A170 enactment of the Brannan plan? He wants “improvement of our labor laws.” Does he mean repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act? He wants “aid to the States to meet the most urgent needs of our elementary and secondary schools.” Yet he asks for a major increase in taxes “to meet the cost of the defense effort.” It seems that from now on every Fair Deal spending scheme will be disguised as a vital expenditure in the de- fense effort. And the President failed to put the pres- ent arms program on a plane that is under- standable to the public. “We are preparing for full wartime mobilization, if that should be necessary,” he declared. But he added: “We are continuing to build a strong and growing economy, able to maintain what- ever effort may be required for as long as necessary.” That is hardly a concise expres- sion of goals to set before the public in a state of the Union message. The address will not aid the pubile or Congress to understand what kind of mo- bilization is being planned, nor will it win any converts to unpopular features of the administration’s domestic and foreign policy. National Referendum on National Defense and Foreign Policy EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. LEO E. ALLEN OF ILLINOIS. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 15, 1951 Mr. ALLEN of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, under unanimous consent to extend my remarks, I include a resolution pre- sented by Alderman Milton Lundstrom, and adopted by a vote of 17 to 3 by the city council of Rockford, Il. This resolution deserves consideration by the Congress, and within a few days I expect to introduce a bill providing for this referendum, The resolution follows: Whereas the world orisis becomes more acute daily, and it does not appear to have developed the unity within our Nation nec- essary for our defense; and Whereas the present United States policy has become a matter of widespread division of public opinion; and Whereas our representatives in Washing- ton wish to know our desires and many citi- gens are looking for an opportunity to exe press themselves on the foreign policy: Therefore be it Resolved, To secure the fullest expression of the people's wishes in this controversial matter, the city council of the city of Rock- ford urges and requests that Congress re- spond to the public will and initiate and submit at once to the people of the United States an opportunity, through a national referendum, to register their opinion on these two vital questions: 1. Shall the United States immediately adopt a policy to defend itself and its pos- sessions and give Mmited assistance to free nations? 2. Shall the United States continue to fol- low its present world-wide foreign policy and lend unlimited assistance to free nations? Be it further Resolved, That in case Congress does not see fit, within the next 80 days, to initlate this request for an early submission of this vital question to a national referendum, then the elty council of the city of Rockford shall submit the same to the voters of Rockford, and the city council urges all other cities to initiate similar action so that the will of the people may be registered. Resentment Against Unfair Tax Discrimination EXTENSION OF REMARKF HON. GEORGE B. SCHWABE OF OKLAHOMA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 15, 1951 Mr. SCHWABE. Mr. Speaker, I have received so many letters during the past 2 weeks from citizens representing all walks of life, protesting vigorously against tax discriminations, that I think this matter should be brought to the at- tention of the public. The following letter is a letter from one of my con- stituents, which I believe is deserving of serious consideration by the Representa- tives of the people in Congress. In this instance, as in the many other letters I have received, the people are complain- ing bitterly of the laws which Congress has from time to time passed, favoring the cooperatives and other organizations in the matter of tax Iabilities. It is quite generally contended that it is extremely unfair for a tax-paying private enterprise to be taxed to provide a loan, a subsidy, or the capital structure for a nontaxable, or a tax-favored com- petitor which may ultimately destroy or put out of business the tax-paying free enterprise which provided the money with which the tax-favored institution began business. Resentment against unfair tax dis- crimination makes people furious. It causes them to want to revolt. After all, it is considered by so many as a method of taxation without representation, as we sometimes say. Tax discrimination sel- dom, if ever, can be justified, as between citizens, or groups of citizens within a given jurisdiction. The following is a very interesting letter of the type I have been receiving from many of my constituents, and which, I think, will be read with much interest by those who are making a study of this subject: The Congress has recently passed bills which substantially increase taxes upon cor- porations and some other forms of business organizations, It has passed an excess- Profits-tax bill, designed both to increase revenue and to pacify those who desire in- creased inflation, The Congress likewise has passed appro- priations bills providing for expenditures of huge amounts of money—for defense, for foreign aid, for many other purposes, some sound, some unsound, some purely pork- barrel. Income-tax rates for individuals were in- creased October 1, 1950. Still more money will be needed, meaning that individuals must be taxed and taxed far beyond present rates. Our Government must have more and more money, if for no other reason than to defend this Nation. ‘APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Now, since I and my neighbors, my employ~ er and my fellow employees must be taxed in this outrageous fashion, what excuse is there for allowing some types of proft-mak- ing businesses to escape their fair share of taxes? Why should the cooperatives, many of which are big business, be permitted un- fair tax advantages? Why should they be permitted to accumulate tax-free funds into huge surpluses with which to destroy the competition or even the existence of tax-pay- ing enterprises? . Why should mutual savings banks; build- ing, savings and loan associations; credit unions; and other forms of cooperatives en- joy freedom or relative freedom from taxes which other businesses and individuals must pay to protect the Nation which protects these cooperatives? Isn’t this their coun- try, too? There is not and never was either reason or excuse for the tax advantages, tax free~ dom, of these purely profit-making enter- prises. They do not distribute their so-called savings, nor are they required to pay taxes upon their incomes. Already thousands upon thousands of young men are being called upon to give up thelr careers, their futures, or their very lives to defend this country. All citizens are being called to their duties of citizenship in this time of emergency and to pay a greater and greater share of the extraordinary and Normal costs of government. Pressure al- ready is being applied to the citizenry in the sale of United States Savings bonds— again the cry of patriotism is being raised to encourage people to buy these bonds whose value has been and will continue to be destroyed by a corrupt and financially illit- erate administration. The old shell game come-on is heing sounded again. No one who desires this country to sur- vive will oppose or attempt to evade a heavy tax burden for defense; he will not object to buying Defense bonds whose value he knows will decrease; he will not object to any sacri- fices necessary to the preservation of Amer- ica. But a great many of us do object to an unfair tax structure which permits co-ops and their tlk to escape the burdens we must bear. Must we all pay an unjustifiable high tax in order that these Socialist contrivances may continue to grab increasingly large tax- free profits? My sore back is awfully tired of carrying & part of the load for these legally protected tax slackers, and I'd like to know what you propose to do about it. Are you going to try to put these leeches on the tax rolls or are you willing to let hundreds of millions of what should be tax dollars continue to escape collection? Surely, if it is right and just for me and my employer to be taxed for that swindle Known as social security, it is also right and proper to tax the co-ops for their share of Government expense like anyone else; or, if there no longer is any such thing as equality under the law, including the tax laws, what are we getting ready to defend? If there is to be one class which supports the Govern- ment and another which legally escapes that obligation, there is no point in fighting com- munism because we already are its victims, Put all the legitimate burdens you want upon me, 80 long as they are my fair share, but since these burdens are congressional measures "for the common defense,” as the Constitution provides, then, for goodness sake, make the burdens common to all those who are being defended, and that should include the cooperative enterprises which are engaged in business. Yours sincerely, (Name of constituent.) P, 8.—When mandatory price controla are put into effect again, do you believe the co-ops should again be made exempt from such controls as they were during World War
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD It? Remember, when OPA controlled prices of every other form of business, the co-ops were legally free to pay or charge any price they desired or could get, and in numerous cases they monopolized sources of supply by paying more than OPA cellings—payments made possible by tax-free profits. Will you be for or against such exemptions in any new price-control set-up? OTR Communicated EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. DANIEL J. FLOOD OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 15, 1951 Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following article which was written by Mr. Albert J. Bates, of 523 North Locust Street, Hazleton, Pa., and appeared in the Hazleton Plain Speaker on Wednesday afternoon, January 3, 1951: COMMUNICATED Eprror, THE PLAIN SPEAKER: The recent address of former President Herbert Hoover in which he advocated mak- ing an American Gibraltar of this hemt- sphere has proven highly ropular with a large segment of our population. After the First World War, as everyone will remember, this country extended so-called loans to Eu- rope, notably France and England, which have never been repaid. And for this out. pouring of American gold, all at the Amer- ican taxpayers’ expense, we were subse- quently alluded to in many European quar- ters as being not Uncle Sam, but Uncle Shy- lock, for the reason that we had the temer- ity to suggest that Just possibly these loans ought to be repaid. It is no great wonder therefore that Mr. Hoover, and a large body of American thought should hold the view that we should send not one more dollar and not one more Amer- ican soldier to Europe until that continent has demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt a will to both fight its own battles, and pay its own bills. Wealthy Nation though we are, there is most certainly a limit to the amount of money, in billions, we can throw down tnto the bottomless pit of European aid. Otherwise, we face na- tional bankruptcy eventually. However, in suggesting this old form of American isolation, in new dress, Mr. Hoover and those who think with him base their argument on the basic concept or premise that this country with a mighty navy and an expanded and equally mighty air force can indefinitely defend itself against com- munism on this continent. If this be true, then we have been a Nation of Simple Bi- mons to have expended all that we have to date on the Marshall plan to aid and re- Hhabilitate Europe. If this conception of Mr. Hoover's be true, we should pull out of Germany and Europe tomorrow, and out of Korea the day before tomorrow, wash our hands of Europe, wash our hands of Asia, and stay home, arming to the teeth. Mr, Hoover's picture is attractively painted, but if his basic premise be true we have already fought two world wars foolishly and needlessly. For both those wars, World War I and World War Il—as everyone ought to remember-—were fought not to save any Eu- ropean nation, or group of nations. They were not fought to save western culture and civilization. They were fought solely to save our own skins, to keep them from coming over here. Them—in World War I, and World War II--were the Germans, and World War II of course the Germans and Japanese. Or, worded differently, we fought two world wars to prevent the forces of aggression from overwhelming Europe, and subsequently overwhelming us. In both world wara this country remained on the sidelines, saying it was not our war until 1t appeared that the forces of aggres~- sion were going to overwhelm the rest of the civilized world. Then, fright and necessity forced us to take a part, not to save any one country, or group of countries, but to save our own skins—just that, no more and no less. This our responsible Government Officials and every man in Congress knew. This we as a people knew, or at least all our more intelligent people. We knew that if any dictatorial and ag- gressive government completely controlled the European land mass—Europe—that its military power would become so great that it could easily, in time, overwhelm this country, conquer this country, and reduce us to vassal« age, to the role of a conquered people. Thus we entered reluctantly into two World Wars to save our liberties and our own skins. We did not enter for any noble and aitruistic reasons such as saving anyone else. It was solely to save our own skins and preserve our liberties. Other results of our participa- tion were incidental. Every military man of any competence, from 1914 to 1951, has frankly admitted that this country could be conquered by any gov- ernment or power, which had full control of Europe, and its vast steel mills and arma- ment making and shipbuilding potential. If this was true in 1914-~and it was-——and in 1941—and it was, it is much more true today. Russta in full control of the Ruhr valley, all the mills and factories of France, and in full control of English shipyards, could build an army so large, an air fleet so vast, a Bea armada so huge, that she could conquer us easily. This is « fact beyond dispute, and it was the reason why we fought World War I and World War II. To prevent Germany from dcing It. When now Mr. Hoover presents his attrac- tive picture of retiring to this hemisphere in a military sense, he is flying in the face of military fact. He is stating that this country can du something which no competent mill- tary man believes it can do—defend itself against a Russian controlled conquered world. He 1s advocating another Munich, to achieve peace In his time. If the course he advocates were pursued, it would be but a matter of time until we become a conquered people, tuking our orders from Uncle Joe Stalin. Qur liberties lost. Our way of life lost. Our high standard of living lost. All that we hold dear in life—lost. One thing few of us question. No price is too high to pay for our Ifberty. The price will be high. The way will be long. Our present standard of living may be reduced 50 percent. It may take 50 years to restore the country to its present Mving standard. But if our lberty is lost—~all is lost. Let us never forget that salient fact. If our lberty is lost—all {s lost. It 1s highly unllkely that we have the financial resources or manpower to defend both Europe and Asta. But we do not need Asia. It is not industrialized. It is back~ ward and primitive. There are no or few vast armament factories which can be turned against ua, if in Russian hands, But Europe is different. The steel-making potential of Europe, Russia, Germany, and France is greater than our own, Every military man in the Pentagon knows if we lose all of Europe we are three-fourths conquered, be- fore a shot is fired at our shores, If this is not true, why did we fight World Wars I and II? Al7l1 Europe must be held at all cost. Compe- tent American military men would like to see a million Americans in Europe next week. But we have no million, not in arms, not in training. So we can but hope, and if wise, pray that we can get them there in time. In time to hold, until we can bear down upon our enemy with our full armed might and mobilized industrial potential, Before our enemy seizes the industrial potential and manpower of Europe and turns them against us. And if we can but get them there, in time, our enemy may think twice about plunging the world into a war, the outcome of which 1s doubtful. But if we retire to our own unsafe shores our eventual destruction is unavoidable, If we can but get them there in time there may never be a third world war. No one likes mobilization, controls, short~ ages, war, But {f our liberty is lost all ts lost, It was not bought cheaply, or kept cheaply. It was bought and kept with blood. Now, God willing, we can preserve our liberty by merely being prepared, by arming, by mo- biltging—in time. And if we do so, perhaps this time we shall not have to pay a fearful price in blood to keep our liberty Only one thing matters now, if we are to hold off this ghastly prospect of a third world war— speed, speed, and more speed. There is yet & way to peace, speed in rearming. But it is not Mr. Hoover's way, which is the way of our eventual destruction as a people, Yours very truly, AuLsgrt J. BATES. Hon. Mary T. Norton EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOHN W. McCORMACK OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 15, 1951 Mr. MCCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, the accompanying statement is a splendid and proper editorial appearing in the Boston Post of January 3, 1951, entitled “She Served Well,” relating to the out- standing service in this body of our friend, Mary T. Norton. We who served with Mary Norton will all agree with this editorial and more, and particularly with the last sentence of the same, “Her quiet, vibrant presence will be missed on the floor of Congress.” Sue Srrvep Weti For the first time in 26 years the name of Mary T. Norton will not be on the list from which the Clerk will call the roll in Congress as it meets for its eighty-second session today. At 75, the Congresswoman from New Jersey has well earned the retire- ment she decided upon last year when she announced her intention to withdraw from the field of active politics. Back in 1924 when she became the firat Democratic woman. to win a seat in Congress, there were those who looked with askance at her success. They were the men and women who believed they had reason to question the wisdom of selecting a woman to carry on such duties. The confidence she evoked from the start was reflected in 13 successive electtons which saw her returned to the same seat. To her must go a lion's share of the credit for the passage of the controversial wage and hours legislation of 1937. Her quiet, vibrant pres- ence will be missed on the floors of Congrese,
Al72 Do People Know the Facts of Life? EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CLARE E. HOFFMAN OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 15, 1951 Mr. HOFFMAN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, from the Dowagiac Daily News, of January 8, comes an editorial written by Harry Whiteley, which accurately represents to a great degree the thinking of the thoughtful people of southwest Michigan. Permit me to read that editorial: CONFUSION IN FOREIGN POLICY In the old days we used to call them jingo- iets, those folks who were forever wearing @ chip on their shoulders and daring the world to fight us or egging our leaders to take on a war of their own. Today they are either isolationists or internationalists. There seems to be no middle path. The internationalists or some of their ex- tremists think we have to send our young men to war to save the downtrodden of the world. None of these people will do any fighting themselves. The isolationists think we can withdraw behind our own iron cur- tain and lead a monastic life safe and secure. They are equally wrong. We are in the world, of the world, and have certain responsibilities, but these responsi- bilities do not go so far as to lead us to disburse our resources beyond a reasonable point or to assume responsibilities for others beyond our certain ability to carry them out. It is a fine philosophy to think we are so big we can take on all the troubles of the universe but it is not a practical one. Cer-~ tainly we can and should lead the way but we do not need to go to the extent the ad- ministration seems to desire, to the point where we involve ourselves in the internal alliances, trouble, and problems of each of the individual nations with whom we are associated nor do we have to accept their philosophies and follow their leadership be- yond our depth. That is what we have been doing and that is what we want to check. We think that is what Mr. Hoover and others have been talking about and we think that ts what most of us believe. There is a definite fear that the administration is beyond its depth in internationalism and that gives rise to an equally spurious nationalism that calls for restricted measures. Between these ex- tremes we are in great confusion of mind and proponents of each side are beclouding the issue with their oratory. We have a civilian defense program fi- nanced to the tune of $3,000,000,000 and now Congress 1s working on a defense housing bill which ts estimated could run to $3,000,- 000,000 more. What other crimes will be committed in the name of defense we would not know but the Treasury certainly will be well tapped. Great Britain’s Government ts proceeding ateadily toward the recognition of the Chinese Reds by all her Commonwealth members. Then would follow their accept- ance by the United Nations. In spite of Chinese participation in the Korean War and its well-publicized aggression Britain pro- poses to throw this menace into the face of the United States while we are sending our young men to their death to save the world from communism, At the same time we are preasing a resolution before the UN to de-~ clare the Chinese as aggressors and apply the sanctions which exist in the constitution of that or;anization for Just such cases. Brit. ish appeasement of Hitler in the last war evidently has made no impression on her present socialistic government. If she pro- ceeds in this line, there is no recourse left the United States except to get out of the UN and withdraw from further expenditures of men and money to save Europe from the Reds. Mr. Speaker, the editor might well have added, as another reason for getting out of the United Nations, the fact that, when the British succeed in having the Chinese Communists admitted to mem- bership in the United Nations, that body will desist from being a forum for dis- cussion, but will become a powerful mi- nority which will continue to make world peace unattainable. Why submit our destiny to an organi- zation where there are those who are seeking to destroy us; where they can either learn of, or have a part in, mak- ing our foreign policy? Isolation in the Far East EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. DANIEL J. FLOOD OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 15, 1951 Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rec- orp, I include the following speech pre- pared by Louis R. Columbo, a law stu- dent of Hazleton, Pa.: ISOLATION IN THE Far East Once upon a time there was a cunning bear who spotted a honeycomb high on the limb ofatree. In reaching for the honeycomb, he found that he was some distance away, 80 he immediately began searching for something to stand on to enable him to reach it. He first spotted an orange crate (Man- churia). Finding this not enough, he came across a barrel (China). Again he tried to reach that luscious morsel and again he found that he was still short of the mark. Disgustingly, he went in search of a means to achieve his goal and this time he had to be satisfied with a peach basket (Korea). Not finding any other isolated means by which he could reach his goal, this bear now has to revert to brute force. He steals the prized box of firecrackers (Formosa) from Chiang Kai-shek, His next theft 1a MacArthur's footstool] (Japan) upon which he places a coll of Manila hemp (Phil- lipines). Now he ts ready to make his final attempt to take into his possession the honeycomb (United States). If this structure does not topple before the bear makes his final attempt to gain possession of the honeycomh, then the ating of the bees must be strong enough to with- stand this clawing attempt or else. What I have just stated in this tale ts part fact and part speculation. If we are to follow some form of isolationism, there is no doubt in my mind that what I have specu- lated will come true. It is my firm conviction that our policy should be anything but that of isolationism. If we are to prevent ourselves from being forced to form our first line of defense in California, and therefore, in all likelihoad, have to fight for our survival on our own territory, we must arm Japan and send aid to Chiang Kal-shek in Formosa. We must also fortify the Philippines as well as Aus- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD tralia to the extent whereby we will have a strong defense line extending from Australia in the extreme south to Alaska in the ex- treme north. In this manner we will have a chance to stem the tide of the yellow hordes and the communism which they are trying to force upon us. Munich-Minded EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. RICHARD B. WIGGLESWORTH OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 15, 1951 Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Mr. Speak- er, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following article appearing in the Washington Star of January 15, 1951, entitled “Munich-Minded”: MUNICH-MINDED The latest proposal from the United Na- tions Truce Committee, which has been ap- proved by our own Government, looks very much like a betrayal of the principles for which so much American blood has been shed in Korea. The new plan is in five stages. for: 1. Arrangment of a cease-fire, with safe- guards against its use as a screen to cover preparation for new aggression. 2. If and when a cease-fire occurs, consid- eration should be given to further steps toward restoring peace. 8. To permit the carrying out of the General Assembly resolution that Korea should be “a unified, independent, demo- cratic, sovereign state with a constitution and a government based on free popular electfons,” all non-Korean armed forces will be withdrawn by “appropriate stages.” Ar- rangements should be made in accordance with United Nations principles for the Ko- rean people to choose their own government. 4. An interim administration should be set up. 5. As soon as agreement is reached on a cease fire, the Assembly should set up a com- mittee consisting of representatives of Brit- ain, the United States, the Soviet Union, and the People’s Republic of China to try to achieve settlement, in conformity with ex- isting international obligations and the UN Charter, of far-eastern problems, specifically Formosa and the the admission of Red China to the United Nations. That is the smiling face of this truce proposal. But we should consider what lies beneath the surface. Unde. the vague wording of this proposal all that would be needed to bring point 5 into operation is a cease-fire. What we are saying here to the Chinese is that if they will stop fighting we will sit down with them, the Russians, and the British and try to settle the questions of Formosa and their admission to the UN. And, having said that much, does anyone believe for a moment that we would not be obliged to ugree to let the Chinese have Formosa and to admit them to the UN? We have said, bravely, that we would never enter into any settlement of the Korean question which rewards aggres- sion. But if this proposal is not in contem- plation a reward for aggression, what in the world is it? At this point, one should turn back to article 3 of this proposal. Is its reference to a unified, independent, democratic Korea merely an expression of a pious hope which These call
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the authors know will never be fulfilled? If not, why the vague 7 What is meant by the withdrawal of non-Korean forces by “appropriate stages”? Why is not the setting up of this tndependent Korea, with its free elections, made a condition precedent to any discusstons under article 5? Tt the Koreans are not to be sotd down the river, «as were the Cxzechosiovaktans at Munich, why does this 1 not lay down conditions to safeguard their independence in clear and unmistakable terms? The answer, one may fear, is all too obvit- ous. The Communists, first the North Koreans and then the Chinese, with Russia elweys in the background, launched this aggresston to enstave all of Korea, not to set up there a free, independent, and democratic country. have, by force of arms, virtu- ally attained that objective. Who thinks they sre going to turn back now? Who would have the slightest faith in discussions with them, looking to that end? The Chinese, of course, might agree to a cease-fire, Hf, as ae starter, they are going to get Formosa and a ticket of admission to the UN. If these things are to come first, and if a decent political settlement in Korea is to be pushed back tnto the tndefinite future, the effect would be to gtve the Communists precisely what they want. They might very well agree to that. But if the United States and the United Nations agree to it, they wil! have betrryed every moral principle on the basis of which our young men were sent out to Korea to fight and die. It ts clear enough that Korea, so far as the original UN objective is concerned, is a lost cause. Perhaps we have no alternative but to get out of Korea. But it ts one thing to battle for s principle and suffer defeat; quite & different thing to compound defeat with self-stultification. Great causes are not sustained by weak knees. Munich-minded men have never been able to achteve a decent peace. If any sub- stantial number of the UN members are s0 intimidated by the Chinest Communists that, instead of being willing to indict them for the aggressors that they are, they are re- signed to a shabby deal in Korea, that is their affair. But this country, in the Star’s judgment, should have nothing to do with it. Samuel Gompers EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. GEORGE P. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 15, 1951 Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, last October, John F. Henning, director of research, California State Federation of Labor, A. F. of L., paid a tribute to the late Samuel Gompers at the California State Federation of Labor convention, then being held in Santa Barbara. I know John F. Henning to be a sin- cere, able man of great capabilities. He is devoting his energies, as did Samuel Gompers, whom he eulogizes, to the fight to assure to all who work the right to a full life in the great American tradition, Mr. Henning's speech follows: Mr. Chairman, brothers and sisters of the American Federation of Labor, I am honored this afternoon to speak in tribute to Samuel Gompers, the centennial of whose birth we celebrate in the year of 1950. Just 100 years ago this past January, the founder of the American Federation of La- bor was burn in an tmpoverished, congested neighborhood on the east side of London. He wae of a family of nine children, a family which knew well the heavy, depress- ing hand of economic exploitation. His father toiled for survival at the cigar-making trade amid the foul, wretched working con- ditions which identified the industrial life of nineteenth century England. At the age of 10 years, and in the manner of the times, the young boy who was des- tined to become the very symbol of organ- ized labor in the United States, took to what was then the diamal, work of his father. He entered the cigar-making shops of London. Samuel Gompers never forgot the lessons of labor learned in those earty days; no mat- ter how great his later stature, he never for- got the people from whom he came. He never forgot the hungry men and women of his childhood. He never forgot the des- perate workers nailed to the wall of poverty by those in ruthless pursuit of commercial In the year 1868, at the age of 13, young Samuel sailed with his family for what they hoped would prove the free, inspiring air of the new Republic. They sailed for the United States and the tenements of Man- hattan, Samuel Gompers soon learned, however, that the plight of the worker on the east side of New York was little better than the Plight of the worker on the east side of Lon- don, and so from the day in 1864 when he joined the Cigar Makers Union, Local 15, in New York City, until the day he died in 1924 a man of national prominence and world renown, he dedicated his industry, his talents, and his life to the betterment of the working people of the United States. Gompers was trained in a significant and challenging school of labor. In the sixties, the seventies, and the eighties of the last century New York was the preferred sanc- tuary of the political, social, and economic exiles who fied the Old World for the safety of America. Thus the young Gompers came into daily contact with the disciples of almost every economic system known to the mind of man. He evaluated the various theories that were being espoused with crusading vigor in the New York labor movement, measured them in the light of his daily working experience, and then formed his own concepts—con- cepts which were to become the foundation stones of the American Federation of Labor. Gompers developed in the labor world dur- ing an era of terrible test and trial. The employer powers of that phase of the nine- teenth century enjoyed an almost unquali- fled advantage over the fratl, disjointed movement of the day. With the advent of corporate wealth, capital, organized on na- tional lines, was able to smash with ease and efficiency, the local, isolated efforts of labor. And so Bamvel Gompers, with the other wise leaders of his generation, advocated a national labor organization. Gompers was familiar with the experience of the national labor idea. He knew that the first attempt had been made in 1834 with the organization of the National Trades’ Union, an attempt which had proved abor- tive. He also knew of the first serious effort to found a national movement, an effort that had begun in 1869 with the coming of the Knights of Labor. Now Gompers knew the intimate story of the Knights of Labor, for to him it was a living experience. He saw their errors and vowed that he would never walk their way. The Knights of Labor provided a noble contribution in principle, in devotion, and jn sacrifice to American labor. But Gom- pers, who had been trained in the grim labor school of New York City, knew that land reforms in the West, and. finally, to found and manage an industrial cooperative society. And mind you, during ali of this, the Knights of Labor were engaged in a death battle with some of the most brazen bandits of our American industrial history. They were locked in mortal struggle, for example, with Jay Gould, the railroad financier, whose Pinkerton thugs, legalized gunmen, were terrorizing every railroad union in the land. Essentially, then, the Knights of Labor fell because they were led my men who had am- bitions beyond their capacity for action, and thus, when involved in those strike efforts which are often essential to the existence of the movement, they collapsed through sheer loss of wasted si 5 Samuel Gompers in his day saw the decline and fall of the Knights of Labor; he saw the ruins of the dreamer and the doctrinaire, and again—he was determined to avoid their failings. Gompers appreciated with the leaders of the Knights of Labor that the destiny of the labor movement runs beyond the limits of collective bargaining, but he insisted that the movement of the nineteenth century must first achieve its fundamentals—wages, hours, and conditions of work. He argued that the primary obligation of union labor was to place sufficient bread and butter on the tables of the working people of the Nation. And now in our own time, because Gom- pers emphasized the essentials, some of the pseudo liberals have had the temerity to brand him a reactionary. Samuel Compers was never that, for Samuel Gompers never sought to turn back the clock of history. However, Gompers was first, last, and always a realist. Samuel Gompers pro- nounced that the labor movement of his day must learn to walk before it could hope to run; hence, the American Federation of Labor concept of first things first. It ts imperative, of course, that we reme: ber in our present era that Gompers aid look beyond the limits of collective bargain- ing. It was Samuel Gompers who gave to organized labor the command that in the political theater it must reward its friends and punish its enemies. Surely it is mockery to quote that pronouncement if labor is not organised for efficient political effort. Looking beyond the zone of collective bar- gaining, Gompers desired a society in which, insofar as is humanly possible, every Ameri- can would be well clothed, well housed, well fed, well trained, and well cared for, when- ever in legitimate need. Within the past 18 years of our national history, through the aid of a liberal political administration which has recognized and encouraged the respect of the rights of the working people of this Nation, labor has so extended ita base of economic strength that it 1s free at last to achieve that destiny which Gompers saw always on the horizon of the future. And so today we seek the full life for America. If we would be worthy of our history, it is essential for us to remember that we must pursue that abundant life in the name of Samuel Gompers and the founding fathers of 1881, Whatever stature, whatever position, we have today, we owe to the struggles of yes- terday. In our march on the economic,