A728. founders of the Republic, in order to insure to us life, liberty and the pursuit of happi- ness, bestowed upon the American people four great freedoms—the freedoms of speech, of religion, of the press, and of assembly. For nearly a century and three-quarters, these freedoms have been commonplace amongst us, so much so that we are ac- customed to take them for granted. For the earlier part of that period, the tendency throughout the world was to extend the area in which these freedoms might in more or less degree be enjoyed. We were, however, hardly in the twentieth century before the new ideologies of communism, fascism, and nazism began like a pestilence to sweep across the world. Since these ideologies could not prevail where the four freedoms flourished, the dictators who preached these ideologies began to cut down the freedoms. In one country after another, the onward sweep of the dictators recalled to mind the drive of the hordes which threatened in the eighth century to overrun Christen- dom until these hordes were checked at Tours, in France, by Charles Martel and under the walls of Vienna by John Sobieski, King of Poland. Today, the areas of freedom in the world have become small indeed, while the areas of darkness ®eem to grow greater each day. If the hordes of totalitarianism are to be thrust back and enslaved peoples again made free, must not the driving force to achieve this come from America, incomparably the most powerful country in the world and the land where freedom is cherished most? Other freedom-loving lands are weakened by war and party strife and cannot without our aid stand up against the powers of dark- ness. Must not the Charles Martels and the John Sobieskis of the twentieth century, and the forces that they marshal, be found in America? Is it not, therefore, our duty as the de- gscendants of those who gave us the “four freedoms” to do our part in seeing to it that our Nation becomes strong and to that end to take an active part in the political party of our choice so that our Government may be the force for freedom in the world which our people wish it to be? This is not partisan doctrine. Not long ago Mr. Charles E. Murphy, corporation coun- sel of the city of New York, a devout Dem- ocrat, made such an appeal, and the dis- tinguished speaker whom I am about to present to you and who is a devout Republi- can, will now make a similar appeal. If I were to tell you of the good and Patriotic movements in which our speaker has taken part, my tale would be as long as Homer’s Catalogue of Ships. Hence I shall merely say that he, single-handed, brought about the creation by the New York Legislature of the Seabury committee, which did so much for the people of this city. He has, been State senator, a member of the 1938 Constitutional Convention, and is now a regent of the University of the State of New York, and the courageous Representative in Congress from the Firat New York District. May I present to you the Honorable W. KINGSLAND Macy, of Islip, N. Y. I spoke as follows: Mr, Toastmaster, Colonel Chadbourne, un- usually distinguished guests, ladies and gen- tlemen of this fine, patriotic association, as this is an after-dinner speech, I presume I may be indulged for making a little prelim- inary comment. It was Benjamin Franklin who helped make the peace with Great Britain who said: “There never was a good war or a bad peace.” We do not agree with Benjamin Franklin. We think the Revolu- tionary War was a good war that was justi- fied by every moral, political, and patriotic consideration, and we do not agree with the late William Lyon Phelps, the brilliant essay- ist and lecturer, when he said that the only war of which he ever approved was the Trojan War because it was fought over a woman and the men knew what they were fighting for. Our convocation here today to do honor to the memory of our first President testifies to our prideful awareness of our national heritage and to that vigilant corollary of awareness—concern. Our very act of gath- ering affirms our belief in the American constitutional system, demonstrates our con- fidence in its workability, and gives quiet warning that that which we cherish we will keep unimpaired. Washington helped evolve and institute the American system. Under it we have grown into the greatest of nations. Under it we have freedom. Our forefathers fought @ revolution to win that freedom. But as each generation of men must woo to possess, so must each make freedom its own. Free- dom, like a living, breathing thing, must be renewed in perpetuity for while the cold and glittering firmament belongs eternally to all men, freedom remains the possession only of those who tirelessly resist slavery. It is not imperishable, it is ever assailable, and it is seriously threatened today, not violently, but insidiously, incipiently; and, if it dies, it will not be of a great wound but of a slow paralysis, Our freedom today is threatened by the mounting economic pyramid of developing industrial civilization. Built on the broad base of American free enterprise, this pyra- mid is ever narrowing. As it grows it is lim- ited, tler by tier, by monopoly and speciali- zation. When its apex is reached, free enter- prise will be done for and freedom will be gone, Just as economic factors, eventually in- jurious to the great majority, kept the Brit- ish villagers off their commons, the mecha- nized civilization we have built will circum- scribe us with constraints unless we are watchful. Freedom shall be a smali thing dwarfed by security. Unless we concern ourselves passionately with freedom, how shall we place it com- paratively? Unless we are enamored of it, how shall we say it is not to be superseded? What was a conviction with Washington and the creators of America will be a mere his- torical footnote of an era's aspiration if our Gesire for easy living distorts our sense of proportion so that we erroneously diminish the great. America, meshed in economic complexity, can only retain its place un- trammeled in the forefront of free men if it improves its social structure with emphasis on economic independence and not on social security. When I talk of social security I do not refer to the old-age pension system, a thing for which I fought in the New York State Legis- lature when it was exceedingly unpopular with the leaders of my own party. Then, as now, I considered it a sad commentary on the involved financial structure controlling our great wealth that men need cry out to the State for aid in sickness or old age, believing as I do that through education, scholastic and civic, without sacrifice of the primary concept of freedom, the time could eventu- ally come when there would be no under- privileged. When I talk of social security and the de- sire manifested for it, I talk in a larger way of the eagerness for creature comforts and convenience, the ready concessions to ex- pedience to obtain it in lieu of the intangible but real thing we call freedom, and the small sacrifices being made along a road that can lead only to loss. When America shall no longer have freedom, she shall no longer have in her the elements of greatness that have made her unique and invincible. The one important question before Amer- ica today 1s how to align our political creed and faith with modern-day economics, This APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD is the key to our future, the determinant of our policy, both domestic and foreign. To enlarge upon this, I ask your permission to read to you from a Memorial Day address of mine which was extended into the Con- GRESSIONAL Rrcorp, Therein I said: “Modern Civilization is industrialized to a point where it is dependent upon smooth uninterrupted functioning. This machine-age complexity is a threat to our free institutions and will destroy them unless we bring them both into harmony. * * * The day of eco- nomic self-sufficiency for the individual is done, and we must evaluate our rights and privileges if we are to maintain a mutually beneficial society under our constitutional form of government. * * * The greatest problem confronting America today is that of balancing our concept of personal freedom with the minimum basic demands of our economic superstructure.” The battle of “the forefathers” of today is on the civic front. The enemy we must fight is not a red-coated soldier, but the regula- tion, the restraining order, the directive, the extracurricular legislation designed simply to facilitate the functioning of aur economic machine. Whether these controls favor labor or management is of no moment, If, with- out the fullest deliberation and consent of the people, they curtail rights we have con- sidered as our own, they are dangerous, Directive precision is possible only under statism, and admittedly a society as huge as ours must be regulated if we are to live in well-being together. But it must be regu- lated jealously and with legislative nicety if we are to remain a democracy. America has resiliency and is geared to change, but count- less little concessions in liberty can evis- cerate the fundamental concept of America by making the individual less important than the mass. America, vigilant against outward threat, values its freedom sufficiently to defend It, and we have just won a war to keep it and our liberty. We are not a warlike people, but, as you who are members of an organization founded to commemorate the spirit of our fighting men well know, there is a magnifi- cence in the way America rises to fight a war, steel in its sinews and steel in its spirit, generous of its sweat and unstinting of its blood. War itself has no grandeur but, as Washington thrilled to learn, there is in it the composite of grandeur when countless little men grow big defending a principle or fight- ing a cause. America, as we proved in 1776 and again when called upon in succeeding crises, has a splendor singularly its own when its people, made cohesive by national inter- est, merge into a unified force. Today, however, awareness of that spirit, almost like unto 8 physical presence, has been largely dissipated. Once again without na- tional oneness, America is an aggregate of many-minded persons concerned only with the small-in-perspective but great-in-pro- portion problems of peacetime living. The war is over and we are busy mending our civic fences. This is a work in which we should all take part. Historically informed organizations like yours well know that as the poet Robert Frost says: “Good fences make good neigh- bors.” Never before has America had greater need for deliberate public-spirited men with ®@ passion for fair evaluation than she has in this day when the atomic bomb controls the political reflexes of all nations. Never before has there been greater necessity for thoughtful patriots, who concede the duties of citizenship and comprehend more than the baliot box or the shouldering of arms, to enter into the working field of politics. America cannot be greater than its politi- cians, for no democracy can be other than what ite duly elected representatives make it. Pree elections do not assure good government. Nothing but a high-principled and enlight- ened electorate can do that—an electorate
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD that knows that as America’s fate was once determined in the cold fields about Valley Forge, its future will be shaped in the cham- bers of its legislative bodies. Full participation by the electorate is in- cumbent upon us if, in the words of Wash- ington at his first inaugural, we believe “e @ © the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the repub- lican model of government are justly con- sidered, as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.” An important factor of this participation is the expression of opinion—considered opinion. Every one of our great metropol- itan dailies and many of our weekly papers carry columns, syndicated or exclusive, in which name writers set forth their opinions. Many of them are overlarded with prejudice and bias, either their publisher's or their own, sometimes with both. Objectivity is not a columnist’s credo. Like the essayist, he writes of what interests him, but whereas the output of the thoughtful essayist is a gem worked over by some lapidary in words, the columnist, facing a deadline for a date- conscious public, often fills his alloted space with what is little better than snap judg- ment. The danger of this is that inter- Bpersed with one man’s opinion are factual bits that lend credence to the whole. These impress and influence the reading public as much, if not more, than editorials inserted frankly as opinion after careful deliberation. Another important factor in securing unto ourselves a successful government is courage. It is not enough that our soldiers in the time of war have courage. Our elected officials must have it, too, A year ago today when I had the pleasure of addressing a chapter of your organization in Troy, a tugboat strike had paralyzed the city. The city’s supplies of food and fuel were threatened although there were hundreds of idle Army trucks nearby which could have transported food and fuel from up-State New York, New Jer- sey, Connecticut, and nearby States. Then, too, the inactive tugboats might readily have been operated by others than their regular crews, but as I said at that time, the politi- cal danger of being considered a strike- breaker, however the public was suffering from the strike, was not to be dared. Ap- Peasement was considered wiser and safer politically, than opposition. In this connection I think I may assert with confidence that George Washington would have considered anyone to be com- pletely insane who predicted that the day would come when this great Nation, which Washington did so much to establish and organize, would be so swayed and influenced as to be practically ruled by pressure groups and organized minorities instead of by prac- tical applications of the old-fashioned theory of majority rule. There is only one pressure group in the United States of America today which has the right to act individually on behalf of the whole. That pressure group is the American electorate. Here this evening on the day the entire Nation honors the father of our country, I would not have you accuse me of the pre- sumption of assuming there is necessity for me to so reiteratively urge upon you the full- est participation in citizenship. I am sure that you are as familiar as woodsmen with the trail we have blazed through history. Before us, however, is not the forest primeval but a modern mountain range as yet un- scaled. All we have of balance and skill will be needed to safely surmount !t, all we have of sweat and power must go to build a mod- ern road through this century as once in the seventeen hundreds our forefathers made trails and widened them triumphantly into the wagon paths of freedom. The failure to have a true meeting of the minds is responsible in large measure for many of our current civic difficulties. Mili- tant labor, in the opinion of the public, earned long since the right to strike under certain conditions. When, however, our teachers unite to march en masse upon our State capitol, it is well to pause and consider not only the words of Calvin Coolidge, “There is no right to strike against the public safety by anybody, anytime, anywhere,” but to wonder how deeply these custodians of our formative young think and how truly sym- pathetic they are to the idea of government for the people and by the people. One, and not the least important, of our political subdivisions is the school district which is governed by publicly elected of- ficilals who make up a board of education. With those boards our teachers enter into contracts; to those boards our teachers have recourse. I believe, in the best interests of democracy, our teachers, many concededly underpaid, should have presented their cases with the request that the school boards ask that State aid earmarked specifically for salary increases be legislated to the district as is State aid for general school purposes. However, and to the great concern of par- ents agitated by the trend, our teachers chose to “gang up” and make threatening demands on behalf of one of the professions instead of working as individuals through the channels set up by the law. The New York City rabble-rousers which, 1,000 strong, marched upon Albany on Tues- day for the purpose of invading the legisla- tive halls, the Legislature being then in ses- sion, to demand housing and rent-control legislation, was one of the most sinister demonstrations which has for many years been witnessed in the United States of Amer- ica; and which, but for the strength and firmness of executive and legislative officials in Albany, might have developed into a riot with bloodshed and many casualties. Because the births of Washington and Lincoln occurred in the same month and their anniversaries are celebrated within 10 days of each other, and they were both great statesmen, patriots, and Presidents, it has become the fashion of essayists and editorial writers to compare the qualities and char- acteristics of the two men. So I will not undertake to do this tonight. They were born, doubtless, under the same zodiacal sign. The fact is, the anniversaries of the births might be celebrated more nearly together than they are, as Washington was actually born on February 11, 1732, and not on February 22. We celebrate Lincoln's birthday, of course on February 12th. If you challenge this state- ment concerning Washington, I will explain by saying that when Washington was twenty- one years old the calendar was advanced eleven days by act of the British Parliament. Lincoln's birthday was not dislocated by this method, because Lincoln was born after and not before the calendar change, which took place in 1753. In addition to the anniversary of the birth of Washington, the February season, if it may be so termed, is rich in its historic and patriotic anniversaries. I will not enumerate them, further than to say that the Matne ‘was sunk in Havana Harbor in February 1898, forty-nine years ago last Saturday: peace was ratified with Spain in February 1899, or forty- eight years ago February 6; and February 11, this year, the actual date of the birth of Washington was the anniversary of the Yalta Conference of which little was then known, but of which much has recently been said and much more remains to be known and much more remains to be said. However, I am inclined to believe that by common consent, the anniversary of the birth of Washington is, to a greater extent than any other anniversary, observed uniformly and reverently and fervently throughout the land. Doubtless, the anniversary of Lincoln's birth arouses somewhat similar sentiments, but the Nation was divided under Lincoln, A729 and in bringing it together and preserving its unity, deep and acute sectional animosi- ties were aroused, In spite of Lincoln’s great influence and tolerance and sense of justice, these animosities could not be soon or fully reconciled. Perhaps they have not been wholly, even as of today. Washington was the leader of a united and victorious nation, achieving its inde- pendence in a war against an enemy across seas, by reason of which posterity has in- herited a tradition of a warmer gratitude and a more profound admiration of Wash- ington than for any other figure in the his- tory of the Nation. The fact is, though Washington’s Birthday is a legal or public holiday in every State, Territory and colonial possession of the United States, there are nineteen States in which Lincoln's Birthday is not a legal holi- day. Nor are these nineteen States all Southern States, for the States in which Lin- coln’s Birthday is not a legal or public holi- day include Maine, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. So we may all say tonight that Washing- ton not only won the war, but, as we all Know, he also won the peace, having been not only chairman of the Constitutional Con- vention which adopted the United States Constitution in 1787, but he later served as our first President for two-four-year terms. I make this latter statement conscious of the fact that certain historical precisionists claim that the first President of the United States was the first President of and elected by the Continental Congress, held after the adoption of the Articles of Confederation, which for the first time gave to the Thirteen Colonies the name United States of America. It was unnecessary for me to state at the beginning of these brief and informal remarks that I would not undertake in my references to the most outstanding character in Ameri- can history to enter into competition with the eulogies which the most brilliant orators of the Nation have on these anniversaries for generations past lavished upon the character and career of George Washington. At the present one may not, even in a life- time of effort and research, discover anything about Washington or say anything about him not already said or known, nor say the known things half so well as they have already been said. I will confirm this observation by quoting, in conclusion of my remarks today, from the famous speech, delivered in 1858, of the cele- brated statesman, author, and orator, Edward Everett of Massachusetts, when he said: “The character, the counsels, and example of Washington will guide us through any doubts and difficulties that may beset us; they will guide our children and our chil- dren’s children in the paths of peace, while America shall hold her place in the family of nations.” I thank you. Veterans Service Center for the District of Columbia EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. LYNDON B. JOHNSON OF TEXAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 26, 1947 Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speak- er, I think it worth while to pay brief tribute to the tremendous, yet efficient, job that has been done, and is being done every day, by the Veterans’ Service Center for the District of Columbia. Approximately 400 veterans each day go
A730 to the center at 1400 Pennsylvania Avenue for service and information. Col. Waldron E. Leonard, the director, and his staff have made the center a symbol of courtesy, consideration, and service. Sam Stavisky wrote in the Washington Post of December 15, 1946, an article commending the center and its personnel. In order that every reader of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD may see this well-earned commendation, I am inserting it herewith: WELL-EARNED SERVICE Stripe Is PINNED ON D. C. VeTerAns’ CENTER (By Sam Stavisky) The other day the District Commissioners officially renamed the Veterans’ Information Center the Veterans’ Service Center. The action formalized what 120,000 veterans have already learned to their satisfaction. The center, in Post Square at Fourteenth Street and the Avenue, has demonstrated that the Nation's Capital is prepared to offer all veterans a helping hand. Approximately one-third of the former GI's who've turned to the center for a lift were not District residents. But residents and outlanders alike, all come back for more— probably the most genuine tribute that could be paid ebullient “Col.” Waldron E. Leonard and his staff. In its first year of activity—the anniversary date is December 17—Washington’s center has become one of the best in the country. Maj. Gen. Graves Erskine, Retraining and Re- employment Administrator, is authority for that evaluation, and Erskine has helped establish hundreds of such centers through- out the country. POWERFUL SUPPORT Behind that success of the center are definite factors: Support by the District Commissioners, a forward-looking citizens’ advisory committee, a $75,000 appropriation, cooperation by Federal and local agencies and organizations. But, given all these, the key still lies in the sympathetic hearts and willing hands of “Colonel’’ Leonard and his crew. “It’s not a question of dealing with the veterans’ problems,” says Leonard. ‘It’s sim- ply a matter of dealing with the personal and usually temporary problems of individual servicemen readjusting themselves to civilian life.” The center has a paid permanent staff of 21 and a dozen or more full-time specialists from Federal and local agencies and organi- gations. A veteran can obtain virtually any informa- tion pertaining to his welfare at the center. He can obtain counsel and help. If he can’t be taken care of on the spot the center sends him on to someone who can help, but the center staffer follows through to see that he gets it. JOBS OR JEEPS The center staff includes a United States Employment Service representative and two from Civil Service. Veterans’ Administra- tion has three contact specialists there, and the District of Columbia insurance under- writers maintain a full-time expert. A Red Cross worker deals with social-welfare prob- lems. A veteran can’t buy surplus property at the center, but he can get up-to-date infor- mation from a War Assets Administration agent. There's an attorney to help with legal tangles, and take the case to court if neces- sary, with the District Bar Association pre- to assist. There are two educational and one vocational advisers and a panel of businessmen is available to veterans seeking to try their own luck. When the terminal leave pay bill was passed, Leonard obtained a $4,000 Community Chest allotment for materials and started photostating discharge papers. The photo- stat crew worked many a night overtime with- out pay to keep up with the demand. Four typists punch out official papers for veterans, and three staff members offer {free notarization. During the tax-paying season two Internal Revenue Bureau consultants sat in. And for a long time the American Women’s Voluntary Services provided tax service for veterans hav- ing to visit other agencies. Today the AWVS ts concentrating on the adjacent housing center, soliciting living quarters for the families of veterans and servicemen. EIGHT HUNDRED RARE JEWELS For obvious reasons the fact was not given wide publicity, but in the past year Leonard, with the cooperation of many District dealers, has obtained superpriorities on cars for 800 disabled veterans. A current backlog of 300 applications prevents acceptance of new re- quests. A World War I doughboy, the 48-year-old center director spends most of his day quiet- ly working or heatedly fighting for things he thinks the veteran needs. Although housing was not his beat, the colonel organized veterans’ groups into a one- day lobby which obtained a $250,000 con- gressional appropriation for 2,500 temporary units here. When a citizen appeared to pro- test that the veterans would become perma- nent squatters, Leonard got so hot under the collar he pushed the citizen around physi- cally. Shortly after this display of ardor, Leonard was also appointed director of the housing center. Leonard's inflammable collar also gets him into scraps with housing and employment of- ficials who don't like to be pressured. A vig- orous foe of red tape and business-as-usual tactics, he influences people, but he doesn’t always make friends. NARY A BRICKBAT But the veterans, organized and unorgan- ized, consider Leonard a friend. Not one of the District’s veterans’ groups has even ques- tioned center policy or operations. And this writer, as a reporter on veterans’ affairs, can testify that not a single complaint against the center has come acro&s his desk. The “Colonel’—the title is an honorary one from Texas—talks the language of the enlisted man. A good example of this oc- curred last March when a caravan of Chicago veterans roared into the Capital to demand that the Government break the taxi monop- oly there Leonard escorted them to Camp Simms, put them up tn the old armory and, through the Red Cross, arranged for their feeding. (How differently the bonus marchers were treated 15 years ago.) There were no “inci- dents” during the veterans’ visit. COMPLICATIONS AHEAD The “Colonel” is looking ahead. He plans to bring in a specially trained adviser for former servicemen whose problems are com- plicated by general nonrecognition of their being veterans. Looking ahead, too, Leonard recognizes that in the past year of demobilization the demands on the center were chiefly simple— such as photostating discharge papers. The individual veteran problems ahead will be more complex, more personal. There’s the veteran who can't seem to keep a job. The veteran who's used up his 52 weeks of GI bill jobless pay. The veteran who's having trouble with his wife. The vet- eran who needs a steadying hand. The District Commissioners also are look- ing ahead. A subcommittee of the center's advisory committee is studying the need for expanding family-welfare and psychiatric- care services through the center.’ It’s a good omen when the folks who ini- tiated the center and the folks who are run- ning it both think it can be improved. It means that veterans will continue to get a genuine “key to the city.” APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Necessary Labor Legislation EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. GERALD W. LANDIS OF INDIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 26, 1947 Mr. LANDIS. Mr. Speaker, as a mem- ber of the House Labor Committee for the past 8 years, I wish to discuss at this time the important matter of labor- management relations and what I believe are necessary amendments to prevent strikes. It is the duty of Congress to remove the evils and racketeering in the field of labor-management relations and still protect labors’ rights. Following are amendments I believe should be adopted by both Houses of Congress. First. Jurisdictional strike: This means a strike growing Out of a dispute between two or more representatives of employees. This strike must be outlawed because innocent employers should not be penalized because unions force a strike to settle difficulties between unions. The mine or factory should continue operat- ing during jurisdictional disputes be- tween unions. Second. Breach of contract or wildcat strikes: Unions that sign contracts should be liable for violation of such col- lective-bargaining contracts if the right of collective bargaining and the right to strike mean anything. Third. Employers’ right of free speech: One of the most important amendments to the Wagner Act is the employers’ right of free speech. In the first place there was no intention of Congress to deny this right to anyone because the right of free speech is guaranteed to all of our citizens in the first amendment of the Constitu- tion. Fourth. Secondary boycotts: Second- ary boycotts engaged in by labor unions to force a third party, not a party to a primary labor dispute, to force that par- ty to cease using the products of the em- ployer engaged in the primary dispute is an activity which should be made illegal. Secondary boycotts have had the effect of throwing a great many innocent peo- ple out of work. As a result of these sec- ondary boycotts many of our citizens have been deprived of the deliveries of milk, bread, meat, and other essentials of life. These boycotts have cost the Nation millions of dollars worth of foodstuffs. Fifth. Strike vote: In order to give the rank and file of labor a right to partici- pate in collective bargaining, they should have the right of the secret ballot—State election laws—to vote on the final pro- posal arrived at by collective bargaining before a strike is called. Sixth. Equalize collective bargaining: In order to have successful bargaining it wil] be necessary to require that both management and labor participate in collective bargaining. Seventh. Picketing should be limited to the members of the loca] union in- volved in a strike. There is a provision in the Wagner Act which gives workers a right to join a union or not to join. Em- ployees have the right under the act to
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Petition the National Labor Relations - Board for an election to decide if they want to join a union and name the par- ticular union with which they wish to be Iaiated. Mass picketing must be abol- Eighth. The employer should have the right to petition for an election to de- termine a question of collective-bargain- ing representation. Ninth. No foreman or supervisor se- lected by management should be forced to belong to a labor union, He should be given the right to join or not to join any labor union he chooses. Tenth. No laboring man should be forced to join a labor union to gain a livelihood. Eleventh. An improved method of mediation and voluntary arbitration of disputes, Twelfth. A 30-day collective-bargain- ing period, prior to the expiration of a contract, is essential. Of course, both the employers and employees should be required to bargain collectively during this period. Thirteenth. No subversive individual should be allowed to hold an office in a labor union or corporation. Fourteenth. A new Federal labor court should be set up to judge cases such as wildcat strikes. Fifteenth. A Federal law is necessary bo stop violence and destruction of prop- erty. Sixteenth. Some form of Federal seiz- ure is necessary to prevent strikes in in- dustry-wide plants which affect public health and safety. , Mr. Speaker, labor leaders will prob- ably call these harsh and punitive meas- ures, but these amendments will be nec- essary to create better labor and man- agement relations and eliminate labor racketeering. Labor still has the right to strike but the rank and file of labor will have the right of a secret ballot to accept or reject any compromise meas- ure made by management in a labor dis- pute. Labor will still have the right to bargain on a local-plant level or on an industry-wide basis. They will still have the right to the check-off from members through collective bargaining. Wages, safety measures, welfare, and so forth will be left to collective bargaining. No one should condone jurisdictional and wildcat strikes, secondary boycotts, and violence and destruction of property. The first amendment of the Constitution guarantees everyone the right of free speech. If we are allowed to take this right away from one group, there may come a time when an administration in power would want to take this right away from all groups. No one would surely deny a person the right to work or even force him to buy a certificate in order to work. No one would surely deny the rank and file of the workers the privilege of a secret strike ballot. The rank and file of labor are anxious to remove subversive lead- ers from their organizations. Our big job is to protect the public from unions who have misused their power but we must be careful not to re- store the abuses of the past on the part of the employers. We Took Those Islands, Now Keep Them!—A Washington Times-Herald Editorial : EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. BERTRAND W. GEARHART OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 26, 1947 Mr. GEARHART. Mr. Speaker, apro- pos of the House joint resolutions which I introduced day before yesterday—House Joint Resolutions 136, 137, and 138— measures purposed to promote a more secure United States through the acqui- sition of Iceland, by invitation; of the Japanese mandated islands, by conquest; and of Greenland and certain other for- eign-owned islands in the Caribbean and the Pacific, by purchase, I, under leave to extend my remarks heretofore granted, offer for inclusion in the ConGrEssIonaL Recorp a very timely and most convinc- ing editorial which appeared in a recent issue of the Washington Times-Herald. This very timely editorial expression which its author has entitled “We Took Those Islands, Now Keep Them!” is, Mr. Speaker, the following: WE TOOK THOSE ISLANDS, NOW KEEP THEM The matter of the Pacific bases and who is to control them is coming up again, with presentation by the United States to the UN of a request for exclusive custody of the area enclosed by the broken line on the accompanying map. These were the islands mandated after World War I to Japan by the old League of Nations. Japan solemnly promised not to fortify them, then broke its word. Our men took them in World War II, at great and tragic cost, and with practically no help from any of our allies. Yet ever since the shooting stopped, Russia, Great Britain, and Australia have been rais- ing objections off and on to sole U. S. control of these islands. There has been and is a lot of vague talk about joint trusteeship. From Russia, there has come much clearer talk about how the Soviet Union cannot feel at ease with another power maintaining bases on its Pacific flank. And from some of Russia's lovers in this country has come the suggestion that we give up the islands to the UN to save ourselves from the temptation to use them some day as take-off points for an attack on Russia. This kind of talk is baloney. Joint trusteeship would mean joint high commissioners on these little islands, plus military forces from two or more nations. In an emergency, this divided command could be expected to do us the gravest damage. If Russia can’t feel at ease with our forces on the islands, that is just too bad. Neither can western Europe feel at ease with Russia in possession of the Baltic states and in con- trol of most of the Balkans. The contention of our Russia-lovers that we may some day attack Russia is merely ridiculous. We have no motive for that. But we do have urgent need of far-Pacific defense points in case Russia ever attacks us, as Russia well may. Of course, the late Roosevelt could have averted this Pacific base trouble by squeez- ing a sole U. S.-ownership agreement out of our allies during the war, when they were dependent on us to save them from defeat. Asa bargainer, however, Roosevelt was a good piccolo player. A731 But we still have those bases, and up to now Truman's position is that we will keep them, UN or no UN. We don’t think the majority of Americans would forgive Tru- man if he should back down an inch from that stand. Import Quota on Long Staple Cotton EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. E. C. GATHINGS OF ARKANSAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 26, 1947 Mr. GATHINGS. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the ReEc- orp, I include the following statement I made before the United States Tariff Commission on February 18, 1947, in opposition to an increase in the import quota on cotton of a staple of 1% inches and more in length: Mr. Chairman, I appear here representing long-staple cotton growers in the great al- luvial Delta area of the State of Arkansas. These growers are largely small farmers who live on the land and work in the sun for a livelihood. The Arkansas Delta is highly adapted to the production of long-staple cotton. This is shown by the great quanti- ties of this type cotton that has been grown there, especially prior to the year 1946. The farmers that I represent bitterly oppose in- creasing the quota on cotton imports whether on a short- or long-term basis. I am fully aware of the great amount of pressure that ts belng applied by certain in- terests to permit the importation of large stocks of Egyptian cotton. It is obviously to the advantage of these groups to obtain this cotton, which can be bought at a greatly re- duced price over that Which is asked for the domestic cotton of like staple and grade. On the other hand, I submit that we should first protect American producers who are engaged in an industry vital to the well- being of all. We find that the American producer has been encouraged in the husbandry of the long-staple cotton growing industry by the Department of Agriculture, and this agency still insists that we continue to produce these long staples. This action on the part of the Department is commendable. We need to keep our production of these varie- ties of cotton intact if we are to be a self- sustaining country. We should not be de- pendent on any other country in procuring a commodity which we can produce in suf- ficient quantities to meet our own needs. In order to keep this industry intact, the farmer who grows long-staple cotton must get & premium price over that paid for aver- age-length cotton. Long-staple cotton is much more expensive to produce, the gin out-turn is 380 percent less than on the shorter staples, and it has to be carefully picked in order to assure that the grade is high. Hired pickers from outside the Cotton Belt could not be expected to pick this cot- ton with the proper care, so that all in all the cost of producing these staples is con- siderably more than that for the shorter varieties. The fact that during 1945 and 1946 the pro- ducers of long-staple cotton in America have failed to realize adequate premiums is, in my Judgment, the cause for the inordinate slump in the amount of acreage planted to these crops. Heretofore, long staple domestic cot- ton has enjoyed a premium of from 70 to 100 percent of the base price. During both the
A732 1945 and 1946 seasons, however, the abnor- mally cheap Egyptian price has borne di- rectly against our longest Wilds varieties, and these in turn, have depressed succeeding staple premiums to the vanishing point. In the fall of 1946, when prices on average cot- ton rose considerably for a time, Delta long staples actually sold at a cheaper price than during the harvest season of 1945. This was due to the impact of Egyptian cotton that poured into this country when the new an- nual quota became available in September. Even after the cotton market broke last fall, shorter varieties sold for a minimum increase of at least 5 cents a pound over the price re- ceived during the preceding fall. The Egyp- tian competition has caused the premium on our longest staple Delta cotton to decline by at least 850 per bale. This is a great loss in the purchasing power in the long staple pro- duction area. Prices of other cotton are ad- versely affected when the long staple varieties go down in price. All premiums suffer from this downward pressure, and when the entire cotton industry ts affected, adversely, we are handicapping the largest production group in America. There are 2,000,000 families, not individuals, but families who are employed in the cotton industry in this country. More people are engaged in the various phases of cotton than in any other commodity in the United States. If they do not realize a profit from their work, they will turn to new fields of endeavor. Should they do this, new prob- lems will be created, and new competition will be felt in other lines of agriculture, such as cattle raising, dairying, wheat, and corn grow- ing, etc. Only we in America can be respon- sible for assisting our own people. We can- not, and do not wish to, compete with peon and coolie labor, because our aim is ever to lift higher the standard of Nving of our peo- ple. For this reason, we must protect the market for the crops they grow. Should the quota on Egyptian cotton be increased, we can only expect the rapid destruction of American earning power. I challenge the statement that there is not an adequate supply of domestic long staple cotton available for use by the mills in this country. It has been testified before this Commission that domestic long-staple varieties are inadequate to meet the demands of spinners. There was a carry-over on August 1, 1946, on staples of 1%6, 1%42, and 144 inches in length and longer, totaling 157,000 bales. Ginning through November 16, 1946, of these lengths total 40,000 bales, making a total available supply of 197,000 bales of cotton, only a fraction of which has been consumed by the spinners. This does not include the additional ginnings after Novem- ber 16 to the present date. In this connection, I would like to read a letter dated October 7, 1946, which shows that the same staple cotton grown in this country was stored in the warehouses without buyers: “WILLIAMS Corron Co., “Memphis, Tenn. “GENTLEMEN: As I have advised you before, we still have on hand the following types purchased from you mostly in 1944: “Btrict Middling 1% inches.__-..- 807 B/C “Strict Middling 1%6 inches._.-_- 1,324 B/C “Middling 15i¢ inches._..-..-.... 200 B/O “We have been reserving these lots for fu- ture use, but in view of the extreme differ- ential between Egyptian and this type of cotton, we, naturally, purchased the Egyptian. “There is a possibility that we might want to resell the above lots and would appreciate your writing us giving us your advice about reselling, also approximate idea of the prices we might get for them at this time. “Awaiting your reply, we remain, “Yours very truly.” Mr. Chairman, I trust that your Commis- sion will not see fit to increase the present quota of Egyptian and other foreign cotton imports, . Palestine Crisis Calls for United States Action—Formula for Troubled Pales- tine EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. FRANK BUCHANAN OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 26, 1947 Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Ap- pendix of the Recorp, I wish to include an article by Vernon McKay, which ap- peared in the Foreign Policy Bulletin of February 14, 1947, entitled “Palestine Crisis Calls for United States Action,” and an article by Julian Louis Meltzer, which appeared in the magazine section of the New York Times on Sunday, Feb- ruary 16, 1947, entitled “Formula for Troubled Palestine.” The articles follow: [From the Foreign Policy Bulletin, New York, N. Y., of February 14, 1947] PALESTINE CRISIS CALLS FOR UNITED STATES ACTION (By Vernon McKay) Palestine’s war of nerves reached a new peak last week at a moment when a rapid succession of events in Jerusalem and Lon- don created the deceptive impression that the problem was at last approaching a solu- tion. In Jerusalem the crisis was precipi- tated by the death sentence of 33-year-old Hungarian-born Jew, Dov Bela Gruner, a former lance corporal in the British Army, who was to be hanged on January 28 for participation in a terrorist raid on the Ramat Gan police station last April. The kidnap- ing of two British civilians as hostages for Gruner led to British threats of martial law. On February 3 Jewish officials in Palestine were asked by the British authorities “to state categorically and at once” whether they were “prepared within 7 days to call upon the Jewish community to lend their aid to the Government by cooperation with the police and armed forces in bringing to justice the members of terrorist groups.” The Vaad Leumi, or Jewish National Organization, de- cided 2 days later to reject this ultimatum, refusing to ask the Jewish people to act as informers. Terrorists of the Irgun Zvai Leumi (National Military Organization), who had kidnaped the two British hostages, asserted they would “fight to the last breath” against British authority. MORE TALK IN LONDON In London, meanwhile, the latest in the long series of Palestine conferences was be- ing held. Only the Arabs were officially pres- ent, but British leaders were talking on the side with Jewish representatives. The Brit. ish cabinet was apparently divided between the point of view of Colonial Secretary Creech Jones, who favored the creation of separate Jewish and Arab provinces with no ceiling on immigration in the Jewish gone, and the point of view of Foreign Secretary Bevin who wanted greater restrictions both on Jewish immigration and on the size of the Jewish province. Bevin's view prevailed. The resulting British proposal, made public on February 10, falls so far short of the hopes of Jewish leaders that they are reported to have totally rejected it. Arab spokesmen have also repudiated the new scheme. Since neither Arabs nor Jews will yield, it is likely that any British plan would have to be imposed by force. Yet Bevin is reported to have declared, in a letter accompanying his suggestions, that no attempt would be APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD made to force their acceptance. Under the circumstances it is difficult to see what the British can gain by their current military activities. So far the only evident result is the consolidation of the Jewish community and the consequent strengthening of the ter- rorists in the Irgun Zvai Leumi and the Stern Gang (a small faction which broke away from the Irgun in 1940). A MANY-SIDED PROBLEM The Palestine issue is a complex of many closely related problems. The strategic problem is to satisfy Britain’s security in- terests, which are just as legitimate as those ©° the United States in the Pacific islands. The humanitarian problem is to find refuge for persecuted Jews displaced by the war. The political problem is to reconcile conflict- ing Jewish and Arab claims for an independ- ent state. The latter two problems are closely related because the Zionists, in effect, are using the humanitarian appeal to win the political objective of a Jewish state, a fact of which the Arabs are keenly aware. Zionists believe that a Jewish state is an essential part of a humanitarian approach to the needs of world Jewry. The immediate need, however, is to do something about the tragic fate of the sev- eral hundred thousand Jewish refugees who @ year and a half after the end of the war are still seeking a haven. The postwar rec- ord indicates that Britain is unwilling to take the risk of imposing a solution favor- able to either Jews or Arabs, or of even adopt- ing the recommendation of the Anglo-Amer- ican Committee of Inquiry that Palestine shall be neither a Jewish state nor an Arab state. More>ver, many Britishers recognize that London does not have the moral author- ity in Palestine to carry out a policy. Under the circumstances, many observers believe it is time to look elsewhere for an attempted solution, and the logical place to turn to is the United Nations. Britain might agree to accept a trusteeship agreement for Palestine (drawn up by the Trusteeship Council and approved by the necessary two-thirds vote in the General Assembly) on one condition— that Britain should be granted a strategic base in part of Palestine. Since the formu- lation of a political decision in the United Nations would doubtless prove long and diffi- cult, the humanitarian problem might be tackled at once by Anglo-American coopera- tion in sending 100,000 Jews to Palestine at the rate of 10,000 a month which, according to the Jewish agency, the country can ab- sorb. Should such a plan be undertaken, it should be made clear that the 100,000 are to go in on schedule, but that any further im- migration will depend on the decision of the United Nations. AMERICAN INTERESTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES The United States, as the strongest power in the world, has the greatest responsibility for helping to solve the refugee and other world problems. At Frankfort-am-Main in the American occupation zone in Germany, Gen. Joseph T. McNarney on February 6 told & press conference that “the only feasible solution” for the future of 125,000 Polish Jews in the American zone was settlement in Palestine. Increased American interest in Middle Eastern oil also forces us to share responsibility for problems of that region. Only 4 percent of the world’s oil production to date has come from the Middle East, but it is estimated that the area contains 42 percent of the world’s proved oil resources. A special Senate committee to investigate this coun- try’s petroleum resources reported on Janu- ary 31 that our continental reserves were in- sufficient to meet our needs in case of another world war. Finally, Washington has a spe- cial obligation, because Jewish citizens of the United States are taking an active part in Palestine affairs. Mr. Mortimer May, vice president of the Zionist Organization of America declared on January 25: “We are going to have to realize now that for the first
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD time leadership in world Jewry and world Zionism has passed to the United States.” The 1,600 delegates who heard Mr. May make this statement to the National Mobilization Conference of the Zionist Organization of America voted to raise a special $1,000,000 fund for Zionist propaganda in the United States. The Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry estimated that “as many as 500,000 (Jews) may wish or be impelled to emigrate from Europe.” The United States could contrib- ute to the settlement of one of the world’s most acute problems by (1) opening its doors to 200,000 Jewish refugees; (2) urging other nations to absorb another 200,000 immi- grants; (3) strengthening its insistence on immediate admission of 100,000 Jews to Palestine; (4) putting strong pressure on Britain to turn the mandate over to the United Nations; (5) and furnishing financial, technical, and even military aid to insure the transfer and safety of the 100,000 immi- grants until the United Nations assumes this task. {From the New York Times Magazine of February 16, 1947) FORMULA FOR TROUBLED PALESTINE DR. JUDAH LEON MAGNES ADVOCATES AN INDE- PENDENT, BINATIONAL STATE WITH JEWS AND ARABS GHARING ALL THE RESPONSIBILITIES (By Julian Louis Meltzer) JERUSALEM.—The one constant factor in Palestine’s long-standing perplexities is that its Jewish and Arab populations must con- tinue to live together, no matter what ulti- mate political solution is hammered out. Whatever new constitution is framed, there will still be two peoples domiciled alongside each other in a land whose very smallness makes cooperative existence necessary and indeed tnescapable in the Jong run. Zionist and Arab leaders claim that they are ready to prescribe democratic provisions to safe- guard the minority rights of each other in their respective proposals for a Jewish state and an Arab state. But neither appears to trust the other’s promises. Like a voice crying in the wilderness, but @ voice which is gradually growing in volume and gaining a hearing, Dr. Judah Leon Magnes, former rabbi of the largest Jewish congregation in America and head of Hebrew University in Jerusalem since its formation in 1924, has over the past 30 years maintained in speeches and writings that the sole equi- table solution of the conflict between the two exclusive nationalisms is the formation of 2 binational state. This means ultimately an independent Palestinian state with two na- tionalities on an equal footing, politically and numerically. The Zionists assert that Dr. Magnes’ pro- posals are fair and give adequate place to un- restricted Jewish immigration, but they take issue with his views because they want a Jew- ish nationalist state into which Jews from all parts of the world could enter at any time as a right, and could ultimately become the numerical majority, ruling under a demo- cratic constitution. The Arabs feel that Dr. Magnes’ plea for political parity, irrespective of numerical con- siderations, is tantamount to asking them to yleld their present superior advantage of numbers. They fear that concessions given now will result eventually in their being swamped and dominated by a Jewish majority and in the stultification of their natural growth toward national independence. Dr. Magnes, however, declares that Pales- tine as a land of three monotheistic religions is no place for an exclusively nationalist state. He is a fervent opponent of any kind of chauvinism. Zionist and Arab leaders and the rank and file assert that he talks without benefit of suffrage and holds no elected position. The Ihud (Union) Association of Palestine, which is under Dr. Magnes’ leadership, agrees that he 1s not an elected politician in the profes- sional sense, but claims that his essential dis- interestedness in party dogmas and aline- ments places his proposals for Arab-Jewish cooperation wholly above vested political in- terests. The Ihud Association came into being in 1942 as a successor to the B’rith Shalom (Al- liance of Peace) which Dr, Magnes, together with some friends founded in 1930 after the 1929 civil disturbances. B'rith Shalom and Thud took as their principal plank a firm be- Nef in the feasibility and practicability of Arab-Jewish cooperation in Palestine. Dr. Magnes became the central figure of the Thud group. It is not a political party but in- cludes a number of outstanding members from different parties and, though its mem- bership is small, its ideas have penetrated various Arab circles. There is no doubt that Judah Leon Magnes has been a stormy petrel throughout his ac- tive life But he has always been courageous and it is because he has expressed his views with such clarity and force that he has pro- voked sO much discussion. A few rainy days ago I was riding in a taxicab along a tree-lined Jerusalem avenue when I saw a tall, familiar figure of athletic build striding briskly along the windswept sidewalk with an easy, almost boyish gait. The skies were leaden and the other pedes- trians hugged shelter, but he seemed to revel in the wet weather. “Taxi, sir?” I called through the window, asking the driver to draw alongside the curb. Standing there without an umbrella, his snap-brim Stetson worn jauntily, he declined my invitation smilingly. ‘‘Why, no, thanks. I like walking in the rain in Palestine. It reminds me of my youth in California.” It is hard to realize that this 6-foot, rangy Californian, whom many regard as being among the greatest Jews of the present cen- tury, will be 70 years old on July 5. Dr. Magnes is beginning to get gray-haired, but he still looks as if he were in his fifties. He was once a great baseball player and fond of tennis, which he played until he was 565. His only exercise nowadays is walking. “I like to walk nighttimes, but that seems in- advisable now, not only because of the po- litical violence,” he said whimsically, ‘but also because of the police and military op- erations.” Dr. Magnes was born in San Francisco and educated in the public schools of Oakland, the University of Cincinnati, Hebrew Union College in New York, and the University of Heldelberg in Germany, where he received his doctor's degree. He taught at Hebrew Union College for 2 years, and from 1905 to 1908 was secretary of the Federation of American Zionists, now called the Zionist Organization of America. In this office he succeeded the late Jacob De Haas, who was the first secretary of the organization. From 1906 to 1910 Dr. Magnes was rabbi at Temple Emanu-El in New York. In 1907 he organized the Jewish Community of New York, of which he was the first and only chairman, holding the position until 1922. By the time America was entering the First World War this community already had be- come the largest Jewish organization in the world and gave promise of being a great constructive force jn American Judaism. But when the United States declared war in April 1917 Dr. Magnes gave vigorous public expression to his pacifism and it was owing to this that the New York community or- ganization began to decline, both in numbers and in influence. With his departure in 1922 to settle in Palestine, the organization almost ceased to exist. “Thus, what I built with my own hands I unhappily destroyed,” he declares sadly today. In 1980, however, his advocacy of war against Hitler was voiced in a widely quoted address at Hebrew University, which repub- A733 lished it recently in a small volume entitled, “In the Perplexity of the Times.” The Hebrew University carries on both academic work and scientific research. Many of its 700 alumni and 70 doctors of philosophy who have received degrees since the first class was graduated are now teach- ers and researchers, either in Palestine or abroad, The university opens its doors to Arabs, but only three Moslems are now cnrolled. The political situation makes it difficult for Arabs to consider studying at a Jewish in- stitution, Moreover, according to Dr. Magnes, few young Arabs attain secondary school educations which meet university standards. But inquiries have been received from many Arabs who wish to enter the medical school, which is to open 2 years hence. At 70 Dr. Magnes has a full day’s schedule. He rises at 6 o'clock in the morning and 1s occupied until 10 at night. As president of Hebrew University, he is particularly inter- ested in the university's institute of Jewish studies and its school of oriental studies; in the Hebrew University Press Association for the creation of which he was mainly re- sponsible in 1926, and in the medical school, the joint creation of Hebrew University und Hadassah, the women's Zionist organization of America. In this connection he is chair- man of the Hadassah Council in Palestine. He also is chairman of the middle east ad- visory committee of the American-Jewish joint distribution committee. “I have been trying for years to withdraw from various activities,” said Dr. Magnes, “and 1 feel that the time has come when 1 should cease to be a chairman with a capital ‘C,’ although perhaps I may remain as chairman of some committees with a small ‘c’.” As I sat talking with him in the study of his home the other day, there were three books lying on his desk. He said he was reading all three at the same time. They were a volume by an Oxford don, T. D. Wel- don, States and Morals; a book by an Arab publicist, Edward Atiyah, An Arab Tells His Story; and Solomon Schechter’s Some As- pects of Rabbinic Theology, which he is re- reading carefully because he says he would like the Hebrew University Press Association to translate and publish it in Hebrew. He is similarly interested in having the best books written by the Mount Scopus scholars translated and published in English. What has always impressed me about Dr. Magnes in our long acquaintance has been his humanness and his way of shunning the limelight. His humor ts a synthesis of both qualities and often runs to a delight in in- congruous situations, to which he is very much alive. One memory 1 cherish is of seeing Dr. Magnes many years ago walking down a main thoroughfare of Jerusalem on a summer's day in the company of one of his three sons. Father and son carried ice-cream cones, which they were gravely licking. As a post- script. he clruckles today: “I still like ice cream.” . Dr. Magnes is thinking a great deal these days, he tells me, about the problems explicit in the theme, The Uniqueness of Israel, that is, combination in Judaism of the highest universalist principles and the religious nationalism of the Jewish people. “It is, I think, one of the most essential tasks of Jewish scholarship today to clarify this paradox,” he said. “I am convinced that such a clarification would give Judaism @ practical program, both in its relation to the outside world and to the distraught Jewish people itself.” Dr. Magnes’ views on the feasibility of establishing a unified binational Palestine atate have deeply impressed the Arab intel- ligentsia—among the Arab peasantry there fs real daily cooperation with their Jewish
A734 neighbore—and it is true that, of the Jews living in Palestine, Dr. Magnes probably is among the few whom Arabs of all classes feel to be completely and dispassionately sincere about the concept of Semitic racial cooper- ation. If there is any misgiving among thinking Arabs, it is that Dr. Magnes’ views are not popular among his own people and that he has little following. “My unconquerable conviction that the Jews and Arabs must and can live together,” said Dr. Magnes, “stems from two elements of my training: First, the study of the He- brew prophets and the Bible since my youth; second, my education as a liberal and my early life in what was at that time more or less an American frontier State—California.” Dr. Magnes and his friends feel that a par- tition of Palestine, with the creation of sepa- rate Arab and Jewish states, will keep both peoples permanently apart on either side of two unsatisfactory boundaries and will set up extremist irredentae, which in time will lead to armed conflict between the two races. Moreover, they assert that the partitions issue may provoke internecine strife among the Jews of Palestine themselves. Their proposal calls for an undivided bi- national! Palestine in which Jews and Aarabs would live and work in unison, having an equal share in the development, progress, and administration of the Holy Land. One of their postulates is that this state of cooperative Arab-Jewish existence is pos- sible, and it is formed from the testimony on every hand of actual amiable racial contacts of the present day. “What I consider distressing,” said Dr. Magnes, “is that many persons in authority have admitted that the binational idea is the most reasonable and practical compromise of all the solutions put forward. Yet they add that it is unfortunately impractical be- cause the intransigeance of the Zionist and Arab leaders has produced an emotional state among their followers almost bordering on hysteria, and this makes it difficult to talk in terms of moderate and feasible com- promise.” In addition to this intransigeance, another chief reason that stands in the way, he says, is the absence of a definite, systematic day- by-day policy on the part of the British Gov- ernment looking toward Jewish-Arab co- operation. “I have an unshakable conviction that agreement is possible between the Jews and Arabs,’’ Dr. Magnes said. “Not only can they live together; they do live together, despite the texsions created by their leadership. I can give one striking example of present-day cooperation, the municipality of Haifa. This is governed by an equal number of Jewish and Arab councilors. When the Moslem Mayor died, the Jewish Deputy Mayor suc- ceeded him. The Jewish Mayor, Shabbatai Levy, is held in respect by all sections of the community and the Haifa Municipal Council proceeds with its business without dis- turbance or interruption.” Dr. Magnes insists that the Arabs will acquiesce in the development of a unitary Palestine, with self-government and inde- pendence as its objectives, and that the Jews will also agree, if they are assured an oppor- tunity for immigration and settlement and a chance for working out their future together with their Semite cousins, living in Palestine and adjoining territories, Dr. Magnes and his associates in the Ihud Association have formulated a program which wey believe js fair and practical. He says it can be implemented without delay by the mandatory power under the terms of the Palestine Mandate and without seeking any new authority, such as may be required for establishing two independent sovereign states. Moreover, he asserts that this plan will obviate the bickering and conflict that is usually fomented when new boundaries are demarcated. These proposals are: 1. As many as possible of the 100,000 im- migration permits recommended by last year’s Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry should be issued for the immediate trans- fer of Jewish refugees from camps in Eu- rope to Palestine and further immigration should be subject to the country’s economic absorptive capacity. This capacity is to be expanded through a development plan for the benefit of all inhabitants, irrespective of nationality or creed. The United States Government has been noted as being ready to help finance such a plan. 2. Land-sales restrictions should be can- celed and Jews and Arabs should be free to purchase land in all parts of the country, with legislation protecting the farmers and peasants against the dangers of buying land which won't support them. 8. Jews and Arabs to be appointed in equal numbers to the high executive government posts and in the judiciary, so that there will be parity among them and the Britons in such offices. A constitution committee, with equal numbers fo Jewish, Arab, and British members to be appointed, and when it com- pletes its work, a constituent assembly con- vened with parallel Jewish and Arab mem- bership to adopt a constitution. 4. A policy announcement should provide that after perhaps 7 years a binational Pal- estine based upon two equal nationalities would become independent. This would give time for a large Jewish immigration and for all authority to be vested in a bi- national state. A Jewish-Arab legislature would then determine if and how Pales- tine could join a union of the middle-east countries. School-Lunch Program EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOE L. EVINS OF TENNESSEZ IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 26, 1947 Mr. EVINS. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following letter: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Orricre or COMMISSIONER, Nashville, Tenn., February 20, 1947. Hon. Jox L., Evins, Congressman, United States House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. My Dear CONGRESSMAN: I feel it necessary to call to your attention the seriousness of the situation confronting the public schools of Tennessee relating to the school-lunch program. According to encumbrance records for the 1,882 approved schools, Tennessee will need approximately $2,300,000 in order to carry on the program to the end of the present school year. The total allocation for food assistance to Tennessee according to appro- priations made available through the Na- tional School Lunch Act is $1,770,000. This leaves a deficiency of dpproximately $600,000 necesaary €6 operate our present program through this year. Unless more Federal as- sistance can be made available, the 1,832 schools getting assistance through the Na- tional School Lunch Act will be forced to close in March. Tennessee will spend, this year, approxi- mately $6,000,000 from State and local funds to su the school-lunch program. This expenditure includes the items of food, labor, equipment, and operating expenses. At the beginning of the year when we began to APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD approve schools for participation, we felt that the appropriation would fall far short of the amount needed to carry on a program even only in the schools approved. Accept- ance of all applications were discontinued in January, although many schools applied later. In order to extend the funds as far as possible, many schools were actually dis- couraged from making a: plication. To go even farther, schools with an enrollment of 250 or more were reduced in the rates of reim- bursement per child. I am pointing these things out in an effort to show that a program which should be available on the basis of need is not meeting these needs, due to the fact that adequate finances are not available. Iam of the opin- ion that no program is more worthy of sup- port and assistance than the school-lunch program. The popularity of this program is attested to by the records which show the increase in the number of schools applying for assistance each year. Only the limited amount of funds available has prevented greater participation. I feel it urgent that you give any support at your command toward obtaining supple- mentary funds to be administered under the National School Lunch Act for the current school year, This support will be appreci- ated by the thousands of parents and chil- dren in Tennessee. Very truly yours, Buren E. Dosserr, Commissioner. Centennial of the Founding of the State University of Iowa EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. THOMAS E. MARTIN OF IOWA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 26, 1947 Mr. MARTIN of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following reso- lution: We, the Members of Congress from the State of Jowa, take great pleasure in calling to the attention of Congress and the people of the United States the celebration by the University of Iowa of its centennial, Febru- ary 25. The occasion called forth the passage of the following concurrent resolution by the Iowa State Legislature: “Whereas one of the earliest acts of the first general assembly, signed in the old Capitol at Iowa City, created the State Uni- versity of Iowa on February 25, 1847; and “Whereas this day, February 25, 1947, marks the completion of 100 years in the develop- ment and growth of the university: Now, therefore, be it “Resolved, That this, the Fifty-second General Assembly of the State of Iowa, re- cords the appreciation of the people of Iowa for the loyalty of their State university in the training of the young people of this State and this Nation, for the development of its great areas of research dedicated to the well- being of mankind, and for its manifold and greatly expanding services to the Common- wealth.” We join with the Iowa State Legislature and the people of Iowa in extending our thanks and appreciation to the State univer- sity for outstanding service to our State and Nation throughout the century of service so well done, and we extend also our best wishes
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD for the continuation and expansion of this eervice to our State and Nation. Grorar A. WILZ0N, Bourne B, HICKENLOOPER, Senators from lowa. Tuomas E. MARTIN, First District, Henry O. TALE, Second District, Joun W. GwYNne, Third District, Karz M. LeComprt, Fourth District, Pau. CUNNINGHAM, Fifth District, James I. DOLLIVER, Sizth District, Brn F, JENSEN, Seventh District, Craries B, HOEVEN, Eighth District, Representatives from Iowa. Lithuanian Independence Day EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. ROBERT NODAR, JR. OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 26, 1947 Mr. NODAR. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following speech by Repre- sentative JoHN M. Vorys, of Ohio, at the Labor Lyceum, Brooklyn, N. Y., on Lithu- anian Independence Day, February 16, 1947: February 16, 1947, is celebrated as the twenty-ninth anniversary of Lithuania's in- dependence. A student of Lithuanian his- tory might say that we are celebrating the five hundred and eighteenth anniversary of Lithuanian independence, going back to the first Lithuanian statute or constitution of 1629. Other students of Lithuanian history might choose even earlier dates. Lithuania has won, and lost, her independence many times during past centuries. There are those who say that she has again lost her independence, but the United States Gov- ernment does not. The United States Gov- ernment has not recognized the incorpora- tion of Lithuania into the Soviet Union and continues to recognize the representative of an independent Lithuania accredited to this country. The celebration of the anniversary of Lithuania's independence is an event which is of significance, not only to Amer- icans of Lithuanian decent but to all Amer- icans. Shall the United States cdntinue to support the rights of small nations to self- determination, the right to free and un- federate elections, the right to liberty and représentative government? I do not have @ drop of Lithuanian blood in my veins, but as an American I want my country to up- hold these principles throughout the world, for these principles are fundamental to per- manent peace and security of the United States itself, No people have a stronger claim to the right of self-government and independence than do the 8,000,000 people of Lithuania. From the earliest times the Lithuanian peo- ple had developed their own language similar to the ancient Sanskrit, their own culture and traditions, their own government, their own nation. They are not related to the Russians or to any of the other Slavic peo- ples, but descended from an ancient people of a distinct nationality. It is therefore not surprising that they desire to retain inde- pendence and self-government as a means by which to preserve the ideals near and dear to them, their culture, language; in short, their way of life. During its day of independence since the First World War, Lithuania demonstrated that it had a decent respect for the opinions of mankind. By its progress in its economic and cultural life it demonstrated that its people were qualified to assume and dis- charge the responsibilities of independence. It is apparent that on the basis of justice and right—on the basis of principles an- nounced in the Atlantic Charter—no one should question Lithuania's right to inde- pendence. And yet, though everyone agrees that the rights of small nations must be pro- tected in the postwar world, still there is hesitation on the part of certain American leaders to voice their public support of these principles as to the Republic of Lithuania. They say that Russia intends to and has in fact already incorporated Lithuania tnto the Soviet Union; therefore it is anti-Russian to maintain that Lithuania should be inde- pendent, and will hamper the peace program to touch on this question. Furthermore, they say, Lithuania was a part of Russia be- fore the year 1918. Lithuania, they say, was torn away from Russia in the closing days of the last war when Russia was helpless be- cause of internal revolution, and should therefore be returned to Russia. Well, of course, it is not true that Lithuania belongs to Russia; any student of history knows that Lithuania's independence dates back to the fifteenth century when Lithuania was a nation with borders from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. Some of Russia was then a part of Lithuania. It should not be a question of which was a part of what. The important consideration is that the Lithuanian people are a distinct people with a history, culture, language, and ideals, not related to that of other nations. Further- more, it is not anti-Russian to maintain that Lithuania deserves to be an independent nation because Russia has itself said so, at a time when Russia was strong and completely free from internal or external pressure. Rus- sia has heretofore solemnly agreed and covenanted that it would respect the sovereignty of the Republic of Lithuania. Those agreements and treaties, I repeat, were made not at the time when Russia was helpless because of internal revolution but in the years when the Soviet Union had a strong government. On September 28, 1926, @ nonaggression treaty, which is still in ef- fect, was entered into between the Republic of Lithuania and Soviet Russia. The lan- guage of the following articles of said pact provided: “Art. 2. The Republic of Lithuania and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics mutually undertake to respect in all circumstances the sovereignty and territorial integrity and in- violability of each other. “Arr. 3. Each of the two contracting parties undertakes to refrain from any aggressive ac- tion whatsoever against.the other party. “Arr. 5. Should a conflict arise, and if im- possible to liquidate it in a diplomatic way, both contracting parties agree in such case to nominate conciliatory commission.” This treaty was by its terms to be in effect until December 31, 1945. On October 10, 1939, Lithuania and Russia entered into a mutual assistance pact; article 7 reads: “The realisation of this Treaty must not infringe the sovereign rights of the con- tracting parties, especially the structure of their state, their economic and social sys- tems, military instruments, and altogether the principles of nonintervention of one state in the internal affairs of another state.” Along with this pact Soviet Russia de- manded the right to Russian Army garrisons in Lithuania, Many political observers inter- A735 preted this Russian demand as the first step to sovietize Lithuania. On October 31, 1939, Mr. Molotov dismissed these speculations in the following words: “We stand for the conscientious and exact observation of the treaties concluded, on the principle of entire reciprocity, and declare the idle talk about the sovietization of the Baltic states to be profitable only to our com- mon enemies and to all kinds of anti-Soviet provocateurs.” However, in June of 1940 Soviet Russia did occupy Lithuania—deposed its government, and under the supervision of the Russian Army, an election was held with ballots con- taining only one set of names. The United States denounced the Soviet occupation and elections as being “devious processes” and “predatory activities to deliberately annihi- late the independence of the Baltic repub- lics—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.” On June 30, 1940, Mr. Molotov explained the Russian position as follows: “It would be unpardonable if the Soviet Union did not seize this opportunity, which may never recur. The leaders of the Soviet Union have decided to incorporate the Baltic states into the family of Soviet republics.” The United States has never officially ac- ceded to these Soviet claims. The State De- partment of the United States has continued to recognize and still recognizes the Lith- uanian Minister of the United States. Its position in the matter is that Lithuania should be an independent nation. As recently as October 19, 1945, United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson reaffirmed the policy of the United States in a communication to the Government of Soviet Russia wherein he stated: “In the indictment of German war crim- inals signed today, reference is made to Es- tonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and certain other territories as being within the area of the U.8.8.R. “This language is proposed by Russia and is accepted to avoid delay which would be occasioned by insistence on an alteration in the text. The indictment is signed subject to this reservation and understanding. “I have no authority either to admit or challenge on behalf of the United States Soviet claims to sovereignty over such terri- tories. “Nothing, therefore, in this indictment 1s to be construed as a recognition by the United States of such sovereignty or as indicating any attitude either on the part of the United States or on the part of the undersigned to- ward any claim to redisposition of such sov- ereignty.” In our preoccupation with other questions, let us not forget that the actual lives of men and women and children are involved in the Littruanian question. There has been 60 much suffering, bloodshed, and destruction in the last few years that there is a tendency to take for granted what has occurred. I am told that Lithuania’s people have undergone and are undergoing such suffering as come to few people in the world. First, the Russian Army marched across their country. Then the Nazis battled on their soil to drive out the Russians. Then back came the Russians to fight the Nazis and expel them. Each time, Lithuania's people were in the middle of the terrible cross fire of invasion and battle— forced to serve the conqueror as prizes in vic- tory and tortured by the vanquished in de- feat. Thousands of Lithuanians perished in battles which would bring their country nothing but terror and subjugation regardless of who won. And now that the tides of battle which flowed and ebbed in Lithuanian blood have ceased, the survivors look once more to their only hope—establishment of the demo- cratic principles pledged to them and all peo- ples of the world by the principles of the United Nations Charte.
A736 The Soviet Union contributed immensely to the military defeat of the forces of fas- cism which were determined to undermine these very principles of nonaggression and self-determination. Now that the military victory has been won, it is a sacred obliga- tion of the Soviet Union actively to embrace the very principles which the Allies fought to uphold. It is true that the conduct of the Soviet Union toward Lithuania has not been consistent with these principles or with the treaties entered into between these two nations. But now that the war is over and Russia’s security from the west is no longer threatened, no further reason exists for the Soviet Union to occupy Lithuania. And again, it is now apparent that with the advent of the atomic bomb, Lithuania is no longer important to the Soviet Union as a buffer state to protect it from attack. Thus there is no reason either in principle or expediency why the Soviet Union should not now be villing to permit the people of Lithuania freely to elect their own govern- ment from candidates of democratic parties without outside influence or pressure. It is certainly better policy for the nations of the world to discuss these matters frankly and openly now, rather than to permit grievances of aggression and oppression to ferment into causes of future strife. The cause of Lithu- ania's independence should be supported by our country because it is based upon Amer- ican principles of representative government. The peoples of Europe who respect these principles and ideals should be given the op- portunity to embrace them and shape their way of life and choose their own form of gov- ernment. The case of Lithuanta is a symbol of one of the most important phases of American policy in striving to establish a sound and enduring peace for all peoples of the world. The statement of policy and principle by our Government in 1940 concerning Lithu- ania, applies to all the world. “The policy of this Government {fs untiver- sally known. The people of the United States are opposed to predatory activities, no matter whether they are carried on by the use of force or by the threat of force. They are likewise opposed to any form of intervention on the part of one state, however powerful, in the domestic concerns of any other sov- ereign state, however weak. “These principles constitute the very foun- dations upon which the existing relationship between the twenty-one sovereign republics of the New World rests. “The United States will continue to stand by these principles, because of the conviction of the American people that unless the doc- trine in which these principles are inherent once again governs the relations between na- tions, the rule of reason, of justice, and of law—in other words, the basis of modern civilization itseif—cannot be preserved.” Why Not a Superior Court Labor Law? EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. BERTRAND W. GEARHART OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, February 4, 1947 Mr. GEARHART. Mr. Speaker, un- der leave to extend my remarks hereto- fore granted, I offer for inclusion in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD a very able and most timely article from the competent pen of the Honorable Thomas Hart Kennedy, of the San Francisco bar, an article which, I am quite convinced, should be called to the attention of the Congress and the country. This momentous expression from this widely known civic leader and outstand- ing legal authority, the article to which I have just referred, is, Mr. Speaker, the following: {From the Recorder of December 8, 1946] WHY NOT A SUPERIOR COURT LABOR LAW? (By Thomas Hart Kennedy, of the San Francisco Bar) A historian of our troubled times chron- icling the progress of twentieth-century Americans toward social gains may, one day, write: “The milestones on the road toward revolution are clearly discernible. For exam- ple, on November 20, 1946, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Cir- cuit described a 6-year-old conflict between an Illinois railroad and its union employees as approaching the magnitude of civil war. It ordered the lower court to abate the nui- sance that had become a stench in the nostrils trils of patriotic citizens of Illinois’ by ‘due process of law.’ Farmers Grain Co. v. T. P. & W. R. R., 158 (F 2d), 109, 117, 118.” Let us hope that the above speculation re- mains just that, but we who are living in this history can ourselves discern some of the forest through the trees, witness: “Bomb- ings in Hollywood” (banner headline, San Francisco News, November 13, 1946); “Water-front strike, costing millions to labor and industry * * * lasted 54 days * © * Jongshore and maritime workers lost 617,500,000. * * * The cargo held up by the strike * * ‘* was valued at an estimated 6350,000,000 (The Call Bulletin, November 27, 1946): “People of the United States v. John L. Lewis” (San Francisco News, November 21, 1946); and “Popular gov- ernment in the United States, however many shades of economic belief it contains, does not approve of the centralized and absolute controls necessary to realization of the Com- munist program.” (Editorial, San Francisco Chronicle, November 27, 1946). The time has come for the eradication of the causes of anarchy—that evil word used by Judge Goldsborough in the District of Columbia court the other day. The new Congress meeting in January will act and it is probable that this assured “Operation Labor” will eliminate or so change the Wag- ner Act—"Labor'’s Magna Carta,” more pro, - erly described as a “Bill of Rights to Wreck the United States”’—that the States will be free to regulate labor relations. Already sev- eral commonwealths below the Mason and Dixon line have enacted labor legislation only to meet with a Wagner Act cloud on their right to occupy this field imposed by the Supreme Court. See Thomas v. Collons (1945) 823 U. 8. 516 (Texas Statute); Hill v. Florida (1945), 825 U. 8. 538 (Florida Statute); Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdory (1946), 325 U. 8. 450 (Alabama Statute); A. F. of L. v Watson (1946), 827 U. 8 682, 90 L. ed. (Adv.) 715 (Florida Stat- ute). We can understand that many south- ern Members of Congress, albeit Democrats. are not highly pleased with this diminution of their State's sovereign powers. On November 5 the people of Arizona, Scuth Dakota, and Nebraska enacted labor laws at the polls, It is not too much to expect a coalition of southern Democrats and Republicans strong enough to remove federal interference with State control of labor relations. California as we all know has no effectual statutory mechinery for the settlement of labor disputes. But the Wagner Act not- withstanding, the States do have some power APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD in this field if they choose to exercise it. In Allen Bradley v. Wisconsin Employment Re- lations Board (1942), 315 U. 8. 1740, the Supreme Court sustained an order of the Wisconsin board although the employer in- volved was subject to the National Labor Relations Board. The Court pointed out that as the State board’s order did not conflict with any order of the national board, it was a valid exercise of the State's police power. In our State most employees would be sub- ject to similar regulation if we had such a State law and with the expected weakening of federal occupation of the field of regu- lation, California should get ready to act. If our state government can prevent work stoppages resulting from labor disputes and thereby insure continuous production, lower- ing of costs of goods and services, the in- crease of purchasing power, and divert de- pression it is certainly the duty of our legis- lators to pass all laws necessary to accom- plish these ends. The people expect the 1947 legislature to protect the public peace and welfare. Among the many grave matters for con- sideration at Sacramento next month, labor peace ranks high if not first. Senator Dill- inger, Placerville, is quoted in the Sacra- mento Bee, November 18, 1946, as follows: “The No. 1 problem before us now is better labor management relations—how to con- tro] strikes.” He has announced that he will introduce a bill importing into our law the Minnesota Labor Relations Act. This stat- ute sets up a new Statc bureau headed by a conciliator. Lawyers are sworn to uphold the law. They must, by the very nature of their office, support due process against anarchy, civil war or trial by battle. It is fundamental that if a system of due process can be devised that will secure to all parties to a labor dispute substantial justice, this system will com- mand the support of the legal profession. Can this ideal of justice under the law be more nearly approached through a new state-wide bureaucracy than through the operation of our constitutional courts? See “Minority Report” to Report of Committee on Administrative Agencies and Tribunals, Pro- ceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting, State Bar of California, Yosemite, September 1941, pages 331-333. As an alternative to Senator Dillinger’s proposal it is suggested that the legislature can empower the Superior Court to adjudi- cate labor disputes and establish and enforce the rights of employees, unions, employers, and the public. It is alao proposed that such Superior Court control is infinitely preferable to expanding our already much overgrown bureaucracy. If the present state of affairs has ap- proached or amounted to civil war or an- archy, certainly the legislature may declare the causes thereof, to wit, strikes, lockouts, slowdowns, failure to bargain in good faith, employment discriminations, unpeaceful picketing, false statements in labor disputes, organizational picketing, boycotts, “hot car- go,” violations of minimum wage, maximum hours, and other labor standards it fixes, to be nuisances. See Carse v. Marsh (1922), 189 Calif. 743, 744, 210 P. 267; People v. Lim (1941), 18 Calif. (4d) 872, 879, 880, 118 P. (2d) 472; Spreckles v. Hawaitan (1807), 117 Calif. 377, 381, 49 P. 368. The Superior Court has the power derived from the constitution to abate such nuisances. Carse v. Marsh, supra; In re Brambini (1928), 192 Calif. 19, 30, 218 P. 569. The legislature can implement its pres- ently declared public policy to promote and foster collective bargaining (Labor Code, sec. 928) and the equity jurisdiction of the 8u- Court to abate and forestall the legis- latively declared nuisances by enlarging the authority of the court to appoint referees
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD to take evidence on an issue of a proper unit for collective bargaining and to con- duct secret-ballot elections to determine the representatives of employees for collective bargaining. The court would thereafter or- der the parties to bargain in good faith. The nuisance of refusal to bargain in good faith could be forestalled and the public policy of peaceful settlement of labor dis- putes fostered by providing that if the par- ties fanled to agree to a collective-bargaining contract in whole or in part within a speci- fied number of days from and after designa- tion of bargaining representative, the court should take evidence or cause evidence to be taken before a referee to determine the “gaps” in the agreement. The court should thereafter order the hours, rates of pay, and working conditions in the unit, based upon the record of the proceedings measured by standards fixed by the legislature. Of course, the referee shou'’d be a lawyer and his com- pensation should more closely approximate thet for judges than the 85 per diem allowed under section 1023 C. C. P. Violations of court orders would, as al- ways, be punishable as contempt of court. The legislature could add other sanctions, for example, withdrawal of employment, unem- ployment compensation rights, or other ben- efits conferred by the law. In general the court should be armed with all powers neces- sary to secure obedience to its orders. The collective bargaining process, with resort to the court when necessary, should be available to the parties once each year. Whereas the underlying principle of this plan is the protection of the public interest the district attorney should be a party to all court proceedings, and he should point out to the court any proposal of any party that would operate against the public. For example, employers and unions have been known to conspire to violate our anti-trust laws. The district attorney should be alert to such attempts and nip them in the bud. The Superior Court may be clothed with all the above described functions In aid of its equity jurisdiction. The touchstone is whether or not the procedure prescribed by the legislature is necessary and helpful tn connection with the performance of some function properly belonging to the court. See: Rode, Comment, 25 California Law Re- view 694, 702, note 65 and cases cited; Mc- Govney, “Administrative Decisions and Ccurt Review Thereof in California,” 29 Califc-nia Law Review 110, 122, 150; Whitten v. Cali- fornia State Board (1937, 8 Calif. (2d) 444, 446, 85 P. (2d) 1296; McDonough v. Goodcell (1939), 18 Calif. (2d) 741, 763,91 P. (24) 1085. The Superior Court Labor Law should stop strikes and provide a fair tribunal where all concerned might adjudicate by due process of law any differences arising between em- ployers and unions. This plan would reverse the un-American trend toward centraliza- tion and bureaucracy. It would put govern- ment where it belongs—at home. Rank and file union members should not fear this sub- stitute for the right to strike. Continuous employment is also important to them and Superior Court judges are elective officials, subject to recall. If the majority of the citizens of any county are convinced that any judge, district attorney, or other peace offi- cer is not doing his duty, the incumbent will be retired. All citizens could be expected to take a greater interest in the caliber and performance of their elected representatives in public office and with such home rule anarchy and strikes would become a thing of the past. We could have production, due process of law, and prosperity. Do California lawyers want more central- ized bureaucracy or will they bestir them- selves and take action so that the preserva- tion of the peace and dignity of the people of this State will be committed to our con- stitutional courts? . XCIII—App.——47 Sugar Rationing EXTENSION OF REMARKS . oF HON. JAMES C. DAVIS OF GEORGIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 26, 1947 Mr. DAVIS of Georgia. Mr. Spsaker, a few days ago I received a letter from an outstanding lawyer of Atlanta, Ga., containing some rather surprising infor- mation concerning sugar rationing. Mr. Buchanan, the writer of the letter, felt that as his Representative in Congress, I should have this information. It should be of interest to every Member of Con- gress and to the public generally. I am, therefore, requesting that Mr. Buchanan's letter to me be inserted in the CoNGREsS- SIONAL ReEcorD. The letter follows: ATLANTA, GA., February 12, 1947. Hon. JaMEs C. Davis, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dear Jim: I have just competed the trial of an OPA conspiracy case in the United States District Court for the Norihern Dis- trict of Georgia The case resulted in a mis- trial, because of the illness of a juror, then of a defendant, and finally of another juror. I learned some facts about sugar rationing in this trial that shocked me. I think you should know what I learned. Any person who represents himself to be a@ canner of fruit can apply for sugar, getting an cllotment; then at the end of the season he can report how many cases of fruit he canned, and how much sugar he has left over, and he can transfer to other canners or grocers who apply for it the left-over sugar. Absolutely no check is made to see whether the canner did can the fruit which he re- ports I want to give you an analysis of the testi- mony of two bona fide Georgia canners. The Russell & Decker Co., of Monticello, Ga., canned peaches. In 1945 this company got an allotment of 328,000 pounds of suzar. They reported using 249.000 pounds. They transferred 20.000 pounds to one canning company and 68,700 pounds to another can- ning company, which was done on order of OPA, This canning company had on hand throughout the canning season and until Sep- tember 88,700 pounds more suzar than it needed; 60,000 pounds represents a large car- load. The Southern States Canning Co., of Fort Valley, Ga., in 1945 received an allotment of 674.000 pounds. This was more than 10 carloads of sugar. This company actually received 280,000 pounds of sugar. which was the equivalent of 4 carloads of 60.000 pounds each, plus 40,000 pounds more, or a small carload. During the season it actually used 147,800 pounds. It transferred to other users during the canning season 152.909 pounds, which is practically 3 carloads of sugar. The J. C. LaRue Co., which leased from the Chairman of the Security Administration the canning plant at Pine Mountain Valley, Ga., which had been established upon the insist- ence of either Mr. or Mrs. Roosevelt, and which was being liquidated in 1945 after an unsuccessful career, applied for 1.993.600 pounds of sugar. The superintendent esti- mated he would put up 445,000 cases of peaches, using 4.8 pounds of sugar per case. This concern was given a sugar certificate for 80,000 pounds on the 15th of June. It made efforts to obtain sugar in its home town, Madisonville, Ky., New Orleans, La., Mobile, Ala., Savannah, Ga., Columbia, Ga., Louisville, Ky., and Indianapolis, Ind. This A773 concern never obtained any sugar, and re- turned its check on October 15. Instezd of putting up 445,000 cuses of peaches, they actually canned 11,000 cases. The above facts appear from the tranecript of evidence in the case of the United States v. Theodore T. Smtth et al., in which case I represented Ro'tert W. Nelson. I am convinced that anyone in the can- ning business can obtain sugar by the car- load, whereas the ordinary citizen such ers I, can barely obtain a lump of sugar to put in his coffee. The evidence also indicated that bakers, bottlers. and other industrial users who are bona fide engaged in business, and two or three who were not bona fide engaged, can obtain sugar by the carload. In fact, the case developed that one man represented he was in the canning business, and got about £09,000 pounds of sugar, and never did even begin construction of his peach-freezing plant. Iam convinced that sugar rationing is a farce, except when it gets down to the con- sumer, and with him tt is a real tragedy. 1 will appreciate it if you will give me the name of the chairman of the committee which is now considering the question of ex- tending sugar rationing. I hope you will do all you can to have it terminated. I feel sure we will have the sume result that we now have with reference to meat. With regards, Sincerely yours, WILLiAM F, BUCHANAN. Releasing Objectors EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. RAYMOND S. SPRINGER OF INDIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 26, 1947 Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my own remarks in the Recorp, I include therewith an article appearing in the Washington Post, of date December 25, 1946, which is as fol- lows: RELEASING OBJECTORS Conscience sometimes makes men behave very unreasonably. It led members of the religious sect known as Jehovah's Witnesses to refuse not only military service but even service in the Civilian Public Service Camps provided by Congress as an alternative for men whose scruples forbade them to per- form any sort of military duty. The Jeho- vah's Witnesses defied a law of the land in conformity with which millions of young Americans were cajied from their homes and their peaceful pursuits to bear arms in de- fense of their country. To punish them for this deflance—especially in view of the hon- orable alternative to military duty offered to them by Congress—cannot in any sense we think, be considered an impairment of reli- gious freedom. The majesty of the Govern- ment required that the law be enforced. But vindictiveness in dealing with these men and with other genuine conscience cases would contribute nothing to the Govern- ment's majesty. It was found necessary dur- ing the war years to send to prison some 6,000 to 7,000 persons, either because, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, they refused to work in Civilian Public Service Camps or because their local draft boards refused to consider them genuine conscience cases and assign them to CPS Camps. The law was rigidly
A738 narrow in its application, and draft boards were sometimes reluctant to acknowledge the claims of conscience. Moreover, the treat- ment accorded the men who went to CPS Camps was so senselessly punitive and 50 wasteful of their skills that some of them quite understandably rebelled against it and went to prison instead. It is reported that the President will release on parole at Christmas one-third of the Jehovah’s Witnesses remaining in prison. These men will have served a year of their three-year terms. We think, consid- ering the fact that the war is over and that other Americans are not now risking their lives in a service these men refused to ren- der, that this leniency is wise and just, in no way diminishing the majesty of the Govern- ment, We hope that the President will grant release as well to the 300 Jehovah’s Witnesses and the 25 other conscientious objectors expected to remain in prison after Christ- mas. Indeed, we should like to see him go beyond this and grant a general amne.ty to all the conscience cases relieving them of the onerous obligations of parole. They have been punished enough; and certainly in time of peace they are no danger to society. Un-American Activities EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. J. PARNELL THOMAS OF NEW JERSEY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 26, 1947 Mr. THOMAS of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my re- marks in the ReEcorp, I include the fol- lowing editorial] from the Paterson (N. J.) News of February 24, 1947: LET’S GUARD OURSELVES AGAINST NATIONAL SUICIDE BY SENTIMENTAL SELF-DELUSION At the first sign of any real militancy against Communists there invariably goes up the outraged howl of “witch hunt.” . Some of the howling has come from. people ‘who should know a great deal better than to raise their voices in a parroting of that standard cry of the subversive under fire. The charge of Red baiting by the Red who finds his machinations encountering opposi- tion is a cliché so threadbare that it is difi- cult to understand how it still finds an audi- ence, much less individuals willing to echo it. The fact stands that the Communist Party is actively hostile toward the existence and evolution of democracy. It would stamp it out overnight if it had the power to do so, substituting the totalitarianism of Soviet Russia, and of erstwhile Nazi Germany. So far as their impact upon the ordinary man is concerned, they are indistinguishable. Moscow has declared all the rest of the world except Russia to be Fascist, and that fascism is the eternal enemy of the Com- munist. So the Communists have set them- selves the task of destroying American de- mocracy along with all the other shadings of political ideology not their own. In their war to be waged by subversion, no holds are barred, Every kind of trickery and any sort of lie is a legitimate weapon, Civil turmoil, the confusing of issues and false accusation are tools of the subversive's trade. He is schooled to use them, and is expert in their handling. When those who desire to see democracy perpetuated for themselves and their children inveigh against communism they are not endeavoring to suppress any spontaneous tide. They are trying to fight a diabolically clever, unprincipled little minority which by its discipline and its knowledge of disrupt- ing, obstructing tactics is a danger to the great mass of Americans, Today, America is not concerned with witches or any other figments of supersti- tious folklore. It is confronted with the well-advanced infiltration of an organized, directed force dedicated to our undoing as a democratic nation. Its agents have crept in everywhere—into unions, into faculties, into government it- self. To defend them is to defend men and women who, though their methods are dif- ferent and more subtle, are in nowise dif- ferent from the Bundists who paraded before December 7, 1941, in their designs on the United States. To give them their way on the theory that this is a free country constitutes national suicide by sentimental self-delusion. If these Communists, imported and home grown, were to stand before us openly, argu- ing for their cause and winning converts by persuasion until Americans could be induced to vote away their democracy in favor of servitude to the state, there might be much less ground for declaring them political out- laws. But the Communist doesn’t work that way because he can’t. He couldn't win. His methods must be sly, surreptitious. He can- not convert and lead any Americans except @ few who live in a peculiar state of delusion, His technique must be to seize power and control, There are few Communist organizations in this Nation. Writers who watch their words seldom refer to groups as Communists. What we do have is a growing and insuffer- able array of Communist-dominated organi- zations—groups whose control has been seized by Communists and in which the rank and file are relegated to the role of sheep to be herded in whatever direction Moscow finds most convenient at the moment. It is perhaps to be regretted that Voltaire ever wrote in his letter to Madam du Deffand, “I disapprove of what you say, but I wil] de- fend to the death your right to say it.” No one who loves freedom will refuse to subscribe to Voltaire’s splendid statement of what must be a precept of all democracy. The trouble is that too many politicians, editors, preachers, pedagogs, and pleaters. of causes have acquired-the distorted notion that Voltaire got his applause for saying that he would defend the right of another person to plot for his abuse, betrayal, and enslave- ment. That is not what Voltaire said or meant. The People’s Forum EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HERBERT C. BONNER OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 24, 1947 Mr. BONNER. Mr. Speaker, under privilege granted by the House to revise and extend my remarks, I include two articles appearing in the Raleigh (N. C.) News and Observer under the heading, “The People's Forum,” which are in re- ply to what was purported to be political advertising that appeared in several North Carolina newSpapers some time ago, and which I included in my remarks during the consideration here on the floor of the House of the contempt citation brought by the Un-American Activities Committee against Gerhart Eisler on Tuesday, February 18, 1947. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD I highly commend the writers cf these two articles. THE PEOPLE's ForuM ANY SCHOOL CHILD CAN ANSWER To the Editor: I am a veteran of World War IT and was overseas a couple of years, during which time I found that war makes strange bedfellows as well as politics. The expediency with which we finish the war to & victorious conclusion was made possible in no small part by the fighting aid given us by our communistic ally, Russia. We, vet- erans and civilians alike, have given Russia credit for her part in this conflict, but, be- ing @ marriage of convenience, this coalition of these two great countries, the United States and Union of Soviet Socialist Repub- lics, had to come to an end Now, in our sovereign State of North Caro- lina we are, because of our freedom of speech, forced to read advertisements. political ad- vertisements, of the Communist Party, the one and only political party in Russia. If I, as a veteran, can get a bonus from either the State of North Carolina or the United States of America through the Com- munist Party, then I think that I should at once withdraw from all organizations loyal to the United States of America. I con- sider it an insult to all veterans and all other citizens of this country that the Communist Party is trying to use the veterans, Negroes, and labor to undermine our democratic way of life. What woula happen to anyone in- serting an ad like the one we had to recd a few days ago if it were inserted in a paper publisred in a communistic country and the ad was signed by the Democratic Party, the Republiean Party, or some other party that stands for freedom? Any school child can answer that. I am not blaming the News and Observer for the ad as I know that paid political ads must be accepted by the papers. Frep T. RILEy. RALEIGH “SURPRISED” To the Editor: I was surprised, or rather disgusted, with the paid political advertise- ment in the News and Observer. The first statement could and should be true: “The People of North Carolina are uneasy about the future.” Why shouldn't they be uneasy when such termites as the Communists are trying to undermine their Government? As for bring- ing up the dead hand of the slave past, the descendants of the slaves that were in this country never think of it. They are too busy enjoying the freedom of the good old United States of America. It might be well to mention that America's slaves came here as slaves, and America made them free. Not so with Czarist Russia; she made slaves of her own people, and the Com- munist Russia continues to make and send more of them to ‘iberia. Why doesn't this propagandist tell the whole story with his United States Depart- ment of Commerce figures? It’s because he deals in half truths. More of the truth would show that North Carolina’s income per person is $732, compared to $1,290 for all States because North Carolina, as a State, doesn't earn enough in dollars to even out the difference. Because of the sweat that has fallen, and continues to fall, from other brows the man that wrote that advertisement enjoys the best bread and the greatest freedom that the world has ever given. And what does he give in return? He seeks in every man- ner to discredit our way of government. The question is, Why should these Communists be tolerated any more so than Nezis or Fas- celsts? They are worse than either. They come out with half truths to support their lies toward revolution. Frankly, they put forth their propaganda openly, and for the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD world to see, apparently, but remember, North Carolinians, they are termites with the way of termites. The little sign they make aboveboard is not comparable with the damage they do underneath. Now, News and Observer, you can publish this or throw it in the wastebasket, but if you throw it into the wastebasket you are pink—and deep pink at that. S. C. Carry. WasHINncron, N. C. A Beondoggling Rebuke EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. DANIEL A. REED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 26, 1947 Mr. REED of New York. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the subcommittee, com- posed vf 20 members, I voted to reduce the Federal budget to $31,500,000,000, or a cut of $6,000,000,000 below the amount reccmmended by President Truman for 1948. When the Budget Committee, com- posed of 102 members, met I again voted for a $6,000,000,000 cut below the amount asked for by the President. The motion to make this cut was carried by a sub- stantial vote. The resolution to approve the action of the Budget Committee came to the floor of the House of Representatives for consideration, and after full debate the resolution to fix the ceiling at $31,- 500,000,000 was approved by a decisive vote. Thus, by the action of the House of Representatives the budget of Presi- dent Truman has been cut $6,000,030,000. During the debate the New Dzeal spenders made vociferous appeals against the proposed cut of $6,000,000,00) in the President's budget of $37,500,000. The New Deal opposition to thr $6,000,0C0,- 000 cut took the form of “picking the figure out of thin air,” “destroying our national security.” “crystal-ball gaz- ing,” and “legislative hypocrisy.” It was quite evident that the New Deal spenders, boondogglers, and wasters, in their frenzy to preserve what many of them regarded as a vested interest in access to the Federa) Treasury, failed to recall the findings of the Special Com- mittee on Postwar Economic Policy and Planning. This committee was appoint- ed in the early part of 1944 pursuant to House Resolution 408, which provided that it should be the duty of the com- mittee to investigate and report to Con- gress upon “all matters relating to post- war economic policy and problems to the end that Congress may be in a position to formulate solutions with respect to them which will result in the greatest contribution by the Congress to the achievement of a stable economy and a just peace.” It is difficult to understand how the New Deal leadership could repudiate the findings of the Special Committee on Postwar Economic Policy and Planning, the personnel of which was selected with great care as to individual ability and character for so important a task. The membership of this committee ts as follows: Hon. William M. Colmer; Hon. Jere Cooper; Hon Francis E. Wal- ter; Hon. Orville Zimmerman; Hon. John R. Murdock; Hon. Walter A. Lynch; Hon. Thomas J. O’Brien; Hon. John E. Fo- garty; Hon. Eugene Worley; Hon. Charles L. Gifford; Hon. B. Carroll Reece; Hon. Richard J. Welch: Hon. Charles A. Wolverton; Hon. Clifford R. Hope; Hon. Jesse P. Wolcott; Hon. Jay LaFevre; Hon. Sid Simpson. It is seldom that a special coramittee of Congress has at its command such a formidable 1nd able staff of assistants. It is enough to mention the names of the economists and consultants to estab- lish the high order of talent selected to aid the committee. The membership of this committee staff is as follows: Marion B. Polsom, director of staff; Henry B. Arthur, economist; A. D. H. Kaplan, economist; William Y. Elliott, consult- ant; Edwin B. George, consultant; Rob- inson Newcomb, consultant; Theodore W. Schultz, consultant; Vergil D. Reed, consultant; C. A. Sienkiewicz, consult- ant; Lioyd A. Metzler, consultant; and Robert J. Landry, consultant. Such a staff does not make findings from figures picked out of thin air, neither do they resort to a crystal ball, nor do they connive at legislative hypoc- risy. The Postwar Economic Policy and Planning Committee, at pages 68 and 69 of its final report, made the following recommendations, which I am, under leave to extend, inserting in the Recorp at this point: With the Federal budget at the 841,000,- 000,000 level, the cost of the Federal Gov- ernment per family of four ts $1,130. If the cost of State and local governments were added, it would bring the burden up to 81,430 per family. The serious effects of such a burden should be obvious. The committee wishes to reiterate more strongly than ever the necessity of reducing expenditures sub- stantially. It realizes that we cannot reach the $20,C00,000,000 level during the next fis- cal year. It would, however, urge serious consideration to reducing expenditures for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1948, to €30,- 000,000,000, with further substantial reduc- tion during the following year, but with the objective of a $20,000,000,000 budget at an early date. BUDGET FOR 1948 It can be seen from the above 1947 budget that there are several substantial nonrecur- ring items. Terminal-leave pay. mustcring- out pay, payments on account of UNRRA and lend-lease, refunds, and international fi- mance all represent items which will either not recur in the 1948 budget or in greatly reduced amount. It is estimated that there should be a reduction of at least $7,000,- 000,000 in these iterns alone. While the com- mittee realizes the necessity of continuing heavy expenditures for strong national de- fense, it seriously questions whether it is necessary to spend over 12 times the amount which was spent im 1939. It would urge upon the officials of the War and Navy De- partments that they should realize the ef- fects which such heavy expenditures have upon the economy of the country and that the greatest effort be made to reduce these expenditures; that each item in the budget be scrutinised to see if it is absolutely neces- gary, and that projects which are not im- mediately needed be postponed. The committee feels that a budget of $30,000,000,000 is a realistic budget and that A739 expenditures can be reduced to this level without interfering with national defense or other normal functions of the Government. At this level the cost to the Federal Gov- ernment per family of four wculd be over $850 per year. Why all this hue and cry from the New Dealers when the Republicans, after full and complete investigation as to pos- Sible savings in che governmental ex- penditures, almost agreed with but did not go quite so far in their ceiling rec- ommendations as did the Postwar E:o- nom‘c Pol'cv and Planning Commnitiee? I am inserting under unanimous con- sent heretofore granted a letter on this subject from Dr. Harley L. Lutz, profes- sor of public finance at Princeton Uni- versity: My DEAR CONGRESSMAN: An undue dis- turbence of the public mind has been pro- auccd by the comments on the action of the joint congressional committee in recom- mending a $6.000.000.000 cut in the Presi- dent's budget for 1948. The committee's re- port contains no details, but a general im- pression has gone abroad that the reduction has been heavily concentrated unon the de- fense services. There is danger of grave dis- service to the “ause of economy and efficiency in the Federal expenditures by giving cre- dence, at this juncture, to the rumors about how or where the cuts are to be made. Tt is evidently the judgment of a substan- tial majority of the Joint Legislative Com- mittee that the budget can be reduced by €6,030,000,000 without impairing essential Federal services. The Committee on Post- war Tax Policy has also indicated, in its re- cent report, that the 1948 budget can be safely reduced to $31.500,000,000. We may assume that the Members of Congress who gave their approval to a budget reduction of @6,000,000.000 had no Intention of hamstring- ing the Federal Government, or of under- mining our defense establishment. Some unofiici‘al statements about the joint committee action have intimated that the cut in the defense services is to be $1.750,- 000,000. Editcrial comment has seen in this reported figure a rule-of-thumb procedure, on the part of the joint committee, involving a 30-percent slash everywhere, since defense ts about 30 percent of the budget total, and $1,750,000 000 is so nearly 30 percent of 96.000,000,000. The Committee on Postwar Tax Policy, after careful study, proposed a defense total of $10.000.000.000, which would be a reduc- tion of $1,200,000,000 below the net budget total. The underlying logic of this praposal was, first, that the President's budget really proposed spending only about $10,000,000.000 on the actual operations of 1948, and, second, that the bulk of the differences between $10,- 000,000,000 and $11,200,000.000 is accounted for by meeting, in 1948, unliquidated ¢ b'iga- tions of prior years. In other words, we are to pay, in 1948, bills that had been previously incurred. The budget message maker it clear that no contract settlements or other contract obligations from the war period are involved. A thorough examination of the budget de- tails reveals an itemization of prior obliga- tions to be carried into 1948 amounting to $547,000,000, including $250,000,000 of term- inal-leave pay. The balance is not ex- plained, and we may assume that it was not sufficiently clearly visualized at the time of budget writing (around January 1, 1947) to be set down. This writer's view is that much of it ts unreal, improper, merely a means of grabbing extra funds from prior appropria- tions by all manner of informal earmarking. We have no information now as to the validity of the reported $1,750,000,000 cut, or as to its apportionment between defense proper and the civil] functions of the War
A740 Department. The budget total for these civil functions in 1948 is $1,023,000,000, including nearly $300 million for rivers and harbors, and flood control, and $725,000,000 for Gov- ernment and relief in occupied areas. As to rivers and harbors, the story of such expenditures over the past 50 years suggests that some pruning is always in order. Until Mr. Herbert Hoover makes his report, we shall lack the basis for a sound judgment on the European relief situation. The occupied areas everywhere will have the benefit of a full crop year, however, before much spend- ing can occur out of the 1948 appropriation. It is possible that less will be needed than is now budgeted. Hence it is possible to as- sume that some reduction can be made in the total for the civil functions of the War De- partment If we grant a total of $10,000,000,000 for defense in 1948, which is really all that is asked for aside from the carry-over of ear- marked obligations, it is likely that enough wasteful spending can be combed out of the estimates to offset the amount set up validly as unliquidated obligations. Here are two small examples of what such combing would produce: 1. The Quartermaster Corps estimates in- clude the following expenditures for laundry and dry-cleaning plant: 1946 (actual) -..-------------- $33, 757, 859 1947 (estimated) _.. 23, 794, 256 1948 (estimated) ----..---..-.. 23, 145, 000 The Army charges the commissioned grades of personnel for laundry and dry-cleaning services. Its collections for these services, reported as miscellaneous receipts, are given as follows: 1946 (actual) ~_-..------ --. $22, 421, 266 1947 (estimated) .--..-. -- 12,040,000 1948 (estimated) ..-..------.-- 10, 040, 000 My point is that the Army, having already acquired enough equipment to do a gross business of $22,421,000 in 1946, at the low rates charged for laundry and dry-cleaning services for the commissioned personnel of an Army of eight to nine million, it is ex- tremely doubtful if a case can be made for buying now, and continuing to buy, through 1948, further large quantities of equipment in order to perform these services for a much smaller number of officer personnel. 2. The Ordnance Department figures for 1948 contain the following items: Procurement of ammunition... $20, 800, 000 Procurement of artillery._..... 3, 400, 000 Procurement of small arms--. 3,600, 000 Procurement of tanks and come bat vehicles___--....--.----- 8, 900, 000 Procurement of other motor ve- hicles__...------------.----- 3, 300, 000 Total procurement_-_---.. 40, 000, 000 Preservation of ordnance ma- tériel --...-..-..--------.--- 80, 000, 000 Preservation of ammunition_-. 30, 000, 000 Total for care of material on hand_-_....-.----- 110, 000, 000 In other words, the Army wants to spend 40,000,000 for new ammunition, artillery, small arms, tanks, and-other motor vehicles, while also spending $110,000,000 for the pres- ervation of ammunition and other matériel (including, no doubt, artillery, small arms, tanks, and other motor vehicles) already in hand. The new purchases evidently are not in the line of research and development, for there is another $40,000,000 set down for this purpose. Another example is Vice Admiral Sherman's statement about Navy fuel, as reported in the New York Times of February 15, 1947, According to this statement, the 1948 budget figure for fuel will allow only 3 days’ opera- tion per month. The 1948 figure for Navy fuel is 640,000,000. The 1947 figure is $45,- 000,000. Admiral Sherman made no com- plaint against the 1947 figure, but he empha- sized the budget cut and the rise of oll prices in his dark picture of 1948. It is not easy to see how fuel-oll prices can rise so greatly as to convert an apparently satisfactory al- lowance for 1947 into a wholly unsatisfactory one for 1948, when there is a difference of only $5,000,000 between the 2 years. No one wants to undermine or impair our national defense. The real problem is to distinguish between the true defense needs and the loud cries of the military heads. We should all bear in mind Admiral Nimitz’ frank admission in his testimony on the naval bill for 1947. He said that no naval or military man is ever satisfied with what is made available. Two interesting foreign items have re- cently been reported. They have a definite bearing on our immedtate defense problem. The first item is a detail from the British budget for 1948, as summarized in the New York Times of February 15, 1947. The Brit- ish defense program calls for a total per- sonnel of 1,087,000, and an expenditure of £899,000,000, equivalent to about 83,600,000,- 000. The white paper containing this infore mation stated that the aim of British policy must be “to deter aggression while at the same time safeguarding British interests against attack.” Surely England has as great a stake in national existence and security as we have, Even after allowing for differences in stand- ards of pay, equipment, and operations, it is hard to explain why we should be spend- ing, in a year of peace, some $6,800 per man as against England's 83,500. The second item, published in the New York Herald-Tribune of February 6, 1947, indicated that Russia had ordered demobili- zation of virtually all military personnel above the age of 22. This is smart tactics. The able young men of Russia are needed on the farms and in the factories, which 1s where Russian capital resources are also needed, Let us get wise to realities. We can re- duce the 1948 budget to $31,500,000,000 and still allow $10,000,000,000 for bona fide de- fense objectives. We should not be dra- gooned into sinful waste of our resources and our manpower by bureaucratic propa- ganda. Sincerely yours, Har.ey L. Luvz, Professor of Public Finance, Prince- ton University. Amnesty for the CO’s EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. RAYMOND S. SPRINGER OF INDIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 26, 1947 Mr. SPRINGER. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my own remarks in the REcorD, I include therewith an editorial appearing in the New York Times, which is as follows: AMNESTY FOR THE CO’S A committee of American writers, under the chairmanship of Dorothy Canfield Fisher, has appealed to President Truman to grant amnesty to “imprisoned conscientious objec- tors, including Jehovah's Witnesses, and to those others who, though they have com- pleted their sentences, continue to suffer for their fidelity to conscience by the loss of im- portant civil rights.” It is not easy to decide what is just treatment of conscientious ob- jectors in time of war. Some of them ac- cepted arduous and even dangerous noncom- batant service, and made the decision simple. Others, no matter how conscientious, did not APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD make the sacrifices that were required of the front-line fighter. Their scruples brought them out alive and whole, which was not the fact with about a million Americans who had no such scruples. Nevertheless, we do have to play fair with citizens who honestly believe that it is wrong to take up arms or to aid others in doing so. Where the honesty has been established by positions taken in time of peace prison sentences are both futile and unjust. The freedom of the private conscience is the very soul of democracy. We believe that the Writers’ Committee for Amnesty, whose members show a wide spread of political opinion, has a good case. We cannot con- sistently free political prisoners in Germany and Japan and continue to penalize them here, Third-Term Ban EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. THOMAS G. ABERNETHY OF MISSISSIPPI IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 26, 1947 Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Speaker, un- der leave to extend my remarks in the ReEcorp, I include an editorial from the Washington Evening Star of February 24, 1947, as follows: THIRD-TERM BAN The drive for a constitutional amendment limiting future Pressidents to two terms has about it an atmosphere of political immatu- rity—a suggestion that the inheritors of the best political system in the world lack con- fidence in the essential foundation of their political structure. It is probably true that, in the absence of unusual circumstances, the best interests of the country are served when a President does not serve more than two terms. There is nothing magical, of course, about two terms, and it is worth noting that the Sena- tors and Representatives who are support- ing the proposed amendment apparently see no inconsistency in having themselves re- elected to as many successive terms as possi- ble. Still, in the absence of exceptional con- ditions, an excellent argument can be made for the proposition that a President should serve two terms at most, and then turn the job over to someone else. Implicit in this, however, is recognition of the fact that in some future grave emergency the national interests might be served best by continuing a President in office for more than two terms, and the trouble with the proposed amendment is that it would make this virtually impossible. There are those who say that the amendment, if adopted, could always be repealed, but this is an argu- ment which overlooks two things—first, the time element, and, second, the very important fact that a constitutional amendment, once adopted, cannot be repealed except by vote of two-thirds of the States. Thus a decision which might be vital to all of the people could be controlled by the whims or the pro- crastination of 17 States. The question which should be posed to the sponsors of the amendment is this: Why should we of this generation undertake to tie the hands of our children in any and all circumstances, none of which can be fore- seen now? Surely, on the record of our own performance, we have no valid claim to the requisite wisdom. Why not permit them to make their own free decision in the light of conditions which they will have to face and which we cannot possibly anticipate? That is the essence of the democratic process, ana
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD we would pay ourselves a highly dubicus compliment in undertaking to short-circuit it. This amendment is one which should not pass, and the Star hopes that it will never be written into the Constitution. Resolution of the Lawrence Charter of Lithuanian-American Council EXTENSION OF REMARKS KON. THOMAS J. LANE OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 26, 1947 Mr. LANE. Mr. fpeaker, under lIcave to extend my remarks, I include the reso- lution that I have received from Mir. Matthew M. Stakionis, secretary, Law- rence Chapter of Lithuanian-American Council, 29 Monmouth Street, Lawrence, Mass.: Resolution unanimously adopted by Lithu- anian fraternal societies and cultural or- ganizations which constitute the Law- rence Chapter of the Lithuanian-American Council, at their mass meeting held at the Lyra Hall, on February 16, 1947 Whereas over 20 months passed since the end of hostilities in Europe and Lithuania is still under the occupation of the S-viet Russian Army; and Whereas the Russian Government has 1l- legally formed in Lithuania a Communist regime, which is forcing upon the people a Soviet system of government, abhorrent and alien to their convictions; and Whereas the Communist administration, supported by the Russian Army and pulice, has deprived the Lithuanian peoples of all their individual and political rights and lib- erties, is cruelly persecuting them, arresting them and subjecting them to long terms in prison and deporting them into the Soviet Union, while their properties are bsing turned over to colonists brought in from Russia: Therefore be it Resolved, That this meeting, gathered to commemorate the twenty-ninth anniversary of Lithuania’s independence, register an emphatic protest against the illegal, arbi- trary, and cruel Soviet conduct in Lithuania; and be it Resolved, That this meeting of Lithuanian- Americans of Lawrence, appeals to the Presi- dent of the United States and the Secretary of State, to demand, through diplomatic channels and international conferences, that Russia immediately withdraw her armed forces and secret police from Lithuanian ter- ritory, and permit the Lithuanian people to choose their own government in a free and unfettered election; and further be it Resolved, That this mass meeting appeals to the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations at Lake Success, N. Y., through its Chairman, Mrs. Eleanor Roose- velt, to protect the innocently suffering people of Lithuania from the terror and per- secution by the Russians and their hench- men, and draw its attention to the horrible conditions described by the Supreme Lithu- anian Committee of Liberation, in a state- ment submitted to the United Nations by the Lithuanian Minister in Washington; and finally, be it Resolved, That copies of this resolution be forwarded to the Senators and Representa- tives of Congress and published in the press. ANTHONY Savris, Chatrman, MATTHEW STAKIONIS, Secretary. February, Month of Great Americans EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. BERTRAND W. GEARHART OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 26, 1947 Mr. GEARHART. Mr. Speaker, under leave to ex:end my remarks heretofore granted, I offer for inclusion in the Con- GRESSIONAL RECORD, a very able and most timely editorial from the February 14 issue of the Argonaut, California's most famous and most highly regarded weekly magazine, an article entirely worthy of permanent recordation in the archives of the Republic. This editorial, which its author has en- titled “February, Month of Great Amer- icans,” is, Mr, S eeker, the following: FETRUARY, MONTH OF GREAT AMERICANS The people of the United States observe in February two national holidays, the birthday of Abraham Lincoln on February 12. and that of George Washington on February 22. Both of these men are freely acknowledged as the greatest that this Nation has produced; others have been suggested, but none yet unanimously accepted, to stand beside them. The greatness of Washington and Lincoln may be ascribed to two causes: To the great- ness of their times, and to the essential sim- plicity of each. Both were charged with re- sponsibility for the Union tn a period of crisis; the fate of it hung, to a larger measure even perhaps than we realize, on them as in- dividuals. Yet neither feared the burden, nor assumed undue responsibility for it: each simply did the best that he knew in the place to which God had called him. The phrase has been theirs; both were God- fearing men. It has been generally admitted that the times create a leader of sufficient stature to cope with them. Both periods, that of the establishment of a workable democracy, and that of its preservation, when threatened by all the forces of reaction, at home and abroad. were historically momentous. George Bancroft has said, in his oration on the death of Lincoln, “The individual, even in the greatness of military glory, sinks into insignificance before the resistless movement of ideas in the history of man.” It is prob- able that both Washington and Lincoln, in- stinctively and consciously, knew this, and were content that it should be so. If they had been concerned with the Increase of their individual greatness, they could not have given to their chosen cause that single- minded devotion which eventuated in success. Neither, personally, ever attempted to be other than he was. Washington, it is true, died a man of wealth and property. Al- though he began life with very little, he came from land-owning squires, and he married a rich wife. His personal life, though it became comfortable, even elegant, remained simple and tasteful. Mount Vernon, his country home on the banks of the Potomac, with its matchless prospect of river and wood- land, was also, in his day, a profitable farm. The man who could rally the wretched rem- nants of a defeated army, in the grip of a bitter winter, and lacking adequate supplies of food, clothing, shelter, or arms, could turn the disintegrating forces of misery and dis- illusion into a signal and unique victory over established powers, was more than content to retire eventually to that privacy of life and enterprise which the earlier founders of the Republic had so ringingly declared as the in- allenable right of a free people. A741 Lincoln sprang from simpler and rougher forebears, out of that West which was even then lustily developing. Though he came, gradually, to occupy positions of highest honor, he never became rich nor an ornament of society, as thut word is lightly used. He was the child of pioneers, rail-splitter, echool-teacher, storekeeper, country lawyer, aud finally politician, in the hest sense of the word, He never attempted to cut himeelf ot from his origins, but met worldly crandeur with a dignity and self-respect which pre- vented any unthinking imposition. Frivileze and power could not impinge upon him, be- esure he kept vital contacts with these Orisuns The Washington legend i; tinied with rallantry and style; the Lincoln levend has all to do with a man lonely in his grert- ness, whose heart was always open to the need of those poor or friendless or in trouble. Yet he had a country wit; it comes out often in his early speeches, where some of the arguments are as ingenious as those with which Portia confounded Shylock. In his second Inaugural address. this docs not ap- pear; the burden of hepes and fears fur the Union vas then heavy, the moment tense, This speech gives evidence of that develcp- ing power in simplicity that culminatcd in the Gettysburg Address, which in its brevity. sincerity, and tawless wording fo deeply moved his hearers, and so exasperated his so-called intellectual peers. In short, neither Washington nor Lincoln were devious men, though they understocd those who were, and were not above taking a certain wholesome enjoyment in outwitting them. This has always been truc of the ablest and best Americans. Both were rug- ged individualists, characters done 1n strong outlines and warm colors; yet without dis- tortion, any perversion of that integrity which enabled them to hew a line and fol- low it, to win the triumph of a just and self- less cause. Washington died peacefully, full of years and honor. Of Lincoln, whose as- sassination at the height of his career has earned him the title of the Martyr President, George Bancroft has said: ‘He was happy in his life, for he was the restorer of the re- public; he was happy in his death, for his martyrdom will plead forever for the Union of the States and the freedom of man.” GOP Take Note EXTENSION OF REMARKS fe) HON. AIME J. FORAND OF RHODE ISLAND IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 26, 1947 Mr. FORAND. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extenc my remarks, I include the following editorial which appeared in the Providence (R. I.) Bulletin of February 22, 1947. It speaks for itself. PLANLESS ACTION When the House voted to cancel an exist- ing OPA appropriation of 89,000,000, it showed the same type of irresponsible legislating that characterized its decision to slush the Truman budget €6,000,000,000 wit!:out knowl- edge of how it will be done. Neither of these planless actions is calculated to incrense pub- lic confidence in Republican competenc. to handle national problems wisely. Wiping out OPA’s funds withcut notice is a petty performance. Its only immediate consequence is to embarrass Mr. Truman and worry the rent-paying public. Republican leaders are well aware that “ent control can- not be summarily ended. When it ts ter- minated, it must be in an orde.ly manner.
A742 It will te time to scrap the existing system of rent control when the Republicans have pro- vided a satisfactory alternative. In this par- ticular matter, all they have produced thus far is confusion. The Boxcar Situation EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. SID SIMPSON OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 26, 1947 Mr. SIMPSON of Illinois. Mr. Speak- er, for the past several years much has been said about the boxcar shortage. Possibly because of war conditions as much as possible was done about it. The acute car shortage for the past several years was disturbing. Today the situa- tion has become alarming. This is caus- ing slashes in manufacturing output and employment. According to one Assoe ciated Press article it has brought ration- ing of space in many daily newspapers. Some flour mills are reported to have closed, production being down as much as 40 percent. This naturally takes many people out of employment. In central Illinois, country grain elevators are fac- ing the possibility of closing because of the boxcar shortage. We are told that about 3,000 new cars a month are being produced while in the same period 5,000 wornout ones must be withdrawn from service. At this rate of production and withdrawal what is a boxcar shortage to- day promises to become about the time of next season’s harvest a disastrous car famine. It is generally believed that railroad equipment because of war condi- tions has been overworked. It is also known that modern motor- ized farm machinery and new methods of harvesting have caused grain to be moved to the elevators in a few days’ time where 10 years ago it took a month or more for the same operation. Today a wheat, bean, corn, or oat crop can be combined, trucked from the fields to the elevators in a few days. The shortage of grain cars and the small elevators’ storage ca- pacity—apparently adequate at the time they were built—has contributed to the congestion at this level and the car short- ages. Newspapers have reported low earnings for the long haul trunk line railroads. As evidence of this the ICC has recently granted an average rate in- crease of 17 percent. Newspapers have also reported the laying off of many rail- road employees. According to the press not long ago one big railroad reduced personnel to the extent of 7,000 people. It may be readily assumed that other railroads perhaps will follow this ex- ample unless they have already done so. This road which laid off 7,000 men stated the move was made necessary by a threatened financial disaster to the com- pany unless drastic reductions in operat- ing expenses were made at once. It seems unlikely that any railroad has heretofore retained in service surplus or unneeded employees. It would seem, if in just a few weeks after a 17-percent rate increase had been granted the railroads that the public must still face and bear inadequate transportation machinery and the railroads themselves face a threat of insolvency, there must be some- thing basically wrong with the manner in which the public through regulatory bodies unduly restricts railroad income or with the railroad structure itself. If poor service gives rise to inefficient uti- lization of cars there is no effective cure for the situation in the mere addition of new units to the existing supply. Prompt service on the c‘her harid might bring an immediate increase in the car supply. A review of the situation whereby the rail- roads requested a 25-percent increase in rates and received 17 percent might also help the situation although rates seem rather high as they now stand. If the railroads honestly feel that employees should he laid off possibly their request for a 25-percent increase was justified. We do know there is a car shortage which has today reached a climax. Pos- sibly the following information, which was revealing to me, can throw some par- tial light on the car shortage. If the following situation is national in scope it should be corrected either by railroad employees being returned to their work or a further rate increase granted or both. Again what is the answer? A casual] check of some 175 loaded freight cars arriving in the Nation’s Capital during the month of January reveals a surprising record of delays en- countered during their movements from points of origin. Nineteen of these cars that should have consumed a total of 68 days en route, had they received nor- mal scheduled service, actually were 194 days en route. This definitely shows an avoidable consumption of 126 days in this 19-car load movement, an average deten- tion of 6 days per car. A history of the 19 cars mentioned is as follows: From points of origin in northern New York and Massachusetts, six cars, the normal and route time of which should have been 4 days, took 11, 10, 18, 27, 21, and 6 days respectively. On three cars from central Wis- consin, which should have taken normal time of 5 days, these three cars took 13, 11, and 10 days. From Northern New Jersey, 2 cars requir- ing the normal time of 2 days took 6 and 9 days. From Southern Michigan, 3 cars, normal time 4 days, took 8, 9, and 10 days. From Central Ohio, 4 cars which should normally take 3 days, took 6 days each. From Philadelphia, Pa., a car which should take 1 day to reach Washington, was 6 days en route. This means 19 cars were 194 days en route when the normal time should have been 68 days. It might be enlightening to reveal that from Central Texas it took 2 cars only 8 days each to reach Washington, 1,600 miles. From this information you can readily see that these 19 cars were idle approx- imately two-thirds of the time. Again, if this Washington situation on these 19 cars holds true over the entire country and a freight car going through on the scheduled time as it should do if the rail- road was making a proper return and had @ proper number of employees. Again, while it is only 1 car which I have infor- mation on, it arrived in Washington on Saturday night and was not spotted until the following Wednesday morning. This APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD means additional idleness of Monday and Tuesday or 2 days on this particular car. It is a well-known fact that railroad em- ployees are not on a 5-day week. If those who unload freight cars at terminals are on the 5-day week, some arrangement should be made whereby at least during this car shortage cars would be unloaded on Saturday thereby gaining an addi- tional day for those boxcars. This should be done, in my opinion, even on an overtime pay basis. I rather doubt that these situations existed during the war, and it is reasonably certain that they did not. Our Ex-Presidents EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. GORDON CANFIELD OF NEW JERSEY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 26, 1947 Mr.CANFIELD. Mr. Speaker, the New York Times editorially approves the pur- poses of my bill, H. R. 504, providing that ex-Presidents be made Senators at Large. Stating that the country would benefit from its adoption, the Times last Monday said: OUR EX-PRESIDENTS An interesting bill which merits careful examination has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman CANFIELD, It provides that henceforth all ex-Presidents be made Senators at Large with corresponding rights, privileges, salaries, and allowances, but without a vote. As such they would assume in the Senate positions analogous to, those of the Delegates in the House representing Territories like Alaska and Hawaii, who also enjoy similar rights and remuneration but are likewise without a vote. In other words, the bill would not create new Senators, which could be done only by a constitutional amendment, but merely a new office, and this, it is argued, can be done, as in the case of the Territorial Delegates, by an act of Congress alone. The purpose of the bill is twofold. One is to provide an assured livelihood and a field of responsible activity for our ex- Presidents. Few Presidents have been rich; many have been forced to scratch for a liv- ing after having held the highest office in the land; many have died in poverty, to illus- trate the proverbial ingratitude of republics, At the same time, most former Presidents, suddenly removed from the public scene, have chafed at their enforced inactivity. The other and more important purpose of the bill is to keep the unique experience and the outstanding qualities and abilities of men who have risen to become Presidents of the United States available to the country in an established position of continued use- fulness. That is no new idea, but one which has been advanced for decades. Fifty years ago James Bryce, the astute judge of the American political scene, remarked upon the strange failure of the American people to take advantage of the abilities of their ex- Presidents, saying that Rome had managed things better by gathering into the Roman Senate all the fame and experience, all the wisdom and skill, of all those who had ruled or fought for the country at home or abroad. Charles Francis Adams proposed putting ex- Presidents into the Senate as early as 1906. And Governor Dewey has proposed the idea of creating Senators at Large by constitu-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD tional amendment. Whether Mr. Canrre.p's bill is the best method of realizing this idea 1s subject to further. consideration. But the idea itself 1s sound, and we believe that the country would benefit from its adoption. Aviation Facilities at the United States . Naval Academy EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. THOMAS D’ALESANDRO, JR. OF MARYLAND IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesaay, February 26, 1947 Mr. D’'ALESANDRO. Mr. Speaker, I desire to call to the attention of the House that Senate bill 230 authorizes the Secretary of the Navy to construct avia- tion facilities at the United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, Md., including the necessary buildings, quarters, collateral public works facilities and equipment, and the acquisition of the necessary land, at a cost not to exceed $12,000.000. Naval Academy officials have let it be understood that the proposed airfield must be at Sandy Point, about 9 miles from the Naval Academy, where the Chesapeake Bay is at its narrowest, where all the traffic of the great port of Baltimore passes, and where, in addition, the State of Maryland is about to build a bay bridge. Such a hazard to the water-borne commerce of the port of Baltimore is unthinkable. Furthermore, I have been advised that Mr. Grover Loening, one of the leading aviation experts of the world, has con- demned the Sandy Point site as utterly unsuitable for an airfield. He has point- ed out that another danger exists in the immense radio towers just a short dis- tance from Sandy Point. In addition, he says the land is unsuitable for three im- portant developments of the aviation of the future. These are: First, the con- trol and operation of air missiles; sec- ond, the operation of very fast. possibly supersonic aircraft; and, third, ground control approach techniques. The Navy itself admits that not a single flier will be produced by the Sandy Point airfield. The midshipmen will merely be “indoctrinated,” but not in such a manner as to cut down the period of training necessary to produce aviators. The Navy has likewise revealed that it plans to use this highly developed water front for land-based planes. It has stated that seaplanes are obsolete. The admission that this most valuable terri- tory is to be used for boating and recrea- tional facilities for naval] personnel per- haps explains why the Navy insists upon a water-front development for land- based planes. Maps which have been seen by various residents in the area show elaborate arrangements for officers’ resi- dences and clubs in the show places which exist nearby. Thousands of less precious homes will be ruined if the air- Port is located at Sandy Point. Although the Navy requests only $12,- 000,000 at the present time, an Annapolis paper, virtually the spokesman for the Naval Academy, refers to $40,000,000 of construction. Capt. Robert Pirie, head of the Department of Aviation at the Academy, has mentioned $50,000,000 as the cost. Academy officials have not denied that $60,000,000 is ultimately to be spent. Indeed, the prediction that the final cost will be $80,000,000 to $100,- 000,000 was made in an article in the Baltimore papers, the author of which began his article by quoting Captain Pirie. Meanwhile the Pungo airport near Nor- folk has been advertised as being for sale. The Webster airfield, adjatent to the Cedar Point airfield farther down the Chesapeake, has becn abandoned. Ac- tivities are also sharply reduced at the naval training flelds at Jacksonville, Pen- sacola, and Corpus Christi. These were chosen because of ideal year-round flying conditions which do not prevail at Sandy Po‘nt. , Finally, the Naval Academy insists that the indoctrination, which is so essential, is to take place during the m:dshipmen’s spare time. And it is seriously asserted that during their spare time they will travel 9 miles to the airfield, examine planes, and then return to the Academy. ‘Such indoctrination is described as essen- tial during the 4-year course at Annap- olis, where not one capital ship can enter the harbor. All of the midshipmen’s actual training in seamanship is carried on away from Annapolis. Aviation train- ing to be effective must likewise be given on a full-time basis at ideal weather fields especially built for that all-important purpose. BALTIMORE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, Baltimore, February 17, 1947. Whereas it has come to our attention that the Navy Department plans to erect an air base at Sandy Point; and Whereas an airport at this location vould bring a large number of aircraft in dangerous proximity to vessels plying to and from the port of Baltimore; and Whereas Sandy Point is at or near the point of greatest congestion in the Chesa- peuke Bay; and Whereas such unpredictable air activity at the narrowest point in the Chesapeake Bay, where bay traffic assembles at the mouth of Craighill Channel, and where necessary ad- justine and proving areas have been estab- lished for deep water vessels using the factl- ities of our port, would expove navigation to severe hazards not now existing, and would ultimately result in casualties adversely affecting future business of the port; and Whereas a harbor obstruction :uch as is hereby presented would ultimately result in increased insurance and charter rates, and since rsany of the larger industrial estab- lishments were placed on our water front to take advantage of the more economical oper- ational costs enjoyed here, such increases would materially favor neighboring ports to the disadvantage of Baltimore, Therefore be it Resolved by the Baltimore Chamber of Commerce, That it unanimously expresses its opposition to the proposed location of this installation; and be it further Resolved, That the secretary of the Balti- more Chamber of Commerce be, and he is hereby directed to send copies of this reso- lution to the Secretary of the Navy, the Maryland Senators and Representatives in Congress, and also to the press of Baltimore City. . A, Hse, Jr., President. H. G. Disney, Secretary. A743 INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, Baltimore, Md,, February 14, 1947, On behalf of the International Long: hore- men's Association in the port of Baltimore representing 10,000 members whose livelihood depends upon the uninterrupted flow of sea trafic into the port, are vitally concerned with the proposed erection of the naval air training base at Sandy Point and hereby aerve notice of their protest aguinst the erec- tion of the base at this particular site for the following reasons: 1. It is the narrowest part of the bay which ships must navigate. If an accident would occur in this part of the channel through a collision with a plane and the ship is sunk, it would tie up the port until the wreckage could be salvaged 1 to 8 months. 2. If too many of thcse accidents would occur, the steamship Industry would abandon the port as a whole. Therefore. we urge our Representatives in Congress to work for the defeat of this protect Sincerely yours, AvuGust Ip71K, International Vice President. JEFFERSON Davis. Vice President Atlantic Ccast District. MAGOTHY RIVER ASSOCIATION, INC . Pasadena, Md , February 22, 1947, Organizations vigorously opposing proposed naval air training field on Sandy Point: Megothy River Associntion, Anne Arundel Antiairport Association, Anne Arundel County Farm Bureau, Mayo Watermen's League. Bal- timore Chamber of Commerce. Longshore- men’s League (10,000 strong), Talbot County Garden Club, Federated Garden Clubs of Maryland, Mount Vernon Association, South- ern Maryland Times, St. Marys Gazette, Hizh- landtown Improvement Association, Steam- ship Trade Association of Baltimore. 50 per- cent of board of Arundel County county com- missioners including president und three members, Gibson Island Corp., Gibson Island Club. Following community associations: St. Margarets, Whitehall Beach, Tydings on the Bay, Bayhead, Persimmon Point. Riverbay Community, Ulmstead Point, Broadwater Beach, Mugo Vistu, Peninsular Farms, Divid- ing Creek, Manhattan Beach, Cypress Creck, Arundel Beach, Riverdale, Royal Beach, Sun- set Knoll, Old Man Creek, Beechwood Forrest, Magothy Beach, Chelsea Bench, Cockeys Creek, Steedmans Point, Swan Cove, North Ferry Point, Blackhole Creek, Broad Creek, North Shore, Boulevard Park, Greys Creek, Sillery Bay, Hickory Point, Lake Shure. Long Point, Hidden Point, Mountain Road, Gibson Island, Hacketts Point, Beacon H11], Grachur Club, Skidmore, Yorktown, Shore Acres, Pleasant Plains, Fuir Acres, Deep Creek. Resolution of Lithuanian Alliance of America EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. MITCHELL JENKINS OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 26, 1947 Mr. JENKINS of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my re- marks in the Recorp, I include the follow- ing resolution from Lithuanian Alliance of America, district 7, Luzerne and Lack- awanna Counties, Pa.: ‘Whereas representatives of democratic na- tions will meet delegates of Soviet Russia at Moscow in March 1947 to discuss peace terms for the world; and
A744 Whereas the Secretary of State, Gen. George Marshall, will represent the United States of America at this conference; and Whereas as an exponent of democracy, we beseech the United States representatives to espouse the cause of freedom of all nations, large and small; and Whereas the United States, Great Britain, and Russia gave to the world the Atlantic Charter but have failed to carry out the prin- ciples embodied therein: Therefore We pray that the democratic representa- tives take up the cause of enslaved nations, the Baltic States, Lithuania, Latvia, and Es- tonia; that they demand and cause the re- moval of foreign armies from their soil; that persecution of their peoples cease; exile and enslavement be stopped and full independ- ence be restored to these countries: There- fore be it Resolved and it ts hereby resolved, That this resolution be adopted and copies sent to the President of the United States, the Secre- tary of State, Committees of Foreign Affairs, United States Senators from Pennsylvania, ' and to the Congressman from Luzerne Coun- ty, Pa. Signed this 23d day of February 1947. MicHAEL KROPSNIC, President, JoszPH MACEINA, Secretary. WILKEs-BarreE, PA. Washington’s Birthday, Saturday, February 22, 1947 EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. THOMAS J. LANE OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 26, 1947 Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I include the fol- lowing radio address delivered by me over Station WLAW at Lawrence, Mass., on the subject of George Washington: The name Washington brings up many associations in the mind of the average Amer- ican. He thinks of the resourceful general who led a citizen army to final victory over the professional soldiers of a foreign power, He thinks of that terrible winter at Valley Forge when faith in this leader alone inspired the ill-clothed and underfed Revolutionary soldiers to stick it out and thereby save the cause of freedom. He thinks of Washington crossing the Delaware by night to attack the British, routing them by this surprise maneuver. The name Washington may bring to mind the father of our country, or the Capital of the Nation which is dedicated to his memory, or the sublime monument bearing his name which rises above the Potomac skyline. Of all these familiar associations, let us dwell for a moment on the Washington Monument. It is not only the tallest in the world, but the most perfect. It lifts the eyes up to its shining summit, 550 feet above the ground. Nearly 99 years ago, the cornerstone was laid. Year after year it rose higher and higher. Most prophetic of all the facts con- cerned with its development is the one which tells us that over 200 of the blocks inside the shaft are insoribed as gifts of the people of this Nation and of foreign governments who were proud to honor George Washington. Greece gave a stone taken from the ancient Parthenon. The Turkish stone displays an ode upon Washington written by the sul- tan'’s court poet. America’s States and towns, schools, and lodges gave stones as large as those from the King of Siam and the Emperor of Brazil. Into its making went the tribute of the world. It speaks to us of Washington’s high hopes for the country which he set free. It is as simple and clear as his faith and his courage. It is as upright as the man who could not be swerved from his unselfish purpose by any adversity. This great standard in stone has truly been a pillar of strength to worried Presidents since it was completed in 1884. Grover Cleveland, surrounded by slander and in- trigue, said that he drew courage and faith from its serenity. In a reverential tone, Sir Cecil Spring-Rice, British Ambassador to this country during World War I, called it “George Washington’s finger pointing to the sky.” It is this—above all the recollections which come to mind on Washington's Birthday— that we should keep uppermost in our thoughts. Custom says that we should speak of Washington’s life and what he said in regard to the issues of his time. It is more appropriate to consider what Washington would have said and done had he been liv- ing now. In reality, his finger would be pointing to the sky, whence comes the faith that triumphs over all, And with that faith, Washington would have led us to victory over the many problems which confront us today. I feel sure that he would handle the ques- tion of the atomic bomb as we are doing, refusing to divulge our secret until we are sure of international controls which will pro- tect all nations from this deadliest weapon. Washington had experience with postwar problems. The year 1787 was the low-water mark in American fortunes. There was Shay’s rebellion here in Massachusetts. There were uprisings in Vermont, New York, and Pennsylvania. We had no navy to pro- tect our shipping from the Barbary pirates. Britain was still hostile, refusing to withdraw her garrisons from the West. Spain threat- ened to choke off our frontier settlements by closing the mouth of the Mississippi. We no longer had a real army with which to meet these threats. At home, the States were quarreling among themselves. There was no national currency. Inflation brought severe suffering to the people. Foreign observers were betting that we would defeat ourselves. The Duke of Gloucester said, and I quote: “As to the future grandeur of America, it is one of the idlest and most visionary notions that ever was conceived. A disunited people to the end of time, suspicious and distrustful of each other, they will be divided and sub- divided into little commonwealths = or principalities according to their natural boundaries.” The truth is, we were not a nation. Washington was one of the few who saw the remedy. He insisted that the only hope was a real union under a single Federal Government. Washington knew that the people must be willing to sacrifice some of their local interests to the common welfare. The prestige, the patience, and the wise counsels of Washington finally prevailed. The Constitution was adopted. The Nation was born. If Washington were alive today, what would he say to the civil war between labor and management? He would remind us of the forgotten fact that the Constitution begins with the words, “We the people!” And he would not let us forget that fact again. I have an idea that the Russians would respect George Washington just as I believe they will heed the words of another great general, George Marshall. On the home front, however, there is one problem that would surprise and anger Wash- ington, and I mean George, not the city of Washington, and that is our failure to pro- vide adequate housing for the men and women who fought and won the recent war for us. I am certain that he would do something for the veterans he once led, and see to it that APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD @ grateful nation did not stop with good in- tentions. Because a man has been in battle is no reason to expect that he will be satisfied with Valley Forge accommodations when h® gets back home. We hear a lot of sounding-off about com- munism these days, as if speeches alone could save our freedom from the whiplash of dictatorial power. To my mind, deeds and not words are the only effective answer to Communist propaganda. If we work un- remittingly to provide jobs for all of our people at good wages and make sure that every man can work for and get a decent home for his family, the Communist issue in America will cease to exist. Any man who has a steady job and a home of his own will never be a Communist. We have the jobs, and we haven’t got the homes. We must work to realize this objective with the single-minded fidelity of purpose that was George Washington's, It is not enough for us to oppose the Taft- Ellender-Wagner housing bill, as many do, unless we can give ourselves in support of a better plan. Mere negation accomplishes nothing. Housing is a matter of immediate and per- sonal concern to each man and his family. We cannot, however, make much progress to- ward the solution of the over-all problem on a strictly personal basis. The problem is too big and urgent and depends on so many factors beyond the control of the individual that we can only tackle it effectively by group action. I submit that we must do this, not only for the veteran and his wife but for the children who must have a decent environment if they are to develop as worthy citizens of this Republic. J. Edgar Hoover has termed juvenile delinquency as the No. 1 social prob- lem confronting the Nation today. The over- crowded slums in every city in the United States are a contributing factor in the alarm- ing increase in juvenile delinquency. It is not my province to tell you what your community should do in this emergency, be- cause conditions vary from city to city, and you know best the problems of your individ- ual communities. But I do say that this is @ public issue for which all of us must share responsibility toward its solution. George Washington said that peace has its victories to win, no less great than those of war. If he were here with us today, I am sure that he would inspire us with the need for unity in fighting to win over this civic problem. He would not only point the way, he would lead us by his example of public spirit to do something about it. The finest tribute we can pay to him is not to look backward in memory but to measure up to what he expected -of us who are living today. Matching his faith with our faith, there is no battle that we cannot win, In this sense we must build America. Battle of the Budget EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. THOMAS G. ABERNETHY OF MISSISSIPPI IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 26, 1947 Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following editorial from the Washington Evening Star of February 24, 1947: BATTLE OF THE BUDGET With the House already on record in favor of a $6,000,000,000 cut in the Federal budget,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the Senate debate on this question should command the earnest attention of every citizen. For the decision to be taken, if it is to be a meaningful one, will profoundly affect the future of all of us. The Republicans have come into power on Capitol Hill committed to a 20-percent tax reduction and entrusted with what they regard as a mandate to effect very substan- tial cuts in Federal spending. This is an alluring and also a dangerous combination. The essential facts are these: President Truman believes that he has submitted a rock-bottom budget of 637,500,000,000—that it cannot be reduced without injury to the national welfare. The House, ably supported by Senator Byrrp of Virginia, has plumped for a 86,000,000,000 cut. But the thinking of the Senate, as expressed by such Mem- bers as Senators VANDENBERG and TyDINGS, runs toward a reduction of around @4,500,- 000,000, and they have made it Clear that this is a goal rather than a commitment. Since it may be taken for granted that Con- gress will settle on some over-all figure for budget reduction—though it should be re- membered that it is easier to promise econ- omy than it is to make the actual cutse—the important question is where the line shall be drawn. Senator Bray has argued persuasively for 8 $6,000,000,000 reduction, and his record in behalf of sound fiscal policies is such as to command respect. Yet the plans for a $6,000,- 000,000 cut contemplate taking $2,225,000,000 out of the military budget, and Senators VANDENBERG and TyYDINGS argue earnestly and convincingly that this can only be done on the basis of a reckless gamble with the Na- tion’s security. No sensible person will want to take that risk. If there is any lesson which the expe- rience of two wars teaches it is that economy at the expense of an adequate military estab- lishment is not economy at all, but a singu- larly wasteful process. World War II is over only in the sense that the shooting has stopped. The primary objective for which we fought—our own national security—has not been attained. Far from it. Whether ‘we want to face the fact or not, the truth is that the two great powers, our own Nation and the Soviet Union, are maneuvering for position today throughout the world. And this process is going on, not under idealistic concepts but in conformity with the realities of power. Force remains the supreme arbi- ter, and while we can look forward hopefully to a day when this will no longer be the case, it would be courting disaster to neglect our power until that day is at hand. This does not mean, of course, that no budget cut is feasible. But it does most emphatically mean that there should be no cut which would impair our national strength, military or otherwise, and the peo- ple should insist that their representatives in Congress approach the pruning process with this point clearly in mind. As we draw ever closer to the time when an enemy would be capable of wiping out our major cities in the course of an hour or so, we cannot afford, in the words of Senator _Typrncs, to “live in a dream world, still wate ering the flowers of sweet innocence in the peaceful garden of yesterday.” Buena Vista: Good View EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. J. CALEB BOGGS OF DELAWARE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 26, 1947 Mr. BOGGS of Delaware. Mr. Speak- er, under leave to extend my remarks in the Appendix of the Rrcorp, I wish to include an editorial. entitled “Buena Vista—Good View,” appearing in one of Delaware's finest newspapers, the Sun- day Star, of Wilmington, Del., on Feb- ruary 23, 1947. I call attention to the fact that this editorial relates to one of the historic mansions in the State of Delaware, now the home of the distinguished senior United States Senator from the State of Delaware, the Honorable Clayton Douc- LASS BUCK. . Buena Vista—Goop View Just 100 years ago today, a trifle south of the Rio Grande and near a hacienda known as Buena Vista or Good View, 4,759 Ameri- can officers and men decisively defeated more than 20,000 Mexicans in martial array. Gen- eral Zachary Taylor commanded the Ameri- cans, while the luckless Santa Anna was chief of the Mexicans. The battle, begun on a smal) scale on Washington's Birthday, 1847, but with the heavy fighting on the following day, was ndt so much a test of superiority of courage on the part of Taylor’s men as of superiority of artillery. In fact, the Mexican cavalry charged full tilt against the Yankee big guns and were mowed down like sheep. Thetr casualties were almost 2,000; those of the Americans were 673. Among those killed was Lt. Col. Henry Clay, Jr., favorite son of the famous states- man, and one who in oratory and personal charm most nearly resembled his father. At least one Delaware man was killed, Szt. Benjamin S. Hagany, son of John Hagany, local minister at Asbury Church. On April 12, 1847, at a public meeting in this city, resolutions were adopted honoring the victories of General Tay:or at Buena Vista and General Scott at Vera Cruz, and 3 days later, a grand demonstration and parade was held, with a salute of 100 guns fired at Fourth and Washington Streets by Artillery Company A. At night, the city hall and public places were illuminated, and the words “honor” and ‘“‘fame"' were reflected on canvas in front of the city hall. It was thus our ancestors celebrated our war victories just 100 years ago. So enthusi- astic was Delaware's famous son, John M. Clayton, over the victory of General Taylor that he named his newly-built mansion near State Road “Buena Vista,” a name it con- tinues to this day. It is now the home of United States Senator CiayToN DovuGLass Buck, a great-nephew of John M. Clayton, who became President Taylor’s Secretary of State. Korea EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. R. WALTER RIEHLMAN OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 26, 1947 Mr. RIEHLMAN. Mr. Speaker, in the discharge of our responsibilities as Mem- bers of the House, we find ourselves re- quired to take a broad view of events and measures. We come from legislative dis- tricts, yet the interests of our own con- stituents extend far beyond the borders of our districts and our States. We as- semble in the Capitol of our Nation, yet the problems on which we must legislate are broader even than the forty-eight A745 States and the Territories and dependen- cies of this Union. Our attention these days is engaged to a large extent by the budget for the next fiscal year. We have expressed our determination to slash that budget to the lowest practical extent. We are trying to save the American taxpayer every dol- lar we can by cutting needless expendi- tures to the bone. Yet we find that no matter how deeply we manage to slash the budgetary estimates that have been presented to us by the administration, the national budget for next year will be at least three or four times what it was in prewar years. The United States has learned the hard lesson that not all of our own policies are determined in the Congress or in the executive branch of the Government. Not all of them are determined by the people of the United States. To a very serious extent our policies are vitally af- fected by events taking place very far from our own shores. Our present national debt, amounting to some $1,800 for every man, woman, and child in the country, was incurred in large part because of the activities of a former paperhanger in Germany and a military clique in Japan. You and I may think as we please and vote as we please, but our burden of debt and our burden of taxation were actually deter- mined more largely by decisions made and actions initiated in Berlin, Rome, and Tokyo than by the free-will determina- tion of the elected representatives of the American people. This is a sobering fact. It deserves a central place in our think- ing as responsible legislators. In this year cf 1947 our thinking can- not be limited by the bounds of our con- gressional district. It cannot be limited even by the boundaries of the United States. Our judgment must be based upon a world view and our decisions must be made in the fullest possible under- standing of the realities of world affairs. My attention has lately been force- fully drawn to a portion of the world where events are occurring that may have a profound effect upon the future of this country. This area is the distant and relatively unknown country of Korea. Korea is one of the four countries in the world where American military gov- ernment is in operation. By some secret agreement which has never been an- nounced, the ancient nation of Korea was divided into two parts, along the thirty-eighth parallel. Russian troops occupy the northern half, and American troops the southern half. Korea has been promised its independ- ence, in the Cairo and Potsdam Confer- ences. But thus far events beyond our control have prevented that promise from being kept. The negotiations be- tween Russia and the United States, looking toward the joint withdrawal of our forces from Korea, have broken down. We hope they may be soon re- sumed. In the meantime we are faced by the consideration of the question as to what to do in the part of Korea under our control. Eighteen months have passed since the defeat of Japan. Southern Korea, occu- pied by the American forces, does not yet have an independent government of
A746 its own. Its currency is not allowed to circulate in the international exchange. It is not permitted to trade with the out- side world. Reports from Korea indi- cate that inflation is rapidly mounting and that both the economic and political problems are becoming acute. Iam not an expert student of Asiatic affairs. I have not been in Korea and do not know conditions there at first hand. But I do know that the simple principles of justice and American democracy ought to apply there as well as they do here. From what I have heard of the situation in Korea there is reason to doubt whether American prin- ciples have followed the American flag into that unhappy land. Why is Korean trade still prohibited with the outside world? Why are Korean assets still completely frozen by the expedient of not permit- ting its currency to circulate on the in- ternational exchange? Why are the 20,000,000 Koreans in the American-occupied zone not permitted to have an official representative to state their own case? When the Koreans were permitted last November to establish an interim legisla- tive body, why were 5@ percent of the members appointed by the commander of American forces in Korea? When will the State Department ad- mit to its council on the Korean ques- tion a regularly qualified official repre- sentative of the Korean people? Mr. Speaker, consultations on our fu- ture policies in Korea are right now going on over in the Department of State. Decisions are being formulated that will vitally affect the welfare of the Korean people. To me it does not seem fair that the Korean people are barred out completely from those consultations. It does not seem sensible or wise from our own point of view. Surely we want to know what the Koreans are thinking and to find out what they want. Yet our State Department is acting as though it did not care. A few days ago Gen. John R. Hodge arrived in this country to make his re- port and to present his recommendations of how southern Korea should be gov- erned. A few months ago, on December 8, Dr. Syngman Rhee, the leader of the Korean nationalist parties, also arrived in this country to consult with State De- partment officials. Dr. Rhee came be- cause he did not like the way affairs are being run in Korea. He came because he did not like the appointment by General Hodge of 50 percent of the Korean inter- im legislature. There is a vast difference in the way General Hodge and Dr. Rhee view Korean affairs. Yet General Hodge is taken into the inner circles of consultation, where the decisions are being made, and Dr. Rhee is held on the outside with no oppor- tunity to represent either the Korean people or himself. This does not appeal to my sense of Americanism. It does not sound like fair play. It does not sound like good sense. I should feel much bet- ter about the Korean situation if the people of Korea were allowed a full and fair opportunity to speak up on their own behalf. Mr. Speaker, the nationalist groups in Korea have prepared a brief setting forth their reasons for favoring the immediate establishment of an interim independent government in the American-occupied zone. This brief was written by Dr. Emery J. Woodall, who served as the chief legal adviser to the military gov- ernor in Korea from September 1945, to July 1946. Dr. Woodall was in a position to know the facts on the situation exist- ing there. I believe this brief merits the earnest consideration of every Member of Congress and of the Department of State. A SOLUTION OF THE KOREAN PROBLEM (By Dr. Syngman Rhee) Russian and American forces now occupy Korea, according to a secret agreement the nature of which has never been fully revealed. Since Korea lies in the heart of the vital strategic triangle of north Asia, bordered by the Siberian maritime province, China, and Japan, Korea should not be controlled by any one or combination of them, or by any other outside power, without grave danger to the others and to the peace of the Orient. For this reason, as well as for justice to Korea, negotiations must be renewed between Rus- sia and the United States to get their armies out of Korea and to live up to the Cairo Declaration promising Korean independence. We Koreans do not wish to do anything to impede these essential negotiations. We should like to speed them in every way possible. At the same time there are inalienable and basic rights that we, as a people, must have. We present the following program for imme- diate implementation by the United States in southern Korea. This program represents the indispensable minimum steps by which we can commence the rehabilitation of our nation, and build a sound democratic basis for the future: 1. An interim government should be elect- ed for southern Korea, to serve until the two halves of Korea can be reunited and a genera! election held immediately thereafter; 2, Without disturbing direct Ruasian- American consultations on Kores, this in- terim government should be allowed to nego- tiate directly with Russia and the United States concerning the occupation of Korea, and on other outstanding questions; 3. Korean claims for reparations from Japan should be given early consideration, to aid in the rehabilitation of Korean economy; 4, Full commercial rights should be grant- ed to Korea, on a basis of equality with other nations, and with no favoritism extended to any nation; 5. Korean currency should be stabilized and established on the international ex- change; and 6. United States troops should remain in southern Korea until the two foreign armies of occupation simultaneously withdraw. Address of Louis E. Starr, Commander in Chief, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Before National Association of Home Builders EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. WALTER B. HUBER OF OHIO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, February 27, 1947 Mr. HUBER. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD I include the following address of Louis E. Starr, commander in chief, Veterans of Foreign Wars, before the National As- sociation of Home Builders, Chicago, IIl., February 27, 1947: Mr. Chairman, members of the National Association of Home Builders, and guests, as spokesman for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, an organization of some 2,000,000 com- bat veterans, I feel honored by the invitation to address you today. I feel that the efforts of my organization to spur the construction of homes for the millions of veterans who shed uniforms dur- ing the past year and a half and returned to home communities, resulted in this invita- ‘tion. I have only one purpose tn appearing be- fore you today. It is to present you, the home builders of the Nation, with as clear a picture of veterans’ housing needs as pos- sible. Your own national association works much the same as we do. Your officers keep in touch with the national picture and na- tional problems concerning your industry. My organization views the national scene per- taining to the problems of veterans, their families, their needs and desires. Housing tops the list of veteran problems. Through the offices of the VFW nationa! or- ganization and the State Department, the Veterans of Foreign Wars has undertaken a Nation-wide survey of veterans housing needs and other pertinent information. Analyzing one State, a typical and averrge one, we found that 39 percent of the veterans share living quarters with other families; 6 percent live in basements or attics; only 50 percent have a private bath or shower; 20 percent have ice boxes; and 59 percent have refrigerators. These figures are authentic. They are not prejudiced to any degree; they're our own. Over 88 percent of the veterans want to own their own homes and only 12 percent want to rent on a permanent basis. Over 81 percent of the veterans canvassed plan to remain in their home communities. It seems to me that the Nation and your- selves should take heed of these figures and make sure their own stay at home—housed, employed, and reasonably content. More than 75 percent of them plan to re- main in the same business or employment, These figures should interest you and all em- ployers because they point to a more stable future in employment. In a cooperative way, 32 percent would consider owning their own unit in a cooper- ative housing project. And here are sad fig~ ures, and while low, are yet too high—over 7 percent have been evicted from dwellings since their return to civilian life. Another 6 percent have been served notices of eviction. The average income was $2,148 a year, The age of veterans ranged from 20 to 71 years. A recapitulation of the survey in the one State showed conclusively that rents were too high in relation to income; houses too expen- sive. There is need for more rental hous- ing. All need more room. Those building or planning to build are waiting for mate- rials. All want a lower rate of interest on home financing. The fight the national and local organiza- tions of the Veterans of Foreign Wars has made for swift, adequate, and reasonable housing has been clean, honest, and sincere. We have tried not to protect any faction or interest but rather to clear out some of the strangling underbrush which blocks building in America, Let me say that in all of our conferences with labor people, the construction industry and home builders, and Government people, one fact stands out. It is that no one has the complete answer to the housing problem of the Nation, a problem which reached serious emergency proportions as millions of veter- ans returned to civilian life,