A364 This American Government of ours is re- puted to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people—but, as a matter of fact, it is a government of a part of the people, by a part of the people, and for all of the people. To deprive a large group of intelligent and in every way worthy Americans of a right to participate in the Government of their coun- try is indefensible. When it is noted that this group exceeds in number the population of 14 States, such denial just does not make sense. Under the Constitution, which gives the Congress the power “to exercise exclusive legislation Jn all cases whatsoever” over the seut of the Government, there is no provi- sion whatever for representation in the Con- gress for other than States. For this reason, as advised by able con- stitutional lawyers, an amendment to the Constitution is required to empower the Con- gress to provide these Americans of the Na- tional Capital community with the privilege of electing one or two Senators, a proper proportion of Representatives, and electors of President and Vice President equal to the ageregate representation in the Senate and House of Representatives. There is nothing unreasonable in such a demand on an American Congress by a large group of fellow Americans who by every cal- culation of measurement are the peers of the Members of Congress and the constituents who sent them to Washington. As a matter of fact, just between u. fellow Americans, it is not a presumption for these voteless and unrepresented Americans to ask the Congress (which is their sole legislature) to provide for their effective participation in the Government of their country. On the other hand, it would appear to be the grossest presumption on the part of the Congress to deny vital citizenship rights to fellow Ameri- cans of the District, whose only fault, if any, is that they sre residents of the seat of Government. The pending Senate Joint Resolution 6 is an enabling provision conferring on the Con- gress a new power regarding the people of the seat of the Government, over which it already possesses the power of “exclusive leg- islation in all cases whatsoever.” The amendment has been drawn very briefly and broadly; so as to give to the Congress con- siderable latitude in the exercise of its power. The proposed amendment does not attempt to clutter up the Constitution with detail legislation, but simply grants a required power which the Congress now lacks. Earlier forms of proposed amendments for the purpose went into considerable detail as to what representation should be given to these people whose permanent residence is at the Nation's Capital. It developed that there was wide divergence of opinion both in and out of Congress as to what the repre- sentation should be and other details which clearly should be left to the best judgment of the Congress in harmony with !ts present constitutional power over the seat of the Government. The proponents of the proposed amend- ment believe that the extent of representa- tion to be granted and other incidental ques- tions can be safely left to the judgment of the Eightieth and subsequent Congresses. For instance, some in both houses of Con- gress have raised objection to the representa- tion of District people in the Senate, and some have questioned whether such repre- sentation in the Senate should be by one or by two Senators. Now, if the constitutional amendment should restrict representation to the House of Representatives these people who believe that they are entitled to repre- sentation in the Congress, which is composed of both the Senate and the House of Repre- sentatives, would be put to the necessity of waging another campaign for further amend- ment to remove such restriction against rep- resentation in the Senate. It is the Congress, and not just the House of Representatives, in which these people need representation, for it is the Congress which governs them, taxes them, and sends them to war, and not just the House of Rep- resentatives. While these District people have great re- spect for the ability of the Eightieth Con- gress, they are such optimists as to believe that future Congresses will possess the same high qualities and good judgment. The Eightieth Congress might be unwilling, by subsequent legislation under the amend- ment, to provide representation in the Sen- ate. But they should not, by mutilation of the proposed amendment, shut the door to future Congresses’ providing for such repre- sentation if in their judgment it is required by justice. The closing sentence of the proposed amendment, as pending, provides: “All legis- lation hereunder shall be subject to amend- ment and repeal.” The Congress under the authority of this closing sentence surely is taking no chances whatever of making a mis- take which it would have difficulty in cor- recting. Even though at first the District people might be given a minimum of repre- sentation in the Congress, it could be later expanded, modified, and safeguarded in any way which the Judgment of Congress might determine. But what is needed now is an opportunity to answer any specific objections and early favorable report by the committee and favor- able action by the Senate. The identical joint resolution will shortly be introduced in the House of Representa- tives, but it is expected that some favorable action by the Senate will precede considera- tion by the House committee. Two Vice Presidents—Don’t Let It Happen Elsewhere EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. A. S. MIKE MONRONEY OF OKLAHOMA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 23, 1947 Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. Speaker, un- der leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I would like to ask unanimous consent to reprint two excellent edi- torials from the Washington Post and the Washington News concerning my proposed constitutional amendment pro- viding for the election of two Vice Presi- dents in order to eliminate possible con- fusion in the line of Presidential suc- cession. [From the Washington Post] TWO V. P.’8 When President Truman took a stand against an appointive official succeeding him in case of death or disability, he pointed to the Speaker of the House as the logical heir apparent. The House eagerly took up that view and passed a bill substituting the Speaker for the Secretary of State as No. 1 on the Presidential succession list. In the Senate the bill hit a snag, chiefly because Mr. Truman had put the Speaker above the Senate’s President pro tempore. This dead- lock between the two Houses gives special point to Representative MonRoNnzY’s plan to leave both the Speaker and President pro APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD tempore undisturbed and provide for two Vice Presidents. What gave the Speaker the inside track in the search for a new heir apparent was the fact that he is a doubly elected official— elected a Representative by his constituents and Speaker by a majority of the House. That is a real advantage. But there are other factors which make the Speuker an unsatis- factory choice for acting President. Being leader of the House, he may have power enough to bring about the impeachment of a President to further his own ambition. In case of disability on the part of the President his potentiul successor should be free to serve temporarily in the White House, and the Speaker could scarcely do that without giving up a position attained through many years of public service in Congress, These difficulties over using the Speaker as heir apparent and the dislike for moving any appointed official into this powerful executive role focus strong attention on the constitutional amendment that Congress- man Monroney is drafting. His plan calls for a First Vice President who would function as a sort of administrative assistant to the Chief Executive and a Second Vice President who would preside over the Senate. In case of the death of the President or the First Vice President, the Second Vice President would succecd to the administrative role so as to become familiar with the duties and policies of the President whom he might succeed. We think the Monroney plan has notable possibilities, At one stroke itt would elimi- nate nearly all danger of having a President not elected by the people and insure the succession of an experienced official within the executive branch in case of an unexpected White House vacancy. Some fears have been expressed that the President and the pro- posed First Vice President might not work together harmoniously. But this difficulty could be overcome in some measure at least in the nominating conventions by choosing compatible personalities for the top posi- tions on the ticket. The present tendency to let geographical considerations dictate the selection of Vice Presidential candidates would be minimized in some degree by the choice of three candidates instead of two. One difficulty arises from the fact that a constitutional amendment is a slow method of eliminating the uncertainty that would envelop the White House in the event of President Truman's death. But we are quite convinced that the defects in the present system cannot be fully overcome without a constitutional amendment. Fortunately, Mr. Monroney intends to deal in his proposal with other contingencies that might leave us without a President. Realization that we are only one heartbeat away from an appointed President and that emergency legislation on the subject seems to have little chance of enactment should spur Congress into hasty consideration of this new ap- proach. [From the Washington Daily News of Janu- ary 21, 1947] DON’T LET IT HAPPEN ELSEWHERE Georgia didn’t necessarily get into this mess just because of the general cussedness of Georgians, , Framers of the State constitution—and it ‘was rewritten in the Arnall administration— made no clear provision for the death of @ governor-elect before he was sworn in, And they used such cloudy language in other sections as to make possible conflicting in- terpretation that (1) the legislature could elect a governor or (2) the Heutenant gov- ernor-elect could succeed. As a result, Georgia has two governors, both solemnly sworn in, each eager to serve, but neither quite sure that he’s the McCoy.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Eventually, it is assumed, the courts of Geor- gia will decide. Whether Herman Tal- madge, if he is loser, will submit, remains to be seen. One day he says he will abide by a court decision; next day he says the courts have no jurisdiction. And Herman has the militia. While Georgia struggles to restore consti- tutional government, it might be a good time for people in other States to examine their own constitutions to see if all con- tingencies are clearly provided for. The Federal Constitution, iteelf, is far from foolproof an succession to the Presi- dency. One hundred and forty-three years ago, after the Thomas Jefferson-Aaron Burr mix-up, an oversight of the founding fathers was corrected, to provide separate balloting in the electoral college for President and Vice President. Again, in the so-called “lame duck” amendment of 14 years ago, an- other omission was corrected by stipulating that if the President-elect should die before being sworn the Vice-President-elect should become President. But there’s considerable doubt about what would happen if both should die, and if the new Congress should fail to organize itself and take action before the Presidential term began. Representative Monronty, of Oklahoma, coauthor of the act to reorganize Congress and a lawmaker who tries to look ahead, has proposed a constitutional amendment to provide the election of two Vice Presidents and clear up some of the confusing proce- dure on Presidential succession. What's happening in Georgia is more than a gentle hint that the Monroney plan and similar proposals had better be trotted out for de- bate and action. Smearing by Inaccurate Statements EXTENSION OF REMARKS oO HON. CLARE E. HOFFMAN OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 30, 1947 Mr. HOFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, under leave granted, I insert herewith an edi- torial from the Chicago Daily Tribune, Saturday, January 11, 1947: WHO CHAMPIONS HOPE AND FREEDOM? Henry Robinson Luce, the publisher of Time magazine, opened an internationalist forum, which his magazine and the Cleve- land Council on World Affairs are sponsoring in that city, with some remarke about the Tribune. He said that we favor prosperity for the United States, that we are not in favor of poverty and disease, that we are against strikes and the loss of production, and that we favor freedom. In these obser- vations, Mr. Luce was correct. Be was inoorrect, and, we believe know- ingly so, when he went on to say that, :o far as we are concerned, the rest of the world outside the United States can sink into pov- erty and despair. Mr. Luce and others like him talk a lot of love for humanity. They hold meetings, make speeches, and pass resolutions. Any- thing that is international seems to them good. They were in favor of cooperating with the British, the Russians, or the Chi- nese to the point where America cooperated its pockets inside out. They are not very particular about the causes In which we are to cooperate or whom we cooperate with. The loose-thinking Luces are seldom crit- ical of the foreign governments which they think should be America’s constant and principal concern. They are not skeptical of the United Nations. It's international and that’s enough for them. Nor are they properly critical of a foreign policy subser- vient in turn to Britain and Russia, which the State Department pursues in implemen- tation of the immoral, infamous, and un- constitutional private deals of Roosevelt and Truman at Teheran, Yalta, and Potsdam. That there is poverty and despair in the world is, unfortunately, all too true. The Tribune's is one of very few voices raised in this country in indignant protest against the root causes of these conditions. The Tribune has steadily demanded positive action to rec- tify these abominations. Instead of fronting for British colonial ex- ploitation and Cammunist tyranny, as the internationalists do when they talk their Jargon and open their dinner jackets to dis- play bleeding hearts, the Tribune has ut- tered condemnation of nations, inst'tutions, policies, and back-room deals which have tos- tered and maintained the poverty and de- spair which are rampant throughout the world. Unlike the internationalists in their hypocrisy, we refuse to be an accomplice in the degradation and enslavement of human- kind. Thus we have bluntly asserted that the United Nations is a betrayal of American ideals of freedom and of America’s hopes for peace, because it is nothing but a conserva- tor for British imperialism and Russian en- slavement, The British and Russian regimes together are responsible for more poverty, despair, and ill will among the world's mil- ions than any other agency. The United Nations has been converted into an instru- ment for protecting their tyraany and per- petuating it. The way to remove poverty and despair among colonial peoples is to give them po- litical liberty and to prevent the white pro- prietors from continuing to sweat them for a bowl of rice or a few pence a day. The way to give hope and a decent life to the millions of victims of communism in Russia and in its hostage states is to liberate these multi- tudes from terror, enslavement, and enforced political nullity. As every reader knows, the Tribune has said these things repeatedly in unmistakable language. The way to lift Europe from the slough of despair and the morass of poverty is not to impose chaos upon defenseless people by the methods of Yalta and Potedam, which are those of the fron curtain, rule at pistol point, enforced mass migrations, exaction of slave labor from war prisoners and political dissidents, and destruction of Germany as the core of the European economy. These things, too, the Tribune has repeatedly said. The idea of the internationalists is that cooperation should manifest itself through maintenance of an ill-fed slave world out- side of the United States, with America keeping the victims on a dole. This is the foreign policy as it has been under Truman and Byrnes, Connally and Vandenberg—a policy which is represented as bipartisan, but against which all decent Americans will most certainly rebel. The Luces can talk internationalism until they are blue in the face. It will only en- courage Russia in its grab of bases from Norway. It will fail to give a single Hindu, Moslem, Indonesian, or Annamite the hope of freedom. It will fail to hearten a single Pole from among the millions the Commu- nist puppet government has disfranchised in order to hold them in bondage. It will withhold hope from all of the 15,000,000 Rus- sians penned up in slave camps—an authen- tic estimate from Maj. Victor Caselet, former British political liaison officer with the Polish Government in exile. It will merely confirm prisoners of war in the belief that there is no A365 hope beyond reconciling themselves to their fate as slave laborers. We had denounced Mr. Luce’s fake forum as an attempt to represent the Middle West as sympathetic to eastern seaboard interna- tionalism in all its brutality. Having no honest answer, Mr. Luce turned to falsehood and misrepresentation. If he wants to learn something about championing the causes of downtrodden and oppressed peoples, we rec- ommend a reading of our files. It is not the Tribune but the internationalists who have failed to recognize infamy when they saw it; it is not the Tribune but the interna- tionalists who have promoted starvation and oppression. United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration REMARKS HON. ROSS RIZLEY OF OKLAHOMA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 30, 1947 Mr. RIZLEY. Mr. Speaker, I take this time to call this situation to the atten- tion of the House. Some of us were somewhat disturbed 2 years ago when UNRRA, with relief funds, purchased five transport planes for Yugoslavia. Two of them they de- livered, but the other three they have been maintaining at Love Field, in Dallas, Tex. We had hoped that such a performance would not occur again, but I find that on January 3 of this year UNRRA bought 17 C-46’s, at $17,500 apiece, and 5 C-47’s, at the same price, some of which have already been de- livered to China. That is 22 C-46’s and C-47's that UNRRA has purchased this month with relief funds. It may be nec- essary—I do not know—to use this type of plane to distribute relief supplies, but it is a very expensive operation, and it is very questionable, I understand, whether the planes are actually to be used for that purpose. There is some indication that perhaps some syndicate in China is putting in a commercial air line with these planes that have been purchased with UNRRA funds. Somebody ought to put a stop to this. I am sure the taxpayers of this coun- try, who are putting up more than three- fourths of the funds for UNRRA to feed and clothe the hungry and naked peoples in the other parts of the world, did not expect the money to be expended in the purchase of transport planes. Potash Production EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ANTONIO M. FERNANDEZ OF NEW MEXICO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 3, 1947 Mr. FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, the shortage of fertilizer, and the need for an
A366 increased supply to meet the ever-in- creasing use and demand for fertilizer, is one of great concern to every Member of Congress. This shortage, despite the in- creased production, is the result of a growing appreciation on the part of agri- culture for the benefits to be derived from the extensive and systematic use of com- mercial fertilizers. The potash industry is one of the principal industries in my State, and this increase in the use of fer- tilizer is one which augurs well for agri- culture, for the potash industry, and for the Nation. By unanimous consent heretofore ob- tained, I insert in the Recorp a very in- formative statement on the subject by Mr. Horace M. Albright, president of the United States Potash Co., Inc., presented by him before the Subcommittee on Agriculture last Friday, January 31, 1947: STATEMENT OF Mr. Horack M. ALBRIGHT, PRESI- DENT, UNITED STATES PorasH Co., INC. As a representative of one of the potash producers, I am fully aware that there is not as much potash as the fertilizer and chemical industries would like to have at this time. However, I wish to emphasize that domestic production is at an all-time high. Reliable estimates indicate a total supply of 750,000 tons of K.O for American agricul- ture for the fertilizer year ending June 30, 1047. This year’s supply, therefore, is esti- mated to be slightly above the all-time high reached last year and greatly exceeds the average 1935-39 prewar consumption of 375,076 tons K.O. The potash producers have been continu- ally operating their plants at the maximum capacity available under the prevailing con- ditions. In 1946 drought seriously depleted water resources and heated available water to high temperatures which curtailed pro- auction, My company’s refinery output was down perhaps 10,000 tons of high-grade muriate of potash due to those abnormal drought conditions, and that potash which was not made was lost for this season. In order that you may realize how widely potash was distributed and how great was the growth of demand for fertilizers, espe- cially in the Middle West, I will quote some significant figures. In the southeastern States, North Carolina used an average of 46,730 tons K,O during the prewar period 1935-39, and this increased to 87,226 tons for the fertilizer year ending June 30, 1946, In the similar periods, consumption in Mis- sissippi increased from 8,876 tons K.O to 14,993 tons in 1945. In the Middle Atlantic States, of which New Jersey is typical, con- sumption increased from an average of 12,241 tons to 20,792 tons K,O. In Pennsyl- vania the increase was from 16,749 tons K,O to 30,625 tons K,O. Turning to the Midwest where the use of fertilizers really got under way during the war period, we find that Illinots averaged only 2,659 tons K,O during the prewar period 1935-39, but this was in- creased to 18,038 tons for the year ending June 30, 1945. During the same period con- sumption in Wisconsin increased from 3,435 tons K.O to 21,981 tons, and in Iowa the in- crease wus from 600 to 7,517 tons K,O. In measuring the advances made in the production and consumption of potash dur- ing anc after the recent war, we must re- member that in the prewar years the United States imported one-half of its potash from Europe, These imports stopped during the war and have not yet reappeared. This placed full demand upon our domestic pro- duction, and in addition we should remem- ber that our domestic production had to supply not only the United States but all of North America, The farmer has been taught the higher economic value of potash use which, com- bined with increased income, has resulted in greater demand, and although domestic production has increased about three times its prewar level, the demand is in excess of the greatly increased American production. It is important for the committee to re- alize that the boxcar shortage has materially affected deliveries of potash, which must be hauled across the continent from the mines and refineries, all of which are located in California, Utah, and New Mexico. This boxcar shortage is still a hazard. Our company is today 400 cars in arrears in ship- ping orders. Thus, even if more output of potash could be achieved, even tf more run- of-mine salts should be ordered for fertilizer use, there is no reason to believe that the extra supply of boxcars could be had. I call the attention of the committee to a chart (which I shal: pass to each member) titled “Potash Deliveries: Agricultural and Chemical, North America.” ‘t shows the amount of potash delivered and presumably consumed in North America in the calendar years 1938-46, principally of course in the United States. In reading this chart you will note that deliveries in the calendar year 1946 amounted to 915,000 tons K,O as compared to 870,000 tons the preceding year. Thus you will get a clear picture of the amount of potash used in the manufacture of fertilizers by noting that everything under the crosshatch for chemicals indicates what potash was used in agriculture. Unfortunately there is a widespread im- pression that the American potash industry 1s not producing as much potash in the cur- rent year as it did last. The data clearly show that this is not the case. Never since the beginning of World War II has there been in any year a decrease in the output of potash by the American industry. There will be no decrease this year. The erroneous idea is derived from the fact that there will be less potash distributed in April-May 1947 than in the same period in 1946 because ton- mages canceled early last year by chemical manufacturers on account of the closing down of certain war plants made a tempo- rary surplus available which was allocated in April-May 1946. During the period be- ginning June 1, 1946, and running ‘through May 31, 1947, that tonnage 80 released to agriculture has been spread over the entire period. As you have been informed, the entire out- put of potash during the war period and cur- rently has been distributed in accordance with allocations prescribed by the War Pro- duction Board its predecessors and successors, and in line with a system and policy based on the historical background of prior purchases of potash. Under this policy, which so far as we know was regarded as fair by potash pro- ducers, fertilizer and chemical manufacturers and consumers, the chemical industry had first call on supplies because of their manu- facture of chemicals important to military operations, the balance being allocated to the fertilizer industry. The members of the committee may be in- terested to know how this allocation system has served the agriculture of the various sec- tions of the country. Here I am talking about deliveries of potash to fertilizer manufac- turers by potash producers, whereas I have already discussed consumption figures, These delivery items are for the same States as those already mentioned in connection with the consumption story. To illustrate, among the Southeastern States I mention North Oasrolina where deliveries in 1946 amounted to 52,271 tons K,O as compared to 30,882 tons in 1938. In New Jersey typical of the Northeastern States, 1946 deliveries amounted to 81,744 tons K,O as compared to 19,000 tons in 1938; in Pennsylvania 16,031 in 1946 as compared to 11,765 tons for 1938; in Mississippi 12,379 and 10,175 tons K,O. Turning to States where the use of ferti- lizers represents a relatively new expansion, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD in Wisconsin 1946 deliveries amounted to 8,628 tons as compared to 1,161 in 1938; in Tllinois the corresponding figures are 61,789 and 9,620 tons and in Iowa 1,850 tons in 1946 &8 compared to 134 tons in 1938. With the permission of the gentlemen of the committee, I should like to insert here for the record a brief statement outlining the history of this American potash industry in which we profess great pride. Prior to the First World War you will recall there was no American potash industry. Through the expenditure of huge sums of money and great effort on the part of both Government and industry, emergency plants were built during that war, which had raised their pro- duction to a maximum of 55,000 tons in 1918, High costs made the price of this potash as high as $500 or more per ton K.O. Only one of these plants survived the liquidation of high-cost operations when imports of Ger- mean-French material were resumed in 1920. I refer to the property of the American Potash & Chemical Corp, at Searles Lake, Calif. Per- sistent search for additional sources of water- soluble potash by both Government and pri- vate enterprise resulted in the discovery of the present New Mexico potash field in 1925 by an oil company which accidentally en- countered a bed of sylvite, which is the ore from which 85 percent of our American pot- ash is made. The first mine was opened in January 1931. The refinery in connection with that mine was opened in September 1932. Two other large mining and refining companies were developed in the next few years. By 1938, the last peacetime year prior to the opening of the Second World War, there was 475,000 tons of K,O used in North Amer- ica Of that tonnage, approximately one-half was imported from Europe. Throughout the period of World War II emergency, the American potash industry supplied Canada and Cuba with their potash requirements on the same basis as that of the United States. In addition, substantial quantities were allocated for export under Jend-lease. In other words, the American potash industry became the principal source for potash supplies for the Allies and friendly nations to the southwest during World War I, Pearl Harbor—Plotting or Bungling EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HOWARD H. BUFFETT OF NEBRASKA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 27. 1947 Mr. BUFFETT. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I include an appraisal of the book, Pearl Harbor: the Story of the Secret War. This re- view of George Morgenstern’s Pearl Har- bor is by William H. Grimes, editor of the Wall Street Journal. Mr. Grimes ends his review by this warning to the Republican Party: There should be a thorough inquiry and if the first Republican administration at Wash- ington fails to make it the party will be in Position of accessory after the fact, Morgenstern’s book, bristling with facts and documentary evidence, is “must” reading for all patriots who want the truth about how this country was maneuvered into World War II, The complete review follows: PLOTTING OR BUNGLING In this book, Pearl darbor, Mr, Morgen- stern builds up to the conclusion that the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD naval disaster of December 7, 1941, resulted from the anxiety of Mr. Roosevelt and his advisers for an incident that would force this reluctant country into World War I. Some people, perhaps a growing number, have accepted or are willing to accept that conclusion. A great many people reject it and do so with some heat. Isolating emotional factors for the mo- ment, Mr. Morgenstern has done a competent and thorough job of reviewing information from the various official inquiries as well as from other sources. He brings loose threads together, collating revelations sep- arated by time and source. More than half @ dozen inquiries extended over four years and unless one made a business of following them, which most people had not the time to do, the whole thing is confused. For these people much of the book will be in the category of new information. For those who have given the whole subject closer at- tention, the book is a good refresher course. That would be so even for those who will Genounce the book before they read it. There were three opportunities to avoid, or at least postpone, Pearl Harbor. Months before December 1941, a chance for diplomatic discussion was allowed to slip away. On the very eve of Pearl Harbor, Sec- retary of State Hull was on the point of proposing a temporary arrangement to con- tinue diplomatic relations with Japan. He dropped the plan, even though the military leaders warned they were not prepared for war. If Pearl Harbor had been better equipped with patrol planes and radar detection, the Japs would have been discouraged {from at- tacking, because surprise was essential to their plan. Much of the material was avail- able but it was sent elsewhere. If after war became almost a certainty, Pearl Harbor had been properly alerted to use the defenses that it had, the Japs, whose spies were everywhere in Hawaii, might not have taken the chance an attack involved. The Army and fleet commanders were not given proper orders. If in the hours before the attack, there had been proper evaluation of the information at hand, Pearl Harbor could still have been alerted to minimize the damage from the at- tack. None of these things was done. They were not done despite the fact that Washington— the Jap code having been cracked—had al- most as much warning of impending war as though American officials had been sitting in meetings of the Jap cabinet. For Pearl Harbor to happen it was necessary for a number of people in various places to be asleep at the switch, all at one and the same time. And subsequently many of these same people showed themselves very alert and com- petent planners and administrators. That this is due to mere coincidence is a colossal incredibility. There must be some other ex- planation. Mr. Morgenstern says an incident in which the Japs would appear the aggressors was wanted. One weakness is that Mr. Morgenstern gives the Pearl Harbor commanders almost a clean bill of health and sees the exclusive blame in Washington. One can believe that the bulk of the blame was at Washington and still think that the commanders at Pearl Harbor could have been more alert. Another weakness is that Mr. Morgenstern almost assumes that tne Japs loathed the thought of war and that in the diplomatic negotiations their representatives were not dissembling. After all, the Japs had built a huge war machine, made a threatening alli- ance with Hitler and were not at all in- capable of double dealing. But with all due allowance, there was still something wrong at Washington. Mr. Mor- says it was a well-planned plot, His evidence might just as well point to planiess bungling. Mr. Roosevelt was a man given to im- pulsive action. He possessed a sublime self- confidence that he could ride any situation, compensating for errors by a subsequent bold stroke. When Mr. Roosevelt committed this coun- try to help England, he was staking so much on a British and Russian victory over Hitler that the country could not afford to stand by and see any other result. He found him- self committed to Britain not only in Europe but over the whole world and committed as well to British dominions and British allies, including the Dutch with dependencies in the Pacific. He may have fully realized what he was doing. The chances are that he did not. At any rate he did not inform the American people candidly. On the contrary he kept telling them he meant to engage in no foreign war while he was becoming more and more committed in a situation pushing him to war. At the very moment he was giving a most positive assurance Americans were undertaking a military base in Ireland. That was Mr. Rvuosevelt’s dilemma at the time of Pearl Harbor. There are signs that he had begun to lose his self-confidence; that his conflicting commitments, one set to foreign powers and another set to the coun- try, concerned him very much; that he was hesitant and did not know what to do. But meanwhile Mr. Roosevelt had taken personal command of the diplomatic moves and military preparations. All his subor- dinates moved only on his orders. Thus at the time of Pear] Harbor the situa- tion was that the source of all directions was in a state that was the opposite of conducive to decisive action. So no action was taken. A great many people could see what was com- ing, but the nerve centcr was paralyzed and unable to react. If Mr. Roosevelt and his advisers did not want war, there is evidence that they had come to regard war as inevitable. But they were looking to Europe. There 1s not pre- ponderant evidence that they particularly wanted to fight Japan and a two-front war would reduce the strength this country could bring against Hitler, which was the last thing they wanted. The picture of bungling is clearer than the picture of plotting. Either way the thing is bad enough and the country is entitled to the full story, which it certainly has not had. One reason is that inquiries have been centered on Pearl Har- bor. Separated from its background, Pearl Harbor is not all-revealing. The background is the diplomatic conduct preceding the war and much of that has been successfully hid- den so far. There should be a thorough in- quiry and if the first Republican adminis- tration at Washington fails to make it, the party will be in position of accessory after the fact. George Morgenstern’s Book on Pearl Harbor EXTENSION OF REMARKS ° HON. ALBEN W. BARKLEY OF KENTUCKY IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, February 3, 1947 Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an edi- torial entitled “But Never Surrenders,” from the Chicago Times of January 26, 1947. . There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: The ghost of Pearl Harbor still gets kicked around. The die-hard isolationists who seek A367 to salve their own consciences by blaming the disaster of December 7, 1941, on Franklin Delano Roosevelt at least have the virtue of never knowing when they are licked. Latest entrant in the ranks of the hind- sight experts who know all the answers to Pearl Harbor is George Morgenstern, author of Pearl Harbor: The Story of the Secret War, published last week by Devin-Adair. Mr. Morgenstern happens to be an editorial writer on the Chicago Tribune. A couple of weeks ago the Tribune per- mitted Mr. Morgenstern, in its Sunday book section, to review his own book. First, he quotes certain “authorities’—one of them being Norman Thomas, the peren- nial Socialist candidate for President—who expect his book to be “vchemently de- nounced.” Then he proceeds to take him- self seriously enough to say, “Critics had better be scholars before they get too ve- hement about that promised denunciation.” The writer of this editorial lays no claim to scholarship. But he did sit in Washing- ton through three dreary months of the congressional investigation of Pear] Harbor, which Mr. Morgenstern did not. Therein lies the source of the greatest factual weakness in the Morgenstern book. Its author has had to rely exclusively on a cold transcript of some 10,000,000 words which would take a lifetime to digest. Mr. Morgenstern did not see the witnesses on the stand or their examinérs. He had no gage as to their credibility evidenced by ex- pression, hesitation, or inflection of voice. He did not see the actions of Senators Fercu- 5ON and BREWSTER as they posed their tricky questions designed to crucify the memory of Roosevelt, Particularly in point is the great weight assigned by Morgenstern to the testimony of Capt. L. F. Safford, United States Navy, re- garding the so-called winds message by which the Japanese were supposed to have notified all their agents that hostilities were com- mencing. Of ali the 50 or so witnesses appearing before the investigators, Captain Safford was the only one alleging that the “execute” mes- Sage had ever been sent and intercepted by our intelligence service. Even all high Japa- nese officers interrogated after Japan's sur- render testified that the “execute” message was never sent. Yet one of the strongest pillars in Mr. Morgenstern'’s structure of evidence that President Roosevelt and his aides knew when and where the war was due to break out was Captain Safford’s evidence. Had Morgenstern witnessed Captain Safford's pe- culiar behavior and obvious confusion when testifying—or even if he had carefully read and weighed Safford's testimony—he would have discounted it completely. So far as Mr. Morgenstern's expectation of vehement denunciation of his book is con- cerned, the gentleman flatters himself. It simply isn’t worth it. About all it amounts to is a wordy apologia for, and repetition of, the minority report of the congressional Pearl Harbor investigating committee. Mr. Morgenstern does not even have the grace to point out, or even mention, what a weak minority wrote the minority Pearl Har- bor committee report. He makes much of the “New Deal” majority of the committee and emphasizes that “naturally” the ma- jority wrote the majority report. What Morgenstern didn’t mention was that two of the four Republican members of the committee—Representatives BERTRAND GEAR- Hart, Republican, California, and Franx B. Keerr, Republican, Wisconsin—signed the majority report. Nor did he recognize that Senator WALTER Grorar, of Georgia, and Rep- resentative J. BAYARD CLarK, of North Caro- lina, could not by any stretch of imagination be called New Dealers. The anti-New Dealers by a vote of 4 to 2 rejected the idea that Franklin D. Roosevelt provoked the war with Japan simply because
A368 the evidence showed that it wasn’t so. No “loaded” jury was needed. Senator FERGUSON 1s still preening his po- litical ambitions by bellowing that “the truth” about Pearl Harbor eventually will out. The public will be waiting for any- thing new that Mr. Frrauson may produce. There is nothing new in the Morgenstern book. What Is a Press Monopoly? EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ALBERT W. HAWKES OF NEW JERSEY IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, February 3, 1947 Mr. HAWKES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an editorial entitled “What Is a Press Monopoly?” from the New York Times of February 2, 1947. In these times, when most Americans seem to be agreed that monopoly must be suppressed if the rights of American citizens are to be preserved, it would seem to me that the importance of avoid- ing monopoly which interferes with free- dom of the press is quite as vital as the control of any other form of monopoly. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: WHAT IS A PRESS MONOPOLY? The sale of the Stern newspapers in Phila- Gelphia and Camden would threaten’ grave hardship to hundreds of the employees were it not for the action and encouraging words of Robert McLean, publisher of the Bulletin, who bought the properties. Mr. McLean made ft clear that he agreed to purchase only after the suspension of the newspapers had been determined upon. He promises for the time being to continue the salaries and regu- lar wages of those now at work and expresses the hope that “the Record and Courier Post of Camden * * * will be resumed under independent ownership.” Milton Murray, president of the American Newspaper Gulld, sees in this generous action another step in what he calls “the increasing trend of American newspaper monopoly.” If Myr. Murray does not state all the facts it is possibly because he has a lot on his con- science. The final push which sent the Stern newspapers over the brink was the strike of Mr. Murray's union for terms Mr. Stern could apparently not meet and remain solvent. But for the action of the Bulletin there would be only rock at the bottom of the precipice for more than 1,600 persons in- volved. There is an element of Greek tragedy in the situation, In 1935 it was David Stern, then publisher of the Post in New York City, who gave the Newspaper Guild one of its first closed shop—or so-called guild shop-—agree- ments and started it on its way. The Guild at that time sought to represent only news department employees. But many newspaper publishers and executives who were used to dealing with unions and had done so ami- cably for years were shocked at this willing- ness to place in the hands of a single group, which was already taking positions in public affairs, the sole opportunity to write and edit the news, Liberal publishers conceded the rights of a union devoted as a bargaining agent to the best interests of its members. Such has always been the policy of this newspaper. But a social pressure group was quite another matter. As such the political leaders of the guild, and their aim to dominate the jobs of writing and editing of news were regarded with grave suspicion by sound news- papermen, those of the public who under- stood the trend and by the rival unions of the AFL. If a charge of monopoly is now to be made it must be directed against this aspiration of some of the guild’s leaders. Fortunately, and in the main, they have not succeeded. We believe that the many good newspaper- men in the guild’s ranks would oppose their @drive for a monopoly in the expression of political opinion if they realized where it is leading. The Stern newspapers, indeed, were not crippled or destroyed by the guild leaders’ desire to control their news policies. They were hammered down by economic blows, the last and most crushing directed by the guild. But the moral stands. he guild leaders who did this thing had further and more dangerous ambitions. We hope and believe that this catastrophe will be a beacon of warning to all members of a pro- fession which, though it must live by profits, salaries, and wages, is, and ought to be, dedi- cated to the public service. The Fertilizer Supply Situation EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. PORTER HARDY, JR. OF VIRGINIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 3, 1947 Mr. HARDY. Mr. Speakei, the pro- duction of agricultural commodities plays a vital part in the welfare of our Nation and the supply of commercial fertilizer is closely related to our agri- cultural production. Under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following state- ment which was made by Mr. Ralph B. Douglass, vice president of the Smith- Douglass Co., Norfolk, Va., before the fertilizer subcommittee of the House Committee on Agriculture at its hearing January 31, 1947: I thank the committee for the privilege of appearing before you and telling you what little I may know about the present fertilizer supply situation. My work and activities cause me to have frequent and close contacts with the farmers in the areas where my company operates, and I am naturally very much interested in seeing them get full and adequate supplies of fer- tilizers. It hurts the soul of a fertilizer man not to be able to fill all of the demand because all of his training and experience before 1941 was in trying to find a market for his fertilizers and ways to get business— to promote it by endeavoring to get farmers to use greater quantities and in any other legitimate way he could—so it is an entirely new experience for him to be called upon for more fertilizer than he can supply. I understand you are interested in the ‘immediate short supply situation and will therefore attempt to confine my remarks accordingly. Then if there are any ques- tions, I will be glad to try to answer them, Fertilizer materials such as superphos- phate, potash, and the solid nitrogen ma- terials, are often used by the farmers of this country for straight application to their soils. These same materials along with nie trogen solutions and other plant food ele~ ments are combined together to make what js commonly known as complete commercial fertilizer or mixed fertilizers. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Notwithstanding the fact that the antici- pated supply is at an all-time high, there is not enough to satisfy the farmers’ current needs either for straight application or in the form of complete fertilizers. Records show that when farm income is up in a given year, the demand for fertilizer will in- crease correspondingly the following year. If farm income is down, then the demand for fertilizer falls off in the succeeding year. Since the farm income in the year 1946 was at an all-time high and since farmers have learned that commercial fertilizers con- tribute so much to economical farm pro- duction, the current demand is at an all-time high. I estimate farmers over the country as a whole would buy 15 to 20 percent more plant foods in the spring of 1947 than they bought in the previous spring season. That quantity is just not available for use within the time needed and I see no practical way it can be provided. Strikes and labor troubles have contributed toward limiting production. It is hard to calculate accu- rately, but I believe we would have had 10 to 15 percent more of fertilizer and ma- terials except for the labor difficulties which have been encountered. Except for some priority assistance given the potash industry and except for the building of some nitrogen plants for mili- tary needs, the fertilizer industry was not permitted to build new plants during the war. Steels for building and machinery and other necessary things were put to more dil- rect military purposes. With substantially the same productive capacity for superphos- phate and complete fertilizers, the indus- try, through these facilities, was able to sup- ply American agriculture more than 14,000,- 000 tons of fertilizer -in 1946 as compared with an average of 7,300,000 tons in the 1935- 89 period. If fertilizers of the same plant- food content had been produced in 1946 as in the 1986-39 period, {t would have resulted in a production of 15,500,000 tons in 1946 as compared with the 7,300,000 tons in the 1935-39 period for the reason that the plant-food content had been increased about 15 percent. These figures I have quoted are for the en- tire United States, but the geographical pat- tern of use has changed tremendously. In the older consuming areas where for many years the farmer has known the value of fer- tilizer in economical and efficient agricultural production, the demand has increased but not to the same extent as it has in other cec- tions of the country. During the war period when all of our farmers were being urged to produce more fibers and foodstuffs, those sit- uated in areas where fertilizers had never before been used learned of the value of com- mercial plant food. In North Carolina, which is one of the older consuming areas, the consumption of fertilizer increased from about 1,100,000 tons in the 1939 period to about 1,500,000 tons in 1946. Likewise, in Pennsylvania, another older consuming area, where the average con- sumption in the prewar period was about 350,000 tons, it increased in 1946 to about 500,000 tons. Roughly, both States increased consumption about 40 percent. However, let us go to the State of Illinois. In 1939, Illinois used about 40,000 tons of fertilizer, excluding raw phosphate rock. In 1945 Illinois used about 210,000 tons, still excludin, raw rock. Exact figures are not available for 1946, but my guess is they will show a consumption of about 250,000 tons. Think just a moment about this increase from 40,000 to 250,000 tons. May I mention here that my company since VJ-day has completed a modern up-to-date. and efficient plant at Streator, Ill., at a cost of close to a half million dollars. It is now producing superphosphate and mixed “er- tilizera at full capacity. Other plants are under construction to serve that State.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD In Wisconsin the story is of even greater increased consumption. In 1939 Wisconsin used about 42,000 tons. In 1945 about 265,000 tons, and in 1946 an estimated 300,000 tons. Iowa is an even more accentuated example. In 1939 that State used only 13,000 tons of fertilizer and in 1946 used about 175,000 tons. A generally corresponding increase as that in the States I have cited has taken place in the entire Midwest area. Several new modern plants have been or are being built in most of those States by companies other than my own. The demand in California and other west coast States has increased tremendously. Due to economic conditions and because Government priorities are not now in effect, it 1s believed the west coast area will re- ceive a larger portion of the total United States supply of nitrogen as well as some other fertilizer materials and fertilizers than they have ever had before. All of this will show a changing pattern of use. The increased consumption in those new areas ts naturally taking away some sup- plies which would otherwise be available to the older consuming areas, but even in these older areas there is a much greater supply than in the prewar period. The CPA recently found that 65 new fer- tilizer plants are being built in the United States. Also, major additions have been made to 44 existing plants. These expanded facilities are going up in many sections of the country, but to a great extent they are concentrated in those areas which have begun to use fertilizers only in the last few years. I have given you approximate consump- tion figures for 1946 and my estimate of demand in the immediate future. I would like now to add the observation and opinion that over-all supplies during the current year will be equal to and probably slightly in ex- cess of those in 1946. The over-all demand, I have suid, however, is for 15 percent or 20 percent more fertilizers than will be avail- able. The shortage will be much worse in some areas than in others. What type of fertilizer or material will be in shortest supply? I think it will be the solid nitrogen materials of the kind gen- erally used for straight application, and I think the shortage of this will be more acute in the South Atlantic States than elsewhere because of smaller imports of Chilean nitrate of soda and smaller production of domestic nitrate at Hopewell, Va., due to shortage of soda ash. There is a substantial new pro- duction of ammonium nitrate at Govern- ment-built plants now being operated by private industry in Kansas and Arkansas, but this material does not move economically or logically to the East to replace the short supply of nitrate of soda. It more logically is consumed in areas neurer where it is being produced and west of the production points. Mixed fertilizers and other materials will be short in other areas. The new prac- tice of using fertilizer in the Midwest, in the Rocky Mountain area, and on the Pacific coast would create a hope for much more volume than can be supplied in the spring months of 1947. I now come to the matter of what can be done about this immediate shortage. It can be alleviated by completely shutting off exports of superphosphate and nitrogen ma- terials. However, this matter of exports and the wisdom of furnishing fertilizers to oc- cupied countries and to our former allies to whom commitments have been made by our country is a broad subject with which I would not attempt to deal It should be borne in mind, however, that we are im- porting more than we are exporting. Ex- cept for shutting off these exports and pro- viding needed transportation facilities tor some materials, I can see no remedy for the immediate future. Productive factlities can- not be built and brought into production XCII1-—App.——-24 overnight, but with the vast number und large capacity of new facilities now being constructed and with our industry now op- erating under a free economy, it seems rea- sonable to assume that by the summer or fall of 1947 practically all shortages will disappear. About That House of Mr. Straus EXTENSION OF REMARKS oO} HON. GLEN H. TAYLOR OF IDAHO IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, February 3, 1947 Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have inserted in the Appendix of the Recorp an article entitled “About That House of Mr. Straus,” which was published in the Tpashington Daily News of January 29, There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: ABOUT THAT HOUSE OF MR. STRAUS Michael Straus, Interior Department of- ficial, today is ducking brickbats from the Senate Civil Service Committee for occupying @ house on Department-managed property, although the evidence indicates that nobody before considered his tenancy irregular. The house 1s the old Linnean House, at Porter Street and Klingle Road in Rock Creek Park—a landmark of Pennsylvania Dutch stonework, whose charms are about out- weighed by its draftiness and the cost of fuel. The News last October mentioned his ten- ancy in a story about 99 purk-land houses for which Uncle Sam is landlord. Also men- tioned was the rent, $185 a month. Now comes the Senate committee with a “disclosure” that Mr. Straus is occupying the mansion, and that, moreover, the Govern- ment keeps up the surrounding park grounds without cost to Mr. Straus. The whole busi- ness is saturated with secrecy and intrigue. Back in 1939, the News’ own files reveal, the Interior Department was pretty desper- ate for a tenant for the old rock pile. An item in the News for December 22 reported the building, unoccupied, had besought a tenant under the headline “Uncle Sam has a house to rent.” Labor Legislation EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. JAY LeFEVRE OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 3, 1947 Mr. LEFEVRE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the RecorpD, I include an article by Mark Sullivan appearing in today’s New York Herald Tribune. Mr. Speaker, a great number of people in my district are worrying about labor- management legislation. They feel that labor leaders, realizing the change of at- titude by the great majority of American citizens, are bringing terrific pressure on our legislative bodies and that new legis- A369 lation is now necessary. This is true toa certain extent, but I firmly believe that the House Committee on Education and Labor and the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare are proceeding on this very important subject exactly as they should. Hearings have started in the Senate committee and they will start with the House committee this week. Certainly these hearings are necessary. To write good, sound legislation on any important subject calls for thorough hearings, so that every angle of the sub- ject can be thoroughly discussed. In order not to repeat a situation like we faced during the last coal strike, I firmly believe much thought must be given to the antitrust laws. The people never be- fore suffered so much or were threatened so much by the country’s powerful indus- trial leaders as they have been by the powerful labor leaders in the past few years, especially the past few months. Our antitrust laws must be reconsidered and amended so as to have the same ap- plication to organized labor. No; I do not believe in doing anything drastic, but to make unions equally responsible with management certainly is only fair and cannot be considered drastic by labor leaders. The article follows: Concress SEEN CERTAIN To Pass LEGISLATION To Restrict LABOR—MaRK SULLIVAN Says THREATS BY UNION LEADERS WILL Not DETER REPUBLICANS, SURE OF SUPPORT OF NATION AND OF OPPOSITION PARTY (By Mark Sullivan) WASHINGTON, February 2.—Hearings on labor legislation by the House Labor Com- mittee will begin the coming weck. The Senate committec began last week. Both ex- pect to conclude hearings and report to their respective branches by March 15. There is a vague intention that the new legislation be passed by April 1. But this is much more a hope than a confident expectation—ful- fillment would be rather a surprise. Actually, legislation by April 1 would be likely only if urgency is created by some new development. Just because strikes or other provocative developments would create in Congress a spirit of urgency, and also se- verity, such developments ore not likely. Labor leaders are on guard against them; have a spirit of conciliation. They are des- perutely anxious that Congress go easy und to that end are willing to go easy themselves. The spirit of the House is more urgent than that of the Senate and alms toward the more drastic forms of proposed legislation. That, however, is a characteristic difference be- tween the two branches at all times. The expectation of Republican leaders is that the House will write strong legislation, that the Senate version will be somewhat milder, and that the final version will be hammered out in the stage of conference between the two. The House is in a determined mood; it will hold out for strong legislation. WILLINGNESS TO LISTEN What may be called the official Republican attitude on labor legislation is strongly ap- parent in’ the hearings conducted by the Senate Labor Committee. Three Republi- cans on the committee—Chairman Tart, of Ohio; Bau, of Minnesota; and SmiTH, of New Jersey—are for various reasons leaders in Republican policy about labor. Their attl- tude throughout—and especially toward the most conspicuous witness from the labor side, Secretary of Labor Schwellenbach—is one of quiet determination accompanied by open-minded willingness to listen to what- ever labor representatives have to say. Both the determination and the tolerance are &
A370 fruit of the November election. They know the country earnestly wants labor legislation. Of the country’s wish there is strong evi- dence in the experience of Senator ALEXANDER SMITH, of New Jersey, in the November elec- tion. He was already in the Senate and his position about labor was well known. Al- though labor has much strength in the State, including powerful Congress of Industrial Organizations unions, Senator SmirH won a victory that made history. He got the largest plurality ever received by any candidate of either party for either Senator or Governor, the two high offices filled by State-wide elec- tion. The inference ts that many of the rank and file of labor and of labor’s women- folk are tired of what labor leaders and unions have been doing, and want corrective legislation. The inference is borne out by the experience of other successful candidates for Congress in States and districts having large numbers of workers in the electorate. BACKED BY OPPOSITION For the combined resoluteness and toler- ance of the Republican leaders there is an additional reason. They know they are backed up not only by the country but by the opposition party. The condition is very unusual. Here 1s legislation of the highest importance, which in the ordinary sense is extremely controversial, but which in Con- gress is not controversial at all. It is not a party issue. Far from separating the two parties, the labor issue binds them together. The leaders of the Republican majority, as they formulate legislation, do not need to feel they must battle for it on the floor. 80 far as battle arises it will not be about whether legislation should be passed, but on details of it and on whether it is strong enough. When leaders of a majority party are thus buttressed they can afford to be open-minded toward the only real oppo- nents of the legislation, the labor leaders and spokesmen, The attitude of labor spokesmen has three main characteristics. Partly impeding and partly in threat, they call on Congress to go easy. So far as that is a threat and an appeal to political considerations it has no weight whatever, for the very reason that both parties favor the legislation. The labor leaders say of certain proposals that they won't work. This the Republican leaders take seriously. It is for light on this that they Hsten carefully to labor arguments. The labor leaders say legislation is not necessary, that there will be no repetition of last year’s strikes. The weight this assur- ance has with Congress is zero. There will be legislation, and it will be more on the strong side than otherwise. Outlaw the Collective Strike EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HARRY FLOOD BYRD OF VIRGINIA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, February 3, 1947 Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Ap- pendix of the Recorp an exceedingly able article entitled “Outlaw the Collective Strike,” written by Mr. Charles Hall Davis, of Petersburg, Va. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: The issues confronting the American peo- ple today must be solved quickly, if our struc- ture of ordered liberty is to be preserved. Ordered liberty means liberty under law. There can be no ordered liberty under law- lessness, The time for appeasement and political pussyfooting is past. The American people must either reassert their rights to life, lib- erty, and the pursuit of happiness; or else recognize that they will, in the future, en- joy only such concessions 0:1 temporary privi- leges as an organized minority pressure group may permit. We might well recall the ex- perience of Germany, Italy, and Russia along these lines. What is the Issue today? When the camouflage is torn away, the issue is clearly revealed. It is this: Shall the labor unions, or any other organ- ized minority pressure group, be permitted to formulate any demand iha* they please, without previous ascertainment of their jus- tice or injustice by an impartial tribunal, and then compel compliance with those demands through the use of their own collective pow- ers and resources; with accompanying threats, terrorism, force, and violence, with disregard and impairment of the similar and equal rights of others; with resultant dan- ger to our entire economic life; with delib- erate challenge and flouting of Government, and with suspension of law and order? Or shall the labor unions, like all other citizens, be required to submit their claims to an impartial judicial tribunal; where the rights of both parties to the controversy can be heard and determined under due process of law, through the peaceful processes of orderly judicial procedure; where the public can be represented and protected; and where the judgment of the court will be enforced by the commonwealth, and not by mob vio- Jence? Under the American theory, all contro- versies are justiciable; and today we are at- tempting to have this theory adopted by all nations. At the same time, we permit labor unions to enjoy special privileges and im- munities not accorded to other citizens; and to act as a law unto themselves. The unions can enforce their demands through the use of their collective force and resources; they are exempted from the in- junctive processes of the courts, through which injustice and violence can be restrained at the start; they are exempted from col- lective Hability for collective action; they have been placed outside the law, and above the law. They have become a superstate. Either Government must control them, or else they will control Government. The great weapon of the labor unions is the collective strike with its accompanying picket lines, threats, terrorism, force, and violence. That weapon has been made more effective through the closed shop, and other similar practices. Today it is a sword of Damocles, suspended by a hair, and threatening the welfare and even the existence of the United States, The unions must be disarmed. The weapon of the collective strike must be removed from the Nation. Seemingly, the people and their leaders have been deceived and misled by the vocifer- ous and repeated claims of the unions, so that they have lost the ability to think clearly. Practically every public speaker, even though he advocates some control of union excesses, opens his remarks with a statement that he is a friend of labor, that he wants to preserve the gains of labor, and that he advocates collective bargaining. Substantially every right-thinking Ameri- can citizen wants to safeguard the rights of the laborers; and also to safeguard the simi- lar and equal rights of the employer, of non- members of the union, of the general public, and to prevent any interference with, or de- feat of, the administration by Government of its entrusted authority and of its duty to se- cure and safeguard the equality of rights of all citizens. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD But the gains of labor, as asserted by the unions, means the special privileges and im- munities now enjoyed by the unions which impair and defeat the similar and equal rights of others. Government was estab- lished to prevent just such impairment and defeat of the equality of human rights. Similarly everyone believes in the wisdom and desirability of collective bargaining. The representatives of the employees should con- fer and bargain with the employer as to wages, hours of work, working conditions, sufety and health provisions, social-security arrangements, etc. But collective bargaining does not mean that, in case of disagreement, the union as one of the parties shall be empowered to compel compliance with its demands through the exercise of its own collective powers and resources; while the employer, all nonmem- bers of the union, the public, and even gov- ernment itself, are helpless; because the unions have been exempted from the equi- table contrcl of the courts and from collec- tive liability for their collective acts. In case of disagreement between the union and the employer in their efforts to arbitrate and settle a dispute, then all arbitration should cease; for arbitration is essentially compromise and appeasement. The unset- tled issues shouli ther be submitted to a court, which will be able to bring out all the facts and evidence, to administer justice (not compromise or appeasement), and to protect equally the rights of all laborers, employers, and of the public. But unions apparently do not seek jus- tice—rather they seek favoritism. There is no more justification for a labor union to enforce compliance with its arbi- trary demands through the use of its collec- tive powers and resources, with its accom- panying threats, terroriam, force, and vio- lence, than for the Ku Klux Klan to follow @ similar procedure. Labor unions, as such, have no collective inherent rights. All inherent rights are in- dividual, and there is no such thing as a collective inherent right. The Creator en- dowed each human being with an equality of such rights, but with a disparity of powers or talents. No human being or institution can change or alter that equality of endow- ment of inherent rights. The members of a labor union, acting col- lectively, have no greater or different rights from those held by every nonmember in- dividual. The mere fact of acting collec- tively does not change the character or vol- ume of rights held by each member. Through collective organization and action, the union members can command greater collective powers and resources. But they are not justified in using their collective powers and resources to defeat the equality of inherent rights, which American govern- ment was established to secure. Every human being has an equal inherent right to work, to quit work in the absence of a binding contract, to contract to work for another, and to contract with others to work for him. The right to work is of no more dignity than is the right to contract. And each of these is an individual right. A man has a right to quit work, when he chooses, in the absence of a binding contract. But when he exercises this right to quit, he quite; and thereafter he has no conceivable right to prevent others from accepting the job which he has voluntarily abandoned; nor has he any conceivable right to limit or con- trol the employer's right to contract with others to take that job. Nor has he any right, in connection with others, to use the collective powers and resources of a labor unton to impair the equal rights of non- members to take the job, or the right of the employer to employ them. The American people could well reread the parable of the vineyard, related in Matthew 20, verses 1~15, as showing our Lord's conception of the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD sacredness of the rights of property and of contract, of the rights of employer and of employees, The collective strike, as exercised today by the unions, is neither more nor less than a conspiracy by an organized group to destroy that equality of inherent rights which Amer- ican Government was established to secure; and to enforce compliance with its demands by unlawful means, through the use of its own force and resources in deflance of gov- ernment and in violation of public order, safety and welfare. A conspiracy has been defined by the courts as— “A combination formed by two or more persons, by concerted action, to accomplish & criminal or unlawful purpose, or some purpose not in itself criminal or unlawful, by criminal or unlawful means.” Measured by this test, the labor unions, as operated today, are unlawful conspiracies on both counts. They seek to accomplish unlawful purposes through the use of un- lawful means. The collective strike is the chief unlawful means now used by labor to accomplish its unlawful purposes. Whatever may be here- after done to prevent any group being or- ganized for unlawful purposes, we should now take away from the unions the chief weapon (or unlawful means) which they arbitrarily use to accomplish their unlawful purposes. This would effectually and promptly end the present wave of strikes. It would reestablish our economy and en- able us to resume froduction and avoid & destructive economic collapse. It would largely restore law and order, and end na- tional economic unrest. The collective strike should be immedi- ately outlawed. Hawaiian Territory’s Claim to Statehood Entitled to Favorable Congressional Action EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. GEORGE P. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 3, 1947 Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to insert in the Recorp an editorial] appearing in the Oakland Tribune of January 20, 1947, touching on the ambitions of the Terri- tory of Hawaii to become a State. The Oakland Tribune is the largest newspaper on the east side of San Fran- cisco Bay and is a dominant force for thought in an area containing over a million people. The owner and publisher of this paper is the father of the junior Senator from California, the Honorable WILLIAM KNOWLAND. The position that the Oakland Trib- une has taken is in consonance with that of other newspapers on the Pacific coast when it urges statehood for Hawaii. Chambers of commerce and other quasi-public bodies in California and her sister States of the Pacific reflect the attitude of the people of the Pacific slope toward this subject. Measured by any standard by which other Territories have been admitted to statehood, Hawaii rates high. The people of this happy land have proven their loyalty to the United States the hard way in the crucible of war. The editorial reads as follows: HAWAIIAN TERRITORY'S CLAIM TO STATEIIOOD ENTITLED TO FAVORADLE CONGRESS ACTION Hawaii, as one of the most beautiful and valuable possessions of the United States, is asking for statehood and there is a bill in the United States Senate and the House author- izing this status. Those who have studied conditions in these vital and strategic islands, which are essential to the defense of tho Pacific coast, are convinced that the racial and economic situations justify statchood. Some others are doubtful on these points, but their misgivings are not supported by the facts. Alaska also wants to become a State. A referendum held in October went 2 to 1 for statehood, which is the same as the last vote in Hawaii. There also is some sentiment in Congress in favor of Alaskan aspirations. It seems possible then that this year may be the first in 35 years in which a new State comes into the Union. Never before has s0 long a period as 35 years elapsed between the admission of Stutes. The longest previous hiatus was 15 years, between the entrance of Missouri in 1821 and that of Arkansas in 1836. Between 1816 and 1821 a new State was admitted every year. Only three Members of the present Congress—-Sen- ator McCKELLaR and Representatives SaBpaATH and DoucHTon—were Members when Arizona became the forty-eighth State 35 years ago this coming February 14. Arizona and New Mexico were to have come in together, but tn 1911 President Taft vetoed the resolution for joint admission because the constitution sub- mitted by Arizona provided for recall of Judges. The only requirements in the Constitution covering statehood are that the Federal Gov- ernment guarantee each State a republican form of government, and that no State's ter- ritory may be divided into new States with- out its consent. Otherwise Congress is free to set the terms for admitting a new State. The usual requirements are that its in- habitants have shown desire for statehood, that it have enough population to support a State government, that its people have shown capacity for self-rule. Usually Congress au- thorizes a convention to draft a constitution, which is then to be approved by popular referendum. It is usual also for the new State to have had the previous status of a@ Territory. . However, this procedure has had its ex- ceptions. Six States were admitted without congressional authorization of a constitu- tional convention. Texas was admitted with- out having been a Territory; it was author- ized, if it chose, to divide its territory into five States. West Virginia was carved out of Virginia during the Civil War without the consent of Virginia, and Nevada was admitted in 1864 with a population of only about 7,000. There has been hesitation about admitting Hawaii and Alaska because they do not adjoin any present State. But Louisiana was not contiguous to any other State when admitted in 1812, and when California was admitted in 1860 the nearest other State was Texas. The population of Hawaii, over half a mil- lion, is larger than that of any State at the time of admission except Oklahoma. Alaska has a population of about 75,000, with whites slightly predominating in numbers over Eskimos and Indians. The claim of Hawaii to statehood is espe- cially strong and should be given the fullest consideration in the Congress. A371 Don’t Kid Us, Joe EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WILLIAM H. STEVENSON OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 3, 1947 Mr. STEVENSON. Mr. Speaker, un- der leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following news- paper editorial from the La Crosse Trib- une of La Crosse, Wis. : DON’T KID US, JOE Josef Stalin is quoted by a none ton re- lable correspondent in a recent magazine article as believing there is no need to fear another war because there is no reason for it, and the peoples do not want to fight. He also is quoted us saying that the U. 5. 8. R. can live peaceably in the same world with capitalism, “with no attempt on the part of either to interfcre with the internal political affairs of the other.” That's fine. W: hope he means it. In the meantime, however, it would help if Uncle Joe would tell the boys on Pravda and Iz- vestia about his new point of view, and for- bid—us he can do with a filp of the wrist— the daily dose of anti-American propaganda which is dished out by his obedient press. Until the Russian press and radio ceases to distort facts and call names, until it stops seeing imperialists hiding behind every bush in the United States thirsting for Russian gore, we will listen to Stalin's sweet talk with reservations. It was Stalin himself who said that it is sometimes necessary for the revolution to take a step back in order later to take two steps forward. Are you just taking a step back, Joe? Wholesalers and the Robinson-Patman Act—Are They In Because They Are Out? EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. THOMAS A. JENKINS OF OHIO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 3, 1947 Mr. JENKINS of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following article by Robert F. Klepinger, a very distin- guished young lawyer from Washington and Ohio, from Law Notes, volume L, No. 2, of May 1946: WHOLESALERS AND THE ROBINSON-PATMAN Actr—Arkc THEY In Because THEY ARE Out?! (By Robert F. Klepinger, of the Washing- ton (D. C.) and Ohio bars) One of the mysteries of distribution under our economic system is the wholesaler’s dis- count. No one appears to have successfully challenged or to have justified denial of it 1This is the second article discussing the Robinson-Patman Act. The first appeared in Law Notes, February 1946, vol. L, No. 1, Pp. 11,
A372 to those who perform the function of dis- tributing and selling directly to the con- sumer. On March 18, 1928, the law was settled in the Mennen case? that a manufacturer could classify customers as wholesalers and retailers; that {t could allow one discount to @ wholesaler and deny the same discount to a retailer under the Clayton Act. The court held that mutual or cooperative corporations could be denied those discounts because such organizations were retailers. On June 19, 1936, Congress amended the Clayton Act by enacting the Robinson-Pat- man Price Discrimination Act.® Bearing in mind that Congress was aware of the Men- nen rulc, the mystery deepens when one studies the legislative history of the Robin- son-Patman law. The bill, as reported in the House, contained a provision for just such a classification of purchasers. The re- port explains it sufficiently But it was eliminated.’ The explanation given was: “The Senate amendment also contained a provision of classification of buyers on which they receded.” * That was all. The only other reference seems to have been in the Senate during a discussion of the conference report which was the final action taken: “* * * the classification section of purchasers, we en- tirely eliminated fron. that part of the Sen- ate bill.”? But the real reason must be based upon inference. It is that farmer cooperative associations were contending that they would have been deprived of wholesalers’ and job- bers’ discounts unless the classification pro- vision was stricken." Now, the Act's legislative background Means simply this: Congress rejected the proposal that a manufacturer could refuse @ retaller the wholesale discount. That con- clusion seems inescapable. AS we have seen, cooperatives are retailers. There is no ? Mennen Co. v. F. T. C. (288 F. 774). #15 U. 8. C. A., secs. 18, 13a, 13b, 21a. ““Since added restrictions are here im- posed in these respects, a separate clause safeguarding differentials between different classes of purchasers becomes necessary. Such differentials, so long as equal treat- ment is required within the class, do not give rise to the competitive evils to which the bill is aimed; while to suppress such differentials would produce an unwarranted disturbance of existing habits of trade. “It should be noted that there is nothing in this exemption to prevent consumers when buying cooperatively or otherwise in quantities characteristic of retailers or re- tailers when buying in quantities character- istic of wholesalers from being accorded the same prices as those dealers respectively so long as their prices are respectively justified within their own class on the basis of dif- ferences in cost required by subparagraph (2) noted below. s s . s e “Differentials between purchasers in each Classification as set forth in the above ex- emption must, of course, be justified by dif- ferences in cost as provided by subparagraph (2) below.” (H. Rept. 2287, 74th Cong.) * 80 ConcrrssIonat Recorp, 7760, 8189, 8223. “House Conference Report, 2951, 74th Cong.; see, also, discussion by Judge Major in his separate opinion in Staley Mfg. Co. v. F. T. C. (144 F. 9d 221, at p. 229). It contains the following statement: “The committee re- port (H. Rept. 2287, 74th Cong.) accompany- ing the bill expressly stated that the object of this definition was to eliminate the basing point or delivered price method of selling, and that the definition would require the use of the f. o. b. method of sale. This defini- tion was stricken by an amendment unani- mously agreed to by the House.” 780 ConGrEssIonaL REcorD, 9903. *80 ConcressiONaL Recorp, 8118. “gate the issuance of subpoenas. question about that classification. We then proceed one step further. IS PROPOSED LEGISLATION IN A LAW BECAUSE IT 18 our? The elimination of proposed provisions in a bill establishes the congressional intent to withhold and deny the proposal. It can- not be read into the law, under those cir- cumstances, by implication. That propoal- tion was upheld in the Cudahy case® in which the sole question was whether Con- gress had authorized the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division of the Depart- ment of Labor, under the Fair Labor Stand- ards Act to delegate his statutory power (to regional directors) to issue subpenas. The Court reviewed the legislative history of the act which, it stated, significantly shows that the authority to delegate the subpena power was eliminated by the conference com- mittee from the bills which each House had adopted. Such authority, expressly granted in the bill which passed the Senate, was rejected by the conference committee. The Court had previously observed that the Federal Trade Commission Act™ as well as other acta, did not grant authority to dele- In the Cudahy case an express power had been kept in a Senate bill as passed by that body. But the classification section in the Robin- son-Patman bill never received even that sanction because it was killed before House Passage by the very committee which had first espoused it. | Surely, Congress never intended that co- operative associations should have the sole right to wholesale discounts while denying 1t to other retailers such as chain stores. In the light of thig-Jegislative history, who ‘would contend sériously to the contrary, especially when it is recognized that thou- sands of druggists in Buffalo, Philadelphia, and Minneapolis, for example, all buy as wholesalers in the role of cooperative whole- sale drug houses? All return from 8 per- cent to 10 percent of the wholesale purchase price to their individual retaller-owners. If chains were not given the wholesale discount this would mean that they were discrimi- nated against to the extent of 15 percent or 20 percent because chains perform their own warehousing at an average cost of approxi- mately 8 percent, The coauthor of the Robinson-Patman Act, in his book by that name, admits that whole- sealers are not directly mentioned in the law. He enunciates the principle that if a “manufacturer elects to distribute merchan- dise both through an independent whole- saler and a chain store all of the provisions of the Act must apply in the treatment of the wholesaler in the same manner as in the case of any other purchaser. This is true, he says, because that principle is “implied” in this language of the law: “or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with any person who either grants or knowingly re- ceives the benefits of such discrimination, or with customers of either of them.” He repeats that the principle is again spe- cifically implied in the preamble to the bill when it was introduced in Congress. But the preamble to the bill was stricken on passage by the House and the title amended to read as it appears in the Act. The quoted lan- guage immediately precedes the first proviso in the first section. Tt is not at all clear why specific language in recognition of the wholesaler’s discount is not used in the law and the problem does not seem to have been directly passed upon by the courts. Apparently wholesalers thus far are only under the law upon the assump- tion that, right or wrong, their function is so vital that without it, generally speaking, *Cudahy Packing Co., Etc. v. Holland (62 8. Ct. 651, 656; 315 U. 8. 357, 866). 3029 U. 8. C. A., sec. 201 et seq. 116 U.8.C. A., sec. 19, APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the distributive process would be impaired if not rendered impossible. The proponents of the act repeatedly declared that ite pur- pose was to protect the independent mer- chant, the public served by him, and the manufacturer; that the principal method to accomplish that purpose was to regulate and contr3l mass-buying power. Although the bill was said to have been drafted by a whole- sale association,” it contains no declaration- of-policy section such as has been included in many :cts of enacted in the past decade ‘to control and regulate business in interstate commerce. A member of the conference committee stated, when the conference report was de- bated, that the bill which was finally passed contained many inconsistencies. He alro eaid: “In one breath you can give any discount or allowance. In the next breath you say, ‘No; you cannot give any discount. The Fed- eral Trade Commission can prevent !t.’” Referring specifically to sections 1, 2, and 8 of the bill as they became the law, he added: “@ @ © T have read this bill backward and forward in an endeavor to get the in- consistencies removed therefrom, but I can- not do it. * * © For example, under the general House bill (secs. 1,2) there is a ceil- ing set upon the amount of discount that may be given. There is a limitation, under certain conditions, to be fixed by the Fed- eral Trade Commission. Under * * * (sec. 3) arty quantity discount can be given, any amount, provided it is given or is avail- able to everyone who obtains or buys the same quantity. There is no limitation as to the amount of discount obtainable or to be given under * * * (sec. 3) provided that amount is available to everybody. How under the sun you are going to reconcile that provision with the other sections of the House bill is beyond me.” ? Those views do not represent an isolated example of careless lawmaking. As recently as May 31, 1946, an eminent Senator chal- lenged any lawyer in the Senate “to say that he has ever seen so poor a piece of legislation and one so awkwardly drafted as is this provision * * *. The language itself shows how loosely and carelessly the legislation has been drawn by whoever drafted it. But whoever drafted it did one of the poorest jobs, in my judgment, thut has ever been done on any bill I have seen presented to the Senate of the United States.” If the rule of statutory construction in the Cudahy case, supra, is controlling, then it may well be urged that when Congress refused to enact the classification-of-pur- chasers section, it did not intend to “safe- guard differentials between different classes of purchasers” which, as we have seen," was the avowed reason for sponsoring it. Are, therefore, those differentials between classes (wholesalers, jobbers, retailers) safeguarded by the act? In an approach to that ques- tion, it is interesting to contemplate the conference report language’*® as it might have been written explaining the discarded siassification proposal. An excerpt will suf- “A separate clause safeguarding differen- tials between different classes of purchasers becomes unnecessary. Such differentials, so long as equal treatment is required within the class, do give rise to the competitive evils to which the bill is aimed.” The question of whether the Robinson- Patman Act upholds and justifies the whole- saler's discount is also troublesome to Fed- eral Trade Commission counsel. This is seen at once in their observations: 2880 CoNGRESSIONAL Recosp, 8187, 3390 ConarrssionaL Recoxp, 0419. * Footnote 4. » Footnote 4,
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD “It is not surprising that inquiry has been made * * * concerning the application of the Robinson-Patman Act regarding prices and discounts quoted different classes of trade. There is ground for differences of opinion, and in many cases only litigation and the resolution thereof by the courts will settle the issues involved. Any reliable opinion upon the situation would require consideration ‘of the facts relating to justi- fication of the differences in discounts based on differences in cost and upon the actual effects upon competition and competitors resulting from the differences in discounts.” The inquiry made to counsel for the Com- mission was how a wholesaler’s discount is justified and recognized, regardless of the amount he may buy; whether the language of the Act definitely provides for a whole- saler's discount—or, if the language of the Act is not specific, whether the legislative de- bate or reports establish such intent, if any. In January 1946“ a member of the Com- mission stated that the interpretation (of sec. 2 of the Clayton Act) in the Mennen case, supra, was discarded by the Supreme Court ‘n Van Camp & Sons v. American Can Co.;"" that that decision also in effect over- ruled the National Biscuit Co, case." The latter had upheld graduated quantity dis- counts based on total purchases of stores of @ chain and the denial to individual owners who sought to pool their purchases so as to qualify for such discounts. Whether the Mennen rule, summarized briefly at the beginning of this article, was “discarded” in the Van Camp decision, is open to argument as will be seen in the Su- preme Court’s reference to the Mennen case: “We have not failed carefully to consider Mennen Co. v. Federal Trade Commission ((C. C. A.) 288 F, 774) (followed in National Biscuit Co. v. Federal Trade Commission ((C. C. A.) 299 F, 738), cited as contrary to the conclusion we have reached. The deci- sion in that case was based upon the prem- ise that the statute was ambiguous and re- quired the aid of committee reports, etc., to determine its meaning, a premise which we have rejected as unsound.” The Court had stated the facts briefly: “George Van Camp & Sons Co., the com- plainant, and the Van Camp Packing Co., are both engaged in the business of packing and selling food products in tin cans in inter- state commerce. The American Can Co, manufactures tin cans used in the food-pack- ing industry and sells such cans to the other two companies and leases to them machines for sealing the cans. It sells to the packing company at a discount of 20 percent below the announced standard prices at which it sells cans of the same kind to the complain- ant; it charges complainant a fixed rental for the sealing machines, but furnishes them to the packing company free of charge; and it discriminates in other respects. The ef- fect of the discrimination is to substantially lessen competition, and its tendency is to create & monopoly, in the line of interstate commerce in which complainant and the packing company are competitively engaged.” CONCLUSION On October 15, 1945, President Truman made @ salutary plea for the consumer to the Seventeenth Boston Conference on Distribution.” He urged that “intensive market exploita- tion must now replace wartime allocation of goods; the consumer must be reached and sold at the lowest possible cost.” He continued: “Circumstances this year clearly point to the need for a critical reexamination of the 10See Robinson-Patman Act Symposium, January 23, 1946 (C. C. H.), cited in Law Notes, February 1946, vol. L, No. 1, p. 14. 7 (1929), 49 8. Ct. 112; 278 U. S. 245, 78 L. Ed. 81. 48 299 F. 783. %* New York Times, October 16, 1945. Ways and means, and the cost of distribut- ing goods and services from producer to consumer.” If the proposed reexamination is under- taken, it is to be hoped it will be searching and include not only related Federal and State laws and their judicial construction, but “existing habits of trade.” The need is imperative. The economic Problems confronting the American public demand it. Gentlemen, the Hour Is Yours—To the Eightieth Congress Without Regard to Party EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. WILLIAM M. WHITTINGTON OF MISSISSIPPI IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 3, 1947 Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following editorial from the Staple Cottcn Review, January 1947, official organ of the Staple Cotton Cooperative Association, the oldest and most successful cotton cooperative as- sociation in the Cotton Belt, of which my valued and devoted personal friend, Hon. A. H. Stone, chairman of the Mis- sissippi Tax Commission for many years, one of the leading statesmen and most accomplished economists of the United States, is the editor, to wit: GENTLEMEN, THE HOUR IS YOURS To the KEightieth Congress Without Regard to Party: In addressing the following observations to the Eightieth Congress without regard to party we do so advisedly. Seldom in the his- tory of political parties in the English-speak- ing world has so great an opportunity been presented as was given the Republicans by the American people at the elections of No- vember 1946. With this opportunity goes also an almost staggering duty and responsi- bility. But neither the opportunity nor the duty is confined to Americans of any one political persuasion. These are the heritage and the birthright of every man and woman living under our system of government. One of the strongest injunctions laid down in Washington's Farewell Address, a document which stands next only to the Declaration of Independence anc the Constitution, and is of almost equal fundamental importance, is that against overemphasis on party. So we would avoid that here. (By the way, you can find no truer governmental chart, none more certain to bring us safely back to the security of our ancient moorings, than the letter and the spirit of that immortal message from the Father of His Country. Think over this when you read it on the occasion of his birthday next month.) Members of Congress, Senators and Representatives alike, are Americans first, and last, and in this crisis their first duty is to America and the American people rather than to any political party. The situation internally in which this country finds itself is the result of a combination of circum- stances for which no one party is solely re- sponsible. It is mucr more nearly the work of one man, who, in defiance of one of our most sacred traditions, was kept in power overlong by the people themselves, chiefly as a reward for the bestowal of bounty from the Federal Treasury, and in order to continue it, on a scale more vast than was ever known in the world's history. A373 During 14 years of so-called Democratic control, and we repeat, almost entirely under the overpowering dominance of a single per- sonality, this country came dangerously near the parting of the ways in the matter of its fundamental structure. The war cannot be used as an excuse for the most radical de- partures made under Mr. Roosevelt's control and at his instigation and insistence. There is good authority for the statement that dur- ing his first term, 1933 to 1936, Federal ex- penditures exceeded those of al] his prede- cessors combined, from George Washington on. And none of it was for war purposes nor in anticipation of war. He was President for ® years before Pearl Harbor. But the signifi- cance and the hurt{ul consequences of the Roosevelt expenditures are not to be found in thelr volume, appalling as that was. In an address which this writer made as presi- dent of the National Tax Association, in San Francisco, in 1939, he made the statement that regurdless of the enormous volume of Federal expenditures under Roosevelt, it was only through an analysis of their application and purpose that the real significance of the figures could be determined. Keeping the date, 1939, in mind, we quote from that ad- dress: “When we thus bring into view the picture of the uses of the vast sums which have been and are being expended, their application to purposes not heretofore dreamed of as gov- ernmental functions, we realize that we are dealing with something fundamentally much more serious than # mere statistical exhibit, no matter how staggering its size. We are concerned here with a philosophy of gov- ernment, rather than with the implements of governmental operation. We are witnessing the process of a gradual but sure decadence, if we may sO express it, a certain lowering of the standards, of a liberty-loving, individ- ually independent, self-reliant people, into dependent masses and groups, bringing upon the Nation and the State every conceivable form of pressure for securing for themselves every conceivable form of governmental serv- ice or benefit. We are seeing enacted before our eyes the tragedy of a bloodless revolution, through which all units and levels of gove ernment, even sovereign States themselves, apparently have come to be willing to sacri- fice their pride, and all but literally sub- scribe to pauper's oaths, in order to obtain what they call ‘our share’ of public bounty. We are undergoing a test of our capacity for self-government unaer the forms of a repre- sentative democracy.” These statements were not in any sense exaggerations. If you will turn back to another election, 10 years ago, that of No- vember 1936 and read Mr. Roosevelt's Madi- son Square Garden speech, in which he an- nounced the personal platform upon which he proposed to continue in office, you will find ample warrant for much more than we think it is worth while to say here and now. In that speech, he took the American people up on a high mountain and promised them the earth and the fullness thereof, if they would only continue him in office and would follow where he proposed to lead. He prom- ised every element of the population every- thing which human t!ngenuity could devise in the way of personal benefactions through governmental largess. His promises were the full bloom of all that men may hope, seek, and desire upon this earth for their wives and children and themselves. His language was so plain, so simple, and so dil- rect as to need neither explanation nor com- ment. His appeal to the frailties of human nature, its instinctive selfishness, self-in- terest, and greed, was irresistible. He wasted no time in discussing such abstractions as whether the objectives so declared, the hopes BO expressed, fitted in with the scheme of government under which we live, or ran counter to the organic law which supports the framework of the established order un- der which these things were to be made to
A374 come to pass. That was in 1936. If we turn the clock still further back, to 1887, keeping Mr. Roosevelt’s speech in mind, we may see exemplified one of the greatest contrasts ever offered in the pages of the history of govern- mental policies, purposes, and functions. In the year 1887, on February 16, Grover Cleve- land sent a brief veto message to Congress, in which he disapproved an appropriation of $10,000 for relief in certain drought-stricken counties of Texas. Mr. Cleveland wrote: “I can find no warrant for such an appro- priation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the Gen- eral Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disre- gard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be con- stantly enforced thut though the people support the Government, the Govern- ment should not support the people. * * * Federal aid in such cases encourages the ex- pectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character.” Mr. Cleveland was a Democrat. Those of us who are old enough to have voted for him have reason to feel that down to this time he was the last one to fill the office of Presi- dent. He ranks easily, by common consent, among the five or six really great Presidents which this country has had in all its history. He had profound convictions as to the func- tions and duties of the National Govern- ment. But it is not claimed that he was more honest, more patriotic, or of finer character than was Mr. Roosevelt. The dif- ference between the two, which it is our purpose here to emphasize, is not to be found in the personal qualities and attri- butes of the two men. It is a difference which transcends all personal considerations and goes to the very bedrock, the foundation stones laid by our forefathers for the su- perstructure which they bequeathed to us and which it should be our sacred duty to perpetuate unimpaired. In commenting at the time upon the elec- tion of 1936, we made the following observa- tion. “Apparently, we have now reached the point of another revolution in governmental substance and theory, which is nonethe- less real because it is being accomplished without war or bloodshed and without a change of outward, visible governmental form.” Revolutions do not go backward, but when they are in the wrong direction, their effects may be mitigated, if not entirely overcome. As a practical proposition, we, of course, know that we have gone too far to permit an orderly return to the ultraconservative posi- tion held by Grover Cleveland. We had gone too far 10 years ago. On the other hand, we had even then gone far enough in the oppo- site direction, far beyond the limits of emergency excuse, to realize the dangers in- volved in attempting to give effect to new and nove! theories of service through their incorporation into permanent policies of government It is not yet too late to find some sane and substantial ground between the two extremes; not necessarily precisely a middle ground, but somewhere between the two. To discover and determine the lo- cation of this zone of safety, to fix its reason- able boundaries and by fair trial prove it, this is the duty, as it should be the privilege, of all patriotic Americans, regardless of po- Aitical affiliation. It ‘8 a fair question to ask what we mean by the fundamentals of our governmental structure. Fifteen years ago the answer might have been self-evident to the mind of the average American of voting age, with as much as a high-school education. But as we have several times pointed out in these comments, we have undergone a revolution during the past decade and a half. We would answer now that one of these fundamentals is that of the difference between the duty of the Government to the citizen and that of the citizen to the Government. Another one of preeminent importance is that of restor- ing in the estimation of the American peo- ple the dignity and standing of the Supreme Court of the United States. Another is the division and separation of the functions of government between the legislative, execu- tive, and judicial branches. Another is the rights of the States, including their free- dom from Federal encroachments. There can be no indestructible Union, except it be com- pesed of indestructible States. Another covers the rights of the people and their free- dom from Federal and other artificial inter- ference, regimentation, and control. The right to work is a fundamental, God-given, essential human right, one which should not be hampered or restricted by any require- ment of membership in or affiliation with any man-made organization of any kind whatsoever. The right of individual bargain- ing transcends the right to bargain collec- tively. One of the most important, one which is in fact absolutely essential to the perpetua- tion of the Government itself, is the right of the Government to protect itself in the exercise of its governmental functions. One of the chief of these functions is that of protecting its citizens in the orderly processes of their lives against the selfish machinations of either capital or labor or against any other form of attack. This right was conclusively upheld by the Supreme Court in the Debs case, growing out of the Pullman strikes, dur- ing Cleveland's first administration. It is to- Gay again on trial. There are other funda- mentals, but this enumeration is sufficient for our purposes here. As to one of the most important of these— that of the constitutional division of Federal authority—we shall call George Washington to witness. One of the wisest of the injunc- tions in his Farewell Address was in these words: “It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration to confine themselves within their reapective constitutional spheres, avoid- ing in the exercise of the powers of one de- partment to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of govern- ment, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasion by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern, some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instauce may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free govern- ments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.” It should be profitable to recall the fact that during the 4 years beginning with 1933, we witnessed the most glaring example of the effects of the spirit of encroachment, against which Washington so solemnly warned. We had then the spectacle of a President of the United States, to a large extent practically absorbing the legislative branch of the Gov- ernment, while at the same time brazenly attempting to control the highest branch of APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the Federal judiciary. Washington rightly characterizes this as creating a real despot- ism, regardless of governmental form. As to another, the necessity for the preser- vation of the independence of the States from Federal encroachment, we may go from Virginia to Massachusetts and put another President on the stand. This time it is Calvin Coolidge, speaking at the College of William and Mary, at Williamsburg, Va., on May 15, 1926: “No method of procedure has ever been devised by which liberty could be divorced form local self-government. No plan of cen- tralization has ever been adopted which did not result in bureaucracy, tyranny, inflex- ibility, reaction, and decline. Of all forms of government, those administered by bu- reaus are about the least satisfactory to an enlightened and progressive people. Being irresponsible, they become autocratic, and being autocratic they resist all development. Unless bureaucracy is constantly resisted it breaks down representative government and overwhelms democracy. It is the one element in our institutions that sets up the pretense of having authority over everybody and be- ing responsible to nobody. “While we ought to glory in the Union and remember that it is the source from which the States derive their chief title to fame, we must also recognize that the national administration is not and cannot be adjusted to the needs of local government. It 1s too far away to be informed of local needs, too inaccessible to be responsive to local con- ditions. The States should not be induced by coercion or by favor to surrender the man- agement of their own affairs.” As to the freedom, dignity, and independ- ence of the individual citizen, which Thomas Jefferson sought to protect through the Bill of Rights, we may quote the language of a great American and a great editor, Henry W. Grady: “Exalt the citizen. As the State is the unit of government, he is the unit of the State. Teach him that his home is his castle, and his sovereignty rests beneath his hat. Make him self-respecting, self-reliant, and responsible. Let him lean on the State for nothing that his own arm can do, and on the Government for nothing that his State can do. Let him cultivate independence to the point of sacrifice, and learn that humble things with unbartered liberty are better than splendors bought with its price.” We have said that it is the duty and should be the privilege of every patriotic American to defend these fundamentals. This is in- contestably true. But at this juncture in the Nation's affairs, it is in a peculiar sense the obligation of the Congress to set the course and to lead the way. It is not too late, but there 1s no time for delay. Both duty and opportunity are knocking at your door. Gentlemen, the hour is yours, Franklin Delano Roosevelt EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EMANUEL CELLER Or NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 23, 1947 Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rrc- orp, I include the following address de- livered by me at the Prospect Park Jew- eh center. Brooklyn, N. Y¥., January 31, 1947: Yesterday we hailed the natal day of a great American. To live in the hearts of those you leave behind is not to die. Frank-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD lin Delano Roosevelt will live forever in the hearts of the people of America and the world. We recall how shocked and stunned we were at his sudden passing. The stirring words of Whitman reechoed in our minds. Yet, “nothing in life became him quite like leaving it.” He died as he had lived—as a warrior on the battlefield—for he was, indeed, a soldier who fought for many causes. In retrospect, we are better able to con- template the many conflicts that distressed and disturbed the Nation for a long period prior to our entrance into the war. We now realize how effectively Roosevelt applied his personality, his indomitable spirit, his vision- ary statesmanship, to the resolution of such cleavages. It is then, and then only, that we achieve a full and lasting appreciation of the stature of our beloved President. God gave him as servant the understanding heart—for which Solomon prayed—to judge his people and enable him to discern between good and evil, between right and wrong. If there ever was a man who, in the words of the prophet Micah, “did justice, loved mercy, and walked humbly,” it was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. His heart was ever attuned to the needs of the common man and he struggled with might and main to find the answer—the true answer—to those needs, It ts said that Heaven gives its favorites early death. Roose- velt died with much of his work unfinished, ‘but he had laid the foundations and he had charted the blueprints for a better world. These will be his testament—his legacy—to the American people as well as to the peoples of the world. It is for each one of us to strive to carry on the building and completion of the peace and the establishment of a lasting world security for which he so arduously labored. The task may seem supercolossal at times, but he never faltered—and we cannot afford to do so. Never in recorded history have we had a man, stricken down in the prime of life as he was, who exemplified such fortitude in overcoming the handicaps of paralysis and thereby inspiring thousands of others 50 afflicted to make a similar effort toward the establishment of useful and satisfactory lives. As Emerson 80 truly said, “For everything you have missed, you have gained some- thing also.” Fate dealt Roosevelt a cruel blow, but the law of compensation that is invariably operative increased Roosevelt's mental and spiritual life a thousandfold as his physical capacities were weakened. His determination to conquer the ravages of the disease with which he was afflicted will spur and encourage many others. It was my proud distinction to know him intimately well. I frequently visited with him at the White House and elsewhere. He rarely appeared depressed, on the contrary, he always seemed to be buoyant, sparkling with infectious humor, trading quips and puns, indulging in that pastime as frequently as he would flick the ashes from the ciga- rette in the perennial long holder. The dramatic scene of his last inauguration will be, for me, unforgettable. He was wheeled out cn the south portico and lifted to the lectern by his son, James, and a secret- service man. It was a cold day, with a drab, dreary sky yet, at that very moment, the sun came from behind the clouds and shone upon him, as though divine providence had sought him out to give him guidance. There this man stood, crippled in body, yet firm and vigorous of mind, mastering the destiny of his own country as well as that of the world. Tears welled in the eyes of many present. The Marine Band played Hail to the Chief and th? Star-Spangled Banner, and then the President repeated the oath of office from memory, administered by Chief Justice Stone, with his hand resting on the family Bible. He spoke briefly, fervently, and promised he would carry on the fight to victory. At that time the flame of democracy seemed to burn more brightly as his words echoed to the far corners of the earth over the air waves. Tumultuous applause greeted the end of his address, and as he turned to re- tire to the White House he waved a hand in jaunty greeting to the crowd, giving us a broad and comforting smile. No one there realized that we could count the days he would be with us. It is easy to be brave from oa safe dis- tance. Roosevelt was brave at any distance. He never shunned the fray. He may have taken comfort in the thought that to be great is to be misunderstood. He set the course for the ship of state and held the wheel firmly. He steered our vessel past the shoals of intolerance and the reefs of swollen privilege. He knew there would be villifiers and detractors and isolationists and Ameri- can Firsters, and other rabble rousers but all they won was his contempt. We loved him for the enemies he made. He seemed possessed of prophetic vision. He saw clearly and felt deeply, long before the dangers actually touched our shores. He properly judged anc appraised the wily techniques of the Axis diplomats. They pursued a sort of artichoke method, a method which re- sulted in the disintegration of an agreed set- tlement, or an agreed peace, by surrepti- tiously, and sometimes openly, detaching leaf after leaf. As each leaf disappears, there doesn't seem to be sufficient justification for strained relations. The process is stealthy, and vigilance is relaxed until finally the dire moment arrives when only the choke remains, As Hitler and his hoodiums sat plucking at the international artichoke, picking leaf by leaf, justice, tolerance, humanity, life itself, Roosevelt tried to warn the American people and the world. He knew Hitler and his studied cruelties and machinations against the Jews. He clearly saw that soon other minorities—Catholics, laborites, and other dissidents—would be drawn into his insatiable maw. His famous “quarantine the aggressor" speech clearly indicated his per- spicacity. He knew that we could not re- main aloof from the coming struggle or successfully insulate ourselves from partici- pation; that even as formidable a barrier as the Atlantic could not protect us from such predatory beasts. How well he knew for whom the bell tolled. He recognized, too, the intent of the per- verted forces within our borders that de- liberately aided the Axis and sought to throw about their activities the all-embracing cloak of extreme patriotism. He had the onerous task of fighting not only an enemy from without but a virulent one from within. But he skillfully led public opinion and prepared it for the shocks to come. After Dunkirk, he sagaciously suggested lend-lease; in exchange for 50 over-age destroyers, he secured from the English a group of strategic island bases; then came the peaceful occupation by American forces of Iceland and Greenland; the convoying of ships and the arming of merchant marine; then, in a burst of glory, the resounding principles of the Atlantic Charter, stimulating and encouraging the downtrodden throughout the world. Every effort was to be made to guarantee personal safety and to establish freedom from want and fear for all peoples, Here was no “riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.” The language of the Atlantic Charter is clear and simple, so that he who reads may under- stand. Here is a document that will live in the hearts and minds of men forever and a day. The four freedoms were promulgated to maintain and sustain the fighting strength of the democratic peoples of the world. His own personal experience endowed him with a tremendous sensitiveness to the tribu- lations of humanity. He set up the War Refugee Board, an independent agency, with no authorization from Congress. This en- tity rendered great service and it was hoped that it would continue to render assistance to persecuted minority groups in Festung A375 Europa. Despite caustic opposition, he set up the free port at Oswego, N. Y., and there over a thousand refugees who managed to escape the Hitler purge lived comfortably housed and protected. The need was great then. But, strangely enough, victory and time have magnified this problem. The late President was largely responsible for the now-famous Palestine plank incor- porated in the Democratic platform of 1944, and, in a way, I like to think J, too, can lay claim to a bit of the responsibility for the inclusion of that historic plank, as I ‘was a member of the committee on platform and resolutions during that convention. That plank demanded unlimited immigra- tion into Palestine and the destruction of the nefarious Malcolm MacDonald white paper of 1939. In addition, that plank ad- vocated the establishment of a Jewish na- tional state in Palestine. In my numerous contacts with the President he always indi- cated a fervent desire to carry out the terms thereof. I do believe that if he were liv- ing the white paper would be no more, and there would be more than a trickle of refu- gees going into Palestine. The Jews would not be forced to enter their own homeland as “thieves in the night.” The late President outlined the basic phi- losophy for the making of a new world order—the world of today—the world of to- morrow. He sought to convey to us that the world was one whole and that its prob- lems could only be settled by solutions that were best for the good of the whole world, and not just a few; that society is really one unit; that the total resources of our whole society should be administered to serve the needs of allindividuals. To many this would be not only distasteful but completely re- pugnant, as they have been conditioned to thinking in terms of national divisions and the acceptance of strife between nations. Roosevelt emphasized the reality of such divi- sions and that the values they represented must be preserved, but he also warned us that the only way to preserve them would be through international cooperation assur- ing security to the whole world. The nations of the world, he felt, had to be brought to- gether in a cohesive program of mutual aid, securing to each the long-sought chance to develop its own culture and political forms. He believed it to be the only method whereby the perpetuation of nations might be re- motely guaranteed. Roosevelt pointed out that all of us have one basic economic enemy—fear—fear of want, fear of old age, fear of unemploy- ment, fear of illnmess—and that such fear is an immutable threat against the stability of our cherished institutions. He related to us that in a highly organized industrial society, with the many so dependent upon the few—the dignity of the individual de- mands that the political bill of rights be reinforced by an economic bill of rights. He saw and understood the underlying struggle of our times as the struggle of man against the machine and fully realized that if it were permitted to be perverted it would but lead to the degradation of human beings. Roosevelt was our most eloquent spokes- man for a society that would serve—rather than exploit—the human beings who com- posed it. The late President, in no uncertain terms, Outlined this economic bill of rights for a postwar society. He included the right to @ job and an adequate wage, medical care, business freed from monopolistic control, a home for every family, social security against unemployment, against old age, against sick- ness, education for every child. For such suggestions he was branded a revolutionist. Daily he was described as & dictator. No; my reply could be summed up in two words—great statesmanship, Would that he were with us today.
A376 Government Officials Give Ship Profits to Foreigners EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ALVIN F. WEICHEL OF OHIO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 3, 1947 Mr. WEICHEL. Mr. Speaker, there was recently introduced a concurrent resolution by the Honorable Frep BrRaD- LEY, Of Michigan, the distinguished chairman of the House Committee on Merchant Marine, a resolution demand- ing the immediate return of more than 200 American merchant ships chartered to Great Britain and now in operation in competition with the American merchant marine. The resolution says these ves- sels are being chartered to Great Britain on terms more favorable than those of charter to American citizens, and these so-called loaned ships for the purposes of war are being diverted in direct com- petition with the American merchant marine. Mr. Speaker, as to the use of such ships supposedly loaned for the purposes of war, it recently has become known that the United States-owned freighter Sam- boston and loaned to the British espe- cially for war, brought to Boston, Mass., 72,000 bales of rubber from the Malay Peninsula. This shipment was worth more than $3,000,000 in addition to other cargo. Under current rates the voyage would give gross revenue of more than $300,000 to the British. During the latter part of 1945, the British assured the Maritime Commission that steps would be taken to stop this kind of competition and confine the war- loaned ships to essential British com- merce. It is suggested that the Sam- boston voyage might have been arranged just prior to the British assurance, for otherwise it would have been in violation of the oral assurance. As it takes only 40 days from Malaya to Boston, yet the assurance was given more than 75 days previous to the arrival of this ship. Of course, it might be said that the assur- ance given to this country trickled out very slowly to the Empire. Further, leaving out the matter of competition there is actual! stupid official conduct toward our own American mer- chant marine. The charter rate to the English for the Sambositon is the same as required of American citizens, but the foreign lend-lease users of our ships, in- cluding the British, are ot required by the State Department to pay our Gov- ernment part of their voyage profits, which are required from American citi- zens by the Maritime Commission. The State Department and the Maritime Commission are chartering these ships to foreigners in disregard of the Ship Sales Act passed by the Seventy-ninth Congress, the foreign nations thereby paying less for the use of United States- owned ships, than do citizens of the United States. During the hearings on the ship sales bill, the Congress re- fused to favor foreigners over citizens of the United States. Yet the State De- partment and Maritime Commission are carrying on the charter and use of United States-owred ships with special favor to foreigners and against the best interests of our American merchant ma- rine. And also at the cost of the Ameri- can taxpayer who has paid for these ships out of the twenty-one billions spent by the Maritime Commission for the building and operation of merchant ships during the war. By the disregard of the Ship Sales Act in not making foreigners pay part of their voyage profits to our Government on the United States-owned ships, the same as paid by American citizens, it is estimated that a loss of nearly $100,000 has been incurred on this single voyage. With such general conduct on the part of the State Department and the Mari- time Commission, we can only speculate as to the millions of dollars that are be- ing given to foreigners while at the same time we are penalizing the American merchant marine. In addition, there are further losses to the Treasury of the United States, for there is no income-tax payment on the profits made by these foreign nations out of the United States- owned ships. The resolution of my dis- tinguished colleague deals only with the British operation but I am introducing a resolution covering the loan, use, and op- eration of all United States-owned ships now in possession of foreign countries competing with the American merchant marine, and asking for the immediate re- covery and return to the Government of the United States. Mr. Speaker, these are hazardous times for our American merchant marine and it shou'd not be further hur‘ by the Gov- ernment officials of the United States with the use of the taxpayers’ money. The matter is being examined in prepa- ration for the beginning of early hear- ings on the matter. Problems of Central and Western Europe EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOHN DAVIS LODGE OF CONNECTICUT IN THE “IOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 3, 1947 Mr. LODGE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following remarks made by me before the returned service men and women of the First Magyar Reformed Church at Rakoczi Hall, Bostwick Ave- nue, Bridgeport, Conn., January 26, 1947: Ladies and gentlemen, it is a real pleasure for me to be back in Fairfield County tor the first time since the Eightieth Congress convened. It is good to be with my many friends of Hungarian descent here in the fine city of Bridgeport. I am happy to report to you, as your Repre- sentative in Washington, that the Eightieth Congress is well under way, that the period of organization and reorganization has passed, and that we are now prepared to consider the many perplexing problems of the day. I am pleased to report also that, as a new Member, I have been fortunate enough to be appointed to the Foreign Affairs Come mittee of the House. Although this come APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD mittee does not, like the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, have the power to pass on treaties, it will, I think, have a great deal to say about the conduct of our foreign affairs; it will keep an ever-watchiul eye over the intricate machinery of international relations. Not the least of the problems which con- front us in connection with our relations abroad {s the question of Hungary. This question in turn is intimately related to the whole problem of central and western Eu- rope, which remains the cockpit of the world at this difficult time. I believe that it is vital that we consider these problems with relation to each other and not as questions to be decided separately. I believe that the principles enunciated by Senator VANDENBERG, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in his Cleve- land address, and by the eminent John Foster Dulles in his New York speech must weigh very heavily with us at this time. In brief, what these two authorities on foreign rela- tions call for is a positive American foreign policy based on realities and animated by American leadership. America played a vital part in the winning of World War Il. Amer- ica must now exercise the leadership to which her military and industrial predominance en- title her. We are faced with very much the same challenge as that which confronted the British at the Treaty of Vienna in 1815, The challenge to Britain then was to abandon isolationism and make full use of ber Jeader- ship to promote peace. We in America are faced with the same challenge today. Future generations will judge us by our ability to meet it. The extent of our failure will be commensurate with the magnitude of our opportunity. But it is not enough to make note of our obligations. This is no time for lip service to ideals so recently drenched in blood. It is essential that we act, and that we act now. Many precious months have been frittered away since VJ-day because of our inability to understand what is in fact the great chal- Jenge of the hour. We have lost much of our prestige and power throughout the world be- cause of our hesitation to lead the world in Peace as we led it in war. This is no time for pious platitudes and windy protests. It is the time rather for effective and energetic action based on a dynamic concept of our mission in the world. For although the war is over, it is abundantly clear that we are still living in @ period of conflict. It must be our earnest endeavor to resolve these conflicts by peace- ful means. We must be determined, how- ever, not to surrender those very things for which millions of men and women recently laid down their lives. Although peace is most devoutly to be sought it is not to be bought at any price. We could have had peace in 1041 had we been willing to sur- render our independence and freedom. We can be sure of peace now if we decide to renounce our faith. The peace which we desire is not a peace based on abject surrender, it is a peace founded upon those principles which we have always regarded us vital. We must use every means at our disposal to achieve this great purpose. We must give firm and patient support to the United Nations organization. But that is not enough. We must also evolve a definite diplomatic program buttressed by economic action which will sprerd the doctrine of freedom into those far corners of the world where the sinister forces of darkness and reaction are still rampant, This is not only @ matter of common humanity, it is in our self-interest. We must, in this fashion, bring hope into the hearts of men and women everywhere who are standing steadfast against the forces of tyranny which, in spite of our victory, are still on the march. We must so live our lives here in America that these forces will know that, although we
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD want peace, we are determined that it will be a peace with freedom and justice. Having fought for these principles we must not now resort to a policy of appeasement. We must not stand idly by watching the frontiers of freedom shrink. We must not go from one Munich to another until] at the last, con- fused and alone, we are routed and over- whelmed within our own borders. We must mobilize public opinion throughout the world to the end that people everywhere can take heart in the knowledge that the great America of today is truly the heir of those who, with their blood, forged for us our independence. Now, all this cannot be done at once. It will take the united effort of all and it will take time. Since time is short, however, we cannot wait. We must start now to imple- ment a policy for central and western Europe. As this policy gathers strength, it will roll back those people who, through their cynicism and despair, have lost faith in freedom. There is not time to discuss in one brief speech the entire question of defeated Ger- many. Suffice it to note here that it should be our every effort to carry through Mr. Byrnes’ policy of decentralization. Unity should be sought in Furope as a whole rather than in Germany as a nation. Unity in Europe should eventually be predicated on the concept of Winston Churchill—a concept which looks to a gradual federalization of Europe. We must endeavor to bestow upon Germany a government which, in the words of Walter Lippmann, will set in motion centrifugal rather than centripetal forces. By this I mean that Germany must be rather like a starfish spreading the fruits of its in- dustry throughout Europe than like a dough- nut containing its power within itself. This, as you know, is now the great bone of conten- tion between us and Soviet Russia. This is vital also in order to counteract any possibility of another partitior of Poland. It is vital because, in spite of her defeat, Germany remains the most powerful indus- trial center in Europe. It is vital also in order to protect the Germans from the virus with which they were infected during the Nazi regime. Fascism—red or black—is still tyranny. If we are able to achieve this, if we can halt the onward sweep of despotism and terror, then men may at last turn their thoughts and their whole hearts to peacetime pursuits. As I have already indicated, the problem of Hungary is inextricably linked with the problem of Germany. Until we have solved this central dilemma, we cannot solve the problems which arise on the periphery. As you all know, the long history of the American and Hungarian peoples is fraught with common interests and aspirations. The traditions of freedom run deep both in Hungary and the United States. In many American cities, statues of Louis Kossuth stand proudly and defiantly, a challenge for Fascist or Communist tyrants, who would deprive the Hungarian people of their lib- erties. In Budapest the great statue of George Washington stood until the Nazis entered the Hungarian capitol. How did it happen then that with these ideas of freedom so deeply rooted In Magyar tradition, many Hungarians became Nazis. It happened, ladies and gentlemen, because the Treaty of Trianon visited such hard- ships upon the Hungarian people that they were fair game for unscrupulous tyrants. First came Bela Kun, the Communist despot and latterly came Adolf Hitler with prom- ises of great rewards on his lips. The Hun- garian people so sorely tried by the burden of the Treaty of Trianon could not resist the overwhelming military and economic pressure of the Nazi empire. Finally, how- ever, oppressed by the Nazi and smarting under the stark terrorism of the German re- gime, Hungary stirred toward freedom in the last days.of the war only to be oppressed and conquered again by her Communist “liberators.” She is now occupied by at least 300,000 Red Army troops and under the recent treaty negotiated but not yet signed, she must pay reparations of 8300,000,000, of which $200,000,000 are to go to Soviet Russia. In addition to these crushing measures, the persecuted Hungarian people have also for almost 2 years been saddled with the expense of supporting hundreds of thousands of Red Army troops. This enormous financial drain upon an impoverished country of 10,000,000 people has precipitated a runaway inflation, the effects of which are not confined to Hungary but on the contrary are felt up and down the length and breadth of the Danubian Basin. Over and beyond that, as you know, thousands of Hungarians are be- ing deported from Czechoslovakia and Hun- gary into slave-labor camps, mostly in Russia. When Father Chernitzky telegraphed me last week further informing me of the plight of many Hungarians now being deported us slaves to other countries, I immediately com- municated with the Under Secretary of State, the then Acting Secretary Deun Acheson. In my letter, I protested vehe- mently against this inhuman treatment and requested him to investigate these tragic circumstances and give me a full report at his early convenience. Hungary is being treated in the traditional manner tn which a defeated enemy is treated by the victor, This method has not worked well up to now and there is nothing in re- corded history to indicate that it will work well in the future. The entire business of making a peace should be conducted with- out animosity on the one hand or sentiment on the other. By sentiment I do not mean a due regard for humanity. This must, of course, receive paramount. consideration. The underlying principle for peace negotia- tions must, however, be to prevent World War III rather than to punish our enemies in World War II. This is a luxury which we can ill afford at this time when the atom bomb and other lethal weapons of unimag- inable horror hang like the sword of Dam- ocles over our heads. This is the sort of irresponsible behavior which will lead only to further unrest and not to a solution of any of our problems. Hungary, steeped as it is in early traditions of freedom, had no place culturally in the German sphere of influence. Hungary must be so treated that she can take her place in the family of freedom-loving nations. Hun- gary must be allowed to redeem the position which she lost through her association with Hitler's Germany. I am convinced that this is what the people of Hungary desiye. I Know that we in America look with an anxious eye at the crucifixion of Hungary. I feel sure that just as Col. Michael] Kovats gave his life fighting in the American Revo- lution, so will the people of America give their sympathy and support to the people of Hungary. America, ever the champion of liberty, cannot be indifferent to the cruel nightmare in which they are engulfed. We must not sit quietly on the side lines and lose by apathy and default what we gave our blood and our treasure to preserve. Dr. Herbert Lincoln Clarke EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. WILLIS W. BRADLEY OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 3, 1947 Mr. BRADLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, January 30, 1947, the ashes of one of the most beloved figures of my home city of Long Beach, A377 Calif., the late Dr. Herbert Lincoln Clarke, together with the ashes of Mrs. Clarke, were interred in their final resting place, the Congressional Cemetery in Washing- ton, D. C. It is peculiarly fitting that these ashes should come to rest in the Congressional Cemetery for there they are in close proximity to the grave of John Philip Sousa with whom Dr. Clarke was associated as cornet soloist and as- sistant conductor for many years. As a tribute from the world of music— especially of that band music which Dr. Clarke loved and advanced so mate- rially—a massed band consisting of equal numbers of the United States Navy Band, United States Marine Corps Band, and United States Army Air Corps Band, or- ganized by Captain Santelman, played at the grave under the baton of Mr. Simone Mantia, the oldest living member of John Philip Sousa’s world-renowned musical organization. Mrs. Bradley and I had the distinct honor of representing the city of Long Beach at this memorial service, which was arranged by a lifelong friend of Dr. Clarke, Mr. Frank McGrann, of the Con- servatory of Music, Cincinnati, Ohio. Mrs. Ruby B. Henderson, foster daugh- ter of Dr. Clarke, of Garden Grove, C“‘if., and Mrs, Harold Hagen, wife of Congressman Haroup HaceEn, of Minne- sota, attended the memorial service, the latter in the capacity of a personal friend of Mr. and Mrs. Herbert L. Clarke, Jr., Dr. Clarke’s son and daughter-in- law, both now in California. I quote here an article written by Mr. McGrann and published in the Pennsyl- vania Band Master’s Association news letter of April 1945, as follows: DR. HERBERT LINCOLN CLARKE With the passing of Dr. Herbert L. Clarke ut the Harriman-Jones Clinic Hospital in Long Beach, Calif., on the night of January 30, w dear friend I have Known for the past 40 years, the career of the world’s most famous cornetist, wus brought to a close. Dr. Clarke was born at Woburn, Mass., on September 12, -1867, the son of William Horatio and Eliza Tusts Clarke—his father being a prominent composer and organist. As Herbert often told me, he first played in a famliy orchestra of which his father was the conductor, with the brothers Wil- liam, :‘dwin, Ernest, and Herbert all playing violins. It was the desire of Herbert's father that he should continue to play the violin; how- ever, his brother, Edwin, finally changed to a cornet and that instrument immediately took young Herbert's fancy. His father for- bade his playing on Edwin's new type of in- strument and therefore it was only when his father was absent and with his mother's per- mission, Herbert would play Edwin's cornet whenever he had an opportunity tc do so. The first band that Herbert ever pleyed in was the Queen's Own Rifie's Sand, of Toronto, Canada, of which John Bailey was the leader. During Herbert’r career as a cornetist he studied under many celebrated instructors. One of Herbert's most outstar ting chur- acteristics was his willingness to assist young musicians. He told me when he first joined a band, the older musicians would avoid helping the younger ones and that when he noticed this, he decided if he eve: amounted to anything as a cornetist, he would gladly assist young musicians whenever possible. Through that decision, thousands of young musicians have profited by assistance ren- dered them on a free gratis basis by Dr. Clarke.
A378 Dr. Clarke, at the age of 24, became cornet soloist with the famous Gilmore Band, and after the death of Mr. Gilmore he joined John Philip Sousa’s famous band, with which he was connected for many years as cornet solo~ ist and assistant conductor. He was also cornet soloist in the bands conducted by F.N. Innes, Victor Herbert, and Ellis Brooks. He was conductor of the Seventh Regiment Band of New York, the Reeves American Band of Providence, R. I., the Naval Brigade Band of Massachusetts, and tho Anglo-Canadian Leather Co. Band of Huntsville, Ontario, Canada. From November 30, 1923, to February 1, 1948, Dr. Clarke served as director of tho Long Beach Municipal Band of Long Beach, Calif., from which position he resigned on orders of his physician, In 1934 the Phillips University, of Enid, Okla., conferred on Dr. Clarke the degree of doctor of music. He was past president of the American Bandmaster’s Association, a member of the American Society of Com- posers, Authors, and Publishers, and an honorary member of the Pennsylvania Band- master’s Association Dr. Clarke was a pioneer in the record- ing of phonograph records, having recorded for Berliner, Brunswick, Columbia, and Vic- tor. He was credited with having recorded more cornet solos than any other cornetist. The last time Dr. Clarke took part in ree cording was at my recording studio on May 7, 1944, when he conducted the band in three numbers, two of these being compositions of his own, Sounds from the Hudson, played by Leonard B. Smith, cornet soloist of the United Btates Navy Band: The Debutante, played by Edward L. Masters, cornet soloist of the United States Marine Band; and Willow Echos, played by his old friend and side part- ner in Sousa’s Band, Dr. Frank Simon, this being the last time Dr. Clarke ever con- ducted a band in solo accompaniments. Dr. Clarke conducted a band for the Inst time in New York, at a rehearsal of the New York City Police Band of which Capt. Eugene LaBarre is the director. The funeral services were held on the after- noon of February 2 at Mottel’s Mortuary and Chapel in Long Beach. The Long Beach Mu- nicipal Band, under the direction of B. A. Rolfe, who succeeded Dr. Clarke, played two numbers, Past Glad Hours and a cornet solo Twilight Dreams, one of Dr. Clarke's own compositions, played by Forest L. Ray, cornet soloist. The final resting place for the remains of Dr. Clarke and his wife, who passed away in 1930, has not yet been deter- mined. Dr. Clarke is survived by a son, Capt. Herbert L. Clarke, Jr., of Van Nuys, Calif., a stepson, Ralph Clarke, of Beverly Hills, Calif., a stepdaughter, Mrs. Ruby B. Hender- son, of Garden Grove, Calif., with whom he resided, a grandson, Stephen Clarke, of Long Beach, Calif., and two brothers, William of Santa Monica, Calif., and Ernest of New York City. Frank McGRann, Reserve Officers of the Naval Services Oppose Recent Compromise for Merger of Armed Forces EXTENSION OF REMARKS ‘HON. JAMES E. VAN ZANDT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 3, 1947 Mr. VAN ZANDT. Mr. Speaker, the Reserve Officers of the Naval Services, commonly known as the RONS, an or- ganization with a membership of over 34,000 Naval Reserve officers who served in the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, believe that the recent compro- mise proposal for the merger of the armed forces as proposed to Congress by the President is not in accord with the best interests of national security. In a letter received by me over the sig- nature of Eugene C. Carusi, president of the RONS, it is pointed out that the pro- posed merger program is a step away from unification and can only result in confounded confusion, continued dupli- cation, increased expenses, and less effi- ciency. President Carusi’s letter is as follows: RESERVE OFFICERS OF THE Nava. SERVICES, Washington, D.C., January 27, 1947. Hon, JAMES E. VAN ZANDT, Untied States House of Representattves, Washington, D.C. Dean CONGRESSMAN: Reserve Officers of the Naval Services, an organization of 34,000 re- serve officers who have served in the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard is keenly interested in the subject of merger or in- tegration of the armed forces. It is our be- lief that our national security is best served under a system which provides the most effi- cient Army, Navy, and Air Force at the lowest cost to the taxpayer. It is our further belief that the recent com- promise proposal for merger of the armed services as proposed to Congress by. the Presi- dent neither unifies nor integrates the War and Navy Departments but instead actually adds two additional departments, the Depart- ment of Air, and the Department of National defense, and, if enacted, will result in a fur- ther division of our armed forces with further duplication of effort as well as increased mili- tary administrative costs. We feel that this latest plan is a step backward instead of for- ward, » divorce instead of a merger, and that the main purpose of unification—to strengthen our national security—is defeated. This is definitely not a move toward unifica- tion even though it may so appear on paper. In fact, it is a step away from unification and can only result in confounded confusion, con- tinued duplication, increased expense, and lees efficiency. If the primary purpose of the proposed change is to give the Army Air Forces inde- pendent status under a new cabinet head rather than achieve unification and economy such action should be taken directly. We fail to see‘how any degree of unification, harmony and economy will be obtained by inserting in the top echelon chain of command one more official—with the inevitable staff of aides— between the President and the chiefs of the three military departments; particularly, when each of these three chiefs is to be ac- corded the right to go “over the head” of this new official direct to the President, In view of the above, RONS earnestly sug- gests the appointment of an independent and nonpartisan commission composed of out- standing civilians who have served in all branches of the armed services in the recent war to thoroughly study all aspects of the unification problem and to report ita findings to Congress before final legislative action is taken on the merger. We feel that such a commission can approach the problem from an independent civilian standpoint and yet have full knowledge of the wartime require- ments for coordination and cooperation be- tween all branches. We feel that the com- mission must be composed largely of persons who served in the Reserve components of the armed forces in view of the fact that profes- sional officers’ thinking is necessarily colored by their career in and devotion to their par- tioular branch of the service. Though the integrity of these officers certainly cannot be doubted we feel it is vitally necessary that APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the viewpoint of the members of the commis- sion be detached and objective. Reserve officers are vitally affected by the proposed reorganization of the armed forces. They have a vital stake because they supplied 19 out of every 20 officers in World War I, many of whom will be subject to recall to combat duty in event of any future threat to our national security. Therefore, they feel they have a right to insist upon a plan of in- tegration which will provide the most efficient Army, Navy, and Air Force at the lowest cost to the taxpayer consistent with protection of our national security. Sincerely yours, Evacrnt C, Carus, President. Polish Provisional Government EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. THOMAS S. GORDON OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 3, 1947 Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rec- orb, I include the following press release, No. 69, of the State Department, issued on January 28, 1947, concerning the Polish Provisional Government: On January 19 a general election was held in Poland, the results of which are expected to be announced shortly. The United States Government has followed closely the devel- opments leading up to this event in ac- cordance with the commitments it accepted at the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences. On numcrous occasions it has expressed its con- cern over the course of events in Poland which increasingly indicated that the elec- tion would not be conducted in such man- ner as to allow a free expression of the will of the Polish people. On August 19 and November 22, 1946, formal notes were ad- dressed to the Polish Provisional Govern- ment on this subject. On January 5 this Government brought the situation in Poland to the attention of the British and Soviet Governments and expressed the hope that those Governments would associate them- selves with the Government of the United States in an approach to the Polish Provi- sional Government of National Unity. This proposal was rejected by the Soviet Govern- ment, On January 9 this Government deliv- ered a further note to the Polish Provisional Government which stated, among other things, that if the repressive activities on the part of the Provisional Government did not cease immediately there was little likelihood that elections could be held in accordance with the terms of the Potsdam Agreement. The British Government has also protested to the Polish Provisional Government the violation of its election pledges. The reports received from the United States Embassy in Poland in the period im- mediately prior to the elections as well as its subsequent reports based upon the observa- tions of American officials who visited a num- ber of Polish voting centers confirmed the fears which this Government had expressed that the election would not be free. These reports were corroborated by the general tenor of the despatches from foreign corre- spondents in Poland. It is clear that the Provisional Government did not confine it- self to the suppression of the so-called un- derground but employed read meas- ures of coercion and intimidation against democratic elements which were loyal to Poland although not partisans of the gov- ernment bloc. In these circumstances the United States Government cannot consider
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD that the provisions of the Yalta and Pots- dam Agreements have been fulfilled. The United States Government has made it clear that it has no desire to intervene in the internal affairs of Poland. By virtue of the responsibility which devolved upon it as one of the principal powers engaged in liberating the countries of Europe from Nazi occupation it undertook, together with the British and Soviet Governments, to secure for the long-suffering Polish people the oppor- tunity to select a government of their own choosing. It was in connection with this un- dertaking that this Government agreed to the decisions respecting Poland that were taken at the Yalta Conference, including the deci- sion to recognize the Polish Provisional Gov- ernment of National Unity. These decisions with respect to Poland, which were accepted by the Polish Provisional Government in their entirety, formed part of a series of agreements between the United States, Brit- ish, and Soviet Governments. The United States Government considers that the Polish Provisional Government has failed to carry out its solemn pledges. The United States Government intends to maintain its interest in the welfare of the Polish people, While retaining full liberty of action to determine its future attitude to- ward the Government of Poland, this Gov- ernment will continue to keep itself informed of developments in Poland through its dip- Jomatic mission in Warsaw. Transfer of Jurisdiction Over Territories of Alaska and Hawaii EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. E. L. BARTLETT DELEGATE FROM ALASKA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES , Monday, February 3, 1947 Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Speaker, there has been advanced again the proposal that jurisdiction over the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii ought to be vested in the Navy Department. The people of the two Territories oppose any such move. They oppose it because they know that under the American system civil- jan government is the only proper gov- ernment; and they oppose it because they know from their experience during the war that local and national defense, far from being impeded by orderly and democratic government, is, in fact, im- measurably strengthened thereby. There is, indeed, a real need to change the gov- ernmental structure both in Alaska and Hawaii. But that need does not lie in the direction of substituting military control for civilian control. Instead it calls for immediate granting of statehood to these two Territories. In that way and only in that way will there be posi- tive assurance that Alaska and Hawaii will be great and strong both in war and peace, and in the best possible position to contribute to the prosperity of our Nation and to its protection in time of emergency. The case against the proposal to trans- fer jurisdiction to the Navy Department has been compellingly set forth in an edi- torial which appeared in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin of January 16. That edi- torial is quoted here: THE COLE BILL AGAIN Representative W. STERLING CoLz, of New York State, has reintroduced in Congress his bill to put the United States Navy in con- trol of all the Territories and island posses- sions. His measure, put Into the lower House on Tuesday, would transfer jurisdiction over Territorial administration from the War and Interior Departments to a proposed new branch of the Navy Department. It would be called the office of external possessions. Mr. Coue’s hasic argument on behalf of the bill is, in his own words: “The Territories are of basic importance to national defense. “The maintenance of naval bases and tn- stallations in such Territorics and security measures for defense of such areas are the primary responsibility of the Navy Depart- ment.” The bill introduced by Mr. CoLr would put the functionr of civil government now exer- cised by the United States Army in the Pan- ama Canal Zone under the Navy. This is not the first appearance of this proposal. Mr. Cote introduced a similar bill on Jan- uary 6, 1945. It was referred to the House Committee on Territories and brought im- mediate protest from the Delegates from Ha- wail and Alaska. Thereafter Mr. COLE intro- duced a revised bill. It excluded Hawali and Alaska from the Navy-control plan. It was sent to the House Naval Affairs Committee. Neither bill was acted on by the Seventy- ninth Congress, They died in committees. The new measure should, and no doubt will, draw another sharp protest from the Dele- gates from Hawaii and Alaska. And it should be protested likewise by the official civil or- ganizations and by individuals in the Terri- tories. For it strikes at the very heart of local self-government, a basic principle of American citizenship and American freedom of political action, At the outset let us emphasize that we do not question the sincerity of Mr. CoLe's mo- tives or his belief that his measure would provide an essential factor in national de- Tense. Mr. CoE represents the Thirty-ninth Dis- trict of western New York. His home is in Bath, N. Y. He is a lawyer by profession, a graduate of Colgate University and Albany law school with a Phi Beta Kappa high scholarship award. He is a member of the United States Naval Reserve, and has long been a member of the House Committees on Naval Affairs and Insular Affairs. He is also a member of the newer Special Committee on Postwar Military Policy. His associations, as a member of the Naval Affairs Committee, are obviously with Navy officers. And it is natural that he should gain from at least some of them the convic- tion that to fulfill its role in national defense the Navy should have control of the land territories in what might be described as the outlying areas of the United States. But the plan of the Cole bill is against the whole course of development of self-govern- ment for American communities. It is directly counter to the statehood pro. posals before Congress for both Hawaii and Alaska. It represents a type of thinking which re- gards outlying areas not as communities with membership in the rights and privileges of the American democracy; but as colonies to be administered by official flat from above, and subject to the military command in- stead of to the obligation of citizenship. There is nothing in the history of any of the Territories or insular areas to justify the Cole bill. In war as in peace the people of these areas have manifested no less regard for their obli- gations and duties to the United States than the people of Mr. CoLze’s home State and home district. Indeed, the immediate response of the peo- ple of Hawaii and of Alaska to the stern call A379 to arms on December 7, 1941, was exceeded in no State in the Union. And, we say with pride, no State in the Union had a better war record than had Hawaii. This record was founded not alone on the imminent danger to Hawali and to Alaska. The response was not solely the response of fear for our own safety in these islands, or on the Alaskan Peninsula. It was founded also on certain knowledge that should the defenses for Hawali and Alaska break down, the whole west coast of the United States, and the Panama Cunal Zone, would be laid open to enemy attack. The people of Hawali and Alaska knew that on them, as well as on the Navy and the Army, and on that gallant, outnumbered, ill- equipped little force in the Philippines, rested the responsibility for holding the Pa- cifie line until the immense American war machine could get rolling. Yes, the record of Hawali and Alaska in wartime is secure for history. It offers no excuse for taking from either Territory the self-government it already has and depriving it of the deeply, proudly cherished ambition to march on to full state- hood. Nor do we believe that from the stand- point of long-range strategy the Navy can justify taking control of the Territorial and insular areas. In Hawaii and in Alaska the Navy has great bases. No reasonable plan for the establish- ment of such bases has been refused. In the areas farther west and southwest in the Pacific, there are similar bases. Most of these areas are already under Navy control. There never has been presented to Con- gress or the people a valid case for perma- nent naval occupancy and naval government of the Territories and insular areas. The new Cole bill will be opposed even more emphatically than those the New York Member introduced in 1945. The protests will come from the earlier sources of opposition, and from new sources. Since the first legislation went in, Presi- dent Truman has declared himself strongly in favor of immediate action on statehood for Hawaii. A subcommittee of Congress has made a report to the main House committee cordially favoring statehood for Hawail. The new Secretary of the Interior, J. A. Krug, has reiterated the previous hearty support of statehood as voiced by his pred- ecessor, Harold L. Ickes. In the country at large, statehood for Hawali is much better understood than it was 2 yenrs ago. The support for statehood is correspondingly widespread. But it would be foolish to permit the Cole bili to ride without new protest. The chances are greatly against its passage or even a favorable report from a House com- mittee. But so long as Hawaii remains a Territory, we are open to such attacks on our political status and our citizenship rights. The way to end those attacks, the way to assure forever that the Jowly status of a colony is not imposed on us, is to get state- hood. Not till then will the menaces to local self-government be removed. Conflict by Congress Committees Is Likely EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. W. STERLING COLE OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 3, 1947 Mr. COLE of New York. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following article
A380 by David Lawrence entitled “Conflict by Congress Committees Is Likely”: ConFiicr BY CONGrEss ComMIrTzrs Is LIKELY—DUPLICATED Evvorts on RIVALRY Sxxn UNDER REORGANIZATION (By David Lawrence) Congress hasn't quite cleared up in its own mind just what the various committees are to do. The streamlining Reorganization Act achieved a good many reforms, but theory and actual working conditions are likely to conflict and only experience and evolution will furnish the right answer. Thus, in the House of Representatives, the Foreign Affairs Committee has just voted to make a study of State Department mat- ters and so has the Committee on Expendi- tures in Governmental Agencies. On the eurface it would appear that this is a duplication of effort or perhaps a rivalry of interest between the two committees. Also the House Armed Services Committee now is asking the Secretary of State to testify as to the nature of foreign policies so that com- mitments can be examined in relation to the military side and appropriations needed. Strictly speaking, the same reasoning that led to the merging of the Committees on Military Affairs and Naval Affairs in both Houses would seem to argue in favor of a consolidation of the Foreign Affairs Com- mittee and the Armed Services Committee. ARGUMENT IS LOGICAL It could be argued quite logically that these subjects belong together and that one is dependent on the other. For, after all, armies and navies and air forces are not needed to preserve domestic tranouillity and have their uses only in foreign affairs when wars are threatened or break out. So far as the House or Senate Foreign Af- fairs Committee is concerned, these units have no business except to help shape na- tional policy in relation to other nations, What is done there has a bearing on the size of the armed services and the nature of the defense program that is to be established, but it is not up to the Senate or House com- mittees to formulate a defense plan. Congress made e serious mistake when it merged the Army and Navy committees be- cause each branch of the armed services is important enough to have its own affairs watched by a committee of each House. But now that the Armed Services Committee has been set up, it is natural that the cry for merger in other directions should be taken up. Actually the House Committee on Foreign Affairs has a duty to survey State Depart- ment policies and personnel and to give its judgment to the Appropriations Committee. As for the Committee on Expenditures, it has @ right to inquire into methods of spending and handling of purchases, rentals of prop- erty, and management of personnel matters abroad, and auditing of accounts, but not to examine the broad policies of the Secretary of State or his assistants in what is known as international relations or foreign policy. THIN REED FOR DEFENSE As for the House and Senate Armed Serv- ices Committees, they may inquire concern- ing the nature of foreign policy and commit- ments, but this is a thin reed on which to base a defense plan. What is said by the present Secretary of State may or may not be pertinent in s year or so. The only way the armed services should function is to as- sume every hypothesis of war is plausi- ble and to develop defense plans accordingly. It would be tragic, indeed, if the Armed Services Committees after hearing Secretary Marshall in executive seasion, were to launch & program of expansion or reduction of the defense establishment. Undue significance internationally would be attached to such a session. Conversely, the Armed Services Commit- tees would be better off if they formulated a defense plan on the broad assumption that the United States, as a member of the UN, must be prepared, for instance, to fight a war against Russia irrespective of what soothing words may come from Moscow or any other capital of the world. It is the business of military men to draw up hypothetical plans all the time and to prepare for any serious contingency. With a totalitarian govern- ment in power in Moscow, the peace of the world will be continuously unstable and the words of no foreign secretary of state should be taken in place of the advice of military and naval and aerial experts as to what the United States needs to ward off attack, espe- cially in this atomic age. The United States has been caught nap- ping before by ignoring this sort of thing. Whenever anybody in Congress or in the armed services mentioned the need for forti- fying Guam, for example, prior to 1941, there was a hue and cry about disturbing relations with Japan. If the Armed Services Commit- tees are going to get tangled up in diplomacy once more, instead of sticking to strictly military preparations, the defense of the United States may suffer accordingly and the United States may be caught with another Pearl Harbor attack some day. Free Enterprise and Tax Policy EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. THOMAS E. MARTIN OF IOWA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 3, 1947 Mr. MARTIN of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following editorial from the Des Moines Register of Janu- ary 25, 1947: ON FREE ENTERPRISE AND TAX POLICY Most persons develop deep-rooted preju- dices about tax rates because of their indi- vidual economic positions. Nobody really enjoys paying taxes, of course, and we can always find plenty of reasons why some other segment of society than our own ought to pay a larger share of the necessary Govern- ment revenue, so that our segment can pay less. At the State and local levels, we also debate vigorously about how the necessary revenues should be collected. But when we consider Federal policies about this, it becomes more than just an economic group-interest debate or an aca- Gemic exercise. For it has a very important bearing nowadays on what political philos- ophy we, as a Nation, are to pursue, National government is inevitably so complex and powerful, in a modern industrial society, that it can—if we wish it to—completely dominate the economy. It can easily control the whole character and behavior of private enterprise, through a thousand arms of reg- ulation and taxation and policy, unless we consciously limit it. One of the important questions of our time is whether it is necessary and, if not, whether it 1s socially wise for us to permit govern- ment to assume a virtusl veto power over our 5 é i z ‘ 3 4 terprise system We agree even that, though not essen is nevertheless wise, this means that we do not value the free-enterprise system highly enough any more to struggle for its per~ petuation. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The Register doubts that very many Ameri- cans, faced with the choice in this form, would take so defeatist a view. Most of us recognize as socially sound the intervention of government at specific and well-defined points, to restrain excesses or abuses by pri- vate enterprise. But most of us expect gov- ernment to exercise self-restraint in all areas except these carefully reasoned and described ones, For if such intervention respects no lim- its, it automatically encroaches everywhere for the sake of mere power—and we get a condition of state capitalism in one form or another. This is pretty near what happens, even to a democracy, in modern war; we ex- cuse it then because of the threat to our na- tional existence, but the abandonment by government of these extraordinary powers when peace returns is alwaye implicit in our acquiescence, Now the philosophy of taxation is a part of this delicate balance between govern- mental economic control and private enter- prise, and affects that balance rather directly. In a dynamic or growing industrial society, there must be a constant flow of new capital into production resources; otherwise the sys- tem stagnates, Tax policies determine, to a large degree, where this flow of capital is to come from, whether the new resources are to be Govern- ment-controlied or privately controlled—and in fact whether new capital is going to flow into production at all! If the tax rates are such that private en- terprise can accumulate very little for new investment, then naturally the new resources are not going to be created by private capital. In that event, Government may go about cre- ating and retaining ownersh'p of a larger and larger proportion of our productive resources, by using its tax revenues for this purpose. Or it may disperse these revenues 80 thinly, into consumption channels or for nonpro- ductive enterprises, that the necessary new productive plant never comes into being. Right now the United States is at a high level of employment, with a high national income. Almost everybody agrees that our tax revenues must take a substantial bite out of the Federal debt first. Almost every- body agrees that the budget can now stand some slicing—it might even stand consider- ably more than anyone has proposed, if real unification of the armed services took place. It could certainly stand more, all along the Mune, if the reasons for reducing it seemed imperative enough. The issue is, Ought not the Budget be deliberately cut hard enough so that, in ad- dition to the debt payment, personal income taxes can be reduced—leaving that surplus in private hands for new capital investment, and thus stimulating expansion of our pro- ductive resources? . Nobody is proposing that the average per- sonal income-tax rates be cut back to any- where near the 1920 level. Nobody is pro- posing even that they be cut back to the 1939 level, The most radical proposal (for 20-percent reduction) ents no more than a compromise between the 1939 rate and the stiffest (1945) wartime rate. This policy requires, to be sure, both a basic faith in the free-enterprise system and an understanding that new capital invest- ment means etill higher production, more national income, and, therefore, more tax revenue ultimately. That sequence is the very essence of a dynamic free-enterprise system. That system, meanwhile, has suffered some mortal blows in the last generation because of blind nationalism throughout the world which pitched us first into depression and then war. Many areas have already turned away from the system in despair. We in the United States still have the opportunity, if we use it wisely, to prove anew the long-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD term social values of a vigorous private- enterprise economy. This may, indeed, be the last opportunity of our epoch in history to give the incentive system an even chance to produce, Is it not @ chance worth taking? Senator Pepper’s Views on Soviet Russia EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CLAUDE PEPPER OF FLORIDA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, February 3, 1947 Mr. PEPPER. Mr. President, I ask to have incorporated in the Appendix of the Recorp an article published in the Orlando (Fla.) Sentinel-Star, on Decem- ber 29, 1946, and another article pub- lished in the Orlando Morning Sentinel, on December 30, 1946, being an interview between Mr. Walter Duranty and myself, respecting relations between this coun- try and the Soviet Union. There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: {From the Orlando (Fla.) Sentinel-Star of December 29, 1946] WALTER DURANTY SIZES UP CLAUDE PEPPER— SINCERITY SENATOR'S TOP HOPE FOR PEACE, NOTED REPORTER FINDS (By Walter Duranty) “If more politicians in this country were thinking about the next generation instead of the next election it might be better for the United States and the world,” said Sen- ator Pepper (Democrat, Florida). The Senator was talking to me in Brooks- ville, on his way to St. Petersburg, and I had journeyed there to interview him for the Sunday Sentinel-Star, The Senator can afford to say that because he's all set for 4 years. Yet some people might think he js kind of in the doghouse. Not that it worries him, and he told me why. He said, “Not long ago I was going to talk at one of our universities. Many of the boys were veterans. One of my friends said to me: “‘Listen, CLAUDE, do you have to be con- troversial? “‘Can't you leave Russia alone? I know you went there and had a talk with Stalin * © but can’t you leave Russia alone?’ ”’ The Senator looked at me, smiling in a rather quizzical way, and went on, “I'll tell you, Mr. Duranty, I just couldn't do it, be- cause Russia is important. “If somehow or other we can’t make a deal with them * * * a friendly deal * © for their benefit andours * * then it ig just too bad. That's what I mean by talking about the next generation, “Either we're moving toward a bigger and bloodier war, or to peace and friendship, In my opinion, this can be achieved, but we haven't much time to waste. In the next year or two we are sowing the seeds of the future. Will they be seeds of friendship, or will they be seeds of war? “As I was saying,” he continued, "I did talk about Russia at this university, much along the lines that I’m talking to you now. I don’t suppose they all agreed with me, and I doubt whether I changed their minds. But they listened with attention. You've talked in public yourself, and you can tell when an audience listens. “And afterward one of the boys came up to me and said: “‘Would you know it, Senator, that I and some of my friends didn’t think much of you, We thought you were a radical or a Com- munist, or tied up somehow with Moscow * * * and we didn't think much of you, In fact, we came here to make a sort of boo- ing clique to interrupt your speech. But you notice we didn't boo.’” The Senator didn't say this in a boastful way, as if to imply that he had spellbound this potentially hostile group. He just stated it as a fact—direct and sincere—as I am sure that the boy and his friends who came there to boo, but didn’t, also were sincere; and sincerity counts, and integrity counts, and if & man Will stand up and face his opposition to say what he believes * * * that may count much more. I asked the Senator if he could tell me quickly, in general terms, what are the ob- stacles to friendship between this country and Russia. Mr. PEPPER rubbed his chin and then said firmly, “There are very powerful interests in this country which don't like the Sovict Union or anything it stands for, and prob- ably never will. Then, there is a big mass of public opinion which has been influenced unfavorably against the Soviet Union. “I wouldn't call this mass of public opinion ignorant or misled because I think that it, or they, honestly want to know about Russia and are willing to hear and eager to learn. “But for the most part, at this moment, they are not friendly toward Russia and are suspicious of Russia's aims and actions.” “Yes,” I said, “and then?” “Then,” said Mr. PEPPER, “there are people like myself, or yourself, who want to find out the facts, who know that this country has no aggressive or hostile aims against any other country, and are willing to believe the same about the Russians * * * for similar reasons. “No great, big country like the United States or the Soviet Union wants to go grab- bing territory. We have enough of our own. I admit there is a danger in both these coun- tries that rash and greedy men may cause trouble by what might be called imperialistic expansion. “Many people think today that Stalin en- tertains such dangerous ideas. I don’t be- Heve it, just as I well know that the United States wants nothing of the kind. “Therefore, we should be friends with Rus- sia and can be friends with Russia, and must be friends with Russia, You lived there a long time, Mr. Duranty. and I was there a short time, but I think you will agree with me when I say that the Russian people as a nation admire and respect America and have no ill feeling toward us. “Some of them, perhaps, and some of their rulers are suspicious about us, as many people here are suspicicus about them. But I feel confident that a way of friendship can be found.” This time I rubbed my chin. “And what do you think about Stalin?” I asked. “Quite a lot,” said the Senator. leave that for tomorrow's story.” So I left it like that, and on the way, riding home, I wondered to myself what I thought about CLaupEe Peprer on the basis of our conversation. And I thought he added up to two things that matter most to me * * * and I could add a third thing. I thought, first, that he is sincere and good, and has brave ideas. Some folks may think that he is in the dog-house at present (as I said before), even in his home State, but so what? Second, I feel that his line with which I began this piece that politicians ought to think more about the next generation and less about the next election is one of the best lines I have ever heard. “But let’s A381 Third, he is a happy man. He is young and strong and a magnificent speaker—or did you happen to hear about him at the last Democratic convention. Last, but very far from least, he has the most charming and beautiful wife any man could want. {From the Orlando (Fla.) Morning Sentinel of December 30, 1946] WALTER DURANTY SIZES UP CLAUDE PEPPER— NOTED REPORTER FINDS PEPPER SEES PEACE AS STALIN’S CHIEF AIM (By Walter Duranty) “Stalin’s two outstanding qualities,” said Senator Peprer (Democrat), of Florida, “are in my opinion common sense and/or perse- verance. He follows his thoughts through with the intentness and determination of a dog on a trail. I imagine that he is the same in action; a man who sees his objective clearly and goes after it at all costs.” “What,” I asked, “do you think ts Stalin's chief objective?” “Peace,” said the Senator firmly. ‘First, perhaps selfishly, for the sake of his own country and its reconstruction. Russia has suffered far greater losses of human life and materials than is generally realized here. “The devastation of war ruined the rich- est industrial and agricultural areas in the Ukraine and the North Caucasus—not to mention Stalingrad, of course, and in White Russia and along the Baltic coast up to and including Leningrad, where nearly half the population died in one of the most terrible sieges that history has ever recorded. “To repair those dreadful wounds Russia must have peace, and Stalin knows it. But over and above that, and beyond it, I believe, 1s Stalin’s second objective: to develop the natural resources of his gigantic country and tmprove the living standards of its people. “As you well know, Mr. Duranty, those standards are still deplorably low, if judged by an American yardstick. To raise them to anywhere near our level will take time and prodigious effort. For that peace is a neces- sity.” He paused and looked at me, “Yes, and not only peace, but if possible the assistance of the United States, so that our example and our technical skill can be used to help Russia progress.” “You don't think, then,” I said “that Rus- sia is a menace, or that Stalin himself is a man so greedy for power that he might have dreams of conquest as wild and dangerous as those of Hitler.” “No,” said the Senator, “I do not belicve that, because it does not correspond with my estimate of Stalin’s character. As I said at the beginning he is a man of great common sense, and, frankly, there is no sense at all in the idea that Russia should wish to chal- lenge the United States of America and/or the British Commonwealth for the domina- tion of the world. “I don't believe Stalin thinks along those lines. He does, I am convinced, wish to see the system of socialism succeed in Russia. To that wish or hope or goal he has devoted his life. “It is a system most different from our own. In this country private enterprise, individualism, capitalism if you like, has been successful. Despite certain imperfections, abuses even, which I do not need to discuss, the American system of private enterprise— capitalism—has produced greater wealth, happiness, comfort, culture, all that is meant by civilization, for more people over a greater area than any other system in the history of the world. “We may wish to remove the imperfections and correct the abuses, but we don't want to change our system,
A382 “Stalin, on the other hand, is convinced that for Russia a socialist system is prefer- able. He and Lenin before him gave their lives to that cause, yet I do not see where or why this difference of systems should in- volve any conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union. That, I believe, is the view of Stalin also.” This was very interesting to me because we were talking in the house of Col. Raymond Robbins, of Brooksville, and Colonel Robbins was Red Croas representative in Petrograd during World War I; and later, as unofficial ambassador for some months after the Bol- shevik Revolution, knew Lenin well and was liked and trusted by him, and knew Trotsky, too, and Stalin, who at that time was less prominent than he ts today. The colonel went back to Russia in 1933 and was received by Stalin who said to him: “I am a Leninist and try to make socialism work in Russia because that is what Lenin wanted.” I remembered something Stalin had said to me—or rather written—when I first inter- viewed him in 1929. JY had put in my report that Stalin was “the inheritor of Lenin’s mantle.” When he returned my copy, which he had read and approved, for me to cable it to the New York Times, I found that the phrase about Lenin's mantle had been scratched out and that instead Stalin had written “Lenin's faithful disciple and the prolonger of his work.” So it was interesting'to me to find that Senator Peprrr and Colonel Robbins were saying almost the same thing about today’s Lord of the Kremlin. The Senator told me another interesting thing—that in his interview with Stalin he had asked the Russian Communist leader whether he truly believed that world-wide peace could be attained and maintained. To which Stalin replied, “Yes, in time, but re- member that Christ said, ‘Seek and ye shall find.’" I straightened up in my chair. “Are you sure, Senator, that Stalin said that?” “Sure. You see George Kennan, who was then our Chargé d'Affaires in Moscow, and speaks Russian perfectly, was kind enough to act as my interpreter. Stalin had his own interpreter. After the interview Kennan and I compared notes carefully, and we both are certain that Stalin used those words.” “Don't forget,” he added, smiling, “that Stalin was raised for the Church and got his early education in a theological seminary of the Greek Othodox faith.” In conclusion, I asked the Senator: “You were speaking yesterday of the ob- stacles to Russian-American friendship in this country. What about the obstacles in Russia?” He replied: “Well, I suppose that in a way it is much the same thing. There, too, is a great deal of ignorance and lack of mutual knowledge and understanding. There, too, are certain forces whose interest and purpose it is to set the United States and the Soviet Union at logger- heads, to provoke hostility between them, because only by this means can these forces recover from their defeat. “I refer, of course, to Germany, which is a beaten country but not, I think, wholly chastened in spirit. I know that the Krem- lin’s control of press and propaganda and public opinion is very great. I feel that there is a danger that Germany’s desire for revenge can have a certain influence in Russta—and perhaps in this country, too. It must be Germany's hope to inflame and play upon ill- will between the United States and Russia, just as Hitler manipulated and profited by discord and divergence between France and Britain in the period between World War I and World War II.” Radio Address to My Constituents EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 3, 1947 Mr. EDWIN ARTHUR HALL. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my re- marks in the Recorp, I include the fol- lowing radio address delivered by me over Station WNBF on February 1, 1947: Dear friends of the Triple Cities and my congressional district, 24 hours after I in- troduced the Hall plan for veterans’ housing, I was challenged and attacked and called the most atrocious names. HALL wants to bankrupt the country, they shouted. It will interest you folks who didn’t listen to my plan last week that I simply stated that I believed every veteran, regardless of the color of his skin or what church he at- tends or how small his pocketbook is, should be afforded the chance to own his own home and have a new one, if necessary. It will also interest you to know that the handful of vociferous persons attacking me are all making big salaries, live in nice, com- fortable homes, and are not worrying where their next meal and their families’ meals are coming from. But they smear me to you and try to block the only proposal yet made in connection with veterans’ housing that puts a nickel in anybody's hands so he can do something about getting a roof over his head. Personally I think they ought to be ashamed. A few years back, don’t I recall these same people were beating their breasts and waving the flag and demanding that every boy climb into a uniform and march off to fight for his country. These people who smear me now because I want to follow through and carry out a fair program are the same ones who promised our boys the world if they would go forth and do battle for them. Well, all I have to say to them is, you may have the power of high position right now to misrepresent me and attempt to question my motives when I try to help the veteran. But don’t think for a minute, boys, you can push aside the hopes and desires of 14,000,000 vet- erans by ridiculing my suggestion. Don’t think they will retreat one inch. Your frowns will not scare them any more than you scare me. Whether you like it or not, I’m going to use the job the folks back home gave me to the very best advantage I can to help our veterans. Whether you like it or not, you can't stop me. As to the abuse you are handing out, of course, there are ways and means of over- coming that. I've survived nearly a decade now in spite of your abuse, your intolerance, and your determination to rub me out. It won't be my fault if I don’t survive for a while to come. Naturally, I've had to work overtime to find the ways and means. You don’t like it because I take good care of thousands of re- quests folks make of me. You don’t like it because I fight back when you heap your coals of fire on my head. You like to dish it out but you can’t take it. You won't like it when I flood this district with letters which I will send to every voter ex- posing the men by name who are in this plot to get me. I don't want to do this but I will have no other choice if they keep persecuting me. But you've got to take it if you keep amearing me because this program is dedi- cated to the protection of the people of this APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD district. This program is dedicated to the defense of a free, unfettered Representative, elected by a free people. But to get back to the veteran. You high- salaried critics who are making fun of my efforts to help veterans’ housing ought to read this story by Columnist 8. W. Matthews, Miami Dally News staff writer. The head- line reads, “Family hungry in one room.” “Vet wants to sell eye to buy a house trailer.” “For sale: One eye.” Proceeds from the sale of this eye will be used to buy a trailer. With the trailer the young veteran wanting to sell the eye be- lieves he will be able to buy food for his wife and three children, for right now $22 of his $36 weekly wage must go for rent. Also, he will be able to do some cooking in the trailer, whereas at present his family can only sleep in the room. There are no cooking privileges. By cooking at home, he figures the grocery money will go farther. Far enough, possibly, to permit him to start paying on doctor's bills. On his own since he was 12, this veteran has been used to making a living, but since he got out of the Army he’s found the going tough. He’s not skilled at any rate, his wife is in poor health, and wages haven't soared like rents and grocery prices. He tried, he says, holding down two jobs at once, but there is a physical limit to what one person can do, even when spurred by the sight of his wife and children going without food. There were two conditions he set when the Miami Daily News classified department brought him into the city room. He didn't want his name used because he was afraid his wife might see it. He also doesn’t want charity. He just wants to sell an eye to someone who needs a transplanted cornea, figuring if he can lick the rent problem he can make a living. He will take any kind of a job he can get that will pay enough to buy the groceries, and 836 won't do that with $22 going out for rent. It’s Your Money EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ROBERT F. RICH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 3, 1947 Mr. RICH. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following article by Frank C. Waldrop, from the Washington Times- Herald of February 2, 1947: IT’S YOUR MONEY (By Frank C. Waldrop) In 1918, the average American citizen worked for himself first and for the gov- ernment second. Today, he works for the government first and for himeelf second. In 1913, the American people paid @2,176- 000,000 in taxes to local, State, and Federal governments. This was divided between the govern- ments as follows: $657,000,000 to the Federal tax collector, 300,000,000 to the States, and $1,219,000,000 to local outfits. In those days, people didn't look to Wash- ington for the solution of all their problems. They spent the most of their tax money building up cities and municipal services— parks, lighting systems, sewers, streets, etc., tems they could use and realize on day by ay.