A3058 With peace treaties signed, there was still no thoug. t of retirement for General Gillem. His old friend, Gen. George C. Marshall had need of his knowledge and experience and good judgment and General Gillem was called to China as General Marshall’s assistant on a special presidential mission in an effort to end tiat nation’s troubled and strife-torn woes. In China, General Gillem commanded the China theater, United States Forces in China. In 1947, he returned to the States and as- sumed command of the Third Army at Fort McPherson where he has 1:ade an unforget- able record for the Army. The Third Army today is regarded at the Nation’s best. What a fine thing it would be if at least one soldier from every outfit General Gillem has ever served in or commanded could be assigned to march in review when the Guard of Honor is reviewed for the last time in September at the retirement ceremonies. There would be thousands, both in and out of th? uniform, who 1.ould like to have that privilege. A man can’t be a good soldier for 40 years without making a mark on the lives of many others. General Gillem’s mark is imprinted on thousands who have come in contact with him the past twoscore years ani who sought to emulate the quiet dignity and leadership of the scldier’s soldier. In retirement, he will continue to be a great influence in and out of the Army. Many an Officer in a tight position will ask himself, “What would General Gillem do in this situation?” And many an enlisted man will hope that perhaps he too will follow the examp’? of General Gillem and climb to the top in his chosen profession—the profession of arms. The St. Lawrence Seaway EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HERBERT H. LEHMAN \ OF NEW YORK IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Thursday, April 27 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. LEHMAN. Mr, President, on Tuesday, Secretary of State Dean Ache- son testified before the House Public Works Committee on the St. Lawrence seaway and power development project. Iask unanimous consent to have his tes- timony printed in the Appendix of the RECORD. There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Gentlemen, the construction of the St, Lawrence seaway and the development of the power potential of the international rapids section of the St. Lawrence River are both vitally important to the economy and defense of the United Stetes. In the con- sideration, however, of the importance of these projects to the United States, a sub- ject which will be fully developed before this committee by othcr witnesses whose func- tions it more immediately concerns, we must not overlook the fact that both of these proj- ects are of equal concern to Canada. Can- ada, like the United States, has a vast, mid- continent area, which needs to be connected with European markets at reduced cost, Canada, like the United States, has an east- ern area which is deficient in low-cost power, and in which the deficiency is hindering the growth of industry. In Canada lies iron cre which needs to be transported to the steel mills of the United States. The building of the seaway and the development of power are as essential to the economy and defense of Canada as they are to the economy and defense of the United States. And because those measures which make Canada more prosperous and better able to defend itself add also to the prosperity and security of the United States, so the proposal now under consideration becomes doubly important to the United States. The extent of the mutual dependence in- volved in this partnership is indicated by the fact that United States exports to Canada are valued at about $1,800,000,000 annually, an amount three times as great as exports to our next best customer, the United King- dom, Our trade with Canada, both imports and exports, composed about 18 percent of our total foreign trade last year. Since, therefore, the construction of the seaway and of the power project are of equal importance to Canada and to the United States, and since neither project can be con- structed without the joint action of both countries, our action on this measure cannot fail to have an immediate effect on the in- ternational relations between the two coun- tries. If we adopt the resolution, Canada and the United States can go forward to- gether in this joint venture for their mutual beneft, and our already happy relations will be made happier; if we refuse to coop- erate, there will be disappointment and justifiable criticism on.both sides of the border. It is my function as Secretary of State to point out to this committee the importance of the resolution from the point of view of our international relations with Canada. This committee is aware of the upward progress of friendly relations between the United States and our great neighbor to the north over the last 150 years. From the bit- terness of the Revolutionary War to the part- nership of the Second World War, the course of friendship has not always been smooth. The Treaty of Paris in 1783 led to innumer- able disputes over the international bound- ary, which were only terminated by the Web- ster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842, and the cs- tablishment of the International Boundary Commission in 1908 and 1925. This was not the only Commission which has helped ense the natural frictions of a common boundary of over 3,000 miles and two economies which do not respect national boundaries. The Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, which I shall refer to again, established the inter- national joint commission to handle prob- lems relating to utilization of boundary waters. The halibut and sockeye salmon commissions, set up in 1923 and 1930, super- vise the great fisheries of the Pacific coast. This relationship has proceeded also in the fleld of national defense. The Perma- nent Joint Board on Defense established in 1940 to consider joint military problems, was followed by the Hyde Park agreement of 1941 for joint mobilization of economic re- sources. The efforts necessary to achieve victory during the war enlarged tremendous- ly the recognized area of common interests, and as recently as 1947 the two governments agreed to continue the military cooperation of the war years. In the international field, common ideals, as well as common interests, have tended to cause the United States and Canada to seek similar objectives. Together they have striven to fashion the United Na- tions into an adequate safeguard for peace, and when supplementary measures seemed needed, these two nations took the lead in fostering the Atlantic Pact. Thus, the partnership with Canada is of the utmost importance to the United States. Approval of this resolution would authorize the United States and Canada to undertake cooperatively the management on a large scale of this jointly-owned water resource for the welfare of both nations and would further strengthen the partnership between the two countries, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The boundary waters between the United States and Canada have been the object of a series of agreements and treaties between the two countries. The reason why the pro- posed public works involve the international relations between the United States and Canada is that they concern boundary waters. For over 100 miles from Lake On- tario to the Province of Quebec, the St. Lawrence River is boundary water. From that point it flows through Canadian terri- tory for over 1,000 miles to the Atlantic Ocean. It is available for deep-water navi- gation connecting the thousand miles of the Great Lakes system with the ocean. It has been the care‘of the Department of State, ever since the founding of the Republic, to maintain by treaty reciprocal rights of navi- gation for American eitizens, not only through the 1,000 miles of the Great Lakes system, and these 100 miles of boundary waters, but also over the 1,000 miles of Ca- nadian waters to the sea. These rights were secured by treaties between the United States and Great Britain or Canada in 1794, 1854, 1871, and finally 1909. Furthermore, since the 46 miles of the International Rapids section of the St. Lawrence lie within these 100 miles of boundary waters, the great power potential that lies in the drop in elevation over this stretch can be utilized only through international agreement. Of these treaties I need refer in detail only to the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. This treaty is important in relation to the pending agreement because it affects the use of, the St. Lawrence in both of its aspects—as a seaway and as a source of power. The treaty provides that the navi- gation of all boundary waters shall forever continue free and open, for purposes of commerce, to the inhabitants and vessels of both Canada and the United States. This same right of navigation was extended by the Treaty to all canals connecting bound- ary waters, or which may be constructed on eliher side of thea Ine, such as the Mac- ixythur Lock at Sault Ste. Marie, between Lakes Superior and Huron, the Welland Ca- nal, connecting Lakes Erle and Ontario, and the seaway at the rapids of the St. Lawrence, which jis the subject matter of the seaway nalg of the proposed project. This treaty, taken in connection with previous treatics, opens to the equal use of both countries what will be one navigable senway, over 2,000 miles in length, from Duluth, Minn, and Chicago, Ill, to the Atlantic Ocean. I have said that the treaty of 1900 affects the use of the St. Lawrence in both of its aspects, as a seaway and a source of power. In addition to assuring perpetual rights of navigation to both parties, the treaty pro- vided that no uses, obstructions or diver- sions of boundary waters might thereafter be made on either side of the line, which affect the natural level or flow of the waters on the other side of the line, without resort to certain procedures, The treaty set up the International Joint Commission previ- ously referred to, to pass upon such cases, but it also provided that such uses, obstruc- tions or diversions might be made by special agreement between the parties. In other words, under the treaty of 1909, the develop- ment of the power potential of the interna- tional rapids section, as well as the construc- tion of the seaway through the section may be accomplished Shrough special agreement between the United States and Canada. The project for the completion of a Great Lakes-St. Lawrence deep waterway by mutual agreement between the United States and Canada was first considered by Congress in 1895, and has since been the subject of numerous conferences, commissions and re~ ports. A treaty was signed on July 18, 1932. This treaty differs in many respects from the agreement we are now considering, and I will not need to go into its details. In brief, if provided for the construction of
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD a waterway, not less than 27 feet in depth, by a St. Lawrence International Rapids Sec- tion Commission, of 10 members, 5 ap-= pointed by each country. The Senate For-~ eign Relations Committee reported favorably on the ratification of this treaty, but al- though it received a majority in the Senate in 1934, it failed of a two-thirds vote. The present St. Lawrence seaway and power project was agreed upon by Canada and the United States on March 19, 1941. A resolution approving the agreement was favorably reported by the House Rivers and Harbors Committee in November 1941. In February 1946 I appeared before the For- eign Relations Committee of the Senate as Under Secretary of State, in support of Sen- ate Joint Resolution 111 then befor> that committee and urged its approval. That Senate committee, and a subsequent com- mittee of the Eightieth Congress, reported favorably on legislation corresponding to the legislation now before this committee and indicated its opinion that the 1941 agree- ment and the legislation were based on sound constitutional grounds. The objective of the 1941 agreement is an equal division of the water available for power, and the construction of a deep water- way. The plans and specifications are to be prepared, and the work allocated between the two Governments, by a Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin Commission of not more than 10 members, appointed equally by each Government. Plans and specifications must be approved .by the Governments, and the work so allocated that each Government constructs the work within its own terri- tory, or an equivalent proportion of the whole works. The Commission is to super- vise construction and the Governments agree to construct the works allocated to them. House Joint Resolution 271, which we have before us, approves this agreement of 1941, with the exception of three articles in whole or in part, and authorizes the Presi- dent to fulfill the undertakings made on be- half of the United States in the agreement, on receipt of satisfactory evidence of the approval of the agreement, subject to the exceptions, by reciprocal or concurrent legis- lation of Canada. The agreement provides a completion date not later than December 21, 1948. It is clear that a new date must be fixed for the completion of the construction. The origi- nal date, 1948, afforded a period of 7 years for construction. On the assumption that similar engineering considerations still pre- vail, it would seem reasonable if the Con- gress by amendment of the resolution should provide a new date for completion, 7 or pos- sibly 8 years after the agreement goes into effect. Two of the three articles contained in the agreement of 1941 which are specifically ex- cepted from the approval of the Congress by the present resolution deal with matters which, as the Senate has indicated, may be more appropriate for a treaty than for an executive agreement. The first of these, ar- ticle VII, was in substance an agreement that the rights of navigation accorded under existing treaties should be maintained not- withstanding provisions for termination con- tained in such treaties. Considering the number of years that these treaties have now run without termination, and the close rela- tions between Canada and the United States, poth economic and in matters of defense, it is quite unthinkable that they would here- after be terminated. However, the Depart- ment of State is prepared to negotiate with Canada a treaty on this point, as is suggested in section 2 of the draft bill before’ you. The other of these two articles omitted in the resolution, article IX of the agreement, referred to Niagara Falls and River. This article is quite properly omitted, since a treaty with Canada on the subject of Niagara has recently been signed, , The third omission, article VIII, paragraph (c), is of even less moment. It provides that if either country should authorize diversions of water from the Great Lakes system, other or greater than those permitted on January 1, 1940, the Government of such country would give immediate consideration to the representations of the other. If satisfactory settlement were not possible, the article pro- vides for an arbitral tribunal. The particu- lar dispute envisaged by the article related to possible future increase in the diversion of Lake Michigan waters through the Chicago drainage canal. The issue as to the Chicago drainage canal was settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in Wisconsin v. Illinvvs, in April 1930, which enjoined the objection- able diversion. The International Joint Commission has complete jurisdiction over diversions of boundary waters in general, and both countries have regarded with satisfac- tion the exercise of that jurisdiction by the Commission. Because of these facts, it 1s believed that this provision for a special arbitral tribunal is unnecessary. The present legislation also adds a provi- sion that is not contained in the 1941 agree- ment; namely, a provision for tolls, or the self-liquidation of the new navigation por- tion of the project through the ccllection of charges on shipping which uses the new seaway facilities. The resolution provides that the President shall negotiate a further agreement with the Government of Canada “defining, within limits also stated, the rates of charges to be levied for the use of the seaway facilities. This new subject matter has been discussed with the Canadian Gov- ernment and we have been informed that the Canadian Government is prepared to agree to the principle of making the St. Law- rence seaway self-liquidating by means of toll charges, subject, however, to the con- clusion of arrangements satisfactory to both Governments for the implementation of this principle. The Government of Canada has been fully advised as to the provisions of the present legislation, including both the dele- tions from and the addition to the agreement of 1941. This Government has no reason to believe that satisfactory agreement cannot be worked out on these matters, and I am confident that this will be done. : I have not stressed the many economic benefits that will accrue to the United States from this project. That is not my role. I do wish to say, however, that I believe these benefits are of sufficient importance to war- rant the contemplated expenditures at this time. The creation of a great inland water- way would enable goods originating in the midcontinent area, shared by both Canada and the United States, to be shipped to Euro. pean markets at reduced cost. It would make possible the shipment of iron ore from the Quebec-Labrador area of Canada. The low-cost power provided would materially reduce the acute shortage in both northeast. ern United States and southeastern Canada. Both the seaway and power developments . would enhance the defense potential of Can- ada end the United States. This was pointed out by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1946. In May 1947, the Permanent Joint Board on De- fense, United States-Canada, of which I was @ member, said: “The Board considered the significance of the St. Lawrence seaway project from the point of view of the joint defense of the United States and Canada. It was recognized that the completion of a deepwater naviga- tion route from the sea to the heart of the continent would provide additional facilities for the movement of ships and essential sup- plies in wartime and would also make possi- ble the construction of ocean going vessels in inland areas. Furthermore, the new source of power, made available by the St. Lawrence project would greatly increase the defense potential of the two countries. It is, therefore, the view of the Board that the A3059 early completion of this long-delayed enter- prise on a cooperative basis satisfactory to both governments would directly contribute to the security of the North American Con- tinent.” The prosperity of the United States and the ability to arm for our own defense has been a result of the development of our nat- ural resources. The long-overdue develop- ment of one of the world’s greatest waterways and power sources by Canada and the United States will further expand the economies of both countries, thus increasing our joint peacetime prosperity and the ability to de- fend ourselves successfully. I urge the committee to report the reso- lution favorably. Ee Detroit Jewish Community Marks Centennial EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. GEORGE D. O’BRIEN OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, April 27, 1950 Mr. O’BRIEN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my re- marks, I include the following article from the Jewish News of Detroit com- memorating the one hundredth anni- versary of the Jewish community of Detroit: From the traditional Minyan in 1850, De- troit Jewry has grown to a community of nearly 100,000 people. It now rates a place among the seven largest Jewish centers on this continent, together with New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, Los Angeles, and Cleveland. Although there is a record of Jews who had lived in Detroit as early as the year 1763, the history of Jewry as an organized community in Detroit did not begin until 1850. Since Jewish tradition designates that a “minyan”—a group of 10 men who are at least 18 years of age—is required for the holding of congregational services, the “min- yan” has become the symbol of community organization. THE FIRST MINYAN It was not until the beginning of 1850 that the number of Jews in Detroit grew to the traditional “minyan.” Their predeces- sors, included Jewish traders who probably were among the first arrivals at the trading posts along the Great Lakes. At the time of Chief Pontiac’s conspiracy in 1763, two Jews, Levy and Chapman were captured by the Indians. Old records show that Chapman settled in Detroit and lived here until 1796. Another Jewish pioneer, Solomon Ben Isaac Halevi, who lived in Detroit in 1783, is men- tioned as a witness in a matrimonial case -before the Beth Din—the Jewish Court—of London. Names of other Jews in the early Detroit records, prior to the formation of the Detroit Jewish community, include: Isaac Moses, whose name appears in the 1798 and subsequent records of the first Masonie De- troit lodge; A. J. Solomon, who was, en route to Mackinac, among the 10 passengers whose names were listed in the Gazette of June 17, 1820, as satisfied with the “arrange- ments and accommodation” of the steamer Walk on the Water; Louis Benjamin, a merchant who may have been Jewish, who was, according to Michigan Territory records awarded a lot in Detroit to indemnify him for losses in the fire of 1805; and, according to
A3060 the records of the common council, an Alex Cohen was on the pay roll for grading a street in 1835. THE FIRST SETTLERS In the first directory to be published in Detroit, in 1887, there was not one name among the 1,100 that was certainly Jewish, In the se: ond directory, published in 1845, there were only two Jewish names—-Solomon Bendid and Moses Rindskoff. In the cirectory of 1850, in spite of the marked increase in Detroit’s population which then numbered 21,000, there were only three Jewish firms and five individuals listed: S. and H. Bendid & Co., dry goods; Silberman & Hersch, cigar manufacturers; S. Freedman & Brothers, dry goods; Alex Grunwald, Leopold Rappen- kKeimer or Rappenheimer, fancy goods; I. E. Cohen, portrait painter; Solomon Cohen, pedlar, Detroit Jewry’s history began in 1850 with the coming to Detroit of Isaac and Sophie Cozens who were followed by other Jews, mostly from Bavaria, Available documents show that among these first settlers were the following pioneers who assisted in the estab- lishment of the Detroit Jewish community: Amberg, Bresler, Franke, Friedlander, Heine- man, Hirschman, Kanter, Lang, Newman, Proll, Schloss, Sloman, and Springer. FORMATION OF BETH EL Eager for religious services, Mr. and Mrs. Cozens converted their home on Congress Street into a synagogue and Sabbath serv- ices were held there regularly until Septem- ber 22, 1850, when the founding group organized itself into the Beth El Society which served as the beginning for Michigan's first Jewish congregatlon—the 100-year-old Temple Beth El of Detroit. Joseph Newman was temporary chairman of the newly-formed Beth El Society. Later, Jacob Silberman—to whom went the dis< tinction of being the founding president of Temple Beth El, was chosen the first head of Detroit’s first community organization. Marcus Cohen, who came here early in 1850, was the first acting spiritual leader of the congregation until, later that year, he brought from New York his friend Rabbi Samuel Marcus who served the small syna-~ gogue as rabbi, cantor, and schochet. Rab- bi Marcus served here until 1854 when he fell as one of the victims in the cholera epi- demic of that year and was buried in the first Jewish cemetery, the half-acre plot that was acquired by Beth El in 1851 for $150 on Champlain Street in what is now the city of Hamtramck. SHAAREY ZEDEK ORGANIZED For 11 years, Beth El was Detroit’s sole synagogue. <A hall was rented as a place of worship on Michigan Grand Avenue in 1859. In 1861, property for a synagogue building was purchased on Rivard Street. It was the old First Methodist Church near Congress Street. This house of worship was dedicated on August 30, 1861, by Dr. Isaac M. Wise, of Cincinnati, founder of the Reform Jewish movement in America. The tendencies of Beth El congregation towards reform prac- tices created a rift in the synagogue and a group of members withdrew to form, in 1861, Congregation Shaarey Zedek, which to- day is considered one of the leading consery- ative synagogues in America. From the handful of Jewish settlers in 1850, the- Jewish community of Detroit has grown in the 100 years of its existence to a community of nearly 100,000. There are two Reform congregations—Temple Beth El and Temple Israel; three conservative syna- gogues—Shaarey Zedek, Bnai Mosche and Northwest Congregation, and 85 orthodox synagogues ranging in memberships from as small as 25 to as high as Bnai David’s 650. TEMPLE BETE EL’S RABBIS A number of distinguished men served Temple Beth El as rabbis, Samuel Marcus was followed by the following rabbis: Lieb- man Adler, 1854—61; A. Laser, 1861-63; Isidore Kalisch, 1863-64; Elias Eppstein, 1864-69; Kaufman Kohler, who later became president of Hebrew Union College, 1869-71; Reverend Greenblatt, 1871; E. Gerechter, 1871-74; Leopold Wintner, 1878-76; Henry Zirndorf, 1876-84; Louis Grossman, 1885-89; Leo M. Franklin, 1899-1948. Dr. B. Benedict Glazer, the present rabbi, has Sidney Akselrad as his educational assistant. Rabbi Judah L. Levin, father of Prof. Sam- uel M. Levin, of Wayne University, was among Detroit’s most distinguished orthodox rabbis. Rabbi Leon Fram is spiritual leader of Tem- ple Israel. Harry C. Levine is president of Temple Israel. SHAAREY ZEDEK’S RABBIS Dr. A. M. Hershman, rabbi emeritus of Cong~cgation Shaarey Zedek, whose present rabbi is Morris Adler, is one of America’s most distinguished scholars. He has served this community for 45 years. Rabbi Ben- jamin N. Gorrelick is Shaarey Zedek’s edu- cational director. The following served as presidents of Tem- ple Beth El since its founding: Jacob Silber- man, 1850; M. Hirschman, 1859; Emanuel Schloss, 1860; Simon Freedman, 1861-65; D. J. Workum, 1866-68; Simon Heavenrich, 1868- 74: Martin Butzel, 1874-78; Seligman Schloss, 1878-81; Julius Robinson, 1881-91; Samuel Heavenrich, 1891-93; Julius Freud, 1893-97; Louis Blitz, 1897-1905; Samuel Heavenrich, 1905-07; Henry M. Butzel, 1908; Bernard B. Selling, 1909-12; Benjamin L. Lambert, 1912- 18; Louis Welt, 1912-138; Bernard Ginsburg, 1918-19; Isaac Gilbert, 1919-23; Adolph Fin- sterwald, 1924-25; Milford Stern, 1925-29; Melville S. Welt, 1930-82; Israel Himelhoch, 1932-36; Morris Garvett, 1936-39; Harry C. Grossman, 1939-41; Joseph M. Welt, 1941-44; Leonard T. Lewis, 1944-47; Dr. Herbert I. Kal- let, 1947-49. Nate S. Shapero, president of Cuningham Drug Co. and a prominent civic leader, is the present president of Temple Beth El un- der whose leadership the congregation is preparing to celebrate its one hundredth anniversary. Harry M. Schulman is the present presi- dent of Congregation Shaarey Zedek. The past presidents of Shaarey Zedek include the following: Hiram Kranshaur, Max Hertzberg, Reuben Mendelsohn, Louis Blumberg, Aaron Simon, and Samuel N. Ginsburg, all of whom served from 1862 to 1902; William B. Saulson, 1908-08; David W. Simons, 1908-20; Joseph Wetsman, 1920-21; Louis Granet, 1922-23; Robert Marwil, 1926-28; A. Louis Gordon, 1929-82; Isaac Shetzer, 1932~34-38-40; Maur- ice H. Zackheim, 1924, 1985-837; Morris H. Blumberg, 1941-48; Harry Cohen, 1944-47. Two leaders served as chairmen of the Shaarey Zedek board of directors; Harry B. Keidan, 1928-24; and Abraham Srere, 1925- 1926. The other two conservative congregations, their rabbis and presidents, are B’nai Moshe, Rabbi Moses Lehrman, Theodore M. Curtis; Northwest Hebrew Congregation and Center, Rabbi Jacob E. Segal, Ira G. Kaufman, ORTHODOX SYNAGOGUES, RABBIS The existing orthodox synagogues, their rabbis and presidents (in instances where there are no rabbis only the presidents are listed) are: Adas Yeshurun, Rabbi Leo Goldman, Meyer Freedman; Ahavath Achim B’nai Ab- raham, Albert Burke; Anshe Bereznitz, Na- than Rose; Beth Aaron, Rabbi Pinchos Katz, Dr. Marvin Last; Beth Aaron v’Israel, Sol Lapinsky; Beth Abraham, Rabbi Joseph Thumin, Rabbi Israel Halpern, Louis Ellen- bogen; Beth Itzchock, Rabbi Jacob Hober~ man, Isidore Rosenthal; Beth Joseph, Abra~ ham Walter; Beth Moses, Rabbi Gerson Frankel, Emil Kahn; Beth Shmuel, Rabbi Joseph Rabinowitz, Isador Rosenberg; Beth Tikvah, Rabbi Leizer Levin Jerome Kagan; APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Beth Yehudah, Harry Stolsky; Bath Tefilo Emanuel, Rabbi M. J. Wohlgelernter, Jacob Shevitz; B’nai David, Rabbi Joshua S. Sperka, Joseph Gorman; B’nai Israel, Jacob Lesser; B’nai Jacob, Sam Rosenberg; B’nai Zion, Rabbi 8. Gruskin, Morris Snow; Chesed shel Emes, Sam Nelson; Cong. Dov Frenkel, Max Kaplan; Ezras Achim (Turover Tem- ple), Rabbi David Bakst, Isadore Sesnick; Gemiluth Chasodim, Rabbi Leopold Neu- haus, Max Marx; Mishkan Israel, Rauvbi Isaac Stollman, Philip Stollman; Mogen Abraham, David I. Berris; Nusach Ari, William Axel- rod; Shaarey Shomayim, J. L. Berman; Shaarey Zion, Rabbi Leo Goldman, Benja- min Assik; First Hebrew Congregation of Delray, Sam Klein; Young Israel branches, Rabbi Samuel Prero, Samuel W. Platt, Alter Greenbaum. In addition to congregational Detroit has two Yeshivoth (theological schools)—Beth Yehudah and Chachmey Lublin; the United Hebrew schools, whose niae branches have a daily afternoon school attendance of 1,200; Farband, Sholem Ale- chem and Arbeiter Ring schools. Detroit’s Jewish Welfare Federation, an af- filiate of the Community Chest and United Foundation, is the central fund-raising body for local, national, and overseas philauthro- pies 11d educational movements. Its presi- dent is Julian Krolik. The Jewish Commu- ity Council supervises the civil-protective and community relations programs for De- troit Jewry. The Zionist movement, B’nai Brith, and the Jewish War Veterans are the leading community organizations next to the organized synagogue functions. schools Fifty Years of Philippine-American Trade EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, April 27, 1950 Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rre- ord, I include the following article by Vicente Villamin from the Manila Bul- letin of March 27, 1950: Frrery Years or PHILIPPINE~AMERICAN TRADE (By Vicente Villamin) From 1900 to the beginning of 1960 the Philippine-American trade rose from about 10,200,000 to %1,500,000,000, or 130 times. During that same period the Phillppine trade with all other countries rose from about 95,400,000 to 411,090,000 or 44% times. From 1900 to the end of 1941, when the Pacific war started, the Phillppines bought a total of P3,908,505,352 worth of goods from the United States and sold to that country a total of 5,545,057,251 worth. That left a balance of 11,636,551,899 in favor of the Philippines. That amount, or most of it, went into the very warp and woof of the economy of the country, expanding it to that extent. Based on the median population during that 41-year period, that favorable balance meant an acquired 1380 for every man, woman, and child in the entire country. That amount is small, but it worked in an in~ credibly big way. If the P130 changed hands five times a year, it rendered the service of a total of P560 a year. Every person who handled it along the line received benefits from it. In 41 years it rendered the service of a total of 26,650, The turn-over or changing hands of money is called the velocity of the monetary circu-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD lation. The velocity of five is a conserva~ tive estimate for the Philippines, but even at that rate it will be seen how a seemingly small cum, per person, added to the total wealth of the « untry over the ordinary ex- change of buying and selling becomes the main economic element in the permanent material progress of the Filipino people. Benefits arising from trade mean a great deal more to a country than outright mone- tary hand-outs or cifts T’-r c:e earned through work and ers om: ind they continue and increas ‘~ -; -'' “+ acquires more interest and efficiency. In the past the Philippine-American trade was the prop of the Philippine economic structure. In the future it will continue that vital role. It is of supreme importance therefore, that nothing is done now to im- pair that trade permanently. There is nearly half a century of history back of the trade relations between the Phil- ippines and the United States. A review of its high lights will show the consistent encouragement given by the United States Government to build up the Philippines ma- terially by admitting Philippine products to the United States, at the beginning, par- tially, but later, comrletely duty-free. - “he Philippines we~ iiezeby given the im~ mensely valuable privilege of selling prod- ucts freely in the best market in the world— the market that every country on earth as- pired to enter, peying the high-tariff duties. The United States was actuated by the de- sire of assisting the Filipino people to achieve a higher standard of living. When American occupation of the Philip- pines began on August 13, 1898, almost im- mediately the American military authorities examined the country’s foreign trade. On August 20, a week after occupation day, the Manila customshouse was opened for busi- ness. Philippine-American trade from occupa~ tion day to March 8, 1902, was on a foreign basis. Imports and exports between the two eccuntries paid the tariff duties provided for by their respective tariff laws. Excepted, however, from payment of du- ties in the Philippines were the Spanish goods ordered or purchased before the Span- ish-American War broke out and the sup- plies and materials for the use of the Ameri- can armed forces of occupation and for the Philippine insular government. General Or- ders No. 10, October 26, 1898, abolished the exception as to Spanish goods. But the exception as to the supplies for the Ameri-~ can Army was not abolished until August 6, 1909. Imports from Spain were afterward defined under the Treaty of Paris, dated December 19, 1898. By virtue of its article 4, the United States agreed “to admit Spanish ships and merchandise to the ports of the Philippine Islands on the same terms as ships and mer- chandise of the United States for a period of 10 years from April 11, 1899.” Up to March 8, 1902, therefore, during which the Philippine-American trade was on a foreign basis, the treaty provision did not benefit the Spanish ships and imports. The Philippine exports to the United States during those early years were as follows: P5,921,702 in 1900; ?9,092,584 in 1901; ?22,- 951,896 1n 1902. They totaled ?37,966,182 for the period of 8 years. The Philippine imports from the United States were as follows: ®4,306,396 in 1900; 7,068,510 in 1901; ?8,306,348 in 1902. They totaled ¥19,681,254 for the 3-year period. Thus the Philippines registered a favor- able balance of 18,284,928. This favorable balance was to continue unbroken except for a périod of 4 years, 1910 to 1918, until 1941. That balance was enhanced by the ex- penditures of the American armed forces in the Philippines. Those two items together gave the Philippines a good start in her eco- nomic development. As early as 1901 the question of whether Philippine products had to pay duty in the United States was brought up in what had come to be known as the Fourteen Diamond Rings case. In that case the United States Supreme Court ruled that since, under the Treaty of Paris, the Philippines had been ceeded to the United States and had come under its sovereignty, it had ceased to be a “foreign” territory in the contemplation of the tariff law and that, therefore, the Tariff Act of 1897 was not applicable to Philippine imports to the United States. The Court added that the Congress had the abe solute and plenary power to pass laws reg- ulating the tariff relations of the Philip- pines with the United States and foreign countries. This decision was subsequently reaffirmed in other insular cases. At this point, it is relevant to mention that civil government had been established in 1901 and William Howard Taft was ap- pointed civil governor. He functioned with a governing body called the Philippine Com- mission, with both American and Filipino members, the former being in the majority. A survey commission under President Jacob Gould Schurman of Cornell University went to the Philippines in 1899, followed by an- other headed by Mr. Taft. Both commis- sions recommended the establishment of a civil government. The Philippine Commis- sion was sole legislative body until 1907, when it functioned concurrently with the Philippine Assembly, composed of elected Filipinos. The commission was abolished under the Jones Act approved by Congress on August 29, 1916. Acting under the Spooner amendment to the Army Appropriation Act of March 2, 1901, the Philippine Commission enacted the Philippine insular tariff law of Sepetember 17, 1901. There was a question as to the validity of the action of the Commission, but the question was passed over by Congress re- enacting the law in bills introduced by Sen- ator Lopgz and Representative ParNnez. A discussion of the Philippine import tariffs from 1898 to 1909 is pertinent here. The first tariff was that annexed to the Exec- utive order of the President of the United States of July 12, 1898, which was an adap- tion of the prevailing Spanish colonial tariff. The next was the one proclaimed by the Philippine Commission on September 17, 1901, which was reenacted by Congress in the act of March 8, 1902. That was followed by the act of Congress of March 8, 1905, which was amended on February 26, 1906. Under those tariffs, until August 6, 1909, American goods entered the Philippines on the same basis as foreign goods, that is, they were not exempted or given a reduction de- spite the reduction given the Philippine goods under the act of March 8, 1902. The idea was to help the Philippine insular gov~ ernment to raise more revenue. The Philippine Commission did not lose time in asking Congress to open the Ameri- can market to Philippine products. It sug~ gested that those products be exempted from at least one-half of the duties in the United States Tariff Act of 1897 (the Dingley tariff). It had the advice in this connection of two Filipino members: Jose R. de Luzuriaga, a sugar planter, ard Benito Legarda, who was interested in tobacco and _ distilling industries. At that time, and for many years before American occupation, the bulk of Philippine exports to the "Jnited States consisted of manila hemp (abaca), which was subject to export duty in the Philippines. The system of export duty in the islands was com- pletely abolished by the act of Congress of October 3, 1913. There was opposition in the United States to the unrestricted duty-free imports from the Philippines, the same opposition that made itself manifest in later years when Philippine legislation was under consider. A3SCtél ation in Congress. American sugar and to- bacco interests expressed alarm at the prospect of competition from the Philippines and urged that no concession be given under the tariff act of 1897. The House considered a bill providing for the continuation of the full duty with slight modifications. But the Senate passed a bill giving Philippine products a reduction of 25 percent. The House went along with it and the act of March 8, 1902, the first preferential legislation in favor of the Philippines, was enacted. This act nrovited *Iso for the nostrore- ment of the i wut. of the Uren Sipics coastwise .' - ¢ « Philippines. That meant that ships of all countries could go in and out of Philippine ports on the same con- ditions as American ships. There was then a shortage of American bottoms and the ap- plication of the coastwise laws would have had the effect of driving Philippine trade to foreign countries from the United States. The coastwise laws have never been made Operative in the Philippines. Also provided in the act was that all cus- toms collections in the United States on Philippine products, the 75 percent of the tariff duties, shall be turned over to the Philippine insular government for its use for the benefit of the Filipino people. This generous provision was the beginning of a consistent policy which was to mean in later years a most substantial cssistance tc the Philippine government, in fact, it provided most of the funds which wiped out the great deficits of that government to the present day. Not satisfied with the 25 percent reduction under the act of 1902, friends of the Philip- pines m Congress—and there were many even then—worked for greater reduction. The Cooper bill, providing for a 75 percent reduction in the 1897 tariff rates passed the House of Representatives on December 17, 1902, but failed to reach a vote in the Sen- ate. The Payne bill, with the same provision, was introduced in the House and approved on January 16, 1906, but likewise failed to reach a vote in the Senate. There was a strong opinion developing in Congress that if the Philippines was going to remain under the American flag it should receive a tariff treatment that its nonforeign status warranted that is that Philippine im- ports should be admitted free of duty. There was also a great desire to accelerate the ma- terial advancement of the Filipino people by encouraging them to produce more for the American market, which paid the best prices in the world. At this point, it is pertinent to discuss two developments in Philippine-American rela- tions: (a) The first Philippine organic act and (b) the monetary and coinage system, both done by Congress. They affected mate- rially the trade and economy of the Philip- pines. The first Philippine organic act was en- acted by Congress on July 1, 1902. It incor- porated almost verbatim the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution, thereby in- vesting the Fiiipinos with civil liberty. It was the beginning of the American policy of extending increasing power to Filipinos to govern themselves, culminating with the declaration of complete independence on July 4, 1946. The act, besides providing the coinage of money, approved the action of the Presi- de~t of the United States as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy in issuing the Executive order of July 12, 1898, directing the collection of tariff import duties in the Phil- ippines. It also granted authority to con- tinue and regulate and control commercial intercourse with (other countries) and within the Philippines whenever the sover- eignty and authority of the United Siates encounter armed resistance.
A3062 On March 2, 1908, Congress passed an act establishing a standard of value and a more complete coinage system in the Philippines. This step greatly helped the trade of the Philippines because it stabilized its cur- rency position by tying up the Philippine peso to the American dollar in the ratio of 2 persons to $1. This tie-up will continue to 1974 unless in the meantime the Philippine Government modifies it with the agreement of the President of the United States. In Washington, interest in the establish- ment of a Philippine-American free trade was increasing. In 1909 the President of the United States called Congress to a special session to consider a general revision of the tariff. During the long discussions in both Houses the tariff policy toward the Philip- pines was taken up. The dominant purpose was to help the Philippines. There was no thought then, as there had been no purpose thereafter, to in- stitute the tariff assimilation of the Philip- pines in the American tariff system. The United States did not apply against the Phil- ippines, for instance, the antidumping, countervailing, contingent duty, or the flex- ible provisions in the United States, and it gave up the right in the Jones Act of 1916, subject to the approval of veto of the Presi- dent, to pass import tariff laws for the Philippines. While the possibility of a Philippine-Amer- ican free trade was under discussion, the Congress had before it a resolution of the Philippine Assembly, which came into exist- ence in 1907, opposing the duty-free entry of American goods in the Philippines except on a very limited scale on the ground that it would reduce the government’s revenue. The political question of independence from the United States got involved in the free-trade discussion when the Philippine Assembly declared that ‘the duty-free ex- change of products between the United States and the Philippines in the long run ‘woul 1 be highly prejudicial to the economic interests of the Philippine people and would create a situation which might delay the obtaining of its independence.” Thus was when the conflict between politics and eco- nomics was inaugurated in the thinking of Filipinos. Those who were in charge of politics dominated the situation completely and only few Filipinos had the hardihood to oppose them or even to propose the synchronization and harmonization of polit ical and economic considerations. The Philippine Commission disagreed with the attitude of the assembly, but both of them favored the duty-free admission of Philippine products into the United States under certain restrictions as to quantitics. When the Tariff Act of August 5, 1909, was passed, its section 5 provided for duty- free entry of Philippine products with quan- titative limitations and restrictions. This was a long step forward to complete, unre- stricted free trade between the two countries which was to come in 1913. At this juncture, it is relevant to set forth the progress of Philippine-American trade under the 25 percent exemption—the period from 1903 to 1909. The Philippine exports to the United States were as follows: £26,142,852 in 1903; P23,309,936 in 1904; 29,680,814 in 1905; $23,738,578 in 1906; ?20,658,774 in 1907; 20,901,510 in 1908; 29,453,026 in 1909. The exports totaled during the 7-year period ¥173,885,490, and imports totaled 71,- 236,914. The balance in favor of the Phil- ippines amounted to £102,648,576. Attention is again directed to the favor- able balance of trade. It was increased by the greater expenditures of the different units of the American Government in the Philippines. Under the tariff act of August 5, 1909, above-mentioned, Philippine products were admitted duty-free in the United States with the following limitations: 200,000 long tons of sugar, 150,000,000 cigars, 300,000 pounds of wrapper tvbacco, 1,000,000 pounds of filler tobacco. Rice continued to be dutiable. The maximum limitations were never reached, and the Philippines imported instead of ex- ported rice, Coconut oil was not then an important exportable commodity and copra was on the free list in the United States. At that time there were no absolute quotas and the Philippines could have exported to the United States amounts over the limita- tions by paying the full duty. Since, how- ever, the American tariff rates were then very high and since Philippine production was not yet quite developed, the quantitative limitations did not work against the indus- tries as they then existed, although it did not give encouragement to their expansion. This later feature was the purpose of the limitations. In section 5 of the act the following im- portant provisions were set forth: (1) That the Philippine Government shall impose a duty equal to that imposed by the United States on sugar and tobacco in any form entering the Philippines from a foreign coun- try, (2) Philippine products to be duty- exempt must not contain more than 20 percent of their value in foreign materials, (3) there must be no draw-back of customs duties on articles to be admitted duty-free, (4) and they must be by direct shipments to the United States. The foregoing requisites had for their pur- pose to prevent foreign products from enter- ing the United States duty-free, or partially so, by way of the Philippines, thereby cir- cumventing the Jnited States tariff law. After hardly 4 years of the operation of the tariff act of August 5, 1909, the Underwood tariff of October 3, 1913 came into existence, which instead of helping the sugar industry disturbed it and stopped its expansion. This tariff act removed all quantitative restrictions on all Philippine products en- tering the United States. Up to that year the maximum amounts permissible under the 1909 tariff act had never been even ap-~ proximated. Tue movement for political independence became more pronounced and it must have been generally realized that the granting of independence would place the Philippines outside of the United States tariff wall and, therefore, its products would have to pay the high tarify duties, and that would make those products less lucrative if they could be produced at a profit at all. The political separatist movement mili- tated against the expansion of Philippine industries and exports to the United States. The result was reflected in Philippine-Amer- ican trade during the 4-year period, 1910~13, during which the Philippines registered an adverse balance. The Philippine exports to the United States were as follows: 134,483,450 in 1910; 39,845, rin 1911; 145,764,014 in 1912; 132,868,036 in The Philippine imports from the United States were as follows: 40,137,084 in 1910; 38,318,974 im 1911; 48,612,020 in 1912; #53,352,522 in 1913. The Philippine exports to the United States for that 4-year period totaled 152,960,754, and the imports totaled 180,415,600. Thus there was an unfavorable balance against the Philippines of 127,454,846. By that time the #ilipinos developed more wants and a taste for American goods and they used their past favorable balances to make purchases in the United States. Their pur- chasing power should have gone hand in hand with that development, but it did not. It was expected that the Philippine sugar industry was going to expand under the Underwood tariff because it eliminated the quantitative limitations. But it did not, and for a good reason. The reason was that paragraph 177 of that tariff act provided that on and after May 1, 1916, sugar enter- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ing the United States from any source, for- eign included, shall be free of duty. Thus sugar from low-cost foreign countries, like the then Netherlands East Indies, would be admitted to the United States duty-free and wipe out competition. The Philippines could not have competed in the American market in that situation. The free-sugar provision was a blow to the sugar industry in the United States and in its Territories and possessions, like Hawaii and Puerto Rico, especially the former. It effectively stopped more sugar production in the Philippines and postponed the modern- ization of the industry there. Congress was bombarded with petitions and protests against the provision from American domestic sugar producers, who en- listed the cooperation of farm organizations and other influential groups. On the other side were the Cuban-American and the Cu- ban financial and sugar interests. The lat- ter had even then possessed great weight in the sugar tariff deliberations in Washing- ton, and the Philippines had felt that weight in various and sundry forms in later years and, possibly, even today it has not been put away permanently. Finally, on April 27, 1916, Congress passed an act repealing paragraph 177 of the Un- derwood tariff of 1913, and the Philippine sugar industry heaved a sigh of relief, to- gether with the American domestic pro- ducers. The next legislation affecting Philippine trade was the Philippine Autonomy Act passed by Congress on August 29, 1916. It was popularly known as the Jones law, which made the Philippines almost completely self- governing, with a legislature composed of a senate and house, the former taking the place of the old Philippine Commission, Un- der the inspiration of the law's preamble, the agitation for “immediate, complete, and absolute independence,” for the Philippines was pushed strongly and dramatically under Mr. Quezon and Mr. Osmena, then the two foremost leaders of the Filipino peyple. The Jones law gave the Philippine Gov- ernment the power to enact tariff laws af- fecting foreign countries (not including the United States, of course) on condition that before such laws went into effect they should have first the approval of the President of the United States. A disapproval would Kill such laws. The reason for that condition was that a tarlf law might cause interna- tional complications and the United States was still responsible for the Philippines in- ternationally, The Philippine-American trade relations continued to be governed by the acts of Congress. The Philippine Government was prohibited under the Jones law to impose export duties, a policy in line with the provisions of the United States Constitution, And another provision limited the borrowing power of that Government to $15,000,000 (130,000,000) ex-~ clusive of the friars’ land purchase bonds of about $4,000,000 (18,000,000) and the sum not to exceed 7 percent of the aggregate tax valuation at any time of cities, provinces, municipalities, and other governmental in- strumentalities. At this point, the Phillppine-Amorican trade during the 3-year perlod from 1914 to 1916 should be inserted. The Philippine exports to the United States were as follows: 148,055,420 in 1914; ?47,306,- 422 in 1915; P71,298,265 in 1916. The Philippine imports from the United States were as follows: 48,022,802 in 1914; ¥52,762,138 in 1915; 45,267,329 in 1916. The Philippine exports to the United States during that 8-ycar period totaled ¥167,458,107, and the imports totuled P146,- 510,286. The Philippine favorable trade balance amounted to 20,047,821 fur that short period.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Following the tariff act of 1913, two tariff acts were enacted by Congress. They were the acts of September 21, 1922, and June 17, 1930. They did not introduce important changes insofar as the Philippines was con- cerned. World War I had its full impact in 1916, 1917, and 1918. The shutting off or dis- ruption of comparable industries in com- batant countries gave impetus to the sugar, coconut oil and other industries in the Philippines. The foreign trade of the Phil- ippines with the United States increased considerably. Big profits were made, pros- perity was upon the land, and industries were built and modernized. In the Tariff Act of 1921, the preferential rate on Cuban sugar was increased to 1.60 cents (U. S.) per pound, to 1.7648 cents under the Tariff Act of 1922, and to 2 cents under the Tariff Act of 1930. The effect of these increases was to give Philippine sugar higher tarif! advartage. The tariff preference to Philippine coconut oil admitted to the United States was first providei in the emergency Tariff Act of 1921. Oil, nondeodorized and unrefined, of foreign origin was charg7d an equivalent duty of 2.67 cents a pound (20 cents a gallon), which gave the Philippine product that much advantage over its foreign com- petitor. Shredded coconut (desiccated) from for- eign sources was imposed a duty of 34% cents a pound, an increase of the then prevailing duty of 2 cents. This gave further encour- agement to the Philippine desiccated coco- nut industry. But despite that it found it not easy to compete with the older industry in Ceylon. The rates on shell buttons, straw hats, cotton embroideries, and Manila fiber cordage were increased under the 1922 tariff act, all of which helped the Philippine comparable products. Under the tariff act of 1930 the rates on cotton embroideries, Manila fiber cordage, and certain tropical nuts were increased; and copra-oil cake and meal were taken off the free list and made dutiable. All of these changes were calculated to redound to the advantage of the Philippines. It was not until March 24, 1934, that Con- gress passed legislation profoundly affecting Thilippine-American trade. This act was the Philippine Independence Act, popularly known as the Tydings-McDuffie Act. The Philippine-American trade from 1917 to 1934, a period of 18 years, is inserted at this point. The Philippine exports to the United States were as follows: P126,468,717 in 1917; F178,293,887 in 1918; 113,305,384 in 1919; P210,432,525 in 1920; #®100,713,586 in 1921; P128,223,201 in 1922; 170,094,046 in 1923; $194,627,805 in 1924; €218,089,883 in 1925; P200,006,430 in 1926; 232,076,500 in 1927; $231,171,751 in 1928; 248,930,946 in 1929; P210,684,122 in 1980; 166,844,793 in 1931; F176,069,288 in 1932; 193,058,082 in 1933; P196,276,383 in 1934. The Philippine imports from the United States were as follows: ©75,241,295 in 1917; 117,649,222 in 1918; 150,982,829 in 1919; P184,579,556 in 1920; ©148,260,080 in 1921; P95,476,651 in 1922; 100,705,070 in 1923; P120,797,206 in 1924; ¥138,595,166 in 1925; P148,151,236 in 1926; 142,956,594 in 1927; ¥167,716,185 in 1928; 185,185,917 in 1929; P156,366,057 in 1930; 124,279,366 in 1931; %103,005,088 in 1982; 87,582,513 in 1933; P109,3'75,368 in 1984. The Philippine exports to the United States during that 18-year period totaled 3,295,- 367,179, and the imports totaled P2,351,905,- 299. The favorable balance of the Philippines during that period amounted to 943,461,880, or an annual average of more than ?52,- 400,000. The independence act of 1934 created the Philippine Commonwealth, which was to be- come the independent Republic of the Phil- ippines on July 4, 1946. Under this act changes were introduced in the trade relations between the Philippines and the United States as a preparation for their political separation. Its section 6 set forth these changes and conditions. The imports into the United States of three Philippine products were limited in quantities as follows: 50,000 long tons of refined sugar; 800,000 long tons of unrefined sugar; 200,000 long tons of coconut oil; and 3,000,000 pounds of cordage. After the first 5 years, beginning with the inauguration of the Commonwealth, the Philippine Government was directed to im- pose and collect export duty on all articles shipped to the United States free of duty in that country at the rate of 5 percent of the United States duty on the sixth year, increasing progressively every year by 5 per- cent until, the ninth year, the rate reached 25 percent. The duty thus collected was, by provision of the act, directed to be placed in a sinking fund to be used solely for the payment of the principal and interest of the bonded indebtedness of the Philippine Government, the provinces, municipalities, and other gov- ernmental instrumentalities. It was provided in section 13 that after the independence of the Philippines was promulgated the trade relations between it and the United States should be on a for- eign basis, that is as before March 8, 1902. But it also provided that at least 1 year be- fore independence there should be a confer- ence held between Philippine and American representatives, appointed by their respec- tive presidents, for the purpose of formulat- ing recommendations as to future trade re- lations between the United States and the Philippine independent republic. Such a conference was called. A joint Philippine~American preparatory committee was created. It held hearings in the United States and the Philippines. Then it sub- mitted a voluminous report. - The recommendations of the committee were embodied in a draft of a bill submitted by the Roosevelt administration to Congress. The appropriate congressional committees held long hearings on the bill. But in the end Congress did not act on it and the bill died a natural death. A period of nonaction on the postindependence trade relations be- tween the two countries followed, continu- ing until the Pacific war came on December 7, 1941. After the enactment of the Independence Act on March 24, 1934, several changes in the trade relations occurred, but they did not alter basically the general economic plan of the act. The Jones-Costigan Sugar Act of May 9, 1934, authorized the imposition of definite limits on imports called absolute quotas, Imports over the quantities provided for, although prepared to pay the full duty, was forbidden. The Sugar Act established the quota plan applicable not only to the Philip- pines but to all domestic-producer areas, with the addition of Cuba, which, though a foreign country, had a preferéntial tariff arrangement with the United States for nearly 50 years. The United States revenue act of May 10, 1934, as modified in some particulars by the revenue acts of 1985 and 1936, provided for the imposition of a processing tax of 3 cents (6 centavos) a pound on coconut oil ex- pressed from Philippine copra either in the Philippines or in the United States. The amount collected was turned over to the - Philippine treasury. This collection proved to be one of the great sources of Philip- pine revenue. The legality of the transfer of this:fund to the Philippine treasury was contested in the United States Supreme A3663 Court by users of coconut oil, especially the American soap industry, but the court up- held its legality. The cordage act of June 14, 1925, provided for an absolute quota of 6,000,000 pounds of cordage a year duty-free, or two times more than the quantity permitted in the indspendence act. It was for a pericd of 8 years, but the President of the United States was authorized to extend it for a pericd of 3 years or more, subject to its acceptance by the President of the Philip- Pines. At this juncture, it is relevant to insert the Philippine-American trade for the 7- year period from 1935 to the end of 1941, when the Pacific war was already raging. The Philippine exports to the United States were as follows: ¥166,308,071 in 1935; P238,531,723 in 1936; P274,727,551 in 1937; P243,302,378 im 1938; P259,059,324 in 1939; P258,307,567 in 1940; P277,182,925 in 1941. The Philippine imports from the United States were as follows: ¥109,428,441 in 1935; P123,708,995 in 1936; 127,330,759 in 1937; P181,576,754 in 1938; £167,882,653 in 1939; P210,373,9385 in 1940; P218,954,462 in 1941. The Philippine exports to the United States during that 7-year period totaled ¥1,717,419,539, and the imports from the United States, ®1,138,755,999. The Philippine favorable balance amounted to ¥578,663,540, or a yearly average of about F82,500,000. Philippine-American trade was suspended during the war years, 1942 to 1944. During the war Congress considered sev- eral bills relating to the Philippines, al- though it was under the control of the Japanese army of occupation. Such was the absolute confidence in the ultimate victory over the Japanese and their expulsion from the Philippines. A bill provided for the in- dependence of the Philippines in 1942—a psychological counter action to the granting of independence by the Japanese—was intro- duced, but did not become law. Another bill which had to do With military bases was passed. And another bill was approved suspending the Philippine Constitution so the incumbent president and vice-president could continue in office, although their terms uder the constitution had already expired. Soon after the war the question of the post-independence trade relations between the Philippines and the United States was taken up by Congress. An administration bill was sent to the appropriate congressional committees. Exhaustive hearings, mostly executive, were held. After earnest debates on both floors of Congress it was passed on April 30, 1946, -nd it became known as the Philippine Trade Act of 1946. On the same date the Philippine Rehabilitation Act, pro- viding for a system of payment of war dam-~ ages, was passed, Under the trade act, which is now in op- eration, the following absolute quotas are provided ; From January 1, 1946, to July 3, 1974, the Philippines can export to the United States annually 952,000 short tons (the equivalent of 850,000 longs tons), of which 56,000 short tons (the equivalent of 50,000 long tons) may be refined sugars, 6,000,000 pounds of cordage, 1,040,000 of rice, 200,000,000 cigars, 6,500,000 pounds of scrap and filler tobacco, 200,000 long tons of coconut oil, and 850,000 gross of pearl buttons. All those articles, as well as other Philip- -pine articles, will be duty-free, and at the full quota to July 3, 1954. After that date all articles from the Philippines with the exception of the above-named commodities, . whose restrictions are provided for, will be- - come subject to graduated duties, beginning with 5 percent of the prevailing rates until they reach 100 percent in 1974. The seven Philippine products listed above are divided into two groups. Sugar, cordage
A3064 and rice will not decrease in quantity to 1974, but will pay the graduated quota of 5 percent. Cigars, scrap, and filler tobacco, coconut oil and pearl buttons will not pay the graduated duty, but their amounts will decrease progressively by 5 percent, The reason for the difference in the treat- ment of the two groups is that the first group has relatively low tariff rates and the second group hos such high tariff rates that in a few years they would not be able to produce at any profit at all. The official record of the hearings before the Committee of the Ways and Means of the House of Representatives will show that it was the author of this article who suggested that idea to the com- mittee. It should be noted that, because absolute quotas are granted, the Philippines is per- mitted to export to the United States quan- tities over the duty-free amount, but within the quota, after the progressive quantitative reductions, by paying the full duty. It is provided that if the Philippines should export a new product that comes into sub- stantial competition with a like article pro- duced in the United States the President may impose a quota on it after an investigation by the Tariff Commission. The trade arrangement, as well as other matters in the Philippine Trade Act of 1946, is now set forth, by the act’s provision, in an Executive trade agreement: between the two countries. The trade agreement can be terminated on 5 years’ notice for any reason whatsoever. It can also be terminated on 6 months’ notice if either party adopts or applies measures or practices which would operate to nullify or impair any right or obligation provided for in the agreement. There are also provisions to the effect that, if the President of the United States finds that the Philippines is in any manner dis- eriminating against citizens of the United States or any form of United States business enterprise, he may suspend the agreement in whole or in part and, if the discrimination does not cease, he may terminate the agree- ment. There are two vital provisions in the trade act that are pertinent to set forth as they affect, both directly and indirectly, the Phil- ippine-American trade and economic rela- tions. They are as follows: Section 341, part 5, title IIT (being art. VII of the trade agreement) “The disposi- tion, exploitation, development, and utiliza- tion of all agricultural, timber, and mineral lands of the public dom.ain, waters, mineral, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces and sources of potential energy, and other natural r-sources of the Philippines, and the operation of public utilities, shall, if open to any person, be open. to citizens of the United States and to all forms of busi- ness enterp:ise owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by United States citizens.” That provisicn, in a somewhat modified form. which somewhat changed its meaning, was incorporated as a provision of the Phil- ippine Constitution. It was called the “parity law,” which caused a division among the voters when it was submitted to a plebiscite. The provision placed Americans on. the same basis as Filipinos under it. The writer contended that the word “person” in the clause “if open to any person” referred, not to a Filipino necessarily, but to any person at all, who may be a foreigner. If that contention was correct, then the pro~ vision was placed there solely to protect American citizens from discrimination in favor of foreigners. But it was evident that the intent of Congress was to place Ameri- cans and Filipinos on an equal or parity basis, and so that interpretation stands, par- ticularly after the modified wording of the provision was made a part of the Philippine Constitution. The other provision of the trade agree- ment that has to do with Philippine-Ameri- can trace and finance follows: Section 342, part 5, title III (being art. V of the trade agreement) “The value of the Philippine currency in relation to the United States dollar shall not be changed, the con- vertibility of pesos into dollars shall not Ls suspended, and no restriction shall be im- posec on the transfer of funds from the Philippines to the United States, except by agreement with the President of the United States.” This provision, like other provisions in the act, will be in force until 1974. Thus the dollar-peso ratio of 1 dollar to 2 pesos which was established by Congress in the act of March 2, 1903 will last for 71 years, This arrangement is the only instance where the United States has agreed to tie up its currency with that of a foreign country, tor indeed the Philippines became a foreign country on July 4, 1946. That fact gave stability and soundness to the Philippine peso qualities which are possessed by only a few of the currencies of the world. The provision was modified when on De- cember 9, 1949, with the agreement of the President of the United States as provided therein, a series of orders were issued by the Philippine Central Bank placing restrictions on the transfer of funds from the Philip- pines to the United States. This action, which did not become known to the public until the day of its promulgation, caused consternation among bankers, businessmen and the general public. The announced purpose of the restrictions is to conserve in the Philippines the dollar assets, which was reported to be going out of the country faster than the inflow of funds. They complement and complete the control imposed by the Government on ar- ticles described as luxuries or nonessentials. The commodity control has the added pur- pose of encouraging the creation of local industries and the investment of funds in local enterprises, Both the fund and commodity controls are working hardships on business and persons, but it is contended that they are essentially temporary, although they would not bo so ‘if they are continued for too long a time and if they are made more restrictive and com- plicated. They have already caused business retrenchment and labor unemployment. It is generally hoped that the Government will find its way clear to working back to nor- maley after it has achieved to a reasonable Gegree its purposes in instituting the con- rols. It would be useless effort to attract Ameri- can capital to the Philippines to operate under a regime of controls. It would also make the Philippines less ideal for the in- auguration of President Truman’s point 4 program of extending financial and technical assistance. The simple reason is that when there were no controls the Philippines was that much different from and carried that much advantage over other countries, where American investments and enterprises are so hemmed in and harassed by restriction orders and controls, such as the Philippines has started to do herself. It is, therefore, of supreme importance, if American invest- ments are desired for the Philippines, to go back to normalcy as soon as practicable. It is expected that if the controls have not gone too far and have not disrupted the country’s business too much they will have created more stable conditions in the country. There is expectation in some quarters that the Philippine Government may ‘devalue the peso. High Government officials have denied that such would be done, but such denials are always subject to withdrawal. The de- valuation would take the form of depreciat- ing the peso so that a dollar would be equiva- lent to 8, 4, or 5 pesos. Under article V of the Philippine-American Trade Agreement, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD cited above, the dollar-peso ratio can be changed “with the agreement of the Presi- dent of the United States.” If it were known by the public that the President was con- sidering a request from the Philippine Gov- ernment for him to agree to the peso de- valuation he would undoubtedly receive many protests as well as some approvals. It would be sound policy to have the question discussed by the public before the devalua- tion is effected. It would be unsound policy to put it through otherwise. The matter is too vital to keep the public, upon which it is to be imposed, out of it. In recapitulation, the main purpose of the fund and commodity controls is to main- tain a healthy balance in the international exchange of debits and credits as established by the relative positions of imports and ex- ports of goods and the inflow and outflow of funds. Since the war the Philippines has been buying from the United States and other countries much more than she has been selling them. That is the cause of the imbalance, and that is what the controls are intended to rectify. It is obvious that there is a necessity for the Philippine Government to determine a general median level on which the international debits and credits will be maintained. The present postwar level, maintained as it is artificially by the in- flow as well as local availability of mone- tary windfalls and funds which are not pay- ments for exports, is unnaturally high, and to maintain it would require drastic action that would upset the country’s economy. At the same time, the prewar level was too low, for prices of export commodities have since gone up, industries are being rehabil- itated, there are more business and the na- tional income has inereased several times over. The determination of a reasonably maintainable median line on which to rest the debit-credit international balance is an essential move to rationalize the controls and make them serve their purposes effectively to the benefit of the country. That median level will be somewhere between the pre- war low and the postwar high. Immediately after the war ended contracts were signed between the Phillppine Gov- ernment and the United States Commodity Credit Corporation by which tho former ob- ligated itself to give priority in sales and exports of hemp and copra to the United States for the use of industries. The con- tracts also provided for cellings on prices. The idea was to assure the demand for those products in the United States, The prices of the two commodities went up. But the prices of copra went much higher relatively. Besides, there was plenty of copra, for the Philippine coconut plan- tations hardly suffered from the war. But the hemp plantations were neglected and a great part of them depleted. Soon the demand for hemp and copra, es- pecially the latter, from foreign countries grew and those countries offered better prices than what the contracts provided as the maxima. It was estimated that those contracts have cost the Philippine copra pro- ducers at least 1100,000,000 for not being able to sell to the highest buyers outside of the United States. Upon the petition of Filipino hemp and copra producers the con- tracts with the Commodity Credit Corpora- tion were rescinded even before their expira- tion dates with the consent of the corpora- tion, Philppine-American trade since the war ended, coveririg the perlod from 1946 to the beginning of 1950, deserves separate treat- ment because of the special and extraordi- nary elements that entered into it. The 1945 trade was for its later part only, for after the cessation of the war there was very little overseas activity in exports, al- though the imports were substantial out of necessity. That trade amounted to £50,974,- 435, of which 457,965 represented exports and 50,516,470 imports. Most of the im-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ports consisted of relief supplies, food, medi- cine, and other urgently needed articles. Philippine-American trade from 1846 to 1949 amounted to 4,484,392,556. Of this amount, #3,314,735,611 represented exports and P1,169,656,000 imports. The balance against the Philippines dur- ing that 4-year period amounted to P2,145,- 079,611. Before discussing the significance of this unfavorable balance, which is enormous, 1t is well to break down the import-export figures by years. The 1949 figures are sub- ject to later revision, but they would not register substantial change, so for the pur- pose of the present discussion the statisti- cal variations will not be material. The Philippine exports to the United States were as follows: P76,870,8389 in 1946; P306,466,925 in 1947; ©421,604,939 in 1948; P364,700,000 in 1942. The Philippine imports from the United States were as follows: ?515,029,797 in 1946; 882,150,594 in 1947; $941,755,220 in 1948; ¥9'75,800,000 in 1949, The totals are given above, and so is the unfavorable balance against the Philippines. The fundamental question at once arises: Was the Philippines impoverished, on the basis of her normal economic position before the war, by the unfavorable trade balance with the United States of over ®2,145,000,000 since the termination of the war? The definitive answer is no. The fact is even after that amount is deducted from the postwar acquired monetary and matériel as- sets the Philippines would still have between P1,000,000,000 and #2,000,000,000 more left. Where is that money? ‘It is all over the country in cash, matériel, and more diversi- fied business enterprises. Some of it is de~ posited, yes, by Filipinos in the United States and elsewhere outside of the Philippines. The existence of that enhanced wealth is manifested, among other evidence, by the increase of the nationr! p-cdcucticn and in- come from around P1 cus, O°O 000 before the war to approximately ?3,500,000,000 after the war, the bulk of which is extant today. ™re ncict ts *hit the Phitinpines was not ay Te wea arable balance. mp. was able to import an enormous ‘amount of goods from the United States because of the monetary assets she piled up from receipt of financial assistance from the United States, veterans’ benefits, and war-damage payments made by the United States, war surplus given by the United States, and the great expenditures made by members of the American armed forces during and since the war, as well as disbursements during that time by the United States Government outside of the items outlined above. While the payment was made partially out of exports to the United States, as the sta- tistical tabulations in this paper will show, the bulk of the payment was made out of the “invisible assets” set forth in the foregoing paragraph. And, for the purpose of empha- sis, it should be stated that after that pay- ment is made there is a sizable amount more of those assets remaining in the Philippines. If there are those assets still, why does the Philippine Government have to go out and borrow money from the United States? The answer is that the Filipino people are not yet habituated and trained to lend their money to their Government by buying Phil- ippine Government bonds and certificates. To them 4 percent, or even 10 percent inter- est a year on investment is far from attrac- Foreign trade of the Philippines: 1899-1946 A3065 tive. They are still in the pawnshop and usury stages insofar as profit and interest on capital are concerned. The Philippine Government, with its com- modity control, and the Phihrnirc central pank, with its fund cou.~cl, citiu project themselves into the immediate future and inspire the Filipino people to invest in their Government, which means investing in their country. This is a great and fundamental public relations job for the Government to do. Sconer or later it will have to do it if it is to embark upon its plan of a total eco- nomic mobilization program buttressed by a regime of rational austerity. The Philippines is a rich country in nat- ural resources. There is a great people that will soon number 20,000,060, who are am- bitious to achieve greater ~rotress evd the modern democratic way of :.%  -Lin te its economy, modernizing its productive ap- paratus, training technical workers, and put- ting more people to work~—they constitute the challenge to the governmental, intellec- tual, civic, and economic leadership of the Filipino people. With its internal economy expanded, mod- ernized, and rationalized, the Philippines will continue its trade with the United States, the best and greatest market in the world. The present trade relations may be extended indefinitely. Those relations, it must be clearly remembered, are only a part of the intimate, vital, and fundamental relation- ships which the two.countries now main- tain. Those relationships grew out of their half century of friendship and collabora- tion—relationships that are today the bul- wark of the economic welfare and the inter- national security of the Republic of the Philippines. re RR Bee Per Imnorts from nete Exports to Y Total trade | capita | Totalimports| Totalexports | uc Urried omper f from the United ota rors to ear (pesos) trade (pesos) (pesos) States * (pesos) States (pesos) (pesos) (pesos) 68, 079, 136 10.16 38, 385, 972 20, 693, 164 2, 706, 172 35, 679, 800 7, 870, 510 21, $22, 654 95, 708, 304 18, 95 49, 727, 558 45, 980, 746 4, 306, 396 45, 421, 162 5, 921, 702 059, 109, 331, 648 15. 58 60, 324, 942 49, 006, 706 7, 068, 510 53, 256, 432 9, 092, 584 39, 914, 122 124, 028, 140 7. 28 66, 684, 832 57, 343, 808 8, 306, 348 58, 377, 984 22, 951, 886 34, 391, 912 132, 416, 260 17.34 67, 622, 768 64, 793, 492 7, 674, 200 59, 948, 5 26, 142, 852 38, 450, 640 117, 454, 462 15. 33 59, 155, 462 58, 299, 000 10, 197, 640 48, 957, 822 23, 309, 936 34, 989, 064 127, 010, 648 16.49 60, 101, 100 66, 909, 548 11, 179, 892 48, 921, 208 29, 680, 814 118, 093, 320 15. 21 7, 8 , 285, 784 8, 955, 772 48, 851, 764 23, 738, 578 41, 547, 206 127, 108, 854 16. 20 907, 620 66, 195, 734 10, 135, 076 50, 772, 544 20, 658, 774 45, 536, 960 123, 574, 384 15.51 58, 372, 240 65, 202, 144 10, 203, 672 48, 168, 568 20, 901, 510 44, 300, 634 132, 017, 512 16. 30 2, 168, 838 69, 848, 674 12, 890, 662 49, 278, 176 , 453, 026 40, 395, 648 180, 695, 648 21. 98 99, 438, 722 81, 256, 926 40, 137, 084 §9, 301, 638 34, 483, 450 46, 773, 476 185, 723, 068 22. 14 96, 048, 814 89, 674, 254 38, 318, 974 57, 734, 840 39, 845, 254 49, 829, 000 , 182, 402 27.19 123, 335, 802 109, 846, 600 48, 612, 020 74, 717, 782 45, 764, 014 64, 082, 586 202, 171, 484 23. OL 106, 625, 572 95, 545, 912 53, 352, 522 53, 278, 050 32, 868, 03' 62, 677, 876 194, 556, 574 21. 57 7, 177, 306 97, 379, 268 48, 022, 802 49, 154, 504 , 855, 42 5 523) 6, 250, 375 22, 25 , 624, 3 5 626, 008 52, 762, 138 45, 862, 229 47, 306, 422 , 319, 586 230, 867, 040 24.19 ), 992, 675 139, 874, 365 45, 725, 346 45, 267, 329 1, 296, 265 68, 578, 100 322, 802, 674 32. 81 131, 594, 061 91, 208, , 241, 56, 852, 766 126, 468, 717 64, 739, 896 467, 587, 387 46. 06 197, 198, 423 270, 388, 964 117, 649, 222 79, 849, 201 178, 293, 837 92, 095, 127 463, 513, 756 44, 89 237, 278, 104 226, 150, 982, 829 86, 295, 275 113, 305, 384 112, 930, 268 601, 124, 276 57. 54 298, 876, 865 302, 247, 711 184, 579, 556 » 297, 210, 432, 525 91, 815, 186 407, 907, 793 38. 21 231, 677, 148 176, 230, 645 148, 260, 030 83, 417, 118 100, 713, 586 75, 517, 059 851, 561, 885 32, 22 160, 305, 289 191; 166, 596 95, 476, 651 64, 918, 6 128, 223, , 943, 416, 505, 474 37. 34 174, 999, 494 2417 505, 980 100, 705, 070 74, 204, 424 170, 094, 046 1, 411, 6, 711, 115 42. 67 216, 021, 790 270, 689, 325 120, 797, 206 , 224, 194, 627, 805 76, 061, 520 , 220, 46. 05 239, 466, 667 4 ’ 768 ae i 595, 388 100, hg $03 20 O88, 0 79, bs 527 512, 366, 623 42, 93 4 ), 446, , 006, s bee 851, 113 44, 231, 702, 943 311, 148, 170 142, 956, 594 3 746, 076, 500 79, 071, 670 79, 422, 46. 36 269, 313, 796 310, 109, 092 167, 716, 185 101, 597, 661 oar 171, 751 78, 987, 341 623, 214, 234 48. 72 294, 320, 549 5 803, 685 185, 185, 917 109, 134, 632 , 930, 79, 962, 739 512, 520) 162 39.14 246, 185, 907 266, 234, 255 156, 366, 057 89, 819, 850 210, 684, 122 55, 650, 133 406, 801, 585 30. 30 198, 357, 437 207, 944, 148 124, 279, 366 74, 078, 071 166, 844, 793 41, 099, 355 359, 560, 466 26.19 158, 812, 063 200, 748, 403 , O05, 55, 806, 975 176, 069, 238 24, 679, 165 355, 976, 981 25. 33 134, 733, 905 221, 243, 076 87, 582, 513 47, 151, 392 198, 058, 032 28, 185, 644 399, 706, 432 27. 78 167, 230, 359 | 232, 476, 073 109, 375, 368 57, 854, 991 196, 276, 383 36, 199, 680 374, 922, 200 25. 45 171, 070, 431 , 851, 760 109, 428, 441 61, 641, 166, 308, 071 87, 543, 698 497,611, 550 82. 99 257, 6: 295, 352, 915 23, 708, 995 548, 238, 531, 723 56, 822, 192 551, 990, 587 35. 74 218, 069, 193 333, 921, 394 127, 330, 759 90, 738, 434 274, 727, 551 59, 193, 843 559, 236, 712 35. 36 , 285, 371 294, 001, 181, 576, 74 83, 658, 617 243, 302, 378 50, 698, 963. 560, 914, 120 34, 64 245, 129, 974 315, 784, 146 167, 382, 653 77, 747, 321 259, 059, 324 } 56, 724, 822 581, 311, 589 35. 269, 462, 542 B11, 849, 047 210, 373, 935 59, 088, 6 258, 307, 567 53, 531, 480 , 452, 761 34. 56 271, 182, 780 322, 269, 931 218, 954, 462 52, 228, 318 277, 182, 925 ), 087, 056 r-""" BG, 31, 364 3.14 57, 867, 195 1, 344, 169 50, 516, 470 7, 350, 725 57, 886, 204 728 091, 580 83 1 Soh 716, 481 | 128,375,049 | 515, 029, 797 » 686, 76, 870, 839 51, 504, 21 022, 700, 608 $31, 096, 704 882, 1 50, 594 140, 550, 014 306, 466, 925 224, 629, 779 ? 138 409, 068 638, 410, 456 941, 755, 220 194, 653, 848 421, 604, 939 216, 805, 517 1, 190, 753, 217 521, 257, 731 1 Japanese occupati 2 Source: Yearbook of Philippine Statistics, 1946. 3 Source: Reports of the Philippine Bureau of the Census and Statistics. a Sta «Source: Tentative Figures Released by the Philippine Bureau of the Census and Statistics;
A3066 South Carolina Highways EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. L. MENDEL RIVERS OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, April 27, 1950 Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Speaker, anybody who has ever traveled the highways of the Nation knows what it means to have modern highways. The wealth of a State does not signify its ability to re- flect good highway engineering and progress, nor does the size of the State determine its highway consciousness. South Carolina, which is comparative- ly small from a standpoint of wealth, ranks first in the Nation in highway con- struction. No State in the Union has more miles per capita of farm-to-market highways than does South Carolina. This is no accident. We planned it this way over a quarter of a century ago. That is the reason South Carolina ranks No. 1 in the Nation today in keeping its citizens contented in maintaining a high level of accessibility to every nook and corner of its wonderful and historic past. The people in South Carolina are con- tented to live there because the govern- ment of South Carolina gives back to the people their proportionate part of taxes in services and more highways. The facts here presented in the Recorp were prepared for me, on this subject, by the Highway Department of South Carolina. Our highway commissioner, the Honorable Claude McMillan, is the brother of our distinguished colleague in Congress, the Honorable Jouw McMILLan, who so capably presides over the Com- mittee on the District of Columbia, and who is also member of the Committee on Agriculture. We are proud of our high- way commissioner and the magnificent associates he has, both in law enforce- ment and in highway construction and maintenance. In traveling over a particular territory by automobile, the enjoyment that one derives is determined mainly by two fac- tors, the scenery and the condition of the roads. In both of these respects South Caro- lina ranks among the best in the Nation, Nowhere can there be found more mag~ nificent gardens, beautiful early Ameri- can architecture, and points of historic interest. Nowhere can be found more abundant and finer scenery than along the highways of South Carolina’s low country and in the hills and mountains of the up country. 1t is South Carolina’s highways, how- ever, that makes enjoyment of this scenery possible. Those of you who have had an opportunity to visit the Palmetto State and ride along the countryside will agree that nowhere in the Nation is there a finer system of highways. Some idea of this development may be had from the many additions and improvements in the highways since 1920, when the South Caroling. General Assembly passed an act providing for the State system, At that time there were 3,047 miles of road in the State system, only 26 miles of which were hard-surfaced. As of October 31, 1949, there were 20,569 miles, of which 10,868 miles, or 52 percent, were hard-surfaced. All excepting 375 miles of the State’s primary system—totaling 8,411 miles of highways—are hard-surfaced. On our secondary system, composed mostly of feeder routes and consisting of a total of 12,158 miles, a total of 2,831 miles were hard-surfaced as of October 31, 1949. Progress in the planning and develop- ment of the State’s system of highways hos been relatively steady since the in-~ ception of the highway department. However, we can point with real pride to the manner in which we have kept pace with other States in recent years, in many cases excelling. In 1948, for example, South Carolina stood first in the Soutteastern States, and only fourth in the Nation, in the number of miles of road on which con- struction contracts were awarded. A Bureau of Public Roads compilation for the year—the last for which accurate totals are available—shows that during the 12-month period, contracts on 1,812 miles of South Carolina highways were awarded, This total was included in 324 projects, the largest number in the Southeast, and the ninth greatest num-~ ber in the Nation. These projects in~ volved an expenditure of $22,300,000, the fourth greatest total in the Southeast, and the eighteenth largest in the Na- tion—a very important comparison when South Carolina’s relative geo~ graphical size and per capita wealth is considered, At this writing figures on construction for all of 1949 have not been compiled. However, during the first 6 months of the year, South Caro- lina awarded contracts on 664 miles of road, putting the State in thirteenth place in this respect for the entire Na- tion. This work was included in 92 sep- arate projects, costing $6,939,000. These projects, of course, do not include the maintenance work and relatively small projects which the highway department completed with its own forces. Approximately $242,000,000 have been invested in South Carolina’s highway system over a 20-year pcriod. South Carolina’s highway program is financed mainly by a gasoline tax of 5 cents, supplemented by Federal-aid al- locations. One cent of the State’s 6-cent tax is allocated to counties. Further development of the system is limited only by revenue received. Many needed proj- ects are now Under way, others are planned for the immediate future, and still others are included in the depart- ment’s long-range program extending many years into the future. How has South Carolina been able to accomplish so much—in fact to take her’ place with the best in the Nation—with so little? Planning and a good legisla- tive program setting up a sound financial structure, coupled with efficient admin- istration, has furnished the impetus to bring a dream into reality. Those who have never traversed South Carolina’s magnificent highways have in store a real treat. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Committee on Un-American Activities EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. BURR P. HARRISON OF VIRGINIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, April 27, 1950 Mr. HARRISON. Mr. Speaker, I had the honor recently to serve as a member of a subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities which conducted hearings in Honolulu with respect to Communist activity in the Territory of Hawaii. These hearings were held at the invita- tion of the Territorial legislature. With the memory of the Pearl Harbor catas- trophe still vivid, the people of the Ter- ritory were disturbed by indications of well-organized and extensive under- ground Communist plotting. The proceedings of the subcommittee attracted widespread public attention in the islands, but they were conducted ina spirit of moderation and decorum that made a profound impression—one of en- hanced respect for the efforts of the committee as a whole, and, indeed, for the Congress of the United States. When the hearings had been com- pleted the subcommittee, and the citi- zens of Hawaii, had a sharply defined picture of the extent to which Commu- nists had infiltrated the labor organiza- tions, the political councils, and even the governing bodies of a Territory that con- tinues to have a key position in our de- fense scheme. Tio my mind, the members of the sub- committee may claim only a small share of such credit as may accrue from this investigation. The largest portion cer- tainly belongs to the distinguished chair- man of our committee, the Honorable Joun S. Woop, of Georgia. While he refrained from appointing himself to the subcommittee, our honored colleague directed the careful planning which preceded the hearings. "With his abiding abhorrence of sensationalism and his conscientious attention to the respon- sibilities of his chairmanship, Judge Woop provided the balanced approach to this inquiry, which proved notably productive. Under the leadership of the gentleman from Georgia, the committee has been earning its way as a servant of this House. During this Eighty~first Congress, it has placed under investigation a number of matters of the highest importance to the continued security of the United States. In these days of tension and fear the citi- zens of the Nation must be given sound basis for confidence in the instrumental- ities of their Government that are striv- ing to uncover and stamp out subversion. The Committee on Un-American Activ- ities has merited this confidence as guided by Judge Woop. I know that many of my colleagues will learn with regret, as I did, that he will not be without opposition for renom- ination. While his continued tenure in this House is being contested by a gen- tleman of undoubted sincerity and prom- ise, I have the deepest conviction that to
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD oppose Judge Woop at this time is to do a real—if unwitting—disservice to the people of his district and of the Nation. Now, above all other times, continuity of leadership in such a vital agency as the Committee on Un-American Activi- ties is essential. Judge Woon has super- vised inquiries inte dangerous nests of subversion in two areas that are of criti- cal importance to national security. The committee cast a withering spotlight on the foul growth of Communist cells in the vital Pittsburgh industrial area—a major part of the arsenal of democracy that our enemies fear. And, now, it has thrown revealing light on Communist efforts to take over that Pacific bastion—Hawaii. I hope that some way may be found to acquaint the good people of Judge Woon’s district in Georgia with the breadth and value of his service on the committee and in this House. His colleagues need his counsel, and the Nation cannot spare from among the guardians of its security one of such integrity and capacity. Two Hundredth Anniversary of Jewish Community in Charleston, S. C. EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. L. MENDEL RIVERS OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, April 27, 1950 Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Speaker, the Jew- ish community of Charleston, S. C., is celebrating its two hundredth anniver- sary. This is no accident. The Jewish community of this fine city is one of which we are all proud. From its very beginning it has become an integral and indispensable segment of our entire community life. ~ All people of Charleston, Christian and Jew alike, celebrate with them this day for this long and magnificent his- tory, which is signified by the splendid Jandmarks as a part of what we call America. I enclose, herewith, an editorial on this great achievement from the oldest daily newspaper in the South, our own local paper, the Charleston News and Courier under date of March 25, 1950. [From Charleston (S. C.) News and Courier of March 25, 1950] The two hundredth anniversary of the Jews of Charleston will be a celebration of more than local significance. It will be an event with meaning for more people than . the Jews of the United States, for more people than all the Jews in the world. It will carry ‘a message of universal importance, a message of tolerance, of good feeling among men, of mutual respect among peoples with different backgrounds who have lived together in this city for two centuries in peace and amity and esteem. In a time when race consciousness and dis- crimination and all the other epithets are hurled by agitators with little understanding and no sympathy, here stands an example of good will. The good will dates back at least two centuries, 16 years before the Declara- tion of Independence, when Congregation Kahal Kadosh Beth Elohim was founded. And good will lives today, not only in this same congregation, presided over by a de- scendant of one of those founders, but in other phases of life in this community. The Jews of Charleston from the begin- ning have been accepted as individual men and women. They, in turn, have not hud- died together as a close-knit group. Among them have been distinguished figures, con- tributors to the common welfare. Their stories will be told in the coming months ading up to the bicentennial program next fall. Freedom of religion, freedom from hatred have been the rule, not the exception in the history of the Jews of Charleston. This 1s the message that will be told to the world in the bicentennial at Charleston. Maiden Ferm Brassiere Co. EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. M. G. BURNSIDE OF WEST VIRGINIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, April 27, 1950 Mr. BURNSIDE. Mr. Speaker, because West Virginia will always be grateful to the Maiden Form Brassiere Co. for bringing its industry to our State, I am glad to take this opportunity to extend the congratulations of my constituents on the recent expansion undertaken by this splendid company. This company started off from a one-~ room outlay until now, I understand, it is the largest of its kind in the world, with extensive markets in over 50 coun- tries of the world. The establishment of branch factories in the cities of Hunting-~ ton, Clarksburg, and Princeton during the early forties resulted in increased commerce for each city by placing its factories in West Virginia. They wisely located close to a raw product—nylon. Nylon, one of the splendid products of West Virginia, has been one of the reasons why this com- pany has been able to develop a world- famous product. This splendid com- pany employs more than 3,000 of our fine citizens. In a distraught world like we have at this time, it is indeed one of the great- est pleasures that a Member of Congress can express when he states that this company has excellent labor relations, and I do not think they have ever had a labor dispute. This company is well known for its program of employee, hospital, medical, and surgical benefits as well as social and athletic activities. A startling statement to make at a time when we are discussing surpluses, it is indeed a pleasure to say that this business estab- lishment has never had to lay off any of its employees because of small orders. It has the remarkable record of ever ex- panding. I understand from the com- pany that its employees have been most eooperative in contributing to their splendid record. I know the employees in "Iuntingtcn make up an excellent segment of our population. It is the wish of the people of West Vir- ginia that the Maiden Form Brassiere Co, continue to prosper, expand, and share the bounties of a profitable business. A3067 The Economic Protection of Water Transportation EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. OREN HARRIS OF ARKANSAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, April 27, 1950 Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, under the leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following address by J. W. Hershey: THe Economic PrRoTEcTION oF WaTrR TRANSPORTATION (By J. W. Hershey, vice president, Butcher- Arthur Inc., Houston, Tex.) My pleasure at being honored by an invita- tion to speak before you is confined only by my hesitancy to presume for myself any eomnctorece or qualifications to shed light on rm, wria eo the benefit of an audience of such eminent and distinguished character. My temerity in essaying to do so springs from my firm belief that the importance of the topic itself may extenuate the deficiencies of the speaker. When Senator McCrerran asked me to speak, he at the same time suggested the title “The Economic Protection of Water Transportation.” From his choice of subject, I have assumed that among those present today there is a universal recognition of the fact that cheap water transportation, a right enjoyed with some interruptions since prior to the birth of the Federal Censtitution, for which this Nation went to war at least three times, and which has rightly acquired over two centuries a character of inalienability is now being menaced by forces and perils which must be confined. My remarks will be con- fined primarily to inland waters, not through any deprecatory attitude concerning harbor and coastwise shipping, but hecause whatever qualifications I have relate primarily to transportation on inland rivers and canals. To dispel any disposition to regard these perils as more imaginery than real, permit me to recall to mind an era long past during which inland water transportation in this country rose to staggering proportions, and yet within a few decades of the peak of its prosperity declined to almost nothing. From 1834 to 1849, a period of 15 years, the increase in the number of steamboats in the Mississippi River amounted to almost 400 percent, and in 1849 there were ap- proximately 1,000 steamboats plying the Mis- ssissippi-Ohio Rivers having a total tonnage. in excess of 250,000 tons. In fact, by 1842, the steamboat tonnage of the Mississippi- Ohio system had grown to exceed the entire merchant fleet tonnage of Great Britain by more than 40,000 tons and was equal to more than half of the registered tonnage in the United States. The years from 1842 to the Civil War represented the halcyon days of the river packet. During this period the steamboat tonnage of the Mississippi Valley, exclusive of New Orleans, was 15,000 tons greater than that of all the Atlantic ports. The demise of this era was brought about, as everyone knows, by the advent of the great American system of railroads which promptly seized upon the obvious weapon in order to drive steamboats off the river, of a joint, calculated program of forcing river rates below the cost of the not-too- efficient steamboat through the use of dis- proportional and discriminatory freight reductions along water-paralleling routes. There was no defense against the attack, particularly in view of the fact that the wa- terway at this period was one which was - Subject to seasonal interruptions of traffic
A3068 owing to the virtual absence of channel im- provements, systematized markings, dams, and other aids. There being lterally no lower limits to rail-rate reductions, so long as the rail carriers could levy a tax on land- locked shippers through monopolistic high rates, the long-haul river packets were quickly liquidated. The next renaissance for commercial river traffic of sizable rrovortio” originated some- what prior to 1886, ..ii:1 the increased coal mining in areas contiguous to the Alleghany and Monongahela Rivers. The towboat and barge began to evolve at this time, and prior to the close of the nineteenth century there are recorded coal tows as large as 67,000 tons. The railroads met this competition again with the establishment of low water paral- leling rates so that as a result, at the time of the First World War which made its severe challenge on American economy, the rivers were basically stagnan’, except for some short-haul operations. This emergency 50 clearly demonstrated the need for a depend- able inland waterway system that in 1920, the Congress authorized Federal Barge Line for the purpose of the development of freight transportation on the rivers and authorized the creation of a system of dams on the Ohio, At the same time that these developments were taking place, a rapidly enlarging re- quirement for tremendous movements of bulk commodities had to be met, flowing for the most part from the South and the West to the North and the East. Petroleum, ores, sulfur, and coal made up the bulk of this traffic as it does today, accounting in present times for more than 90 percent of the total inland water traffic of the Nation. Technical developments accompanied the surge of bulk commodity movement implemented by the application of the screw propeller and Diesel engine in lieu of the steam-powered side- and stern-wheeler. This review of the past brings us up to the present situation where a basically healthy inland domestic water economy has become an indispensable factor in the American way of life, contrihuting to the abundance of goods here equaled nowhere else in the world. The menacing forces which have twice in the past nearly obliterated river traffic are just as real, just as dangerous, and much better disguised today than they have been in the past. These influences take mul- tiple forms, sometimes they are difficult to recognize. Yet, the design of the attack, the tenor of the propaganda, and the specious- ness of the arguments stem from one basic source, the railroads, and their protagonists are often misguided and, unfortunately, usually misinformed completely on the sub- jects of competitive service and cost between rails and water and the mass benefits of cheap water transportation. The Congress of the United States early recognized the need for moderating and di- recting the tremendous power which the rails had to favor one shipper at another’s expense and to levy a war-fund from interior shippers to destroy water competition. The abusive use of monopolistic power by the rail carriers had not gone unnoticed, and as early as 1887, an act to regulate commerce had been passed to insure just and reasonable rate structures and to prevent discrimina- tory practices. The Interstate Commerce Commission was established to carry out these objectives. However, a series of un- favorable court decisions left the Commis- sion with little power. Its prerogatives were broadly enhanced, however, by the Hepburn Act of 1906, and the Transportation Acts of 1920 and 1940, which latter act provided spe~ cifically for the preservation of the inherent advantages of each type of transportation. Over a period of years, therefore, Congress has given the Interstate Commerce Commis-~ sion a number of mandates. Cne of these, aud probably the most basic, is that regula- tion of the different types of transportation shall be done in such a manner so as to preserve the inherent advantage of each. Another specific mandate 1s that rates of carriers shall not be less for long hauls than for short hauls. Under these mandates the river carriers have enjoyed some, though inadequate, protection. The deficiency of this protection has largely resulted from an avenue which has been left open through which the purposes of the long-haul, short- haul provision of the law has been, and 1s now being continuously frustrated. This avenue originates under the so-called fourth section provision granting the Commission the power to suspend certain of the long-haul, short- haul, and other antidiscriminatory provisions when necessary to meet water competition. The net effect of these 2¢-w*>t:i5" 1 “73 been to provide an umpire ect ten ¢ g rules of the game. There is no limitation which clearly prevents the railroads from institut- ing rates which are noncompensatory, and which in many instances, are far below their actual cost. In a recent suspension pro- ceeding involving a rail rate on the move~- ment of a bulk commodity down the Mis- sissippi River, the railroads offered testi- mony which purported to show that the proposed rate was reasonable because it re- turned the marginal fuel cost of the addi-~ tional traffic. Several questions and an- swers in this proceeding are of interest as elucidating the railroad position. Question. Let me ask you, as an expert, what is your position in view of your rail- road and other railroads appealing to this Commission for general increases that you should be permitted to reduce rates to meet private (water) carriage regardless of the consequences? Answer. Oh, yes; I testified, and I tried to emphasize, that we will, and we are rather positively assured that if this rate is not go- ing to be permitted to become effective, we are going to lose money. We have got to have traffic to make the revenue. Question. Regardless of the rate? Answer. Regardless of the rate. In other words, we have the railroads tes- tifying that they do not want to lose the traffic even though the rate might be below their actual cost. In this same case, in answer to questions under cross-examination as to whether individual items of cost had been included in determining the rate, the railway witnesses answered in the negative with respect to the following type of costs: Dispatch trains, station employees, weigh- ing, inspection and demurrage bureaus, sta- tion supplies and expenses, yard master and yard clerks, telephone and telegraph opera- tions, insurance, legal expense, overhead, and maintenance. Between January 11 and February 15 of this year alone rail carriers have attempted to reduce 15 different rates, an average of almost 3 a week, allegedly to meet inland water carrier competition. These reductions range from 20 to as much as 50 percent, and in some instances the proposed reduced rate is less than 2.5 mills per ton-mile. These reductions have been requested during pe- riods when the railroads have had general rate increase applications before the Com- mission. Between June 380, 1946, and De- cember 29, 1948, the rail carriers received seven general increases in freight rates for a cumulative total of more than 51 percent, a large portion of which must have been dis- sipated in so-called individual competitive rate reductions, During this same period the average inland water rate was reduced by no less than 20 percent, largely through greatly enhanced design of floating equipment and the use of more effective, greater horsepower Diesel engines. Certainly, the comparison suggests that some of the ills of the railroads which they would attribute to unfair water transportation might be cured by a dose of better management. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD No quicker or positive death sentence can be imposed on water transportation than to permit rail carriers to haul at less than cost commodities available for water traffic. The inherent advantage of water transportation can in this fashion be utterly destroyed by one Government agency, thereby rendering unproductive the taxpayers’ own Capital in- vestment of over $2,000,000,000 committed to the Nation’s inland marine system. The Government should not for the sake of any one agency of transportation invent and apply to its competitors either regulation or burden on the theory of handicapping all in the race. In my opinion, and I believe there is a growing sentiment supporting it, some im- mediate remedial legislation is necessary which will limit the right of the Interstate Commerce Commiussion to grant so-called fourth-section relief, as well as to permit rates of any carriers, under any circum- stances, which do not yield a fair rate on a pasis of atcounting whereby each unit of traffic bears its proper share of the over-all sum of the total-cost factors. It is not my purpose to discuss a formula but an alterna- tive principle might also be included which would limit the rate so that it could be no lower than a reasonable percentage of the average ton-mile revenue of the carrier allocated to hauls and commodities of simi- Jar character. Not to admit such a prin. ciple is in effect to deny any relationship between cost of service and justness of the rate. It is my belief that therein lies a n.ccssary course if the domestic water transportation industry is to achieve stabil- ity and security to a degree where it will never be found wanting in time of emer- gency. It is well for us to direct our attention to some of the charges which have been directed against the water carricrs by its competition, Leading the list of the various types of in- vective constantly thrown at the watoer car- riers is the hue and cry about subsidy. It is to be hoped that tho various spokesmen and associations for the water industry will soon pulvisy iukKe steps to rebut statis- tically isc .:.;. of unfair advantage. The billions ci aulic of real-estate value which have been granted to the railroads by Federal and local governments would far outweigh that portion of the Government expenditure on waterways which can properly be allo- cated to navigation. It is well known that many of the western and southwestern railroads have in past years derived more yrofit from the return of minerals alone, in- herited by the railroads through land grants, than treir net income from traffic. Certain tax immunities of the railroads should be studied and the facts brought to the atten- tion of those who are now bombarded by the charges against whick water carriers must defend themselves. The mail con- tracts would be a further fitting subject for reztearch. The :mount of actual traffic per- formed under very advantageous tariffs for the Government itself would be of more than casual interest. The unfairness and distortions in many of these charges is illustrated by a railroad- sponsored statement which appeared this month in one of the leading business maga- zines whose circulation is claimed to he primarily among business executives, com- plaining at the wasteful expenditure of Fed- eral funds for navigation una cis that it cost TVA about 3.45 cents per ton-mile to provide free navigation facilities from 1934 to 1937 while the rail freight rate during that time was about 1 cent per ton-mile. Let us examine this statement. In the first in- stance, it should be patent to the dullest elementary-school student that money spent to open up a new waterwny cannot possibly result in an immediate surge of traffic in the period immediately following its inception as a usable channel. Factories will and are
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD being built, the flow of commodities is be- ing changed. New terminals are being erected and broad-scale studies of industry are being made which would never have been contemplated were it not for the fact that the inland channel has become a reality. It would be necessary, if the problem were to be approached in this vein, to take a period of at least 25 years following opening of a new waterway in order to count its cost in terms of ton-miles. It is also interesting to observe in this instance that the sharp-~ shooting has been directed at the TVA, a project completely unique and dissimilar to all other waterways since it was created by a specifically appointed regional authority whereas customarily waterway projects are planned, authorized, and constructed project by project by the United States Army engi- neers and the Congress of the United States. I have been closely connected for many years with projects which I have felt would be of benefit to shippers, communities, and, to be frank, my own business; and it has been just as dificult to obtain appropria- tions of Government funds for a specific project as to make the necessary showing to finance a private project through bankers and investment companies. Attention to the economics and the rate of amortization of Government investment in water projects on the part of the Army engineers, Bureau of the Budget, and the legislative branches of the Government has been at all times ex- tremely pointed and rigorous. Another charge which has recently ap- peared publicly is that there is no justifica- tion for expenditure of public funds for im- proving and maintaining waterways on the pasis of national defense because during World War II traffic on the inland water- ways proved incapable of expansion at a time when needed. The truth about this situation is that from 1989 to 1944, this latter year being the peak year for war-stimulated traffic, the burden of the Ohio River in ton- miles increased 106 percent, the Mississippi 102 percent, and the Gulf intracoastal waterway 436 percent. This record is all the more remarkable because the increases came at a timc when the river transportation in- dustry was operating at a very high-load factor and, unlike the railroads, there was not the opportunity of expanding operations through the introduction into use of a large amount of equipment theretofore idle. Another claim recurringly directed to thse domestic water industry is that the benefits of the systern accrue solely to a few large shippers. The rebuttal of this argument need not be labored at great length as it is perfectly apparent that when basic materials such as oil, steel, iron, ore, limestone, and coal move in quantities measured in billions of ton-miles on inland waterways, there is not a man, woman, or child in the confines of the United States who is not benefited by the Nation’s inland waterway system through the medium of lower costs for what he or she purchases. However, to the corollary charge that there are no privately owned barge lines given full common carrier service on the inland water- ways, the barge line operators must look long and hard at what their just responsibili- ties are to the public whom they are charged with serving with the Government a partic~- ipant in their right-of-ways. It is true that well over 95 percent of all the traffic which moves on the inland waterway sys- tem moves in quantities of greater than 500 tons per unit. It is also true that there is a genuine need for the distribution of the benefits of cheap water transportation among the shippers of quantities at least in the carload category. Efforts are being made at this time by certain inland waterway carriers to broaden the scope of their opera- tions as. well as their operating authority so as to offer,to the public a carload barge service with considerable improvement in XCVI—App.——184 technique as compared with the conven-~ tional multiple handling, single package methods. It is to be expected that industry will recognize the need for this type of service and that the various regulatory authorities will go to whatever end is neces- sary to liberalize the granting of sufficiently broad operating authority so that those car- riers who are willing and able to undertake to extend their service so as to include thousands of smaller shippers may have the proper assistance in doing so. It is not to be expected that water car- riers would rush headlong into the carload and less-than-carload business with the ever-present menace of noncompensatory rail rate reductions, when these same carriers have as yet no adequate protection as to rate structures on barge-load traffic in which by every dictate of good business judgment they should be secure because of the large dif- ference in the cost of rendering the service, In summary, then, there is a challenge which must be boldly met. It will not suffice to meet it simply through a greater degree or amount of regulation. True, the loop-~ hole in the long- and short-haul provisions must be plugged. Yet this will not in itself assure to the inland vater industry health or security. The industry itself must broaden and diversify both the type of cargo carried, and the classes of shippers which it serves. When the citizens begin to consider the great waterways as their own, they can be stirred to defend it. When the smali-store owner and jobber and the little manufacturer use it, they will not so easily fall victim to the extravagant publicity of the forces opposing water traffic. It is high time, too, that the shipper from Chicago to Denver be invited to inquire why he should subsidize his neighbor in St. Louis shipping to New Orleans by rail. With a minimum of enlightened regula- tion, the continuation of the Corps of Engi- neers’ use of a conservative economic yard- stick, and the acceptance of that measure by the legislatures, the privately owned water carriers can extend the copious boun- ties of the Nation’s inland channels to new communities and can distribute their bene- fits to multitudes still deprived of this great resource. Secretary Chapman’s Address to Ameri- can Zionist Council Celebration - of Israel’s Anniversary EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. SIDNEY R. YATES OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, April 27, 1950 Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday ‘April 23, 1950, at a gathering sponsored by the American Zionist Council at the Hotel Astor in New York City, a huge throng of people joined together to cele- brate the second anniversary of the dec-~ laration of independence of the State of Israel. The principal speaker of the evening, Secretary of the Interior Oscar L. Chapman, delivered a most stirring address, one which will do much to make even stronger the firm bonds of friend- ship between our Nation and the new State. Hon. Eliahu Elath, Israeli Ambassador to the United States, also participated in the proceedings, and in a moving state- ment, acknowledged the close and A3069 friendly relationship between Israel and the United States. Mr. Louis Lipsky, president of the American Zionist Council, presided over the occasion and contributed greatly in making the event an outstanding suc- cess. Mr. Speaker, I take pride in presenting the address of Secretary Chapman to the membership of this House: ADDRESS BY SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR OSCAR L. CHAPMAN AT THE SECOND ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION OF THE DECLARATION oF INDE- PENDENCE OF THE Strate oF ISRAEL, UNDER THE AUSPICZS OF THE AMERICAN ZIONIST Councin, NEw Yorxw City, Aprit 23, 1950 Iam happy for the opportunity to be with you on this historic and moving occasion. It is an honor tv be your guest at this second anniversary celebration of the declaration of independence of the State of Israel. A declaration of independence has a rich and revered meaning to the people of Amer- ica. The story of the founding of a demo- cratic government for free men is one we all understand, and it is a story that never fails to warm our hearts and stir a great pride within us. For we too once established a new Nation, and we have seen the promise of democracy fulfilled. It is not given to many people or to many generations to see a new nation rise. Israel stands as a new symbol of people’s deter- mination to exercise their rights to freedom in a world where attempts to shackle men’s spirits through ruthless repression and hard- ship grow increasingly bolder. Those cou~ rageous and high-minded people who created this new democracy during a period of vast social. change, have taken the lead in the establishment of a nation wherein the rights of the individual and the dignity of man are supreme goals. The new nation, Israel, has turned on the light of democracy in the Middle East, and free men and women are growing strong in its rays. President Truman has followed closely the achievements of Israel in the fulfillment of democracy for its people, and he is deeply interested in its progress. He understands the problems which the founders of the new nation have encountered and I know he feels @ great satisfaction for the substantial ac- complishments Israel has made during the last 2 years. He regrets that it is impossible for him to bring his greetings to this celebra- tion in person. He has directed me to de- liver his cordial good wishes for the con- tinued growth and well-being of this new democracy as it strengthens the cause of brotherhood and peace. The birth of Israel is a bright chapter in the history of mankind. The war for its independence was not won by superior mili- tary might alone. The people of this new nation won their independence by superior moral force. They won because they were fighting for the thing that is dearest to men—freedom. Battling against tremen- dous odds, they gained the sympathy of the world because they were fighting for a cause that was right in the eyes of the world. Israel’s struggle was for the right to dwell in peace, for the right to live amicably with its neighbors, and for the right to achieve prosperity and security for its people. The first Jewish state in 2,000 years was fighting for the right to open its doors to those who wanted to come, to put into prac- tice that everlasting Jewish belief that no man in need should be turned away from the door. The moral forces that supported the la- bors of those who brought Israel into being are continuing to strengthen the people in their many works of progress as a nation, The doors have indeed been opened wide. Since the birth of Isracl on May 14, 1948,
A3070 the new state has welcomed a great inpour- ing of persons from all over the world. These are the children and the men and the women who were homeless, or broken, or in danger. Israel has received them, and is rebuilding their strength and their self-respect. In so doing, it builds its own strength, and its re- spect among the nations steadily increases. The American Zionist Council, and the or- ganizations which it comprises, have demon~= strated the finest type of vision and leader- ship in their work to assist the development of Palestine and the creation of Israel. You have given of your knowledge of modern techniques in area development, and you have provided generously capital necessary for economic functioning of communities, agriculture, and industiy. You have helped with the education of children, and with the establishment of health facilities. I am sure that we all acknowledge freely, however, on this second anniversary of Is= rael’s independence, that the highest tribute is rightly rendered to those citizens of Israel who have identified their daily living with the difficult problems of that area which is now their nation. The people of Israel, in- cluding those who have migrated to it, have made astonishing contributions. Their ini- tial capital investments have become capi~ tal producing enterprises, and their progress in agriculture, industry, health, and sani- tation has been highly gratifying. The people of Israel have applied modern methods of irrigation to unproductive land, and have made it arable. Modern machines and technology have created a diversified in- dustry where no modern industry existed before, The institutions already established in this new land are the institutions of a democratic people. Because this is true, the citizens of America are attached to Israel with a close bond. Israel has indeed joined the honor- able group of nations in which the lives and the security of men and women are the fore~ most goal. Like those nations, Israel yearns for an unbroken peace as it plans the years of its future. Like our own people, its peo- ple seek only an uninterrupted opportunity to develop their land, to insure their well- being for the coming generations. The bonds that link the people of the United States and the people of Israel are strong also because of similar social and political manifestations at work during the birth-periods of the two nations. The Decla- ration of America’s Independence, and the establishment of our Nation, occurred during an eighteenth century period of social change marked by popular unrest over institutional patterns sprung from a bygone era of lords and monarchs. The people of the United States were the first to proclaim the new lib- eralism, to fight for their freedom, and to embrace the new democracy, For many decades the other countries watched our progress with considerable misgiving. Israel is the symbol which has emerged from the vast social unrest which is being felt throughout the world following the up- heaval of two great wars. The older pat- terns of imperialism and national paternal- ism are being challenged widely in the middle of this fast-moving century of great techni- cal advances, as people sense their ability to provide their own leadership in the devel- opment of their society and their economy in the modern world. It was on this subject of social change and the increasing recognition of human rights that Secretary-General Trygve Lie spoke with. such clarity in his address in Washington in March. In referring to the signing of the Charter of the United Nations in 1945, he said: “* * * quring that brief span of 5 years the words of the United Nations Charter on human rights and freedoms for Individuals and on equal rights and self- determination for nations have been proved by events to reflect more accurately the most fundamental forces actually at work in the world than any of the slogans of the cold war.” He reminded us that, since the signing of the Charter, these countries have gained their independence: the Philippines, India, Pakistan, Burma, Ceylon, Jordan, Israel, Nepal, and the United States of Indonesia. He emphasized his conviction that “the rise of the dependent peoples, and the human rights movement will, in the long run, have far more significance and give rise to greater events in the second half of the twentieth century than will the present ideological struggle.” In facing this challenge of social change, the choice of the people of Israel, their minds still seared by the sufferings of their core- ligionists in other nations, has not been the choice of vengeance and tyranny. It will be an everlasting tribute to the nobility of man- kind that Israel chose democracy and the equality of men as the way of life for all of its people. The United States Government was proud to recognize this new democracy on the day of its establishment. The United Nations accepted Israel’s membership before a year had passed. On this second anniversary, it seems to me that, among the problems of the future with which Israel must deal, there are two which overshadow all others, The first of these relates to Israel’s con- tinued internal development in the years ahead. The opening of the doors to those who wanted to come out of oppression and homelessness has moved the emotions of the world. To Israel it has brought vast problems of practical living, problems which that small nation has made amazing progress in solving. Much remains, however, to be done, The people of America know of Israel’s need for housing, for farm equipment and supplies, for the materials of sanitation, for school buildings, and for industrial equip- ment. We have given some assistance in helping to deal with these needs, From the late 1880’s until the creation of the new nation, 300 farm settlements were begun in the Holy Land. From May 14, 1948, to the beginning of 1950, 174 new settlements have sprung up from Galilee to the Negeb, from Dan through Beersheba south to Elath. Many of these settlements were started with farm machinery bought in the United States through a loan of $100,000,000 from this country. Israel has demonstrated the practical uses in improving the lives of people to which loans from this Nation have been applied. I should like to see the United States grant another loan to continue the great work of reclaiming Israel’s desert, and to make it possible for Israel to receive new immigrants, providing them with homes and jobs and security in the future. The continuing progress of this new de- mocracy will be largely dependent upon water, and the United States Department of the Interior has accumulated much experi- ence in reclaiming arid lands. The informa- tion we have gained in such areas as the Southwest which is climatically similar to Israel and in such developments as the Mis- sourl River Valley and the Central Valley of California will unquestionably be of great service to technicians in Israel. The Depart- ment has engaged in discussions with some of these technicians on new advances in our knowledge of reclamation, and the Depart- ment’s engineers have visited Israel to study the possibilities of river development on the Jordan, some even before the advent of the state. » These discussions have been helpful to the department I represent, and their benefits have been mutual to the two countries. For example, we .are studying with interest a process being worked om by a member of the APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD faculty of the Haifa Institute of Technology for more effective utilization of the morning dew in crop production. It is my hope that we shall be able to send more American scientists and technicians to Israel in the coming years. Our National House of Representatives on March 31 took a step important to our Na- tion and to the world when it passed a bill to implement the President’s point 4 pro- gram for assisting underdeveloped world areas. In the President’s own words, this program is designed “for making the benefits of our scientific advances and industrial progress available for the improvement and growth of underdeveloped areas. * * *” It will lend technical assistance from this Nation to the free peoples of the world in their efforts to produce more food, more clothing, more materials for housing, and more mechanical power to lighten their bur- dens. This plan for the progressive development of peoples in the way of democracy offers bright promise. Israel has already moved forward in the spirit in which the point 4 program is conceived. The expansion of production in underde- veloped areas, as in Israel, will go hand-in- hand with the development of new and ex- panding markets in world commerce, and the creation of these new markets will bene- fit this Nation. For us, it will mean also new sources of the raw materials on which our economy depends. Further, it will narrow the economic gap which exists between the United States and the rest of the nations of the world, and it will help to eliminate the high degree of economic imbalance which re- tards the growth of democracy and impedes international harmony. The people of Israel have found out what kind of technical assistance and capital in- vestment envisioned in the point 4 program can mean in building a stronger democracy, and we in the United States have seen, in Israel, the benefits in the stability of inter- national relations that derive from this kind of cooperative economic effort. The second great problem for Israel is the overshadowing problem confronting all man-~ kind—the maintenance of peace in the world. It is given to us to be standing tonight in one of the strongest currents of social change in the world’s history. The peoples of the world who yearn for life and security are scrutinizing those political institutions and social patterns which have long been tradi- tional with them. They are inquiring, with increasing comprehension, whether those in- stitutions and patterns can continue to pro- vide stability and peace. They are making decisions which carry tremendous signifi- cance for us all. Israel is an evidence of this new search, even as are Indonesia and India. Some of these decisions made by other nations ure applauded by the people of America because they guide men and women toward the way of democracy. Others are hateful to us be- cause they lead people backward to enslave- ment, cruelty, and hopelessness. Because of this world-wide social stirring, citizens of the United States themselves are today called upon for decisions more grave than any in our history. As the forees of decency and freedom contend with those who would draw men and women into servitude and degradation, our decisions cannot he postponed. It will avail us nothing to stand in fear or writhe in confusion as we witness social and political changes, and vacillate in our de- cisions, for in so doing we mistakenly cause some of the world’s peoples to think erro- neously that democracy is weak and that its citizens are torn by dissension and con- flict. We know that this is not so, but we shall have to decide whether others in the world are going to witness in our Nation the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD strength and promise of a united democracy which 1s vital in the lives of men wherever its rcots are allowed to grow. We have joined in the Council of Nations because we have learned that the causes of war will never be obliterated by nations act- ing alone, and because we are sickened by the waste of lives and resources that war has required. We have supported strongly the United Nations, and we know that organi- zation has woven a fabric of international order and rightness which will not easily be torn apart. As a people, we have gone further. We have determined that nations ravaged by war shall prosper again, and we have offered gladly of our abundant posses- sions that they might do so. But the struggle to ally this Nation with the forces of world decency and order still depends upon the continuing decisions of the people. There are still those among us who would have us remain aloof from the world’s problems, or participate in the world’s councils only when it would mean immediate profit to ourselves. Lately they have been speaking more loudly and more boldly. Do these men and women not realize that, with- out world security, there can be no security for our Nation? And that world security will never be achieved unless we help to achieve it? The people of Israel know that terror and sufcrirg cam never be erased from the earth ur css Eevions act in ecocert to bring such a thing o pass. The American people know it, and the .sntegrity and soundness of their past decision must not be made question- able by men of little faith, or by those who move from motives of ignorance or profit. It was at the dedicatiun of a cemetery for the dead of the Marine Corps on Iwo Jima that Chaplain Roland Gittlesohn delivered a short and moving sermon that will live forever in the hearts of those who abhor war. This noble speech gave us this warn- ing: ‘We shall not suppose, as did the last generation of America’s fighting men, that the victory on the battlefield will automati- cally guarantee the triumph of democracy at home * * * when the last battle has peen 1.671 there will be those at home, as there were last time, who will want us to turn our pack in selfish isolation on the rest of or- ganized humanity and thus to sabotage the very peace for which we fight. We promise you who lie here to build the kind of world for which you died.” The prophetic werds of Roland Gittle- sohn have confe true too quickly. Strange as it may seem to thoughtful men, the rav- ages of total war are easily forgotten, and the terrible fate of men‘in a war of atom and hydrogen bombs is like some nightmare which we hope never to experience. Once again we hear the voicrs c* nvotest over the cost of assisting other :..719n + 1.4 the smug conclusion that the world is too big for America to really save. And once again we are urgently cautioned by myopic men, who forget the cost of war and the cost of a huge military machine, that our small help to nations seeking peace and security will bankrupt us all, Do they sincerely believe that we can save ourselves, while the world explodes around us? Once before in our history we had the opportunity which confronts us now. How tragic it was for the world that an effective League of Nations for which President Wil- son crusaded was not established after the First World War. Equally tragic it would be if a second great world war failed to convince the world that the Wilsonian dream of international cooperation is the only route to permanent peace. To the people of Israel, living in the cradle of civilization, I can give this mes- sage. The United States Government con- gratulates you on your achievements in the cause of democracy. We shall stand firm in cur dete:mination to strengthen the path- ways of collaboration among nations for the maintenance of a peace that will let you, and other countries, and ourselves, grow and Prosper. For Israel and her neighboring na- tions, there must not be a second round of warfare. The moral forces of this Nation must be directed to the outlawing of such a possible conflict before it starts. israel is bringing democracy to the Middle East. For the first time in the history of that area, women go to the polls. Arab women, some of them still veiled, vote for Arab representatives who sit in the Israel Knesset. In that highly democratic body, surrounded by lands in which women have ovr beam +g attain rights, women repre- serra Ty ect to make the laws of the land. tne pecple of Israel, and the people of America, will not share in the ideas of those who believe that the life of majorities may best be advanced by sacrificing the basic rights of minority groups. Ignorance, fear, hatred, and intolerance are the tools of those who would undermine democracy for the to- talitarian state, either of the right or the left and who would establish a philosophy directly contrary to our way of life. If democracy is to live, its privileges must extend to all citizens. It is from the sharing of these rights that its strength is derived. We must make democracy shine as a living thing in the eyes of men and women every- where. We in this Nation shall not allow confusion to slow our footsteps, or momen- tary political divisiveness to benumb our spirits. Like Israel, we shall go on building the security and well-being of our citizens, and, as we did for the triumph of war, we shall contribute of our minds and bodies for the cause of peace. It is interesting, as it is timeless and timely, that the day-by-day greeting in Israelis “Shalom.” It is a constant reminder of the goal of nations. The moral strength that built Israel is the kind of moral strength that the nations will require to banish war from the face of the earth. Let us stand to- gether in this battle for peace. Agriculture Conservation Program EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. JAMES W. TRIMBLE OF ARKANSAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, April 27, 1950 Mr. TRIMBLE. Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest conservation jobs now be-~ ing carried on is that of crop rotation as practiced by the agriculture conserva- tion program of the Production and Marketing Administration, A fine ex- ample of the work being done is a re- port for 1949 of the Madison County, Ark., group headed by George W. Reeves, ably assisted by James M. Parker, Dewey Harris, Artsil Hunter, Veda Tassey, and Grace Bunch. Under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I wish to insert that report. ANNUAL REPORT, 1949, PRODUCTION AND MAR- KETING ADMINISTRATION, MADISON COUNTY, ARK. INTRODUCTION AND ORGANIZATION OF PWA The Production and Marketing Adminis- tration is a Government conservation pro- gram administered on the county level by democratically elected farmers. These farmers are elected in each community each year to work with the county committee, who are elected each year by a delegation of farmers, who are elected by all farmers in A3071 the community to serve in this capacity and incidentally all of the delegates in our county are chairmen of the various com- munity committees. These men (all farmers) are directly re- sponsible for the program and administra- tion of the PMA in Madison County: COMMUNITY COMMITTEEMEN Roy Vanhook, Clifty, Ark.; Fred Todd, Clifty, Ark.; Joe Worley, Eureka Springs, Ark.; Frank T. Hudson, Huntsville, Ark.; Bailie Wiggins, Alabam, Ark.; Ted Slavens, Huntsville, Ark.; Frank Dillahunty, Hunts- ville, Ark. Paul Flanagan, Fayetteville, Ark; Paul Stanphill, Hindsville, Ark; T. T. Counts, Drakes Creek, Ark.; E. B. Shofner, Wesley, Ark.; Alfred Bell, Wesley, Ark.; Jason Jones, Huntsville, Ark.; W. A. Little, Kings- ton, Ark.; Henry Bryant, Boston, Ark.; Joe Myers, St. Paul, Ark.; L. O. Combs, Combs, Ark; W. L. Gabbard, Crosses, Ark.; Bruce Rogers, Japton, Ark.; Hugh Stroud, Aurora, Ark.; O. A. Sanders, Witter, Ark. COUNTY COMMITTEE James M Parker, chairman; Dewey Harris, vice chairman; Artsil Hunter, regular mem- ber; George W. Reeves, county administra- tive officer; Veda Tassey, chief clerk; Grace Bunch, clerk. It took the combined efforts of all persons whose name appears above plus the help of approximately 1,300 other farmers to accom- plish the results shown in the remainder of this report. JAMES M. PARKER, Dewey Harris, ARTSIL HUNTER, Members Madison County PMA Committee. News wf retice oe 4 poet of Practices ree) soe Extent | “value Avmteiva 99 meerent cor cenhee. pcre oo - wb teas $21, 495 sore ‘ 1 “yas , te ee 649 Applying ground limestone (27) . tons... 640 1,312 Cantroviegs weeds 4a nerrraren* Parc Pu pow nig (720) eres 9, 933 4, 966 Tstao ns ies perce iens prstare hy cod Fig Bote da press (9, acres__ 130 780 Establishing and improving per- manent pasture by seeding: Kentucky 31 fescue (18) pounds... 377 188 Barman prone (2) waa, - 37 18 ui ! moe » - 7232 370 Oro taar os) 63, 174 12, 639 sf i “ 5, 300 318 Ry ms - eee ' - 2, £36 380 Crtonnae aVperem 1ON ~-d0...- 90 13 ' oO (28) do... 505 252 Lespedeza (annual) (747) ----| 160, 631 12, 802 Contour farming intertilled row erops (15)--.------------- acres... 124 67 Summer cover crops (182) pounds..} 38, 920 2,612 Winter cover crops (29)..... do... 3, 540 431 Terraces (3)_..--.--.-.------- feet... 3, 280 39 Constructmg ponds for stock water (21)_.----.-------- yards..| 27, 343 2, 1&7 Developmg springs for stock water (10)-.--..--.-.------ feet.. 699 349 Cover ofsmall grains (42)-pounds_.| 20, 407 409 Cover of ryegrass (6)--.._--- di 630 38 Harvesting legume or (80).-------.------------- 206 515 oa steely pots wrens ey -tructed on farms in Madison co * 2 woe Poem or tor ts the county in 1949. AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM, 1949 PARTICIPATION baad Number of farms in the county..---- 2, 865 Number of farms participating in the 1949 ACP. -.-..----.------------- 1,321 Percent of participation... .-----. ~< 46 AcP FUNDS County allocation.___-.--_-~------ $53, 141 Total amount earned____._--.-_--~ 62, 820 OPJECTIVES OF THE ACP The agriculture conservation program is designed to assist farmers in conserving the
A3072 soil through grants of certain conservation materials and cash payments for carrying out approved practices on their farms. The reason for these payments by the Govern- ment is to assure the public; business people, laborers, and white collar workers, as well as farmers, the standard of living that they may hope to have in this generation and generations to come. This can only be accomplished by main- taining and improving the fertility of our soll and this is the reason that we feel it is the responsibility of all people in all walks of life to help reach these objectives by lend- ing their moral support with the assistance py the Government, since we all know that our soil is the bases of our economy from the smallest farm to the greatest nation. We as a committee of farmers believe that the purpose of the ACP is sound and that we are slowly but steadily moving forward in our combined efforts to reach the goal of ACP which is reflected in this report of participation in, and accomplishments of Madison County PMA. 1949 PMA PERSONNEL, COUNTY COMMITTEE James M, Parker, chairman; Dewey Harris, vice chairman; Artsil Hunter, regular mem- ber; Paul Flanagan, first alternate; Ted Slavens, second alternate. COUNTY OFFICE PERSONNEL George W. Reeves, county administrative officer; Veda Tassey, chief clerk; Grace Bunch, clerk. 1949 FINANCIAL REPORT OF ADMINISTRATIVE FUNDS County committee__.-..---.--. $1, 393. 00 Community committee_...-... 2,976. 50 County office employees... =e 6, 747, 42 Field officer........... 7 30.00 Travel expenses - 257.67 Office overhead. a 570. 83 Total expenses......--.-- 11, 975. 42 PROGRESS OF PMA AGRICULTURE CONSERVATION IN MADISON COUNTY, 1942-49 Farmers of Madison County have gone a long way in the past 8 years toward getting their farms up to a standard of production, that they should have in order to provide a desirable standard of living, by cooperating with the agriculture conservation program in the county, in developing more and better pastures by seeding adapted pasture grasses and legumes, using phosphate, lime, and other essential minerals recommended by PMA (AAA) where a part of the cost of ma- terial and seed was paid by the Government, usually about 25 to 50 percent of cost of the practice. The remainder being paid by the farmer. The same is also true in the development of meadows by proper fertilization and ero- sion-control methods, use of better selection of adapted meadow grass seed, a part of which was paid by the Government. For instance, in 1942 farmers sold approximately 4,745,000 pounds of milk, in 1949 they sold approximately 18,250,000 pounds of milk, or an average annual increase of 1,688,125 pounds. At $3.50 per hundredweight average price paid for whole milk over the past 8 years, would show an average net increase of $59,- 483.50. The production and sale of beef cattle has incregsed in number—40 percent from 1942~ 49, or from 16,000 head in 1942 tot 22,400 in 1949. By valuing the increase at $100 per head, which is very conservative, would show @ net increase per year of $80,000. Crop production per acre shows a 50-per= cent increase over the 8-year period 1942— 49. However, we also show a decrease of 30 percent of land being planted to row crops over this 8-year period. The decrease in acres planted to row crops is due to the trend of farming practices changing from row crop farming to livestock, and we con- tribute the per acre increase yield to a better plan of crop rotation and carrying out of soil-conservation practices. Banks of Madison County show an aver-~- age increace of deposits by farmers of $125,- 000 per year. It is the opinion of different businessmen in the county that at least 35 percent of all increase production and income is directly due to the PMA program in the county through the use of funds appropriated by the Cir~re-z te «sist farmers in developing the wre ¢ 7: e:-¢ of living and to strength- en the Nation’s economy by “rectieim~ suffi- cient food and fibers to feed :. 1 ¢” te the people of the world. All practices carried out on farms reported in Madison County and the assistance paid by the Government through the PMA is shown in this report. The following table shows the average annual increase in livestock and livestock products over an 8-year period 1942-49 and the cash value of the increase production which is chiefly due to practice payments to cooperating farmers through the PMA. Increased production 1942-49-—assistance by Government—average annual increases, value of increases, and final results Dairy Sheep _ Beef Bank Year produc cattle Hogs 2d. deposits Pounds 1942...) 4,745, 000 | 16,000 | 1,500 500 | $600, 000 1943.__| 6,674, 282 | 16, 891 ” 1 8, 603, 564 | 17,782} 2,600 10, 582, 846 | 18, 675 3, 000 12, 462,128 | 19,566 | 3, 500 14, 301, 414 | 20,457 | 4,000 16, 320, 696 | 21,348 | 4,500 18, 250, 000 | 22,400 | 5,000 Percent Vol tla ‘ of in- alue o: overn- Year Value of in- crease | increase | ment as- uc | due PMA | sistance PMA Ce a a ee $31, 483, 00 1943.20. $172, 739. 28 35 | $60, 458.75 | 47, G01. 00 1044.2. 172, 739, 28 35 | 60,458.75 | 75, 806.00 1045... 172, 739. 28 35 60, 458.75 | 46, 154. 00 1946... 172, 739, 28 35 | 60,458 75 | 58, 737, 29 1947.02. 172, 739, 28 35 | GO, 458.75 | 78, 625. 62 1048__.22 172, 739. 28 35 60, 458,75 } 28, 287.00 1049... 172, 739. 28 35 60, 458. 75 62, 826. 00 Total_| 1, 209, 174. 96 85 | 483, 670, 00 | 419, 784, 24 Basing-Point Bill, S. 1008, Threat to In- dependent Truckers—Railroads Pro- pose Rate Slash To Meet Trucking Competition—Trucking Operations in Steel and Cement Increasing Rapidly— S. 1008 Would Again Lash Basic Com- modities to Rails—Opposition of Amer- ican Trucking Associations, Inc., to S. 1008 EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. WRIGHT PATMAN OF TEXAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, April 27, 1950 Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Speaker, the New York Journal of Commerce for April 19, 1950, carries the headline “Truckers set to fight if rails cut steel rate.” If the basing-point bill, S. 1008, is enacted into Jaw, it is my belief that there will be little APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD for the truckers to fight about. Truck and water transportation has come into its own since the outlawing of the basing- point system by the Supreme Court in its decision in the Cement case on April 26, 1948. Since that time, the Federal Trade Commission has brought at least two ac- tions against cement companies for mak- ing price differentials for truck delivery from cement mills. Since the Cement decision, the consumer has had a break through enjoyment of lower transporta- tion costs on our heavy, basic commodi- ties by the use of water and truck trans- portation. Because the artificial basing. point system was not in effect, the sav- ings in water and truck transportation have been to the consumer. The steel and cement trust in particular, because of the Cement decision, have been unable to pocket millions of dollars of phantom freight by charging the all-rail freight to destination when shipments were made by water or truck transportation. HECTIC TARIFF WAR PREDICTED The Journal of Commerce article goes on to say: “Highway truckers warned of a rate war ‘of tremendous proportions’ with eastern railroads today as a rail- road spokesman called for tighter Gov- ernment regulation of trucking opera- tions. The intensity of competition be- tween the two groups showed up at sep- arate hearings before the Interstate Commerce Commission and a subcom- mittee of the Senate Committee on the Interstate Commerce Commission” (Sen- ate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce). TRUCKERS WILL BE ELIMINATED IN STEEL HAULAGE IF S. 1008 PASSES The “rate war threatened” will be meaningless if the basing-point bill is enacted into law. There will be no neces- sity for railroads to cut rates on iron and steel 25 percent, or any other percentage. There will be no need for the Associa- tion of Highway Steel Transporters to worry about an increase in trucking rates, should S. 1008 become law. If S. 1008 does by any means become law, the rail rate from mill to destination would henceforth apply to steel shipments, just as it did prior to the Cement decision in April 1948. Any trucking of steel from the mill which would take place in the future would be for the direct benefit of the steel trust and not for the benefit of either the trucker or the consumer of steel. These facts on the basing-point system would also apply to water trans- portation. The record shows that in the Tennessee Valley area shipments of steel by water have gone from a mere 1,000 tons annually to more than 50,000 tons, with a direct saving to the consumer of more than $500,000. TRUCKERS HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE EFFECTS OF S. 1008 AND THE BASING-POINT SYSTEM When small-business organizations were unable to secure a hearing on the basing-point bill, the House Small Busi- ness Committee held hearings on Small Business Objections to Basing-Point Legislation, particularly S, 1008. These hearings were not extensive and were not as exhaustive as had been planned, be- cause the O’Mahoney bill was brought to the floor of the House, after clearance
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD with the Rules Committeee, almost im- mediately after the hearings of the Small Business Committee pegan. During those hearings, however, the committee heard Edgar 8. Idol, general counsel of the American Trucking Associations, Inc., who pointed out in his testimony the fact that cement mills refused to permit de- livery by truck and that, even on hauls much to the advantage of the consumer, the cement trust forced shipment by rail. Is it any wonder that the lobbyists for the railroads, for the Cement Trust, for the Steel Trust, and for many other mo- nopolies in this country are tramping through the Halls of Congress. Pitted against this array of money, small busi- ness has been fighting for its very life. Small business has fought a good fight to preserve and strengthen the antitrust laws. Small business has fought for the enforcement of the antitrust laws, and I believe the 300,000 or more independent truckers in the United States represent a type of business which should be protect- ed as well as any other small business. NOW IS THE TIME FOR THE SMALL, INDEPENDENT TRUCKER TO AGAIN PROTECT HIMSELF BY OP~ POSING PASSAGE OF S. 1008 Evidently the trucking industry, as the Journal of Commerce tells us, is in a po~ sition to fight a rate war of tremendous proportions. The fact that the trucking industry is willing and ready to fight the money-controlled management group running the eastern railroads is indica~ tive of the value of steel haulage to the trucking industry; but, as pointed out above, it seems to me any fight would have been in vain if all steel shipments are again predicated on rail freight rates. If steel shipments are all based on rail freight rates, would there be any reason why the railroads would desire to cut freight rates to meet truck competition in the handling and hauling of steel? If the rail rate had to apply on all ship-~ ments from the mill to destinaticn, re~ gardless of method of transportation, what difference would it make to the con~ sumer how the steel was hauled? In fact, under the basing-point system, which S. 1008 will revive, ths shipper calls the shots, regardless of the method of transportation. Strings of barges loaded with many thousands of tons of steel will float down the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers from Pittsburgh and will unload at various vantage points, with all the benefit of water transportation accruing to the steel mill. The consumer will get none of it. The contract water carrier will get no advantage from such shipments. The same is true of heavy movements from the mill by truck under the basing- point system. The rail rate will prevail so that the trucker, if he gets any busi- ness at all, will handle shipments at a price the steel trust is willing to pay, It will make little difference to the consum- er, in most instances, whether shipments of steel from the mill are by rail or truck, because the consumer will pay the same freight charges, namely, the all-rail rate, in either event. I sincerely hope that, before it is too Jate, the 300,000 independent truckers, most of whom are small-business men, will again make their voices heard in op- position to S. 1008, the basing-point bill, the antitrust-law-destroying bill, the bill which emasculates the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Clayton Act as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act. It is well, IE believe, to include in this statement the testimony before the Small Business Committee of the rep- resentative of the American Trucking Associations—(Pages 102-107, Small Business Objections on Basing-Point Legislation, Particularly S. 1008)—the statement of Edgar S. Idol, general counsel for the American Trucking Asso~ ciations, Inc., follows: STATEMENT OF Epcar S. IpoL, GENERAL COUN SEL, AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC. Mr. Ipot. My name is Edgar S. Idol, and I am general counsel for American Trucking Associations, Inc., the national association of the motor-carrier industry. We are a federation of State associations, each of which includes in its membership all types of motor carriers, both private and for hire. Our industry is made up almost entirely of small operators. There are approximately 300,000 for~hire carriers in the country, most of whom handle business locally within cities or are agricultural operators. There are only 24,000 regulated by the Interstate Commerce Commission. That is a very sizable num- ber to make up the transportation business, Of that group only about 11 percent have revenues that run as much as $100,000 a year. the basis for the Commission’s classification of class I carriers. Even among that rela- tively small group, only a handful have as many as 500 employees, and I would say all of them would be classified as small business generally. We have made no general study, Mr. Chairman, of the matter being considered by this committee, the basing point pricing, as a general proposition. We have, however, had our attention directed by a number of complaints from our members to one situa- tion which we want to bring to the atten- tion of the committee. That is the inability of motor carriers generally to obtain any business in the handling of cement. The history of the transportation of cement is well covered in the findings of fact issued by the Federal Trade Commission in the Ce- ment case, its Docket No. 3617. They spend some six of eight pages in covering that sub- ject. I briefed it in my statement to your committee. Trucking over the highways generally com- menced about 1920 in this country, and at that time cement mills generally would sell cement at the mills to any purchaser who wanted it and would allow it to be trans- ported by any means that the purchaser desired. The purchasers who began using trucking quickly found they had a very substantial advantage in a good many respects. They sometimes found trucking more efficient for hauls say to 25, 50, or 75 miles of the mill. They found they could pick it up at the mill at the mill price and get it to destination at a cost considerably lower than moving it from the mill by railroad to a siding, there unloading it, and making delivery. Cement mills, however, very soon found out that their basing point pricing struc- ture was being completely disrupted by this practice. It is not difficult to see why that would beso. Quoting from the Federal Trade Commission’s Finding No. 11 covering this matter, the Commission said this: “One development has been the desire of some dealers, contractors, and other pur- chasers to utilize motortrucks for the trans-~ portation of cement from respondents’ mills or warehouses to destinations within a rea~ sonable distance. It is obvious that if a purchaser is allowed to take delivery at the mill in trucks owned or controlled by him, A3078 the seller loses control of the destination price.” They decided to do something about that. The actual reason why it was done is covered very clearly in a questionnaire transmitted by Professors Clark and Burns in the course of a study which they undertook for the Cement Institute. I have cited in my state- ment very briefly two of the statements made. ‘They were these. The first com- plete statement made by the Lehigh Port- jand Cement Co. was this: “The manufacturer striving to figure his prices on indeterminate and fluctuating trucking rates, and to meet the equally fluc- tuating and indeterminate rates from his competitors’ plants, quickly found himself engaged in blind, reckless, and destructive competition. Statements along the same line were made by five other companies quoted to Professors Clark and Burns in the study made for the Cement Institute. That situation did not last too long. It developed during the 1920’s, and early in the 1930’s a change was made. The Fed- eral Trade Commission treats that at some length and summarizes the evidence as fol- lows: “The effect of trucking cn prices and dis- tribution was the motivating cause of re- spondents’ action with respect to trucking cement.” Now, the action which those companies took was in two or three forms. Again quot- ing from the Federal Trade Commission’s finding: “One of the earliest restrictive steps taken, as shown by the record, was the addition of a 15-cent-per-barrel charge to the mill base price for delivery to trucks at the mill.” On July 25, 1929, the sales manager of Penn-Dixie wrote to the then president of that company as follows: “The plan is being developed to improve the trucking situation, particularly in the Lehigh Valley. I understand this morning that the plan as now contemplated puts in @ minimum price f. o. b. destination of $2.44 cloth and a price f. o. b. trucks at all mills in the Lehigh Valley and New Jersey district of $2.40 cloth.” That means, regardless of the freight price at the mill, there would be a differential of only 4 cents a barrel in the price at which the mill would deliver to a truck at its platform and the price at which they would deliver anywhere, paying the rail freight. The conclusion is obvious. The difference of 4 cents a barrel is not enough to cover any kind of trucking cost, and it operated to completely eliminate the use of trucks, whether they were more effii- cient, less expensive, or more suitable to the purchaser’s demands or for any other reasons. Two or three pages of the Federal Trade Commission’s finding are devoted to the steps taken to put this policy into effect through- out the country. The rules of putting it into effect are summed up by the Commission as follows: “Of 116 mills’—which were studied by the Commission—‘85 reported no trucking permitted.” This again is from the study made by Professors Clark and Burns for the Cement Institute, which.was concluded about 1937. To repeat: “Of 116 mills, 85 reported no trucking per- mitted whatever; 8 reported trucking per- mitted at a price penalty; 5 reported trucking permitted at the full rail destination prices.” That is not clear to me, but I assume it means that full rail destination price was charged at the mill. “One mill reported trucking permitted on the basis of destination price at the mill at times. At other times base price plus 25 cents per barrel penalty. Four mills reported trucking permitted but limited to certain points.” .
A3074 Generally within just a single county, I believe that was, “Six reported permitted at destination prices less actual freight. Only seven re- ported permitting trucking on the basis of the mull price without any restriction.” This subject was fully explored by the Fed- eral Trade Commission and those were the results which they found. The order which they made in this case and which has been upheld by the Supreme Court will, in our opinion, when it is fully enforced, make truck service available to those purchasers who desire to use it. . The order specifically provides that cement mills must not refuse or decline to allow purchasers to provide transportation by any means at any cost or to any place they may desire. The enforcement of that order of the Commission is not effective in its en- tirety. In a case recently called to our attention the contractor wanted to use motor carrier service for hauling cement from the plant of the Universal Atlas Cement Co. at Hudson, N. ¥., to a road project only 29 miles from the mill. The mill refused to make deliveries to trucks under any conditions. They insisted that the cement be taken from the mill by rail, hauled to a rail siding, and the nearest they could get was 20 or 80 miles rail haul before they would make delivery to the con- tractor or to his trucks or to anybody else that wanted to get it. From there, the closest rail siding, it still had to be hauled a distance of some 12 miles by road before it could reach the site of the construction project. The cost of that was bound to be almost double, in my opinion, the cost of handling direct from the mill to the site. It increased the cost of the highway to the taxpayers generally. Mr. Kaurman. The real reason is that on the basing point system, to make it work it has to be a delivered price. The CHAIRMAN, And a railroad price. Mr. Inon. And a railroad price, a fixed, de- terminable price. Mr. Kaurman. Even though that price is artificial to the extent that it reflects phan- tom freight or absorption of freight. In other words, it may not represent actual freight but nevertheless they arrive at a price which is a fixed delivered price; is that correct? Mr. Inout, That is right, and the cement mill must control that price. Mr. Kaurman. That is right, so that if the purchasers, whether nearby or far away, would call for the cement at the actual selling point, it would destroy the whole system. Mr. IpoL. Yes. Mr. Kavurman. Because then a mill would have to sell at its actual mill net price. My. Inou. It actually did destroy the sys- tem, during the twenties. Mr. KaurMan. Certainly, the delivered- price system under the basing-point system destroys that whole possibility of getting that price as a mill net price; is that not so? Mr. Ipou. That is correct. Mr. KavurMan. And if your trucks, with a basing-point system operating could actu- ally take the cement at the place where the cement is made, you destroy the whole sys- tem, the basing-point system. Mr. Ivot. That is correct, unless the mill itself can control the price to be charged the purchaser for that truck transportation. Mr. KaurmMan. Oh, yes; by adding penalties or what not. Mr. Ipon. That is right. Mr. Kaurman,. So, then, we have here an example, if I understand it, whereby the cement people, ‘to carry out this system of delivered prices, based on artificial phantom freight and absorptions of freight, actually change the economics of the situation so that they insist that deliveries shall not be made by the most economical methods available; is that correct? Mr. Ipot. That is correct. Mr. Kaurman. And now, of course, under this basing-point system we have other eco- nomic disadvantages such as cross-hauling, steel moving one way and then moving back another way, another economic disadvantage, and we have had testimony—I do not know whether the testimony has been developed here yet but it has been shown in many other places—testimony indicating regional under- development whereby one region is favored over another, even though the region might be fully capable of producing cement or pro- ducing steel. Now, I want to ask you this: Would it be fair to rank this discrimination against trucks as an economical method of trans- portation, with these other discriminations that have been testified to here and may be testified to later on? Mr. Inout. Well, we do not think itis. We think it is highly improper. Mr. Kaurman. You think this discrimina- tion is highly improper? Mr. Inox. We certainly do. I might say “improper” is not a very good word for that. We think it is uneconomic as a general proposition. Mr. KaurmaNn. Supposing we shall be able to show in these hearings later on—I know we will, because there is no question about the facts—that water transportation is dis- criminated against in the same way, that where, in many situations, the cement or even. the steel could be transported by water much more cheaply than by any other way, that nevertheless, they want to make the pasing-point system work, the basing-point system using only rail rates, and the water transportation is ignored completely and is not used, or even if it is used, the purchasers are charged the same as rail rates; would you regard that as a discrimination alongside discrimination against trucks? Mr. Inon. I think there is no question about it being discrimination. As a matter of fact, I believe that point is made in the Federal Trade Commission’s finding in this case. There is one portion of it somewhere that refers to the fact that rail transporta- tion was, by agreement, used exclusive of any other form. Mr. Kaurman. That is correct. Mr. Ipou. I do not find a quotation off- hand, but I am sure it is there. Mr. Kaurman. I am quite sure there is a reference to that in your Cement Institute case. The facts are developed very fully in many other forms. I did not mean to interrupt you. Mr. Inon. Well, I have almost covered my ground, Mr. Chairman. ' The CHarrman. You were down near the bottom of page 2, I believe. Mr. Ipou. Yes. We have this situation now: Inquiries from carriers in Pennsylvania and New Jersey have reached us which indicate that mills in those territories, as well as this one particular mill in New York, are still following the policy of refusing to make truck deliveries. ' We have, however, had reports from other territories, particularly Wisconsin that I know of, indicating that since the Cement case decision, mills have changed their prac- tice, and are now routing traffic by either truck or rail in accordance with the pur- chaser’s desires. I have discussed this matter in behalf of our association with counsel for the Federal Trade Commission. They tell us that they have under consideration the examination of whether or not the small cement com- panies are complying with the outstanding order in the Cement case.. We think that a refusal of the type we find in New York is in all probability a violation of the Federal Trade Commission’s outstanding order. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD We think that the Federal Trade Commis- sion will be able to eventually enforce com- pliance with that outstanding order under the law as it now stands. But if the amend- ment here proposed to the Federal Trade Commission law is adopted, we think it very uncertain whether purchasers will ever be able to demand truck service or any other type of service except rail service. Whether it is efficient, economical by com. parison with rail service or not, I think it is highly questionable whether under the language here proposed any truck line would ever handle any cement. The language as we understand it says that pasing-point prices are allright. The cement company which establishes and has—I as- sume without any doubt that they will re- turn to regular hbasing-point pricing prac- tices if the law is passed—any single com- pany then, I do not believe it would require any conspiracy for a company to decide that it could not enforce its own basing-point pricing unless it used rail service exclusively, and I can see no way in which the practice could be attacked. Baltic Incident EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ISIDORE DOLLINGER OF NEW YORE IN THF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, April 20, 1950 Mr. DOLLINGER. Mr. Speaker, the Herald Tribune of April 23, 1950, pub- lished a letter which deals with the dis- appearance of the American plane over the Baltic. I am inserting it in the Recorn, be- cause it so succinctly points out the basic differences between the democratic and communistic way of life. THe Battic INCIDENT To the New York Herald Tribune: The Baltic incident brings into focus the essential cifference between the American way of life and that of Soviet Russia. The disappearance of the Privateer plane brought about a great search in which scores of American, Danish, Swedish planes and ships participated. They did so in the hope that some of the airmen might be found alive. It is significant that not one Russian ship or plane participated in the search. The So- viet Government did not even offer to lend any help in finding the flyers. We know what would happen if a Soviet plane fell into the sea off the coast of Amer- ica. Whether it disappeared off Alaska or near Iceland, Newfoundland, Bermuda, or Cube, would make no difference. Within minutes our Coast Guard would be rushing to the scene. The United States Navy and the Air Corps would immediately institute rescue operations. Planes and ships would be directed to the area to search for and pick up any possible survivors. Herein lieth the basic difference between the democratic and communistic way of life. Americans, true to their religious heritage, are human beings; they have compassion, love, and mercy in their hearts. When a man is down, even though he is an enemy, the American tradition of sportsmanship re- quires that help be given to the fallen. But not so with the godless Communists; there is no mercy in their hearts. They seem to be void of the basic elements of humanity. The least that could have been expected of the Soviet Union was an attempt to help find
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the missing fliers. But even a gesture in that direction was lacking. A further revelation of the Soviet mind can be gleaned from the Russian note of protest, which said that a Russian fighter plane fired at the American plane and it disappeared. It is logical to believe that the Soviet Union knows whether the plane was shot down and whether it crashed into the sea, with the loss of all on board. The Soviet Government could have given a definite statement as to the fate of the airship. This would have saved the families of the missing airmen great mental anguish. It would have saved a fruitless search in which so many planes and ships participated at such great cost. But the Communist mentality is one which delights in giving misleading information. It has no capacity for human understanding, compassion, and love. The Baltic incident should convince every American of the gulf that divides the Ameri- can way of life from that of Communist Rus- sia. There should be no doubt as to the superior values of our democracy, our free- dom, and the God-given gifts of humanity, love, and brotherhood which have become part of our daily expression of the American way of life. Rabbi Appa ABRAMS, NEw Yoru, April 21, 1950. Easy To Understand Why Communists Regard Lattimore as “One of Our Men” EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. WALTER H. JUDD OF MINNESOTA IN THE HOUSE OF PEPRESENTATIVES Thursday, April 27, 1950 Mr. JUDD. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following article by Dorothy Thompson, from the Washington Star of April 25, 1950: It has been suggested that because I have criticized Senator McCartHy’s approach to Owen Lattimore, I am supporting Mr. Latti- more. Such is not the case. I think Mr. Lattimore is not a Communist. But the policies he has advocated certainly cannot be described as anti-Communist. His words seem to reveal him as a non-Com- munust, whose policies fit in almost exactly with Russia’s plans for the organization of Asia, and the attitude America should take toward it. If the Communists, therefore, should think him “one of our men,” it would not ve surprising. . RECOMMENDATIONS MADE Mr. Lattimore addressed the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences in Philadelphia on April 15. There he made the following recommendations: (1) Allow the United Nations, without American support, to unseat the Chinese delegation and seat a new one, representing the Communist regime, the United States waiving its veto, but not granting diploma- tic recognition. (2) Return Unived States policy to the classic definition of favoring the territorial integrity and undivided political sovereignty of China, and show friendliness toward the entire Chinese people, in contrast to Russia who might deal with and favor one political party. (3) Abandon the anti-Communist gov- ernment on Formozi, whose bombing of coastal areas is focusing Nationalist feeling in China against the United States. Mr. Lattimore expanded the idea that if the raids on the Chinese mainland were abandoned the Chinese Nationalists would not permit the Russians to construct an air base at Shang- hai. (4) Give aid, of the point 4 kind, via the United Nations. Hitherto, Mr, Lattimore has advocated (5) abandoning South Korea. Now, this adds up to ree o~n*7i~~ +het the only nation of white men w.. b wor. c.ut in Asia is Russia. I don’t know what more the Soviets could wish us to do, If (1) we withhold recognition from Red China while permitting it a seat on the UN Security Council, we are inviting Chinese Communist delegations to New York, under diplomatic immunity, wituout any diplo- matic advantages for the United States in China, where some 2,000 Americans are he- ing kicked around with impunity. We are to relinquish our veto for no quid pro cuo, Rus- sia continuing to keep several nations out of the UN. HOW CAN IT BE DONE? If (2) we stand for the undivided territo- rial and political integrity of China, re- gardless of how it is achieved or maintained, we commit ourselves to opposing any Chi- mese groups or territories which may find means to break away from the Mao-Russia axis. Juct how the United States can show friendliness to the Chinese people except through their government is impossible to envisage. The abandonment of Formosa (8) means it will be taken by the .fao government re- gardless of the will of Formosans. And if Formosa is to fall by default, of course, the Communists won’t need to build an air base on Shanghai. (4) and (5) mean we will finance our ene- mies and betray the South Koreans. As to an Asia for the Asiatics program, there is a curious inconsistency in Mr. Latti- more’s past. This country precipitated the war with Japan by refusing recognition of a special Japanese interest in China, by sup- porting Chinese resistance, and by opposing Japan’s program to organize the Far East through “r¢-Tace~c~c governments. Logi- cally, Mr. i .».:s should then have been against American intervention, But he wasn’t. Now, why should he apparently think it better for the United States to accept a Rus- sian far-eastern fait accompli than a Japa- nese hegemony? Injustice in Federal Retirement Law EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. BARRATT O’HARA OF ILLINOIS IN TH HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, April 27, 1950 Mr. O’HARA of Tlinois. Mr. Speaker, from the Honorable Benjamin P. Ep- stein, judge of the circuit court of Cook County, I have received a letter which I am sure will be of interest to my col- leagues and will prove helpful in eliciting a bipartisan support for S. 2640 when, and if, that measure reaches the House. Judge Epstein has been my close friend for many years. At the time of his elec- tion to the circuit bench of Tlinois he enjoyed one of the largest Federal prac- tices of any lawyer in the history of Chi- cago and his standing among the great Federal practitioners of the Nation was firmly established. To accept service on A3075 the bench he made a large financial sac- rifice. It speaks the character of Judge Ep- stein that he has not forgotten the fine public service of an agent of the Inter- state Commerce 36 years ago. Judge Epstein has taken the time to interest himself in the case of this former Fed- eral employee, now retired, who with others suffers an injustice under our re- tirement law. I earnestly urge the thoughtful reading of Judge Epstein’s letter, which folicws: Cuicaco, April 24, 1950. Hon. Barratt O’Hara, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEaR CONGRESSMAN: Back in the goo old days of 1914 when Mike Igoe (Hon. Michael L. Igoe, judge of the United States District Court, who rendered distinguished service in this body as Representative at Large from Illinois) and myself were assistant United States attorneys, we had the occasion to work with one Pearson Marsh, now residing im our district at 4940 East End Avenue, Chicago, and at that time one of the most efficient agents of the Interstate Commerce Commission of the United States. On June 30, 1948, after 53 years of service with the Interstate Commerce Commission, Marsh retired. I doubt if there are many servants of the Government who have this long period of service. Marsh could have retired in 1945 with his 50 years of service rendered, but because of the urgent need of his services at that time, he agreed to stay over, and did stay for three additional years. When he retired in 1948 there was avail- able to him, under the retirement laws of the United States, the ovticn to receive a pension for himself curiuz hss lifetime only and without survivorship, or an option to designate his wife, Ellen, as survivor, the benefits, in case of his death, to accrue to her, for and during her lifetime. In 1948, when Marsh made his election as to his choice of retirement pension, he was very ill, having been confined to his bed for many months. Without the advice of coun- sel and the benefit of discussion with his friends, he designated only a pension for him- self, to be payable during his lifetime, with- out any protection to his present wife, now about the age of 65 years. I believe Marsh, at this time, is abcut 75 years old. When he recovered from his illness some % months after making his election, and re- alizing the significance of his action, he tendered back the sum of money that repre- sented the difference between the two pen- sion allowances, and asked that the benefit of the retirement law be made available to his wife in case of his death. By reason of the fact that the then Civil Service Retirement Act (I believe it is 5 U. S. C. A. et seq.) provided that the election of the option for retirement pension must be made at the time of the retirement, the governmental authorities (I believe the Civil Service Com- mission) rejected his tender and refused to allow him to make a change, for the benefit of his wife Ellen, in the event of his death. I understand that scme short time ago Senator OLIN D. Jounsron from South Caro- lina introduced a bill in the Senate, S. 2640, to amend the Civil Service Retirement Act mentioned, supra, this for the purpose of re- lieving hardships such as has occurred in the Marsh case. I have been informed that the effects of this bill, if passed, would be to enable a few public servants with the fine and long record of service, such as Marsh, to obtain relief. I am therefore writing to you in the hope that should this legislation come before your branch of the Congress of the United States, - you will see fit to support the legislation proposed by Senator JoHNSTON, so that this
A3076 grave injustice ta Mr. and Mrs. Marsh will be corrected. I could say more about the unusual and distinguished character of serv- ice that Marsh has rendered to the Inter- state Commerce Commission during the period of time that I have mentioned, but I am sure you will hear about it from other sources. I trust that I have outlined to you suffi- cient of the matter so that you can form an opinion as to the propriety and justice of the legislation proposed. With my kindest and most cordial regards, I am, as ever, Sincerely yours, BENJAMIN P. EPSTEIN. Fine Words Can’t Abate Red Menace EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. LAWRENCE H. SMITH OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, April 27, 1950 Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. Mr. Speak- er, I include in my remarks an article by Ivan H. Peterman, editorial writer for the Philadelphia Inquirer, which ap- peared in the April 25, 1950, issue of this paper, as follows: Secretary of State Acheson’s urgent call for national unity and a strengthening of the free nations’ front against communism in- dicates belated awareness from an ojfice which long ago should have set the shining example. For more than a year, in fact since he suc- ceeded the tired George C. Marshall in that pivotal post, Acheson and his liberal-pink- Red advisers, including such as Alger Hiss and the Far East section of the State Depart- ment, have been pursuing anything but the policies he advocated before the American Society of Newspaper Editors. If the United States is today in a bad jam, let the Secretary review the mistakes in policy, judgment, and action which greased the skids under China, weakened the United Nations, and encour- aged the Soviets to the verge of undeclared shooting war. Lest anyone say these be generalities, let us take up the recommendations on critical points by the Secretary: Preparedness and security: Although Mr. Acheson now calls for ‘prudent organization of our defenses,” the administration has been lax in this respect on many occasions. It has kicked our military, naval, and air lead- ers around so that until the last few weeks they have been afraid to raise their voices. State Department spokesmen, not qualified military experts, told Congress that Formosa was strategically unimportant, and suggest- ed Mao Tse-tung was a potential ally, so let’s not offend him by helping Chiang. And every eager beaver in the State Department has battled fiercely to defend the sabotag- ing, Red collaboration that has lost China to the Kremlin. It is also to be remembered that on Ache- son's own January advice “not to offend Asiatics” (Press Club speech), our defense forces have been repeatedly humiliated and set upon, unable to strike back. This cowardly policy on the part of a great power, if you want the brutal truth, Mr. Secretary, was the invitation Moscow needed to send its aviators out to kill 10 unarmed American fliers over the Baltic. Americans need not worry about such totalitarian thugs, if the ‘irectors of na- tional policies would stop handcuffing brave men who are only too willing to protect United States interests. Political action: The Secretary’s call for boldness and imagination in utilizing United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty, Coun- cil of Europe, etc., is also open to cynical re- sponse. Why hasn’t he shown some? It so happens the Acheson regime left UN agencies to wither, preferring unilateral action since the Paris Assembly in 1948. Washington has undermined, ignored, de- serted, and doubled-crossed its UN friends and even its own UN delegation on several occasions. Meanwhile, the God-given opportunity to put UN to work without Soviet obstruction has been wasted. Instead of working to- gether during the Soviet walk-out, the United States and its friends sat around Lake Success like diplomatic morons, bewail- ing Russia’s absence. At the moment Trygve Lie, long Moscow’s man in UN, with his assistant, Konstantin Zinchenko, the-former chief censor in Stalin’s government, are rushing to Russia to try to abate the cold war. Why didn’t the free nations act free and intelligent this past winter, and show some of the boldness and imagination when they had the chance? Why didn’t Mr. Secretary show up once or twice, and give them a cue in that direction? East-West relations: Again emphasizing the availability of UN council tables for effecting some methods of getting along with Russia, Mr. Acheson indicates a continua- tion of the modus operandi supposedly achieved at Paris last June. That was on the Berlin blockade. But what did we gain by that settlement? Only another Berlin stalemate, today threatened by a German Youth drive to take the city—under Red auspices and direction. In the meantime, we have frustrated and alienated the friendly West German Govern-= ment at Bonn. Is that showing the politi- cal-economic military shrewdness we need? No, Mr. Secretary—fine words make fine sounds. But bold actions and sincere deeds go much further to save this Nation. If There Is To Be Real Unity in America the Administration Must Change Its Tactics or the People Must Change the Administration EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WALTER H. JUDD OF MINNESOTA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, April 27, 1950 Mr. JUDD. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following editorial from the Cleveland Plain Dealer of April 24, 1950: Wrat’s WronG Wirt THE SPIRIT or AMERICA? “Something has gone wrong with our Na- tion, or we should not be in our present plight and mood. It is not like us to be on the defensive and to be fearful. That is new in our history, * * “ What we lack is a righteous and dynamic faith, * * * There is confusion in men’s minds and a corrosion of their souls.” Thus wrote John Foster Dulles in his book published last week entitled “War or Peace.” A review of some of the events beginning with the 1948 Presidential campaign may throw some light on what it is that has gone wrong, that has caused us to be fearful, that has bred confusion of the mind and cor- rosion of the soul. In 1948 Gov. Thomas E. Dewey was confi< dent he had the election in the bag. So, instead of calling attention to the shortcom- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ings of the administration he was seeking to succeed, he based his campaign on a plea for unity of the American people in their efforts to solve the problems confronting them and the world. He saw correctly that his tasks would be simplified if he could assume the Presidency unhampered by any dissension of his own making. But President Truman refused to let the election go by default. Employing the tactics of desperation, he appealed to class inter- ests and prejudices and unexpectedly walked off with the prize. That campaign was the death blow to the political unity the American people had achieved during the war. The coup de grace was administered by Truman himself when the administration used its vast influence to bring about the defeat of John Foster Dulles, one of the chief architects of the bipartisan foreign policy, in the 1949 New York sena- torial election. The debacle in China finally convinced the American people that bipar- tisanship had existed in name only. Now it is the Truman administration which is calling for unity, as the world sit- uation becomes more desperate. Dulles and John Sherman Cooper, both Republicans, have been named special advisers to the State Department. Truman has promised to consult with Republican Members of Con~ gress and to solicit their views and to take them into serious account in both the forma- tion and implementation of our foreign pol- icy. Further than that, Secretary of State Dean Acheson is now calling for unity and bipar- tisanship on the domestic as well as the for- eign front. “There is no longer any difference between foreign questions and domestic questions,” he told the American Society of Newspaper Editors in Washington. “They are all parts of the same question” involving the ‘great problem of our national security.” These are brave words, but do they mean that.all shades of political opinion must ac- cept the Socialist-labor philosophy and pro- gram of the Truman administration or be damned for jeopardizing national securit:? There can be no real unity in foreign af- fairs as long as the administration not only refuses to confess its error in its policy to- ward China, but defends a policy which coin- cided with the Communist Party line and stubbornly refuses to “turn its back” on those who promoted it. There can be no real unity in domestic af- fairs as long as the President advocates give- away programs to attract votes, as long os he supports special privilege for labor leaders and denounces as the seekers of special privi- lege those who would save their businesses from being destroyed by Government com- petition or excessive taxation, as long as he lambastes Congress for refusing to enact the socialistic programs he has repeatedly recommended. There can be no real unity as long as the administration continues to engage in the utterly immoral and unnecessary vice of spending more than it takes in, as long as it continues to give encouragement to the creep- ing inflation which is robbing everyone of his savings and future security. Even as the administration talks of unity the President is preparing to depart on a nonpolitical cross-country tour at public ex- pense, the purpose of which is to put the heat on Congress and stir up more disunity. God knows this country needs to be united. It needs to acquire a righteous and dynamic faith, as Dulles wrote, in its institutions and its way of life. It needs to regain confidence. in its spiritual heritage. And it needs to regain confidence in the Government and the men who are running it. But unity will not be achieved by trying to browbeat the people into accepting s0- cialism under the threat that failure to do