOTA, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, St. Paul, February 26, 1947, Hon, JoHN BLATNIK, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. Deak REPRESENTATIVE BLATNIK: At a meet- ing held at Chicago, February 20, of repre- sentatives of nine State agencies administer- ing the school-lunch program—including Minnesota—the attached resolution was adopted and transmitted to the Secretary of Agriculture setting forth the serious condi- tion confronting our several States because of the inadequacy of the appropriation for this fiscal year to carry the program to June 1947, In Minnesota there are 1,275 schools serv- ing lunches to some 160,000 children daily, and the present allotment of Federal funds will assist in carrying the program to only the fast week in March. The rural school children, particularly, be- cause of school consolidations, the transpor- tation problem, and the long day away from home are receiving benefits through this hot- plate lunch with milk from the standpoint of health and enhancement of scholastic status that are outstanding. In the small town and rural schools be- cause of increased food and labor costs it has been necessary to increase the charge to the youngster on an average to 15 cents per meal from the 10 cents previously paid. I am afraid a further increase would be demoral- ising so far as participation is concerned. The children, the communities, and the school boards in Minnesota are matching bet- ter than $2 for $1 expenditure of Federal funds. Unless further grants in aid are made available to Minnesota, Federal assistance will be cut off the last week in March. Approxi- mately 12 percent may be able to continue without Federal aid, A1103 Federal allotment for Minnesota to date is $1,079,106.02. This State will require ap- proximately $345,000 additional Federal aid to satisfy present contracts with the school boards. The school lunch lends itself admirably as an outlet for farm products. To illustrate: We will use over 19,000,000 half pints of milk in the schools this year. May I respectfully request that this mat- Wer receive your immediate and serious con- sideration, particularly in fulfillment of the obligation to the schools for the remainder of this fiscal year. Yours very truly, DEAN M. SCHWEICKHARD, Commissioner of Education, The Big Question: What Will Our World Role Be? EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WALTER H. JUDD OF MINNESOTA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, March 6, 1947 Mr. JUDD. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following article by James Reston, from the New York Times of March 16, 1947: THe Bic QuUEsTION: WHAT Wut Our WorLD Rote Br?—INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL AND Economic STABILITY DEPEND ON ANSWER (By James Reston) WASHINGTON, March 15.—When President Truman decided to present his new foreign policy to Congress, he is understood to have considered these alternatives: 1. He could emphasize that the purpose of the policy was the creation of world security through the use of American economic power and political influence and assert that this was an extremely expensive but necessary operation that would cost us, if it were to be effective, more than $5,000,000,000 a year; or 2. He could merely identify the goal of creating a world order of free nations and emphasize instead the narrow, immediate problem of getting $400,000,000 for Greece and Turkey. The argument for the first plan was that it would be a more complete appraisal of the true cost of attaining the President’s long- range objective, and it might destroy the {llu- sion, which is still prevalent on Capitol Hill, that there is a cheap way to block Commu- nist expansion and create a democratic world order. The disadvantages of this course, however, were obvious. Since there is usually a gap between what is necessary and what is ob- tainable, the President was confronted with the fact that to ask for so large an imme- diate appropriation was to run the risk of being repudiated altogether. The fear of this drove him to the second plan. He adopted the traditional one-step- at-a-time technique. He merely identified the goal and emphasized the immediate need in Greece and Turkey. THE LARGER QUESTION This plan, too, however, has fundamental disadvantages. By concentrating on Greece and Turkey, the much larger and much more important question of whether we are ready to create political and economic stability in the world is being minimized. The Presi- dent can always say—and his speech will bear him out—that Greece and Turkey were only one aspect of the problem, and that for our own security we had to help not only >
A1104 Greece and Turkey but, as he said, “all free Peoples” who “are resisting attempted sub- Jugation by armed minorities or outside pres- sures.” In spite of these sentences in the speech, however, the fact remains that, in the pre- liminaries of the congressional debute the main question raised by the speech is in danger of again being evaded. The issue is not whether we want to help Greece and Turkey; vital as this question is, it is merely the immediate problem thxt discloses the larger issue. The basic point is whether the United States is willing, to pay the price of creating world economic and political sta- bility, which is threatened by the decline of British power and the rise of Soviet power. The President’s analysis of what the Con- gress would or would not approve was un- doubtedly correct. Even his stanchest sup- Porters on Capitol Hill are inclined to admit that he would not have been able to get from an economy-minded Congress, during in- come-tax week, support for the broader pro- gram. The central fact js that after a vast civil war within the capitalist world, starting in 1914 and not yct finished, the nations which maintained what stability there was in the nineteenth-century world have fought and bled each other into a state of physical ex- haustion and economic bankruptcy. At the same time the Soviet state, center of a world movement bent on creating a Communist federation, has risen to challenge not only the independence of weak sovereign Btates but to defy the very essence of our be- lief in individual liberty. This Soviet state and system are concerned to take over wherever they can without get- ting into a fight. We do not have to oppose them. We can let them fill the vacuums in Greece and Turkey. We can abandon the Near and Middle East to a contest between a retreating Britain and an advancing commu- nism. This will not require any appropria- tions now. It is a seductive philosophy that we should give them their head and let them shoulder the responsibilities of running Europe and Asia. Joseph P. Kennedy argues that they should be allowed to overrun Europe if nec- essary, and he concludes that they will fail and the peoples of these areas will get tired of them and throw them out, EVIDENCE OF HISTORY Unfortunately, there is no evidence in his- tory that any people who ever were taken over completely by the Communists were ever able to throw them out and choose another form of government. Also, unfortunately, history does not support the the: is that na- tions can preserve their own freedom by bar- tering the freedom of others. Moreover, no- body who has watched the Soviet block sys- tem working in the United Nations or ob- served the Soviet system of closed state mo- nopoly trading with other nations is clear about how we would keep our own people working when our world markets were nib- bled by a Communist federation. Therefore, even if the question were debat- ed in terms of dollmrs alone (which would be skipping a lot of pretty important things), it is questionable which is the more expen- sive system, facing up to the tremendously expensive and admittedly dangerous business of blocking Communist expansion and help- ing rebuild a community of free democratic states, or postponing the decision and fol- lowing the equally dangerous assumption that the Soviet Union will be indifferent or inefficient about establishing a Communist world system. The Congress has repeatedly emphasized that while the shooting war may be over, we are still engaged in a kind of ideological, po- litical, and even military war of maneuver. At the same time, however, the Congress assun:cs that it can fight this war with peace- time financing. AWARE OF DILEMMA Mr. Truman and his advisers are aware of this dilemma at home and within our own Gcvernment. They wanted to state the posi- tive side of the Truman doctrine, namely, that communism could be fought effectively with money, in the west of Europe, for ex- ample. But they accepted the conclusion that the Congress would not face up to the kind of fundamental, long-range, expensive program necessary to achieve the positive objective and had to be nursed along a step at a time. There is nothing new in this. The most successful way to introduce a foreign policy in Congress 1s to oversell it piecemeal in an atmosphere of crisis. The tendency was to present the United Nations as a straight antidote for war and power politics. The tendency was to claim, in the height of the legislative battle, that the British loan would solve Britain’s problems and the Bretton Woods agreements would end world eco- nomic chaos, The same technique of overstatement in time of crisis is being applied on Capitol Hill on the Greek and Turkish loan. Even those in Congress who are in favor not only of the Turkish and Greek aspects of the prob- lem, but of the fundamental long-range ob- jectives as well, frankly are afraid to stress the fundamental question lest the military aspects of the Greek and Turkish loans be rejected. The fundamental question, however, keeps bobbing to the surface. All the implications of the British eco- nomic decline were evident at the time of the debate on the British loan. At that time, endless private conversations were held on the political aspects of the problem and proposals were made that the broad question of world economic reconstruction be raised and debated out. In the last analysis, however, it was drafted like a banker's loan to a dubious client and political and economic claims were made for it that were justified neither by the terms of the loan nor the facts of the world eco- nomic and political crisis. The question, therefore, before the Con- gress is whether they are going to deal with the basic question of what it takes to oppose Soviet expansion and to create the kind of world in which we can have jobs and free- dom, or whether we are going to refuse to face it, as we refused to face the Greek crisis @ year ago, and the British economic crisis eighteen months ago. It cannot be said that the British did not warn us that their economic situation was desperate and that the Greek situation was critical. Never in the history of nations has 80 much information been exchanged about ‘an economic problem as has been exchanged between Whitehall and Pennsylvania Avenue in the last two years. We did not, however, deal with the problem when we had time, and now the argument is that we do not have time to deal with it effectively. DIRECT CHALLENGE It is probably true that the decision on Greece and Turkey cannot walt. The Presi- dent has challenged the Soviet Union in one of the most direct public statements ever issued by the head of a major state. The Congress cannot even amend his proposals Without encouraging the elements Mr. Tru- man asked them to oppose and hurting the People he asked them to help. But once this is out of the way, it is gen- erally admitted, the major question of what this country can and will do to create a peaceful world will be even more urgent because it will be assumed that acceptance of the loan program indicates support of the entire program, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD At that time, it is hoped, the United States will undertake a series of direct conversa- tions: first, with the British to determine how much they are compelled by necessity to contract their overseas commitments; second, with the Russians to discover how far they are determined to expand or cooper- ate; and, third, and most important, with ourselves, to find out whether we are going to pay the price of leadership or the price of indifference, Four Songs We Sing EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. FRANCIS CASE OF SOUTH DAKOTA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 18, 1947 Mr. CASE of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, the songs a people sing reflect the soul of the Nation. At public gather- ings during the war I was repeatedly im- pressed by the fervor with which Amcri- cans of all ages sang four songs: My Country 'Tis of Thee—America, God Bless America, America the Beautiful, and the Star-Spangled Banner. Believing that a little information on the background and writing of each one will be of public value in the Conares- SIONAL REcorD, I have assembled such in- formation with the assistance of the Con- gressional Library and present it at this time: MY COUNTRY ‘TIS OF THEE—AMERICA The circumstances surrounding the writing of My Country 'Tis of Thee were described in later Hfe by the author, Samuel Francis Smith (1808-1895), and his story is quoted by John Tasker Howard in Our American Music: } “The origin of my hymn, My Country 'Tis of Thee, is briefly told. In the year 1831, Mr. William C. Woodbridge returned from Europe, bringing a quantity of German music books which he passed over to Lowell Mason. Mr. Mason, with whom I was on terms of friendship, one day turned them over to me, knowing that I was in the habit of reading German works, saying, ‘Here, I can't read these, but they contain good music, which I should be glad to use. Turn over the leaves, and if you find anything particularly good, give me a translation or imitation of it, or write a wholly original song—anything, s0 I can use it.’ “Accordingly, one leisure afternoon, I was looking over the books, and fell in with the tune of ‘God Save the King,’ and at once took up my pen and wrote the piece in ques- tion. It was struck out at a sitting, with- out the slightest idea that it would ever at~ tain the popularity it has since enjoyed. I think it was first written in the town of Andover, Mass., in February 1832. “The first time it was sung publicly was at a children's celebration of American inde- pendence, at the Park Street Church, Boston, I think, July 4, 1832. If I had anticipated the future of it, doubtiess I would have taken more pains with it. Such as it is, 1am giad to have contributed this mite to the cause of American freedom.” Howard goes on to point out that Smith’s memory played him false on two points, for surviving programs and newspaper accounts make it clear that Woodbridge returned from Europe in 1829, not 1831, and that the first ‘Third edition published by Thomas Y, Crowell Co,, New York, 1946, cf. pp. 127-128,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD performance was Independence Day, 1831, not 1832. Curiously enough, Smith claimed in later life that he had not realized at the time that the tune to which he wrote his words was that of the British national anthem. Various theories about the origin of this tune have been advanced, but Howard con- cludes that “It is probable that it was really written by Henry Carey (1685?-1743), the English composer of Sally in Our Alley. Carey sang the song, with the words ‘God Save Great George Our King,’ at a tavern in Cornhill in 1740 on the occusion of a dinner party held to celebrate Admiral Vernon's capture of Porto Bello, He announced that the words and music were his own, and it is probable that they were, for he would have had a hard time escaping detection had he stolen so striking a melody.” Whatever the origin of the air, Samuel Francis Smith deserves credit for having given undying expression to the concept of freedom which is at the heart of the American idea. Each stanza contains some reference to liberty or freedom. AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL Like My Country 'Tis of Thee, America the Beautiful was originally written with no thought of its becoming a national air. Katharine Lee Bates (1859-1929) was a teacher of English literature at Wellesley College (Massachusetts) who added to her teacher's income by writing poetry, travel books, commentaries on English classics, and stories of all kinds. In the summer of 1893 she made her first trip west and was pro- foundly impressed by the variegated splendor of western scenery, especially by the vast panorama glimpsed in a brief trip to the top of Pike's Peak. The ascent was made, she later said? “by the only method then available for people who were not vigorous enough to achieve the climb on foot, nor sufficiently adventurous for burro riding. Prairie wagons, their tail- boards emblazoned with the traditional slogan, ‘Pike’s Peak or Bust,’ were pulled by horses up to the halfway house, where the horses were relieved by mules. We were hop- ing for half an hour on the summit, but two of our party became so faint in the rarefied air that we were bundled into the wagons again and started on our downward plunge so speedily that ‘our sojourn on the peak remains in memory hardly more than one ecstatic gaze. “It was then and there, as I was looking out over the sealike expanse of fertile coun- try spreading away so far under those ample skies, that the opening lines of the hymn floated into my mind. When we left Colorado Springs the four stanzas were penciled in my notebook, together with other memoranda, in verse and prose, of the trip.” The four stanzas remained in Miss Bates’ notebook until] 2 years later, when she copied them out and sent them to the Congrega- tionalist, which printed them in its Inde- pendence Day issue, 1895. The reaction was immediate and wide- spread. So many were the requests for the poem's republication, and so numerous were the tunes to which it was set, that the au- thor decided to rewrite it, simplifying the language somewhat in an effort to make her message appeal as widely and directly as possible, It is this revised version which was copy- righted (in 1904) and which is almost in- variably used today. Although many original musical settings have been composed for Miss Bates’ poem, the music to which it is usually sung now- 2 Quoted by C. A. Browne, The Story of Our National Ballads, New York, Thomas Y, Crowell Co., 1981 (rev. ed.), pp. 270-274, XOCIII—App.——70 adays is the hymn-tune Materna, written by Samuel Augustus Ward (1848-1903) and fre- quently sung to the words “O mother dear, Jerusalem.” Undoubtedly this setting en- hances the quiet dignity and idealism of the poem. The newest of America’s patriotic hymns, America the Beautiful, is neither warlike nor frivolous in character and has also the virtue of belonging wholly to America. Its pop- ularity, the author herself said not long be- fore her death, “is clearly due to the fact that Americans are at heart idealists, with a fundamental faith in human brotherhood.” THE STAR-SPANGLED BANNER The exact origins of the tune for the na- tional anthem are still surrounded by con- troversy. It has been ascribed to Samuel Arnold, the director of the orchestra of the Anacreontic Society, and to John Stafford Smith, who published an “harmonization” of the melody in 1799. Although it may very probably go back to some earlier incarnation, it makes its first appearance as the constitutional sung of the Anacreontic Boclety in London during the 1770's. The president of the society, Ralph Tomlinson, wrote the words in 1775 or 1776. These words were first printed sepurately in 1778, and shortly thereafter, the London publisher, Longman & Broderip, brought out the first edition with music. Contact between England and America was so close in publishing matters at this time, that the tune probably reached these shores almost immediately thereafter, al- though the first definite evidence of this is the publication in the New York newspapers of a parody to be sung to the tune in 1793. Shortly afterward, the words, To Anacreon in Heaven, appear !n the songs of the period, and the melody gradually becomes one of the most popular vehicles for parodies written for all sorts of patriotic occasions—Washing- ton’s birthday and Fourth of July banquets leading the list. Over a hundred such parodies are known dating from before 1814, one of which was written by Francis Scott Key himself in 1806 for a dinner celebrating the return of De- catur from his engagements in the Medi- terranean. This earlier parody is important in that it includes certain anticipations of Key’s later poem written to be sung to the 8ame tune, notably the line: “By the light of the star-spangled flag of our Nation,” and the repeated rhyme of the final couplet— wave, brave. The origin of the words of our national anthem can be more fully documented. The British fleet that had becn blockad- ing Chesapeake Bay received reinforcements during the late spring and summer of 1814 which were supposed to enable it to attack and take New Orleans. Before leaving the bay, however, the British decided to attack Washington. Since the Capitol was defended almost entirely by completely untrained mili- tia, the attack was so successful that on returning to their boats in the bay, the British decided to teach another “lesson” of the same sort to Baltimore. In the meantime, Dr. Beanes, an elderly physician of Upper Marlboro, had enter- tained the British rather lavishly on their way to Washington, but turned his coat again @ little too rapidly for them before their retreat had been accomplished, and conse- quently the British picked him up and took him back to the fleet. Dr. Beanes’ friends were unable to obtain his release, and they therefore approached Key, since he was @ prominent lawyer of Washington with polit- ical connections, Key obtained the necessary letters, and left on September 2 for Baltimore, where he found Col. John 8. Skinner, the Government's cartel officer for the exchange of prisoners, prepared for a trip to the British fleet in a sloop, owned by John Ferguson but other- A1105 wise unidentified. They came up to the fleet on September 7 opposite the mouth of the Potomac, persuaded the British to re- lease Beanes eventually, but were told that the whole party would have to stay on board the British boats until after the attack on Baltimore for fear that they would bear news of the impending attack to Baltimore. The British arrived off Baltimore on Sun- day, the 11th. The main attack was to have been made by land along North Point, the flat spine of land bounding the north- ern shore of the outlet of the Patapsco River and leading directly to the city of Baltimore. A group of smaller vessels was moved up the bay for a frontal attack on Fort Mc- Henry. Key and Skinner were allowed to re- turn to their own sloop under guard, but were ordered to anchor near the mouth of the river During the night of the 11th, the British landed a force on North Point under the command of General Ross. Fairly early the next morning, while proceeding slowly up the strip of land, General Ross was picked off by an American sniper before any actual engagement had taken place. The loss of their general did not stop the ad- vance, but the British—both men and of- ficers—were considernbly demoralized by it. The success of the British attack on Wash- ington, particularly their burning of the Capitol, had so electrified all the large cities along the eastern coast that the citizens, from beggars to bankers, had pitched in to build fortifications and trenches surround- ing their cities. Gencral Smith, who was in command of the American forces, had had the fortifications constructed just outside of the city, and quite obviously had no intention of making a serious effort to stop the British on their advance up the point until they reached the trenches. In order not to :cveal this strate egy too clearly, two feints against the British were made during the day, but in such insufficient strength that it hardly delayed their advance. When they arrived at the fortifications late that afternoon, however, the British suddenly discovered that they were up against a great deal more than they had expected. Their only hope was to take the fortifications in the confusion of a surprise night attack, and @ messenger was sent to the fleet off Fort McHenry to arrange for a counter-disturb= ance by water. Admiral Cochrane, in charge of the fleet, had only recently arrived from England with orders to proceed against New Orleans, and when he learned what the real situation was, he disliked risking his fleet and any substan. tial body of men in an unauthorized attack which gave every appearance of being difficult to accomplish and which might easily jeopardize his later success at New Orleans. In addition, his attack on Fort McHenry had revealed no weakness in this direction. The guns on the fort were small and the shots would not carry for more than a mile, It was a simple matter for the British ships to stay outside of this range and lob bombs and rockets into the star-shaped fort at will. Nonetheless, about three that afternoon, when some of the British ships had floated too close, the Fort opened up and the ships had to withdraw. Cochrane therefore sent word back to the land detachment, saying that he could not mount a full scale sca attack, giving the impression likewise that he felt it would be wise for the land forces to withdraw without pressing the matter to an issue. Since it was too late for an addl- tional exchange of messages, however, he agreed to stage the desired distraction in the bay at 1 o'clock that night, in case the land forces wished to take advantage of it. This promise was carried out by,a few small boats which slipped past the fort. They were soon discovered, but managed to send up some blue lights as the distraction
A1106 before they were driven off. The army took no advantage of them, however, since they were already retreating down the point under cover of darkness, and the following day re- turned to the ships at the mouth of the harbor. Key had watched the bombardment of the fort during the day of the 18th and all dur- ing the following evening. After the distraction, however, the bom- bardment ceased, and there was no way of telling in the dark whether the attack had been successful or the British had decided to withdraw. Tension on the cartel ship increased as the night advanced, and Key and Skinner paced the deck most of the night. There were light, intermittent rains, and visibility was poor when dawn finally came. At last, through the mists of the deep, they made out the fiag still flying on Fort McHenry. In the excitement produced by this re- lease from tension, Key began composing his poem, jotting down notes and important ines on the back of an envelope he found in his pocket. That evening, on returning to shore, he wrote out a clean draft of the full poem in his room at the hotel. The following morning, Colonel Skinner came to see him, and the two men took the draft of the poem to the offices of the Balti- more American, where it was set up and printed in broadside form. On the 20th and Zist, it was run in two Baltimore news- papers—the Patriot and the American—and from there on the fame of the song spread rapidly. GOD BLESS AMERICA Although many songs have achieved popu- larity only after an uphill] fight against pub- lic indifference, God Bless America remained unknown for over 20 years because of the composer’s own indifference. It was written by Pvt. Irving Berlin (then of Camp Upton, N. Y.) in 1917, as part of Yip! Yip! Yap- hank! the This Is the Army of World War I. Apparently the composer felt the song un- worthy to stand alongside of Gee, How I Hate To Get Up in the Morning and other hits of his earlier show, for by opening night God Bless America had been cast aside. Soon after the armistice, Irving Berlin founded his own music-publishing house and continued to turn out hit after hit, but God Bless America was not among them. Only in 1938, when Kate Smith wanted a new and different patriotic song for her Amistice Day broadcast, did Berlin bring forth the discarded manuscript and allow it to be performed for the first time in public, That performance, 21 years late though it was, proved to be something of a sensation. In the beginning, only Kate Smith was allowed to sing the song, but it was published in 1989 (by Irving Berlin, Inc., New York City), and for a period gained steadily in popularity. A National Committee for Music Appreciation, Mme. Olga Samaroff-Stokow- ski, chairman, awarded the author-composer & prize for having written (in 1917) the best composition of 1940. The American people themselves awarded the song’s creator some $50,000 in royalties during its first 2 years in print, though Berlin appointed a board of trustees to as- sume charge of the royalties and spend them on behalf of the Girl Scouts and Boy Soouts of America. An honor of another sort was accorded the song during the presidential campaign of 1940, when both major parties appropri- ated the tune, sometimes adapting to it words of their own devising. These four songs offer a variety in range and in musical] appeal. Through all of them, however, run the basic love of country and freedom which stir the emotions of patriotism and inspire no- bility of conduct. So may ft ever be. A Public Welfare Crusader Retires EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. RALPH A. GAMBLE OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 18, 1947 Mr. GAMBLE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I include in the ConGREssIonaL Recorp the following editorial entitled “A Public Welfare Crusader Retires,” which appeared in the Standard-Star, published in New Ro- chelle, N. Y., on February 24, 1947: A PUBLIC WELFARE CRUSADER RETIRES Homer Folks, of Yonkers, has been such a prominent part of the social welfare front in this State and Nation that it appears un- thinkable that—at this day—it is possible for him suddenly not to be a part of it. The announcement is made that, after over a half century of service as its executive officer, Mr. Folks is retiring from the State Charities Aid Association. He has occupied that post since February 1, 1893, except for a term of office as New York City's Welfare Commissioner and for the periods he served abroad during and after World War I. This Yonkers neighbor of ours, whom we have known as @ No. 1 friend and supporter of everything affecting our social and eco- nomic life, is regarded as a virtual giant be- yond our borders—in public welfare, in public health, in child conservation, in tuberculosis elimination. He has been a powerhouse of imaginative planning and vigorous epplica- tion in the oldest fields of relief among un- fortunates and among the newest, like mod- ern mental hygiene. When he was selected in 1940 to receive the Roosevelt Distinguished Service Medal, granted to few Americans, the Roosevelt Me- morial Association described him as “a student, a dreamer, a crusader, and, at the same time, a man of action and executive force.” We know him, as he enters his 80th year, es a distinguished pioneer in poverty- prevention, as an explorer into the nature and causes of poverty, as a researcher in the realm of social economics with an amazing talent to come up with problem-solutions. Mr. Folks was entitled to his retirement some years ago, and he had then contem- plated severing his active connections with the association, but the war drew away many gocial workers and staff members, and he was prevailed upon to stay on. We're glad he did. For he has probably done more than any other man in Westchester, perhaps more than any other man in America, to demon- strate for the community and for the people at large the high value of our social workers. Unfortunately, not enough of us realize the down-to-earth, far-reaching value of tuber- culosis control, of mental hygiene, of child welfare, of public welfare, and of the other fields in which Mr. Folks pioneered—and in which, because of him to a large degree, Westchester also pioneered. Homer Folks may be terminating his daily treks into the association’s offices on East Twenty-second Street in New York, but his heart still will be in the welfare service to which he has given so generously and s0 richly during a most productive lifetime. He may be “retired” in a physical sense, beginning to enjoy the leisurely relaxation which belonged to him years ago, but his contributions to a better city, county, State and Nation-are bound to flow on. So constituted is Mr. Folks that not even he could halt that fountain of public service into which he has fashioned his life since earliest manhood, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Should Congress Approve the President's Proposed Loans to Greece and Turkey? EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. FREDERICK C. SMITH OF OHIO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, March 17, 1947 Mr. SMITH of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following speech which I broadcast over the Columbia Broadcasting System last Friday eve- ning: Ladies and gentlemen, one of the main reasons you elected a Republican Congress last fall was because you had been designedly maneuvered into World War II by the New Deal. After we were in it, your patriotism prompted you to go along with that party until the war was won. Then you spoke your true sentiment. President Truman's message to Congress amounts to an urgent request that Congress declare the existence of a national emer- gency, which, if complied with, more likely than not, foreshadows World War III. The same insidious pattern President Roosevelt followed to put you into World War II is now being pursued to inveigie you into World War It. Surely everyone remembers the steps that were taken before the United States actually declared war on Japan and Germany. First it was “Repeal neutrality.” Next, “Repeal arms embargo.” Then “cash and carry” of munitions for certain countries at war. Then transfer of battleships, followed by lend- lease, and so forth, until the country was “right” for actually declaring war. Now we are starting right off with guns and @hips to Turkey and Greece. If the President's request is granted, an- other global lend-lease program appears to be in sight, and the United States probably again will become the arsenal for what— heaven only knows. Since the President’s measage other coun- tries, including Yugoslavia—one of Russia's principal satellites—have indicated that they may be interested in obtaining financial aid from us. Others likely would appear upon our doorsteps until the whole category of nations that received lend-lease had their wante fulfilled. Outright involvement of the American people in war would be inevi- table. President Truman said this program had to be undertaken to stop communism. Are the American people to believe that you can buy or bribe a person or a nation from going Communist? Are we supposed to believe that communism can be stopped by war? Mod- ern wars are the principal cause of commu- nism. The only thing we can be sure was accomplished in the last war was the creution of more communism than had theretofore existed. Your sons and daughters suffered and died in the last war to completely com- munize Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Fintand, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Rumania, Bulgaria, Norway, Yugoslavia, Manchukuo, and Al- bania; and to put the remainder of Europe and a good portion of the rest of the world well on the way to communism. It will take only one more war to make communism universal throughout the world, not excepting the United States. If another ‘war comes, you and your neighbor will be completely regimented. ‘You will then see controls over your daily lives that will make those you experienced in the last war seem mild indeed, and you will not get rid of them after the war. They will stay with you and generations to come,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Certainly Mquidation of the British Empire would -have serious repercussions upon the United States, but for us to save the Empire would mean that the United States would have to set itself up as conqueror of a great portion of the rest of the world and hold it by military force. Under no circumstances could we do this long without levying heav- fly upon the conquered nations. It is not in the nature of the United States to assume the powers of imperialism. The United States is physically and fi- nancially incapable of undertaking this task. H is sheer madness to believe that we can or should. That would be too much for the United States in any event. But now this Nation is in a greatly weakened condition financially, economically, and morally, and to put upon us the strain that would be in- volved if we engaged in the task Truman's proposal foreshndows would bring a com- plete break-down of our economy and Gov- ernment, followed by the same internal strife, warfare, and military dictatorship that has bedevilled Europe for the last thousand years. It would not be merely a matter of the cost in maimed lives and other resources to prosecute World War III, but the terrible burden that would fall upon us following the war. The United States will have to stop some- where. We cannot support economically and financially the whole world. The cult of in- ternationalism has already committed our Nation to more than it can deliver and en- dure. It must be stopped before it is too late. The United States could do something to dampen the fires of communism that are rage ing in Europe and elsewhere by simply dis- continuing the ill-advised policy of pouring out financial and other aid to the peoples involved. When we stop pampering them they will go to work and start on the way to sanity. Let it not be forgotten that the New Deal Officially recognized Communist Russia in 1933 and made it a full-fledged member of the Society of Nutions, That act caused the infiltration of a horde of Russian citizens into our country who, with the pampering of the New Deal, spread their communistic ideology throughout the land. The New Deal has been as powerful a force in creating and spreading communism in our country and throughout the world as the Soviet Union. It comes with poor grace now for the New Deal to set itself up as protector of liberty. Justice to Our Veterans EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. HOMER A. RAMEY OF OHIO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 18, 1947 Mr. RAMEY. Mr. Speaker, according to the Pathfinder of March 12, 1947, Secretar: «° { .ate George Marshall is quoted as foilows: The American soldier in Japan costs the American taxpayer an avcrage of $1,000 a month. Apparently we are not disturbed at this expense. However, there is some sentiment in opposition to the increase of allowance to our returned veterans. A large number of those attending colleges in the United States are unable to com- plete their education to which they are entitled for having given so many years of service to their country. A speedy re- turn of American soldiers, unnecessarily detained in Japan and other countries, and especially civilian personnel and ghost writers, would more than finance the Rogers bill, H. R. 870. The essence of justice for our returned heroes is gratitude. When our boys and girls started out we said, “This country will never forget.” Even now some are objecting to increasing this allowance of $65 per month for single men and $90 per month for married men in order that they may continue to prepare for their life’s work. Let us use a well-balanced and un- biased judgment here, coupled with cour- age and gratitude. Why We Must Have Tax Relief Now EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HUBERT S. ELLIS OF WEST VIRGINIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 18, 1947 Mr. ELLIS. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Record, I include the following editorial from the Philadelphia Inquirer of March 117, 1947: WHY WE MUST HAVE TAX RELIEF NOW When two such foremost public finance experts as Roswell Magill and John W. Hanes join in urging an immediate substantial slashing of income tuxes all along the line, not much room for argument is left to the Democratic opposition or the tew Republi- cans in Congress who have been s0 obsti- natcly running counter to their party's policy. Certainly it would be the height of folly for the Democrats to try to make political capital out of the issue of tax relief by at- tempting to stave off this reform until after next year's election. Opponents’ accusation that the tax relief move is a Republican game falls to the ground when it is considered that Mr. Magill and Mr. Hanes served as Under Secretaries of the Treasury in New Deal administrations and are speaking out so forthrightly now because they believe and know that the country’s welfare is at stake. Secretary Snyder has asserted that tax re- duction should be postponed on the ground that the Government needs the money. But it has been clearly shown that the Govern- ment doesn't need nearly so much money as Called for in Mr. Truman’s swollen budget. Mr. Magill and Mr. Hanes speak with au- thority when they warn that it would be positively dangerous to delay tax reduction. Their reasons for action now, not next year or the year after, are convincing. Both perceive signs of a coming busincss recession which might spell serious trouble, This is the time to prepare against it. Means must be provided to enable business and in- dustry to withstand a slackening of demands for their products and to maintain pay rolls and full employment, The public’s buying power must be sus- tained and strengthened. That power has been steadily shrinking under the burden of oppressive taxes. Money taken from the pockets of the peo- ple by the Government doesn’t go into pro- ductive enterprises. Every dollar of taxes not actually required for essential governmental expenses is worse than wasted. Al1107 This applies equally to the weakening of the buying power of consumers in the lower brackets, who need every dollar they can ob- tain for the necessaries of life, and to the heavy toll taken from the larger and the top incomes, which deprives industry of capital it must have to keep the wheels turning. Tax reduction opponents can’t get away from these facts, but they have now seized upon a new argument. It is that granting President Truman’s request for 400,000,000 for Greece and Turkey to support democracy against outside aggression will put tax cuts out of the question. That would be a small item in a Federal budget of $31,600,000,000 or £33,000,000,000 which offers opportunity for still further cut- ting. If savings in other budget items are needed they must be made, but there isn’t the shadow of an excuse for bypassing tax reduction. On the direct contrary, tax reduction is made all the more necessary because of its powerful contribution to the increased in- dustrial production demanded by our fresh responsibilities and commitments. It 1s too much to expect individuals, whether they be managers or employers, to work harder and produce more if an exorbi- tant share of their increased earnings is to be taken away by an extravagant Government. Mr. Hanes uses an apt expression in pro- testing against “a tax on brains, a stupid levy against the know-how and the managerial experience that are the Nation's greatest assets.” The full and efficient functioning of the country’s economic machine, for our own sake and that of others, depends on releas- ing the tax brakes that have threatened to slow it to a standstill. Here is the case for the 20 percent measure of tax relief which now, more than ever, demands quick action. Better Minds for Better Politics EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. JAMES E. MURRAY OF MONTANA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, March 19 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp a very able article by Dean Arthur T. Vanderbilt, of New York University Law School, ap- pearing in the New York Times magazine section of March 8, 1947. This is a timely ciscussion of the need of train- ing our young men for more active par- ticipation in public affairs. His recom- mendations carried into effect would mean more efficient government so es- sential in the conduct of our highly com- plicated national and international af- fairs. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Better MINDS FoR BETTER Pouirics DEAN VANDERBILT SAYS WE MUST TRAIN OUR YOUNG MEN TO TAKE A MORE ACTIVE ROLE IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS (By Arthur T. Vanderbilt) In a country given to striking contrasts, the strangest of all, in view of our national history, is that disclosed by our tremendous capacity for patriotism in time of war and our general indifference to public affairs in
A1108 peace. In an emergency we do not hesi- tate to sacrifice our greatest treasure—the younger generation—and to mortgage our financial future for decades to come in al- most prodigal expenditures for our national Gefense. Even in wartime, however, we are not really concerned with public affairs at home. We are too busy or too careless to at- tend to the first duty of a citizen in a democracy—voting. In 1938, 38,000,000 people cast their ballots for Members of Congress. Four years later, in 1942, 11 months after Pear] Harbor, at a time when we knew we were in for the fight of our lives, only 28,000,000 people voted for Members of the war Congress. A bare 54 percent of the eligible voters were concerned as to who was to represent them in the body which would play a large part in the prosecu- tion of a world-wide war and perhaps in the making of the peace. In 4 years there had been a sheer drop of 10,000,000 votes. Complete statistics on the election of 1946 are not yet avallable, although esti- mates reflect an increase of about 6,500,000 over 1942. The vote was, nevertheless, about 8,500,000 short of 1938, notwithstanding the fact that the American people were obviously indulging in one of their favorite political pastimes—‘“‘kicking the rascals out.” In primary elections, devoted to the vital task of choosing candidates for the political par- ties, it is notorious that a mere fraction of the vote cast at general elections comes out to the polls. Most of our citizens do not even know the names of many of the Officials they have elected to office. I make this assertion rather confidently from personal experience in a test made in ideal circumstances. One night during a campaign I was pressed into service to hold an audience in Montclair pending the arrival of a distinguished can- didate. I suggested to an audience of two or three hundred, made up largely of county committee men and women, election board members, officers of political clubs, and pub- lic officeholders generally—all interested rather actively in politics—that we play a little game. Everyone would raise his hand and then drop it when a question was asked that he couldn’t answer. To insure fair play I announced at the end of the game I would quis the winners. I then called for the names of the President, the Vice President (a few hands fell), the two United States Senators (more hands went down), their Congressman (not any Con- gressman from the county but the Congress- man for their district—many more hands fell down), the State senator, the assembly- men, the sheriff, the county clerk, the surro- gate, the county register, the county super- visor, the chosen freeholdera (hands were falling like leaves in a hurricane), and the town commissioners. I didn’t have the heart to inquire as to the coroners and the justices of the peace. In this city of Montclair, “the Athens of America,” rated by Prof. Edward L. Thorn- dike in his Your City as the second best city in America in which to live, only 2 per- cent of these practical politicians had sur- vived the ordeal. What would be the rating of an ordinary audience in such a test? I should not advise any reader of Dale Carnegie to play this game, but to any earnest seeker of the truth as to the politi- cal age of the American public in any par- ticular community the test is sure to be illuminating. If we don’t know even the names of our elected public officers, how slight must be our knowledge of their char- acter and associations, their ability and poli- cies? And if we don't know about our offi- cials, both elective and appointed, how can we be said to know our Government, or be good citizens? In a national poll conducted recently there Was submitted the question, “Would you be willing to have your son enter politics?” Sixty-seven percent of the people responded that they would not. To a second question, “Do you believe a man can go into politics and remain honest?” 50 percent responded that they did not believe it was possible. Now, I do not believe that 50 percent of our politicians are dishonest, but I do submit that the fact that 50 percent of our people think so and that 67 percent of them are unwilling to have their sons enter politics, is cause for grave concern. Lest we smugly think that our educated classes have higher civic standards than the average citizen, let me refer to a study made by Fortune a few years ago of the alumni of 12 of our most distinguished preparatory schools. Out of their 67,000 graduates these schools have produced but 27 United States Senators, one Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and one President. Shortly after this study appeared the head of a prominent New England college in a speech at one of the very schools in ques- tion attempted to justify this deplorable lack of interest in public life by saying that politics in the United States was such a dirty game that no gentleman could afford to be- come mired in it. He neglected to mention the only alternative to what he called a dirty game—a world-wide cataclysm every quarter- century involving the sacrifice of our best blood and the undermining of our civiliza- tion. The result of this neglect of responsibility for government by our educated citizens is strikingly reflected in a study made by Dean William E. Mosher, of Syracuse University, not so long ago of the membership of the county committees of the two great political parties in 18 of the larger cities of New York State, New York City being excluded by reason of its peculiar problems. In these 18 cities 55 percent of the dis- trict leaders had not gone beyond grammar school. Only 12 percent were college men and women—and college men and women were defined for the purposes of this survey as including anyone who ever went to cole lege, whether he was graduated or not and whether the institution was a college of lib- eral arts or a veterinary school. Of the col- legians, two-fifths were lawyers. I am not disparaging the leaders who never went be- yond grammar school. Many of them, I am sure, are honest and capable. I am simply pointing out that our college graduates as a class have not been sustaining the burden of public leadership, either at the top or at the bottom of the political ladder. Such evidence of lack of interest in public affairs and of ignorance of our political leaders must make us consider how long our increasingly complicated system of govern- ment, which depends 50 largely on wise pub- lic opinion and active citizen participation, can retain its traditional character of en- couraging the maximum of personal freedom and individual initiative consistent with the general welfare. Surely nobody doubts that a democratic, representative form of govern- ment is superior to any brand of totali- tarianiam. Surely everyone knows that no government, especially our own, is automatic. True, in times of crisis, we are willing to give all, but why must patriotism be exclu- sively a wartime virtue? Why should we be willing to die or send our own to death to preserve our Nation and yet still be unwilling to give a very small fraction of our time and thought to preventing war by wise.and ef- fective government dominated by sound pub- lic opinion? Has history no meaning for us? The causes of our lack of interest as citi- gens in our Government and for our failure to participate actively in politics are many. We live in an age of automatic machinery and we thoughtlessly liken government to a machine, which we fondly hope will work au- tomatically, though we know when we stop to think about it that every liberty we enjoy has had to be fought for on the field of battle, in the legislative halls, or in the courts. We know, or should know, that the fight for freedom is not completely won; eternal vigi- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD lance and a willingness to fight again and yet again are, indeed, the price of liberty. Preedom is our birthright, but only because our forebears were prepared to fight for it in peace as in war. Nor can we hand it on to succeeding generations, if we lack their proud spirit. Vast numbers of citizens are preoccupied with personal affairs. Many of them contem- plate public service—at some more conven- lent season. If they ever get around to it they are likely to find themselves out of touch with the spirit of the times, eager to be help- ful but unable to adjust themselves to the differences between things they thought they knew and things as they actually are. Politics is an art as well as a science, and it takes time as well as practice to acquire an art. Many natural leaders of public affairs, too, are engaged in industries where participation in politics is taboo. As the field of government expands and more in- stitutions are subjected to public regulation, the number of men of ability who will be deemed ineligible for public success will un- fortunately multiply greatly. The percent- age of natural leaders of public affairs thus withdrawn from the arena of politics is much greater than one may at first imagine. Another deterrent to political activity is the fact that government today is so com- plicated that participation in politics 1s not only time-consuming, but calle for a high degree of intellectual ability. There are rel- atively few men who can even pretend to be acquainted with the government of their city or county or State, not to mention the National Government. Indeed, it may be doubted that the Gov- ernment even knows itself. There is one Federal agency, the Office of Dependency Benefits, that a year ago aided 11,500,000 dependents of 6,000,000 soldiers by issuing 69,000,000 checks of the face value of $3,380,000,000, but it was not listed in the United States Government Manual or the Congressional Directory for at least 8 years. Truly ours is a Government nobody knows. The very magnitude of the task of becoming acquainted with government is not only staggering, it is likely to create a sense of the futility of individual efforts. The greatest obstacle to active participa- tion in politics, however, is the attitude of people generally toward their government and the men whorun it. “Politics is a dirty game,” said the college president. “I don't want my son to enter politics,” say 67 per- cent of the fathers and mothers. Anyone who enters politics is suspect. Even though experts, such as Luther Gu- lick, president of the Institute of Public Administration, assure us that there is less direct dishonesty in politics than in busi- ness, the average citizen is still more suspi- cious of politicians and inclined to look down his nose at them. Oertain it is that the politician may expect to be miarepre- sented in partisan attacks, to be misquoted, to be libeled and slandered. He will often recall with a sigh Shakespeare's words, ‘The greatest treasure mortal times afford is spot- less reputation.” The ordinary man fiinches at the thought of having his actions, his motives, his char- acter misunderstood in the family circle, by his friends or the public, but the genuine citizen will wisely conclude that the pin- pricks of partisanship are a small price to pay compared with what the citizen-soldier has been called upon to endure in war— especially with war still being waged in various parts of the world, and with the thought of war never far from the public mind these days. What can be done to encourage men to be good citizens, to enter politics? The Navy is planning to take approximately 5 percent of the boys entering college and train them in acience for tr: Navy. The Army is planning to take four times that number for the same purpose, The threat to civilian research is
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the subject of grave concern today in educa- tional and college circles. Nobody seems at all troubled, however, as to where our politi- cal leaders are to come from or where they are to be trained. Yet who can doubt that there is a greater premium today on political intelligence than on any other type of brains? True, everyone who can read his daily newspaper must see that we are obviously living in an age of politics (much as we dis- like the thought) in which accurate infor- mation and wise interpretation of it and skill in its use both in respect to foreign countries and our own are essential to the preservation of the peace and to the safe- guarding of the highways of progress. But what do we know of Russia? Of China? Of South America? Of the National Govern- ment? Of our State government? Of our country? Or town or city? Or ward? Or even our own election district? Everyone knows, too, that our knowledge and use of the physical sciences have out- atripped our progress in the social sciences. The same genius which has remade Ameri- can civilization, through science and tech- nology, has also given us the atomic bomb, the rocket, and the undisclosed terrors of bacterial and chemical warfare with which to destroy our civilization. These statements have become common- place, but what is not commonplace is that our vast education system—on which the American people have pinned their faith—is again falling down on its primary job of training citizens for their duties of leading public opinion and of developing wise, effi- cient political leaders. I say again, because there can be no doubt in the light of the history of the twenticth century, that the warning of World War I was lost on the educational world. I say again, because there is no evidence of any conviction reflected in the many addresses, reports, and books on higher education which have flooded the country in the past 5 years that the colleges are aware that it is their primary responsibility to train citizens and that in the world emergency of today that primary responsibility transcends all other obligations. To be specific, the obligation rests on col- lege presidents, faculties, and boards of trus- tees, on superintendents of schools, teachers, and curriculum makcrs generally. The col- leges and universities in particular owe the country the obligation of undertaking the work of simplifying and streamlining our complex system of government and of bring- ing it in line with the needs of the times. The law schools, too, must play their part in the gigantic task of molding the law to meet new conditions. The gap between theory and practice—or, to be specific, be- tween the academician and the man of public affairs—must be bridged. This will not he done, I fear, until an aroused public make itself felt in the ivory towers through the press, the radio, and by direct assault. The most constructive force in this fleld is the great and ever-increasing interest of students in the social sciences. Thoir in- stinct is sound. Unfortunately, much of the force of this constructive impulse is lost in part in some colleges through uninformed and uninspired teaching, in part for the reasons we have been discussing, but chiefly because there is no readily accessible road to political activity. If a young college graduate is secking a place for religious worship, church doors by the dozen are open to him. If his aim is further education or entertainment, there are scores of opportunities in every city. But if he is seeking to do his duty as a citizen by participating actively in politics, it will be a matter of shcer good luck if he finds his way about. The need of an agency to guide young men and women in the ways of active citizenship has long been felt by educators and by mem- bers of the legal profession. To mect this need a citizenship clearing house has been proposed, It would be manned by college instructors in government and would en- deavor to introduce young graduates to hon- est and intelligent leaders of their own party, each in his or her own town. If no such leaders were available, it would try to bring groups of young people of each party to- gether. Next, it would aid these young people in organizing local discussion groups to de- bate—regardless of party—local, State, na- tional, and international problems of current interest. It would also publish a small, in- formal magazine recording their successes and failures, and without taking sides on any issue would endeavor to point out sound and honest methods of citizenship organization. It would emphasize what the individual can do to improve government. Finally, when technical advice in local or State government is desired it would put them tn touch with outstanding experts. Such a citizenship clearing house is being planned by New York University School of Law, through its legal research bureau. Committees from the American Political Sci- ence Association are studying the project with a view to cooperating, and a committee from the Junior Bar Conference of the Amer- ican Bar Association has been appointed to lend its aid. It is hoped that the Citizenship Clearing House may be the spark to fire the native political aspirations of our best young college graduates, Our New Foreign Policy EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ARTHUR CAPPER OF KANSAS IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, March 19 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. CAPPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the REcorp an able address on our new foreign policy delivered by former Gov. Alf M. Landon, on Wednesday, March 19, at Wichita, Kans. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECorp, as follows: I opposed the prewar foreign policies of President Roosevelt on two grounds, 1, They were 80 “patty-cake” worded that they led the aggressor dictators to believe the American people would not fight. 2. By the same token they were deceiving the American people into war. The President’s epoch message to the Con- gress on the Grecian and Turkish loans is not open to the same basic criticisms. But some of his Cabinet—the Sccretary of the Navy—are having difficulty facing up to our problems as a whole. In a speech a few days later saying that military aid only means four or five officers, Secretary Forrestal con- tinued the evasive and equivocal approach so characteristic of the New Deal. I have opposed our postwar foreign pol- icies on the ground that they were an at- tempt to build a super structure for pcace without any foundation. It is late, but there is another angle—other than our own security—to our foreign policies that we must consider, That is respect for treaties and agreements we are a party to. The biggest lesson the American people have to learn in foreign affairs is the ulti- mate end of their commitments. It is time we recognize where internationalism of the “hallelujah” brand brings us. A1109 We have created our present situation by acting weak and foolish instead of wise and strong in our foreign affairs. Our foreign policy in recent years has been a thing bent quickly to solve each momentary crisis or a political campaign at home. We need some plain, simple guideposts. At a time when the United States had reached an unprecedented position as a world power, and possessed of every means of asserting its moral leadership, we made practically no use of our incomparable strength. We allowed ourselves to become @ party to promoting a world-peace scttle- ment, based on power domination and the virtual enslavement by Russia of formerly free and sovereign European nations. The new world order emerging from this compromise, cannot be regarded as stable or permanently secure. Its precarious status can only be maintained by force and political police methods. Apart from the moral degradation which it demonstrates, it lacks the elements of mutual confidence among nations, essential to normal political and economic international relations. What is even more serious, further de- velopment of the present world situation, by encouraging the creation of centers of Com- munist revolution on the fertile soil created by famine, destitution, and despair, threat- ens the very existence of Western civiliza- tion, We have been on the wrong track. We have been running away from reality by crying, “Let the United Nations do it.” Not only is United Nations only in its infancy, but our policy has been infantile. We lent Tito $650,000,000 to make the Balkans safe for communism; now we are loaning Turkcy and Greece $400,000,000 to save the Balkans from communism. We sold our own ally, Po- land, the first to fight Germany, into the hands of Stalin. Now we are desperately try- ing to stop what we helped start—the spread of communism in Europe. Only gross inept handling of foreign affairs could have brought us into our present position, and that is exactly what we have had to date. It is the sad result of a decade of patty-cake foreign policy and now we have reached the point where the chips are down. It is now beyond partisanship; it is a matter of patriotism, President Truman not only brought the issue out into the open. He recommended more—much more—than a mere financial or humanitarian policy. He did not make a bellicose speech. At the same time he was extending to Russia our hand through Secre- tary of State Marshall at Moscow—if she chooses to accept it. But he did throw down the gauntlet to the imperialist and agerressive policies of Russia. The President announced that not only were we anti-Comintern—but that we pro- posed to do something about it. Here is what we are doing. . In effect, we are forming a western bloc with Britain, et al., in the Mediterranean to stop Soviet expansion. Of course, it naturally follows that we will be forced to @ similar course of forming an eastern bloc with China, Australia, etc., in the Orient. Despite political or wishful protestation— it is the old balance-of-power game. And we might as well face an additional fact— it bypasses the United Nations. It is Mar- shallian militaristic realism versus one- worldian star gazing. In short, we are in European power politics up to our necks, and in it to stay—right out in the open. I believe it is imperative that the Amert- can people should know what they are doing. Mr. Truman and Mr. Marshall should place their cards face up on the table at all times. As I see it—we may be at this moment de- clding for war with Russia—just as much as we decided for war with Gcrmany, when lend- lease was passed,
A1110 People ought to understand that this de- cision is being made and, if they want, ex- press themselves on the subject. But listen, if we had asserted ourselves when Hitler went into Czechoslovakia or Japan into Manchuria, there would have been no Dunkerque or Pear] Harbor. Furthermore, let us not forget that Presi- dent Cleveland's stout-hearted Venezuelian message brought Great Britain around so from that time on her policy was one of friendship for the United States. Russia is already vigorously carrying on acts of aggression in Cuba, Mexico, Canada— in fact, all the countries of the Western Hemisphere, including the United States. Furthermore, everywhere communism only rules as a minority dominating the majority by force. The conflict is not economic. It is more the age-old attempt of Asia to con- quer Europe—of paganism against Chris- tianity. Witness the murder by Russia of the three Polish Socialist labor leaders—and leaders of the underground against Hitler. The military dictatorship of Russia is not content to demonstrate in one country the workings of communism by the trial and error method. But has reverted to original Marxism and is undertaking to impose it on the whole world by force. The Soviet high command would shoot Norman Thomas as quickly as they would the president of the National Association of Manufacturers. 1. Presidont Truman’s request for author- ity to block Russian aggression also means the end of the old give a yard and gain an inch—of our tragic comedy billed as the firm but friendly policy with Russia. It means the end of attempting to con- ceal—from the world by pompous statements in deathless prose—the complete lack of suc- cess in the meetings of foreign ministers. Under the firm but friendly policy Rus- sia was striding forward and the United States either retreating or so confused that we were losing prestige and the respect of the world at a dangerous rate. 2. It means if we are to save Europe from communism that we must break flatly and finally with the infamous Morgenthau plan. We must reshape our policy in Germany. That is consuming time, money, and man- power which can be used to a better advan- tage. Furthermore, it actually is not accom- plishing anything. Germany is the heart of Europe. We have been destroying Europe by our policies. We must help them rebuild. We cannot rule them indefinitely. Europe is like a patient with coronary thrombosis. We have got to treat the heart instead of massaging the feet and the hands, which are Greece and Turkey. 8. We will have to change not only our entire German policy, but Italian as well. The Trieste Treaty must be rejected. From every angle it is bad. 4. On the Western Hemisphere we must return to the good-neighbor policy which ‘was damaged so badly at the hands of Secre- tary of State Byrnes. 5. It means kceping our Army and Navy at their highest efficiency. But that does not mean that the Congress should accept un- questionably the budget estimates of habit- ually wasteful Army and Navy heads. A sound fiscal policy is essential to national security. 6. It means that we must stop wasting our substance all over the world as we have been in this postwar period by scattering our re- sources through so many different agencies. It means a reduction in the services govern- ment can give at home. The more we protest that the new Turko- Grecian policy is not pressure on Russia— the more we destroy its benefits to us and the world. Only by frankly and boldly proving that we are through with concessions and that our purpose is to put a stop to Russian imperial- ism and expansion—can the loans accome- plish the ends desired by the liberty loving democracies of the world. The way our new policy is followed through is of the utmost importance in unifying the peace-loving peoples of the world. We sre flush up to the plowing season— either we perform now—or we are likely to follow tho time-worn paths of procrastina- tion, right into another war—10, 15, or 20 years from now. The British Empire is all but completely out of action. Either we openly intervene in Europe or Russia will take over. Britain undoubtedly will come back when she gets her belly full of economic planning. But how far and how soon is the question. She is bankrupt politically and economically, to- day, but the British are a tough, resilient people. I predict that they, even as we sur- vived the New Deal, will survive socialism. Yet it is extremely doubtful if Britain will ever regain her old position. Let us not make the mistake of thinking that we are going to take the historic role of Britain in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Then, Great Britain was a first call power in a world of first-class powers. Today, mass murder—private torture—ter- rorists mcthods—are used by Communist fifth columns all over Europe to establish control over their fellow countrymen who, surprising though it may seem, actually out- numbers the Communists 10 to 1. That creates fratricidal hate and cruelty. French- men are straining to fly at Frenchmen's throats. Today we are the only first-class power in the world. Britain is exhausted, Germany and Japan are destroyed and France— France is France. What few Americans realize 1s that Russia is as weak—if not even weaker—than Britain. Only the iron cur- tain withholds from the world generally, what our statcsmen have known specifical- ly—that internal conditions in Russia are chaotic. Yet the ridiculous part of our whole foreign policy is the way we have let Russia win pot after pot with a pair of deuces, while we laid down four of a kind. I sometimes wonder how Americans think Russia performed as brilliantly as she did in the war. Was it a triumph of Communist organization and planning? Or was it be- causn the United States, which Russia now scornfully denounces as a ‘decadent democ- racy,” saved thelr hides? Let’s take a look at the record. The fact is that the United States waged @ war so colossal, so stupendously greater than that by any other nations that it is beyond our comprehension. Where Russia fought on a 2,000-mile front and a mere pond called the Baltic Sea— where Britain guarded a coast of 800 miles and a life line through the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean 10,000 miles long— the United States waged war on seven oceans, every sea, and on scores of fronts that totaled not two, but tens of thousands of miles, Our invasions of Jap-held islands alone were military feats heretofore never dreamed of, The invasion of Europe by British and Amer- ican forces combined was a titanic operation which even the military mind still has difi- culty grasping. The world has never seen the equal of the military achievements and military resources of our gr-at and glorious Republic. From a production standpoint the job done by American industry singlehandedly, almost defies the imagination. Consider: Between 1940 and 1945 this country pro- duced 294,000 fighting planes, including ap- proximately 100,000 bombers—a plane pro- duction that far outstripped the production of all other nations of the world combined, enemy or allied. In approximately the same period this Nation, which had only 7,695 ships in its Navy in 1941, had 100,000 fight- ing and auxiliary ships when the war ended in 1945. In fact, by the time the war was over, we actually had more ships in the APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD United States Navy than we had men in its personnel in 1939. Today we have a Navy that far outstrips the dream of any admiral in history, and dwarfs all other navies of the world combined. Our construction of merchant ships was actually hair raising. In approximately 5 years we built 7,100 seagoing ships in the merchant class with the result that when the war ended, Amefica, not Britannia, ruled the waves, with the American flag flying on twice as many ships as all the other merchant fleets of the world combined. In 5 years, American industry produced 6,000,000 rifies, 5,000,000 carbines, 2,500,000 machine guns, and 2,000,000 submachine guns. In the same period our factories turned out 87,000,000,000 rounds of ammuni- tion to supply those same guns with fire power. We produced 85,000 tank guns, 55,000 units of fleld artillery, 71,000 mortars, 770,000 trucks, 2,000,000 tons of high explosive TNT, and 2,000,000 tons of smokeless powder. Those are figures that not even the mathe- matical mind can cope with, but I am not through. I want to offer you some figures which will give you a better perspective on the might of the Soviet Union's Red army. Listen: In a little over 8 years—during the very time when we were hearing how Russia was winning the war almost unaided—we sent the Soviet Union by air or in our own ships and under our own escort through the treacherous Arctic and Persian Gulf routes, 14,450 fighting planes, including 9,700 pur- suit ships and 3,800 bombers, 7,000 tanks, 3,200 armored scout cars, 2,200 ordnance serv- ice vehicles, 52,000 jeeps, 3€3,000 trucks, 35,000 motorcycles, 8,200 antiaircraft guns, 135,000 submachine guns, 843,000 tons of explosives, 105 submarine chasers, 195 torpedo boats, 7,600 marine Diesel engines, 320,000,000 worth of machine tools, $35,000,000 worth of metal- cutting tools, $43,000,000 worth of petroleum- refining equipment, $171,000,000 worth of electric generators, 810,000 tons of nonferrous metals, 17,600 tons of ferro-alloys, 2,688,000 tons of steel, entire railroads, not to mention tons of food including butter which you did without. And if that is not enough to im- press you, let me add that what we sent Russia was only two-thirds of what we sent Britain. And if you are still unimpressed let me further add that the above list is not com- plete by several railroad systems, several hun- dred ships, and hundreds of millions of good old American dollars. When you consider that in addition to all this, we put 12,000,000 persons into tho armed services and raised approximately $400,000,- 000,000 in taxes and loans from our people, T can't help but cry, “Wake up America, what did we fight this war for anyway—to make this world safe for communism?” Now I purposely omitted the mention of one weapon which we produced that literally overshadows every other single effort of the war—the atom bomb. No words of mine can begin to describe its horrifying potentialities. At the moment it is an American possession; how long it will remain our secret no one knows. But as Winston Churchill says, “It is the new balance of power in the world today.” It makes the United States—al- ready armed with the greatest Navy, the greatest Air Force, and the greatest Army— the most awe-inspiring military power the world has ever seen. So here stands America, a stupendou: na- tion—strong like no other before it—un- aware of the vastness of its muscle, unsure in its leadership without which world so0- lutions are impossible, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt both campaigned for reelection on a too- proud-to-fight policy. We weren't, and we did. But as I said in 1986—the policy of appeasement meant encouragement to the aggressor,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Now is the time to exert our strength— our determination to have peace—or fight if need be. There is no other nation, or com- bination of nations that can lick us, and the other democracies. This is not war talk; this is just common sense. I am simply trying to say that in strength and a sure knowledge of that strength is the only road to peace. If Grecce falls into the Soviet group s0 will Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Italy, and most of Europe. Unless we help China she, too, will eventually become a Russian satel- lite. But we have pulled out of China be- cause of conditions that are duplicated in Greece. We should return. Therefore the controlling factor of the Turko-Grecian loan is not only its over-all purpose—but how our other policies are to match this step. That is the. crux of the whole matter. We must make our moves in a way that will leave other democracies in no doubt as to our long-range policies. Only if Uncle Sam of the big stick speaks with a powerful voice and ucts accordingly can we hope to diminish the threat of war clouds. In all this we must not cease to recapture @ sense of the principles for which America stands almost alone in the world today. Under the new ceal and the war to beut the Nazis we went half down the road to social- ism. There is great danger that we could go even more totalitarian in our struggle with Russian aggression. Unless we are on our guard we may not have anything left of our Republic to show for it after it is all over. Bold united action was never of greater value, nor of greater importance in our entire national history. There can be no compromises—no vacillat- ing—no procrastination. Now is the time for action, I would either give the President all the power he asks—or I would not give him any of it. For Turko-Grecian aid is the cginning of a long-range stout-hearted American policy for the benefit of the Amer- ican people. In my judgment only by giving the Presi- dent everything that he asks—and only by the President on his part developing a defi- nite, strong, consistent, and intelligent foreign policy in place of a vacillating to the point of nonexisting foreign policy can we hope to achieve a secure and free life. Economy or Waste in Flood-Control Projects EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. FRANCIS J. MYERS OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, March 19 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. MYERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an editorial entitled “Economy or Waste?” published in the Pittsburgh Press of March 17, 1947, which deals with the flood-control problems in Pennsylvania. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: ECONOMY OR WASTE? In their fight to assure continued work on the Conemaugh River flood-control dam, western Pennsylvania Congressmen already have scored heavily. They have revealed—and they have the data to back it up—that the cost of stopping work on the dam will be so high as to make any such action utterly ridiculous. Consider the situation at the site of the dam, where work is being done to protect Pittsburgh from disastrous floods: Sixteen miles of railroud lines are being torn up. Highways have been cut. Utilities have been disrupted. Contractors have moved costly equipment and materials to the site. Can the Federal Government, in the name of economy, just walk off the job? Well, here’s what would happen: The contractors would have claims against the Government running into the millions, for their costs, profits, and liquidation ex- pense. The railroad would have another claim. So would cocontractors. So would utilities. There would be heavy expenses in Testarting the job. The high cost of not working could far ex- ceed the 65,212,475 which Army engineers say they need in the next fiscal ycar to kecp on working. Remember, these are just dollar figures in the Federal Government’s books. They take no account of the cost to private individuals and companies of recurrent floods, or of the cost in lives and livelihoods. Federal appro- priations are only a small part of the cost of floods. President Truman, when he asked Con- gress for 400,000,000 to aid Greece and Tur- key, pointed out that it was a small part of the sum we've invested in world peace and suggested that Congress consider the alterna- tive. Let's apply the same reasoning to the Cone- maugh Dam. A $5,000,000 appropriation to continue work on the dam will be ex«ctly one two-hundredth part of what the Fed- eral Government will get in taxes from western Pennsylvania next year. And consider the alternative. Attitude of Russia in Grecian Situation EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. SCOTT W. LUCAS OF ILLINOIS IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, March 19 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have incorporated in the Appendix of the Recorp an edi- torial entitled “Russia's Answer—and Ours,” from the Chicago Times of March 16, 1947. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: RUSSIA’S ANSWER—AND OURS While neither Molotov nor Stalin has yet deigned to speak regarding our proposed aid to Greece and Turkey, it may safely be as- sumed that Izvestia’s long editorial on the subject reflects their present views. That Izvestia should have been critica] of the move is no surprise. Russia could hardly be expected to cheer. But what may have surprised some people is the comparatively mild tone of the re- proof. Those who anticipated fist shaking or saber rattling will have to await further developments which doubtless will follow. All1l1 Rather loftily, Izvestia undertook to lec- ture the United States upon certain ideologi- cal matters. Particularly did the editorial strive to give us the facts of life regarding the “democratic” Greek Government. Sare castically, Izvestia observes: “But the matter not only, and not so much, lies in the venal Greek monarchists and their allies, who have been pleasantly pre- sented to American Congressmen as direct descendants of the defender of Thermopylae, the legendary King Leonidas. It is well known that the real rulers of Greece up until now and still are the British military authori- ties.” Candor compels confession that the Krem- lin scores a point. The editorial caustically reviews the fail- ure of the British to bring tortured Greece peace and quiet; asks whether British troops in Greece had not contributed to the sad state of affairs, whether Britain is not ac- tually responsible for Greek bankruptcy. It adds: “The American Preside:t’s message by- passes these perfectly natural questions. The reasons for such delicacy are fully un- derstanduble. The United States does not wish to criticize the British practice since they themselves intend following the Brit- ish example.” We, of course, intend nothing of the kind. Americans are no supporters of King George of Greece. In other respects, the Kremlin's arguments fail to carry conviction. Izvestia hints that our stated reasons for helping Greece are but a smokescreen for a plan of expansion. Here the Kremlin is talking through its hat—and knows it. Nothing in Americu's history sustains such a charge. Perhaps the Soviet is judging from its own standards— as witness Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and @ large part of the Balkans. And naturally the Soviets assiduously avoid referring to the alternative to our plan— which is Communist domination of Greece should we fail to step in. And in that con- nection some words of Franklin D. Roose- velt are worth recalling: “Democracy in many lands has failed for the time being to meet human needs. Peo- ple have become so fed up with futile de- bate and party bickerings over methods that they have been willing to surrender demo- cratic processes and principles in order to get things done. They have forgotten the lessons of history that the ultimate failures of dictatorships cost humenity far more than the temporary failure of democracy.” This statement is peculiarly applicable to the present situation. In Greece there has been—is—a temporary failure of democracy. That moy be conceded. What Mr. Truman sceks to demonstrate is that democracy can get things done in a hurry. And this has an importance going far beyond Greece and Turkey. There are in the world perhaps a billion people who are neither democratic nor com- munistic—people struggling in misery and poverty and political subjugation. Among them all unrest stirs, ideas are beginning to circulate. This great, insensate mass is commencing to come to life. If democracy can prove to these hundreds of millions that it can offer them not only lofty political ideals, but action—swift and decisive action—in dragging them from thar economic slough of despond, they will flock to democracy’s banner in such hordes that communism will fade as a threat to the world. A resolute and vigorous democracy can grow so strong that it can never be seriously challenged. But a wenk and fumbling de- mocracy can bring nothing but its own anni- Hilation. And that’s just the choice that faces us today.
A1112 Foreign Policy EXTENSION OF HON. ALVIN F. WEICHEL or OHIO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 18, 1947 Mr. WEICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I am including herewith an editorial of Spen- cer Canary, editor of the Dafly Sentinel- Tribune, of Bowling Green, Ohio, ex- pressing his views on the Presideat’s message and a word of caution for the future: PRESIDENT TRUMAN'S President Truman's message on Greece and Turkey Wednesday wes no different than the information on which our protesting edi- torial a few days ago was based. It had, how- ever, the weight in the world which the Chief Executive of our country wields. It was a challenge to Russia. It plainly said, in effect, to the dictatorial clique now governing Russia under alleged communism: “Thus far may you go, but no farther with- out fighting the United States.” The right to send military men as well as civilians to the two countries “to assist in reconstruction and to supervise use of the aid” carries that import. Don't let Congress kid itself that it means something else. Civilians are just as capable men as mili- tary ones. The difference is that the soldier's uniform implies military force to back up orders. That would be an affront to the Greek people and a challenge to Russia. Let no one fall to understand that the President would have Congress embark on & project that inevitably would be considered by the world as imperialistic. Let Congress realize that sending military men to Greece would be exactly like President Roosevelt's sending England 40 destroyers in order to fight Hitler’s submarines. Let Congress realize that, if it accedes to Truman's request, it will be a frank diplo- Matic message to Russia and her satellites to lay off their aggressions, just as much as was Secretary of State Cordell Hull's mes- sage t to Japan in 1941 about China, The outcome was Pearl Harbor and the Bataan Peninsula and war with Germany. What the President said about the need of relief and about the imposition of totali- tarian regimes upon free peopie certainly reflects the opinion of America; and, when he points out that the United States spent $41 billions to win the recent war as an investment in freedom and world peace, it has some emotional appeal. But the step he advocates might also be considered “send- ing good money after bad.” It reminds one of the stock market of the 1920's, when suckers who had bought stock on margin, put up additional money to save their price-falling stock from the “bears.” Eventually, the market collapse of October 1929, resulted in the financial ruin of thou- sands, the suicide of many, the depression of the 1980's, the rise of the New Deal, and Roosevelt's defy to Germany and Japan. Does it mean anything that Russia is called the “Great Bear?” It 1s possible that the Truman project might bluff the Politburo that is the policy maker of Russia; but a bluff is only good if there be the evident will to carry it through. The Politburo is believed to be divided into two groups, Molotov and Gromyko hating the United States and Stalin's group being rather friendly to it. This division might serve to limit Russian aggression without war; but, if we send mili- tary men into Greece and Turkey, we must be prepared to expect war just as we got into it in 1941. We are beating a path to it, If Congres reilef, tt should be only with the sanction of the government of Greece that American civilians shall abso- administer tts distribution among the warring factions, not use it to bolster the un- stable Greek Government nor to tear it down. Let us not be a maker of kings nor a Crom- well bent on dethroning one. Let us keep clear of telling the Greek people what gov- ernment must have; and let us label everything “U. 8.” so that Britain will not claim, “See what we are doing,” as has been done sometimes in the past. But, as said previously, the United States cannot do everything for the world that it meeds; countries have shown their tngrati- tude for what we have tried to do for them; we are groaning under our heavy home loads, and we need to set our own house in better order than it fe. “The paths of lead but to the grave.” The path of military help leads to war; and that of world help is lead- ing us to the trough of imperialism. Let us drink from the old spring of freedom for our- selves and others. | to Greece EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. SCOTT W. LUCAS OF YLLINOIS IN THE SENATE OF THE UNTTED STATES Weduesday, March 19 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, on Thurs- day, March 13, there appeared in the Chi- cago Times a very thoughi-provoking and iltuminating editorial under the caption “There is only one choice.” I ask unani- mous consent that it be printed tn the Appendix of the Rrcorp. -There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: THERE I8 ONLY ONE CHOICE Americans today can have only one atti- tude toward thetr President’s proposal to show the world that dynamic democracy in action assumes responsibility for keeping po- litical freedom alive in Greece. Russia must know that the people of the United States stand behind Mr. Truman as their spokesman against the pressure of totalitarianism. The Times has thought that the adminis- tration should invoke the functions of the United Nations in the Grecian crisis. We believe that on most matters the Rus- eians do not understand us and that we do not understand them. Mr. Truman is seeking to make the Rus- sians understand our position in Greece by @ policy which recognizes the fact that the United Nations is not yet equipped to act in such an emergency. The President must depend upon a united America and we think he will get the unity he needs except from extremists who are against htm in everything. There still must be public discussion of Mr. Truman's to support the After sober discussion, which should not Be too long delayed, Congress must make APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Up tts mind whether it is willing or unwill- ing to mest the tes of world Weaderahip which the outcome of World War a Bai upon us, The crumbling power of the British Em- pire presents America with increased oppor- tunity for world leadership. The imminent withdrawal of British forces from Greece hastened President Truman's bold stand seainet totalitariantem The dangers to world peace which Presi- dent Truman describes as inevitabie if we do not send aid to Greece and Turkey will sure- ly be multiplied tf we now rebuke our own President by failing to support him and thus give Russia an tnvitation to move however and wherever it pleases. The President, In effect, ts asking Ameri- cans to fence in communism with American dollars. ‘There always is the danger that American soldiers might be asked to follow the dollars. In fact, the President proposes that American military personnel be sent to Greece and Turkey to help train personnel. We may assume that such a bold course will be interpreted by Russia as a war gesture. But i¢ is not and need not be if Russia has meant one hundredth part of the agreements she has signed with the United States. The Atiantic Charter ts one such agree- ment, We're willing to take the chance of being misunderstood by Russia, as Mr. Tru- man explained, because we believe that the ultimate hope for peace in the world, and security for ourselves, lies In the pledges made in the Atlantic Charter. One of those pledges was the right of peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live. Another of the agreements was made at Yalta. There the big nations agreed they would help the lib- erated nations or the former Axis satellites, when their right to choose their own govern- ment was threatened by internal disorders or economic distress. That is the situation now prevailing in liberated Greece. Turkey was never in the war, but Turkey has a right to the princi- ples of the Atlantic Charter and of the Yalta © agreement because they are set up in the basic law of the United Nations. Russia can help if it wants to. it can call of the guerrilla warfare and the infiltration of Communists into the nations involved. We believe that Russia would get wide popular American support for water rights through the Dardenelles if it would live up to the spirit of the Atiantic Charter and the Yalta agreement and cooperate to make the United Nations work. Instead, Russia, by stupid delay and acri- mony, has forced our President to ask for action which Russia can construe as aggres- sive if the Reds cling to the policy which led to ouster of Litvinov. Whether Russia so construes Mr. Truman’s proposal is the key to future developments and relations between our countries, If Congress lends maney to Greece, Ameri- cans will insist on a real democracy there. Greece is a sorry example of democracy. Few Americans will favor spending money to prop up King George of Greece. The Fascist and Monarchist gangs must be cleaned up if America intends to give Greece a real injec- tian of Gemocracy. The same goes tor Tur- key, which is a backward nation prone to totalitarianism, too. Communism has seemed attractive to some Greeks because they are living in those con- ditions of starvation and poverty in which communism breeds best. A hungry man may be willing to sell his political freedom tor food. And there has been, and is, hunger in Greece. Some peasants have been reduced to eating grass. In the cities the show win- ‘dows display pastries, but few can buy. In- lation ts so great that food prices are tn- dexed at 600,000,000 compared with 100 in 1989.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Tt is in this kind of arena that President Truman proposes a show-down between two theories of government, one in which the people run the state and one in which the state runs the people. We have a chince to show Russia we in- tend to support democracy as strongly as she supports communism. Eventually such an attitude may prove to be the only way in which the constant clash of ideology can be avoided. Aid to Greece EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. THOMAS S. GORDON OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 18, 1947 Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rrc- orp, I include the following article that appeared in the Chicago Daily Times en- titled “It’s ‘Now or Never’ for Aid to Greece,” which is part of a series of storics analyzing the steps that have led President Truman to take his momen- tous action. It appears to be very timely and the unbiased statements are fully gone into. Ir’s Now or NEVER FoR AID TO GREECE (By Keith Wheeler) For most Americans, excepting rock-ribbed isolationists and Communist sympathizers, there seems only one clear and certain an- swer to President Truman's appeal for United Btates aid to Greece and Turkey. That answer falls neatly into two sections: One: Good. Two: It's about time. To those Americans who have studied Greece's plight since the war or have had the luck to observe it first hand, as I did re- cently, it seems abundantly clear: That Greece needs help badly. That it deserves help far more than other countries to which we have been conspicuously more generous. That unless it gets both help and guidance quickly it may presently be soaked up by the thirsty Communist blotter which presses against it from three sides. That, aside from the moral considerations of helping those who helped us, we will be helping ourselves in the future by helping Greece keep its inde- pendence now. MACEDONIA PERILED To illustrate how badly Greece needs aid, as long ago as last December many Ameri- cans there, including Ambassador Lincoln McVeagh, recognized that Greece could lose Macedonia, its rfchest province, in about 20 minutes if the British pulled their troops out. If Greece should lose Macedonia, the lucky finder seems certain to prove Communist Russia. Russia would get Macedonia through the eager agency of Tito’s Russia-idolizing Communist Yugoslavia and Greece’s own re- bellious Communists. President Truman reported the British have told him they cannot remain in Greece be- yond March 31, That is 17 days from to- day. It was no small-fry choice the President thrust upon the American people. Prob- ably not since the Monroe Doctrine, in time of peace, have Americans been called upon to decide a matter of policy so grave, 80 forthright, so loaded with sobering implica- tions for ourselves and the rest of the world. COULD MEAN WAR Carried aternly to its conclusion this policy of opposing totalitarian expansion (which seems to mean Russian expansion) could indeed mean war, as more than one Sen- ator yelled yesterday. And, as other Sentators said in return, @ policy of doing nothing until somebody does it to us first can also mean war, as proved in the past, There was heartening encouragement in the President’s uncompromising declaration for those Americans who have worried since the war's end over America's seemingly stub- born refusal to face the facts of life. The rest of the world has trouble, too, and those troubles may eventually prove more im- portant to us than our present preoccupation with the difficulty of getting a new car. TIME TO GROW UP It looked like the first sign of recognition that, like it or not, we are a big boy now and that it's time for us, in the most sober con- science, to take a grown-up's responsibility. It isn’t as though we hadn’t known what was happening to Greece. Many American newspapermen have been telling and re- telling the story of Greece's rapid decline into chaos and steady slither toward a Com- munist grab ever since the Germans were driven out in 1944. Less generally known but probably more detailed have been the re- ports of American military agents stationed in Greece, who, among other duties, make it their business to question captured Greek Communist guerrillas. The stories of those guerrillas, painstak- ingly counter-checked for truth, have made it clear enough that the effort to undermine and overthrow democrucy in Greece is en- ginecred and supported in and from Yugo- slavia, Albania, and Bulgaria. Ambassador McVeagh has known how af- fairs were moving for many months and has steadily, although privately, urged upon the State Department the necessity of doing something for Greece or letting it slip into Communist hands by default. GREEK TRAGEDY Whether or not losing Greece to com- munism seems bad depends, of course, on how you feel about communism. To those, however, who consider expansionist com- munism a danger and believe that there is no demonstrable difference between Russian communism and the recent German nazism, seeing Greece absorbed by it would be tragedy. It would be one more sacrifice of the ideals of freedom and democracy for which we spent 6341,000,000,000 and 1,000,000 lives fighting the recent war. I learned how close Greece had come to losing the game directly from former Premier Constantin Tsaldaris. I talked to this beefy, choleric, long-time politician, one December night in the rabbit warren offices of the For- eign Ministry in central Athens. He was to leave the next morning on his subse- quently well-reported begging expedition to America. “We can do nothing more, we cannot control the rebels. I see no hope for us un- less it comes from the United Nations,” Tsaldaris confessed to me that night. COMPLETELY BROKE Tsaldaris explained that the Greek Gov- ernment was then completely broke as well as hopelessly tangled in disagreement. (At ‘the time of that visit a Government spokes- man told me that the total available re- sources of the Government were less than $300,000. The same spokesman explained it had been necessary, for example, to quit trying to restore the railroads to op- eration because there was no money and to print money would mean inflation. Either way-—with inflation or without rail- roads—the country was ruined.) One thing was the country's poverty—and the concurrent impossibility of restoring either a stable or prosperous economy—Tsal- Garis told me, The other was the Com- A1113 munist rebellion, which was directly and inextricably linked to the first, ‘What money Greece had been able to ratse had been used largely fighting the rebels— as well as much of the UNRRA machinery and supplies designed for more peaceful and profitable pursuits, The expenditure had becn fruitless, The leftist guerrillas, fighting and fleeing over mountain-goat paths, had made monkeys of the new Greck mechanized army. DESERT FARMS Unless the fighting could be stopped there was not the slightest chance the country could ever struggle back to either order or normal productive work. Because of the fighting farmers were deserting their lands and workers were fleeing from the factories. A creeping paralysis was growing upon the land—that passionate, courageous little land whose forefathers invented the democratic process and whose sons have been its most ardent champions for centuries. Haggard, puffing Premier Tsaldaris put his faint hopes in United Nations, believing that if that body investigated Greece’s charge against her Communist neighbors—and proved it—Greece might get a chance to work out her salvation. © How faint that hope truly was seemed ime plicit in President Truman's message, which spoke well of the United Nations but urged the imperative need for action. LITTLE UN HELP Tsaldaris got the United Nations investi- gating commission for which he asked, but it hasn't seemed to do much good. That was a conclusion which might have been drawn from the first, considering that Albania, Yugoslavia, and Bulgaria had ample warning and ample time to erase the evi- dence before the commission arrived on the scene. And considering also that the commission for more than a month established its head- quarters in Athens—300 miles and more from the heart of the rebellion that threatened, and still dces, to deposit half of Greece and @& grandstand seat on the Mediterranean square in the lap of Uncle Joe Stalin. America Today and Tomorrow EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. EUGENE J. KEOGH OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 18, 1947 Mr. KEOGH. Mr. Speaker, under leave to .extend my remarks in the Recorp, I am pleased to include the address of the distinguished senior Senator from Con- necticut, BRIEN McManov, at the ninety- eighth annual dinner of the St. Patrick Society of Brooklyn, held at the Hotel St. George, Brooklyn, N. Y., on March 17, 1947, the president of which this year is Peter Campbell Brown, who also served as toastmaster at the banquet. The Sen- ator has, in his usual fine style and man- ner, presented an accurate picture of the position of America today. It is well that we come together on occa- sions like this to draw strength from one another and from our realization that we have a common cause. It is because we love our country and what she stands for; it is because we are dedicated to the principles of liberty and to the concept of the dignity of the individual; it is because we believe that the state is the creature of men and
Al1114 not men the creature of the state, and be- cause we believe that we have in this Nation the best of all possible governments, that we in this Nation are determined that it shall persist and develop and grow stronger and greater. We live in a troubled world. I have indi- cated what you know already, namely, the distress, the poverty, and the disintegration of European economies, It used to be said that the sun never sets on the British Em- Pire. We can paraphrase it by saying that the sun never sets today on misery and con- flict and despair. On conflict in Korea and China in the East; on potential civil war in India and Palestine. On disintegration in Greece, on Turkey armed to the teeth and going bankrupt in the process. On Britain living on a Spartan diet, determined no long- er to hold her empire—resigned to its loss and seeKing only to eventually raise the standards of her own people to decent levels. On France whose trade untons are controlled by Thorez and Duclos who are agents of a foreign power, on starving Spain, on troubles in our own southern hemisphere. This is the picture and behind it all stands Russia, operating behind an iron curtain and holding sway over 400,000,000 of the world’s people. It seems as though America is an island of health in a sea of malignancy. It stands to reason that we will not have an ordered economy, we cannot have an ordered po- litical life if the worl@ around us is to rot and disintergrate completely. What must we do here in America? I suggest that the first thing that we should realize is that there will never be a “return to normalcy.” Most of us will glibly admit that this is true, but we still act as though normalcy was right around the corner. When Hitler invaded Poland any return to what we would like to term normalcy be- came, to my mind, impossible. Certainly, when the Japs struck us at Pearl Harbor an era ended in America, and that era will never return. Our people must understand that. Our people must not waste thei: time in chasing illusions and rainbows, for if we can appraise the true realities of the situation which we now face, then there will be some hope that we can gird ourselves for the duties that lie ahead of us and for the burdens which we are going to have to bear. Amcrica has become the primary power of the world. With that power goes a respon- sibility and a duty that we cannot escape, We must not act like petulant children when they are faced with the responsibilities of life. We must realize that our own self- preservation and protection can only come through assuming the burdens which world leadership has placed upon us. Our people must realize that there are two conflicting ideologies in the world to- day—conflicting all over the world for the possession of men’s minds. We must meet that issue fairly and squarely and coura- geously, The best way to meet it, in my opinion, is to demonstrate to the peoples of the world that which we already know s0 well—namely, that our way of life is far to be preferred to any other. This is a difficult task. Democracy grows and flowers on order and law, and communism fattens on disin- tegration, disorder, and chaos. One costs sweat and tears—the other is cheaply pro- cured by intrigue. We have two great jobs to do in order to see to it that our way of life is that which is embraced by the peoples of the earth. The first job is to make our democracy work bet- ter here at home. That means that we can’t run a nation on the basis of having first- and second-class citizens. That means that we can’t permit great monopolies to fatten at the expense of small enterprise. The trend to ever greater concentration of industrial power was accelerated during the war years, That trend must be reversed and should be reversed by a vigorous and effec- tive enforcement of the antitrust law. We must restrain the greedy who would seek to shift the tax burden upon those least able to bear it. We must be careful that we do not discourage public service by launch- ing unfounded and baseless attacks upon candidates for public office. I refer specifically to the campaign which has been carried on against Mr. David E. Lilienthal. ‘We must endeavor to see to it that the law is enforced without fear and with im- partiality. Lilienthal and the other members of the Commission were nominated by the Presi- dent on the 15th day of January. It is now over 2 months since those nominations were received. While it is true that the members of the Commission technically can act under their recess appointments, I frankly say to you that there are decisions to be made of the gravest consequence in the operation of our atomic-energy program. I can well understand the reluctance of the Commissioners to make decisions of far- reaching import until the Senate has passed upon their qualifications. Any further de- lay in their confirmation is to be deeply regretted. We hear much today of labor racketcering. It is my observation that you can’t run a racket in the labor movement without vio- lating the law. Our prosecutors should be vigilant in the detection and prosecution of those who would seek to prostitute the cause of the working people of our country to private profit and ill-gotten gain. One of the things that has most contrib- uted to America's becoming the greatest nation on earth is the fact that we adver- tised to our own people the virtues of the things that we produced. Our people realize that a good and honest product well ad- vertised will sell in ever-increasing quanti- ties. We Lave a fine product here in America and we must advertise it all over the world. We must fight propaganda with informa- tion. For every lie we must tell a truth. We must offer facts instead of distortions. We must tell the people of the earth that our democratic free-enterprise society has 80 much more to offer the average man than does communism, that it is to our advantage to let the people of the world know the truth and give them an opportunity to make their own choice. Our lows are 60 much higher than their highs that we have every- thing to gain by making the facts known. But to men and women everywhere, our sys- tem represents not only material benefits but personal liberty, freedom of conscience, and the opportunity to grow and develop to the utmost of one’s abilities. And of what we have to sell, the greatest demand is for liberty. Against the falsehoods and the distortions we must make these facts known. By every available means we must disseminate throughout the world, honest, factual infor- mation about America and her way of life. By means of newspapers and magazines, by short-wave and long-wave radio, by moving pictures and books, by every cultural art and by every medium of information, we must tell the plain people of the earth the inspiring and fascinating story of democracy in action. But the spreading of information is not enough, Along with the facts we must spread the fruits. The of America’s high standard of living will not feed the hungry Chinese peasant or heat the freezing hut of the Polish laborers. When men are hungry and cold, when they are homeless, jobless, and hopeless, they fall easy prey to the red rash of revolution. Thus, by disseminating the blessings of our system as widely as pos- sible, we insure our own perpetuation. That is why as I see it, we have decided to bring aid and succor and relief to the dis- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD tressed nations of the earth. That is why we have given liberally of our treasure in an attempt to establish order and health and sanity in place of chaos, misery, and despair. And, there is one further thing that we have tried to do of which I am very proud indeed. And that is the effort on the part of this great country to give to the world security from atomic fear and the blessings that should result from the discovery of atomic energy. We must see to it that the world knows the story of what we have tried to do. Men everywhere should be told that we have tried to do the decent and honorable and equi- table thing. I confess to you that I am most deeply disturbed by the present status of the atomic-energy negotiations. I say to you bluntly and frankly that unless this prob- lem is solved, there can and will be no pence. Unless it is solved we will head straight for a third world war. To say that I am deeply disturbed by Mr. Gromyko’s latest speech is to put it mildly. I assume that the people who understand the nature of this problem are as deeply dis- turbed as I am. It is a problem for every adult person in the United States, because I see, in the not far distant future, decisions to be made of the gravest portent—decisions which are going to affect not only your way of life, but the very existence of your con- tinuance in being. You know that I have been in the van- guard of those who believed that the only solution for the problem lay in the world's acceptance of a fair and equitable plan by which all nations would share in the bene- fits of this discovery in return for guaranties of an effective quality against its murderous use. In my opinion we performed our moral duty in offering to the world a prescription for peace through the mutual and beneficial control of atomic energy. If our offer and our plan is to be finally rejected then I say to you bluntly and frankly that we must be prepared for the eventuality which has al- ways resulted from armament races. How can we conceive of the existence of a United Nations which cannot settle the pri- mary and underlying cause of fear; that can- not solve the problem of armaments so de- structive as to sponge out whole peoples and cities. What a frightful prospect, what a horrible vision of the future is raised by even the thought of such a holocaust. To those of us who have seen the heaped-up rubble of the German cities which still cover thousands of the dead, the prospect of a thousand times more terrifying hurricane of destruction strikes a chill to the heart of even the most calloused and insensitive of men. But mark this well! Russia will in a pe- riod of time make an atomic bomb. That period of time is almost any man’s guess, but I say to you now with definitiveness and certainty that anyone who tells you that he is certain that Russia will not have the bomb even 8 years from now. is either a knave or a fool. I have asked this question before and I ask it again. Has not a nation which turns down a fair and equitable solution of the atomic-energy problem committed an act of aggression against the rest of the world? Does not a course of conduct become ag- gressive when it is designed to rob us of our substance by forcing us to carry ever larger and more crushing tax burdens to sustain our armaments? Is it not an act of aggression to so conduct your foreign policy as to enchain in the thralldom of fear the minds of men so that we would become a nation of psychotics unable and incapable of pursuing our dally lives? I hope that our distinguished Secretary of State will be able to acoomplish the pacifica-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD tion of the European Continent through an agreement on a peace treaty for Germany. I even more fervently hope that Secretary Marshall can reverse Mr. Gromyko’s latest outbursts. But, it seems as though the Russians see no cause for hurry. Is it be- cause they see a continuing disintegration in the free world and hope that out of the chaos and despair and misery that ac- companies it will come their chance to in- herit the earth? Are they convinced that the forces of democracy are indeed so weak that they will continue to crumbie even in the New World? If they do, I would beg of them to see and understand that the Amer- ican people have proved in the fires of con- flict that we think well enough of our way of life to die for it; that we will not stand idly and passively by and watch the ways of totalitarianism engulf the earth. It was Hitler and Goering and Goebbels who thought that America was decadent; that democracies were inefficient and incapable of meeting total war. We won our victory over them at incalculable cost, it is true, but win it we did. Two hundred and ninety- six thousand of our best lie forever dead. We drained of our treasure $300,000,000,000. We marshaled our forces with intelligence, executed our war plans brilliantly under the direction of a great leader, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. I wish America to carry no chip on its shoulder. I wish and want for America neither truculence nor unfairness in our dealings with any nation on the face of the earth. I wish for America, as do you, the adherence to ethical and objective standards of conduct that can meet the test of today and of history. I appeal with all of my heart and soul and mind to those leaders of the Russian people who seem to be so adamant to meet us half way both in the German problem and on the subject of atomic energy. Pray God that they come to realize that totalitarian we will not and cannot be. We know that we might better be dead. I have not been one of those who thought that the cause of peace was advanced by the exacerbation of the feelings of the Russian people or, indeed, of her leaders. I do not speak today in a spirit of anything else but hope that we will see a change in attitude. If that change shall come, if only the iron curtain could be lifted, if we could get an agreement on atomic energy so that its tre- mendous potential dividends could be de- clared to the peoples of the earth, then, in- deed, would we have cause for gratification and celebration. Iam an optimistic person. The picture, it is true, is not an encouraging one as we see it tonight, but I am hopeful that we will be able to surmount ou: difficulties and to lead the world into more pleasant and safer seas. - All human things are ephemeral, I suppose. It may be that this Government which we love so well and in whose future destiny we believe so deeply will be found at the sunset of some day to have disappeared. But the principles of justice are eternal and that government which adheres to them will last forever—not precisely as she is today, for I know that nothing in nature can remain in- ert, but I believe that our country will live to the end of time, forever progressive, ever freer, ever stronger, ever more durable, I be- Heve that with each new development of sci- ence, with each new element that may enter into the daily lives of men, creating vast ad- ditions to our wealth and multiplying the fields of industry, our American system will be found adaptable enough to include them, strong enough to regulate them, and that here will ever flourish the strongest and truest way of life, maintaining institutions which will stimulate patriotism and stand as a beacon light for the oppressed of every land, No Subsidized Press EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ANTONI N. SADLAK OF CONNECTICUT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, March 18, 1947 Mr. SADLAK. Mr. Speaker, the Post Office Department being confronted with a deficit of approximately $288,000,000 in the next fiscal year, it is refreshing to read an editorial which is an admission against interest and suggests that the postal rates be increased to lessen this prospective loss. The editorial is from the Bridgeport (Conn.) Post, a daily newspaper with a circulation of 70,000, published in my district: NO SUBSIDIZED PRESS The Post Office Department wants to raise postal rates to overcome a deficit upward of $287,000,000. That's all right with us so long as they don’t raise the first-class rate (3 cents an ouncc) which is already paying a good profit to the Government. The deficit comes from other services which are ren- dered by the Post Office Department at less than cost, and the profit from first-class mail is wiped out in that manner. For one thing the Department would now make a post card cost 2 cents to mail, That seems reasonable too. It actually costs the post office Just as much to service and han- dle a 1-cent post card as it does a 3-cent letter and the difference in rates is unreason- able. But where the loss really occurs is in the low rates granted to newspapers, magazines, and publications gencrally. The Government incurs a swamping deficit from this kind of mail and in effect it amounts to subsidizing the publishers. This was originally adopted as a policy in the early days of the Republic when publica- tions were few and far between and strug- gling to sustain themselves. It was thought wholesome to give the people access to pub- lished material of all kinds and the Govern- ment adopted low postal rates as a form of encouragement. Those days are all in the dim past. Pub- lications today are as numerous as leaves on the trees and self-supporting or ought to be so, There is no dearth of printed material, in fact there is a surplus of it. Under the circumstances why should the Government add millions of dgllars to the profits of muga- zines and newspapers which are already sus- taining themselves? And why should this profit come out of the hides of the other users of mail and the taxpaying public into the bargain? We don’t think newspapers and magazines are entitled to any Government subsidy. A Balanced Budget Versus Tax Reduction EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. FRANCIS J. MYERS IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, March 19 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. MYERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in Al1115 the Appendix of the Recorp an editorial entitled “Balance the Budget First,”’ pub- lished in the Pittsburgh Press of March 17, 1947. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: BALANCE THE BUDGET FIRST America's taxpayers have just gone through the agony of settling up last year’s income tax, estimating this ycar’s tax, and paying the first quarterly installment of all in excess of the withholding. It has been painful, but those who are wise have made their plans for this year to conform to the tax rates now in effect. They would like to believe that, come next March, the country will face a brighter prospect and they a lighter burden. But the political tactics of the House Re- publican leadership, in driving for a hurry-up vote on a 20-pvercen* across-the-board cut in this year’s income taxes, raises doubts that anything at all in the way of tax legislation will be accomplished in this Congress. If the Knutson tax cut is passed by the House, it is not likely that it will be approved by the Senate. Even if it is, it surely will be vetoed by the President—uand the veto sustained. For the country is overwhelm- ingly behind the President’s sound insistence that a balanced budget and public-debt reduction must come first. Representative Knutson and those who vote with him, in their drive for political recovery of the GOP, underestimate both the intelligence and patriotism of taxpayers, For a majority of taxpayers well know that even the heavy exactions they have just paid are less generous to them thar. the inflated living costs which stem fror the Government's continued deficit financing. The Knutson Republicans could better serve the country by working this year to reduce public spending and the public debt, and by working now on a broad tax reform, eliminating double taxation and other in- equities, and making the lower rates ap- plicable to next year's business and income— to the end that people may plan ahead with hope and confidence. Representative KNUTSON et al. apparently don’t think so, but they probably could even get more votes that way. Tax Relief EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. OLIN D. JOHNSTON OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, March 19 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Recor» an illumi- nating and timely editorial published in the Anderson (S. C.) Independent of the issue of March 14, 1947. There being no objection, the editorial was ordcred to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: TAX-PAYING TIME AT HAND—CONGRESS SHOULD ACT NOW TO PROVIDE RLLIEF Tomorrow midnight is the deadline. By that time Andorsoniuns and other Americans must have filed income tax re- turns. This year approximately 45,000,000 re- turns will be filed. About 6,000,000 of these
A1116 will be joint returns of husbands and wives baving two incomes. Some 5,000,000 will show no tax due, be- cause exemptions and credits come to mare than net income. But altogether almost one-half of all adults in the United States are now paying income tax to their Govern- ment. Furthermore, 62 percent of those filing returns and paying taxes earn $5,000 a year or less. This is a far cry from the early days of the income tax. When it was instituted in 1918, exemptions were 83,000 for a single per- son and $4,000 for a married one, and only about 1 in every 180 adults had to pay. Even at the lowest exemptions during the First World War, only about 1 in every 13 adults in the United States was paying Fed- eral income tax. As late us 1932 it was only about 1 in every 45 adults. Now Uncle Sam doesn’t wait until March 15 to collect. He takes a bite every week out of the paycheck, but settlement time still comes on the fateful Ides of March. Meanwhile, what are the chances for a ttle tax relief for those earning $5,000 and less? Republicans are still haggling over details. There is one school of thought favoring re- ducing the public debt before cutting taxes. Another wants to cut taxes first. What about doing both jobs? Competent tax experts say that it can be done if a stop is put to needless spending among the multi- tude of Government bureaus. There is strong argument, too, in favor of reducing tax rates to help business prosper and thus increase the “take” from income taxes, permitting a systematic reduction in the debt. As for the national debt, the United States hasn’t been what you might call “solvent”— debt free—since 1866. The record looks something like this: 1835 ..---.---------------- 1866, after Civil War $2, 1899, after war with Spain. 1, 1920, after World War I.... 26, 1980 .-.-..---------------- 1 1933, end of Hoover term... 2 1939, beginning World War B99 41 1941, on Pearl Harbor Day. 55, 1947, March_--_----....--- 260, 000, 000, 000 Obviously, the time has come when there must be wrestling with the debt, but failure to reduce tax rates and invite depression would in the long run only serve to increase the debt. If taxes are slashed enough, there’s a good chance that improved business would make up the difference in the Government's actual revenue. One thing 1s certain: unless the Govern- ment ceases forcing every citizen to work 2 days a week to keep the Federal pay roll padded, business wheels will roll just that much slower. Reduction in Internal Revenue Bureau , ‘ations EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. FRANCIS J. MYERS OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, March 19 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. MYERS. Mr. President, on March 18 an editorial was published in the Philadelphia Inquirer entitled “An Inexcusable Budget Cut,” from which I read the following: There is absolutely no excuse for the $30,000,000 cut in the Internal Revenue Bu- reau's appropriation just voted by the House, It certainly is not an economy move, . s s s s Not less, but more money, tf needed, should be supplied by Congress to insure the collec- tion of every dollar justly due to the Government. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that the entire editorial may be published in the Appendix of the Recorp. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Reconrp, as follows: AN INEXCUSABLE BUDGET CUT There is absolutely no excuse for the §30,- 000,000 cut in the Internal Revenue Bureau's appropriation Just voted by the House. It certainly is not an economy move. Bureau officials are able to show from past experience that every dollar spent on uncov- ering tax evasions brings a return of $20 in additional collections. How could Congress invest the people’s money to greater advan- tage? According to official estimate, this alleged saving on an appropriation bill would actu- ally cost the Government—and that means the taxpayers—the not inconsiderable sum of $600,000,000. It is ali the more necessary to grant the full appropriation asked by the Internal Revenue Bureau because it was based on a forthcom- ing expanded tax-enforcement drive, encour- aged by last year's success in producing 81,- 280,000,000 of additional revenue. Even with its present staff, the Bureau can investigate only about 3 percent of returns, yet half those examined have shown under- payments, either designed or unintentional. Through this lure it had been hoped to increase collections by more than §2,- 000,000,000 in the coming year. That drive will be seriously slowed up un- leas the Senate vetoes the reckless action of the House. Not less but more money, if needed, should be supplied by Congress to insure the collection of every dollar justly due to the Government. Roots of the Truman Doctrine EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. OLIN D. JOHNSTON OF BOUTH CAROLINA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, March 19 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina. Mr. President, in its issue of Sunday last the Washimgten Post in a leading edi- torial enij{iisd “Roots of the Truman Doctrine,” discussed the recent address delivered by the President of the United States to the two Houses of Congress on the subject of aid to Greece and Turkey. I ask unanimous consent that the edi- torial be printed in the Recorp. There being no objection, the editorial ‘was ordered to be printed in the Rzcozp, as follows: ROOTS OF THE TRUMAN DOCTRINE President Truman’s momentous policy of supporting free peoples who are resisting at- tempted subjugation can best be understood, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD we surmise, if viewed in its historic perspec- tive. It seems nove] and daring largely be- cause the aid which he has asked Congress to extend to Greece and Turkey would go to an area with which we have been little con- cerned in the past. But when we turn from geography to the principle involved, the President seems to re-echo historic words. And he has acted for precisely the same ren- sons that prompted a similar step by Presi- dent Monroe nearly a century and a quarter ago. The Monroe Doctrine rests, as Elihu Root once said, “upon the right of every sovereign state to protect itself by preventing e condi- tion of affairs in which it will be too late to protect itself.” Our young Republic felt the menace and pressure of monarchial and im- perialistic systems. Monroe realized, as did some of his predecessors and all of his suc- cessors, that if these systems should attempt new colonisations in any part of the Western Hemisphere or subjugate any of the Ameri- can Republics, our own independence wouli be endangered. In other words, democracy had to have a favorable climate in which it could thrive and grow, not merely in one country but in the whole of the New World. It is especially interesting to recall that a dispute with Russia helped to precipitate the announcement of the Monroe Doctrine. A Russian ukase of 1821 claimed jurisdiction over the Pacific coast as far south as Van- couver Island, along with the right to colo- nize it. This threat synchronized with fears that the more reactionary powers in the Holy Alliance would attempt a reconquest of the Latin-American Republics, Assured of Brit- ish antagonism toward any such conquests, President Monroe struck out boldly and committed whatever strength our young Re- public had to the maintenance of freedom for our neighbors as well as for ourselves. “We should consider,” he said, speaking of the sovereigns of Europe, “any attempt on their part to extend their system to any por- tion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the governments who have declared their independence and have maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principle, acknowl- edged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them or con- trolling in any manner their destiny, by any European power, in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly dispo- sition toward the United States.” This is the essence of what President Tru- man has now said with respect to much wider areas. He has projected the principle of the Monroe Doctrine into the political realities of 1947. In this atomic age, freedom cannot be secure in one hemisphere alone. Our en-. trance into the United Nations was sufficient recognition of that fact. Security today must be based on global concepts. quently, our Government is saying that we shall extend a helping hand to free peoples anywhere, if they need help in resisting to- talitarian aggression. at the beginning of the present century, and Theodore Roosevelt brought the Monroe Doc- trine into disrepute by attaching to it his short-sighted corollary asserting the right of intervention in Latin-American countries which did not mest their obligations to his satisfaction. But that imperialism has long since been supplanted by the policy of the good neighbor. Today the policy of the good neighbor ts the corollary of our Monroe Doc- trine, and that, of course, ought to shape
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the details of the aid we give to Greece and Turkey. Nor should anyone suppose that this his- toric American policy has been confined in the past to this hemisphere. The same prin- ciple underlies our long efforts to maintain the territorial and political integrity of China. We have acted basically out of celf- interest—the desire to protect our own free- dom, independence, and right to trade with the 'rest of the world—but the result has been to strengthen the efforts of many peo- ples to maintain or to acquire governments of their own choosing. Democracy has thus attained a strength in the world that would otherwise have been lacking. It has sur- vived as a positive, constructive, and expand- ing force instead of withering before the repeated assaults of tyranny. We cannot avoid secing the Truman nolicy as a fulfillment of the traditional American role on the larger scale of operations that modern science has made imperative. It is not an aggressive policy, and it must not be allowed to degenerate into imperialism. But it does erect new barriers to the encroach- ments of totalitarianism, while trying to buttress the efforts of independent peoples to work out their own destinies. As we see it, this dynamic expression of our interest in a free world is no less significant than President Monroe's concern with a free hemisphere, Proposed Grecian and Turkish Loans EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. EDWIN C. JOHNSON OF COLORADO IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, March 19 (legislative day of Wednesday February 19), 1947 Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. Pres- ident, last evening I had the privilege of participating in a discussion of the pro- posed Grecian or Turkish loans with Representative JoHN Davis Lonce, of Con- necticut, on the radio program Open Hearings over the Columbia network. I ask unanimous consent that it may be printed in the Appendix of the Recorp. There being no objection, the matter referred to was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Senator JoHNsoN. I do not like what Rus- sia has done to the Baltic States, or to the Balkans, or to Central Europe, or to Korea, or to China. All along the line her policies have been brutal, selfish, and ruth- Jess. Also I have no sympathy and no patience with our Russian-inspired Ameri- can Communists in their campaigns of disloyalty, mischicf, and vilification. But neither am I in sympathy with British eco- nomic and political imperialism as prac- ticed by her all over the world or with her 100 years of monopoly of the commerce of the Mediterranean and its environs. But the so- lution for the Near East problem does not de- pend on whether we hate communism more or imperialism less. This issue must be re- solved without haste on what is better for America and what likely will prove better for the world in the long run. Russia and her neighbors have every right as free men to share in the rich commerce of southern Europe, and in this day and age a program of containing her is not being realistic. Her huge potential production and her new-born capacity to trade do not warrant such out- moded treatment. The United States has done much to free and increase world trade; but she is taking a very backward and contradictory step when she tries to quarantine Russian commerce and keep it out of the Mediterranean. The only hope for Russia, and the world for that matter, is to encourage Russia to participate in world affairs. That is an effective way to combat communism. Russia has as much right to the Dardanelles as we have to the Panama Canal and for the identical reasons. For over 100 years Britain has kept her out; now when Britain's “block Russia” policies must fall of their own weight her states- men are shrewd enough to unload this no- longer-feasible task on any boob nation that will grab the hook. That is where we come in. Or is it? Any people who permit them- selves to be ruled by fear and hate deserve to be taken for a ride. That is the error we are toying with. Britain’s canny diplo- mats, correctly calculating our fanatical fear of communism and our frantic hatred of it, are striking while the iron is hot. Our President, angered and frustrated by the long series of Molotov’s stupid policies of negation, advocates a revolutionary change in our foreign policy. The President calls for a policy of 100 percent American inter- vention in the political and military problems of all the world. These are his words: “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 pressures.” Under such a dic- tum we choose sides and support one faction or the other in every war, civil or otherwise, wherever it may occur. In Greece, a king with his back to the wall is fighting Greeks who do not like his cruel incompetence. These forces think they are fighting for freedom, but we arbitrarily line up with the king and help him crush them, The President lays his case before Congress, and Congress also hot and bothered by the long series of Molotov's stupid policies of ne- gation, replies: “Well, we don’t like Tru- man’s plan but we are deathly afraid of Communists so we will have to swallow it.” Thus the child of despcration is born, and a new foreign policy is launched. The United States will do all it can to feed the unfortunate stricken people of Greece. No President need plead with Con- gress for food for starving people. Months ago the Administration set up in its current budget an item of 8350,000,000 tor the pur- chase of food for European relief. Every Member of the House and Senate will sup- port that relief measure and vote to in- crease its total if the amount appears in- sufficient. But I want to make it crystal clear that the relief of starving people has nothing to do with this new suggested policy of worldwide political and military inter- vention. The President in this instance is pleading for support for kings and rulers, not hungry people. Mr. BurDeErt. Specifically, Senator, what is your objection to the President's new pro- posal fcr some $250,000,000 of economic, po- litical and military assistance to the Greek Government? Senator JOHNSON. Congress is confronted with a proposal for $250,000,000 to sustain the Greek monarchy with guns, military sup- plies, and military advisers. To such a proj- ect I am unalterably opposed. Why the United States Treasury should support an extravagant, incompctent, backward, and un- popular monarchy in Greece is beyond me. The President says by way of apology that he does not like some of the things this ar- bitrary ruler has done, Well, I should hope not. If I were the King of Greece and my people had my number and were determined to dump me, I would scream “communism” too. The cry of “wolf, wolf,” will be raised by every royal punk the world over but Con- gress cannot rush to the rescue of all of them with money, guns, and military adviscrs. We simply do not have enough money to finance wars all over the earth. Al1117 But that is not the whole story. The President also wants one hundred and fifty millions to support the ruling dynasty in Turkey. In World War I Turkey fought on the side of Germany. In World War II her sympathies and her secret help were with Germany. However, German reverses made her cautious. Both sides courted her, and she profited tremendously from the war. We owe her nothing except our contempt. But she is in a century-old quarrel with Russia over the Dardanelles, and so we must pay her tribute to encourage her to carry out Britain’s obsolete and insane scheme to stop Russia at the Turkish border, Purchasing our way into this ancient British-Turkish- Russian controversy is not statesmanship. It is international suicide. Mr. Burpetr. Advocates of the proposed new loan to Greece have argued that a very immediate emergency exists there. It has been argued that if we do not give aid at once, there would be chaos in Greece and a probable overthrow of the Government. What is your view, Senator, on this side of the question? Senator JOHNSON. Parliament has just voted the Greck King $36,000,000, and, frankly, I doubt that there is an immediate Greek crisis. There is a Greek problem, how- ever, but it did not appear suddenly last week. Unemployment, want, misery, and desperation plague the valiant Greek people, but these troubles are not caused by com- munism manufactured in Russia; they are the result of misrule manufactured in Eng- land. Monarchial misrule under British domination is a perennial running sore in Greece. So long as we pour millions of cash into the King’s coffers a real crisis for King George may be averted. But that is not a cure; it is an opiate. Something more con- structive than support for a king is required from us. The plight of the Greek people ap- Ppeals to our sympathy. Americans have a decp affection for the people of Greece. Their present-day fortitude and their an- cient contribution to the arts and sciences have been on inspiration to us through the years. They have been our loyal allies in wars and in peace. They are thrifty, indus- trious people, and, given a chance, they will solve their political problems without our intervention. Mr. Burvert. Senator, several Congressmen and Senators have pointed out that in this case of Greece, the President proposes to bypass the United Nations. What do you think would be the effects of our proposed Greek action on the future of the United Nations? Senator JoHNson. The proposed Greek ac- tion will kill UN deader than a mackerel. The very first words of the United Nations Charter spell out its purpose, which was to be—‘“to take effective collective measures for the suppression of aggression, the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and to bring about settlement of disputes or situa- tions which might lead to a brench of the peace.” That fits the present problems like a@ glove, With deep concern and some misgivings I have voted faithfully for each step toward what I was told and belicved was to be a peaceful one world. I voted for the San Francisco Charter and the United Nations Organization, for the extension of lend-lease, funds for the Export-Import Bank, for the Bretton Woods agreements establishing the International Bank and Fund, and for bil- lions of dollars for UNRRA. The cost of these innovations to our Treasury has becn over $20,000,000,000. As each of these proposals came before the Senate, we were informed that upon their enactment depended world peace, It was not my understanding that UN was to be a fair-wenther organization, I thought it was to serve during the storms. I hope that I was not duped and that tho American people were not duped.
A1118 Tf Russia rates huge shipments of lend- lease from this country—and she has been and is still recciving such shipments—if she were a trusted ally in the great war—and she was—certainly the so-called Greek and Turkish crises should have been frankly dis- cussed with her before they were Inid before Congress. But that wasn't done. At almost the very hour that our Secretary of State alighted from the frizid air in Moscow the President informed Congress in eifcct that Russia must be stopped cold on the Darden- elles. Which Government is being difficult now? Little wonder that General Marshall's welcome was slizhtly more frigid than the winter atmosphere of the far north. Moscow at this distance wou'd anpear to be a chilly climnte in which to begin the fricndly dis- cussions of permanent peace for the world. Mr. BurbrTT. It has been pointed aut, Sen- ator, that if we did take the Greek question. to the Unitcd Nations, Russia could then veto any scttlement we might propose. What do you think of that objection? Senator JoHNSON. Contending that UN action might be blocked by the veto is non- senec. In the Russian-Turkish controversy Russia would have no vote. Paragraph 3 of article 27 of the United Nations Charter is proof of my statement. Furthermore, article 33 provides for several methcds of settle- ment of such disputes as the President de- scribed to Congress, and article 34 gives the Security Council authority to investigate any dispute or situation, Either the Cherter isn't worth the paper it is writtcn on or it should be utilized in this present so-called crisis. To say it is too young and too inex- perienced to perform is hcg wach. Mr. Burpetr. The President indicated he did not think there was enough time, in the Greek crisis, to appeal to the United Nations, and wait for it to act. Would you disagree there, Senator? Senator JOHNSON. Yes; I would disagree, In July the United Nations will be 2 years old. It was created to handle just such situ- ations as the President has presented to Congress. In fact this matter had been brought to the attention of the United Na- tions and a Commission already had been appointed by the Security Council to explore the troublesome conditions. The Commis- sion has not had time to report, nor has the Security Council indicated what it would do. Without waiting to find out, UN is summa- rily discarded and sidetracked by the United States. Yesterday a one world united by the San Francisco Charter seemed logical and likely to work. Today it is a shattered dream. Henceforth, it must be the East against the West with both sides pleying power politics and both sides girding themselves for World War III; not one world with a passion for world peace, but two worlds and two armed camps glaring at each other; a communistic world on the one side and on the other a conglomeration of empires more or less de- cadent, small, bankrupt and tottering mon- archies, Western Hemisphere Republics, Can- ada, and the United States of Amcrica. No one knows who killed Cock Robin but everyone should know now that President Truman, Senator VANDENBERG, and the men who short-circuited UN are teamed up to destroy the dream we called the United Na- tions. If contemporary observers do not give these men the credit for the crucifixion, I predict they will not escape the historians, Fear and hate have launched us on an ex- pedition into the devil's work of encircle- ment and political and military interven- tion far from home. Under the Monroe Doc- trine we claimed a backyard of our own. Under the new doctrine, we propose to keep Russia out of her own back yard—the Med- iterranean. Stampeded with fear, over with frustration, we asidetrack the United Nations and assume the responsibil- ity of feeding the whole world and policing its political aspirations. Mr. Burvetr. Do you see any dangers in a policy of long-range support for the Greek and Turkish Governments? Senator JOHNSON. There ts always grave danger in a policy of long-range support for governments which are not worthy. Eventu- ally, such governments must fall. We dare not stake our prestige on the support of governments which do not entertain our ideals and our objectives. Our slogan should be “millions for the relief of hungry people but not one cent for the relief af question- able governments.” Mr. Bunperr, The President said, “The United States should be ready to give aid to all states that find themselves threat- ened by outside pressure or coercion.” What do you think of that broad principle, Sen- ator? Senator Jowunson. The United Siates should support the United Nations and the Unitcd Nations should give aid to ail states threatencd by outside pressure or coercion. Unilateral security is a poor road to travel. It must result in an all-out armament race and, eventually, war. Collective security is much safer. Mr. Evaverr. Well, Senator, what is the al- ternative that you would propose in this case of Greece and Turkey? Senator JOHNSON. Before the Congress takes this epochal leap-in-the-dark, I urge it to appoint a committee of five Senators and five Congressmen and order them to visit Greece, Turkey, Palestine, the Persian Gulf oil area, and, finally, Moscow, to deter- mine the necessity or abscnce of nec2ssity for so desperate an undertaking. I should like to see men named in whom the Congress and the country have confidence—men who respect the objectives of the Charter of UN— men whose love for America is certain and whose devotion to collective security through collective action is well established. It is the sort of procedure one should expect from & people’s government. Switt and prudent action along this lina by the Congress might spare the United States from an early entry into World War III. We owe it to 135,000,000 Americans whom we represent and to the bil. lions of humans inhabiting every part of the earth to undertake our own exploration and reach cur own conclusions before we vote for a foreign policy which will eventually de- stroy civilization. Live Camels in Arizona EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. JOHN R. MURDOCK OF ARIZONA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, February 27, 1947 Mr. MURDOCK. Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues asked me recently, “JoHn, have you any camels on the deserts of Arizona?” I asked, “Do you speak now of the kind one smokes?” “No,” said he, “but I have heard something that led me to believe that you possibly have camels in the deserts of the Southwest.” “We probably have none wild today,” said I, “but we did have an experimental use of camels, and it constitutes one of the most interesting stories in the history of western exploration. Let me tell you that story.” After I had finished the story, during a prolonged lunch hour recently, my col- league, Congressman Hanotp Knutson, of Minnesota, said, “Joun, why do you not write that story and offer it for the CONGRESSIONAL Recorp, for I have never APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD heard it nor read of it before.” Several other gentlemen seated at the same table each declared that he had not heard the story, so here it is. When Jefferson Davis, distinguished Senator from Mississippi prior to the War Between the States, became Secre- tary of War in the late fifties of the last century during, the Presidency of Frank- lin Pierce, he had some distinctive idcas, all his own, regarding the conquest of the West. One of these ideas was that the clumsy, hump-back oriental crea- tures, often known as the “ship of the desert,” might very well be made as use- ful in transportation across our own American deserts as it had been for ages in the Mediterranean and other eastern countries. Accordingly, he caused agents to go into the Near East and buy up and ship to this country perhaps 200 head of camels to initiate the experiment. We had just acquired the vast South- west, reaching from Texas to the Pa- cific Ocean, and only the most daring souls dreamed of establishing a wagon road from our western frontier to the Pacific Ocean, and scarcely anyone dared to dream of building a railroad to the Pacific. It is true that James Gadsden was thinking about attempting to build a railroad to the Pacific and had just added a strip of land south of the Gila tiver in order to give a lower altitude route through the mountains and across the Continental Divide for a railroad. At that very time the gold rush to Cali- fornia was on, and new sctilements were springing up along and near the Pacific coast in California, and those settle- ments were clamoring for mail service and passenger service and wanting freight service from their old homcs back East to their new homes in the gold fields. Much of the great intermountain country had not been explored excepting by the mountain men and the fur trap- pers who had not given much of an ac- count of the land that they knew, and the United States Army was just begin- ning a series of scientific explorations to find out what lay in the vast unknown. The Army also had to be prepared to fight the Indians and possibly subjugate them. In 1857 an overland mail route was established across the burning des- erts of the Southwest. The pony express was operating farther north, but this mail route lay across the desert regions, The Government gave John Butterfield, in 1857, a mail contract for $600,000 an- nually to carry the mail by stage from 8t. Louis, Mo., to San Francisco, Calif., by way of what is now El Paso, Tex., and Yuma, Ariz. To get a rough idea of the Butterfield route, take a map of the United States and a suitable length of string. Hold one end of the string on St. Louis and the other end on the Golden Gate, letting the string loop down to the Mexican bor- der, and it will about cover the stage route. Of course, Butterfield was merely subsidized by the Government, and he hoped to make his profits on passengers. He had a heavy investmer.t in animais and rolling stock; however, that is an- other story, and I must not go into it here. Suffice to say that great difficulties of transporting persons ead freight over- land to California led the Secretary of