APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD vented our keeping abreast with other nations of the world—a tradition to the effect that the United States would not undertake any obligation to arbitrate or adjudicate our international disputes unless there should be as to each particular dispute a special agree- ment advised and consented to by the Senate by two-thirds vote. The result was that in the revised statute of 1945 no step could be taken to register the progress made during 24 years, and the 1920 text of article 86 of the Court's statute was continued without substantial alteration on this point, Fortunately, the declarations which had previously been made by a num- ber of States under that earlier text were still in force in 1945, and they were continued in force.® INACTION IN THE SENATE When the Charter came up for debate in the Senate, the administration leaders were unwilling to complicate the situation by pro- posing an acceptance of the Court's jurisdic- tion. Yet the lead was taken on July 28, 1945, by Senator Waynx L. Morsz, who sought to keep faith with the Charter by proposing a recommendation by the Senate that the President should make a declaration by which the United States in exercise of the option would accept the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction in the terms of article 36 of the statute.* Without the support of Senate leaders, the Morse resolution remained buried for almost a year in the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. AM AVALANCHE OF INSISTENCE Meanwhile, an avalanche of insistence on the adoption of the resolution poured in on the Senate, and after some months the Pres- ident and the Secretary of State gave some- what desultory expressions of their approval. On July 11, 12, and 16, 1946, public hearings were held by a subcommittee of the Senate’s Committee on Foreign Relations.’ They re- vealed a wide support of the Morse resolu- tion, led by the American Bar Association and the American Society of International Law. On the principle involved there was no op- position. On specific features of the resolu- tion, some varying opinions were voiced be- fore the subcommittee. A clarifying criti- cism was made, in the light of experience ‘On August 1, 1946, the declarations in force were those of Australia, Brazii, Canada, Colombia, Jominican Republic, Great Brit- ain, Haiti, India, Iran, Luxemburg, Nether- lands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Pan- ama, E] Salvador, South Africa, Uruguay, and (possibly) Argentina. ‘Originally Senate Resolution 160. With the aid of his advisers, Senator Morsx re- vised the text of his resolution; and the re- vised text was introduced in the Senate with additional sponsors, as Senate Resolution 196, on November 28, 19465. A similar text was embodied in a resolution (H. J. Res. 291) introduced in the House of Representa- tives by Mr. Herren on December 17, 1945. Whereas the Morse resolution required a two- thirds vote in the Senate, the Herter resolu- tion would have required but a majority vote in the two Houses of Congress. A precedent for such action was set in 1934, when the two Houses adopted a resolution authorising the President to accept membership in the Inter- national Labor Organization, and it is to be noted that the constitution of that organi- zation conferred a measure of compulsory jurisdiction on the permanent court. Sena- tor ConmwaLLy said in the Senate on July 31 that he had a “predilection” that the matter could “very properly be acted upon by both the Senate and the House.” (92 Concngs- SIONAL Recoap, p. 10554.) - ‘Hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations, U. 8. Sen- ate, 70th Cong, 2d sess., on B. Res. 196. under the statute, by Lawrence Preuss, and @ memorandum was presented by John Foster Dulles which ignored that experience.® A REPORT UNANIMOUSLY FAVORABLE On July 17 and 24 the subcommittee ren- dered reports to the full Committee on For- eign Relations, and on the latter date the committee voted unanimously to recommend favorable action on the resolution. In its report of July 25,° the committee stated that “the ultimate purpose of the resolution is to lead to general world-wide acceptance of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in legal cases. The accomplishment of this result would, in a substantial sense, place international relations on a legal basis.” Following a plea by Senator Morse on July 81,!° the resolution was considered by the Senate in executive session on August 1-2. Apart from the contributions by Senator MorsE and Senator THomas, the end-of-the- session debate in August was not in high key, and it certainly was not up to the standards of the best traditions of the Senate. TEXT OF THE RESOLUTION AS REPORTED As reported to the Senate by the commit- tee, the resolution read as follows: “Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein), That the Senate advise and consent to the deposit by the President of the United States with the Sec- retary-General of the United Nations of a declaration under paragraph 2 of article 36 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice recognizing as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other state accepting the same obliga- *In view of the fact that the Dulles memo- randum figured prominently in the Senate debate, its six points are commented upon: (1) That the jurisdiction to be recognized should not apply to advisory opinions. The committee’s report indicated that this point was without substance. (2) That compul- sory jurisdiction should be reciprocal. This is clearly provided in article 36 (2), but the suggestion led to the unfortunate Vanden- berg addition. (8) That prior agreement should be reached in certain cases on the applicable law. This led to the proposed Millikin amendment, which, fortunately, was defeated. (4) The reference to domestic jurisdiction was inconclusively put, but it encouraged the unfortunate Connally amend- ment. (5) This point and point (6) had already been met in the Morse resolution. On August 2, Senator VANDENBERG made to the Senate a “statement regarding the atti- tude of Mr. Dulles,” in which he said, “I specifically asked him whether he desired them [his suggestions} to be put in the form of amendment, if necessary, and his reply was that he did not consider them of that importance, and that his interest was in having the resolution adopted substan- tially in its original form.” (92 CoNGRES- SIONAL REcORD, p. 10701.) Senator Tromas told the Senate “out of fairness to Mr. Dulles, the committee, and all of us concerned, that other rather sub- stantial international lawyers appeared be- fore the committee and did not find the same thing to be feared that Mr. Dulles has found.” He mentioned the Assistant Secretary of State, the legal adviser of the Department of State, Mr. George A. Finch, Mr. Philip C. Jessup, Mr. Pitman B. Potter, Mr. Lawrence Preuss, and Miss Helen Dwight Reld—all of whom had appeared at the hearing—and said “they did not share the views which Mr. Dulles expressed.” ® Report No. 1835, 79th Cong., 2d seas. The report is reprinted in the ninety-second Con- GRESSIONAL Record, pp. 10706-10709. 3° Ninety-second CoNGREssIONAL RECORD, Pp. 10584. For the debate on procedure, see pp. 10553-10567, 4 Ibid., pp. 10613-10618, 10621-10626, 10628- 10620, 10683-10696, 10608-10706. A461 tion, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in all legal disputes here- after arising concerning— “(a) the interpretation of a treaty; “(b) any question of international law; “(c) the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an international obligation; “(ad) the nature or extent of the repara- tion to be made for the breach of an inter-~ National obligation: “Provided, That such a declaration should not apply to— “(a) disputes the solution of which the parties shall entrust to other tribunals by virtue of agreements already in existence or which may be concluded in the future; or “(b) disputes with regard to matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States: “Provided further, That such declaration should remain in force for a period of 5 years and thereafter until the expiration of 6 months after notice may be given to termi- nate the declaration.” Su’ paragraph (a) of the first proviso in this resolution followed language in article 95 of the Charter of the United Nations, and the significant subparagraph (b) followed language in article 2 (7) of the Charter. QUESTIONS DEBATED IN THE SENATE The debate in the Senate was chiefly con- cerned with three questions: (1) Who should decide that 9 matter is essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States? (2) Should disputes arising under multi- lateral trenties be specifically dealt with? and (8) Should prior agreement be required in some cases on the law to be applied? The first question touched a sensitive nerve in some Senate circles. Disputes con- cerning domestic matters gave rise to Ameri- can apprehensions when the Covenant of the League of Nations was drafted in 1919," with the result that article 15 concerning the Council’s handling of disputes provided that— “If the dispute between the parties is claimed by one of them, and is found by the Council, to arise out of a matter which by international law is solely within the do- mestic jurisdiction of that party, the Council shall so report, and shall make no recom- mendation as to its settlement.” * RESERVATIONS AS TO “DOMESTIC JURISDICTION’ This text inspired a provision in article 39 of the Geneva General! Act of 1928 which list- ed among possible reservations to be made by acceding states “disputes concerning ques- tions which by international law are solely within the domestic jurisdiction of states.” It was doubtless in consequence of this lat- ter provision that some of the subsequent declarations recognizing the compulsory jurisdiction of the Permanent Court made a similar exception. The British Declaration of September 19, 1929, recognized the Court's jurisdiction over certain disputes “other than * © ® disputes with regard to questions which by international law fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the United King- dom.” Other states followed this lead,” and 121 Miller, Drafting of the Covenant, pp. 276, 322. An American reservation on this point was later proposed in the Senate. "The provision was interpreted by the Permanent Court in the Tunis and Morocco Nationality Decrees case (1923), series B, No. 4; 1 Hudson, World Court Reports, p. 148, in which the Court said: “The ques- tion whether a certain matter is or is not solely within the jurisdiction of a state is an essentially relative question; it depends upon the development of international relations.” “Albania, Argentina, Australia, Brasil, Canada, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, New Zea- land, Poland, Rumania, South Africa, and Yugoslavia.
A462 the same exception found place in their dec- larations. In these cases, however, the declarations were subject to the provision in article 36 of the statute that “In the event of a dis- pute as to whether the Court has jurisdic- tion, the matter shall be settled by the deci- sion of the Court.” THE RETROGRESSIVE FORMULA OF THE CHARTER A new formula was adopted in drafting article 2 (7) of the Charter of the United Nations, reading as follows: “Nothing contained in the present Char- ter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not preju- dice the application of enforcement meas- ures under chapter VII.” This text marks a distinct retrogression. Unlike that in the Covenant, and unlike the previous declarations accepting the Perma- nent Court’s jurisdiction, it provides no com- petent forum for the determination of the question whether a matter is essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state. Yet it is to be noted that article 2 (7) of the Charter places no limitation on declara- tions made under article 36 (2) of the statute. In view of this history, it seemed inevi- table that the American declaration should make some reference to domestic jurisdic- tion." Senator Morse’s first resolution dealt with this point by excepting “disputes with regard to questions which by international law fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the United States.” His revised resolu- tion brought this text into conformity with the Charter language, and excepted “disputes with regard to matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States.” Under either text, it would have been for the Court to say what was essentially within our domestic jurisdiction. THE QUESTION BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE In the hearings before the Senate subcom- mittee, Senator AusTIN raised the question as to who should take this latter decision, suggesting to amend the Morse resolution s0 that it would exclude “disputes which are held by the United States to be with regard to matters which are essentially within” its domestic jurisdiction. In behalf of this amendment, Senator AUSTIN stated confus- edly: “Otherwise, I foresee the conflict that naturally would arise over such questions as immigration, the interpretation of a treaty for example with respect to the immigration of orientals.”* If there were a treaty, then the subject would pro tanto be removed from domestic jurisdiction. Surprisingly, however, Senator AUSTIN'S language was accepted at the time by Sena- tor Morse, though he later retracted his ac- ceptance in the course of the Senate debate.” The Senate committee decided “that a reservation of the right of decision as to what are matters essentially within domestic jurisdiction would tend to defeat the pur- poses which it is hoped to achieve by means of the proposed declaration as well as the purpose of article 36, paragraphs 2 and 6, of the statute of the Court.” %* Even apart from article 2 (7) of the Char- ter, the language of article 36 (2) of the statute does not include disputes concerning matters which are essentially within the do- mestic jurisdiction of any state. So that ifa declaration were ailent on the subject, such disputes would not be within the jurisdic- tion accepted; it would be for the Court to say, however, whether a dispute has that character. 3¢ Hearings, p. 36. “after making a thorough and complete study of the matter I reached an opposite Conclusion,” (92 CONGRESSIONAL R«cozp, Pp. 10695.) THE CONNALLY AMENDMENT ON THE FLOOR In the debate on the floor of the Senate, Senator CONNALLY proposed the following text for the second subparagraph of the first proviso in the resolution (as reported): (b) disputes with regard to matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdic- tion of the United States, as determined by the United States. After referring to disputes concerning im- migration, tariffs, the navigation of the Panama Canal, and the regulation of tolls through the Panama Canal, he declared: “I am in favor of the United Nations, but I am also for the United States of America. I do not want to surrender the sovereignty or the prestige of the United States with respect to any question which may be merely domestic in character, and contained within the boundaries of this Republic.” Such a trenchant outlook always falls on willing ears in the Senate, and it readily forecloses further serious consideration. The Connally amendment was accepted by 51 votes to 12. THE AMENDMENT AND THE CHARTER The question arose in the Senate as to the consistency of this amendment with the text of the statute; more particularly, its con- sistency with paragraph 6 of article 36. Yet in view of past practice, there can be little doubt that under article 36, paragraph 2, a state may make exceptions to the jurisdic- tion which it recognizes; * and while the amendment is not in the spirit of paragraph 6 of article 36, it seems difficult to maintain that it constitutes a violation of that provi- sion. It is still for the Court to decide upon the jurisdiction conferred by the American declaration, though it will have to say that no jurisdiction exists when the United States, or the state against which the United States may be proceeding, has determined that a matter is within its domestic jurisdiction. Hence, the Connally amendment has the effect of greatly narrowing the jurisdiction recognized by the United States. It not only prevents the Court from exercising jurisdic- tion under the declaration where the United States as respondent determines that a mat- ter is essentially within its domestic juris- diction. It also prevents the Court from ex- ercising that Jurisdiction in a case in which the United States is a complainant and where the respondent determines that the subject matter is essentially within its juris- diction. For the exclusion works both ways.” The amendment does not mean, however, that in its exercise of jurisdiction under a special agreement to which the United States is a party, or under a compromissary clause in a treaty to which the United States is a party, the Court is prevented from dealing with matters which the United States may contend to be essentially within its domestic jurisdiction POSSIBLE EFFECTS ON OTHER DECLARATIONS Apart from the serious limitation on the jurisdiction recognized by the United States, the Connally amendment seems unfortunate because it may be repeated in future declara- tions made by other states. In the past, no state has tmposed a comparable limitation in a declaration recognizing compulsory juris- diction. In this connection, however, there is a great tendency for states to imitate, and if in the future other states put into their declarations, exclusions such as this adopted by the United States, the Court's compulsory jurisdiction may be so greatly restricted that wed te tecond CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, p. 10696. This was expressly declared by the Fifth Assembly of the League of Nations in 1924, and by the Ninth Assembly in 1928. » Only the common ground of the par- ties’ declarations will be the basis for juris- diction. See Hudson, Permanent Court of International Justice, 1920-42, p, 466, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD it will cease to be a foundation stone of the international law of the future. The Con- nally amendment, therefore, places in jeop- ardy the great gain made since 1921 under the text of article 36. DISPUTES UNDER MULTILATERAL TREATIES (2) On the subject of disputes arising under multilateral treaties, an addition to the resolution was made by the Senate which may also have unfortunate consequences. In what seems to have been a jumble of ideas, the Dulles memorandum raised this question before the subcommittee by the statement that oftentimes “disputes, par- ticularly under multilateral conventions, give rise to the same issue as against more than one other nation. Since the Court statute uses the singular “any other state,” it might be desirable to make clear that there is no compulsory obligation to submit to the Court merely because one of several par- ties to such dispute is similarly bound, the others not having bound themselves to be- come parties before the Court.”! The published documents do not indicate that this matter was explored at the hearings before the subcommittee. The committee suggested that Mr. Dulles’ objection might be met by adding the following to the exclu- sions from the jurisdiction accepted: “c. Disputes arising under a multilateral treaty, unless (1) all parties to the treaty affected by the decision are also parties to the case before the Court, or (2) the United States specially agrees to jurisdiction.” The drafting of this provision shows a confusion of thought, for if the United States specially agrees to jurisdiction, the special agreement would constitute the basis for the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction and thrre would be no question of applying the decla- ration. THE VANDENBERG AMENDMENT On the suggestion of Senator VANDENBERG, the foregoing text was added to the resolu- tion in the Senate, without demur and with- out a vote.” Mr. Francis O. Wilcox™ has attempted to explain that ‘‘a narrow interpretation” of the Vandenberg addition would undoubtedly go “beyond the intent of the Senate.” Even if the “intent of the Senate” could be shown— and the published documents rather indicate that the Senate had no clear intent in this connection—it seems doubtful whether the International Court would pay any regard to it in construing the President's declaration, in the event of a contest concerning the jurisdiction conferred. Some elasticity in the provision may be sought in the phrase “parties to the treaty affected by the decision.” Does this mean that the treaty should be affected, or that the parties to the treaty should be affected, by the decision?™ If the former, then the exclusion would clearly require every party to the treaty affected to be before the Court as a party to the case. If the latter, when would a party to the treaty by affected? * Only if it were a party to the case or an intervener would the decision have binding " Hearings, p. 44. 2On the exclusion in arbitration treaties of disputes which involve the interests of third parties, see Hudson, International Tri- bunals (1944), p. 97. ™ Mr, Wilcox, who is head international re- lations analyst in the Library ot Congress, served as assistant to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations throughout the consid- eration of this matter. The quotation is from his article in 40 American Journal of International Law (October 1946). ™ Mr, Wilcox seems to think the latter, and he wishes to interpret “affected” to mean “di- rectly affected” or “legally affected.” It is clearly for the Court to decide this question in any dispute as to ite jurisdiction under the American declaration.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD aid for interpreting fean declaration: for event intervention is a matter of right. In other words, for purposes of intervention, a state found b: the Court to have “an interest of a legal nature which may be affected by the decision in the case” is placed on a par with a state which is a party to a treaty or convention being construed by the Court. It seems probable that the Court would pretation and application of a multilateral treaty, the United States may not be able to proceed against, or be against by, the other party to the dispute, unless all of the parties to the treaty-—and there may be 50 or more of them—come in as parties before the Court. Thus the jurisdiction conferred by the President's declaration would be seriously diminished. More serious, however, is the possibility that this exclusion may be copied. No state in the past has made any comparable exception, but imitation may lead to the repetition of the exclusion in the future declarations of other states. If this should take place, the usefulness of the Court es the great interpreter of world law would be greatly curtailed. THE WORLD COURT AND MULTIPANTITE INSTRUMENTS The history of the permanent Court shows quite clearly that one of its great functions wes to interpret and apply muitipartite in- En a lange percentage of the cases 1 46, provisions of muitipartite inetru- ments were tnvolved, and in most ef” cases all the parties to such { not before the Court." ‘The greater part of our present-day international law is prob- ably contained in such instruments; and, if the Court is to be the organ of world law, lta interpretation and application of their provisions should not be stymied by the Imitation on ite computsory jurisdiction that all parties to the instrument tnvoived must come into the Court as parties to the case. Indeed, there has been eame tendency in recent years to eay that the Court should be given such jurisdiction to interpret muiti- lateral conventions that its interpretation should be binding on ail parties to the con- vention even though they are not parties before the Court.” This exciusion esemes the more rema: kable . When the fact is recalled * that in 1544 ihe Unitea States, by becoming a party to the constitution of the International Lebor Or- ganization, camferred on the permanent Court (under art. 37 of the constitution) over “any question ar dispute relating to" thet constitution or to any labor convention concluded by the members of the . These are multilateral creat- jes yet nothing wes said at that time about the necessity that a party to the treaty affected by the decision should be a party betore the Court. Under article 37 of the Tevised atatute, the United States ts stil) bound in this manner, and the new deciara- tion has not modified 46s position. (3) A third matter to occupy the aiten- téon of the Senate was a ghost which stalked out of the Dulles memorandum in ite com- ment on articie 36 af the statute. The mem- orandum suggested that a prior agreement as to what are the applicable principic: of international law should be required when the basic legal principles are not de- rived from a treaty or eanvention t0 which the United States is a party. The legal adviser of the Department of State, Mr. visable to accept this view,” and the sug- gestion was rejected by the cammittee. In the Senate Senator MILL to re- vive it and to exclude disputes where the law necessary for decision is not found in existing treaties and conventions to which the United States is a party and where there las not been prior agreement by the United This would have been utterly unworkable in practice. At what stage could it be known that the Jaw necessary for a decision could not be found in existing treaties and con- ventions? When known, a special agreement would have been required before the Court could proceed, and the parties would have had to reach accord on the Issues involved in order to lay down the law to be applied to them. Fortunately, when the Millikin amendment came to vote on August 2, only 11 Senators voted for it and 49 voted against it. The Senate resolution, containing the Con- nally amendment and the adal- tion, was carried, on August 2, by a vote of * Among othera, one may cite the Wimble- don case, the two Mavrommatis cases, the Treaty of Neuflly case, the Lotus case, the Oder case, the Free Zones case, the Memel case, the University case, the two Lighthouse cases, and the Chinn case. For World Court Handbook (1038). 7 Bee Institut de Droit International, 39 Annuaire, 1986, p. 305; Hudson, International ‘Tribunals (1934), pp. 218-219. "The fact was not recalled in the Senate debate. = The United States ts a party to five levor conventions. * Minet p. 10702. A463 @ to 32" On all points of text of the President's dectaration, deposited on August 26, follows textually the MA&RITS OF THE AMZRICAN The text of the American declaration hes some distinctive merits: (a) 1 applies to all “legal disputes here- after artaing,” but omite the limitations at- tached by many states in Geciara- tions that such disputes should be “with re- gard to siG@uations aor facts subsequent” to the effective date of the declaration. (b) It provides that the declaration shall “temain in force for a period of 5 years and thereafter until the expiration of 6 months enable @ case to be brought against the United States even after it had given notice of termination. (c) The exeiusion of “disputes the solu- tion of which the parties shall entrust to other tribunals” is aleo an improvemen over the formula used in gtany previous dec- larations, excluding “disputes in regard which the parties to the dispute have agreed | or shall agree to have recourse to some other None of 8 paralyzing tradition. If, on the other hand, other states should now follow the course adopted by the United States, a great back- ward step would have beeu taken in the de- velopment of international jurisprudence. To confirm this statement, one has anily to compare the text of the American deciara- tion with the texts of declarations previous- ly made by other states.” Let it be com- pared also with the text of a declaration made by the Government of the Nether- lands," deposited on August 5, 1946: to any other member of the United Mations and any other state aocepting the same obligation, that is to say, on condition of reciprocity, the jurisdictian of the Interna- tional Court of Justice in conformity with article 36, paragraph 2 of the Statute of the Court, for a period of 10 years as from August 6, 1046, and thereafter until notis- cation of abrogatinn is made, on any future disputes, except those in regard to which the parties would have agreed, after the com- ing into farce of the Statute of the Perma- nent Court of International Justice, to have recourse to another method of Pacific settlement. “E. N. Van EKLarrens.” The Chinese declaration, made on October 26, 1946, is even more concise: “The Chinese Government recognizes as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any state which accepts the same obligation and on the sole condition of reciprocity, the jurisdiction of the International, Court of Justice in con- formity with article 36, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Statute of the International Court “1 Ibid., p. 10705. It was stated that 16 absent Senators would have voted for the resolution if they had been present. = The texts are collected In Hudson, Perma- nent Court of Internationa] Justice, 1920-42, pp. 682-708. bed the Netherlands deciarations of 1921, 1926, and 1936.
A464 of Justice for a period of & years and there- after until the expiration of a 6 months’ notice of termination.” CONSISTENCY OF THE AMERICAN POSITION In transmitting the President’s declara- tion to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the American declaration stated that we “look forward to a great develop- ment of the rule of law in international relations through a broad acceptance of the function of the Court in the spirit of the Charter.” ** This is a commendable goal, but one can hardly say that it is reflected in the American declaration. Americans are the less critical of what we do because of our conventional unction. We continue to think of the United States as the great leader in this field. Mr. Dulles began his memorandum by saying that the United States, since its formation, has led in promot- ing a reign of law and justice as between na- tions, If substantiation of that statement is to be found in certain periods of our national history, the statement is manifestly not true in the period between two world wars which saw such significant developments in this field. For in recent years we have been handicapped, as Senator Morss put it, by fear of being trapped. He might have added also that in spite of the long debate in this coun- try, a debate which should have produced here a greater understanding of the court than in any other country, the problems in- volved in the declaration are still but dimly understood in our higher circles. Some years after the United States had tailed to ratify the Treaty of Versailles con- taining the Covenant of the League of Na- tions, it promoted the conclusion of the 1928 Treaty of Paris for the renunciation of war. In that connection the parties to the treaty took the backward step of agreeing to Secre- tary Kellogg's statement that every nation is free at all times and regardless of treaty provisions to defend its territory from attack or invasion and it alone is competent to de- cide whether circumstances require recourse to war in self-defense. During 20 years the United States fatled to become a party to the statute of the World Court; we have now ac- cepted compulsory jurisdiction in terms which, if imitated by other states, would set back much of the progress made since the permanent court was established. The world will be fortunate indeed if we have not in- augurated a new and backward movement tn this field. The United States can repair its position in this regard. During the next few years, a modification of its declaration might be thought to require the consent of other states. Six months before August 14, 1951, however, the present declaration can be terminated and a new declaration might then be made which would omit both the Connally amend- ment and the Vandenberg addition. Why the Atrocities in Palestine? EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. OWEN BREWSTER OF MAINE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, February 10, 1947 Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record some remarks on the subject Why the Atrocities in Palestine? made “Bulletin of the Department of Btate, Sept. 8, 1946, p. 452. ** United States Foreign Relations, 1928, 1, p. 36. by me this noon at the Mayflower Hotel before the American Christian Palestine Committee, of which the President pro tempore of the Senate is a distinguished member, There being no objection, the remarks were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: The $64 question today for Christian and Jew alike is, Why the atrocities in Palestine? I speak neither to condone nor to con- demn. Let responsible Englishmen answer this out of their own mouths. Winston Churchill on the floor of Parlia- ment denounced the white paper represent- ing present British policy in Palestine as “a plain breach of a solemn obligation * * * to world Jewry,” and of the Coolidge Treaty with Great Britain on Palestine. Why, then, this default? The Archbishop of Canterbury hinted at it in the following statement in the House of Lords: “T am well aware of other reasons, of an- other kind, which lie apparently behind these proposals, and which have led the Govern- ment to be particularly careful lest they should offend Arab susceptibilities. I recog- nize the force of those reasons. I think they may be exaggerated, but at least I cannot think they are sufficient to justify what seems like very scant justice to the Jews.” Herbert Morrison, present leader of the majority in the House of Commons, however, made the reasons for the default quite clear in these words: “The Jews must be sacrificed to the Government's preoccupation with ex- clusively imperialist rather than human con- siderations.” This tragic default came after 10 years of Arab atrocities dating from 1930, and Mor- rison made it clear that the British Govern- ment was surrendering to these atrocities if, indeed, as intimated, it did not sympathize with them. These are his words: “I should have had more respect for the [Prime Min- ister’s] speech if he had frankly admitted that the Jews would be sacrificed to the in- competence of the Government in the mat- ter, to be sacrificed to its inability to govern, to be sacrificed to its apparent fear of, if not, indeed, its sympathy with, violence, and these methods of murder and assassination.” Is it any wonder that there should be an impression abroad that the only language the British Government understands is “these [Arab] methods of murder and assassina- tion"? At any rate, these quotations from respon- sible Englishmen may enable America better to understand and appraise current events in Palestine. Income-Tax Reductions EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HAROLD KNUTSON OF MINNESOTA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 10, 1947 Mr. KNUTSON. Mr. Speaker, the American people are daily becoming more tax conscious, which is to be ex- pected in view of the burdensome tax load that they are carrying. It may not be generally known, but our people are the heaviest taxed in all the world, when we take into consideration the multi- plicity of taxes imposed by both the Fed- eral and State Governments, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- The following editorial from the Min- neapolis Star-Journal should interest every Member of Congress. It is factual and unbiased. The editorial follows: JUST WHO WILL BENEFIT BY INCOME-TAX CUTS? Marquis Childs, in his Washington dis- patch on this page, presents the adminis- tration view on income-tax cute—another variation of the soak-the-rich theory. Such advocates overlook one important fact—if the Government taxed away all the income in brackets above 625,000 it would get only $3,000,000,000. So a government planning to raise something over $20,000,- 000,000 from income taxes must dip into the low and middle brackets for most of the revenue. The Star has pointed out before why some tax reduction in the upper brackets is tm- portant to our system of free enterprise. From such incomes the savings are made which create new businesses. Childs argues that tax reduction on small incomes is more important, to keep purchasing power high. But how is workers’ pay to be kept up if there is no new investment? Childs argues that the present situation is like that in the 1920's. But income taxes were a very minor factor in those days. Take @ look at these comparative figures on the tax burden: Income before exemptions The big boosts have come since 1939. In- dividually, the great increase has been on the larger incomes. That condition was ac- ccpted for the war period, with an implied understanding there would be a return to more normal rates with peace. Considerable dispute has arisen as to who would benefit the most by an across-the- board reduction in income taxes—say, 20 per- cent. Each person would benefit according to his earning ability. A man in the upper brackets naturally benefits more in dollars. He pays much more. But in the total, the largest benefit goes to people in the lower-income brackets because there are so many more of them. Those in the two lowest brackets comprise 96 percent of all taxpayers. This table shows how a 20-percent cut would affect various groups of taxpayers: s 1a [belt - 3 Ee | 3 3B | =e | 28 | 28 Net income bracket 5g om | SR | se e | P lH a a a 770, 000|67. 5 $808 20.8 218, 000/28. 7 039 31.0 . 5 288 8.6 .0 288 8.6 2 8.7 .06 66 016 4.4 002 12 . 000001 2 Burely ability to pay is one of the main guides in taxation. But too restrictive taxes on incomes are a clot:in the bloodstream of our economy, Tax policy which encourages ‘business expansion helps promote full em- ployment at good wages. .
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD National Representation for the People of the District of Columbia EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ARTHUR CAPPER OF KANSAS IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, February 10, 1947 Mr. CAPPER. Mr. President, I send to the desk and ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp a statement which I presented today to the Senate Judiciary Commit- tee in support of my measure, Senate Joint Resolution 6, to grant national representation to the people of the Dis- trict of Columbia. There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: STATEMENT Bevore SENATE JUDICIARY COMMIT- TEE BY SENAIOR ARTHUR CAPPER IN SUPPORT or His Proposep AMENDMENT TO THE CON- STITUTION To GRANT NATIONAL REPRESENTA- TION TO THE PEOPLE OF THE DISTRICT OF CoLumBia Mr. Chairman, 1 appreciate highly your courtesy in affording me the opportunity to discuss with you Senate Joint Resolution 6, which it was my privilege to introduce in the Senate. This resolution proposes an amendment to the Constitution under which the Con- gress would be given power to provide our voteless and wnrepresented fellow Ameri- cans of the District of Columbia with repre- sentation in the Senate and House of Repre- sentatives and among the electors of Presi- dent and Vice President. The decision of the committee not to hold public hearings on this proposal is, to me, indicative of an intent to report the measure favorably to the Senate with such perfecting amendments as are deemed necessary. I know that the committee has before it many matters of national interest, but this proposal is also one of vital national im- portance, It involves the integrity of our American system of government of the peo- ple, by the people, and for the people, With- out this question being settled affirmatively, we cannot consistently boast of adherence to our underlying principles of representa- tive government; nor can we reconcile the voteless and unrepresented condition of the people of this National Capital with our pro- fessions expressed through our adherence to the United Nations Charter, which was rati- fled by the Senate. To provide this large group of Americans with this, their birthright, will be doing an act of simple justice. Such action is long overdue, as the Congress years ago should have provided @ political status for these people, a duty which must not be longer delayed. These good people of the District of Co- lumbia have been pleading for these well- deserved rights for participation in their National Government for nearly 60 years. The first proposed amendment to do this act of justice was introduced in the Senate in 1889 by the Honorable Henry W. Blair, a Senator from New Hampshire. Similar amendments for the same purpose have been before practically every Congress since that time. During later years I have introduced in each Congress similar proposals for a con- stitutional amendment in varying forms. These changes of form were made after con- ference with local civic leaders, with whom I have for many years maintained most cor- dial and friendly relations. The changes XCITI—App.——30 were intended to make the proposal conform more to ideas and to meet objections raised by Members of the Congress. My long and active membership on the Senate District Committee has brought me closely in contact with the people of the National Capital, and I have tried to repre- sent them as faithfully as I have tried to represent the people of the State of Kansas. I know the fine quality of these Americans here, whose public interest is keen and whose intelligence and patriotism are not surpassed by any other Americans. My continued and consistent support of the District of Columbia's constitutional amendment has by no means been a mere perfunctory performance. I am deeply and sincerely interested in seeing it written into the Constitution. These people here need and deserve these rights of national citizen- ship, which they are now denied, as surely as do the people of your State and mine. They obey the same laws of Congress, pay the same taxes, fight in the same wars, bleed and die, Just as do our constituents. They bear all of the burdens of citizenship just as you and I and our constituents bear them. Numerous full hearings on this proposal have been held by committees of the House and Senate during the many years it has been pending before Congress. The resulting record is full and convincing and has prob- ably had careful study by the committee. The Senate District Committee, following a full hearing in 1922, reported the proposal favorably and in two subsequent Congresses reaffirmed its 1922 report. The House Committee on the Judiciary made favorable report with amendments on House Joint Resolution 257 in the Seventy- sixth Congress, third session, on August 5, 1940 (Rept. No. 2828). As this was an election year, near the end of the session, and being No. 320 on the House Calendar, the measure could not be reached before adjournment unless under a special rule. The Rules Committee declined to supply the needed rule. Favorable subcommittee reports were made during the Seventy-ninth Congress to both the House and Senate Judiciary Com- mittees without action by the full commit- tees. During all of these many years this im- portant question has never been debated on the floor of either branch of the Congress. Only once has there been an unfavorable report and that was by the Senate Judiciary Committee in the Seventy-seventh Congress, first session, on July 28, 1941. With due respect to the Judiciary Com- mittee of the Seventy-seventh Congress, I have never felt that reasons contained in its adverse report were justified by the facts or its conclusions consistent with our funda- mental principles and rights. The only reason or excuse for creating the anomalous political situation prevailing at the seat of the Government was for the protection of the national interest. Grant- ing these people participation in the Na- tional Government would in no way lessen the protection. This phase of the question ‘was well discussed in the Citizens Brief which you will find in full as an appendix on page 28 of the argument of Theodore W. Noyes before the House Committee on the Judiciary in the Sixty-sixth Congress in January 1921. I am leaving a number of copies of this document for information of the committee. I quote a small part of this illuminating brief which was prepared by a group of very able lawyers: “In a word, the object of the framers was unity of governmental powers, not negation of political rights. “For it is manifest that every purpose for ‘which the power of exclusive legislation was conferred can be accomplished in the fullest measure without denying political rights to A465 the inhabitants. To insure the supremacy of 8 single legislative will, obedience to a single system of law and the total exclusion of any possible claim to authority on the part of an- other sovereignty, it is not necessary in the least to shut out the citizens who are subject to that law from participation in the making of it. “The legislative power of Congress over the District of Columbia will be no less exclusive, the authority of the National Government no less supreme, when the inhabitants shall have been admitted to be heard in Congress by their representatives, than it is now, or has been at any time in the past. “OUR SOLUTION SIMPLEST AND BEST “Some solution for the problem must be found. Whatever may be its nature it neces- sarily involves some change in the Constitu- tion. We cannot but think that the one we offer is the simplest and the best. “Instead of seeking, as in 1871, to transfer the whole or some part of the legislative function from Congress to another body, a constitutional amendment which would work radical changes in the power and position of Congress, we propose just the opposite. We propose to add to the present powers of Con- gress the further power to admit, whenever in its judgment the time therefor shall have arrived, the representatives of the people of the District to a seat in the National Legis- lature. “By this method we preserve, unimpaired, intact, the primary purpose of the creation of a special Federal district for the seat of gov- ernment; namely, the absolute supremacy therein of a single legislative will. All con- ceivable conflict between local authority and Federal authority will be impossible then, just as the framers of the Constitution intended that it should be impossible. Then, as now, there will exist but one judiciary, local and Federal; one Executive, one legislature. The National Government will continue, as now, supreme in every respect. But this suprem- acy will no longer be exercised at the cost of a humiliating repudiation of the princi- Ples of American government. It will be Maintained without the sacrifice of the rights of nearly half a million of law-abiding and Patriotic American citizens.” I understand that this committee would like to get rid of this matter which has been in its lap for so many years and my advice, as an old experienced Member of the Senate, is that the best way in which to accomplish that desire is to report the proposed amend- ment out to the Senate where it can be de-~ bated in the open. Then, being a perfectly reasonable and fundamentally American pro- posal, it should be approved by the Senate and sent on to the House of Representatives for similar action and then on to the State legislatures for ratification by three-fourths of the States. This vital matter of fundamental Ameri- canism should, as I have before stated, be squared with our American principle of gov- ernment of the people, by the people, and for the people. Ours should not be a govern- ment of a part of the people, by a part of the people, and for all of the people. It should also be squared with the United Nations Charter. Our solicitude for the peoples of all lands is a lofty sentiment which should extend to these Americans at the very heart of our great Republic. Then, and then only, will our actions as a Nation ring true to our pretensions of solicitude for the people of all lands. This being a committee of lawyers, | am not: surprised that some are inclined to find flaws in the language of the proposed amend- ment. Fears have been expressed that in its present form it is so indefinite regarding the extent of representation which might be given these people under its terms that it might empower Congress to grant them even greater representation in the Congress than is accorded a State.
A466 Tt seems to me that the proposal Can be readily amended so as to quiet any such fears. This proposal should not be put aside or a favorable report withheld because of any ap- parent defects in the wording of the amend- ment as proposed, and an adverse report is unthinkable. The preambie in the joint resolution, which reads as follows, clearly and concisely sets forth its purpose: “Whereas in recognition of the fact that the District, which is the seat of the Government of the United States, is a poputous and permanently separate po- litical unit which, in keeping with its special purpose, is not and should not become a State or part of a State; and with intent that the effective rights of citizens resident in that District, inctuding their participation in the Government of the United States, shall be as nearly similar to those of citizens resi- dent in the several States as may be without impairing the supreme authority of the said Government over its Capital * °* *¢.” Framing an amendment which would fulfill this purpose and at the same time meet the approval of this committee ought not to be too dificult an undertaking. Your committee must surely concede that these people are fit and are in every way de- serving of the enjoyment of the same rights of partictpation in this Government of the United States as you and I. I would hate to think for one moment that this committee and the Congress will at this time lightly brush aside the earnest petitions of our own people of a community with a population exceeding that of each of 12 or 14 States. I beg af you to whip this amendment into what you consider proper form and send it on to the Senate with a strong report recom- mending its adoption by the required two- thirds vote of that body. And in conclusion, let me tell you, my friends, that until justice ls done for these fellow Americans of the Nation’s Capital, this proposal will continue to be in the lap of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is absolutely true that no question is ever set- tled until it is settled right. The eyes of the natinns are upon us—do we practice what we preach? Befere We Disarm EXTENSION OF REMARES or HON. JOSEPH P. O'HARA IN THE HOUSE OF REPE TATIVES Monday, February 10, 1947 Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rsc- orp, I include the following editorial fram the St. Paul Pioneer Press: BSEPORE WE DISARM When Soviet Delegate Gromyko tells the United Nations Security Council that the way to get world security is for the nations to disarm, it is to be feared that what he . really means is that the way for Russia to get rid of effective opposition to its ex- pansionism is to render the United States powerless. The sea, air, and land power of the United drive a wedge between Britain and America, Gromyko demands that American and Brit- ain strip themesives of their sources af power in advance of any guaranties or as- surances that Russia will likewise deplete its power. The sources of American and Sritiah mili- readily of military force lies in its manpower. An ermy which depends for its might on the stupendous masses of its manpower and its willingness t exnend that manpower with- out stint can be demobiiisax but is never destroyed. i é B : | ze rn and 40 among us as they please. sia is not only a dictatorship but territory, under control of the secret po The Soviet Government should by time clearly understand that America haz no intention of disarming without proofs that Russia has made as nearly equal & disarmament as their differing circum stances permit. United States Delegate Aus- tin, Tuesday, made this point very emphati- cally and there should be no retreat. It Ut Industrial EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WAYNE MORSE OF OREGON IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, February 10, 1947 Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed tn the Appendix of the Rzooan a very fine address on the subject Industrial Sta- bility, delivered by C. H. Krelenbaum, president of the Simpson Logging Co. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Rzcoap, as follows: Our industry today, after the many years of depression, the NRA, and finally the war, during which we were either in economic APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of low profit to periods of heavy losses. At the moment we can say that we are enjoying ®@ period of prosperity. Are we riding one of these short periods of profit Runaway prices have been the subject of much discussion recently. At this moment I doubt that anyone can say exactly what is the price on particular sime or grade of lum- ber. This situation is the result of the sud- den breaking of the bonds of our rigidly regi- mented economy. It is peculiar not only to trade and industry but labor also, being frozen during the war, when freed of its bonds, for a time lost its equilibrium. Our situation can be very dangerous if this con- dition continues for any jength of time. The inevitable reault of the wildcat prices of which we hear so much, however, is now ap- parent. Resistance to such opportunism being felt and soon we should see some sem- cerned about it as Iam concerned about our costs and the resultant prices necessary to cover them. For the purpose of making some compari- sons with the Bureau of Labor Statistics I used the year 1636 as a base against October 1946, just prior to the dropping of the Office of Price Administration controis. Since the year 1026 was a loss year for our industry, our price figures of that year and October 1046, would not be comparable, but it is most fm- teresting to note the increases in our costs over that period as compared to the prices of other commodities. Index figure « Index figures of our average lumber-pro- duction costs 180. Remember these compari- sons are for the month of October 1946, and prior to the expiration of OPA controls. Since that time we have had another in- crease in our labor costs. These exceptional increases in the index figures covering our costs are the result of a very high percen- tage of increase in labor costs, both in rates of pay and in the man-hours of work re- quired to produce the raw materials. Our industry is reaching farther back into rough country for timber. It is more seasonal, and with it all, the prices of stump- age are higher. When we add to these costs increases in our frelght rates, both by rail and by water, and handling charges at the retail end, it makes one wonder just where we do stand in the competitive field. We have heard much said by our critics about pricing ourselves out of our markets. Teal however, lies in cost levels which can per- manently cripple our industry. 1 believe we should stop, take inventory of our present situation and make certain we do not wake up some morning fighting a situation worse than the one from which we have just emerged. If our management and our labor will think and act soberly in this r-atter; if we again turn our attention to our mar- I comment on details report, it might be well to review our forest aituatien prior to the war. For many yeers and until only recently the pressure of Hqut-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD pressing influence on the economics of the industry, The burden of carrying large tim- ber reserves was constantly pressing on the production of lumber which at times was forced on an unwilling market. During the depression years of the thirties the industry lost a large percentage of its capital, Late in the thirties, of all the privately held lands in the counties of western Washington, al- most 30 percent was tax delinquent or held by the counties as tax-title lands. A similar condition of instability existed in western Oregon. To interest anyone in stable-land ownership, in land management, in growing of timber under such conditions was im- possible. The dynamic energy of this industry, how- ever, has been illustrated in the sudden and complete reversal of this situation. Within the last 7 or 8 years we have seen our ‘Keep Washington and keep Oregon green” cam- paigns get started; men have begun looking around, first realizing the potentialities of well-stocked second-growth lands. A new movement has taken hold and is growing very rapidly; that is, the development of tree farms, The realization that land man- agement for timber growing has large posel- bilities has reversed the trend of tax delin- quencies, and the tax-title lands are fast passing back into private ownership and thus onto the tax rolls. Within the last 6 years we have seen a radical change in the pat- tern of timberland ownership in western Washington. The independent logger who owned large acreages of timber has either sold or merged his holdings with those of processing operations. The open log markets of Puget Sound and Grays Harbor have prac- tically disappeared. The industry of western Washington is developing rapidly into stable ownership. Within the last few years also Congress has passed sustained-yield laws, permitting the Federal agencies to cooperate in the establishment of sustained-yield units. The first such cooperative sustained-yield unit has been established. The Portland office of the Forest Service has announced that they have recommended to the Washington, D. C., Office the establishment of more cooperative units, plus a Federal unit, within the near future. The Oregon and California Land Grant Administration have plans for the establishment of other units. I was interested to note that the public officials of Douglas County of Oregon were under attack because they were endeavoring to integrate the county lands into long-time operating units. I congratulate these offi- clals on the courage that they have thus displayed. Oregon is now becoming the dominant lumber-producing State, and fortunately at a time when every effort is being made in the direction of stable timber management and integration. The State of Washington is fortunate in thdt its period of forest sta- bility is beginning while it has sufficient resources remaining to be of importance to its economy. Inasmuch as our industry is of such tre- mendous importance to the States of Wash- ington and Oregon, it has endeavored for years to assure the people of the two States that there would always be a forest-products industry to support their economy. The first requisite to such a promise is stability of tand and timber ownership and a wed- ding of the raw materials and the processing plants; in other words, more complete inte- gration of the processes that are necessary to the full utilization of what an acre of ground will grow in our two States. If the momentum of this development that has taken place in the last 5 or 6 years continues into the future, I believe we can fairly well predict the extent of the future operations of the forest-products industry of our Doug- las-fir region, Going back to the Kirkland report, I would like to quote a section of the prefaced state- ment by your Conservation Committee. It is the most significant part of the report: “Considering Kirkland’s data in the light of current industry trends, the committee re- gards as reasonable a minimum yearly cut of 7,600,000,000 feet, including pulpwood, dur- ing the next 5 or 10 years. “Let it be emphasized that this forecast is based upon present operating methods and sustained yield calculations. This much regional production seems to be assured. “Log supply may be increased by the liqui- dation of more private timber than has been estimated or by cutting second growth at a greater rate. And it may be increased by improvements in utilization.” Where the report speaks of a minimum yearly cut of 7,500,000,000 feet it is speaking of logs, This compares with the average pro- duction of logs over the last 13-year period of 7,400,000,000 feet, and a peak production of logs reached in 1929 of 10,200,000,000 feet. Giving consideration to the logs that are used by pulp mills, the plywood plants and shingle mills, the balanee of the log produc- tion will permit of a production of approxi- mately 6,000,000,000 to 6,500,000,000 feet of lumber. This is compared to the average production of lumber in this region during the last 13-year period of 6,650,000,000 feet. Remember that the Joint Conservation Committee said: “The committee regards aos reasonable a minimum yearly cut of 7,500,- 000,000 feet, including pulpwood during the next 5 or 10 years.” The question im- mediately comes to mind as to what happens after the next 5 or 10 years. The Kirkland report strongly indicates that the annual cut of logs can drop to as low as 8,600,000,000 to 65,000,000,000 feet, should all privately held timber lands be op- erated on a liquidation basis. A drop to such @ level would provide for a production of lumber barely enough to supply the needs for our products of the Pacific Coast States. That is not going to happen. There are many things this industry can and, I believe, will do to level off its harvest of timber and create the stable forest condition the report indicates can be ours in the future. A very large portion of private timber now is being operated on a sustained basis. The Federal and the Oregon and California Grant Cooperative sustained-yield units will bring in more. Management of integrated opera- tions will not allow the woods wastage exist- ing a few years ago, because of scarcity of stumpage and the high price of stumpage. Government agencies cannot allow a lesser degree of utilization on their lands than the best that private operations reach on their lands or on the cooperatively managed lands, During the next 10 or 20 years other large acreages of second growth are coming into size for management and harvesting. The great effort that is made today through ex- periments in equipment and means of a higher degree of utilization at low cost can- not do other than to bring results which will add to the momentum of utilization. Research in new processes in this industry has only gotten started and it too js gaining momentum. There will be sale for lower grades of lumber because of a price struc- ture to support such utilization. The sales of the Forest Service have reached a volume of about 1,200,000,000 feet @ year. The estimated allowable cut on the national forest in this region is 1,700,000,000 feet. The operating budget of this region of the Forest Service is threatened with a reduction of some $300,000. If this occurs, or if their budget remains static, I under- stand there will be difficulty in expanding the forest-management organization of the Forest Service sufficiently to fully develop its program of allowable cut. It is esti- mated that there is a possible 20 percent of A467 the national forest that can be included in couperative sustained-yield units and an- other 10 percent will be set aside to create Federal units. The remainder of their tim- ber will be sold in line with their past policy. Of the Oregon and California land grant a considerable portion is so situated as to form practical cooperative sustained-yield units. The allowable cut on the Oregon and Call- fornia land grant 1s estimated to be about 600,000,000 feet a year. The State of Wash- ington holds some 21,000,000,000 feet of timber in the Douglas-fir region. The man- ner in which these lands will be managed has not been made clear. In the Olympic Na- tiona] Park in the State of Washington 1s reserved some 17,000,000,000 feet of timber which is not now available for cutting. A bill has been introduced in Congress pro- posing the study of this park reservation by an unbiased commission. Knowing the sit- uation on Grays Harbor, I feel certain that if this bill passes Congress, and the commis- sion approaches its study from a practical standpoint, much of this timber will be re- leased for management and utilization. These are all matters of particular interest to our industry and to this association. They suggest the closest kind of cooperation between our industry and all public agencies dealing with our timber resources. Since the Kirkland report was written much has happened to lay emphasis on the subject of sustained yield. The Government agencies, holding 60 percent of the remaining mature timber in the Douglas fir region, with laws permitting the establishment of sus- tained-yield operations, cooperative as well as otherwise, pressed by public opinion in the interest of stability, are taking active steps to follow through on their programs. If we will develop the cooperation between industry and the Government agencies, and act with a singleness of purpose, I am per- sonally convinced that there is a strong pos- sibility that the industry of this region can have a sustained cut of logs averaging around '7,000,000,000 feet for the next 20 to 25 years. The tendency toward further integration of our industry, bringing with it a higher degree of utilization, will have arrested the trend downward in annual volume of log cut. From that point on we should see an expand- ing industry develop. I am convinced that We can say to the people of Oregon and Wash- ington that not only will we always have a forest-products industry but also a stable and, someday, an expanding industry. Work of the Agriculture Conservation As- sociation of the Production and Market- ing Administration of the Third District of Arkansas EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. JAMES W. TRIMBLE OF ARKANSAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 10, 1947 Mr. TRIMBLE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rec- ord, I wish to insert a table showing the work done by the Agriculture Conserva- tion Association of the Production and Marketing Administration of the Third District of Arkansas, which I have the honor to represent. I think this is a very remarkable report and the request for funds for this great effort is certainly
A468 modest. It is one of the essential pro- grams of good government. The report follows: We, the County and Community Commit- teemen of the Agricultural Conservation As- sociation of the Production and Marketing Administration Field Service Branch pro- gram, have prepared some informational material and facts relative to the accom- Pplishments and needs for your information. We ask your support in securing ample funds for administering the program proper- ly, as funds at present are not sufficient to administer the The funds for ad~ ministering the program have been reduced by 50 percent since 1943 even though the county committee and county office have had more responsibilities. We have lost many APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD to you in securing ample funds for adminis- trative expense for the fiscal year, and in rep- resenting all farmers in your district. Commercial orchard acreage in Practices Phosphate iW mestone Mulching m: Winter legumes... Green manure crops... ce " pasture. Contour farming. -.. Dra{nage ditches. ance eeeee Two or more Removal of aie tees Home Renovation of pasture. ...... Continuous system of graging.....--....----------- ences Percent of increase in livestock as a result of AAA’s pasture program, 41. Percent of increase in dairy production as @ result of AAA’s pasture program, 59. The following have been established from 1936 up to the present, principally due to AAA production practices causing diversified farming: Number Livestock sales barns.....-....--.---. 12 Milk plants....--.-.--...-. eee eee w ee nn 4 Cheese plants.......... a eoneee 67 Milk and cream routes_........-------. 66 Cream stations_.._........ weaene 109 Lime plants...-.. 6 Canning factories__...... 81 Frozen food locker plants_.....-.-----. q The Philosephy of Thomas Edison EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. PAUL W. SHAFER OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 10, 1947 Mr. SHAFER. Mr. Speaker, as we have all seen by the newspapers, tomorrow, February 11, is the one: hundredth anni- versary of the birth of Thomas A. Edison. In this connection I have just read an article entitled, “The Philosophy of Thomas A. Edison,” written by the well- trained and valuable office personnel due to district ...-..-.---.--.------- 81, 263 higher living costs and curtailment in funds Noncrop pasture land tn district. $94, 980 to such an extent that we could not main- Number of leading farmers elect- tain adequately trained people. We trust ed as county and community that this information will be of assistance committee ....-.. meeneceenne ee 1064 - roan cr ay rca th | Extent of soll-bullding practices neoded AAA program from 1936 through 1945, on a AY practices In connection wi yearly average the A program Number of Number af Pparticipat- Extent Value farms Extent necded ing farms bes g practices 879 | 7,611,779 pounds.............-.| $78, 211 22, 153 | 95,621,500 pounds, 1,646 | 17,922 44, 745 19, 048 B34 118 tone. 2 408 10, 888 | 4,485,800 pounds. © | 453 352 2, 395 tons. 1, 780 2, 872 13, 424 | 242,702 acres. 2, 436 25, 307 17, 787 | 100,478 acroa, 3; 304 22, 688 738 | 88,578 acres. & 185 129, 480 15, 112 | 301,843 acres. 218 7,317 10, 902 | 708,516 hundred linear feet. 173 28, 826 3, 200 | 3,270 ponds, a2 4,310 9, 414 140 acres, 7 209 1,786 acres. 791 2h, 508 12, 663 | 230,883 acres, 1, 636 18, 374 18, 198 | 113,053 aores, 1, 878 15, 313 12, 082 G1 acres, 97 4, 570 8,111 | 75,187 acres. 6, 230 42, 734 18,991 | 87,045 acres. 596 14, 201 7, 443 | 96,860 acres, 38 614 2,045 | 9,365 acres. 5 138 0 | Nane. 7 6, 512 5, 740 | 80,628 acres 937 18, 897 20, 450 | 170,834 acres, 063 19, 181 7, 980 5 acres. 41 329 5,173 25,082 acres, 906 6, 456 11, 895 | 240,072 acres. 13 3,054 1,48 wa, fre cubte yards. 218 8, 482 7, 81 $2 097 2, 203 rf ‘too acres. 32 420 6, 026 67,780 acres, ewcnnnneseee| NOUC__.....c.neseneenesneneece|--eeeee---2- 8 319 | 70, 420 hundred lncar feet, 261 7, 613 0} None. 8, 589 14, 758 0 | None. 80 62 @,021 | 130, 111 acres. 2 637 & 573 | 73,136 acres. known writer, Larston D. Farrar and ap- pearing in the Public Utilities Fort- nightly magazine. I believe that in this article Mr. Farrar has brought out some angles and emphasized some points about Mr. Edison that have been overlooked by many others who have written about Edison lately. I wish that everybody in the United States could read this article, for, if so, there would be more emphasis on hard work and less tendency for gov- ernment to grow. Under leave to extend my remarks, I include the article, as follows: THE PHILOSOPHY OF THOMAS EDISON (By Larston D. Farrar) Tom Edison once said that genius is 1- percent inspiration and 99-percent perspira- tion. That could be paraphrased to describe the effect of his life and works on millions of people. They accepted his inventions to save themselves 99-percent perspiration, but they have not yet learned that Edison's life and philosophy could furnish a vital 1 per- cent of inspiration even though he is dead. Man has made great use of Edison's ma- ’ terial inventions. London, Paris, Moscow, Berlin—all are lighted by the lamp which was perfected by his fertile mind and his patient hand. But modern man has faved to learn the lemons Edison learned the hard way in the field of government and in the realm of social philosophy. There are millions of persons who revere his memory, yet do not follow the course he set because they do not know of it. There are even some today who have been led to believe that he was against the common man’s aspirations. In his day—eand that was not more than two decades ago—there were no so-called common men in Amer- ica, in the sense that term is used now. The followers of Karl Marx were just getting started in their world-wide crusade to set class against class, to pit brother against brother, and to make poor men think they could change their fate by changing the “system.” In Edison's day, the cloud of communism was no bigger than a man’s hand. In Amer- ica, we were all just citisens—some rich, some well-to-do, some poorer than others, but all free citizens. There were class dis- tinctions then, but men passed from clase to class—becoming richer or poorer as their talents and abilities merited. American so- ciety had not yet become stratified through the workings of pseudo-liberalism. And there was no mass, organized movement try- ing to pit workers against managers and to set up artificial standards by means of which common men could be separated from capitalists. Edison understood well the nature of government, and its place. He looked on people as individuals and not as numbers in a file case, and that ts why he will be more respected and admired a century from now among all freemen than he is even today. In his way, he was a social philosopher potnt- ing toward a better way of economic and social reform—a way that consisted in doing big things instead of talking big things. His statement about government in bust- ness, given to Samuel Crowther in 1929, is more apropos today than the day it was uttered. Read these words again, in the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD light of modern events, to see how very strikingly he summed up the eternal battle between freemen and totalitarian govern- ment: “There is far more danger in public mo- nopoly than there is in private monopoly, for when government goes into business it can always shift its losses to the taxpayers, If it goes into the power business, it can pretend to sell cheap power and then cover up its loss. “The Government never really goes into business, for it never makes ends meet. And that is the first requisite of business. The Government mixes a little business with a lot of politics and no one ever gets a chance to find out what is actually going on. “A large extension of the Government into business affairs—no matter what the pre- tense and no matter how the extension is labeled—will be bound to promote waste and to bring a curb on our prosperity and prog- ress. Somehow, and probably it is in the very nature of things, a Government office is below the level of a private office.” Edison often used to laugh about how, dur- ing World War I, he was head of an important group of scientists in the Nuvy Department in Washington. He wanted a little imple- ment made of tin, and he made out a requl- sition to that effect. On each of the next three days he received messages from the Navy bureau that the implement would be forthcoming. Four days after he sent in the order the implement was delivered. When he later returned to his factory in West Orange he wrote out a requisition for the same tin implement—just to see how long it would take to have it delivered to him. He got the implement in 24% hours. That is a good standard of measurement, he said, of the relative efficiency of private business and Government business. Thomas A. Edison has been portrayed as an indefatigable worker and as a hard-bitten skeptic in every field, so often in recent years that there is a real danger that many will forget that he was a man—even as you and I—and subject to all the foibles and frettings that bother all men. In a recent interview with Charles Edison, former gov- ernor of New Jersey, who bears a striking physical likeness to his distinguished father, I was able to learn some points about Edison, the man, that emphasize greatly his essen- tial beliefs and his towering intellect in all flelds. “J remember Thomas A. Edison as three different men,” Charles Edison told me, “As a kind and loving father when I was his child; as my boss when I reached maturity and worked with him; and as a public figure whose head was never turned by the adula- tions heaped upon him by a grateful man- kind. “As a practical child psychologist and as a companion to me and my brothers and sisters in my boyhood, he had no peer. I can remember only one spanking—the time I wouldn't take some quinine the doctor had prescribed. He was ‘dad’ to all of us chil- dren, one of which we could be proud. Perhaps because of his deafness he never was annoyed by our petty quarrels and the household noises that irritate so many fathers. He was aloof enough to make us respect him, but companionable enough to make us adore him, “My fondest memories of my boyhood are those he spent with us children on the Fourth of July each year. He liked that holiday better than any other and he made it a symbol of fun and fanfare for us. There was something loud and carefree and wild about the Fourth of July practices of those days that made him forget utterly the cares of his business enterprises and his laboratory work. “Early in the morning of a Fourth he would get out on the wide lawn with all of our family and the neighboring children and would play all kinds of romping games. He would shoot off firecrackers and toy tor- pedoes. He would take off his shoes and would make us all remove our shoes and then give each of us a supply of torpedoes. It would make him laugh to throw the tor- pedoes at our feet. He could take it as well as dish it out. By noon we would all be ready for the special feast. After a heavy meal there would be a siesta time, during which he would rest and read the news- papers. Then, as darkness fell, we would start the fun all over again. He always had @ quantity of rockets and other fireworks on hand, and he was adept in their use. “He seldom played card games, but he used to love to play parcheesi with us children and got a kick out of the way the dice would fall. By the time I was a young man (and was the only boy at home), the old electric automobiles came out, He, of course, owned one of the first Bakers. Then came the White steam car. After I had taken a course in operation and repair from a dealer, my father purchased two of these in 1904. He nicknamed them Discord and Disaster. I always had to drive—and fix the punctures. We were lucky, on a 100-mile round trip, if we did not have more than 8 or 10 punc- tures. He was always talking about how someone would develop a new and batter type of motor than that in the steam car—and, inadvertently, he had encouraged Henry Ford to do that very thing. “My father was an adventurer. He was absolutely unafraid to try anything. I can prove that statement simply by relating that he and I and three other explorers actually drove two White steam cars from West Orange, N. J.. to the mountains of North Carolina in 1905. “It took us 3 days to get to Washington, D. C., although that was the easlest part of the trip. From then on, through Virginia and North Carolina mountains, we suffered all the torments that have plagued motorists to greater or lesser degree throughout the ec ‘tury. We were looking for cobalt—and we found it. He never took part in any en- terprise that ended quite as miraculously— we returned home with both steam cars, although at several blacksmith shops en route we had to forge new parts for the ailing vehicles. “At 24, after having completed my formal education, I went to work at my father’s plant in West Orange. Then I saw that he was an entirely different man from the home- body and father I had known.” Edison often has een accused of having been a poor businessman. But it is a re- markable fact that he never worked on a useless invention. Many of the industries of modern times are based on the product of his genius. If the definition of a good busi- nessman is one who devotes his life only to the acquisition of wealth, then Edison was not a good businessman. His one passionate desire was to wrest secrets from nature that would benefit mankind. When he had suc- ceeded in doing so and had found it a busi- ness, his interest ended. He wanted to delve again into the mysteries of nature. He could have been the wealthiest man that ever lived. But he looked upon wealth as merely a means to an end. He used money as a laborer uses his pick und shovel. He often remarked that he never wanted more than a million dollars, because, he said, “When a man has more than a million dol- lars, he has to quit whatever else he is doing and look after his money.” The truth is, he left an estate of more than a million dol- lars, but not through any plan of his own. One time Edison had a partner in 4 cer- tain chemical enterprise in which each man invested millions of dollars. They decided that they would build the plant only for wartime operation, and that they would set up & fund during the period of high profits so that, if they lost money in the period of A469 lNquidation, they still would be better off than they had been at the beginning. This fund consisted of 86,000,000. When half of it later was lost, as anticipated, the partner became # nervous wreck. The loss preyed on his mind and it was obvious that to him the money was all important. Edison dis- missed the loss of the $3,000,000 as casually as many men would dismiss the loss of a cigarette lighter. Another time Edison invested heavily in a certain plant designed for the magnetic separation of tron ore. Then the great Me- sabi range was discovered in Minnesota, mak- ing useless his inventions in magnetic sepa- ration. He was on a train when his asscci- ates, chugrined at learning the news of the Mesub!i discovery and its verification, told him of it. He knew immediately that It meant the loss of millions of dollars and months of heartbreaking effort. But he shrugged his shoulders, gave a wry grin, and remarked: “Well, boys, we had a helluva good time spending it, didn’t we? Let’s get busy on something else.” And that was the last he ever worried about the whole thing. He was an odd employer. To the regular employees of his various plants, he was a mystical figure. They would see him only intermittently. He cared very little for pro- duction, compared to his love for research and investigation. His laboratory employ- ees viewed him as a dynamo of energy, a veritable demon for work. He would take it easy for a while, then go on what he called “campaign.” He would make his plans to begin working around the clock at the lab- oratory, sleeping only intermittently and seldom more than 4 hours out of 24. This would continue sometimes for as long as 3 months, when he would accomplish his goal and revert to a more normal routine. They called the men who worked with him the ‘insomnia squad.” These men knew—as his children learned early in life—that he was an inveterate practical Joker and prank- ster. Nobody ever knew when he would start pulling a practical joke, but it general- ly was after he had done his work and want- ed to relax mentally as well as physically. Sometimes, for recreation, he would get to- gether a few of the laboratory assistants for a music fest. He played the organ, the little glass blower played the zither, another of the men played on tin pans, and two others played bones. They could render any of the popular tunes of the day, and some others with words that were never heard outside the laboratory. He was always slow to anger, even in the laboratory. He never became impatient at the failure of others to perform as quickly as they should, but he made it a point to have around him only men who wanted to get things done as much as he did. It took a lot of determination for a man to remain on the “insomnia squad.” In 1929, on the occasion of the fiftieth an- niversary celebration of the invention of the electric light, Edison was honored by the President of the United States, the heads of other nations, and the most eminent scien- tists of the world. On that occasion, he made a brief speech in which he revealed his attitude toward himself and his fellow- workers: “T would be embarrassed at the honors that are being heaped on me on this unforgettable night were it not for the fact that in honoring me you are also honoring that vast army of thinkers and workers of the past, and those who are carrying on; without whom my work would have gone for nothing,” he said. “If I have spurred men to greater effort, and if our work had widened the hori- zons of men’s understanding even a little and given a measure of happiness in the world, I am content.” Charles Edison tells this story to illustrate what a kick Thomas Edison got out of working:
A470 “My father's life in the laboratory was long. but it was never really hard. One time a friend visited him at the laboratory and my father remarked that he had been work- ing for three months on an invention. “Why, you never did a lick of work in your life,’ the friend remarked with a smile. “‘What do you mean?’ “You've been enjoying yourself all your l‘fe,’ the friend declared. “My father laughed and admitted it was true, for the most part. It wag his desire to do things that kept him going. “But, outside of the laboratory, he always was relaxed and took things easy. He could turn his mind off like a stop watch and start it up again when he wanted to. When my mother would urge him to get out in the open and get some exercise, he would smile and quote Mark Twain to her: “Every time I feel the urge for exercise, I He down and sleep it off.’ “He was always in good health up until the last few months of his life. Never physically etrong in the manner of Charles Atlas’ ad- herents, he always ate good food and main- tained his vigor until he was stricken fatally.” At the time of Edison's birth, a hundred years ago, there was darkness over the face of the earth when the sun went down. On October 21, 1879, a new light was born. On that day, after more than 6,000 consecutive experiments extending over a period of many months, he produced the first successful in- candescent electric light bulb. An incredu- lous world beat a path to his laboratory at Menlo Park to witness this new marvel of science. He already had become known as the Wizard of Menlo Park, having proved another device that was to put music in millions of homes—the phonograph. Edison, in effect, was the creator of the present vast electric light and power indus- try. He always considered it his greatest monument. But he sold his electric light business soon after his invention for a com- paratively paltry sum and dumped most of his ght and power stocks on the market in the early nineties so that he could have funds to carry on experiments in other fields Three years after the electric light and power industry was born, in 1882, he estab- lished the tiny Pearl Street station in New York. At that time, nothing existed which he could use, so he had to design the gen- erator, distributing system, meters, and everything else that went into the construc- tion of this plant. It had a capacity of only 1,200 horsepower and its first customers were a few hundred wealthy persons living in an area of about 12 city blocks. From this humble beginning, the power and light in- dustry grew until it is today one of the great- est industries In the United States. It has a total investment of more than 15 bil- lion dollars; it can deliver untold millions of horsepower, and it employs more than half a million persons. It 1s a far cry from that first lamp of 1879 to the perfected lamp of today; from the Jumbo of Pearl Street stntion to the multiple horsepower units of today. But the basic principles underlying the new and the old are identical. Edison invented—other great minds perfected. In the early days, both the bulbs and the power were far too costly, except for the rich. In the short span of 60 years the num- ber of electric lights has been increased from a few hundred to tens of billions. Whereas 60 years ago only wealthy families could af- ford electric light, now the poorest families can have it in their homes. The average cost is less than for cigarettes. As an inventor of international fame in the later years of his life, and, therefore, a public figure of world interest, he realized his responsibilities and felt keenly the in- fluences of his words and acts. That is why, in his later years, he become more taci- turn in speaking for the public, since words have a way of becoming two-edged. It is easy for myths to grow up around great men, and no man’s memory has been sub- jected to more such bad ideas than that of Edison. His son makes it plain that Edison’s ideas on religion have been misinterpreted in some minds: “It is commonly said that my father was an atheist—that he disputed the existence of a Supreme Being. Nothing could be farther from the truth. No man ever lived who had greater faith than Thomas A. Edi- son; no man stood in greater awe of the Unseen Hand which guides the destinies of men and planets; no man ever believed more firmly in the existence of a Supreme In- telligence who patterned both the contours in the snow and made possible the lilies of the field. “My father often mentioned this Supreme Intelligence. He had more reason to believe in the existence of a divine order in nature than do lesser men, for he had occasion to know more intimately of the order that existed in nature and to marvel at the immutability of nutural laws. “To be sure, ne was not an orthodox re- ligionist, and he was as skeptical of creeds in religion as he was in physical science. He refused to believe the commonly accepted doctrines of his day in any field. The appli- cation of this altitude in the field of science made it possible for him to invent the elec- tric light, the phonograph, and other in- ventions which emerged regularly from his laboratory over a period of many decades. Only a few months before he perfected the filament which made it possible to construct an incandescent electric light, one of the world’s most eminent mathematicians had said that it was absurd to think that such a@ thing could be done. “In religion, as in material sc.ence, my father saw that men are bound down only by their own limited and self-designated ho- rizons. He saw that knowledge, in either the Spiritual or the material worlc, is as shore- less and as limitless as space itself. Some remarks often attributed to him may or may not have been made by him, but if any of them tend to make it seem that he did not live in constant respect of a Supreme Intel. ligence, they do him and his memory a great injustice. “It is often said that he never attended church. This is only partly true. When he was courting my mother ir. Akron, Ohio, he was a regular attendant with her at the First Methodist Church, and they were married in & Methodist church. As he grew older, he did not attend because he found it a source of great discomfiture to fatl to hear the preacher. He contributed funds regularly to the Salvation Army and often expressed to me his feelings for that organization. He also contributed to churches. He felt that the Salvation Army, in its field, war attempt- ing to do the same thing he was doing in his fleld—to bring help to the great masses of people who really needed help.” He wanted desperately to contribute to the well-being of every American. Essentially, that is why he lived, and that is why he worked so hard all the days of his life. He wanted to help mankind. Edison’s most important inventions were not happy chance. They were planned. And they were planned to help the greatest number of persons at the cheapest possible cost. He was a man with a one-track mind when he set out to invent something that he knew, if invented, would help the great masses. For example, in experimentations leading up to the invention of the incandescent electric light, he ran into dozens of facts that would have helped him invent some- thing else that would be commercially profitable and useful. He would jot down such a note as this: “Bo-and-so would be useful in constructing a hearing device.” APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD But he would not let concommitant facts draw him away from his original purpose. He discovered truths and made notes of phenomena that were useful to other scien- tists in inventing a whole line of “minor” inventions compared to those which he himeelf was trying to perfect. He would not allow himself to be shunted away from his original goal—to invent a light that would be useful in every home, or to invent a@ talking machine that could bring enter- tainment to all the people. In the small, but distinguished, group of Nineteenth Century inventors, all of whom have achieved immortal fame, Edison's views were well known and respected, for each of the great men in his own field who knew him also held his great intellect in awe. He con- tributed to their work—and they to his. This little group included Henry Ford, who, at a crucial period in his work on the de- velopment of a gasoline engine, was en- couraged by Edison; Guglielmo Marconi, to whom Edison sold the patents that helped make wireless practicable; Harvey Firestone, the great tire inventor; Luther Burbank, the botanist, with whom Edison worked; Dr. Charles Proteus Steinmetz, the electrical genius. He knew all of the great and near great in virtually every fleld of American endeavor. But you would never have known it if you had waitea for him to tell you. He never boasted of knowing either President or prince. He knew every President from Ru- therford B, Hayes—Arthur, Cleveland, Harri- son, McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover. If there was one lesson, however, he would have taught the world, it is that men must think and work if all men are to be helped, if the human race ever reaches that pinnacle of prosperity for which men have yearned through uncounted centuries, All his adult life, Edison kept this framed quotaticn by Sir Joshua Reynolds in his laboratory and office: “There is no expedient to which a man will not resort to avoid the real labor of thinking.” The End of the Beginning EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WALTER H. JUDD OF MINNESOTA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 10, 1947 Mr. JUDD. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following article by Edna Lonigan from Human Events: Tue END OF THE BEGINNING (By Edna Lonigan) The New Deal is dead but the evil that it did lives on. Because it is now without a leader, a party, or even a symbol we tend to forget how deep were the changes it made, and how much effort will be needed to repair the damage wrought. Political changes in this country after 1923 are usually pictured as a growth in the power of the Executive, or even of one man. Such superficial analysis ignores the fact that the New Deal was part of a world-wide retreat from responsible representative government which began a generation ago and has now become almost universal. The people of the United States were almost unconsciously swept into this rout. We lived for 14 years in a revolution, but it was revolution under an anesthetic. The change in American government was the work of appointed officials, Most citizens
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD were outside what Human Events has well described as our own iron curtain. Neither the death of Mr. Roosevelt nor the Republican congressional victory has ended this counterrevolution against the fundamental principles of the Republic. But the Congress now about to convene can at least bring the crisis into the light. The final decision can then be made by alerted voters, rather than by officials who stand to gain from further surrepitious growth of their power. Americans are disheartened because our efforts to make a “‘people’s peace” have been met with doubt and cynicism. The reason is that we do not know what we mean when we talk of a people’s peace and are even uncertain as to whether we want free en- terprise or an officially planned economy at home. Everyone outside the United States recognizes the split that runs through our contemporary political thinking. And as we solemnly attempt to decide the future of other nations, of which we know little or nothing, it would seem reasonable to de- vote at least a portion of our intelligence to our own future. American political institutions no longer rest, as formerly, upon hard rock. The ground beneath them has been mined. We cannot have peace at home or peace in the world until our own foundations have been reestablished. bo 4 All over the world, governments have en- larged their economic powers since 1918. But this has happened as a sequel to an- other, less obvious, revolution under way in the political field. Two cataclysms have joined to make the tidal wave of change in our time. The economic innovation was to develop the role of government as an agent of pro- duction. Under many different forms, gov- ernments have taken over the direction of capital and markets. The new economic role of the state as enterpriser can be traced back to the national workshops of 1848 in France. The lavish promises made for these ateliers nationaux are still repeated. Their lugubrious failure is forgotten. State socialism, however begun, soon shifts to an oligarchy in which a small elite as- sumes control of the productive life of the nation. The voters have far less influence on its higher strategy than have small stock- holders of a big corporation. The voters can- not sell their shares and invest elsewhere when governmental mistakes are made. The political revolution of our time de- pends on the technique of organizing voters into masses. It was first perfected by Louis Napoleon Bonaparte of France, whose as- sets—recognizable by Americans—were a well-known femily name and demagogic skill in manipulating crowds. Blocs of voters, swayed by deceitfully clever propaganda, give the man who organizes them the plebiscites he needs to be returned to office again and again. So Louis Napoleon, elected President of France in 1848 by over five million votes, had himself made Emperor, in 1852, by a pleb- iscite of eight million votes. In the words of an English historian (E. Lipson) : “The funda- mental idea underlying the Napoleonic regime was that of inverted democracy, Caesarism founded upon a popular basis.” Napoleon III, as he called himself to ex- ploit the name of his famous uncle, solved the problem of establishing personal power in the era of universal suffrage. He showed how the right to vote could be neutralized by propaganda; how, without depriving the citi- gens of their franchise, a skillful leader could keep them from voting the government party out and the opposition in. Inverted democracy restored the Prince. Years later Hitler saw how to adapt in- verted democracy to the age of radio, “Men are won less by the written than by the spoken word,” he said in the preface to Mein Kampf. Roosevelt wrote practically noth- ing, other than speeches. The undermining of a free society from within, by calculated debauchery of its citi- zens, has a long tradition. Bread and circuses in Rome; art and poison in Florence—much the same wiles are described by all the great political writers. Circe who, with siren voice and sweet song, turned men into pigs and made them forget their natural dignity, was no idle myth. That legend shows the way in which the practical Greeks taught each gen- eration the hazards of political life. Louis Napoleon is notable primarily as the first of the modern Caesars, marching at the head of columns of docile voters, chorusing “Yal Ya!l; Yes! Yes!; Oui! Oui!” as the case may be. Today any leader with a mass fol- lowing will outstrip the little Napoleon by taking over economic as well as political con- trol, Any party—like the British Labor Party—which begins by storming the eco- nomic heights will soon be controlled by the party leader most skilled in using Bonapartist blocs in his climb to power. The mun to watch in England is the man who aspires to be Attlee’s successor. The same double (political and economic) revolution that took place in Germany and Russia has been proceeding here. But in the United States, sleeping pills were used in- stead of concentration camps. No one in the administration actually “plunned it that way.” A few clever men saw that with lump-sum appropriations they could spend increasing amounts of money for purposes so vague and noble that Con- gress would not oppose them. The big spending agencies were the political arm for the creation of a mass following and a propa- ganda front. Hurry Hopkins kept first place among New Dealers because he best under- stood the arts of Bonapartist collectivism. Many people still think of “blocs” as pres- sure groups. A pressure group wants to in- fluence the law; a bloc merely surrenders Judgment to the chicf. The New Deal democracy was not a4 repre- sentative party, based on free individual choices, but a pyramid of blocs—farmers, labor, Jews, Negroes, southern Democrats, little businessmen, etc.; there was the right bait for all of them. American foreign pol- icy, from the destroyer-bases deal to Tehran and Yalta, was not the policy of a govern- ment answerable to its citizens. Again it was like the personal rule of Louis Napoleon, of whom Bismarck said: “He was vaguely aware that he needed a war.” Congress saw what was going on, but nevertheless surrendcred—in effect—the all- important power of the purse. Congres- sional alertness made it necessary, however, that the coup d’état in the United States should not be alarming. Thus the American experiment in collectivism showed that the leader need not have a secret police if he has enough flat money to lull the voters to sleep. Many people noted the rise of bureaucratic collectivism in the economic sphere but wist- fully expected that Congress would stop tt. Others observed the linking of incongruous blocs, but hopefully assumed that an old- fashioned bankruptcy would end irresponsi- ble government. Few realized that the gov- ernment which manipulates the masses can have its own managed currency, and thcre- fore cannot be stopped by insolvency. The confluence of two revolutions has so magni- fied the power of the State in our time that none of the traditional defenses of society can be counted on to protect the latter. Iv The war was fought without waking us from our dream. While the people supplied soldiers and guns, political strategists of the inner circle consolidated the all-powerful state. At the end of the war they had as- sembled all the money and all the powers they A471 needed to continue the collectivist leadership state in peacetime. By the accident of Roosevelt's death these powers are now in the hands of a President who has not used them for the purpose for which they were designed. The voters freed themselves from the spell when Circe’s song was stilled. Now the question is whether Americans can learn to confront, in a few years of grace, the problems that Europeans have failed to solve in the century since 1848. Napoleon III and Hitler are not important for their personul vices. They are historically significant because they so skillfully exploited the real weakness of urban industrial society, the masses who have no education in freedom, Both Madison and Jefferson foresaw that weakness, and warned us against it. The American Republic cannot now be re- stored without a struggle. Power seekers do not stop unless they are stopped. Would-be leaders, like Wallace and Perper, know how to convert mass propaganda into absolutist pow- er. The Communists lead from the rear. They have adopted all the Nazi techniques for building the leadership state by inverted de- mocracy. Only greater strength and greater faith will stop them The Constitution can- not save us. The question is whether we are iin and strong enough to save the Constitu- on. In all probability the year that is dawning will show whether we have it in us to give an affirmative answer. The Tariff Issue EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. LEON H. GAVIN OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 10, 1947 Mr. GAVIN. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following editorials from the Bristol (Pa.) Courier of February 6 and 1, 1947: [From the Bristol (Pa.) Courier of February 6, 1947] TARIFF TRICKERY When Under Secretary of State William L. Clayton succeeded in getting Republican leaders in Congress interested in an escape- clause compromise on the tariff issue, he got away with the slickest bit of gold bricking seen in Washington in many months, He succeeded in upsetting the GOP tar- iff alinement and caused a serious delay to Republican plans for tariff amendments, by offering them something they already had. That's about as good a trick as selling a man his own house. Fully to understand the irony of the situ- ation, a little background is necessary. The Republican Party recently came back into power after years of protesting the New Deal's reciprocal-trade agreements on the grounds these were robbing American industry and labor of the protections of adequate tariffs The rank and file of the Republican mem- bership is as fully committed as ever to the protective principles which have been the backbone of the party since its first few years of life. Nevertheless, within the party are a few so-called internationalists who have been fooled by the propaganda of global free trade. A split between these factions has threat- ened the Republican membership in Congress since that body met. Meanwhile the New Dealers, armed with power to use further tariff cuts of 50 percent as a bargaining power in foreign politics,
A472 have been frantically seeking means of pre- venting the Republicans from curbing this authority. In this tug-of-war the New Deal fight is in the hands of President Truman and such assistants as Under Clayton. The identity of the Republican leadership is not so clear. According to current reports the most powerful Republican ir Congress, Senator Tart, has washed his hands of the matter for the time being. This left it to Senator VANDENBERG as a sort of unofficial second in command. Senator VaNDENBERG has been obviously re- luctant to bring the tariff issue to a head because it very easily could lead to a review of the United Nations program, which the Senator, by reason of his own participation, presumably would feel to be both premature and embarrassing. In this deadlock {t was announced this week with a great deal of pride that Senator VANDENBERG, assisted by Senator MILLIKIN of Colorado, had worked out a compromise or middie-ground tariff position with Under Secretaries of State Clayton and Dean Ache- son. This proposal is set forth by the New York Times in the following words: “Under the new plan, which will probably be adopted regardless of opposition in the House, the administration will undertake to write into every trade agreement with for- eign countries a provision under which either party to the agreement could modify or with- draw any tariff cut that was working undue hardship on any enterprise.” A great many casual followers of the tariff fight greeted this as a happy thought, and Were somewhat surprised that, instead of smoothing down the developing fight, it seemed to have made it still more turbulent. As a matter of fact, the proposal was ao slippery piece of double talk that shouldn't fool anyone a minute—certainly not anyone qualified to discuss tariff issues. Why? It’s already being done. This statement is perfectly easy to prove The texts of all trade agreements after the first one or two experimental ones all contain escape clauses of some kind. Recent ones have been standardized, and are identical with what is offered by the new proposal. For a more detalied statement of the mat- ter, turn back to the record of the House Committee on Ways and Means on the Trade Agreements Act. The date is April 26, 1945. The witness is the Honorable Oacar B. Ryder, Chairman of the United States Tariff Com- mission, submitting a prepared statement on behalf of the extension of the act. Here is what he said about the escape clause, now submitted as a fresh scheme for a@ compromise: “In order to protect against unforeseen situations which may develop after a trade agreement is made, more general safeguards are required than those which relate to indi- vidual concessions. * * * “Such a provision was first included in the agreement with Argentina (proclaimed on October 81, 1941), article XII of which stipulates that elther country may terminate the arrangement in whole or in part, on short notice, in the event that any circumstance arises to prejudice its industry or commerce, and that it ts found impossible to adjust the matter satisfactorily. * * * “Practically all agreements contain a pro- vision permitting quota action to regulate imports of any scheduled article if necessi- tated by governmental measures operating to regulate or control the production, market supply, or price of the like domestic article, or to increase the labor cost of production of such articles.” If, might be observed that a close reading of the trade agreements would seem to make it virtually mandatory upon the President to insist that some such escape clause be inserted in all the agreements, Propagandists fighting to save the trade- agreement scheme are centering their pub- licity on the escape clause as the principal point in the suggested compromise. The plan has, however, two other supposedly new points—one, to give all interested parties a hearing before tariff changes are put into effect; and the second, to call upon other Cabinet members besides the State Depart- ment to backstop in making the decision. How far these points are from being new can be shown in a single quotation from none other than Mr. Clayton himeelf, in the House Ways and Means Committee hearings already referred to (April 20, 1945): “The act [Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act] says that before any trade agreement ts concluded we must make a public announce- ment of intention to negotiate such agree- ment and give all interested persons an op- portunity to present their views; moreover, the act provides that prior to making an agreement, information and advice shall be sought from the United States Tariff Com- mission, the Departments of Agriculture and Commerce, and other Government agencies.” The boldness of presenting these points as being a new ground for compromise, when they have existed since the act was written, is staggering. This is audacity, with a vengeance. Of course, the trickery back of the move is easy to see. The Republican majority is being offered what is called a compromise—a list of “con- cegsions” which concede nothing. Since the public at large is wholly unaware of the true nature of these detalls, and since many Republican Congressmen themselves are unacquainted with the provisions of the law, the tendency will be to accept the proposals at their face value. The expected reaction will be that Presi- dent Truman and his staff have made a fair and honest effort to meet the Republicans halfway—when nothing of the sort has happened. None of these “safeguards” has safe- guarded industry and farming in the past. Trotting them out now as something new and conelliatory is the most blatant sort of political trickery. —_— [From the Bristol (Pa.) Courier of Febru- ary 7, 1947] A TARIFF LEGEND Entering into current arguments over the tariff tssue is an imaginative tale which might be called the McKinley legend. This is to the effect that President McKin- ley, one of the most ardent supporters of the protective tariff, underwent a sort of death- bed repentance and renounced this faith as the last act of his life. The evidence is the text of the address which he went to Buffalo to deliver on Sep- tember 6, 1901. He was assassinated at a public reception the following day. In the course of his remarks, he made the following statement: “A system which provides a mutual ex- change of commodities ts manifestly essen- tial to the continued and healthful growth of our export trade. * * * We should take from our customers such of their prod- ucts as we can use without harm to our in- dustries and labor. Reciprocity is the mu- tual outgrowth of our wonderful industrial development under the domestic policy now firmly established.” This has been quoted a thousand times by New Deal propagandists for global free trade, in an attempt to argue, first, that what the martyred President said in the closing hours of his life was inconsistent with the Republican Party's tariff position prior APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD FYor example, a few days ago Thomas L. Stokes, an ardent New Deal protagonist whose column appeared until recently in the Phila- delphia Record and now is in the Evening Bulletin, commented with much sarcasm on the inoonaistency of Republicans who wore red carnations in observance of McKinley Day—but at the same time were busy try- ing to curb the trade-agreementa program. Now it may be stated categorically that those who use this legend must fall under one of two headings: Those who have learned s0 little about tariff history that they are gullible enough to be taken in by the legend, and those who know better themselves, but pass the story along hoping their bearers will be gullible enough to believe it. The legend as told simply isn’t true. Neither are the two lines of reasoning it is supposed to prove. Of course McKinley made the speech. But there was nothing new in his views. Nor did these views have anything whatever to do with the present trade-agreements schemes. Reciprocity of the form which McKinley advocated had been standard Republican doctrine for better than 10 years at the time of the speech in question. This can be proved by the most superficial research. For example. the Republican platform of 1892, 9 years earlier, said: “We point to the success of the Republi- can policy of reciprocity, under which our export trade has vastly increased and new and enlarged markets have been opened for the products of our farms and workshops.” Baid the 1896 Republican platform, upon which McKinley was elected President: “We believe the repeal of the reciprocity arrangements negotiated by the last Re- publican administration was a national calamity. * * * Protection and reciproc- ity are twin measures of Republican policy and go hand in hand.” So much for the theory that McKinley's “last words” were inconsistent with the Re- publican Party's stand on tariffs. As to their bearing on the current re- ciprocal-trade agreements, this is a matter hinging solely upon what the word “rec- iprocity" meant to McKinley and what it meant under the New Deal. What it meant to McKinley and to the Republican Party is easy to show. The En- cyclopedia Britannica, fourteenth edition. written and published between 1929 and 1932, just before the New Deal came to power, puts the definition in authoritative form as follows: “Reciprocity, the condition or state of be- ing reciprocal, etc., etc. In a more particu- lar sense, reciprocity is a special arrangement between two nations under which the citizens of each obtain advantages or privileges in their trading relations with each other * « * In the United States, reciprocity is the term applied to the concessions or ar- rangements made between that country and another without reference to any third country. Thus in the United States there is a maximum and minimum tariff, the rates of the maximum tariff being enforced on the goods of those countries which have no rec- iprocity treaty with the United States, and the rates of the minimum on certain products of those countries, have by @ rec- iprocity treaty, given special advantages or concessions to certain products of the United States.” The policy of the reciprocal-trade agree- ments now in effect differs in every im- portant point in its interpretation of “rec- iprocity.” McKinley reciprocity was between this country and some one other favored nation— one standing in a special geographic, politi- cal, or trade position and therefore given concessions Which were withheld from other nations,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD As an example, those interested may dig into the history of his reciprocity agreement with Brazil. In return for his promise not to levy a tariff upon the imports of coffee from Brazil, that nation made large and helpful concessions concerning our shipment of various of our products into that country. This was true reciprocity—a special under- standing between the two nations, helpful to both. The Roogevelt-Hull scheme is not truly reciprocal in any sense of the word. The agreements are worked out with a single foreign nation, it is true—but the conces- sions become available to all. We “bargain” with France, for example, and perhaps win a concession—but Belgium, England, Czech- oslovakia, and all other countries get the benefit of our reductions without any con- cessions on their part. Under the McKinley idea, the principal thing was to protect American industry and labor. The reciprocity plan was closely in- tegrated with a strongly protective system of tariffs. Under Roosevelt and Hull, on the contrary, the trade agreements were a device to tear down tariff protections. In about 1,200 sep- arate items, tariffs have been drastically re- duced to all nations—in most of them, a 50- percent cut. The State Department is now threatening to cut the remaining tariffs an- other 50 percent. In the technics! end of the matter, there are other very important differences. For instance, the Republican reciprocity program kept the tariff power in the hands of Con- gress, where the Constitution placed it; the President had only transient authority un- der sliding-scale rates. By the present scheme, all the authority is delegated by Con- gress to the executive branch of Govern- ment. Again, Republican reciprocity safeguarded the right of all Americans to seek redress and protect themselves by recourse to the courts—as the Constitution clearly intended. The present scheme makes it wholly impos- sible for any person injured by tariff changes to appeal to the judiciary. It has not been possible even to review the constitutionality of the act, although a great many lawyers believe it a clear violation. The fundamental purposes are wholly dif- ferent. Reciprocity, to McKinley, was a de- vice of building up and strengthening the American economy; of enriching this country and its people. The Roosevelt-Hull scheme is a gadget with which to play international politics—an au- thorization for them to trade out the inter- ests of American industry and labor for pre- tended or fancied benefits to some foreign country. Trying to tag this as a McKinley idea is preposterous. Proposed Sale of Town of Dragerton, Utah EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. WALTER K. GRANGER OF UTAH IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 10, 1947 Mr. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I am insert- ing in the Appendix of the Recorp a house concurrent memorial passed by the Legislature of the State of Utah, relat- ing to the disposal of the town of Drager- ton, Utah: Whereas the War Assets Administration is advertising and offering for sale as a unit sale the entire town of Dragerton, Utah, consist- ing of 604 dwellings, 377 acres of land, a dor- mitory, schoolhouse, hospital, church, thea- ter, store buildings, waterworks system, sewer system, and electric-lighting system; and Whereas the town of Dragerton was built by the Government during the war for the purpose of housing employees of the Geneva mine at a cost of more than 85,000,000; and Whereas the sale of this town as a unit sale would permit but few bidders to par- ticipate therein; and Whereas said sale would preclude people in ordinary circumstances from participat- ing; and Whereas the buildings and homes of this town are now occupied by tenants who are employees of the large coal mines in that vicinity and by veterans of World War II; and Whereas there is much concern and unrest among the present occupants of the build- ings over the proposed sale since it pre- cludes them from purchasing any of the homes and lots; and Whereas bids are to be received for the purchase of this entire town as a unit sale on or before 2 p. m., February 14, 1947, at Building No. 8, 1710 South Redwood Road, Salt Lake City, Utah: Be it therefore Resolved by the Legislature of the State of Utah (the Governor concurring thercin), That we urge the President and the Con- gress of the United States to withdraw from sale as a single unit the town of Dragerton, Utah, and that all bids received for the pur- chase of this town as a unit be canceled; and be it further Resolved, That each house and lot in said town be offered for sale at a fixed price, first, to the present occupants of said home, sec- ond, to veterans of World War II, and third, to other interested persons; that such sale be made upon the conditions of a reasonable down payment and reasonable terms; and be it further Resolved, That we urge the President and Congress to give their immediate attention to this matter; and be it further Resolved, That the secretary of state shall be directed to immediately send a copy of this memorial to the President of the United States, the President of the Senate of the United States, the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States, the Secretary of State of the United States, and to each Senator and Representative of the United States Congress from Utah. Death by Beetle: Oregon Timber Faces New Threat EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HOMER D. ANGELL OF OREGON IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 10, 1947 Mr. ANGELL. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rrc- orp, I include the following article by Robert E. Mahaffay from the Sunday Oregonian of January 12, 1947: DeaTH BY Beerie: OrnEGON TimpBer Faces NEw TrreatT—ONE BILLION BOARD FEET OF PRIME Fir DEap on DYING IN SOUTHERN COUNTIES AS Buos Bors INTO VALUABLE STANDS (By Robert E. Mahaffay) Though the rain may hammer it, and the wind snatch roughly at it, the reddish dust A473 remains, Those rusty particles, lying in the dark crevices of the Douglas fir, mean trouble. Bad trouble. They mark the trail of as destructive a horde of insect invaders as the Oregon tim- ber has ever known. They spell death—vast stands of gaunt, bare-boned trees—where the living forest wealth of green stood yesterday. The Douglas fir bark beetle, no bigger than @ match head, does that—is doing it now. An estimated 1,000,000,000 board feet of prime timber in Coos and Douglas Counties is dead or dying. Dying now, today. The Killer is this crawling, flying, boring match head. A killer one-fifth of an inch long, covered with conspicuous long hairs. After the Tillamook burn of 1933 it is esti- mated that armies of the winged insects swarmed savagely out of the flre-ravaged area and in 8 years took the life out of 200,000,900 board feet of timber the flames had spared. FORESTERS EXPRESS ALARM OVER NEW MENACE In this case it’s worse. It may cover the entire region, and foresters are wondering how much loss there will be when the next brerk-out comes. Tomorrow's threat becomes immediate when foresters, normally the most conser- vative of men, report: “No condition similar to that prevailing in saw-timber stands on the upper drainage of the Coos and Milicome Rivers has previ- ously been recorded.” Attacks of this obscure bark beetle occur in cycles, and their virulence may extend over several years. The most recent flooding wave of the beetles in Coos and Douglas Counties is believed to have reached its peak between 1936 and 1941, coming as an indi- rect result of the disastrous fires in the Bandon and nearby forest areas. What causes apprehension among foresters is the fact that new aggression of unpre- dictable importance may begin at any time. There is a growing realization that if the billion-dollar Douglas-fir industry is to be properly safeguarded, a full study of this disregarded danger must be undertaken at once. Thus far, only the most cursory investi- gation of the insect has been attempted— this despite the fact that insect menaces in general rank second only to fire 4s ravagers of our west-coast forests. Although little is known about the Doug- las-fir beetle, its cousin, the pine beetle, has been the subject of intensive study for decades. Fabulous, indeed, are some of the sup- pression experiments conducted on the pine beetle. Many of these expcriments have failed, but they have led eventually to devel- opment of what promises to be an effective and practical means of control. It is hoped that some of this experience may be diverted to studies in the Douglas fir region. Closely concerned with pine-beetle control efforts in the past has been John Whiteside, associate entomologist with the Federal Bu- reau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine. “Once the pine-bark beetle attacks a tree, there is no known way of destroying the insect,” Whiteside reported. “We tried every way previously used, rec- ommended or suggested. We tried felling the trees and burning the bark. We tried sun-curing. We used trap trees—that means deliberately felling trees in the hope that the beetles would fly to them so we could burn the stump. LOGGING OF INFESTED TREES HELPED IN PINES “In an effort to eradicate the population we logged out the infested trees. We even experimented with chemical injections, radio waves and electrocution. We actually tried passing high-voltage electricity through the trees. Not one of these methods proved to be a practical solution to the problem.
A474 “Still, these efforts resulted in eventual success. It was Giscovered that the pine beetle showed a definite preference for cer- tain types of trees—these showing symptoms of weakness in thetr foliage and tops. “By a light selective cutting these more susceptible types were removed and the for- est made so resistant to beetle attack that losses dropped to negtigible amounts. “Wherever it has been tried, this so-called sanitation-salvage method of pine-beetle control fas reduced losses by 70 to 100 per- cent, for periods up to 10 years. “we now have what appears to be a most promising method for control of the pine beetle. An opportunity to undertake similar research may well develop an equally suc- cessful method of holding the Douglas fr beetle in check.” It was Weyerhaeuser Timber Co. foresters who first discovered that the Douglas fir bee- tle had made appalling inroads on 200,000 acres of land owned by private individuals, the State of Oregon, the Weyerhaeuser Oo., and the Federal Government in Oods and Douglas Counties. Research foresters for the Weyerhacuser Timber Oo. estimated after a survey that 5,000 board feet of timber per acte in the over-all aren had falien prey to insects during the past few decades, with the heaviest damage coming im recent years. Called in to examine the alarming discov- in charge of the forest-insect laboratory in Portland. Their report served only to under- line the dangerous nature o; the outbreak. “Por many years,” Keen said, “the Douglas fir beetle has been recognimed as the most sertowus insect enemy of Douglas &r in the Rocky Mountain region, but until this pres- ent eittuation in Oregon was brought to our attention, we thought that our fine west- coast forests were relatively safe.” INSECT HAS NEVER BEEN FULLY STUDIED “Unfortunately, although millions of board feet of Douglas Sr have been destroyed by periodic outbreaks elsewhere, no detailed in- vestigations of this ineect have ever been made. Consequently, we are unable to ad- vise as to control or preventive measures, “Mor are we able to predict when this bark beetle may again become epidemic in the commercially valuable stands of the Douglas- fir region and seriously disrupt plans which industry is making for sustained-yield oper- ations.” Historically, the Douglas-fir bark beetle is native to the Douglas-fir region. For its sime it bears a staggering mame, Dendroctonus pseudotsugae. Ita customary breeding place is in wind- falis and injured or fire-killed trees. These do not have the resistance ~eczssary to repel its attacks. Ooccastonatly the beetle population increases in such overwhelming numbers that the hun- gry multitude pours out and engulfs great stands of undamaged trees. This is what happened in Coos and Dougias Counties, but never before has a sertes of attacks invoived such enormous acreage. Probably the most extensive Dougias-fir beetle study, which, though valuable, is still only a beginning, was made by the late W. G. , formerly an associate entomologist with the Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine. Bedard's study, however, ap- plied primarily to conditions in the northern Rocky Mountain region. “Geuaty the timber owner or forest man- ager Orst realizes the presence of the Dougles- fir beetle when tress with faded or red foliage begin to appear eingty or in groups within his forest,” Bedard wrote, “Several months before this, however, the first indication of attack appeared tm the form of red boring dust lodged in the bark crevices or bark scales along the trunks of the infested trees.” Bedard described the invaders as reddish- brown or black, cylindrical in form and rather stout. The adult females,” he continued, “lay eggs which hatch into small white legless grubs or larvae with amall heads. They vary in size according to thelr age, from the size of a sharp pencil point when first hatched to nearly the size of the adult beetle. The larvae transforms into a white pupa which js an in- termediate resting stage before the transfor- mation into the adult beetle oocurs. “Douglas fir beetles from the trees or logs in which they developed and fly to un- infested ones. Upon arrival at the fresh host material each female, followed by a male, bores directly through the bark to the wood surface, and then excavates an unbranched longitudinal egg gallery up the tree in the inner bark, grooving the wood slightly. “The beetles bring with them the spores of a blue-staining fungus which develops in the conducting tissues of the tree and blocks the flow of water, thus assisting the beeties to girdle the tree, which dies in a few weeks.” Killing of the trees is attributable in part, also, to the longitudinal gallery or mines dug by the larvae. The larvae feed on the cam- bium layer—the soft, pulpy, growing layer of the tree—savoring the sugars and proteins it contains. The mines cut aff the flow of sap to the branches. The vaunted effectiveness of DDT is re- garded doubtfully by those who have had first-hand experience. “Thus far no acceptable means of spray- ing for bark beetles has been devised,” White- side explained. “A 10-percent DDT solution will prevent attacks on logs, although the duration of effectiveness is not known. But the logs have to be down where you can get at them. You can’t spray standing trees 200 feet or so high. “There really is only a very short time in which to work on the insect. Amy chemical must be applied to the trees while the beetle is in flight—normally in the spring or early summer.” So this tunnsling match head—this insig- nificant ‘emains a mystery, and the emerald needles of the Pactfic Northwest's major resource continue to turn to # yellow- ish green, to sorrel, to reddish brown. Egorte were begun some months ago to challenge the destruction. The lumber in- dustry and timber owners, faced with this bark-beetle menace, urged that the United States Bureau of Entamology and Plant Quarantine investigate the problem and try to find a solution. They suggested that a minimum of 620,000 should be allotted to this study. Approached on the matter by industry representative, Senator Guy CorDON ex- pressed his deep concern. “We hope,” wrote the spokesman, “that through your representation with the Bureau of the Budget the necessary funds may be provided for study and control of the Douglas-fir beetle.” “Adequate study and control of this de- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD County Judge Louis D. Felshetm, the Associ- ation of Oregon Counties pledged cogperation at its December convention and urged that Federal assistance be granted in an eradica- tion program. H. V. Stmpson, executive secretary of the West Coast Lumbermen’s Association, empha- sized the threat that continued insect dep- redations present to an effective sustained yield forestry program. “This damage represents only a small part of our 26,000,000-acre forest, but it is of vital importance,” watd. “At a time when the industry is devoting its moet serious efforts to development of a forest-management pian which will provide jobs and incomes and forest products for generations to come, such an enormous loss is something the region can fil afford. “What has happened in Coos and Dougiss Counties was not anticipated. It is not an- ticipated elsewhere, but it can happen. Cer- tainly the long-range economy of a region should not be iaed by continuing tn- difference to a problem which is proving so vital, “The problems of any locatity im the Doug- las-fir region are of importance to every cam- munity dependent tn whole or in part upon Douglas-fir timber. Appropriation of funds for a study of the Dougtas-fr beetle has been neglected far too long.” Veterans’ On-the-Job Traming Program EXTERSION OF HON. GEORGE A. SHATHERS OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Moaday, February 10, 1947 Mr. SMATHERS. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rac- orb, I include a letter from a veteran at Miami relative to the limitation of pay to veterans working under the program for “on-the-job training.” Y have re- cetved a large number of letters from veterans reintive to this matter, all of them pointing out the great injustice that the Government did in backing out on the original provisions of the Gi bill of rights which had to do with on- the-job training. This letter of Mr. Crouch, however, very ably points cut the great injustice which was done by the passage of Public Law 678 and the urgency for the Con- gress of the United States to remedy this present intolerable situation. The letter follows: Conran Gasurs, FLa,, February 3, 1947. Hon. Geonasz Swcarwers, “7 United States House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Dear Gronce: I am taking the liberty of writing to you in regerd to ome of the bills you are sponsoring. I do definitely know that you are pushing, introducing, pleading, and almost for the passage of this arguments, from my situa- tion, that would aid you in securing enough backing. I was in the Navy for ¢ years. the avy Public Law 946 was passed. Pub- lic Law 366 stated in efisct that men ia the service, upon being be entitled to attend college, single men would Tecelve @ subsistence allowance of 046 a
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD month, married men $90 a month. I had a little money saved and made arrangements to move my furniture, and family to Miami in order to enroll at the University of Miami and secure a law degree. Well Mr. SMaTHERS, I did move my furniture and fam- ily (a pregnant wife, and a 5-year-old son) to Miami and enrolled at the university. I knew that the cost of living in Miami was high, and counted upon the cost of living being high, but I also counted upon receiv- ing a 690 a month subsistence check, in ac- cordance with an act of Congress. Well you know the story. A ceiling was placed on single men at $175 a month, married men $200 a month. In other words it only costs @25 a month to feed, clothe, house, pay doctor bills, hospital bills, and buy medicine for a wife and two children. My doctor, hospital, and medica! bills for the months of December 1946 and January 1947 totaled over ¢400. But here is my main kick. I know several men who are attending school under 846 (as amended), who have no chil- dren, whose wives are healthy and earning from $150 a month upward. Now the hus- bands earr. $110 a month and still receive the $90 a month subsistence, a total of $350 a@ month for two people. This is one of the minor cases, I know others who receive as much as $500 a month from investments; but since this is not considered as compen- sation for productive labor, these men still receive the $90 subsistence check monthly. As might be expected, my subsistence checks have been discontinued. I now know that I will have to drop out of achool unless something is done to restore the subsistence check which I am entitled to. (I am entitled to it as well as anyone else.) T am not asking for a thing that I am not entitled to. I only want what I was prom- ised. I planned things so that I could eke out a living with the subsistence check, and with confidence too, since an act of Congress authorized the payments. Public Law 346 (as amended, Public Law 879) states in effect, “If a married veteran is attending school, has no children, his wife works and earns a fair salary, and the veteran has no financial worries, then he is entitled to a subsistence check of $90 a month, or, if the veteran ts receiving an income from other sources than from productive labor and is not forced to work for a living, then he is entitled to the subsistence allowance”; but, “If the veteran is married, has children, his wife is unable to work, and the veteran is forced, through circumstances, to work in order to provide food for his wife and chil- dren if he is a hard worker and uses time he should be sleeping and studying for the pur- pose of providing for his family, then this veteran is no damned good and will not be entitled to the subsistence check.” There is no other interpretation, not with the $200 ceiling in effect. For after all the ceiling does not include other income, interests, in- vestments, donations, and spouse’s income; therefore, the law was passed as & discrim-_ inatory measure against the veteran who has a family, who is poor financially, and who must work in order to provide for his family. Yes; Mr. Smatuxrs, I know that you and many more like you in Congress are trying to adjust matters so that there will be less discrimination in the law, and personally I feel that you will be successful. If I did not feel that you would be successful, then I would drop out of school immediately for my debts are piling up on me; and I must meet these obligations someday. As you know, it is impossible to live in Miami with a family of a wife and two children, and care for them in any manner whatsoever on $200 a month. Respectfully submitted. NorMan E. Crouch. Grant of Easements in Lands Under Con- trol of Veterans’ Administration EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EDITH NOURSE ROGERS OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 10, 1947 Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my re- marks in the Recorp, I include the fol- lowing bill and letter of the Administra- tor of Veterans’ Affairs: A bill to authorize the Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs to grant easements in lands belonging to the United States under his supervision and control, and for other purposes Be it enacted, etc., That the Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs, whenever he deems it advantageous to the Government and upon such terms and conditions as he deems ad- visable, is hereby authorized on behalf of the United States to grant to any State, or any agency or political subdivision thereof, or to any public-service company, easements in and rights-of-way over lands belonging to the United States which are under his supervision and control. Such grant may include the use of such easements or rights- of-way by public utilities to the extent au- thorized and under the conditions imposed by the laws of such State relating to use of public highways. Such partial, concurrent, or exclusive jurisdiction over the areas cov- ered by such easements or rights-of-way, as the Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs deems necessary or desirable, is hereby ceded to th» State in which the land is located. The Ad- ministrator of Veterans’ Affairs is hereby authorized to accept or secure on behalf of the United States from the State in which is situated any land conveyed in exchange for any such easement or right-of-way, such jurisdiction as he may deem necessary or desirable over the land so acquired. Any such easement or right-of-way shall be ter- minated upon abandonment or nonuse of the same and all right, title, and interest in the land covered thereby shall thereupon revert to the United States or its assignee. —_— VETERANS’ ADMINISTRATION, Washington, D. C., February ¢, 1947. Hon. JosePH W. MARTIN, Jr., Speaker of the House of Representa- tives, Washington, D. C. Dear Mr. SPEAKER: There is transmitted herewith a draft of bill to authorize the Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs to grant easements in lands belonging to the United States under his supervision and control, and for other purposes, with the request that it be introduced in order that it may be con- sidered for enactment. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to confer upon the Administrator of Vet- erans’ Affairs authority to grant to any State, or any agency or political subdivision there- of, or to any public-service company, ease- ments in and rights-of-way over lands be- longing to the United States which are under his supervision and control. The drafted bill is designed to require personal action by the Administrator in the exercise of the author- ity proposed by the bill. Under existing law, the Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs is not vested with such general authority, and it is necessary to re- quest the Congress to enact legislation in each individual transaction pertaining to the granting of an easement or right-of-way in land held by the United States and controlled by the Veterans’ Administration. Even such A475 @ matter as the construction of a sidewalk by & municipality upon land occupied by a Veterans’ Administration hospital cannot be undertaken until an appropriate easement for the project has been authorized by act of Congress. If the proposed legislation is enacted it will no longer be necessary for the Ad- ministrator of Veterans’ Affairs to submit to the Congreas, for consideration and enact- ment, special authorizing legislation respect- ing each and every such grant which is deemed desirable and in the interests of the Government.’ When a request for an ease- ment or a right-of-way is received by the Veterans’ Administration and the facts clearly indicate that the interests of the Government would be furthered by granting the same, the nature of the project involved ordinarily requires prompt action. The time consumed by the submission of each such case to the Congress for authorization in- volves a delay which may in some instances jeopardize the interests of the Government. The proposed legislation, if enacted, would greatly expedite the handling of such trans- actions and would accomplish a material saving in time and expense. Since September of 1940, 10 laws have been enacted authorizing the Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs to grant specified easements in particularly described land under his con- trol. The number of requests for such leg- islation and the need therefor will doubtless increase during the coming years, with the execution of the greatly expanded hospital program of the Veterans’ Administration. It is believed, therefore, that the need for general authority such as that provided in the proposed legislation will become increas- ingly more urgent in the future than it has been in the past. Sound precedent exists for the enactment of legislation of this character. Authority to grant rights-of-way has been conferred by Jaw upon several of the departments of the Government having under their control substantial tracts of land belonging to the United States. The Secretary of the Interior is vested with the authority to grant certain rights-of-way over the public lands, national parks, and Indian lands. The Secretary of Agriculture has been given authority to grant the use of certain types of rights-of-way over the national forest lands. The Secre- tary of War is authorized to grant easements for rights-of-way over military reservations and lands acquired by the United States for river and harbor and flood control purposes. The Attorney General is also authorized to grant easements in lands under his super- vision and control. As above indicated, the bill, if enacted, will result in a material saving of time and ex- pense. Advice has been received from the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objec- tion by that office to the submission of the proposed legislation to the Congress. Sincerely yours, Omar N. BRADLEY, General, United States Army, Admin- istrator. The Third-Term Issue EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WALTER H. JUDD OF MINNESOTA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 10, 1947 Mr. JUDD. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I
A476 include the following editorial from the New York Times of February 7, 1947: The strongest urgument to be made against a constitutional prohibition of a third term for an American President is that in some grave future national emergency it might tie the hands of the electorate and prevent it from exercising @ free choice in its own best interest. This argument was made repeated- ly on the floor of the House of Representa- tives yesterday, before that body voted in favor of such a constitutional amendment, and there ts no denying that it has some force. To take an extreme case, the Nation might find itself in a state of war when the second term of a President in office expired, and the case for continuing him in office could be very strong indeed. Some such situ- ation did, in fact, present itself in 1944, when Mr. Roosevelt was guiding the foreign policy of the United States in the life-or-death struggle between western democracy and the Axis, and this policy had the full support of the Democratic Party, while it had been op- posed at vital points {repeal of the arms em- bargo, enactment of lend-lease, etc.) by the congressional Republicans of that day. But the clear and persuasive answer to this argument is that if a constitutional amendment against a third term (let along a fourth) were in existence, whatever President was in office would find it necessary, and surely possible, to develop within his own administration, or elsewhere within his party, an alternative leadership to his own, fully capable of presenting his policies adequately to the electorate. This Mr. Roosevelt failed consistently to do, and it was as a result of this failure that the Nation found itself, in 1944, confronted by a choice between a fourth-term President and a still too strong- ly isolationist Republican Party. A constitu- tional amendment would prevent a similar situation from arising in the future, and at the same time help to develop its own assur- ance that, however grave the emergency, the voters, if they so desired, would be able to achieve a steady continuity of policy in the White House. With this argument met, the case for en- actment of a constitutional prohibition of a third term is, we believe, compelling. Long tradition, the sound advice of the founders of the Republic, the enormously increasing powers of the Presidency, and the obvious hagards of an overcentralization of these powers in one man’s hands, particularily in a day when one-man government has been so common, and can s0 easily be imitated, all argue strongly in favor of such a prohibi- tion. We believe that the Senate will do well to concur in the action of the House, and submit the question to the States. Lincoln Day Address of Hon. Irving M. Ives, of New York EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ROBERT TRIPP ROSS OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 10, 1947 Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I include the fol- lowing addreas by the Honorable Invine M. Ives, Senator from New York, on the evening of Saturday, February 8, at the annua! Lincoln Day dinner of the Queens Village Republican Ctub, Queens Village, New York: It gives me great pleasure again to be in Queens County and in the greatest Republi- can stronghold of the Nation. I extend to you my hearty congratulations upon your success in the recent election, and thank you deepty for the tremendous support which you gave to me. It was stated, you may recall, that the year 1946 was to be a year of great decision. Certainly, from a political standpoint, the deciaion of 1946 was sat to Republi- cans. It must now prove just as satisfac- tory to the Nation. Following the election, it soon became ap- parent that a magnificent Republican vic- tory had brought with it a tremendous Re- publican responsibility. If 1946 was a yeer of political decision, 1947 is likely to prove to be a year of economic decision, in which may be determined the fate of our country for generations to come. Today. as a nation, either we stand on the threshold of great new achievement and progress and enlightenment which can pro- vide for all our people greater opportunity and happiness than any we have ever known, or we face a time of reaction and retreat which ultimately can cost us our independ- ence as a nation and our freedom a6 indi- viduals. In choosing the course to be fol- lowed, the decision must rest finally with the American peopie but in pointing out the way the initial responsibility now lies with the Republican Party. In the last two decades we in America have experienced the greatest boom, the most severe depression, and the moat terrible war in ali our history. In this same period of time the whole world has been passing through an even greater social and economic and political upheaval. Only a generation ago freedom was regarded as man’s most cherished possession. Then, in the midst of the social turmoil and eco- nomic wreckage which engulfed much of the world following World Wer IL, there emerged as the chief end and aim in living the con- cept of economic security for the individual. Revolutions became frequent, governments were overthrown, and there was revived as the compelling force tn the lives of men— the power of the state. everywhere, even in America, were told that government could provide for them everything they wanted. Helpless and hope- less and in unthinking desperation, hun- dreds of millions sacrificed thelr birthright of freedom for this pot of gold at the foot of the rainbow. To be sure, this world-wide movement was temporarily checked by World War II. But it etill continues, until today among the great powers of the earth only America clings to the basic idea of freedom. We believe that freedom and security are not incompatible. In fact, we believe that without freedom there can be no security. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD It would appear obvious that in this under- taking we should begin by assigning to gov- ernment its proper role in a free economy. Too much or too little government will in- evitably bring the very results we are seck- ing to avoid. Therefore, our path must lie somewhere midway between these two extremes. Most fortunately for us, from the lips of @ very great American, the anniversary of whose birth we are commemorating this evening, came words of counsel! to guide us in our present course. Speaking on July 1, 1854, on the subject of government, Abraham Lincoln made the following signified state- ment: “The legittmate object of government ts to do for a community of peopie whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves, in their separate or individual capacities. In ali that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere.” This is safe advice for us to follow. In substance, Lincoln said that government should exercise only that power and au- thority to do for the people what the people need and cannot otherwise do for themselves, and that government should go no further. Tt seems to me, then, that the role of gov- ernment should be one of sympathetic co- operation toward all of the component parts of our national economy. It should act with Tairness toward all. Mindful of the words of Lincoln, let us ex- amine our national status as it exists today. Let us note some vital areas wherein action by government alone is and other areas where government acts as a co- operative force, helping the people to help themselves. International relations fall strictly ir the area where government must act almost en- tirely alone. Happily here, through the oper- ation of our foreign policy promul- gated in 1944 by our great Governor, Thomas E. Dewey, and subsequently carried out through the joint operation of our two major Our activity in the Geld of political interna-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Then, and only then, should we consider tax reduction. By all means, if we have any margin left with which to do so, we should reduce taxes. In those activities wherein the role of government should be basically one of co- operation and helpfulness, I place foremost the fleld of human relations. Here resort to government should be last and not first in resolving differences. Industrial ,and labor relations are fore- most in this field of human relations. Here we would do well to follow a few guiding principles. In the first place, let us re- member that the rights and obligations of the workers are commensurate with the rights and obligations of employers. Next, in the consideration of legislative proposals dealing with the relationship between labor and management let there be no doubt that those proposals which may be adopted will help to produce peace between labor and management and will not serve merely as in- struments for more misunderstanding and strife. To this end, let us make sure in what we do that we gain genuine, free, col- lective bargaining, that our mediation serv- ices are improved, and that the machinery for voluntary arbitration is made more easily available and effective. These are the processes of government which can aid management and labor better to work together, to understand one an- other, and voluntarily to solve their own problems. These are the processes of gov- ernment which can help to bring peace be- tween workers and employers. Among these processes the most important is the establishment of a system of real col- lective bargaining by which agreements can be reached and contracts consummated. Whether between nations or between indi- viduals or between management and labor, there must be integrity, good faith, and a high degree of responsibility toward all con- tractual relationships. The sanctity of the contract is the keystone in the arch of free collective bargaining. It is the foundation under the edifice of happy industrial and labor relations. The objective we are seeking in the fleld of industrial and labor relations can never be gained through partisan political approach. It can never be gained through a Democratic program or a Republican program. It can never be reached by a labor program, or by @ management program. It can only be achieved by all of us—Government, manage- ment, and labor, Republicans and Demo- crats—working together for the common good of all. Many of you know of the great advances which have been made already in New York State. Under the leadership of Governor Dewey, Democrats and Republicans, labor and management, working together, have re- moved from partisan politics issues of this kind. If this can be done in New York State, with all of our variations in interests, in in- dustries and in population, it can be done in the Nation. If we are to retain our free economy in America, moreover, these objectives of which I speak must be attained in the Nation. Both management and labor must come of age and reach that state of maturity wherein they can peacefully solve their mutual and common problems and settle their differences in harmony. This, as I see it, is the great test with which we are faced today. Government can lead the way, government can assist, but gov- ernment alone can never produce the results which are required. As freemen we must compete against econ- omies of the world where there is no free- dom. As freemen we must compete against regimented orders where the dignity of man and the brotherhood of man are despised. As freemen we must face this economic challenge, ourselves still remaining free. I believe we can win in this struggle for survival, I believe we can win because I have faith in the American people. I believe that the American people can work together vol- untarily and happily. I believe that the American people, once they understand the realities of the conditions which confront them, will join in the common cause of freedom, wholeheartedly and unitedly. I believe the American people have that faith in themselves, that faith in one another, and that faith in Almighty God, which will bring us victory in this fateful struggle for free- dom. How Do You Feel This Morning? EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. ROBERT F. RICH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 10, 1947 Mr. RICH. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following editorial from the Lancaster (Pa.) Intelligencer-Journal of February 7, 1947: HOW DO YOU FEEL THIS MORNING? How do you feel this morning? Pretty good? Well, you shouldn't. The United States of America is in danger; and the danger is as great, if not greater, than ever before in our history. Why? Because the Communists are working hard to overthrow our Government. There is no longer any doubt about it. For yesterday, down in Washington, the growing fear of every good American was confirmed beyond reasonable doubt. There, in the shadow of the Capitol of the United States, an Austrian-born woman pos- itively identified her brother, one Gerhard Eisler, as the “No, 1 Communist” of Amer- ica; the American agent of the Comintern of the International Communist Party. Imagine that, can you? A foreigner, living amongst us, directing the task of attempting to overthrow our Government. What fools we mortals be. Now, Congress is excited, as well it should be. Every good American should be ex- cited. Congress proposes to charge Eisler with conspiracy to overthrow the Government, with contempt of Congress, with perjury, with income-tax evasion, with falsification of his passport. That's a lot of poppycock. What we want to know is: How did Gerhard Eisler get into this country? How many Gerhard Eislers are there in this country? Who let the Gerhard FEislers into this country? How long is it going to take Congress to throw out Gerhard Eisler and all the other Gerhard Eislers? That is what must be done. Throw them out, every one of them, whether they have gotten by the citizenship courts or not. Throw them out—and keep them out! The time has come for action. Every foreign-born Communist within the confines of the United States and its possés- sions must be thrown out. A477 Every native-born American who has in any way alded or abetted these Gerhard Eislers must go, and that includes those who let them tn. Throw them out. All of them. There is nothing like an American Com- munist, and very few native-born Americans claim to be Communists. A Communist cannot be an American. An American cannot be a Communist, The time has come to act. America—that's you and I—must act now—at once—Ilf we are going to save this Nation. Congressman Stevenson Reports From Washington EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WILLIAM H. STEVENSON OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 10, 1947 Mr. STEVENSON. Mr. Speaker, un- der leave to extend my remarks I include the following report to my constituents: Due to the Reorganization Act it has taken more time than usual to get the new com- mittees of Congress organized. For instance, the new Committee on Post Office and Civil Fervice is now made up of the former Civil Service Committee, Post Office und Post Roads Committee, Census Committee, and the Con- gressional Library Committee. Instead of having 4 committees with 80 members, we now have the streamlined Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, comprising only 25 members, of which your Congressman 1s the ranking Republican member, with Con- gressman Epwarp REEs, of Kansas, chairman, Over 70 bills have already been reierred to our committee and more are being re- ferred to us daily. As you know, when bills are introduced in the ‘House of Representa- tives they must be referred to the proper committee for consideration, where propo- nents and opponents of each bill present their views. Such committee action on all bills is a necessary precedent to action by the House. Practically every committee of the House has been busy on hearings the past 2 or 3 weeks. When the hearings are fin- ished, and after thorough discussion and probable committee amendment, a vote is taken by the committee, whether the bill shall be reported to the House. It then goes to the Rules Committee, who decide how much time shall be allowed for debate of the bill on the floor of the House, and whether it may or may not be subject to amendment by individual members on the floor of the House. The Rules Committee also has power to stop a bill from coming out on the floor of the House. The Rules Committee is therefore one of the most powerful committees in the House of Repre- sentatives. Much has been said about an immediate curtailment of expenditures by Government agencies that were in existence before the Republicans took over control of Congress, some people thinking that expenditures of any Government department or agency can be curtailed forthwith. It should be made clear that all branches and departments of the Government, including all bureaus, agen- cies, boards, and commissions, are operating under appropriations passed by the Seventy- ninth Congress, which, of course, was con- trolled by the Democratic Party. These ap- propriations will continue until July 1, 1947.
AA78 After that date the real effect of curtailment on appropriations under the economy’ pro- gram of the present Eightieth Congress will become apparent. The only method available to cut funds from the executive department or other Gov- ernment bureaus in the immediate future 1s through rescission of former appropriations, by vote of both Houses of Congress. All rescission bills must be signed by the President. The President would not sign a bill cutting off appropriations for his own executive department; and it requires a two- thirds vote in both the House and the Sen- ate to pass a bill over the President's veto. The Republicans do not have a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Congress. But the Appropriations Committee has been busy for several weeks studying all governmental activities and appropriations of last year, with the intent to wipe out every single non- essential Government activity. Members of the Appropriations Committee tell me they will make a real and substantial curtailment in public spending by Government agencies and departments commencing July 1, and all needless bureaus and activities will be dis- pensed with completely; but that needed activities of Government will be preserved. In order to ward off inflation Congress must balance the Budget. We must then acquire sufficient surplus to permit a sys- tematic reduction of our national debt; then we should think of cutting taxes. To ac- complish this we must stop prodigal spending and stop giving away billions to any and every foreign nation that requests or de- mands a hand-out. The national income must be maintained at a high level. And to help Congress accomplish this, State and local governments should refrain from de- manding subsidies and hand-outs from Washington. State governments, too, should start on a program of retrenchment. Re- ports and letters from the people back home indicate they want retrenchment in public spending in their local municipalities and State governments, as well as by their Na- tional Government. I believe it is possible by such retrenchment to achieve an equita- ble reduction in our individual tax burdens. A poll of all weekly néwspaper editors whose papers represent over 70,000,000 American readers shows that a large majority of American editors want Congress to elimi- nate wartime bureaus, get rid of unnecessary Federal employees, slash loans to foreign countries, and cut down on farm subsidies. They demand a tougher policy toward Russia and Communists, and favor continued sup- port of the United Nations and the present foreign policy of the United States; but they do not favor a return to the high tariff policy practiced by former Republican ad- ministrations. They want more legislative responsibility returned to and taken over by the State legislatures. Un-American Activities EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CHARLES R. ROBERTSON OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 10, 1947 Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. Speaker, the Nation can well be shocked at the revela- tions that were made before the Un- American Activities Committee last week, particularly as they pertain to the destructive influences of communistic elements within our own country. With such practices invoked, it is extremely hard for many of us to maintain our nor- mal enthusiasm for the principles that back up and lay the foundation—if you please—for the United Nations. Surely if the United Nations is to move forward and to serve as the instrumen- tality of people and a common under- standing among the nations of the world, it is the plain duty of one of the great members of that organization to begin to put its house in order so far as in- terfering with the policies within our own country. It will be of particular interest to the Members of Congress to read the words of DeWitt M. Emery, Akron, Ohio, president of the National Small Business Men’s As- sociation, when he tells an audience in Fargo, N. Dak., the story of the text- books that are to be found in many of the schools in the United States today. It is of particular alarm to me, as I read this article, because so many of the schools in my own State seem to be using this text- book. And the alarming situation is that the authors of the textbook are evidently professors from schools of importance within our own Nation. They are not the handiwork of the Russian people them- selves, or any of our communistic trav- elers, but they are evidently the handi- work of men reared and educated in our own great America. DeWitt M. Emery has rendered a great. service to the Nation in presenting to the people of North Dakota, and the country generally, the fact that the textbook en- titled “Economics: Principles and Prob- lems” is to be found in so many schools in the Northwest. Under unanimous consent, I include herewith a statement taken from the Fargo Forum, of February 5, which quotes Mr. Emery, of Akron, Ohio, president of. the National Small Business Men’s Asso- ciation: EMERY CLAIMS AC TEXTBOOK COMMUNISTIC An NDAC economics class is using a text- book tending to spread what he termed com- munistic ideas, DeWitt M. Emery, Akron, Ohio, president of the National Small Busi- ness Men's Association, told the newly formed Associated Industries of Fargo Tuesday night. The book in question is Economics: Prin- ciples and Problems, by Paul F, Gemmell, University of Pennsylvania, and Ralph H. Bodgett, University of Illinois. It is an ac- cepted textbook in 195 other United States colleges, Emery said. Harper & Bros., New York, published the book. The speaker said five other schools in the State—Jamestown College, Wahpeton School of Science, Bottineau School of Forestry, and Mayville and Minot State Teachers Colleges— are using the text. Minnesota schools using the book include St. Olaf and Hamline, he sald, Emery contended that sections of the book advocate abolition of inheritances, that the wealthy be asked to pay a very large part of the running expenses of society, that the Government acquire all land used for busi- ness purposes and rent it to the highest bid- ders, and that social services be extended With the funds obtained. Emery referred to the textbook as an ex- ample of what he described as “an infiltra- tion of communism into American life,” tell- ing his audience of about 300 Fargo and Moorhead businessmen that “Communists APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD have held many high positions in the Fed- eral Government and they must be cleaned out.” He said the Gemmell-Blodgett textbook was used during the war as part of an Armed Forces Institute course in economics, se- lected for AFI by ‘a group of prominent edu- cators under supervision of the American Council on Education.” “I believe the principles advocated in parts of the book are inconsistent with the Ameri- can economic system,” Emery said. The Wool Situation and the Tariff EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. 0. C. FISHER OF TEXAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 10, 1947 Mr. FISHER. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I include the following statement I made last week be- fore the Committee for Reciprocity In- formation: May it please the committee, I desire to make a brief statement regarding the agri- cultural problems which must be considered in connection with the pending negotiations of reciprocal-trade agreements. While agri- culture in general has an interest in common, I shall direct my remarks in particular to the domestic wool industry. The reciprocal program is, in my judgment, when prudently administered, a wise one. When wisely applied it may be helpful to our economy and to the general cause of world trade. If administered unwisely, the recipro- cal agreements may be destructive of vital segments of our economy, reduce our buying power of imports, hamper world trade, and reduce our standard of living. It will be recalled that when the Reciprocal Trade Act was enacted back in 1984, section 350 (2) provided in part: “For the purpose of expanding foreign mar- kets for the products of the United States (as a means of assisting in the present emer- gency in restoring the American standard of living, in overcoming domestic unemploy- ment and the present economic depression, in increasing the purchasing power of the American public) by regulating the admis- sion of foreign goods into the United States in accordance with the characteristics and needs of various branches of American pro- auction.” The act further provides in section 350 (a) that the President may, “whenever he finds as a fact that any existing duties or other import restrictions of the United States or any foreign country are unduly burdening and restricting the foreign trade of the United States" enter into foreign trade agree- ments, IT understand this Committee on Reciproc- ity Information {s giving consideration to the question of reducing the present duties on imported wools. The domestic wool growers are deeply alarmed over such a pos- sibility and have a right to be. Any reduc- tion at this time would be quite disastrous to a great industry that is already in a state of decline. Surely, Mr. Chairman, it is not for me to dwell at any length upon the plight of the American wool grower. His precarious position 1s recognized on every hand. The President in a message to Sen- ator O’Mamonry on March 11, 1046, stated: “At the present time there is a serious world- wide wool situation.” He went further to
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD state: “There is general agreements that this Government must protect the incomes of wool growers on a level comparable with that afforded producers of other agricultural com- modities.” In discussing the wool situation following weeks of exhaustive hearings, the Senate Special Committee To Investigate Produc- tion, Transportation, and Marketing of Wool pointed out that failure upon the part of the Government to meet the world situation created by the world surplus and the British monopoly plan means disaster to so large a segment of our domestic economy that it is imperative for the United States to adopt @ long-term policy. The British monopoly referred to grew out of the fact that nearly 2 years ago the four governments of the United Kingdom and of the three dominions, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, formed a joint organization to hold and market the huge British stocks of surplus wool which overhang the world mare ket. As much as 85 percent of the total world supply of wool, it was found, estimated at more than 4,000,000,000 pounds for more than a decade to come will be controlled and han- dled by this state-managed monopoly. In that connection, Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to the report made following the international wool talks in London last No- vember 11-15, where delegates assembled from 13 countries. That report, made by our State Department, states the total world stocks of apparel wool on June 30, 1946, was estimated at approximately 5,000,000,000 pounds, grease basis, The report contains this statement: “It was recognized in the discussion that some major importing countries are con- fronted with a prob.em of maintaining a do- mestic wool industry in the face of cheap im- ports, which possibly may involve the use of subsidies or other measures. “Emphasis was laid upon the importance of avoiding prices so low as to cause wide- spread hardship to producers and serious damage to economic structures.” It is evident, of course, that reterence was there made primarily to the United States and our own domestic growers. Aside from the official expressions of con- cern over the future of the domestic wool grower, the undisputed facts themselves speak loudly. In considering this subject, it must be borne in mind that: 1, During 1946 more than 80 percent of wool consumed by our mills was imported. The Census Bureau reports that during the first 11 months of last year the consumption was 590,321,000 pounds of foreign and 99,580,- 000 pounds of domestic, scoured basis, Cone trast this with 1939 when textile mills proc- essed just under 600,000,000 pounds of domestic apparel wool, compared with only 80,000,000 pounds of imported fleece. 2. In 1946 sheep in the United States was the lowest in 20 years. This decline has been steady since 1942, until today it has dropped an average of 23 percent. During the same period wool production has decreased 24 per- cent and ‘he dollar value of return has declined 23 percent. The decline in numbers went from 49,955,000 in 1942 to 37,548,000 in 1946. Wool production went from 392,873,000 pounds in 1942 to only 287,000,000 in 1946, and during the same period income from wool sales dropped from $157,235,480 to $122,713,680 in 1946. 8. Our own markets are so completely con- trolled today by the British monopoly that between 80 and 980 percent of every wool product worn in this country was made of foreign wool. And this ts true even though a vast stockpile of 500,000,000 pounds of domestic wool is owned and 1s for sale by the Government of the United States. 4. The United States which in 1942 was the second largest producer of fine wools in the world has now dropped to fourth place. 5. During the 5-year period from Sep- tember 15, 1941, to September 15, 1946, the wool growers of this country received an average price increase of only 13 percent for this wool. During the same period, the avere age price increase for 23 other farm commod- ities was 94 percent. Wool received the low- est price increase and the next lowest was an increase of 87 percent. 6. England and her dominions shipped 600,000,000 pounds of apparel wool to this country for the year ending last July and Argentina shipped 347,000,000 pounds for the year ending last September. From these facts it should be abundantly clear that there is at present no barrier to the import of wool to this country. Cer- tainly the facts show that the present tariff rate of 34 cents per pound, scoured basis, does not impede the movement of foreign wool to this country. It is equally clear that any reduction in the present tariff level will mean a corresponding reduction in the price the wool grower will receive for his product. Yet the President of the United States, as I have pointed out, recognizes the fact the world situation is such that the domestic grower must be supported or otherwise pro- tected. The report from the London con- Terence is to the same effect. Tariff serves as an equalizer between our own cost of production and that of other countries. A British mission this year re- ported to Lancashire that British spinners produce 18 to 49 percent less per muan-hour than Americans, and British weavers 56 to 67 percent less, The same contrast is generally true of other labor costs and other factors that enter into cost of production of wool abroad. The purpose of the tariff belng to equalize the difference in costs at home and abroad, it therefore follows that the present equation is out of balance. The average hourly earnings in the wool textile mills in England as of last November was 35 cents, whereas in the United States it was $1.05, Any decrease in the duty on imported wools or wool textiles would really amount to an indirect subsidy to the textile industries and the wool producers abroad. It is incon- ceivable that the present level of protec- tion will be reduced in view of the direct effect 1t would have in our own industries at home. It would mean a serious threat to this segment of our peacetime national economy and to our essential defense requirements. This issue comes up, Mr. Chairman, at a time when we face the future filled with unknown and unpredictable quantities. In- stead of taking steps that would jeopardize the stability and prosperity of a great in- dustry at home, we should be thinking of ways and means of giving it strength and security, such as the President has said is needed. It is the prosperity of our own markets that enables us to be the largest consumers of imported materials and con- sequently the world’s best customers of imported goods. We cun prosper most by supporting our own industries, while encouraging trade and exchanges with foreign countries of goods not so highly competitive with our own products. We cannot aid our strength or prosperity by following a course that will materially reduce or abandon any Kind of production at home. Here in this country the wool grower com- petes with a world monopoly controlling the disposal of most of the world stockpile of wool. We compete with countries where very low labor costs produce their products; where there are no minimum wage scales; where the rates of workmen’s compensation and social-security taxes are much lower; where income-tax payments are much lower; where all factors of production, transporta- tion, and marketing are much lower; where the standard of living is much lower, and a A479 tremendous public debt does not have to be serviced and paid. A reduction in wool tariff would amount to an export of Ameri- can jobs. It ig axiomatic that the prosperity of the Nation depends upon the prosperity of our own agriculture, which, of course, includes the wool grower. Let us not sacrifice the American market to foreign producers who can, because of reduced costs, ship wool and other products here and sell below our ac- tual cost of production. At present there can be no claim that foreign wool is not moving quite freely into our own markets. Why consider a reduction in tariff rates where there fg no need shown from the standpoint of world trade and where the present protection is admittedly inadequate? Today we deal with governments that in the main are socialistic and where the gov- ernments themselves largely control by sub- sidies and otherwise their economies and the patterns of thelr export business. It is of utmost importance in the development of reciprocal agreements that any agreements contain provisions to protect American agri- culture. I make this plea for the American wool grower. He stands virtually at the mercy of the world market that is dominated and controlled by our foreign competitors pro- tected by a subsidized state monopoly. At the present the domestic wool grower is not even included in our agricultural support program under the so-called Steugall Amend- ment. Except for the wartime Government purchase program, undertaken for security reasons, which expires in April, our growers are not included in Government support. TI repeat that his only support comes from the tariff. To give the producer the minimum of protection to which he is entitled in our economy, the tariff level instead of being reduced should be increased a few cents, That course would not impede or unduly burden an adequate importution of foreign wools to meet our own needs. It would not be a barrier to world trade. It would not be contrary to the spirit and original purpose of the Reciprocal Trade Act. The American Veterans’ Committee Com- ments on President Truman’s Legisla- tive Program EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. HENRY M. JACKSON NF WASHINGTON IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 10, 1947 Mr. JACKSON of Washington. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my re- marks in the Recorp, I wish to include a letter written by Mr. Charles G. Bolté, national chairman of the American Vet- erans’ Committee, to President Truman, commenting on the President’s legisla- tive program which was recently sub- mitted to the Congress. I know the Members of the House would like to have the views of this veterans’ organization on the various national programs facing the new Congress. The letter follows: Dear MR, PresipentT: The Amcrican Veter- ans’ Committee (AVC) was deeply interested in your State of the Union and Economic Messages which outlined to Congress the administration's legislative program tor this
A480 session, We were, of course, particularly con- cerned with the sections of your program dealing with housing and veterans. But we found also that other sections dealing with problems of the national welfare affecting veterans as well as all other citizens tied in closely with the AVC program approved by our membership at our last national conven- tion. The guiding theme of the AVC is “citi- zens first, veterans second.” In the legisla- tive fitld this means that we are actively concerned with the basic social legislation which affects us all. The AVC is convinced that the No. 1 prob- lem faving veterans this year is housing. No one has denied that an acute problem exists, but there are, unfortunately, some groups which would like to place nonresi- dential construction ahead of veterans’ hous- ing. Because this conflict exists the AVO was delighted to read that you favored an “aggressive” program to encourage home construction and advocated continued limi- tation of nonresidential construction. We believe that one of the most important means of encouraging a dynamic housing program is to stimulate the development of the industrialized housing industry. We urge that this infant industry with its abun- dant promise be given a": possible assistance. The housing crisis demands that American production ingenuity be applied to the de- velopment of industrialized housing within the reach of all citizens. In your address you stated that to reach our long-range goal of adequate housing for all our people comprehensive housing legis- lation is urgently needed. AVC believes that the Wagner-Ellender-Taft bill is the key to providing the needed large-scale rental housing projects. We are, however, seeking certain amendments to the W-E-T bill, which we feel will provide further incentives to builders of rental housing. We advocate ex- tending the amortization period of insured loans from 40 to 50 years, and reducing the interest rate on these loans from 3814 to 3 percent. We fee] that the longer period re- quired for repayment and the lower interest rates should vitally aid in producing units which would rent at figures the average vet- eran can afford. I am sure that the overwhelming majority of veterans were pleased to hear that the administration was firm in opposing the re- moval of rent controls. AVC has repeatedly declared that removal of rent controls would be catastrophic. When rent controls were removed after World War I, rentals went up 312 percent. If controls were removed now rents would not come down when the gen- eral price level declines, because of the acute shortage of housing. This would mean that with controls removed the average veteran would be forced to put out a disproportionate part of his income for rent. Veterans are also greatly concerned about the danger of continued inflation of prices, All of the benefits which a grateful Nation has extended to its veterans, ranging from disability pensions to the subsistence allow- ances of student-veterans, are threatened by the continued tendency toward price in- creases. In speaking of the administration's vet- erans’ program you remarked that the Gov- ernment’s program of benefits to veterans is substantially complete. The American Vet- erans’ Committee (AVC) is opposed to Treasury raids in the belief that what the World War II veteran wants is assistance in readjusting to civilian life rather than a hand-out. We heartily agree with your statement that the success of the veterans’ program will be judged by the contributions which the program enables the veterans to make to their country. We do believe, how- ever, that in order to obtain this purpose, certain improvements in the present proe gram of benefits to veterans are needed. Re- vision of the GI bill of rights is necessary, for example, to provide an increase in the sub- sistence payments to student-veterans to $100 for single veterans and $125 for married veterans, and to raise the on-the-job-train- ing ceilings to $300 and $325. A number of surveys recently completed have indicated that the veteran on the cam- pus is just not able to make ends meet with his present allowance. We feel that the pro- posed increase of $35 per month would pro- vide a bare minimum under which veterans can attend school. They will still find it necessary, in most cases, to supplement their income from outside sources, principally by working at part-time jobs. But, unless the benefits are raised in the very near future thousands of veterans will be forced to aban- don all effort to take advantage of the edu- cational provisions of the GI bill of rights. This is particularly true of married veterans with children. In another section of your state-of-the- Union message you dealt vigorously with the problem of monopolies. The American Vet- erans’ Committee, which was the only vet- erans’ organization to submit a statement to the Monopoly Subcommittee of the Select Committee on Small Business in the House of Representatives, endorses the administra- tion's effort to face and solve this problem, We recognize that the present alarming trend toward concentration of economic power is one of the paramount issues facing our s0- ciety. Veterans engaged in business fall in almost all cases in the small-business cate- gory. The threat of the ever-expanding monopolies affects them concretely, in addi- tion to undermining the basic foundations of our free-enterprise system. You also urged Congress to develop a pro- gram to provide adequate medical care to all who need it. We feel that the Wagner- Murray-Dingell bill, introduced during the last session, provides the means for achieving the sound national health program you ad- vocate. AVC, at its last national convention, en- dorsed the creation of valley authorities for the development of our natural resources. We, therefore, offer our full support to your declaration of the importance of action in this field. We also desire to commend your appoint- ment of a Civil Rights Committee to recom- mend to Congress legislation to preserve and guarantee the basic civil rights of all our citizens. We hope that this committee will urge action on FEPC, antilynching, and anti- poll-tax legislation. It must be emphasized that as veterans we know that without world peace and un- derstanding the best domestic program is meaningless, AVC was the first national or- ganization to give full support to the Baruch plan for United Nations control of atomic energy. We urge as a logical corollary of this plan the creation of an international au- thority to control and limit all armaments. We believe in the development of world gov- ernment through the United Nations. I know that you will understand, Mr. Presi- dent, the keen interest that the American Veterans’ Committee has in the legislation passed during this session. While we have been organizing AVO as a World War II vet- erans’ organization to represent World War II veterans, we have often recalled your atate- ment that as a veteran of World War I, you would be unhappy to have veterans of the Spanish-American War handling your af- fairs. The members of AVC, now represented in every State in the Union, have joined to- gether to work in peace, as they did in the recent war, for a more democratic and proa- perous America and for a stable world, We feel that the administration and Congress, by APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD cooperating on a far-sighted legislative pro- gram in this crucial year, can take a major step toward that goal. Respectfully yours, Cuarues G. Bo.rt, Nattonal Chairman, American Vet- erans’ Committee, Limit the Tenure of the Office of President to Not More Than 8 Years EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. J. CALEB BOGGS OF DELAWARE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, February 6, 1947 Mr. BOGGS of Delaware. Mr. Speak- er, I speak in support of House Joint Resolution 27, which proposes an amend- ment to the Constitution of the United States to limit the tenure of office of the President to the whole or any part of each of two separate 4-year terms. This measure would eliminate the possi- bility of a Chief Executive and those around him perpetuating in an office so great and powerful as that of the Presi- dent of the United States, an individual whose doctrine of Government may be contrary to the best interests of our people. The official motto of the State of Dela- ware is “Liberty and independence.” I firmly believe that this motto ably ex- presses in so few words the basic princi- ples which have guided our country to its position of world leadership and raised our standard of living to the highest in the world. Our country will continue to grow in strength and purpose and carry out its responsibilties of leadership if every effort, and every precaution, is taken to preserve unto our people their liberty and independence, and the right of choice and decision in the direction of our Government. As we look back over the history and growth of our country, we find that the Federal Government has been reason- able in its operation and has, in most instances, carefully guarded individual rights and liberties. Yet when the ex- penditures of the Federal Government reach the astronomical figures of recent years, it became imperative for the people to establish additional safeguards to preserve their fundamental rights and liberties. Therefore, it seems to me that this resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States is timely, appropriate, and desirable. I supported it in this House, in order that it might be started on the road to con- sideration by the people of our country. Whether or not this amendment is ever adopted, it is important that the matter be placed before the people in the various States, in order that they may, at the conclusion of the abnormal conditions imposed by the recent world conflict, re- view and study our fundamental charter and the operation of our Government under it. Only by such continuous re- view and vigilance, by the people them-