APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Five Hundred Companies Charged With Illegal Price Fixing and Violating the Antitrust Laws EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. EUGENE D. O’SULLIVAN OF NEBRASKA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 22, 1950 Mr. O’SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, in the April 13, 1950, issue of the Machinist, a weekly newspaper published in Wash- ington, D. C., by the National Associa- tion of Machinists, the following article was published, which discloses an ap- palling situation. It is very dishearten- ing, indeed, to find so many business in- stitutions throughout the Republic ac- cused of failing to respect and obey the law of the land. It is little wonder that crime is on the increase at gangland lev- els when talented men so generally ignore the law. When I was a young man my mother taught me to respect respectable men and women because she thought that they had achieved greatness because of personal goodness, and a willingness to obey instead of to thwari or circumvent the law. The article is as follows: Illegal price fixing has become virtually a standard operating procedure for American business corporations, analysis of Justice Department files disclosed this week. An exclusive survey by The Machinist showed that the Government brought to court more than 500 different business firms and 13 trade associations in the past 2 years. Last year alone, 263 corporations were charged with attempting to eliminate competition in violation of the antitrust laws. Price fixing, to prevent price cut- ting, is charged by the Justice Department in a majority of these cases. Other illegal transactions included boycotts, price dis- crimination against independent retailers, industry-wide cartel agreements under which corporations pledge themselves not to compete in one another's territory. The complete st of corporations and trade associations charged with antitrust violations during 1949 appears on pages 4 and 5 of this issue of The Machinist. Actually, authorities agree that the Justice Department is able to prosecute only a fraction of the violations. Some authorities report that the Department’s appropriation permits it to investigate only about 10 per- cent of the complaints received. Herbert A. Bergson, chief of the Depart- ment’s antitrust division, compares en- forcement of the antitrust laws to an ice- berg, at least two-thirds of it is below water, where it isn’t seen. The Justice Depart- ment’s antitrust division has an annual pudget of about $3,750,000—less than most cities spend on their police departments. Tilegal price fixing and other attempts to throttle business competition have reached such proportions that Attorney General J. Howard McGrath has labeled antitrust violations “the most pressing domestic problem of our time next to unemployment.” Here are some specific examples of the illegal business methods used to Keep prices high as exposed in criminal and civil suits brought by the Justice Department last year: Department stores: Five Philadelphia de- partment stores (Gimbels, Lit Bros., Snellen- burg, Strawbridge & Clothier, and Wana- makers), were charged with participating in an illegal agreement to refrain from selling any merchandise at prices between 90 and 97 cents. If 89 cents isn’t enough, the stores agreed to jack up the price to 98 cents or more, the suit charged. The stores were charged with having a simular agreement not to price merchandise in the $1 to $10 price bracket in fractions of a dollar between 86 and 97 cents; and on merchandise selling for more than $10, not to use fractions of a dollar between 50 and 94 cents. That means if an item is worth $22.55, it would automatically be priced at $2295. This agreement acted to raise prices from 11 to 45 cents on all articles in these price ranges, the Justice Department said. Gasoline, oil, and auto supplies: The Sun Oil Co. of Pennsylvania has been charged with forcing 10,000 independent filling sta~ tion operators to handle only Sun Oil prod-~ ucts. Under their contracts, these dealers were prohibited from shopping around for products of other companies that they might sell to their customers at lower prices. The Justice Department charges that the Sun Oil enforced this agreement by threatening to cancel operators’ leases and supply contracts on 24 hours notice and threatened to raise service station rentals or shut off their supply of gasoline if they handled any other competing products. Small loans: A multimillion dollar net- work of high-interest small-loan outfits op- erating in 23 Southern and Western States has been charged with keeping interest rates high by dividing up territory among them- selves to prevent competition, by agreeing to pad their rates with brokerage fees even where no broker is involved, and by contrib. uting to a fund to influence city councils and State legislatures seeking to regulate interest rates on small loans. Eyeglasses: Bausch & Lomb Optical Co., a group of its affiliates and a long list of doc~ tors from many States have been charged with participating in a kick-back arrange- ment through which the doctor receives a kick-back of $10.95 from the optician selling the glasses recommended by the doctor. In some cases, the kick-back going to the doctor was more than the actual retail price of the glasses. For example, a pair of glasses for which a patient paid $18.25 should have cost only $7.30. The other $10.95 went to the doctor who had already charged the patient a@ fee for examining his eyes and for prescrib- ing the glasses. Some doctors, the Justice De- partment says, make as much as $20,000 a year in illegal kick-backs. Now turn to pages 4 and 5 for the complete list of companies charged with antitrust vio- lations last year. WHAT'S BEHIND THE HIGH PRICES YOU PAY? Here are the 263 corporations and 18 trade associations who were hailed into court last year on charges of violating the Nation’s antitrust laws. All these charges were brought by the United States Department of Justice. In the civil actions the Government is seek- ing court orders to force corporations to cease their alleged illegal activity—to re- quire them to dissolve a price-fixing agree- ment, or to free a subsidiary company if that is necessary to break up a monopoly, In the criminal actions the Government is seeking punitive damages—fines, and in some cases prison sentences for corporation Officials who have been responsible for the illegal activity. Under the law the maximum fine that can be levied in criminal antitrust cases is $5,000 on each count. Prison sentences are also authorized under the law, but in all of the 50 years’ history of antitrust prosecution, A3891 not a single businessman has ever been sent to jail on antitrust charges. The Department of Justice has asked Con- gress to increase the fines to a maximum of $50,000 for criminal antitrust violations, and to strengthen the law to prevent corporations from forming monopolies through the pur- chase of the assets of another corporation. So far these requests have been ignored, but the Department of Justice hopes that through vigorous action against illegal price fixing agreements, it can help cut prices. Criminal cases Cleaning and dyeing: Twenty-three clean- ing and dyeing companies and one associa= tion pleaded no defense to criminal charges of price fixing in the wholesale dry clean~ ing business. They paid fines totaling $23, 875; Philadelphia Wholesale Cleaners & Dyers Association; A-C Cleaners & Dyers; Ararat Dye Works, Inc.; Atlas Cleaners and Dyers Co., Inc.; Bell Cleaners & Dyers; Centennial Cleaners & Dyers, Inc.; Eagle Cleaners & Dyers, Inc.; Levont Cleaners and Dyers, Inc.; Master Cleaners & Dyers, Inc.; North Clean- ers & Dyers, Inc.; Norway Service Cleaners, Inc.; New West-Park Cleaners, Inc.; Phila- delphia Dry Cleaners, Inc.; Philadelphia Cleaners & Dyers; Quality Cleaners & Dyers, Inc.; Queen Cleaners & Dyers, Inc.: Regal Cleaners & Dyers, Inc.; Star Cleaning & Dye~ ing Co.; Tri-State Service, Inc. Cold storage: Four corporations were charged with criminal conspiracy to fix prices in the sale of cold storage doors: Jamison Cold Storage Door Co.; National Refrigera- tors Co.; Streator Products Corp.; York Corp. Department stores: Five department stores pleaded no defense to charges of criminal conspiracy to fix prices and paid fines total~ ing $12,500; Gimbel Brothers, Inc.; Lit Bros.; N. Snellenburg & Co., Inc.; Strawbridge & Clothier; John Wanamaker, Philadelphia. Fish: The Stern Fish Co. was charged with criminal conspiracy to eliminate competition in the sale of wholesale fish. Ice: Seven corporations were named in criminal charges of monopolizing the ice in- dustry: Atlantic Co.; Chattanooga Ice De=- livery Co.; City Ice Co.; City Ice Delivery Co.; Ice Service Co.; Orlando Ice Delivery Co.; Southern United Ice Co. . Fire Extinguishers: Four corporations have been charged with criminal conspiracy to fix the prices of fire extinguishers: American- La-France Foamite Corp.; C-L-Two Fire Equipment Co.; The General Pacific Corp.; Walter Kidde & Co., Inc. Gas refrigerators: Two corporations were charged with criminal conspiracy to elim- inate competition and fix prices in the sale of gas refrigerator?: Motor Parts Co.; Phila- delphia Gas Works Co. Glass lenses: The Univis Lens Co, has been charged with contempt of court in violating & consent decree entered into in 1942 pro- hibiting price fixing. Grape juice: Four corporations were charged with criminal conspiracy to main- tain noncompetitive uniform prices in the purchase of grapes: Church Grape Juice Co.; Hyland-Stanford Corp.; Tea Garden Products Co.; True-Ade, Inc. Iron foundries: Eight foundries and one association have been charged with criminal violation of the antitrust laws through price fixing on gray iron and castings: Acme Foun- dry Co.; Apex Foundry, Inc.; Atlas Foundry Co.; Central Iron Foundry Co.; Detroit Gray Iron Foundry Co.; Hureka Foundry Co.; Motor and Machinery Castings Co.; Stuart Foundry Co. Kitchen equipment: Four corporations pleaded no defense to criminal charges of illegal price fixing in the kitchen equipment industry and paid fines totaling $30,000: Vic- tor V. Clad Co.; W. F. Dougherty & Sons, Inc.; Nathan Straus-Duparquet, Inc.
A3892 Linen supply: Thirteen corporations and one trade association pleaded no defense to criminal charges of price fixing in the linen supply industry: Apex Coat, Apron, Towel & Linen Supply Co., Inc.; Central-Victory Coat and Apron Supply Co. Inc.; Commercial Towel Service, Inc.; Crown Coat, Apron & Towel Service Co.; Davis Coat & Apron Sup- ply Co., Inc.; Globe Coat & Apron Supply Co., Inc.; Gordon-Nick Linen Supply Co.; The Initial Towel Supply and Laundry Co.; Jenkins Linen Service, Inc.; Lehigh Valley Coat and Apron Supply; National Coat and Apron Supply, Inc.; Pennsylvania Coat and Apron Supply Co.; Penn Coat & Apron Supply Co. Plumbing supplies: Fifteen corporations and one trade asseciation have been charged with criminal conspiracy to fix the prices of plumbing supolies: Northern California Plumbing and Heating Wholesalers Associa- tion; Coast Pipe & Supvly Co.; Crane Co; Dallman Co.; Dalziel Plumbing Supplies; Deltz Pipe & Supply Co.; Grinnell Co. of the Pacific; Heietk & Moran (Oakland); Heieck & Moran (Sacramento); Heieck & Moran (San Francisco); P. E. O’Hair & Co.; Pacific Can Co.; Slakey Bros., Inc.; Thomas F. Smith, Inec.; Tay-Holbrook, Inc.; Western Plumbing Supply Co., Ltd. Phonograph records: Four corporations and one trade association pleaded no defense to criminal charges of price fixing and bhoy- cotting in the sale of phonograph records. The association was ordered dissolved and fines totaling $11,600 were imposed: Tri- State Retail Record Dealers Association; Burton Radio & Appliance Co.; Ludwig Hom- mel & Co.; McAllister’s, Inc.; Record & Gift Center, Inc. Storage batteries: Twenty-two corpora- tions and one trade association were indicted on charges of seeking to eliminate com- petition in the sale and distribution of stor- age batteries: The Association of American Battery Manufacturers; the Electric Auto- Lite Co.; the Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.; Gamble-Skogmo, Inc.; Globe-Union, Inc.; the B. F. Goodrich Co.; the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc.; J & R Motor Supply Co.; Kansas Hide and Wool Co., Inc.; Morris P. Kirk & Son, Inc.; Lead Disposal Co.; Jacob I. Malschick, Inc.; Maw Metal Co.; Mont- gomery Ward & Co., Inc.; National Battery Co.; National Disposal, Inc; National Lead Co.; Sears, Roebuck & Co.; Southeast Lead Co.; West Side Battery Lead Co. (Mass.); West Side Battery Lead Co. (N. J.); Western Auto Supply Co.; Willard Storage Battery Co. Turbines: Twelve corporations and two associations were charged with price fixing on vertical turbines: National Association of Vertical Turbine Pump Manufacturers; Tur- bine Pump Manufacturers Association; the American Well Works; Aurora Pump Co.; A.D. Cooke, Inc.; the Deming Co.; Fairbanks, Morse & Co.; Food Machinery & Chemical Corp.; Byron Jackson Co.; Johnston Pump Co.; Layne & Bowler, Inc., (Memphis); Layne & Bowler Corp. (Los Angeles); Winthrosath Pumps, Inc.,; Worthington Pump & Machin- ery Corp. Wall paper: Ten corporations and one trade association pleaded no defense to criminal charges of price fixing in the industry and paid fines totaling $50,000: Asam Wallpapers, Inc.; B. & D. Wallpaper Co.: Cook Paint & Varnish Co.; D. Schultz & Co., Inc.; Fisher Wallpaper & Paint Co; Isgo Wall Paper Corp.; James Davis, Inc.; Richard E. Thi- baut, Inc.; the Globn Mills (Inc.); the H. Blonder Co. X-ray film: Six corporations pleaded no defense to criminal charges of price fixing of medical X-ray film and paid fines totaling $22,000; General Electric X-Ray Corp.; Kele- ket X-Ray Sales Co., of Los Angeles; Kelley- Koett Manufacturing Co.; R. L. Scherer Co; Western Surgical Supply Co.; Westinghouse Electric Corp. Civil cases Abrasives: Six corporations have been charged with illegal price fixing and patent pooling in the coated abrasives field: Armour & Co.; Behr-Manning Corp.; Durex Abrasives Corp.; Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.; the Carborundum Co.; the Durex Corp. Artificial eyes: Two companies have been charged with illegal price fixing in the manu- facture and sale of plastic artificial eyes: Paul Gougelman Co.; Mager & Gougelman, Inc. Building products: Thirteen corporations have been charged with illegal price fixing in the sale of hard building products by the use of uniform price lists and uniform discounts: City Material & Coal, Inc.; Clifton Coal & Supply Co.; Collinwood Shale Brick & Sup- ply Co.; Cayahoga~Dunham Supply Co.; Geist Coal & Supply Co.; Goff-Kirby Co.; Ideal Builders Supply & Fuel Co.; Mayfield Build- ers Supply Co.; Pacific Builders Supply Co.; Queisser Builders Supply Co.; St. Clair Coal & Supply Co.; South Euclid Concrete Co.; Zone Coal & Supply Co. Canning industry: Four companies have been charged with illegally suppressing com- petition in the canning industry by refusing competitors use as a peach-pitting machine which is essential in the canning of peaches commercially: California Packing Corp.; Food Machinery & Chemical Corp.; Libby, McNeill & Libby; Pacific Machinery Co. Cast-iron pipe: Four corporations found guilty of conspiring to monopolize the cast- iron-pipe market through the illegal use of patent license agreements. The court or- dered dissolution of the Sand Spun Patents Corp., and that 19 patents held by this firm be made available free of charge to anyone who wants to use them: American Cast Tron Pipe Co.; Florence Pipe Foundry & Machine Co.; Sand Spun Patents Corp.; Warren Foundry & Pipe Corp. Cellophane: Five corporations have been charged with conspiring to monopolize the cellophane industry: Christiana Securities Co.; Delaware Realty & Investment Corp.; E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.; General Mo-- tors Corp.; United States Rubber Co. Concrete blocks: Two corporations were charged with conspiring to monopolize the concrete-block industry: Besser Manufac- turing Co.; Stearns Manufacturing Co. Dentures: Austenal Laboratories, Inc., has been, charged with price fixing in dentures and dental alloys used in filling teeth through an illegal patent license agreement. Drugs: Two corporations have been charged with conspiring illegally to restrain trade and monopolize the market in hard gelatin capsules: Eli Lilly & Co.; Parke, Davis & Co. Fish: Stern Fish Co. has been chargéd with illegally buying off competitors in order to establish a monopoly of the wholesale fish industry. Gasoline: Sun Oil Co. has been charged with illegal exclusive marketing practices in the marketing of gasoline, motor oils, and automotive accessories. Glassware: Holophane Co., Inc., has been charged with engaging in world-wide illegal cartel agreements to monopolize the pris- matic glassware and illuminating appliances field. Groceries: The New York Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc., and nine of its subsid- jaries have been charged with monopoly in the grocery field. The Justice Department is seeking to divorce A. & P.’s manufacturing and processing business from its buying and selling business, and the separation of its seven retail divisions into independently owned retail food chains: The Great Atlan- tic & Pacific Tea Co. of America; The Great APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (New Jersey); The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (Arizona); The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (Ne- vada); The New York Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc.; Quaker Maid Co., Inc.; Ameri- can Coffee Corp.; Nakat Packing Corp.; White House Milk Co., Inc.; Atlantic Commission Co., Inc. Hosiery: Four corporations have been charged with monopolizing the hosiery in- dustry through control of hosiery machin- ery: Davis Co.; Interwoven Stocking Co.; Scott & Williams, Inc.; W. B. Davis & Son, Inc. Ice: Seven corporations have been charged with unlawfully combining to monopolize the ice industry: Atlantic Co., Chattanooga Ice Delivery Co., City Ice Co., City Ice De- livery Co., Ice Service Co., Orlando Ice De- livery Co., Southern United Ice Co. Milk: Two corporations have been charged with limiting production and price fixing in the goat milk industry: Meyenberg Milk Preducts Co.; Special Milk Products, Inc. Newspapers: The Lorain Journal Co. has peen charged with illegally seeking to mon- opolize the dissemination of news, adver-~ tising, and other information. Plumbing and heating: Fifteen corpora- tions have been charged with illegal prac- tices to eliminate competition among whole- salers of plumbing supplies in northern Cali- fornia: Coast Pipe & Supply Co.; Crane Co.; Dallman Co.; Dalziel Plumbing Supplies; Delta Pipe & Supply Co.; Grinnell Company of the Pacific; Heick & Moran (Oakland); Heick & Moran (Sacramento); Heick & Mor- an (San Francisco); P, HE. O’Hair & Co.; Paci- fic Can Co.; Slakey Bros., Inc.; Tay-Holbrook Inc.; Thomas F. Smith, Inc.; Western Plumb- ing Supply Co., Ltd. Rayon: Celanese Corp. of America has been charged with trying to monopolize the in- dustry by acquiring the stock and assets of its chief competitor. Storage batteries: Twenty-two corpora- tions and one trade association have been charged with combining illegally to elimi- nate competition in the sale and distribu- tion of storage batteries: Electric Auto-Lite Co.; Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.; Gamble- Stogmo, Inc.; Glove-Union, Inc.; B. F. Good- rich Co,; Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc.; J. & R. Motor Supply Co.; Kansas Hide and Wool, Co., Inc.; Morris P. Kirk & Sons, In¢.; Lead Disposal Co.; Jacob I. Malschick, Inc.; Maw Metal Co.; Montgomery Ward & Co.; Inc., National Battery Co.; National Dis- posal, Inc,; National Lead Co.; Sears Roebuck and Co.; Southeast Lead Co.; West Side Bat- tery Lead Co. (Mass.); West Side Battery Lead Co. (N. J.); Western Auto Supply Co.; Willard Storage Battery Co.; Assoclatinn of American Battery Manufacturers, Telephone equipment: Two companies have been charged with a monopoly of tele- phone equipment, telephones, and material: American Telephone and Telegraph Co.; Western Electric Co., Inc. Transportation: Two corporations were charged with violation of the Sherman anti- trust law by lilegally requiring certain ship- pers to use only the facilities of these com- panies; Northern Pacific Railway Co.; North- western Improvement Co. Turbine pumps: Twelve corporations and two trade associations have been charged with price fixing to suppress competition in the manufacture of vertical turbine pumps: American Well Works; Aurora Pump Co.; A. D. Cook, Inc.; Deming Co.; Fairbanks, Morse & Co.; Food Machinery & Chemical Corp.; Byron Jackson Co.; Johnston Pump Co.; Layne & Bowler, Inc., (Memphis); Layne & Bowler, Corp. (Los Angeles); Wintroath Pumps, Inc.; Worthington Pump & Machine Corp.; National Association of Vertical Tur- bine Pump Manufacturers; Turbine Pump Manufacturers Association.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Welding equipment: Morton Gregory Corp. has been charged with illegally allocating world markets for stud welding equipment through patent and trade-mark lhcense agreements. Rail Strike Threat EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. FORREST C. DONNELL OF MISSOURI IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, May 22 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. DONNELL. Mr, President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an editorial entitled “Rail Strike Threat,” published in the Greenville (S. C.) News, of April 22, 1950. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Rat. Srrike THREAT The country is again threatened with a strike on four big railroad systems which could easily lead on to a general paralysis of railroad transportation service. And since it appears that the entire pro- cess of the Railway Labor Act has now been worked through on this particular dispute without a settlement, there seems no further means in this law of preventing the strike. This section of the country would be seriously affected if this strike materializes, since the Southern Railway is one of the four systems affected. The prospect of such a grave interference with railroad transportation services seems ta emphasize once again the need for a more definite public policy eliminating the right to strike in public utility services indispen- sable to public welfare. In this instance, the demand is for the employment of a second fireman on Diesel locomotives. A Presidential fact-finding board has held that this demand is not justi- ed. The railroad men evidently feel that their demand is meritorious, despite this finding. This newspaper is not undertaking to pass on the merits of this particular issue. But the vital public interest in the maintenance of essential public services like railroad trans- portation should be paramount, and public policy with respect to labor disputes in such industries should be such, we think, as to demand that employment in them be condi- tioned upon the settlement of such disputes in some other way than by penalizing the public through strikes, The railroad unions, apparently, are deter= mined to paralyze the entire railroad trans- portation system of the country in an attempt to enforce this demand. For the president of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Fireman and Enginemen is quoted in a New York Times dispatch as describing the prospective walk-out as the beginning of a strike against all railroads in the United States. This, of course, would be an intolerable situation, but our present laws acknowledge the right of the unions to stop all railroad transpor- tation if the Railway Act’s processes fail to bring a settlement. This law was formulated in the assumption that the processes it provided would elim- inate any likelihood of a railroad strike. But it has become apparent that this was a false assumption. If we really mean to establish a legal barrier to such strikes it is time we were saying so plainly in the law. The New Political Hysteria or Delirium EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EUGENE D. O’SULLIVAN OF NEBRASKA | IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 22, 1950 Mr. O’SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, there never was a time during the history of our country when the political opposi- tion was so lacking in decency and com- mon bay-horse sense as it is at the pres- ent moment. The press of other nations stands aghast at what is going on in the United States of America and what is really wrong with the keepers of the boiling witchpot of reactionary Republican statecraft. Today, reactionary republicanism could be called, very properly, political delerium. Whether they are aware of the fact, or not, they are doing a super- lative disservice at this time to the Re- public. From my own careful study and observation of the faces and doings of the mentally bereft I recognize that there is now in existence in the Nation not dementia Americana, the “conjured up for the defense” type of mental irrespon- sibility, pulled out of the legal trick sack in New York City years ago by Califor- nia’s Delmas in the case of the People against Harry K. Thaw, but a new type of mental derangement which should be called rodentia dementia republica, the general symptoms of which are mani- fested by a shortness of vision and a run- ning of the mouth. The hoof beats of the frenzied four horsemen, the Smearies, Loopies, Piffle Faces, and Daubem Reds are fairly mak- ing the peaceful welkins ring with their nonsense and gibberish. Their antics should suggest to the writers of amusing fiction four new comic strip characters. Isn’t it a laugh to expect that sane people would line up behind such nau- seating leadership? In passing, we should not forget the antics of Vickey the Nutty, who hov- ered like a bird of ill omen over the Pres- idential train full of curiosity like the bear which went over the mountain to see what he could see. I have been told by a great authority on birdlore that there is only one bird, the raven, which is possessed of sufficient I don’t care a whit attitude as to sit in and deliberately foul its own nest. It seems, however, that some human “birds” have been overlooked. They come crazier and nastier by the hour, sans all political home hygiene. On my last trip to Omaha I met an old gentleman who expressed the thought that he would much prefer to be a mag- got in the carcass of an ownerless dead mule than be any one of the foregoing totally irresponsible groups, and I agree that he is right. If they are looking for leadership in the mentally decayed roistering reaction- ary Republican Party they should have sense enough to know that it cannot be secured by the kind of individuals pres- ently in the Republican saddle as the A3893 Pennsylvania and Oregon primaries re- flect so clearly. The issue is not the improperly created slogan, Liberty versus Socialism, but is much simpler than that. It is Demo- cratic sanity against reactionary Repub- lican political hysteria and prolonged 20- year political delerium. The following instructive article which appeared in the May 12, 1950, issue of the Unionist, published in Omaha, Nebr., is well worth reading and pondering over: THE Devin In WASHINGTON (By Edward A. Harris) WasHiIncTon.—Pathological fear gripped the townsmen of Salem Village late in the seventeenth century when a little group of neurotic teen-age girls fell into hysterical fits as if possessed of the devil. Breaking the bonds of strict Puritan discipline, the girls talked blasphemously during their fits and cried out against those in league with the devil who were afflicting them. Few escaped the spiteful vengeance of the girls, who suddenly found all the attention they had ever craved. <A pious pure-hearted old grandmother, Rebecca Nurse, was cried out against by the girls as a witch, and car- ried from her sickbed to be hanged. An old man, sound in body and mind despite his age, was pressed to death because he re« mained mute, refusing to confess his witch< ery. The constables righteously piled rocks upon his chest as he lay prostrate until the mounting weight crushed him. Children as young as 5 years of age were carted to dank and foul prisons as bedeviled. The madness and panic were contagious. As soon as one villager was named as a witch, corroborating witnesses marched to court to detail acts of witchery of the ac« cused. These witnesses were not malicious liars; they fervently believed their own tales, as embellished by sick imaginations, and their hearsay gossip was accepted as evidence in the sick atmosphere of the day. The Salem court, however, convicted the witches mostly on spectral evidence. What good was it for accused witches to swear to their innocence when even at that moment the teen-age girls rolled on the courtroom fioor and shrieked wildly that the spectral shapes of the defendants were then afflicting them? To some observers there appears a striking parallel between the Salem pathology and the current spy hysteria in Washington. A new book, The Devil in Massachusetis, by Marion L. Starkey comes as a fresh shock in its vivid portrayal of the depths of cruelty and irresponsibility to which human beings can sink in the spell of fear and ignorance. Then, as now, the accusers were the exalted, including exwitches who recanted and pointed their cleansed fingers at former con- spirators. It was safe, even noble, to be an accuser; there was no risk to it, but there was fame and glory. Spectral evidence was accepted then, even as hearsay evidence is today spread across the Nation’s press. Those who dared criticize the teen-age neurotic girls were promptly—within sec- onds—themselves branded by the girls as witches and hanged. Anyone who dared to defend the good name of the accused was at once cried out against by this little feminine band of life-and-death givers. There jis no gallows as yet in the Washing- ton manhunt, but character assassination serves as effectively. Here, too, it is safe to be an accuser, and perilous to back the good name of the accused. As to the accused himself, how can he ever prove he is not a witch? How can Professor Owen J. Latti- more, of Johns Hopkins University, or Secre- tary of State Dean Acheson, for that matter,
A3894 prove beyond a shadow of doubt that they are not Communists? It cannot be done. The accusers must be well aware of this, But lest the trap be not tight enough, ex- Communist Louis Budenz has conveniently made it escape proof. The truly dangerous Communists, he avers, do not carry party ecards and may never join the party. They even remain aloof from the fringes of the party and in order to conceal their true identity may pose as anti-Communists or supporters of the Marshall plan. If Lattimore’s writings show a party line, he stands condemned; if they show anti- Communist sentiment, the clever scoundrel is doubly damned. The trap is sufficiently elastic to apply to anyone. In 5 years of constant communion with the FBI, Budenz would have the public believe that he did not have time to men- tion the name of Lattimore. Only after it was charged that Lattimore was the top Red espionage agent did Budenz find his memory refreshed and his time ample for long public dissertations on Lattimore. The corroborating witnesses may con- tinue to parade to the side of frenzy as the accusations are hurled. But more and more observers are wondering why the word of admitted ex-Communists is sanctified over the word of other citizens. Would not the same character markings that first led them into communism carry over to an intem- perate opposite extreme? Here is the ad~ mission of one noted ex-Communist, Author Koestler, in this respect: “Those who were caught by the great {llusion of our time, and have lived through its moral and intellectual debauch, either give themselves up to a new addiction of the opposite type or are condemned to pay with a lifelong hang-over.” Secretary Acheson, in a stirring speech before editors and publishers in Washington, described the crusade as mad and vicious. In Salem Village many long years ago the madness was ended only when intelligent men and cool heads emerged from their neutral retreats to speak their minds, aware at last that no one was safe from such pathology. Until sugh an awak~ ening takes place on a large scale, the Wash- ington bedlam will go unchecked. Acheson has shown the way, but many more as cou~ rageous as he must speak up if common sense is to prevail over the devil in Wash~ ington. : The Rail Strike EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. FORREST C. DONNELL OF MISSOURI IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, May 22 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an editorial entitled “The Rail Strike,” published in the Youngstown (Ohio) Vindicator-~ Telegram of May 10, 1950. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: THE RAIL STRIKE How indefensible the railroad firemen’s strike ls may be seen in a glance at railroad history since Diesel locomotives were first used on the Burlington system in 1934, The strike is intended to force the employ-~ ment of a third man in the cab of a Diesel locomotive. Three times this demand has been turned down by a Railway Labor Act fact-finding board. Actually, the locomo- tives were operated at first by a single man. Ever since then the unions have tried to force the roads to pack the Diesel crew with additional and totally unneeded men. In 1943 a Presidential board found that there was no need for either an extra fire- man or extra engineer. In 1947 the Presi- dent named another board which declared flatly that the union demand was devoid of merit. After union pressure forced the roads to hire two men, the engineers and firemen joined to campaign for a third or even a fourth man, They argued that the power units demanded such frequent inspection visits from the cab that the one fireman had to ke absent much of the time. The fact- finding boards denied this. The fireman, they said, has little or no need of going back to the power units. When the present strike was threatened, still another emergency board reported that the firemen’s brotherhood “actually seeks to break what it considers the traditional com- bined fireman (helper) job into two jobs with one fireman assigned to each.” The board pointed out that on every other type of locomotive the fireman regularly performs a combined job made up of the two general functions. Another board reported that the Diesels had already increased the number of rail« road jobs by producing more business for-the roads. The Government, through the In- terstale Commerce Commission, has con- stantly encouraged the railroads to expand their Diesel operations in order to cut oper- ating costs and so effect economies which are urgently needed if the carriers are to hold their share of the Nation’s freight and pas- senger business. It has been said that the strike, with its ‘crippling effect on the lives, welfare, and ‘safety of millions of Americans, is not a railroad strike at all, but a railroad hold-up. ‘It is more—it is a hold-up of a large part of the Nation. It is another argument for the proposed bill to outlaw rail strikes and re- quire compulsory arbitration as a last resort in railroad disputes. Such a measure, with its curtailment of freedom, ordinarily is un- desirable, but the rail unions have shown such irresponsibility in recent years that they may make it unavoidable. “We Are a Prosperous People—We At- tribute Our Material Success Not Only to the Spirit of Free Enterprise That Is So Characteristic of Our American Sys- tem but to the Bounteous Gift of a Divine Power That Has Given Us Such a Rich Country in Such a Healthy En- vironment in Which To Grow” EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. DONALD L. O’TOOLE OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 23, 1950 Mr. O’TOOLE. Mr. Speaker, I know I express the sentiments of a great cross section of my colleagues in saying that a single Armed Forces Day such as was participated in by all three of our armed services last Saturday shall henceforth become an annual event. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD There was and is real cause for cele- bration. At long last, all of our military services are united in one team, and cer- tainly that unity could not be realized at a better time. As the strategy of all defense agencies have been unified, so have their fiscal affairs. On every front Secretary of De- fense Louis Johnson has succeeded in meshing every gear concerned with na- tional security into one business-admin- istered, efficiently and effectively oper- ated national defense program. I have just come upon a copy of a speech delivered by the Honorable Louis Johnson in New York City on Saturday last. Secretary Johnson may well be proud of the job which he perfected in the field of administration, a job only in small part reflected in the defense budget for this year. Truly Johnsoneque, the address made by the Secretary carried no one boast of the tremendous task accomplished in these last 14 months. Rather, it picto- rialized the moral, the spiritual, and the military might of our people and, our armed services in securing the peace of our own country and the well-being of the world. Mr. Speaker, it was a great talk. It was-a talk made straight from the shoul- der by a great administrator. There was no “viewing with alarm,” rather, there was a soul searching of values by Sec- retary Johnson that reached into every phase of American life. In his talk he chose to emphasize, not the disturbing factors that even now tend to keep our own people apart, but rather to stress the common interests that cement us into one mighty and the greatest nation on the face of the earth. It is because of these chservations made with respect to Secretary Johnson’s Armed Forces Day. talk that I am asking the unanimous consent of this House to extend my remarks and include therein the address made last Saturday by the Honorable Louis Johnson. I sincerely commend the reading of this talk to every Member of the House: Remarks By Lovis JOHNSON, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, oN ArMED Forces Day, New York Ciry, Sarurpay, May 20, 1950 On the streets and sidewalks of New York, in the skies overhead, and close to the shores of Manhattan, we beheld today a striking demonstration of unification in action—the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Air Force “teamed for defense” and the American people stanchly behind them in full support. It was a heart-warming sight that we shall always remember, and one that those who would trespass against us would do well never to forget. There were ships, and planes, and guns— arms and equipment of all sorts for people to see—and one piece of protective inde- structible armor whose inner strength had to be felt. It is a force that always has been and still is our strongest weapon, and it is so much a part of our American life that some of us may not realize its full value and significance as a weapon of national defense. I refer to our national unity. In the crowds here today, there were men and women of diverse origins, of separate races, and of different religions, but a spirit of unity seemed to permeate their souls and send thrills through their bodies as one sample after another of the might of America passed before them in review. Their strong, happy, healthy faces eloquently bespoke
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD their pride in our country, their love for our institutions, and their faith in our American code of reason. Those who do not understand America, and those who would plot our destruction, see only the diversity of American life and expect to find in it a weak spot, the Achilles heel of our body politic. They have tried to exploit it before to make us suspicious of each other but they failed disastrously. They failed because they were too blind to see that our inner strength was found not in a hidden cache of secret weapons but in an open and fully revealed attitude of mind and way of life, a spirit of unity and fair play. We are a happy people, and we find our greatest joy in sharing our happiness with others. We are a peaceful people and we strongly support any genuine effort to eradi-~ cate the evils that cause war. We are a gen- erous people and we give with our hearts. We have shared freely of our worldly goods with less fortunate peoples and we have not done it in a patronizing way. Nor have we done it merely to save ourselves, as some sinister propaganda would have our Euro« pean friends believe. We are 7 ~rcspo-cus people, too, and we attribute ci om intl success not only to the spirit of free enter- prise that is so characteristic of our Ameri-+ can system, but to the bounteous gift of a divine power that has given us such a rich country in such a healthy environment in which to grow. : We are a spiritual people. We are a re- ligious people. We are not ashamed to live by the Golden Rule, and our friends overseas and even the people behind the iron curtain deep down in their hearts are aware of our sincerity of purpose. They Know and the world knows that it is not our aspiration to live under conditions where in self-protec- tion “every man hath his sword upon his thigh because of fear in the night.” But we are not afraid to do something about it. We already have set up the standard upon the walls. And we propose to make the watch strong. Nor do we prepare alone. Lined up beside us in a solemn pact are 11 other North At- lantic nations which have a similar stake to ours in the preservation of peace. They may be smaller in territory. They may have less of worldly goods but they, as we, have the same thing to lose and the same thing to pro- tect—freedom: It is freedom that all of us seek—freedom from the boring of Commu- nist termites into the foundations of our in- stitutions and freedom from the threat of Russian imperialistic aggression against the ramparts of our territorial integrity. Our friends overseas are closer to the ca- tastrophic danger of Soviet Russian policy than we are. They have seen free and inde- pendent states crumble from Communist in- filtrations. They have near them the ex~ amples of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Rumania. They have noted Russian arms take ovef Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, and other countries and incorporate them into their Soviet orbit. They behold the fate of far-off China. They have seen mil- lions of people betrayed by the blandishment of economic and political equality only to find themselves trapped—hungry, naked, and disillusioned, Our treaty partners know just what they may expect in the wake of a Communist victory whether by force, the threat of force, or as a result of boring from within. They know, too, that if aggression should come they would be the first to. feel its impact. For 5 years they have fought off the Com- munist menace, and with our help have grown stronger in their capabilities to re- sist. You can be sure that they are not going to default to communism now. More than ever before they realize that their future physical safety and the security of the ideals ‘ pleted. they live by, depend on their ability to dis= courage aggression and to hold communism at bay. I have every faith in our partners. I he- lieve they are ready and willing to carry their proportionate-share of the armament burden that is so necessary to deter aggres- sion and to maintain the peace. They have a@ right to expect a great deal of us and they are getting it. We have a right to expect their fair share of contribution to their com- mon defense and that, too, I am confident, will be forthcoming. We are working to- gether. We are planning together. We are sacrificing together, and if it ever becomes necessary, we will be fighting together. Gen, Omar Bradley, our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who presides over the Military Committee under the North At- lantic Treaty organization has already re- ported that defense planning has reached a new peak of international cooperation. Such an evaluation coming from a man of General Bradley’s integrity and his experi- ence in combat with armed forces of many nations, augurs well for the potential effec- tiveness of the pact as deterrent and a de- fense to aggression. Hubert Howard, the Chairman of our Mu- nitions Board, who presides over the mili- tary production and supply board of the North Atlantic Treaty organization, has re- ported to me to similar effect. Mr. Howard is an outstanding executive from Chicago with a reputation for forthright integrity. He reported that the major deficiencies in military equipment among our North Atlan~ tic partners for the support of the defense plan have now been ascertained. Transfers of equipment surplus to each country’s needs have been started. The survey of pro- duction capacity in Europe has been com- The machine tools and matériel given by the United States for additional military production have been put to use, Mr. Howard indicated that a definite in- crease in the tempo of military production has been attained. Plans, he said, have been made, and in some cases production has al- ready been started to supply spare parts for American equipment. The Board is now en- gaged in working out means of standardiza~ tion of equipment, wherever possible, for interchange among the 12 partners under the treaty, When it comes to arms and equipment in quality and in the vast quantities demand~« ed by modern conditions, the pool of skill, ingenuity, and experience possessed by the North Atlantic Treaty nations should weigh heavily in our favor. We are exploiting the scientific and industrial capabilities of America in our intensive search for more ef- fective weapons of defense and offense. Mr. William Webster, who was recently ap= pointed Chairman of the Research and De- velopment Board, reports a full and ener- getic program of weapons research in prog- ress. We are making every reasonable effort to maintain a margin of technological su- periority. We shall need it to offset the probably numerical superiority of an ag~ gressor. Devices and techniques are being developed in our laboratories to neutralize the effectiveness of mass weapons. In re- cent months encouraging gains have been ‘made along lines that offer promise of solu- tions for some problems of high priority. In the final analysis, however, it is the ability of troops to exploit fully the strate- gic, tactical, and technical advantages af- forded by these superior weapons that will make the difference between victory and defeat. Training, therefore, becomes the keystone of our defense. Our armed forces have always taken con- siderable pride in the quality of their train- ing. They have prepared their individual fighting men to face the supreme test of battle with full confidence in themselves, their leaders, and their weapons, and have A3895 gone into action determined to outfight, outsmart, and outlast their adversaries. How well they succeeded is chronicled in the record of two World Wars. We did not win every skirmish, nor every battle, nor even every campaign. In fact, we took a few very bad lickings, especially in the early days of World War II. Even now these defeats are hard to explain to the satisfac- tion of the American people; and they are even more difficult to condone. War, however, as any other human effort, has its defeats as well as its victories, and we must reconcile ourselves to the likelihood of an occasional set-back. What we cannot and must not reconcile ourselves to is a failure to profit from error. In that respect our armed forces proved themselves apt pupils. They learned considerably from each of their defeats. They corrected their mistakes, and then ran up a string of victories that drove their opponents to their cellars and their forests, frantically seeking shelter. On the ground, at sea, and in the air our Army, Navy, and Air Force completely defeated the military forces that were pitted against them, and thoroughly destroyed the enemy’s will to continue the fight. The most important lesson of war which we learned and which is just as significant today as it was the morning after December 7, 1941, is the need for teamwork in combat. The lesson was not lost upon us during World War II, and toward the end we had reached a degree of interservice teamwork, mutual understanding, and confidence never before attained in our own history and per- haps in the history of the world; for basic rivalries among armed forces to the detri- ment of teamwork are nothing new. They have been proverbial and are as old as the services themselves. Quite recently there came to my office a letter from Bermuda which illustrates the effect of this traditional service rivalry upon Military efficiency during colonial days. It appears that when the English ship Sea Ven= ture, en route to Virginia, was wrecked upon the shores of Bermuda in 1609 all hands were saved. Among them were Sir Thomas Gates, a@ lieutenant general of the army, and Ad- miral Sir George Somers, in charge of the fleet. There were eight other vessels, but they safely reached Virginia without serious mishap. According to William Strackey, secretary for the Virginias, Gates, of the army, forth=- with set one Frobisher, an experienced ship- wright, to building a pinnace to replace the wrecked Sea Venture. Somers, of the navy, decided that the lines of the pinnace were not just right, so he built another bark of his own design on one of the other islands. Strackey was evidently having a hard time explaining this apparently wasteful duplica- tion of time and effort and finally came up with this entry in his log in the Elizabethan style of the period: “There was, however, a secret explanation: The sea and land commanders, being alien- ated one from the other—a quality over com= mon to the English—and fallen into jeal- ousies, thought it better to direct their ef- forts from different places.” There will, however, be no direction of efforts from different places in our Armed Forces; and our training program today is to make sure that they will not become alien- ated from each other and fall into any more jealousies but work together wholeheartedly for the common defense. With that objective in mind we conduct as often as practicable joint exercises to train our forces to work together. They vary in magnitude from “Camid,” a project designed to help the cadets of West Point and the midshipmen of Annapolis get better ac- quainted with each other and learn how to get along together during the early stages of their careers, to the major joint exercise such
A3896 as “Swarmer” whi. called upon sixty thou- sand from the Army and the Air Force, and the grand joint exercise such as “Portrex” including 80,000 men of all services. The planning for these exercises is a trem- endous job in itself. Representatives of the Army, Navy, including the Marines, and the Air Force work for months at a time to de- velop situations that will test the combat capa*ilities of the participants, their organ- ization, their strategy, their tactics, their weapons, and their equipment, and above all, their capacity for teamwork. These exercises are tough. Their aim is not to see how well performance can be expected under normal conditions, but how far we can go, what limits there are for humans and machines beyond which one dare not venture without serious consequences. What is the break- ing point—that is the basic test. Because these joint maneuvers are in a sense contests between forces representing an aggressor and a defender, there is a temp- tation in a sports-conscious country like ours to look for winners and losers. But the only losers that interest us in this matter are our potential enemies, whom we hope to be in a better position to defeat because we have had such exercises, and have prof- ited by the experience we have gained through them. While these are realistic exercises, conduct~ ed for military purposes, we have nothing to hide and, on the contrary appreciate the great public interest in our activities and in the American men and women who make up our Armed Forces. Representatives of the press and other information media are wel- come to witness these maneuvers. But these joint exercises are not intended to present mere spectacles for visitors, the Secretary of Defense included. And where I have noticed any evidence of such a tendency, I have is- sued instructions to the services to adhere only to realistic presentations and to omit all frills and thrills and entertainment that are not germane to the problem and to the test. These exercises are designed to point up weaknesses. Our umpires understand this, They know it is not their function at the end of a joint exercise to show up with a rosy report that all is well. What we want to know is—what is wrong? The reports, I am pleased to note, have been constructively critical and the three services and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have learned lessons from them which in time will be implemented into sounder battle doctrine, more effective or- ganization, improved weapons and equip- ment and above all more efficient fighting men with a higher morale and better dis- cipline with which to face whatever may lie ahead. We are fortunate in the quality of our fighting man today. He approaches the best we had in wartime. He is far superior to what we ever had in peacetime. More than balf of our soldiers, sailors, marines and air- men are less than 24 years old with that en« thusiasm and energy that goes with youth and makes for the most efficient type of fight- ing man. Our men are relatively a highly stable group. Thirty-five percent of them are married, Twenty-five percent of them have families with children. They are expe- rienced in military skills and responsibilities, More than one-half of them have been in the service $8 years or more. They enjoy an educational level far above the national average. Forty-three percent of our sailors and marines, 42 percent of our airmen and 26 percent of our soldiers are high school graduates. But why go on with more statis- tics? Look at the men yourselves, See them on furlough. Talk to them. Occasionally, of course, you may find an exception, as in every other walk of life, but usually you will have a man you would certainly be proud to meet as a fellow American, I wish we could have more of them. I wish we could afford to acquire every young American to serve in the ranks for a time, under a universal military training program. The least we can do at this time is to give every encouragement for the training of those who do volunteer to serve—not only the regulars but also the reserves. It is important to know that under our present program the volunteer civilian com- ponents of our armed forces are an essential element in our national defense team and that these reserve forces must be maintained in the most efficient state of trained readi- ness. To achieve the maximum proficiency to enable them to take their places beside the regular forces in time of national emer- gency, they must be properly trained; and that means leaving their normal jobs for a time for active duty with the colors. Last June I appealed to the employers of the United States to adopt liberal policies in the granting of special leaves of absence, to allow members of the civilian components of our armed forces to participate in short an- nual periods of training duty. I was pleased to note that a large number of employers co- operated fully and I take this opportunity to thank them and the veterans organiza- tions, Chambers of Commerce, and other clubs and groups for their splendid support of this patriotic endeavor. This year I again requested and strongly urge that every employer accept his duty and responsibility to our common defense by granting similar special leaves of absence. In conclusion, I wish to reiteyate that the ideal of unification that this Armed Forces Day so inspiringly symbolizes for us extends far beyond the regulars and reserves, far be- yond the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps and the Air Force. It reaches into every phase of American life. Real unification means national unity—let us hope that in time it will also become the basis for global unity. For in our aspiration for the unification of man we are not discouraged by the dis- turbing factors that still keep peoples apart. We are encouraged by the wholesome inter- ests that bring them together. There is no more diversified people in the world than those who live here in metropolitan New York, yet they work together, play together, and strive together for a stronger and hap- pier America. Our political, social and eco- nomic climate here and throughout America Jends itself readily to the free association of free men and women. But the salubrious qualities of our environment in the United States can also be enjoyed world-wide. What we are accomplishing in New York, what we are accomplishing for all of Amer- ica, can also be accomplished throughout the world as a whole. The unity of our people on Armed Forces Day is therefore not only a@ demonstration of our determination to achieve peace through strength—it is a mark of our dedication to the ultimate goal of man—of peace on earth and good will to all. Grass-Roots Comment EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. WALT HORAN OF WASHINGTON IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 23, 1950 Mr. HORAN. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my own remarks in the Appendix of the Rrcorp, I am pleased to include two letters commenting on farm APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD policy in general and the Brannan plan in particular. The letters follow: YAKIMA VALLEY TRAFFIC ASSOCIATION, Yakima, Wash., May 4, 1950. Congressman WaLtT HORAN, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dear Watt: In reply to your request for comments on the proposed Brannan plan, a copy of which you sent to me, I find that in its objectives and procedures it is much like the farm program of Rome of many cen= turies ago. You will recall the fall of Rome after this once great nation had spread law and order throughout the then civilized world, built up one of the greatest civilized economies the world had ever seen, developed its domestic and export trade, built up an efficient transportation system, and through individual initiative and responsibility gained for themselves many comforts never pefore enjoyed by any previous people. In their forward progress, according to his= tory, the Roman people had gained their material and spiritual abundances by preser= vation of their individual initiative and re= sponsibility. And so long as the Romans took upon themselves their obligations to themselves and to the state, Rome prospered and was strong. Then history records that the citizenry re- laxed, became complacent, and gradually shifted their responsibility to the state. Thus, in its ideology the Brannan plan is not a recent idea. For example, the Roman Gov- ernment-—just as the Brannan plan proposes to do—bought wheat at a high price from the farmer and sold at a low price to the city worker. And history records that in due time the Romans, who were concentrated in the cities, came to expect that they would be fed by the government, educated by the government, sustained by the government, and entertained by the government. Under the welfare state of that day the Ro- mans lived so easily they eventually allowed the government to assume all the responsi- pilities of its citizenry, and it came to pass that they ‘lost their representative form of government, not suddenly but gradually, the Roman republic slipped into statism and then into totalitarianism. In concept, political and economic, there is but little, if any, difference between the ‘Brannan plan and the Koman farm pro- gram. The methods and procedures are identical. Moreover, it is my opinion that the Brannan plan will, if enacted into law, lead this country down the same road that Jed to the downfall of Rom. because such a plan cannot function without taking authority away from the individual and concentrating it under a central govern- ment. The founders of this country knew the history of the rise and fall of nations that preceded them. And from this knowledge of the past they established « form of gov- ernment under which this country prog- ressed and prospered because the form was predicated on centering responsibilities in the citizenry rather than government. While I do not approve, I am not partic- ularly concerned about the transition now taking place in our form of government in- sofar as it relates to my own welfare. I’m well into the last lap of my allotted “three score and ten,” and therefore the ‘“‘welfare state,” if it comes, can never affect me to any great extent. My concern, a very real pone, is, however, What does this trend por- tend for the future of this country? What does it hold in store for those who will fol- low? The Brannan plan is only one threat, only one straw in the wind of totalitarianism. For instance, growing demands by special group interests for Government-sponsored
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD slum clearance, public housing, hospitaliza- tion and medical care, farm-crop price sup- ports, surplus commodity purchases, to name a few, are other impressive signs of th: trend away from the American way of life. As our minds adjust to one step toward the welfare state, it puts us in shape to adjust ourselves to the next, and after that it still is another, which yesterday would have seemed impossible, yet which tomor- row will be done. It is not today but day after tomorrow that we should keep in mind unless we’re hell-bent on trading off ovr American heritage for a mess of Roman (meal) pottage. Should the Brannan plan be enacted into the law of the land it will fail just as mis- erably as did the Roman farm plan of many centuries ago. Under total Government di- rection and operation, and there is no other way the plan can function, it will inevitably break down. Whenever the Government takes over the direction and operation of the Nation’s food supply, the program will bog down just as sure as day follows night. When this hap- pens, men, for their own self-preservation, will commence to take from others what they heed. And that is when the Government comes into the picture armed with police power. One does not need to be a prophet to make such a dire prophecy. The fulfillment thereof is found not once but many times in the recorded history of men and nations. But to be more specific, more to the point— here is why the economics of the Brannan plan will inevitably fail. Let’s be realistic and accept the proposal for what it is—polit- ical in concept rather than economic in ob- jective. It must, therefore, first serve its political ends—win votes by the process of satisfying the needs and desires of a majority of farmers and consumers. It must succeed in doing this or else it will become a political liability. Perish the thought. To be realistic in this analysis, we must also accept the fact thdt there are more in- efficient than there are efficient farmers. And there are more low-income than high- income consumers. In consequence of these facts, the two principal beneficiary groups under the Brannan plan—the inefficient farmers on the one hand, and the low-income consumers on the other-~will become the common denominators of prices on the farm and in the food store. In consequence of this, the prices guar- anteed or paid to farmers must satisfy the needs, not to mention the desires, of the in- efficient group of farmers. And in the food store the price of farm products must be cheap enough to satisfy the low-income group of consumers, even down to the worker who spent his last week’s wages in a beer parlor. There is no other method whereby the Government can satisfy a ma- jority of both groups, and satisfy them the Government must if it is to win friends and hold votes. In its operation, the Brannan plan would practically guarantee the efficient farmer a fabulous profit, the rich man cheap food (food prices would be fixed to fit the poor man’s pocketbook), and the taxpayer would be left, to put it mildly, with the check, Once economic compulsion for people to earn a living is out the window, the taxpayer’s costs of providing a field day for farmers and consumers would progressively grow more expensive. This is axiomatic. As the eco- nomic incentive to work to live lessens, the beneficiaries of the Brannan plan will not be long in finding out the value of the wail. And once wailing becomes par with work, we will have arrived at the destination of the Brannan plan—the police state. In all his- tory this has been the grand finale of all similar programs, I agree with the proponents of the Bran- nan plan that the primary concern of this country is to continue to raise the standard of living provided it is not in a manner which will desizcy the moral fiber of our people. If my thinking is sound, the basic answer to our social and economic progress is greater pro- ductivity. All this clamor and pressure for the Bran- nan plan and other phases of the welfare state, to my mind, is the real cold war. Itis right here within our borders, if you please. We can accept the Brannan plan along with other welfare proposals and thereby exchange our responsibilities for so-called security and easy livire, If so we will be headed down the 2oi..0.a°C paternalism and regimenta- tion, for sure. Or we can retain our respons sibilities and thereby preserve what we term our American way of life. If we do this, it will bring us advances in production, in wages, and in standard of living. The choice is ours. I want no part of the Brannan plan. My choice is freedom and prosperity based on productivity because this country can’t com. promise witn basic economic principles and win. I trust I have not bored you too much by going around Robin Hood’s barn to answer your simple request for comment on the Brannan plan. But the very thought of the potential impact of this plan, should it become the law of the land, sends my blood pressure above the boiling point, With best regards, I am, Cordially yours, F. W. Srrenps, Secretary-Manager, LaKESIDE, WASH., May 18, 1950. Hon. Watt Horan, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Dear Mr. Horan: I am pleased that you have asked for my comment on Dill, S. 1971. On the surface the Brannan plan appears very rosy. But I firmly believe it is not what the people want. In promising the farmer a strong price for his produce, it will attract his vote, and likewise the vote of the con- sumer by promising him lower prices. But, it is quite evident that we cannot have both high prices for the farmer and low prices for the consumer unless the farmer and con- sumer pay by an exorbitant increase in taxes. The bureaucracy set up to regulate the plan would cost millions, to say nothing of the billions necessary to pay subsidies. If crops were to be controlled to where there would be no surplus, there would be a grave danger of a shortage which is a far greater ill than asurplus. This could easily happen because as yet the Government cannot control the weather, and as we are all aware, floods, droughts, and even insects can wipe out a total area in a very short time. There is at present a danger of a wheat shortage due to acreage allotments and drought in the Plains States. Such a plan would be detrimental to our true American way of life. I am opposed to having controls set up for the farmers. The main reason for my choosing farming as my vocation was the opportunity of free- dom and independence. The plan puts too much power into the hands of one man, the Secretary of Agriculture. I don’t believe the Brannan plan will work satisfactorily, as it will completely upset the functioning of the law of supply and demand. If there were no present support on wheat it would undoubtedly be cheaper, thus creating a wider market demand. The present price of wheat makes it prohibitive for cattlemen to use it as a grain for fattening cattle. Likewise, the poultrymen are having a hard time due -to high support price on wheat. The country will be a lot better off if we stay away from controls and expensive bu- A3897 reaucracies to control them. After all, freee dom has been the No. 1 issue of the Ameri- can people and the basis for the founding of this Nation and as for me, I’d like to see it stay that way. Sincerely yours, Rocer Haz, Master, 25 Mile Creek Grange, 1096. Third Man Show-Down EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. FORREST C. DONNELL OF MISSOURI IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 23 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I desire to ask unanimous consent, and do, for the insertion in the Appendix of the Recorp of quite a number of editorials. I shall call them one by one. The first is an editorial entitled “Third Man Show-Down,” from the St. Louis (Mo.) Star-Times of May 10, 1950. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: THirp~Man SHow-Down A 18-year-old dispute between railroads and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engine- men and Firemen came to a head today with a strike on four major systems. The rail- roads began placing embargoes on freight and passenger traffic yesterday in prepara- tion for the 6 a. m. deadline. If the strike continues, it will be only a matter of days until there will be wholesale lay-offs along all of the affected lines. At issue is the seemingly simple question of whether an extra fireman is needed on multiple-unit Diesel locomotives. The fire- men contend that the third man in the cab is essential to maximum safety of operation. The railroads say there is less need for a third man now than in the days when the fireman spent most of his time shoveling coal. Two Presidential fact-finding boards have ruled against the firemen, but the union has kept up its demand. The strike has been carefully planned. It affects the entire systems of the Southern and Santa Fe and the western divisions of the New York Central and Pennsylvania. By avoiding a tie-up of all railroads at one time the union hopes to hedge against the pos- sibility of Government seizure and nullifica- tion of its effort. But if the strike can hurt the railroads, it can hurt the public. A line that serves a vast area cannot be crippled without crippling that area. The fact that paralysis hits only one region of a nation is no consolation to that region. And a blow to only one part of the country can never- theless damage the whole Nation. The Santa Fe, for example, is responsible for movement of a big portion of the wheat barvest, and certainly the orderly handling of that crop is vital to the Nation. If the strike continues and is effective, the Government will be forced to take action one way or another; it should do so sooner rather than later. Meanwhile, Senator DoNNELL can point to the situation in support of his bill to outlaw all railroad strikes. The union apparently has weighed that risk. But railway labor should not risk the loss of its right to strike over as Gebatable an issue as the need for a third man in a locomotive cab.
A3898 Seventh Architect of the Capitol EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WALT HORAN OF WASHINGTON IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 23, 1950 Mr. HORAN. Mr. Speaker, under Jeave to extend my own remarks in the Appendix of the Recorp, I am pleased to include an article from the Washing- ton Sunday Star pictorial magazine. Everyone—and everyone does—who knows Dave Lynn and Gus Ccok will en- joy this. The article follows: SEVENTH ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL (By Lucy McClenon) Two men in a basement room of the Capitol study a drawing board. The taller of the two comprehends the plan quickly, comments concisely and moves to the tele- phone to take a call on a different matter. He is David Lynn, whose multifarious duties make his title, Architect of the Capitol, some- what misleading. The telephone caller, it turns out, wants to discuss arrangements for exercises to be held in the rotunda of the Capitol on June 1 for the unveiling of a statue of Brigham Young, contributed by the State of Utah to Statuary Hell. Mr. Lynn, as architect, “acting as an agent of the Congress, has charge of the structural and mechanical care of the Capitol, together with arrangements, in cooperation with the proper authorities, for ceremonies and ceremonials held in the building and on the grounds.” These events range from the type under discussion to such others as sum- mer concerts by service bands or the land- ing of a helicopter to present tree seedlings on Arbor Day. (Mr. Lynn’s latest annual report to Congress includes, incidentally, an accounting of all trees and shrubs on the Capitol Grounds.) On completion of the telephone conversa~ tion, Mr. Lynn speaks briefly with an asso- ciate about cabinets recently constructed for a congressional committee room by the car- penter shop under his direction. A maga~ zine writer wants to know who occupied the rooms just above the Architect’s office before Senator McMaHon moved into them. Mr. Lynn obtains a three-page history of the rooms’ occupancy from his staff, Two men in the office discuss with him a newly ar- rived art work.. (The Joint Committee on the Library has supervision of all works of art in the Capitol, but arrangements for their erection, placement, and unveiling are han- dled through the Architect’s office.) So far Mr. Lynn’s day ha3 dealt only with Capitol matters, but he is also charged with the structural and mechanical care of the following: Senate Office Building, Old and New House Office Buildings, Capitol power plant (which supplies heat, light, power, and air-conditioning refrigeration for the preced- ing and the Capitol; heat, light, and power for the Library of Congress Buildings, Botanic Garden, Supreme Court Building and the legislative garage, and steam heat for the Government Printing Office and City Post Office) ; legislative garage, Library of Congress Buildings and grounds, Supreme Court Building and grounds, Court of Claims Building, District Courthouse, Court of Ap- peals Building and Columbia Hospital for Women. He is also charged with the opera- tion of the House restaurant and js acting Cirector of the Botanic Garden. In some of these duties he is subject to various congres- sional committees and authorities on matters of policy. Much of his time is spent at, or in preparation for, committee meetings. Mr. Lynn is a member of the three-man Capitol Police Board, the District Zoning Commission and the Commission for En- larging of the Capitol Grounds. In addition he is charged with the planning and con- siruction of such buildings and other im~ provements as may be committed to his care by Congress from time to time. Since Mr. Lynn became Architect in 1923 the New House Office Building, the Supreme Court Building, and the Library of Congress Annex have been completed under his direction, and other large-scale projects—-such as the recent re- modeling of the House and Senate Chambers of the Capitol—have been carried out. The latter project is now complete down to the gallery seat levels. Plans call for extensive additional work, including new seats for the House, to be undertaken during the next con- gressional recess. Mr. Lynn is the seventh Architect of the Capitol. Like his three immediate predeces- sors he would like to see the east front of the Capitol extended to the line of the Senate and House wings and this old, central portion of the building rebuilt of marble to replace the gradually disintegrating sandstone of which it is made. The project was first sug- gested by Thomas U. Walter, who served as Architect from 1851 to 1865 and who designed the present wings and dome. His successor, Edward Clark, held the office when Mr. Lynn first came to the Capitol in 1901. Mr. Clark was followed by Elliott Woods, under whom Mr. Lynn served in @ supervisory capacity until Mr. Woods’ death and his own ap- pointment to the post. The Functions and Problems of Higher Education Today EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. JOHN W. McCORMACK OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 23, 1950 Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, un- der permission to extend my remarks, I include a very interesting and instructive address entitled “The IFunctions and Problems of Higher Education Today” delivered on May 5, 1950, to the delegates attending the New England Conference on Graduate Education by the Very Rev- erend Father William L. Keleher, S. J., president of Boston College. The address follows: THE FUNCTIONS AND PROBLEMS OF HIGHER EnUcaTION Topayr (By the Very Reverend William L. Keleher, S, J., president of Boston College) This year of 1950 has flooded your desks and mine with all sorts of midcentury sur- veys and reports, most of them pointing to the tremendous successes achieved by our American enterprises. Almost daily, we are reminded that we have attained to the high- est material standards of life ever known to mankind. At least every week we read that our mills and factories are geared to the greatest peacetime production level. And with constant regularity we learn again and again that we have reached the broadest cov- erage in the matters of social and economic APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD security. Truly a happy picture, when we read the proper journals. Of more significant importance to us, another set of reports points out that our generation witnesses the most far-reaching and most substantial pro- gram of educational opportunities for the youth of our land, and that, at every level, In a word, if we screen the journals we read, we might be tempted to relax into a smug complaisance, quite satisfied that we have been privileged to have been part of this outstanding movement. Could it be that some of us might think the world fortunate that we were in charge when the opportuni- ties for such advances presented themselves? At the same time, even a casual reader cannot fail to note the emphasis in these same surveys on the ever increasing com- plexity of the problems of our times, prob- Jems that are political, social, and economic and with it an increasing awareness of the acute need of greater knowledge, of broader understanding, of a@ more courageous and more intelligent leadership in our approach to the solution of the problems confronting us. Too often, we must admit, solutions are arrived at and policies fixed, not from rea- sons of principle, but from the pressure of immediate expediency; decisions so reached cannot stand the test of time or the scrutiny of history. We must admit, too, that in our own work, changes in curricula, alterations in programs, are at times brought about for reasons that might not stand a careful scrutiny a few years from now. Our country is unique in the fields of free- dom and prosperity. No nation in history - has known so much over-all happiness and success. But today, and let us be very frank about it, our people are worried, restless, up- set in heart and mind. Anxious about loyal- ties and security, uncertain about our role in the family of nations, we seem to be los- ing confidence in ourselves. When the rest of the free world looks to us for guidance, for courage, for leadership, because of our unique prosperity and freedom, they find that we are not at peace with ourselves in heart and mind. There has been among us a growing aware- ness of the crucial importance of human re- sources, and with it a frequent recognition of the fact that our human resources and qualificatioz.s are, as they have always been, slow and difficult to provide. Today these resources have been vastly expanded and with that expansion has come the increased demand on us to see that they are kept at the proper high level, just one more toll of the modern complex society in which we move, So great a challenge has been put to us as educators, to maintain and even increase the fields of knowledge; to provide the skills and methods to handle the ever increasing problems; to develop the minds as well as the manpower of our country; that govern- ment and the community in a constantly increasing measure have undertaken to spon- sor, to finance, to regulate and to control this truly strategic and critical source of supply, including the fleld we call higher education. ‘There is no point to express re- gret or show resentment at the efforts of government to participate in higher edu- cation. For there is magnitude as well as depth in the problem, and it is a matter that concerns the welfare and the security of the land. It would seem almost an obliga- tion of the Government to interest itself in the efforts of those who are vitally interested in a problem that concerns all so deeply. But it is of major importance for us to consider and to clarify for ourselves, and for the community, the function and the contri- bution of private and voluntary institutions in the total program of higher education at this time. For what we do, and what we
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD represent, is linked in the highest degree with a public interest. Voluntary associa- tions though we be, working in this free so- ciety, we have inherited a public trust. Ours is a serious obligation, and one we have met courageously. In our New England associa- tion, out of 34 member colleges and universi- ties, only 6 are supported in their efforts by public funds. The rest of us, and I think we can be satisfied that we have done a good piece of work, must carry on our efforts on our own. We draw no comparisons, but I think you will agree with me that the prod- ucts of our private colleges, as men and women of the country, have proven them- selves as loyal, as true and as American, as the graduates of any school. It is the continuing function, and obliga- tion, of our institutions of higher learning to maintain our status of freedom and inde- pendence so necessary for the exercise and preservation of freedom in a free society. It is our task to develop the free men and women who are the genuine strength and life of our community. Nor is this an easy task when our institutional independence can be made to seem a luxury, or when prof- fered aid and assistance would lift a real financial burden. I doubt that there is a single college or university across the coun- iry which would not be better prepared to do its work had it just a little more financial backing. For this reason we would like to see the Government support our endeavors. But there has seldom been a time when Gov- ernment aid did not mean Government con~ trol, at least to the extent of limitations in the area of independence. At a time when the magnitude of the costs and the diversity of efforts would call for help and assistance, we have an obligation to maintain our inde- pendence. As the pressure of dependence grows, so will grow our responsibility to be free. God grant that the spirit which moved our founders to establish the colleges in a spirit of freedom will give us the courage to keep them so. All will agree that we must provide our youth with an education that will build a better and stronger citizenry. And that we do. No one will deny that we must equip our youth with a knowledge of their respon- sibilities in the matter of community living. And that we do. But an education that stops there, making our youth aware of their privi- leges and obligations to the state and the community is not fulfilling its duty, for we have not brought out the final goal of man. * Just as a better citizenry is not the goal of mankind, so a preparation for that end can- not be the goal of higher education. Man was not created nor is he destined just for the state and his fellowman. His own salva~ tion, and the honor and glory of His Creator are ends that must be faced by the individual, ends that we must have in mind when we are preparing these youths for life and eter- nity. A system of education which would pan. all sorts of religion from the classroom, a@ system which forgets the supernatural end of man, a system which neglects the concept of God as Creator and Ruler of the universe, is false to the ideas of our country. Yet such a system coul deasily develop were our edu- cational aims and goals to be turned over to a group of men or agencies which would be thinking in terms of expediency only. It is only too obvious today that govern< ment adds to its political power an increas~ ing control over the physical resources of the people and the community, and this to a degree that makes it increasingly urgent that government be kept subservient to free men. I think most of us would be content to see the general supervision and direction of the physical resources go on, provided it will be done for the best interests of all, but we cannot allow such a control that will bring about the control of mind and heart. All too vivid in our memories are the pictures of what happened elsewhere in the not-so~ distant past. Human nature is the same the world over and what happened once can happen again. We, who will shape the minds and develop the thoughts and ideas of generations to come, must protect our freedoms and assure the generations yet un- born that they too may enjoy the life, lip- erty, and pursuit of happiness we have known. It appears that the policy of the Govern- ment is to continue to demand of our in- stitutions an ever-increasing role of posi- tive participation in the programs of the Government. To this we take no exception. In fact we are happy and prepared to co- operate in all such roles. But in this co- operative role, we must be certain that our total function in the field of higher educa- tion is protected and preserved by our free~ dom and independence. Doesn’t it strike you as a bit inconsistent, when we follow a highly specialized type of program, developing authorities in special fields, only to find that our own products are not measuring up to the ideals we held out for them? We send to the people of this country and the lands abroad men who are missionaries for a special type of work or study, but men who do not bring to these same strangers the picture on which our own land was founded. In the first writings of the fathers of our land, in the Constitution, we find refer- ence after reference to the place and need of religion, the freedom to worship, and to- day, too many of us have relegated such thinking to the dim past. “Render to Cae- sar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” was once an ac- cepted truism. Today we think only of Caesar—of various Caesars. Ours is the sacred duty to instill in our students the whole truth, so that when they take their place in the world, they may work for Gov- ernment, for public or private enterprise, and always remember this, that they will render to Caesar the things that are Cae- sars but to God the things that are God’s. Their own peace of mind, their eternal wel- fare and salvation, cannot be lost sight of, in their efforts to serve well their immedi- ate aims. Free to follow our traditional course of education we can prepare our stu- dents to face such a life. But if we are to sacrifice our independence and freedom for temporary aid or assistance which means control, then our own cause is lost and the results of our efforts cannot but add to the chaos and indecision surrounding us. Historically it can be established that the freedom of our land, the greatest blessing we cherish, is the product of the self-respect, the confidence, and the strength of our men and women. And it is equally true that this self-respect, confidence, and strength are qualities of the mind and of the soul. The underlying font of our true greatness is the dignity of mankind, a dignity we can appreciate and enjoy. It is a quality found only in free men and women, who, respon- sible under God, know and cherish their freedom, who face their responsibilities and obligations; who know too, that this precious freedom is something that can be lost, and with it goes beauty, goodness, and truth. Ours then is a sacred trust, to maintain that quality of mind and heart, to foster and spread that spirit, to preserve the dignity of man as the greatest heritage we can have. This is the everlasting function of the schools of higher education; through it we make our greatest contribution to the strength and welfare of the community. God grant that in our rush to develop specialists, we do not overlook the more important and more lasting work—the development of the whole man. A3899 To the Firemen EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. FORREST C. DONNELL OF MISSOURI IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 23 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an editorial en- titled “To the Firemen,” published in the Toledo (Ohio) Times of May 15, 1950. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: To THE FIREMEN There is plenty of evidence that many of the Nation’s railway firemen are personally opposed to the crippling strike which their union officials have forced upon them. They are worried by much more than the loss of pay, for they realize that the union can pre- sent no sound case which will justify the strike in the minds of the American people, who now are fretting greatly because of the inconvenience caused them. Our own mail shows this. We do, of course, receive some bitterly critical letters, the theme of which is that the truth is not in us. But we have received a number of let- ters, signed by firemen, who say we are right in maintaining that the strike is indefensible. These men know something about the eco- nomic and financial problems the railroad companies confront. They also know that an aroused public is likely to force enact- ment of legislation prohibiting strikes against the railroads. As a matter of fact, there is a considerable movement under way for precisely such a law. Indeed, Senator Donneut, of Missouri, has introduced a bill banning strikes on rail- roads or airlines, and he is pressing hard for consideration of it. A number of rail- road officials are asking Congress to pass it. Certainly, the strike emphasizes the need for such action, since a crippled transporta- tion system adversely affects all business and industry. Coming so soon as it does after the Chrysler strike, it also emphasizes the need for some restrictions upon unions in the matter of strikes. In recent years, the union leaders have abused the right to strike. John L. Lewis, Philip Murray and Walter Reuther have been particularly conspicuous in their arrogant disregard of the public. They always glorify the right to strike, and manage to wangle superfervid support for it from most of the columnists and pundits of the country. They better not misprize the public, however, for there are growing signs that it is becoming tired of having its cred- ulousness debauched. Lest the picket line mistake these words, we hasten to say that this does not mean the people would destroy the right to strike. Neither would we advocate such a thing. Not at all. But there are other rights, and labor must respect them. If it insists, upon public respect for its exercise of the right to strike, then its exercise must be limited by respect for other rights. After all, the blessings of the Constitution are ecumenical, and it is time that the ad- ministration and political leaders were clear in their minds about that. Time the labor leaders were, too.
A3900 The Armed Forces: A Sound National Investment EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. ZALES N. ECTON OF MONTANA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 23 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. ECTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Rrecorp an address delivered by me on May 20, 1950, Armed Forces Day, at the United States Naval Powder Factory, Indian Head, Md. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Rrecorp, as follows: THe ARMED Forces: A Sounp NaTIoNAL INVECTMENT Fellow Americans, it is indeed a pleasure to be present here today and to participate in this first observance of a Unified Armed Forces Day. It 1s a double pleasure for ma to ke introduced by your genial Commanding Officer, Captain Voegeli. He and I attended the same public school and high school in Montana. We played baseball together when. we were considerably younger than we are now. Ladies and gentlemen, today we are all playing on the same ball team of Na- tional Defense and are concerned with ade- quate protection for the United States of America, The Navy is performing a most commend- able service in operating the powder factory here at Indian Head. In viewing the ex- tensive operations of production machines this morning, manned by efficient and com- petent civilians, I am convinced that the cooperation and coordination evidenced here is a practical demonstration of what is being accomplished by a Unified Armed Force. I congratulate the Navy and the officers and civilians working on this tre- mendous enterprise for the benefit of all. It is particularly fitting that this first observance of our unified defense forces take place at Indian Head, where for half a cen- tury there has been genuine coordination of effort in production of the principal item of defense for all of our armed services. It was here at the Naval Powder Factory that this service was inaugurated 50 years ago, a service that has been vital, progressive and in keeping with the scientific develop- ment that has made our Nation the leader and hope of world freedom. I know every one of you feel as I do, that it is an honor and a privilege to be known as an American. We are not perfect, of course, Neither are we all-wise. Perhaps if we considered ourselves such we would be on the other side of the barrier where every problem is approached with the answer already determined, where facts are spurned if they do not conform to the doc- trine of totalitarianism. We have come to pay tribute—not just to the Army, the Navy, the Marines and the Air Force, but to the sum total of ideas and ideals of American industry, tolerance and justice that today constitutes the world’s only barrier between barbarism and civili- zation as we know it—between Pagan prac- tices and Christian principles—between serf- dom and freedom. Next month marks the one hundred and seventy-fifth anniversary of America’s first Armed Services on a national scope. But our first investment in our way of life was made 155 years before that fateful spring of 1775. Since that day in the spring of 1620 when ® small group of men and women invested their all in a bid for human dignity and individuality and set sail for America, man has been obliged to wage a constant battle for the right to live in peace and freedom. From Plymouth Rock to Rheims and Tokyo Bay there are many milestones in the age of modern man, although they may be brief ripples in the sands of time. Nevertheless, they constitute historic steps in the march of progress in the New World. The investment those hardy people made 830 years ago in behalf of a new way of life has paid dividends far in excess of anything they ever anticipated. Generations before us have renewed that investment from time to time and the legacy is ours—ours with which to build for suc- ceeding generations as our fathers built for us. It is to their credit that our forefathers did not invest on a marginal basis. They paid in full although their means were meager. Time and time again we have been called upon to renew that investment and some- times we have been content to do little more than put up the necessary margin to bind the bargain and leave to succeeding genera- tions the task of redeeming our pledges. On occasion we have listened to the siren song of a false pacifism, and endangered the independence so dearly bought for us by those who passed this way to heroic rest. On such occasions, when our investment in freedom was permitted to fall below the level of security, we paid harsh penalties— the lives of our finest manhood, the “expend~ ables” as they have since been recorded in history. Those “expendables” volunteered as road blocks and gave up precious time in which to consolidate our forces and begin the march that stopped only when the tyrant’s fire ceased. Pearl Harbor! Bataan! Corregidor! With them will ever be associated four words that are seared in the memory of all who lis- tened, read, wept, hoped, and prayed. Yes, those four words, “Too little, too late,’ hold a@ meaning for us that Americans never must forget. They must remain with us as a reminder of an investment we neglected—an invest- ment made for us more than 300 years ago from which we have drawn continual divi- dends until our liberty, our system of free enterprise and the freedoms that go with them became a wealth and a privilege too many of us take for granted, The tyrants of a mere decade ago concluded America had grown too rich and indifferent, too soft and lethargic to defend even our- selves, let alone give aid to the defenseless. They had reason to believe that. An adequate armed force equal to our responsibility in the association of nations might have averted that European debacle. But, then as today, we had many who in. dulged in wishful thinking, idle boasting, and selfish action. ‘‘They wouldn’t dare” to strike at us. We have never lost a war. It is a crime to waste money preparing for a war that will never happen. You and I heard that kind of talk. We heard it from the uninformed; we heard it from the boastful; we heard it from those who wanted only to enjoy the temporary security others had paid for. And, unfor- tunately, we heard from pressure groups of those who served foreign doctrines in this cosmopolitan land. Too many were unmindful of the fact that the tyrant and the pully strike viciously when the innocent drop their guard. We had dropped our guard. Seeking no gains from war, we had begun to believe that a token army was sufficient—that an adequate armed force was an expense, not an in- vestment in security, That belief cost us $400,000,000,000 and the lives of half a million of our sons. It cost APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD us more than that. It put upon the shoulders of present and unborn generations a terrible debt—a debt that will never be paid if ever again we permit our defenses to become as vulnerable as they were when either of the last two wars began. The mere absence of a shooting war does not necessarily mean peace. It does provide an opportunity for reasoning and discussion on how best to prevent a shooting war, Unfortunately we have not always won the peace. Circumstances intervened over which our armed forces and the people did not have control. The physical and moral en- gagements won by the military and the peo- ple have been, speaking charitably, omitted from the picture on the council table of na- tions. And now we must gird ourselves to even maintain the status quo. In order to maintain the peace which all Americans desire today, we must have that which the aggressor respects most—strength, supplemented by the implements of science and the means to use them promptly and effectively. Our first line of defense is the character ud integrity of cur own people—all else is predicated on that. Today the right to live as men should live, is again challenged, this time by a force even more sinister than that which ruth- lessly put the torch to Europe 11 years ago. Whether or not the cold war will suddenly erupt in the form of vicious assault with the deadliest weapons known to man, no one can say. The world knows that tyrants attack only when they believe they can conquer. Smaller nations have their eyes on America—the one pulwark of freedom on God’s earth. When and if we must bear the impact of might from behind the iron curtain, our armed forces must be strong enough to take the first blow and then carry the attack to the enemy. Too little then may prove too late for the last time. Life as we know it in America could be lost to the world. It can happen if we neglect the responsi- bilities we automatically assume as a fortress of freedom. It can happen if we fail in the duty we owe to mankind. It can happen to an America that takes its freedom for granted. In a world of atomic energy, radar fences, guided missiles, jet propulsion, supersonic speeds, breathing submarines, chemical tur- bines, rocket power and robot devices, the stakes are high. When the show-down comes it is bound to be cataclysmic. We simply must hold the winning hand or lose all. We are a contestant, whether or not we so choose. There can be no turning back. Obviously we hope to settle all differ- ences around the table of international un- derstanding. But we have learned that not all nations can be trusted to respect agree- ments. That leaves no alternative other than to put our house in order for the future. For years the broad oceans afforded us defense in space. No longer does space afford the time it did in wars of the past. We must be able to meet the most sudden attack with greater speed and greater force. We must possess the courage to face the facts of today, the courage to sacrifice a share of our labor and fortune in support of the services which have preserved our freedom in the past. We must never again willfully de- pend upon expendables. Our vigilance, resourcefulness, ingenuity, productivity, and courage must be united as an. indestructible force. Too often the investment in freedom is confined with the term “expense” in the minds of many people. There is no investment under the sun that can assure to us dividends in safety and our concept of liberty other than an adequate in- vestment in trained personnel implemented with the scientific brains, resourcefulness and
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD productivity of our American people as a whole. As we invest in the implements necessary ts our vocations, in the homes we build for eur families, in the institutions of educa-~ tion in this Republic, we must be continually mindful of the over-all fact that none of these blessings may be lasting if we fail to in- vest in that with which to defend them. We do not build costly structures and then negiect to protect them against fire and the elements. We do not plan orderly government and neglect to invest in law-enforcement units for its protection. Neither can we expect to perpetuate a way of life that is the envy of all other peoples unless we set up defenses against those who would destroy it. There should be no doubt in the mind of any American as to the purpose of an Amer- ican armed service second to none. No American worthy of the name harbors the thought that this Nation of ours plans a war of aggression. Our tolerance toward the blatant Marxists within our own bound- aries should furnish sufficient proof of our desire to live peaceably with men of all na- tions and people of all political and @co- nomic ideologies. But we must not let that tolerance dete- riorate into complacency and weakness, Twenty million American men and women in two World Wars risked more than dol- lars. They were not warmongers. They made an investment for national and indi- vidual freedom in order that we might work at our chosen vocations, to worship as we please, to think and write and speak as our own conscience dictates. Countless thousands sacrificed their lives as an investment in human life and the dig- nity of man. ‘ Never again must this Nation hear the echo of those four words “Too little, too late.” May we have the wisdom to maintain our Nation’s armed forces, which we honor ta- day, commensurate with our abilities and opportunities, An adequate unified armed service on land, sea, and in the air is a sound investment in freedom for tomor~ row, an investment in the way of life our forebears planned for us, an investment in love for our fellow man, and in the peace of the world, Address .of the Most Reverend Richard J. Cushing, D. D., Archbishop of Boston EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. JOHN W. McCORMACK OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 23, 1950 Mr. IficCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, un- der permission to extend my remarks, I include an address made by his excel- lency, the Most Reverend Richard J. Cushing, D. D., archbishop of Boston, at the annual dinner meeting of the Hire Society, at Boston, Saturday, May 13, 1950: . I must begin by expressing my gratitude to the Hire Society of Boston for this latest. mark of their friendly esteem and devout fidelity. It is an honor indeed to be honored by men and women of the high ideals and lofty purposes of the Eire Society. I want our new Ambassador from Ireland, Mr. Hearne, to know that Ireland has no more exemplary representatives in America than the members of our Eire Society and that the XCVI—App.——246 truest interests of Ireland are nowhere bet- ter served than they are by this society. Next, I would like, if I may, to pay a word of tribute to his excellency, the Ambassador from Ireland, for the magnificent impres- sion created by his talk to the National Press Club Wednesday of this week. I have no doubt that many on every side have con- gratuiated him on his statesmanlike decla- ration concerning both the determination of the Irish people to achieve their national unity and their determination to achieve it without violence. The Ambassador told his audience at the Press Club that never in their history were the Irish people so united on the policy which he summed up in one single, superb sentence: “We want unity, but we also want peace; .we are determined to achieve unity without a civil war.” We were all delighted to read in the gen- eral press the reactions to the Ambassador’s remarks, We are persuaded that the rounds of applause given him by his immediate audience last Wednesday will be echoed in that favorable public opinion which, as the Ambassador pointed out, must in the long run be the determining factor in the solu- tion of Ireland’s national problem, Two paragraphs from the Ambassador's talk sum up both the wisdom of the case for national unity in Ireland and the folly of the arguments against it. The Ambassador said: “National unity is the chief aim of the Irish people. The whole soil of Ireland is the property and domain of the whole Irish peo- ple of today. “Phose who will tell you it is a compli- cated problem and plead for a division are as false as the woman who wanted to solve the problem of ownership of a little child in King Solomon’s day by cutting it into two pieces.” That is statesmanlike talk. What is more important, it is also sensible talk. We wish the Ambassador every blessing in his effort to fulfill the legitimate aspirations of his nation within the framework of a policy in~ spired by a love for peace and a determina- tion to preserve it. Such a policy, I am persuaded, would com- mend itself to the great saints of Ireland, the saints of whom our people are so intensely proud. One holy man in particular would welcome with pious applause the statement and the spirit of Ireland’s new Ambassador. I propose to speak to you briefly about that man tonight. He is Blessed Oliver Plunket. Last fall we went to Ireland on a great come-back-to-Erin pilgrimage. We visited many beloved spots in the isle of saints and scholars, but none more profoundly moved me than did the modest shrine in great St. Peter’s Church, Drogheda, where the head of Blessed Oliver Plunket is preserved for veneration. I visited this shrine in the Oliver Plunket Memorial Church under singularly favorable circumstances. We were accompanied by the present successor of Blessed Oliver as archbishop of Armagh, the gracious, schol- arly and warmly loved Dr. D’Alton. A great throng of the honorable people of Drogheda turned out to meet our pilgrimage party and thousands overflowed their imposing church as we knelt in prayer befote a human head SO literally lost for love of Christ. I must confess that I had known relatively little of the detailed, dramatic story of Blessed Oliver Plunket. I knew, of course, that he had died a martyr.: I knew the in- justices of which he had been the victim. I had some knowledge of his place in the history of Ireland’s sorrows and struggles, and I naturally shared the hope that his beatification, so long in coming and so en- thusiastically received when finally it took place May 23, 1920, would soon be followed by the canonical evidence required for his ardently desired canonization. These things I knew. But it is surprising to reflect on how little people outside Ireland A3901 appear to appreciate the tremendous stature and historic significance of this great arch- bishop, patriot, and personality. It would, I think, be most appropriate if the Eire Society would interest itself in the cause of blessed Plunket and perhaps arrange for a lecture or some other occasion on which to do proper homage to the memory of this saintly hero of the Irish people. My purpose in suggesting such @ re- awakened interest is not to recall the injus- tices of the past nor otherwise to inflame partisan or political sentiments in the pres- ent. Quite the contrary. It is no longer necessary to rehearse the travesty of jus- tice which was his trial nor the incredible parbarities which accompanied his execu- tion. My purpose would rather be to present Blessed Oliver Plunket as an outstanding ex- ample of what the true Christian should be at all times and as a symbol of the spirit in which the true Irishman seeks the interests of his nation. It is the spirit set forth in the policy enunciated by Ambassador Hearne last week. As a Christian, Blessed Plunket was kindly and considerate. He was humble in his great learning. He was assiduous in the fulfillment of duties of his state in life. He was filled with a holy peace, and he saw all events of life in a completely spiritual perspective. Few men in history have accepted injustice and even a brutally unjust death with such magnificent dignity and devout resignation, The manner of his so-called trial, the prejudiced charge to the jury, the evil tem- per of tre times, all these made the verdict against him inevitable. But he waited serenely for the cruel sentence which only a@ miracle could avert. The president of the court charged the jury: “Gentlemen of the jury, lock you here, Mr. Plunket here is in- dicted for high treason; and it is for con- spiring the King’s death, and endeavor- ing to bring the French Army into Ireland to invade that Kingdom and establish there- in the Roman religion. If you believe these witnesses that have attested these things against him, you must find him guilty. It is pretty strong evidence, and the prisoner does not say anything against it but that bis witnesses are not yet come over.” From the dock, the grave voice of the prisoner replied, “I can say nothing to it but give my protestation that there is not one word of this said against me true, but all plain romance. I never had any communi- cation with any French minister, cardinal or other.” The jury took a quarter of an hour to bring in their verdict. It was “Guilty.” A week later the prisoner was brought to the bar to receive sentence. He knew the savage formula by heart and was calm. The world knows it, and shudders—hanged, drawn, disemboweled, quartered. ‘Deo gratias” was the exultant cry. It was the miartyr’s crown for which he had long prayed. He was & martyr for his faith. So far as We may use the word, he was also a martyr for Ireland. But his love for Ireland, it must be noted, did not make him the enemy of any other land. On the contrary, Blessed Plunket exemplifies the truly Catholic spirit in which differences between nations must always be resolved no matter what the pre- vious history of injustice or of bitterness on either side. Blessed Plunket was put to death by the English. He must have been painfully aware, however, that imperfection was by no means limited to members of the nation which had persecuted his people and which had ‘sen~ tenced him to death. He had also been sorely vexed by disloyalties within his own flock and he had tasted, as every leader must, the sour wine of perfidy and intrigue among his own. For all that, they were his own and he loved them passionately and served’
A3902 them without cease. In his will he could boast, in homely, touching language: “I stuck to my care and my districts until death” Treland was much in his thoughts in the harassed last hours of his life, even those in Ireland who had kept silent when he needed defense and who seemed to fail him in his hour of need. And by the same token, he was preserved by his personal sanctity from falling victim to any intemperance in his attitude toward the enemy nation. The English Catholics, at least, had stood by him through al] his difficulties, giving him friendship, money, and sympathy. He could not entirely hate a nation which included so many devout and generous personal friends. His last will and testament includes a touching tribute to these good people. It is worth remembering, because it reflects again the spirit in which we must all approach partisan differences. He wrote: “The English Catholics here were most charitable to me. They spared neither money nor gold to relieve me, and in my trial did all for me that my brother would do.” One of these Catholic English, a convert to the faith, a Benedictine monk and a fel- low-prisoner, became the special friend of Blessed Oliver. They were separated by the walls of their prison cells, but they corre- sponded in the last days of Plunket’s life. In one of his letters Blessed Oliver wrote to Dom Croker: ‘“‘Being the first of my country- men to suffer here, I desire to lead the way to others; and it is right I should strengthen by my example those in Ireland whom I have so often exhorted by word of mouth.” Dead now almost 300 years, he still exhorts us by his example and by every circumstance of his life and death. Ireland was sustained by the example of his heroic fortitude through all the slow an- guish of the penal laws. Imitating his hero- ism, Ireland accomplished 1782, 1892, 1932. He had said: “The most faithful nation must not die.” Ireland understood—and perse- vered. But Blessed Plunket taught another lesson beside that of fortitude and heroic resistance, He taught the lesson of clemency, of Chris- tian forebearance, and flaming charity. Father Croker watched from the prison win- dows for the last sight of him as he was executed. With Croker were other priests and laymen, all English, sentenced to death by the same spirit of injustice which had doomed Blessed Plunket. Croker described the end as follows: “I neither can nor dare undertake to describe the signal virtues of the blessed martyr.” There appeared in him something beyond expression, something more than human. The most savage hearts were mollified at the sight of him. Even the most timorous were in love with him, When he was carried out the priests’ yard for execu- tion, he turned toward our chamber win- dows, and with pleasant aspect and elevated hand, he gave us his benediction.” Oliver Plunket teaches us this same lesson of peace and Catholic spirit even by the cir- cumstances of the disposition of his mangled body after his death. His blessed head is prized by the people of Drogheda and is pre- served in the great shrine which I visited in Treland last fall. But he is no less venerated in England and particularly at the Benedic- tine Abbey at Downside. Foremost among those who pray constantly for his canoniza- tion are the English monks at Downside, a curious, consoling, and entirely Catholic circumstance. ‘Were Blessed Oliver Plunket among us today, I know he would hail the wise words in which, as we have already said, Ambassa-= dor Hearne has summed up the attitude of Ireland on the thorny, highly emotional question of partition. May the spirit of Blessed Plunket, firm but fair, courageous but most kind, indomitable but understanding, prevail among those who must solve in this century the problems of Ireland and her neighbors. May the high- minded policy enunciated by the ambassador have its echo among the statesman on every side. Blessed Oliver Plunket, pray for Ireland— and pray for us all. Donnell’s Rail Bill EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. FORREST C. DONNELL OF MISSOURI I! THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 23 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an editorial entitled “Donnell’s Rail Bill,” published in the Bristol (Va.) Herald-Courier of May 13, 1950. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: . DONNELL’S RA BILL Senator DonNELL, of Missouri, has intro- duced’a bill to outlaw railroad strikes and a Senate labor subcommittee has started hear- ings on the measure. It would outlaw rail- road walkouts by providing for compulsory arbitration. A Presidential board would de- cide the issue in a major dispute and both sides would have to abide by the decision. It is unfortunate that the present Rail- road Labor Act is not sufficient to maintain our railroad commerce at all times. We re- peat a former statement that compulsory arbitration seems the best answer, and the present strike justifies Senator DoNNELL’s bill. Invalidation of California Land Act Under United Nations Charter EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ALEXANDER WILEY OF WISCONSIN IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 23 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Recorp an article which relates to the recent decision of the court in Cali- fornia invalidating the California Land Act because of a provision in the United Nations Charter. The article, which is written by Mr. Arthur Krock, is entitled “More on Treaty Supremacy Over Exist- ing Laws,” and appeared in the New York Times of today. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recor», as follows: In THE NaTION—MorE ON TREATY SUPREMACY Over Existing Laws (By Arthur Krock) ‘WASHINGTON, May 22.—In this space there was published on May 16 an analysis of the decision of the California Court of Appeal that invoked a general pledge in a treaty signed by the United States to invalidate a APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD specific California statute. It was noted that, when this court held that the State law which restricts Japanese from owning land was nullified by our promise in the Charter of the United Nations to promote nondiscrimination and take * * * ac. tion to eliminate it, to that end it opened the way to the contention that all dis- criminatory laws and practices in this coun~ try were automatically made illegal when the Charter was ratified. But it was pointed out that the California decision, which the attorney general of the State has asked the court to rehear, was confronted with two great obstacles to affir- mation by the Supreme Court if the issue ever gets there. One is Chief Justice Mar- shall’s ruling in 1829 that only self-executing treaty provisions supersede existing statutes as the supreme law of the land. (Arts. 55 and 56 of the Charter, the basis of the Cali< fornia decision, are not such.) ‘The other was that by its pledge to promote antidis. crimination in all forms and to take * * * action the United States made it clear that legislation by Congress will be required to materialize the promise, and this has not beenedone. But if the Supreme Court should repudiate Marshall or hold that articles 55 and 56 are self-executing, then it could be impressively argued that the President’s civil-rights pro- gram requires no legislation to put it into effect except that creating machinery for en- forcement. For example, all forms of local segregation would instantly be illegal and the Federal Government would be obliged ta penalize them. And, automatically, no em- ployer or labor union could exclude (from employment and membership respectively) any applicant who could attribute the ex- clusion to racial, religious, sex, or color dis< crimination, etc. This would be carrying the decision of the California Court of Appeals to its logical des« tination because it was founded on these specific articles in the Charter to which the United States has subscribed. Hence the importance of that decision, and the ne« cessity of final judgment on the issue ib raised, are obvious. The dispatch in which this was pointed out produced the information from a reader tha’ the Supreme Court of Ontario, in Novembe: 1945, took a position almost like the Calis! fornia court did and that this has not yet. been appealed. In a past issue of the Ameri-<* can Scholar Prof. Malcolm Moos of the Johns Hopkins University Department of Political Science reviewed this ruling. He called it a remarkable prelude to the 1948 decision written for the Supreme Court of the United States by Chief Justice Vinson in the Covenant cases. (In these the court held that, while restrictive housing cove- nants may be made and voluntarily abided by without breaking any law, they are legally, unenforceable.) The Ontario case, In re Wren, arose out of the fact that a Canadian citizen by that name, who owned land under a deed that bound him, his heirs and assigns, not to sell to Jews or persons of objectionable nation- ality, was permitted to bring an action to void it in the Supreme Court of Ontario. Mr. Justice McKay not only held it void, but against public policy “which [wrote Pro-« fessor Moos] rested squarely on a tripod com= posed of the United Nations Charter, the At# lantic Charter, and two provincial statutes, [But] the court looked first to the United Nations Charter * * *, Thus * * the learned Justice is * * * breaking new ground.” The Court was obliged t move to that because the two provincial statutes cited merely make it illegal to pub-= lish or display anything discriminatory oY for an insurance company to discriminate in risks on a racial or religious basis. ‘ Professor Moos, writing before the Califor« nia decision, shrewdly foresaw the McKay
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ruling as one which may well serve as a road marker for subsequent and perhaps more important decisions that seek to inter- nationalize human rights. But late in 1948 another justice of the supreme court of On- tario took a different view on the precise issue raised by In re Wren and shunned the dictum of Justice McKay with respect to the application of multiple treaties, including the Charter. Justice Schroeder held valid a re- strictive covenant at a summer resort for- bidding the sale of land to Jews. This has been appealed, and doubtless the high court of Canada will one day pass on the dispute below as the American high tribunal will pass on the California court decision if the at- torney general of the State fails to have it modified. Members of Congress, not confined to those from the South, are beginning to take uneasy notice of the California ruling and its mo- mentcus implications because of its central thesis—which the Senate anxiously discussed last Friday—and because of its threat to Marshall’s distinction between self-execut- ing treaties and those which are not. The lawyers among them know, as Prof. Henry Reiff of St. Lawrence University wrote 10 years ago, that “theoretically,” these “should be readily distinguishable but in practice they are not; John Marshall found it so, and the courts since then have often had similar experiences.” If the California ruling were adopted and broadly applied by the Supreme Court our part in the delicate treaty structure of the United Nations would ke under heavy and immediate fire at the Capitol. Chicago Cool te Fair Deal EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CHRISTIAN A. HERTER OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 23, 1950 Mr. HERTER. Mr. Speaker, the fol- lowing article by Bill Cunningham which appeared in the Boston Herald of May 16, 1950, is an estimate by a very shrewd observer: Curcaco Coot To Fam DraL—NrWwsMEN REVEAL BLASTS AT PRESS IN WHISTLE STOPS (By Bill Cunningham) Cuicaco, May 15.—Maybe this is only an impression, but it seems to this reporter he’s seen second-rate prize fights draw more en- thusiastic crowds into this battered old go- down than the one enticed here tonight by the personal appearance of the President of the United States, plus all the colorful bait set out by the sponsoring committee. There was bait. There was a parade, featuring 7,000 members of the Illinois National Guard, their weapons, and mechanized equipment for one thing. There were bands, floats, drum and bugle corps complete with shivering, but strutting drum majorettes. There were 3,000 bearers of torch lights, mostly out of step, and ter- rific fire works displays at certain points along the line of march. Toy balloons, to an announced number of 35,000, were turned loose into the chilling wind at various loca- tions. GIVES APPEARANCE OF OVERFLOW ‘The reason was they were trying to get as many people around this building as possible in order to make it look as if there were a tremendous demand to get in, and a vast and frustrated congregation to constitute a teem- ing overflow. That would be for the sake of the news reels and photographers. To make certain, they tried to deliberate an utterly synthetic subterfuge. Eorrowing the give-away idea from radio, they advertised extensively that a certain number of these balloons—one announcement said 2,000— would carry tickets entitling the lucky re- coverer to $2 in cash. This all came under the head of drumming up an audience for the President, and, since yesterday’s vast collapse of the public meet-~ ing of the Cabinet, they were drumming harder than the heathens of darkest Africa trying to get a message across the interven- ing hills. To be fair about that really his- torical Cabinet meeting—the first ever ‘held outside Washington—the combination of the lovely day, and television probably explains why the 3,600-seat opera house was only one- third filled, and why the army of police as- sembled to handle the expected overflow stood around outside looking silly. They did get their crowd here tonight. Much of it was partisan and professionally enthusiastic, but most of it seemed to re- spond more eagerly to the Hollywood stars and the reasonably well-done pageant de- voted to the life and times of Thomas Jef- ferson. The climax came with the Presi- dential address, which you heard, or can read, but, as above, I saw a bigger crowd, heard more noise and was actually frightened by more excitement in this same hall the night the late Ernie Schaaf fought a local hope named Tuffy Griffin with Al Capone at the ringside. This is nothing like that, but such as it is, it’s the first sign of life this general hoe- down has shown. probably have got something out of it, but the public has generally ignored it, the local papers have treated it with no more respect than they accord a visiting baseball team, and the entire conclave has been so flat journalistically that the reporters have stood around trying to interview each other. There hasn’t been a quote in a carload. REASON FOR TRIP CALLED PHONY The general reason for what, without too much exaggeration, could be called the con- tempt of the community, and the press, for this entire performance, seems to rest in its insincerity and its extremely light regard for the truth. To begin with, nobody here, and probably nobody in the country, considers the Presidential speech-making trip, ending in this hall tonight, “nonpolitical.” They consider the gentleman as having deliber- ately resorted to subterfuge, and the reac- tion here is that of any public that considers its intelligence challenged, its gullibility taken for granted. They consider the reasons Officially stated for holding this jamboree at this particular time as phony as the Presidential explana- tion of his vote fishing trip. The Demo- cratic sponsors call this the Jefferson Jubi- lee, ‘held in honor of the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of Jefferson’s accession to the Presidency” the actual anniversary of that doesn’t come until next March. Loud doubts are being raised editorially and vocally as to whether Jefferson would even recognize the Truman Party. Straight at the Truman junket, and even granting it “nonpolitical” was an editorial in one paper today, quoting the reply of Presi- dent Jefferson to the invitation of his excel- lency, James Sullivan, Governor of the Com- monwealth of Massachusetts, when Governor Sullivan invited Mr. Jefferson to visit New England in 1807. “I confess,” wrote Mr. Jefferson, in a letter dated June 19, 1807, “that I am not recon- ciled to the idea of a chief magistrate parad- ing himself through the several States, as an object of public gaze, and, in quest of an applause which, to be valuable, should be purely voluntary. I had rather acquire silent good will by a faithful discharge of my duties The various delegates | A3903 than owe expressions of it to my putting my= self in the way of receiving them.” Added to this now is a general burning of most of the press over the theme consistently followed by Mr, Truman in his off-the-cuff speeches farther back out toward the cactus. The correspondents unloading here from the train are beginning to unload on what was said from that train. At stcp after stop, the President told the assembled multitudes he was forced to come out and give them their news straight, and first hand, because they couldn’t believe what they read in the news- papers—in short that the press was lying to them about what was happening in Wash- ington and the rest of the world. He didn’t use the fighting word, but that was exactly his meaning. REPORTERS QUOTING SPEECHES VERBATIM The correspondents, many of them versed in shorthand, took him down verbatim, and now they’re quoting exactly what he said, and where he said it. He professed repeat- edly to his listeners to be a wonderful man, running a wonderful Government, but with the true facts distorted and kept from the people by an iron curtain of the press. That’s exactly the line Henry Wallace used when he was campaigning in 1948. Probably the most striking rebuke to the entire performance was given here yester- day from the pulpit of a fashionable church, the Fourth Presbyterian. The speaker was the pastor, the Reverend Dr. Harrison Ray An- derson. He was the Democratic convention chaplain, when Mr. Truman was nominated for the vice presidency in this same audi- torium in 1944, “As the man who prayed for him—Presi- dent Truman—years ago,” Dr. Anderson said to his congregation in his regular Sunday sermon, “I counsel the President to quit playing with truth. The earnest people of America have too great a respect for the office of President. President Truman would he welcome in any city or town in a political or nonpolitical trip. But why call this last journey and this Chicago weekend anything other than what it is?” He spoke of the humility or Mr. Truman in 1944, and then went on without naming him further to assail the lust for power, and what it does to men who run the state, causing people to see humble, finite men become masters. “When the state becomes God,” he said, “morals seem to go.” That’s the way it’s been going, and but for this whocpla tonight, which is as synthetic as all the rest, it’s been about as productive of general cheers as a canners’ convention. Maybe they fell for the Fair Deal farther west, but this part of the West seems to have fallen on it. Withholding on Dividends EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. THOMAS J. LANE OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 22, 1950 Mr. LANE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I wish to include the following article from the Boston Herald, Boston, Mass., of recent date: THe INVESTOR (By Edson B. Smith) WITITHOLDING SNARL ON DIVIDENDS CERTAIN The House Ways and Means Committee has tentatively approved a 10 percent with- holding tax on dividends. It is estimated that this tax will bring in 100,000,000 to
A3904 $150,000,000 additional revenue through clos~ ing the loophole of people who overlook re~ porting some of their dividends in their in- come tax returns. No one can object to the proposal in prin- ciple. Just how it is to be worked out in administrative detail is far from clear. Pre- sumably the distributing corporation will de- duct 10 percent from the dividend due each stockholder and send the money to the col- lector of internal revenue. The corporation would, of course, also have to send to the Collector a certificate showing the amount held back from each stockholder on each divi- dend date. Also, obviously, the corporation would have to send a similar memorandum to the stockholder to aid him in preparing his own income-tax return. When it comes to a company like American Telephone with 900,000 stockholders this runs into quite a bit of additional clerical work. If an individual happened to have 73 shares of Potomac Electric Power, which pays a divi- dend of 22% cents every 3 months, his pres- ent quarterly dividend would be $16.42, Under the corporate withholding tax he would get $16.42 minus $1.64, or $14.78. When he came to figure his income tax he would have to multiply this $14.78 by ten- ninths to find out what the dividend actually was so that he would be able to report the $16.42 actually declared in his favor and then he would take a credit on the return for the $1.64 which the corporation had paid for him. Well, this is one dividend on one stock. If @ man had 50 different stocks paying quar- terly he would have 200 of these computa- tions to carry out. If the work time of the income taxpayer \ere figured at anything, we venture to say that the total cost of adminis- trating the tax to individuals and corpora- tions would be vastly in excess of the amount the Government would obtain. ~ It may be that the bright boys in Wash- ington can figure some way of simplifying the practical aspects of the tax, but on the basis of the way it looks to us the Bureau of Inter- nal Revenue better start hiring a lot of new clerks because practically everybody’s in- come tax is going to be hopelessly snarled up. Taconite Development EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. JOHN A. BLATNIK OF MINNESOTA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 23, 1950 Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, on May 15 I introduced H. R. 8512, a bill to pro- vide RFC loans of 30 years’ maturity for the development of taconite and other strategic minerals. This proposed de- velopment of taconite brings up the ques- tion of the adequacy of existing iron-ore supply and the cost of production of taconite as a new source of iron. In this connection I have received a most in- formative letter from Mr. Arnold Hoff- man, a mining geologist, whose business address is 452 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. Under leave to extend my remarks in the Appendix of the Rrcorp, I include this letter of April 24, 1950, written by Mr. Hoffman: Hon, Joun A. BLATNIE, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Dear Srrx: [ read with great interest in yesterday's New York Times that you are shortly introducing a bill to the House which Apri 24, 1950. would liberalize the present RFC law, namely, to increase period of loans from 10 to 80 or 40 years in order to provide neces~ sary funds and time to permit the immediate construction of plants to mine the mag- netic taconites in Minnesota. I wish to con- gratulate you on your foresight, for such an act is one of the most vital requirements to safeguard the future of this country. No doubt you are in possession of full data on the taconite situation. As one who has studied the situation for the past 10 years, however, I am taking the liberty of summarizing the situation on the chance that one or two points may be of use to you. As you know, the approaching iron-ore crisis has resolved itself into a study of the relative merits of foreign high-grade ores as against the development of lower-grade do- mestic ores, called taconites. Much has been written and said about foreign ores, the latest being the suddenly publicized Cerro Bolivar mine in Venezuela. It is now obvious that the steel industry must immediately decide whether to place dependence upon foreign ores or turn to the taconites of the eastern Mesabi Range. The best opinion seems to favor a combina- tion of both to take up the slack of ap- proaching exhaustion of the direct shipping ores of the range, but in most discussions there is a strong accent on the high cost of taconites. I believe this conclusion as to costliness is more of an opinion than a fact, Further, close examination of the situation gives strong evidence that the taconites can pe mined at a cost competitive with the underground mines of the Lake Superior region. The added cost of beneficiation will be amply compensated by the many ad- vantages accruing from the production of a final hard, high-grade product made in a form especially adapted to more efficient blast and open-hearth furnace use. By this time, most of us are familiar with the arguments against the total use of for- eign ores for our domestic steel needs: Vul- nerability of sea lanes in wartime, insta- bility of foreign governments, the enormous capital investment required, the varying con- stituents of foreign ores which would re- quire modifications in our furnace tech- niques, the impossibility of moving our steel plant to the east coast to accommodate water-borne ores, the immense difficulties and expense of building a St. Lawrence waterway to provide transportation for Ca- nadian ores which are still of questionable economic value, the great capital outlay in building fleets of large ocean-going ore boats, the dearth of trained personnel abroad accompanied by the insistence of many for- eign governments that native engineers be employed, the constantly changing policies of taxation and confiscation, usually for the worse, etc. Such considerations have led most iron and steel men to the admission that the taconites point to the logical solu- tion of the iron and steel dilemma. But most of these people caution that this would be an expensive alternative, resulting in costlier iron and, consequently, steel, though they all seem to agree that the taconites alone can supply our great and growing iron-ore needs for more than 100 years. You are no doubt aware that the Mesabi Iron Co. mined teconites at Babbit, Minn., in the early twenties. The ore in crude form ran from 25 to 85 percent iron, but the beneficiated product was close to 65 percent, far greater than the 51 percent direct shipping ores of the range. While the superiority of the product was univer- sally admitted by the iron industry, the cost was high in relation to the then price of jron ore and operations were suspended in 1924, Today, the situation is vastly different. The direct shipping iron-ore reserves are APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD approaching measured exhaustion, the price of iron ore is higher, and the scarcity of lump ore and scrap makes the mining of taconites a national necessity. Above all, the magnetite taconites can be mined profitably at present schedules of iron-ore prices and prevailing costs. As an indica~ tion of this, the Picklands-Mather Co., which has been mining magnetitic taconites ex-~ perimentally the past year or more, is about to launch a full scale 25,000- to 50,000-ton daily operation. The United States Steel Co. is now engaged in building a ta- conite beneficiation plant in Virginia City, Minn., capable of producing 1,000,000 tons of sinter and/or agglomerates annually. The Reserve Mining Co. which has leased the lands of Mesabi Iron Co. is, I believe, in the process of obtaining the funds necessary for a minimum 650,000-ton daily production of taconites, and its vast reserves, containing more than 2,000,000,000 tons of ore, no doubt give impetus to the bill for liberalizing the terms of RFC loans. It is now apparent that Mesabi Iron Co. was ahead of time in mining taconites. To- day, however, it stands ready to save our iron situation, along with Pickands-Mather and other companies which have far- sightedly been working on taconites. In the old days, the high cost of mining, due to the hard, flinty character of the ore, was a deter- rent to the mining of taconites. Thanks to the Linde Air Products Co., jet piercing can now literally burn holes in the taconites at a speed of more than 25 feet per hour as com- pared to 18 feet daily cut by the conven- tional churn drills, resulting in a drastic decrease in mining costs. In the beneficiation process, the hard taconites must be crushed and ground to re- quired fineness before the magnetite can be effectively recovered. While this is costly, the iron is cheaply and effectively recovered by magnetic rolls. No expensive flotation installations are required. Also, giant elec- tric shovels can now open pit the ores at a very low cost. The taconites are ready to go. The only element in the situation which is still fluid is the experimental work now going on to determine the best form of final product, pel- lets, agglomerates, sinter or briquettes. However, herein rests one of the great ad- vantages of mining taconites; there is a flexibility in the beneficlated product which can be adapted for the special requirements of the furnaces. What price taconites? On the following page, I am submitting a schedule of costs and profits, based on a concentrating ratio of 2.75 tons crude ore to 1 ton of pellets or sinter. In the case of the Reserve Mining Co., up to 35 percent of the gangue, or waste will be eliminated at the mine in Babbit before the ore is shipped to the treatment plant at Beaver Bay. Costs have been deter- mined from presently available data and comparative figures of various open-pit operations in the United States. The final profit figure is an operating one, that is, after all charges but before income tax. It indicates that the taconites, once equipped, can stand on their own feet. Mining and milling per ton concen- trate, 2.75 x 65 cents.__-__.-._---_. $1, 79 Pelletizing per ton concentrate._-__.. 1.00 Local and State taxes per ton concen- trate__-_------ ee .15 Royalties at 8 cents per ton crude ore, 2.75 x 8 cents_.._------.- + +22 Haulage, Babbit to Beaver Bay, 2 tons at 1 cent per ton-mile, 55 miles..... 1.10 Haulage, Beaver Bay to Ohio port__._.... 1.16 Amortization at 18 cents per ton crudi ore, 2.75 x 18 cents._---__---.----. « 50 Total cost per ton pellets__..__. 5.92 Value ton 51 percent iron ore at Ohio port... -.---- +e 7. 70
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Value ton €5 percent iron ore at Ohio port at 15.1 cents per unit above 51 percent._.-.-.-----~~------- $9. 81 Operating profit per ton pellets_-_... . Operating profit per ton crude ore_... 1.40 This $1.40 makes no rrovisicn for a possible premium on pellets, bu. i215 15 a possibility, since pellets or sinter are preferable to direct shipping ores in the furnaces. A hard and high-grade form of ore in the blast furnaces results in greater unit production of pig iron in the charge with consequent reduction in costs. The introduction of pellets in the open-hearth furnace can reduce scrap re- quirements to a level where “home” scrap from fabricating plants should meet such needs. Pellets make an ideal substitute for scarce and expensive scrap, also lump ore. With such advantages the beneficiated taco~ nites can well command a premium. There is, also, an important saving in the cost of transporting pellets containing up to 65 percent iron as against the direct ship- ping ores which are only one-half iron. The taconites can be operated commer- cially on almost any desired scale. Capital investment in plant 1s admittedly large, $15 to $20 per ton pellets, but this would be con-~ siderably less than the cost of building a fleet of ore boats capable of handling the equiva-~ lent amount of production abroad. United States Steel, for example, must build a con- siderable fleet of large, ocean-going ore boats to transport 10,000,000 tons of iron ore from Venezuela each year. This would cost up- wards of $200,000,000, more than the capital outlay required to obtain the same tonnage of pellets from the taconites. Need I point out how much more feasible it would be to make this investment in Minnesota? Ideally located with respect to transportation and nearness to the central steel plants of the country, the taconites could serve and con- tinue to serve the furnaces of the valley area for many generations to come. Very truly yours, ARNOLD HOFFMAN. Asking for Trouble EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. FORREST C. DONNELL OF MISSOURI IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Tuesday, May 23 (legislative day of Wednesday, March 29), 1950 Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Rrecorp an editorial entitled “Asking for Trouble,” pub- lished in the Akron (Ohio) Beacon- Journal, of May 13, 1950. There being no objection, the edito- rial was ordered to be printed in the REeEcorpD, as follows: ASKING FOR TROUBLE Because the railroads have long been rec- ognized as the arteries which carry the life- blood of the Nation’s economy, particular ef- forts were made years ago to avoid stoppages of service by reason of labor disputes. The Railway Labor Act carefully protected the rights of employees to engage in collec- tive bargaining while at the same time pro- viding certain final steps designed to prevent disagreements over wages and working condi- tions from finally reaching the strike stage. For years this law was pointed to as a model, both by the railroads and the unions. But now it is headed for the discard, and something less favorable to labor is likely to be enacted simply because organized firemen have persisted in inflicting their wishes on their employers and the public—regardless. Their short-sighted attempt to create jobs where there is no work to be done is para~ lyzing a large part of the Nation’s economy. A strike 1n one or a dozen retail stores can go on indefinitely without hurting anyone but the immediate participants and their employers. The public can go elsewhere to buy. A strike in a manufacturing plant, such as Chrysler, has wider ramifications because 1t hurts suppliers at one end of the production cycle and dealers at the other, in addition to the firm’s employees, managers, and stock- holders. But such a strike can be tolerated by the public, because they can buy new cars elsewhere or run their old ones a while longer. A railroad strike is different. The imdi- viduals directly involved are only a small fraction of the thousands of suppliers, pro- ducers, and consumers who are harmed in one way or another. The public has a stake in the crippling of the Nation’s transportation system. And the public won’t tolerate such a strike very long without demanding that laws be passed which will keep railroaders from striking. Such laws will inevitably restrict and hamper many more working people than just the recalcitrant firemen who are at fault in this dispute. What a foolish strike. The Glove Industry Is in Peril EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. DEAN P. TAYLOR OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 23, 1950 Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I wish-to include a resolution of the Glove Cutters’ Union, of Fulton County, N. Y¥., which indicates concern on the part of glove workers who have already felt the pinch of foreign competition in the glove-mak- ing industry. The effect of this compe- tition has been felt by the glove makers for the past several years, as evidenced by the fact that in one area alone—Ful- ton County, N. Y.—there were, as of May 1, 1950, 5,000 glove workers drawing un- employment benefits, and more than 1,600, in addition to the 5,000, who have exhausted their benefits. The making of gloves is a highly spe- cialized trade. ‘This industry employs thousands and thousands of persons within the United States. Only disaster and chaos will follow if the State Depart- ment and the Tariff Commission con- tinue to permit foreign countries employ- ing unskilled, low-paid labor, to compete with the domestic manufacturers of gloves. The employees and the manufacturers of leather gloves are not the only ones affected by the attitude of the State De- partment and the Tariff Commission. For the past several months we have wit- nessed the keen competition of the Jap- anese with the American producers of woolen gloves. Now comes the threat of Communist-controlled China where embroidered, knitted wool gloves and mittens are being manufactured to com- pete with our own production in that field. Under the provisions of article A3905 XIX all of the concessions in the Gen- eral Agreement are intended to be in- cluded in the “escape clause” and the United States has the absolute right, and it was the intention of the Congress, that it should withdraw or modify any con- cession in Schedule 20 of the Agreement if an increased import of a product re- sulting from unforeseen developments and from the concession granted on it would cause or threaten to cause, injury to the domestic industry producing like or similar articles. There is a threat to the domestic industry and there is abso- lutely no reason, therefore, why the rate should not be put back to 90 percent. Insofar as leather gloves are con- cerned, the Members of Congress would aid in the preservation of that industry if each individual Member would ex- press to the State Department, his desire to have leather gloves deleted from the list of commodities on which tariff rate cuts are to be negotiated. It is time the President of the United States, the State Department, and the Tariff Com- mission is brought to the realization that the glove industry in America is in dan- ger of extinction and only by an imme- diate and forceful and sensible approach to this problem can the industry be saved. The resolution follows: RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE CONSOLIDATED GLOVE CUTTERS AND SHAVERS UNION OF FuUL- Ton CounrTy, NEw YorK STATE The following resolution was offered by Mr. Hallenbeck, who moved for its adoption: “Whereas the Committee for Reciprocity Information notified the 1,500 glove cutters and shavers in the union that further tariff cuts were to be considered by this commit- tee and recommended to the President for adoption, our organization,.after giving full consideration to the facis involved, submits this resolution to the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, and to the Committee for Reciprocity Information; and “Whereas during the past two and a half years, the leather-glove industry located in the area of Fulton County, New York State, has suffered a serious injury caused by gen- eral economic conditions beyond its control, to such an extent that, as of May 1, 1950, the entire glove industry had in excess of 5,000 workers drawing unemployment benefits and better than 1,600, in addition to the above 5,000, who have exhausted their benefits; and “Whereas a large portion of this group are cutters who have devoted their lives to the leather-glove industry, and who face extinction should any further tariff cuts be imposed that will aggravate the actual exist- ing acute situation: Now, therefore, be it “Resolved, That the Consolidated Glove Cutters and Shavers Union of Fulton County are unanimously opposed to any further re- duction in the tariff; and the membership votes that a group composed of officers and directors do everything in their power to pre- vent such cuts from being enacted; and be it further “Resolved, That the glove cutters recom- mend that, in view of the serious situation already existing, leather gloves be removed from the bargaining list; and, finally, be it “Resolved, That a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the following: The President of the United States, the Secretary of State, the Committee for Reciprocity In- formation, United States Senators Irving M. Ives, Herbert Lehman, and George Malone; Congressman Bernard W. Kearney; James H. Casey, Jr., secretary of the National Associa- tion of Leather Glove Manufacturers; and to the entire membership of the House and Senate of the United States,” i
A3906 Norway’s Independence Day EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CHESTER A. CHESNEY OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 23, 1950 Mr. CHESNEY. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I would like to extend to His Excellency King Haakon and to all the people of Norway my warmest greetings on their celebra- tion of the anniversary of Independence Day on May 17. The American people have always had a warm affection and a great respect for Norway. Many of our finest citizens are direct decesendants of the heroic Viking Jand. During World War II we became more cognizant than ever before of the valor of Norwegian fighting men and women, and of the Norwegian popula- tion. The courage and fortitude of the Norwegian people by practicing the strictest economy, rigidly denying them- selves of the smallest luxury in working out their economic recovery has gained them the admiration of all honest people. During these troubled times the bravery of these people in boldly entering into the North Atlantic Pact along with her sister Denmark is most remarkable when one stops to consider their close proximity to the Russian hordes. May this brave country under the able leader- ship of King Haakon hold determinedly to its independence and to the traditional freedoms of its citizens. I know the members of this legislative body will join with me in sending our warmest congratulations and wishes for @ greater prosperity and a lasting peace. The Foreign Aid Bill, or the Folly of a National Inferiority Complex EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOHN W. BYRNES OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 23, 1950 Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my re- marks, I include a radio broadcast I made over stations in my district on April 18. When the foreign aid bill was origi- nally before the House, Members will re- call that I spoke against the bill and voted against its final passage. Because of my previous support of the Marshall plan, I felt that my constituents should be informed promptly and in detail of the reasons for my position. Those rea~ sons, applicable perhaps in greater de- gree to the conference report which we consider today, are covered in my April 18 broadcast to my district. The broadcast follows: Your WasHINGTON OFFICE This discussion tonight might be titled either “Compromise as a Political Weapon” or “The Folly of a National Inferiority Com- lex.” P I would like to talk about danger of com- promise tonight as well as the folly of a national inferiority complex in relation to the recently passed foreign-aid bill. This is the bill which authorizes our 1951 par- ticipation in the European recovery pro- gram, as well as a number of other foreign projects which I will discuss later. This bill has passed the House and will shortly be considered by the Senate. I was one of only 86 Congressmen who voted against the bill. My vote was a pro- test against the use of compromise as @ political weapon and against the folly of building up a national inferiority complex as a basis for promoting our foreign policy. By far the most important part of the foreign-aid bill was the authorization for a 1-year extension of the European recovery program, popularly known as the Marshall plan. SUPPORTS MARSHALL PLAN As most of you know, I have consistently supported this program. As a matter of fact, and as coincidence would have it, the same day that former Secretary of State George Marshall made his now-famous speech at Harvard in June of 1947 calling for the self-help approach to European recovery, I was making a speech in Milwaukee before the -National Convention of the Young Republicans, calling for an end to the piece-meal approach to European recovery, and asking for a “bold program for peace” geared to a single administration of Euro- pean recovery programs based upon reha- bilitation rather than relief. In general terms, the Marshall plan fol- lowed this approach, and I supported the original program and have voted for its ex- tension since. I have praised the program, when I felt it deserved praise, and I have criticized it when I felt that it deserved crit- icism. I feel that it has accomplished a good deal in the recovery of Europe, but I do not hesitate to point out that it has not done all I had hoped toward the integration of European economies. The removal of intra-European barriers to trade, such as blocked currencies, embargoes and the like has not proceeded at anywhere near the rate we had the right to expect when we under- took the program. NEW PROGRAMS ADDED Still and all, it is my firm belief that we have a definite commitment to the free countries of Europe, that it is to our self- Interest to kcep them free and strong, and that the Marshall plan should be continued until its planned expiration date in 1952. This does not mean that Congress should not carefully scrutinize each year’s authori- zation to revise the program or to determine how much can be constructively spent or how much this country can safely afford. We have no commitment, in law or in fact, to any exact sum or any set provisions. In other words, it was my intention to support the extension of the Marshall plan for another year, voting for those reductions in funds which could safely be pruned with- out impairing the effectiveness of the pro- gram, But—and here is where compromise as a political weapon comes in—I had no oppor- tunity to vote on the Marshall plan, stand- ing alone on its merits. Instead, if I wanted to take the Marshall plan, along with every other Member of the House, I had to take three other programs of dubious merit along with it. (These other three programs were aid to Palestine refugees, most of them Arabs, a $200,000,000 far-eastern assistance program, including $100,000,000 for Korea, and $45,000,000 to get the President’s con- troversial point 4 program under way.) These three programs were thrown into the Marshall-plan authorization by the admin- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD istration knowing that if they had to stand on their own feet, they would have had a hard time standing up. LEGISLATIVE TRICK This is an old legislative trick. It has been used frequently in this Congress and will probably be used again. The idea is to gain votes for programs with little or ques- tionable support by including them in bills for which there is substantial and wide- spread support. Standing alone, I do not believe more than a handful of Congress- men would have opposed or voted against the Marshall-plan authorization. Similarly, standing alone, as they should have done, these three new foreign-aid programs, would probably have not garnered sufficient votes to pass or would have been changed radi- cally in the process. Put together, however, the whole program, while gathering substan- tial opposition, passed the House easily. The question, here, is, “How far must a Congressman go in accepting the bad with the good?” Let’s consider the facts in this case. There is much talk about a bipartisan, or an un- partisan, foreign policy. W2 may say, I be- lieve, that in its inception the Marshall plan was an example of the highest expression of this kind of policy, since it was developed by a Republican Congress with the support of a Democratic administration. Bipartisan- ship in foreign policy means more, however, that just Republicans and Democrats voting together for foreign-policy measures. It means that Republicans and Democrats alike must participate in the formulation of those measures, in their development, and in their final acceptance. Bipartisanship is a two- way street. HARMS BIPARTISANSHIP I can think of no better way to kill the spirit of bipartisanship in foreign affairs than to jam new programs down the throats of Members of Congress, whose party leaders have not been consulted in the formation of these programs and who are given the stultifying alternative of either voting for these programs, or of casting a vote ageinst @ program they may believe in. Vote, we were told last week, for all of these programs, including the ones of which you are skepti- cal, or you vote against the Marshall plan. I refused to be blackmailed in this manner. The point 4 program, one of the included programs, for instance, while calling for only @ nominal sum the first year, has been esti- mated by the Senate Expenditures Commit- tee staff to entail future spending totaling at least $500,000,000 every year. There are broad and important questions of policy to be determined in the original authorization of such a program. The House, dawdling along while it waits for the Senate to catch up, has plenty of time to give full-scale de- bate to such a momentous issue. The only possible reason for including it with the Marshall-plan authorization was that its proponents were afraid it could not stand up alone, and that it could only be passed if included with must legislation. Compromising, in this case, I firmly be- lieve, did almost irreparable harm to the spirit of bipartisanship in foreign policy, pre- vented full discussion of a vital foreign policy determination and saddled us with three new foreign commitments of dubious merit, It is for these reasons that I refuse to lend my support to the use of such compromise as a political weapon, and it was for these reasons that I voted against the entire bill. THE HONEST WAY But, what about the effect of my vote? What if my vote had served to defeat the en- tire measure? Well, in the first place, I can assure you that if this bill had been defeated largely because of loading it down with new programs, we would have had a new bill, this time dealing only with the Marshall plan, so fast it would have made monkeys out of
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD those who have said that Congress is a slow= moving body. And further, the new bill would have passed the House with many less votes against it. In fact, I am sure that at jJeast four or five Members from Wisconsin who voted against the bill as presented to us would have voted for a bill dealing only with the Marshall plan. Such action would have been a rebuke to those who speak of bi- partisanship but sabotage that policy by au- tocratic and partisan actions. However, if this basically honest way of handling this legislative problem had been followed, you and I can hear, even now, the cries that would have arisen in the State De- partment and from certain segments of the so-called liberal press and among the com- mentators. “What will Europe think?’, those voices would say. “Congress has repudiated the Marshall plan. Congress has gone back on its friends. Congress has sabotaged our for- eign policy. What dopes our friends in Europe must think we are now. Of course, we can remedy this by passing a new bill, but the harm has been done. Our friends in Europe will never trust us again.” Thus, the wail would go up in this country, and the tears would flow copiously throughout the land. The sure knowledge of this reaction led many Members to vote for the bill even thougn they were opposed to many of the things in it. INFERIORITY COMPLEX I say to you right now, however, that this wail, which we have heard frequently in the past, is nothing more nor less than an in- feriority complex which is doing more harm to this country and its foreign policy than almost any other single factor. Are we so ashamed of the workings of our representative system of Government that we gage the results of our legislative actions not upon their merits but upon the reaction of other governments to our deliberations? Are our elected representatives to decide issues, not upon the basis of their under- standing of them, but upon the basis of what other nations and governments will think if Congressmen vote “aye” or if they vote “no”? If our foreign policy has not the strength, if our appeal to other nations in this titanic struggle for the minds of men is s0 weak, that neither can withstand the pull-and-tug of the legislative process in a representative republic, then certainly we have little hope for success in coming battles of the cold war. I, for one, have enough confidence in the intelligence of the citizens of Europe to be- lieve they will judge us upon the end result, rather than upon our method of achieving that end result. And, I believe even more strongly, that that end result will be better for us and for the other nations of the world if we meet our problems by recognizing the genius of the American representative sys- tem of government instead of stifling that genius by holding the extraneous issue of world opinion over the heads of our legis~ lators. Too often, in the past, we Members of Con- gress have been asked to pass foreign-policy legislation, not upon the basis of its merits alone, but upon the basis that we cannot afford to risk lowering our prestige in the world by failing to pass it. There are some members of the State Department, and some Members of Congress, who shudder to sub- ject tender foreign-policy bills to the rough handling of the legislative process for fear that some Member will give foreign nations the wrong impression during debate. SELLING FREEDOM In my view, we will win the cold war, God willing, not by gagging free debate, violent though it may be, in order to impress peoples that we are solidly united, but by showing them that we are not afraid to subject the most delicate issue to the crucible of full discussion. We are selling freedom in this cold war; we won’t find any buyers for free- dom. if we enter the arena of conflict with an inferiority complex toward the institutions of that freedom. If our diplomats continue to manifest their distrust of Congress, if they continue to have an inferiority complex toward its actions, they are ill-equipped to sell American freedom to those who must make the choice between it and communism. Truly, Jn my opinion, those who have adopted compromise as a political weapon and those who foster a national inferiority complex to promote foreign policy are serv- ing neither sound political action nor a dynamic foreign policy. Federal Aid and Education EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. THOMAS H. WERDEL OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, May 23, 1950 Mr. WERDEL. Mr. Speaker, as we walk about the halls adjacent to this Chamber, we hear it often said that the hour of this second session of the Eighty- first Congress is growing late, and that Federal aid to education is as dead as slavery. As the author of a bill to pro- vide Federal aid in those areas of the United States which cannot supply a reasonable minimum standard of educa- tion for themselves, I am deeply con- cerned by these statements. If they are true, then I firmly believe it is the result of the selfish desires of certain propo- nents of similar legislation. It is un- doubtedly true that the American public is becoming more critical of Federal tax moneys raised on their home in order to givé supervised aid to theirhome. Iam reminded of the published quotations from Andrew Jackson, in the United States News of December 28,1936. ‘That publication quoted ex-President Jackson as saying: SPENDING Pustic FUNDS FOR POoLiIrtics We have it constantly before our eyes that professions of superior zeal in the cause of internal improvement and a disposition to Javish the public funds upon objects of this character are daily and earnestly put forth by aspirants to power as constituting the highest claims to the confidence of the peo- ple. Would it be strange, under such cir~ cumstances, and in times of great excite- ment, that grants of this description should find their motives in objects which may not accord with the public good? Those who have not had occasion to see and regret the indication of a sinister influ- ence in these matters in past times have been more fortunate than myself in their observation of the course of public af- fairs. * * * LIMITATIONS ON AUTHORITY OF EXECUTIVE In the regulations which Congress may prescribe respecting the custody of the pub- lic moneys it is desirable that as little dis- cretion as may be deemed consistent with their safekeeping should be given to execu- tive agents. No one can be more deeply im- pressed than I am with the soundness of the doctrine which restrains and limits, by specific provisions, executive discretion, as fay as it can be done consistently with the preservation of its constitutional character. In respect to the control over the public A3907 money this doctrine is peculiarly applica- ble. * * * The duty of the legislature to define by clear and positive enactments, the nature and extent of the action which belongs to the Executive to superintend springs out of @ policy analogous to that which enjoins upon all the branches of the Federal Govern- ment an abstinence from the exercise of powers not clearly granted. * * * The same rule of action should make the President ever anxious to avoid the exercise of any discretionary authority which can be regulated by Congress. The biases which may operate upon him will not be so likely to extend to the representatives of the peo- ple in that body. In my former message to Congress I have repeatedly urged the pro- priety of lessening the discretionary author- ity lodged in the various departments. * * * EQUAL LOADS INTENDED FOR THE STATES The shortest reflection must satisfy every- one that to require the people to pay taxes to the Government merely that they may be paid back again is sporting with the sub- stantial interests of the country, and no system which produces such a result can be expected to receive the public countenance. * * * A distribution to the people is im- practicable and unjust. * * * It would be taking one man’s property and giving it to another. * * “ We know that they contribute unequally, and a rule, therefore, that would distribute to them equally would be liable to all the objections which apply to the principle of an equal division of prop- erty. To make the general Government the instrument of carrying this odious principle into effect would be at once to destroy the means of its usefulness and change the char- acter designed for it by the framers of the Constitution, * * * ° It was certainly the intention of that pro- vision of the Constitution which declares that “all duties, Imposts, and excises” shall “be uniform throughout the United States” to make the burdens of taxation fall equally on the people in whatever Staté of the Union they may reside. But what would be the value of such a uniform rule if the moneys raised by it could be immediately returned py a different one which will give to the- people of some States much more and to those of others much less than their fair proportions? * * * It would be easy to show how by the operation of such a prin- ciple the large States of the Union would not only have to contribute their just share toward the support of the Federal Govern- ment, but also have to bear in some degree the taxes necessary to support the govern- ments of their smaller sisters. SYSTEM NOT SANCTIONED BY FOUNDERS A system liable to such objections can never be supposed to have been sanctioned by the framers of the Constitution when they conferred on Congress the taxing power, and I feel persuaded that a mature examination of the subject will satisfy everyone that there are insurmountable difficulties in the opera- tion of any plan which can be devised of collecting revenue for the purpose of dis- tributing it. Congress is only authorized to levy taxes “to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” There is no such provision as would au- thorize Congress to collect together the property of the country, under the name of revenue, for the purpose of dividing it equally or unequally among the States or the people. Indeed, it is not probable that such an idea ever occurred to the States when they adopted the Constitution. But how- ever this may be, the only safe rule for us in interpreting the powers granted to the Federal Government is to regard the absence of express authority to touch a subject so important and delicate as this is as equiva- lent to a prohibition * * *
A3908 All will admit that the simplicity and economy of the State governments mainly depend on the fact that money has to be supplied to support them by the same men, or their agents, who vote it away in appro- priations. Hence, when there are extrava~ gant and wasteful appropriations there must be a corresponding increase of taxes, and the people, becoming awakened, will neces- sarily scrutinize the character of measures which thus increase their burdens. By the watchful eye of self-interest the agents of the people in the State govern- ments are repressed and kept within the lim- its of a just economy. But if the necessity of levying the taxes be taken from those who make the appropriations and thrown upon @ more distant and less responsible set of public agents, who have power to approach the people by an indirect and stealthy tax~ ation, there is reason to fear that prodigality will soon supersede those characteristics which have thus far made us look with so much pride and confidence to the State gov- ernments as the mainstay of our Union and liberties * * *. BAD EFFECT OF THE POLICY ON LEGISLATURES The State legislatures, instead of studying to restrict their State expenditures to the smallest possible sum, will claim credit for their profusion, and harass the general gov- ernment for increased supplies. Practically there would soon be but one taxing power, and that vested in a body of men far re- moved from the people, in which the farm- ing and mechanic interests would scarcely be represented. The States would gradually lose their purity as well as their inde- pendence; they would not dare to murmur at the proceedings of the general government lest they should lose their supplies; all would be merged in a practical consolidation, cemented by widespread corruption, which could only be eradicated by one of those bloody revolutions which occasionally over- throw the despotic systems of the Old World. The safest and simplest mode of obviating all the difficulties which have been men- tioned is to collect only revenue enough to meet the wants of the Government, and let the people keep the balance of their property in their own hands, to be used for their own profit. Each State will then support its own government and contribute its due share toward the support of the general gov- ernment, BIG NATIONAL DEBT A PERIL FOR COUNTRY The experience of other nations admon- ishes us to hasten the extinguishment of the public debt. No political maxim is bet- ter established than that which tells us that an improvident expenditure of money is the parent of profligacy, and that no people can hope to perpetuate their liberties who long acquiesce in a policy which taxes them for objects not necessary to the legitimate and real wants of their government, Flattering as is the condition of our coun- try at the present period because of its un~ exampled advance in all steps of social and political improvement, it cannot be dis- guised that there is a lurking danger al< ready apparent in the neglect of this warn< ing truth, and that the time has arrived when the representatives of the people should be employed in devising some more appro- priate remedy than now exists to avert it. % « * WORKERS ARE HARDEST HIT BY INFLATION The progress of an expansion, or rather a depreciation, of the currency by excessive bank issues is always attended by a loss to the laboring classes. This portion of the community have neither time nor opportu- nity to watch the ebbs and flows of the money market. Engaged from day to day in their useful tolls, they do not perceive that although their wages are nominally the same, or even somewhat higher, they are greatly reduced in fact by the rapid increase of a spurious currency, which, as it appears to make money abound, they are at first inclined to consider a@ blessing. It is not so with the speculator, by whom this operation is better understood, and is made to contribute to his advantage. It is not until the prices of the necessaries of life become so dear that the laboring classes cannot supply their wants out of their wages that the wages rise and gradually reach a justly proportioned rate to that of the prod- ucts of their labor. When thus, by the depreciation in con- sequence of the quantity of paper in cir. culation, wages as well as prices become ex- orbitant, it is soon found that the whole effect of the adulteration is a [drain] (word inserted) on our home industry for the bene- fil of the countries where gold and silver circulate and maintain uniformity and mod- eration in prices. It is then perceived that the enhancement of the price of land and labor produces a corresponding increase in the price of products until these products do not sustain a competition with similar ones in other countries, and thus both man- ufactured and agricultural productions cease to bear exportation from the country of the spurious currency, because they cannot be sold for cost. When the agents for the collection of taxes due to the Federal Government go forth to make their collections from our citizens, they return with more money from my State of California than from any other State in the Union, ex- cept Illinois, New York, and Pennsyl- vania. From my State, those agents collected, in 1949, $2,955,909,545. The total income of the State of California was only $14,000,000,000 last year. When. the cost of State and local gov- ernment is added to the $3,000,000,000 collected by the Federal Government in California, it is apparent that the people of that State are paying approximately one-third of the State’s total income for costs of government. Before discussing the Federal-aid-to- education bills, I want to point out to the House certain glaring realities in regard to Federal grants-in-aid as they affect California. California received back from the Federal Government, for all purposes, in 1949, only $3'72,984,862. In other words, California received back from Washington 12.27 percent of the money collected by the Federal Govern- ment in that State. If we deduct 70 percent of the total paid by California for the cost of Federal Government, as California’s proportion of the cost of past wars, public debt, cold wars, and all of the costs of the general administration of Government, including the 2,080,000 Federal employees in the general administration of Government, you have left $886,000,000 paid by Cali- fornia as its proportionate cost of the Federal grants-in-aid program. They cover old-age assistance, roads, veterans’ rehabilitation, soil conservation, agri- culture extension, school-lunch pro-= grams, vocational education, public health service, child health service, un- employment compensation, National Guard, and many others, totaling about 50 such programs, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD By deducting what California actually does get back, namely: $372,984,862 from $886,000,000, you will see that California loses in the whole Federal-aid manipula- tion, about $513,015,138 each year. That is approximately more than 57 cents out of every dollar. In other words, 57 cents out of every dollar collected in California by the Treasury Department for Federal grants-in-aid programs are not returned to California. The citizens of California are begin- ning to realize that the words ‘Federal aid” are a deception, and that for Cali- fornia taxpayers, the belief that there can be Federal aid, is an illusion. There is no doubt but what the Fed- eral Government is constantly impover- ishing the States and the local State subdivisions, so that they cannot ade- quately provide for their own self-gov- ernment and desired local government projects. Agencies of the United States Government are successfully using Fed- eral aid projects as an excuse for taking money from California citizens for other purposes. In other words, California is paying annually for Federal-aid projects, $513,788,000 that by rights should go back to California. That is a sum equal to about twice the original estimated cost of the Central Valley project. It is paid annually by the people of California and voted by this Legislature away from California in vote-getting projects in other parts of this Nation as prophesied by Andrew Jackson. We have about 2,000,000 heads of families in California. By its secret tax-collecting methods, our National Government collects $1,500 a year out of the standard of living of each family in California. It returns back to California only $186 per family. It collects for so-called Federal-aid proj- ects $443 per family per year and spends $257, per California family, of the amount collected in other parts of the United States, for the political purposes of the National Government. It is small wonder, therefore, that the California housewives who must balance the family budget are awakening to the fact that there is no such thing as Fed- eral aid for California, The citizens of California are awakening to the fact that they would be much better off to keep their own money, manage it themselves, and raise their own teachers’ salaries, out of their own funds. Mr. Speaker, at this point I want to make reference to the table printed in the CoNcrressronaL Recorp, at page 5316, on April 29, 1949. The table was pre- pared by the Council of State Chambers of Commerce, based on data prepared by the National Education Association, in conformity with provisions of S. 246, as amended February 4,1949. This table differs somewhat from table 2, shown in the Senate Labor and Welfare Commit- tee report on S. 246, which fails to show the penalty amounts deducted in the case of 10 States under section 4 (D) of S. 246. The figures in the table show- ing what each State’s taxpayers would pay are based on tax-distribution for- mula used in Spending Facts Bulletin No. 36. The table purports to show what each State gets and what each State will
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD pay under Senate bill 246. I, therefore, quote it as follows: What each State gets and what each State pays under S. 246 What each What each] State’s tax- State payers |Net gain (++) would | would pay | or loss (—) receive | toward the program Alebama........- $14, 451, 000) $3, 056, 000)+-$11, 395, 600 Arizona.-..--..-- 1, 500, 000: 911, 000 +589, COO Arkansas -| 11, 708,000} 1, 716, 000} +9, 992, 000 California... -| 8, 435, 000) 22, 304, 000] —13, 869, C00 Colorado. ~| 1,240,000} 2,171, 000 —931, 000 Connectieut......| 1,685,600) 4, 638, 000} 2, 953, 000 Delaware_...-.... 280, 000 1, 072, 000; —792, 000 Florida... .| 2,365,000; 3, 458, 000} —1, 093, 000 Georgia. | 14, 168, 000} 8, 780, 000} +-10, 383, 000 Idaho - 625, 000 804, 000 —179, 609 Illinois -| 7,490,000} 21, 125, 000} —13, 635, C00 Indiana__ _| 8,825,000} 5, 978, 000} + —2, 153, 000 Towa... .-..--ees 2, 62¢, 000) 8, 968, 000) —1, 348, 000 Kansas__.... , 880, 000{ 3, 110, 000} ~—1, 230, 000 Kentucky 13, 367, 000} 3, 187, 000] +10, 230, 000 Louisiana 10, 370, 000} 8, 003, 000} -+7, 867, 000 Maine... 945,000} 1, 206, 000 +261, 000 Maryland-_. 2, 010, 000 4, 557, 000] + —2, 547, 000 Massachusetts....| 4, 115, 000) , 571, 000) + —B5, 456, 000 Maichigan--. 6, 235, 000} +12, 546, 000] +—6, 311, 000 Minnesota 2, 920, 000 4,960, 000} —2, 040, 000 Mississip: 15, 469, 000 1, 748, 000) +-13, 726, 000 Missour1.. 3,790,000} 6, 890,000} —3, 100, 000 585, 000, 858, 273, 000 1, 805, 000] 2, 359, 000} + 1, 054, 000 125, 000 49, 224, 000 505, 000 777, —272, 000 8, 840, 000) 8, 718, 000} +—4, 873, 000 3, 130, 000 697, 0 +2, 433, 000 11, 925, 000} 41, 499, 000) —~29, 574, 000 North Carolina_._} 21,070,000} 4, 209, 000} +-16, 861, 000 North Dakota... 860, 000 911, 000) +51, 000 Ohio.-.. 7, 320, 000) 15, 629, 000} +—8, 309, 000 Oklahom 8, 350,000} 2, 868, 000} -+6, 482, 000 Oregon... 1, 410, 000} 2, 708,000) +—1, 298, 000 Pennsylvania_....| 10, 120, 000) 20, 803, 000) —10, 683, 000 Rhode Island_..._ 645,000) 1, 555, 000 —$910, 000 South Carolina...| 13,365,000] 1, 930, 000] -+11, 435, 000 South Dakota 1, 080, 000 885, 000) 195, 000 ‘Tennessee_.... 10, 629, 000] 3, 565, 000] +7, 064, 000 CXAS.....-- 10, 845, 000) , 804, 000 -+41, 000 Utah____.---2---- 1, 170, 000 885, 000 +285, 000 Vermont. 390, 000 483, 000 —93, 00 Virginia__. 4,074,000} 3, 968, 000 +106, 000 Washington 2,250,000} 4, 236, 000; +—1, 986, 000 West Virgin: 9, 360,000} 2, 305, 000} + -+7, 055, 000 Wisconsin.... 8, 325,000} 5, 522, 000] +—~2, 197, 000 Wyoming_.-__--_ 290, 000 429, 000 —139, 000 District of Co lumbia, Alaska, Hawaii, etc....- 8, 622,000] 3, 432,000) + -+5, 190, 000 Total.....- 268, 088, 000) 268, 088, 000).....---sesas a SN Se nO I direct your attention to that part of the table disclosing the figures in con- nection with California. You will ob- serve that under Senate bill 246, Califor- nia would pay in $22,304,000, and would receive back only $8,435,000. California would annually lose in this transaction $13,869,000. I also direct your attention to the fact that S. 246 now only purports to appropriate about $300,000,000 per year, and that the eventual purpose of some of its proponents is that the total appro- priation approach the sum of $5,000,- 000,000, in a few years. The Federal Government and the planners of the Central Valley project have been work- ing on and expanding the cost of that project for almost 20 years. From the foregoing figures, it can be seen that ‘5. 246, under the guise of Fed- eral aid to education in California, would deprive California taxpayers in the period of time that the Central Val- ley project has been in the course of construction of a sum equal to the origi- nal estimated cost of that project. That is to say, the difference between what California would pay for Federal aid to education and what it would re- ceive in the program, as it appears in its infancy under S. 246, would, in 20 years, deprive California of approxi- mately $280,000,000. If the reported purpose of some of the proponents of the legislation is accomplished, it would de- prive California annually, under the for- mula of S. 246, of the sum of $226,000,000. I know of no person in California who does not desire to improve our public- schcol system and pay teachers’ salaries in sufficient amount to justly compen- sate them for their years of education and to adequately staff our California schools with competent teachers. How- ever, many of our California citizens are being misled by some of the proponents of this legislation. The argument is that the amount a State receives out of Fed- eral-aid projects cannot be measured only in dollars and cents. The very worth-while argument is presented that ignorance is a national problem impor- tant to all local areas because unedu- cated persons can and do travel across State lines and wherever those persons are located in their adult years they can- not meet their requirements of citizen- ship. I believe we must all admit the fact that certain areas of our country with low income and large numbers of children are not able to adequately finance education at the local level. If we admit that condition and also admit that it creates a national problem, then, of course, California should acknowledge its just expense in alleviating the con- dition. However, I want to refer you again to the table that I have heretofore men- tioned in my remarks. I also want to direct your attention to the fact that S. 246 sets forth a formula admittedly based on the so-called rich State-poor State concept. The original allotment to each State is either, first, the amount by which $50 multiplied by the number of children from 5 to 17 years of age in the State exceeds a sum equaling 1 percent of a 5-year average of aggregate individual income for that State; or, alternatively second, a flat amount of $5 per child from 5 to 17 years of age, whichever is greater. You will note from the third column of the table that the amount is set forth by which all of the States would either gain or lose under the formula. There are 18 States that gain and there are 30 States that lose money under the for- mula. In theory, the States that lose money are the richer States, and, there- fore, should aid the 18 States that gain money. Under the theory of the bill, the 30 States that lose money are all able to finance their own education systems within their States. If we divide the amount that a State pays, by the total estimated cost of $268,083,000, we will determine the percentage that the ag- gregate taxpayers of each State pay on the total appropriation. In the case of California, that is 8.2 percent. Then, if you will total the amount of money to be paid to the poor States, you will find it to be about $120,000,000. In other words, the proponents of the bill, under the guise of aiding education in the A3909 United States, are raising only $120,0€6,- 000 for needy areas and yet raise $148,- 000,000 for States that admittedly can finance their own school systems. By multiplying the $120.000,009 by 8.2 per- cent, it is readily discernible that the State of California would pay $9,840,000 of the sum raised to aid the needy States. Tt is, therefore, also apparent that Cali- fornia pays $12,564,000 into the $148,- 000,000 pool, to be distributed to States that admittedly can finance and operate their own schools, and yet receives back only $8,425,000. In other words, after paying its just portion to aid the needy Siates, California still pays $12,564,C09 annually to help the Federal Government infiltrate education in States that can operate and finance their own schools, and only receives back 57 percent of that amount. This amounts to an annual appropriation from the taxpayers of California for the political purposes of the Federal Government, to be handed out to States which, like California, ad- mittedly can finance their own school systems, the sum of $3,129,000. This is a deliberate fraud and theft of Cali- fornia taxpayers’ money and if some of the proponents of the bill accomplish their purpose, to increase this total ap- propriation to $5,000,000,000, the fraud in California will be stupendous. In ad- dition to paying its just portion to aid the needy States, it will be annually de- prived of $53,000,000, to be sent to States that admittedly have no more need for aid than California has. Under such circumstances, it is readily understandable why the State govern- ment officials of California, like those of all the other States, have made no re- quest for Federal funds to aid the schools of their States. At the present time, the children of school age are in- creasing in California at the estimated rate of 40 percent every 2 years. No person who understands the pro~ visions of S. 246 and is aware of the circumstances that place urgent de- mands on California schools, could reasonably support S. 246. The cost of educating a child in average daily at- tendance, in California, is estimated at $180 per year. It seems unbelievable that persons attached to the California school system should support a power-~ ful teachers’ lobby in Washington, when they know that California can only re- ceive $5 per school child under the terms of S. 246. In compliance with the de- sires of that lobby, they are now polit- ically active in California. They are propagandizing the taxpayers of that State and recommending that our pres- ently over-burdened taxpayers pay $13,869,000 per year to the other States of the Nation. They do this knowing that California is now being flooded with new families from those other States, increasing our school respon- sibilities at an alarming rate. These new children will cost California at least $180 per year to educate. Some of these proponents undoubtedly act on selfish motives—perhaps, they eventually hope to earmark funds received from Wash- ington for teachers’ salaries. An analy-~ sis of S. 246 will demonstrate that such