A500 the difference between a payment on the na- tional debt and no payment, between a tax reduction and no tax reduction, But it seems reasonably certain that the Tabers and Georges won't prevail unless the people make their real feelings known. If the mail coming into Washington is mainly the inspired writing of the left-wing- era, then those Congressmen who customarily keep one finger on the public pulse while casting their votes may jump to the conclu- sion that the people want big government. That they are not interested in economies, That they are not concerned about a bal- anced budget or a lowered debt or a cut in taxes. Perhaps it would be well for those who favor a reduction in the pay roll, who support the views of Senator Grorcz and Representa- tive Taskr, to make their attitude known. Organized pressure, whether applied by the left wing or the right, is a reprehensible weapon. But certainly no Congressman can resent, almost all Congressmen welcome, sin- cere expressions of the opinions of their con- stituents. If the great, unorganized majority doesn't express ‘itself there is danger that tightly organized minorities will succeed in giving the impression that they speak with the voice of America. Nebraska’s Representatives, Howarp Bur- rrrT, Kari Sreran, Cart Curtis, and A. L. MILLER, may be addressed at the House Office Building, Washington, D. C. Senators Hucs Burtizr and KsnnNeTH WHERgy may be ad- dressed at the Senate Office Building, Wash- ington, D. CO. Letters from Nebraska voters and taxpay- ers to any or all of them may be helpful in bringing about a real deflation of big gov- ernment. Disputed Portal-to-Portal Pay EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. JOHN D. DINGELL OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 10, 1947 Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the REc- orp, I include the following text of the opinion handed down by Judge Frank A. Picard, of the eastern district of Mich- igan, in the now-famous and so-called portal-to-portal pay suit as it appeared in the Washington Sunday Star, Febru- ary 9. I am anxious that it be made available through the Recorp to all Members of the House in order that pre- vious misstatements regarding this de- cision may be corrected. I make this re- quest notwithstanding the fact that the cost of printing exceeds the amount allowed under the rule. The article follows: TEXT OF JuDGE PICARD’s DECISION OVERRULING CLaIms ror PorTaL PAY Because of the interest and discussion that this case has stimulated, we deem it advisable to give a brief history of ite de- velopments which finally resulted in neces- sity for this court's present determination. When this matter was first heard (60 P. Supp. 146) plaintiffs were not seeking pay for time consumed walking to their jobs nor for preliminary activities necessary for pro- duction work. The only question discussed by either counsel was whether defendant company had instructed plaintiff employees to punch in 14 minutes before the scheduled starting times in the morning and afternoon and punch out 14 minutes after the sshed- uled quitting times at noon and afternoon. Plaintiffs insisted that they were expected to and did work during these additional periods but that this time was not com- puted in determining whether they were ex- ceeding the legal workweek. If true, plaintiffs were thus being deprived of the extra half- time for pottery produced in hours over the legal week. (Norge.—The legal workweek was 44 hours, October 24, 1938, to October 24, 1939; 42 hours October 24, 1939, to October 24, 1940; 40 hours October 24, 1940, on.) The master’s report concluded that the employees had not substantiated their claims and we agreed with that report in all but one particular. We held that plaintiffs had met the test required; that they had proved that they were directed and encouraged to reach their workbench early in the morning and back after lunch and actually produced pot- tery during these minutes for which time was not computed. MEN BELIEVED ACTUALLY LABORING AT PRODUCTION We selected a figure of 7 minutes before the scheduled starting time in the morning and 5 minutes before the scheduled starting time following lunch for which the employ- ers were not obligated to pay, including therein time it took plaintiffs to walk to their respective places in defendant's plant. For the differences between those 7 and 5 minutes and the time punched we held the employer liable if such additional minutes brought the employee over the allowed work- week. We so found because we believed the man actually worked at production labor. The Court of Appeals (149 F., 2 D. 461), following rule 53 (8) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure held that we were bound by the master’s conclusions unless clearly erroneous and it was sustained by the Supreme Court on this issue. Ordinarily this would have ended the case then and there. In the master’s report and record of the testimony, however, there was much discus- sion about minutes consumed walking from time clock to workbench and for preliminary activities but counsel for both plaintiffs and defendant used this evidence solely to sup- port their respective positions on the only question before the court—overtime. Here it ts well to note that in 1943, defend- ant contended that it was necessary to start plaintiffs clocking in 10 to 14 minutes before starting time because of the distance the employees had to travel within defendant's plant to their workbenches and because they had to perform a lot of other preparatory duties after checking in. One defendant witness said it would take 6 minutes to walk 400 feet—a rate of less than 1 mile per hour. On the other hand, and in contrast, plain- tiffs, in 1943, minimized time consumed in preliminary duties such as greasing arms, putting on aprons, gloves, and small cots to protect their fingers, insisting that they could and should do all these things, including walking to the farthest point in the plant in time not to exceed 2 minutes. Arriving at their work places, they contended, they usu- ally started work immediately. In the Court of Appeals the issue was also confined to overtime, or time allegédly actu- ally worked by plaintiffs in production labor before the scheduled starting hours in the morning and after lunch. PLAINTIFFS’ PETITION FOR CERTIORARI CITED From this status the case moved to our why were asking the Supreme Court to reverse the of Appeals, and affirm this court: APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the time-clock cards to the time when they undertook E ‘ | Fi tivities after punching all the indicia of work,” citing Tennessee Coal Co. v. Miscoda Local (821 U. S. 500, 588) and Jewell Ridge Corp. v. Local (335 U. 8. 161, 164-168). Here enters portal-to-portal for the frat time. Here we find that in approaching the Su- ing checking in and travel time be sustained, and in the same petition ask portal-to-por- tal pay. This was followed by plaintiff's brief to the Supreme Court which also urged the portal- to-portal theory in one part and ended by asking that court to approve our decision wherein we eliminated walking time. QUESTION NOT INJECTED BY SUPREME COURT On the other hand, defendant, while con- tending that “portal-to-portal” was not properly before the Supreme Court, consumed several pages in ite brief denying applicabil- ity of the Tennessee and Jewell Ridge cases and citing many inferior courts on similar- fact situations. But here again we find de- fendant emphasizing that— “It took a minimum of 12 to 15 minutes to get the workers into the plant.” It must, therefore, be apparent that if the -to-portal question is now in this case, it was not injected nor inserted therein by the Supreme Court. It’s here because defendant company over- sold its defense before the master 4 years ago in explaining why its employees reported 14 minutes before starting hours. This was quickly taken advantage of by plaintiffs in the interim between the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. In fact, when the Supreme Court held that this court was wrong in granting overtime for what we believed was real production labor, it found itself in the position where it must in all fairness at least inquire into the extent of walking time and preliminary ac- tivities to which defendant company was ap- parently admittedly subjecting its employees, and which seemingly reached the proportion of 26 to 80 minutes each day. CHAMELEONIC PATTERN OF THE FACTUAL PABRIC It was this chameleonic pattern of the factual fabric which the Supreme Court de- cided needed clarifying and since the master had placed upon plaintiffs the burden of showing time necessarily spent on the em- ployer'’s premises in preliminary activities, it held that this was not a fair interpretation of the law. “Assuming that the employee has proved that he has performed work and has not been part in accordance with the statute.” “It “Tt would be a perversion of fundamental principles of justice to deny all relief to the injured person, and thereby relieve the wrongdoer from making any amend for his The Supreme Court further held that— “Time spent in walking to work on the emp! premises, after the time clocks were punched, involved ‘physical or mental exertion (whether burdensome or not) con- trolled or required by the employer anal foie sued necessarily and primarily for the benefit of the employer and his busi- ness.’ © © © Work of that character must be included in the statutory workweek and compensated accordingly, regardiess of contrary custom or contract.” We were therefore instructed to deter-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD First, how much walking time was in- volved in going from the time clock to the several respective work places; and Second, time necessarily consumed “put- ting on aprons and overalls, removing shirts, taping or greasing arms, putting on finger cots, preparing the equipment for produc- tive work, turning on switches for lights and machinery, opening windows and assembling and sharpening tools.” RULE FOR APPLICATION IN LIGHT OF REALITIES But the Supreme Court has given us two other mandates. The Supreme Court di- rected that— (A) When we had obtained this informa- tion we must, in computing damages, apply the rule of de minimis non curat lex (the law cares not for small things) (26 C. J. 8. 705), and (B) Apply the rule to a workweek contem- Plated by section 7 (A), Fair Labor Standards Act, “In light of the realities of the industrial world.” There is nothing in the Supreme Court’s decision to justify our including other min- utes spent on the company’s property, nor @re we concerned with the question of whether the time spent in preliminary ac- tivities or walking are compensable. The holding of the Supreme Court in this case is that they are compensable subject to the de minimus rule and “In light of the real- ities of the industrial world.” Whether cer- tain acts are dr are not preliminary activi- ties, however, is still for us to determine. And since we are bound by the master’s finding that plaintiffs were not required to work at production labor before or after any of the scheduled starting and quitting times, the question of overtime of the genus, orig- inally before this court is not to be con- sidered by us. THE FACTS Since our order to the master did not con- tain instructions to compute the time con- sumed walking and in preliminary activi- ties, and because, when we were ready to proceed, the master was no longer available, it was necessary for this court to hear the further testimony in order to comply with the Supreme Court's direction. In arriving at these facts, the following was agreed upon: 1. That at the rate of 2 miles per hour a man walks 9.93 feet per second or 176 feet every minute. 2. That at the rate of 214 miles per hour @ man walks 3.67 feet pér second or 220 feet every minute. 8. That at the rate of 8 miles per hour a man walks 4.4 feet per second or 264 feet per minute. 4. That at the rate of 4 miles per hour a man walks 5.86 feet per second or 352 feet per minute. 5. That the following table indicates the distances in feet from time clocks to the several departments in this particular plant: Distance Department Shortest} Mean | Farthest Clay shop.......-.....-.-- 800 Bisque hagger filling. 570 Bisque car loading... 530 eeeer ene nenn 820 800 710 510 Decorating... 850 Packing...._.-..-.---- 7 Chippers and selector... 450 Glost sagrer fillors.......-. 420 Glost car loaders 825 350 325 820 510 610 Maintenance... 590 Boiler and engineroom.....} 680 |.---..--|---e----n0 The impracticability of determining the distance to each work bench being apparent to all parties, this court informed counsel that from the above stipulation 5 he would select the ‘mean distance” as the point in each department to which walking time would be computed. The mean distance was explained on the record to be not “as the crow files,” but as the halfway point along the routes tuken by the employees in going to their work benches. PLAINTIFF WITNESSES UNBELIEVABLE AT TIMES As we anticipated, the testimony on how long it would take a person “walking at an ordinary rate along the most direct route from time clock to work bench,” was at great variance, and at times plaintiff wit- nesses were unbelievable. One plaintiff wit- ness said she would walk 73.6 feet per minute, which is 0.83 mile per hour. Defendant's witnesses said they walked through the plant at between 282 and 330 feet per minute. Plaintiffs’ witnesses, in an obvious effort to build up “walking time,” discovered much impedimenta and many difficulties in the paths that they had to take although there was no hint of such impedimenta or diffi- culties when plaintiffs were testifying in the original suit. Their entire testimony was very unsatisfactory and made little impres- sion upon this court. If the plaintiffs’ witnesses were telling the truth, they went to work each day under the most adverse conditions possible. In truth no obstacle race could have had more hazards, one witness saying that boxes were strung all along the entire 500 feet she had to walk. On the other hand, defendant in the main also reversed its field, and took a much smaller figure in computing walking time than it did in 1943. After hearing the testimony, and both parties having consented that this court might utilize its knowledge of the plant it- self, we arrived at the conclusion that with due consideration to intermittent presence of any trucks, or train of trucks, or the coming and going of other employees, a rates of 250 feet per minute from the south clock, and 275 feet per minute from the north clock, under travel conditions usually existing in that plant, would be fair. On that basis the time taken to travel from time clock to the several departments is as follows: From north clock =At278 | Number Department feet per | of min- minute utes 1010) Se 600 2.18 Bisque sagger filling... 528 1.92 Bisque carloading. 4 1.71 Casting. Mold. Notze.—Only the mold department shows & walking distance of 8 minutes, and there is no evidence that any plaintiff comes from that department. From the south clock At 250 | Number Department foot por minute Decorating............---.eeee--- 260 1.05 Packing.............- 612 2.45 Chippers and selectors. 388 1.47 Glost sagger fillers. 305 1.47 Glost car loaders 276 1 Glost sagger unlo 255 1.02 Glost kilns...... 227 90 Bisque kilns........ - 625 25 Dipping and brushing. - 447 1.78 Glare room... ........ . 530 2.12 Maintenanco........... - 570 2.2 Boiler and engine room...........- 680 27 Norr.—No department is 3 minutes from the time clock. A501 PRELIMINARY ACTIVITIES Here again we found the evidence most conflicting, and it is our conclusion that when plaintiffs, testifying in the hearings before the master 4 years ago, stated that the time necessary for preliminary activities was practically nil, they were much nearer the truth than they were at our recent hearing. From the evidence we find that: (a) Putting on aprons and overalls, which was the custom of about five-twentieths of the employees, consumed less than half a minute a day. This was voluntary, and for the benefit and comfort of the employee himself. (b) Removing shirts varied with the weather, was also voluntary, and would con- sume only a few seconds. (c) There was no taping of arms, except by one woman who had met with some kind of an accident. Some put a piece of tape between the thumbs and the forefinger, probably 6 seconds, and this was also voluntary. (d) Only a few who were in the small dipper department greased their arms; that this was voluntary and consumed about 30 seconds a day. (e) Putting on finger cots and taking them off, each twice, would take about 1 minute. (f) Putting on gloves and taking them off would take less than a minute, but this was confined to a comparative few in one or two departments, and those who put on fin- ger cots did not put on gloves. PREPARING EQUIPMENT FOR PRODUCTIVE WORK (g) The only preparing of equipment for productive work was taking off the water that had accumulated on and stirring the glaze, It took time not to exceed 2 minutes at the start of the workday, and the evi- dence, we believe, indicates that this was done after starting hour. In addition it was part of the job and was considered in the rate of pay at which this particular function was compensated. (h) Turning on light and machinery switches was practically nil in time con- sumed, 1 or 2 seconds, and that opening win- dows was not done by anybody but the fore- man, (1) There is no evidence that these em- Pployees had to assemble and sharpen their tools. (j) The scraping of the block consumed a minute or so and that this was repeated throughout the day the man was working But this was part of that particular em- Ployee's job since it was repeated time and again during his work hours, as clay might gather on the block, It was all considered in his rate of pay. (k) Taking off clay from the jigger ma- chine was another part of the job that took less than a minute, and was repeated throughout the day. (1) In the sliphouse department, where the men had to change clothes, that 5 min- utes a day should be allowed since the evi- dence proved that this had to be done be- fore starting on the employee's own time, but not after work—then he changed on the company time. This particular group did not go out to lunch, were paid for the full half hour, and walking time plus preliminary activities here amounted to 9.68 minutes per day. (m) There was no cleaning up performed by plaintiffs after working hours. In fact, the cards indicate that the employees in many instances were at the time clock within 8 or 4 minutes of the closing hour. Some punched out exactly at the closing hour after walking to the time clock before quit- ting time and waiting until the even hour. The only cleaning up that plaintiffs did was policing around their particular Job on com- pany time, This was also in conformity with the findings of the master.
A502 8UM TOTAL WOULD REACH LESS THAN 3 MINUTES While we do not consider A, B, C, D. G, H, J, or K above as preliminary activities, nevertheless, if the Supreme Court's opinion means what plaintiffs contend, to wit, that they are, the sum total for any one person would be less than 3 minutes a day. From the testimony this court has arrived at the conclusion that in only three de- partments, the glost belt, where gloves and hand rags were put on, the slip house where clothes were changed, and in the dipping and brushing department where finger cots were used, were there any preliminary ac- tivities that we could consider in any way not part of the job, and necessarily per- formed before the employee started to work; and that in the glost and dipping depart- ments those preliminary activities would not take 2 minutes a day, adding walking time and preliminary activities. While perhaps the following should prop- erly be under conclusions of law, for con- venience we place this finding and statement here. There was much urging that the court should pass separately upon the de minima features of preliminary activities, and walk- ing time. And there is some reasoning to support this since the Supreme Court, re- ferring to preliminary activities and the de minimis doctrine, used the significant words “here again” indicating the two, “walking time” and “preliminary activities,” were to be considered separately. Still we reject this theory. We believe that if time is used in walking, and any time in preliminary activities elther before or following the walking, that they should be considered together. Even if standing apart they would be de minimis, As we interpret the instructions of the Supreme Court, however, it makes no differ- ence in this case. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: “DE MINIMIS NON” Much has been written in briefs submitted about “de minimis non,” one laying founda- tion for discussion by treating the subject historically. But for the most part counsel devoted their efforts advocating legal prin- ciples on which there is no disagreement and very often the expounder lost sight of the fact that here we are bound by the master’s report. The question here is not whether the employees were compelled to be on the premises 14 minutes before starting or after quitting time. The Supreme Court has al- ready upheld findings of the master that they were not. But most of the cases cited are along these lines and not at all in point. Decisions on the vital issue ‘‘de minimis” leave something to be desired and we submit that the only real aids lies in those cases, bulletins, etc., which treat of the application of de minimis non to section 7 (A) of the Fair Labor Standards Act; not in lawsuits involv- ing 3 or 4 cents, nor what percentage of in- terstate commerce is necessary to place some firm under the act. However, we do find in the Wage and Hour Manual, 1944-45, page 234, in answering a query as to how a certain employer was to compute worktime for his employee who spent 15 to 25 minutes each day going be- tween thé job and the time clock, the Chi- cago regional attorney held that if the em- ployer's records of hours actually worked by the employee were kept in good faith, any disparity between those records and time- clock records might be accounted for by these factors, and the pay-roll records would be given weight in determining the hours worked. Here, though not exactly in point, is an indication of de minimis non since part at least, if not all, of that 15 or 25 minutes had to be used in walking. In volume 5, Wage and Hour Reporter, at page 148, answering an inquiry, the Public Contracts Administrator said: “As to recorded time, the department makes allowances for a reasonable period of time to cover the period between the time an employee ceases work and the time he punches out on his card. However, a period in excess of 15 minutes is regarded as unres- sonable.” This, of course, indicates 15 minutes only after work and presumably 28 minutes for coming and going was de minimis. In Walling v. Peavy-Wilson Lumber Co. (49 F. Supp. 846, at pp. 883 and 886) the log sawyers walked a distance from practi- cally nothing to 1,500 feet, under bad walking conditions, which would take them from zero to a Maximum of 12 minutes. The court held that “between the time they got the work train and the time they reached the ac- tual point where they do work is so short that the issue is insignificant, and accord- ingly we shall not allow it as worktime.” This, of course, was walking one way, mak- ing at least 24 minutes daily which was de minimis. BENDIX CASE CITED IN SHORT PERIODS In Cameron v. Bendiz Aviation Corp. (65 F. Supp. 510), where plaintiffs were seeking to recover for time waiting in line to punch the clock, the court held that periods rang- ing from a fraction of a minute to 24 or 3 minutes’ time did not constitute “consider- able” periods of time within the meaning of the Administrator's ruling, “employment” within the intent of the act. This was de minimis. In Buslow v. Connor Lumber & Land Co. (11 Labor Cases, pars. 63, 220) the court held that 5 minutes spent by an employee in preparatory activities prior to starting time could not be recovered since the amount in- volved was insignificant. This case used the words “de minimis.” In 1944-45 Wage and Hour Manual at page 1193, in response to an inquiry, the Public Contracts Administrator, who is also Administrator of the Wage and Hour Act, held that a period of some 8 to 10 minutes to permit the employee to get from the time clock to his place of work would not be re- garded as working time under the act. Thus, 20 to 40 minutes a day, if counted four ways, would be de minimis. From the CIO (amicus curiae) on behalf of plaintiffs, came a reference to the Wage and Hour Manual 1944-45, at page 242, which held that the employer could not deduct a 16-minute lunch period because the time consumed was ‘‘too short to utilize effective- ly in the employee's own interest and is more akin to a waiting period or short rest period.” This is not in point, unless we must con- sider it as de minimis in reverse and is, therefore, against plaintiffs. Ulle v. Diamond Alkali Co., cited by plain- tiffs and found in 8 WHR 1043, is not in point, since this was a decree entered by consent of the parties covering portal-to-portal. DE MINIMIS NOT INVOLVED IN COAL MINERS’ CASE In 2 CCH Labor Law Reports, 0-4, 33080, there is an opinion of the Solicitor’s office of the Department of Labor, addressed to the National War Labor Board and cited by the CIO (amicus curiae), which merely held that miners should be compensated for travel from the rim of the mine to their actual working place. The question of de minimis is not involved. Before the Supreme Court in this very case, a letter attached to the brief of L. Metcalf Walling, the Administrator of the Wages and Hours Act, stated that 30 minutes used in Preparing machinery for work was not de minimis and should be paid for. These are the main cases cited by all par- ties. Plaintiffs presented no case directly on the de minimis non doctrine. From the above it is apparent that this Court not only could but should, by the great weight of what authorities there are, declare all walking and preliminary activities time involved in this case as de minimis, We so hold as to activities. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD However, when we consider walking time, the solution isn't quite so simple. On page 8 (slip opinion) the Supreme Court, in hold- ing walking time to be compensable, said: “Those arrangements in this case cOm- pelled the employees to spend an estimated 2 to 12 minutes daily, if not more, in walking on the premises.” With that statement before us, is this Court required, as urged, to hold that when walking time reaches the total of 12 minutes daily it is not de minimis, past holdings of inferior courts, regulations, memoranda, Opinions, letters, etc., of the Administrator of the Wages and Hours Act to the contrary notwithstanding? If so, just what did the Supreme Court in- clude as walking time? Our attention is challenged. It is most essential that we make inquiry because if we are to follow the language of the Court by reference or deduction in ac- cepting a mandate of 12 minutes’ walking time as not de minimis, should we not follow the same court when it uses language that is direct, plain, and unambiguous? EXAMINES COURT STAND ON WALKING TO WORK Let us then examine what the court said just before it mentioned those “2 to 12 min- utes” and we find: “But the time necessarily spent by the em- ployees in walking to work on the employer's premises, following the punching of the time clocks, was working time within the scope of section 7 (A).” And again, following the words “2 and to 12 minutes” but in the same paragraph, the court stated what appears to be its conclu- sion: “It follows that the time spent in walking to work on the employer's premises, after the time clocks were punched * * * must be included in the statutory workweek.” We have examined the Supreme Court's de- cision in vain to find any reference to walk- ing time involved in coming from work as being compensable. On page 7 (slip opinion) the Court does refer to the same activities in reverse, but these words are followed by a pointed refer- ence to activities which throughout the opinion is always divorced from walking time. If the Supreme Court meant to in- cluding walking from the job as walking time, wouldn't it have said so? That is the firet point. The second is that the Supreme Court (p. 8, slip opinion) refers to walking time as being compensable when it bore no rela- tion whatever to the convenience and neces- sity of the employees and was “pursued necessarily and primarily for the benefit of the employer and his business. It is elementary to this court that one who is on his way to his own lunch in a cafeteria set apart for him by his employer, or out- doors, is walking there for his own conven- jience and necessity, and not necessarily and primarily for the benefit of the employer and his business, The cafeteria affords him an opportunity to eat his meals amid clean and comfortable surroundings. Here he gets away from his work. Here he meets with his fellow em- ployees and talks about sports of the season, fishing, hunting, football, baseball, and some of their-own common pleasures. A eafeteria in a plant that size could not be located in every department. It had to be in one central place. And while it un- doubtedly helped the employer by increasing productivity, it was just as important, if not more so, to these workmen as individuals, since these employees were on piecework. The lunch hour provided them relaxation, and an opportunity to make more money when they returned to their jobs. Can we then say that the walking time at noon, under these circumstances, bore no Telation whatever to the employees’ con- venience and necessity? Can we by any
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD stretch of reasoning say that when an em- ployee eats his lunch he does so necessarily and primarily for the benefit of his employer? We think not. Such reasoning is specious and deceptively beautiful. And since only walking time for the con- venience or necessity of the employer and necessarily and primarily for the benefit of the employer was specified as the kind of walking time to be computed as working time, what more clarifying statement from the Supreme Court to eliminate the noon- hour walking time can this court receive? HAZARDS TO MINERS OFFER DIFFERENT PICTURE Plaintiffs contend that the Tennessee Coal and Jewell Ridge cases govern the case at bar. Well, let us analyze those cases even though the court has never subscribed to the thought that either of them has very much in common on the facts with this case. Miners going down a mine shaft, jumping into a transport vehicle where at times some turned their ankles and others broke their legs; crouching down so as to avoid beams, heading, electric wires, and other incon- veniences to comfort and to life itself; travel- ing long distances in the bowels of the earth, with water dripping from the sides and from above; then getting out and walking to the face of the coal presents an entirely different picture than visualized when one walks through a modern factory, shielded and pro- tected from both the heat and the cold, from the rain and the snow, from crossing railroad tracks, in the light of day and above the earth. Yet in both of these landmark cases no compensation was granted for going from the time clock to the shaft. In Tennessee Coal the district court included above-the-earth activities as among the compensable items of the employee, but the Court of Appeals re- versed only this part of the decision, and the Supreme Court did not reinstate that element of compensation. In fact the Supreme Court said, “these activities consume but a few min- utes.” Attorneys for plaintiffs suggest that the miners waived this compensable item but under the many decisions of the courts on the relationships between labor and capital, there can be no waiver of a fundamental right (Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O'Neil (324 U. S. 697, at 704)), and cases cited. Granting that the Fair Labor Standards Act is a humanitarian instrument, aimed at im- provement of the relationship between capital and labor, but above all aimed to prevent ex- ploitation of the laborer who under dire re- quirement of providing necessities of life tor himself and his loved ones might make any kind of a bargain in order to get a job, still how can anybody claim that if we are to be guided by the principles enumerated in either the Tennessee Coal or the Jewell Ridge Co. cases, that walking time of the type and amount involved in this case can be consid- ered as compensable in light of the realities of the industrial world? ALL DE MINIMIS We hold, therefore, that, accepting for the purpose of this decision the theory that the Supreme Court set at least 12 minutes of walking time daily as not being de minimis, it did so with one, if not two, restrictions to be used in computing what these 12 minutes should cover: (A) That it is only the walking time to and not from the work bench; or (B) In no event can we consider walking time involved in going to and from lunch for one’s own convenience and necessity, and which is not necessarily and primarily for the benefit of the employer and his business. The maximum walking time under such ardstick that can be reckoned in favor of any laintiff in this case is 6.2 minutes daily (mold department). If, on the other hand, the Supreme Court did not intend to even intimate or indicate what it thought was de minimis in walking time, it 1s our opinion and we hold that we would not go lower than 12 minutes as above restricted (the minority opinion indicates that 10 minutes would surely be de minimis) and without setting any de minimis figure herein, hold all the walking and preliminary activities time consumed in this case is de- minimis. RETROACTIVITY We go one step further, and we hold that should we be in error in determining what the Supreme Court meant; should it be held that the Supreme Court intended the walk- ing time to be computed both ways—morn- ing, noon, and night—and that this pyra- mided walking time being over 12 minutes was not de minimis, we then believe that in all fairness to this defendant such a holding would be of a nature not intended by either the Fair Labor Standards Act or Congress, and that it would amount to an unfair and unexpected penalty against this defendant unless we took a second step and applied the doctrine of retroactivity in alleviation. In this particular case this company relied upon the Wages and Hours Act as adminis- tered and interpreted by the Administrator and the courts. A representative of that de- partment checked on the method of comput- ing time and overtime at this plant in 1939 and placed its stamp of approval thereon. If the opinions, administrative letters, regula- tions, and decisions of our courts were fol- lowed this would warrant any industry, in- cluding this defendant, in not computing less than 20 or 25 minutes a day, in walking time and preliminary activities, as compensable (Tennessee and Jewell Ridge cases). The doctrine that walking time and pre- liminary activities under some circumstances are compensable is not new. But a close analysis of cases that have passed upon the question indicates that they do not apply to the general fleld of manufacture, except where the employee admittedly had to report at a certain hour or the walking and prelim- inary activities time was considerable or sub- stantial. Never before has any one attempted to bring walking and preliminary activities time consumed into such a narrow, picayunish, meager sphere. Furthermore we do not be- lieve that the Supreme Court ever intended such an interpretation. This is not the case of a plant-protection man who has to don a uniform, respond to roll call, stand for dress inspection, look for his assignment, and walk to his post (Yel- low Truck & Coach Mfg. Co. v. Edmondson (155 F, 2d 387)). This is not the case of fire- men, who, in order to relieve other firemen, had to come in early to be ready to take over (Ballard v. Consolidated Steel Corp. (61 F, Supp. 995) ). CASE IS MANUFACTURING, DIFFERING FROM OTHERS This is an out-and-out manufacturing case, differentiated from coal mines and other specific types, and what applies here may later be held to apply to industry in gen- eral. And this court takes the position that since the question of retroactivity was never raised before the Supreme Court at any time, we have the duty of passing upon that ques- tion here in conformity with the opinion and judgment of this court as according to right and justice and the laws of the United States. (See mandate.) (See also 12 Cye. Fed. Procedure 621.) Time and time again it has been held that the regulations of the administrator, his opinions, his letters, should carry great weight, United States v. American Trucking Association, Inc, (310 U. 8. 549); Jewell Ridge Coal Corp. v. Local 6167 UMWA (supra), and applying that rule to the case at bar the plaintiffs cannot recover, Any change in walking and preliminary activities times to A503 below 20 or 25 minutes daily, adding the two together and counting walking time as the time consumed going to work in the morning, going to and returning from lunch, and then after work, would, we believe, call for a holding by this court that such new figure should apply only prospectively as a guide to industry, not retroactively as an unfair bur- den. Custom and usage should be con- sidered. All employers who were not even vaguely abiding by the Administrator's previous rul- ings could and should be held retroactively. But under no circumstances do we believe that this defendant should be placed in that category. Not only this defendant but the manufacturing industry in general should always be able to rely upon those who must administer the Fair Labor Standards Act until the Supreme Court has spoken, and any change should put industry automatically on warning for the future. One should be protected for past acta done in good faith. Otherwise there can be no stability in an industrial world when tomorrow may see some new interpretation of the workweek that would disrupt our entire economic structure. We grant that the scope and effect of the Supreme Court decision in this case has been distorted beyond recognition, but even here, when in our opinion a holding to the con- trary would not be calamitous, we still be- lieve that the doctrine of retroactivity should be applied. This court in Anuchick v. Trans-American Freight Lines, Inc. (46 F. Supp. 861, at pp. 866 and 867), in construing this very same act but on a different point, said: “In the light of this history it would be manifestly unfair to expect a businessman to come to a conclusion on what these two laws meant when read together, under pain of heavy penalty if he didn't guess right. * * © “But where a group of men have made the laborious efforts that defendant and its competitors have to find out where they stand on these two laws it must be readily agreed that they should not be made to pay & penalty before the law was properly interpreted. * * * “How can we legally or equitably enforce & penalty for failure to conform with a statutory mandate when the nature of one’s duty is not disclosed by the act itself?” CONSTITUTION INFRINGEMENT CITED IN RAILROAD CASE See also Great Northern Railway Co. v. Sunburst Co. (287 U. 8. 356), where the court sald: “This is a case where a court has refused to make its ruling retroactive, and the novel stand is taken that the Constitution of the United States is infringed by the refusal. “We think the Federal Constitution has no voice upon the subject. A State in de- fining the limits of adherence to precedent may make a choice for itself between the principle of forward operation and that of relation backward, It may say that deci- sions of its highest court, though later over- ruled, are law nonetheless for intermediate transactions. Indeed there are cases inti- mating, too brondly, that it must give them that effect; but never has doubt been ecx- pressed that it may 50 treat them if it pleases, whenever injustice or hardship will thereby be averted.” See also Judge (now Chief Justice) Vin- son's opinion in Warring v. Colpeys (122 F, (2) n., 642). OTHER CLAIMS While defendent contends that plaintiffs cannot recover in this case for the reason that in the original suit they were not seek- ing compensation for time consumed in walk ing or preliminary activities, it 1s sufficient for this court to know that this point was
A504 previously advanced before the Supreme Court and then remanded to our attention. In view of our previous findings and opin- ion we do not deem it necessary to touch upon other reasons advanced by defendant why plaintiffs should not recover, such as offsetting against any plaintiff's walking time the amount of time used by employees going to the wash room, or for other personal pur- suits, nor the claim that a bonus really given as a gift at Christmas or for vacation can effect possible damages. Nor can we take seriously the claim of plaintiffs that the Supreme Court meant that all walking time over 2 minutes a day or all preliminary ac- tivities that contributed in any way to the benefit of the employer is compensable. We believe that if the Supreme Court meant this it would have said so. ATTEMPTED TO ABIDE BY COURT'S MANDATE We conclude this opinion by inserting an unusual observation; but chance has made this an unusual cause. We have, of course, endeavored to abide by the mandate of the Supreme Court and we are not unmindful of the astonishment set out in its opinion that our decision be made in light of the realities of the industrial werld. In this con- nection we have not considered those who seemingly believe that the workingman is entitled only to what has often been termed “the crumbs from the table”; nor have we considered the equally abhorrent ideology of others who would seek by their strained interpretation of what the Supreme Court said in this case to further widen the gulf between capital and labor. We ought to have in mind always that we are in great part an industrial nation where very recently mass production and fair relations between capi- tal and labor served us so well; that we should look upon labor and industry as a team pull- ing in the same direction, or as husband and wife where the give or the take is not all on one side. We believe that “in light of the realities of the industrial world” means that our de- cision should, if consistent with law, aid in promoting accord and not inciting dis- cord, and that we should treat industry fairly while granting labor all its rights. We be- lieve that “in light of the realities of the industrial world” means that without labor there would be no industry, and without industry there can be no labor. It was the light of all the realities of the industrial world, not only part, that we have attempted to decide this case. CONCLUSION We cannot, however, reach our final deci- sion without expressing some regrets for the original plaintiffs, Our recent observances have proven to us that when these employ- ees claimed they were actually working at producing pottery before 7 o'clock in the morning and 1 o'clock in the afternoon, “Jumping the gun,” and not having that extra time counted in their workweek, they were telling the truth. We believed it then— we believe it now; but the master in 1943 found otherwise, and under the rules we must follow the master's findings. Let us not be understood as holding that all portal-to-portal suits should be dismissed. There may be, and perhaps are, many in- stances where walking and the preliminary activities time consumed is of such an amount as to call for compensation that the worker is not now receiving. But this is not one. Four years ago we held that time con- sumed in walking and preliminary activities in this case was not substantial and too insignificant to be considered. A judgment consistent with this opinion may be submitted for our signature, Moral Fiber and Education EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. W. STERLING COLE OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 12, 1947 Mr. COLE of New York. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recor», I incfude the following edi- torial from the Hartford Courant of February 10, 1947: MORAL FIBER AND EDUCATION Representative W. STerLInc Coxsz, of New York, holds that one of the reasons why young people go astray, if not the main rea- son, is that they do not properly understand what is good and what is bad in the field of human relations. He would strengthen the moral fiber of the Nation by providing in- struction in the public schools in morals, temperance, and good citizenship. To that end Mr. CoLe would establish a Federal Board for Character Education, and appropriate 5,000,000 to be distributed among the States to provide programs in character education that meet with the approval of the Washing- ton agency. Educational authorities may be expected to protest that schools are developing character, But there is more than a modicum of justice in the charge by Mr. Coug, who besides being a trustee of Colgate University has long been interested in many phases of problems con- cerning education. Were it not for the dis- tressing record of crime among youth, for the prevalence of delinquency and for many concrete acts such as the picketing by Brook- lyn high-school children of the hearings on the Graziano »ribe charge, Mr. CoLz’s com- plaint might be summarily dismissed. No matter how generously the boxer Grasiano has been with his support of athletics cnd playground facilities, picketing on his behalf reveals gross inability to distinguish between what is good and what is bad in the field of human behavior. In a letter in the New York Herald Tribune for February 2 Dr. Helen M. MacCadden se- verely criticized education's failure to build character. With a justifiable pat on the back for those few teachers who have attempted “to instill moral principles and to demand responsible good conduct from their pupils” despite the attitude of higher educational authorities, Dr. MacCadden blasted “prevail- ing educational philosophies” that have dis- placed “the old-fashioned meter of moral judgment” with the teaching that all be- havior is relative and “contingent upon cir- cumstances beyond the individual's control.” Instead of emphasizing that we must be the guardians of “ethical, cultural, and religious traditions that are our richest heritage,” Dr. MacCadden asserts, the so-called progressive educators have been stressing a “determi- nistic, materialistic version of social studies.” And other media of public-opinion formation such as radio and motion pictures, according to Dr. MacCadden, must share in the respon- sibility for “the negation of moral values.” Perhaps Dr. MacCadden has been too gen- erous with her “pouring it on.” Yet we can- not escape the record of crime, delinquency, and materialism that is America’s today. Nor can we lead the world to a higher level without realizing, as the Rev. Joseph T. O'Callahan, of Holy Cross College, put it said last Sunday, “the importance of spiritual and religious values.” With full justification, Matthew Arnold wrote of the modern world as “a darkling plain * * * where igno- rant armies clash by night.” The lack is not APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of knowledge of things and of science, but of moral values, and of how to translate them effectively into building national character and international peace. Imperative as is the need for character building all the way from the primary grades through colleges and into the hard school of experience, we are unable to subscribe to Representative Cotsz’s proposition of Federal aid. It does not contain the answer. The responsibility that he would impose on this new agency rests upon all educators at all levels. It cannot be made effective by the imposition of a superstructure. In these days when those in public education are demand- ing larger monetary returns for their efforts the public has the opportunity, yes the re- sponsibility, of insisting on a fair return on its investment. Higher salaries may attract better material to the teaching profession. But even such a potential reservoir for char- acter building can be nullified by those edu- cators who in the past 20 years or so have stamped diplomas with dollar signs rather than with the intangible elements that con- stitute solid character. Universal Military Training EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WALTER G. ANDREWS OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 12, 1947 Mr. ANDREWS of New York. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my re- marks in the Recorp, I include the fol- lowing letters: Prupenvi.iz, Micn., February 5, 1947. CHarrMAN, Houses ArMep Sraviczes COMMITTEE, United States House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Dear Sim: I am enclosing a copy of a letter to my son that will reach him on his seven- teenth birthday, God willing that he sees that day. I do not pretend to be proficient in the use of the English language. All that I ask is that you give the thought behind this letter due consideration, and if you see something that you and your colleagues on the committee have overlooked, please bring it to their attention. I feel it a duty to send this to you so that future Americans will have both sides of the case presented for them. Yours very truly, Ra.Py W. FisuEr. Frsevary 5, 1947. Dear Douaias: Today, as you are approach- ing the ripe old age of 5 years, our country is in the throes of many perplexing problems which will directly affect you and your two younger sisters. Unlike the generation which preceded mine I am going to join my genera- tion and attempt to steer you around the , pitfalls we encountered. As I see it today ‘we are headed for World War III, although I believe we can avoid it. Until peace of some degree is assured the world through the gov- ernment of the United Nations, the United States of America must remain strong. One way of maintaining our strength is to have universal military training for our youth of today and tomorrow. I need not tell you of the League of Nations and all that happened after World War I and the events leading up to World War I for, by the time you have read this, you will have studied these subjects in your history books. You will be sitting in judgment of the gen- eration of my mother and my father. I am
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD supporting universal military training as a program for you, my son, so that your chil- dren will not have found my generation lax in regards to its duties to you. There are a large group of my generation that are fol- lowing in the steps of their forebears. I be- lieve they can be awakened if approached with sound logic. Unlike our two past wars of commercial- ism, we are faced today with a future politi- cal war. There are two dominant political beliefs abroad today. Our belief in what we tend to call democracy is faced by what some of our “world perilists” call the “red menace” or better known as communism. There are many harsh differences in the two ways of life. They are alike in that they are based on the material things of life. Each belief is backed by large material resources either in a finished state or in raw deposits. For the foregoing reason our chances of averting World War III are good. Politicel thinking, given plenty of time, between two ways of life can be amalgamated. The best inten- tions of men often go awry however. For this reason we must maintain our military strength until definite means of assurance to world peace are presented to us and the rest of the world. On December 7, 1941, shortly before you were born, my generation was sharply awakened to their duties of citizenship. Perhaps, it is in the realm of theory, if we had been trained in certain duties of citi- zenship, such as death for certain ways of life, we would have taken keener interest in our role in the world before World War II. Who knows, we may have staved off that catastrophe? When you study at prepared- ness you face the possibilities of death with- out end. A thinking people will try to avert such an eventuality, but at the same time will be placed in a position to best pro- tect their country from such a possibility. Self-discipline and teamwork will be greatly facilitated through military education. We ce see the break-down of this duty of citi- zenship in our strikes against the citizenry today by both labor and management. I do not say this will get away from such strife, but that when it comes there will be a bet- ter chance of getting their beads together. Racial problems will be negligible as each person and peoples will find that one de- pends on another, with certain work for each. Efficiency and harmony cannot come from one person or peoples infringing on an- other's rights or labor. Each has certain qualities and talents to offer that are neces- sary to a democracy. Regimentation would be the word thrown by the word perilists on the foregoing, but such a state cannot be implemented by a year’s education over a smal] span of civilization’s life. Much of our thinking along these lines today is not aggressive enough. The mythi- cal thinking that European and the World Wars were caused by compulsory military training, which is far different than our thinking of universal training, is cowardly. This thinking is advanced by those who want te evade the fundamental issues underlying the last two ware, or are slackers amongst our citizenry. Even if you would want to accept such type of thinking, let us put it in reverse retrospect. Would there have been the last two wars if we had been able to beck up our moral ideals? Last but not least, my son, the last two generations were not ready for war, if war is inevitable. Nor were they ready for peace when it came. Universal training is actu- ally a cause-and-effect training. It teaches you to prepare for the cause and at the same time looks forward to preparetiness for the effect. I am for universal training, you see, my son—for what I believe is for your benefit. You are headed for manhood in a vibrant world. World War II saw women volunteer for military service. In another war they will be drafted. I hope that this does not face your sisters. With my face to your future, and with love, : Dap. Nebraska’s Place in Reclamation’s Missouri Basin Program EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CARL T. CURTIS OF NEBRASKA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 3, 1947 Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I include excerpts from an address by Goodrich W. Lineweaver, Director of the Branch of Operation and Maintenance, Bureau of Reclamation, Washington, D. C., be- fore the Nebraska Reclamation Associa- tion at Lincoln, Nebr., on January 13, 1947. The Nebraska Reclamation Asso- ciation is an organization formed several] years ago to bring home to the people of Nebraska the importance of water con- servation for irrigation and incidental hydroelectric power production. The association has performed yeo- man service in arousing interest among Nebraskans, who are coming to under- stand that only through irrigation can the arid and semiarid areas of the State cope with future drought. The program of the Bureau of Reclamation for ex- tending irrigation in Nebraska in con- nection with the Missouri Basin develop- ment has the wholehearted support of the State. Our only complaint is that the work is not going forward fast enough. That may be partly the fault of the Bureau of Reclamation and partly due to the lack of adequate funds for construction purposes. Whatever the reason for delay is, I hope to see the cause removed and more rapid progress made on the construction of such works as Enders Dam, of the Frenchman- Cambridge project, for which a contract has been let. Mr. Lineweaver’s remarks in part are as follows: In coming to Lincoln today 1 call the at- tention of the Nebraska Reclamation Asso- ciation to the important place your State has in the Eightieth Congress, especially in connection with the Federal reclamation program, and I am glad to pay tribute to the cooperation and interest your Senators and Representatives are taking in the extension of irrigation and other reclamation activi- ties through the Missouri Basin project which means so much to Nebraska. The dis- tinguished Representative from the district in which Lincoln is located, Hon. Car, T. Curtis, is a member of the powerful Ways and Means Committee but finds time to take a lively interest in reclamation. ‘Your senior Senator, Hon. HucH BurTuer, is chairman of the important Senate Public Lands Commit- tee, which deals with reclamation and irri- gation activities. Senator KrennrerH WHERERY is chairman of the highly influential Interior Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Representative A. L. MILLer is an active member of the Irrigation and Rec- lamation Subcommittee of the House Public A505 Lands Committee. Representatives BUFFETT and STEFAN frequently express interest in the reclamation program. In speaking to you about the Missourt Basin project and how Nebraska fits into the plans for putting its vast water resources to work, I am making a request. It is this: Let's take off the rose-colored glasses and look at things realistically. And that might apply also to any who might be wearing dark, smoke-colored glasses. Let’s take them off, too, and get rid of our double-jointed vision. For we want, above all, to look at things clearly. Then we can see the basic factors in sharp focus. I want to call attention to two of these factors. First, to be practical, we agree that the ideal climatic growing conditions and high prices we have had during the war will not continue indefinitely. Second, the path ahead for the Missouri Basin project is one that will require the full cooperation of the people of the entire region. The farmers of the Missouri Basin have had the best crop years in history and the prices received have dimmed the recollection of the drought and depression of the ‘30's. Consequently, many areas are somewhat in- different about irrigation, and the job of the leaders of every State is to remind the people that the years of plenty will be fol- lowed by periods when water conservation and irrigation will be essential to the eco- nomic stabilization of the Missouri Basin. The Bureau of Reclamation is prepared to do its part. Our program for the next 6 years calls for the expenditure of more than half a billion dollars on the Reclamation ir- rigation, power, flood control, and related features of the Missouri Basin project. Realization of this program depends on ap- propriations for construction and those ap- propriations depend on the understanding the Congress has of the need for and im- portance of the Missouri Basin project. Nebraska has a major place in the Bureau's program for the Missouri Basin. I am glad to advise you that the contract for the con- struction of Enders Dam of the Frenchman- Cambridge propect on the Republican River has been executed. The contractor is pre- paring to make the dirt fly, and this key facility will serve not only for irrigation but to aid in retarding floods like that which snuffed out 112 lives in the Republican Val- ley in 1934. The factors that relate to drouth protec- tion and the future of the Missouri! Basin project tie together, but are dependent on the cooperation of the people. It’s a long loop, but one definitely is connected with the other Let’s pick up the thread at the point where it first started to ravel. People have been talking about putting the Missouri! River to work ever since Maj. John Wesley Powell made his great speech on water conservation before the North Dakota Constitutional Convention back in 1889. But no one got around to doing much about it until the black years of drouth which came in the 1930's. At that time, in the emer- gency, it was too late to do much about water conservation and utilization, so the Govern- ment concentrated on doling out millions of dollars to the stricken farmers. And even that did not save a lot of them. Nebraska lost a sixth of its farm operators between 1930 and 1940. Those were bitter years in- deed. But out of them came the incentive to really do something to counteract the re- current drouth hazards. And at the same time, the idea grew that something might also be done to protect against the almost yearly flood damage of the Missour!. The multiple-purpose Missouri Basin project is the result. This comprehensive plan, cul- minating preliminary work by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers, was
A506 given congressional approval in the Flood Control Act of 1944. It is a major step in preparedness for that time when the ideal growing conditions we have becn experiencing change to less favor- able, or even totally unfavorable, conditions, We know they will come. We have had them before, us many, perhaps all of you can re- member. The Bureau of Reclamation plans to move along on the Missouri Basin project so that you and we will be ready for any eventuality. Just now it might appear that everything is moving along nicely. The Con- gress has approved the comprehensive Mis- sour! Basin plan coordinated with that of the Corps of Engin-ers, and has authorized appropriation of 6350,000,000 toward the con- struction of the reclamation features. It is & good start toward the ultimate realiza- tion of the full plan. Further, funds total- ing 81,400,000 have been actually appro- priated, and construction contracts awarded so far total $11,090,000. These contracts are on units which will cost $41,000,000 to com- plete—unless prices take another big jump. The President has just sent to the Congress a recommendation for additional appropria- tions of 623,000,000 for the fiscal yeur 1948. All of this will be needed for construction and necessary field work on the over-all plan. The assembly and analysis of field data on water supplies, the productiveness of land, and information as to agricultural and hu- man conditions are vital to further progress. The Bureau of Reclamation ia concerned not only with building irrigation systems, power plants, and transmission networks, but is keenly interested in what these developments will do for the people of the Missouri Basin. After all, service is a prime consideration of any Government agency, and that is what we are offering Nebraska and the other Missouri Basin States. Regional Director E. B. Debler, to whom the Bureau of Reclamation looks for the closest contact with Nebraska, tells me of the plan for a conservancy district that will sponsor the development of this area in central and eastern Nebraska. More power to the idea that brings cities, towns, railroads, and other public utilities into partnership in Reclama- tion developments. That 1s the central ob- jective of the conservancy district program that has appealed to the people of your neighboring State, where the Northern Colo- rado Conservancy District is sponsoring the Colorado-Big Thompson project. The district is the contracting agency with the United States for the repayment of the reimbursable construction costs. It also is the contract- ing agency for the sale of water transferred from the Colorado River to the South Platte Valley through the Alva B. Adams tunnel under the Continental. The partnership of hydroelectric power in the Colorado-Big Thompson project is sig- nificant of all large-scale reclamation devel- cpments being planned today, and that in- cludes the Missouri Basin program, Without consideration for the revenue from power, there would be no Colorado-Big Thompson project. The Columbia Basin project in Washington would still be in the dream book and the Missouri Basin program could not have been launched. It is a far cry from the early-day reclama- tion projects to such far-reaching and com- prehensive plans as are entailed in the con- struction of the Missouri Basin project. To compare simple dams thrown up across rivers for water diversion and storage purposes to the Missouri Basin project is about like com- paring the horse and buggy to a shiny, new automobile, or the first wood-burning loco- motives chugging their way across the plains of Nebraska to the sleek streamliners that now glide along your network of railroads. Not that the horse and buggy didn't get you there. And the early irrigation projects Played an important and historic part in the Pioneering and early development of the West. They set a pattern of water conserva- tion and use which bas been a bulwark of western agriculture. From the time the first ditches were dug and dams built most recla- mation projects have been stabilized oases in @ fluctuating agricultural economy otherwise governed pretty much by the ups and downs of the weather. Your own North Platte project and other developments along the North Platte River can again be used as examples. From the time the first water became available on the North Platte project it has been a steady and consistent producer of agricultural wealth. With the other developments along the North Platte River it has eliminated danger of floods and has made the Platte, which bisects your State, one of the ‘“work- ingest” rivers in the country. But today we are on the threshold of a new, modern era in pioneering—pioneering this time in the control and harnessing of rivers in an en- tire drainage basin. Along your eastern border flows the Mis- souril, one of the great rivers of America. Within its watershed is more than one-sixth of the geographical area of the United States. Strangely enough, although it drains an area six and a half times the size of Nebraska, your State is the only one completely within its boundaries. This in itself is not signifi- cant, but it is typical of the importance of the Missouri Basin project to Nebraska and the key position the State holds in its com- pletion. It is not exaggerating to say that the Missouri Basin project will affect vir- tually every resident of Nebraska in one way or another. The pattern has been laid. Future prog- ress is up to the Congress, which controls appropriations, and to you people out on the firing line, down in the grass roots of reclamation, who must make known what you want. The Bureau of Reclamation pro- poses to be ready, but we each have a distinct task to do, and each task is complementary to the other. There can be no real progress unless we work together in its achievement. For one thing, in order to initiate construc- tion of other units authorised by Congress, a prime requirement is repayment arrange- ments for that share of the costa chargeable to irrigation. Congress will not appropriate millions of dollars for construction of the various units of the Missouri Basin project nor will the Secretary of the Interior approve start of such construction unless there is satisfactory evidence of the willingness of the water-users to repay their share of con- struction costs. Your continued active en- dorsement will help speed this essential step. But that support must be given; not only by you, but by those beyond the boundaries of your State. A major educational task for each Missouri Basin State is to let the rest of the Nation know of your convictions as to the import- ance of the Mizsour! Basin development. The East and the South and the Far West must appreciate that the Missouri Basin project is vital to the Nation as a whole and that the appropriation of funds for project construction is in the national interest. I cannot too strongly urge you to accelerate the effective work you have started in cap- turing national attention and national sup- port, Getting back to repayment of construction costs, a major factor to be considered in working out arrangements is the increased cost resulting from wartime conditions. For example, on the Frenchman-Cambridge unit, construction costs have increased about 50 percent over the 1940 estimate. I want to extend a pat on the back to the directors of the Frenchman-Cambridge district for the the way for the Secretary of the Interior to APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD approve the letting of construction contracts, of which the Enders Dam was the first. In the meantime, the repayment arrangements are being negotiated on the increased cost. This is a sample of positive action that can be reported to the Congress as a definite in- dication of the faith of the people directly concerned in the Missouri Basin project and thetr determination to proceed despite the increased cost of construction. Repayment of these increased costs brings me to another important subject particu- larly applicable at this time to the Missour! Basin project, to which I have already re- ferred. This is the new type of combination water service and repayment contract which is being introduced in negotiations with wa- ter users on the Frenchman-Cambridge unit and also the Heart River unit in North Da- kota. Under this proposed contract, the wa- ter users agree to repay the distributions sys- tem construction cost as increased by higher labor and materia] costs. However, the rate of repayment is based on the repayment ability of the water users. This ability in turn is determined by application of realistic analyses of agricultural and economic fac- tors in each area. In addition, in return for the delivery of water to the irrigation dis- tricts the water users also agree to pay a water-service charge which will contain a construction component consistent with the increased cost of the water-supply works. ‘These contracts, in conformance with poli- cies initiated by the Congress, are designed to recover the proportionate share of con- struction costs which are of ‘direct benefit to the water-users. On the basis of the orig- inal authorization of the Missouri Basin project, irrigators are to repay about 23 per- cent of the costs, This discussion of the repayment program for such far-reaching developments as the Missour! Basin project raises another ques- tion of major policy in the reclamation pro- gram—a question which calls for a complete reexamination of the laws governing opera- tion of the reclamation program. The Bu- reau of Reclamation is in the business of building projects to serve the people—all the people. In Nebraska it can best serve by providing a stabilized, secure, agricultural foundation on which to build your economy. Here in Nebraska, rainfall is in the in- between class. There is far more rain than in some of the more western areas—which, incidentally, through irrigation, are also among the most profitable agriculturally— and much less than in the eastern areas, from the Mississippi River on to the Atlantic. But weather and rainfall are quite variable. Irrigation already has stabilized large sec- tions of the Nebraska agriculture. Let’s go back again to the North Platte project, with which I am familiar because it is a Federal reclamation development, for an apt illus- tration of the effect of irrigation during the last decade of ups and downs caused by weather and price changes. During the bottom year of agricultural prices—1932—gross income from farm crops in Nebraska was 642,832,000. In 1938, Ne- braska gross crop values went to $62,446,000. The big drought hit Nebraska and the Great Plains States in 1934. Gross income from crop production in this State dropped to $21,082,000. Two-thirds of the previous year’s income went up in dust. It was a terrible blow to our economy. With 1038, there began a slow climb upward, and it was not until 1937 that the 1933 level was reached. And then, in 1938, another drought sliced the gross farm-crop income by 25 percent, and it was not until just before the war that tncome again reached the 1933 level. That is the picture for the Btate as a whole. In the same period, what was happening on the North Platte project? Of the $43,000,000 crop income of the State in 1982, the North Platte project contributed $3,000,000, or, roughly, 7 percent. In 1988, the North Platte
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD income jumped 60 percent, to 84,790,000, compared with the State as a whole, which gained 60 percent. In 1934, the North Platte project dropped about 3 percent, to $4,651,- 000. This was the year of the big drought, remember, when the State as a whole lost 663, percent of its gross farm-crop income of the previous year. Almost one-fifth of Nebraska's whole crop value came from the North Platte project. And that was the low point for the North Platte project. Thus, the North Platte project dropped below the 1933 level only once in the turbulent thirties, while State agricultural income as a whole took most of the decade to fight its way out of the 1934 drought and depression. The ultimate plan for the Missouri Basin looks to the transformation by irrigation of more than 5,000,000 acres of range and dry lands into 5,000,000 acres of this same kind of solid, steady, wealth-producing land. The cash value of crops to be produced under irrigation will increase $130,000,000, even if based on prewar prices. Add to this the tremendous value of a stabilized live- stock-feeder industry and you have some idea of the solid-cash benefits possible through this greatest single water-source de- velopment that the Government has ever undertaken. Creation of these Irrigated familly-size farms will provide another real benefit, one particularly timely, as millions of young men and women home from the wars are casting about for a home and a job. The Missouri Basin project will offer unequaled settle- ment opportunities for thousands of war veterans. Another major advantage is the lrerge amount of low-cost power which will be available to illuminate ranches and homes, lighten the burdens on the farms, and for industrial purposes. Generators of nearly 2,000,000-kilowatt capacity are included in the projects being readied for construction by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers. All of this power will be linked by a transmission grid, making it available in all sections of the Basin rather than exclusively in the immediate vicinity of the individual hydroelectric plants. We must keep in mind, too, that the Mis- sour! Basin has areas of outstanding im- portance in the conservation of fish and wildlife and recreation, which will benefit from this program. Silt control, irrigation of Indian lands, further development of mineral resources, and numerous other advantages must be taken into consideration along with the major contributions to irrigation, flood control, and power production. All of these benefits, including reclama- tion and power, are so widespread that they affect all of the people in the Basin and, to a certain degree, all of the people within the United States. That generates another ques- tion. Why must these coordinated multiple- purpose basin developments be financed on @ repayment basis which is much the same as in the old ‘orse-and-buggy days, when legislation was enacted primarily to fit the pioneer single-purpose reclamation projects? A principal point the Commissioner has in mind is the reduction of interest on power investment. He asks why the United States should charge western power users 8 percent interest for investments in developing the power of rivers in our own country while we lend billions of dollars at less than 2 percent interest to countries all over the world for the same and other purposes. We are dis- criminating against ourselves, but have no alternative under the present laws. Another pertinent question to consider in modernization of the reclamation laws is why we should insist, as the law now does, that water users return all allotted costs of construction in 40 to 60 years for dams, reservoirs, and canals with proven useful life of 100 or 200, or, for all we know, thousands of years. The last Congress started a reexumination of the reclamation laws. The undertaking will undoubtedly be resumed by the Eight- ieth Congress which has just been convened. You should give the modernization of the reclamation laws real attention in the com- ing months so that the Nation can go for- ward to the goal of putting available water in the arid West to useful work. I urge you to join with us in meeting these problems on @ realistic and cooperative basis. Legisla- tion, repayment contracts, authorizations, appropriations, construction, and all the other necessary steps can forge ahead simul- taneously on the Missouri Basin project if we pull together, Nebraska’s place in Reclamation’s Missouri Basin program will be determincd by the aggressiveness, leadership, and vision of or- ganizations like the Nebraska Reclamation Association and those of the water users who are directly concerned. The United States Under the Republicans EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. B. W. (PAT) KEARNEY OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 12, 1947 Mr. KEARNEY. Mr. Speaker, I wish to present another in a significant series of article on the United States under the Republicans, written for the Morning Herald, of Gloversville, N. Y., by its chief editorial writer, Edwin K. Gross: BUT FOR LINCOLN, PARTY, THIS UNION WOULD BE ASUNDER—THEIR RESOLVE KEPT “ERRING SIS- TERS” IN HOUSEHOLD; REPUBLICANS’ IMAGINA- TION AND INITIATIVE BUILT US A GREAT LAND; ‘WOODROW WILSON LAUDED THEIR WORLD LEAD- ERSHIP; THEY LAUNCHED “GOOD NEIGHBOR” POLICY The country was falling apart under Demo- crat James Buchanan, who could hardly wait to be relieved of his burden, when the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, was elected over John C. Breckenridge. Lincoln, & small-town lawyer, as a Congressman was defeated for a second term because he had opposed the war with Mexico, and at a time when United States Senators were not yet elected by direct vote of the people was robbed of a senatorship from Illinois when the Democratic-controlled State legislature chose Stephen A. Douglas notwithstanding an unofficial vote of the people in which Lin- coln was their choice. Thirty-three States cast ballots in the 1860 Presidential election; the results—1,866,352 popular votes, 180 electoral votes for Lincoln against 845,763 and 84 for the Democratic nominee; but typical of the quirks of life and politics, in the total vote cast for all Presidential candidates, the election of Lin- coln was by approximately 40 percent of the people. Even prominent Republicans did not see in Lincoln the qualities which were to place him among the immortals. The slavery controversy had brought Amer- ican brothers close to blows. Southern States had threatened secession and before Lincoln could take the oath of office were beginning their exodus from the Union. Buchanan had said in his final message to Congress that the Constitution gave no State the right to secede, but (curious paradox) that it gave the Government no right “to coerce a sovereign State” if it did secede. Seward, Lincoln's appointee as Secretary of State, wrote a witticism that the message showed “conclusively that it is the President's duty to execute the laws—unless someone A507 opposes him—and that no State has a right to go out of the Union—unless it wants to.” Government and people were hesitating, shocked by the fact of secession, reluctant to invoke force of arms. Through the North was heard the cry, “Let the erring sisters go in peace.” Secession was no new idea. Northern Svates had sometimes threatened it. But the Republican Party platform of 1856 had re- solved “that the Federal Constitution, the rights of the States, and the Union of the States shall be preserved” and assailed “those twin relics of barbarism—polygamy” (under Mormonism in Utah) “and slavery.” That resolution was repeated in the 1860 platform. The South had expected, by secession, only to provoke a constitutional crisis and drive the North to a favorable compromise on the extension of slavery. It had not planned for & war. Lincoln was conciliatory, seeking to hold together the 31,000,000 Americans of North and South, But, promptly and firmly, he denied the right of secession and declared that his oath required that he should “preserve, protect, and defen@” the Union; that this Union was perpetual; and that the Constitution con- tained no provision for its own destruction. His affirmation had the effect of persuading some of the slave-holding States aguinst joining the Confederacy. The southern tem- per rose, however, and then the guns of the South were turned on Fort Sumter, which Lincoln had determined to hold from rebel seizure. All debate was now terminated. The brothers decided for war. While for 4 years their civil combat sent thunder-and-lightning f.ashes through the land and the brothers bled, the tall, rugged, anguished man in the White House kept his eyes unwavering upon his great goals—the preservation of the Union, and the freeing of the slaves which he had promised himself as a youth to do if he ever had a chance. With unique skill, he stayed attuned to the people, so that he might know how fast he could move toward those ends, while noisy extremists would have had him move faster or slower. In an Executive order, issued under the war powers conferred upon the President by Congress, Lincoln proclaimed emancipation in the States at war against the Union. Con- Gress abolished slavery in the District of Columbia and in the Territories. Lincoln's “Emancipation Proclamation” increased the Northern armies by 1C4,387 Negroes enlisted from Confederate territory. Simultaneously, a danger of foreign intervention dissipated as Great Britain, previously prosouthern, accepted the Lincoln war measure as mean- ing that the American Civil Wur was now a crusade against human bondage. Perma- nent and complete emancipation was writ- ten into the Constitution by amendment, the thirteenth, during the next years. The striking of the shackles from 4,000,000 bondmen was the greatest act of liberation in the wretched history of slavery. Largely, Lincoln’s leadership had united the North, including the northern Democrats, To strengthen northern unity and recognize the part which the war Democrats were play- ing in supporting the administration, the Republicans gave Lincoln in 1864 a Tennes- see Jacksonian Democrat, Andrew Johnson, as his running mate for Vice President and called this ticket the National Union. The platform called for unconditional sur- render by the rebel States. Fremont was nominated against Lincoln by a radical Republican convention, but he withdrew from the campaign and recom- mended support of the Union candidates. The race was left to Lincoln and the Demo- crat, Gen. George B. McClellan. Lincoln won reelection. With the South finally beaten on the fleld of battle, the Supreme Court read into the
A508 Constitution, by interpretation that the United States was an “indestructible Union of indestructible States.” . As early as 1863 Lincoln had announced a plan of reconstruction. One of the last things he said, before a fanatic’s bullet struck him down, was this: “I hope there will be no persecution, no bloody work after the war is over. * * * We must extinguish our resentment if we expect harmony of the Union.” He would have bound up the Na- tion's wounds like a gentle nurse. He would have been a mediator between North and South. But he never had the opportunity to treat with the returned brothers. The coun- try turned from his generous spirit to a bitter transition. The London Punch, which had ridiculed Lincoln, now wrote: “The words of mercy were upon his lips, Forgiveness in his heart and on his pen, When those gaunt long-laboring limbs were laid to rest.” Johnson, distrusted in the North because of his southern Democratic antecedents and in the South because of his loyalty to the Union, tried to maintain the Lincoln policy of charitableness, but failed. When the battle between the President and the Con- greas led to impeachment proceedings against Johnson, seven Republican Senators voted courageously for acquittal—and by one bal- lot they saved the President, but they there- by voted their public careers to an end. The fourteenth amendment, under Re- publican auspices, conferred citizenship upon the freéd Negroes and guaranteed them equal protection; the fifteenth amendment, also of Republican origin, forbade discrimination in voting on account of race, color, or pre- vious condition of servitude. Lincoln's military equivalent in the saving of the Union—General Grant—sought to end the campaign of hate persisting after the fighting. The Republican slogan in 1868 was “Let us have peace’—Grant’s own words in accepting the Presidential nomination. Harsh though the terms of reconstruction proved, the program was considered by the Republican 1872 platform as, in truth, “ex- hibiting unparalleled magnanimity; it crim- inally punished no man for political offenses.” When Hayes was declared the victor over Samuel) J. Tilden by an electoral commission appointed by Congress in a disputed Presi- dential election involving frauds in Southern States, he made a conciliatory inaugural ad- dress and then withdrew the Federal troops from the South so that the disreputable carpetbag governments might collapse and the southerners could organize their own governments. President McKinley strove for a reconcilia- tion of sentiment with the people of the Southern States and to obliterate sectional differences. The country, in war and in peace, grew. Republican imagination and initiative built us a greater nation. Secretary of State Seward completed in 12 hours of negotiation the purchase from Russia of more than half a million square miles of immensely rich territory, Alaska, equal in area to the 13 original States. It was many years before the wisdom of that trans- action, approved by a Republican Congress, of a@ nation carrying a huge war debt, become fully apparent; many people thought of Alaska as only an icebox and called the pur- chase “Seward’s folly.” Under Lincoln, was begun the organizing of the domains west of the Mississippi for early admission as States. The popular slo- gan of the Republicans in 1660 had been “Vote yourself a farm,” based on the Repub- ican proposal, made originally in 1856, to allot a farm in the West to anybody who would go out and till it. The Homestead Act induced thousands of soldiers at war's end to go Weat. A transcontinental railroad was t to fruition by Republican government, Under Lincoln, laws were passed which companies to build railway lines to the Pa- cific coast; the Republicans in 1856, already, had declared that a railroad to the Pacific * © © {s imperatively demanded. With financial and land grants from the Govern- ment, the rails were laid through 2,000 miles of desert, the continent was spanned, and in 1869 President U. 8. Grant saw the realiza- tion of that Republican dream with the meeting of the rails near Ogden, Utah. Republican administrations readmitted the seceded States and admitted to state- hood Kansas (1861); West Virginia (1863); Nevada (1864); Colorado (1876); North Da- kota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washing- ton (1889); Idaho and Wyoming (1890); Oklahoma (1907); New Mexico and Arizona (1912). A Republican Congress voted to ad- mit Nebraska in 1867. Another national drenm, the Panama Ca- nal, was realized under Republican govern- ment, with Theodore Roosevelt inaugurating the project by a treaty with the Republic of Panama for a perpetual lease of a 10-mile- wide zone across the Isthmus, and with Taft carrying it to completion. The waters of the Atlantic and the Pacific were joined, the voyage between New York and San Francisco was shortened by nearly 8,000 miles, and a direct route was provided from western Europe to the Indies. America under the Republicans partici- pated wholeheartedly in the world in which it lived. Grant and Theodore Roosevelt, after re- tiring from the Presidential office, made world good-will tours. Harding paid a visit to British Columbia, Canada, on an Alaskan trip on which he died while returning to the National Capital. The Grant administration achieved a bril- liant victory for arbitration between nations when, after 6 years of wrangling between the United States and Great Britain, a tribunal of arbitration awarded us $16,500,000 in gold as reparation for damage to our commerce during the Civil War. The Alabama and several other Confederate cruisers in the war had been built in English shipyards or pur- chased from British subjects, and their crews consisted chiefly of English sailors. The acquiescence of the British Government was & flagrant violation of neutrality. Out of that Geneva arbitration has grown the whole international arbitration movement. Republicans instituted the good-neighbor policy about which the Franklin Roosevelt administration made great ado for itself. On Secretary of State Blaine’s initiative during the term of Benjamin Harrison, a Pan-Ameri- can congress for commercial arrangements was held in V’ashington. The Cubans had long struggled against Spanish injustices. Prophetic of the Span- ish-American War to come was Oleveland’s annual message of 1896, in which he said: “By the course of events we may be drawn into such an unusual and unprecedented condition as will fix a limit to our patient waiting for Spain to end the contest, either alone and in her own way or with our friendly cooperation.” The Republican platform of that year avowed that “we watch with deep and abiding interest the heroic battle of the Cuban patriote against cruelty and oppres- sion, and our best hopes go out for the full success of their determined combat for liberty.” McKinley, according to our Democratic World War I President, Woodrow Wilson, “diligently pressed upon the Spanish Gov- ernment every argument for peace with its Cuban subjects, for accommodation, for friendly intervention by the nited Btates, for reform and concession in the govern- ment of the island that diplomatic usage and international courtesy permitted, and yet the end of the Cuban trouble seemed APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD no nearer than before. He quickened his pace in the business as he saw opinion advance and the Houses grow impatient.” The Spanish commander in Cuba inflicted deadly suffering upon women and children in concentration camps by denying them food or proper care. Stories of atrocities headlined American newspapers. The na- tional sentiment moved toward war. Then, February 15, 1898, the American battleship Maine, sent to Cuba to protect American lives and property, was blown up in the har- bor of Habana with a loss of 260 officers and men. “Remember the Maine” became the cry of our people. McKinley renewed his efforts for peace, but when Spain finally indicated readiness for concessions it left doubt as to its good faith, qualified an answer to McKinley with pro- posals which might have much longer de- ferred the settlement of the issues. Then it was that McKinley recommended interven- tion to the Congress. The Nation was thrilled with a new sense of union as elderly southerners who had been Confederate officers asked for commands and received them. Spain was no formidable enemy. The war lasted only 110 days. By the treaty of peace Cuba was made free, the Philippine Islands, Puerto Rico, and Guam were ceded to the United States. Amer- icans supervised the organization of a Cuban Government and wrought many improve- ments for the new Republic. Beneficient sanitary work was accomplished in that island by our Army physicians; when the American troops left Habana that city was free from yellow fever for the first time in 140 years. Hawaii was shortly annexed to the United States on the appeal of the Ha- waliians, A government was set up in the Philippines, with Taft as the first Governor General; the extent of "ilipino participation in the administration was gradually in- creased, and those islanders, too, prospered under American guidance until one day, when they were schooled for self-government, they were granted complete independence. The United States was no politica] isola- tionist from the rest of the world; but the Democrats branded the Republican policies as imperialism. The Republicans replied: “To ten millions of the human race there was given a new birth of freedom” and to the American people “a new and noble respon- sibility.” As wrote a poet of the Philippines: “See, vast trackless spaces, As in a dream they change, they swiftly fill, Countless masses debouch upon them, They are now covered with people, arts, institutions.” The “open door” policy for the mainte- nance of freedom of trade in the Orient was pronounced by Theodore Roosevelt's Secre- tary of State, John Hay, when outrages by Chinese antialien societies (“Literary Pa- triotic Harmonious Piste” or “Boxers”) and & siege of the British legation at Peking (now Peiping), to which many foreign residents had fied for protection, led to a fighting ad- vance by a joint force of American, British, French, Russian, German, and Japanese troops. Hay feared that a partition of China might be attempted and the Chinese markets of other nations might be jeopardized. His “open door” declaration was accepted by the great powers. Theodore Roosevelt placed a new inter- pretation upon the Monroe Doctrine when he asserted the right of the United States to intervene in the internal affairs of weak Latin-American states when their stability was threatened. European countries tried to collect on claims of millions of dollars against Venesuela, and Germany prolonged @ blockade of Venesuelan ports. Having urged arbitration upon the Kaiser and re- ceived no reply, Roosevelt sent a fleet to the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Caribbean and gave the Kaiser 48 hours to withdraw. Germany accepted arbitration. In the Russo-Japanese War, Roosevelt in- vited the belligerents to negotiate a peace on American soil—and the Treaty of Ports- mouth (N. H.) followed. For this service our President was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Later, however, when relations between the United States and Japan became troubled, T. R. dispatched a fleet of 16 battleships on a world cruise, to impress upon Japan that the United States was prepared for war. The Japanese leaders hastened to welcome the floating armament to Nippon, where our en- voys were royally entertained, On the return of the fleet, T. R. greeted the officers and men as the best of all possible ambassadors and heralds of peace. Our good-neighborliness was given a sig- nificant manifestation when Hoover, be- tween his election and inaugural, toured the Republics of South and Central America. Earlier, the diplomacy of Coolidge’s Ambassa- dor Dwight W. Morrow had already restored good feeling between the United States and Mexico, During Coolidge’s term a Pane American Conference on Conciliation, held in Washington, arranged for arbitration of a border-warfare dispute between Bolivia and Paraguay—and our Senate ratified a treaty, proposed to all American Republics by that same conference, for submission of contro-- versies between the Americas to an impartial commission, Senator Borah, Secretary of States Hughes, and President Harding collaborated to stage ,& Washington Conference for the Limitation of Armaments, in which Japan joined with Great Britain and the United States in the pledge of a 10-year naval-building holiday, and causes of friction then existing in the Pacific were eliminated. The Dawes plan sponsored by the United States in Coolidge’s time averted an acute crisis between France and Germany over World War I reparations. Our country, together with France, pro- moted, also when Coolidge was President, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, which was our sincere attempt to make provision for world peuce, _ The great nations of the world agreed in that compact to outlaw war as an instrument of national policy, to settle their disputes by peaceful methods. When in 1931 the Japanese invaded Man- churia the Hoover Secretary of State, Stim- son, appealed for united action by the great powers to put down aggression. His plea went unsupported. In that same year President von Hinden- burg implored Hoover to save Germany from economic ruin in the depression then in- creasing in fury around the world. To en- able Germany and other European countries to regain their equilibrium, and also because we here in America were adversely affected by the conditions 1n Europe, Hoover proe posed and obtained a year’s moratorium on payment of war reparations and debts. The United States had traveled a long way, under the Republican administrations, from @ country in rebellion to a role of helpfulness in the family of nations. That great Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, in his A History of the American People said this about Republican America as it entcred the twentieth century: “It was interesting to note with how changed an aspect the Government stood upon the threshold of a new century. The President seemed again to be always in the foreground, as if the first days of the Govern- ment were to be repeated—that first quarter of a century in which it was making good its right to exist and to act as an independent power among the nations of the world. Now, full grown, it wes to take a place of leader- ship, * * “America played her new part with con- spicuous success. Her voice told for peace, conciliation, justice, and yet for a firm vindi- cation of sovereign rights. * * © “Sections began to draw together with 8 new understanding of one another. * * “Statesmen knew that it was to be their task to release the energies of the country for the great day of trade and of manufacture which was to change the face of the world; to ease the processes of labor, govern capital in the interest of those who were its indis- pensable servants in pushing the great indus- tries of the country to their final value and perfection, and make law the instrument, not of justice merely, but also of social progress.” Tax Reductions EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. FOREST A. HARNESS OF INDIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 12, 1947 Mr. HARNESS of Indiana. Myr. Speaker, under leave to extend my re- marks in the Recorp, I include the fol- lowing letter: Fesrvary 10, 1947, Mr. Harotp V. Exriort, Anderson, Ind. Dear Mr. Ettiott: Thanks for your recent letter on current tax problems. I am glad to hear from you, and to have this oppor- tunity to enlarge upon the recent newspaper reports of my views on the subject. First, let me make it clear that I have at no time committed myself to any specific for- mula for tax reductions, as readers may have inferred from the reports. I have warned against the danger of making reductions upon the basis of political expediency, rather than upon sound economic principles, for there are many people both in and out of Congress who would shortsightedly continue to make taxation the political football it has been in recent years. My desire is to spread any possible reduc- tions in a way to bring the greatest possible benefits to the economy as a whole. I am confident that if we follow that principle there will be real benefits not merely for one class or another, but for all people. In argu- ing for this approach I have pointed out that there is sound reason for granting equal cuts well up into the higher-income brack- ets. I believe the reports you saw quoted me as saying that a flat percentage cut should not apply to incomes above $100,000. In other words, I share your opinion that the benefits accruing should be reduced on a graduated scale above some reasonable in- come point. But before we can definitely determine the tax policy, we must settle the question of Federal spending, for taxing and spending are both inseparable parts of the larger question of national fiscal policy. We have experienced a 15-year orgy of boot-strap economics, during which a majority of the people chose to believe the pleasant propa- ganda that somehow or other the little fel- low, the common man, could escape the costs of unlimited spending indefinitely if we merely soaked big business and the rich hard enough. In fact, a majority chose to cling to that pleasant hoax even after it was thoroughly exposed by the increased levies and reduced individual exemptions which be- gan to throw the load directly upon the lowest-income groups, A509 Apparently, however, nearly everyone is at last tax conscious, and at last demanding @ balanced budget. But after it is agreed that Government must operate on a pay-as- you-go basis, we still must face the fact that big Federal budgets mean big taxes in all brackets. If we balance the budget at the figure of 637,500,000,000, recently suggested by the President, I frankly doubt that we can cut taxes appreciably for any group. Real cuts should be possible, however, if we trim the budget the way it can and should be trimmed. How possible tax cuts are to be distrib- uted is, of course, a highly complex problem. And, unfortunately, the more we inject poli- tics into it, the more difficult the solution will be. Since taxation is still being treated as a political football by those who cling to the New Deal propaganda line, you can very effectively answer their arguments with these significant facts: In 1932, upon the advent of the New Deal, the individual in- come-tax exemption was 61,000. Married couples enjoyed a family exemption of $2,500, with $400 additional for each dependent. De- spite their continuous lip service to the com- mon man, the New Dealers brought the present burdens to the lower-income groups by 15 straight years of profligate spend- ing. It is ironic, therefore, that the people largely responsible for the present situation, and the people who are now trying to saddle the country with a budget over three times 4s large as we ever carried in any previous peacetime year, should be yelling Joudest now to relieve the little people upon whom they placed the yoke in the first place. It would probably be politically expedient to grant all the tax relief on the low end of the scale. As you point out, there are only a few people or industries in the top-income brackets, whereas there are millions in the lower-income groups. That kind of expedi- ency can be effective in vote-getting as the repeated New Deal election successes proved. On the other hand, it would be dangerously unrealistic to go on ignoring the fact that upper-bracket taxes are now so high that they are at, or near the point of diminish- ing returns. They are in actual fact drying up investment of venture capital and seri- ously limiting business opportunity. The small taxpayer, chafing under his share of the load, frequently loses sight of the fact that levies on big incomes have been increased almost to the point of confisca- tion. For example, the $100,000 income, which was taxed $30,000 in 1932 is now taxed $67,320; the $200,000 income, which was taxed $86,000 in 1932 is now taxed $156,820. Cor- poration taxes nip the big business incomes about as sharply; but in addition, any net profits from business remaining for distribu- tion in dividends are taxable again as per- sonal income of stockholders, I assure you the foregoing is not offered in defense of big business and private in- dividuals with large fortunes. In fact, it is another of the bitter ironies of New Deal tax philosophy that present heavy taxes work less hardship upon old, well-financed indus- tries, and established private fortunes than upon struggling younger companies and in- dividuals seeking to attain financial inde- pendence, A well-established industry feels the tax burden, to be sure, but it rarely if ever needs as large a portion of gross profits for development and expansion as the new- comer in the field. In fact, these extremely high levies may often prove to be a cheap form of insurance for big business against potential competition. Likewise, high taxes do not necessarily hurt the rich individual; for he can shift his investments to tax-free securities, or even let his money He idle with- out taxable income without personal hard- ship,
A510 The real burden falls upon the newer en- terprises which are now denied all oppor- tunity for reasonable growth. And the real danger lies in the fact that present tax rates discourage investment of venture capi- tal and prevent the undertaking of new en- terprises. When business investment dries up, employment opportunities dry up with it. The program supposedly designed for the re- lief of the common man, therefore, is actually most damaging to his interests. Under the New Deal methods of taxation the small-income groups are not only hit hard by direct taxes, but are hit even harder through indirect taxes which are actually a big part of prices on everything he buys as @ consumer. In fixing prices on goods and services, industry must provide for the taxes and add them to the bill which the consumer pays. Every dollar siphoned off unnecessarily in the form of taxes is just that much money withdrawn from the pool of creative capital, which is our sole source for new economic growth and expansion. The damage thus done to the economy may not show up im- mediately, but so far as the individual com- mon man is concerned, the injury is immedi- ately apparent, For the taxes thus siphoned off represent money which should, and al- most certainly would, otherwise be divided among workers in higher wages, consumers in lower prices, and investors in better divi- dends. Tax relief for industry and the upper- bracket income groups would afford greater incentive for investment in new business and enterprise, which, in turn, would create new competition and greater efficiency in production. And that, in turn, of course, would mean lower prices and greater values for the consumer. Our own experience after the last war proved that intelligent tax reductions all along the line can, and do, stimulate the economy and return more gross revenue than restrictively high tax schedules. There are just two systems of production: Private enterprise and state socialism. The first, as we have followed it in America, is based upon personal initiative and the vol- untary investment of private savings. The alternative is some brand of totalitarianism in which, of course, the individual makes forced contributions for the capital struc- ture. We can kill or cripple private investment only at the risk of having the Government step into that function. Of course. we have not designed the present tax structure with the deliberate purpose of killing private in- vestment. In fact, I am sure a preponderant majority of Americans want no part of the socialist state, which is the inevitable alter- native. It would be foolish of us, however, not to recognize the fact that there are numerous and influential left-wing elements in the country which zealously hope to follow the present trend to its logical and inevitable conclusion. It will not be easy, therefore, to shake off the old delusions. Neither will a course of real economic statesmanship be pleasant and painless. The plain truth of the matter is that everyone, regardless of income, will be required to carry a heavy tax load, either directly or indirectly. Let me repeat that I am committed to no specific formula for the tax reductions which will be possible if we cut Government costs to the bone. I have written in this detail only to invite your further careful study of the problem, since I feel very strongly that active, enlightened public interest is im- perative if we are to reach an intelligent solution. Your own interest in the subject is deeply appreciated. I hope you will feel free to give me your further comments and suggestions. With very best wishes, I am, Sincerely yours, Forest A. HARNEsS. Abraham Lincoln on Labor EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. RICHARD J. WELCH OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES | Wednesday, February 12, 1947 Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, the Eight- ieth Congress has one of the greatest op- portunities that has ever fallen to the lot of any American Congress for construc- tive service to the American people. It is the first postwar elected Congress and it has come into being during this period of transition from war economy to peace- time economy. War inevitably brings distortion to the pattern of a nation’s economy and it is our opportunity to constructively aid the Nation in its return to a peacetime economy. All national economy is founded upon the efforts of the men and women who toil, whether they be on the farm or in the factory. Those who would unconsciously lay a heavy hand on the 58,000,000 workers of this Nation should well consider the atti- tude of the great Lincoln, whose memory we honor today. It was Lincoln who said: To elevate the condition of men; to lift artificial weights from all shoulders; to af- ford all an unfettered start and a fair chance in the race of life—this is the leading object of the Government. What was true when Lincoln said it is even more true today in the civilization in which we live. In a message to Congress, on December 3, 1861, Lincoln again said: Labor is prior to and independent of capi- tal. Capital is only the fruit of labor and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital and deserves much the higher consideration. In this statement we find the humani- tarianism reflected uhat made Lincoln the great man that he was. Human rights were to him above cold property rights. It is in this same humanitarian spirit that the problems of today must be solved in equity and justice to the 58,- 000,000 workers of this country. National Heart Week EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WALTER H. JUDD OF MINNESOTA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 12, 1947 Mr. JUDD. Mr. Speaker, on January 8, 1947, I introduced House Joint Resolu- tion 15, a bill to designate the week of February 14 in each year as National Heart Week. The red heart which sym- bolizes St. Valentine’s Day calls attention vividly to the Nation’s most important medical] and public-health problem, heart APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD disease. It affects more persons than any other disease, leads all others as a cause of death, occasions a greater num- ber of days lost from work than: any other cause, and is one of the major rea- sons for rejection from military service. It was impossible to get action on the resolution this early in the new session so I wish to commend the President for issuing on February 8 the following statement. I hope St. Valentine’s week, each year, can, by act of Congress, be officially declared National Heart Week. The health of the Nation is a matter of paramount concern to all our citizens. Good health 1s, after all, a priceless asset to the Nation and to the individual, Perhaps it is our greatest national asset. This country was spared many of the ravages of war which have left in less favored countries a heritage of disease and the ills of pestilence and famine inevitably following in the wake of war. We have been inconvenienced, but the na- tional health has not suffered because of short rations. But we do have a health prob- lem which arises out of the increased tempo of our modern American life. All thoughtful citizens must be alarmed .by the increasing incidence of heart disease. The physician knows, and the rank and file of our citizens should understand, that heart disease is now the leading cause of death. It is an alarming portent that 400,000 Amer- icans will die of heart disease this year, and it is distressing to know that one out of every 20 persons now suffers from serious diseases of the heart and blood vessels. In the face of these grim facts, I appeal to all my countrymen to cooperate with every agency and organization and every individual doctor in fighting the present-day national peril—heart disease. Can Labor Legislation Bring Industrial Peace? EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HERMAN P. EBERHARTER OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 12, 1947 Mr. EBERHARTER. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following state- ment made by me before the Columbus town meeting, Columbus, Ohio, Sunday, February 9, 1947, on the subject entitled “Can Labor Legislation Bring Industrial Peace?”: “Can labor legislation bring industrial peace?” To ask the question, I think, is to provide the answer. Industrial peace is the product of wholesome industrial relations, and industrial relations are simply relations between groups of human beings. In a democratic society we cannot, and do not want to, regulate by executive decree or leg- islative flat every aspect of the complex rela- tionships among citizens. The duty of gov- ernment, obviously, is to set up broad rules for human conduct and attempt to create a well-integrated, prosperous society, and hav- ing done so, place faith in the good citizen- ship of the people, relying upon and leaving it to them to work out their problems and their destiny. Even the wisest Congressman would shrink from the task of seeking a legislative cure- all for every discord, and yet we now have
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD some 75 bills in Congress—all dedicated to the proposition that industrial relations will improve the moment they have been written into IRw. The sponsors of most of these bills are members of the political party which for the past 14 years has expounded the belief that the less government is the better government. They have resisted extension of broad regu- latory powers in such flelds as price control and rationing of scarce commodities; they have opposed Government construction and operation of great projects like the Tennessee Valley Authority, and control of the sale of stocks and bonds to a sometimes gullible public. Their entire philosophy—with which I personally express disagreement—is one of letting dog eat dog. Yet suddenly they have jumped over the ideological fence. They suggest laws in con- nection with labor unions which would force the Government to expand its jurisdic- tion into almost every phase of the indus- trial process. Iam convinced that these bills, if enacted into law, would bring in their wake a host of new Government boards, of inspectors, of police agents, and even labor spies. For what purpose? To impose upon labor organizations a series of restrictions which, instead of leading to satisfactory col- lective bargaining among equals, would pro- duce penalties upon one party in the nego- tiating process. The results can be only bitterness and strife. Most of these proposals emanate from legis- lators with little or no direct understanding of the human relationships between union and management in the great industries of this country. One cannot sit in Washing- ton, read the scare headlines of a press which is frequently prejudiced against labor organ!- zations, and hope to produce industrial peace by incorporating the propaganda of news- paper columnists into law. Collective bargaining between the repre- sentatives of labor and the representatives of management, unhampered wherever pos- sible by obstacles imposed from the outside, remains the only practicable method for achieving industrial peace. We hear little about the thousands upon thousands of agreements between industry and labor which are signed every year. But the press and the radio fasten our attention quickly upon the few cases where negotia- tions break down, and the parties involved turn to their final resort, the lock-out or the strike. Workers don't want strikes. They want to work, to earn a living wage with which to support their families—to produce the goods which they and all the rest of our society require. The American worker—the fellow who sits across the aisle from you in the trolley car or in the next seat at the baseball game—is motivated by thoroughly democratic instincts. But being an American, he doesn’t want to be pushed around by any- body, he'll have nothing to do with in- voluntary servitude, and he won't tolerate working under unbearable conditions. That labor organizations are reasonable is amply proven, I think by the circumstances of the past few weeks. We have seen the CIO steel workers union agree to an extension of its existing agreement for a dozen weeks, pending negotiations of a new one. There have been similar actions in the automobile industry. The clothing and textile unions have signed hundreds of agreements without any threat to industrial peace. The pack- inghouse workers have signed amicable con- tracts—without the loss of a single day's working time—with the giant meat-packing firms. The rubber workers have negotiated contracts for their membership in similar fashion. And just the other day President Truman was able to announce a highly sig- nificant agreement between the construction industry and the A. F. of L. building-trades unions, in which both parties agree to set up machinery for settlement of disputes without resort to the strike or lock-out. On the basis of the record, I would say that we have achieved industrial peace in this year 1947—and without resort to legis- lation, The oills before Congress, of course, are based largely on what happened in 1946—a year of reconversion, of stresses and strains in every phase of our national life as we passed over from the giant undertaking of war to the equally sizable problem of creat- ing full employment and prosperity in times of peace. Many, if not all, of those 1946 strikes were the result of special circum- stances. American workers, and the major segment of American industry, want to get on with the Job. They want to produce the things we need; they want to operate our factories in order to present stockholders with fair dividends and workers with decent Ameri- can wages. Together they are tackling that job with typical American ingenuity and perseverance. Industrial relations, after the shocks of postwar adjustment, are rapidly stabilizing. Yet at this very moment we are faced with a series of impractical, poorly con- ceived legislation which offers us not indus- trial peace but industrial turmoil. Let us leave industrial relations to the people with experience and practical knowl- edge—the men and women of industry and labor, Upon them, in the final analysis, rests our hope for continued industrial peace, through democratic collective bargaining based not on will-o'’-the-wisp theories, but on the hard facts of reality. Mrs. Carnicom’s One Hundred and Second Birthday EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. WALTER E. BREHM OF OHIO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 12, 1947 Mr. BREHM. Mr. Speaker, in Glen- ford, Ohio, located in Perry County, one of the fine counties in the congressional district which I have the honor to repre- sent, lives a grand lady by the name of Mrs. Carnicom, who today—February 12—will celebrate her one hundred and second birthday. I believe the best way for me to recog- nize this great event is to include with my remarks the attached article written by Mr. D. N. Belt, editor and publisher of the Thornville News, a village adja- cent to Glenford. Mr. Belt’s article follows: MRS CARNICOM WILL CELEBRATE ONE HUNDRED AND SECOND BIRTHDAY FEBRUARY 12 With the approach of Lincoln's birthday, February 12, the people of the Glenford com- munity are recalling the birthday of its old- est resident and getting ready to celebrate the event. Mrs, Elizabeth Carnicom will be 102 years young on that date. She prefers to celebrate in a quiet way, but her scores of friends and relatives want the celebration to be more elaborate. Mrs. Carnicom, the widow of Jacob Carni- com, a Civil War veteran, is known to nearly everyone in a large part of northern Perry and southern Licking Counties. She is the mother of two daughters, Mrs. Sarah Riden- our and Mrs. Ethel Swinehart, both of Glen- ford, and two sons, Herbert, of Zanesville, Abl11 an” Lewis Carnicom, of Wallbridge, Ohio. She has 17 grandchildren, 15 great-grand- children, and 3 great-great-great-grand- children. Mrs. Carnicom, who has seen the United States involved in four wars during her life, is the daughter of the late Peter and Salome Ziegler and was born in a cabin near New Readington, Perry County, in the year of 1845. Her father died when she was but 6. years old, and in 1854 the family moved to Illinois, where they were living at the time Lincoln was elected to the Presidency. During the Civil War, Mrs. Carnicom re- turned to Perry County to live with her sister, Mrs, Mary Lattimer, who died in 1939, a few months before her ninety-eighth birthday. She became the bride of Jacob Carnicom on New Year's Day, 1868, The aged lady now makes her home with her daughter, Mrs. Sarah Ridenour, and dur- ing the past year has made several automo- bile trips with relatives over the State. Mrs. Ridenour, in speaking of her mother, said, ‘Don’t know but what mother stands this cold weather better than us younger folks do. Her eyes are now not so good as they used to be, but she goes out occasion- ally to visit the neighbors, and it insults her if I don't let her wash the dishes and help with the housework. She is in unusually good health this winter.” Mrs. Carnicom had 16 relatives in World War II. Mr. Speaker, I desire herewith to extend my sincere congratulations to this splendid constituent of mine. Present Status of the Redevelopment Program EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HUGH A. MEADE OF MARYLAND IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 12, 1947 Mr. MEADE of Maryland. Mr. Speak- er, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following edi- torial from the Baltimore Sun of Febru- ary 9, 1947: PRESENT STATUS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Established only a year ago, the Baltimore Redevelopment Commission has been slowly laying the basis for a program of slum clear- ance and redevelopment. Its research staff, after a careful survey of present substandard structures, has delimited 12 slum areas sur- rounding the heart of the business district as blighted sections of the city. The com- mission is now asking the city council to support its long-range rehabilitation pro- gram for Baltimore by officially designating the 12 areas, comprising 650 acres, as blighted in ordinances to that effect. Public hearings on these ordinances are now being held. Once the areas have been classified as blighted, the Redevelopment Commission is empowered to take over the property either by condemnation, purchase, or lease. Since this move requires money, a bill which rep- resents the second step in the redevelopment Program is under consideration at Annapolis to authorize a bond issue to provide $10,- 000,000 in capital funds for the commission. The senate has already given its consent, and if the house follows suit, the next step will be to have the mayor and the city council place the bond issue on the ballot for ap- proval by the voters of Baltimore.
A512 The redevelopment program is not to be confused with public housing projects. If working funds are made available, the Re- dcvelopment Commission will take over the blighted areas for renovation and reconstruc- tion by private investors and cooperative redevelopers, either through resale or leas- ing. The commission is authorized by State law to dictate to private interests the man- ner in which the land shall be redeveloped, setting a limitation on profits and setting standards for population density, property maintenance, types of enterprises and archi- tectural details, subject always to the ap- proval of the Commission on City Plan. The whole program is a move to encourage private interests to replace slum areas with decent dwellings and new commercial enter- prises—and to help them over the worat obstacle to redevelopment, which is the as- sembling of land. Private large-scale redevelopers are all too often frustrated by a few owners who hold out for exorbitant prices on key spots in an area under consideration and thus greatly inflate the cost of redevelopment. The Re- development Commission, armed with the power of condemnation, is essentially an effort to get around this obstacle. Yet so powerful is the urge to profit through shifts in land use that, despite the prospect of con- demnation, the get-rich-quick element is even now seeking to exploit the situation. The method is to seek out real estate “bar- gains” in the regions about to be designated blighted areas and to gamble that, once con- demnation proceedings are carried through, the “fair price” so determined will still yield them a speculative profit. Doubtless in some cases it will. At any rate, there is now a chance of assembling Jand in slum areas at prices which will allow private capital to make its contribution to slum clearance and low-cost housing. For- merly there was no chance at all. Rent Controls EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOHN McDOWELL OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 12, 1947 Mr. MCDOWELL. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the RrEc- orD, I include the following article from the magazine Progress, of District Coun- cil No. 6, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America: FOR THE RECORD The response of a Senator and two Con- gressmen to a letter they received from Dis- trict 6, President Tom Fitzpatrick, urging the continuation of strict rent controls should interest the membership. Senator Myers and Congressman BUCHANAN, friends of the peo- ple, promised to support rent controls. Con- gressman JoHN McDowetL, whom President Roosevelt referred to as “that black Repub- lican from Pittsburgh,” responded in the interests of big business whom he serves 560 faithfully. Here are the answers: THoMas J. FITZPATRICK, President, District 6, UERMA, CIO, Pittsburgh: Will do everything possible to maintain Tent controls. FRANCIS J. MYERS, United States Senate. . JANUARY 21, 1947. Dear Mn. Firzparrick: I have your letter of January 16, which I have read with much tn- terest. I am glad to have your views relative to controls on rents and wish to state that as a member of the House Banking and Currency Committee, to which I have just been elected, I certainly will oppose any attempt to lift rent controls. Do not hesitate to write me at any time on any subject in which you or the mem- bership of your organization may be inter- ested. With kind regards, I am, Sincerely yours, FraNk BUCHANAN, Member of Congress. JANUARY 27, 1947, Dear Sir: After reading the copy of your telegram to Gen. Philip Fleming, Office of Temporary Controls, here in Washington, it occurs to me that if you are actually ex- pressing the opinion of the thousands of members of UERMA in western Pennsyl- vania and West Virginia, !t is the first time, to my knowledge, that you have done so, I remain, Very truly youts, JoHN McDowELL, Member of Congress. As local 610 Business Agent Clyde Johnson pointed out at the district council meeting, if only 10 percent more Democrats had voted, the Twenty-ninth District would be repre- sented by a progressive like Harry Daven- port instead of by McDowett who just does not believe in ever giving the people an even break. Local 610 is starting now to get rid of McDowE Lt in 1948. Portal-to-Portal Pay EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ROBERT J. TWYMAN OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesaay, February 12, 1947 Mr. TWYMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is un- fortunate that it is becoming more and more necessary for the Congress of the United States to clarify by legislative action situations which were formerly quite obvious. Such clarification ap- pears to be necessary in connection with ine so-called portal-to-portal pay situa- on. As an employee and as an employer I never found it difficult to figure out the time for which a man should be paid. Now we are confronted with a fantastic situation. Even the people who have been encouraged to believe that they can benefit as the result of suits for portal- to-portal back wages must be amazed at the very thought of such a possibility. The initial enthusiasm is dying out and the workers who think have come to the sound realization that no useful purpose will be served in pr6ésecuting the alleged claims. Bankrupt industries will not provide a living for those who must be gainfully employed, I submit an article from the American Federationist, the official monthly maga- zine of the American Federation of Labor. This article is written by John P. Frey, president, Metal Trades Department, American Federation of Labor. It is en- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD titled “No Fair!” This article appeared in the February 1947 issue: NO FAIRI-——PORTAL-TO-PORTAL SUITS VIOIMTE A BASIC PRINCIPLE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING (By John P. Frey, president, metal trades department, American Federation of Labor) In reaching a decision on the question of suing employers for so-called portal-to-portal back wages, the executive council of the metal trades department was governed by one basic consideration—ite faith in and loyalty to collective bargaining. It is through collective bargaining that our trade unions, in negotiations with em- ployers around the conference table, are able to reach acceptable agreements covering the terms of employment and the conditions of labor. Without such mutual agreements there could be no satisfactory or stabilizing industrial relations; chaos would exist. The value of collective industrial agree- ments to both labor and management is similar to government by lew through the people's duly elected representatives; in fact, and not in cheory, it is self-government by labor and management. When labor and management enter into negotiated agreements, the integrity of both are involved. Unless such agreements can be depended upon by both parties, collective bargaining cannot be successfully continued, The international unions which comprise the metal-trades department have practiced collective bargaining with employers rom the beginning. It has been their definite policy to strengthen collective bargaining in every way possible, to benefit their member- ship and to retain the employers’ confidence in this method of regulating industrial re- lationships. Throughout the Nation, the international unions have negotiated many thousands of these agreements with employers in the metal-working industries, which are now in effect. When these agreements were negoti- ated there was a free, open, and aboveboard presentation of all the conditions which the unions desired to have incorporated, tnclud- ing the wage rates, overtime rates, classifica- tions, and all other items a. ecting wages. When these agreements had been negoti- ated and signed, they specifically expressed what the employers were willing to pay in the field of wages and what trade-unionists were willing to accept for the period covered by these agreements. In the application of all terms and pro- visions of agreements during their life, the question of each party's good faith and in- tegrity is involved. Without this good faith and integrity, collective bargaining would be of little, if any, value to either labor or management. When an agreement is entered into, the employer knows what his labor costs will be, so far as wages are involved, for the period of the agreement. Trade-unionists under the agreement pledge themselves not to intro- duce new questions of wages during the life of the agreement unless the agreement spe- cifically contains a provision for the reopen- ing of the agreement for this purpose during the period of its existence. To inject now the question of back pay for portal-to-portal time would be an admission that when wage agreements were signed by trade-union representatives they had been insincere during the negotiations and had held mental reservations which they were unwilling to discuss with employers while seated at the conference table. Our trade-union movement has no assets more valuable than its agreements with em- ployers and the integrity which is involved. There is nothing to prevent the discussion of portal-to-portal pay when existing agree- ments with employers are negotiated and the inclusion of this form of payment in the new agreements. But as to existing agreements with employers, many of them entered into with the same corporation for a generation
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD or more, the executive council of the metal trades department has definitely recommend- ed that existing collective bargaining agree- ments must not be dishonored by now enter- ing into legal suits to secure a form of wages which were not provided for when the exist- ing agreements were negotiated. . Portal-Pay Legislation EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HARVE TIBBOTT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 12, 1947 Mr. TIBBOTT. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the REcorD, I include the following editorial from the Johnstown Tribune, of Johns- town, Pa.: PORTAL-PAY LEGISLATION Of all the legislation dealing with the re- lations between labor and management that will presently be debated by Congress, none is more urgent than some measure to put an end to the portal-to-portal foolishness. We say foolishness, but it holds the possibility of very serious consequences to the national economy. Until Congress does act, industry will be beset by uncertainty rising out of the bil- lions of dollars in claims that have been filed against it. Because these claims cover past years on which management has long since closed its books, a decision favorable to the collection of these claims would in many instances plunge industrial corporations into bankruptcy. Workmen generally, if our own observation is correct, regard the portal-to-portal suits with disfavor, particularly the effort to make collection retroactive. They concede that the granting of portal pay to the coal miners may have been justified because of the dis- tance many of them travel from the pit mouth to the face of the workings, but that is a condition that seldom is present in other industries. The form tn which legislation on this sub- ject will be passed by Congress is not yet certain. The United States Senate hearings so far are proceeding along the lines of direct amendment of the fair labor standards (wage-hour) law. Sentiment in the House seems to favor amendment of the Judicial Code to impose a l-year statute of limita- tions on claims. There remains a question of which procedure would stand up better under the Constitution. We cannot believe that organized labor, which has filed these claims against industry, would be willing to wreck companies by which it is employed in order to collect money for which it has no legitimate claim. It may be, of course, that the Congress of Industrial Organizations, which is the or- ganization pressing the suits, has been mis- led by an overzealous legal department, True Description EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WILLIAM H. STEVENSON OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 12, 1947 Mr. STEVENSON. Mr. Speaker, un- der leave to extend my remarks in the XCITI—App.——83 Ricorp, I include the following article from the Sparta (Wis.) Herald: TRUE DESCRIPTION After a male baby has grown out of long clothes and triangles and has acquired pants, freckles, and so much dirt that relatives do not dare to kiss it between meals, it becomes a boy. A boy is nature's answer to the falee belief that there is no such thing as per- petual motion. A boy can swim like a fish, run like a deer, climb like a squirrel, balk like @ mule, bellow like a bull, eat like a pig, or act like a jackass, according to climatic con- ditions. He is a piece of skin stretched over an ap- Petite. A noise covered with smudges. He is called a tornado because he comes at the most unexpected times, hits the most unex- pected places, and leaves everything a wreck behind him. He is a growing animal of super- lative promise, to be fed, watered, and kept warm; a joy forever, a periodic nuisance, the problem of our times, and the hope of the Nation. Every boy is evidence that God 1s not dis- couraged of man. Were it not for the boys the newspapers would go unread and a thou- sand picture shows would be bankrupt. Boys are useful running errands. A boy can easily do the family errands with the aid of five or six adults. The sest with which a boy does an errand is equaled only by the speed of a turtle on a July day. The boy is a natural spectator. He watches parades, fires, fights, ball games, automobiles, boats, and airplanes with equal fervor. But he will not watch a clock. Boys faithfully imitate their dads in spite of all efforts to teach them good manners. A boy, if not washed too often, and if kept ina cool, quiet place after each accident, will sur- vive broken bones, hornets, swimming holes, fights, and nine helpings of pie. (Don Radde, Sparta Herald.) Sugar EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. R. WALTER RIEHLMAN OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 12, 1947 Mr. RIEHLMAN, Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rsc- orp, I include herewith an interesting letter to the Syracuse (N. Y.) Post- Standard in respect to beet-sugar lobby. I had been much interested in the re- ports which have been presented by the committee studying the sugar shortage. Since the OPA announced on the day following the House committee’s report on sugar that on April 1 a stamp would be validated for 10 pounds of sugar, as will each successive stamp for the bal- ance of this year, with no additional stamps for canning purposes, this leads me to believe only two more stamps will be validated this year, making a total allotment of 35 pounds for individual consumption. In view of this fact, I urge that an additional stamp of 10 pounds be released during the canning season for each individual. If there is not enough sugar available for this ad- ditional amount in the allotment allo- cated for home consumption, I, as an in- dustrial user, recommend that the in- crease for industrial use for the third quarter of this year be set at 70 percent A513 of the base amount used in 1941, instead of the 80 percent now recommended by the committee, and this 10 percent be credited to the allotment for individual consumption. This, I feel confident, would supply the coming need for the housewife during the canning season and would not have a serious damaging effect on industry. The housewife has had a great deal of patience and has shown fine cooperation during this sugar crisis. Should she not deserve our seri- ous consideration now? The article follows: AtTracks Brer-Sucar LossY—WEsTERN IN- TERESTS Strive To CrusH CuBaN GROWERS To the EDITOR OF THE POST-STANDARD: Housewives, children, bakers, candy makers, canners, tobacco processors, manufacturers of drink, hard and soft, users of alcohol and mMolasses—prepare to make your wants known or get socked again. Here is why: 1, Agriculture Committee is waiting to hear what the sugar industry wants. 2. Chairman Hore would like to get some idea of what the industry wants done. (This refers to the United States producers—pre- dominantly beet-sugar interests. No thought arises or 1s mentioned as to what consumers want.) 3. Senator O'MAHONEY sugar bill. 4. This bill prohibits about one-half of Cuba’s cane sugar from entering this coun- try. 5. Raises the allotment of beet sugar sev- eral times its annual production during the last 4 years of sugar shortages. FORCING SUBSTITUTE What does this mean? Just this: The powerful beet-sugar lobby is again trying to grab, even if it corrupts government by log-rolling and vote-swapping, pinches the consuming public, and squeezes the life out of the Republican Party as it helped to do in 1929 with the Hawley-Smoot high tariff. It is trying to throw into bankruptcy the Cuban sugar companies as it helped to do in the thirties. It is trying to force on the American public the use of a substitute for cane sugar. It is trying to force every man, woman, and child in the United States to pay to them 75 cents each for their trouble each year for producing a product which many housewives, bakers, and candy makers con- sider inferior for their purposes, and which they failed miserably to produce in the crisis of both World Wars. They are asking the American public to pay them through a sub- sidy 1 cent per pound more than the price for the real article—cane sugar from Cuba. The whole question of a necessary house- hold food should be completely eliminated from politics, Government controls, regula- tions, allotments, prices, and tariffs as soon as practicable—particularly sugar. Look back at the record and history of sugar for a few years. The beet sugars were highly protected in peacetimes before World War I, and in the way they fell down woefully. Cuba rallied and supplied the gap by tremendous produc- tion. They did so largely with bank loans from American banks—much to their sorrow. After World War I the beet interests again entered the picture through politics and high tariff, and gradually helped in forcing nearly every Cuban sugar company into bankruptcy and thereby ruining their credit at banks because of defaults. The high tariff on sugar under the Hawley-Smoot bill also caused tre- mendous losses to American banks and Amer- ican investors as well as bringing down the vengeance of the consuming public on the Republican Party. Again in World War II beet producers failed utterly. Again Cuba came to the rescue, raised their production from less than 2,000,- 000 tons to more than 5,500,000 tons, despite introduces new
A514 pungling, dictation, and regulation by incom- petents at Washington, and had they not supplied the sugar and alcohol the war would have been greatly prolonged and with greatly increased seriousness and costs. Now the beet interests again sense a little profit and @ chance to cripple Cuba again. It should be noted also that nearly every dollar paid to Cuba for sugar returns to the United States for goods made by American labor. CUBAN PROFITS LOW The general impression is that Cuba did this solely for profits. Just note the resultse— very few Cuban sugar companies paid a divi- dend of more than 25 cents per share per year for the 4 years of the war. Many have not paid one cent dividend in 18 years, and most of the companies are still in debt. This seems unbelievable unless you know that Cuban companies are taxed 8414 percent of their earnings in Cuba, and if they are sub- sidiaries of American companies their earn- ings when turned over to the parent company @re taxed again about 60 percent by the American Government. Who are these Cuban sugar companies? They are almost completely managed by Americans and almost as largely owned by American investors as are the beet-sugar companies. In this city of Syracuse alone there are stockholders in 7 or more Cuban sugar companies, and in one company alone there are over 49,000 shares distributed among hundreds of citizens in which they have received not one cent in dividends. Now the western beet-sugar interests are trying to crush the eastern cane-sugar in- terests through Government help. One of their arguments is to help American labor. Yet the records show that most of the hard labor was performed by Mexican families im- ported by them to work for a few cents per day. Another argument of theirs is that it is an American industry. This is scarcely more true than the Cuban sugar companies. The argument that we need to help the beet in- terests in case of future critical sugar short- ages explodes in their faces when we examine the flop they made in both World War crises and shortages. There is one ray of hope that this aggres- sion against and utter disregard of the con- suming public will be rectified if we have a little patience. The shortages caused by bungling and special favors cannot be helped much immediately, simply because there is not enough sugar. Given a free market, Cuba could produce our total requirements at lowest costs. The consuming public comprises the voters, and they have elected a new Congress to straighten out the mess, and it is hardly con- ceivable but that a majority of the new Con- gress knows why they are there and will operate for the best interest of the great majority. We, the consumers, must let Con- gress know what it is we want and not just let Congress sit by and wait to hear what the sugar industry wants. Roy E. WILson. SyYRacvse. Communism Is Anti-American XXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. W. KINGSLAND MACY OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 12, 1947 Mr. MACY. Mr. Speaker, in view of the ever widening and impending threat of communistic influences, I include in the Recorp the following erudite and forceful address delivered by former Judge Edgar F. Hazleton, of the New York City courts, and for the past 10 years county counsel of Suffolk County, before the Ketewamoke Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution, at Huntington, on December 2, 1946: The conflict in the world today is essen- tially the same as that of old, since the struggle between the east and the west has never abated from the time the Mongol hordes of Genghis Khan spread out from Karakorum. Western civilization believes in preserving the dignity of man. Here every man is a king and his home his castle, while in Russia he is but a vassal of the state. As far back as the days of President James Monroe it was the autocratic Czar Alexander I who planned to end representative govern- ment and to destroy the young democracies of America. The historian Alexis de Tocqueville wrote over 100 years ago: “Two great peoples, starting at different points, go forward toward the same end; these are the Russians and the Americans. The others seem to have attained the limit that nature traced for them; these two alone go forward in a race of which the eye cannot see the limits. “To attain this end, the American relies on the strength of reason of individuals; Russia concentrates in one man all the power of society. The one has for his principle means of action, liberty, the other servitude. Their points of departure are different; their paths are diverse. But each of them seems called by a secret design of Providence to hold one day in his hands the destinies of half the world.” Lenin has pointedly put us on notice in volume 24 at page 22 of the Russian edi- tion of his collected works, where in these words he predicted wars with non-Commu- nist states such as the United States: “We are living not merely in a state but in a sys- tem of states; and it is inconceivable that the Soviet Republic should continue for a long period side by side with imperialist states. Ultimately one or the other must conquer. Meanwhile a number of terrible clashes between the Soviet Republic and the bourgeois state is inevitable.” Thus it is clear that the menace to west- ern civilization from the east continues to- day, as it did when Greece and Persia were mighty powers. Then it was other oriental hordes, while now the danger is spearheaded by the Red Fascists of Russia who dictate and direct from Moscow the Lenin-Stalin plan for world-wide communism. Therefore it follows that wherever men foregather, and whatever their lot in life may be, it would be well if they paused and pondered why their vision is blurred and their hopes and aspirations in the pursuit of peace and surcease frustrated, even though Hitlerism has been vanquished. Our confusion and disappointment are not due to fear of a third world war or even the atomic bomb, but instead grow from the spec- ter of communism which, like a heavy cloud, hovers over the world, as it becomes appar- ent that Russia’s real purpose in fighting the war was not only the defeat of her former ally Hitler, but mainly to use the Second World War as a means to accelerate Russia's program of world-wide communism to be brought about as Lenin taught, by any ruse, cunning, unlawful method, evasion, and con- cealment of truth, and, therefore, as Stalin has warned, “The American Communist Par. ty should be fully prepared to assume the leadership of the impending class struggle ‘in America. We must form in Anierica real revolutionary regiments and a real revolu- tionary leadership capable of leading the mil- lions of America’s workers into revolution.” We had hoped that totalitarianism had dated with the defeat of Hitler. It is not even asleep, but marching on stronger than ever under the cloak of communism, President APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Franklin Roosevelt said, “The Soviet Union, as everybody who has the courage to face the facts, knows, is run by a dictatorship as abso- lute as any other dictatorship in the world,” while Stalin insists that dictatorship means unlimited power, resting on violence and not on law. The ruthless reign of Ivan the Ter- rible was no worse than the dictatorship of Joseph Stalin. The paramount objective of the Soviet Government is that world-wide communism should prevail all over this globe. Its imme- diate objective consists of bringing its neigh- boring nations within its grasp to have them serve as jumping-off places for further con- quests. This is the technique being used to- day in Asia and Europe. The objectives or communism have never changed and its methods seldom varied. As Stalin writes: “The development and the support of the revolution in other countries is an essential task of the victorious revolution. Thus the revolution, victorious in one country, must not consider itself a self-contained entity, but a support, a means of speeting the vic- tory of the proletariat in other countries.” Lenin briefly expresses this thought in say- ing that the task of the victorious revolu- tion consists in the accomplishment of the maximum possible in one country for the de- velopment, support, and stirring up of revo- lution in all countries. Consider how the Russian delegates con- tinue to block the international refugee or- ganizations in aiding the homeless refugees and displaced persons who are afraid to re- turn to their fatherlands because they are politically opposed to Russia’s satellite gov- ernments in contro] of those countries. The Russians proclaim the rights of minorities inside the United Nations, yet they have no sympathy whatsoever for any political mi- nority who has dared to reject the Soviet system. Therefore, communism as it is now propa- gandized in our country is an un-American system that would destroy the fundamental freedoms upon which our Republic rests. Its party is fifth columns for Moscow, and its members quislings owing allegiance to the Soviet Union. Do not confuse communism with liberalism since such would be like put- ting the works of the Devil and the Bible in one book. We should recall that by the terms of the agreement reached in 1933 between the Soviet Government and ourselves, the Soviets agreed not to interfere in the internal affairs of the United States. The record shows that this promise, along with others, has been broken. As stated by Robert Miner, national vice president of the Communist Political Asso- ciation, at a meeting held in New York city on June 4, 1945, Joseph Stalin is the true disciple of Lenin in the struggle for com- munism all over the world, That statement together with the teachings of Marx and Lenin prove clearly that communism always has been and continues to be bent on es- tablishing Communist dictatorships in all countries. Their theme is exactly the same as Hitler's was: ‘Today Russia—tomorrow the world.” Their plan is one of Trojan horse tactics consisting of infiltrating into our Gov- ernment, educational systems, communica- tions, transportation, labor unions, military forces, and political parties in order to con- fuse, divide, and take over. As stated by J. Edgar Hoover, head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who knows what he is talking about: “The fact that the Communist Party in the United States claims some 100,000 mem- bers has lulled many Americans into a feeling of false complacency, I would not be concerned if we were dealing with only 100,000 Communists. The Communists themselves boast that for every party mem- ber there are 10 others ready to do the party’s work, These include their satellites, their fellow travelers, and their so-called progressive and phony liberal allies.”
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD After an exhaustive study of communism in 1942 former Attorney General Biddle re- ported that “the Communist Party of the United States of America, from the time of its inception in 1919 to the present time, is an organization that believes in, advises, advocates, and teaches the overthrow by force and violence of the Government of the United States.” ; Part of their scheme !s the persistent ham- mering. by the Red press against the United States and the brazen attempts to sow the seeds of dissension in our large Negro popu- lation as well as other groups. To be spe- cific, I refer to the Moscow edition of the New Times, under date of April 15, 1946. On October 5, 1946, American Negroes com- plained to the Assembly of the United Na- tions that trial by jury, personal liberty, free- dom of the press and speech, freedom of reli- gion, assembly, and association, freedom from arbitrary arrest and free election were commonly denied to African people. This is unjust and should be corrected, so that Negroes would receive equality with other citizens in every phase of life. But it would be well for those who complain about civil rights to the United Nations to bear in mind that one member of that body who possesses and wields its veto with vehemence deprives its own citizens of freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free speech, freedom of assembly, and the right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers. In Russia the notorious NEvVD—secret police—see that a supply of slave Jabor in the millions is always avail- able. How many workers are actually con- demned as 80 many serfs to forced labor the Soviet Union refuses to reveal. But we do know that in 1933 they amounted to about 6,000,000 and in 1945 were estimated at from 14,000,000 to 18,000,000. I quote from page 56 of House Document No. 754. We are not concerned how the Reds rule themselves in Russia but are opposed to their propagandizing communism in the United States and planning to set up here a prototype of their police state. Since Mos- cow and American Communists insist upon establishing by means of deceit, infiltration, and force if necessary, a Communist govern- ment in this country, they can no longer be tolerated here. There ts a point at which our cooperation with Soviet Russin ceases and our duty to safeguard American institu- tions begins. That potnt ts at the territorial borders of the United States of America. Whereas the allegiance of all Communists belongs above all else first to Moscow, then it follows as the night the day that a Com- munist cannot be a loyal American and a loyal Communist at the same time any more than a man can serve two masters, “For either he will hate the one and love the other or else he will stand by the one and despise the other.” All Communists love Russia and despise the American system of free enter- prise. As William Z. Foster, chairman of the Communist Party in the United States, pro- claimed before a congressional committee: “The workers of this country and the workers of every country have only one flag, and that is the Red flag.” It was never intended that our Bill of Rights should serve as a shield providing sanctuary for a revolutionary and traitorous group as it prepared to destroy that very form of government that preserves the Bill of Rights. This is precisely the situation we face in- sofar as American Communists are concerned, so that to deny it would be calling fact false and truth a liar. An American who becomes @ Communist or a member of a Communist- front organization should at once be con- aidered as having in effect renounced his American citizenship. Certainly he can no longer be a loyal citizen of a country whose form of government he despiees, hates, and hopes to see destroyed. That fellow belongs in Russia physically as well as politically. Since the record proves Communists and loyal Americans cannot mix any more than oil and water and that the alien creed of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin must be kept out of the United States, what is the means to be adopted in order to achieve that end? Obvi- ously, our counter methods should be as complete and all-inclusive as those of the Communists. First, let us combat famine by feeding the hungry and relieving distress throughout the world, and give shelter, warmth, and work to our own, for commu- nism thrives on human misery, a weak econ- omy, and man’s unhappiness. And since the Moscow Trojan-horse technique involves in- filtration, confusing and dividing in order to conquer, no Communist or member of a Communist-front organization should be Permitted to hold any position whatsoever in our Federal, State, or municipal govern- ments. They should be removed and kept out of our armed forces, our schools and col- leges, as well as all positions of leadership in labor unions. In other words, notice should be served that no one can salute the red star of Russia and the stars and stripes at the same time and be on the level with America. I am aware that all this will be difficult to accomplish and cannot happen overnight. Nevertheless, this change must be brought about because of the very necessity of the thing itself if western civilization, with its freedoms and dignity of man, is to withstand the assaults of Asiatic avarice, Concededly the Soviet is succeeding in communizing Europe and the Near East. Britain fears a Soviet rule in India, and com- munism, while not an immediate menace in England, is a real danger in our country, due to our heterogeneous population, Americans must be aroused to understand that since Communists and their front organizations constitute a threat to the United States that communism in peacetime should be outlawed Just as we banned other un-American activi- ties during the war. We should not wait until we have another war, when it may be too late. Communists within the United States should have no more rights than Re- publicans, Democrats, and Socialists have in Russia. As Fritz Kuhn and his bund were agents of Hitler, so our American Communists are the agents of Stalin and his Red Russian Fascists in their plan to communize America. Anent the necessity of banning commu- nism from the shores of our country, it is fortunate that the Monroe Doctrine pro- vides that any attempt by a foreign power to extend its political system in the Ameri- can hemisphere would be considered dan- gerous to the peace and safety of the United States. The real reason for the promulgation of the Monroe Doctrine was the fear that our country, with its system of free enterprise, would be in danger if the great powers of Europe, leagued together, should be able to increase their influence in the Western Hemisphere by colonization, war, or intrigue. It was in 1821 that Czar Alexander I, to- gether with his fellow autocrats, sought “to put an end to the system of representative government” and commenced planning to destroy the young democracies of America. This impelled President Monroe on Decem- ber 2, 1823, to issue his famous message, in which he said: “The American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintained, are henceforth not to be considered as sub- jects for future colonization by any Euro- pean powers. * * * The political system of the allied powers is essentially different from that of America. * * °* “We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any por- tion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our A515 peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the governments who have declared thelr independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great con- sideration, and on just principles, acknowl- edged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them or con- trolling * * °* their destiny * * °* in other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towards the United States. It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent (North and South America) without endangering our peace and happiness.” The Soviet Government in unmistakable language makes it clear that it plans to ex- tend its political system to both North and South America, It is now building up its alliances throughout Europe and the Near East and has its agents in the form of Com- munist societies and otherwise in every coun- try in the Western Hemisphere. The world is being turned against us through distortion of news, suppression of facts, and misstate- ment by Communist press and propaganda. Thus, not only does the danger which Presi- dent Monroe condemned exist but it is clear that the Communist dictators are more hos- tile and more of a menace to our democracy than the autocratic Czar Alexander I. Therefore, serious consideration should be given to enforcing the Monroe Doctrine as well as banning communism itself by oper- ation of law throughout the United States. We are not interested in interfering with the internal affairs of the Soviet Government but should repel their further interfering in ours. While I agree that in our country, a man is entitled to choose his political party, I, nevertheless, insist that when that party is part of an alien system working for the overthrow of our Government, that both the individual and his party do not belong in America. Since at the last election it was made clear that America is overwhelmingly opposed to further propagandizing or infiltration by Communists, the President and our legisla- tive bodies should implement by proper ac- tion the expressed will of our people. Granting that legislation cannot com- pletely curb communism, it nevertheless can create a stopgap in order to give us time to do by education and religion what we have woefully failed to do to date. However. I believe this will not be nccom- plished until your group and others like you, who put God and country first, bring home to our people a realization that the advance of atheistic communism is more of & menace to our western civilization than any previous threat coming out of the Orient, German Peace Settlement EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WALTER H. JUDD OF MINNESOTA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 12, 1947 Mr. JUDD. Myr. Speaker, I am today introducing a resolution which, if passed, would put the House of Representatives on record as favoring the type of peace settlement with Germany which, in my opinion, would best insure a lasting peace and economic stability in the whole of Central Europe. The resolution follows very closely the general outlines of policy as made in public statements by Gen. Joseph T. McNarney, commander in
A516 chief of the American forces in Germany, Gen. Lucius Clay, John Foster Dulles, and former Secretary of State Byrnes. I am convinced that our continuing occu- pation of Germany and all our efforts to restore an economically stable Europe will be in vain unless a Solution is reached with respect to Germany which, while keeping that nation effectively disarmed, will allow it soon to become self-support- ing and no longer a charity patient of the United States, or Great Britain, or Russia. The decisions which are reached at the Moscow Conference will be of the utmost importance to the future. I feel that it would be most helpful to those who are negotiating on behalf of the United States at that conference to feel that the Congress is standing solidly behind them on fundamental policy. The text of the resolution is as follows: Whereas a council meeting of the foreign ministers of the United States, Great Brit- ain, France, and the Soviet Union will be held in Moscow on March 10, 1947; and Whereas the agenda for this meeting in- cludes the discussion of the economic and political future of Germany under quadri- partite control, the development of a pro- visional and permanent German Govern- ment, and the general outline of the peace treaty with Germany: Be it therefore Resolved, That the House support the creation of a peaceful, democratic, and self- supporting Germany which shall never again become a threat to the peace of the world; be it further Resolved, That the House consider the disarmament of Germany and the develop- ment of a unified and stable German econ- Omy under a federal democratic system the strongest guaranty against the revival of an aggressive Germany and for the groWth of mutual confidence and prosperity in Europe. Address of Hon. Harold E. Stassen EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ALBERT M. COLE OF KANSAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 12, 1947 Mr. COLE of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following address of Hon. Harold E. Stassen, of Minnesota, delivered at the annual Kansas Day celebration, sponsored by the Republi- can Party of Kansas, at Topeka on Janu- ary 29, 1947: Your Excellency, Governor Carlson, Hon. Alf Landon, distinguished guests, fellow Re- publicans, this is the first time in 16 years that Kansas Day has in it a note of national Republican victory as well as of State Re- publican celebration. On last November 5, the citizens of our country definitely named our Republican Party as once again the ma- jority party of the United States of America. This significant result of that free ballot is quite naturally the cause for some spirit of celebration. But even more, as I know you all recognize, it is a result to be viewed with @ sense of humility and of responsibility by our Republican Party in this crucial period in tLe wake of war and at the opening of the atomic age. Down through the years from that 29th day of January in the year 1861, when this State was admitted to the Union and the thirty-fourth star was added to the field of blue, the people of the State of Kansas have been very alert participants in the develep- ment and the decisions of national Republi- can policy. Our contemporary scene is no exception to that history. Numbering in your ranks that farseeing and beloved statesman who carried our standard in the difficult campaign of 1936, the Honorable Alf Landon; that outstanding student of agriculture, now chairman of the House Agri- cultural Committee, Cuirrorp HoPE; your able Senators CAPPER and REED; and Representa- tives REES, SCRIVNER, COLE, SMITH, and MEYeR; your able Governors, past and present, the Honorable Andrew Schoeppel, and the Honorable Frank Carlson; and the strong, respected, and solid Republican delegation in the Senate and House, Kansas has and de- serves to have a strong place in the councils of our Republican Party. Thus, in responding to your invitation on this unique annual occasion, I am moved, with your permission, to speak diréctly and frankly about some phases of national policy for our Republican Party. If our Republi- can Party follows through and discharges well its limited responsibility as the majority party in the legislative branch of Govern- ment, it is quite apparent that it is the in- tention of the voters of America to place our Republican Party in charge of the executive branch, as well, in 1948. It is also very clear that the decisions of our country in the years immediately ahead will have far-reach- ing effects, not only as to the future free- dom and welfare of the people within our borders, but also throughout the world. Clearly, then, the internal development of policy within our Republican Party will be of paramount significance in the months ahead. It is my view that that policy should be Geveloped by open and frank discussion. We should explore together the economic and social facts as we find them to be, and con- sider proposals to meet the problems before us. We cannot go back to where we left off 16 years ago. It is never possible to move backward in social and economic policy, any more than it is possible to turn back the passage of time. The question before us is, rather, How shall we advance from the point at which we find ourselves toward the goal of individual freedom and high standards of living for us and for others in a world at peace? To me this means that we must find our way through to new, dynamic, and humani- tarian policies on a number of major prob- lems, First among these is the development of & new national labor policy establishing a fairness and balance in the relations between capital and labor on a basis of individual free- dom of both, with high production and a minimum of governmental power. Second is the development of a new world economic policy to adjust to the tremendous change in our relationship to the rest of the world as now the major creditor nation un- damaged by war and with extreme produc- tive ability. Third is the implementation of the growth and development of the United Nations in its search for the means of a just and last- ing peace, including the evolvement of atomic-energy policy, the control of arma- ments, and our program toward our defeated enemies. Fourth is our long-term relationship with the peoples of other nations of the world, particularly Russia and Great Britain. Fifth is the necessity of maintaining re- silience and resourcefulness and vigor in our structure of private capital. Sixth is the need of improving our eco- nomic system, particularly in those areas where decades of experience have indicated Geficiencies, such as in housing and in health and in education. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Seventh is the development of the means by which agriculture can remain free and yet maintain an excellent parity income. Obviously, each one of these major ques- tions of policy could well be the subject of this entire address. It appears to me that a thorough discussion of future agricultural policy might better await the careful hear- ings and analysis to be made during this year by the House Agriculture Committee, in view of the fact that our national policy is fixed for the next 2 years and the situa- tion as to postwar agriculture around the world is yet to be clarified. It also appears to me that the proper place for a thorough discussion of labor policy cur- rently is in Washington in the committees of Congress, which are even now considering specific legislative proposals upon this No. 1 domestic policy. But I would like to discuss with you in some detail the fifth question of policy. It involves this entire matter of the resilience and resourcefulness of our free economy in the yeurs ahead. This involves a consider- ation of the basic functioning of our capi- talistic system, not from a standpoint of any one special interest but from that of the welfare of the people as a whole. It involves a frank discussion of big busi- ness and of small business. I believe that for the future vigor of a free economy in America and of a high standard of living with individual lMberty it is essen- tial that our Republican Party in the years immediately ahead be the champion of small business. The future high productivity of this entire economic system of ours depends in large measure upon a high birth rate of new small businesses throughout the country, and upon the growth and development of many of these small units, and upon the constant maintenance of a very large element of small independent.enterprises throughout the land. There are many reasons for this conviction that small businesses are the red corpuscles so vital to the healthy arteries of American enterprise. The world economic history has shown that nationalization and socialization has come when there has been complete con- solidation and combination of industry, and not when enterprise is manifold and small in its units. World economic history has also shown that when there is a legion of men in enterprise who have the authority to make thelr own independent decisions, then there is a toughness and vitality in an economic system not found on any other basis. This is not to say that we should oppose big business merely because it is big. A big country needs a strong element of big busi- ness as well as of small business. The most efficient and effective mass production of ar- ticles for Nation-wide and world-wide distri- bution must come from large industries. But it does mean that we must vigorously oppose all monopolistic practices of big business, we must insist that there be big business to com- pete with other big business and that the avenues of small business competition also remain open. It also means that we must be alert not to permit big business to domi- nate our Republican Party. We must not permit major political power to be added to the other great powers that are accumulated by big-business units. Excessive concentra- tion of power is a threat to the individual freedoms and liberties of men, whether that excessive power is in the hands of men of government or of capital or of labor. We must be vigilant to diffuse power and keep it responsive to the will of the people. A rather serious situation developed re- specting small business in America through the war. By reason of a combination of fac- tors the numbers of small businesses in America declined very sharply. It is quite apparent that the conditions of war, the al- locations of priorities of material, the scar- city of manpower, the complicated regula-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD tions and controls, the departure of owners themselves for military services, the urgent need of concentration of war production, combined to bring these results. Statistics show that tn 4 years’ time through the war, from 1940 down to 1944, the numbers of small businesses decreased to the extent of 500,000 In other words, tn 1940 there were 3,307,000 small businesses. By 1944 this had dropped to 2,889,000. With tile ending of the war, this very ad- verse trend changed, and the number of small firms has been on the increase, to the extent of 300,000 or more. But on every hand come indications of the difficulties of new businesses tn endeavoring to meet condi- tions, and particularly of the difficulty in ex- pansion. There can be no question that the ease of going into business in America in earlier dec- eades has been a very major factor tin the whole development of our country. The case of starting an enterprise, and then of plow- Ing back in early receipts resulted in develop- ing amazing production and distribution, and in creating high employment and ex- cellent standards of living. It made possible the starting of the small blacksmith shop and the growth to the great factory. It made possible the use of a small pushcart and the growth to the huge fruit-distributing com- pany. It made possible the origin of the small pare aan bus line and the growth to the transportation system. It made poeeible the small experimental laboratory, and the growth to remarkable electrical enterprises. Specifically, as to the days ahead, it appears to me to be essential that we make it easier than it now is for new smal] businesses to start and to grow and and. Included among the steps toward this end, I would suggest the following: First. A special adjustment of our tax structure reducing the tax on the first por- tion of business net income to facilitate the survival and expansion of the small enter- prise. Second. Reviston of our tax laws to permit the small enterprise to build up its reserves and its capital structure, whether incorpo- rated or not. Third. Simplification of governmental con- trols, even when they are essential, so that they can be readily complied with by small enterprise without extensive legal or ac- counting advice. Fourth. Correcting the collective-bargain- ing procedure so that if the employees are untonised, a small business is not con- fronted with a large number of unions to negotiate with. This might be accomplished through a provision requiring various crafts to designate the same bargaining represent- ative in a small unit. Pifth. Decentralizing the administration of national governmental pelicies so that the small businessman can complete his dealings on local levels of government with- out the expense and delay of dealing with the National Capital. Sixth. Constant vigilant opposition to all monopolistic practices and unfair combina- tions which tend to wipe out competition or to stifle the new growth of small enterprise. Each of these specific steps is attainable if there is a determination to work them out. I do not present them with any attitude of finality, but rather to stimulate other pro- posals toward the same objectives within our Republican Party. I am convinced that our Republican Party should definitely develop and carry through proposals of some such nature to make it easier once again for small businesses to be born and to grow and to expand. The proposals as to taxes need not be ex- treme and need not involve ‘large sums of money. A total of a half billion dollars in prospective tax revenue appited in reduction of taxes for these specific purposes would give very significant assistance to small busi- ness in the country. This half-billion- dollar reduction of taxes should be readily available if we make the $5,000,000,000 cut in the extravagant budget of the President which should be made. Equally, the simplification of governmental controls and regulations, and the decentrali- gation of their administration can be brought about if we approach them with the deter- mination to reduce the power in Washington and to make compliance with the law clearly understandable. Let me also emphasize again that these Proposals are not made just for the sake of the men and women who are engaged tn small businees. They are made for the long- term effect upon the whole strength of our free economy and the welfare of all. It is very important to the maintenance of future free big business that there should be strong numerous small business in America. It is very important to the future of agriculture that there should be, to an increased measure, decentralized small enterprises throughout the agricultural areas. There should be not only mercantile estab- lishments, but also small processing and Manufacturing plants, utilising agricultural products, preparing goods for local consump- tion, and playing a part in the development of thriving small communities in the midst of our great agricultural plains, furnishing employment, assisting in supporting the schools and other governmental activities, and contributing to a rounded, enjoyable community life. Equally is this important to those who labor for the development of jobs and for the maintenance of freedom of capital which is essential if labor is to continue to be free, I have spotlighted this one policy toward small business this evening, because I con- sider it to be one of the eight important policies which must be brought to the front in the Republican Party in this interim period. Let no one underestimate the importance of these decisions of Republican policy. In the tragic wake of war the standards of liv- ing and the individual freedoms of men have suffered to an extreme degree around the world. The trend is adverse. But if, with ingenuity and initiative and determination, but with a firm adherence to our funda- mental concepts, we demonstrate anew the success of our American economic system, a few short years will witness a shift in the world-wide trend toward increased individual freedoms throughout the world. Such a fa- vorable world trend would be the best assur- ance that future Kansas Days may be held under conditions of peace and well-being for the people of Kansas, and of America, and of the world. Dedication Day EXTENSION OF REMARKS Or HON. KENNETH B. KEATING OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 12, 1947 Mr. KEATING. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rrc- orp, I include the following letter: NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS,  .. AvxiLiary TO Sons OF UNION VETERANS oF THE Crvi. War, U.S. A., Trenton, N.J., February 10, 1947, Hon. Kernsru B. Kearina, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. Drax Concazsaman Eratrna: I would like to take this opportunity of requesting you Adl7 and the Committee on the Judiciary for favorable action on House Joint Resolution 62 relative to designating November 19 as Dedication Day. It is my personal knowledge that last year, the public cooperated wholeheartedly and approved of demonstrations honoring the event. This organization planned and ex- ecuted suitable programs amongst its mem- bers all across this land. It 1s our to continue to draw attention to the Gettysburg Address, and favorable action on this resolution would, I am sure, be welcome by the general public as well as cur own organization. Sincerely yours, Epwa S. Lampert, National President. Control and Development of Atomic Energy EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. HALE BOGGS OF LOUISIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 12, 1947 Mr. BOGGS of Louisiana. Mr. Speak- er, the gravest problem facing this Na- tion and all civilization is the contro] and development of atomic energy. All thoughtful Americans who have read the hearings of the McMahon committee and the reports of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey, the reports of Opera- tions Crossroads, as well as the expres- sions of Mr. Baruch and of the United Nations committee, are appalled at the frightful potentialities that this new de- structive force has for all of mankind. It is therefore to be regretted that a partisan fight is now being waged against the confirmation of David E. Lilienthal as Chairman of the Atomic Energy Com- mission. Mr. Lilienthal has demon- strated, not once but many times, that he is a great American and & man possess- ing the vision, the integrity, and the character necessary for the high position to which our President has appointed him. I was very happy to note in its issue of Monday, February 10, that the New Or- leans States, one of the great newspapers of the South, had deplored the tactics resorted to by his enemies. History has demonstrated that it is not possible for a man to take definite positions and to be forthright in his advocacy of principle without creating lasting enmities. Mr. Lilienthal is no exception to the rule. I was very much impressed by the edi- torial reaction of the Washington Post in its issue of this morning, which I here- with include in my remarks: ATOMIC REACTION The opposition to Mr. Lilienthal develop- ing among ultraconservative Republicans and southern Democrats is in reality an op- position to the atomic energy law which Cone gress itself enacted last year. The awe in- spired by discovery of the cosmic force In- herent in nuclear fission has now scmewhat diminished. And accordingly there has set in a reaction from the high-mindedness which prompted Congress to treat atomic en- ergy as a stupendous gilt of mature to be ex- Ploited only under public authority for the
A518 general welfare. In its place is an enterprise- as-usual attitude which would treat the atom as just another invention—a new type of plastic, say, or a synthetic fuel—and turn it over to private exploitation for profit. But the Senate, at least, was unanimous in its statesmanship last year. Those who now de- plore that statesmanship dare not openly at- tempt to change the law. So they seek, in- stead, to set aside Mr. Lilienthal because he is an administrator who believes in the law and would enforce it. The atomic energy law imposes two severe Testrictions upon enterprise as usual. It takes large areas relating to the production of fissionable materials and declares that in- ventions respecting them are not patentable. It provides for just compensation to the in- ventors through royalties but requires that the inventions themselves become the prop- erty of the Atomic Energy Commission to be utilized as the Commission sees fit. In short, it forbids private monopoly in the atomic field. The second important restriction im- posed by the law is that it makes anything essential to the utilization of atomic energy, whether directly in the field or not, subject to licensing by the Commission. In other words, no patent holder may frustrate the develop- ment of atomic energy by withholding use of his invention from a company licensed to use it by the Commission. Is seems to us that this measure of public control—call it socialism, if Senator Brrpcrs Pprefers—is dictated by both morality and ex- pediency. The release of atomic energy was accomplished by the teamwork of many men of science working as Government servants with the aid of huge public funds. To permit the capitalization of their discovery by com- mercial interests or to allow a concentration of control to pass into the hands of the few giant corporations capable of financing ac- tivities in this field would be grossly inequi- table. It would plainly, moreover, endanger the secrecy essential to the maintenance of military security. And, finally, it would make impossible the national control indispensa- ble to international control. What Senators Bripces and Tarr and Wuerry have in mind when they berate Mr Lilienthal as “an extreme New Dealer” is that he would not countenance private monopoly in respect of atomic energy. He would resolutely execute the intent of the congressional act. But their quarrel js not with him. It is with the idealism and exalta- tion, in which momentarily they themselves shared, that led Congress to build better than it knew. It would be tragic if the winds of reaction were now to blow that structure own, Welles on Argentina EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. LAWRENCE H. SMITH OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 12, 1947 Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. Mr. Speak- er, under leave to extend my remarks, I include the following article by Mr. Sum- ner Welles, which appeared in the Wash- ington Post of February 12, 1947: ARGENTINE POLICY (By Sumner Welles) CLARIFYING THE IssUs The circumstances surrounding Ambas- @ador Messersmith’s return to Buenos Aires requires ventilation. They demand a fuller measure of public understanding than they have yeu received, George Messersmith is one of the outstand- ing publig servants produced by the Ameri- can Forelgn Service. He was consul general in Berlin during the early years of the Hitler regime. The records of the Department of State will show that no representative of the United States in Eurepe at that time foresaw more clearly the danzers to world peace implicit in naz- ism, or was so profoundly revolted by Hitler's crimes against humanity. The Nazis had no more hitter and no shrewder antagonist. In 1936 he was promoted by President Roosevelt to be Minister to Austria. The service he rendered during the critical months prior to Austria’s annexation was even more valuable to this Government. Later, both as Ambassador to Cuba, and as Ambassador to Mexico, he greatly ad- vanced the interests of the United States. But this was invariably done in cooperation with the governments of those countries, with full respect for their legitimate rights, and without injury to the susceptibilities of their nationals. He was a convinced believer in the good- neighbor policy. Recognizing the advan- tages to be derived by the United States from the observance of its principles, in act as well as in word, he succeeded in strengthening inter-American solidarity. Because ef ill health, he was considering retiring in the spring of 1946. On April 1 of that year he was unexpectedly asked by former Secretary Byrnes to go immediately to Buenos Aires. He undertook the mission re- luctantly and with full knowledge of its dif- ficulties. He accepted the embassy only after receiving categorical assurances from the then Secretary of State that he would be given full authority by this Government to carry out the policies in which he himself believed. No one with any knowledge of his previous career could have for one moment imagined that Ambassador Messersmith, once in Buenos Aires, would not have devoted him- self to the eradication of every remaining vestige of Nazi influence. But he saw clearly that this could only be satisfactorily accomplished if the Argentine Government undertook the necessary measures as of its own sovereign initiative and within the framework of the laws and constitution of the Argentine Republic, and that the desired ends would not be attained if the State Depart- ment persisted in its fatally mistaken policy of unilateral imposition. It has been his consistent purpose grad- ually to eliminate the causes for dissension between Argentina and the United States and to work toward the restoration of hemispheric unity. The substantial results achieved are already a matter of record. If Ambassador Messersmith is permitted to continue on the course which he has set for himself, the re- maining differences between the two govern- ments can soon be solved. It 1s, however, notorious that the efforts of the Ambassador are being deliberately sabotaged. Every official of the United States must be willing to undergo public criticism of his actions and policies. Such criticism, when it is genuine and spontaneous, is salutary and in keeping with our democratic tradition. But much of the vilification to which Am- bassador Messersmith has been subjected in recent months is of a very different nature. A part of the criticism directed against him stems from persons who sincerely believe, notwithstanding the lessons of experience, and notwithstanding the Np service which they give to the principle of self-determina- tion, that this Government should impose its own views as to the kind of representa- tive government other independent and sov- ereign peoples should enjoy. But much of it has been artificially gen- erated by elements that should be brought APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD out into the open. It is these that have tried to make American public opinion be- lieve that the Ambassador’s endeavor to achieve the desired objectives by construct- ing a cooperative relationship between his own Government and a constitutional gov- ernment of Argentina, freely elected for a term of 6 years, represents the ‘“appease- ment” of a “Fascist dictatorship.” This propaganda, reportedly encouraged by several officials in Washington, has resulted in some strange anomalies. Because the Ambassador, as was his un- questionable right, had written to a few per- sonal friends in this country, who were Mem- bers of Congress or newspaper publishers, to explain the situation in Argentina as he saw it, and the reasons for the policy which he was pursuing, he has been assailed as insub- ordinate. Because he succeeded in winning the re- spect and confidence of the officials of the Government to which he was accredited, he has been accused of licking the boots of a dictatorship—and this with regard to the same man who was the first to warn of the dangers of Hitlerism. After having accepted his present post only upon the urgent insist- ence of the former Secretary of State, he has been attacked as being sly and ambitious. If Ambassador Messersmith is fully sup- ported by Washington in the policy which he ‘was originally authorized to undertake, inter- American solidarity will be restored and the regional system of the Americas will again be able to function. Should his opponents with- in the Government be permitted to continue their present campaign, the successful con- clusion of his task will be rendered impossible. Those members of the Foreign Relations and Foreign Affairs Committees who see the imperative need for the prompt restoration of hemispheric unity, and for the conclusion without further delay of the hemispheric treaty of defense which is still blocked be- cause of the recent policies of the State De- partment, would perform a national service if they investigated every aspect of this situa- tion in order to ascertain with entire preci- sion who the individuals and influences may be that are responsible for a campaign which jeopardizes the highest interests of this coun- try and of all the Americas. Lincoln and Public Servants EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ESTES KEFAUVER OF TENNESSEE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 12, 1947 Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. Speaker, I wonder what Abraham Lincoln, whose birthday we are commemorating on this occasion, would say about the unjust attacks being made upon capable public servants who have been nominated for high office. Abraham Lincoln’s high character and sense of fairness gives us a ringing answer. He would be shocked with some of the proceedings we are witnessing today. Consider this marvelously wise state- ment of Abraham Lincoln: IT shall do nothing in malice. What I deal with is too vast for malicious dealing. Recently we have heard objections to public servants because their parents, while naturalized citizens, happened to have been born in another country.