A250 NRECA amendment—the savings average above six-tenths of 1 percent a year; on all later advances we have estimated the savings at a flat six-tenths of 1 percent a year, although we know they are in excess of that. We have listed here ail Tennessee projects and their approximate total] annual savings resulting from the NRECA 2-percent amend- ment, partially in conjunction with the McCord Act, based on their unpaid balances of September “1, 1944, and subsequent ad- vances through September 380, 1946: annual Approxi- savings | savit on jon RE Name of project loans, ex-/savings of Tennessee 00-078 Volunteer electriv...-..---]-..--.-.. $72, 774. Tricounty electrie...---..]-2--222.- 11, 029, 10 Southwest Tennessee electric. ---2-----. ee Bolivar public (city). Middie Tennessee elect Gibsoa County dectri Duek River electric. 14, G4y, 08 Dicksou public (city 1, 027. 24 Cumberland electric oe eee 7, 415, 25 Upper Cumberland nes Benn 4, 885. 94 Port Loudon electric... 2, 406, 86 Carroll public (county) -- 441. 00 Paris public (city) -- 848, T2 Weakley pubiie (ety) (paid REA 1n full).....}.. 284, 80 Pickwick eloctric_. .. 2, 303, us eriwetha-Lewis  alec- nny 5 1, 511. 87) 1, 544. 37 Tennessee Valiey  eleo- en eee 2,619.65) 2, G1¥. 65 trie Sequachee Valley elec- Plateau electric (no REA joan). Halston electric . .. eoeeee 1, 6B4. 47 Appalachian clectric. 1, 558. 84 Ltneoin County electric. - 6, 634, 26 Newport public {etty) ----]-- 2... 637. Lalolletie public (city) -- SAT. Caney Fork electric. .__..|. 2, £69. 63 Forked Veer eloctric_.... .}- 2, RAS. 95 Chickasaw electric... .--.]--- 1, ORK, 28 Mountain clectric.....---|-.....--- 2, 435. 50 Grand total__ 2.2... These savings are permanent; you'll save these amounts annually—proportionately— on your unpaid balances of present and fu- ture loans. You in Tennessee alone saved more last year as a result of the National's efforts in this one instance than the Na- tional’s total income last year. It is inter- esting that your savings exceed $1 a mem- ber per year, whereas your annual dues in the National are or would be only 10 cents @ member per year. Ten hundred percent per year is not a bad investment, is it? I am confident that any of our friends on Capitol Hill would tell you that the National has been effective several times in obtaining more adequate loan authorizations. Al! co-ops benefited, members and nonmembers alike. On three different occasions the co-ops co- ordinated their efforts through organization to defeat well-organized campaigns to place restrictions on the REA program. Twice re- Strictive amendments got out of commit- tees, and one passed the House. We won every fina] skirmish—and all co-ops bene- fited. Last summer when President Truman in- cluded the REA loan program among public works in the general stop order, your Na- tional got busy fast. The order was re- scinded in almost a matter of hours. All co-ops benefited, members and nonmembers. NRECA has a voluntary group-tnsurance Program for project employees, such as you have through your State association, and {t is working on an employee-retirement plan, comparable with that of the industry gen- erally. These by their very nature have to be for members only. We feel that NRECA has done an effective job of staving off the power company- National Tax Equality Association drive to impose income taxes or income-tax equiv- alents on us. If so, all co-ops have benefited. NRECA's regional and national meetings surely contribute something to better under- standing, education, and organization. If so, all co-ops benefit. NRECA publishes a national magazine, Rural Electrification. We feel it has great value in keeping our people informed. Mem- ber co-ops have always sent {it to the directors and managers of nonmembers gratis. Surely all co-ops benefit from the magazine. These things have been accomplished for all of you, members and nonmembers, by an organization whose members generally have had more difficult struggles, less advantages, and less ability to pay dues than the non- members in Tennessee. All the reasons I have mentioned tor be- longing to the National Association are, in my opinion, as nothing by comparison with the need of your membership now for the battles immediately ahead. NRECA’s membership and its financial stability have climbed steadtly this past year; 687 projects in 38 States and Alaska are members today, 9 40 percent increase in ‘46, but only 8 of them are in Tennes- see—end that doesn’t look good when we must appear before Senator McKeLvar’s Appropriations Committee. Members of NRECA member projects number over a mil- lion farm families, but only 40,773 are in Ten- nessee. Our bank account is bigger than it has ever been before, but we should have, we think, substantial reserves for any emergency. A single telegram to the nearly one thousand projects can cost several thousand dollars. Several telegrams might be neCessary in a single crisis—and we had several crises last year. We do no high-pressure lobbying. Our biggest expense is in Keeping you advised so you can jet your Senators and Congressmen know your needs and desires on matters be- fore them. We need more personnel in the office—there are only eight of us including the magazine and all other employeea—but we have about all the budget can stand, based on present membership, if we are to continue the ac- cumulation plan. We are carefully audited semiannually; we work hard and we make every farmer’s 10-cents-a-year go as far as it will. We are the only national organization of any kind that is doing a continental thing about power on the side of the people. You've read the statements of Congress- man Taper, of New York, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, that in his opinion we have been getting several times too much tn loans. The country as well as the Congress has moved far to the right—which historically tends to slow down all Government lending. We have compiled extensive documentary evidence that the power companies are taking advan- tage of the situation and are moving in for the kill. The Power Trust's president, Grover Neff, of Edison Electric Institute, who told a congressional committee last year that we needed no more funds, now says not only that REA needs no more, but also that no more transmission lines are necessary any- where except as the power companies build them—and we need lines from power dams in many States. The National Tax Equality Association freely predicts our demise with taxes it says will be levied against us. Others predict trouble for TVA. All signs point to the battle of the ages for us—and it is at hand. Barely over ® year ago two enemy gen- erals opened the offensive against us. They were Grover Cleveland Neff and Frank APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Wilkes, president of the Southwestern Gas & Electric Co. Their strategy then was to praise REA and meke light of the farmers, and to insist that REA needed no more money. Today their strategy has changed; they are condemning REA viciously and praising the farmers— but insisting that nobody needs any more money, including REA. For instance, at page 209 in the Poage bill hearings last year, Mr. Wilkes seid, “Mr. Wickard is a dirt farmer himseif, and we feel that he has the best interest of the American farmer close to his mind and heart.” At page 262 Cungressman Hagar asked him, ‘Do you feel that REA needs an additional appropria- tion to do the job ahead?” Mr. Wilkes an- swered, “I don’t think so; no, sir. * * * I think the money they have got, Mr. Chair- man, is enough to do the job.” He then went on to make light of the farmers’ judgment in pleading for restrictive safeguards around their loans. Wilkes, Ne.T & Co. killed the Poaoge bill dead as heck—but we got $350,000.000 in loans after that; so they are trying a uew line now. Wilkes addressed his own employees re- cently. He told them, according to the prese—and it got wide publicity—(1) thut, and note the change, “REA is the worst en- emy the farmers have * * *;" (2) that the co-ops “are business-managed and free enterprise’; that they “are capable of run- ning their own affairs and should be allowed to do so.” Do you see his strategy?—drive a wedge between the co-ops and REA, and wopuopu- larize REA with Congress. Docsn't sound like him last year, does it? Then Mr. Wilkes wrote the managers of the co-ops to which he furnishes power—in Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas—a two-page letter dated December 12, 1946, and attached the newspaper clipping about his speech. In a single paragraph he made these two statements: “Yours is a business-managced operation Just as we are,” and “as long as you meet your fixed charges there should be no interference by Federal bureaus with your operation.” Let me read you another paragraph from bis letter: “It is going to be necessary very soon far you gentlemen to choose whether you are going to continue to be business-managed organizations, buying your power and energy from existing free enterprise, at rates which you can enforce in courts, ar whether you want to become, like the cooperatives in the Tennessee Valley, completely dominated by the Public Power Trust through the bureaus in Washington.” His next paragraph is the one I like: “We will be glad to meet with you and your boards, at your convenience to give you our understanding of this entire picture, which, we believe, you will find is consider- ably different than that given you by the Propaganda of the Rural Electrification Ad- ministration in Washington and by Mr. Clyde Ellis, of WRECA.” A year ago Grover Neff, then president of Wisconsin Power & Light Co., speaking for EEI, told the same committee (1) he didn’t want to criticize REA and (2) that some farmers are superstitious and afraid of elec- tricity (page 181). Later he repeated his reference to farmers’ superstitions (page 182), and I quote him, “But I have talked with farmers that are afraid of it; they are afraid they are going to burn themselves down—farmers that are rich and can afford it.” God pity the stupidity of some power company presidents, At page 191, Neff told the committee: “It looks to me like the REA has the necessary funds now allotted to complete their part of this program.” Since the time he was s0 careful not to criticize REA last year, Neff, stil] proclaiming the job “is nearing an end,” has become
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD very critical of both REA and Mr. Wickard. We can supply a number of his quotations to that effect. At the same time he is publicly advocating that the utility indus- try ignore REA and put on a “friendly” cam- paign with co-op directors. I suppose he thinks they are as ignorant now as he thought they were superstitious last year. The outright purchases in recent months of two co-ops in Oregon and Idaho by power companies are merely instances of the divide and conquer strategy. These examples are but a small part of the evidence we have gathered, but I am sure they are all you need or want to hear tonight. In a few weeks we'll be asking for $250,- €30,000 in loans for the ensuing fiscal year; we'll be asking for adequate REA sdminis- trative funds; we'll be asking for dams, gen- erators, and transmission lines in many sec- tions; and we’ll be seeking funds for ade- quate farm electrification research. We may even be defending the basic REA and TVA Acts. We'll be asking these things and de- fending the program for years to come. The over-all job is not even half done. We need your help in this fight. You need us to help hold the fort against the divide and conquer onslaught. You are writing one of the most glorious chapters in American history, and we feel that by cooperating na- tionally you could make valuable leadership, monetary, and membership contributions. May I ask you whose projects are not mem- bers a question? When you return home won't you act at once to have your coopera- tive become a member of the national asso- ciation? I should like to close with a quotation from Senator Norris’ St. Louis speech. Suid he: “But, friends, don’t forget, your enemies are the same fellows who are enemies of TVA. You ought to know that your enemies, if they could destroy you, would do it. They may destroy you indirectly. * * * “You cannot separate these things (REA and TVA). They belong together. God put them together. And every stream that rolls down the mountainside through the meadows into the sea ought to be made to bring its blessings, its comforts, its joys, to the farm home as well as to the city home.” Johnny McCabe EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF . HON. CHARLES A. HALLECK OF INDIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 23, 1947 Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, under Jeave to extend my remarks in the REc- orD, I include the following editorial from the Hammond (Ind.) Daily Times of January 28, 1947: JOHNNY M’CABE Many Lake County visitors to Washington have returned praising Johnny McCabe, of Whiting, an employee of the House of Repre- sentatives who, while 4 feet 10 inches in height, has considerable stature when it comes to doing things for people and in a most gracious manner. For years, when the Republicans were in power, McCabe was superintendent of pages on the majority side of the House and then held the same position with respect to the minority pages. He personally knows every one of the 635 Senators, Congressmen, and Territorial Delegates, who represent us in the Senate and lower House. In fact, being a walking encylopedia on congressional pro- cedure Johnny is often consulted by states- men of both Chambers. When the Republicans returned to power, Johnny was a candidate for Doorkeeper of the House, an $8,000 post, but someone else got that position. So he was transferred to other duties. Now we understand that Re- publicans and Democrats in the House are agreeable to passing a special act whereby Johnny will be assigned a new post at an ap- propriate salary so the Congress may get the benefit of his 28 years of experience and serv- ice on Capitol Hill. When next you go to Washington be sure to look up Johnny McCabe. Un-American Activities EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. J. PARNELL THOMAS OF NEW JERSEY | IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday. January 23, 1947 Mr. THOMAS of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, on January 18, 1947, Attorney General Tom Clark announced that an 1l-count indictment had been made against Carl Aldo Marzani, 35, of 508 North Fillmore Street, Arlington, Va. The basic counts of the indictment charged that he had concealed his al- legiance to the Communist Party while employed in strategic positions in the Federal Government. He was dismissed from the State Department December 20, 1946. His Federal-employment history is as follows: He received a temporary appointment in the Office of the Coordinator of In- formation on March 7, 1942, and re- mained with that agency when it became the Office of Strategic Services, where, as & master sergeant in the Army assigned to the OSS, he was responsible for pro- ducing motion-picture films which were sent to the higher echelon showing the strength and location of all American forces throughout the world. He was discharged from the Army September 20, 1945, and continued with the OSS in a civilian capacity as Deputy Chief of the Division of Presentation of the Office of Intelligence, Collection, and Dissemina- tion. When the OSG was merged into the State Department he was trans- ferred to that agency September 20, 1945. He was removed, as previously stated, January 20, 1946. His original appointment to the Office of Coordinator of Information in March 1942, as economic editor in the Division of Research and Analysis, was condi- tioned upon a satisfactory character and fitness report. According to the an- nouncement made by the Attorney Gen- eral, he alleged that after an investiga- tion by the FBI and the Civil Service Commission, and on the strength of his own statements, he was ruled eligible for employment July 29, 1943. The files of the Committee on Un- American Activities have for the past 6 years carried the Communist record of this individual. He is listed on page 429 of the Communist compilation of Com- munist Party election petitions for the year 1939 of the State of New York, as A251 a signer. Also there is a special folder in the files on Marzani which states: CARLO ALDO MARZANI Chief of Editorial Section, Presentation Di- vision, Research and Analysis Branch of the Office of Strategic Services. New York section organizer of the Com- munist Party under the name of Tony Whales (New York police files). Wife is Edith Charles, who, together with her husband, signed election petitions for Earl Browder. Both were fired from the WPA writers’ proj- ect for Communist activity. In February 1944 the Special Commit- tee on Un-American Activities served a subpena upon Harry B. Mitchell, Presi- dent of the United States Civil Service Commission, calling upon him to produce all the records from the files of the Civil Service Commission concerning an at- tached list of 128 Government employees whom the committee had reason to be- lieve were Communists, or who were en- gaged in Communist activities. Mr. Mitchell refused to supply these files. Car] Marzani was one of the 128 names listed on the subpena. Since the files and records of the Com- mittee on Un-American Activities were available to the agents of the Civil Serv- ice Commission, the FBI, the State De- partment, and the OSS, the question arises as to how this individual could have obtained and retained his employ- ment in a strategic position during war- time. Why Federal Taxes Are High EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. WALTER NORBLAD OF OREGON IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 23, 1947 Mr. NORBLAD. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rec- orD, I include the following article from the United States News of January 24, 1947: WHY FEDERAL TAXES ARE HIGH: POSTWAR COSTS OF GOVERNMENT In the third year after the end of the fight- ing war, President Truman insists that the Federal Government must go on spending at the rate of at least $37,500,000,000 a year. That is more than four times the highest spending rate of prewar New Deal years and causes anguish among income taxpayers, who are asked to pay wartime tax rates for years after the war is over. The President’s budget Is a challenge to a Congress that has promised tax relief. The implication is that everything is trimmed to the bone, but Senator EuGene D. MILLIKIN, Republican, of Colorado, and Representative Harotp KNUTSON, Republican, of Minnesota, must force their colleagues to take another Jook at the Budget Bureau's estimates. These men head the tax committees of Congress, whose problem is outlined on page 49. But, if they are to deliver the promised lower rates, others must first find out how to pare ex- penses, A way to save $1,500,000,000 out of the $37,500,000,000 budget would provide a base for a 10-percent tax cut on individual incomes. A 10-puircent cut in the budget as a whole would allow more than a 20-percent cut in income taxes.
A252 A look beneath the surface of the Presi- dent's budget discloses a number of interest- ing plans and developments of the admin- istration. Little things show up first. Before the war, for example, it cost $160,000 to run the White House. Mr. Truman now asks $501,300 for operation and maintenance in the year that begins next July 1. The Executive Offices cost $196,000 to operate in prewer years. They are down for 81,417,000 in the next fiscal year. The Government Printing Office is to get $7,156,000, twice as much as in a prewar year. The Budget Bureau itself, which cost $396,000 before the war, will now cost $3,506,000. Those are just little items in a big budget. A step rp in the scale shows the same trend. Congress cost $22,000,000 before the war and is scheduled for 851,809,000 in the next fiscal year. The judiciary cost 89,500,000 before Pearl Harbor, but is to cost $19,000,000 next year. The Department of Commerce strug- gled along on $20,000,000 in prewar years. It wants $260,814,000 now. Where the Department of Labor managed to operate for 824,000,000 in 1939, it finds that it cannot manage for less than $106,- 242,000 next year. Diplomat: of the Foreign Service after seeing to this country's foreign relations at a cost of 614,000,000 a year before Pearl Harbor, want 6117,000,000 to do the job. Big money begins to be involved at the next level. It is to cost $350,000,000 to make up an ex- pected deficit in revenues of the Postal Serv- ice. Taxpayers contributed only $40,000,000 to users of the mails before the war. The Navy wants to spend $344,000,000 on new ships in the third year after end of the war, or about half as much as the whole Navy cost before the war. The Interior Department, after getting along on $150,000,000 in prewar years, now asks for 363,000,000. Its recla~ mation projects alone are down for $178,- 000,000, that cost $96,000,000 before. Times are very good. Almost anyone who wants to work can have a job. National in- come is almost twice as high as it ever has been in a peacetime year. Federal relief, nevertheless, is to cost $720,000,000. ‘That’s the Federal Govern- ment's contribution to States for ald to the aged, to dependent mothers and children, and to the blind. During the last period of com- parable prosperity, relief costs were negligible, with individual families meeting most of the burden. It is to cost $182,000,000 next year to promote public health, where it cost @48,000,000 in 1940. Crime control is down for $85,000,000. It had cost @33,000,000 before. Rivers, harbors and flood contro] are down for 96890,000,000 next year. This item cost $210,000,000 in prewar budgets. Public roads are scheduled to get $435,000,000 in the year ahead. Road construction cost the Federal Government $169,000,000 back in 1940. It’s pretty much the same story all along the line. Public housing cost $19,000,000 in 1940. Next year it is to cost $173,000,000, if Congress goes along with Mr. Truman. Mortgages of 443,000,000 are to be bought by the Recon- struction Finance Corporation to underwrite veterans’ homes, Farmers, although never so prosperous, still are recognized as an expense to the Treasury. They stand to get @330,000,000 next year for price supports. They got approximately the same amount before the war, when prices were much lower. Mr. Truman also pro- poses to spend $66,000,000 as an export sub- sidy for farm products, and he wants $154,000,000 for the new Farm Home Admin- istration to help tenant farmers become homeowners. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics plans to spend ¢4,850,000 to study farm problems, which cost 61,000,000 in pre- war, Really big money begins to show up in plans for veterans and in money earmarked for the Army and Navy. Veterans’ pensions are to coat $2,492,000,- 000. The prewar cost of pensions was $417,- 000,000. Then, businessmen are to get $l,- 000,000,000 as a subsidy for employing vet- erans in the on-job training program. An- other 81,000,000,000 is allotted for educating veterans in schools and colleges. The sum of $980,000,000 is put down for benefits to job- less veterans, members of the “52-20 club.” These are all new postwar costs. To admin- ister the program the Veterans’ Administra- tion proposes to pay $870,000,000. That’s nearly as much as the whole Army and Navy spent before the war. In 1940 salaries and administrative costs amount to $101,000,000. The Army’s program is reflected in an 804,000,000 item for supplies such as food, clothing, and medicines. That is more than the entire prewar Army budget. New weap- ons for a year of peace are to cost $338,000,- 000. The Signal Corps got along on $6,455,479 in prewar years and now is down for $100,- 000,000. The Panama Canal gets a budget allowance of $25,526,388. The Canal had $9,000,000 before the war. The Military Acad- emy at West Point ts estimated to need 86,- 878,000 in the budget year ahead. Befure the war the Academy operated on $3,000,000. The Navy shows the same trend as the Army. Th naval air arm is down for $815,- 000,000. That's more than the Navy Depart- ment got altogether before the war. To train naval reservists in the year ahead, the De- partment wants $110,000,000. Before the war reserve training cost $8,500,000. The total Navy budget amounts to about half the total prewar expenses of the entire Government establishment. War agencies are scheduled to keep oper- ating in the third year of peace. Mr. Tru- man’s budget provides for 1,271,976 civilian employees of war agencies. That includes civilians in the Army and Navy, as well as civilians in war agencies that cannot seem to be liquidated. Before the war only 229,917 persons had similar jobs. Former enemies are turning out to be a peacetime drain on United States taxpayers. The War Department proposes to spend $645,000,000 for the relief of occupied coun- tries. The State Department is down for another $387,000,000 to be spent for foreign relief. And $76,000,000 is budgeted to aid foreign refugees. The cost of defeating Ger- many and Japan did not end when the shooting stopped. Next year, destitute and defeated foreigners are scheduled to receive almost as much relief as the Federal Govern- ment extended to the jobless Americans during the depression years. The Philippine Army, although now inde- pendent, also is a cost to the United States. This force is down for $100,000,000 in the United Btates defense budget. Atomic research is to cost twice as much next year as this year. The budget calls for an outlay of §443,244,000 to be spent on the atom. Research, in fact, is budgeted as a major operation in a number of fields. The Bu- reau of Standards is down for $11,500,000. Before the war this Bureau received around $2,000,000. The Navy earmarks $27,000,000 for research. Previous peacetime naval re- search amounted to $6,000,000. And the De- partment of Agriculture asks $3,375,000 for white pine blister-rust control. Before the war, this tree disease cost the Government $1,767,930. Tax relief? These items are typical in a budget that the President describes as tight. They reveal that Big Government tends to stay big. They also demonstrate what Sena- tor Mxiire is to be up against when he attempts to write a tax bill that will meet all these expenses, allow some margin for reducing the public debt, and, in the bargain, give a substantial measure of relief to in- come-tax payers, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD English as the World Language EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. MIKE MONRONEY OF OKLAHOMA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 23, 1947 Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. _ Speaker, under leave to extend my own remarks in the Recorp, I would like to call the attention of the Members to the excel- lent article in the National Education Association magazine of January 1947 regarding English as a world language. The article is by Frank C. Laubach, spe- cial counselor and representative, Com- mittee on World Literacy and Christian Literature, Foreign Missions Conference of North America. Mr. Laubach is an authority on the teaching of English and foreign languages through phonetic alphabets throughout the world. His comments regarding the great work done by former Senator Robert L. Owen, who has pioneered much of the work of a global alphabet, is interesting. Senator Owen explains, however, a slight misconception regarding the supplant- ing of the Roman alphabet as asserted in the article. Senator Owen's letter follows the article. GLosaL ALPHABET IN SEVEN LANGUAGES “English should be made a world language, and I invented the global alphabet for that purpose,” says Robert L. Owen, president of the World Language Foundation, 2400 Six- teenth Street NW., Washington, D.C. Bilin- gual books, using global, are now available in seven languages. “With these books, the Chinese or Russians, for example, can learn within 4 or & months to read, write, and speak English. Only 1,200 words are re- quired and the form and pronunciation both of the Chinese and English appear side by side, enabling the student to read with his eye not only the form of English words but the sound of English words as well.” WANTED, A GLOBAL LANGUAGE—THIS Is A PLEA rok A Firra FreevomM—THE FrREepom To Sprxit, Worps THE Way THEY SOUND (By Frank C. Laubach) Mark Twain said he felt sorry for the man without enough imagination to spell a word two ways. We ought to feel sorry for an age so tied to the apron strings of the last cen- tury that we can’t change wrong to right, just because our ancestors went wrong. On this matter we are more mossback than the Hottentots; they have a perfect alphabet. Now that we are resolved to be “one world” we need a language of interchange so we shall not be in everlasting need of inter- preters, well named “interrupters.” The San Prancisco conference was handicapped be- cause the delegates did not all know a com- mon language. Where shall we get this global language? Several artificial es have been devised. Esperanto claims to be known by a million and a half highbrows—but did you ever meet anybody who could speak it? The most perfect language now in use, in my opinion, would be Creole, as spoken and spelled in Haiti. The phonetics are perfect, and it has y no grammar. How @asy it is grammatically may be seen from
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the following sentences literally translated into English: The man did go. A man go now. A man wil go. Several man go now. Several man wil go. Several man did go. A man hav go already. But to advocate Creole is purely wishful thinking, for only 3,000,000 people speak it. What languages are in the running? At the top is English, spoken by over 200,- 000.000 as a first language and 200,000,000 @& a second language. Next is Chinese Mandarin, spoken by 100,- 000,000 as a first language and 100,000,000 as a second language; ninety-nine-hun- dredths of these live in China. Arabic, 100,000,000 as a first language, 50,- 000,000 as a second. Spanish, 100,000,000 as a first language, 25,000,000 as a second. Russian official, 50,000,000 as a first lan- guage, 50,000,000 as a second language. French, 50,000,000 as a first language, 50,- 000,000 as a second. Hindi spoken by 60,000,000 in India as a first language, 50,000,000 as a second. Of all the widely spoken languages, Rus- sian has the most perfect spelling and by many people is considered the richest in expressing shades of thought. Its alphabet was made perfect by Lenin in 1920. With the zealous and efficient Communist organ- izations all over the world, Russian is bound to run a neck-and-neck race with English as the world language, even though English is now numerically in the lead. Mandarin will be in the race when China begins to assume her destiny as the world’s largest nation. But Mandarin has two handicaps: First, it uses characters which are rough pictures of ideas instead of sounds. These are difficult for foreigners to learn to write and nearly hopeless for printers Sec- ond, it must be spoken in four tones, which foreigners find exceedingly difficult. Spanish is beautiful and its spelling is nearly perfect, but its irregular verbs are harder to master than those of English. Nevertheless it is high up in the race. So is Arabic. The Mohammedans are making more converts than are the Chris- tians. And nearly every convert learns to read the Arabic alphabet. But Arabic is confined to the Moslem world. It has several phonetic difficulties. The vowel sounds are usually omitted, so a reader must know whether “bt” is “bit,” “bat,” or “boot.” The deep gutturals are next to im- possible for most foreigners to pronounce perfectly. This is how English would look if spelled like Arabic: “Mch hs bn wrttn abt rfrmed spling as a savr of spc. Possbly ths wid b agd pln. Bt it wid b a bttr pin if it wer cartrd firthr. If a systm of abbrvtns wr adptd, as mch as 40 pct of spe cld b savd. It widn’t b so hrd as u mght thnk. Ucn read ths, cn't u?” So in the front of the race for a global language are English and Russian. General de Gaulle would demur at leaving French out, but French is spelled almost as badly as English. If the French really want to be in the race any longer, they will have to reform their spelling. They could adopt the Haitian Creole spelling and all the world would bless them. But my guess is they would perish first. English will also have to reform its spelling, unless we are content to end up a bad sec- ond. Of all the great languages, English ranks next to Chinese and Thai as the world’s worst in orthography. We had better do for English what the Soviets did for Russian in 1918, agree to reform our spelling. Half America and four-fifths of the youth of America will accept a reformed spelling with a whoop and a hurrah, if it isn’t too drastic. If you don’t believe that, ask people through the schools, newspapers, and churches. I have asked several hundred audiences how many favor reformed spelling and three-fourths of them raised their hands for it. Often it was unanimous. But how shall we reform our spelling? There have been at least 200 suggestions. The most radical is that of Robert Owen, the blind ex-Senator who wrote most of the Federal Reserve bank law. He wants to as- sassinate the entire Roman alphabet. He is promoting his global alphabet that looks a little ike Gregg shorthand, and he has many of America’s great interested. If Senator Owen can wield enough influence to get his alphabet started, it has a chance of winning by sheer merit. It is the simplest, best al- phabet I have ever seen. But it labors under the same handicap as the Esperanto lan- guage, that so far nobody has used it much. The proposal with the greatest weight of scholarship back of it is the international alphabet. Now taught in many schools and colleges, this may ultimately be adopted. But it compels you to unlearn nearly every vowel sound in the English language. I learn it one day and forget it the next. Another approach was begun in 1943 by a group of us working at Teachers College, Co- lumbia University. We tried to find a spell- ing which would really be everyday English, yet absolutely regular in true democratic style. 1. We held an election of words, giving 7,000 words each a vote to discover how the syllables in English words are usually spelled. This syllable count gave us a basic spelling for each English sound. The vowels and diph- thongs in this basic spelling are as in the following words: big beg bag hot bug hurt aim bee die boat few boot cow law oil twist (twk=t quit=kwit With this spelling we are able to use the English alphabet without any diacritical marks. The printers do not need new type. This basic English spelling does for letters what basic English does for words—it pro- vides the one commonest way to spell every word in the English language. Basic spelling of consonants follows five simple rules: (1) no letter “c.” (2) “ch” always soft like “chin.” (3) “g” always hard like “get.” (4) “dhis” for “this” to distinguish it from “think.” (5) “pigs” iz pigz. Whenever it is necessary to respell :n Eng- Ush word we do it this basic way. 2. But most English words do not need to be respelled because they can be pronounced just as they are by any student who learns that there are two or three regular ways of spelling these sounds. The table shows the alternative regular ways. Basic spelling. cot gait Alternative... ah gate car uy Basle spelling. cow ja Alternative. - loud auto Basic spelling.....-.------ dull kick Alternative. ....2-.---ea00 ankée cat beo hurt boat fow hero her fore cure heat bird for argue die hig oll bite very boy kw shun with double rr ‘ arrive queer action error session irrigate A253 Those are all the ways of spelling that are important enough and simple enough ty re- tain. They cover 80 percent of our words. We scrap all the rest and spell the other 20 percent of our words the basic way. “Con- scious” is spelled “‘conshus.” “Eight” turns to “ait.” “Light” turns to “lite.” “Though a tough cough plough me through” turns to “thoa u tuf kawf plow mee throo,” which {z eezee enuf for enibodi. We are now using basic spelling in stream- lined lessons to teach foreigners how to read English, and its success exceeds our wildest hopes. In a week or two a foreigner who reads his own language can read every Eng- lish word spelled the basic way, even tho he never saw the word before. Aiter that a second book teaches him the meaning of 850 words in basic English and the 1,000 words in the Thorndike-Lorge list. They overlap, making 1,371 words in all. Every badly spelled word is respelled the basic way once, for example: Whot What is this? taibul This is the table. What is this? ewr This is your hand. What is that? mie hed This is my head. When the student finishes the second book he will then know the meaning and pro- nunciation of 90 percent of the words he encounters on the average page. He can look up the other 10 percent in a dictionary, and so is henceforth independent. This method shortens the teaching of Eng- lish by years, but it isn’t heaven, for it leaves 20 percent of the English words as badly spelled as ever. This 20 percent will be the foreigner’s nightmare the rest of his life, unless he can respell them. Our only hope is that we can silence the selfish old fogies who would rather send the world to perdition than bother to learn a new way themselves. We don’t ask them to change. We only ask them to show toler- ance toward the rest of us who want to spell according to the dictates of our consciences. If educated English-speaking people will agree that there are two ways to spell, the old way and the right way, then most of the difficulty the foreign world dreads will be hurdled. Perhaps the foreign world will gradually force us all to stop spelling badly. Once this regular way of spelling has become re- spectable, educated people of every other tongue will write the regular way to Amer- ica and England, and the progressive English- speaking businessmen will learn to write back to the outside world in the same way. The volume of this phonetic correspondence is going to be enormous. Writers will begin to use the “fonetik"” spelling—some of them perhaps apologetically at first with quotation marks. But the quotation marks will dis- appear soon. The movement will gather momentum, first, because there will be immense public opinion for it; second, because we are in this race with the Russian language; and, third, because it always was the rite way to spell. In these days when we streamline everything else, science will gradually conquer chaos even in spelling. Spain, Russia, Haiti, and China have re- formed their spelling. So will we, for it is being forced on us. Which reform? This moderate one of 20 percent or the interna- tional alphabet? We may even be forced to accept Owen's perfect global alphabet. That would be the real metric system of orthogra- phy—the speller's heaven.
A254 Wasnincton, D. C., January 21, 1947. Hon. A. 8. Mrcz Monroner, House Office Butlding, Washington, D.C. My Dear Mr. Monrnoney: Enclosed find the Laubach article referred to in the January issue of the National Fducation Association Journal, in which Dr. Laubach so warmly commends the global alphabet as perfect. I do not propose to change the spelling of English words as currently printed, much less to assassinate the Roman alphabet, which has been enormously useful in the world’s history and especia‘ly in Laubach's work, where he has used the Roman letters to teach 85 different nationalities how to write and read their own language within a day or two. IT use the global alphabet as a means of teaching English-speaking people and peo- ple of other languages to quickly learn to read American-English newspapers, maga- zines, and books. This can be done with the global alphabet within a comparatively few weeks, as Prof. Mario A. Pei has so well said. The approval of Dr. Laubach is deeply ap- preciated by me, as I regard him as the grand marshal of the forces now waging war on illiteracy and ignorance. Cordially yours, Rosert L. OWEN. If We Really Want To Cut Taxes, Here’s the Way EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JAMES I. DOLLIVER OF IOWA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 23, 1947 Mr. DOLLIVER. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rec- orp, I include the following editorial from the Fort Dodge (Iowa) Messenger: IF WE REALLY WANT TO CUT TAXES, HERE'S THE war In a discussion on how to reduCe the Fed- eral Budget, Henry Hazlitt, writing in the current issue of Newsweek, proposes an old- fashioned method, so old and forgotten, in fact, that it seems startlingly new. In brief, Mr. Hazlitt urges a careful scrutiny of every item in the Budget and the cutting out of any expenditures not necessary. It's as simple as that. We suspect that many grandfathers of present-day citizens employed just such a procedure in handling their personal finances or businesses. That was in a day when thrift was regarded as a virtue. Nowadays, as Mr. Hazlitt suggests, fancy rhetoric is used as a substitute for the good common sense of our forefathers. Of course, there's nothing fancy or even modern about carefully scrutinizing every item of expense with an idea to reduction. But it’s practical and it’s workable, and if done honestly would result in immense sav- ings to the taxpayers. We read, for instance, in Mr. Hazlitt’s arti- cle that the budget proposed for the fiscal year beginning July 1 next, contemplates the expenditure of more than was spent in four whole years just before the war or in 12 whole years around the twenties. Note par- ticularly that this is a comparison with re- cent years. It is not going back to George Washington's time or even the gay nine- ties. And granted that in the last few years there has been a big expansion in Govern- ment needs, both domestic and foreign, nevertheless there is nothing to warrant an increase in spending of such fantastic pro- portions. We clearly are way out of line. If ‘we want to get back to where we should be, the first essential thing is a firm determina- tion. The way is open if we choose to use it. Mr. Hazlitt makes the further sensible suggestion that the budget examination be conducted by expert investigators. And also—and this is most important—he would place the burden of proof on those who wish to make the expenditures. That's turning the tables in the right way. Those who seek to save the taxpayers’ money should not be required to justify their reductions. Quite the contrary, the spenders should be forced to carry the burden of proof, should be made to Justify every dollar they propose to spend, and do so in the face of cross-examination by trained and capable experts. Because of the present inflated state of Federal spending, such a plan as above pro- posed, if properly carried out, could not re- sult in anything less than savings of vast proportions to the taxpayers. The plan, in fact, is so feasible that it could well be adapted to other taxing bodies, such as the State, county, city, schools, etc. And, with possible modifications, it would work splen- didly with private business and individual budgets. Tax Reduction EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. NORRIS POULSON OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 23, 1947 Mr. POULSON. Mr. Speaker, under leave to revise and extend my remarks, I submit an editorial taken from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in which it outlines what I consider to be a very sound.ap- proach to this subject of tax reduction. From my practical experience as a certi- fled public accountant, I concur with the writer of this editorial and all of his deductions. The editorial follows: A TAX-REDUCTION FORMULA Congress seems determined to reduce in- come taxes in spite of the great need and golden chance to reduce the national debt instead. Hence it is time to find a better formula than the two undesirable ones that @re now contesting for favor. 1, Representative KxwoTson contends that his uniform 20-percent reduction would probably produce more revenue than the existing rates because the lower tax would act as a production and investment incen- tive. However, business is already running near the peak, so the bill would inevitably curtail revenues sharply. His formula would leave the family with $5,000 gross income paying 9.81 times its 1939 tax and the $100,000 family paying only 1.56 times its 1939 tax. Thus, it would shift burdens from larger to smaller taxpayers, 2. There are also flaws in the counterpro- posal to help the little fellow by increasing personal exemptions sharply—tuch as Repre- sentative Encr.’s plan to double them. Do- ing so would take great numbers of taxpayers off the rolls. It is much better to leave them on and let them feel the direct stake they have in their Government and its policies. Exemptions could be increased very little without cutting even deeper than the Knut- son formula into Government revenue. In- comes are concentrated toward the lower end of the scale. No matter how hard the rich are soaked, the greater part of the total levy must come from the lower parts of the in- come pyramid, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 8. If insists on reducing taxes, it can be done simply, fairly, and without elimi- nating taxpayers, It can be done by reducing the rate a uniform number of percentage points in each bracket. If the rate were lowered four points, for example, the first $2,000 of taxable income would pay 16 per- cent instead of the present 20, and the over $200,000 bracket 87 instead of 91. Tax reductions for 1947, first under the Knutson flat 20-percent bill and second un- der the four-points-per-bracket formula, would be as follows: Flat 20 percent Taxable income Four points $76 or 20.0 percent. $142 or 19.0 percent. $304 or 16.3 percent $760 or 11.0 percent. $1,900 or 7.5 percent $76.00 372. 40 1, 379. 40 5, 095. 80 29, 796. 80 | $7,600 or 5.1 percent Under the Knutson bill the $200,000 man would get 392 times as much reduction in dollars as the $2,000 man—which is unfair to the smaller taxpayer. But under the Engel formula or any other uniform rule to in- Crease personal exemptions, the ¢200,000 man would receive only four and one-half times as much reduction as the $2,000 man—which is unfair to the larger taxpayer. In contrast with both inequitable schemes, reducing the bracket rates by any uniform number of points would give the $200,000 man precisely 100 times as much reduction as the $2,000 man. That is in exact propor- tion to their incomes, It is fair to both. It is the surest way to reduce without shifting taxes either from larger to smaller taxpayers or from smaller to larger—that is, without wrecking the carefully balanced existing dis- tribution of the burden. The Knutson bill swings far to the right, favoring large incomes and breaching the ability-to-pay principle. The Engel plan swings far to the left, unduly favoring smal! taxpayers and penalizing large ones. Con- Gress, we trust, will shun both extremes and follow the straight, fair, and safe road which lies between them. Reenlistment of Partially Disabled Veterans EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. T. MILLET HAND OF NEW JERSEY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 23, 1947 Mr. HAND. Mr. Speaker, on April 12, 1946, I introduced H. R. 6090, a bill to permit partially disabled veterans to re- enlist in the armed forces for limited duty. On the one hand it is evident that a large number of war veterans, who suffered permanent physical disabilities could and would find a happy and hon- orable career by remaining in the service of their country. On the other hand, it is equally evident that they could not only be useful in the armed service, but there is a positive ueed for them. It is well known to everyone that a comparatively small percentage of sol- diers and sailors are used for combat troops, even in wartime. For every man who is potentially a front-line soldier, there are a number in supporting posi- tions, many of which can adequately be
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD filled by those suffering some physical handicap. Mechanics, clerks, laboratory technicians, stenographers, tailors, tele- phone operators, and many other such classifications are required by military organizations, and there is nothing but tradition which keeps such jobs occu- pied by men in the pink of physical con- dition. The physically handicapped can perform. these services adequately, and release for more strenuous duty those who are more fortunate. . This bill was referred to the Committee or Military Affairs, and a number of the members of that committee were persuaded of the merits of the bill, but the committee itself did not find the opportunity to report the bill before the adjournment in August. In the meantime, the War Depart- ment, on October 16, 1946, virtually adopted my proposal and announced that it would recruit up to 5,000 disabled veterans for such positions. Naturally, I welcome the adoption of the principle of my bill by the War De- partment, but I am so convinced of its propriety and need that I would like to see this made a permanent, legally estab- lished policy. And, further, I would like to see the same policy established in the Navy and Coast Guard. Accordingly, I have reintroduced the bill, which is now H. R. 73, and which has been referred to the Committee on Armed Services. I urge the committee to favorably report this bill, and the Congress to adopt it, because it seems to me that it would be quite useful and important, both to a large group of vet- erans who deserve our consideration and also to the armed forces themselves. I am appending below the text of the bill, as well as a part of the text of the War Department release dated October 16, 1946: A bill to permit partially disabled World War II veterans to reenlist in the armed forces of the United States, including the Coast Guard, for limited duty. Be it enacted, etc., That any person who (a) served in the active military or naval service of the United States, including the Coast Guard, a part of such service having been after December 6, 1941, and before Sep- tember 3, 1945, and was discharged from such service under conditions other than dishon- orable, and (b) incurred a partial physical disability in line of duty in such service, or as a result of such service, shall be eligible for reenlistment in the armed forces of the United States, including the Coast Guard, for such limited duty as he is physically capable of performing, if he is otherwise qualified to perform such duty. The Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of the Treasury, respectively, shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this act. ARMY WILL RECRUIT 5,000 PARTIALLY DISABLED VETERANS In another move to bring skilled personnel into the United States Army and also to offer the Army as a career to many men heretofore barred from such an opportunity because of disability caused by honorable service, the War Department announced today that cer- tain categories of disabled veterans would be accepted for enlistment in the Regular Army, Recognizing that many men disabled in service are desirous of an Army career and that many of these men have proven them- selves able and skilled by winning over their handicaps, the War Department has directed that an initial 5,000 partially disabled vet- erans will be accepted for service in the Regular Army. This action comes as an official recogni~- tion of the fine character and strength exe hibited by the majority of our disabled men, and provides the Army the opportunity of action in helping to place our disabled men in normal and happy positions. However, the Army does not consider the move as help- ing the handicapped, but, rather, desires to utilize the services of the handicapped in preserving its fighting strength. Careful study of the accomplishments and the de- velopment of special skills by partially dis- abled men has proven to the Army that these dtsabled men have shown themselves of equal value in many occupations to many other men unhindered by any handicap. The War Department feels that those individuals with nonorganic disabilities can be utilized in tech- Nical type positions in such a manner as to be a great asset to the Army. . In planning the action the War Depart- ment assembled a partial list of the “over- head type" positions that can be filled by these individuals. The positions are as fol- lows: Diesel and automobile mechanic, clerk, Postal clerk, dental laboratory technician, draftsmen, electricians, machinist, moving- picture projectionist, sign painter, shoe re- pairmen, stenographer, tailor, teletype oper- ator, toolroom keeper, X-ray technician, key punch operator, classification specialist, of- fice machine servicemen, telephone operator, tabulating machine operator, clerk-typist, Medical technician, tabulating machine re- pairman, shop clerk, etc. Thanks to the Army EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. PHILIP J. PHILBIN OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 23, 1947 Mr. PHILBIN. Mr. Speaker, under leave to revise and extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include therein a recent editorial appearing in the Boston Trav- eler entitled “Thanks to the Army,” as follows: THANKS TO THE ARMY The Boston airport is potentially a safer place today than it ever has been in the past. Thanks are due to the Army which made pos- sible the loan of a radar ground control ap- proach system. Thanks is due to Repre- sentative Prime J. PHILBIN who acted as intermediary between the airport and the Army. There is no evidence that thanks is Gue anyone else, It is time that this problem of making airplane landings safer be tackled directly. Ground control approach is no untested novelty. It proved its worth throughout the war. No one seems inclined to deny its prac- ticality. The real argument—to dignify what is not properly an argument at all—is its cost. The cost of installation is great. So is the cost of installing protective devices on the railroads of America, but they are installed. The obvious answer to the argument of cost is to ignore it, Safety is an essential factor for any stable transportation system and the cost of pro- viding safety is a normal operating cost. It is merely added to the price of tickets on most transportation enterprises. Of course that will make flying more ex- pensive, with adverse economic effects to the industry if the industry bears it, to the tax- A255 payer's pocket if he bears it. Is that an argu- ment for leaving out a tested and practical means of safety? There are two questions to be answered. How can we get the best in radar protection in the quickest way? Who should pay for its installation and maintenance? What? The FEPC Again! EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. WILLIAM M. COLMER OF MISSISSIPPI IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 23, 1947 Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that most honest, patriotic Ameri- cans, whether Democrats or Republicans, are looking to the Eightieth Congress with high hopes of a constructive and sound program of accomplishment, free of sectional bickering and _ politica] maneuvering. Certainly they have a right to expect that. So far the session has been a harmonious one. All good Democrats in the Congress have demon- strated a willingness to go along with their Republican colleagues to that end. In the Seventy-eighth and particularly in the Seventy-ninth Congresses south- ern Democrats on many occasions alined themselves with their Republi- can colleagues to prevent some of the left-wing legislation sponsored by cer- tain high-ranking Democrats from be- ing enacted into law. Some of this, such as the so-called Fair Employment Practices Act, sponsored by so-called progressive Democrats, was in reality part of a program which had its origin under the leadership of the Soviet-domi- nated Communist Party. This proposed iniquitous legislation, although regarded by some as aimed at the South, is in fact nothing but an ob- jective of the Communist Party. And as such it was in reality aimed at our re- publican form of government. For sure- ly no national legislation ever proposed could be as far-reaching in its regimen- tation of the people. For it must be ad- mitted by all that it is as assuredly regi- mentation for a northern manufacturer to be told that he must employ people upon a basis of race rather than merit or ability as it is to make it mandatory for a southern employer to do the same. Such vicious legislation would prove to be the last word in regimentation. This most un-American proposal has now been made again by an outstanding member of the Republican Party in the form of a bill recently introduced. And in this connection, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind our Republican friends that they did not come into power be- cause of their advocacy of such left-wing proposals, but rather on the contrary. We will now find out whether in stopping cockeyed and screwy legislation by coali- tion of Republicans and southern Dem- ocrats in the last Congress the Republi- cans were playing politics, or whether they were really interested in the welfare of the country and the maintenance of the American way.
A256 Mr. Speaker, in this connection, I sub- mit herewith, in part, a most timely ar- ticle by that able writer, Mr. George Rothwell Brown, which appeared in the January 13 issue of the Baltimore News- Post and other publications: THE POLITICAL PARADE WASHINGTON, January 13.—How long soli- darity or Republican opinion in Congress can be maintained, to the advantage of the coun- try as a whole, is a question that has risen already on Capitol Hill. s * s A very great factor in the Republican land- slide, which gave that party control of both Senate and House of Representatives, was the increasing awareness by the people, and a growing fear on their part, of the plots and conspiracies against this Republic by the Soviet-dominated Communist Party. ‘WRATH OF PEOPLE The people rose in thc-r wrath, and since then all but the extreme Roosevelt left wing has been disclaiming all connection with or sympathy for communism. The American people now know that the major design of the Communists in the United States is to destroy the American form of government. They know that the method pursued by the Red Fascists is the sowing of dissension among the people, the creation of alleged racial and class distinctions, and the con- stant irritation of sore spots that might be expected to heal of themselves if left alone. One of the must demands of the Commu- nists was the enactment of a permanent Fair Employment Practices Committee, to replace the temporary committee set up as @ war measure. TRUMAN BLESSING When Truman inherited the left-over left- wing legislative nostrums which he found on Roosevelt's desk, he bundled them up in @ single package and sent them to Congress with his blessing. The rupture that had occurred between Roosevelt and a Democratic Congress was in- tensified, the New Deal coalition fell apart, the Communists were repudiated and today even their former New Deal buddies are run- ning from them as from the bubonic plague. In his annual message Mr. Truman made no mention of the FEPC Dill. But in his economic report, sent to Congress last week, he returned to the subject evasively and in- directly. Those old-fashioned, conservative Ameri- cans, who thought that in November the people had given to a Republican Congress & mandate to go right and stay right, will be shocked, no doubt, to learn that a Republican Congressman, Mr. Everetr M. DiIRgKsEN, of Tilinois, has introduced a bill to carry out one of the major Communist demands, pro- viding for the establishment of a permanent Fair Employment Practices Commission, VOTE PREVENTED Republican and Democratic conservatives, in their celebrated coalition in the last Con- gress, prevented such a measure from com- ing to a vote in the House. The voters at the polls in November over- whelmingly sustained their position. Almost to a man the left-wing Democrats, who had fought for the FEPC bill, which epitomized the whole Communist drive against American solidarity, were defeated and driven from Congress. The Republican Party in Congress can cause a lot of trouble for itself, as well as for the country, by espousing this piece of red naziism. It can break up the working understanding in Congress between conservatives of both parties at a time when the United States stands virtually alone in the world as the guardian of free and unlimited enterprise and the exponent of the independence of the individual citizen. But the Republican Party probably can- not win another election by going left and embracing the repudiated doctrines of dis- credited communism. Strike at West Allis Works of Allis- Chalmers Manufacturing Co. EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. MELVIN PRICE OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 23, 1947 Mr. PRICE of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, there is no subject more widely discussed in the United States today than the ques- tion of labor-management relations. Every newspaper and every radio com- mentator has discussed it, often with more heat than light. And much legis- lation has been drafted, most of which, incidentally, proposes drastic and un- justified restrictions on the legitimate rights of unions. In the light of this situation, I should like to call your attention to the fact that perhaps the most important single strike now in effect in this country is the direct responsibility, not of the union involved, but of the company. I refer to the strike now in progress at the West Allis Works of the Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co. in West Allis, Wis. The Allis-Cralmers Manufacturing Co., Mr. Speaker, has a long and sordid record of antilabor activities. For years it has been a leading member of the Na- tional Metal Trades Association. The pages of the La Follette committee re- ports are filled with instances of the use by Allis-Chalmers of the strike-breaking, espionage, and antilabor services of the National Metal Trades Association. A former president of this company, Mr. Speaker, was a leading contributor tc and official of the isolationist, nation- alist America First Committee. It is not without significance, I think, that the ar- rogance, stubbornness, and refusal to bargain in good faith of this company resulted in 1941 in a long strike which materially impeded this country’s arma- ment program. It was then, you remem- ber, that the America First Committee was at the height of its campaign to sabotage this country’s defense plans. Nor is it without significance that the terms proposed by the National Defense Mediation Board, which were finally ac- cepted by the company as the basis for settlement, were substantially the same as those offered weeks earlier by the union. The current strike at Allis-Chalmers contains all of the factors inherent in a situation in which an antilabor manage- ment, determined above all else to smash the union of its employees, has forced its workers to go on strike, has whipped up an unprecedented campaign of antiunion hysteria, and has consistently refused to negotiate in good faith for the equitable settlement of the strike. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD More than 8 months ago, the workers at the Allis-Chalmers plant, in West Allis, Wis., voted 8,091 to 251 to go out on strike to win the same contract and wage adjustments which had been granted months earlier by the vast majority of companies in this country. Their de- mands were for an 1844-cent wage in- crease, a workable grievance procedure, and union-security provisions. But let me say that long before it voted do strike Local 248, United Automobile Workers, CIO, which has been certified by the National Labor Relations Board as bargaining agent for the Allis-Chal- mers workers, attempted for months to get some kind of settlement which would have made a strike unnecessary. To all the union’s proposals, the company’s an- swer was “No.” Not only did the com- pany refuse even to consider the union’s proposals, Mr. Speaker, but it refused even to agree to certain adjustments which had been ordered by the National War Labor Board. The National War Labor Board had, on the basis of Local 248’s perfect record of no work stoppages during the war, rec- ommended that the company agree to a standard maintenance-of-membership clause. This the company refused to do. The National War Labor Board, after extensive surveys, had established ‘the fact that wages at Allis-Chalmers are considerably below those paid elsewhere in the Milwaukee area, and had recom- mended a 19'4-cent wage increase for certain classifications of workers. This recommendation was made, Mr. Speaker, in December 1945, over a year ago, but the company has stubbornly and de- flantly refused to put it into effect. Still, in an effort to settle the dispute without the necessity of striking, Local 248 proposed in negotiations that the issues of wages, union security, and grievance procedure be submitted to arbitration for a final and binding deci- sion. But this proposal, too, was rejected by the company. How can we speak seri- ously of preventing strikes by imposing restrictions on unions, Mr. Speaker, when the most devastating strike in the United States has resulted from a com- pany’s refusal to accept the union’s offer of arbitration? This offer, I might add, has been renewed repeatedly by the union, and it has been supplemented by the union's proposal to refer the dispute to a Presidential fact-finding board. But every single union proposal has been re- jected by the Allis-Chalmers Co., and this despite the fact that the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors overwhelm- ingly voted in favor of the union’s sug- gestion for arbitration. It is perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker, and the conclusion is inescapable, that the Allis-Chalmers Co. deliberately created this strike and has deliberately refused to settle it. Allis-Chalmers has refused to accept the union's offers. Allis-Chalmers has refused to accept Presidential fact-finding. Allis-Chalmers has refused to accept arbitration. Fattened with high wartime profits and subsidized by Federal carry-back tax
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD rebates, Allis-Chalmers has embarked upon a program of unconcealed union- busting. It has hired strikebreakers, it has had the police plant labor spies in union meetings, and it has had many of its striking employees beaten by police within its own plants. Its most recent maneuver has been the organization of an ill-disguised company union; and the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board has granted that union’s petition for an election to deter- mine the bargaining representatives for the Allis-Chalmers workers. I must re- mind you that the legally constituted representative for the Allis-Chalmers workers is Loca] 248, UAW-CIO, which has been certified by the National Labor Relations Board. The decision to order a& new election—a decision which is in violation of Federal law—was made not by any impartial] Federal agency, but by the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board. If this precedent in Wisconsin is not stopped it will be carried into all other States and seriously disrupt industrial relations. In an effort to stop this obviously illegal] act, Local 248 applied to the Federal courts for a temporary injunction re- straining the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board from holding the elec- tion. The hearing on the union’s peti- tion was held before Judge F. Ryan Duffy of the Federal district court in Milwau- -kee on January 9, 1947. On that same day Judge Duffy handed down his de- cision denying the union’s request for an injunction. It was handed down Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that briefs filed by the National Labor Relations Board and the Department of Justice in a sim- ilar case pending in the United States Supreme Court, dealing with the ques- tion of the constitutionality and scope of authority of State labor relations boards, and supporting the position tak- en by Local 248, were still in the mail and had not yet arrived in Milwaukee. Judge Duffy’s decision was made with a haste which was injudicious. Judge Duffy who handed down the decision against the Allis-Chalmers workers’ union is a close relative—a brother-in- law—of Mr. Harold W. Story, vice pres- ident and general attorney of the Allis- Chalmers Manufacturing Co. and chief architect of its antilabor policy. Under the circumstances, the impartiality of Judge Duffy’s decision could be subject to grave doubt. But Judge Duffy ap- parently did not for a moment entertain the thought of disqualifying himself. The conclusion seems clear, Mr. Speaker, not only that responsibility for the Allis-Chalmers strike rests solely with the company, but that the company has apparently benefited by an unusual judicial decision, which upsets the origi- nal election held by the ITLRB and thereby abrogates the legal rights of the bargaining employees. Could the brother-in-law relation be- tween the vice president of Allis-Chal- mers, Mr. H. W. storey, and the judge of the Federal court, Judge Duffy, have been an influence in the judge’s decision? I submit that no legislative program concerned with labor-management rela- XCITII—App.——17 tions can be just or equitable which con- cerns itself only with punitive measures against labor and which ignores the ex- istence of a conspiracy hatched by the powerful and influential captains of American industry to destroy the bar- gaining power of their employees by smashing unions. Reorganization of the Armed Services EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. WALTER NORBLAD OF OREGON IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 23, 1947 Mr. NORBLAD. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the REc- orp, I include the following editorial from the Portland Oregonian of January 18, 1947: NOT MERGER Whatever one may term the President's plan to reorganize the armed services—inte- gration or unification, perhaps—it certainly is not merger. The Secretaries of the Army and Navy are not giving up much autonomy and power, except in that the Army loses its Air Forces (but logically will expect to re- tain influence since Army officcrs will be- come Air Force officers). This page favors unification of the armed services to the point of merger, as necessary to guarantee cohesive action—which we did not have at the beginning of the war—and a maximum of defense in an era when attack will come by atomic or other scientific weap- ons with such paralyzing swiftness that offense must be geared to the same pace. We are not sure that President Truman’s Missouri compromise will accomplish this unity. The plan given to Congress, with approval of Secretary Forrestal cf the Navy and Scc- retary Patterson of the Army, would increase the Prerident’s secretaries from 10 to 12, of whom 4 would represent the military (an influential minority). Secretaries for War, Navy, and Air Forces might or might not have Cabinet status but would have access to the President’s ear. There may be pres- sure to have Congress assign them to the Cabinet, along with the Secretary of National Defense. It is probable that most Americans, after the example of disunity at Pearl Harbor, have thought of merger of the armed forces under terms of a single civilian secretary (not four), possibly with a single chief of staff and cer- tainly with single authority over the military heads of Army, Navy, and Air Forces. This has not been accomplished in this program, nor is it likely that it could be accomplished with approval of the Army and Navy brass and Cabinet heads. The proposal, instead, is for a Secretary of National Defense who shall lay down policies and programs for the three branches which, however, will operate as sep- arate and independent units. Nothing in this plan assures that there will not be a continuation of the rivalries, jeal- ousies, and political maneuverings of the separate forces, each having a military chief and a civilian secretary who can go around the Secretary of National Defense to the President and to Congress. It may lead to economy in buying and lessen duplication, but these gains will be wiped out if there is continual struggle for prestige and power. It seems likely that the Secretary of National Defense may be so harassed that he will de- generate into a purchasing agent and expe- A257 diter of home-front production for the mili- tary. The plan does not even unify the Air Forces as an equal and separate arm, since the Navy would retain its naval and marine land- based planes, even for transport, and will guard jealously against any invasion of its sphere by the new, growing, and ambitious Air Forces. Congress may consider the plan as a first step toward the goal of merger, long fought by Army and Navy brass, and us the accomplishment of a separate air arm which is the first front in national defense, yet it must view with misgivings the sepa- rate status of command in each department. Veterans’ Legislation EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. EDITH NOURSE ROGERS OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday. January 23, 1947 Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my re- marks in the Recorp, I include the fol- lowing bills introduced by me at the request of the American Legion: A bill to define loss of use of an eye for the purposes of granting the statutory award of 6385 per month under the provisions of subparagraph (kK), paragraph II, part I, Veterans Regulation No. 1 (a), as amended Be it enacted, etc., That subparagraph (K) of paragraph II, part I, of Veterans Reg- ulation No. 1 (a), promulgated under Public Law No. 2, Seventy-third Congress, March 20, 1933, as amended, is hereby amended by adding a sentence at the end thereof to read as follows: “For the purposes of this subpara- graph the use of an eye shall be considered lost when visual acuity is 5/200 or less.” A bill to provide compensation or pension for the widows and children of deceased vet- earns of World War I or World War II who had disabilities caused or aggravated by examination, hospitalization, or medical treatment Be it enacted, etc., That the widow, child, or children of any deceased veteran of World War I or World War II who at the time of his death was entitled to or in receipt of monetary benefits for disability resulting from an injury or an aggravation of any ex- isting injury under the provisions of section 218 of the World War Veterans’ Act, 1924, as amended (43 Stat. 1308; U. 8S. C., title 38, sec. 501), section 31 of Public Law No. 141, Seventy-third Congress (48 Stat. 526; U.S. C., title 38, sec 501a), or section 12 of Public Law No. 866, Seventy-sixth Congress (54 Stat. 1197; U. 8. C., title 38, sec. 501a-1), shall be entitled to the benefits of Public Law No. 484, Seventy-third Congress, June 28, 1934 (48 Stat. 1281, 1282; U.S. C., title 38, secs. 503 to 507, inclusive), as amended, provided that the other requirements thcreof are met. A bill to provide that veterans now receiving compensation for certain so-cnlled pre- sumptive disabilities equivalent to 75 per- cent of the amount to which they were pre- viously entitled shall henceforth have such compensation restored to 100 percent thereof, and for other purposes Be it enacted, etc., That part of the second proviso of section 28, Public Law No. 141, Seventy-third Congress, March 28, 1934 (48 Stat. 524; U.S. C., title 38, sec. 722), which limits payment of compensation thereunder
A258 to 75 percent of the payments otherwise au- thorized, is hereby repealed, and the Admin- istrator of Veterans’ Affairs is hereby au- thorized and directed to pay 100 percent of the compensation otherwise authorized under Public Law No, 141, Seventy-third Congress. A bill to amend subparagraphs (a) and (qd) of paragraph 1 of part III of Veterans Reg- ulation 1 (a), as amended Be it enacted, etc., That the words “90 days’’ where used in subparagraphs (a) and (d) of paragraph 1 of part III of Veterans Regulation 1 (a), as amended, shall read “70 days” wherever they appear. Allocation of Type C-4 Ship to Great Lakes Area EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. THOMAS S. GORDON OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 23, 1947 Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, under unanimous consent, I insert in the REcorRD a resolution I have received from the city clerk of the city of Chicago that was adopted by the city council, request- ing the allocation of type C-4 ship to Great Lakes area: “Whereas for many years there has been a lack of adequate local steamboat passenger service in Chicago, and especially in recent years due to the fact that the recreational opportunities for the public have been seri- ously curtailed as result of the war effort; and “Whereas for this and many other reasons, the citizens of Chicago have been denied the privilege and advantages offered in low- cost water transportation and have not had an opportunity to take advantage of the natural benefits of being the largest port city on the Great Lakes; and “Whereas the civic and business leaders of the city of Chicago, a maritime city, have noted with a great deal of apprehension, the decline of the passenger steamboat traffic in and out of the port of Chicago, and have come to the conclusion that drastic steps must be undertaken in order to reestablish the interest and the imagination of its peo- ple and the reestablishment of an awareness to the desirability of steamship traffic on the Great Lakes, and particularly on Lake Michigan; and “Whereas as the result of the depression, the unusual economic conditions resulted in the bankruptcy of steamship lines which have for many years served the public; and “Whereas under the shipbuilding program of the United States Maritime Commission there were constructed some 65,000 ocean- going ships which, since the cessation of hostilitics are necessary to be transferred from Government ownership to operation by private interests; and “Whereas it would be a distinct advantage to the Great Lakes area if some means could be found whereby one of these ships could be diverted for use on the Great Lakes in an effort to reestablish local steamship pas- senger service and automobile ferry service on a modern and enlarged scale; and “Whereas it has come to our attention that the Wisconsin and Michigan Steamship Co. has made application to the United States Maritime Commission for the purchase of one of the type C-4 ships to be known as the steamship Chicago Clipper, for use on the Great Lakes with the specific intent to use the port of Chicago as an operating base: Now, therefore, be it “Resolved, That it 1s the sense of this city council that the acquisition of such a ship for the Great Lakes trade and especially for the building up of the potential steam- ship passenger and tourist traffic to and from the port of Chicago, ts a most desirable ad- junct to the commercial facilities and that greut public benefit will accrue from such venture; and be it further “Resolved, That this city council hereby - places itself on record as urging the alloca- tion of at least one of the type C-4 ships to the Great Lakes area, as above stated and that all other Federal agencies having juris- diction on the Illinois waterway, be enlisted to authorize the passage of suid ship from the Gulf of Mexico to the Great Lakes; and be it further “Resolved, That copies of this resolution be forwarded to the United States Maritime Commission, United States Senators from Illinois, and United States Representatives from districts within the city of Chicago.” Strate or ILLINOIs, County of Cook, ss: I, wudwig D. Schreiber, city clerk of the city of Chicago, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the certain resolution adopted by the city council of the city of Chicago, at a regular meeting held Friday, the 10th day of January A. D. 1947. Witness my hand and the corporate seal of the said city of Chicago this 22d day of January A. D. 1947. [SEAL] Lupwic D. SCHREIBER, City Clerk. The Retirement Act EXTENSION OF REMARKS fe) HON. AIME J. FORAND OF RHODE ISLAND IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 23, 1947 Mr. FORAND. Mr. Speaker, I have today introduced a bill to amend subsec- tion (e) of section 1 of the Civil Service Act of May 29, 1930, as amended by the enactment of my bill H. R. 4718, which is now Public Law 688, Seventy-ninth Congress. When H. R. 4718 was enacted into law it contained a provision limiting the benefits of the bill to Federal employees who were involuntarily separated from the service after 25 years of service, but limited to those who had reached their fifty-fifth year. The bill also was ap- Plicable only to those employees who were involuntarily separated between the dates of July 1, 1945, and June 30, 1947. My new bill strikes out the 25-year clause and also the restrictive date of June 30, 1947, and provides that any officer or employee involuntarily sepa- rated from the service, not by removal for cause on charges of misconduct or delinquency after July 1, 1945, and who has served the Federal Government for 25 years, would be eligible for the retire- ment benefits outlined in the present subsection (e) of section I of the Civil Service Retirement Act. If one may judge from the present drive to reduce the number of Federal APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD employees now on the pay roll, it can be readily seen that many of the regular civil-service employees are to be invol- untarily separated from the service be- fore and after the termination date of the present act; namely, June 30, 1947, and I believe it would be unfair if we should fail to provide for them in view of the fact that their separation from the Government will be involuntary. I sincerely hope that the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service will see the justice of this matter and will give prompt and favorable consideration to my bill. Hawaiian Statehood EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOSEPH R. FARRINGTON DELEGATE FROM HAWAIT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 23, 1947 Mr. FARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the REcorD, I include the following editorial from the Stamford (Conn.) Advocate of January 4, 1947: HAWAUAN STATEHOOD The Territory of Hawaii has for some time been desirous of entering the Union. Prior to the war, congressional debate consistently raised the barriers of a large and unreliable Japanese population, the tremendous dis- tance between the islands and the mainland, the inability of them to become self-sup- porting, and the enormous Federal expense necessary to maintain them as a bastion of national defense, let alone give them any of the economic advantages of Washington’s largess. Most of these arguments have long since become outmoded. The 155,000 people of Japanese descent unquestionably proved their loyalty to the United States during the war; the relative distance of the islands from the west coast has been greatly dimin- ished by increased air transportation and faster ship service; Hawaii has proved that she need not be financially dependent on the United States; and any Federal expendi- tures involved in maintaining Hawaii as a State would be no more than in keeping her as a Territory. Unlike her fellow Union aspirant, Alaska, Hawaii has the necessary population to war- Tant representation in Congress, and a more permanent and at present stable financial background for the satisfactory upkeep of her own government and people. In any future congressional discussion on the advisability of admitting Hawaii as the forty-ninth State, perhaps the more-than- map knowledge of the Territory acquired by several Congressmen on their tour of the area during their Pearl Harbor inquiry should be of great value to their colleagues in making a decision. There are those who feel that Hawatl should be granted statehood as a just repay- ment for her gallantry during the war. And there are others who, for sentimental rea- sons, would like to see the beach of Wnaikiki and sunsets over Diamond Head incorporated into the Union. But what seems the best reason of all is that the Territory of Hawaii, its people, its produce, and its capabilities warrant inclu- sion in the Union as the forty-ninth State. There is everything to show that it would make a healthy and welcome addition to the other 48 States.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Spending Psychology Still Clings in Capital EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. DANIEL A. REED OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ’ Thursday, January 23, 1947 Mr. REED of New York. Mr. Speaker, I am placing in the Recorp an article by David Lawrence which gives a very clear analysis relating to the expenditures by the administration: Sprenpinc PsycHo.iocy Str. CiLincs In Capi- TAL—CONGRESS MusT BEcoME REALISTIC OR HarpsHip WiLL ENSUE (By David Lawrence) Almost every day since the Republicans have come into power in Congress dispatches have gone forth saying at first that there would be a tax reduction and then saying that the prospect was fading. It is but an- other way of saying that the Budget cannot be cut and implying that the Republicans should have known better than to have even suggested such a thing. This is the result of a strange psychology of spending which has prevailed in the Na- tional Capital for nearly 15 years. So accustomed is official Washington to the idea of spending the people's money that anyone who suggests reversing the tide scems like an intruder in a game reserved wholly for those who have confused liberalism with liberality. The war will have been over nearly 2 years by July 1 next, when the new fiscal year starts, and yet the Democratic administra- tion is determined to spend @37,500,0C0,000 a year. NINE BILLION PREWAR TOP The largest prewar budget was $9,000,000,- 000, and this was considered tremendous, so, allowing for the fact that prices have risen and costs have soared, a Federal budget of even $18,000,000,000 would seem to be out of line for peacetime. Yet when it is suggested that the Republi- cans might reduce the budget to about 830,- 000,000,000, the cr} goes up that the Govern- ment is ubout to be “wrecked” and that the task is impossible. No budget-cutting, public or private, was ever accomplished without repercussions of protest and dissent. But the cutting of the Federal budget is attended also with cries of pain because vested interests have grown up in bureaucracy which insist on spending certain sums long after the public need for such expenditures has passed. The Republican Congress Members who first started the movement for a 20 percent reduction in taxes ought to be given the thanks of their countrymen and encouraged to continue to press for that objective. For even if it were decided not to return a single dime of that sum eventually to the taxpayers and all of it were given over to retirement of public debt, it would be a worth-while achievement to have been instrumental in some way in reversing the spending psychol- ogy and introducing a saving psychology at last. EASE OF COLLECTION There is more public pressure, of course, behind tax reduction than behind debt re- tirement. So for all practical purposes it is well that there is some pressure, because un- less a start is made now toward eliminating waste and useless expenditures, the Nation's credit standing will be impaired and a long- range inflation set up that will bring severe hardship to all the people. One reason for the spending is the ease with which taxes are collected. The deduc- tion of taxes on pay rolls is a relatively inex- pensive way of collecting billions. But, as this correspondent said when the pay-roll tax was adopted, it is perhaps the most expensive in the long run to the Nation's economy. For what has happened is that the worker has looked only at his take-home pay and has insisted on getting a higher and higher sum from the employer in the hope of getting the latter really to absorb the tax. Despite the fact that employers indicate on the pay en- velope the amount deducted for taxes, the employee has been restless to recover the lost earnings. The rise in wage costs which the Nation's economy ts today compelled to endure and the drop in purchasing power of the dollar, which means a reduction in real incomes to workers, are largely due to the imposition of the pay-roll tax. PAY-ROLL TAX CUT URGED The most helpful step to America's eco- nomic structure would be to cut the Federal Budget sufficiently so as to eliminate a sub- stantial part of the pay-rol] tax altogether. If the withholding tax could be reduced to 5 or even 10 percent of the worker's income, it would not be such a steep cut into his pay envelope as today when about 20 percent is lopped off before he takes his pay home. But as long as the Democratic administration and @ substantial number of Democrats in Con- gress resist the cutting of Federal expenses and insist that Federal Budgets around §37,- 000,000,000 are sacrosanct and can't be touched there will be little relief for the worker. What the Nation needs is to remove the governmental temptation to extravagant spending. This cun be done if the legislators begin thinking in terms of a $25,000 000,000 budget for the next couple years and begin to aim at a $20,000,000,000 maximum there- after. This would, to be sure, cut off some veter- ans’ benefits, but the Public Treasury cannot stand handouts to able-bodied men indefi- nitely. The sooner Congress gets realistic on the matter of veterans’ benefits, the sooner the Nation will begin to sleep comfortably at night without a thought of recessions and job insecurity which the present condition of the Federal Budget invites. Return for Burial of Members of Armed Forces Killed in Foreign Lands EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JAMES C. DAVIS OF GEORGIA IN THE HOUSE CF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 23, 1947 Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, in the late war there were instances where young men about to go across were married to young girls whom they had known only a matter of days. Some of these members of our armed forces were killed in battle, or died in line of duty, and are buried in foreign lands, and left surviving widows who are not interested in having uhe remains evacuated and re- turned to America for burial. The present law requires that the ap- plication for evacuation and return of the remains of deceased soldiers shall be made by the next of kin, and the widow is regarded as the next of kin. I have re- ceived a letter from a grief-stricken A259 father and mother who are friends of mine that their son is buried on Iwo Jima, and that his widow whom he knew only 2 weeks prior to the marriage is not sufficiently interested to make appli- cation for the return to America of his remains. This father and mother want their boy back in America in their family cemetery. I am informed that there are thousands of other fathers and mothers who are in this situation. I have today introduced a bil] amending Public Law 383 of the Seventy-ninth Congress to provide that in cases of this kind where the widow is not sufficiently interested to make application for the return of the soldier, the parents or other member of the deceased’s imme- diate family may make such application. This bill will work no injury or disadvan- tage to any person and will make it pos- sible for a crief-stricken father, mother, brother, or sister to have the opportun- ity to visit and care for the last resting place of a loved one who gave his life for his country. Hoover Dam EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. JACK Z. ANDERSON OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 23, 1947 Mr. ANDERSON of California. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my re- marks in the RecorD, I wish to call atten- tion to the following editorials from the Los Angeles Times and the San Jose Mercury-Herald: [From the Los Angeles (Calif.) Times | CONGRESS SHOULD RIGHT THE WRONG DONE BY ICKES Bills to make the name Hoover Dam official for the great structure in Black Canyon of the Colorado River have been introduced in Congress and should pass. Hoover Dam was so named by Interior Secretary Ray Lyman Wilbur in honor of the man who as Com- merce Secretary helped so much to bring the Colorado River compact into being and who as President signed the bill under which the dam was constructed. Wilbur's successor, Harold 8. Ickes, disliked Hoover for various reasons, mostly connected with politics, and under the pretext that Wilbur's action was technically invalid— though the Attorney General advised him to the contrary, and Congress had adopted the name “Hoover Dam” in legislation—at- tempted to change tt, selecting the popular though geographically inappropriate name of Boulder Dam. Whatever technical steps were taken by Ickes to make the renaming stick—they have not been passed on by any court—it is obvious that Congress has the right to return to the original name given by Wilbur and should do so. The authority of Congress is paramount. [From the San Jose (Calif.) Mercury-Herald] RETURN TO REASON Congressman Jack ANDERSON of this dis- trict has introduced a bill in Congress to change the name of what is now known as Boulder Dam back to its original designa- tion as Hoover Dam.
A260 The bill should, and no doubt will, be passed with little argument. The dam proj- ect was conceived and launched under the Hoover administration. The Roosevelt ad- ministration had little to do with it except carry out the plans and specifications. Changing the name was part and parcel of a “smear Hoover” campaign. All of the orig- inal documents, maps, specifications, legis- lation pertaining to the project refer to it as the Hoover Dam—and Hoover Dam it should be and should remain. Housing: 1947 EXTENSION OF REMARKS F HON. JAY LeFEVRE OF NEW YORK IN THE-HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 23, 1947 Mr. LEFEVRE, Mr. Speaker, under unanimous consent, I extend my own re- marks in the Recorp and include an article by Mark Sullivan which appeared in yesterday's New York Herald Tribune. Mr. Speaker, I believe every member of the Congress realizes the need of sound and equitable labor legislation, and from the great number of bills already offered, it is hoped that the committees in charge of these bills will produce for our mem- bership legislation that will accomplish prosperity for both labor and manage- ment and protection for all American citizens. To bring these desired results the membership most certainly must con- sider the outlawing of jurisdictional strikes, in order to prevent work stop- pages. We need to impose upon unions the same requirements for moral and financial responsibility and the adher- ence to contracts in the same degree as is now required of the employer, and we must consider the elimination of the closed shop so that every United States citizen can exercise his own judgment as to whether or not he wishes to belong to a union. This free choice is not en- joyed now and deprives the citizen of one of his fundamental rights. I do not oppose the general purposes of unions. I believe they have served a good purpose when properly regulated and in the hands of good leaders. I fur- ther believe the rank and file of union members will benefit by the enactment of laws that will accomplish the ends mentioned above. Lower Prices, Not HIGHER WAGES, CALLED Country's Primary NgeED—~MarK SULLIVAN Says DECISION, Now WHOLLY IN HANDS OF INDUSTRY HEADS, DEMANDS STATESMANSHIP PurtTING INTERESTS OF THE PUBLIC FIRST (By Mark Sullivan) WASHINGTON, January 21.—The most preg- nant decision now pending in the United States is whether the Congress of Industrial Organizations wins its round of wage de- mands, beginning this week with the demand on steel. The outcome lies wholly with the heads of industry. The demands will be granted or not granted, or granted in part by decisions of the industry heads. On them is responsibility for the economic policy which is involved and the economic statesmanship that is called for. A year ago this was not 80. In that first round of demands the administration took over. President Truman personally took over the steel demand and strikes: He, with ad- ministration agencies, took over the coal one, the railroad one, several minor ones. In the General Motors strike the administration intervened in the form of pressure in favor of the union and its demands. That was administration policy. It had an economic theory (with a political motive running par- allel) that higher wages were desirable, and when wage demands were resisted by indus- try the administration took over. DISCREDITED THEORIES All that is now over. The administration's theory that higher wage rates were desirable, as an offset to postwar unemployment which it predicted, was discredited when the unem- ployment did not take place. A twin theory, that the wage rises could take place without price increases, was likewise discredited. The administration itself was obliged to decree price increases to pay the wage rises it had brought about. The whole administration economic theory went very sour. As to the politics involved, deference to the CIO and its Political Action Committee ceased to be a motive when, in the November election, the country rebuked that organization's attempt at political power. Today, the administration is out of the present round of wage demands. It is offi- cially and formally, through President Tru- man's voluntary termination of the war powers which enabled the administration to take over struck industries. It is out also in mood and attitude, it is glad to be out. The administration has a manner of pleased relief as it refrains from taking a hand in the present wage demands. An additional reason contributes to put power of decision in the hands of the indus- try heads. The union leaders, it is true, have nominally all the power they had a year ago. But they know that the laws which gave them that power are about to be changed. And they know that if they now make strid- ent use of their power, the new laws will be more severe. They know too that public opinion is against them. Knowing all this, the union leaders refrain from the raucous belligerency they practiced a year ago. Though they go through the formalities pre- liminary to a strike, their manner says they will refrain from striking. The power of decision thus put in the hands of industry heads calls on them for an economic statesmanship as vital, in the present condition, as any aet of Congress, What is involved is not a mere conflict of interest between two groups; it is the interest of all groups and every citizen, the economic fate of the country. For the industry heads to consider only their own interest would be an economic crime and almost a moral one. To consider only their own interest and that of the unions would be almost as bad. The breadth and depth of what is called for can be suggested by stating the core of the prob- lem before the industry heads. NEED FOR LOWER PRICES An industry has in its treasury certain money. It has sold its output, received its pay, and paid its expense. Certain money remains. It is this money the problem deals with. This money can go to any of three destina- tions, or be allocated among them: (1) to owners of the industry in the form of in- creased dividends; (2) to workers in the form of higher wages; (3) to the public in the form of reduced prices. Of the three, reduced prices has by far the compelling priority. Young Henry Ford has seen the wisdom and led the way. In the 1920's he was a child, but he knows the lesson. Failure to give enough of the fruits of the 1920's pros- perity to the public in the form of reduced prices was the principal cause of the oollapse that followed. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Plan To Encourage New Small Business EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HOWARD H. BUFFETT OF NEBRASKA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 23, 1947 Mr. BUFFETT. Mr. Speaker, last Thursday I introduced a measure, H. R. 1038, entitled “A bill to provide incentive and encouragement for the formation of independent small businesses.” Both political parties and both the executive and legislative branc‘ies of the Government have long affirmed their in- terest in small business. Many ideas for halting the concentration of economic power in big business have been proposed or experimented with. No satisfactory degree of success has attended these efforts. The power and size of big business were increased by the war. The march of big- ness was proceeding steadily before the war, SALES OF GIANT FIRMS HAVE MULTIPLIED This monopolistic trend is sharply il- lustrated by sales of a Nation-wide re- tail organization. In 1929 its gross vol- ume was $403,000,000. By 1946 its volume had increased to an estimated total of $1,700,000,000 in saies. In a food chain, against a 1929 volume of $213,000,000, 1946 recorded a 300-per- cent increase to $844,000,000. But retail trade itself has increased less than 100 percent since 1929. The problem of finding a way to restore opportunity and equality for small busi- ness is not easy. Most suggestions and proposals attempt to aid small business by the neosocialistic devices of Govern- ment loans, bureaucratic assistance agencies, or other crutch devices. These methods would make new small business, like the American Indian, de- pendent on Government aid. Small business would be born and operate gen- erally by the Government acting as a combination midwife and wet nurse. The last thing an ambitious American who has the initiative and the courage to be determined to create his own business wants is Government intervention or as- sist.nce. The individualist who wants a business of his own is most allergic to governmental paternalism under any guise. So a successful method of reviving the formation of small businesses is not found via the route of financial subsi- dies or supervisory crutches. NEWBORN FIRMS NEED FREEDOM FROM ENCUMBRANCE What the ambitious prospective small businessman or group wants is a fair op- portunity to start a business and get it on @ paying basis. What the business proj- ect needs is a chance to learn to walk be- fore it must carry the Federal burdens imposed on a fully established enterprise. At present, a new smal] business is burdened with about the same tax prob- lems and Government regulations as a billion-dollar corporation. Yet, the in- dustrial giant established its strength
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD over a long period, when present Federal burdens were nonexistent. The present difficulty is comparable to putting a 50-pound pack on the back of a child who has not yet learned to walk. The normal course for a child is to let it learn to walk by itself. A similar ap- proach to the difficulties of a new busi- ness may offer the best possibilities of success. Legislation designed to promote small- business opportunity should make ullow- ance for a period of profitable operation before the business must meet the over- head of tax burdens and expensive gov- ernmental red tape. Accordingly, H. R. 1038 provides that new small business will not be subject to Federal tax laws, including unemploy- ment and social security taxes, during its first 3 years. This would give a new enterprise a genuine opportunity to get under way and get its operations “in the black” before the burden of Government taxes and bureaucratic red tape became part of the overhead. PLAN IS NO CURE-ALL This plan is no cure-all for the low birth rate and high mortality rate of smal] business. But it might stimulate @ real expansion of new small business. It provides genuine encouragement to venture capital to enter modest enter- prises. It would be a constructive in- centive toward the formation of neigh- borhood and community enterprises, with all the socia] advantages of home- owned business. This proposal seeks to promote the dc- centralization of economic power, and to reverse the economic collectivism repre- sented by giant corporate enterprises. Likewise, this plan should help new small operators to secure a larger pro- portion of the retail business, which could again become a major field of op- portunity for individual economic in- dependence. Obviously, this plan would require careful safeguards to prevent its abuse by unscrupulous operators, who would seek in it loopholes for evasion of estab- lished tax responsibilities. Accordingly, I have attempted to limit the benefits of this measure to enter- prises that would genuinely qualify. It is possible that committee hearings will de- velop the need and the means to further tighten up the limiting provisions. Aside from this difficulty, this plan has other lesser disadvantages. One is that the individual or group who desired to operate under this pian would have to in- corporate in order to qualify. Secondly, and perhaps more impor- tant, is the fact that this proposal might give a temporary advantage to new en- terprises competing with existing small businesses. However, as one long engaged in small business, I can speak with some assur- ance on this seeming disadvantage. Most small businessmen would welcome legis- lation that created an atmosphere favor- able to the formation and successful es- tablishment of new small independent enterprises. The business worry that perplexes me and small businessmen generally is the ever-present fear of a cutthroat squeeze-out by giant concerns. One problem facing small business is the semimonopoly that large enterprises already hold in various lines of business. This bill does not cope directly with that concentration of economic power. Offhand it might appear that this measure would deprive the Treasury of tax income. Actually, however, there can be no tax loss on enterprises that do not exist. Likewise, new firms do not provide important income to the Treas- ury. And, more important, if the meas- ure encoureged the successful formation of new businesses, eventually the Treas- ury would benefit very substantially from the founding and permanent establish- ment of new enterprises. In introducing this measure, I am con- scious of the fact that it may, in this original form, have serious defects. However, I believe that such shortcom- ings can be ironed out in committee hear- ings if the basic idea is sound. BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS MAY FIND PLAN DE- SERVING OF VIGOROUS SUPPORT From a legislative standpoint, this pro- posal faces a serious barrier. It does not contain the driving force that would be automatic if it promised direct returns to some existing segment of American busi- ness. Those who would benefit by it have no organized voice and are scattered and unorganized. Accordingly, it may ve difficult to secure for this proposal a fair appraisal of its merits. However, I am hopeful that veterans’ organizations and other groups dedicated to the preservation of free enterprise will carefully study the merits of this plan. If they agree with the basic idea of the proposal, I solicit their cooperation and assistance in perfecting the plan and se- curing congressional action. In the larger sense, if America is to avoid the political centralization of power that in other countries has finally re- sulted in totalitarianism, we must now move rapidly to stop centralizing and monopolistic trends. If the road of eco- nomic opportunity is to be reopened for veterans and others, these prospective entrepreneurs must be given the incen- tive of a full-fledged opportunity for success. In nature. the new-born plant or ani- mal is usually provided with some orig- inal protection from the hazards that af- fect maturity. To maintain free enter- prise, established enterprises should wel- come conditions under which their un- born competitors would have an equita- ble opportunity to achieve success. Accordingly, to avoid more Govern- ment control, existing business might well encourage, through their established trade organizations, legislation of this nature. All those who see the dangers of un- limited Government experimentation and costly subsidy ideas in the small- business field might find in this plan the constructive solution for the present paucity of successful business births. Mr. Speaker, most students of this problem recognize the danger and fatal- ity of bureaucratic intervention and costly subsidies as a solution to the de- cline of opportunity for small business, A261 My proposal attempts to encourage small business and at the same time avoid these evils. Iam hopeful that the possibilities of this plan will be carefully considered and fairly appraised. H. R. 1038 A bill to provide incentive and encouragement for the formation of independent small businesses Be it enacted, etc., That ch.pter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code is amended Ly insert- ing after section 421 the following new sup- plement: “SUPPLEMENT V-—-NEW CORPORATE ENTERPRISES “Sec. 430. Temporary Exemption of Certain Small New Corporate Enter- prises “(a) In general: The tax imposed by this chapter shall not apply to that portion of the ‘normal tax net income’ und to that por- tion of the ‘surtax net income’ not in excess of $20,000 with respect to any new corpurate enterprise (as dcfined in subsection (b)) for any taxable year beginning not. 1 ter thun 3 years ufter the organization of such enter- prise 1f— “(1) Limitation on amount of capital’ The invested capital of such enterprise for such tuxable year does not exceed 100,000. “(2) Limitation on character of income: 90 percent or more of the gress inceme (as defined in section 22) of such enterprie for such taxable yeur consists o1 income other thin dividends, interest, rents, royalties, gnins from the sale or exchange of capital assets, or income which constitutes personal holding company income under section 502 (b), (c). (a), (€). or (f). “(3) Limitation on dividends: The ditvi- dends paid or declared during such taxable year do not exceed in the aggrepate 6 percent of the invested capital of the enterprise for such year. “(4) Limitation on interest paid on bor- rowed funds: The interest paid, either di- rectly or indirectly, to any shareholder, is not ata rate greater than 6 percent per annum, “(5) Limitation to individual sharehold- ers: At all times during the taxable year not leSs than 80 percent of the voting stock of the enterprise, and not less than 80 percent of the stock of all other classes, is bona fide owned by individuals, or by estates or trusts by reason of the death of former sharehold- ers, “(6) Limitation on salaries paid: There is no portion of the compensation paid to any employee during such taxable year which would not be allowable as a deduction under section 23 (a) (1) (A). “(7) Limitation on character of assets: At no time prior to the close of such tuxable year has the enterprise acquired, directly or indirectly, either the name, goimg-concern value, or physical assets of another corpora- tion or of a partnership or trust. or the ussets which were used in a trade or business currled on by an individual. “(8) Limitation of leases, etc.: At no time during the taxable yenr has the enterprise paid, or been required to pay, to any other person, pursuant to a lease, contract, or other arrangement, any amount which is dcter- mined with reference to the profits, income, or receipts of the enterprise aud which con- stitutes gross income in the hands of such other person. “(b) Definition of ‘New corporate enicr- prise’: As used in this section, thetterm ‘new corporate enterprise’ means a domestic cor- poration which is organized, and actually embarks upon the active conduct of a trade or business, at any time after the dute upon which this supplement becomes effective.” Sec. 2. Part II of subchapter A of chapter 9 of the Internal Revenue Code (employers' tax under Federal Insurance Contributions
A262 Act) is amended by inserting at the end thereof a new section reading as follows: “Brc. 1412. Temporary Exemption of Certain Small New Corporate Enter- prises. “The tax imposed by section 1410 shall not apply to any new corporate enterprise (as defined in section 430) for any tax year for which the enterprise 1s exempt under section 430 from the tax imposed by chap- ter 1.” Sxzc. 8. Subchapter C of chapter 9 of the Internal Revenue Code (Federal Unemploy- ment Tax Act) is amended by inserting at the end thereof a new section reading as follows: “Src. 1612, Temporary Exemption of Certain Small New Corporate Enter- prises, “The tax imposed by section 1600 shall not apply to any new corporate enterprise (as defined in section 430) for any tax year for which such enterprise is exempt under section 430 from the tax imposed by chap- ter 1.” Elections in Poland EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. THOMAS S. GORDON OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 23, 1947 Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, under unanimous consent, I insert in the Rrc- orp a letter that has been sent to Hon. George C. Marshall, Secretary of State, which denounces the fraudulent elec- tions that took place in Poland on Jan- uary 19, 1947: Hon. Grorcr C, MARSHALL, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.: The Moscow-engineered Polish elections, held under complete Communist control and characterized by arrests, intimidations, de- portations, and murder, mark a turn for the worse in international affairs. The fraudulent Polish elections are a warn- ing of destiny that annexation of all Europe, Asia, and eventually of America will take place by similar methods as in Poland unless stern and effective measures are adopted by the United States, the only country capable of stopping Russia's drive for world domina- tion. The flagrant violation of even the meager obligation of holding free elections tn Poland, as guaranteed by Yalta, should definitely shatter any illusions that the United States may have concerning the sanctity of Russian pledges. Mikolajczyk’s forlorn effort, under pressure of the United States and England to cooperate with Ruasia, should by now thor- oughly convince our statesmen that it is impossible to do any legitimate business with Soviet Russia. The Polish-American Congress, the au- thentic voice of 6,000,000 Americans of Polish descent, vigorously protests against the crime of dishonest elections aimed at the complete enslavement of the Polish Na- tion. At the same time it calls upon the United States Government to repudiate the fake elections, to withhold recognition of the counterfeit government imposed upon the Polish Nation by a foreign power and to demand, above all, an immediate United Nations investigation concerning the elec- tions in Poland and the presence of Rus- sian troops in that country. However it is done, Soviet domination in Europe must be curbed and Soviet troops and agents must be sent home where they belong if world democracy is to survive. Stalin has willfully broken his pledges. His Polish puppets have deliberately ignored all American notes of protest with reference to the elections. The next move is now up to our Government. What does the United States, a signatory to the Yalta pact, propose to do about the intolerable situation? The time has come for America, the lead- ing military and economic power on earth, to speak courageously and act fearlessly. CHARLES ROZMAREK, President, Polish-American Congress. Report on Program of Army Engineers EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. HAL HOLMES OF WASHINGTON IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 23, 1947 Mr. HOLMES. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rec- oRD, I include, at the request of Herbert G. West, executive vice president of the Inland Waterways Association, an ad- dress delivered by Lt. Gen. R. A. Wheeler, Chief of Engineers, United States Army, before the annual meeting of the asso- ciation in Portland, Oreg., October 24, 1946. His address gives a report on the program followed by the Army engineers. General Wheeler's address is as fol- lows: It is a distinct privilege to be with you today, to renew and strengthen the friendly relations between members of your associa- tion and the Corps of Engineers. It is now 12 years since the Inland Empire Waterways Association was founded in 1934, when Gen- eral Robins was your division engineer. It is far more than a coincidence that the same 12 years have witnessed greater strides in developing the water resources of the Colum- bia Basin than any corresponding period in history. Truly your work has given a richer and deeper meaning to the words “Inland Empire.” Many of you remember a far different era of waterways development. It was not long ago that a steamboat with more than 100 passengers aboard had to be piloted over the swollen waters of Cascade Rapids in the Co- lumbia River, because the flow became s0 great that the locks could not be operated. That particular kind of daring exploit is no longer required of the navigators whose boats in 1945 carried 803,000 tons of freight through the Bonneville locks and the commodious pool above. An equal boldness and enter- prise is needed now, however, to achieve the full use of your tremendous water resources. As Chief of Engineers, I am happy to meet with the Inland Empire Waterways Associa- tion in discussing the future systematic de- velopment of this vast potential wealth. The Corps of Engineers takes pride in being among the earliest advocates of progressive development of this great river basin. The activities of Army engineers in this re- gion began with the first dredging of the Columbia River in 1866 and the development of the magnificent inland channel between - Portland and the sea. Our work was signifi- cantly extended when the United States Con- gress adopted the concept of multiple-pur- pose development of river-basin resources, In the River and Harbor Acts of 1925 and 1927, Congress directed the Army engineers to make a comprehensive investigation of all important American rivers. The engineers APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD were directed to study and review not only navigation and flood-control possibilities, but all of the manifold potentialities of power development, irrigation, stream purification, and recreation. The famed House Document No. 308 of the Sixty-ninth Congress and the series of “308” Survey Reports which followed continued the first fruits of this important advance in Nation-wide planning. These “808” reports are the foundation and frame- work of the Federal Government's planning of basin-wide, multiple-purpose development programs. In the first of these reports— House Document 103, Seventy-third Con- gress—the engineers presented a general plan for developing the main stem of the Colum- bia River from the head of tidewater to the Canadian border. At the same time, we set up a related plan for the Snake River, out- lining an orderly development between its mouth and Lewiston, Idaho, 140 miles up- Stream. The Corps of Engineers’ "308" re- ports, proposing power, navigation, and mul- tiple-purpose dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers, were ready for congressional and executive action when President Roose- velt assumed office in 1933. It was on the basis of these investigations and “308” reports that, in 1933, Congress au- thorized construction of the Bonneville Dam as a navigation and power project located at the head of the tidewater. This dam became the first of the series of dams planned by the Corps of Engineers for the full development of the Columbia River. Shortly after con- struction on Bonneville Dam began, the Bu- reau of Reclamation followed with construc- tion of the Grand Coulee Dam, the farthest upstream dam on the United States portion of the Columbia. Today, Bonneville and Grand Coulee Dams on the main stream are in operation. The need for these projects has been fully demon- strated. During the war the development of the aluminum industry and electrochemical and electrometallurgical industries resulted in enormously accelerated demands for power. Power available at Bonneville and Grand Coulee also made possible the Han- ford Engineering Works for atomic-bomb de- velopment In addition, this power was used to weld together a substantial part of our maritime and navy construction. It is estl- mated that the demand for power in this region will soon exceed even these great war- time demands. The original “308” report plans are constantly being adjusted and re- vised to keep pace with rapidly expanding requirements of industry and agriculture. We are on the threshold of a program more vast and far-reaching than any yet under- taken. A comprehensive resurvey of the Co- lumbia River Basin is now well advanced. Ultimately, we will harness the entire river system and achieve complete beneficial water control throughout the basin. Definite project plans have been completed for a great dam near Umatilla, Oreg., to be named in memory of the late Senator Mc- Nary. This multiple-purpose project will constitute an additional unit in the com- prehensive development of the Columbia and Snake Rivers in the interest of navigation, power, irrigation, and other water uses. It will be a high concrete dam with a maximum pool elevation of 340 feet. Fourteen electric generating units, having a total capacity of 960,000 kilowatts, will be installed ultimately at this project. The McNary Dam and Reser- voir will create about 60 miles of slack water for through barge traffic on a 9-foot channel to Pasco, Wash., and into the Snake River. The total cost of the dam and related struc- tures, including the full power installation, is currently estimated at $180,000,000. Of this amount, the War Department Civil Ap- propriations Act for the present fiscal year has provided $2,600,000 for preliminary work. Preparation of construction plans and speci- fications is now well under way. We will
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD start excavation for the locks as soon as budgetary limitations permit. Another authorized project for which planning is already well advanized is a series of dams to provide slack water navigation from the McNary Pool up the Snake River to Lewiston, Idano, 140 miles. This project— which includes benefits other than naviga- tion—typifies the great significance of water resources development in the future of your inland empire. It will open up # develop- ment of the immense agricultural, mining, and lumbering resources of the Snake River Basin, At the same time these Snake River dams will provide a substantial block of power—in excess of a million kilowatts ulti- mately—to meet the requirements for in- dustry, agriculture, and general economic betterment. In addition, the new Snake River dams will materially raise the natural water surface. This, in turn, will permit the development of more than 200,000 tribu- tary acres of trrigable land. Construction of the Foster Creek project has also been authorized by Congress. It will be located on the upper part of the Columbia River, 50 miles below Grand Coulee. It 1s designed primarily for pro- duction of hydroelectric power and will be @ straight concrete, gravity-type dam. The Foster Creek power house will be designed to permit installation up to a million Kilo- watts of capacity, as required. Cost of the project is currently estimated at $140,000,000. Funds have been made available to our dis- trict engineer for advance planning and initiation of the definite project report. As you know, however, the River and Harbor Act of this year did not provide funds for construction of this project. But since mar- ket estimates show that the region needs additional power at an early date, we hope that Congress and the President will soon make construction funds available. In the Willamette Valley program, two dams of the proposed seven have been com- pleted: Cottage Grove on the Coast Fork, and Fern Ridge on the Long Tom River. A third dam—Dorena on the Row River—was started before the war, and work on it has since been resumed. We hope that it soon will be feasible to start construction of the Detroit Dam on the North Santiam River and Meridian Dam on the Middle Fork. We are currently working on plans for the Mc- Kenzie and South Santiam Rivers. We ex- pect to develop projects which will safeguard fishing interests and assure community preservation. Looking further into the future, as viewed by the Army engineers in their comprehen- sive planning, a proposed dam at The Dalles will fit into the broad program for improve- ment of the Columbia, by extending slack water 31 miles above the head of the Bonne- ville pool, and by providing for further sub- stantial power production and other valuable benefits. Just as the Bonneville Dam inundated the Cascade Canal and thereby removed a bottleneck, the Dalles Dam, which has yet to be approved by Congress, is de- signed to submerge the Dalles-Celilo Canal and lock system and thus eliminate another obstruction to free-moving, modern river traffic. The Army engineers have made extensive studies of the prospective traffic that will develop on the Columbia River above Bonne- ville when adequate navigation facilities are provided on both the Columbia and Snake Rivers. It is conservatively estimated that the barge traffic on these rivers will reach at least 3,000,000 tons annually. This figure can be more than doubled by probable fu- ture industrial, mineral, and agricultural de- velopments. These developments are de- pendent only upon the aggressiveness and foresight of the people of the Columbia Basin. The Columbia River’s-original natural re- source, fish life, which has brought so much fame to the Northwest, is being fully taken care of in the construction of all new dams, as it was in the construction of Bonneville Dam. As you Know, fish ladders, elevators, and other facilities for the passage of fish over Bonneville Dum were provided ut a cost of over $7,000,000. Even though our funds have been reduced, we are devoting substan- tial amounts to fish-conservation projects. In addition, the War Department has trans- ferred funds to the Fish and Wildlite Service for continued studies of fish life. You may be sure that we will make udequate provi- sions for frotection of fish lite in all tuture engineering plans. In the present construction program which I have outlined, the first logical step is promptly to initiate construction of the McNary Dam. It not only ts the key project, as far as navigation is concerned, but is also of great importance in meeting the rupidly mounting demands for power. The Snuke River improvements, which will soon make slack-water barge transportation on the low- er Snoke a reality, should follow us rapidly as possible. Coustruction of Foster Creek project should go forward promptly. simul- taneously with the Snake River project. It is obvious that there is also an urgent need for completing the remaining five of the seven dams planned for the Willamette Busin de- velopment to prevent any recurrence of disastrous damages from the floods which are so frequent in that area. We are now engaged in a comprehensive resurvey of the entire Columbia River Basin. Working out these great developments as an orderly progression is an undertaking of tremendous proportions. Although it would be possible for a small group working in- dependently to evolve a feasible plan of de- velopment, their answer would not neces- sarily reflect the people's desires. This re- gion does not consist merely of water, land, minerals, lumber, and agricultural products. The people of seven States and a Province of Canada are the region itself. As you know, the Corps of Engineers is neither an initiating agency nor a sales agency. On Corps of Engineers projects, Congress has established and has consistent- ly maintained the wise policy of letting each program begin at the grass roots. It has always left the primary responsibility for im- plementing each major development to the people of the river basin By our own pref- erence, as well as by congressional directive, our procedure of public hearings on proposed improvements invites full public participa- tion. We encourage the critical scrutiny of all interested citizens and groups of citizens, for we are well aware of the direct effect of waterway improvements on the lives and wel- fare of many people. The Corps of Engineers and the other Federal agencies concerned with develop- ment of river basins are, in fact, obliged to keep State agencies and local interests in- formed as to the scope and progress of their work, and as to the plans of development that are being considered. Prior to sub- mission of any report to Congress by the Secretary of War or the Secretary of the Interior, the report must be referred to the governors of the affected States—in order that their views and recommendations may accompany the reports when sent to Con- gress. Thus the people, through their State Officials and their representatives in Con- gress, May appeal from any decision of the Federal agencies involved in water conser- vation, To further insure participation of States and local interests in planning, a Columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee was formed early this year. The governors of the States which lie wholly or partly in the Columbia River drainage area were invited to designate five representatives to meet, once each month, with representatives of the five Fed- eral agencies concerned in the development of this region. These agencies are the Fed- eral Power Commission, the Agriculture and Interior Departments, and Bonneville Ad- ministration. uid the Corps of Engineers. Monthly meetings of this Columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee provide a regional forum for continuing review of Federal and State activities. It ts important that these meetings tuke place on the fround where the penple, whose welfare is affected, live. We are doing our utmost to insure that the local viewpoint on all problems is fully represented at these meetings. To previde representation for all the interests con- cerned, the representatives of the Stites may take with them, to committce meet- ings, as many advisers or consultants as they think necessary to discuss fully nny particu- lar plan or proposal. The activities of the Inter-Agency Com- mittee provide adequately for cvoordinating the development within the United States portion of the basin. Further coordination, to cover the international aspects of the de- velcpment, is provided through the work of the International Columbia River Engineer- ing Board, on which the Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Interior are di- rectly represented. This board, which reports to the Interna- tional Joint Commission, ig now investigat- ing potentialities of interest jointly to the United States and Canada. The importance of these plans, mainly concerned with water storage, is evident from the fact that the Canadian portion of the Columbia Basin contributes 30 percent of the total annual run-off of the watershed. There is nothing in our experience of many years of planning and developing to indi- cate that organizations such as you now have actively at work in the interchange and co- ordination of planning information—or that the democratic procedure and wisely estub- lished restrictions which safeguard the rights of States and the opportunity for private enterprise—are in any way an obstacle to the development of land and water resources. On the contrary, we who are responsible to the American people through Congress have been impressed again and again with the need for the fullest participation of all re- sponsible citizens in determining what proj- ects are required. Regional development of our water and land resources must represent, in the first place, the sum total of our engi- neering knowledge and experience, based upon years of exhaustive investigation and intensive study, which in turn are bused upon years of careful and accurate obser- vation. Even then, no amount of engineer- ing knowledge can itself arrive at an ulti- mate program without the support of an in- formed public opinion and the fullest coop- eration of all interested Federal and State agencies and the citizens. This is a major reason why. under our con- stitutional form of government and demo- cratic process, the role of the Inland Empire Waterways Association, chambers of com- merce, and other civil and professional groups which take the lead in forming public opin- ion in this region is so important a factor for the future. Within the framework of the ren- eral plan and program already completed for the Columbia River Basin, we can select projects for orderly, progressive development well in advance of the foreseeable needs of the region. These needs have been and will continue to be successfully anticipated and provided for—through constant cooperation of the residents of the area who know their requirements, and the established agencies who take action, under democratic proce- dures, when the requirements are made known to them. These goals for the ultimate development of the region must remain flexible enough to permit modification as new technologies and requirements arise. Ench step in the
A264 measured progression toward these goals must be backed up by the proof of accumu- lated experience. Each project must be con- sidered in relation to future improvement and fitted into its proper position in the basin-wide development program. The eco- nomic soundness of the expenditures re- quired must be well established before far- reaching commitments are made. We believe—I'll make that stronger; we know—that it is possible to develop without dominating the economy of an area. It is our constant aim to render a Federal serv- ice without encroachment on the functions and services properly belonging to the States or to the private institutions of the local- ities we serve. With this objective before us, we will continue to do our full part in as- suring the maximum economic development of the Columbia River Valley. INLAND EMPIRE WATERWAYS ASSOCIATION, Walla Walla, Wash., January 16, 1947. Hon. Hat HOLMEs, United States House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Dear CoNGRrssMAN Hat: Enclosed you will find a copy of the address given by Lt. Gen. R. A. Wheeler, Chief of Engineers, United States Army, before the Inland Empire Water- ways Association annual meeting held in Portland October 24, 1946. We would appreciate very much your hav- ing this printed in the CoNaREssIOoNaL REcorp. With kind personal regards. Sincerely, Hersert G. WEST, Executive Vice President. Bad Medicine EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ANTONIO M. FERNANDEZ OF NEW MEXICO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 23, 1947 Mr. FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, there appears on January 18, 1947, in one of the New Mexico daily newspapers, the Las Vegas Optic, of Las Vegas, N. Mex., an editorial on socialized medicine en- titled “Bad Medicine.” Because it ex- presses my own thinking on the matter better than I could, I desire to read it into the Recorp for the consideration of other Members of the House. The edi- torial reads as follows: BAD MEDICINE! “Socialized Medicine—Bad Medicine for You!” That is the title of an extremely effective article by Michael Wright appearing in Better Homes and Gardens. Mr. Wright describes how socialized medi- cine works in Britain, where a single, dis- interested doctor will dispose of as many as 40 patients in 2 hours. He points out that in most communities there are agencies, clinics, and hospitals that provide free or low-cost care for the needy. He observes that under socialized medicine, where there is no direct cost to the patient involved, hypochondriacs will swamp the doctors whether there is anything wrong with them or not, thus depriving people who really need treatment of the proper attention and dis- couraging the physician. Then, in conclu- sion, he lays down in words a philosophy that should be the solid foundation for medical-care legislation and policy. “A person who needs help should have it,” he writes. “But not in a manner that will tear down the quality of medical care to the rest of us. “Not in a manner that will destroy private practice, “Not in a manner that will destroy the voluntary hospital system. “Not in a manner that will give one man control] over medica] research and education. “Not in a manner that will bind the physi- cian to political slavery.” There can be no more effective argument against socialized, regimented, or bureau- cratized medicine than that. Let the Nation remember it. Dr. Edward R. Johnstone EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. T. MILLET HAND OF NEW JERSEY IN THE IOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 23, 1947 Mr. HAND. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I am including an excerpt from a recent editorial of the Vineland Times-Journal, which speaks eloquently and sincerely of late Dr. Ed- ward R. Johnstone, a distinguished citi- zen of my district, whose service to hu- manity will long be remembered: DR. EDWARD R. JOHNSTONE It is bewildering, as one thinks on the more than half century of Dr. Edward R. Johnstone's service to his fellow man, to approach the subject. His services were 80 many and so varied, and his contributions to the public welfare so vital, as to challenge the imagination. In thinking on these ac- complishments, crowding a span of 57 years in public work, one immediately recalls the famous phrase of Winston Churchill, spoken for the British airmen who saved Britain in its most grave hour. Paraphrasing Church- ill’s words, they apply with full meaning to Dr. Johnstone’s accomplishments: “Rarely have s0 many owed 80 much to the compassion of one man.” In seeking the touchstone to his career, one must conclude that it was the compas- Sion in his heart for those who were handi- capped or who had f.ltered along the road that impelled him to offer a strong hand which never grew weary, never was with- drawn, until at last he left us. Our beloved friend was a knight in shining armor to children. He made the cause of children with retarded mental development his own. Working unceasingly in their be- half for over a half century, Dr. Johnstone rallied the best minds of the country to their cause. The fame of the training school at Vineland is world-wide, but its great leader was not interested in fame or fortune. He was interested primarily in the least of these children entrusted to his care and the care of his devoted associates. The same gentle spirit that blessed the children, also blessed those who have been associated with him for many years. They were encouraged to continue their most dif- ficult tasks when he walked among them, and now that he has passed on, Dr. John- stone has left for them an example of devo- tion and a tradition of service to the cause of handicapped children which will serve to inspire them in all the years to come. ~—Maz Leuchter. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Petition From Citizens of California Endorsing Investigation of Communist Activities EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOHN E. RANKIN OF MISSISSIPPI IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 23, 1947 Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, under leave granted to extend my remarks in the ReEcorp, I include the following peti- tion from citizens of California endors- ing the investigation of Communist activities: . To Congress: (Attention Congressman JOHN E. RaNKIN, Committee for the Investi- gation of Un-American Activities.) We, the undersigned American citizens of the State of California, congratulate you on your plan to investigate the Communist plot now centering in Hollywood and the west coast area. We realize that because of this investigation you and your committee will be subjected to much persecution, ridicule, and attack. We are, therefore, signing this petition to give you encouragement and sup- port of your defense of Christian America, Katherine Lueders, Miss Anna Glaus, Mrs. Julia E. Hofmann, Miss Stella Lauban, Helen R. Schaefer, Mrs. Anna Klinger, F. Binzigne, Mrs. Barbara Hoffler, Miss Hilda Goetz, Mrs. L. Tell, Mrs. M. Ermel, Mrs, Carl Schumaker, Mrs. Louise Lueders, Mrs. Martha Flury, Los Angeles; Rev. Paul Branke, Hollywood, Calif.; Max A. Mueller, Margaret Mueller, Washing- ton Park; Gertrude Harvey, Mrs. Georgia Harvey, Marie Pritchard, Ann Dyster, Mar- garet Cole, Charley Cole, Los Angeles; Har- riet E. Loew, Downey; Fermor M. Tweedy, Bell; F. N. Everett, United States Navy; Mrs. Eleanor Lisk, Mrs. H. D. Davis, Los An- geles; Mrs. Elvira Speyer, Pasadena; Mrs. R. James, Herman L. Miller, Mrs. Alice D. Mee- saugh, Mrs. John Overholser, Santa Monica; M. Windant, Compton; O. A. Windsor, Santa Monica; Mrs. Mary J. Doty, V. G. Bervais, Ray R. Shoemaker, Joa E. Beagle, Gola Beagle, W. R. Burus, Santa Monica; Florence Wiseman, Henry Kravanger, Jas. G. Harris, Mrs. Chas. Carr, Mr. Chas. Middleton, Mrs. Emily M. Finley, Mary K. McGlassen, Mrs. Margaret Maxey, Mrs. Nanie Alva Culler, Mra, Daisy Watson, Mrs. Maul Heywood, Mrs. M. Beam, Luella Wilde, Caroline Nylander, Mrs, Bessie Morris, Los Angeles. Mrs. Lila Sprague, Della M. Brooks, Pearl W. Bruck, Rose Graves, Mrs. Cynthia B, Camp, Frank J. Messmer, Catherine Adams, Oscar Bush, Mrs, Susan B. Stokely, Clarence H. Jackson, Mrs. Maude C. Sweeney, Wm. J. Olirich, Mrs. Marie Strube, Lottie Point, Mrs. Laura Johnson, Gertrude G. Zangat, Mrs. Alma H. Brown, Mrs. Kathryn Corbitt, Los Angeles; Alice C. Bussell, Beverley Hills; Martha 8S. Burns, Mrs. Ralph Moreman, Mrs. B. M. Humphrey, James B. Meeds, Mrs. Wil- liam A. Weiss, Mrs. J. V. Bangous, Mrs, Eliz- abeth Preece, Geo. W. Preece, Mrs. Opal M. Peterson, J. W. Peterson, T. J. Dessert, Joe F. Doerine, W. J. Heuly, Mrs. F. Franklin, Mary I. Mercer, Los Angeles; Mr. and Mrs. John Swanson, Long Beach; Elsie Freese, Emily Wilson, Edyth Scribner, Mrs. Wm. Apel, Chas. McVean, Mrs. Charles McVean, Mrs, Elizabeth G. Behrens, Los Angeles; El- bert E. Chenoweth, El Monty; Mrs. Emma M. Willing, Mrs. Erma G. Rhoades, Miss Mar- jorie Ames, L. V. Patterson, Mrs. George I. Brownson, Mrs. E. L. Harrington, Mrs. Iva R. Harrington, Mrs. Cora H. Ebry, Los Ane
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD geles;' Mrs. Mary E. Patterson, Hollywood; Mrs. M. E. Harbison, Mrs. C. R. Walker, Edna Vaught, Rev. Arthur Torre, Ivy M. Cane- day, Mrs. J. E. Carter, Mrs. Zenith W. Thatcher, Caroline J. Rankin, Clara Wilson, Mrs. Flora Barnes, Eliz Clare Roberts, Lillian Wilson, Elmer W. Sulbinder, E. Claire John Sulbinder, A. E. McCard, Los Angeles. Mr. and Mrs. C. L. Benson, Mrs. D. Gallo- way, Mrs. Geo. McCullock, Mrs. Mary E. Lewis, C. A. Lewis, Mrs. Luca J. Allen, Wanda Rey, Mrs. Katherine Wilde, Alma Adams, Herman F, Lee, Elizabeth Spicker, Mrs. Hattie Hol- senbach, Mrs. Norma Howard, Rhoda E. Green, Mrs. Bertie Glassman, Mrs. M. J. Mc- Intosh, William D. Evans, W. B. Buckey, Mrs. Anna M. Reinoeh!, Miss Irene O. Reinoehl, Los Angeles; Mrs. Helen Pruett, R. L. Pruett, Glendale; Mary Smith, Mary A. Lyons, 8. A. Ruddy, Henry E. Holtkamp, Lois M. Wallace, T. O. Page, Rae Page, Mrs. Mary E. Horn, Walter C. Marsk, Ralph H. Danham, Martin C. Staley, Clarence M. Wugel, Robert R. Wallace, Ralph W. Stevens, W. W. Johnson, S. M. Matthews, J. Gravok, Mrs. F. E. Jerou, Eloy E. Welker, Miss Daisy Highley, E. Ham- lin, Dr. A. L. Hunt, Clara E. Burg, C. L. Crosswhite, Mrs. L. M. Hurt, H. C. Beres- ford, Los Angeles; Marie H. Simmons, Eugene H. Beresford, Jim Arnold, Hollywood; Anna Faith, John F. Faith, George Krug, Maude T. Krug, Harry L. Woodward, Mrs. Olive Woodward, Mrs. F. M. Van Deventer, Eliza- beth K. Evans, Los Angeles. Mrs. J. W. McCarver, Mary K. Peden, Edna M. Gufillan, June Simo, Dr. Anita H. Curtiss, Mary K. Burk, C. H. Calvin, Mrs. A. C. Platte, Mrs. H. Sutherland, Mrs. G. E. Trowbridge, Mrs, Christopher Palzell, David O. Kiebler, Nellie M. Kiebler, Edward W. Kiebler, H. Hungstler, Mrs. Mary Kay Thomas, Los An- geles; Sarah E. Downing, Hollywocd; G. H. Taylor, Rev. Mae M. Taylor, George S. Ralsky, Mrs. Agnes M. Little, Mrs. Louise Schaffer. Los Angeles; Ann Boddy, Hollywood; M. Paul- ine Stuart, Patricia Burke, Mrs. Christina M. Tomson, Mrs. M. B. Denning, Eugene K. Man- gum, Maybelle J. Mangum, Bertha Schurr, John W. Walling, Clara Koppe, Rosa Maag, Mrs. Susan Balka, J. W. Herring, Gladys Herring, Mrs. J. W. Herring, Mrs. Allie McKee, Miss Goldye M. Brierton, Mrs. Cloe Lynes, Mrs. E. H. Suratt, Los Angeles; E. H. Suratt, Hollywood; Mrs. Elsie Aller Fox, Mrs. Carrie E. Douglas, Mrs. Lena C. Thorpe, Mrs. Geor- gia L. Deeker, Mrs. Louise Sanford, Eliza 8S. Lee, Mae G. Wick, Mrs. E. F. Teeters, Frank H. Rogers, Della Davis, Dora Hazlett, E. Goer- litz, Catherine Marinos, Elise Thieman, Mrs. Bertha Slade, Mrs, Hill, Octave Frankum, Marte Elisa Browser, Mrs. Olga Olren, Fred O. Hand, Los Angeles. Miss Anna C. Clauson, Mrs. Jennie M. Hitchcock, Sarah L. Evans, Maude Stoneman, Mrs. Castilla A. Christian, Mrs. Lizzie P. Oden, Mrs. Alice Hallenbeck, Charlott Hams, Miss Mamie Smith, Miss Kate M. Scagell, Fred Gibson, Linda E. Lewis, Pearl M. McClure, Etta Hamlin, Miss Marie LaSpelle, Mrs. Clara A. Lucas, A. Lawrence, William C. Jensen, Janis J. Moore, Mabel P. Bartlett, Mary Kay Thoms, Julia H. King, Hattie A. Lenser, Merton T. Daniels, Chas. E. Patsfaugh, F. E. Simons, John A. Spencer, L. D. Walter, Los Angeles; Josephus 8. Carr, North Hollywood; Geo. O. McMaster, Russ Black, Salvator Cova- tois, Geo. Walsh, 10s Angeles; O. R. McLain, Van Nuys: Harold Garcia, M. C. Totspough, Mrs. James 8. Berry, J. I. Cuttler, James J. Carney, J. A. Bitterlin, W. W. Decker, Mrs. M. Loraine Decker, R. D. Cornell, Reetha E. Cornell, Eve L. Carney, Elste Sutter, Dana Waynick, M. B. Savage, E. R. Savage, R. A. Savage, J. L. Case, Edith E. Case, Wm. R. A. Van Ness, A. Blanchard, O. Blanchard, V. Pedersen, Jack Monte, Elenore Monte, L. Burch (native miss), Maywood; Miss May E. Reed, Mrs. Lora C. Lamont, Agnes Flynn, Mrs. A. Harmon, Mrs. Gertrude Carns, Thomas W. Conyers, Los Angeles. T. O, Latrd, Mrs. T, O. Laird, Mrs. Freda J. George, Miss Ruby A. Halley, Mr. George Carus, Mr. Herman, Los Angeles; Mrs. Roy H. Ziem, Alhambra; Mrs. H. L. Ziem, H. L. Ziem, Wilmington; Mrs. O. P. Major, E. B. Brewster, 8, J. Pohl, H. E. Myren, Alhambra; A. C, Hachter, San Gabriel; C. L. Stock, Arcadia; Geo. W. Koehler, Los Angeles; R. W. Mays, El Monte; A. Saynham, Arcadia; Eva Thornton, Ella B. White, Pearl E. Vorhees, Wray Haymond, Mary Cornell, Nellie Scott, Allie Hall, Adeline Linhoff, Alice Wood, Amanda Spurgeon, Myrle Binkley, Alice Jones, Miss Ida Larson, Mrs. Elizabeth B, Cook, Mrs. Alice M. Winkler, Emif Winkler, Los Angeles; Mrs. Evelyn Hald, South Pasa- dena; Mrs. Y. Anderson, H. M. Anderson, Mrs. Mae Bonhage, Mrs. Lusina A. Chapman, W. H. Thomsen, Stella B. Thomsen, Mrs. Ada L, Reif, Paul G, Biorklund, Arthur W. Lowe, Mrs. R. P. Caton, Los Angeles; Pvt, John Kuutter, Fort Lewis, Wash.; Llewellyn H. Davis, Los Angeles; Charles E. Molineaux, Pasadene; Marshall Builey, W. H. Bruce, Caro- line Simpson, Capt. J. O. Grant, U. 8. A., John O. Foss, E. Blackweir, Ada Hienstea Gates, Matilda Koch, Joseph F. Frisinga, Los Ange- les; Alma Johnson, David Johnson, North Hollywood; Merlin A. Workman, Gustave Holmes, Mrs. Grace McLeod, Luke Kikkert, Abigail Kickkert, Pasadena; Daniel Handcock, Los Angeles, Marie Merchant, L. Stephens, Elmer H. Smith, Mrs. E. H. Smith, Charles E. Warner, Rose M. Warner, Florence M. Stantz, Maude M. Harris, Rev. Geo. W. Smith, Thomas R. Artigo, Nettie L. Bristol, Fred Langston, Mrs. P. R. McGilton, Edwin B. Magonigle, Mrs. Roy Mitchell, Roy Mitchell, E. H. Macpherson, Mrs. A. Marion Wassam, E. Hombly, Jennie M. Metcalf, Mrs. Emily W. Criter, J. J. Kelly, Mrs, Esther L. Kelly, P. A. Kelly, Los Angeles; Emma Hilgenfeld, Fred Hilgenfeld, Anna Barfkin, Elizabeth R. Strat- ten, Paul T. Miner, T. J. Ruslie, Josiah Swaf- ford, Fred L. Etnter, O. P. Ellis, Wallace B. Harrison, A. H. Hughes, Harlow D. Dean, Pasadena; Mrs. Nelle G. Long, Mrs. Jo B. Miller, Mrs. Betty V. Seeley, Mrs. Peggy Siebert, Los Angeles; Mrs. Josephine McDon- ald, Hollywood; Mrs. Ora E. Conn, Mrs. Rose Robinson, Mrs. Alice Yates, Mrs. Ruby Par- sons, Mrs. Mar7llu Hood, Mrs. Lavina Murphy, Los Angeles; Mrs. Renna C. Peirson, Glen- dale; Nellie A. Dysinger, 8. P. Dysinger, Mary T. Callahan, John Kessick, Ella Maude Mil- ton, Elmore Y. Milton, Mary Davidson, Elsa Paeper, Charles J. Castera, Emily Riley, Lizzi Sattler, Lawrence J. Riley, Margaret Hayes, Myrtle M. Church, Esther M. Waltz, Aldin D. Walt, Elizabeth B. Church, Los Angeles. Mrs. Jennie F, Dick Mrs. M. V. Finn, M. F. Church, Mr. C. Peacock, Mrs. R. Pea- cock, Myrtle A. Dorries, Ida B. Treon, W. C. Dorries, Mrs. C. J. Peltier, Mrs. Eliza Tibbens, Mrs. Zella Gould, Arthur Gould, Edith Curry, Anna Eliassen, Mrs. Ray Hunt, Chas. D. Hard- castle, Flora E. Hardcastle, Laura E. Oliver, Marion Neulander, Fred E. Reiff, Edith L. Newton, Nancy Lee Stucky, Thomas M. Ir- vine, Alice Beck, Hagel A. Johnke, I. 8. Ber- man, Bertie Mae Rice, Everett Wright, Paul Hill, Anna B. Chambers, Margaret A. Bing- ham, Florence F. Paradis, Florence M. Poppaw, James H. Poppaw, Mrs. Fern Bryant, Nina M. Dodsworth, Mrs. Etta L. Reichard, H. Reich- ard, Angiolina Romersa, Margaret C. Madden, Charles W. Madden, Laura, La Creauex, Ar- mand Foster, Samuel E. Howard, Bethel R. Howard, Marie Bewel, Fred J. McMahon, Ed- ward Feagardine, Belle Strasberger, Julia Grady, Raymond W. Knittle, Amelia Meller, Mary J. Ward, Los Angeles; Conrad Sandeen, Oakland; Mrs. Hellen F. Read, Mrs. A. O. Tay- lor, Mrs. John Pritchard, Mre. Annie M. Am- bler, Craven Ambler, Mrs, Josephine B. Shaf- fer, Laura Francis, Mrs. Rose E. Le Dreux, Charles J. Kroening, Los Angeles; W. Shirk, Gertrude Shirk, Culver City. Mary I. Mercer, Mae Clara Ellerhoff, Harriet A. Smiley, Lille Hamman, M. W. Barnes, A265 Mrs. C. Benman, Edith Wassman, Myrtle M. Winter, Clara, B. Tomlin, Lucille Tomlin, Bessie E. Bower, Bertha M. Unis, Bessie Grace Beam, Violette Wendroff, Helen B. Hoagen, Los Angeles; Rosa Gehington, Holly- wood; Frances V. Clark, Harry M. Baker, Glen Author, David H. Barr, Los Angeles; Clara E. Thomson, Hollywood; Hazel Rush Peck, Em- ilic J. Beem, C. F. Gogohin, George E. Living- ston, Los Angeles; Mrs. A. Kctman, Glendale; Mrs, Charles Hunter, Mrs. F. S. Weakley, Francis S. Weakley, Robert E. Jones, Janie A. Payne, Mrs. Arobelle Stewart, T. B. Busby, J. C. Rayburn, M. B. Hines, Los Angeles; Elmer J. Hinze, Compton; Al Foster, Mrs. Bea McClure, Mrs. Emma A. McClure, Charles J. McElroy, Mrs. Amelia Doyle, Mrs. Viola Duddy, Mrs. Klara Swarthout, E. O. Smith, Mrs. Bertha B. Smith, Mrs. Margie Delmar, Miss Nora Foley, J. H. Balchen, J. F, Delmar, Ruby Barrett, Bertha Forbes, Thomas Earl Kenway, Oscar Thompson, Lillian G. Brand, John 8. Dudley, Henry E. Leimback, Iva M. Judge, Mrs, Vera Brooks, Dorothy Runner, Lamar J. Freeman, J. Levett, Hattic Sapping- ton, Beryl Downing, Mrs. M. Alexander, Mrs. Virginia Cruson, Los Angeles. Mrs. C. L. Jantz, Nellie B. Foster, Emma Halslutzel, Mrs. M. L. Taylor, G. A. Harrington, Harold Ewing, Nathan Edgar Magee, George Hansen, Mrs, Jeannette Guthrie, Vernon F. Vance, Ernest A. Henry, Jr., Los Angeles; Mrs. D. M. Flaherty, Ontario; Mrs. Laura M. Beck, Mrs. Sue N. Smith, Charlotte Ann Lowe, Miss Mary F. Jopling, Mrs. H. L. Thompson, Miss Alyce J. Cummelin, Mrs. Jane Titus, Mar- garet Mitchell, J. T. Raftery, C. C. O'Neil, Los Angeles; Antonici M. Baur, Anton Baur, Inglewood; L F. Meyer, J. P. Pinger, Clay Devine, Chas. Douglas, Mrs. Bee Baily, Mrs. Bessie Cook, Mrs. Camilla Strauslin, Carl Mueller, Edwin A. Elliott, Los Angeles; Jean Parkcr, Long Beach; Nancy Weakley, Orange; Andy Brown, Mrs. Elsie Long, Mrs. Lydia Jen- sen, Peter Jensen, Edith P. Brookhouser, Caroline Heft, M. G. Barlow. Los Angeles; W. R. Coombs, Culver City; Mrs. Cornelia L. West, Lyle D. Holland, Log Angeles; Stanley J. Gregory, Bell; A. Kammer, Martha Pal- watory, Helen Northwood, Dr. Louis C. Child- wachter, Mrs. Mary Zervas, Nancy Griffith, Bert C. Shank, Mrs. Bert C. Shank, Mrs. Anastasia Fisher, Cora J. Shank, Mrs. M. Lewis, Mrs. Wm. H. Tanner, Los Angeles; Mrs. Anna M. Howe, Hollywood; Augusta Perkins, J. Olivepop, Los Angeles; G. L, Kanzelmeycr, Mrs. G. L. Kanzelmeyer, Mid- way City; Miss Clare H. Martin, Miss Eva E. Steele, Los Angeles. Wm. E. Johnson, Maywood; D. A. Ball, Los Angeles; C. B. Blackwelder, Pomona; Ed Nor- ton, J. W. Aldridge, Los Angeles; Herman Klinnert, Downey; H. R. Davis, North Ingle- wood: C. De Barth, Downey; R. L. Moore, Maderia; A. F. Nichols, Bell Gardens; H. G. Stoddard, H. B. Noble, Maywood; Henry W. Brarens, Mrs. Alma Jones, William J. Hub- bard, James A. Jolly, Marshall R. Harrison, Los Angeles; Albion H. Ricker, Hollywood; Joseph W. Klinger, Los Angeles; Thomas W. Garcia, Hollywood; Mrs. Lena Caldwell, Martha Leedy, Robert Livingston, John Ver- sin, Mrs. John Versin, E. B. Craton, Mrs. E. C. Marsh, Laura Alford, Z. I. Fortner, Laura J, Morte, May Guillaurine, Los Angeles; Jessie B. Walkup, William F. Wendlandt, South Pasadena; Jane Taylor, Julia Rasmus- sen, Catherine J. Moore, Edgar Foreman, Cecil G. Sheppard, Mr. and Mrs. M. M. Daily, Mr. and Mrs. E. F. Ludington, Helen Piersol, Mr. F. H. Barnes, Mrs. E. Barber, Hugh Glass, R. F. Blanchfield, Lelah F. Jones, R. M. Blanchfield, Mrs. Nona E. Davis, Mrs. I. E. Anderson, Alice P. Collins, Mrs. F. E. Juou, Mrs. L. Risdon, A. H. Bushman, Eddie King, W. J. Mead, Los Angeles; Mrs. Bertha Thorson, Tom Bjorka, Bell; Carl Bjorka, H. Engelbretson, G. Anderson, Mrs. Hilda Gore, Mrs. Bertha Grezzell, Los Angeles; Mrs. Etta J. Williams, Culver City: Mrs. Edith Lyon, Edward A. Lyon, Los Angeles,
A266 Miss Mabel Lewis, Los Angeles; Mrs. Anna O. Weisel, Oliver E. Weisel, Monterey Park; Mrs. L. B. Harvey, Los Angeles; Mrs. Dorothy M. Williams, Fontana; Mrs. Ruth E. Erickson, Mr. J. V’. Erickson, Mrs. Daic- Streck, Mrs. George Spyier, Culver City; L. Ellen Mitchell, Mary E, Wenger, Mabel Schulz, Carene P. Gaines, Thomas Gaines, Pearl E. Krug, Los Angeles; Mrs. Charles Nicol, Mr. C. A. Nicol, Rev. John B. Kenyon, Culver City; R. J. Han- nah, Venice; Gail O. Meeke, Culver City; Mrs. George A. Woods, Mrs. Lillian Prouty, Ven- jee; Mrs. Virginia Hagar, Mr. C. M. Beard, Mrs. C. M. Beard, Los Angeles; Mrs. Ethel B. Day, Mrs. Almeda V. Brook, Venice; Mrs. Grace Cleland, Los Angeles; Mrs. George J. Motter, Venice; Mrs. S. L. Dunn, Marian Apsahl, Inene Olson, Audrey M. Hughes, Mrs. V. E. Layton, Mrs. R. Morrow, Mrs. Maud Harper, Mrs. Lila Hamilton, Los Angeles; Mrs. Bell Englehart, Monterey Park; Mrs. Mary Morrow, Topango; Mrs. Florence John- son, Los Angeles; Mrs. Charles Wentzel, San Fernando; Mrs. Laura C. Ray, Mrs. Myrtle G. Ruckor, Mrs. Anna K. Forsberg, Mrs. Nell Jones, Mrs. N. F. Whitman, W. R. Dolhier, Bessie Dolbier, Eliza M. Alexander, Clara A. Stedee, A. E. Wheeler, Helen Schultz, Mrs. Pearl G. Wines, Roy C. Wines, Mrs. Bjork- lund, Bonnie L. Finley, Mrs. Margaret Thompson, George P. Thompson, Mary Brent, J. B. Spellman, Mrs. M. Burger, Los Angeles; Mrs. Vern E. Hamilton, Inglewood; Mrs. Kathrine Johnson, Los Angeles. Charles W. Bonhill, Clarence T. Walsh, Mrs. Lucille B. Walsh, Frank 8, Ruland, P. V. Watts, Zabinh Bonhill, Frederick Walkden, Caroline Walkden, Mrs. W. F. Ferguson, J. O. Carmichael, Emma G. Force, Emma Parks Cole, Los Angeles; Pearl V. Puccinelli, O. I. DoAne, F. E. Aflot, Fred I. Lewis, Car] Olson, L. Giller, George Welch, Peter Rossini, Carl Bennicchi, William Loftus, Patrick Hanifin, Louis Graggon, San Francisco; Lula Wamock, Anne Stanek, Los Angeles; Melton E. Rounds, Huntington Park; Fannie Gilliam, Kasper C. Kirby, Warren G. Harter, Willis M. Allen. Mrs. Emelle Coon, Mrs. Rose Vidal, Mrs. Gertrude Yargley, Mrs. P. C. Underwood, Mrs. Robert Underwood, R. 8. Penrose, Wm. D. Albertsmeyer, Los Angeles; W. L. Whitman, M. C. Hanson, Hollywood; John P. Daly, A. Puccinelli, San Francisco; Rudolph Joseph Ghianda, Richmond; Anthony Oliva, Mary J. Tresten, Matt Kessery, San Francisco; Lenore Puccinelli, Los Angeles; Harry A. Scott, Eileen M. Stewart, Ona L. Stewart, Lancaster; Merl E. Ricks, Los Angeles; Dorothy M. Tids, Sara A. E. Wurm, Royal Henry Wurm, Nellie Longueilan, Lancaster; 8. J. Hopson, Eva Hopson, Los Angeles; Mrs. B. F. Kirby, Mrs. Alice Keller, Long Beuch; Mrs. D. A. Wright, Palmdale; Elnor Gilbert, O. Benjamin Gilbert, Lura E. Colborn, J. O. Tarsell, Alhambra. Luna M. Spangenberg, Geo. L. Spangen- berg, Alhambra; Mrs. Bertha E, Schilling, San Gabriel; Theodore W. Walter, Baldwin Park; F. B. Lewis, Monterey Park; Mrs. Lottie B. Senter, Alhambra; Mrs. Mattie B. Carr, W. O. Clark, Baldwin Park; Mrs. Elda R. Troth, Los Angeles; K. H. Cameron, Flagstaff, Ariz.; Mrs. H. C. Dunn, Hollywood; Mrs. Emily M. Bar- tels, Chas. Bartels, Miss Joyce Yates, Miss A. D. Cragin, Thelma A. Cragin, J. H. Butler, Charles A. Matsin, A. R. Doctor, Mrs. Alice Herman, Los Angeles; Mrs, E. Lucille San- ford, Lancaster; Mrs. Lucy Talamentes, Palmdale; Paul J. Clapp, Rena E. Clapp, Cornelia P, Weeks, Frank C. Van Brocklin, Lettie E. Van Brocklin, Earl E. Clapp, Vivian E. Clapp, Glendale; Florence Redner, Al- hambra; Mrs. Jessie C. Knox, Katherine MacPherson, El Monte; James R. Knox, Laura Crouse, Elsie J. King, Virgil R. King, Mrs. Marietta Niles, Mrs. Esther Yager, Los Angeles; Mrs. Alina Person, Highland; Mrs. Ruth Johnson, Mrs. Claudia M. Berry, Cora M. Binks, Olive M. Ponleur, Clara H. Dove, Mrs. Grace M. Webster, Louis Wilde, Los Angeles; Joseph A. Casey, Burbank; James M. Murphy, Los Angeles; M. Sampling, Wil- mington; Mrs. A. C. King, Emmett R. Hol- man, Mrs. Gertrude Lord, H. M. Peak, Mrs. Emma March, Mrs, Alice Ashton, Mrs. Arvila Bewley, A. F. Mitchell, T. J. Camp, Mrs. Anna M. Hauptly, Mrs. Daisy D. Farmer, Los Angeles; J. G. Scott, Maywood; Mrs. Alice M. Kauffman, George M. Taylor, H. C. Kauffman, Los Angeles. Eline N. Olson, Christine C. Olson, Mrs. R. A. Hylton, Mrs. L. O. Sangster, Grace Tice, Charles 8. Bitner, Lenore Puccinelli, Los Angeles; P. Roshetnck, Albert Puccinelll, Irene Cashman, Jas. F. Fink, N. W. Cox, Ernest Sevenaw, W. G. Sullaway, James Mc- Namara, M. J. Flaherty, Anna D. Cain, Hobart Hicks, San Francisco; Mrs. Bettie Keadle, Los Angeles; James FE. Barrett, Mrs. Mary L. Barrett, Long Beach; Mrs. Walter Russell, W. A. Russell, Edith Whitwell, Los Angeles; Mrs. Margaret Wyatt, Ontario; Mrs. Billie Etzenhouser, Nancy Etzenhouser, Della Flem- ming, P. T. Hoy, Mrs. Alice Engel, Helen Long, Angela A. Mele, Mrs. A. Jannett, Mr. A. Jan- nett, Miss Mazy Long, Donna Leonardi, An- tonio Mele, Nicholas Long, John Massillo, R. Prinze, Juliet Rich, Joseph Argie, Michael La Torre, John Sanjo, Mrs. Leo Padesta, Mr. Leo Padesta, Catoldo Pouch, James R. Compvon, Josephine Fabrizio, Theresa Ja- niro, Pearl M. Mallich, Fanny Pesoli, Beth Martin, H. I. Martin, Ambrose Piroli, Jane Noggle, Mrs. Mignona, Miss A. Mignona, Giuseppe Mignogno, Oscar D. Nogple, Law- rence S. Long, Clifford C, Colton, Marv Lou Balch, Los Angeles. G. E. French, Los Angeles; Joe T. Kals, North Hollywood; Maeui A. Bean, J. Thomas, J. K. Westerfeld, C. H. Creveling, Mubel G. Creveling, John B. Boone, C. W. Tyree, F. R. Bertin, Eppa J. Hypes, Frank King, Lois King, Los Angeles; Nellie Robertson, Bever- ley Hills; H. V. Reed, Hazle Vanderworth, Inez Allen, Los Angeles; Ferd Brombacker, Mrs. Ferd Brombacker, North Hollywood; P. D. Lansdown, Mrs. Stewart, Los Angeles; Mrs, F. J. Lavan, Culver City; Hattie Holsen- back, Los Angeles; Margaret McCall, Pasa- dena; Wayne L. Westberg, Mary M. West- berg, Lynwood; Hortense Grausman, Mrs. Esther Burns, Nels E. Ogran, Mrs. Lula Thomas, Mrs Bertha Johnson, Mrs. Ida Men- ges, Mrs. Maggie M. Twitty, Mrs. Lou Gillette, Mr. Cozad, Mrs. W. &. Hilts, Mrs. Maud Carnahan, Mrs. Helen Becker, Mrs. Lucille Horsley, May Watson, Mrs, F. C. Winters, Mrs, G. W. Moses, Mrs. N. W. Lane, Miss H. Love- lace, Emma W. Abnid, Elsie Washburn Thomas, C. Harper, Willlam C. Colwell, Caric Lovelace, Los Angeles; Mary McWilliam, Pas- adena; Mrs. Reuben Van Bebber, Goldie M. Swartzendruber, Mrs. Bertha Burnham, Henry Peterson, Mary Davis, Esther Mitchell, Dr. E. D. Sager, H. R. Sprague, Bertie Ireland, Los Angeles; Guy P. Prothero, Bell; Leslie O. Wheeler, Los Angeles; Ruth V. Prothero, Lew H. Woodring, Bell; Albert R. Taylor, Hunt- ington Park; H. L. Shires, Bell. Harrison Bailey, John H. Ream, Mrs. Willie A. Beadles, Mrs. Emmett Clary, Miss Wallie H. Harms, Anna Edwards, I. M. Sage, Mrs. I, M. Sage, Mrs. H. T. Van Auken, Mrs. Vena Huffman, Mrs. Maud M. Oehring, A. L. Oeh- ring, Mrs, Olive Leonard, H. W. Thomas, Madeline Monder, Hortense Mondor, Los An- geles; Clara M. McMaster, Glendalc; C. F. Davis, Pearl Davis, Arch N. Latham; C. J. McPherson, J. R. Hibdon, Mrs. Betty Blaney, Laura Gordon, Los Angeles; Thomas H, Hoban, Monterey Park; 8. 8. Wauchop, Santa Monica; Emma I. Krueger, Los Angeles; J. M. Chadwick, Inglewood; E. E. Bofier, Culver City; L, R. Lanhart, Inglewood; W. G. Logan, Mr. and Mrs. C. H. Clark, A. L. Whitlow, Mrs. Ann Stofer, Mrs. Florence M. Johnson, Frank Wolfe, Henry A. Johnson, Norma Cole- man, Marie A. Fair, Ida Shulz, Dolly A. Knight, Lelia Clarke, Jane Malchenson, H. Seidler, John H, Dixon, L. A. Wittliff, Ralph Warnock, Los Angeles; Mrs. Henry Wittpen, Oakland; Ethel Strong, Mrs. L. Savage, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Mrs. E. Van Ness, Mrs. P. E. Sherman, Mrs. Leatha E. Corbin, Wesley W. Corbin, Lewis Morris, Mr. and Mrs. J. G, Moore, Edgar Sav- age, Mrs. Geo. T. Savage, Edgar C, Savage, E. W. Savage, Robert H. Dunlap, H. C. Shwenk, E. M. Smith, G. O. Reavis, Los Angeles. Edith R. Thomas, Ransom M. Callarhops, James L. Olsen, John P. Carter, Ransom T. Hood, R. E. Brown, Mrs. Bessie B. Bean, Charles F. Bean, Fred Palmer, Alice 8S. Olson, Mrs. Ida Palmer, Los Angeles; Gertrude Fuhr- man, Ingelwood; Lois Tignor, Los Angeles; Mr. Pearl P. Bush, Raymond F. Sturges, Long Beach; H. P. Bouma, Bellflower; E. C. Sipes, Mrs, Frances E. Cook, Mrs. Edward C. Sipes, J. B. Duncan, Elsie Ormsby, Long Beach; A. B. McLashton, M. McLashton, Los Angeles; Paul G. Hunter, Bertha C. Hunter, Long Beach; Anton Rieder, Los Angeles; Richard H. Callahan, Long Beach; Neal Macpherson, Leo Fistbruch, A. C. Grundmann, A. C, Mc- Nair, Los Angeles; Edwin L. Hazlett, Whit- tier; E. H. Caress, Ben Gorelick, Los An- geles; Kay Arnold, Lynwood; L. J. Car- rall, Puente; Ezra Neff, Mabel E. Mc- Kean, Elizabeth I. Hatch, Virginia T. Crocker, Clara A. Goode, R. E. Goode, Chloe A. Sellers, Martha M. Morris, Mrs, A. H. Hor- mel, Mrs. Ann E. Spameare, Irene Gleason Mrs. Nellie Botts, John Eric Anderson, Mrs. My tle McCrillis, Mrs. E. Caldwell, G. E. Net- tleton, Katherine Osborn, Mr. and Mrs. B. A. Mays, T. W. Douglas, Los Angeles; A. U. Jad- win, Mrs. Aril C. Jadwin, Bell; Mrs. J. E. Chenoweth, Hollywood; Mrs. Ina L. Keeney, Mrs. Florence Bank, Mrs. Mattie Y. Amerman, Myrtle Clegg, Los Angeles. H. T. Smith, Los Angeles; A. J. Latson, Whitten; Mrs. Edward Call, Agnes Thomp- son, Mrs. Blanche Rife, Mrs. D. A. Brown, Los Angeles; David A. Braun, Glendale; Mrs. Alsada V. Barley, Mrs. Blanche Webb, Anna Deshane, Thomas Deshane, Mrs. Minnie Yentsch, Mrs. Grace Wadleigh, Grace May Wolf, Los Angeles; Mrs. Charlotte C. Rastalt, La Canada; Luther B. Pell, Mrs. Jane Pell, Mary E. Timmons, James R. Wood, H. 8. Anderson, Mrs. Marie L. F. Brocar, Mrs. Elenor G. Harkinson, Mrs. Louna Colvin, Laura A. Knipper, Florence A. Sopp, Evelyn A. Sopp, Cora B. Haston, Harry A. Dildine, William Holsebo, Mrs. Rhoda M. Turney, Mrs. C. B. Homan, Wilber S. Lewis, Mrs. Jennie D. Lewis, Wilfrid Wright, Elizabeth Wright, Mil- dred Stone, Mollie E. kohl, Mrs. J. Smith, Mrs. Mary Brogan, Los Angeles; R. E. Wallace, Glendale; Mrs. Helen E. Preston, Mrs. Hilda Ness, Los Angeles; Mrs. Anna McDonald, Pasadena; Vindora Coughlin, Monrovia; Chr Wacek, Hollywood; J. H. Cummings, Mrs. J. H. Cummings, Los Angeles; Charles E. Michal, North Hollywood; L. F. Beayk, Montebello; George Wharan, J. A. Wucks, R. M Chappell, South Gate; A. Barber, Al Bebean, G. J. QGriffo, Monrovia, Arthur W. Marrin, Holly- dale; C. F. Monson, Mrs. Jean Berry, Jewell Atteberry, Los Angeles; Charlie A. Elliott, Maywood; Mrs. Mary Mae Donald, Ella I. Calder, Los Angeles; Ann Adams, Montebello; W. W. Foster, Wichita Falls, Tex.; H. B. Hamhn, Glendale. R. H. Bower, Sammy F. Shay, Mrs. Louise G. Orr, R. Lee Wilson, Oscar M. Hayward, Hannah Hayward, Frances C. Adams, Mrs. E. P. Walley, Los Angeles; L. E. Strobel, Pasa- dena; N. E. Whitman, Dorothy Smith, Mary J. Hendrie, Matilda J. Paxton, Los Angeles; Marie P. Beaty, Leota Griffin, Hollywood; Frank Struhs, Jr., Julia J. Resto, G. E. Brell, George W. Mann, Marie Mozrio, Fred B. Lonas, C. L. Thom, Betty Thom, D. M. Gam- ble, M. Catherine Wcigman, Mrs. R. Roehr, 8. M. Miller, E. R. Smith, A. C. Brooks, Mrs. Lula Walker, C. W. Wright, Mary Wright, Georgia H. Wright, Frances C. Hoffman, Wm, Frank, Sarah Emma Frank, R. Lentz, E. A. Lentz, George Lentz, Marguerite C. Borries, Jessie Scott, Wilma Bouer, Mrs. Lillian Wallis, Mrs. Kezia Graham, Charles D. Mcul-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ton, Mrs. Mary R. Hoskyu, Mrs. Nettie W. Ives, Addie M. Kirkpatrick, Mrs, Elizabeth B, Huften, Mrs. Hattie Roundy, Florence Lucas, Myra A. Smith, Olive Lewis, Celia Smith, Joe E. Reyes, J. C. Davis, P. E. Morrison, J. W. Stratton, J. P. Mullarkey, Los Angeles; C. Chick, Lynwood; P. F. Fabrick, Pasadena; A. Canon, Lynwood; N. C. Cortinez, A. E. Schwartz, E. C. Huffman, H. Clark, Los Angeles. Frances L. Daugherty, Bertha H. Caukins, Col. Jim Renfro, Steven Tatlian, Dorothy E. MacGregor, Antoinette A. Small, Elizabeth Brennan, Mildren Newman, May O. Barney, Mrs. W. J. Turner, Anna K. Chustie, Bertha K. Dixon, Harry K. Buckley, Myrtle Scott, Mrs. G. L. Sebus, Miss Clara E. Buckland, Helen M. Alexander Mrs. Mary K. Frost, Grace E. Poundstone, Miss Esther Williams, Mrs. Mabel T. Hawkins, Josephine M. Welch, Rose Long, Miss Emma I. Paulk, Mrs. Alice M. Cummins, Walter W. Schwidde, William H. Bluder, John Wolff, C. W. Thaxten, Charles Peters, Clyde C. Boatright, Floyd Hawley, J. A. Watkins, Lewis Y. Brown, H. K. Ed- wards, Bertha J. Hanseny. John L, Smith, Rose Behrendt, Thomas B. Thompson, Gus A. Chemnitz, G. F. Hauser, Chas. Gaston, R. T. Thaxten, Selena M. Stabler, Ray Miller, J. A. Whitted, J. 8. Pope, Mrs. H. Johnson, P. B. Savers, Mr. Este] Paty, Clara R. Paty, Florence Peddiend, George W. Gambrill, Ernest Seigel, George Gelpi. Mrs. George W. Adams, Mr. Francis B. Petry, Olivia Lewis Conger, Harry M. Taylor, Joseph A. Ballerino, Mrs. George Gambrill, Victoria Pfaender, Arthur Planche, Christ Pfaender, Nancy Bell, Los Angeles. Virginie Morris, Huntington Park; Virginia Wright, O. F, Chew, Amy C. Dickson, Sam Castro, Mrs. Bennie Castro, J. T. Bennett, Ruth Bennett, F. 8. Fountain, Val. J. Smyth, Joseph Odantz, George A. DuHarme, Patrick R. McGovom, Gus Gatsser Joreph Hall, Ray Burnett, Anthony Streeb, Henry G. Pleias, J. W. Wheeler, Fred Wessel, Peter J. Roach, Mrs. Zeria Powers, Mrs. Elizabeth Winker, Julia Cummings, Christene Hoernle, Agnes E. Macsel, Louis E. Maesel, Carl M. Winker, Mrs. Aldes Turpin, Clifford G. Fisher, Grady D. Patterson, Los Angeles; Eugene C. Martin, Inglewood; Mrs. Anna K Lang, Ada F. Brown, George W. Kendall, Kathryn Traynor, Geo. Ma. Snyder, Helen J. Cackley, Catherine R. Cackley, Grace E. Elwell, Ethel C. Winston, Dee J. Brown, Helen Selberg, Los Angeles; Esther Schen, Warren, Pa.; W. W. Brown, Los Angeles; George A. Welzenbach, Anne M. Welzenbach, George Matrango, William F. Kenny, E. E. Eberly, William F. Kenny, Jr., T. G. Chambers, Kathryn H. Chambers, Helen Gillis McDermott, Hollywood; F. L. Mellody, Los Angeles; Clara S. Welzenbach, Ernest V. Johnson, Hollywood; Mabel DeMoss, Nora L. Elliott, Janet Ann Lassell, Myrtle Kay, Alice R. Bennett, J. M. Kelley, Agnes O. Kelley, Alice E. Dinger, Jr., Blanche Kancky, Los Angeles. Mr. and Mrs. Al Gerdes, E. Wasserthurn, Mrs. Berniece Cook, Los Angeles; H. B. Devin, Huntington Park; W. F. Montgomery, Mrs. Agnes Montgomery Elbert W. Morrison, Mré. Rose Morrison, Edward Deskin, Mrs. Edward Deskin, Marie Allison, H. O. Reinhart, Mrs. A. Arizmendiz, Mrs. M. Chance, Emily Koller, James G. Koller, E. E. Fredeen, Erick Hendrickson, Ewald R. Anderson, Ray O. Anderson, Carl R. Carlson, Erick W. Len, Chas. V. Shelstron, Los Angeles; Lewis C. Duncan, Cathedral City; Arthur Marcusson, Glendale; Andrew B. Olson, San Gabriel; Anderson Gust, Tuyungo; Ruth F. Fredeen, A. D. Greenleaf, Los Angeles; George C. Miller, C,. H. Rogers, Roy E. Land, Ruth E. Land, G. L. Newton, Joseph C. Reed, Warren A. Robert, Jos. Steele, V. E. Schneider, R. I. Simkin, Eugene L. Hill, Bell; Thomas C, Fin- ley, Edward C. Hengst, George Steinkamp, Los Angeles; H. J. Anderson, Inglewood; Rob- ert R. Martinez, Los Angeles; O, N. Brown, Santa Barbara; Mrs. Troutman, Elmer D. Simcox, Fred H. Fowler, Mrs, F. H. Fowler, Inglewood; Louis Range, Los Angeles; Rob- ert Henderson, Gardena; Jesse Earl Brown, James H. Garrett, J. V. Maile, Mrs. Harriett Johnson, Mrs. Mary Cook, Fred Hefty, Hugh P. Andrews, Geo. W. Finley, Los Angeles; John H. Baker, Leona; Cora E. Marett, Isa- bel R. Smith, Helen Rittenhouse, Los An- geles; Leopold P. Meyer, Hollywood. J. E. Bauman, Eugene C. Baldwin, San Marino; Aleksander Mauer, Joseph Nejman, George Durand, Felix Urban, Frank Klukow- ski, Stanislaw Becker, Mike Dragulo, Jozef Sochacki, Adelbert Stryjcack, Los Angeles; Ella M. Baker, Henry H. Baker, Mrs. Nell Woodcock, Mrs. Margarete Wagley,-Hampton E. Wugley, Mrs. Edna L. Montoyer, Ruth E. Smith, Charles R. Barker, Mrs. Helen T. Chambers, Bell; Mrs. Mary J. Smalley, Mrs. Florence Farnsworth, Roy V. Farnsworth, Mrs. Zella Sherrill, Miss Betty Sherrill, Ben H. Miner, Tula K. Miner, Frances 8. Miner, Etta Minor, Mildred Cameron, Mrs. Dora A. Claypool, Mrs. Flora O'Donnell, W. A. Jack- son, Ralph McDonald, Katherine L.' Jackson, Ruth Welsh, Wilma McDonald, W. C. Hines, Grace J. Correll, W. H. McFarland, Donna W. Eid, Mrs. J. W. Colbert, David H. Sisson, Lillian 8. Gilmore, Mrs. K. Sturdevant, Los Angeles; Carrie B. Loomis, Janct A. Norton, Long Beach; Ralph C. Loomis, Compton; Enid Shepardson, W. A. Hildreth, Aureeta Wilsey, Long Beuch; Dan Ettleman, Pearl M. Ettle- man, Los Angeles; Fred P. Akins, F. A. Jenner, Walter Teter, Long Beach; Mrs. Marian E. Everhart, Compton; Mary N. George, Lizzie D. Riley, Hollywood; Margaret L. Patchin, Philip L. Fowler, Charles F. Herzog, Mrs, Ethel M. Herzog, Lotta Eva Lehigh, Los Angeles. Atalanta M. Kerrigan, Helen M. Day, Ce- celia Bart, Jeannette Herzog, Los Angeles; Rose V. Coyne, Hollywood; John R. Olmstead, Martin A. Borcheiding, Emily Dietz, H. W. Woolmen. Anna Allgood, Mary E. Olmstead, Los Angeles; Miss Nellic Barker, Wilmar, Mrs, P.D. Rush, Mr. P. D. Rush, Erastus F. Basham, Mrs. Essie M. Basham, Gurvey; Mrs. M. Wil- cox, Elijah Broadbent, Clara Hovell, Mrs. Opal Gamble, Anna Betts, Wilmar; Verna Engart, Monterey Park; Mrs. M. W. Ward, Wilmar; Emma Johnson, Nora 8. McCul- lough, Alhambra; Chris L. Franco, Minnie Franco, Frances R. Franco, San Gabriel; J. H. Hoagland, Sarah Hoagland, Alhambra; M. J. Kennedy, H. E. Kennedy, Monterey Park; Roy Leonard, Kitty Ann Brown, Alhambra; A. F. Gotchell, Wilmar; Gladys’ Richardson, Los Angeles; Marette Rogers, Downey; Mrs. Betty Anthony, Bakers- field; Mrs. A. R. Woods, Bell Gardens; Mrs. Cecile F, Richardson, Inglewood; Mrs. Mary G. Tully, Mrs. Rosie C. Hooper, Los Angeles; Mrs. Norma Heller, Glendora; Mrs. Florence Frullani, Mrs. Naeline H. Osborn, Thos. E. Kuvell, J. R. Richardson, Dolly Thompson, Birtha Smith, Helen Moore, Bessie N. Nich- ols, Phillip J. Loesen, Los Angeles; Harry Samuelson, Garvey; James Larons, El Monte; Rev, J. Richards; Edwin Rilly, W. E. Noble, Mrs. W. E. Noble, Mrs. Leita Flint, Walter F. Peterson, Ernest E. Gollins, J. Smith, Los Angeles, Ruby C. Paul, Jack C. Hileman, V. E. Anderson, C. Amsler, J. H. McKinaler, Elsie Cinnamon, Marjorie Ashmore, W. J. Vanan- del, Herschell R. Scott, Los Angeles; Mrs. Alice M. Beebe, Mrs. Evelyn E. Mangan, Hollywood; Mrs. Loma R. Gump, Mrs, Jean- ette C. Pervell, Mrs. Frances A. Emig, Doro- thy Arnold, Los Angeles; Margaret E. Sut- ton, E. Lenive, Mrs. Marvin W. Murray, Holly- wood; Mrs. Ida B. Baker, Mrs. Vera Madaris, McKinley Madavo, Myrtle Reymam, Freda Koester, Louise H. Williams, Charles H. Wil- liams, Loy ¥F’. Ragan, Albert E. Lehman, H. R. Morse, John C. Koester, Frank B. Cummings, Julia L. Cummings, W. E. Edgerton, Dorothy Edgerton, Cora Burow, Mrs. E. G. Barry, Mrs. HE. H. Clark, Mrs. McCarty, Edgar V. Mo- Carty, Frances Smith, Mr. Marvin Smith, Miss Wanda Fisher Viola Fisher, Mrs. George Shnurle, Mrs, James Deason, Mrs. Alice Dea- A267 son, Anna Ayres, A. L. Scheffler, Max Jonas, Augusta M. Judd, Lt. Mitchell G Dwyer, Mrs. Edwin Fougeron, Mrs. Marie Fikstad, Maulyn Anderson, Mrs. C. K. Hines, Walter Thomas Rentschler, Los Angeles; J. W. Bain, Pasadena; F, E. Joquel, Laura Buchen, Lorine Cox, J. L. Siefer, Christine M. Siefer, Mrs. Nellie C. Hipsley, Mrs. Edna Binney, Mrs. Marguret Patterson, C. C. Stony, Los Angeles. R. C. Sarlat, Muricl B. Sarlat, Lovie Traver, Birdie B. Floyd, Evelyn Reps, H. F. Hatha- way, Mrs. Catherine Moen, Mrs. Hope U. Marvin, Mabel P. Bartlett, Anna A. Bruce, Mrs. Maala Brittan, Beatrice G. Anderson, Helen LeRoy, Mary J. Ball, J. J. Simons, M. Paul, Linda E. Lesser, Emeli E. Meissner, Maude I. Petersen, M. K. Thomas, J. L. De- Renzy, Mrs. Glenn C. DeRenzy, Los Angeles; Pat Parker, Hollywood; Mabel I. Gardner, Virginia Gardner, Sigrid Mikkelson, Glenn C. DeRenzy, Mrs. Marie Gies, Mrs. Harry Medlicott, Mrs. John DeRenzy, Mrs. Joseph Zimmer, Mrs. Estclle R. Bird, George W. Bird, Mrs. W. A. Rice, W. A. Rice, Martin Winkler, John P. Lankow, Fred Bohnert, Martin Estell, Chas. W. Farren, J. C. Reedy, L. B. Crain, Elsie M. Crain, Los Angeles; Margaret E. Brinkley, Albert Bussick, Emilie Traber, Cecil 8. Blinn, Los Angeles; Mrs. E. Cooper, Mrs. Dorothy Newman, Mrs. R. Otter, Mrs. O. O. Leek, Glendale; Pearl M. Cromwell, Barbara Skeen, Burbank; Martha Ricker, Viola Miller, Glen- dale; Thelma Brown, South Gate; Mrs. Grace I. Sprague, Rose J. Smith, Los Angeles; N. B. Steinig, Duane Steinig, Whittier; Mrs. Gus:fe James, H. W. Laffee, Los Angeles; Joan F. Moyette, Glendale; Mrs. John Nail, Mr. John Nail, Los Angeles. Mary P. Johnson, Pearl D. Tussel, Edward P. Tussel, Josephine Van Sickle, Arthur J. Johnson, Mabel M. Johnson, Mrs. Medora R. Swinnerton, Kenneth T. Swinnerton, Eugle Rock; Mrs. Heler F. Officer, Hollywood; Richard A. Walter, Mrs. Otelia E. Walter, Mrs. Bradic Going, Katheryn Ware, Mary V. Cowrey, Ed Jacobson, Mabel S. Hayne, Mrs. Carrie F, Dixon, Mrs. Joseph School, Edna Walters, E. W. Church, Los Angeles; Mrs. E. C. Kennedy, Mrs. R. A. Hamlin, Mrs. E. Jones, Mrs. Ben Tompkins, Mrs. D. Bundy, Mrs W. J. Jones, Anna Meyer, Culver City: Mrs. W. R. Wood, W. D. Wood, Florence Buyer, Mrs. Agnes Nolen, Mary Louisa Brill, Harry Brill, Virginia McMillan, E. J. McMillan, Mrs. Irvin Macbeth, Bertha Miles, Edwin Wayman, Clara Johnson, Mrs. Lola Taylor, John L. Bucking- ham, Sylvester C. Boarman, Caroline E. Boarman, William J. Fram, Lenore Hall, Clay- ton Straub, Ethy] K. Wardall, Caryl B. Weis- san, Dorothy A. Calloley, Fred C. Krucger, Eleanor G. Kreuger, Herbert Charles, Myrtle Charles, Minnie J. Helmus, Cash Helmus, B. W. Hudson, Agnes Ann Hudson, Sumner A. Hamilton, J. L. Chilson, Flossie F. Gun- ther, Fred A. Gunther, Marie W. Chilson, Ruby V. Brown, Cleone Gregory, Los Angeles; Evelyn McMillen, Glendale. Emma Johnson, Walter Wochinsky, Mrs. Alice H. Ewing, Alhambra; Mrs. Grace A. Mc- Clain, Garvey: Mrs. W. C. Gibbs, Margaret Allen, Lillian K. McCoy, Nora R. Snyder, Alhambra; Virginia H. DeVoe, Los Angeles; Sarah V. Butler, Gertrude B. McDole, George O. McDole, Alhambra; Lissa I. Flom, Marie Fox-Decker, Maude D. Benton, Caroline H. Anderson, Laura S. Bentley, Olga C. Bentley, Mary E. Butler, Florence D. Dorseth, Marie C. Nelson, Mary Robinson, Mrs. V. W. Davis, Mrs. A Conley, Carl W. Carlson, Mrs. Doris Ward, Mrs. Jean 8. Challenger, Nora T. Humphreys, Miss Rosalie Hidalgo, Mrs. J. Sardano, Los Angeles; Mrs. Gertrude Muc- Donald, Venice; Mrs. Dorothy M. Carlson, Los Angeles; Hope H. Rodriguez, Alhambra; Mrs. Rose Odle, Geo. G. Knepper, Louise Paglieise, Los Angeles; Frank 8S. McAfee, May- wood; Herman C. Moore, Alhambra; John A. Bromley, L. A. Nyberg, George T. Mc- Salmon, E. W. Burleson, O. A. Homan, Wm. P, Baker, Elma P. Baker, Margaret Baker, Irene Warren, Maria Elisa Browser, Frank A.
A268 Mattrice, Winnifred Nehring, H. F. Parkerton, O. W. Anderson, Leonard Smith, Lon Irene Layton, Mrs. James D. Moone, Raclusio J. Olwa, Los Angeles; Louis Olwa, San Marino; Leonard A. Cannorozzi, Mrs. Emma N. Cochrane, Mrs. Katherina Bukowski, Mrs. G. C. Beard, Los Angeles; Capt. and Mrs. L. V. Heft, San Bernardino; Mr. Carroll Heft, Mrs. Anne Heft, Long Beach; Isabel Duncan, Miss Thera Gathings, San Francisco; Mrs. Maurine Middlebrook, Long Beach, Robert Middlebrook, Long Beach; Rita Piper, Dr. G. F. Reeder, Los Angeles; Leon Nadeau, La Roy L. Lewis, Eva A. Lewis, Nick Tempers, Tom Leinos, Santa Monica; Milford M. Scott, W. F. More, Los Angeles; Horace N. Gooding, Harry W. Gunsted, Ralph P. Strat- ton, Thomas G. Scott, Genevieve Lore, Fred V. Schoolman, Dolores C. Culp, Santa Monica; D. K. Cummings, Los Angeles; A. Mann, Jr., William Bailey, John F, Kennedy, Mrs. Carrie L. Balleu, Mrs. Isabelle Shugrue, Santa Mon- ica; Mrs. Nellie A. Jacobs, Venice; Ray Eg- glesby, Santa Monica; J. G. Scott, Maywood; Marion Talbert, Santa Monica; Mrs. Lula Boyd, George H. Boyd, Lucille E. Dowell, Mrs. Peggy Tierney, C. H. Wand, Mrs. Martha F. Wand, Norman Olson, J. Arthur Kain, Los Angeles; D. H. Sealt, Pasadena; T. W. Park- house, Los Angeles; Mrs. Lena Taylor, Pa- coima; Mrs. Laura Ruth, Pasadena; Mrs. Rose C. Sharpe, Mrs. Bertha Evens, Mrs. C. A. Boeck, Los Angeles; Mrs. Fannie M. Retts, Glendale; Eula M. Black, P. P. Shule, C. H. Hamilton, R. L. Wall, C. A. Masters, Esther Winters, Benjamin K. Gold, R. J. Petty, R. J. Evans, Salome C. Gross, Miss Alice D. DuBose, Mrs. Effa G. Scott, J. M. Alexander, E. P. McCarthy, Nick F. Ryan, J. Ernest Chappell, Mrs. C. B. Chase, Marie C. Septer, J. Dun- Kellecker, Mary Louise Roberts, Los Angeles; A. E. Ritter, El Monte; Irene Wolverton, Katherine Ryan, Los Angeles. William W. Seedmore, Glenn T. McClure, Mrs. Amy Bagley, Harry P. Merrick, Mrs. Evelyn Bay, Fred Bastron, Mrs. Bertha Bas- tron, Joseph Keeler, Marilyn Wilson, Los Angeles; Edna Sussex, Norma Jean Wall, Temple, Ariz.; Mrs. Ethel M. Gruber, F. A. Gruber, Mrs. C, Donlin, Mrs. Elda R. Troth, Dr. A. L. Hunt, Miss Sophia Pilley, Mrs. Frances Newton, Mrs. Lizzie P. Oden, Lydia J. Bolton, Mrs. Florence Murphy, Mrs. Bennett Stefflin, Etta Stefflin, Mra. Eva C. Arnett, Los Angeles; Fred W. Born, Ingle- wood; Beverley Jones, Los Angeles; Mrs. Ellen Born, Inglewood; Chas, Deschamps, Lan- caster; G. E. Waggener, W. E. Sorenson, Acton; W. R. Duncan, Lancaster; Henry Oswold, Mojave; D. L. Mitchelton, Glendale; H. L. Parry, Ignacio C. Arellano, Los Angeles; H. 8. Shureman, Glendale; F. Callan, El Monte; Wm. A. Morse, Los Angeles; T. J. Turner, H. P. Johnson, Mrs. H. Johnson, Mrs. Rose Howard, Margaret Wauk, Helen M. Soggan, L. T. Berry, 8. A. Yarniff, Paul R. Nelligan, Geo. F. Staub, Glendale; Mrs. Anna Humphrey, Mrs. Angelina Hamilton, North Hollywood; Mrs. Mamie Bowman, Los An- geles; Mrs. Rose Hoffbauer, Mrs. Helen Boyce, Mrs. Laura Hanks, Lee Hanks, Edward C. Newton, Mrs. M. Katie Lang, Edmund B. Lang, Mrs. Mary G. Swartz, Mrs. Emilie Cross, North Hollywood. W. Clay Wilson (pastor, Seminary Baptist Church), Mrs. Constance E. Eaton, Mrs. Lillian J. Randolph, Mrs, A. H. Gautschi, Ettore Teddy Falconer, Consuela S. Falconer, Mrs. Elizabeth Toth, Anna Treisuer, Los Angeles; Lula Platt, Ontario; Bessie Bell, Upland; Joseph Elon Kemp, South Gate; Dervia Hegwer-DeMay, Los Angeles; Louis H. Smith, Mable R. Smith, La Crescento; Ruth M. Smith, Glendale; Mahala McPeak, Gertrude Trullinger, La Crescento; I. Wells Spencer, Mary J. Spencer, Stella Parsons, Mrs, Arthur E. Ball, Mrs. Walter N. Crouling, Tryinga; Arthur W. Carter, B. R. Tomberlin, E. A. Walton, Donald R. Crouch, Glendale; Hempel M. Gellan, Monterey Park; D. Tan- taglia, Glendale; J. Guy White, Burbank; Walter J. Boldrini, Jack M. Petersen, Glen- dale; R. J. Shugert, Los Angeles; Edward A. Carey, D. G. Malisch, G. F. Holcomb, Glen- dale; Mildred Walker, Mary Lois Hamilton, Los Angeles; Leroy A. Phelam, Glendale; J. H. Clessif, Los Angeles; Eva Martin, Opal G. Smith, Thomas H. Nelson, Wallace Brewer, W. O. Meckle, Glendale; Olive B. Scott, Arthur R. Scott, La Crescenta; Edith C. Gillaspie, Glendale; Ina McPeak, M. E. T. Long, La Crescento; Dorothy G. Watson, Thelma Brown, Saverio 8. Schiro, Leon Moore, Louise H. Brooks, Los Angeles; Fred E. Thursland, Glendale;,Edward T. McGovern, Los Angeles; Tully Pontecorvo, Alhambra. Mrs. Mildred Owens, Miss Clara Chittenden, Mrs. Ida Pickering, Mrs. Jennie Bucholtz, Mrs. Eleanor L. Glenn, Mrs. Elsie Scoules, Mrs. Vina Weeks, Mabel E. Hollingsworth, Florence V. McClane, Mrs. Ruth M. Williams, Mrs, Etta O. Schaffner, Mrs. Anna J. Fleming, Cornell Wingfield, Mildred Stoughton, Mrs. Diane Irwin, Mrs. J. Herbert, Noble J. Johnson, Agnes D. Johnson, Arthur W. Cooper, May Gray, Chester B. Gray, James H. Hammack, H. A. Modesitt, Katherine Waterman, James E. Hewitt, Mrs. Loula F. Dustin, Virginia Drum- mond, Los Angeles; Ida L. Harlin, Maywood; C. H. Clark, Marcella Tracy, Carrie Brown, Mrs. J. Tucker, H. Bushong, Mrs. Lila Tannor, Helen Pirkins, Los Angeles; Mrs. Ona E. Haire, Alhambra, Frank Schroeder, Los An- geles; Mrs. June M. Devine, Mrs. Annie B. At- water, William W. Perrine, Mrs. M. Jeruard, O. L. Jones, R. H. Ziem, Pearl Kerkendall, Lydia M. Crackler, Helen L. Moorhead, Samuel H. Atwater, L. F. Stewart, G. E. Chapple, P. K. Chapple, Harry 1. Cranston, Pearl D. Cranston, Ulysses L. Cranston, Mary A. Cran- ston, Irene M. Bibbins, Eleanor L. Cranston, Lester Stewart, Willard B. Fernald, Florence Stewart, Mrs. Laura Stewart, Mrs. E. J. Hans- mann, Alhambra; Mrs. Charlotte M. Larimer, William G. Larimer, Los Angeles; Martin C. Peters, Alhambra. Mrs. E. J. Pinkowski, San Gabriel; Lana F. Steadman, Joseph Maus, Alhambra; Mrs. B. G. Bliss, Littlerock; Mary Maus, Barbara J. Maus, Anna C. Hirschinger, Alhambra; Lewis H. Mintman, Littlerock; Mrs. Bertie Hughes Barnett, Funk E. Meserve, Mrs. Mary H. Smith, C. H. Smith, Mrs B. Williamson, Los Angeles; Mrs. A. H. Gilbertson, Mrs, E. . Hunt, Pasadena; Mrs. Rosemary Nunamaker, Los Angeles; Roy Wolford, Axel R. Hoflund, Inglewood; Catherine T Rooney, Mary Rooney, Nell B. Kiser, Fred H. Kiser, Wassa J. Stoddard, Robert Freeberg, Los Angeles; Wallave E, Reynolds, Bell; Thomas F. Kelly, Thomas L. Poulson, Arthur V. Link, John A. Gibson, Ernest M. Klassen, J. Schow, Frank Scapacaza, Nell B. Kiser, Gerald DeLong, L. N. Angell, Mrs. Jeanette N. Mann. Charles H. Mann, Mrs. Cecil A. Freeberg, P. M. Blevins, Mrs. Jewel Wilker- son, Gudry Allen, Elwood F. Brunn, Harry C. Black, Mr. anu Mrs. Chas. E. “uand- messer, Mrs. Charlotte Thurber, Mrs. Ellen J. Hjarth, Tlizabeth Stolpe, Los Angeles; Mrs. M. A. Ransome, Burbank; M. R. L. Baxter, South Gate; Harry T. McGovern, Mrs. Doyle Purcell, Mrs. Gertrude Turner, lfrs. Susan H. Edwards, Mrs. Lena James, Nina F. Walker, Adam Schmidt, Andosehas Pedroseton, Roy W. Campbell, Bob Inbrecht, Los Angeles; Chas. Rowe, Burbank; Marie M. Uebersox, Hollywood; M. W. Corkran, Jr., United States Marine Corps; C. M. Baker, Pacoima; Dave Anten, B. B. Carter, Los Angeles. Audley Summerville, El Monte; Frank J. Lang, Los Angeles; Joe Gruhiman, Glendale; W. 8. Dewey, La Crescenta; W. E. March, T. B. Kostenlander, J. C. Stump, Glendale; Mar- jorie McDonald, Hollywood; G. Mulson, Los Angeles; K. Wilds, Alhambra; W. Andrews, La Crescenta; L. D. Meredith, Glendale; M. C. Carter, Los Angeles; Fred J. Keller, Glendale; G. Englund, M. Davis, Burbank; C. L. Reams, Glendale; E. C. Mitchell, North Hollywood; APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD M. J. Logan, Glendale; V. W. Johnson, Los Angeles; J. 8. Slade, Glendale; Iner C. Ellis, Los Angeles; William A Cross, Glendale; L. Brake, Burbank; Manuel! Aclia, Glendale; Roy E. Gillaspie, Glendale; N. Earl Summers, Bur- bank; Jesus T. Mendoza, San Fernando; Jo- seph De Soto, Los Angeles; Clarence E. Griene, Tia Juana; Leo T. Baker, Burbank; Carl J. Kerr, Pasadena; J. A. Nowline, Glendale; Howard P. Naper, La Crescenta; G. L. Fogy, Highway Highlands; Frank A. Reddall, Glen- dale; May Belle Gaigano, Los Angeles; John Coverton, Glendale; Mrs. F, Maude Landwehr, H. F. Scheel, Mrs. Odelle R. Ertz, Mrs. Lydia Witt, Mrs. Madalena Michela, Mrs. Lillian Castetter, Miss Mary L. Michela, William H. Becker, Mary L. Becker, Harriet L. Garfield, Mrs. Alice Baker, Mrs. Carrie Baxter, O. O. Baker, Los Angeles; Miss Kate Gunnell, L. A. White, 8S. A. Lapp, D. R. Wells, H. E. Matzick, M. Babcock, Bell. Mrs. Lucile B. Caspers, H. C. Cornaford, L. A. Guiton, H. G. Martin, Mrs. Edna M. Por- ter, Mrs. Elizabeth Linsley, Bell; Mrs. Lydia Roehrig, Pasadena; Mirlam Johnston, Alta; Elizabeth 8. Briggs, Mrs. Ethel Treser, Pasa- dena; Miss Dorothy Hartwell, Highland Park; Mrs. June Wilbrandt, Pasadena; Mrs Stella M. Smith, Altadena; Miss Doris E. Smith, Charles W. Unfried, Riley O. Welch, Pasa- dena; Jean Wilson, Los Angeles; Betty Col- lins, South Pasadena; Charles Douglas, Mrs. Mabel Douglas, Mrs. Ascension Martha Bristol, Anna Nearing, Margaret Moulton, G. E. Graham, Mrs. Nerine Sharp, Mrs. Mae Humphrey, Lavita Graham, Mrs. W. C. Hol- land, Mrs. Jessie Roberts, Mrs. Margaret Beyer, Felix J. Shisler, Martha Nichol, Mrs. Isabel Moore, Mrs, Inez E. Duncan, Albert Y. Moore, Gertrude D. Lloyd, Alice V. Lloyd, Fay D. Lloyd, T. W. Pinkerton, Jr., Los Ange- les; R. O. Hutchinson, Virginia Hutchinson, Van Nuys; Eugene 8. Mikkelson, Montebello; Helen A. Boos, 8S. G. Bateman, Mrs. Elba J. Little, Ernest Nelson, H. D. Kirk, Mrs. 8. G. Bateman, Minnie Anna Bray, John W. Hassey, Carrie H. French, Marion Savage, Mary Cole- man, George S. Coleman, Annie M. Ambler, J. M. Alford, E. Van Valin, Mrs. Josephine Blanchard, Los Angeles; Miss Anna Moe, Monterey Park; William Barker, Los Angeles. L. Hulbert, Los Angeles; Franz Schneider, Mrs. Edna K. Edinger, G. H. Edinger, A. Abra- hamsen, Santa Monica; E. Y. Boyd, Lela Boyd, Mrs. Bertha McGray, Betty Overton, Maury Koral, Pansy Rounds, Los Angeles; Lula B. Hutchinson, Mrs. M. J. File, Van Nuys; Mr. and Mrs. Pritchard, Los Angeles; Mr, and Mrs. Riley, Mrs. Mamie Fleshman, Long Beach; Mr. and Mrs. P. W. Murphy, Mr. and Mrs. S. Lesko, Miss Dora Pritchard, Mr. Elmer Inman, Mrs. Gertrud Mutens, George D. Clark, D. E. Link, Freeda E. Edson-Norton, Ada B. Boyce, Ida E. Williams, Los Angeles; David Wallace, Pusadena; Mrs. Helen V. Neuman, Ruth A. Sands, Helen E. Payne, A. 8. Payne, Effie E. Horn, Almcda L. Mix, Mrs. Lucille Omar, Mrs. Mary J. Shupe, James Richardson, Marion Richardson. Los Angeles; Mrs. Ida Hushman, George A. Meissenburg, Mrs. Iva M. Meissenburg, Arthur Gulezian, Jennie Gulezian, Alice Gulezian, Rub Gule- zian, Rosemead; Mary C. Biciche, Cristosero Bichiche, Wilmar; D. T. DeGameo, William B. Buckley, H. F. Hall, Rosemead; Mrs. Eleanor Ketchum, William DeF. Ross, Los Angeles; Sam Hushman, Harold Smith, Rosemead; R. L. Schadel, Adah E. Schadel, Arcadia; Frank E. English, Rosemead; M. J. Reed, San Gabriel; J. Paris, Odile Paris, R. W. Frank- furt, G. J. Thompson, F. E Quirk, Fred W. Sandquist, Rosemead. Fred W. Sandquist, Rosemead; Georgia Stromberg, C. L. Winders, Los Angeles; Ver- non Cole, San Diego; Marjorie Boone, Los Angeles; Robert Stromberg, Glendale; Mr. and Mrs. Imogene, Carlsbad; Anna Reinhold, Mr. and Mrs. Bert Thomas, San Diego; Helen Markham, Pasadena; Lillian Bowlsby, Emily Neslund, Mary Norton, Henry W. Barens, G. D. McDonald, Leonard ©. Berryman, John
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD A269 Marned, R. Byrne, V. Nugent, Jas. J. Dee, John Downing, Wm. Langan, Ralph Gehring, John Gallagher, Henry W. Hentze, Mrs. Inez C. Foster, Los Angeles; Mrs. Emily Lyman, Hollywood; Car] Carlson, O. B. Brewster, Mrs. Rose E. Gore, Mrs. Clara P. Harris, Mrs. Marie A. Cowan, Jay Elmont, E. G. McGlaufiin, Los Angeles; Robert C. Petty, Mrs. Minnie Lee Petty, Ocean Park; Miss Rose C. Smith, John J. Wilkie, LeEtta Jewell, Anmic J. Potter, Mary C. Hill, V. Fae Wahman, Mrs. R. W. Ainsh, ‘Laura Holmes, Geo. J. Van Loon, Lydia Milligan, Irma Kramer, Omerea B. Taber, William Mead, Miss Ella Day, Ida Frances Underhill, Clara V. Underhill, Mrs. Margaret M. Calhoun, Mrs. Gladys H. Peabody, Alma Smith, Margarette M. Steeb, W. Howard, Alta J. Bryan, James P. Case, Maola B. Case, J. Winterbottom, Joseph 8. Zerega, Rev. Ernest W. and Mrs. Lavvorn, Herman C. Lewis, W. E. Foland, Joe J. Bolton, Los Angeles. Carelia Cole, E. G. Zeliff, Will L. Land, M. Johnson, James W. DeLaney, Jay G. Holland, William Lambert, Ora West, C. W. Korgle, Gavin W. Craig, Berdena Craig, Martha Hengel, N. W. Corrington, Anna L. Harpper, Mildred R. Obert, Jenny M. Johnson, Jchn L. Erenard, Louis C. Dodelar, Floyd G. Fife, George Hixon, John B. Pauly, Charles E. Porter, John C. Searfoss, Peter Castovena, Frank Post, B. F. Bollar, August F. Richard, Los Angeles; Fred C, Ries, Compton; G. Hop- pel, Louis Wideman, M. Morris, L. Schram, Lloyd E. Blumfield, Mrs. Muybell Rankin, Mrs. Jessie Boals, Nannie Griffin, Harriet Car- ter, Miss Fern Standeford, Etta Lipe, Mrs. Melvin Higginson, Los Angeles: Rev. F. Du Pee, Lina Scott Du Pee, Tu.unga; Arlene Honn, James L. Verity, Stella Verity, Bessic Bowman, Carlos H. Bowmar, Mrs. M. More, Mrs. Lavinia C. Hedges, Richard Hotchkiss, Valerie Hotchkiss, Winifred C. Ott, Rollo A Ott, Francis J. Gotcher, Mrs. F. J. Gotcher, Lois W. Seldon, Oscar M. Johnsen, Willard Andrews, Zella R. Mussen, Mrs. L. H. Williams, Los Angeles. Leary E. Graham, Alhambra; A. J. Milli- can, Mrs. A. J. Millican. Araminta McElroy, Fred W. Meadows, Lucille Bramham, Mr. W. C. Bramham, Los Angeles; Edward L. Fountain, Edna B. Fountain, Huntington Park; Gladys L. Ruxton, Los Angeles; Nellie R. Chalfant, Louls Budway, Louis M. Brown, Dorothy P. Brown, Earl R. Chalfant, Mr. and Mrs. Ungibauer, Mrs. John Bruno, Edward L. Dickenson, Ida M. Dickenson, Huntington Park; Mrs. H. Burlie, Miss Hardman, Lois Burlie, Mrs. Laur: E. Uline Margaret -Town- send, Elizabeth McFarlane, Marie L. Ferrero, Anna Rea, Mrs. Anna Mary Regua, Mary Garnett, William F. Feely, Georze J. Ferreio, M. A. Refrodi, Margaret D. Baier, Mrs. Susie West, Mrs. hora Robinson, Joseph Josupait, Miss Maude Shaw, Ernest Whitman, Carrie Cc. Juntman, Angelina Marino, Catherine Marino, Ernest Groves, Los Angeles. Displaced Persons EXTENSION OF REMARKS Or HON. ARTHUR G. KLEIN OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 23, 1947 Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the REcorp, I include the following article by George E. Sokolsky from the New York Sun: Tuesr Days (By George E. Sokolsky) DISPLACED FERSONS A new category of human beings has been produced by the peace. What it amounts to is that there are a large number of men, women, and children who belong to no coun- try, who have no homes, who have no pres- ent and no future and no idea where they are to go. For them, time has stopped. It is estimated that ‘there are still more than 800,000 displaced persons, about one- third of them women. About 150,000 are children under 19. These figures may have changed somewhat since they were gathered by births, deaths, and enforced return to the countries of nativity—which in many in- stances means death. I have some earlier figures which show that in March 1946 the estimates showed that there were more than 6,500,000 displaced per- sons, of whom 5,500,000 have been repatriated. The discrepancy between these figures is that both are estimates, that some have been re- placed (not repatriated) and that many have died. It is an error to think of displaced persons as Jews. They are of all faiths. Only one- quarter of them are Jews; the largest num- ber are Roman Catholics. Although they come from all countries, the largest groups are Poles, Balts, and Yugoslavs who dare not return to the lands of their nativity because there they will without doubt be killed. The Jews dare not return to Poland because Com- munist Poland is the scene of the most in- tense anti-Semitism ever witnessed in Europe. The general feeling is that to be- come 4 replaced person, that is, for a Jew to be sent back to Poland or a Catholic to Yugoslavia, is the same as demanding that a person commit suicide. It is a death sen- tence. These are marginal human beings—a prod- uct of the war. For them there are three solutions: 1 To leave them where they are in dis- placed persons’ camps, idle, useless, produc- ing nothing, achieving nothing, shattered in mind and body; 2. To find some country where they can begin life anew; 8. To kill them off as a nuisance. Perhaps solutions 1 and 3 are the same, al- though the first is more costly while the third is more immoral and brutal. But the effect upon the individual is about the same. But when the second, the only rational solution, is proposed, the resistance to im- migration appears everywhere. The world ts familiar with what a tragedy the mere pro- posal of bringing 100,000 Jews into Palestine hus produced. That has practically led to civil war in that country. Few countries welcome displaced persons in any important numbers. Under the American immigration laws, 154,000 persons may entcr the United States annually. More than half of the quotas are ussigned to Great Brituin, Scandi- navia and other western European countries which are not involved in the problem of the displaced persons. Apart from these figures, numerous devices have been employed to muke immigration difficult. In the 10-year period between 1931 and 1940, immigration amounted to 528,000 per- sons, but there was an emigration of 459,000, leaving a net increase of 69,000. During the next 3 years the immigration totaled 103,000, of which 75,000 remained in this country. It is dificult to reconcile these figures with the apparently large number of refuscees in our larger cities, but in the period 1933-45 the total number of quota immigrants ad- mitted was 375,000. It is true that a small number of special immigrants, visitors and students were ad- mitted during the war yeurs, but some of them—how many I do not know—have heen ordered to return to their own country. In dealing with permanent immigration we have to limit ourselves to those who are admitted for permanent residence to this country. The number, in any one year, is obviously not large. Several proposals have been made to in- crease the number to be admitted to this country and to Canada. But nothing of a Positive and constructive nature has been done here, there or anywhere. And no one can say what will be done. Meanwhile these displaced persons are going mad, are dying, are being replaced to the torture of the coun- tries of their origin. It is a horribly inhuman picture for which there seems to be a need for immediate solution. Peace Is Geared to Justice EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. LAWRENCE H. SMITH OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 23, 1947 Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. Mr. Speak- er, we seck in vain for a just and lasting peace unless we realize that it is gcared to the principle of justice. In the flush of a military victory, which claimed as its objective freedom for the individual, we are surprised to know that there is less, not more, of it. Europe today is the living example. Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Austria, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Albania lie pros- trate under the heel of the Russian dic- tators. We must have no part in this tragedy. Mr. Speaker, on last Sunday morning I listened to Mr. Lothrop Stoddard, out- standing commentator for the Evening and Sunday Star, and I was impressed by the logic and timeliness of his re- marks. Every Member of the House should read what he has to say with reference to Russia’s treatment of Po- land. Under leave to extend my re- marks, I include the complete address of Mr. Stoddard, as follows: For all believers in and workers tor iuter- national peace and security, this should be a day alike of humiliation and resolution. The reason is not hard to seek. On this Sunday, so mild and tranquil here in Wash- ington, there is taking place in distant Poland an outrage on International morality and decency for which we Americans ure largely responsible through our supine neglect or refusal to face up to the commitments we formally assumed regarding that unfortunate country and people. The so-called elections gcing on in Poland at this very hour are at once the climax of a whole ceries of betrayuls by us and our western associates, and the prelude to still worse iniquities, unless we do something effective to avert them. 1t is a curious yet indubitable historical fact that the status of Polund has. for the better part of two centuries, furnished an accurate gage of the world's moral climate. The cynical erasure of Poland from the map through total partition between the preda- tory states of Russia, Prussia, and Austria, approximately 150 years ugo, set the pattern of that ruthless imperialism with its attend- ant break-down of moral principles in the conduct of international relations which eventually brought on two world wars and the totalitarian wave that today threatens utterly to destroy our civilization. Some years before World War I. a prominent Roman Catholic historlan wrote that, so long as the suppression of the Poheh nation per- sisted, Europe was living in a state of mortal sin which would entail a proportionate ret- ribution. Today, the condition of the Palish people is so much worse than it was in 1974, and is so clearly due to the actions of all the great powers, that it is foolish to delude our- selves into thinking that enduring world peace and security can be built on founda- tions which condone or perpetuate such