APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD A Tribute to George Washington EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CHARLES A. PLUMLEY OF VERMONT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, February 21, 1947 Mr. PLUMLEY. Mr. Speaker, under permission to extend my remarks, I am including a translation by Dr. Glen Levin Swiggett of the Spanish sonnet to Wash- ington by Gertrudis Gémez de Ave- Naneda. Dr. Swiggett is recognized as one of the most eminent writers of sonnets, and translator of those written in other lan- guages, and it is apropros of the day and the occasion that this translation be in- cluded in this day’s Recorp. It follows: TO WASHINGTON (By Glen Levin Swiggett from the Spanish of Gertrudis Gomez de Avellaneda, 1816- 1873) No pattern in the past for your virtuel No future copy history will give, Nor other's memory in greatness live In coming centuries equal to you. Europe has seen her soil all bloodstained through War's conquering evil genius combative; But that the genius of Good God should give Was to America the glory due. Whilst making of the world wastelands dreary, Let proud victor joy o’er his art of hate And enslaved subjects command boastingly; But in their hearts the peoples know, pros- trate, That only he is strong who rules them free, That he alone who makes them great is great. What Economy Means EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. MELVIN PRICE OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, February 21, 1947 Mr. PRICE of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rrcorp, I include herewith an edi- torial from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, February 19, 1947. In the House on last Tuesday I spoke on the same subject. The views ex- pressed in the Post-Dispatch editorial are greatly in line with my own thoughts on this important matter. WHAT ECONOMY MEANS Now that the fight for adequate military appropriations is going to the floor of Con- grees, the debate should be freed from all the hysteria about economy. Ruthless slashing of our defense budget cannot be itemised in terms of guns and planes alone. It means that we will have to butcher our foreign policy as well. President Truman and the Army and Navy commanders have described the issue in terms of an “ineffective” Army, a “second rate’ Air Force, and an “immobile” Navy. This picture is deadly serious. But it does not represent altogether what military weak- ness can mean, Feeble arms mean feeble diplomacy. More than a century ago Clausewitz stated an unfortunate principle, when he said war was the logical extension of diplomacy. War comes when negotiation fails, and negotia- tion fails when a nation has no strength to support it. If the United States has to reduce its arms, which part of its foreign policy will it surrender? Would we, for instance, be willing to re- treat from Europe? A New York Times writer has stated that ‘the balance of power was restored roughly along the Stettin-Trieste line not because of the eloquence of Mr. Byrnes, but because of the power of the United States Army in Germany and in Trieste.” Our withdrawal now would leave western Europe to fascism, nationalist ex- Pansion, or chaos, Or should we pull our fleet out of the Medi!- terranean? Its presence there forestalled Russian pressure on Turkey and helped keep the Dardanelles open to world trade. The mere presence of American warships has protected the free flow of Arabian oll, which we need desperately for defense reserves. And could we hoist anchor in the Par East? That would leave the Philippines defense- less, Japan neither safe nor democratic, and north China a void open to expanding Soviet power. If we do not abandon parts of our foreign policy, then reduced appropriations will mean inevitable reduction of military defenses closer home. Would we abolish parts of our Reserves and National Guard? Or would we eliminate those three vast belts of bases which stretch from the Aleutians to Iceland in the north, from Japan through the South Pacific islands in the west, and from Iceland past the Canal Zone in the east? They are meant to keep any war far from the home- Jand. Those are the objectives which depend upon America's military strength. Both have been balanced carefully in the defense budget by such men as General Marshall. As Secretary of State and former Chief of Staff, he under- stands both our commitments and the power needed to support them. Which part of our foreign policy would the economy-minded Congressmen destroy? That is the issue before Congress. It should be met squarely, not in terms of dollars and cents, but with an earnest regard for Amer- ican security and the peace of the world. Address of Hon. Harold E. Stassen EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WALTER H. JUDD OF MINNESOTA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, February 21, 1947 Mr. JUDD. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following address of Harold E. Stassen, of Minnesota, at the annual Lincoln Day dinner of the National Re- publican Club of New York, February 12, 1947; Mr. Chairman, distinguished guests, fellow Republicans, I have a very vivid recollection of the first Lincoln Day dinner that I at- tended. As I recall, it was a quarter century ago on February 12, 1922. As a lad of 14,1 had accompanied my father, who was a Re- publican leader of our home rural county of Minnesota, to this annual observation of the birth date of the great humanitarian. The dinner was held in the capital city of St. Paul, At that time in the wake of World A651 War I, a speaker eloquently discussed Abra- ham Lincoln's outlook toward the problems of reconstruction in the wake of war. He emphasized the sweep of Lincoln’s vision, the depth and nobility of Lincoln's think- ing, and the frankness and firmness of Lin- coln’s position. He referred to Lincoln's dis- cussion of the controversy over his Emanci- pation Proclamation and the numerous con- flicting proposals for the postwar policy and quoted directly from Lincoln’s humble but immovable statement, “If the people should, by whatever mode or means, make it an executive duty to reenslave such persons, another, and not I, must be their instrument to perform !t.” To me this statement and the circum- stances under which it was delivered are representative in a superb degree of much that I have always admired in Lincoln. In it he recognizes that the will of the people shall govern. But at the same time makes it clear that he will not yield his personal basic convictions to those of others and he indicates clearly that he places principle above public office. We meet tonight to honor the memory of Lincoln. We meet at an hour of rising strength for our Republican Party. On last November 5, the people of our country named our Republican Party as once again, after 16 years, the majority party of these United States. They indicated that decision by their free ballots by electing a clear Repub- lican majority in both the Senate and the House, and a Republican majority of the Governors, including the able and outstand- ing chief executive of this State of New York, the Honorable Thomas E. Dewey. It is also worthy of particular note that an unusually large and able group of young veterans of World War II were elected as new Repub- lican Members of the House and Senate. It is clear that the young veterans, moved by their experiences in the years of war, are entering political activity to an increased degree, even as more than a century ago the young veteran Lincoln returned from his service as a captain of a company of volun- teers in the Blackhawk Indian Wars and promptly entered the campaign for the Illi- nois Legislature, supported by the men of his generation who served with him. It is well that we do meet as Republicans tonight to honor Lincoln. For any student of history must agree that it is to his human- itarian policies, his forthright, humble, courageous leadership, that we owe a heavy measure of the remarkable success of our party in the 86 years since he led it to its first national victory. It is my view that our Republican Party can best honor Lincoln today, and best serve the people, by facing in a very frank and forthright manner the great issues of our time. Chief among these is our world eco- nomic policy. This is not an easy policy to establish. It involves a very broad reap- praisal of the facts of our position now in the world and a major adjustment of Re- publican policy to meet these new facts. We have attained an amazing productive ability. Through the fundamentals of our free economy, with free labor, private capital, individual management, and independent ag- riculture, we have reached the point where one-sixteenth of the world’s people within our borders are producing more than one-fourth of all the world’s goods and services. By the grace of God, and the stalwart fighting of our armed forces and those of our allies, our homeland is untouched by war. We are now the great creditor nation of the world. But elsewhere in the world large areas of the homelands of every other major nation have been ravaged by the scourge Of war. Production has been destroyed and distribu- tion systems disrupted. To countless millions of peoples scarcity is a tragic, cruel word. Hungry, they cry for more food but there is no more food. Homeless, they seek better
A652 shelter but there-is no better shelter. Shiver- ing they reach for warmer clothing and for coal but it is not to be had. Every other continent seethes with social and political unrest. We review these facts with humility, as we seek to think through what this means in terms of policies which we must follow. We seek for answers on the basis of these truths. T do not claim to have the answers. But I do have a deep conviction that we must find the answers on the moral basis of Lin- coln’s depth of humanitarian vision and the nobility of his compassion as in the closing days of his life he faced the reconstruction ot this Nation, its people, and its battle- fields in our only parallel of national expe- rience with the devastation of war. And I do recall to you the tragedy and the hatreds and the economic loss within our country by other policies after his sudden death. I do further believe that men of good will within our party and without can find answers on such a moral basis which will in fact prove to also be the best answers eco- nomically and politically. I seek not to im- pose details of position, but rather to stim- ulate the search for answers by exposing precise views. We do desire for the future a continued high standard of living, with jobs to be had for all who wish to work, with abundant pro- auction and wide distribution of goods and services, with ample profits, and with an ex- cellent parity income for agriculture, all with the maintenance of ‘individual freedom for our citizens in a world at peace. We wish to see the peoples in other lands emerge from the ruins of tragic battle and progress toward higher standards of living, with more and better food and clothing and shelter, with an increased measure of indi- vidual freedom, and to share with us in a world at peace. Can these high objectives be met? With- out minimizing the obstacles, I am optimistic that they can be met to a remarkable degree if we have faith in our fundamentals and intelligence and determination in follow- ing through. How can we have the best hope of attain- ing these high objectives? It is my view frankly that we have the best hope of at- taining these objectives if our Republican Party, after careful thought and study, ‘definitely leaves behind all remnants of a ‘policy of economic isolation and moves for- ward in the leadership of America in a new policy of world-wide economic participation. In plain language this means that we directly say that our Republican Party recognizes that a high tariff policy no ‘longer suits America and that we believe in the increased flow of goods and materials and services and travel around the globe. Obviously this requires a considerable re- adjustment tn our thinking, and happily it is a readjustment required by our own at- tainment of great productive strength and etrong credit position rather than by the sudden treacherous blow of an enemy as at Pearl Harbor. But the need of readjusted economic thinking is just as great as the need of readjusted military and political thinking that arose at the time of Pearl Harbor. Let me make my position very clear. I do not open up the question of Republican tariff policy in former years. I do not begin a debate of Smoot-Hawley or any other tariff. I do not raise an issue of any previous votes on trade policy. But I do directly open up for searching study, frank discussion, and ultimate party decision, what I consider to be one of the overshadowing issues of our time. In the light of the new facts now in the wake of World War II what shall be the Republican position on Amerioa’s world economic and trade policy? I open it equarely and welcome others in our party joining thoughtfully in the study and frankly in the discussion because the facts have changed and it will take time to search through. Meanwhile the world econ- omic situation will not stand still. In fact even the silence of our party, in view of its earlier policy, would in and of itself have an adverse effect upon the thinking and the trend of policies in the other nations of the world. Let us examine in some specific detail what such a new world economic policy will entail and why it is so needed. I recognize full well that there are a substantial number of people in our party who still follow the old party position and who still applaud the old slogans, which by changed conditions have become half truths, such as, “We cannot com- pete with Coolie Labor,” “American Markets for America”, “Protect Our Own,” and others of that kind. But I am convinoed that if we begin now to frankly think this through, to face the facts, to talk it over, by the time we reach the 1948 platform, our Republican Party will take a new position for vigorous American participation and increased trade throughout the world. There are four important factors that make this position essential to the future welfare of the people of America. First of these ts the tremendous increase in our productivity. With the skill of our workmen, the ability of our management, and the vigor of our private capital, we have reached the stage that clearly and definitely in the years ahead, in many lines, we must produce for world markets rather than only American markets, or we will find our econ- omy snubbed in, frst glutted and then with- ering with unemployment and deflation. Second, we have developed tremendous capital resources and have become the great creditor nation of the world, so that we need high investment of capital at home and world-wide sources of investment as well, else our capital becomes stagnant and idle and refiects, in turn, in idle men and eco- nomic turmoil. Third, with the extensive drains on our natural resources through war and peace, we are becoming increasingly dependent on raw-material sources elsewhere in the world for the sound long-term future of our economy. Fourth, and above all, it is crystal clear to all of us that in this modern one woritd we can enjoy that precious peace with justice only in a world at peace, and this world can- not remain at peace unless there be that slow but steady improvement of standards of living of other peoples everywhere. This can cnly come, in turn, through an increased flow of trade and higher world production and increased individual rights and freedoms, which will never develop if America turns back to economic isolation. Among those of our products for which we need world markets in the years ahead are wheat and cotton and dried fruits and ma- chinery and automobiles and machine tools. Among the raw materials for which we need to look to the world in the years ahead are not only tin and crude rubber but also lead and copper and zinc. — By reason of this combination of circum- stances, the United States of America has attained a position of preeminent world eco- nomic leadership. We must either broadly, intelligently, and fairly administer that leadership or by narrow, blind, repressive action abdicate that leadership. The result of abdication would be chaotic conditions in world economy, a withering domestic econ- omy, with unemployment and bankruptcies, and less chance of lasting peace for all, During this interim period, while the dis- cussions of. our future trade policies pro- ceeds within the Republican Party, leading to a decision in the platform of 1948, it is of grave importance that we do not obstruct the existing trade program, while we share the responsibility of our national adminis- tration, with Republican majorities in the APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ‘Senate and the House, and an opposition party President and executive branch. A Republican Secretary of State, the Hon- orable James G. Blaine, under Presidents Garfield and Harrison, firat initiated with substantial support the reciprocal-trade prin- ciple. Currently and realistically, when our national administration is divided between legislative and executive branches, Repub- lican and Democrat, it is the only program under which our world economic policy can be advanced. It is not a perfect program. Improvements in the methods of negotiat- ing the agreements should be developed as Benators Vandenberg and Millikin have ably pointed out. But the alternative is either to go forward now with the reciprocal trade agreements, or to slide backward in eco- nomic isolation. I consider it to be of tre- mendous importance, therefore, that our Republican Party follow through with in- terim support of the reciprocal trade pro- gram. The impending negotiations between 18 nations at Geneva to open in April should be held, and extensive agreements should be negotiated. Representatives of American industry and American labor and American agriculture and of our Republican Party should be present as observers during those negotiations. Recognizing the difficulties in world trade presented by state-dominated trading agen- cies and bilateralism and discrimination, we fhould make it clear that while we intend to move forward on a world-trade program we will at the same time not be blind to discriminating obstruction of world trade by others. We will maintain saving clauses to prevent the dumping of goods. We will be interested, not only in the reciprocal rela- tionships of other nations toward us, but in their nondiscriminatory relations to each other, as only by an increasing multilateral- ism of trade, fair and equal toward each other, can the peoples of all nations hope to restore and develop their standards of living Likewise in looking to our future Republi- can trade policy, we must make it Clear that we recognize that adjustments must be grad- ual, that we must safeguard American indus- try and labor and agriculture against sudden and extreme dumping of goods, and main- tain quota limitations on any one product, Further we must see to it that our exports and imports maintain a balanced percentage between agriculture and industry and be- tween industry of various sections of the country. In other words, our total trade pol- icles must be equitable so that increased imports of agricultural products be met by increased exports of other efficiently produced agricultural products, and not by substitu- tion of industrial products. Likewise our extension of credit in other parts of the world, our investments, private and public, must be on a sound basis to be represented and reflected in sound develop- ment of resources in other lands, and of ‘restoration of ecOnomic systems,‘and not be representative merely of political maneuver- One of the reasons why tariff and trade policy is most difficult to understand, is be- Cause any individual producer or manufac- turer ts prone to feel thet if he coutd re- Guce the competition for his product he could have a greater margin and a better profit. And, of course, if all else remained the same at home and abroad and one single product was given an increased tariff, this would be substantially true. But the obvi- ous fact is that no single product can be handled alone, and a program of special pro- tection rapidly expands to many products at home and reflects in other lands, with the result that in fact, the total markets around the world for all products are reduced. The total demands for all ucts declines. The total jobs in the world are cut down. The total profits in the world decline. The stand- ard of living of the people becomes lower.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The choice is clearly this. Do you wish to share in an expanding market with rising standards of living around the world, or do you wish to hold exclusively a shrinking mar- ket with increased unemployment and low- ering standards of living. Do you wish to sell 80 percent of a large and expanding do- mestic market or do you wish to sell 100 per- cent of 8 small and shrinking domestic mar- ket. It is only natural that many would wish that they could do both. They would wish that they could hold exclusively a mar- ket which was also rising and expanding. But the plain laws of world economics in this modern world point out definitely that this ts not possible. Just as an attempt to be narrow and restrictive between our States at an earlier day failed, so would an attempt to separate the nations of the world in an economic sense in this modern world fail. There is need, however, for each industry and for each section of our economy to be alert so that it is fairly treated in relation- ship to the rest of the economy. Another basis of much of the misunder- standing of the effect of world trade arises from the assumption that world consump- tion remains the same, while production rises to meet export opportunities. The fact of the matter, of course, is that producers are consumers, that wage earners are buyers, that profit makers need products. And so it is around the world. As activity increases, more goods are produced, and demand in- creased, and purchasing power rises, and in this process the total standard of living moves upward. Only when pools of capital are held stagnant or excessive governmental regulation straight-jackets deveJopments, or artificial barriers interfere with the flow of goods, do we find repressive developments. Otherwise, the continuous urge of man 1s to produce and to consume more and more of goods and services. It is, of course, also true that such an ex- panding developing world situation will re- quire constant adjustments and readjust- ments in the industry and production of every nation. But these reconversions and adjustments would not be one particle as difficult as were the reconversions of war and then for peace at the end of the war. Clearly the whole world is as close together now, industrially, scientifically, and in travel and communication, as the States of our Union were a century ago. It is equally clear that if we had insisted that each of the States of the Union should raise its own wheat, mill its own flour, make its own shoes, build its own automobiles, tailor its own clothing, the result would be that the peoples in none of the States would be en- joying the standard of living they enjoy to- day. We have now reached the point where the counterpart of this basic fact is upon us on a world level. We cannot abruptly change patterns of trade and of industry de- veloped for a century on that world level. Nor are tariffs the only obstacles. The state- controlled trade, bilateralism, quotas, em- bargoes, are even more restrictive to trade. The adjustment must be gradual, they must be carefully worked out, they must be met by similar adjustments in all parts of the world. But the direction we must travel is clear. It is the direction of increased flow of trade and of travel and of capital, for the benefit of all people everywhere. Along that path, if coupled with sour:c domestic eco- nomic policies, fair and balanced national labor policies, the maintenance of our in- dividual freedom of capital and of labor and of agriculture, with alert and dynamic and humanitarian government, lies a future of jobs and freedom and high standards of liv- ing for the American people. It is a path that will turn other people increasingly in the direction of individual freedom and away from dictatorial concepts, economic, s0- cial, political, or religious. Above all it is a path which keeps faith, through our funda- mental concept of the individual dignity of man, with men and women and little chil- dren around the world. This is the challenge to our Republican Party and our Nation in the years ahead. I am confident that Lin- coln's party and our America will meet that challenge. Budgets ' EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HENRY D. LARCADE, JR. OF LOUISIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, February 21, 1947 Mr. LARCADE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the REc- orD, I include the following newspaper article from the Washington Times- Herald of date February 21, 1947, as follows: RED ARMY BUDGET TOPS OURS BY MERE FOUR BILLIONS Moscow radio, monitored by the Associated Press, eald last night Russia's military ex- penditures during 1947 will amount to 613,- 400,000,000—nearly €4,000,000,000 more than the sum Congress is expected to authorize for United States defense in the United States budget now being considered. Arseni Zverev, Soviet Finance Minister, who submitted the new Russian budget of $74,- 280,000,000 to the Supreme Soviet for ap- proval, said the thirteen-billion figure for national defense represented a decrease of $1,120,000,000 from the 1946 military total. Under President Truman’s proposed §37,- 500,000,000 budget, $11,200,000,000 would be earmarked for national defense. The $6,000,- 000,000 slash approved yesterday by the House 1s understood to include a cut of $1,750,- 000,000 in the United States military appro- priation. Thus, should the reduction be approved by the Senate, only $9,450,000,000 would be granted the American War and Navy Depart- ments for the new fiscal year. This means that the United States arms budget is ap- proximately 29 percent less than the amount Moscow will spend for armed might. George Washington’s Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. SOL BLOOM OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, February 20, 1947 Mr. BLOOM. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rec- orp, I include George Washington’s Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation: RULES OF CIVILITY AND DECENT BEHAVIOR IN COMPANY AND CONVERSATION From a paper found among the early writ- ings of George Washington copied from the original with literal exactness and edited with notes by J. M. Toner, M. D., 1888. The text following is an exact copy from the original manuscript, having been care- fully compared with the corrected there- from, even when errors or omissions are obvious. A653 This book has been knawed by mice. Rule 12 and all at bottom of any of the pages had been nearly destroyed. Every word and letter remaining has been copied and are here given: “1, Every Action done in Company, ought to be with Some Sign of Respect, to those that are present. “2. When in Company, put not your Hands to any Part of the Body, not usually Discovered. “3. Shew Nothing to your Friend that may affright him. “4. In the Presence of Others sing not to yourself with a humming Noise, nor Drum, with your Fingers or Feet. “5. If you Cough, Sneeze, Sigh, or Yawn, do it not Loud, but Privately: and Speak not in your Yawning, but put Your hand- kerchief or Hand before your face and turn aside. “6. Sleep not when others Speak, Sit not when others stand, Speak not when you Should hold your Peace, walk not on when others Stop. “7, Put not off your Cloths in the pres- ence of Others, nor go out your Chamber half Drest. “8. At play and at Fire its Good manners to give Place to the last comer, and affect not to Speak Louder than ordenary. “9. Spit not in the Fire, nor Stoop low before it neither Put your Hands into the Flames to warm them, nor Set your Feet upon the Fire especially if there be meat before it. “10. When you Sit down, Keep your Feet firm and Even, without putting one on the other or Crossing them. “11. Shift not your self in the Sight of others nor Gnaw your nails. “12. Shake not the head, Feet, or Legs, rowl not the Eys, lift not one eyebrow higher than the other, wry not the mouth, and be- dew no mans face with your Spittle, by appr * * * rhim * * ® you Speak. "13. Kill no Vermin as Fleas, lice ticks &c in the Sight of Others, if you See any filth or thick Spittle put your foot Dexteri- ously upon .t, if it be upon the Cloths of your Companions, Put it off privately, and if it be upon your own Cloths return Thanks to him who puts it off. “14. Turn not your Back to others espe- cially in Speaking, Jog not the Table or Desk on which Another reads or writes, lean not upon any one. “15. Keep your Naiis clean and Short, also your Hands and Teeth Clean, yet without Shewing any great Concern for them. “16. Do not Puff up the Cheeks, Loll not out the tongue rub the Hands, or beard, thrust out the lips, or bite them or keep the Lips too open or too Close. “17. Be no Flatterer, neither Play with any that delights not to be Play'd Withal. “18. Read no Letters, Books, or Papers In Company but when there is a Necessity for the doing of it you must ask leave: come not near the Books or Writings of Another so as to read them unless desired or give your opinion of them unask'd also look not nigh when another ts writing a Letter. “19. let your Countenance be pleasant but in Serious Matters Somewhat grave “20. The Gestures of the Body must be Suited to the discourse you are upon “21. Reproach none for the Infirmities of Nature nor Delight to Put them that have in mind thereof. “22. Shew not yourself glad at the Misfor- tune of another though he were your enemy. “23. When you see a Crime punished, you may be inwardly Pleased; but always shew Pity to the Suffering Offender. “es @¢ * too much at ick * * * “28. Superfluous Complements and all Affectation of Ceremonie are to be avoided yet where due they are not to be Neglected. “96. In pulling off your Hat to Persons of Distinction, as Noblemen, Justices, Church- men &c make a Reverence, bowing more or any Pub-
A654 less according to the Custom of the Better Bred, and Quality of the Persons Amongst your equals expect not always that they Should begin with you first, but to Pull off the Hat when there is no need is Affectation, in the Manner of Saluting and resaluting in words keep to the most usual Custom. “27, Tis ill manners to bid one more emi- nent than yourself be covered as well as not to do it to whom it’s due Likewise he that makes to much haste to Put on his hat does not well, yet he ought to Put it on at the first, or at most the Second time of being ask’d; now what is herein Spoken, of Quali- fication in behaviour in Saluting, ought also to be observed in taking of Place, and Sit- ting down for ceremonies without Bounds is troublesome. “28. If any one comes to Speak to you while you are Sitting Stand up tho he be your Inferiour, and when you Present Seats let it be to every one according to his Degree. “29. When you meet with one of Greater Quality than yourself, Stop, and retire espe- cially if it be at a Door or any Straight place to give way for him to Pass “30. In walking the highest Place in most Countrys Seems to be on the right hand therefore Place yourself on the left of him whom you desire to Honour; but if three walk together the middle Place is the most Honourable the wall is usually given to the most worthy if two walk together. “31. If any one far Surpasses others, either in age, Estate, or Merit, * * * would give Place to a meaner than himself * * * the one ought not to except it,So * * * it above once or twice. “82. To one that is your equal, or not much inferior you are to give the chief Place in your Lodging and he to who ‘tis offered ought at the first to refuse it but at the Second to accept though not without acknowledging his own unworthiness “33. They that are in Dignity or in office have in all places Preceedency but whilst they are Young they ought to respect those that are their equals in Birth or other Qual- itys. though they have no Publick charge. “34. It 1s good Manners to prefer them to whom we speak before ourselves especially if they be above us with whom in no Sort we ought to begin. “35. Let your Discourse with Men of Busi- ness be Short and Comprehensive. “36. Artificers & Persons of low Degree ought not to use many ceremonies to Lords, or Others of high Degree but Respect and highly Honour them, and those of high Degree ought to treat them with affibility & Courtesie, without Arrogancy. “37. In Speaking to men of Quality do not lean nor Lock them full in the Face, nor approach too near them at lest Keep a full Pace from them. “38. In visiting the Sick, do not Presently play the Physician if you be not Knowing therein. “39. In writing or Speaking, give to every Person his due Title According to his De- gree & the Custom of the Place. “40, Strive not with your Superiors in argument, but always Submit your Judg- ment to others with Modesty. “41. Undertake not to Teach your equal in the art himself Professes; it flavours of arrogancy. “« @ © courtesie be propertothe * * * Dignity of his place * * * t yr. same with * Clown and a Prince. _ “43. Do not express Joy before one sick or in pain for that contrary Passion will aggravate his Misery. “44 When a man does all he can though it Succeeds not well blame not him that did it. “45. Being to advise or reprehend any one, consider whether it ought to be in Publick or in Private; presently, or at Some other time in what terms to do it & in reproving Shew no Signs of Cholar but do it with all Sweetness and Mildness. “46, Take all Admonitions thankfully in what Time or Place Soever given but after- wards not being culpable take a Time or Place Convenient to let him know it that gave them. “47, Mock not nor Jest at anything of Importance break no Jest that are Sharp Biting and if you Deliver anything witty and Pleasent abstain from Laughing thereat yourself. “48. Wherein Wherein you reprove An- other be unblameable yourself; for example is more prevalent than Precepts. “49. Use no Reproachfull Language against any one neither Curse nor Revile. “60. Be not hasty to believe fying Reports to the Disparagement of any. “51. Wear not your Cloths, foul, unript or Dusty but See they be Brush’d once every day at least and take heed that you approach not to any Uncleaness. “62. In your Apparel be Modest and en- deavour to accomodate Nature, rather than to procure Admiration keep to the Fashion of your equals, Such as are Civil and orderly with respect to Times and Places, “58. Run not in the Streets, neither go too slowly nor with Mouth open go not Shak- ing Yr. Arms * * * not upon the toes, nor ina Dancing * * ° “54. Play not the Peacock, looking every- where about you, to See if you be well Deck't, if your Shoes fit well if your Stock- ings Sit neatly, and Cloths handsomely. “65. Eat not in the Streets, nor in ye House, out of Season. “66. Associate yourself with Men of good Quality if you Esteem your own Reputa- tion; for 'tis better to be alone than in bad Company. “57. In walking up and Down in a House, only with One in Company, if he be Greater than yourself, at the first give him the Right hand and Stop not till he does and be not the first that turns, and when you do turn let it be with your face towards him, if he be a Man of Great Quality, walk not with him Cheek by Jowl but Somewhat behind him; but yet in Such a Manner that he may easily Speak to you. “58. Let your Conversation be without Malice or Envy, for 'tis a Sign of a Tractuble and Commendable Nature, & in all Causes of Passion admit Reason to Govern. “69. Never express anything unbecoming, nor Act ag’tt ye Rules of Moral before your inferiours “60. Be not immodest in urging your Friends to Discover a Secret. “61. Utter not base and frivilous things amongst grave and Learn’d Men nor very Difficult Questions or Subjects, amongst the Ignorant or things hard to be believed, Stuff not your Discourse with Sentences amongst your Betters nor Equals. “62. Speak not of doleful Things in a Time of Mirth or at the Table; Speak not of Melancholy Things at Death and Wounds, and if others Mention them Change if you can the Discourse tell not your Dreams, but to your intimate Friend. “63. A man ought not to value himself of his Atchievements or rare Qual id les Virtue or Kindred * * “64. Break not a Jest where none take pleasure in mirth Laugh not aloud, nor at all without Occasion, deride no man’s Mis- fortune, tho’ there seem to be Some cause. “65. Speak not injurious Words neither in Jest nor Earnest Scoff at none although they give Occasion. “66. Be not forward but friendly and Courteous; the first to Salute hear and an- sewer & be not Pensive when It's a time to converse. “67. Detract not from others neither be excessive in Commanding. “68. Go not thither, where you know not, whether you Shall be Welcome or not. Give not Advice whth being Ask'd & when de- sired do it briefly. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD “69. If two contend together take not the part of either unconstrained, and be not ob- stinate in your Opinion, in Things indifer- ent be of the Major side. “70. Reprehend not the imperfections of others for that belongs to Parents Masters and Superiours. “71. Gaze not on the marks or blemishes of Others and ask not how they came. What you may Speak in Secret to your Friend deliver not before others. “72. Speak not in an unknown Tongue in Company but in your own Language and that as those of Quality do and not as ye Vulgar; Sublime matters treat Seriously. “78. Think before you Speak pronounce not imperfectly nor bring out your Words too hastily but orderly and Distinctly. “14. When Another Speaks be attentive your Self and disturb not the Auduence if any hesitate in his Words help him not nor Prompt him without desired, Interrupt him not, nor Answer him till his Speech be ended. “75. In the midst of Discourse ask * * * but if you Perceive any Stop because of * * * to Proceed: If a Person of Quality comes in while your Conversing its handsome to Repeat what was said before. "76. While you are talking, Point not with your Finger at him of Whom you Dis- course nor Approach too near him to whom you talk especially to his face. “77, Treat with men at fit Times about Business & Whisper not in the Company of Others. “78. Make no Comparisons and if any of the Company be Commended for any brave act of Virtue, commend not another for the Same. “719. Be not apt to relate News, if you know not the truth thereof. In Discoursing of things you Have heard Name not your Author always A Secret Discover not. “80. Be not Tedius in Discourse or in reading unless you find the Company pleased therewith. “81. Be not Curious to Know the Affairs of Others neither approach to those that Speak in Private “82. Undertake not what you cannot Perform but be Carefull to keep your Promise “83. When you deliver a matter do it without Passion & with Discretion, however mean ye Person be you do it too “84. When your Superiors talk to any Body hearken not neither Speak nor Laugh “85. In Company of these Higher Quality than yourself Speak not till you are ask’d a Question then Stand upright put of your Hat & Answer in few words “86. In Disputes, be not so Desirous to Overcome as not to give Liberty to each one to deliver his Opinion and Submit to ye Judgment of ye Major Part especially if they are Judges of the Dispute. “87, * * © ag becomes a Man Grave * * * Settled and attentive * * * dict not at every turn what others Say. “88. Be not tedius in Discourse, make not many Digressions, nor repeat often the Same manner of Discourse “89. Speak not Evil of the absent for it is unjust “90. Being Set at meat Scratch not neither Spit Cough or blow your Nose except there's a Necessity for it. “91, Make no Shew of taking great De- light in your Victuals, Feed not With Greediness; cut your Bread with a Knife, lean not on the Table neither find fault with what you Eat “92, Take no Salt or cut Bread with your Knife Greasy. “93. Entertaining any one at table it is decent to present him wt meat. Undertake not to help others undesired by ye Master. “94, If you Soak bread in the Sauce let it be no more than what you put in your Mouth at a time and blow not your broth at Table but Stay till Cools of it Self
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD “95. Put not your meat to your Mouth with your Knife in your hand neither Spit forth the Stones of any fruit Pye upon a Dish nor cast anything under the table “96. It’s unbecoming to Stoop much to ones Meat Keep your Fingers clean & when foul wipe them on a Corner of your Table Napkin. “97. Put not another bit into your Mouth til the former be Swallowed let not your Morsels be too big for the jowls “98. Drink not nor talk with your mouth full neither Gaze about you while you are a Drinking “99. Drink not too leisurely nor yet too hastily. Before and after Drinking wipe your Lips breath not then or Ever with too Great a Noise, for its uncivil. “100. Cleanse not your teeth with the Table Cloth Napkin Fork or Knife but if Others do it let it be done wt a Pick Tooth “101. Rince not your Mouth in the Pres- ence of Others “102. It is out of use to call upon the Company often to Eat nor need you Drink to others every Time you Drink. “108. In Company of your Betters be not * ¢ © than they are lay not your Arm but ar. “104. It belongs to ye Chiefest in Com- pany to unfold his Napkin and fall to Meat first, But he ought then to Begin in time and to Dispatch with Dexterity that ye Slowest may have time allowed him “105. Be not Angry at Table whatever hap- pens & if you have reason to be so, Shew it not but on a Chearfull Countenance espe- cially if there be Strangers for good Humour make one Dish of Meat a Feast. “106. Set not yourself at yeupper * * * of ye Table but if it be your Due or that ye Master of ye house will have it so, Contend not lest you Should Trouble ye company. “107. If others talk at Table be attentive but talk not with Meat in your Mouth “108. When you Speak of God or his At- tributes, let it be Seriously & * * * Reverence. Honour & obey your Natural Parents altho they be Poor “109. Let your Recreations be Manfull not Sinfull. “110, Labour to keep alive in your Breast that Little Spark of Celestial fire called Conscience.” A New Horizon for American Shipping EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. PORTER HARDY, JR. OF VIRGINIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, February 21, 1947 Mr. HARDY. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Ric- orp, I wish to include herein an address by Virginia’s junior Senator, Hon. A. Wrttis Rosrrtson, before the annual banquet of the Hampton Roads Mari- time Association, at Norfolk, Va., Feb- ruary 18, 1947: In justification of a war against a weaker neighbor to the south over the annexation of Texas, a New York Irishman coined the phrase “manifest destiny.” I have selected as the theme for my discussion tonight the future of American shipping, because in the current conflict between democracy and alien ideologies, when all that we hold dear is at stake, it is my firm conviction that the fur- nishing of world leadership is our manifest destiny. Without a strong Navy and a strong merchant marine we cannot hope to meet that challenge. In fact, even from the standpoint of self- preservation we came closer than we care to admit to losing World War II because of a deliberate policy of isdlationism, that dis- counted the importance to our security as well as our prosperity of mastery of the sea. The two factors, mechanized farming and the secret of mass production in industry, which contributed so vitally to our national prosperity were major elements in obscur- ing the fact that we had started out as a maritime nation and had given hostages to fortune when we abandoned that objective in 1920. Though most of my life has been lived west of our majestic Blue Ridge Mountains, I give thanks for your celebration of the three-hundredth anniversary of the James- town settlement which brought me to your splendid city in the summer of 1907. Dur- ing the intervening 40 years, I have been no stranger to your duck marshes, your fishing lakes, and your bathing beaches. I have en- joyed your recreational opportunities, rival- ing those of Florida and California, and the warm and open-heurted hospitality of a peo- ple who richly merit the sobriquet of cavalier. But I never visit this cradle of our Republic without sharing the sentiments of Daniel Webster, who, at the laying of the corner- stone of the Bunker Hill Monument, said of the first settlers of Massachusetts and Vir- ginia: “We are justly proud of being descended from men who have set the world an ex- ample of founding civil institutions on the great and united principles of human free- dom and human knowledge. To us, their children, the story of their labors and suffer- ings can never be without interest. We shall not stand unmoved on the shore of Plym- outh, while the sea continues to wash it; nor will our brethren in another early and ancient Colony forget the place of its first establishment, till their river shall cease to flow by it. No vigor of youth, no maturity of manhocd, will lead the Nation to forget the spots where its infancy was cradled and defended.” Last fall, for the first time since I was chairman of the State game commission, I traveled through all sections of our great State, and in the light of 10 years of inti- mate study of taxes and tariffs, gained a clearer conreption than I ever had before of why the production of 600,000,000 tons per year of bituminous coal spells prosperity for Virginia from Norton to Norfolk. So in- tertwined in our economy have become full employment in industry, good prices for farm products and the movement through our ports of goods in foreign commerce, that the transportation of coal is a fair barometer of our State and national prosperity. I covet the opportunity which I enjoy to- night to publicly thank, on behalf of Vir- ginia and the Nation, this able, farsighted, and patriotic group for what it did to make the ports of Hampton Roads equal to the tasks of two world wars and a major po- tentiality in our current program of winning the peace. This Maritime Association, representing a cross section of the entire business interests of the area, has been active through the years in securing for Hampton Roads its proper recognition as one of the greatest natural harbors in the world. In 1945, 22,- 000,000 tons of commerce moved through its ports, and for the full perlod of World War II they handled more commerce than any Atlantic port except New York. From 1942 to 1945, 224 convoys, comprising 6,725 ships, sailed from Hampton Roads, To improve its terminal facilities at Lam- bert’s Point, the Norfolk & Western Railway has secured building permits for $3,800,000 worth of construction in connection with its for a total expenditure of 66,000,000. The Atlantic Coast Line has also contracted for extensive repairs at ite terminals. A655 The Corps of Army Engineers advises me that further additions are planned to the ale ready great natural and man-made advan- tages of the Hampton Roads Harbor area. Work still to be done on the Norfolk project includes dredging the East Branch channel to a point opposite the Imperial] Tobacco Co., widening the channel between the Norfolk & Western Railway bridge and the Campo- stella bridge, dredging a turning basin in the southern branch above the railway bridge, completion of three additional anchorage areas south of the present Craney Island an- chorage and construction of a disposal area and rehandling facilities north of Craney Is- land. To complete the Hampton Creek project the engineers will dredge a 12-foot channel in Herbert Creek. The Congress also has authorized a chan- nel, turning basin, and anchorage in New- port News Creek. Some time will be required for the engi- neers to complete a study they are making in consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service of proposals to improve Lynnhaven Inlet and Bay and connecting wa- ters to promote production of shellfish, pro- vide a harbor of refuge for pleasure crat!t, and develop a charter-boat fishing industry. Another study is being made to determine the feasibility of increasing channel depths in the South Branch of the Elizabeth River to give access to additional docking space. In connection with this study I have been as- sured that the Senate Committee on Public Works will pass a resolution authorizing a re- consideration of that report with a view to including Norfolk Creek, as advocated by your association. The engineers also are making a prelimi- nary examination and survey report for Sal- ters Creek and are reviewing reports on im- provements for the Lafayette and Nansemond Rivers. Knowing your interest in your great Nor- folk naval shipyard, I am happy to be able to tell you that before leaving Washington I was assured by the Chief of Naval Opera- tions that within the allowable ceiling of personnel for the Norfolk shipyard, that ship- yard will have all the work it can handle for an indefinite period. In a word, the ports of Hampton Roads are equipped to handle a large volume of com- merce. But those of you who share my love for duck hunting know that good duck hunt- ing involves something more than a good blind. By the same token the finest harbor and dock facilities in the world are useless without ships and cargo. Therein is posed for us one of the most serious of our postwar problems. The United States emerged from the war in a position of unquestioned leadership among the major powers of the world. The extent to which we will accept the opportunities and discharge the responsibilities of that position will de- pend largely upon the manner of our particle pation in international trade. There is no question about our playing some role in foreign commerce. The United States is not self-contained. Imports and ex- ports are both vital to our economy. We can abandon the reciprocal-trade agreements program, go back to the prohibitive rates of the Hawley-Smoot tariff and reduce our for- eign commerce from the more than twenty billions of 1946 to the three billions plus of 1938. Or through a live-and-let-live program of mutually beneficial international trade we can sustain a $20,000,000,000 program. That is the new horizon for American ship- ping. But the children of Israel who lost faith in their manifest destiny perished in the wilderness. In the handling of our foreign commerce, instead of shipping in foreign vessels, as in the past, we should develop and maintain a etrong merchant marine under our own flag.
A656 Twice in our time, in the hard school of experience, we have been taught the mean- ing of neglect of our maritime - interests. World War I and World War II taught us that the United States is not an isolated Nation, economically, politically, or strate- gically. When we needed ships to transport troops and war cargoes (5 tons for each sol- dier plus 1 ton per month to support him in the field in the last war) we did not have them and had to rely upon our allies until we could organize shipbuilding programs to meet our needs. Most of the ships con- structed at the time of World War I were not completed until the war was over. In World War II our shipyards, including the two great ones in this area, did the job in time, making a contribution to victory not adequately recognized by the public. But let us not forget that those shipyards operated beyond the reach of enemy bombers, and that shortly before the end of the war the Germans perfected a submarine far more deadly than those which in the early period of the war were sinking ships faster than we could build them, If we are to assert ourselves as a powerful force in world affairs through international trade, we must do so with a merchant marine fully adequate for both trade and defense. We cannot give our trade to foreign flag lines to carry and expect to keep a merchant ma- rine strong enough for our national security in time of emergency. To operate profitably, our merchant ma- rine must have a certain amount of govern- ment assistance in meeting foreign competi- tion. American ships are the best in the world and our seamen are the best treated and highest paid. But other countries can build ships cheaper and run them cheaper. There- fore, our Government authorized, through the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 as amended, the payment of subsidies to offset higher building and operating costs to our shipyards and shipping lines. Closely regulated, and with provision for recapture of excess profits by the Govern- ment, these subsidies are the price we pay to keep alive an industry which is an impor- tant instrument of international relations and a vital arm of the national defense. Ex- perience has shown that it is not a very big price. The recapture provisions of the operating subsidies allow the operator to make 10 per- cent profit on the capital necessarily em- ployed in his business. At the end of a 10- year period the operator must return to the Government a half of all profits made during that period in excess of the 10 percent, unless the total amount of the refund would ex- ceed the total amount of the subsidy pay- ments. The first 10-year period under this arrange- ment is almost ended and the amount to be recaptured by the Maritime Commission is now more than half of the total subsidy pay- ments of approximately 849,000,000. This favorable position to the Government exists in spite of the fact that operating subsidy contracts were suspended during the war period. It means that actual outlay of Gov- ernment funds in operating subsidies over the 10-year period amounts to less than @3,000,000 a year. Public interest and support, particularly on the part of shippers in both domestic and foreign trade, will largely determine the future of the merchant marine. When the war ended this country was in jon of about 50,000,000 deadweight tons of shipping—the largest fleet ever under the flag of one nation in the history of the world. The existence of that tonnage does not provide the answer to our merchant- marine problem, however, because many of the ships were war-bullt under a program which stressed speed of construction and standardized types. Almost half of the fleet consists of Liberty ships, which are relatively slow and lacking in features that make for competitive advantage in normal peacetime trade. Some of the ships can be used by our mer- chant marine and are being sold to Ameri- can operators under the Ship Sales Act of 1946. Nearly half of the 400 war-built ves- sels sold or in process of sale are fast, modern, cargo liners which can successfully compete with foreign ships in international trade. Some of the war surplus ships are being sold to foreign lines but most of them not required by our own citizens will be held in reserve against a future national emer- gency. The shipping policy of the United States is based upon two objectives—trade and de- fense. The Merchant Marine Act calls for a fieet sufficient to carry all of our water-borne domestic commeree and a substantial por- tion of our foreign commerce. It also pre- scribes a merchant marine “capable of serv- ing as a naval and military auxiliary in time of war or national emergency.” It has been estimated that the United States can economically employ during the next few years about 7,000,000 deadweight tons of dry cargo shipping, including 4,000,- 000 tons ear-marked for foreign trade, and about 4,000,000 deadweight in tankers, This privately owned ocean-going fleet of about 1,000 vesse's will be more efficient and faster than the prewar fleet of about the same ton- nage made up of 1,400 smaller vessels. Supplementing this operating fleet will be from 25,000,000 to 35,000,000 deadweight tons in the national defense reserve fleet owned by the Government and maintained in a state of readiness for use in the event of war or national emergency. The shortage of fast passenger liners and fast passenger cargo ships is a most serious condition, both from the standpoint of com- mercial operation and particularly from the standpoint of national defense. New con- struction in the next 2 years probably will be limited to three 22-knot passenger ships and 6 improved C-3 cargo ships, unless the Maritime Commission's 1948 budget is in- creased and the revolving fund for shipbuild- ing is again made available to provide con- struction differential subsidies for purchasers of new ships. When we thought Hitler’s program of ex- porting solidiers and importing booty was going to include us, we built a great Navy— the most powerful in the history of the world. I do not minimize the potential value for world peace of United Nations, nor the desirability of international disarmament, when I say that until conditions are more settled and an international police force has been created, competent to safeguard our interests, we should keep our Navy and our Air Forces on a strong and efficient basis. The nonpartisan and patriotic position taken last week by two Senate leaders— VANDENBERG and MILLIKIN—will no doubt make it possible for the State Department to proceed with its plans to negotiate in Geneva reciprocal trade agreements with a group of democratic nations which control the bulk of the foreign commerce of the world and which have it in their power to furnish cargoes for the ships we want to see moving in and out of Hampton Roads. The significance of that program was aptly and tersely defined in the leading editorial of the New York Times of January 29th, in which it was said: “The plan is strongly supported, on the basis of experience, by many of our most important, and certainly our most far-sighted business, financial, and farm interests, Its advantages are many-sided. It opens mar- kets for American products. It brings for- eign products within reach of the American | consumer, who is precisely the same person es the American producer, and thereby serves as a check on an inflationary rise of prices, It strengthens the economy of these Bations which believe with us in the merits APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of the free-enterprise system. It strengthens the free-enterprise system here at home, be- cause it encourages the expansion of produc- tion, and the alternative to an expansion of production, as we have seen from fairly recent experience, is curtailment of crops and in- dustrial output on the Government's initia- tive (AAA and NRA) and an inevitable in- crease of that very ‘governmental regimenta- tion’ which the Republicans, themselves, profess to abhor, Finally, this Hull program corresponds with the realities of our creditor Position as a Nation.” I have secured, but will not on this occa- sion have time to use, the figures on how even a brief trial of the Hull trade program stepped up the exports and imports that moved through these ports. The passage of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act strangled our foreign commerce. The export trade of the ports of Hampton Roads dropped from $172,000,000 in 1929 to $68,000,000 in 1932. Exports originating in Virginia dropped from $101,000,000 to $45,000,000. Concessions obtained through trade agree- ments on Virginia products moving through Hampton Roads included leaf tobacco, to- bacco manufactures, wood and paper prod- ucts, raw cotton, cotton yarns, cotton piece goods, cotton shirts, other cotton manufac- tures, silk hosiery, fresh apples, canned or dried fruits, vegetables and vegetable prepa- rations, and rayon manufactures, Before normal trade was ended by war there was a substantial increase in the ship- ment of all of these items. Export markets for Virginia tobacco have always been vital to our State. With a demonstrated capacity of American farmers to produce many items far in excess of domestic needs, export out- lets for surplus production will be vital to every farmer in the Nation. In the last quarter of 1946, 58,000,000 work- ers, principally in industry, were producing at the rate of $205,000,000,000 per year. Even though our national income stays at the un- precedented figure of 165,000,000,000 per year (and I don't think it will), it stands to reason that we can't permanently absorb what we are now capable of producing. Last- year shipments abroad totaled 11 percent of our national income, but it was a very vital 11 percent. If we are to continue to ship abroad we must be willing to buy from abroad. And there’s the rub. More than our domestic prosperity is involved in the solution of that problem. International economic coopera- tion is the heart of our peace program. In behalf of a voluntary good-neighbor program, Mr. Hull said, in 1934, that international trade was the lifeblood of nations. But that was before the atomic bomb, the V-rocket, and the supersonic plane, any one of which can now give to even a small nation the death sting of an adder. Even if we could keep from others the secret of the atomic bomb, humanity needs something more than that super-sanction in our peaceful hands to protect it from the measureless misery and slaughter of another war. Trade wars have been the forerunners of shooting wars, and peace has never survived economic chaos. Economic cooperation with the war-torn nations of the world who share our belief in God and our faith in the em- cacy of democratic institutions is bound to be the rock on which we should build our Ebenezer. We have the choice of building a new world on the foundation of human un- derstanding and mutual cooperation, or of seeing the broken and dishonored fragments of an old world sink in the vortex of a third world war. In this critical period, when the cherished institutions of democracy are being chal- lenged both here and abroad by the anti- God ideology of communism, may we have the vision to realize that moral, as well as material, leadership in world affairs is our manifest destiny.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD “Once to every man and nation Comes the moment to decide, Then it is the brave man chooses While the coward stands aside, Till the multitude makes virtue Of the faith they had dented.” Mr. Truman and His Mother EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. BURNET R, MAYBANK OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, February 21 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19) , 1947 Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Record an editorial ap- pearing in the Columbia (S. C.) Record, entitled “Mr. Tsuman and His Mother.” There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the REcorD, as follows: MR, TRUMAN AND HIS MOTHER Mr. Truman sets the people of this country, and of the world, a good example in atten- tion to his mother. He ts a busy man—he is President of the United States—and his tenure is during one of the world’s most trying times, but he is never too engaged in Washington to show his aged mother the honor that is due her; and do for her personally, not through others, the little and the big things that will show her his love and his concern. Trade Agreements EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. DANIEL A. REED OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, February 21, 1947 Mr. REED of New York. Mr. Speaker, now that the State Department plans to barter away our market to foreign in- terests, it is about time that the National Grange and other farm organizations should become vocal in opposition to the plan. I recall an occasion under a Demo- cratic low-tariff bill when the eastern farmers and the western cattle men were made bankrupt. Their earnings of a life- time were destroyed by foreign imports. Under leave to extend my remarks, I am inserting an article by Mr. Fred Brenckman, Washington correspondent for the National Grange: Traps AGREEMENTS—-CONGRESSIONAL BATTLE Looms OvER THE PRESIDENT’S PROPOSAL TO SLASH TARIFF RATES (By Fred Brenckman) There is every indication that the plans announced by President Truman and the Department of State to further slash exist- ing tariff rates in negotiating trade agree- ments with 18 countries of the world will encounter stout opposition poth in Congress and on the part of many groups of producers throughout the country. The plans in this connection were an- nounced last November, when the State De- partment signified its intention to negotiate trade agreements with the following coun- XCMI—App.——42 tries: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, France, India, Lebanon, Luxemburg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Union of South Africa, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the United Kingdom. We already have agreements with many of these countries, but the plan is to enter into new agreements, with a view to making fur- ther tariff concessions. Authority to reduce existing tariff rates another 50 percent was granted to the President and the State De- partment when the Trade Agreements Act of 1934 was extended by the last Congress. The closing date for the filing of briefs in these proceedings was December 21, and on January 13 the Committee on Reciproc- ity Information began to hear oral argu- ments at Washington. FARM ITEMS LISTED The State Department has listed an im- posing array of items upon which it is willing to consider tariff reductions, providing suit- able concessions can be secured in return. About 1.000 items are included in this list, with agricultural products being prominent- ly featured. Here are just a few of the more impor- tant agricultural products that are on the list: cattle, meat and meat products; poul- try, eggs, lard, and its substitutes; milk and cream, condensed, evaporated, and dried; butter, cheese; barley, buckwheat, oats, and rye; wheat and wheat flour; dry and ripe beans, limas, peas, and lentils; apples, ber- Ties, raisins, apricots, prunes, and peaches; broken nuts and nut products; cottonseed and other vegetable oils and fats; honey; tobacco and tobacco manufactures; peanuts and various prepurations made therefrom; peas, green and ripe, and chickpeas; onions; white or Irish potatoes; tomatoes in their natural state; rutabagas, turnips, eggplant, cucumbers, squash, celery, lettuce, cabbage, and all other vegetables not specifically pro- vided for. SOUTH PROTESTS One of the most outspoken protests against reducing the tariff on agricultural commodi- ties is the Association of Southern Commis- sioners of Agriculture. Through its secre- tary, Col. C. C. Hanson, this association filed an exhaustive brief with the Committee on Reciprocity Information, declaring that a downward revision of the tariff on agricul- tural commodities at this time was “un- thinkable” to any sound agricultural econo- mist. Among other things, this brief pointed out that during the next 2 years the Govern- ment is obligated under the Steagall amend- ment to support agricultural commodities at 90 percent of parity, and the question was raised as to whether the Government in- tended to support the prices of imported farm products as well as those produced do- mestically. Reference was made to the fact that during the past year the Government paid out $80,000,000 to support the price of potatoes, because the crop was so large that no profitable use could be made of tens of millions of bushels, even after the potato starch factories were loaded down to Ca- pacity. TAPIOCA AND POTATOES Another item mentioned in the brief of the Southern Commissioners of Agriculture was starch. During the years before the war we imported approximately half a billion pounds of tapioca duty free. Most of this came from the Dutch East Indies, where it was pro- duced by what practically amounted to slave labor, receiving from 12 to 25 cents for a day of 12 hours. This tapioca, which was imported in the form of flour, came into direct competition with our domestically produced corn and potato starch. These im- ports were equal to all the starch that could be made from half a million acres of corn. It was brought to the attention of the State Department at various times that the A657 United States was dealing more generously with the Dutch East Indies in this matter than was the mother country, the Nether- lands, which imposed a tariff on imports of tapioca for the benefit of the potato growers of that country. Tapioca was put on the free list in the Hawley-Smoot tariff bill on the theory that it was a noncompetitive commodity that some people liked to have for breukfast. But it developed that 80 percent of the im- ports were used industrially, bringing this item into competition with domestically produced corn and potato starch. Tapioca was frozen on the free list when the original treaty with the Netherlands was made. At , that time the manufacturers of potato starch in Maine declared that they had a 2-year supply of starch on hand for which they could not find a market. The cotton growers of the South look with concern upon the proposal to reduce the tariff on cotton manufactures, rayon, wear- ing apparel, hosiery, laces, handkerchiefs, embroideries, ribbons, and other manufac- tures. They point out that under the cotton- control program they lost most of their ex- port market, and now, with domestic produc- tion cut in half, they are afraid of losing a considerable part of the home market if tariff rates of cotton manufactures are reduced. Of course, the proposal to cut agricultural tariffs does not meet with the approval of the dairy interests, the fruit and vegetable grow- ers, and the livestock and grain growers. They are uniformly against taking such a step. During the war years the farmers of the United States increased their production by roughly one-third, and it is reasoned thut be- fore the lapse of 2 years there will be large agricultural surpluses in this country, with all their price-depressing effects. So the question is asked as to why we should make it easier for other nations to export to us commodities that we do not need. SOUND BASIS FOR TRADE The National Grange has always taken the position that in our trade relations with other countries we should take from them the things that we need and which are not pro- duced domestically, and in so doing find an export market for some of our own surpluses. We want all the expor. trade we can get under proper conditions, but there is mani- festly no advantage in foreign trade merely for the sake of trade. When the Trade Agreements Act was passed, more than a dozen years ago, the President, or the State Department, was au- thorized to raise or lower tariff rates to the extent of 50 percent, when it was found as a fact that the then existing rates were bur- dening and restricting the foreign trade of the United States. Of course, it would be a hindrance and not a help in negotiating a trade agreement to raise tariff rates. So the grant that Congress bestowed upon the Presi- dent was to reduce tarili: rates. The State Department signed its thirty- second separate agreement under the act with Paraguay last September. These pacts cover 29 different countries. In some in- stances more than one agreement was made with the same country. The average slash in tariff rates thus far has been 31 percent, although in many in- stances duties were reduced the full 50 per- cent allowed by law. When the Trade Agreements Act was renewed for the fourth time in 1945, the President was given au- thority to reduce the rates then in effect 50 percent. Another reduction of 50 percent on items previously reduced to that extent would mean a slash of 75 percent in the Hawley-Smoot rates. In negotiating these agreements we always acted on the unconditional most- favored-nation principle. Under this ar- rangement, when we reduced the tariff to
A658 the country with which we made an agree- ment, we reduced it to every other country that was not discriminating against our commerce, even though we received conces- sions only from the country with which the agreement was made. That left us with less bargaining power with each agreement into which we entered. This never appealed to the late George Peek, who served for a time as foreign-trade adviser to President Roose- velt, nor did it appeal to the majority of the farmers of the country. In the end Mr. Peek resigned and the farmers lost the services of a good friend. CONGRESS IS IGNORED In all but a few instances trade agree- ments have been subject to parliamentary ratification in the countries with which we have dealt. But here in the United States— the greatest republic in the world—Congress has had no opportunity whatever to pass Judgment on the matter. The Constitution provides that all treaties shall be subject to the approval of the Senate by a two-thirds vote. But by calling these treaties executive agreements, this provision of the Constitu- tion has been dispensed with. Granted that it would be difficult to get a two-thirds ma- jority in the Senate for many of these agree- ments, those who look upon the present ar- Tangement as a debasement and a denial of the fundamental principles of the American system of government feel that the trade agreements should at least be subject to ratification by a majority vote of each House of Congress before becoming effective. There is a special reason why the House should be consulted in the matter because the Con- stitution provides that all revenue legislation must originate in the House. It cannot be denied that tariff rates affect the revenues of the country. In earlier times, before there was a Federal income tax, a considerable portion of the revenues of the Government were derived from tariff duties on imports. The internationalists have always held that our tariff rates have been too high. That may have been true of the rates on certain manufactured articles. But it is very doubt- ful if this has been the case with reference to the rates on farm commodities. In any event, even under the Hawley-Smoot tariff bill, two-thirds of all our imports were on the free list. Many people do not know that the United States has the biggest free list of any country in the world. INCREASED COSTS In considering the wisdom of further re- ducing our tariff rates, it would be well to keep in mind the fact that when our last tariff act was passed in 19380. wages and prices were on a much lower level than at present. The rates that were written into the Hawley-Smoot bill were intended to equalize the cost of production between this country and the other nations of the world, rather than to build a Chinese wall around the United States. The question is whether the rates that are now in effect are ade- quate to give proper protection to many of the industries of the country, including ag- riculture. It should also be kept in mind that in addition to the higher wages that pre- vail in this country now, as compared with 16 years ago, many other things have been done to add to our costs of production. Soctal-security legislation has been enacted and large groups of workers receive annual vacations with pay; we have the 40-hour week, with pay at the rate of time and one- half for overtime, together with a minimum wage law. Without debating the desirability of all this, it cannot be denied that these various factors must be taken into account in arriving at the costs of production. It is certainly true that if we continue to raise wages and prices in this country, while lowering our tariff rates at the same time, when the rest of the world gets back to full production, we will in many instances be run out of our own markets. And it cannot be too strongly emphasized that the American market is worth more to us than all the other markets of the world combined. In nor- mal times only about 5 percent of our total trade is in the foreign field. Many congressional leaders are considering the idea of forcing a postponement of a con- ference on international trade which is sched- uled to be held at Geneva, Switzerland, next April. At this proposed meeting our State De- partment is slated to discuss further tariff reductions at the same time that a United Na- tions preparatory committee will be in ses- sion to consider the permanent charter for a projected International Trade Organization. Preparedness EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HENRY D. LARCADE, JR. OF LOUISIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, February 21, 1947 Mr. LARCADE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rrec- orD, I include the following quotation from the Father of our Country, George Washington, which I think is still a good admonition to our country, namely: To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace. The Coming Moscow Conference—The German and Austrian Peace Treaties EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. WILLIAM LEMKE OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, February 21, 1947 Mr. LEMKE. Mr. Speaker, the Steu- ben Society of America is one of the oldest patriotic organizations in the Nation. Among its first presidents was Lafayette, and a number of Presidents of the United States. The members of that organization have rendered, through the entire history of our Nation, patriotic and valuable service. Some of its members have fought in every war and on virtually every battle- field. They have given their lives, their limbs, and their health for their country. It is but natural that they should be interested in bringing about a perma- nent and just peace. They realize that a@ peace founded upon revenge and hatred cannot long endure. I here quote a resolution recently passed by that society, which speaks for itself: Whereas peace is indivisible, the victorious nations, as bitter experience should have taught ana cannot have both peace and re- venge; and Whereas a severely shaken western civili- gation will be unable to withstand another onslaught unless millions of slaves in the heart of Europe are set free and enabled to work, to eat, and to live out their existence in a sovereign state; and Whereas the cancerous growth of hatred, created by forced labor, ey suppression, un- employment, poverty, and despair, will de- stroy the already weakened body politic of APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the entire Old World, with disastrous effects upon this Nation and upon all humanity; and Whereas vengeful peace dictates and the lame renunciation of high principles for the sake of expediency, “general agreement,” and “peace at any price” have again created nu- merous danger spots in Europe which no international police force will be able to control or to isolate because the spirit is mightier than the sword and eternal rights cannot be suppressed by tanks and machine guns; and Whereas the noble principles for which the late war was allegedly fought, such as the Atlantic Charter, the “four freedoms,” the sacred pledge that the victor nations would neither seek territorial aggrandizement nor would they destroy their enemies, seem to have been inundated by a raging sea of lust for revenge, plunder, famine, rape, distortion, and Hes whose equal is not to be found in history; and Whereas the western standards of democ- racy will never take root in the souls of men and women who wanted freedom but instead got abject slavery, who wanted bread and hope but instead received draconic laws, na- tional nonexistence, and the mockery of an attempted re-education; and Whereas the truism must be recognized that the brutal and despotic movements which were crushed by the late war are not @ cause in themselves, created out of noth- ingness, but were begotten, born, and nursed by the violent social and political upheavals following the First World War and thereby are the effect of the peace dictates of stupid politicians who destroyed high hopes for a better life, for more gainful employment, and @ more even distribution of the riches of this earth by a narrow-mindedness and cupidity that brought inflation, bread-lines, hunger, strife, and bitter despair to millions of ine dustrious, decent, and proud people who, finally, at the brink of disaster, were forced to embrace a nihilistic movement; and Whereas there are neither good nor bad nations and the shoddy terminology of mil- itarism and aggression, so dear to the heart of the professional rabble-rouser, will wither in the cold light of true historical research, because there exist good and sufficient rea- sons why jin the course of Europe's history, all nations, during one period or another, have been guilty—and are guilty—of uni- lateral acts, of militarism, and aggression; and Whereas, an entire people cannot be in- dicted for the misdeeds of a few who owed their existence to multiform and manifold sins of omission and commission by those very people who refused to be their brother's keeper and thought only of their own per- sonal gain and enrichment, utterly oblivious of those laws of an enlightened self-interest which are the one and only basis for just and durable peace; and ‘Whereas the forthcoming negotiations be- tween the victorious powers to be held in Moscow will decide not only the future of Germany and Austria, but the future welfare of all of Europe; and Whereas all of Europe will, if the heart of Europe is to be kept in slavery, and if lust for revenge is given full sway, sooner or later become a victim of those alien forces which already have forced a wedge into places of the most vital importance; and ‘Whereas all of Europe will recover and con- tinue to function as that miraculous and seemingly indestructible germ cell of West- ern man, if the people in the heart of Europe are given bread and hope and if they are permitted to regain their national self- respect: Therefore, the Steuben Society of America, a national organization of American citizens of Germanic descent, proud of the achieve- ments of this, our Nation, and of the many contributions of the American citizens of Germanic extraction toward its greatness, steps before the bar of American justice and
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD asks the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, and the Congress of the United States, as the guardians of our rela- tions with foreign powers, for a truly just and lasting peace on behalf of the many millions of our blood relations and friends abroad whom we are unwilling to abjure, and on behalf of all Germans and Austrians who have no one in the world to plead their case. Respectfully submitted. STEUBEN Society oF AMERICA. New York, N. Y. OPA EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. GEORGE A. SMATHERS OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, February 21, 1947 Mr. SMATHERS. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following editorial from the Washington Post: OPA Die-hard foes of OPA in the House are doing the country no service in their attempt to end rent control and sugar rationing by withholding funds for enforcement. Not only has the House refused to grant a re- quested deficiency appropriation of 85,900,000 to carry OPA through June 30, but it also has demanded that OPA return nearly nine million dollars of its remaining funds. If this action is upheld by the Senate, the OPA will be forced to start liquidation immedi- ately. We hope that the Senate will have no truck with this sort of legislation by denial. Were the OPA allowed to wither at the present time, as House Members apparently wish, the result would be to leave the coun- try with rent-control and sugar-rationing laws but with no means of enforcement. It is fatuous to talk, as some Congressmen have talked, about the residual rights of indi- vidual citizens to appeal to the courts for Gamages. It is the police power which has made rent control and sugar rationing a suc- cess. Were matters left to the courts alone those bodies would soon bog down in a chaotic snarl. What the current move amounts to is an attempt to kill the remaining controls with- out facing the issue honestly on its merits. In this the House Appropriations Committee has invaded the province of the Banking and Currency Committee, which has been con- sidering the future of rent control, and the Judiciary Committee, which is charged with sugar-rationing legislation. Very possibly Congress will want to make some changes in the scope and administration of controls af- ter June 30. It will want to weigh seriously, for instance, the justice of a 10-percent rent increase. But this is a matter for deliberate judgment rather than the hasty, backstage approach that has developed in the House. Former New Dealers Lobby for Arabian Oil Interests EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. PAUL W. SHAFER OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, February 21, 1947 Mr. SHAFER. Mr. Speaker, under permission to extend my remarks, I in- clude the following article headed, “Former New Dealers lobbyists for Arabian oil interests,” which appeared in the publication Labor February 15: FORMER NEW DEALERS LOBBYISTS FOR ARABIAN OIL INTERESTS Under a law passed last year, lobbyists are required to report to Congress, telling whom they represent and how much they are paid. One of the reports made public this week gives a glimpse of the way “Big Business” operates in Washington. The report names four men as the new lobbyists for the Arabian-American Oil Co. It, as recently reported in Labor, manages fabulous oil concessions in Saudi Arabia for four big American oil companies, three of them Standard Oil concerns. Arabian-American is the company which one of its former lobbyists, James A. Moffett, is suing for $6,000,000, on the ground that it owes him that huge sum for arranging a $30,000,000 gift by the United States Govern- ment to the king of Saudi Arabia, where the oil concessions are. The four new lobbyists are named as Newell W. Ellison, Donald Hiss, John O’Brien, and Paul Shorb. All, of course, have “good connections” with Congress and Government agencies which can help the oil company in inter- national politics. For example, Hiss, like Moffett, is a former “new dealer.” Records show he came to the lobby from the “Office of the Secretary of State.” AS a matter of fact, the Department of State operates practically as a branch of the oil lobby. The same records list John O’Brien as a former “legislative counsel” of the House of Representatives. All four lobbyists reported that the size of their “fees” from Arabian-American has “not yet been determined.” The interna- tional oil men can afford to pay them well. Billions of dollars—and perhaps another world war!—are at stake in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Middle East, Britain and Russia face each other there and the ofl men are dragging in Uncle Sam. Restore Lithuania’s Sovereignty EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. HAROLD D. DONOHUE OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, February 21, 1947 Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the REc- orp, I wish to include a resolution passed at a mass meeting of Lithuanians, in my home city of Worcester, Mass., February 16, 1947, at which meeting I had the honor of speaking, as well as a newspaper clipping, which appeared in the Wor- cester Telegram, February 17, 1947. The people of our country are fast coming to the conclusion that those gal- lant, but weaker, nations, under the sphere of Soviet influence, are presently the victims of as bold and cynical a diplomatic campaign as any big nation has ever waged against smaller, honor- able neighbors. Quite recently, the Under Secretary of State, appearing before the Senate Atomic Committee, took official notice that the present Soviet foreign policy is “aggressive and expanding.” A short while ago, our State Depart- ment declared that the United States A659 Government firmly intends to maintain their interest in the welfare of smaller nations in the world. Let us hope that this attitude carries the full meaning that practical measures, when necessary, will be undertaken by this Government to insure that the Soviet Nation, in cooperation with the United Nations, will be called upon to meet the full moral and humanitarian responsibility contained in the principle of political independence for all states enunciated in the declaration by United Nations and the Atlantic Charter. It is evident by the aggressive and ex- panding present Soviet foreign policy that this principle in practicality is to- day a hollow mockery. ‘Whereas Russia, by force of arms and in utter violation of all legal and moral laws, continues to occupy the Republic of Lithu- ania, to deport and imprison Lithuania's na- tionals, to commit atrocities against the gov- ernment and civilian population of Lith- uania, to systematically destroy Lithuantia’s democratic form of government: Therefore be it Resolved, That the Lithuanians of Wor- cester, Mass., do most vigorously condemn and protest against Russia's such unlawful, by force of arms, occupation of the Republic of Lithuania, against Russia’s deportation and imprisonment of Lithuania’s nationals, against Russia’s commitment of atrocities against the government and civilian popu- lation of Lithuania, against Russia’s syste- matic destruction of Lithuania’s democratic form of government; and be it further Resolved, That the Lithuanians cf Wor- cester, Mass., do hereby most fervently peti- tion Harry S. Truman, the President of the United States of America, to the end that, all Russian military forces and «overnment be forthwith evacuated from Lithuania, and that Lithuania and her people be liberated and Lithuania be restored as a free and inde- pendent republic among the nations of the world according to the principles enunciated in the Atlantic Charter. CONSTANTINE A. VASYS. TRENF C. KERsIs. [From the Worcester (Mass.) Telegram of February 17, 1947] LITHUANIA LIVES (By Dr, W. Elmer Ekblaw, Clark University) Yesterday, the twenty-ninth anniversary of the attainment of Lithuanian independ- ence, every Lithuanian, wherever his domi- cile, whatever his condition, recalled the happy period of his people’s liberty and re- consecrated himself to the cause of restora- tion of Lithuania’s freedom and sovereignty over its own peoples and autonomy in its own jurisdiction and ancestral territory. He pledged himself, as every patriot should, to the task of regaining for Lithuania her just and proper place in the world’s family of nations, a place that Is hers by right of centuries of cultural adjustment to the at- tributes of a land that is rightfully hers, and by right of long and honorable participation in the affairs of Eastern and Central Europe. His heart will not again beat hopefully and peacefully until his beloved Lithuania may be restored to her people. For Lithuania, for the time being, there is no longer any of the four freedoms, the free- doms for which the true democracies of the world struggled so long and so patiently dur- ing the last war, and for which their thou- sands of heroes died, or endured agonies worse than death. There is no freedom from dearth, or dread or despotism in Lithuania. There is no free conscience, no free speech, no ftee worship, no free enterprise in Lithu- ania, The Lithuanians may not sing their folksongs, enjoy their folk dances, tell their
A660 folk tales, till their soil, sail their boats on their streams or lakes, worship in their churches as a free people may. They may not fly their flag, nor recount the deeds of their great men. They are deported by the hundreds of thousands to Siberia and other wilderness frontiers to work in the mines and forests and public projects there, enslaved and de- based, with no hope of return to their native acres, no hope of living again among their beloved hamlets and villages, no hope of solace in sickness or nearing death, no hope of decent burial when they succumb. Those that are left must serve the dictates of a tyranny as utterly absolute and ruthless as any that Egypt or Syracuse or Rome ever endured, and the whims of officials as base and bestial as the worst in history. But Lithuania lives. Lithuania lives jin the hearts of her sons :nd daughters who survive. Lithuania lives in the hearts of lberty-loving folk the world over. Lithuania lives in her great literature, her splendid history and great traditions, her songs and dances, the deep religious faith of her people, in their burning devotion to the land of their ancestry. Lithuania will not perish as long as ideals of frvedom and justice and righteousness prevail. Lithuania cannot be destroyed by perfidy and brutality and tyranny. There will always be a Lithuania— a Lithuania in the hearts of men, a Lithu- ania in the culture of the peoples, a Lithu- ania in the history of the world’s struggle for freedom, and in due time a Lithuania at the conference table of the world's great family of nations. For cruel enslavement of a people as de- voted to freedom as the Lithuanians, as true to their faith as they, as implacable in their will to escape tyranny as they, is finally im- possible. Even so great a despotism as Rus- sia will fall of its own evil ways, its depend- ence upon ‘orce and irijustice for its power and rule. ‘The mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small, and how- ever coarse and base the grist, the meal will be justice and truth and honor. Lithuania lives. Under the brutal tyran- ny of her alien conquerors Lithuania suffers a living death, but lives. Lithuania lives, and no power can destroy her. Lithuania lives, as freedom and justice live. Lithuania lives in her Christian faith and high cultural ideals. Lithuania lives. Not a Budget EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. AIME J. FORAND OF RHODE ISLAND IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, February 21, 1947 Mr. FORAND. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I include the following editorial which appeared in the Providence (R. I.) Bulletin of February 18, which upholds the position taken by the Democratic Members of Congress in insisting upon having knowledge as to how and where cuts in the legislative budget are to be made in order to reduce the budget by $6,000,000,000: NOT A BUDGET When the congressional joint committee ended its consideration of the Truman budget, it had neither a budget nor an agree- ment on the total amount that should be spent in the next fiscal year. It is a poor precedent to establish on the first attempt to frame a legislative budget. The reason for the failure is plain. There was not enough time between presentation of the Truman budget last month and the mid-February dead line for the joint com- mittee to reach an intelligent decision. The result is in itself a strong argument for fixing a date much later in the legislative year for submitting the kind of a report the joint committee is supposed to furnish if it is to serve a useful purpose. To slash the President’s budget by six billions or four and a half billions or even one billion is a meaningless operation unless it is accompanied by specifications. So far as the public knows, and apparently so far as Members of Congress are aware, there is no clear idea where $6,000.000,000, or any less amount, can be extracted from the Truman budget. Certainly no bill of particulars was fur- nished by the joint committee showing what effect an over-all] cut of six billions would have on national defense and our present foreign commitments. Yet, as Secretary Marshall indicates, these are categories of expenditure that, in the present situation, do not permit blind reductions on a blanket basis. There must be exact knowledge of actual needs, with the amount of spending fixed accordingly. Referring, for instance, to food needs in occupied territory, Secretary Mar- shall said: “If the Army 1s deprived of ade- quate funds to provide food for those people who are so sorely in need, a practically im- possible condition is created for our troops and our Government's position in its inter- national commitments.” The fact that the joint committee has not met the minimum standard of rational budg- eting does not mean, of course, that Mr. Truman's budget should not be reduced. No Presidential budget should be beyond modi- fication. One congressional committee, in fact, which has made exhaustive studies of Federal spending—the Byrd committee—recently filed a new report on Federal personnel. “These figures,” it said, “offer convincing proof that our Government is still needlessly overmanned; that our country is still need- lessly overgoverned; that our taxpayers are still needlessly overburdened.” Representative Cannon, Democrat, from Missouri, who from 1942 to 1947 was chair- man of the House Appropriations Committee, declared on the floor of the House a few days ago that the President’s figures are merely an over-all ceiling above which Con- gress is not expected to go. We have every year cut the President’s budget and cut it materially. He expects it to be cut as much as the situation will permit and as deeply as changing conditions and further study will justify. But the fact that the Truman budget can be reduced substantially does not absolve any Member of Congress, especially members of the joint committee, from knowing where cuts can be prudently made. Particularly it does not excuse any Member from knowing the consequences of whatever reductions are made. These conditions obviously are not met when an unitemized slash of several bil- lions is proposed. In fact, an undocumented plan for cutting the Truman budget by bil- lions does not make sense. Cutting Appropriations for the Army EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CLARE E. HOFFMAN OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, February 21, 1947 Mr. HOFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, under leave granted, I insert herewith for what it is worth and as it may appeal to your APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD sound judgment, the following statement by Harley L. Lutz, professor of public finance, Princeton University, which came to my office February 19. Permit me to suggest that this statement be given consideration: PRINCETON, N. J., February 18, 1947. My Drar ConarrssMaN: An undue disturb- ance of the public mind has been produced by the comments on the action of the joint congressional committee in recommending @ $6,000,000,000 cut in the President’s budget for 1948. The committee’s report contains no details, but a general impression has gone abroad that the reduction has been heavily concentrated upon the defense services. There is danger of grave disservice to the cause of economy and efficiency in the Fed- eral expenditures by giving credence, at this juncture, to the rumors about how or where the cuts are to be made. It is evidently the judgment of a sub- stantial majority of the joint legislative committee that the budget can be reduced by 86,000,000,000 without impairing essential Federal services. The Committee on Post- war Tax Policy has also indicated, in its recent report, that the 1948 budget can safely be reduced to $31,500,000,000. We may as- sume that the Members of Congress who gave their approval to a budget reduction of $6,000,000,000 had no intention of hamstring- ing the Federal Government, or of under- mining our defense establishment. Some unofficial statements about the joint committee action have intimated that the cut in the defense services is to be $1,750,000,- 000. Editorial comment has seen in this re- ported figure a rule of thumb procedure, on the part of the joint committee, involving a 30 percent slash everywhere, since defense is about 30 percent of the budget total, and $1,750,000,000 is so nearly 30 percent of $6,000,000,000. The Committee on Postwar Tax Policy, after careful study, proposed a defense total of $10,000,000,000, which would be a reduc- tion of $1,200,000,000 below the net budget total. The underlying logic of this proposal was, first, that the President’s budget really proposed spending only about $10,000,000,000 on the actual operations of 1948, and second, that the bulk of the difference between 810,- 000,000,000 and $11,200,000,000 is accounted for by meeting, in 1948, unliquidated obliga- tions of prior years. In other words, we,are to pay, in 1948, bills that had been previously incurred. The budget message makes it clear that no contract settlements or other con- tract obligations from the war period are involved. A thorough examination of the budget de- tails reveals an itemization of prior obliga- tions to be carried into 1948 amounting to $547,000,000, including $250,000,000 of termi- nal leave pay. The balance is not explained, and we may assume that it was not sufficient- ly clearly visualized at the time of budget writing (around January 1, 1947) to be set down. This writer's view is that much of it is unreal, improper, merely a means of grab- bing extra funds from prior appropriations by all manner of informal earmarking. We have no information now, as to the va- lidity of the reported $1,750,000,000 cut, or as to its apportionment between defense proper and the civil functions of the War Depart- ment. The budget total for these civil func- tions in 1948 is $1,028,000,000, including nearly $800,000,000 for rivers and harbors, and flood control, and $725,000,000 for gov- ernment and relief in occupied areas. As to rivers and harbors, the story of such expenditures over the past 50 years suggests that some pruning is always in order. Until Mr. Herbert Hoover makes his report, we ehall lack the basis for a sound judgment on the European relief situation. The occupied areas everywhere will have the benefit of a full crop year, however, before much spend- ing can occur out of the 1948 appropriation.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD It is possible that less will be needed than is now budgeted. Hence it is possible to assume that some reduction can be made in the total for the civil functions of the War Depart- ment. If we grant a total of $10,000,000,000 for de- fense in 1948, which is really all that is asked for aside from the carry-over of earmarked obligations, it is likely that enough wasteful spending can be combed out of the estimates to offset the amounts set up validly as un- liquidated obligations. Here are two small examples of what such combing would pro- duce: (1) The Quartermaster Corps estimates in- clude the following expenditures for laundry and dry-cleaning plant: 1946 (actual) -_.......-.-.----- $33, 757, 859 1947 (estimated) 23, 704, 256 1948 (estimated) 23, 145, 000 The Army charges the commissioned grades of personnel for laundry and dry- cleaning services. Its collections for these services, reported as miscellaneous receipts, are given as follows: 1946 (actual) ---...-.......-..- $24, 421, 266 1947 (estimated) . - 132,040, 000 1948 (estimated) .........--..- 10, 040, 000 My point is that the Army, having already acquired enough equipment to do a gross business of $22,421,000 in 1946, at the low rates charged for laundry and dry-cleaning service for the commissioned personnel of an army of eight to nine million, it is extremely doubtful if a case can be made for buying now, and continuing to buy, through 1948, further large quantities of equipment in or- der to perform these services for a much smaller number of officer personnel, (2) The ordnance department figures for 1948 contain the following items: Procurement of ammunition... $20, 800, 000 Procurement of artillery__- -... 3, 400, 000 Procurement of small arms-_.... 8, 600, 000 Procurement of tanks and com- bat vehicles.._.....-..-.----. 8, 900, 000 Procurement of other motor ve- hicles....-.-..-..--.--...-.. 8, 300, 000 Total procurement_...... 40, 000, 000 Preservation of ordnance ma- tériel__-..------ +e 80, 000, 000 Preservation of ammunition... 30, 000, 000 Total for care of material on hand.....--~.....-.- 110, 000, 000 ‘In other words, the Army wants to spend $40,000,000 for new ammunition, artillery, small arms, tanks, and other motor vehicles, while also spending $110,000,000 for the pres- ervation of ammunition and other matériel (including, no doubt, artillery, small arms, tanks, and other motor vehicles) already in hand, The new purchases evidently are not - in the line of research and development, for there is another $€0,000,000 set down for this purpose. Another example is Vice Admiral Sher- man’s statement about Navy fuel, as reported in the New York Times of February 15, 1947. According to this statement, the 1948 budget figure for fuel will allow only 8 days’ opera- tion per month, The 1948 figure for navy fuel is 640,000,000. The 1947 figure is 845,- 000,000. Admiral Sherman made no com- plaint against the 1947 figure, but he empha- sized the budget cut and the rise of oil prices is his dark picture of 1948. It is not easy to see how fuel-oil prices can rise so greatly as to convert an apparently satisfactory allow- ance for 1947 into a wholly unsatisfactory one for 1948, when there is a difference of only $5,000,000 between the 2 years. No one wants to undermine or impair our national defense. The real problem is to distinguish between the true defense needs and the loud cries of the mili heads. We should all bear in mind Adniiral Nimitz’ frank admission in his testimony on the naval bill for 1947. He said that no naval or military man is ever satisfied with what is made available. Two interesting foreign items have re- cently been reported. They have a definite bearing on our immediate defense problem, The first item is a detail from the British budget for 1948, as summarized in the New York Times of February 15, 1947. The Brit- ish defense program calls for a total person- nel of 1,087,000 and an expenditure of £899,- 000,000—equivaient to about $3,600,000,000. The white paper containing this information stated that the aim of British policy must be “to deter aggression while at the same time safeguarding British interests against attack." Surely, England has as great a stake in national existence and security as we have. Even after allowing for differences in stand- ards of pay, equipment, and operations, it is hard to explain why we should be spending, in a year of peace, some 86,800 per man as against England's $3,500. The second item, published in the New York Herald Tribune of February 6, 1947, in- dicated that Russia had ordered demobiliza- tion of virtually all military personnel above the age of 22. This is smart tactics. The able young men of Russia are needed on the farms and in the factories, which is where Russian capital resources are also needed. Let us get wise to realities. We can reduce the 1948 budget to 831,500,000,000 and still allow $@10,000,000,000 for bona fide defense objectives. We should not be dragooned into sinful waste of our resources and our Manpower by bureaucratic propaganda. Sincerely yours, Hariey L. Lurz, Professor of Public Finance, Princeton University. The Voice of Alexander Hamilton EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. MELVIN PRICE OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, February 21, 1947 Mr. PRICE of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include herewith the following editorial from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch of February 19, 1947, expressing the views of Alexander Hamilton on the tenure in office of Presidents: THE VOICE OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON Smiting at the ghost of Pranklin D. Roose- velt the GOP ‘majority in Congress is trying to submit a constitutional amendment limit- ing Presidential tenure to 8 years. The Re- publicans might very well pause to consider what Alexander Hamilton, the founding father of the Republican Party, had to say on the subject. Hamilton wrote in the Federal- ist that the President “is to be elected for 4 years; and is to be eligible as often as the people of the United States shall think him worthy of their confidence.” Hamilton also said: “There is no nation which has not, at one period or another, experienced an absolute necessity of the services of particular men, in particular situations, perhaps it would not be too strong to say, to the preservation of its political existence. How unwise, there- fore, must be every self-denying ordinance, as serves to prohibit a nation from making use of its own citizens, in the manner best suited to its exigencies and circumstances.” Is the GOP refusing its own voice of revelation? A661 -Washington’s Birthday Address by Hon. Alexander Wiley, of Wisconsin EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ALEXANDER WILEY OF WISCONSIN IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, February 24 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp a Washing- ton’s Birthday address delivered by me at the annual Drew University Alumni Association banquet at Madison, N. J., February 22, 1947. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: A WASHINGTON HOMECOMING It is a pleasure to be among you to cele- brate your homecoming to this splendid university. I am honored to serve in the place of your distinguished junior Senator, the Honorable H. ALEXANDER SMITH, who unfortunately can- not be with you this evening. SENATORS SMITH AND HAWKES It has been my pleasure to work with Sen- ator SmrrH at very close hand in the Senate. He is a member of the Senate Foreign Rela- tions Committee and in that group, as well as on the floor of the Senate, I have seen his conscientious, painstaking contribution to your State and to our Nation. You have all heard and read of his yeoman work, too, on the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Com- mittee. May I add, too, my word of congratulations to you as citizens of this great State on your senior Senator, the Honorable ALBERT HAWKES, whom I know very intimately and who sim- tlarly is doing a grand job tn our Nation’s Capital. While I do not serve with him on either the Interstate Commerce Committee, the Senate Policy Steering Committee, or the Finance Committee, his worthy efforts in those groups and on the Senate floor are well known to myself and all of his colleagues. It is no mere courtesy for me to remark thusly, for New Jersey may indeed be proud of its senatorial delegation. APPROPRIATENESS OF OCCASION It seems very fitting that we are gathered here on this particular day in this particular place. Yes, we are here in a town which bears the name of that great President and statesman of early American history, James Mad‘son, who was but 36 years of age when he attended the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Over that assembly there presided the man whose birthday we celebrate today, the man who was later to be first President of the United States, George Washington. Add- ing to the appropriateness of this occasion is the fact that we are in this particular State which made such inspiring contribu- tions to the success of the struggles of the Thirteen Colonies and within whose confines so many important battles were fought by the ragged Colonials of George Washington. And, too, we remember the fact that the century which witnessed the unforgettable deeds of Washington and Madison also saw the lasting spiritual work of John Wesley. Yes, tonight in this university which, as we all know, was founded originally as a Meth- odist institution, we do honor to him and to his fellow leading lights of another con- tinent—Washington and Madison. It is a serious but happy occasion, indeed, when auld acquaintances are not forgot,
A662 and when old friends of yore clasp one an- other's hands again in reunion. I remember one poet once wisely said: “Of all the heavenly gifts that mortal man commend What trusty treasure in the world can coun- tervall a friend?” We recall the words of another poet: “Friends given by God in mercy and in love; My counselors, my comforters, and guides; My joy in grief, my second bliss in Joy; Companions of my young desires; in doubt My oracles; my wings in high pursuit.” And so I trust that an occasion like this will not be just an ordinary meeting, but something “of light and flame,” as a poet might say; something of great and enduring purpose and meaning. You will recall that the poet Browning said: “Life has meaning, and to find its meaning is my meat and drink.” WASHINGTON’S LIFE I have mentioned that this is, of course, the anniversary of the birth of the Father of our Country, the man who: “Simple and brave, his faith awoke Ploughman to struggle with their fate; Armies won battles when he spoke, And out of chaos sprang the state.” No review is necessary, of course, of the life of this immortal American. We are all well familiar with his birth in 1732, his early life in Virginia, his young manhood as a surveyor, his entry into military life, his role in the French and Indian Wars, and then his many pleasant years on the Virginia tobacco plantation. We recall, too, how he was se- lected as commander in chief of the inade- quate military forces of the Thirteen Col- onies and then of his brilliant campaigns through the years, his perseverance in the face of overwhelming odds, his triumph over the intrigues against him by those who doubted him and feared him, and then finally of his victory at Yorktown. There comes to mind, too, his role in the Constitutional Convention which I previously mentioned, and then the wise selection by the people of the new Union of him as first President of the United States. No one can forget that during ti ose 8 years of his ad- ministration, he brought order out of chaos, He utilized the conflicting but powerful per- sonalities of Thomas Jefferson, as Secretary of State; Alexander Hamilton, as Secretary of the Treasury; Henry Knox, as Secretary of War; and Edmund Randolph, as Attorney General. We recall how he acted with vigor and speed in suppressing the Whisky Rebellion in 1794. We recall his efforts to establish the financial house of the new Nation on a sound and stable basis and the foreign rela- tions of the new land on an independent and secure basis. Yes, we recall, too, his retire- ment and his unforgettable Farewell Mes- sage; then, at last, his lamented passing in 1799. These are the elementary facts of his life and on them there is little need for com- ment, We remember that his great fellow Ameri- can, the sixteenth President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, whose birthday we have celebrated but a short week ago, said: “Washington is the mightiest name of earth—long since mightiest in the cause of civil liberty, still mightiest in moral refor- mation. On that name no eulogy is expected. It cannot be. To add brightness to the sun or glory to the name of Washington is alike impossible, Let none attempt it. In solemn awe pronounce the name and in its naked deathlese splendor leaving it shining on.” LESSONS FROM WASHMINCTON’S LIFE Why this wondrous eulogy in itself from Abraham Lincoln? Why do we revere the name of Washington s6 well and so deeply. It is not merely because of his po- Utical and military contributions to our country, but because of what he exemplified as a human being. What did he exemplify, and what is its meaning to the America of 1947? 1, He exemplified the spiritual man tri- umphant. 2. He exemplified the man of peace who ‘was prepared for and adequate to war when it came. 8. He exemplified the realist in world affairs. 4. He exemplified the man of honesty who practiced honesty in government. 5. He exemplified the man of cooperation who reconciled contending groups into a harmonious whole. THE SPIRITUAL MAN Yes, first of all, this immortal whom John Marshall well called, “First in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen,” was a spiritual being triumphant. Washington, like Lincoln, sought guidance from the Infinite Source of all power. Hence, he was free from mental indolence, from moral complacency, prejudice, and ill will. He sensed life was a thing of purpose. His was a faith that rose above confusion. We recall his words: “When you speak of God or his attributes, let it be sincerely, in reverence. Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience.” And, too: “I shall always strive to be a faithful and impartial patron of genuine religion.” And: “It is impossible to reason without arriving at a Supreme Being.” It behooves us all today to have that faith in us which was in George Washington, that faith in the all-knowing, all-seeing, all- present Eternal God. Then, we will remove the mountains of confusion and evil works with our faith and works, even as he did. THE MAN OF PEACE Now, second, I have said that Washington, the man of peace, was, nevertheless, ade- quate to war when it came. In 1790, in an address to Congress, he said: “To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.” How can we apply that great precept today? Well, I, for one, have made some sugges- tions recently in an open letter to the Presi- dent. I suggested that time exists no more; that we are living in an atomic age, with guided missiles, bacteriological warfare, jet- propelled planes. I asked: “What would happen if an atomic bomb in one flash smashed Washington, D. C., and wiped out the President and Congress?” What do you gentlemen think would happen? The answer is chaos and conquest by an enemy power. To meet this threat, I have suggested that we make immediate push-button plans for the push-button warfare that will come un- less the nations of earth will otherwise, and particularly unless the Big Five will create an international organization that will do away with all warfare. The hope of human- ity is that the United Nations will perform that function. Let us lay plans for Government and legis- lation by television, if need be. Let us have procedure for immediate succession of au- thority and continuity of Government if we in Congress and if the President and his of- ficera are killed by atomic attack. All this must be done now, for there will be no time in the next war. A many-pointed program goes hand in hand with these suggestions. That program in- cluded decentralization of factories and hous- ing, stockpiling of vital materials, modernisa- tion of military and naval training, assurance of adequate military and naval appropria- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD tions, encouragement of research, laying of governmental plans for streamlined emergen- cy wartime agencies, unification of military and naval supply programs. It is through measures such as these that I believe that we can come home to Wash- ington's concept of adequate preparedness. THE WORLD AFFAIRS REALIST Third, I have said that George Washing- ton was a realist in world affairs. He warned his countrymen to beware of the insidious wiles of foreign influence. Applying this precept today, he would warn us against foreignisms, foreign subversive forces. He would warn us to keep America and the Re- public strong, a mighty bulwark of freedom in a world of dictatorship. We remember that in his day the world was huge; it took months to cross the ocean. Were he alive today, I think we would find that Washington would be the first to realize that we are living in a new day, in a new contracted world, and that the inventive genius of man and America’s preeminence in the world has changed our obligation so that it is incumbent upon us to do everything humanly possible to see if the United Nations can be made to work. I am sure he would say we must go ahead and do the impossible, if necessary, to bring the races of men to where they will live in peace. I am sure that with the practical common sense which Washington always evi- dGenced, he would tell us to keep our powder Gry and not lose our perspective. We can- not forget that after the First World War the League of Nations came into being and we even abolished war with the Kellogg-Briand pact. But war came. And yet, with one Apostle Paul, we know that God is not the author of confusion, but of peace. And only as mankind follows in His way will the millenium be achieved. THE HONEST LEADER Fourth, what would Washington do about his Government today? It was he who said: “I hope I shall always possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I con- sider the most enviable of all titles, the character of a ‘honest man’.” Thus, Washington, the honest leader, be- ing the practical, efficient man he was, would, I am sure, insist on the pruning knife being applied to excess expenses and overhead in government. He saw the need for balancing the budget, for making the bonds of this country and of the States gilt-edged. Yes, the bonds in which educational institutions such as this, have invested their resources, must be absolutely safeguarded. Washington had no time for laxity of any kind in government. I am sure he would approve the continuance of the so-called Truman Investigating Oommittee as a ne- cessity not only to recapture money that be- longs to the Government because of fraud and waste, but for the further reason that Government itself must learn the lessons of the past so as better to go forward in the future. WASHINGTON, THE COOPERATOR Fifth and last, what would Washington do about securing more cooperation in our land today as he did so successfully in his timer Washington, I feel, would insist that peace at home is vital; that the public interest demands that labor and capital get together and cease their destructive internecine war- fare. I am sure, as evidenced in the Penn- sylvania Whisky Rebellion, he would say that strikes against the Government were not legal and would not be tolerated; that jurisdictional strikes and secondary boycotts must cease; that unions must be made re- sponsible for breach of contract the same as employers; that labor racketeeriam must go. He would see the need for free collective bargaining as a two-way street. He would see that there was need for high wages to be paid in order that the national income would be
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD sufficient to meet the charges on it. But he would insist that wages should not be paid unless there is an equivalent in production. Washington would conciliate, but he would not adopt any mete day-to-day expedients. In speaking of the Constitutional Conven- tion, he said: “My wish is that the Convention may adopt no temporizing expedients but probe the de- fects of the Constitution to the bottom and provide a radical cure.” So, too, we need a radical, meaning a fun- damental, cure, to our labor crisis today, not a Red cure or a Fascist cure, but an American cure which will protect the paramount rights of our public. CONCLUSIONS And so, my friends, we have seen the pat- tern that Washington sets for us to follow in our times. We have seen him as a spiritual man triumphant, as a man of peace who was adequate to war, as a realist in world affairs, as an honest leader who practiced honesty in government, as a cooperator, who could bring opposing factions together. Washington's message is the American message of today—to fulfill the Constitution for which he and the founding fathers so ably laid the foundations. In doing so, we will experience a real Washington homecom- ing, we will come home to his principles, to the principles for which the Colonial patri- ots shed their blood in this great State itself, to the principles on which this very uni- versity is founded—principles of the broth- erhood of man and the fatherhood of God. Let us on this blessed continent, as Wash- ington said: “Raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair; the event is in the hands of God.” Communism in North Carolina EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. MONROE M. REDDEN OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 24, 1947 Mr, REDDEN. Mr. Speaker, on Feb- ruary 14 there appeared in the News and Observer, of Raleigh, N. C., a paid politi- cal advertisement covering approximate- ly three-fourths of a page, signed by one Sam Hall, of Winston-Salem, as chair- man of the Carolina District Communis- tic Party, U. 8. A. This ad is titled “A Program To Win a Better Life for the People of North Carolina.” Already my distinguished colleague and fellow North Carolinian, Hrersrrt Bonner, has made reference to this ad- vertisement and introduced it in the Rrc- orp. I hope every Member of Congress took the time to read it. In the center of the ad is a picture of a large man whose arms are clutched tightly by a huge monster who is indi- cated by the author as being the comfort- ing hands of the CIO and the A. F. of L. Under the picture is capitalized the words “United Labor Action—Or Else.” The language of this ad condemns the Legislature of North Carolina and the Congress of the United States. It would have one believe that it has the blessings of these labor organizations of North Carolina. It advocates that labor unions, including railroad brotherhoods and all, harken to its cause of fostering & program of socialism—when the peo- ple, led by the workers, will own the fac- tories, the mines, the banks, and so forth, and produce for the use of all in- stead of the profits of a few. In other words, it advocates here in America, where live the greatest people on earth, the strongest and the freest Nation to survive the storms of the past, that we give up the principles of our founders, abolish liberty and freedom, dissolve our democratic form of government and fo- ment hate among our people and adopt an unconstitutional program of soviet- ized communism and follow it through until the people own the factories, the mines, the banks, and so forth. This program of socialism and com- munism is so vicious and so un-American that the recent State-wide meeting of the Elks Club of North Carolina, of which I am a member, took note of these asser- tions by condemning the advertisement as an attempt to promote civil strife and array class against class. The CIO and the A. F. of L. and a large group of Negro citizens of North Caro- lina also joined in the denunciation and issued statements protesting the use of their names by inference or otherwise in this Communistic movement. While I can understand from a psycho- logical viewpoint why the labor unions of North Carolina and the Negroes issued a condemnation of these activities, I am sure that no North Carolinian believes that the heads of unions in North Caro- lina or the leadership of the Negro race in that State has any sympathy for such a movement. I know some of the labor leaders of North Carolina, and particu- Jarly Mr. C. A. Fink, of the A. F. of L., whom I regard as one of North Carolina’s finest citizens and one who believes in the principles of a democratic government. I should like to say also that North Carolina yields to no State in this Nation in its type of Negro citizenship. The Negroes of North Carolina have made great progress in business and educa- tional undertakings. We have more Negroes in North Carolina who are school teachers than some States have of the Negro population. We have Negroes who are bankers, doctors, lawyers, and at no time have I ever heard of any of them expressing any sympathy for the Com- munists. I do not know one Sam Hall, chairman of the Carolina district Communist Party, United States of America, of Winston-Salem, N. C. I think I should like to get acquainted with him under certain conditions, and the principal purpose for which I rise is to suggest that the Committee on Un-American Activities subpena Sam Hall to appear before the committee in order that he may be examined about his communistic activities in America. It is possible that in him we will find another Gerhart Eisler. In fact, he may have more aliases following his career and name than did Eisler. It may be also that he would re- fuse to answer questions propounded by the committee. He might even be as contemptuous as was his fellow traveler. No doubt Sam Hall did not write the advertisement to which I referred, nor A663 did he pay for it out of his personal funds. It was probably written and paid for by a type of communistic or- ganization, one of whose members were recently found guilty of contempt by the Members of this House. I think our committee would be on another hot trail if it will pursue Sam Hall. Perhaps we can find out through Chairman Hall the name and address of other members of his committee and organization. I understand that he is rery reluctant to give out this informa- on, I believe the people of North Carolina are interested in knowing more about this Communist, Sam Hall. I know they are interested in ridding our State of all communistic elements, I know they be- lieve, as I do, that communism today is America’s enemy No. 1. I urge, Mr. Speaker, that the very efficient Commit- tee on Un-American Activities find out and let the people of North Carolina and the United States know more about Sam Wool REMARKS HON. REID F. MURRAY OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 24, 1947 Mr. MURRAY of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask for this time and to in- clude this letter because in this letter we find the commodity known as wool in- cluded in the suggestion by the Secre- tary of Agriculture. I realize that the wool situation is rather serious. The Government has some _ 517,000,000 pounds on hand, andI am sure that there are many Members in the House who are interested in just exactly what we are going to do about it. We do not have too many weeks to straighten out the wool situation. I trust that every one who is interested in wool will read this letter of transmittal that went with the proposed legislation from the Secretary of Agriculture to the Speaker, and re- ferred by the Speaker to the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Mr. Hore. If you are interested in this leg- islation, the number of the bill is H. R. 1825. The letter referred to is as follows: Frsruary 4, 1947, Hon. JosgepH W. Martin, Jr., Speaker, House of Representatives. Dear Mr. SPEAKER: There is enclosed a copy of a proposed bill to amend section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, as re- enacted by the Agricultural Marketing Agree- ment Act of 1987 (49 Stat. 774). This legis- lation would carry into effect the recom- mendations made in the message of the Pres- ident to the Congress on September 6, 1945, in that it would strengthen price support program for American agricultural commodi- ties. Section 22 provides that when the Presi- dent, after investigation, determines that any one or more articles are being, or are practically certain to be, imported into the United States under such conditions and in sufficient quantities as to render or tend to
A664 render ineffective or materially interfere with any program or operation undertaken, or to reduce substantially the amount of any prod- uct processed in the United States from any commodity subject to and with respect to which any program is in operation under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, sections 7 to 17 of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, or section 32 of Public Law 320, Seventy-fourth Congress, he shall tmpose fees or limitations on the total quantities of any such article or articles which may be entered or withdrawn from a warehouse for consumption in the United States. Fees or limitations may be imposed under section 22 only when it is found necessary in order that the entry of such articles will not render or tend to render ineffective or mate- rially interfere with any program or opera~ tion undertaken or will not reduce substan- tially the amount of any product processed in the United States from any commodity subject to and with respect to which any pro- gram is in operation under the specific stat- utes set forth. A limitation on the total quantity of any article which may be im- ported from any country may not be im- posed which reduces such permissible total quantity to less than 50 percent of the aver- age annual quantity of such article which was imported from such country during the peril- od from January 1, 1929, to December 31, 1933. Fees in excess of 50 percent ad valorem may not be imposed. The field within which the authority granted by section 22 may be exercised is s0 limited that the authority cannot be of much aid to the Department of Agriculture in dis- charging its price-support obligations in this period of adjustment. If a program of the Department is not undertaken pursuant to one of the three stautes referred to in section 22, the authority conferred by that section may not be utilized to control the importa- tion of an article the importation of which is materially interfering with the successful operation of the program by the Department. Virtually all price-support programs of the Department are carried out by the Com- modity Credit Corporation and are not un- dertaken pursuant to the statutes specifically referred to in section 22. Among the important commodities for which the Department has undertaken price- support programs, but for which no program is in operation under the statutes named in section 22, are flaxseed, soybeans, eggs, wool, oats, barley, grain sorghums, and dry edible beans. If any of these commodities should be imported into the United States in quan- tities greatly in excess of normal importa- tions, the operation of the price-support pro- gram for the domestic commodity would be interfered with and the effectiveness of the program seriously impaired. Larger-than- normal importations of some of these com- modities seem practically certain to occur as the facilities for international commodity movements are restored. The amendment to section 22 proposed herein would provide a means for dealing effectively with this problem. The period from January 1, 1929, to Decem- ber 31, 1983, specified in section 22 as the measure of previous normal imports, was a recent period when originally enacted. In the course of time it may become out of date for many commodities. The amendment proposed herein would provide instead for a representative period to be determined by the President whenever he limits imports of & commodity under section 22. Certain articles imported from abroad are not competitive with American-produced commodities for certain uses. An example of this is harsh and rough cotton from India and China which is used in the manufacture of blankets. This cotton has perties which: do not permit its replacement by American-grown cotton in a product which is to have the same desirable qualities as the blankets in which the harsh and rough im- ported cotton is used. However, this cotton does compete with low-grade American cot- ton in numerous other uses. The authority to describe articles designated in a procia- mation upon a basis of use, which is specifi- cally granted by the second proviso in the proposed subsection (b), would make it clearly possible to permit the importation of harsh and rough cotton for use in the manufacture of blankets, thus permitting unlimited utilization of the imported growth for the use as to which it is not competitive with American growths, but place such cot- ton under quota and fee limitations when imported for uses which are competitive with the use of American cotton. Certain limitations on the scope of action permitted under section 22 are involved in the agreements with foreign countries con- cluded under the Reciprocal Trade Agree- ments Act. Thus, all but one of our recip- rocal trade agreements prohibit the levying of new fees, duties, or other charges con- nected with imports against products in- cluded in the agreements; and most of the agreements require consultation with the other country, except under exceptional cir- cumstances, prior to the imposition of quotas on products given duty concessions in the agreements. The exercise of the authority granted under section 22 has not in the past conflicted with any of our international un- dertakings, and presumably this will also be the case in the future. It would, however, be of advantage to the United States in the conduct of its foreign policy if this were to be specifically required by section 22. Ac- cordingly, the proposed amendment would prohibit any enforcement of a proclamation under section 22 that would be in contraven- tion of the international obligations of the United States. In view of the need for broadening the applicability of section 22 to furnish the protection to programs of the Department of Agriculture which the Congress appar- ently intended, it is respectfully requested that consideration be given to amending that section as proposed in the enclosed draft. It is believed that the amendment ts urgently needed and that its enactment will be a definite contribution to the welfare of American agriculture. The changes contemplated by means of in- sertions and deletions in the present provi- sions of section 22 would necessarily result in rather unreadable language; therefore, it is proposed that the present text be replaced by the new one submitted herewith. The only substantial changes effected by substi- tution of the new text are: 1, Extension of the granted authority so as to cover not only agricultural commodi- ties but also products thereof; 2. Extension of the granted authority so as to cover articles the import of which affects any loan, purchase, or other programs or operations undertaken by the Department of Agriculture, or any agency operating under its direction, with to any agricultural commodity or product therecf: 8. The restriction of quantitative limita- tion to 50 percent would be applied to the total quantity of an article imported dur- ing a representative period as determined by the President, rather than to each country’s average annual quantity of the article im- ported during the period from January 1, 1929, to December 31, 1938, as now provided; 4. A clarification by a specific grant of au- thority to the President to describe desig- nated articles by physical qualities, value, use, Or Upon such bases as he determines; 8. A clarification of the intention that, while fees are to be considered duties for some purposes, as now provided, they shal} not be considered duties for the purpose of granting any preferential concession under any international obligation of the United APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD States, as, for example, our duty preference arrangements with Cuba; and 6. Prohibition of any enforcement of a proclamation under Section 22 that would be in contravention of the international obii- gations of the United States. The Bureau of the Budget advises that it has no objection to the submission of the proposed legislation. Sincerely yours, CuInTON P. ANDERSON, Secretary. Bureaucrats Hamstring Industry EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. PAUL W. SHAFER OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, February 21, 1947 Mr. SHAFER. Mr. Speaker, the evi- dence keeps piling up that Government agencies—once their period of useful- ness is over—create unemployment and actually deter full production. The lat- est example proving this statement may be seen in the newspaper reports which reveal that the pig-iron controls of the Civilian Production Administration, now a part of the Office of Temporary Con- trols, threaten to stall the production of automobiles and other essential items, This is no news to me or to Michigan manufacturers who make other things besides automobiles. A good friend of mine who runs the Midwest Foundry in my congressional! district told me 10 days ago that he had been notified by Repub- lic Steel Corp. that the CPA had taken 87 percent of their Buffalo merchant pig production for February for shipment to the southern stove- and cast-iron pipe industry. This meant, in effect, that this foun- dry, which had received only 200 tons of pig iron since last November, would receive no more pig iron for a certain amount of time. My foundryman friend asked me to do what I could to “stop once and for all bureaucratic regimentation and the power that makes possible an individual or a board closing any industry or group of industries in favor of others, regard- less of political expediency.” This I have tried to do and this I will continue to try to do. The trouble right now is that the Republicans control only the legisla- tive branch of the Government, while the Democrats, who still believe in keep- ing ironclad control over industry despite their propaganda to the contrary, still control the executive branch. Let me read to the Members a news- paper article which appeared through- out the country Wednesday: Dersorr, February 20—The Automobile Manufacturers Association warned yesterday that the auto industry faces lay-offs and pro- duction cut-backs during the second quarter of 1947 because of excessive allocations of pig iron for housing. I break in at this point to make this statement, Mr. Bpeaker. The bureau- crats are using housing as the only con- venient excuse possible for them to find
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD so that they can continue allocation con- trol. President Truman could take all controls off housing, if he desired to do 80, but the truth js the bureaucrats do not want to lose the power to hamstring industry. That is because this gives them the power to help one industry at the expense of another. Mr. Speaker, you cannot upset the foundry industry without upsetting the housing industry and all other indus- tries. We should get all controls off so that our economy could shake down and both prices and materials would find their correct relationship. The longer we put it off, the longer we postpone the time when this adjustment will take place. The truth is, I have given the CPA a chance to explain their rules and regula- tions on pig iron that have caused a “snafu” in industry generally, but I have not even received a reply from Mr. J. A. Claussen, head of the Steel Branch, Metals and Minerals Division, Office of Temporary Controls. I wrote him on February 11 to furnish me an explana- tion, if he has one, for the record. I sent a copy of this letter to Maj. Gen. Philip Fleming, Administrator of OTC, but have had no reply. As I see it, too much pig iron is being allocated to industries which are sup- posed to be servicing contractors who are supposed to be building homes. But much of this pig iron is finding its way into the black market. It is going into the hands of scrap dealers and other metal brokers who then raise the price drastically to other manufacturers who need the pig iron to stay in business. One pig-iron manufacturer has told his long-time friends privately that 45 percent of all pig-iron production now is going to only 8 percent of the users. I continue reading from the newspaper report: George W. Mason, AMA president, wrote to Maj. Gen. Philip B. Fleming, Administrator of the Office of Temporary Controls, urging immediate termination of Government allo- cation and priority controls. He said the “best information from the foundries” indicated the threatened cut- backs would run through the entire second quarter and would “not be from a full-pro- duction level, but from the much restricted basis of operations now prevailing in the in- dustry.” He added that first effects of the shortage may be expected in March or April. “All the evidence we have is that the key to the pig-iron shortage is the allocation to housing purposes, which seem to exceed pres- ent realistic housing completion schedules,” Mason wrote. “We are fully aware of other conditions limiting pig-iron supply, and it is because of these that we maintain it is absolutely neces- sary to avoid tying up valuable tonnage where it will not be put to immediate use.” Mason said the AMA felt creation of a free market through immediate scrapping of Government controls will most quickly ac- complish an equitable and productive dis- tribution of available materials. “The Government should make this pos- sible without delay,” he said, “Failing to do so, it should face the fact that it is carrying the responsibility for curtailing employment and output of needed goods.” Mason cited the example of the Midwest Foundry Co., of Coldwater, Mich., which ad- vised the Warner gear division of Borg-War- ner Corp., at Muncie, Ind., that it no longer could fill subcontracts from Warner gear for auto castings. Borg-Warner supplies the Ford Motor Co. and most of the other large automotive con- cerns, Mr. Speaker, something must be done about this situation—and now. This Congress should take immediate steps to scrap Government controls that are hamstringing industry. . Lincoln the Republican EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. MILTON R. YOUNG © OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, February 24 (legislative day of Wednesday, February 19), 1947 Mr, YOUNG. Myr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the REcorD a very able Lincoln Day address entitled “Lincoln the Republican,” delivered over the radio on February 12, 1947, by one of North Dakota’s most outstanding citizens, the Honorable Clyde Duffy, of Devils Lake, N. Dak. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: It is very fitting that in this hour of suc- cess, the leaders of the Republican Party should emulate the sober-mindedness and humility of Lincoln. When that great ex- emplar of Republican principles came to Washington, he came not as a conquering hero but with sadness and humility in the face of the terrible task confronting him. In his remarks to the home folks before start- ing his journey to the National Capitol, Lin- coln said: “J now leave, not knowing when or whether ever I may return, with a task before me greater than that which rested upon Wash- ington. Without the assistance of that Divine Being who ever attended him, I can- not succeed. With that assistance, I cannot fail. To His care commending you, as I hope in your prayers you will commend me, I bid you an affectionate farewell.” Even in the hour of triumph, when he had been returned to office by an overwhelming vote and he could foresee the successful con- clusion of the War Between the States, at his second inaugural he uttered these words, 80 appropriate today: “With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the Nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan—to do all which may achieve and cherish a lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations.” Lincoln came to his office in the darkest days of the Republic. The people stood di- vided—then section against section. A vacil- lating, ineffective Democratic administration had stood idle while the Southern States seceded from the Union and planned for war. He faced an empty Treasury. Even in the North, the people were divided. Some would have declared a bloody crusade to abolish slavery. Others would have per- mitted the Southern States to go their way. Lincoln took the middle course, knowing full well that it would bring down upon his head the condemnation of the extremists on A665 both sides. In his first inaugural address he declared that under the Constitution he had no right to interfere with the institution of slavery in any State and he did not propose to do so, but that under the Constitution it was his duty to see that the laws of the Nation were enforced and this he proposed to do. Today the Republican Party has been re- called to take charge of the legislative branch of the Government and it is generally agreed that as soon as the people shall have the opportunity, that party will be called to take over the executive branch as well. But again we find the Nation divided—not along sectional lines, but rather upon economic lines. We find our Nation bankrupt, with an indebtedness beyond the wildest dream of the greatest spenders of all ages. We find ourselves the object of hate and jealousy at the hands of those who owe their very exist- ence to our help. We find a world seething with unrest. The hour is almost as black as it was when the Republican Party, under Lincoln, was first called to take the helm. Has the Republican Party today those qualities necessary to meet the challenge as it did under Lincoln? I believe that it has. It is still the party of Lincoln. Its outstanding characteristic is that it is con- servative in action and liberal in thought. Like Lincoln, it goes down the middle of the road, heedless of the taunts and threats of the extremists to the right or to the left. It holds fast to the landmarks of the past while striving forward to new goals. It is neither Fascist nor Communist—it is purely American. . Lincoln's moderation, his common sense, his repudiation of extremists are seen in his spoken words on many occasions. While he abhorred slavery, he recognized the fact that it was protected under the Constitution. When agitation over slavery led to mob vio- lence, he deplored “the increasing disregard for law, the substitution of wild and furious passions in leu of the sober judgment of the courts, the worse than savage mobs rather than the officers of the law.” He was op- posed to hasty changes in the Constitution and on many occasions he urged reverence for the Constitution and the laws of the land. To the radical, ever ready to tear down, he gave warning not to destroy the home of the rich man, but rather to go and build himself a house, Knowing then that it, too, would be protected. This char- acteristic of Lincoln is portrayed in the essay of James Russell Lowell: “His slow, but singularly masculine intel- ligence taught him that precedent is only another name for embodied experience, and that it counts for even more in the guidance of communities of men than in that of the individual life. He was not a man who held it good public economy to pull down on the mere chance of rebuilding better.” The Republican Party has not forgotten the prophetic words of Lincoln when he said: “Towering genius (and he ‘is speaking of Alexander, Caeser, and Napoleon) disdains a beaten path. It sees no distinction in adding story to story upon the monuments of fame erected to the memory of others. It scorns to tread in the footsteps of any predecessor, however illustrious. Such genius burns for distinction; and, if possible, it will have it whether at the expense of emancipating slaves or enslaving freemen. Sometime a man of the loftiest genius will spring up among us; and, when he does, it wil) require an intelligent and united people, devoted to the Government and laws, to successfully frustrate his designs.” Lincoln did not hesitate to walk the beaten path—he gloried in building another story upon the monument erected by Washington. He did not burn for distinction, but sought only to perform the task that lay before him and to help build the edifice of the Nation Just a little better. He was a conservative.
A666 And in that sense the Republican Party to- day is and always has been conservative in action. It believes in the Constitution and holds that it can be amended only in the way prescribed by that Constitution and that it cannot be amended by Executive decree or judicial mutilation, The Republican Party believes in the natural rights of man as a human being. Archbishop Ireland expressed the thought when he said “America is the land of human dignity and of human lib- erty” and, therefore, the Republican Party would never make that man the slave of in- dustry, the pawn of the state, nor the tool of labor racketeers. The Republican Party believes in private enterprise. The economic growth and de- velopment of this country has been based upon individual initiative and enterprise. The philosophy of human liberty and human dignity requires this. The constitutional guaranty of life, liberty, and property is a guaranty that the individual may work out his own destiny. Individual initiative and enterprise does not mean individual license. Too often men have combined to secure privileges for them- selves and to oppress their fellows in the race for achievement. It is the function of government to prevent monopolistic prac- tices. And let us not forget that the anti- trust law of this Nation bears the name of that Ohio Republican, John Sherman. But some timid souls who have failed in the race would socialize industry. They forget that selfish, domineering men can be more op- pressive in government than in private in- dustry. When the poet wrote that man’s inhumanity to man makes countless thou- sands mourn, he was not referring to any class. An all-powerful government, domi- nating not only our political life, but our means of livelihood as well, would be an un- bearable tyranny. The founding fathers knew from experience the dangers of too- powerful government, and they place defi- nite checks upon it in the Constitution. The Républican Party has not forgotten their ideals. The theory of the Republican Party, the theory upon which this Nation has grown great, is that every man has equal rights, that every man should be allowed to develop his own powers and his own ability, and that every man should be permitted to achieve such success as he may honorably win. In the race for that achievement it is not the function of government to hold back the swift so that the slow, the halt, and the lame may keep pace. That is not the equality de- manded by the Constitution. It is the func- tion of government to see that the swift and the strong do not foul the weaker com- petitor nor take unfair advantage of thé lame and the halt. The function of govern- ment is to prescribe fair rules for the race and then to see that those rules are fear- lessly enforced. “The point ‘to be aimed at,” says Theodore Roosevelt, “is the protection of the individ- ual against wrong, not the attempt to limit and hamper the acquisition and output of wealth.” The Republican Party believes in Govern- ment economy and efficiency. It views with grave alarm a national debt of nearly $€300,000,000,000. It does not believe that a nation, any more than an individual, can long prosper by spending more than it takes in. Nor does it believe that industry can be fostered or jobs created by confiscatory taxa- tion. It believes in thrift and frugality— those ancient virtues which our Democratic friends would banish to the limbo of for- gotten superstitions. The Republican Party is liberal in thought in the true sense of that term. It has little to do with political philosophy but repre- sents rather a state of mind. It means broad-minded, open-minded, free from bigotry. No word in our language has been more abused. It has been claimed by the extremists who have not the slightest con- ception of its true meaning. The Commu- nists and thetr fellow travelers have prated of their liberalism, but where can you find less open-mindedness than in communism? In Russia freedom of thought and freedom of speech are unknown, The man who dares to deviate one jot or tittle from the Com- munist Party line is expelled, and where they have power he may pay with his life. No man can be more bigoted than the extremist, whether he be of the right or of the left. Of course, there are thousands of liberal Democrats, but they do not control the des- tinies of their party, notwithstanding that the party has sought to appropriate the term “liberal” to its own use. Its only justification for that claim has been its “liberality” with the taxpayers’ money. The party is domi- nated by two factions—bitterly opposed to each other and both bitterly opposed to lib- eral thought. Today some of our columnists and com- mentators are fearing collapse of our Govern- ment because the Republican Members of Congress are not in complete agreement on every issue. Good heavens, have they become so accustomed to a party dictatorship during the past 14 years that they do not recognize a@ liberty party in action? Of course, there are differences of opinion. A Republican claims the right to think for himself—but he concedes the same -right to his neighbor. That is the essence of liberalism. During Lincoln’s administration there were wide dif- ferences of opinion among the Republican Members of Congress; there were wide differ- ences of opinion in his Cabinet. The Republican Party has no party line which its members must blindly follow. It sets up no party dictator surrounded by yes men. Out of the honest differences of its members will come compromise and agreement. Its policies will be tested and refined in free discussion. And, thus, in the tradition of Lincoln, the Republican Party will preserve a government for free men. Action Needed on Monopoly Front EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ESTES KEFAUVER OF TENNESSEE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 24, 1947 Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I include an article which I wrote for the Progres- sive magazine of February 17, 1947. The article is as follows: HOW TO STOP MONOPOLY President Truman in his recent Budget Message to Congress placed himself firmly on record as concerned with the enormous increase in economic concentration that has followed in the wake of the war. The Presi- dent not only listed the need for greater antitrust enforcement activities high on his agenda of recommendations, but made spe- cific recommendations for an amendment to the Clayton Act. This represented probably the first time that the Chief Executive has made a specific legislative recommendation 4n the field of monopoly control. Unques- tionably, there is a growing feeling of the Gangers of increasing economic concentra- tion to our American enterprise system on the part of both legislative and executive branches of the Government. The dangers to the American system in- volved in the growth of monopoly and eco- nomic concentration are well known to every American, and there is hardly a man in pub- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD lic life who has not at some time given Ip service to this threat. However, there has been a lack of concrete action taken on this front. The rea] test of sincerity must rest upon the specific action program as spon- sored and followed through to completion by our legislators, and by the departments charged with enforcement. While the war was being fought many people winced at the fact that a few giant corporations were receiving most of the war contracts. In an effort to divide the work among small businessmen, a special agency, the Smaller War Plants Corporation, was set up, and during its existtnce it endeavored to secure subcontracts for small firms and to meet their wartime financial needs. Valliant as that agency's efforts have been, it is con- clusive that the war brought a further growth in the power of big business, as testiNed by the financial report of the Smaller War Plants Corporation, Economic Concentration and World War II. Stimulated by the findings of the SWPC report, Representative Wright PaTmMANn, chair- man of the House Small Business Committee, appointed a Special Subcommittee on Monop- oly, of which I was chairman, to investigate the effectiveness of the various governmental agencies in combating economic concentra- tion and to see what could be done about not only halting the upward trend but reversing it. The committee staff worked valiantly and in a short time pulled together a sub- stantial report on what has been done, and, more particularly, what has not been done, to prevent and reduce economic concentration. Here, briefly, are some of the facts the committee brought to light: There has been a steady upward growth in the concentration of economic power since the passage of the Sherman Antitrust Act. At the end of World War II only 200 of the largest nonfinancial corporations owned over one-half of the assets of all the nonfinancial corporations in the United States. During the war 100 corporate giants se- cured 75 percent of the war contracts and operated 75 percent of Government-built fa- cilities and 68 of these corporations handled 66 percent of all the Government-sponsored scientific research products. While a few big trusts—such as ofl and tobacco—were, many years ago, attacked vigorously by the Antitrust Division, until recently, beginning with the time Thurman Arnold became head of the Antitrust Divi- sion, the enforcement of the Sherman Act was largely a matter of a policeman looking the other way. The Federal Trade Commission has failed to prevent the growth of concentration through preventing monopolistic mergers be- cause section 7 of the Olayton Act has always been a dead letter. The Commission did lit- tle to enforce the act prior to 1926, when the Supreme Court made it ineffective by ruling that acquisitions of assets were not covered in its prohibitions. Section 7 of the Clayton Act prohibited one corporation from purchasing the capital stock of another where the result would create a monopoly. Smart corporation lawyers de- vised the plan of purchasing the assets and not the capital stock of their competitors, The result was the same—the corporations were merged. But the Supreme Court by a series of 5-to-4 decisions said no law had been violated. There has been a serious lack of an over- all governmental policy in the executive branch regarding concentration. Some agen- cies showed a lack of interest, while their policies actually promoted concentration—a charge particularly true of the War Assets Administration, the Civilian Production Ad- ministration, and the War and Navy Depart- ments, There has never been a systematic follow-up to determine the results of anti- trust activities.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Appropriations for antitrust enforcement have been pitiably small relative to the mag- nitude of the problem. The Bureau of the Budget has consistently under-cut efforts of the antitrust agencies to build up their or- ganizations to a point where antitrust en- forcement could be more than a symbol. 8o much for the record. What can we do about it now? The Ptesident’s recommendation for an immediate amendment of section 7 of the Clayton Act to plug the loophole is in my opinion the first order of business. An enormous wave of mergers has set in since the conclusion of the war which has further accelerated the trend toward economic con- centration, and the Government has no power at present to check this movement. It should be recalled that following the conclusion of the First World War there was a sharp increase in merger activity which produced some of the biggest corporate com- binations which dominate a large segment of the American scene. It will be recalled that it was through enormous war profits that these corporations were enabled to expand their economic power, History is again re- peating itself. Last year, when this trend in mergers had just got under way, Senator Josspu O’Manoney, of Wyoming, and I proposed that this amendment to section 7 of the Clayton Act be passed by the Congress. At that time the Federal Trade Commission documented the growth of concentration through the merger route in hearings before the House Judiciary Committee. Unfortunately, Congressmen do not always read the hearings of committees. Therefore, it is hoped that the Federal Trade Commis- sion will follow the President's lead and sub- mit a special report to the Congress stressing the impovtance of the amendment to the Clayton Act. This would bring forcibly to the attention of Members of both the Senate and the House the urgency of the problem. The attack on monopoly has always been a@ bipartisan project. There is no reason why party politics should muddy any discussion of the ways and means of developing an action program at this time. An important plece of antimonopoly legis- lation—the so-called omnibus monopoly bill (S. 72)—has been introduced in the Senate by a bipartisan group including Senators MorsE, AIKEN, LANGER, YOUNG, Republicans; and Senators Murray, TAyLor, and KILGORE, Democrats. This measure would go a long way in correcting the deficiencies in the pres- ent legislation. Furthermore, it would put the Government on record as being seriously interested in restoring a free enterprise econ- omy in America. This bill would prohibit participation of Amcrican corporations in international car- tels. It would eliminate some of the greatest abuses of the patent system. It would pre- vent discrimination in freight rates. Another source of action against monopoly may be found in the new joint committee to implement recommendations of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers. This committee is composed of a group of enlightened men of both parties who are in- tensely interested in maintaining a free competitive system of American business en- terprise. Undoubtedly they will be interested in fol- lowing through the President's recommenda- tion in regard to economic concentration. Another concrete step Congress should take would be to increase the appropriations for antitrust activity above those contained in the President's Budget message. While this recommendation would appear to run coun- ter to all the current thinking in terms of Budget cuts, in my opinion, it is necessary if the enforcement agencies are going to fight monopolistic combinations on anything like even terms. I suggest that both the Antitrust Divi- sion and the Federal Trade Commission should each have an appropriation of 86,- 000,000, as compared with the approximately $2,000,000 contained in the recommendations of the Budget Bureau. In the absence of such an appropriation this year, it would be July 1, 1948, before any additional money could be provided to the agencies. That is & long time to wait before making a start toward reversing the upward trend toward economic concentration. Money spent to fight monopolies and break up concentrations pays big dividends. This is true even if we consider only the immediate material savings of the consuming public. The Small Business Committee found, for example, that one company de- liberately reduced the life of electric light bulbs. The introduction of fluorescent light bulbs was delayed because they would re- duce the consumption of electricity. Monop- oly agreements with foreign cartels have interfered with United States trade and kept the price higk on several products. We were willing to expend hundreds of billions of dollars to protect our American way of life from the threat from without. Why shouldn’t we spend a few millions to prevent the threat from within? Rent Control EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. JACOB K. JAVITS OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 24, 1947 Mr. JAVITS. Mr. Speaker, unde leave to extend my remarks in thc REcorpD, I include the following letters: Fesruary 19, 1947. Mr. Max MCCULLOUGH, Administrator, OPA, Washington, D.C. Dear MR. MCCULLOUGH: According to the news reports this morning, you are quoted us decluring that if the Budget cut contem- plated by H. R. 1968 should go into effect. OPA rent control could last only three more days. I questioned the chairman of the Appro- priations Committee on the floor when he was presenting this measure, to the follow- ing effect: “Mr. Javits. We are in no position ob- viously, in looking over this set-up, not hav- ing been in the hearings, to know what these people are doing. I happen to be one who is convinced that we have to have rent control, and I do not feel we can have rent control by hobbling the OPA so that it does a bad job of administration. Therefore, I ask the gentleman this question: Is the gen- tleman convinced, as a result of the hearings, that the OPA will be able to carry on its rent-control functions until June 30, 1947, yet give landlords who have true hardship cases adequate and rapid enough satisfac- tion so that we will not have the unneces- sary pressure from them to do away with the OPA and rent control, which the people in my district are about 95 percent for? “Mr. TaBerR. My own idea was, after very careful and extensive hearings on this sub- ject, that we could rescind about $12,500,000. The judgment of the committee is $9,000,000. My own idea was to allow every dollar that I could legitimately allow for an honest ad- ministration of this rent activity. I cannot see any sense in allowing a great lot of money for them to carry on their pay roll a lot of A667 generals and other personnel that they do not need and that they have no useful func- tion for. . “Mr. Javits. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, do I understand the gen- tleman then to assure us—and the gentle- man knows that I have very high regard for his assurance—that he is convinced that OPA can do the rent-control job with the funds which will be available to it after the passage of this bill? “Mr. Taser. I believe they can, if they do it honestly.” . Further, there appears to be a material difference between your figures and those given us by the chairman of the Appropria- tions Committee, as shown by the following question and answer in the course of the discussion on the bill: “Mr. CoLe of Missouri. How much does this leave the OPA after rescission of the 89,000,000? “Mr. TABER. About $18,000,000, as I remem- ber it.” In reliance upon these assurances of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I voted for the bill, Therefore, I am very much interested in having now the exact implication of your program as reported and would appreciate your letting me have the same. Very truly yours, J. K. Javtrs, Member of Congress. Fesrvary 19, 1947. The Honorable Jacos K. Javrrs, United States House of Representa- tives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Javits: I appreciate your letter of inquiry concerning the effect of the re- scission on OPA. Let me answer your questions as directly as possible, A rescission of $9,000,000 and no supple- mental appropriation will kill rent contro) and sugar rationing. The disastrous effect of such an action can hardly be exaggerated. The more than 50,000,000 people living in rented accommodations would face imme- diate and drastic increases in their rent bills. Nor would they have any protection from eviction save that provided by local or State law. . It has been suggested that even though funds were not available to continue an ad- ministrative agency to handle rent control the rent provisions of the Emergency Price Control Act would still be in effect. While this is theoretically true, I think you will recognize that violations of the rental regu- lation would quickly spring up all over the country; rents would be increased contrary to law and without the protection from evic- tions, which require an administrative agency to administer, Tenants would be at the mercy of landlords, either as to the rent they would be charged, or forced to rely on such protection as local eviction laws provide. Our experience with the eviction problem has made it perfectly clear that there is no rent control without the protection from evictions afforded tenants through the effec- tive administration of the rent regulations. You also ask for information as to the effect of a congressional action which per- mitted OPA to use its present appropriations without rescission but which denied to the agency additional funds for this fiscal year. To the best of our ability to analyze that possibility, it would appear that we would have to discontinue sugar rationing entirely or discontinue rent control entirely. If we discontinued sugar rationing, it would still be necessary, assuming that we follow pres- ent Government policies with respect to liq- uidation and employee separation, to end rent control in more than 600 rent areas in the country, leaving rent control effective
A668 in perhaps the 19 or 20 largest metropolitan areas. This would mean that two-thirds of the rental units presently under rent con- trol would be decontrolled and that some thirty-five to forty million citizens now pro- tected by rent controls would be denied such protection. The discrimination of such a course of action is clearly apparent. You will recall that Congress appropriated 101,000,000 to OPA for the fiscal year 1947. The report of the House Appropriations Com- mittee recognized that a supplemental ap- propriation request probably would be nec- essary by February 15. The Appropriations Act language placed responsibility on the Director of the Bureau of the Budget to de- termine the rate of expenditure necessary for the conduct of programs administered by OPA. It was specifically provided that obli- gations could be incurred at a rate not to exceed $142,200,000 on an annual basis, ex- cluding liquidation expenses and costs aris- ing from the Federal Employees Pay Act. Although the original appropriation did not contemplate that increased cost arising from the Federal Employees Pay Act would be paid from the amount appropriated, none- theless the agency has absorbed approxi- mately 810,140,361 for this purpose. This absorption makes necessary the requested de- ficiency appropriation of $5,950,000. Instead of receiving such needed supplemental ap- propriation, H. R. 1968 would rescind $9,- 000,000. The effect of such action is to re- duce the agency’s required funds by the sum of these two figures, or by $14,950,000. It has been suggested that an unwarranted increase in our rate of expenditure occurred during the months of December and Janu- ary. These facts are pertinent. The total expenditures of the agency in December and in January did increase sharply over previous months by reason of the fact that the agency liquidated all of its local war price and ra- tioning boards and district offices throughout the country and separated from the pay roll 16,719 employees during the month of De- cember—to all of whom their terminal leave had to be paid as provided by law. Of the $16,378,742 obligated for December, $7,452,150 was for the terminal leave of these employees. This left a total for operating expenses of 98,026,592, which, in spite of other heavy liquidating expenses, represented the smaill- est operating cost of any month of this fiscal year to that date. With respect to expenditures in January, our operating cost actually shows further reduction and amounted to 65,643,580. However, we were still separating employees from the pay roll in our retrenchment pro- gram and the terminal leave during this month amounted to 9039,200. During Jan- uary we also transferred $177,000 to other Federal agencies in connection with the transfer of certain functions in accordance with Executive Order 9809, which made the cost of the agency's operations in January total $6,759,780. We should be glad to submit further fig- ures which will show a steady decrease in operating costs from the date of the first decontrol actions in October to date. The increases referred to for December, therefore, resulted in main from payment of terminal leave accrued over the past 4 years to em- ployees leaving the agency. It seems extremely important to bear in mind that, although the Congress did not intend to require that either lump-sum leave payments or pay-act increased costs be paid from the appropriation of $101,000,000 if these funds were needed for operating pur- poses, we have, nonetheless, paid from these funds in excess of $18,600,000 for these two objects. Clearly then, it is only by the ab- sorption of these extraordinary expenses, over which we have had no control, that we are now compelled to ask the Congress for @ supplemental appropriation. For the sake of complete clarity, I should like to state our appropriation problem in another manner: The present funds available to us, out of the appropriation of $101,000,000, prior to any reduction by virtue of the pend- ing rescission bill, would permit us to oper- ate effective programs to approximately June 1. However, at that time it would be neces- sary to have additional funds to carry the agency’s operations through the month of June and, of course, liquidation costs would be required in the next fiscal year. What we have requested then is enough money to carry forward an effective rent-control and rationing program through this fiscal year, with the major part of liquidation costs (ex- cept for those already paid) deferred until fiscal year 1948. I agree that you are entirely correct in stating that I failed to make our problem sufficiently clear to the House Appropriations Committee when I had an opportunity to testify to that body. Certainly, this was not from any desire to withhold any fact, or distort any fact or figure. I believed at that time that I had presented our problem ade- quately to the committee, but upon reading the record of the hearing I can see quite clearly that I should have stated possible consequences of a rescission action in more concrete terms. Should a further opportunity be presented to discuss our problem before an appropriate committee of the Congress, we will, of course, be glad to supply all of the information desired and volunteer any information that would appear to assist the committee in its consideration of our problem. I am attaching a table showing our obliga- tions to date and the effect of the rescission action; and also a table showing our obliga- tions month-by-month through February, and end of the month balances through Feb- ruary, the last month being estimated. Again, may I thank you for your interest in this critical matter and for the opportu- nity of laying these facts before you. Sincerely yours, Max McCutioves, Commissioner. Condition of OPA funds Feb. 1, 1947 Original appropriation ...-.-.. 101, 000, 000 Less obligations June 30, 1 to Feb. 28, 1947.-.-...-....- 85, 606, 000 Balance available Mar, 1, eone eee eee 16, 394, 000 Less rescission in H. R. 1968... 9, 000, 000 Available for operations Mar. 1 to June 30, 1947_._,.-.-..-. 6, 394, 000 Less lump-sum leave pay- ments_._..---.------------- 7, 411, 000 Deficit based on H. R. 1968 ....-.---.-.--.-- —1, 017, 000 Obligations—month by month Unobligated Operating | g, balance of rate exclu- $101 00% eatin te fuer sive of ter- payment ier minal! leave minal leave to date) $10, 840, 691 $89, 730, 303 11, 082, 001 1 Ot, 11° 020, 879 67, 616, O18 12, 404, 088 oe 10, 068, 806 ft 036, A 8 936, 562 27, 649, 5643, 580 120, 880, 842 8, 307, 805 16, 304, 247 1 Unobligated balance is reduced in this month thr ing of ation transferred to FTO Ow pramonate or apratign vanskered veepectively. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD United States Can Hasten End of Unconquered Scourges EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. KATHARINE ST. GEORGE OF NEW YORE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 2¢, 1947 Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Mr. Speaker, un- der leave to extend my remarks in the RecorpD, I include the following editorial from the Springfield (Mass.) Daily News of February 21, 1947: UNITED STATES CAN HASTEN END OF UNCONQUERED SCOURGES The new Congress has witnessed the intro- duction of an avalanche of bills proposing legislation ranging all the way from the sub- lime to the ridiculous. Fortunately, a ma- jority of these measures will be killed off in committee, or relegated to pigeonholes, from whence they never will emerge. After separating wheat from the chaff in preliminary deliberations, congressional com- mittees will report out good bills from time to time for action by the Congress. In the category of good bills is the measure spon- sored by Representative STEVENSON, of Wis- consin, which provides for the mobilization of the scientific resources and knowledge of the United States for the purpose of seeking the cause and cure of cancer, poliomyelitis, and other degenerative diseases. Under the terms of the Stevenson bill, Congress would set up an independent agency to be known as the National Medical Research Founda- tion, under the executive branch of the Gov- ernment, Research of the Foundation would be under the direction of a four-man board consisting of the Surgeon General of the United States, and representatives of the American Medical Association, American Cancer Society, and the American Heart As- sociation. All would serve without compen- sation. The bill further provides for the appropriation of $10,000,000 to finance the work of the Foundation. In submitting the bill, Representative Srrvenson said: “Private research suffers from the crippling restrictions of lack of suf- ficient funds and scientific equipment. With groups of scientists working together and with many such groups stationed in a num- ber of centers throughout the country and supplied with the best and most advanced in- struments and equipment, the cooperation of these brains and scientific equipment, with their consequent exchange of ideas and plans, will advance research immeasurably.” Representative Stevenson's bill is an en- lightened approach to an important phase of national health problems. If the Nation is to progress rapidly toward a solution of the problems inherent in the deadly dis- eases which hitherto have defined science and exact a terrifying toll in human lives and suffering, it is essential that the Govern-, ment lend its support to scientific research. Unless the resources of the Government, which are the resources of the people, are thrown into the scientific war against dis- ease, many years will elapse before privately supported science can find the answer to cancer and other deadly scourges which cut down millions of Americans annually. If America could afford §2,000,000,000 to develop the atom bomb for the destruction of war it well can spare a few miilian dollars to combat canoer and the degenerative dis- eases so far unconquered. Out of Government aid to science, for the purposes of war primarily, have emerged
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD many discoveries, which have or will become a boon to mankind. From nuclear fission, which slaughtered tens of thousands of Jap- anese civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, eventually will come atomic energy for peace, creating new comforts and advantages for millions of Americans. To meet the exigencies of war, the Govern- ment made possible the mass production of penicillin.’ Today this wonder drug is avail- able in sufficient quantities to guarantee mil- lions protection against premature death from microbes that were hitherto resistant to other medications. And so the story goes on ad infinitum. The American Cancer Society estimates that 17,000,000 people, or one out of every eight now living, eventually will die of can- cer. If each of these 17,000,000 deaths in- volves a financial expense of $200, (actually the cost reaches a far higher average), the total will reach the staggering sum of 83,- 400,000,000. These are lifeless figures. Who can evaluate the human suffering involved in 17,000,000 cancer deaths? The Stevenson bill ought to pass from every humanitarian and economic stand- point. Need for Census of Business EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. ROBERT J. TWYMAN OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 24, 1947 Mr. TWYMAN. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I submit herewith a copy of the resolution passed by the board of directors of the Chicago Association of Commerce and Industry, at a regular meeting on Friday, February 21, 1947. Business is dependent upon figures published by the Bureau of Cen- sus, published in 1940 based on 1939 fig- ures. It is well known that since 1939 there has been a tremendous migration of industry and population throughout the United States. Business people are interested in knowing the extent of this migration. They do not have the facili- ties to make this determination and de- pend upon the Bureau of Census to pro- vide this information. The resolution to which I refer reads as follows: Whereas during the war the ordinary work of the United States Bureau of the Census was greatly curtailed, and the work of that Bureau directed principally to the services of war agencies; and Whereas since the war the Bureau of the Census has not been provided with funds which would enable it to reengage in the im- portant work which it did for the civilian economy prior to the war; and. Whereas without the data developed by the Bureau the Nation has been without satis- factory basic statistics concerning its popu- lation, production, wholesale and retail sales, and without certain important information on labor force, foreign trade and agriculture: Therefore be it Resolved, That in view of these facts and with due regard for the desirability of econ- omy in national expenditures, this Board goes on record as favoring the restoration of the census functions as they existed prior to the war, and that this position be made known to all officials who are properly con- cerned with this matter. Address of Hon. Edgar L. Warren EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. AUGUSTINE B. KELLEY OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 24, 1947 Mr. KELLEY. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Ap- pendix of the Recorp, I include an ad- dress by Hon. Edgar L. Warren, Director of United States Conciliation Service, De- partment of Labor, before the Institute on Industrial Relations, National Associ- ation of Manufacturers, Boca Raton, Fla., on January 7, 1947. The address reviews the work of the Conciliation Service dur- ing the last year and should be read by all who are interested in the subject of labor relations. ‘ My position has been that the Concilia- tion Service should be strengthened and expanded by ample funds. This is one agency that can aid materially in settling Jabor disputes and, to me, is the answer to our difficulties rather than restrictive labor legislation. The address follows: You gentlemen represent the leaders of the free-enterprise system. I am not telling you anything new when I say that free col- lective bargaining is an essential part of the free-enterprise system. Employers have just as great a stake as the unions in free collec- tive bargaining. Ira Mosher has said that on several occasions. The industrial-relations report to the Fifty-first Congress of Ameri- can Industry last month at the Waldorf- Astoria put it in these words: “The preservation of free collective bar- gaining demands that Government interven- tion in labor disputes be reduced to an abso- lute minimum, The full extent of Govern- ment participation in lahor disputes should be to make available competent and impar- tial conciliators. Compulsory arbitration, in particular, is inconsistent with American ideals of individual freedom and is bound to destroy genttine collective bargaining.” That sound policy was reflected in the unanimous statement issued subsequently by the labor-management advisory commit- tee of the Conciliation Service. That eight- man committeee, which includes four labor members and four management members, the latter appointed on the recommendation of the NAM and the United States Chamber of Commerce, went one step further. Our advisory committee also took an unequivocal position opposing compulsory arbitration or supermachinery for the disposition of indus- trial disputes. They went on to say: “With collective bargaining freed from all wartime controls, we believe that American industry and American labor can and will assume their individual and joint responsi- bilities for the. production of the goods and services sO necessary to a prosperous peace- time America.” Toaay, under President Truman, your Gov- ernment's labor policy is one of free, collec- tive bargaining. Nowhere in Government is there a bureau or an agency that can order you or any employer to write a particular clause or a particular condition into any contract with a union. The Government's role at the bargaining table is limited to that of conciliation. This policy has imposed grave responsi- bilities on our conciliators. But it has im- posed an even greater responsibility upon management and labor. Today, no inter- ruption of work can be blamed on the Gov- A669 ernment. Today, the full responsibility for continuous production rests wholly with em- ployers and unions. They are the men who determine whether or not work shall be in- terrupted. From here on, whether collective bargain- ing remains free depends on the ability of both management and labor to do their ne- gotiating without seriously disrupting the Nation's economy or interfering in the lives of their neighbors. If work stoppages continue to interfere with our economy, I am afraid the Congress is going to consider seriously some form of compulsory arbitration. That, of course, will be the first step to many other compulsions, Once the Government is permanently in the business of deciding the wage increase every year, in peace as it did in war, then inevi- tably the Government will have to make other decisions on prices anc production schedules. I wish I could say at this point that the Conciliation Service is your complete protec- tion from that sort of regulation. It is not. Only labor and management settling their differences peacefully can guarantee such protection. Employers carnot do it alone. Neither can unions. Both must, sit down and work this out unless they want the Govern- ment to work it out for them. The Conciliation Service can help you in this effort if you will let us. Although we cannot guarantee you complete freedom from strikes, we can help you to conclude your negotiations peacefully. Before I go into the services we can render, I would like to examine some of the criticisms of our con- cillators heard most often from employers or from those who speak for them. Many businessmen have been saying that our Serv- ice favors the union side as against the em- ployer. I am not going to stand up here today and tell you that each of our 275 con- cillators is perfect. But I would like to say that we are doing everything that is hu- manly possible to see that each one of our conciliators understands his responsibility to act impartially in the public interest, One of the frequent observations is that we cannot be impartial because some of our concillators have come to us after serving as union officers or business agents. Some have. That raises the question: Can a man once having been a union officer ever again main- tain an objective interest in a negotiating session? Can he discharge his responsibili- ties as a representative of all the people or is he foreever disqualified from Government service of this nature? In that respect, we must then ask the same question of the men who come to us with management back- ground, I think we can assume that the same com- mon denominator in human behavior moti- vates the men of management as well as the men from the shops. Then we must admit that it is possible for either a management or a union man to take a new job and to discharge it honestly and faithfully. About 22 percent of our conciliators came to us with management experience. About 84 percent with labor union experience. It is not easy to attract men from manage- ment to Government jobs at Government salarles—as you knew. And, many of our men are enticed away from us by employers. In the last 3 years, we have lost more than 10 percent of our staff—30 men in 3 years— to the industrial relations departments of corporations. Incidentally, at least half of our present staff have had job offers at higher pay from management. Personally, I believe that a man with a union background, a man who knows the technique of negotiations and who under- stands union values, is one of the most ef- fective mediators. Certainly, union tactics will not confuse him. There are some em- ployers who recognize the advantages of a