A3910 persons are shortsighted. Out of a self- ish motive, they are deliberately aiding in setting up a Washington bureau that will further disable California in its ability to pay higher teachers’ salaries and increase other public school facil- ities. A review of the history of public edu- cation in California will conclusively demonstrate that both the people and the legislature of that State are de- sirous of improving our excellent public schools and increasing teachers’ salaries to where they are fair and reasonable. There are still other persons attached to the California public school system who support S. 246 as a political step- ping stone for themselves. We hear reports that some people in the educa- tion field in California are mouthing falsehoods and half-truths conceived by some of their Washington lobbyists. They are willing to prostitute their prestige for personal political gain, and knowingly make confusing statements on this subject, which is difficult for the average person to understand. To be a demagogic functioning part of such a lobby as a salaried employee in the field of education in California is a situation that I cannot find words to describe. The only conceivable purpose of the provision granting $5.00 per child of school age in S. 246 to States that ad- mittedly can finance their own educa- tion, is to open the door to a selfish lobby in the future. I have received the fol- lowing wire from one of such persons. He is presently the County Superintend- ent of Schools of Kern County, Calif. The wire as received by myself, reads as follows: Aprin 22, 1950, Hon. THomas H. WeERvEL, House Office Building, Washington, D. C.: Two years ago you pledged yourself to sup- port Federal aid to education without Fed-~- eral control. Your single vote in committee defeated S. 246 which did not contain Federal control. I have liked you and your family. Members of my family are your close friends, From my point of view you have not carried through on your pledge to education and I can be satisfied with results only. Passage of the Burke bill will, however, clear your record since you single-handedly defeated 8. 246, You have the obligation of seeing that an adequate Federal aid bill without Federal control is passed into law before honor is restored with Catholics, Masons, teachers, trustees, etc., all opposed to Federal control of education, It is obvious that Federal aid to education can be continued after a history of 165 years’ support with Federal control. JEssz D. Stockton, County Superintendent of Schools, I cite the wire to show how far the National Education Association has gone in organizing the country for political activity. It also demonstrates how they will use elected school officials in the States, who are themselves politically ambitious, to aid in setting up a Wash- ington Bureau intended to accomplish the eventual control and centralization of education in the United States. The wire states that I pledged myself to vote for a particular measure before I was elected. This is false. 8. 246 had not even been drafted at the time I am al- leged to have made the pledge. The State law of California makes the solici- tation of such promises, aS well as the giving of such promises by a candidate, a crime. Perhaps, that is too much to ex- pect the Kern County Superintendent of Schools to know, so I will quote the Cali- fornia law in that regard: Supssec. 5006. Soliciting or giving pledge to vote in specified way on certain prospec- tive measures (acts constituting misde- meanor): Every person is guilty of a mis- demeanor who, elther individually or as an Officer or member of any committee or asso- ciation, solicits or demands of any candidate for the legislature, supervisor, school direc- tor, or for any legislative body, that he vote for or against any particular bill or measure which may come before the body to which he may be elected. Every candidate for any of such offices is guilty of a misdemeanor who signs or gives any pledge that he will vote for or against any particular bill or measure that may be brought before any such body. (Excepted pledge or promise:) The provi- sions of this section do not apply to any pledge or promise that any candidate may give to a convention by which he may be nominated for any such office, or to those who sign a certificate for his nomination. (Enacted 1939.) The wire also insists that in order to salvage my lost honor, I aid in the im- mediate passage of the so-called Burke bill. It is my considered opinion that neither the author of the wire, nor any- one else in America, understood the language of the Burke bill at the time the wire was sent. The only thing that was certain in the Burke bill was that the desires of the CIO and certain ele- ments of the National Education Asso- ciation would be accomplished. For po-~ litical purposes, the bill did earmark about $300,000,000 for school teachers’ salaries. It is a definite deliberate step away from local control of education, It is an expression of National policy that the local school boards will not be fair and reasonable in determining how local school funds for their respective school districts should be expended. The gentleman from the Tenth Dis- trict of Ohio [Mr. Burke] is the author of the Burke bill. The congressional directory discloses his many official con- nections with the United Auto Workers, CIO. The fact that the CIO are actively supporting the gentleman’s bill cannot be denied. In the last sentence of his wire, the Kern County superintendent of schools uses the common tactic of demagog poli- ticians by referring to groups and classes of honorable American citizens to which we all owe and give respect, The fact is that on numerous occasions I have written the Kern County super- intendent of schools, enclosing copies of proposed legislation, expecting to receive comments from him as to how such legislation would affect Kern County, Calif. On those occasions I also antici- pated that I might receive an opinion in the interest of California schools, ex- pressed by a person qualified on the sub- ject. I received few replies. They were expressed in generalities and it now seems clear that even at that time the author of the wire had alined himself with the left-wing invasion which has APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD already taken control of the Democrat central committee in that county. He is apparently willing to dignify their cause by having the title “County Super- intendent of Schools” attached to it. He is apparently willing to participate in their demagoguery by aiding in their programs of falsehoods, half-truths, confusion, corruption, and Federal con- trol. The wire also states that I single- handedly defeated S. 246. This is also false. I am not advised whether the Kern County superintendent of schools knew the statement to be false when he made it or not. It is possible that he was acting on the advice of the power- hungry element of the National Edu- cation Association lobby. The fact is, I could not support S. 246 without amendments to protect California. It is also a fact that, in my opinion, S. 246 was so amended in the House Education and Labor Committee that no person could reasonably support it when the motion was made to vote it out of com- mittee. It is a fact that on March 15 I cast the controlling vote to keep the subject of Federal aid to education open for further discussions in the House committee, including S. 246. I could not support S. 246 in its pres- ent form because it discriminated against California schools as herein- above set forth. I also could not support aid to States who admittedly can finance their own education. Such action, in my opinion, is only requested by pro- ponents of this legislation so that an existing vicious lobby can use it for self- ish political purposes. In my opinion, if the selfish purposes were accom- plished, it would not benefit the school teachers of my State. In this connec- tion, I am also unwilling to participate in a movement by that lobby group to so earmark funds as to take them from under the control of the local school board of trustees. I also oppose any provision which would give money to a State on the basis of children of school age in that State, rather than on the basis of chil- dren actually attending school. The Southern States have enjoyed a long history in our country. They were not always “poor States.” However, in all that history, some of them have not seen fit to pass truancy laws and require a certain degree of education of their chil- dren of school age. I believe that if we handed ten or fifteen million dollars per year to some of the political machines of the Southern States, to be used as they saw fit without truancy laws, we would be creating the very situation that would soon demand Federal control of educa- tion in those States. The demand would come from the other States of the Nation that are paying the bill. The education discussions in the House committee charged with the re- sponsibility of hearing that legislation have been interesting. I am one of those who could not support a requested amendment providing for bus transpor- tation for private schools. I want to make it clear that I do not believe that there were any proponents of such amendments that desired Federal aid to
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD private schools. In fact, I am firmly convinced that those groups that ex- pressed the desire for Federal assistance in transporting children to private schools would actively and strenuously oppose the principle of Federal aid to private schools, as such. However, I could not agree with such groups that transportation to school is an auxiliary service to be rendered to the individual child. I felt that such service would be cumbersome and difficult to render. It would be unreasonably costly. I also felt that adequate teachers’ salaries, play- ground facilities, school buildings, and so forth, could be classified as benefits to the individual child, as well as hot-lunch programs, medical attention, and trans- portation. The question in my mind was: Is bus transportation not only of benefit to the individual child but is it also a benefit to the private school? I felt that it was. I believe that private schools would be developed in the future in reliance upon bus facilities. They would be geographically located for ef- ficiency purposes in reliance upon school transportation facilities supplied by Washington. I believed that a threat of discontinuance of such services in the future, after private schools had oriented themselves to the granted services, would conclusively demonstrate that they would affect the private schools of the future. It is the threat of discontinu- ance of Government hand-outs that leads to eventual Government control and direction. It is my honest opinion that the Fed- eral lunch program and physical and medical examinations extended to chil- dren through school facilities are not education and are not of particular bene- fit to a school so as to alter its economic condition. The transportation amend- ment is to be distinguished from these two services in that it is not only of benefit to the individual child, but it is a definite economic benefit to private schcol education, and could not help but alter the financial policies and school plans of such schools. Mr. Speaker, I am one of three Mem- bers of this House who introduced iden- tical bills providing for Federal aid to needy States. The number of my bill is H. R. 7221. It has been before the Committee on Education and Labor, but no appreciable time was allotted by the chairman for its consideration. That bill is free of the following objectionable features of Senate bill 246: First. It does not grant aid to areas of the United States which admittedly do not need such aid. It grants aid in pro- portion to the respective States’ efforts to aid themselves. Second. It covers all States whenever the income of the States falls so low that such States cannot finance a minimum standard of education by spending that percentage of their State income spent on the average by the other States of the Nation. It, therefore, would not lead to greater and greater Federal control. The respective State departments of educa- tion would have complete control of the funds. Third. H. R. 7221 is not both unfair and dishonest as is Senate bill 246. It is an honest proposal. According to its avowed purposes, it would distribute money only to those States that are put forward as indigent cases. In this con- nection, Senate bill 246 rests on the same purpose by way of argument, but by its language it takes from all of the States and gives back to all of the States. Senate bill 246, therefore, runs up a heavy bureaucratic expense and thus demon- strates that its proponents want an over~ all distribution so as to eventually exer- cise over-all control. Fourth. H. R. 7221 is not a group pressure movement. Although in fact it accomplishes the purposes expressed Nation-wide by the National Education Association, it is not supported by that lobby. There is no probability under this bill that the powers of local school trustees would ever be curtailed by ear- marking the funds for the purposes of some lobby. Fifth. The bill would adequately finance the needy States at a total cost of only $120,000,000. The principles ex- pressed in the bill would not require or permit the appropriation to grow into billions in a few years. There is noth- ing in the bill to induce proponents to grow bolder. Sixth. Instead of undermining State responsibility and encouraging indiffer- ence at the local level, H. R. 7221 actu- ally stimulates local responsibility and effort. Seventh. By its formula, it only gives aid to the respective needy States on the basis of children actually attending school, as distinguished from grants for all children in the State of school age. This provision would stimulate the re- spective States to require the attendance in school of the children of those needy States. The bill I introduced admits that the inability to give adequate education in low-income areas of the country creates a national problem. It admits that the State of California has an obligation of about $9,000,000 per year in that regard, But it saves $13,000,000 a year of Cali- fornia income to be expended in that State as its citizens might desire. I want to point out again that I believe the Federal Government, by its policies, is bleeding the States of the Nation white. Consumers in the low-income areas of our country are paying exorbi- tant taxes, collected by the producers of automobiles, washing machines, and even food that poor families must eat. I believe the whole necessity of Federal aid to education could be alleviated by a change in those spending policies. The adoption of all of the Hoover Commis- sion recommendations and the effective use of the Hoover Commission plans by the administration would save the Na- tion at least $2,225,000,000. If Congress believes that all of the States or any of them is unable finan- cially to provide an adequate system of public education, then there is a way that Congress can help. It would be more effective than through any Fed- eral-aid-to-education bill providing for $300,000,000 to be distributed among the States. For instance, it is estimated that S, 246 would provide $11,708,000 to A3911 the State of Arkansas; it is one of the poor States. Of this appropriation, Ar- kansas taxpayers would contribute $1,- 716,000. Thus, Arkansas would gain about $9,992,000 at the expense of tax- payers of other States, including Cali- fornia. There is a much better way to help Arkansas, California, and all of the other States, too. It is a very simple method, except that it might cost this administration some votes. The Hoover Commission reports can be adopted and honestly put into effect by this adminis- tration. We could also save the entire Nation over $2,225,000,000 in Govern- ment payroll alone. This saving to Ar- kansas taxpayers would be approxi- mately $14,000,000. Arkansas could then increase her own State support to education by that amount, which is over $4,000,060 more than the Washington planners intended to give her from my State and the other so-called rich States. This would not put any greater burden upon Arkansas than it now has and it would put no burden whatever on tax~ payers of the other States. Certainly, there would be no threat of further cen- - tralization of education. If this policy could be adopted, then California would not pay in an additional $22,000,000 as required under S. 246, but she would ac- tually be taxed $267,000,000 Jess than she - is at the present time. California then could raise that.amount without any ad- ditional burden on the standard of living of her people and build her own recla- mation projects comparable to Central Valley, or, she could enter upon some other projects deemed by the local peo- ple to be in the general welfare. I, of course, msist that this is the right way for Congress to help my State and at the same time, help the States of low income. As I have heretofore pointed out, California is now paying $2,955,909,545 a year to the Federal Gov- ernment. Of that, she gets back about 12 percent. S. 246 provides that the Federal Government take still more from Cali- fornia and give back only about 32 per- cent. Mr. Speaker, what would we think of a doctor who drained three pints of blood from a man already weak, and then ex- claimed, “Why, you look anemic. I am sorry for you. You need aid. I am going to give you a transfusion of a pint of blood from my plasma bank.” Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe that the first step in solving some of our so- called minority problems is to insure available education facilities so that free men have a full opportunity to demon- strate their individual excellence. I be- lieve that the “gimme mine” philosophies of the pressure groups that made this administration possible have forced upon our country a spending program that is unjustifiable. If our country survives, it will be looked upon as scandalous. That political program of tax and spend forces producers of necessities to act as tax col- lection agents for the Federal Govern- ment in the areas of our country that have low incomes. Under those circum- stances, I not only believe that a lack of education in those areas is a national problem, but I submit to you that it is obvious this situation has been created
A3912 in the well of this House and in the other body by the tax-and-spend program of this administration and its predecessor. The pressure groups have provided a compass, now being used by this admin- istration’s ship of State—the four points of that compass are well marked; they point in all four directions—to Govern- ment confusion, corruption, communism, and control. The prophecies of Andrew Jackson are coming true. Government policies of cheap money and low interest rates have destroyed the effectiveness of private- school endowments. High income taxes and high inheritance taxes have also greatly shrunk the sources from which gifts for private schools have heretofore come. A threat of Federal control and centralization of public-school education heretofore operated by local cities, towns, and school boards is a justifiable warn- ing to the fathers and mothers of over 2,600,000 children annually attending private elementary and secondary schools. There are those in the educa- tion field who even desire to extend Washington subsidies and controls to junior colleges and colleges. It is poor deception for the drafters of legislation to put a clause in a subsidy bill providing for no Federal control as was done in Senate bill 246. The lan- guage of the bill, delegating and with- holding powers, is the controlling fea-~ ture. We have only recently received a Supreme Court decision in that regard. When farmers accepted subsidies they also got controls; when some of them objected to the controls a test case went to the Supreme Court. Justice Jackson ruled: “It is hardly lack of due process for the Government to regulate that which it subsidizes.” Mr. Speaker, in closing, I desire to quote a portion of the remarks of the gentleman from New York, the Honor~ . able Ratpx W. Gwinn, found in the Con-= GRESSIONAL ReEcorp for Saturday, July 26, 1947. In those remarks, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gwinn] ably ex- presses his conclusions in regard to the lobby now desiring to mold the Federal aid to education bill. Those remarks are as follows: In this connection, it is most enlightening to see how the lobby works and also to see revealed in its public statements the char- acter of the people who expect to control the vast money power of Federal aid and control when and it if is ever granted. The principal registered lobbyist for Fed- eral aid is the National Education Associa- tion. It has a membership of 386,643 paying dues for the year ending May 31, 1947, of $1,138,100. Their headquarters and person-~ nel are greater than the Republican and Democratic Party headquarters combined. It is one ‘of the most active power lobbies in Washington and has been for many years. Through its Journal, of national circulation among teachers, it announces: “Arrangements have been made to throw every resource of the NEA [National Educa~ tion Association] back of the campaign for Federal aid to education.” (NEA Journal, February 1943, p. 35.) “Activities [summarized] of the Director {Howard A. Dawson, director of rural edu- cation, NEA], in behalf of this bill [the Har- rison-Black-Fletcher bill, 1937] as follows: Conducted negotiations for sponsorship and introduction of the bill in both Houses, through executive secretaries of State educa~ tion associations and State chairman of the legislative commission arranged for con- trolling of candidates for Congress, for the United States Senate, and for governor in a majority of the States.’ (NEA convention board, Cleveland, 1987 report, p. 946.) The lobby speaks again: “We have powerful friends in Congress, * * * The power of the organized teach- ine mnvafoccion has but begun to find ex- rx cstecg I predict that before next No- vember 7 (election date) there will be many people in the Nation aware that the school children of America have a voice of justice and equity as well as a voice of power and of influence.” (Dr. Heward A. Dawson, Con- GRESSIONAL Recorp, 1944, p. A4258.) Its Journal constantly hammers away for federalization, as follows: “October is an important month for the campaign on behalf of S. 637-H. R. 2849, because it is the month before election. * * + Candidates who oppose this legis- lation or who are indifferent to the public schools should be defeated wherever pos- sible.’ (NEA Journal, September 1945.) We observe that whether the year be 1937, 1948, 1944, or 1945, the partisanship and in- timidation remained the same. Who be- lieves that this self-righteous and haughty spirit might change in 1948 or any other future year when the will of this organized minority of “benevolent” seekers after good- ness through Federal compulsion, exercised py Federal bureaucrats, has been imposed upon American education? Imagine them as the educational controllers in Washington dishing out billions and staying content to exercise “no control.” Imagine them as ad- ministrators of Federal education changing into bureaucratic lambs that would never think of encroaching upon the rights of free citizens to run their own schools, administer their own funds, and control the education of their own children in their own com- munities, Then imagine what will happen when a million school teachers, tens of thousands of janitors and assistants, all educational personnel, have become the direct benefici- aries of appropriations which they might get by such organized pressure politics. Will they not quite generally support the candi- dates for Congress who make the biggest promises? Each succeeding election our Central Government will become more nearly controlled by employees and beneficiaries from appropriations, It is the vicious circle of statism. Add to the present 2,000,000 Federal employees a million Government- controlled or influenced teachers and public- school personnel. Then add a million ten- ants in the proposed Federal public housing, and you have attained the socialized state, which you will probably have to keep indefi- nitely. In the face of such a way of feeling and thinking, it is imperative that we remind ourselves of the brutal truth that the modern state today everywhere is killing off a free society. Wherever the government legislates and appropriates it curtails and extinguishes still another realm of personal and com- munal liberty, responsibility, and economic capacity. In all languages and among all peoples, big government, however created, means less freedom. The nation is always taken over, not by the good but by the roughest and toughest when the one-party overpowering police state is finally organized. We should constantly remember that in our country, until now, two areas of the human spirit have been left alone by our Central Government. Two areas have been left free in which the citizens themselves have governed—namely, their religious insti- tutions and their free schools. Protecting the religious area there is the specific provi- sions Of the Constitution itself, forbidding the Government to make any laws restrict ing freedom in religious matters. Above any APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD law of the state, man’s obligation and loyalty to God stand. Having thus safeguarded the religious freedom by explicit language, our Constitu- tion proceeds to treat Federal interference in education with a dignified and eloquent si- lence. This silence reflects the fundamental faith of the early American Government in its free citizens as the proud and responsible custodians of their children’s education, Until now the individual States, their legis- latures, counties, towns, and cities have stood fast in the maintenance of their constitu. tional liberty against each encroachment by Federal authority in the field of education, Since this is an established fact the insidi-« ous pressure groups demanding the uncons- stitutional interference with local self-gov-~ ernment of schools, based upon local support and responsibility, stand revealed as being unauthorized and unrecognized by any po- litical subdivision of any of the States. They must be stopped. They must he stopped by a growing passion for self-govern- ment and by a resulting fear of the power and propaganda of the Federal Government. Modern history proves with tragic clarity that where a nation’s education is placed under a federally controlled system, freedom dies out. May the Federal Bureau of Edu- cation never become the Federal Commissar of Education in America. In the light of the remarks of the gen- tleman from New York [Mr. Gwinv], it is apparent why H. R. 7221, introduced in this Congress by myself, and other legislation properly confining aid to the areas that need it, have not had consid- eration. To my knowledge, none of the States of this Nation have asked for Fed- eral aid. The proponents of this subject are the above-mentioned lobby and other spending pressure groups. They do not want permanent legislation covering all States of the Nation when either at the present time or in the future, they need reasonable assistance for adequate edu- cation. They are not content to retain what we have and improve upon it, They want to destroy and recreate. Such action is vulgar in its conception and perilous in its execution. Milk for the Kiddies EXTENSION OF REMARKS fo) HON. FRED MARSHALL OF MINNESOTA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 23, 1950 Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to the attention of the House an editorial written by Alfred D. Stedman, in the St. Paul Sunday Pioneer Press of May 21, 1950. What Mr. Sted- man says is important to every person in Washington, as well as every Member of Congress: MiILK ror THE Kipprms (By Alfred D. Stedman) Unless things have improved mighty fast lately in Washington, it is not far from the spreading sycamores that shade the Capitol approach to sights that are by contrast piti- ful. The limousines with their coats of arms, bearing high-ups and their ladies southward to yacht landings for a holiday sail on the broad Potomac, must indeed be skillfully chauffeured to miss the slums.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD And now a question arises as to how many of the kiddies, white or black, in those teem~ ing, tumbledown tenements, are coming up to minimum health requirements in milk to crink. Having too little else that goes along with sanitary and healthy living, often not even decent water closets, these myriads of youngsters or their parents don’t have money to buy a lot of nature’s finest food. All Americans, rich, poor, and medium, are averaging only half of health needs. Thus hordes of people in seaboard cities are a vast potential dairy market. Washington there- fore symbolizes one side of a two-sided story. The other side is that Midwest dairying is crying for bigger markets for milk and cream. We would like to sell in seaboard cities pay- ing twice the price in ottlying areas here. But we’re barred—barred not just by freight or other actual, legitimate cost differences, but by legal and artificial and misused sani- tary barriers that amount to tariff walls. But why pick on Washington that, after all, is only one among many seaboard markets? Well, for one thing it’s the National Capital we're talking about. There if anywhere Americans might expect that commerce would be free. Also Washington’s city coun- cil is the National Congress. So people “out in the sticks’ can properly have some say about what goes on there. Further, the Congress operates under the Constitution. And the Constitution happens explicitly to forbid the imposition internally of import and export exclusions of commerce among States. And now a geographic tariff wall has been put around Washington’s surrounding dairy area in Virginia, Maryland, and nearby Penn- sylvania and West Virginia in a very simple way. This is done by prohibiting milk and cream shipments from outside that area after July 1, or until further notice beyond that date. That’s the effect, by the District health officer’s own statement to this writer, of ac- tion he has taken under sweeping powers conveyed on him by Congress. His order effectively bars milk and cream shipmenis from outside of Washington’s inspection area. The exclusion operates absolutely ir- respective of compliance of outside ship- ments by areas designated by the United States Department of Agriculture with qual- ity requirements of State boards of health— requirements officially recorded as previously acceptable to Washington health authorities. The Washington trade barrier is a sample of the walls being erected by municipal and State regulations, now being increasingly fortified by Federal milk price orders in sea- board cities. A camouflaged import duty is now even levied upon distant shipments into New York City—a penalty assessed and paid into the market fund and explained as being necessary to equalize costs of distant ship- ments purchased at a bargain. ~ And while such tariff-like barriers are being raised around seaboard centers against Midwest milk, other tariff actions of an in- ternational nature impend in Washington, where expiration of United States import licensing authority and a 50-percent cut in the 14-cents-a-pound butter import rates are scheduled for June 30. Thus while doors are being closed and walls raised to reduce milk and cream ship- ments to seaboard cities from the Midwest, the barriers are being lowered to allow more dairy imports into the United States from other countries. So we’re doubly on the short end. But someone asks whether the eastern cities’ high prices behind their barriers really affect us much after all, since the freight rate on milk of around $2 a hun- dredweight fully covers usual price differ- ences between here and Washington or New York, so we couldn’t ship there anyway. The answer is that those things do affect ‘us in vital ways. One is that, except for the barriers, cream could be shipped even at the present freight costs from many points in- cluding here at a profit, and a sharp cut in freight rates is pending. Also means of con- centrating frozen milk as well as cream are on the way. More importantly, the eastern high prices serve as a brake on milk consumption there. Also, they attract sales of our dairy cows out of this area. With the huge production of milk generally per cow, that means a large volume of milk both here and at seaboard. Then the barriers there back up milk close outside. That in turn piles up and so on progressively until there’s a huge supply of Midwest milk and cream to go into cheese and butter, And then the Government's flat price support system on butter works out to hand over more and more of that market to seaboard, thus completing the disruption of Midwest dairying. In describing a New York State dairy pro- motion campaign, Jacob Pratt, president of Milk for Health, Inc., of Syracuse, has writ- ten, “There’s one liquid shortage New York- ers aren’t worrying about. That’s a milk one. For the 70,000 dairymen of the New York milkshed find themselves with quite the opposite situation. Their cows are pro- ducing more and more milk. But people aren’t drinking up the increased production. Rather they’re not even consuming as much milk as in the past. So while the New York State consumers haven’t a milk shortage to disturb them, the producers have an over- supply that wrinkles their brows. These pro- ducers could and have disposed of a large amount of milk to manufacture cheese, but- ter, and other dairy products. But this gives them less money than by selling it in fluid form.” So there’s a dramatic demonstration right out of New York State as to how the Rast’s milk is backing up. The Midwest in the critical flush period ahead is sure to take the brunt of the effects when the backing-up proceeds far enough. But the Midwest has weapons to do some= thing to rectify this situation, if it wishes touse them. We have some good dairy farm- ers in both the Senate and House of Congress, Washington’s city council. Also the Con- stitution happens to give the United States Supreme Court original jurisdiction in con- stitutional questions in which States are par= ties. So, if the Midwest should want to start @ legal fight to knock out State, municipal, and District of Columbia tariff walls, the way should be open to take the case right to the highest tribunal without the usual tor- tuous appellate processes. Some of our Midwest States’ dairy officials might try bringing the legal question to a head by selling some of our approved and inspected grade A milk and cream on the streets of Washington or New York or Boston to folks who don’t feel able to pay eastern prices. Or maybe better ways than that could be found to bring the milk tariff walls tumbling down and to get some more milk into the stomachs of the hungry kiddies. That Part of a Minister’s Compensation Paid in Lieu of Furnishing Him a Dwelling Should Be Tax-Exempt EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JAMES E. VAN ZANDT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 23, 1950 Mr. VAN ZANDT. Mr. Speaker, on April 25 I introduced H. R. 8405, a bill A3913 to amend section 22 of the Internal Rey- enue Code, which has been referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Under existing law, the rental value of a dwelling house and appurtenances thereof furnished to a minister of the gospel as part of his compensation is excluded from taxable gross income. Prior to the addition of this exclusion such rental value was considered part of a clergyman’s income and was consid- ered as cash and taxable. In 1942 a Federal income-tax ruling provided that despite the exclusion of the rental value of a dwelling house ac- tually furnished “allowances to a clergy- man given in lieu of providing him with a@ parsonage are not so exempt.” In my opinion the present income- tax law with respect to tax on a muimis- ter's dwelling represents inequality and should be amendec to include exemp- tion from gross income the rental money given a clergyman in lieu of actually furnishing him a dwelling house. My bill, H. R. 8405, will end this dis- crimination and will help hard-pressed ministers of all faiths. I am hopeful that Congress will realize the justice in approving this legislation. Suminary of Progress in Housing in Connecticut EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. WILLIAM BENTON . OF CONNECTICUT IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 23 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. BENTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have inserted in the Appendix of the Rrcorp a letter by Hon. George E. Carr, chairman of the Connecticut State Housing Authority, which appeared in the Hartford Courant on May 18,1950. Jn this letter Mr. Carr gives a brief summary of the outstand-~ ing housing program which has been carried on by the Connecticut State Housing Authority under the direction of Gov, Chester Bowles. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Recor», as follows: SUMMaRY OF PROGRESS BY STATE HousiING AUTHORITY To the Eprror oF THE COURANT: Mr. Howard Hayes, in a letter printed in the Courant Sunday, May 7, puts forth the interesting thesis that the reason we need rent control in Connecticut is that the Con~ necticut State Housing Authority is not functioning as it should. Since the present State housing program calls for construction of a total of 10,000 family units and most experts agree there is a shortage of about 70,000 family units in the State, it is obvious that even when com-~ pleted, the State housing program will not solve the housing problem for the whole State. It is, however, providing substantial relief to the problems of some 10,000 families. Mr. Hayes makes a great point of the fact Governor Bowles had proposed a housing
A3914 program to build 56,000 homes, but the housing authority has not produced them. He does not mention the fact that the Re-~ publicans controlling the house of repre- sentatives in the general assembly refused to adopt that proposed program and that the present 10,000-unit program represents the bipartisan compromise program finally approved by both Republicans and Demo- crats in the legislature. In his letter Mr. Hayes seeks to give the impression the Connecticut State Housing Authority has made no progress in pushing forward the State housing program. Let’s take a look at the record: ' Last July, when the present State housing authority took over the expanded moderate rental housing program, 168 units were oc- cupied after 2 years of operating the pro- gram, 1,821 units were under construction, and 170 units were ready to go into con~ struction. Now, 10 months after the pres- ent staff took over the program, more than 70 percent of the units then under con-~ struction are completed—approximately 5,800 persons are living in 1,455 family units. Nearly 3,000 units are under con-~ struction with occupancy schedules set up to provide homes as quickly as possible, a total of 2,206 units have gone under con~ struction since July. Another 1,500 units are slated to go into construction in May and June. More than $63,000,000 of the $65,000,000 available for moderate rental housing is under signed assistance agree- ments with local housing authorities, as contrasted with about $21,000,000 under signed assistance agre2ment last July of the $45,000,000 then available, ‘The reorgan- ized State housing authority has speeded up progress on the moderate rental program all along the line by working more closely with the local housing authorities. The other facet of the Connecticut housing program, the home-ownership program, was enacted by the 1949 general assembly. When the present State housing authority took over last July, this program was still just a section of the statutes. Since that time, the program has been set up completely, regu- lations drawn up, staff assembled, State loan correspondents appointed, applications proc- essed and certificates of eligibility issued, and puilders and prospective home buyers in- formed of the working of the program. Nearly 7,500 certificates of eligibility for State mortgage loans have heen issued, Loans to 164 individual home buyers have been approved, loans to operative builders for construction of 388 houses have been ap- proved, and application for loans from hun- dreds of eligible families and several large- scale operative builders now are being proc- essed. The home ownership program, as the pbuilding season reaches its height, is acceler- ating at a rate that makes it seems probable that most of the $30,000,000 available for State mortgage loans will be committed by the middle of the summer. I think this record is an enviable one and @ record in which every citizen of the State ean take pride. I do agree with Mr. Hayes that the Connecticut housing program will not eliminate the need for rent control, but I think it is essential to point out that the 10,000 homes to be provided under the pro- gram will represent a sizable move toward relieving the hardship and actual suffering the housing shortage is causing. Rents paid by families living in moderate rental housing projects and the 114 percent interest paid by families obtaining State mortgage loans on new homes will pay back, with interest, the money borrowed by the State of Connecticut to finance these pro- grams and other expenses of Operating the programs. GrorGe E. Carr, Chairman, Connecticut State Hous- ing Authority. Hartrorp. The Public Right EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. FORREST C. DONNELL OF MISSOURI IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 23 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr, DONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an editorial entitled “‘The Public Right,” published in the Greenville (S. C.) News of May 12, 1950. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: Tre Pusric RicHr It is of course not surprising that the bill by Senator DonwneLL of Missouri to prohibit railroad strikes is bitterly opposed by spokes-~ men for the railroad unions. But it must be said that this country needs a more effective policy than it now has to protect the vital public interest in unin- terrupted operation of such indispensable utility services. Spokesmen for railroad executives have appeared before the Senate Labor Subcom~ mittee in favor of this measure which would compel settlement of such disputes by arbi~ tration. And it is significant that one of these witnesses admitted that the railroad managements would not have approved compulsory arbitration some years ago. He pointed out that while both railway management and labor realized that the recommendation of Presidential boards, un~ der the Railway Labor Act, were not binding, both sides formerly believed that railway strikes were “unthinkable.” It thus was generally accepted that the processes of the law in effect prevented railway strikes be~ cause of the willingness of both sides to abide by these methods of getting settlement of disputes without a strike. But the labor groups no longer have that view, the witness said, and more definitely compulsive legislation is necessary. And it is a logical position, we think, that where absolutely essential public utility services are involved, if both sides will not voluntarily abide by these legal processes to settle disputes without a strike, the public interests demands a definite require- ment for settlement by fair process of arbi- tration when negotiations fail to bring agreement. Such a public policy now clearly seems in order not only as to railroads but to other public utility services actually essential to public welfare. With respect to these serv- ices it is the right of the public to demand that disputes must be settled without pe- nalizing the people. Maintenance of Peace in the Middle East EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ANTHONY F. TAURIELLO OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 23, 1950 Mr. TAURIELLO. Mr. Speaker, un- der leave to extend my remarks in the APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Recorp, I include the following letter and resolution: HIANTITA GROUP OF THE PIONEER WOMEN, Buffalo, N. Y., May 19, 1950. President Harry S, TRUMAN, White House, Washington, D.C. DE4R MR, PRESIDENT: I respectfully forward the enclosed resolution which was unani- mously adopted at a recent meeting of the Hanita Group of Pioneer Women of Buffalo, N.Y. We hope you will give this matter favorable consideration. Sincerely yours, LORETTA ROGERS, President, Hanita Group of Pioneer Women, RESOLUTION Whereas it is known from reliable sources that arms of a quality and quantity indi- cating intended use beyond the purpose of internal security are being supplied to the Arab states in the Middle East, most particu- larly to Egypt, by Great Britain; and Whereas this Arab rearmament by Great Britain has the acknowledged approval of the United States Government; and Whereas at the same time Great Britain has denied Israel arms for its defense; and Whereas the Arab League has proclaimed its intention to organize a united economic and Military front of all Arab states against the struggling State of Israel; and Whereas we are convinced of the genuine concern of the United States for the peace and security of the Middle East: Therefore be it Resolved, That we, the Hanita Group of Pioneer Women, in meeting in Buffalo, N. Y., on May 17, 1950, do call upon the United States to implement its proclaimed concern and desire for peace in the Middle East by providing Israel with arms to defend itself thus lending its strong influence to the main- tenance of peace in the Middle East. The officers of the Hanita Group of Pioneer Wom- en are instructed to forward this resolution to President Harry S, Truman. President Truman’s Dream Was Jefferson’s Nightmare EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. JAMES P. KEM OF MISSOURI IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 23 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. KEM. Mr. President, I ask unani- mous consent to have printed in the Ap- pendix of the Recorp an editorial entitled “President Truman’s Dream Was Jef- ferson’s Nightmare,” published in the Richmond (Va.) Times-Dispatch of May 17, 1950. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Presipent TROUMAN’s DREAM WAS JEFFERSON’S NIGHTMARE “We are a party that is not afraid to dream,” President Truman told his Jefferson jubilee audience in Chicago Monday night. This popular note drew applause. This was the sort of talk people like to hear, as those who composed that theme song for Mr. Truman knew only too well. The President’s summary of the over-all political-economic philosophy of the Fair
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Deal was accurate. Much of it is such stuff as dreams are made on. A dream is a series of thoughts, images, and emotions occurring during sleep. If it is pleasantly optimistic, we hate to be rudely awakened. Mr. Truman wants everybody to feel con- fident that everything will come out ail right. He tells us not to worry. Just let “the Government” take care of everything, and everything will be just fine. But it is impossible for a people, who are normally skeptical when awake, to keep on dreaming forever. A sporific is indicated. A narcotic, like opium, which in time be- comes habit-forming, and causes the pa- tients to call for more of the same utopian stuff in increasing doses, until like con- firmed drug addicts, they become moral im- beciles, their will power shattered, maudlin slaves to the master’s will. The ultimate result is what an eminent Presbyterian minister denounced as “state idolatry.” The Reverend Harrison R. Ander- son earnestly implored Mr. Truman to “quit playing with the truth.” Apparently Mr. Truman failed to listen in on Mr. Ander- son’s sermon, for the very next day, he opened the big wind-up speech of his nonpolitical tour with the following words: “The American people have chosen our party as their instrument to create the kind of Nation Jefferson dreamed of.” It is true that the great Virginian, with almost clairvoyant power, foresaw the kind of Nation Mr. Truman would make of us. “I see with the deepest affliction,” he wrote, “the rapid strides with which the Federal branch of our Government is advancing to- ward * * * the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic. * * * The multiplication of public offices, increase of expense beyond income, growth, and en- tailment of the public debt * * * (these) are indications soliciting the employment of @ pruning knife.” Yet those who would wield the pruning knife are condemned by Mr. Truman as “packward-looking obstructionists.” And the Fair Dealers had the consummate gall to advertise that Chicago rally as the Jefferson Jubilee. Any Other Way? EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. FORREST C. DONNELL OF MISSOURI IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 23 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. DONNELL. Mr. Fresident, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an editorial entitled “Any Other Way?” published in the Petersburg (Va.) Progress-Index of May 12, 1950. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Rrecorp, as follows: Any OTHER War? The strike of locomotive firemen which is paralyzing four major railway systems has the marks of an unnecessary and a poten- tially disastrous affair, The featherbedding which is the basic is- sue in the fremen’s demands makes no ap< peal to public sympathy, nor are the railroads generally in.a financial position which per- mits them to engage in uneconomic practices in order to avoid trouble. A public which is already paying a high price for rail trans~ portation should look with no favor on the creation of unnecessary jobs which would force rates higher or at least operate against eventual reduction. With the railway mediation board having abandoned the case as hopeless, and with doubt existing that the President could, if he would, take emergency action to restore service, no end is in sight for the strike. It is entirely legal. It could be contagious, in which event it would, play havoe with the Nation’s economy. Such results would be bad enough at any time, and they are made intolerable by the present tenseness of the world situation. Consequently Senator DoNnNet’s bill to outlaw railroad strikes by establishing com- pulsory arbitration, under which both parties would have to abide by the decision of a Presidential board in case of major disputes, has more appeal than it otherwise would have. Compulsory arbitration has not been looked upon with favor in the United States, but in instances where the public interest is directly affected the slugging-it-out or sitting-it-out processes cannot be accepted as normal. Since neither side likes the idea of compulsory arbitration the existence of such a law should make for a more reasonable spirit at the bargaining table. Maintenance of Peace in the Middle East EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ANTHONY F. TAURIELLO OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 23, 1950 Mr. TAURIELLO. Mr. Speaker, un- der leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following letter and resolution: AMERICAN ZIONIST COUNCIL, BUFFALO COMMITTEE, Buffalo, N. Y., May 19, 1950. President Harry S. TRUMAN, White House, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. PRESIDENT: I respectfully forward the enclosed resolution which was unani- mously adopted at a recent meeting of the Buffalo Zionist Council. We hope you will give this matter favorable consideration. Sincerely yours, Davip REFER, Chairman, Buffalo Zionist Council. RESOLUTION Whereas it is known from reliable sources that arms of a quality and quantity indicat- ing intended use beyond the purpose of inter- nal security are being supplied to the Arab States in the Middle East, most particular- ly to Egypt, by Great Britain; and Whereas this Arab rearmament by Great Britain has the acknowledged approval of the United States Government; and Whereas, at the same time, Great Britain has denied Israel arms for its defense; and Whereas the Arab League has proclaimed its intention to organize a united economic and military front of all Arab States against the struggling State of Isracl; and Whereas we are convinced of the genuine concern of the United States for the peace and security of the Middle East; Therefore be it Resolved, That we, the Buffalo Zionist Council, do call upon the United States to implement its proclaimed concern and de~ sire for peace in the Middle East by provid- ing Israel with arms to defend itself thus A3915 lending its strong influence to the mainte- mance of peace in the Middle Hast. The of= ficers of the Buffalo Zionist Council are in structed to forward this resolution to Pres- ident Harry S. Truman. Opinion on McCarthy Splits Along Party Lines EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JAY LeFEVRE OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 23, 1950 Mr. LeFEVRE. Mr. Speaker, under unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include an article taken from last evening’s New York World- Telegram. Mr. Speaker, I was back in my district over the week end and I was surprised to find so many people ready to offer their opinions on Senator McCartuy’s charges against the Department of State. Not long ago, some letters from constituents would indicate that some felt that Senator McCartuy’s charges were only an effort on the part of the Senator to seek publicity. The major- ity of the people today are taking this matter more seriously and very definitely let you know they are for investigating all Government departments if it is nec- essary to rid Government agencies of subversive elements. With this much background on the subject, I think the following article bears out the situation as I have found it among my own con- stituents: OPINION ON McCarry Spirits ALONG Party Lives-—~Democrats Diviwep, REPUBLICANS Votre 2 To 1 THAT CHARGES ARE HEALTHY (By George Gallup, director, American In- stitute of Public Opinion) What you think of Senator JosepH Mc- CartTuy’s charges against the State Depart- ment is likely to depend to a great extent on whether you are a Democrat or Republican. A Nation-wide opinion survey by the insti- tute finds that Democrats who have heard or read about the charges are evenly divided in their opinion as to whether they are a good thing or a bad thing for the country. Republicans, on the other hand, by a 2-to-1 ratio, think the airing of the McCarTHy charges has been a good thing. More than 8 out of every 10 persons (84 percent) questioned in the survey said they were acquainted with the Wisconsin Sena- tor’s charges. In comparison with the pub- lic’s knowledge of other national topics, this is a high proportion. The McCartuy affair has many ramifica- tions, with his supporters saying that the Federal Government has been lax about Com- munists while his critics say the McCartTHy charges are fantastic, are handicapping our conduct of foreign affairs and playing into the hands of Russia. Anti-McCarrHy forces also declare that the issue is not so much whether there were Communists in the State Department as it is whether the number there was any greater than in any other Government department of comparable size, or in private business ore ganizations employing as many people. While the average American has no first- hand knowledge of the situation regarding Communists in Government, he can pass
A3916 judgment on the question of whether Sena- tor McCarTHy’s charges are doing more harm than good. That question was put to voters in the in- stitute survey in the following manner: “Some people say these charges are doing the country more harm than good. What do you think?” Here is the national vote: Percent Harm_._..-------..---------~-------- = 29 Good_.-.---- 39 No opinion 16 Haven't heard of charges__.-_.--------- 16 The sharp difference of opinion according to political affiliation is seen in the following vote of persons who, in answer to another question on the survey ballot, classify them- selves as either Democrats or Republicans. et Repub- | Demo- licans crats Percent | Percent 22 33 50 35 45 14 13 18 —_——_ The survey is the first test of national sen= timent on the McCarthy charges. Among college-trained persons inter- viewed, 41 percent said they thought the McCarthy charges are harmful, while 46 per- cent said they are a good thing, and 11 per- cent gave no opinion, leaving 2 percent who had not heard of the charges at the time of the survey. It Goes Right to White House EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. FORREST C. DONNELL OF MISSOURI IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 23 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Rzecorp an editorial en~- titled “It Goes Right to White House,” published in the Muncie (Ind.) Star of May 12, 1950. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: Ir Gots Ricur tro Wits House The railroad firemen’s strike is a perfect example of the dangerous monopoly powers exercised by many labor unions. In the in- terest of the general welfare these powers must be restricted. But we shall have to look elsewhere than President Truman for relief. He is afraid of losing votes if he acts to protect the general welfare, as he is sworn to do. The firemen’s brotherhood is striking for a third man on multiple-unit Diesel locomo- tives. Two Presidential fact-finding boards, functioning under the Railway Labor Act, have found no justice whatever in this de- mand and have rejected it. Therefore the firemen are really just try= ing to featherbed the Diesels. To gain their end they are using their power to strangle the economy of large sections of the country and to cause widespread public suffering. The Railway Labor Act was once regarded as a model of its kind. It worked well for many years. But the indulgences of Presi< dents Roosevelt and Truman undermined the Railway Labor Act, When a brotherhood didn’t get exactly what it wanted from a Presidential fact-finding board it struck, and then got what it wanted from the Presi- dent. The situation has now reached the point where a union is willing to paralyze the economy in order to win a featherbed- ding demand. That is what happens when Presidents are more interested in votes than in the general welfare. Properly administered, the Railway Labor Act probably would still work. But it won’t be properly administered under Mr. ‘Truman. New legislation is therefore needed to pro- tect the American public f-om disastrous railway tie-ups. Lither trere must be real compulsory arbitration to prevent the unions from high-handedly rejecting the rulings of mediation boards and calling a strike, or the unions must be shorn of their power to strike whole networks of railroads vital to a region’s economy. Relief can come only through a public demand which will convince Congress that Mr. Truman is wrong wen he thinks irresponsible strikes win votes. Communism Feeds on the Absence of Reforms EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ARTHUR G. KLEIN OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 23, 1950 Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Speaker, under leave I am inserting in the ConcressIoNaL REc- orp the text of a recent address by Del- bert Clark of the New York Times who, in his usual incisive way, says a great many things that I have been saying for a long timé; but I confess that fre- quently he says them better. Delbert Clark will be remembered as the brilliant New York Times corres- pondent in occupied Germany who, for several years, was the vocal conscience of our military authorities, and who re- peatedly and mercilessly exposed the failure of the denazification and decar- telization programs. I wish that he were still performing that function in Germany, where his voice is greatly needed. I have made two minor dele- tions out of deference to the rule of comity; the remainder of his address fol- lows as reproduced by the Times: DEMOCRACY ON THE DEFENSIVE (By Delbert Clark, director of educational activities) There are now, and have been for a long time, substantial groups in the United States who wish to change our familiar society from what it has been to something quite different. Their influence rises and falls in direct ratio to the rise and fall of tension in interna- tional relations and in domestic economics. These groups divide, roughly, into Com- munist and Fascist, and they are not always easy to identify. But they all have one aim in common—the substantive alteration of the institutions which have made America great and prosperous. Between these extremes of right and left, both hostile to American ideals, are the rest of us, the vast majority. Most of us advo~ cate no substantial change, nor any change at all. Our one great desire is to continue more or less intact the forms and principles to which we have become accustomed over a century and a half, because they are com~ fortable and generally satisfactory. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD But among us there are some, @ relative few by comparison, whose background, edu- cation, and general view of community life impel them to think more in terms of “the general welfare” than the rest of us. These individuals advocate neither fascism, com- munism, nor as a rule any ‘ism’ at all, but only adjustment of specific operational faults, plus a general improvement in our democratic system, so that life may be even better than it is for a larger number of people. Not all their ideas are necessarily sound, but they are acting in the best and most patriotic tra~ dition, upon which the Republic was founded and has prospered. At one time in our national history such people would have been called liberals, at another time progressives; what they stocd for might have been opposed by some, but few would have dared condemn them as bad citizens. Yet in the past few years they have found it more and more economically and socially unsafe to continue as in the past. They find themselves criticized as Com- munists or fellow-travelers for supporting equality of opportunity for all; for believing what the Constitution says about civil rights; for publicly preferring peace to war; for espousing Federal aid for low-income hous- ing; for belueving 1n Government-sponsored health insurance; for supporting the idea of world government. And within the past month we have even been subjected to the spectacle of high-minded, patriotic citizens being denounced as traitors because the foreign policy they advocated in a specific instance had not worked out. So, by a deadly appeal to fear and ignor~ ance, fostered in some cases by organizations in themselves violently anti-American, the only means Americans have of seeking con~ stant improvement in a system in which they believe enough to want to see it im-= prove, is removed or rendered hazardous. And the way is paved for the United States to slip into something resembling a Fascist state without the addition or repeal of a single law.or of a single clause in the Federal Constitution, Fascism, said Prof. Charles A. Siepmann, of New York University, is the ultimate up- shot of growing to like what you get, and he might well have added that its develop- ment is greatly facilitated when those who do not like everything they get are scared out of saying so. We are confronted with the necessity for accepting the leadership of one set of enemies of democracy to avoid being classed as followers of another set, and between these millstones large numbers of decent, loyal Americans are being ground. The political middle class, which includes most of us, is in serious peril of being wiped out, casualties in a cold civil war. When it is, and not one dares any longer to criti- cize for fear of losing his livelihood, then the unmasked forces of communism and fascism will be free to fight their obscene battle over the corpse of the oldest and larg- est democracy in the world. I should like to state at this point that all antidemocratic, totalitarian thought and action is abhorrent to me and should he to all Americans. The Platonian theory of gov- ernment by an elite group, based on the conviction that the great mass of the peo~ ple aren’t bright enough to govern them~ Selves, is very much with us today, among people who never heard of Plato. It is the opposite of democracy, and so far as I can see, there is no essential difference, opera- tionally or philosophically, among its ad- vocates. They may be Communists, or mem-~ bers of the German-American Bund, or members of the Christian Front, or knights of the Ku Klux Klan, the white camelia, the purple stinkweed, or whatever botanical specimen they happen to choose. All, in the last analysis, want the same thing—the destruction of democracy. As it has worked out in America, many prominent citizens, deeply concerned with
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the simple fact of having to earn a living, have chosen to forego all other activity, to become nonentities, so far as exercising the normal duties of citizenship is concerned. Some, to reinforce their spiritual air-raid shelters, have gone so far as to denounce publicly all that they have stood for in the past. But a few, less timid or more con- firmed in their views, have refused to join the league of frightened men and have stood their ground. They have refused to con- cede that democracy is a dead duck, and are convinced that what is happening to a few can happen to everybody, if nobody is in- terested enough to fight back. A short time ago there was a mass assault upon the artists of America, and particu- lariy film and theater actors, led by one Myron Fagan, a disappointed playwright, whose book, “Red Treason in Hollywood,” listed 150 people as Communists, starting with that pillar of conservatism, Louis B. Mayer. He received liberal financial aid from Gerald L. K. Smith, former spiritual gadfly for Huey Long, and now leader of one of our several American fascist move- ments, It was obvious that the average American pays more attention to the political opin- jons of a film star than to those of the wisest political scientist on earth, and that if the film stars could be forced to shut up, it would be a great victory for the haters of democracy. I don't say all film stars are politically pure, but the Fagan list was ridiculous. . A wave of fear spread over the film in- dustry. Many ducked into the nearest fox- hole, or joined their accusers in denounc- ing what they had previously advocated. Those who did, seemed to find their paths miraculously smoothed, financially speak- ing. Those few who did not, continued to be subjected to the worst sort of smear publicity. One member of the Hollywood community, Jack Tenney, delivered in 1939 a speech be- fore the Hollywood Anti-Nazi League in which he denounced the House un-American Activities Committee in unmeasured terms. Ten years later Tenney, now a State Sena- tor, was branding as pro-Communists indi- viduals who had been members of the Anti- Nazi League at the very moment he was addressing it in 1939. And the committee he headed was a carbon copy of the one he had then attacked. It is common talk that the most fright- ened class of people in America today is the great body of Federal employees, who feel their loyalty is being investigated in accord- ance with extremely vague criteria. Yet the Federal employee has a minute source of comfort, so far as job security goes, in the existence of elaborate appeal machinery which is frequently effective. No such machinery exists for the privately employed citizen who is accused, not by an official agency, but by an irresponsible news- paper, by Fulton Lewis, Jr., by Westbrook Pegler, or by some sinister pamphleteer or confessed traitor squatting snugly behind the statute of limitations. It can be ar- gued that a citizen so maligned has recourse to civil suit. But he cannot bring a libel charge against a witness before a congres- sional committee, or a Senator speaking on the floor wrapped in his toga of immunity. Even if he has the opportunity, it takes a lot more money than most people can afford or even lay their hands on and until that suit, if any, is decided, the smear cam~ paign goes on. Paul Draper, the dancer, a while back brought suit in Connecticut against a woman who publicly called him a Commu- nist. I don’t know Draper, nor do I know whether he is or is not a Communist. But XCVI—App——247 I do know that a large and extremely noise- some newspaper chain whipped up a Violent campaign of synthetic fury against him be- fore the case was heard in court, and fright- ened a broadcasting company into repri- manding the conductor of a program who had invited Draper to appear. This is the very nearly perfect illustration of the new and terrifying notion that a citi- zen is no longer innocent until proved guilty, a logical corollary of the doctrines of guilt by association. Thus a popular New York news~ paper was able to say in all apparent serious- ness that Alger Hiss had ample opportunity to prove himself innocent. This alarming state of affairs has come about as a direct result of our cold and very uncivil war with the Soviet Union. We have come to accept, for all practical purposes, what amounts to Soviet direction not only of our foreign policy, but of our internal prac- tice as well. When people get the idea that their physical safety is in danger, anything connected with that threat tends to become an object of fear and loathing. And when the threat depends for its existence and ex- pansion upon a body of ideas, as does com- munism, then the hatred and fear are multi- plied, because you cannot kill an idea with a n. We talk a great deal about arming for de~ fense against Russia, but we are pretty sure, if we stop to think about it, that were it not for the ideological weapon of communism Russia would not be a serious threat. It is @ weapon which is sharpened by human misery, as we have recognized in our point 4 and Marshall plans. We may by a show of force prevent Soviet armies from marching, but no conceivable multiplication of military alliances alone can stop an idea from marching. Now it so happens that the Soviet Union has appropriated to its own purposes the sponsorship of many reforms which hitherto had been considered not at all disreputable and which have long been advocated by re- spectable people the world over. Yet in the year 1950 we incline to denounce these very desiderata for no other reason than that the Communists also say they believe in them. Anyone familiar with the writings of Marz and Lenin knows perfectly well that the last thing the Communists want is peaceful reform, for if human grievances are ad- justed, human misery mitigated, by civilized means, then the proletarian revolution is indefinitely postponed if not actually can- celed. That is why, in every country they take over, the Communists move first of all against the middle-class liberals who are try~- ing to achieve reforms without setting up a dictatorship. Unfortunately, and in shame I say it, this cold civil war is being intensified by the ac- tivities of certain newspapers and newspaper writers and radio commentators who either have an ax to grind or who are criminally irresponsible. And I appeal to you, in this critical period in our national history, to refrain from forming judgments without ade- quate evidence. Don’t assume you know all about a Senate investigation by reading a headline.in the Morning Smear over some- one else’s shoulder in the subway. Don’t set some fellow-American down as a traitor because of another headline in the Daily Slanderer. Take the time, as a patriotic duty, to read and evaluate the facts as set forth in an honest, responsible periodical. Try to use your intelligence, not merely your eyes and your emotions. If you don’t, the day may come when you will be sorry. Those who hate democracy, be they re- «ctionaries of the right or of the left, are fighting, not really one another, but all be- lievers in that cooperative freedom. They are fighting with the weapons of blind prejudice, ignorance, and fear of the un- A3917 familiar. They have seized upon our ex- ternal peril and the resultant popular confu- sion as a device for altering our traditional institutions. And I can assure you, you would not like to be governed by either of them. The only essential difference is the color of the shirt. The essence of a democratic society is that it is not assumed to he perfect operationally, that it is on the contrary susceptible of con- tinuous improvement without physical revo- lution or fundamental structural change. With this as a first principle the fact of po- litical activity, of constant constructive criticism, becomes a prime obligation upon every citizen. This is a matter of common knowledge with all of us, yet in the recent past too many of us have abdicated the right and duty to oppose and criticize because they were scared. Assuming that there is merit in the posi- tion that a Communist-dominated—and I mean dominated—organization is no place for a true American, no one has yet come forward, to my Knowledge, with acceptable criteria for judging whether the organiza~= tion in question is so dominated. A public- spirited citizen considering a contribution to the American Red Cross, the Boy Scouts, the Infantile Paralysis Foundation, as aocess to a body of information based on a long public history. But what of the numerous ad hoe groups, newly formed, and with some- thing entirely laudable as their only an- nounced objective? How can one find out about them? Martin Dies once advised a friend of mine to solicit and accept the advice of the local American Legion post or chamber of com- merce. This needs no commentary—it is simply a means of never running counter to the views of a powerful, organized and generally orthodox group. A simpler device would be never to say or do anything not essential to keeping physically alive. The history of subversive organizations 1s interesting and complex. Some were orig- inally not in this category but were later taken over through the negligence of their members, yet self-constituted leaders of pub- lic opinion take no note of this in condemn- ing anyone who ever had anything to do with them. Others, while perhaps actually or- ganized as “fronts,” were of such a character, so far as publicized aims were concerned, that only one who recognized a Communist py his red tie or his long hair could possibly have been suspicious. It is generally far easier to detect the true cha-acter of a subversive organization of the Fascist type than one devoted to the propa- gation of communism. The first almost in- veriably has certain visible signs, such as racial and religious hatred and xenophobia which mark it for what it is. The other seldom has such outward birthmarks, and it may take a long time for its true nature to become generally known. I know of no positive test, nor does anyone else I ever heard of. In the last analysis, the real issue in this cold civil war of ours is not national security. No good citizen can be against that. It is not communism versus capitalism, although that certainly is the issue in the struggle between the United States and Russia. Here at home the issue is, in plain words, whether Americans shall be able to continue to be good citizens or whether they must become a nation of furtive mice, frightened into silence by extralegal terrorism against which there is virtually no defense. What we need to realize, and keep re- membering, is that communism feeds, not on reforms, but on the absence of reform. By silencing all honest reformers, we make things far easier for the Communists, and advance the opening date for the class war we all want to avoid.
A3918 The National Interest EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. FORREST C. DONNELL OF MISSOURI IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 23 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an editorial entitled “The National Interest,” pub-~ lished in the Rockford (Ill.) Register- Republic, of May 12, 1950. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: THE NatioNaL INTEREST Once again a section of the American pub. lic is beginning to suffer from the effects of a strike that was carefully planned so as not to be against the national interest, or so the union hopes. A& in the coal strike earlier this year, there were demands for stern measures by the Federal Government. Since one issue of the railroad firemen’s strike is the employment of an extra fireman on Diesel locomotives, the matter already has been before Presi- dential fact-finding boards. In this case the boards have ruled twice against the union, and the railroads’ refusal to try the issue again appears to be justified. The Donnell bill, proposed by the Missouri Republican Senator, would require compul- sory arbitration in railway labor disputes, This would be a far-reaching measure, but pressure for it will mcrease as industries af- fected by the strike are forced to close down, throwing thousands of employees out of work. It also is unfortunate that Chrysler Corp., just ‘esuming production after a 100-day strike, faces curtailments in case it cannot receive necessary supplies delivered by rail. Just how extensive must a strike be in order to be against the national interest? Most of the recent Nation-wide strikes have affected other segments of the United States economy. The time is here for devising legal settlement machinery which will go into operation as soon as a strike in one industry begins to aftect related and dependent in-~ dustries. Congress Please Note EXTENSION OF REMARKS Or HON. THOMAS J. LANE OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 23, 1950 Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following editorial from the Christian Science Monitor: ConcrEss PLEASE Not a Of all the new courses we’ve heard of that are going to be added to already bulging college catalogs, Harvard University’s on fundamental human rights sounds among the more significant. “The course is designed,” the university says, “to consider how the principal human rights in the United States Constitution got there and what has happened to them since.” It would be difficult to imagine a more appro« priate time for such study, With Zechariah Chafee, Jr., Harvard’s noted law-school teacher and a vigorous defender of buman rights, presiding, it is likely that the students will hear as much about what has happened to fundamental human rights in recent years as they will about how they got in the Constitution in the first place. This is all to the good. Today’s congres- sional hearings tend to take increasing liber~ ties with personal reputations and basic legal rights. In another area, prominent natural scientists are protesting that on non~ secret information the Atomic Energy Com~ mission is following a program of censorship secretly conceived and never justified to the American public. Fuller understanding of human rights— and responsibilities—is urgently needed. Such a course as Harvard plans should be taught in all schools and colleges. <A special evening session for Congressmen might help, too. Biggest Story EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. KATHARINE ST. GEORGE OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 23, 1950 Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Mr. Speaker, un- der unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the Appendix of the Rrcorp, I include the twenty-ninth article by Mr. Frank C. Waldrop on the infiltra- tion of communism in our country: BiccEst STORY (By Frank C. Waldrop) The sweated pennies of the working man did not buy communism its seat in the Gov- ernment of the United States of America. After all, people who work in this country have better things to buy. Communism, in its day, has spent millions to corrupt American minds with its own re- writing of history, its own \ersion of all the arts and sciences, and to corrode labor unions, Government offices and homes. How did it get in a position to do such things? It is a libel on the poor to say they are to blame. The dollars that hired the halls and bought the paper and paid the speakers and hid the spies came from well- lined pockets. There will be a real study made, one day, of the millions in American money that have gone into Communist organizations and to the fantastic collection of front organi- zations carrying out Communist policy but not in communism’s name. No propaganda in history has turned over so many dollars and supported so massive an army of riffraff writers, speakers and Mr. Chairmen, Madame Secretaries and faceless, silent treasurers, who receive con- tributions but make no reports on expendi- tures. Nor did it all come from Moscow. I have before me as I write this, the sworn testi- mony by a former general secretary of the Communist Party of the United States that in his day Russia sent over only about $100,000 a year and that just for headquar- ters work. This same man, on the other hand, esti- mated that the friends of the Soviet Union raised over a million dollars on one cam- paign to save the starving Russians of the 1920’s, yet, he swore, the cash only circled back to the agitation and propaganda offices in New York. American consideration for the suffering poor abroad was turned on America. Amer- ican money given in the spirit of charity was APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD used to attack the very foundations of our civilization. The Sacco-Vanzetti case I mentioned in this space yesterday, the “free Tom Mooney” campaigns earlier described, were typical de- vices for concealed Communist money-rais- ing—until the Communists got on the United States payroll. Then they got a better system. It is impossible to review and encompass all the multitude of money-raising machin- ery that Americans fell for, A fair sample of good American money gone is that of the “Garland fund.” In that instance a foolish young man in New York City gave some $900,000 of first- class securities, his total inherited fortune, to a set of trustees to be used in effect for the good of the cause. The values of the securities rose to something like $2,000,000 before they got rid of it all. No doubt he felt he had done a good thing. Or you can consider the case of Corliss Lamont. Here is the son of Thomas La- mont, one of the ablest bankers the United States ever produced. Corliss Lamont has never worked for his living. His father gave it to him. Lamont was one of the early Marxists and still 1s, His influence in raising millions for Marx- ist purposes has been enormous. Then there is that other prize package, Frederick Vanderbilt Field, whose family names are solid gold. To what has this man given his life? You get an idea from the fact that he refused, a few days ago, to talk to a Senate committee about the Amer-~ asia spy case. One way or another, less of all this money goes to the Communist Party’s official bank accounts than to the operations in the mys- terious shadowland of the front organiza- tions that play on human decency. That mission for relief of the starving back in 1922 was headed by Herbert Hoover. Rev. Edmund Walsh, S. J., now vice regent of Georgetown University and a world-re- nowned authority on the facts of Marxism, went deep into Russia distributing food and saving human life. Little did Mr. Hoover and Father Walsh know that behind their backs and the backs of all those undertaking a humane mission for the relief of the starving, Communists in America were swindling people in their name. |. Yet the fact is sworn to in the official records. It was early, and typical of the differences between Communist ideas of ordinary de- cency and our own. By 1938, when I. D. Roosevelt came to the White House, that sort of Communist duplic- ity had been demonstrated a thousand times over. More than that, the Communists had blown their own organization wide open with a reeking scandal for all to see. By then, anybody could know, who wanted to, that communism and civilization were totally incompatible. Yet Roosevelt gave them priceless prestige, for which they would one day show their thanks by gathering on the White House lawn to mock him to his face. The Public’s Stake EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. FORREST C. DONNELL OF MISSOURI IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 23 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the Appendix of the Recorp an editorial entitled ““The Public’s Stake,” published in the Charleston (S. C.) Post, of May 12, 1950. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: THE Pusiic’s STaKE Such indefensible strikes as that which the Brotherhood of Enginemen and Firemen is conducting against four railway systems may impel Congress to enact compulsory arbitration or even stronger legislation to protect the Nation against disastrous dis- ruption of its economy. Two Presidential commissions have found the demands of the brotherhood unjustified, declaring that an additional fireman on Diesel-operated locomotives is unnecessary. The strike stands as an attempt to force the railroads to accept featherbedding—the em- ployment of mén not required for safe and efficient operation. To whatever extent the four railway sys- tems are tied up, business and industry will be slowed down and thousands of workers not a party to the dispute will be thrown out of jobs. The entire Nation will be ad- versely affected by a work stoppage that is essentially a strike against the public. Were the firemen to win their point, the public, through higher rates, would be called upon to pay for the needless jobs. There is now before Congress a bill to outlaw railroad strikes. It calls for com- pulsory arbitration, with the decision of a Presidential board being binding. Propo- nents of this measure are impelled by a sense of public interest. The existing legis- lation does not impose upon the brother- hoods a due responsibility to the Nation. A few thousand men can tie up vital trans- portation and, if permitted to go their way unchecked by law, can force acceptance of exorbitant demands due to their monopo- listic power. This is an intolerable state of affairs that cannot be permitted indefinitely. Let’s Stockpile Fabrics EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. THOMAS J. LANE OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 23, 1950 Mr, LANE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rrcorp, I include the following editorial from the Evening Tribune, Lawrence, Mass., for May 20, 1950: LrEt’s STOCKFILE FABRICS Stockpiling of raw wool helps the sheep but makes goats of textile workers. Raw wool is a durable commodity, not perishable like eggs and potatoes, and the Govern- ment undoubtedly takes comfort from this fact. There is, at least, not the tremendous shrinkage involved in other efforts to bul- wark weak areas of our economy. But the Government does deal in perishable items, and if there is anything more perishable than a human being out of work, we would like to know about it. Sheepmen can con- vert some of their wool into homespun cloth, if their need is great enough, and they can eat their sheep. The farmer’s problem is not that he is underemployed but over- employed; he produces too much, At the worst, he has things to eat, even if his level of subsistence is marginal. But the textile worker has no capital of raw material to be subsidized; he has only the skill of his hands. If the Government stockpiled cloth—the finished product instead of the raw mate- rial—it would, in effect, be stockpiling tex- tile workers—which, even if it 1s an un- dignified, analogy—is a practical one. The day will never come when-this country, or the world, will be able to get along without the skill of textile workers. Textiles is as basic an industry as the production of food. In fact, 1t is one of the few really basic industries. Autos are important and useful, true, but a good percentage of that indus- try’s creativeness is in the luxury category. The same thing applies to another spiral- ing activity—television. Television adds to the richness of life, but life doesn’t depend on it. Cloth, fabrics of all sorts, is an in- dispensable necessity, not only for reasons of modesty, but as an extra skin against the rigors of climate—heat as well as cold. If all this is true, and we don’t see how it can be controverted, stockpiling raw wool puts the cart before the horse. The idea that it is a more practical ex- pedient to stockpile fabrics, rather than wool, is the brainchild of the Greater Law- rence Citizens Committee for Industrial De- velopment. And it has already found sup~- porters in the State legislature where a resolution has been filed urging the Federal Government to give serious consideration to the proposal. The resolution lays em- phasis on the fact that the Government would be far better off, in time of emergency, with a reserve of finished cloth on its hands than it would with acres of unprocessed wool. We agree, although it seems that this approach falls somewhat short of the real purpose of such stockpiling, which is to help textile workers in time of crisis. It isn’t necessary to make a particular point of the fact that textile workers are good, productive, and skillful citizens, Everyone agrees that they are. Why wouldn’t it be a good idea to give them the same deal that farmers and poultrymen get? ‘Textile work- ers vote too. And they have to eat. A Guarantee of Service EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. FORREST C. DONNELL OF MISSOURI IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 23 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an editorial entitled “A Guarantee of Service,” pub- lished in the Charlotte (N. C.) News of May 11, 1950. There being no objection, the editorial ‘was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: A GUARANTEE OF SERVICE When, at 6 o’clock yesterday morning, the paralyzing tide of the railroad firemen’s strike against four major rail systems be- gan rolling west from the Atlantic coast, stranded commuters at suburban stations were the first to understand the ominous significance of the strike. But as the day wore on citizens with less apparent need for rail service began to won- der how it was that 18,000 railroad firemen could launch a strike which might bring hardship to millions. And, when, at midday, hopes for immedi- ate settlement of the strike went aglimmer- ing, citizens listened with more care to a A3$19 railroad executive’s warning that the strike against the Southern, Santa Fe, New York Central, and Pennsylvania systems will “have an immediate and disastrous effect on the public interest.” The executive was Harry A. De Butts, former Charlottean and now vice president in charge of operations for Southern. He warned further: “It would bring about almost instanta- neous paralysis of the life of the large parts of the country served by these four major systems, bringing the terror of starvation and disease to great numbers of citizens.” If, as members of the striking locomotive firemen and enginemen would have it, star- vation, disease, and economic paralysis are not around the immediate corner, it is all too true that a prolonged Nation-wide rail- road strike would endanger public and eco- nomic health. This single union now has the power to bring about such a strike; no single group should wield so mighty a weapon. The railroads are essential to the Nation. They bring food to market, workers to their plants and offices, pharmaceuticals to drug stores, tractors to farmers; they bring mail, industrial equipment. We have, all of us, become dependent to some degree on railroad service, We must have a guarantee that that serv- ice will not be withdrawn. We must not be victimized by such featherbed demands as that which prompted the firemen to quit work yesterday morning. (The firemen had demanded an extra fire- man aboard multiple unit Diesel loco-} motives. Twice the Presidential fact finders have ruled that the union demand was not justified. But after the long, careful process of the Railway Labor Act had found them at fault, the firemen struck anyway.) Southern executive De Butts has already sounded the cry for passage by Congress of a bill to outlaw rail strikes. As a result of the hasty action of the firemen’s union (and past violations of the public interest by unions lke John L. Lewis’ United Mine Workers), such a bill will find much favor with the public and with Congressmen. A likely result of the firemen’s strike will be the passage of a bill calling for compul- sory arbitration as a last resort in rail strikes. A law guaranteeing the continuance of this essential public service has long been needed. It should, of course, provide for justice to both employer and employee. It should insist upon fair wages and satisfactory work- ing conditions, but it should also restrain unions from irresponsible strikes against the public interest, which even officials of other rail unions have recognized the firemen’s strike to be. Planned Inflation EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HAROLD H. VELDE oF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 23, 1950 Mr. VELDE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rrc- orp, I include the following editorial from the Peoria Star of May 12, 1950, entitled “Planned Inflation”: PLANNED INFLATION In his speech (ostensibly nonpolitical) at Pendleton, Oreg., President Truman prom- ised that the average American family’s in- come could be doubled by 1960, if the whole country tries. ‘
A3920 Some people might think that is an ex- travegant promise for the President to make, put it isn’t. The average family’s income can easily be doubled by 1960 or long before 1960. It can be done without effort by the whole country. In fact, it is being done now and the people are hardly conscious of it. It is being done through the cheapening of money, the debasing of the value of the dollar. Every time the Federal Govern- ment spends more than it collects (deficit financing) 1t clips the value of the dollar. Next year the Government faces a deficit of $7,000,000,000, with the President urging even a larger gap between income and ex- penditures. To say that the average family’s income may be doubled, however, is to tell only half the story. Inflation increases income, in terms of dollars, but it correspondingly increases the cost of living. The dollar today is worth only a little more than half what it was worth 10 years ago. Continued defi- cit financing can easily make the dollar worth only one-fourth what it was 10 years ago. The trouble with raising apparent in- come by debasing the currency is that people who depend upon fixed values in bonds, savings deposits, annuities, life insur- ance values and pensions are financially ruined. The man who bought $10,000 in life insurance in 1940 knows today that it will accomplish only about half of what he ex- pected it to accomplish. Let inflation again “double” incomes and that man’s life insur- ance will be worth only about $2,500 in terms of the 1940 dollars in which he was calculating the future needs of his family. What President Truman proposes is ri- diculously easy. Printing-press money is limitless. But here is the question President Tru- man should be asked: “Can you, Mr. Presi- dent, while doubling the average family’s income, also proportionately increase the income of those who depend upon pensions, annuities, bonds and savings?” If this cannot be done, then the promise of increasing average family incomes is . nothing more than a fiscal trick from which none will benefit and many will suffer. “Portuguese-Americans Protest _ India’s Purpose To Annex Territory of Goa ‘EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOSEPH W. MARTIN, JR. OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 23, 1950 Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my re- marks in the Rrecorp, I include a letter which I have sent to Secretary of State Acheson, informing him of the strong opposition of Americans of Portuguese descent against the proposal of India to annex the territory of Goa. My letter to Mr. Acheson follows: May 22, 1950. Hon. Dean ACHESON, Secretary of State, Washington, D.C. Deak Mr. SECRETARY: In behalf of the thousands of Portuguese-American citizens ‘of my district and of New England, may I enter with you a protest against the acquisi- tion by India of the territory of Goa. - For nearly 500 years, the territory has been under the Portuguese flag. Its 650,000 peo- ‘ple are loyal ‘to Portugal, as indicated by the fact that’ only a scanty military force is kept in the territory. Fifty thousand people from Goa work in Bombay, but few have relin- quished their citizenship. This little territory was secured by Portu- gal in those early days when the hardy mariners from Portugal went to all parts of the world and planted the fiag of civilization. During the last war, Portugal aided mate- rially in the Allied victory. Its air bases in the Azores were a vital part of our offensive. To take the territory of Goa away from a loyal ally and give it to a country with which it has had no legal ties for 500 years would be unfortunate. It is difficult to be- lieve India would be short-sighted enough to ask it. On the past Sunday, a mass meeting of Portuguese-Americans of Fall River, Mass., strongly expressed their opposition to the intentions of India. I transmit to you their sentiments, which I heartily endorse. I hope the Government of the United States will use its great moral influence in world affairs to 1 ersuade India that its plans with respect to Goa should be abandoned in the interests of international justice. Sincerely yours. A Strike Against the Public Is No Private Affair EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. FORREST C. DONNELL OF MISSOURI IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 23 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Rrecorp an editorial entitled “A Strike Against the Public Is No Private Affair,” published in the Louisville (Ky.) Times, of May 10, 1950. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Rzcorp, as follows: A STRIKE AGAINST THE FPusLIc Is No PrivaTs AFFAIR Strange bedfellows are made almost every time compulsory arbitration is proposed as a strike preventive in vital industries. When the question was before the Senate Labor Committee in 1947, for example, AFL and CIO leaders were no more outspokenly op- posed to the proposal than were such con- servatives as Senator Tarr and Ira Mosher of the National Association of Manufactur- ers. That was not surprising. As a rule, management and labor are equally opposed ‘to a third party settling their disputes, be- ing inclined to regard them as private quar- rels regardless of the effect on the public’s welfare and convenience. Thus the fact that three of the nation’s top railroad executives, appearing before a Senate subcommittee on the eve of today’s walkout, urged compulsory arbitration for rail disputes is news of more than passing interest. No doubt they, too, would hesitate to support such legislation as a remedy in all industries, or even in all vital industries. But railroads are in a special category. They are a public utility, and as such are subject to governmental rules and restraints that are not applicable to other industries. In his testimony 3 years ago, Mr. Mosher expressed the fear of big business when he declared that compulsory arbitration would invite government control of prices and mar- kets... That argument, whatever its yalidity in general application, does not fit the situa- tion of railroads. They, like other public APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD utilities, have been under such controls for years—without, incidentally, losing their identity as instruments of free enterprise. Railroads are not free to charge whatever rates they like, or to run their trains when-~ ever and wherever it suits their fancy. To some extent, regulations designed to protect the public now cover employer-em-= ployee relations on the railroads. The Nas tional Railway Labor Act, with its cooling-off pericds and mediation machinery, was en- acted more than two decades ago for the pur- pose of preventing strikes or lockouts. It, however, stops short of forbidding such strikes, which is what the Donnell bill now before the Senate would do. It would sub- stitute arbitration as a last resort after col- lective bargaining and mediation had failed. Compulsory arbitration for public utilities and their employees rests upon the sound principle that the public interest must come before any private interest. It was upon this principle that a committee appointed by President Woodrow Wilson recommended compulsory arbitration for such services in 1919. It said: “The continuous operation of public utili-« ties is vital to public welfare. As the capital invested is employed in public use, so is the labor engaged in public service; and the withdrawal of either with the result of sus- pending service makes the people the real victim.” Stop Rail Strikes EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. FORREST C. DONNELL OF MISSOURI IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 23 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have-printed in the Appendix of the Rrcorp an editorial from the El Paso (Tex.) Times of May 2, 1950, entitled “Stop Rail Strikes.” There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Srop Rain STRIKES Railway Age has come out editorially for a substantial amendment of the Railway La- bor Act. Because America depends so heavily upon its railroad system every citizen should be interested in any effort that possibly could have a bearing on preventing future strikes on the railroads. Railway Age in its current issue says in part: “The only practicable solution of the pres- ent dangerous drift in industrial relations on the railroads lies in substantial amendment of the Railway Labor Act. “Senator DONNELL, of Missouri, has intro- duced a bill, S. 8463, to outlaw railroad strikes or lockouts in defiance of awards by Presidential boards. Without weighing the merits of the bill’s specific provisions, its basic approach is unquestionably sound. “The threatened strike of railroad fire- men—postponed for 2 weeks a few days ago—is no isolated phenomenon. It is far .mMore important as a symptom than as an actual danger in itself. The really signifi- cant fact is that the much-praised Railway Labor Act has completely broken down as a mechanism for protecting the public from railway strikes. As a consequence strikes on the railroads must now be recognized as a -constant danger. They will continue so until the law is changed.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD “The reason the country now suffers from frequent railroad strikes, and from almost constant threats of them, is that all fear has been removed from railroad unionists that they will lose anything by striking. “The railroads have never refused in a dise pute of any significance to abide by the deci- sions of these boards. ‘The unions, on the contrary, have hardly ever, since 1941, ac- cepted any of the board’s decisions if they have had any reason whatever for dissatis- faction.” The Times always has looked upon the railroad brotherhoods as being on the con- servative side of organized labor. This news- paper would suggest to the brotherhoods at this time, however, that they be a little more careful. There was a period not too many years ago during which both sides lived up to findings of arbitration boards called in when a rail- road strike was threatened. That period should be brought back. Otherwise it may be necessary to enact legislation such as that proposed by Senator Donne.t to outlaw rail- road strikes or lockouts in defiance of awards by Presidential boards. Our economy cannot stand disastrous tie- ups of our rail transportation system. Compulsory Arbitration EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. FORREST C. DONNELL OF MISSOURI IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 23 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Rrecorp an editorial entitled “Compulsory Arbitration,” pub- lished in the Glens Falls (N. Y.) Post- Star of May 12, 1950. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: CoMPULSORY ARBITRATION A report from Washington written prior to the railroad strike declares that some Government officials believe compulsory ar- bitration may be the only solution to strikes against public utilities. Both labor and management are opposed to the idea. Man- agement’s opposition stems from the fact that compulsory arbitration would deprive it of more of its already limited right to manage and that unions would be tempted to “make” disputes in the expectation that they would gain something through each arbitration board’s attempt to compromise the case. On their side the unions fear that if arbitration were substituted for the strike force, they would not get as much as they otherwise might. Now, there should be no pretense about this question of compulsory arbitration. It would not be the ferfect solution to labor- management relations in public utilities and it would be only as fair as the arbiters them- selves were fair. However, it does not follow that because an administration is out- spokenly favorable to labor as the Truman administration is, and the Roosevelt admin- istration before it was, that an “impartial” board of arbitration would be similarly in- clined, or vice versa, , For example, boards acting under the au- thority of the Railway Labor Act have twice rendered decisions on the subject of this strike which was called for the purpose of compelling the railroads to hire an addi- tional fireman for Diesel locomotives. Both boards said the demand was without merit. A railroad strike of a few years ago was called after such a board made a wage award in which management concurred but which the unions refused to accept. For a great many years the Railway Labor Act functioned very well. It broke down only when the administration in Washing- ton gave labor every encouragement to strike and led the unions to take a cynical view of the act and the voluntary responsibility to accept arbitration which is the essence of it. What made this act good was the assump- tion that both union and management would accept the arbitration findings whatever they might be. This assumption was based on the further assumption that arbitration would be fair, and as far as we are aware 1t always has been. It would be possible and it might not be bad at all to amend the act in one principal manner, making compliance with the arbi- ters’ findings compulsory rather than volun- tary. The point is that strikes against the public interest can be justified and at the same time disastrous to that interest. Actu- ally three interests are involved in every public utility strike, labor’s, management's, and the public’s, of which the latter is most important. If public health, safety, and prosperity are not to be unduly damaged by strikes, compulsory arbitration may be the only answer short of Government owner- ship. Congress could do worse at this time than introduce the subject for discussion. Cardinal Spellman’s Poem EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. LOUIS B. HELLER OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, May 11, 1950 Mr. HELLER. Mr. Speaker, on May 14, 1950, the new Alfred E. Smith Memo-~ rial Building at St. Vincent’s Hospital, New York, was dedicated. Many church and State dignitaries participated. The most poignant point of the ceremonies came, however, when His Eminence Francis Cardinal Spellman spoke of the Jate Al Smith, and included in his ad- dress a poetic tribute to the former great Governor of New York State. Following is the Cardinal’s poem, which I commend to the reading of my colleagues: CARDINAL SPELLMAN’s Porm We must not think of this high lifted mass In terms of steel, concrete, and carven stone, Of rooms and corridors, of halls and clinic space. This building is a living thing, it has a soul, It breathes the spirit of a man who walked A friend of all, an enemy of none— For bigotry—the realm of little men— Too great; in vision—for the grasp of time— Too large. And so in this memorial Al lives again, extends to those in need His friendly hand and lends a willing ear To every human woe. Here may he soothe The fevered brow, his smile again give light His courage steel the spirit wavering, His charity and faith sustain us all, No lifeless stone today we dedicate But that wide spreading of a great man’s . : soul, That seedling upwards from a city street And nourished by the deep-thrust roots of faith A3921 Did reach its branches to a grateful state, And dying, lives again within these walls That breathe Al’s spirit and proclaim his creed— God made us all, God loves us all, and we As brothers must within these troubled years Protect, maintain Al’s heritage and ours Devotedly in service to our fellow men. Roughneck Youth EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. RAY J. MADDEN OF INDIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 23, 1950 Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Speaker, several months ago James S. DeLaurier, publish- er of the Hammond (Ind.) Times, started a campaign to curb lawlessness and im- morality which has been spreading among our American youth. The following is an editorial from his paper which set out some of the reasons why the national Government should take steps to curb this deplorable juve- nile problem: ROUGHNECK ‘YOUTH In Los Angeles the police are having trouble with gangs of tough boys who roam the streets, beating any man, woman, or child with whom they come in contact at night, And for no apparent reason, at all. A few days ago some of these young hood- lums slugged a policeman and then dragged @ 43-year-old woman into a car, fractured her jaw and whipped her unmercifully. In Tolleston a few evenings ago some young rats, swilling up on canned beer, no- ticed a youth coming from a wedding. Tak- ing a dislike to his formal attire they started to muss himup. His father and mother were in a nearby car and the father, a police ser= geant off duty, went to his son’s assistance and was knocked unconscious when hit over the head by an iron pipe. All good citizens know that the police will make every effort to round up these young brats and see to it they are put out of circu- lation for some years to come. According to the New York Times, Brook- lyn, with more teen-age gangs than any other borough, has the most highly organized form of street and park warfare in all New York City. The Brooklyn roughnecks battle with Enives, zip guns and bigger weapons than used elsewhere, although they are not as murderous as young toughs in the Bronx. Many of the 3,000 active members of Brooklyn’s teen-age gangs are tough girls, some Of whom are not listed as virtuous, The problem of young roughnecks has in- deed become a matter of grave concern to the New York City police department. However, all of the young toughs are not confined to the streets. Take the 200 hood- lum students at Ohio State University who invaded the girls’ dormitories of the college, as well as those of the sororities. After this criminal trespassing the Ohio State University toughies doused the paja~ ma-~-clad coeds in showers and fled with the girls’ underclothing. This is what the people of the United States read on May 5 when a UP dispatch gave the news about the Buckeye State university rowdies. After the disgrace of one of its students being tried for an alcoholic-haze murder and with mobs of men students crashing
A3922 into women’s dormitories in predawn hours, one would think the Ohio Legislature would order the State university cleaned up, some of its authorities fired, and the hoodlums kicked out. It must be a matter of concern to fathers and mothers of girl students at Ohio State to have to worry over the gangster element that seems to have a free hand at the tax- supported university. Railroad Men Should Submit to Compulsory Arbitration EXTENSION CF REMARKS HON. FORREST C. DONNELL OF MISSOURI IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 23 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. LONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an editorial entitled “Railroad Men Should Submit to Compulsory Arbitration,” published in the Pasadena (Caiif.) Star-News, of May 12, 1950. There being no objection, the edito- rial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: RaAwnoaAD MEN SHOULD SuEMIT TO ComPpuL=- sory ARBITRATION In view of the locomotive firemen and enginemen striking against four major rail- road systems, crippling the Nation’s trans- portation network, and through the Santa Fe affecting the Pasadena area, and threat- ening to idle half a million other workers, it is to be hoped common sense leads the Senate labor subcommittee to approve the bill of Senator Donweut, of Missouri, which would make strikes and lock-outs in railway disputes illegal, and force the contending parties to accept compulsory arbitration. The Nation and the people’s interests need such a law. The demand—that railroads employ two firemen on the larger Diesel locomotives—is without real merit. Two Railway Labor Act fact-finding boards, one appointed by Presi- dent Roosevelt in 1948, and the other by President Truman in 1949, have so held after careful consideration. Now Mr. Truman can perform a valuable service by making plain he stands firmly on the report of his own 1949 board which said unanimously: 1. That replacement of steam locomotives by Diesels, instead of knocking firemen out of jobs, creates more jobs. The Diesel’s high efficiency should attract more freight to rail- roads and enable them to compete more suc~= cessfully with highway truckers. 2. That two firemen are not needed for safety. Rates of train and crew accidents indicate that Diesel operation (with one fireman to a Diesel) is “safer than steam locomotive operation.” This strike has nothing to do with hours, nothing to do with working conditions. It is simply an effort to impose upon the rail- roads by force a “featherbedding” proposal, one without basis in reason or logic. When Diesel power was first introduced on the Burlington system in 1934 the locomotives were operated safely and efficiently with one man in the cab—the engineer. Shortly afterwards the Burlington, under threat of a strike, was forced to add a fireman. The firemen and the Brotherhood of Engineers have intermittently sought since then to “pack” the Diesel crew with additional and unneeded men. The Government, through the Interstate Commerce Commission, has constantly an- couraged the railroads to expand their Diesel operations on the premise it would cut op- erating costs, thus making possible rate re- ductions urgently needed if the rail carriers are to hold their share of the Nation’s freight and passenger business and employment. The railroaders are now serving notice that these two unions intend, if possible, to nullify these operating economies by an indefensible program of ‘“featherbedding,” to flout the previous findings of Presidential fact-finding boards and to defy public opinion. Because railroads operate in the public interest and movement of trains is abso- lutely necessary for protection of the public health and safety, rigid control was estab- lished over them years ago by governmental agencies. Railroad chiefs, for instance, may not arbitrarily close down their lines, as a shopkeeper may roll up his shutters. Therefore it is logical that raiiway labor may not flout its obligations to the public and arbitrarily strand trains. Time for Decision EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. MELVIN PRICE OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 23, 1950 Mr. PRICE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include herewith an editorial entitled “Time for Decision,” which appeared in the May 19, 1950, issue of the East St. Louis (1l.) Journal: TIME FOR DECISION The time has come for Americans to face squarely up to this hysterical business of the Communists in Government. We have had enough of the accusations and insinuations. We have had enough of the smears. We have had enough of the charges that are not, and perhaps cannot bs, proved. We have had more than enough. The time has come for this country to settle down, now, and face this issue calmly. The time has come to stop acting hysterically, to stop reacting emotionally to every charge and every denial. The time has come for some common sense to enter the picture. But how is common sense to enter the pic- ture? What will it take to lay this cloud that is not only confusing our citizens and frightening them but is undermining what- ever position of leadership we may have had in the world? George N. Craig, national commander of the American Legion, says, “If there is com- munism in the State Department, the public is entitled to Know it. If there is not com- munism in the Department, the public should know that.” He says the public wants the unvarnished facts ane they are entitled to them. So much is certainly true. But what will satisfy people? What kind of proof must we have? For example, if we get proof that there ‘ have been Communists in the State Depart- ment, can we get rid of them and have that be the end of the business, And also, if it is proved that there has been no communism in the State Department, will the accusers then be still? Or, if they will not be still, will they be ignored? APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD In other words, what will it take to settle the hysteria, to uncover the facts in a calm and quiet manner, and let the public have them and then go on from there? Obviously all present approaches to this problem are proving unsatisfactory. Would an investigation by an impartial, nonpolitical commission do the trick? Or must we admit that we are, as a Nation, too immature to cope with such a problem as this one? History Repeats EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HAROLD D. DONOHUE OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 23, 1950 Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Speaker, I should like to include an excellent ar- ticle, written by Ralph Boyce, entitled “History Repeats,” which appeared in the April 22, 1950 issue of the Vet-Times. This young man, a veteran himself, with a very promising journalistic fu- ture, here presents a brilliant and poig- nant editorial feature about the “un- known soldier” which merits wide circu- lation and I am pleased to commend it to your reading. The article follows: History REPEATS (By Ralph Boyce) At long last, he is coming home, A little more than a year to wait now, and we shall see him laid to rest, to a peace- ful slumber deepened by the eternal tread of sentries’ boots and the hushed murmurs of those who come to stand in mournful tribute. They call him an “unknown” hero of World War II. But they are wrong. He is not un- known. We knew him like a brother. He’s that 18-year-old kid from next door who never got off the beach at Anzio; he’s that farm boy from the Midwest who crashed in a flaming glider in Normandy; that Brook- lyn kid whose numbed hands slipped from the life raft many hours after the ship went down; that lanky Texan whose patrol was caught in an ambush along a winding trail on Bougainville. Yes; we knew him well. And now he is coming nome. We wonder if he ever had a chance, in life, to visit the birthplace of the freedom for which he died—Independ- ence Hall in Philadelphia. He will visit it now, in death, and his buddies from all of the armed services will be there, and thou- sands of us will wait long hours in line for the privilege of sharing his visit. And later he will come to the Capitol of the United States. Maybe, when he was in school, he visited Washington during Easter vacation on a bus filled with school buddies and toured the Capitol. Maybe that time he sat briefly in the gallery of the his- toric Chamber of the House of Representa- tives where later the solemn vote was taken that called upon him to lay down his life for his country. He will not visit that Chamber this time. Instead, he will lie in state in the great ro- tunda, where perhaps his school-days’ guide once pointed out the blank spaces in the murals around the ceiling which tell the history of our Nation. Blank spaces that eventually will record the progress of the freedom for which he died. And thousands upon thousands more of us will stand in line for the privilege of vis- iting with him at the Capitol and our ranks will be Joined by the great and the near- great and the never-to-be-great, all equally
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD humble in his presence and in the knowledge of his sacrifice. Finally, on Wednesday morning, the 30th of May 1951 (how old would he have been on this date, we wonder?) the guns will be- gin to boom from Fort Myer, across the Potomac. The gun bursts will echo and die away throughout the entire morning. Mean- while, from out of the Capitol the funeral cortege will begin its last *s:i™tv—~vrcek- ably led by the President co! the U'iud States. As the casket on the black-draped caisson is drawn down the broad, tree-lined avenue by six coal-black horses, escorted by pranc-~ ing cavalry, and followed by a parade of the highest dignitaries of the land, television cameras will pick up the scene and flash it instantly around the Nation. I guess he never saw television. He’d heard about it, even talked about it—but probably wouldn’t have believed that so soon after the war we would be watching paseball games right in our own living room. But now the miracle of television he never saw will make it possible for an entire Na- tion to be present at his funeral. Millions who knew him well will share the grief of @ Nation, alone and together pay him this belated tribute. The millions will be with him as his caisson rolls slowly and smoothly past the White House—refurbished and rebuilt since he went away—past the monument to the father of our country, to circle the awe- inspiring Lincoln Memorial where the benign and gaunt figure of another martyr to Amer- ican freedom looks down in solemn majesty. The guns will crack loud in the television sets as the caisson rattles across the rough stones of Arlington Memorial Bridge and up through the wide, gold encrusted gates of Arlington National Cemetery. Perhaps the still-to-come miracle of color television will pick up the riotous color of the azalea bushes—and the breath-taking formal garden of tulips bowing their tribute—as the cortege winds its way to that hallowed place where he is to lie with an older brother who also died for freedom, and came to his final rest in this same spot 30 years before. How often must history re- peat itself? And then, before his casket is lowered into the ground, the President of the United States will pin the Congressional Medal of Honor—highest military honor of all—on the casket. The President will be followed by leaders of allied nations, bestowing similar high honors—until the casket gleams with more decorations than any man has known in life or death. But please, God, let there be no speech- making. He never was much of a one for speeches, anyway. Deeds, not words, were his way of life, and his way of death. Let it be recorded that the tears in a nation’s eyes and the prayers in a nation’s heart were the ultimate, silent honor that brought him, at last, to rest. Rail Strike Accents Need for Law Pro- tecting Public Interest EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. FORREST C. DONNELL- OF MISSOURI IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 23 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an editorial entitled “Rail Strike Accents Need for Law Protecting Public Interest,” pub- lished in the Long Beach (Calif.) Press- Telegram of May 12, 1950. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Ram STRIKE Accents Nrep ror LAw Pro- TECTING PUBLIC INTEREST The current strike by 18,000 railway fire- men—affecting the major railroad systems, crippling the Nation’s transportation net- work, and threatening to idle half a million workers—focuses attention on a bill by Sen- ator DONNELL of Missouri. This measure would make strikes and lockouts in railway disputes illegal and force the contending parties to accept compulsory arbitration. It is regrettable that such drastic legisla- tion must be suggested. Collective bargain- ing, if conducted in a spirit of fair play and graceful compromise, should forestall these great disruptions in our national life. But the stark truth is that this conflict has not been resolved and it has now reached a stage where enormous public harm is threatened. Because railroads are so vital to the national economy, it is inevitable that the Congress will turn to more stringent legislation to protect the public interest. What is the merit of the demand that rail- road. employ two firemen on every Diesel locomotive, the crux of the present issue? The answer has been written by two Rail- way Labor Act fact-finding boards, one named by President Roosevelt in 1943, an- other by President Truman in 1949. After careful consideration, these boards decided the two-firemen proposal is untenable. Now Mr. Truman can perform a valuable service by making plain he stands firmly on the report of his own 1949 board, which said unanimously: 1. That replacement of steam locomotives by Diesels, instead of knocking firemen out of jobs, creates more jobs. The Diesels’ high efficiency attracts more freight to railroads and enables them to compete more success- fully with highway truckers. 2. That two firemen are not needed for safety. Rates of train and crew accidents indicate that Diesel operation (with one fire- man to a Diesel) is “safer than steam-loco- motive operation.” This strike has nothing to do with hours, nothing to do with’ working conditions. It is simply an effort to impose upon the rail- roads and the public by force a “feather- bedding” proposal. When Diesel power was first introduced on the Burlington system in 1934, the locomotives were operated safely and efficiently with one man in the cab—the engineer. Shortly afterward the Burling- ton, under threat of a strike, was forced to add a fireman. The fireman and the Broth- erhood of Engineers have intermittently sought since then to “‘pack” the Diesel crew with additional and unneeded men. The Government, through the Interstate Commerce Commission, has constantly en- couraged the railroads to expand their Diesel operations on the premise that this would cut operating costs, thus making possible rate reductions urgently needed if the rail car- riers are to hold their share of the Nation’s freight and passenger business and employ-~ ment. The railroaders are now serving notice that these two unions intend, if possible, to nullify these operating economies by flout- ing the previous findings of Presidential fact-finding hoards. The Donnell bill follows mounting evi- dence that the Railway Labor Act, once re- garded as a model measure for labor dis- putes, has failed to adequately protect the public interest. Unions have refused to accept decisions of fact-finding boards, using these decisions as a line of departure A3923 from which to pursue their demands. That new legislation should replace the Railway Labor Act thus becomes a public necessity. Because railroads operate in the public interest and movement of trains is abso- lutely necessary for protection of the public health and safety, rigid control was estab- lished over them years ago by governmental agencies. Railroad chiefs, for instance, may not arbitrarily close down their lines as a shopkeeper may roll up his shutters. Therefore 1t 1s logical that railway labor may not flout its obligations to the public and arbitrarily strand trains. But such is the case in the present dispute where the unions demand an extra fireman on Diesel locomotives—to help the regular fireman look out the window. This same line of reasoning applies to other public utilities on which the people rely for their transportation, communica- tion, light, telephone, heat and power. For a Free and Independent Slovakia EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. MELVIN PRICE OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 23, 1950 Mr. PRICE. Mr. Speaker, at the re~ quest of Mr. John Sedlacek, chairman of the Southern Illinois Slovak Federation, 1321 North Thirteenth Street, East St. Louis, and under leave to do so, I here~ with extend in the Appendix of the Rrc~ orRD an article which appeared in Jed~ nota, largest Slovak Catholic weekly in the United States, published in Middle- town, Pa., by the First Catholic Slovak Union: For a FREE AND INDEPENDENT SLOVAKIA—THE ORIGIN AND AIMS OF THE SLovakK NaTionaL Councin ABROAD (By Peter Pridavok) m An internment camp is not a very suitable political platform, and the only thing Benes adversaries there could do was to protest against their detention and against the rec- ognition of Mr. Benes’ government by the Government of the United Kingdom. This latter protest was made in a telegram sent to Mr. Churchill from the Lingfield Race Course Aliens Internment Camp in July 1940. When the present writer was finally re. leased from internment in April 1941 and came to London, he had ample opportunity to observe at close quarters Dr. Benes’ anti- Slovak policy. The step taken by the British Government in recognizing Dr. Benes’ gov- ernment as representative of the Ozecho- slovak nation, followed subsequently by the United States, the Soviet Union and by the Polish Government (both of them having previously recognized the Republic of Slo- vakia), as well as by all the other Allied gov~ ernments-in-exile, was of course a terrible blow and an insurmountable obstacle. The dilemma which presented itself was to give up the struggle and keep silent, or to chal- lenge the whole allied world in an absolutely hopeless struggle and to face persecution, derision and slander? A handful of patriotic Slovaks chose the latter, disregarding all con-~ sequences. This writer and his few friends tried to inform the Allied governments and public opinion by memoranda and press ar- ticles, but with very little visible effect. More favorable results were obtained in America, where they succeeded, after several years”
A3$24 hard work, in winning over for the Slovak eause the almost one million strong Slovak- American community, which had previously been confused by the Benesites and intimi- dated by their influential friends and sup- porters in the various agencies in the West. To revive the Paris Council was not possible for the reason already stated. In addition, Dr. Hodza, its president, proved to have been too much entangled with Dr. Benes, and was not a free agent any longer. And anywey, in the following year he left for the United States, where he died shortly afterward. # new group was therefore formed, under the name of “Slovak National Union,” with the present writer at its head. Its aims were twofold: To counter the propa- ganda of the Czechoslovaks, which had pro-= gressively become more and more anti-Slovak, and to foster, in cooperation with simular organizations of other nations the idea of a central European federation. For this pur- pose an independent central European asso- ciation was established early in 1943. The objects of the association were “the struggle for a new national, political, economic, and social organization of the central European area on a Federal basis * * * and for national freedom, the right of self-govern- ment and full nationhood for all nations in central Europe and the rejection of any imperialistic or hegemonic attempts, either external or internal, within its territory.” (Cf. Commonwealth of Central Europe, Lon~ don, 1943, p. 18.) ‘This association later transformed itself into a central European federal club, which became the mother or- ganization cf numerous other central Euro- pean icderals? organizations operating today all over the free world. It may be perhaps worthwhile noting that within the association the first genuine and sincere Czech-Slovak agreement was reached between th: Czech and Slovak national unions. On March 9, 1943, these two unions signed a declaration, according to which they mutually recognized the right of the Slovak and the Czech nations to full national free- dom and independent, i. e., to a Slovak and a Czech state respectively, within the frame- work of a central European federation, and pledged themselves to render mutual assist- ance and support in defending the vital rights of both neighboring sister nations. This agreement which still holds good between the successors of the two national unions, is to this day considered the best workable basis for a Czech-Slovak reconciliation and cooperation, and as far as the Slovaks are concerned, the only acceptable one. Dr. Benes’ sinister influence upon Euro- pean affairs, exercised by him ever since 1916 (cf. R. Arnold Jones in “Dublin Review,” January 1945), which resulted in disaster 1938 and 1939, reached its climax in Decem-~ ber of 1943, when he concluded, against the strong warnings of the British and American Governments, what he tried to present as his magnum opus, i. e., the treaty of friend- ship, mutual help, and postwar cooperation between the then still nonexistent Czecho- slovak Republic and the Soviet Union, so disastrous in its consequences. The Moscow pilgrimage of the self-styled President of Czechoslovakia prompted the handful of Slovaks organized in the National Union to act and to denounce, in the strongest man- ner possible, this charter of enslavement, if only to put a Slovak protest on record. Ata meeting held January 9, 1944, the union formed itself into a Slovak National Council, and in an open letter addressed to Mr. An- thony Eden, the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, and published a few days later, announced that it had assumed the defense of Slovak interests on Allied soil until the Slovak people would be able to speak for themselves through their demo- cratically elected representatives. The pres- ent writer was elected its chairman, and Mr. Karol Vychodil its secretary. In its open let ter, the Slovak National Council “declared most solemnly that (the Moscow Treaty) was null and void, and did not bind the Slovak Nation in any way,” insisting that ‘‘the Pres- ident of the Czechoslovak Republic and Mr. Fierlinger * * * acted as unauthorized ne- gotiators * * * and could not be regarded as authorized negotiators with juridical or po- litical t tle to represent the Slovak Nation.” Besides being a protest against Dr. Benes’ compact with Stalin, the document was a plea for the defense and maintenance of the Slovak State as a separate unit in a future Central European Federation, This docu- ment, a thoroughly democratic and patriotic plea on behalf of the Slovak Nation, let loose the fury of the Renesites. In their press they denounced it as a “document of national treason.” and accused its author of open hostility toward the British Government. (Nove Ceskoslovensko, February 19, 1944.) They went even further and demanded of the British authorities—this time, however, with- out any results—the imprisonment of the “traitors.” These and other intrigues, in which the Czechoslovaks enlisted the active assistance of Mr. Maisky, the Soviet Ambassador, did not deter the Slovak National Council from further work. When every opportunity pre- sented itself, they did everything to put the case for a free Slovakia before the Allied Na- tions and their representatives. Had its var- ious proposals and suggestions been accepted at the time, much bloodshed and horror could have been avoided not only in Slovakia, put in other countries of central Europe as well, and probably the whole central Euro- pean picture would be different today. The work of the Slovak National Council in London could not end with the termina- tion of the war, because the Slovak people were not giver the opportunity to decide freely about their future. In complicity with his Soviet protectors and their misled stooges, Dr. Benes destroyed the Slovak state and started in Slovakia a bloody reign of terror and revenge. Until February 1948 the cruel persecution of Slovak patriots was being car- ried on under the well-worn mask of de- mocracy. When Dr. Benes’ policy, too clever by half, ended in complete communization of his “people’s democracy,” when Gottwald completed the work started by the presi- dentlal decrees of his predecessor and fresh refugees began to pour into the western countries, the numbers of exiled Slovak poli- ticians of various parties and convictions forced to leave the “wonderful republic” in- creased, and many of them expressed the wish to join the Slovak National Council in Lon- don and to support its policy as being in accordance with the desires of the people and with their own convictions. Taking into consideration this new situa- tion, as well as the magnitude of the tasks before it, the council decided on August 11, 1948, to enlarge its ranks and to reorganize itself completely in order to become the cen- tral and leading organ of the Slovak emigra-~ tion in its struggle for an independent, dem- ocratic Slovak state within the framework of a central European and European federation, The name of the council was modified into Slovak National Council Abroad, and chose a new president in the person of M. Karol Sidor, the wartime Slovakian envoy to the Holy See, who.is generally considered the most popular and trusted of all the surviving Slovak leaders. The former president of the Slovak National Council in London (the present writer) was elected general secretary, and prominent politicians, diplomats, and other figures of Slovakia’s public life en- trusted with offices in the presidium and in the various committees of the new council, and with the task of representing it in many of the capitals of the free world. The purpose in reconstructing the council Was announced to the Western Powers and to APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the exiled representations of other nations now under Soviet and Communist oppres- sion in the following terms: 1. That measures shall be taken for coor- dination of the struggle by Slovak national elements toward democracy that can be iden- tified with freedom and independence, 2. That measures shall be taken to seek a solution or closer approach to solution than is at present possible of the unsettled na- tional problems in central Europe which have continuously been the source of international trouble; and to that end our opinion is ex- pressed that such problems may become solved only by a policy which in operation would bring about a federation in central Europe, composed of separate states of the nations involved. 8. That this step shall be regarded as a practical and balanced impulse toward coop- eration with bodies representing other cen- tral European nations for the creation of a democratic federation or commonwealth of central Europe and will thereby serve to harmonize such efforts with further ob- jectives toward the integration of Europe as a whole. The Slovak National Council Abroad is reliably assured that its national and fed- eralist policy meets with the most whole- hearted approval of the Slovak people at home. It has the backing of the overwhelm-~ ing majority of the Slovak emigration and of the Slovak-American and Slovak-Cana- dian organizations which recognize the council as “the only institution having every right to act in the name of the Slovak nation and to voice its convictions, will, and desires and pledge it their full moral and n.aterial support.” (Cf. resolutions of the 30th congress of the Slovak Leagre of America held at Chicago, Ill., Mar. 3, 1949, and of the 8th congress of the Canadian Slovak League, held at Winnipeg, Manitoba, from the 25th to the 27th of July 1949.) Being not only a national, but a federalist institution as well, the Slovak National Council Abroad realizes whe importance of close cooperation with the free representa- tives of Slovakia’s neighbors and prospective partners in the central European common- wealth all of those nations envisage and desire. To this end it has established normal relations and fruitful collaboration with the Czech National Committee in London, with the Hungarian National Committee in Wash- ington, with the legal government of the Polish Republic, the Ukrainian National Council, and with the Government of the Byelorussian Republic, and is in close con- tact with many national and federalist or- ganizations of various nations. The only group with which the Slovak National Council Abroad does not and will not enter- tain any relations are the so-called Czecho- slovaks, for they do not represent any nation, not only the sad leritage of their discredited leaders and of a bankrupt ideology which has been the main source of discord among the nations of central Europe. (Reprinted ron Eastern Quarterly, London, January 50.) I’s Time To Call a Halt EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. FORREST C. DONNELL OF MISSOURI IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 23 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr, DONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Rrcorp an editorial
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD entitled “It’s Time To Call a Halt,” pub- lished in the Beaver Falls (Pa.) News-= Tribune of May 12, 1950. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: It’s TIME To Catt A Harr People of the Beaver Valley who did not bother to become concerned over the de- veloning strike threat of the Railroad Fire- men’s Union have been rudely shaken out of their comn'aconcy. They now fully real- ize, along \.- 1 the rest of us, before the strike has even entered its third day, that the work stoppage and tie-up of transpor- tation lines is much more than a national problem. It effects, with increasing impact, every home in every hamlet and town; if not cnickly settled it will seriously affect our nieve .c %s and the economy of the entire Nation. It is not only the railroad systems involved and their employees that will suffer because of this ridiculous strike of the firemen’s union that is an affront to every citizen of the Nation. Steel mills and coal mines, but recently back into production after strike- induced idleness, will very shortly feel the pinch of curtailed raw supplies and shipping facilities. Sharp cuts in production are not only likely, they can be definitely ex- pected. Multiply this effect by the number of smaller, dependent fabricating plants and kindred industries and the dire consequences of featherbedding become apparent in all their startling reality. Before the second day of the strike was over, such a commonplace, yet vitally im- portant, facility as mail delivery was badly disrupted and practically at a standstill. Delivery of foodstuff will next be impaired since truck-delivery facilities cannot pos- sible be expanded enough to accommodate the heavy demands that will arise. The bald, unadulterated truth of the mat- ter is that the Nation’s economy is being dealt a serious body blow by this strike that is not more money, not because of hours, but only for soft featherbedding spots for additional unnecessary firemen to go along in Diesel locomotives just for the ride. And what is behind it all? The reckless leaders of the firemen’s union want to force down the throats of the railroads and the public a ridiculous make-work proposal which has been twice ruled out by Presi- dential fact-finding boards duly appointed under the provisions of the Railway Labor Act. This demand of union leaders for addi- tional and unnecessary firemen to ride in Diesel locomotives was rejected—after months of hearings—by a Board appointed by President Roosevelt in 1943. It was again rejected in 1949 by a Board appointed by President Truman. Recent meetings with the National Media- tion Board have brought no change in the attitude of the union dictators. The union leaders helped write the Rail- way Labor Act. Yet in an attempt to jam through this scheme of pure featherbed- ding by leading the members of their union out on strike and threatening paralysis to large areas of the Nation, they are defying the spirit and intent of the very law which they helped to create. The strike is not for higher wages. It is a strike to force the railroads to employ many more thousands of firemen who are not needed. It would be indefensible waste. The railroads have refused to place this additional and unnecessary burden on the public. But more important than any other con- sideration is the action of these few irre- sponsible union leaders in seeking to force a crippling strike upon the Nation for their own selfish purposes, It is time to put an end to such un- American demands. As was stated im testi- mony before a Senate Laber Subcommittee hearing on a bill banning rail strikes: “A strike in no other industry can so quickly and so thoroughly paralyze the Nation and bring such disaster to 1ts economy and gen= eral welfare nor work such havoc in its de- fense program or its efforts in the world today.” Point 1 in a Policy for Asia EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. LOUIS B. HELLER OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, May 11, 1950 Mr. HELLER. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rsec- orb, I include the following article from the New York Times magazine of May 14, 1950: Pornr 1 IN A Pouicy ror AsIéA—~WeE Must IN- SIst ON SocraAL AND POLITICAL REFORM OR INTERVENTION WILL FaIu (By Nathaniel Peffer, professor of interna- tional relations at Columbia University) It seems certain that the United States is going to do something systematic in south- east Asia. Why, is clear enough—to stop the advance of communism and Russia in Asia. But what the United States 1s going to do is less clear, though more important. We appear to be thinking now in terms ef money and advisory commissions, both military and civil—and even more in Indo- china—and 1t is better at the outset to ask whether that is enough. We did that in China and the results are painfully evident: Two and a half billion dollars thrown away, a Communist regime sitting in the national capital and the implacable hostility of the government. The same measures in south- east Asia will have the same effect, and if we are to learn anything from the fiasco in China we shall have to do more or do less. First of all it is necessary to estimate the task correctly and to recognize the obstacles. If we are to succeed in keeping all of Asia except the Indian subcontinent from going the way of China we have three enemies to overcome. The first is Russia. The second is the native Communist Party in each southeast Asian country. The third is the ruling class in each country. And of these three the last is the most important, the most difficult to deal with, the most formid- able. If we can deal successfully with it— that is, persuade or force it to follow a course it has never yet followed and is reluctant to follow—we may be able to withstand Rus- sian incursion; if not, not. In consequence the second need is to acknowledge, to ourselves even more than to others, that the course on which we are em- barking is one of intervention. It will be charged against us anyway, and we may as well acknowledge it frankly, justifying it to ourselves by the urgency of the world con- flict and to others by what we aim to achieve. Now, there is a good case to be made against intervention, in any country, at any time, in any circumstance. On all the evi- dence of history it seldom comes off. There is a good case to be made, to, for interven- tion that is effective. But there is no case whatever to be made for ineffectual inter- vention. That only results in futility and the hostility of those against whom we have intervened—a dangerous combination, more especially when the world is choosing up sides, as it is now. A3925 This is the prime consideration to he borne in mind before we set out on any positive course in southeast Asia, and the choice is between going in with intent to use all the means recuired to bring about a political and svete! s.-uccure impregnable to Communist intrusion and not going in at all. What does this mean? What are the con~ ditions that invite communism in southeast Asia? It is not enough to cite the Com- munist victory in China and the danger of infection or invasion from there. As a mat- ter of fact, the growth of communism in southeast Asia had set in before the Com- munists won in China. Indeed, communism has spread in southeast Asia for the same reasons that it won in China. There are two main reasons: First, the whole of southeast Asia is or has been colonial. Thailand was independent by permission. Those countries in the region that have not yet won independence are re- sentful of foreign control and those that have recently won it are suspicious of its return. The Russians have skillfully ex- ploited native nationalism since the first World War. They have ostentatiously taken on the role of defender of oppressed peoples against western empires, and the colonial powers have played into their hands by mak-~ ing no concessions, or belated concessions, to their dependent peoples. Second, and much more important, is the question of livelihood. The huge majority of individuals in southeast Asia live on a standard that has now come to be accepted as beneath human worth or dignity in other parts of the world, and the ease of communi- cations in our time has made them aware of it. This, too, has been left to the Rus- sians to exploit, and the native Communist leaders trained by them have won followers by the promise of a ketter material lot. Nationalism is, on the whole, a dead issue now. Indochina and Malaya are the only countries in which independence has not yet been won. In Malaya nationalism is not yet virulent, because consciousness of unity is of recent origin, and a crisis could be avoided by concessions in time. In Indo- china alone is the crisis sharp on the issue of independence versus continued colonial< ism, and precisely for that reason commu-= nism will be most difficult to stem there, with or without American help. Indeed, unless American help is combined with pressure on France of the same kind that was applied to Holland in Indonesia in order to bring about a compromise, American help Will not only be futile but will make the Indochinese people bitterly anti-American. The crux is the social issue. On this it will be determined whether southeast Asia goes Communist or not. And on this Amer- ican aid, whether in the form of money or the aid of technicians, is not necessarily de« cisive. In fact, it might only result in accelerating the advent of communism. In this respect it is immaterial whether the area in question is newly independent or still colonial. There has long been a comfortable liberal belief that if colonial peoples were only emancipated they would be free from exploi< tation and contended. That is an illusion, The opposite might be true. Western coun~ tries, in all of which opinion has been formed by the influence of nineteenth century humanitarianism and twentieth century, liberalism, might be—and probably are— more restrained in exploitation than native rulers and landed proprietors who still have the social ideas of a thousand years ago and corresponding attitudes toward the mass of their people. Now suppose the United States does decide to embark on a large-scale program in Indo- china, or Burma, or Indonesia, or all three, Suppose it appropriates large sums to build railways and power plants, irrigation and
A3926 reclamation works, hospitals, and schools and numerous industrial establishments. And suppose thereby it does create higher productivity and a manifold increase in pro~ duction and the national income. Will that work for the benefit of the mass of the peo- ple? Not necessarily; it might do just the reverse. It might make the rich much richer and the poor even poorer, and thus inflame popular discontent and make easy converts to communism. In fact, unless definite ef- forts were taken for prevention, it would do that. Much. is being talked about point 4, and the most important thing to say about it is this: It can be the most enlightened social measure in modern times and it can produce the conditions of peace in large parts of the earth; but also, unless administered with foresight, determination, vigilance and un- derstanding of social fundamentals in unde- veloped areas, it can serve as the spearhead of communism .and Russian expansion. The explanation is simple. If industries are established with American capital and the rich classes get in on the ground floor—as they can, since they have money and knowl- edge—they will reap the huge profits always yielded in the first stages of industrializa~ tion, and with those profits invest in more enterprises and make still more. If at the same time the poor, whether former urban handicraft workers or workers brought in off the land, are paid the subsistence wages they have been accustomed to and worked the tra-~ ditional 14-hour handicraft day, they will be worse off than before. They will then have to work at the pace of the factory, live in urban slums, acquire ur- ban demands which they have to satisfy by paying with cash instead of making things with their hands on the farm. The disparity between the classes will become even wider than it is now, but it will be more glaring and obvious than now, because industrial workers soon acquire sophistication, even in the Orient. Discontent will fester and the voice of the Communist will have a siren lure. In the land it can be even worse. The countries in question are all agricultural, their people almost all peasants. The main problem therefore is the agrarian problem. If by irrigation and other projects we im- prove the fertility of the land, but leave un- touched the system of landownership, land rent, usurious rates of interest and dispro- portionate taxation, the benefits of increased fertility will accrue to the landowner ex- clusively. In fact he will be able with his large profits to buy in more land, and more peasants will become rack-rented tenants. Peasant discontent is endemic in such countries. It will become more virulent as conditions worsen, and everywhere commu- nism’s first and most successful appeal is to the peasants. With or without industrial development there can be no stability or in- ternal peace in southeast Asia unless the agrarian problem is drastically dealt with. In short, to put American money into de- velopment of technologically backward areas while leaving as they are the internal distri- bution of wealth and power and the existing relation between the small omnipotent mi- nority and the impoverished majority is to aggravate conditions already so bad as to be volcanic. The moral is plain. If we go in at all ft is intervening. It is intervening for the purpose of keeping Russia out. Then it had better be intervention with a prospect of success. That means we have to use power as well as dispense money. If we want to undercut Russia we have to re- move the grounds on which it can work. That means we have to bring about condi- tions that will leave the mass of native people no reason to lend a sympathetic ear to Communist exhortations or promises. We cannot do that if we leave decision to those who nowehave power in such coun- tries, whether they still are colonial under French or British jurisdiction or are inde- pendent, as in Indonesia or the Philippines or Burma. The Philippines can be taken as an ex- ample here. They are now free and inde~ pendent. And it is generally recognized that communism has gained since emanci- pation im 1946 and is still gaining. The Hukbalahaps, who are Communist led but in the main not Communists, are suppressed at one point and pop up at another point. They do so because the mass of the people, especially on the land, are disaffected. They are disaffected because the govern~ ment, controlled mainly by large landown- ers, has taken no step to improve the peas- ants’ lot; if anything, to the contrary. Nor does it show any inclination to do so. That being the case, it can be confidently predicted that coramunism will grow, re« gardless of whether or not America provides additional financial help. In other words, continued colonial status or emancipation is irrelevant. In fact, we may be more help- Jess in countries that are now independent. No matter which country and what its status, financial aid of any kind—whether ad hoc or under a formal point 4 pro- gram—must be accompanied by pressure; not military pressure against local Com- munist guerrilla forces, not pressure against Jocal Communist parties, but pressure against native classes holding power of de- cision. In newly established industries we must insist on fair wage scales and working hours more nearly in keeping with Western standards. On the land we must insist on reform in the organization of land owner- ship, including redistribution where neces- sary, on reduction of land rents, on reduc- tion of rate of interest for peasants, on elimination of the various forms of manipu- Jation whereby peasants have to pay ex- orbitantly for what they buy and get too little for what they sell. Both in industry and on the land there must be equitable taxation. This comes close to the heart of the matter. There must be an end to the system under which those who have least carry the burden of paying for such public services as there are, while those who have most go almost scot-free. For example, there is no excuse for the negli~ gible income taxes paid by rich Filipinos, while the peasants have to pay their share of the cost of government. Any belief that the economically powerful groups in each country will do this volun- tarily is illusory. They will do it only if compelled, and we alone can compel them if we intervene at all with money and tech- nical assistance. We can do so by keeping our representatives on the spot, watching the exception of the program, threatening to withdraw unless the measures we demand are carried out, and withdrawing both in money and personnel, if they are not. In“that case we may succeed. The per- quisites growing out of the development made possible by our funds will be valuable, legitimately, to those who now have most wealth. The fear of losing those perquisites gives us a powerful weapon. Furthermore, they have more to lose from the advent of communism than we have. They will hesi- tate if we are firm, and they recognize that we mean business. We may get our way then—and only then. Intellectual persua- sion and moral suasion are futile. Only threat of withdrawal can possibly be effective. In short, the way to intervene is to inter- vene. If we are not prepared to do that, it is better not to start. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD It can be taken for granted that if we intervene there will be a loud outcry of American imperialism, raised first in Moscow and then echoed by local Communists and perhaps taken up at the outset by many who are not Communists. But whether it car- rles conviction and wins adherents in the end depends on whether or not our pressure gets the kind of results we aim at. The oriental peasant, though illiterate, is not ignorant. He has an intellectually un- reasoned but sure sense of what conduces to his welfare and what does not. If he sees that by virtue of our action, however much compulsion is used on his own influential classes, he has more land, pays less rent when he rents land, is freed from usurious interest when he has to borrow till his crop is har- vested and pays lower taxes—at least lower than the rich—the cry of imperialism will carry little persuasion. He will be aware that the kind of imperialism that gives him enough to eat does him no harm. Nor will the cry be too persuasive to the intellectual classes, those most responsive to nationalism, most sensitive to the threat to independence or most dedicated to recover- ing it where it has been lost. If they see that American intervention is confined to bringing about medernization and laying a foundation of a better social order and that America demands neither political preroga- tive nor economic perquisites, they, too, will be unmoved by the cry of imperialism. They will perceive the distinction between that kind of intervention and the old or- thodox colonialism. The Chinese people would not have re- sented our interference if, in 1945, when we started pouring money and arms and supplies into China, we had insisted that the Chiang Kai-shek regime put an end to car- pet-bagger looting, throw out those palpably guilty of profiteering, appoint men of an- other stripe and institute the agrarian re- forms plainly called for. Had we told Chiang Kai-shek that unless he did these things, not another dollar or gun would be forthcoming and he would be left to the mercies of the Communists, he might have ylelded—it is not sure, but it is possible. If he had yielded, Mao Tze-tung would not be sitting in Peiping now. And for that, the Chinese people would hold no grievance against us. As it is, they do have resent- ment—and not only the Communists among them. Indeed, it may be the non-Commu- nists and anti-Communists who resent us most. We intervened, supported Chiang Kai-shek, made no conditions, gave the cor- ruption and malpractice of his regime our economic underwriting, and thus produced the disaffection of the Chinese people and opened the doors to communism. Now both Communists and anti-Communists are em- bittered. Imperialism in our time is a word that can have any content one chooses to give it. Intervention is as it does. It is questionable at best, risky at best. It can be justified or not, according to what it produces. In itself point 4 is a high social concept, with the potentiality of making a better dispensa- tion the world over. But it can also operate to its own frustration. So could the program now proposed for southeast Asia. If that program is carried out with a clear recognition of the needs to which it is applied and firmness in over~ coming the obstacles, no matter how highly placed their origin, we may succeed in throwing up barriers that will arrest the Communist tide. If not,’ it will be self- defeating. We shall have wasted money, incurred the enmity of all sides, and both southeast Asia and ourselves will be worse off. Russia will be the gainer.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Rail Strike EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. FORREST C. DONNELL OF MISSOURI IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 23 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. DONNELL. Mr, President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the appendix of the Recorp an editorial entitled “Rail Strike,” published in the Johnstown (Pa.) Tribune of May 11, 1950. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Rat STRIKE Each strike, of course, stands alone, since the issues differ in each case. But the com-~ bination of strikes which has afflicted the country in the last year—and which have particularly afflictec this part of Pennsyl- vania—has had a seriously discouraging effect on business, industry, and the public in general. The latest strike affecting this district has tied up the Pennsylvania Railroad west of Harrisburg, along with part or all of three other railroads in the country. Together these roads hardle an estimated one-third of the Nation’s passenger traffic, and one- fifth of its freight. This area, dependent upon Pennsylvania Railroad for most of its heavy transportation—coal and steel—is par~ ticularly hard hit. And yet it can do nothing but wait until the strike is settled on the national level. Approximately 18,000 members of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and En- ginemen have brought this partial paralysis upon the country. They seek an additional fireman on multiple-unit Diesel locomo- tives. The firemen and the engineers have a long-standing feud on this question, each seeking to compel the railroads to employ an additional member of the union on the big Diesels. In 1943, a Presidential fact-finding board found no justification for adding either an additional fireman, or an additional engineer to the train crews. The demand was raised again by the firemen, and another Presi- dential fact-finding board held that the union’s argument of safety was “devoid of merit.” That was last September. Since then the dispute has lingered on, culminat- ing at last in a strike. To avoid Federal in- terference on the ground of national emer-~ gency, the strike has been called against only part of the national railroad system, but that part is extremely important. This is another instance in which a rela- tively few men in a key industry can bring the economy of the country to a halt. For the stoppage of transportation means that very soon other industries must close down too. In this area, coal is piling up and mining, which suffered a 9-month partial or complete stoppage in the last year, must soon cease major operations again if the rail strike persists. Steel, also, may soon be compelled to cease production. The Railway Labor Act was devised to avert such shut-downs of transportation in this country, but like other measures of this kind it merely delayed strikes, without for- bidding them. We have accepted for many years the principle that the strike is a legitifMate economic weapon. But when that weapon is wielded irresponsibly by small key unions, the safety and the wel- fare of the country takes precedence over the right to strike. Congress is weighing a law for compulsory arbitration of railroad labor disputes, and yesterday a spokesman for the Southern Railway system said he had been brought reluctantly to the conclusion that such a law is needed. If there were any other solution, he said, the railroads would be for it, but “we have no other solution.” If such strikes as this one continue, it 1s highly possible that public opinion will support a measure to outlaw railway strikes, even though com- pulsory arbitration is not an entirely satis- factory substitute for sound, responsible bargaining between employers and em- ployees. Railroad Strike EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. FORREST C. DONNELL OF MISSOURI IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 23 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an editorial entitled “Railroad Strike,” published in the New London (Conn.) Day of May 13, 1950. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: RariroaD STRIKE This country seldom has a railroad strike of any consequence. To the credit of the rail unions, they ordinarily manage to settle their differences with management through the means of the special board established for the purpose of adjusting such dispute, although it certainly is not a fact that the members of the union have suffered greatly in this process. They have done pretty well in their bargaining of recent years, partic- ularly in the operating unions. The sig- nificant point, though, is that the methods provided for discussion and adjustment of differences, between the unions concerned and the management of the railroads, usually have worked admirably. This is one time when they did not work. The country faces the prospect of increasing inconvenience and then paralysis of business because 120,000 locomotive firemen are on strike on some roads. The dispute concerns the presence of a third man on Diesel-powered locomotives, two instead of one firemen on multiple-unit Diesels. The strike is confined largely to a few railroads, for instance, the Pennsylvania on its divisions west of Harrisburg and the New York Central divisions west of Buffalo. The net effect of the shut-down of service (in many areas other railroad employees refused to cross picket lines to operate equipment that was not involved in the strike) has been to cut down shipments of vital necessities, in some parts of the country, and to put vari- ous workers in totally unrelated industries on the lay-off list. For instance, the strike is already being felt in New England in some industries, because of lack of delivery of supplies, etc. In Detroit it was said that au- tomobile production would be cut down at once, and shut off altogether soon in all like. lihood, because of the transportation dif- ficulty. A3927 The railroads call attention to the fact that the strike issue has been thoroughly arbitrated, and the union involved has been turned down—not only by the regular rail- road arbitration agency but also by a special committee appointed by the President. Yet the strike took place. The railroads make no bones about contending that this is a case of featherbedding employees—provid- ing unnecessary or unusually easy jobs for them, cr o°~‘r- higher wages than the ac- tuali.:, . ©, etc, The union responds that it is completely unreasonable to expect one freman—who in the last analysis ap- parently becomes more of a mechanic than a fireman on the new Diesels—to watch, oil, and otherwise service one of these multiple- unit locomotives. The suggestion is raised, too, that safety is involved—that the fireman is required to be well away from the con- trols of the engine, much of the time, and that he is hence not apt to be available to do whatever is necessary to be done, for the sake of safety, 1f something should happen unexpectedly to the engineer. The deplorable part of this whole dispute is that the public, as usual, gets it in the neck when the men walk out. Not only are many thousands of employees in other in- dustries going to lose wages because of the strike—unless it is settled promptly—but the general public will suffer. The railroads, as a vitally necessary part of life, cannot stop operating for long. Strikes in this field ought to be outlawed, with reasonable provi- sion made for settling them by conferences. For a New Rail Labor Act EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. FORREST C. DONNELL OF MISSOURI IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May ‘23 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an editorial en- titled “For a New Rail Labor Act,” from the St. Louis Globe-Democrat of Satur- day, May 20, 1950. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Rrecorp, as follows: For a New Rar Lasor Act Sentiment is mounting in Congress, and the Nation, for a Federal statute that would outlaw rail strikes and enforce compulsory arbitration. Labor hates such a prospect un- compromisingly. Yet unions in the railway industry are doing more than any other source to bring about such an act. The A. F. of L. Switchmen’s Union by its strike order against 10 Midwest and Western roads has heaped new fuel under the issue. Only Government mediation seems able to prevent a second rail stoppage, first called for Tuesday, now postponed to June 1. One of the most unpopular strikes in recent years was the walk-out to obtain an extra fireman on multiple Diesels. This ended in the un- fon’s agreement to accept arbitration. Other railroad strikes in the last few years have whipsawed the economy and raddled public patience. The present Railway Labor Act, long re- garded as a model law, has broken down. Its fact-finding machinery has been ignored by unions, or repudiated. So persistent has been
A3928 the list of the law’s failures, spokesmen for the Pennsylvania and the New York Central roads have asked Congress to pass the bill sponsored by Senator DonNELL, of Missouri. This would prohibit rail strikes and compel acceptance of arbitration. Rail management was formerly as rigidly opposed to such a statute as labor. The reads want to do their own bargaining, make thew own labor deals. But that has increas- ingly grown precarious, er virtually impos- sible. So they now plump for Federal arhi- tration as an only out. Unions still are dead set to fight the legislation. The roads, labor, ner the public like en- forced ruling by Presidential fact-finders. This could open the way to Government domination of industrial wages and prices, to Washington control of industry. Such an act might be the wedge to open other indus- tries to compulsory Federal arbitration. That possibility must not be allowed to materialize. omy cannot persistently be stagnated and crippled by transportation tie-ups engineered for advantage of a relatively small segment of the people. Pillory of the economy and the public cannot be justified by self- interests of a small minority, no matter how valid might be their claims. And many of these claims are dubious or frankly excessive. A new labor-rail act is demanded and should be passed. We like compulsory arbitration no more than the unions. Yet unless some better program is devised, and none seems in the offing, the Donnell bill should be adopted. The rights of labor or management must be subservient to the rights of the Nation, and it is time Government accepts this policy. The Railroads EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. FORREST C. DONNELL . | OF MISSOURI - , IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES " ruesday, May 23 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 -Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I ask: unanimous -consent to have printed in” the Appendix of the Recorp an. editorial from. the Lynchburg (Va.) Advance of May 11, 1950, entitled “The Railroads.” There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, a. follows: Ture RAILROADS The Presidential fact-finding boards have declared that the demand of the striking railroad workers for an extra fireman on Diesel locomotives is not justified. The rail- roads make the same contention. Yet the workers strike and tie up four major rail- roads, Passengers, freight, express, and mail are blocked in the areas these railroads serve. The workers will lose money, the railroads will lose money, and many other persons and interests will lose money. There is not likely to be any gain for anyone. That is, unless the public and the Government are made aware of the necessity for keeping the trains running and demand that they be kept running. The railroads are our basic transportation. They already suffer from many ills and in- justices. The Second World War showed the job required of them and the job they can do, which can be done no other way. for equipment and improved services. But there has been no tax relief and no relief But the Nation and its econ-- Since | the war there have been huge expenditures_ from subsidized competition. Now comes @ strike which is wholly unjustified. Experts on union tactics find a special technique in this strike. They consider it to be a means of browbeating four lines and, if successful, “softening up” the other lines for similar or more drastic demands. The practice promoted in the union de- mand is known as featherbedding, which means employing superfluous workers. That costs the railroads extra money, if practiced, and the extra cost eventually is paid by patrons of the railroads. At the same time the railroads lose business to competitors, trucking lines for example, not burdened with featherbedding, with road-bed main- tenance, with excessive taxes. As long as there is a strike it should be faced down until the union knows it can not force superfiuous workers on the rail- roads—and expect the public to pay the bill. Meanwhile the Congress is faced once more with the need for legislation to keep essen- tial services in operation. No help can be expected from the President. He aids and abets strikes, justified or plainly unjustified. Home Building Activity at New Peak EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. RALPH A. GAMBLE OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 23, 1950 Mr. GAMBLE. Mr. Speaker, under unanimous consent to extend my re- marks in the Appendix of the ConGRES- SIONAL RECORD, I insert the following re- port of the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, on the number of housing starts in April—126,- 000 dwelling units—the highest number. in the history of the United States. Pri- vate industry in-the United States is still on the march. This year it will, I be-- lieve, again break another all-time record. ' . 0 - The report -follows: HoME BUILDING ACTIVITY AT New PrAaK— 2 126,000 New DweELLine Units’ STARTED IN’ APRIL Home building activity for the first third of 1950 reached new record proportions, ac- cording to preliminary estimates of the United States Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics. In April alone, builders started 126,000 new permanent dwelling units, an increase of 16,000 (15 percent) over March; and 37,700 (48 percent) over April 1949. So fer in 1950, each-month has been record-breaking in number of new dwelling units started. From January through April 1950, new housing units totaled almost 395,- 000, which surpasses 1949 activity for the same months by 53 percent. Last year, the " half-million mark was reached in July; this year it seems quite likely that a half a mil- lion new dwelling units will have been started by the end of May. The acceleration in home-building activity was country-wide, according to preliminary reports from local building-permit officials. When the first 4 months of 1949 and 1950 are compared, the most striking advances this year were reported for the West North Central, Middle Atlantic, East North Central, and West South Central States. In all of these areas the number of new dwelling units authorized for construction was about double APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the volume for the January-April period in 1949. For the first 4 months the east north cen- tral: States led all other regions this year in the volume of new dwelling units for which permits were issued, followed closely by the Pacific, middie Atlantic, and west south central regions. Last year for the same period the Pacific States led by a wide margin. Among some of the larger cities reporting, the number of units authorized was double, and even triple last year’s volume for the first 4 months. Marked increases were re- ported for Washington, D. C.; Chicago, IIL; Wichita, Kans.; Baltimore, Md.; Kansas City and St. Louis, Mo.; Oklahoma City, Okla.; Philadelphia, Pa.; Dallas, Tex.; and Milwau- kee, Wis. TapLe 1—Number of new non-farm-dwelling units started 1948, 1949, and 1950 931, 300 53, 500 50, 100 76,400 99, 500 100, 300 97, 800 95, 000 86, 600 82, 200 73, 400 68, 600 52,900 ene 1940__.. 2+ e+e ee 1, 025, 100 January .8.-.--------------- February -- 50, 000 50, 400 69, 400 88, 300 95, 400 95, 500 96, 100 99, 000 102, 900 104, 300 95, 500 78, 300, January —---------~-~------- February..-- 7110, 000. 2126, 000 : 1 Revised. -? Preliminary. Strike Without Reason EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. FORREST €. DONNELL ; _ OF MISSOURI IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES ‘Tuesday, May 23 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of.the REcorp an editorial entitled “Strike Without Reason,” pub- lished in the Commercial Appeal, of Memphis, Tenn., on May 11, 1950. . There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Rrecorp, as follows: Srrime WitHovut REASON , The strike which the Brotherhood of Loco- motive Firemen and Enginemen have called tgainst four of the Nation's major railroads
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD and three subsidiaries is utterly without reason and should be countered with ali the means at the Government’s disposal. It is slowly crippling the American railroad system. It will drastically affect the normal economy of the South. Eventually, the economic paralysis will creep over the Na- tion. Again we say, this vast stoppage is without slightest justification and therefore completely undeserving of public support. It makes the processes of the National Rail- way Labor Act a failure and destroys what- ever was the merit of Presidential fact-find- ing boards. The firemen and enginemen sought a sec- ond fireman for multiple-unit Diesel loco= motives. The demand has received exhaus- tive consideration by two Presidential fact- finding boards and, in each instance, was rejected. The railroads’ position that the demand is nothing but featherbedding and job making is undeniable. About all that a second fireman could do on a Diesel would be to get in the way. His contribution to the safety factor would be nil. The last fact- finding board held that Diesel locomotive usage by the railroads was actually making jobs. Better schedules made possible by their use have attracted more freight and passengers. The rule or ruin attitude of the striking firemen suggests the cure. There is now pending before the Senate Labor Committee the so-called Donnell bill requiring compul- sory submission of railroad labor-manage~ ment disputes to fact-finding boards whose decisions would be binding. Disputes in< volving wages and working conditions would be submitted to Presidential fact-finding boards. Those involving interpretation of agreements would go to the Railroad Adjust- ment Board. Court decisions on appeals taken from board decisions would be final. The record shows that the railroads have consistently accepted the recommendations of fact-finding boards while the opposite is true of some of the unions. This and the background of the present stoppage clearly emphasize the need of the companies con- tained in the Donnell bill. The national welfare is not well served by any process which permits of strikes even though fact- finding agencies have denied the claims and demands of unions. In this instance na- tional welfare is being greatly damaged and national safety seriously endangered. Ultimately, national welfare and safety are going to require a prohibition against strikes in the communications and transport industries—the two through which revolu- tionary communism moves first, Contracting of Mexican Farm Labor in the United States EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOHN F. SHELLEY OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 22, 1950 Mr. SHELLEY. Mr. Speaker, under leave granted to extend my remarks in the ReEcorp, I wish to include an analysis recently made by Dr. Ernesto Galarza, director of research and education for the National Farm Labor Union, of the procedures followed, and the resultant effects of the policies used, in the recruit- ment of Mexican workers for employ- ment in agriculture in the United States. This recruitment program, inaugurated as a wartime measure, has been ex- tended and entrenched until now, in view of the excess of domestic agricul- tural labor available, it is having a drastic effect upon the situation of farm labor, not only in California but through- out the South and West. This effect is felt indirectly in the industrial labor market also. Dr. Galarza’s program for reform of the procedures should be given serious consideration by every Member of this House with a real interest in maintaining and improving living and working conditions of which we need not be ashamed. Recent Nation-wide pub- licity in the press and magazines gives real evidence that we do now have real reason to feel shame. Dr. Galarza’s analysis follows: Mexican-Unrrep States Lasor RELATIONS AND PROBLEMS (By Ernesto Galarza, director of research and education, National Farm Labor Union, Washington, D. C.) Since 1942 the recruitment of Mexican workers for employment in agriculture in the United States by intergovernmental execu- tive agreements has become a settled policy, The first agreement of that year was an emergency war measure. The last one, signed on August 1, 1949, indicates how the Governments of Mexico and the United States propose to carry out their normal, peacetime labor relations. It seems unnecessary to say that the cir- cumstances which led to the 1942 agreement were not the same as those which appear to have justified that of 1949. The real short- age of manpower in this country and the heavy demand on our food resources were obvious to all of us. We supported this policy in the war years in spite of the faulty administration of the original agreement as well as the injustices, graft and irrespon- sibility that attended certain phases of the program. We have now had nearly 8 years of experi- ence with this type of international labor policy, and half of that experience has oc- curred since the end of World War II. It is time that we consider fully some of the prac- tical effects of these agreements on labor and inter-American relations. For those who have not read the text of the August execu- tive agreement and related documents, it may not be amiss to summarize their pro- visions. The agreement itself is supported by an individual labor agreement and a joint in- terpretation of the international executive agreement. All three documents are bind- ing. They provide for the legalization of the so-called wetbacks or illegal entrants and give them precedence for farm labor con- tracts. Although the employers and workers are parties to the individual labor contract, they cannot change the terms of the contract without the consent of the United States and Mexican Governments. The United States Employment Service is designated as the agent of the employers. These documents further provide that processors, as distinguished from growers, of food may employ Mexican contract work- ers and the USES is given the role of pro- moter among United States growers to en- courage the hiring of nationals. The USES is also given the authority to determine which employers in this country are to be permitted to sign contracts as well as the power to certify as to the need and non- availability of workers in the United States. This concurrence by the USES is made a condition of the enforcement of many of the critical clauses of the agreement, The documents authorize the signing of labor contracts up to a period of a year, ex- A3929 cept for the cotton and beet crops, where contracts may run for as short a period of time as 6 weeks. Workers may elect their own representatives to deal with employers except for purposes of collective bargaining. Compulsory arbitration is imposed on both the growers and the Mexican nationals. Under the head of minimum living and working conditions, the agreement prohibits racial discrimination and promises the work- er full advance information on wages and other conditions at the place of employment before he arrives there. It assures the pay- ment of the prevailing wage for a given class of work and ertablishes compulsory accident insurance, calls for decent housing, makes available free health examinations and free medical services, eliminates deductions from wages for savings funds and guarantees safe and adequate transportation, the 8-hour day, maximum cost of meals and no work on Sunday as well as employment for three- fourths of the total period stipulated in the contract. On paper, these and other provisions rep- resent an attempt to correct many serious objections that were present in previous agreements and, on paper, there is much to commend them. Indeed, the agreement ex- tends to alien workers employed in the United States certain rights which domestic workers do not enjoy. The 8-hour day, free medical service and compulsory accident in~ surance provisions are examples of this in« equality. We are now concerned, however, with something more than the paper weight of these agreements. We in the National Farm Labor Union want an honest appraisal of the facts, not the promises. In this interval of precarious peace, we want experience, not expediency, to guide our decisions. First of all, there is no question that the effect of these agreements on farm wages, especially on the corporation type of farms, has been decisive. During the war years, the effect was to discourage wage increases among domestic farm laborers in the South= west. In the postwar years, the agreements have constituted an effective diplomatic support for the wage cutting that has come about, notably during the past few months. In California the corporation farms have been carrying out this policy of wage reduc~ tions. Last September they tried to put over a 17-percent squeeze on the pay of cotton pickers. A few weeks ago they de- cided to cut the wages of Filippino workers by 10 cents an hour. Throughout the Cen- tral Valley of California wages have fallen from 85 and 90 cents an hour to 75, 70, 65, and even 50 cents an hour. In Mississippi, cotton wages fell from $3.25 per hundred pounds to $2.10 in 1949. In Arkansas the rate fell from $3.25 to $2.65. Time after time we have found situations of this Kind, where the domestic worker either has had to work for 10, 15, or 20 cents an hour under the 1948 wages or relinquish his Job to a Mexican national or “‘wetback.” The illegal or wetback is mentioned in this connection because of a certain provi- sion of the August agreement. This pro- vision permits the legalization of wetbacks who were in the United States as of August 1, 1949. In California alone this paved the way for the legalization of more than 40,000 workers who had entered the country illeg~ ally. Since it is impossible to determine when an illegal crosses the borde-, this pro- vision is practically an escalator clause on which wetbacks may ride to legality in the future. It has become a common experience of members of the National Farm Labor Union to be told by corporation farms that they can either work for less or go home, since plenty of Mexican contract workers are available. But there are additional facts to be placed on the record in this connection.