APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD cumstances, however, I believe that American industry, especially those engaged in mass production, would be able to compete very favorably with anything our friends across the Atlantic had to offer. But ECA is not advocating that our domestic market be flooded with a vast amount of goods pro- duced by cheap foreign labor. All we want to do is to increase imports to the extent that is necessary to achieve an international balance of trade so that our allies can pur- chase from us with dollars what they have to have. As Mr. Hoffman has stated again and again, the increase in imports which is necessary to bring about this balance is negligible in comparison with our national prcduction of over $240,000,000,000. Some industries may be hurt in varying degrees if imports are increased only moder- ately. That is probably true. But if we don’t increase imports and the nations of western Europe have no dollars to spend in this country when Marshall-plan aid is over in 1952, our export trade will decline to a mere trickle. Inasmuch as so many of our industries depend on a healthy export mar- ket for the difference between profit and loss, the disappearance of that export mar- ket in 1952 would, in our opinion, have a disastrous effect on our domestic economy. There would not even be an export market for such basic commodities as our wheat, cotton, and tobacco, which we have always, as you know, exported in vast quantities to Europe. There is one general argument against our program advanced by some of our better- organized opponents which has always struck me as particularly fallacious. This is that our export trade is in the hands of a few large industries and that the average Amer- ican business—particularly small business— has no stake in international trade. There- fore, the program to increase imports in order to maintain exports hurts the average Amer- ican business and helps only the favored few. In the first place, Iam not prepared to admit that our export business is entirely in the hands of a few large corporations. I do not think it is, although I have not seen the fig- ures. But, for the sake of argument, let us assume that it is. We are all well aware of the tremendous system of subcontracting which exists in our industrial system. It was large before the war and it received a tremendous impetus during the war. Prac- tically all of our large producing corpora- tions subcontract to a greater or lesser de- gree components of thelr finished products, A sharp curtailment in our export trade would, therefore, not only affect the direct exporter but business generally, large and pmall, from Maine to California. Whether we like’ it or not, this problem of the dollar gap exists. The question is, What ore we going to do about it? It is not a@ new problem and has existed since the outbreak of the First World War in Europe in 1914, at which time the United States changed from a debtor to a creditor nation. Unfortunately, however, the viewpoint of many of our governmental, industry, and labor leaders has not changed from that of the period before 1914. I was brought up in a high~protectionist school myself. I can remember only too well when I was a boy in the early 1900's my father getting purple in the face with rage at the very suggestion that we should buy more imported articles. Many of you may have seen the report of the ECA-Commerce mission, or, as it is com- monly known, the Taylor report, which was published last October. This was the re- sult of an intensive study, both here and abroad, undertaken at Mr. Hoffman's request by Wayne Taylor and a group of interna- tional trade experts from the Department of Commerce and private industry. This re- port points up the problem of the dollar gap and states that from 1914 to 1939 the United States exported $101,000,000,000 more than it imported: As none of our exporters sell their goods abroad for marbles, this tremendous so-called favorable balance of trade had to be financed in some way. It was found that the United States Government, either through direct grants or loans, had con- tributed $68,000,000,000 of this total amount. In other words, we have been unconsciously subsidizing our export trade over the past 85 years at the American taxpayer’s expense to the tune of $68,000,000,000. . The report goes on to say that the prob- lem can be solved and offers four alternative courses of action. The first is to continue advancing dollars to the governments of western Europe indefinitely. In our judg- ment this is no solution and is undesirable, to say the least. The second is to let nature take its course and permit our exports to fall to the level of our imports after 1952. This would mean closing the dollar gap at a very low level of international trade. This is by far the easiest way to solve the problem, but the consequences would, in our judgment, be disastrous. The nations of western Europe would not have the dollars to buy what they have to have from us to maintain any sort of decent standard of living. Communism, which feeds on human misery, would sooner or later take them over and the Western Hemisphere would stand alone against the forces of world communism. If all of us as taxpayers complain today of our tax bills, I would hate to contemplate the taxes we would face under such circumstances for defense or for war. Furthermore, as I have already stated, our export trade would go to hell in a basket which in itself could well be the cause of a major depression in the United States. This is what our dear friends in Moscow so avidly desire. The third alternative is to increase the investment of private American equity capi- tal in western Europe and its overseas de- pendent territories. We consider this highly commendable. It is, however, a long-range program and could not possibly, by itself, close the gap ' etween now and 1952. I have learned through long experience that Amer- ican businessmen have the peculiar habit of acting like businessmen, and certainly un- der world conditions as they exist today, there are no great incentives to risking cap- ital in far-away places. We are hopeful, of course, that this situation will change for the better. The fourth alternative, and the one which ECA is recommending, is the increase of direct imports from the participating na- tions into the United States. The Inter- national Trade Promotion Division has been formed in ECA to do what it can to imple- ment this recommendation. We realize only too well, however, that we and the Govern- ment as a whole can merely scratch the surface of this problem and only help point the way. The real job on this side of the water has to be done by American industry and American labor working together. That is why we consider that organized American industry and labor have the ma- jor responsibility for the success or failure of this program. If you choose to accept it and meet this challenge of the cold war jn the same gallant spirit you did in the shooting war, then, and only then, will the United States and its allies be safe from the inroads of communism. We have a saying in ECA which I am sorry to say is not original with us. We picked it up somewhere. I think it sums up the situa- tion rather neatly: “If you want to exhale, you have to inhale. Otherwise you die.” Thank you very much. Mr. Harper. Thank you, Mr. Kirk, and you have indeed made a major contribution to these proceedings. In fact, there is so much interest in your area ef operation that it has prompted numerous questions for this oc- casion, and you might as well launch our question-and-answer period with this one. A4257 (There followed a full hour question-and- answer period.) Ladies and gentlemen, as much as I dis- like to ring the bell, the time has come to bring this session to a close. May I, there- fore, say to the members of my panel that your audience and I think that you have ha’ dled a tremendous assignment with the greatest of ease; that we are much in your debt for the great store of knowledge that you have so graciously imparted for our benefit; that we think you’re swell for taking time out on a precious Saturday afternoon to come to our meeting; that, if you hadn’t come and participated so wholeheartedly, it wouldn’t have been the success that it is. May I say to the audience that my panel and I think that you are quite a collec- tion os intelligent people and that, if you hadn’t been here, participating as you did, it wouldn’t have been worth while for us to be here either. May it truly be that we have learned to know each other better, and I am confident that we have at least improved our think- ing considerably concerning “The Responsi- bilities of Organized Industry in Our Ex- panding Economy.” Mr. Vice President, we reluctantly give the meeting back to you. Depreciated Savings EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. HAROLD H. VELDE OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, June 7, 1950 Mr. VELDE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rec- orp, I include the following editorial from the Peoria Journal of June 4, 1950, entitled “Depreciated Savings’: DEPRECIATED SAVINGS The Government of the United States cur- rently is embarking on a campaign to sell United States savings bonds. Purchase of such bonds is just as patriotic and de- sirable as it was during the war years when everyone rushed to lend their dollars to Uncle Sam. Savings bonds still are one of the finest investments that an American can make and the forthcoming campaign deserves the whole-hearted support of all Americans. A government selling bonds to its citizens, however, if it is to continue to deserye their support has a high obligation to insure the investors that they will be getting their money back and a fair return to boot. A dramatic warning concerning the fate of invested dollars has been voiced to its customers by the biggest financial institu- tion in the Pacific Northwest, the Washing- ton Mutual Savings Bank of Seattle. In big advertisements, the bank reminds its customers that the savings they put away represent things that they are doing without today so that they can have the things they need and want tomorrow. It asserts: “You have a right to expect that your saved dollars will be worth a dollar when you spend them. They won’t be worth a dollar when you spend them if our Govern- ment keeps on spending more than it takes in. If you spent more than you earned, consistently, you’d have to face the con- equence. Government can’t do otherwise. “Continued overspending causes inflation, Where dollars no longer are based on real values they no longer buy a dollar’s worth when you spend them. That makes every dollar you earn and save worth less.”
A4258 The bank has some further advice: “But you can do something to keep your dollars worth a dollar, to make your saved dollars as valuable tomorrow as they are today Every savings bond purchaser, every savings account holder, everyone who owns insurance or draws a ‘ensicr has a special revs sere ot al... Government (re re J. ¢1..7..1 of us let our Con- gressmen know we want it stopped they can put on the brakes, Tell them. Speak up in meetings. Write letters about it If all of us work to stop this overspending, if all of us demand it, it can and will be stopped.” Every citizen of the United States who has savings of any kind 1s affected by the de- preciation of those savings brought about py inflation. If the dollars you save today are worth only 59 cents tomorrow when you are forced to use them you may wind up in serious trouble. It 1s most important to every person who has savings that the Government put an end to its inflationary economic policies. Report of the American Legion Foreign Relations Commission EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. LAWRENCE H. SMITH OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, June 7, 1950 Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. Mr. Speak- er, 1am including as part of my remarks a report by the American Legion Foreign Relations Commission at the request of Mr. Miles D. Kennedy, legislative direc- tor. Several of the recommendations made by the commission are not con- sistent with my own thinking and hence this extension constitutes no personal endorsement of resolutions: REPORT OF THE FOREIGN RELATIONS CoMMIs~ SION TO THE NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMIT- TEE, INDIANAPOLIS, IND., Max 8, 4, aND 5, 1950 Eleven members of your National Commis- sion on Foreign Relations met in Washington, D. C., on May 1 and 2, 1950, and on May 3 and 4 the executive section of four members of this same commission met in Indianapolis. It was the unanimous opinion of all mem- pers that a complete statement as to the foreign policy of the American Legion should pe presented to the national executive com- mittee at this time. This decision was prompted by the urgency of the international situation and the need for greater dissemi- nation of information concerning our foreign. policy to the membership of the Legion and to the American public. We have such a policy for your considera- tion today. We urge you to hear it out, for in the terrible conflicts now raging in the world today, our salvation lies in the strength and soundness of the muscles and minds of the American people. To act wisely we must know the issues. To keep continuity in our thinking and actions we must have a fair and understandable policy—a policy that applies alike to all nations and peoples, Continuity, constancy, and vigor are essential, and their foundation is knowledge. The foreign policy of the American Legion is primarily dedicated to the preservation of freedom, freedom of the individual, and of human liberties. The menace in the world today is the spread of Soviet communism, whose aims are the destruction of human liberties and even- tual world conquest. ‘Therefore, the foreign policy of the American Legion is to fight communism everywhere. Instead of condemning the mistakes and inadequacies of the past let us now unite our efforts and actions toward the one goal of destroying the threat of world dominion by our real enemy—Soviet Russia. No longer should we contain communism in one part of the world, then ignore its con- tinued and successful advance in another part.- No longer will we tolerate trade or diplomatic expediences which save us pen- nies today, but which will cost Us dollars tomorrow, Our foreign policy must be con- sistently dedicated to the principle that the greatest contribution that can be made by the United Sates to a peaceful world is the preservation of freedom for those who will be free—and through our moral, military, anda economic strength, the destruction and complete elimination of false and untruthful philosophies and ideologies which are loose in the world today. We retain our faith in the United Nations. We believe that 1t can be made an effective world authority which can prevent aggres- sion if the Charter is amended immediately as suggested by the American Legion In No- vember of 1946 to accomplish the following: 1. Removal of the veto power in the two Specific instances of matters pertaining to aggression and preparation for aggression. 2. The adoption of the United States pro- posals for the international control of atomic energy and the establishment of arms quotas, both to be guaranteed threugh a system of positive international inspection 3. Establishment of an effective tyranny- proof international police force. This force would consist of two parts, an independent active force to be under the direct control of the Security Council and a reserve force made up of the national contingents of the major powers capable of backing up the ac- tive forces when necessary. The result would be that the United Nations, through an ef- fective police force, could enforce its deci- sions, prevent aggression and the prepara~ tion of aggression, and so maintain the peace. We believe that the American Legion plan for strengthening the United Nations pro- vides the essential basic requirements of, and the first steps toward, true world-wide enforcement of law and order, which is the immediate necessity. The American Legion is opposed to any form of World Federation or World Govern- ment at this time. In 1948 the American Legion recommended a mutual self-defense pact composed of the nations of the North Atlantic area. Our suggestion was made fully a year before the North Atlantic Pact was approved by Con- gress. As a result of the North Atlantic Pact the nations of western Europe, Canada, and the United States are militarily stronger than at any time since World War II. Arms and essential materials are now flowing and must continue to flow to our allies in this area so that the North Atlantic Pact countries will have the necessary equipment and trained troops to make a formidable stand against any aggressor. We now urge the countries of the North Atlantic Pact to join forces within the United Nations to insist on the amendment of the United Nations Charter to accom- plish the objectives of the American Legion Plan as stated above. In this way the demo- cratic nations of the west would thereby declare to the world their intention of mak- ing the United Nations an effective authority for peace. We further urge these same democracies which sponsored the North Atlantic Pact to send delegates to a convention to be held soon in the United States to explore the pos- sibilities of the establishment, within the framework of the United Nations, of an as~ APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD sociation for closer political cooperation among freedom-loving democracies. To preserve faith of others in our system of freedoms we must continue to help those war-torn nations and people of the world, who will first help themselves, to rebuild their countries and to regain their basic lib- erties. We therefore urge continuation of the European recovery program as provided for in the present Economic Cooperation Act. We believe that this program has been ad- munistered to the benefit of the American people and that it has accomplished its pur- pose of rehabilitating the economies of west- ern Europe and has contained Communist expansion in this area. We urge all possible economies in the administration of ECA, so that our own economy will not be jeopard- ized. We heartily endorse a proposal that a study by a commission be made sufficiently prior to June 1952 so that appropriate recom- mendations can be made to the Congress and the American people as to what steps, if any, might be necessary after that time to con- tinue economic help to the countries of Europe who have joined forces with us in our fight for freedom. World trade is important to the pence of the world and to the economic well-being of the United States and our allies. We ap- prove the statement of principles outlined in the Habana Charter for the establishment of the International Trade Organization as an agency of the United Nations and believe it would be to the advantage of the United States to ratify the establishment of this organization. We should encourage economic, educa- tional, and spiritual development in western Germany. This area wet] a; am be a critical spot in Europe’s development. But Ameri- cans must be realistic in their aid and ever watchful in their assistance in eliminating Military power in Germany. We must not abandon these pcople to the Russians, but equally we must avoid the historic danger of strengthening them to a point where they will again menace their neighbors whom they overran in two World Wars, We should support in every way possible the religious minorities in the satcllite countries in Europe that are trying to hold the last citadel of freedom in their coun- tries—the right to worship God as they please. These people have seen the state subjugate the church, and then try to abol- ish the church. We must support them in their fight to regain freedom of worship. Some central European problems cannot be solved until the final settlement of the Austrian peace treaty. Many important is- sues are at stake. Confidence in western Europe and American will be greatly aided by our insistence that the trenty be con- cluded as soon as possible. Americans can view with pride the accom- plishments of our helpfulness and aid in the eastern Mediterranean area, Greece would not have a democratic form of Government today if it had not been for the bipartisan support of the Truman Doctrine of 1947— which stated that Communist aggression. should advance no further in Europe with- out the United States, through the United Nations, taking notice of, and doing some- thing about, such cggression. America fought Communist aggression in this area, for we wanted the people of the Near Hast to have a chance to mold a destiny of their choice—and not one dictated to them by Moscow. We must continue to effectively and affirm- atively enlighten the people of Europe and Asia to the truth of the American way of life in the advantages, both material and spirit- ual, to be gained by free people Operating under democratic processes—where the indi- vidual is served by the State without being depe' dent upon it. Containment of Soviet aggression is not enough. We must go for- ward to the destruction of the aggressive
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD powtr of the Soviet police state. Massive propaganda projects must be launched to take the truth to all corners of the world so that all peoples will have an understanding of tle basic issues in this great struggle for freedom’s survival. We believe that good results in this direc- tion have been obtained by the Office of In- ternational Information and the United States Information Service. We urge that these two agencies and others operating un- der the guidance of our State Department continue to take the truth to the far corners of the world. We urge Congress to allot sufficient funds to carry out this important phase of winning the cold war. The American Legion urges opposition to the expansion of communism in Asia. We propose that our Government extend every reasonable assistance to foster all influences favorable to democracy. We oppose recog- nition of Communist China. At the 1949 Philadelphia convention we urged that our support should be made avail- able to any patriotic groups or organizations of Chinese whose principles and stability are worthy of our confidence and who will vigor- ously fight communism and outside aggres- sors to preserve the basic rights and liber- ties of a free China. We again say we reject defeatism and abandonment of this area to Communist aggressors. The Immediate threat is at For- mosa and in the Philippines. We abhor the idea of abandoning the free and independ- ent government of Formosa. If we are op- posed to Communist aggression, and if we are the world’s last and greatest protector of human liberties, then certainly we cannot abandon Formosa at such a crucial moment, If we do so, then we are merely borrowing a temporary period of peace until we are forced to face the same issue in another place, which will be just a bit closer to the heart of our national defense structure. We believe it is imperative that our De- partment of Defense appraise the defenda- bility of Formosa at once, with the thought that Formosa be preserved, with our help, as a bastion of freedom and a base for mili- tary operations against the Communist ag- gressors on the mainland of Asia. We should also aid the Philippine Gov- ernment, in every possible way, to resist the infiltration of Communist aggressors and to maintain a free, democratic government. Because the North Atlantic Pact has been of such immense value and protection to the countries involved and because a similar re- gional alliance might be a deterrent to Com- munist expansion in the Pacific and far- eastern areas, we again urge our Government to lend tts aid in forming a regional alliance under article 51 of the United Nations Char- ter, composed of those countries of the Pa- cific and far eastern areas, who, through self-help and mutual aid, desire to guaran- tee their mutual defense and to preserve individual lMberties. The President’s point 4 program recom- mends that Congress provide funds to finance technical, scientific, and managerial knowledge to underdeveloped areas of the world, and also, limited financial assistance for the creation of productive enterprises. ‘The President has requested $45,000,000 to flnance the program for the first year, This plan suggests assistance in many fields and emphasizes technical projects in health, industry, labor, agriculture, and sci- entific research with respect to natural re- sources in underdeveloped countries show- ing particular need. The wise and careful administration of such a program bears great possibilities for the development of international understanding and coopera~ tion, and would contribute considerably to the enlargement of world trade. The American Legion approves, in prin- ciple, the President's point 4 program. We urge the full cooperation of our Govern- ment with private enterprise in the develop- ment of such a program. The foregoing should constitute the for- eign policy of the United States as visualized by our Commission at this time. The best evaluation of any foreign policy is whether or not it can keep the peace. We know that we cannot have peace by just wishing for it or by negotiating a temporary breathing spell with the Politburo. We will have peace only after we have accepted and absorbed the fact that we in America must offer the leadership necessary to win this great global conflict of ideas. We must fight the insidious menace of com- munism and totalitarian aggression with all our might and resources. We must gather to us, as allies, all people who will be free— all who are willing to join with us in this final battle for liberty, justice, and democ- racy. And when successful—as we will certainly be—our peace will be built upon the rock of self-reliance of all free people, good will, and international law, internationally enforced. Only then can we openly admit to ourselves and to each other that we have found true peace and real security. All this is possible if we, as individuals, accept the responsibility to do our share to protect our own liberties. With our trust in God we shall find divine guidance along the rough road that lies ahead. This call for God’s help is not to lull the peace-seeking into weakness and compromise. Only in strength of character and arms and purpose, pased on Christian principles of justice and righteousness, will America be able to offer proper leadership to peace-hungry citizens of the world who starve for God’s most cher- ished gift—~human dignity. ForEIGN RELATIONS COMMISSION, WiLt1AM VERITY, Ohio, Chairman. CHARLES GONSER, Washington, Vice Chairman, LEON HAppEtt, California, Vice Chairman. Rocers KEeuey, Tezas, Vice Chairman. The New England Shoe and Leather In- dustry Hurt by Tariff Reductions REMARKS oF HON. EDITH NOURSE ROGERS OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, June 7, 1950 Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the situation regarding im- ports, while it affects us particularly in New England, also affects other sections of the country and makes me urge pas- sage of the resolution which I introduced (CH. Res. 564) which would provide that a committee of five Members of the House of Representatives be sent to Tor- quay, England, to sit in and advise those who are deciding what the tariff shall be under the reciprocal trade agree- ments. I think it is extremely important that we send our Members over there; other countries have sent observers and ad- visers. The United States today, in my opinion, has the most to lose by the low- ering of the tariffs. Some of our indus- tries in New England will have to go A4259 cut of business, Mr. Speaker, if aid is not given. As part of my remarks, I include a letter I received from the New England Shoe and Leather Association, dated June 2 of this year, and a letter dated June 6, 1950, which I received from the Acting Commissioner of Customs, con- cerning dumping of shoes from Czecho- slovakia: New ENGLAND SHOE AND LEATHER ASSOCIATION, Boston, Mass., June 2, 1950. Hon, Eprrz Nourse Rocsrs, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dear CONGRESSWOMAN RoceErs: In behalf of our association and members in the shoe, leather and allied trades, we commend you for your forthright action, with other New England Representatives, i. writing Secretary of State Dean Acheson requesting that present uncertainties of manufacturers as to future tariff reductions which might be ap- proved by the Committee for Reciprocity information be alleviated. We also wish to bring to your personal at- tention the position of our association with respect to proposed reductions in shoe and leather tariff duties. In the case of shoes, although many items are included for reduc- tions in rates, none of these types are in serlous competition with domestic produc- tion and retail sales, and our association, therefore, does not plan to enter any opposi- tion. The types of shoes currently being im- ported, namely women’s cemented and men’s welt shoes, are not included in the lists for tariff reductions, However, in the case of leather items, our association strongly endorses the position of the Tanners’ Council of America against any further reductions in United States tariff rates. Our association takes the position that the shoe as well as the leather branch of our industry has been injured by discrimi- natory and unfair trade practices abroad. Cuts in the low United States leather tariffs will not help foreign trade and will only en- courage the restrictive foreign controls and obstacles that have prevented New England tanners from getting foreign raw material. Our association has today advised the Committee for Reciprocity Information of its opposition to any further reductions in United States tariff duties on leathers. Your support of this industry position, in behalf of your constituents, will be greatly appreci- ated by our officers and members. Very sincerely yours, MaxwE.. Fre.p, Executive Vice President. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, Washington, June 6, 1950 Hon. Epirm Nourse Rocers, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. My Dear MrS, ROGERS: Reference is made to your letter dated March 29, 1950, trans- mitting a letter from the New England Shoe and Leather Association, requesting that an investigation be conducted of the possible dumping, under the Antidumping Act, 1921, of shoes from Czechoslovakia. The Bureau has ordered various investiga- tions with respect to Czechoslovakian-made women’s shoes to determine whether the pro- visions of the Antidumping Act, 1921, should be invoked. In view of the facts developed, the settle- ment of customs duties on women’s shoes from Czechoslovakia is being suspended, and such shoes are being released to importers only if they post special bonds to protect the revenue pending a determination of whether
A4260 any special dumping duties are assessable on such shoes under the law. - As numerous letters have been received by the Bureau directly from the New England Shoe and Leather Association, that organiza- tion has been furnished the above informa~ tion directly by the Bureau. Very truly yours, D. B. STRUBINGER, Acting Commissioner of Customs. Ohio Canned Foods REMARKS oF HON. JOHN McSWEENEY OF OHIO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, June 7, 1950 Mr. McSWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, each of us has a distinct pride in his own State. At this time I would like to call the attention of the House to the fact that Ohio, among its diversified indus- tries, has a great canning industry, which is doing everything to provide better and finer foods for our people. Thursday some of my fellow citizens of Ohio are here to help in the dedication of a building which is devoted almost entirely to the study of means for the improvement of foods and the better- ment of canning processes for our peo- ple. In these times of high food pro- duction improved canning methods are very essential in order to cut down waste and at the same time retain not only the nutritious value of the food but also its full natural flavor. To prove that we do have very fine foods the Ohio canners have donated two delicious products, tomatoes and sauerkraut, which will be served tomorrow. Weare asking you to participate at your luncheon with us in having some Ohio prepared canned foods. So I, as a Representative from Ohio, urge you please not to forget that on the menu tomorrow there will be something from Ohio for you at your luncheon. Itisa gift from the canners of Ohio. Oxto CANNED Foops OHIO CANNED FOOD ON CAPITOL MENU DAY, JUNE 8, 1950 A brief history of the canning industry in Ohio follows: More than 100 canning plants are operated in Ohio, and upward of 50 different canned vegetable, fruit, and specialty products, from applesauce to turtle soup, are produced by these canneries with an annual pack close to 5,000,000 cases valued at over $15,000,000. Canning plants have sometimes been de- scribed as large community kitchens where growers of perishable crops find a ready cash market for their crops, and local house- wives and other workers find seasonal em- ployment. Ohio farmers produce for pro- cessing almost a half million tons of vege- tables and fruits from over 75,000 acres, and for which the canners pay about $8,000,000 annually. .And some 15,000 in-plant workers and 10,000 field workers are paid wages of from $5,000,000 to $6,000,000 each year by the canners of Ohio. Not only does Ohio produce a large quan- tity of canned foods, but the quality, too, is outstanding. Ohio’s tomatoes and tomato products are among the very best, as is its sweet corn, its sauerkraut, and its pickles. Proof of the exceptional quality to be found here is that many of the world’s leading food processing companies maintain large process- ing plants in Ohio. THE OHIO CANNERS ASSOCIATION The association was organized 43 years ago at a meeting in Columbus, Ohio, July 18, 1907, called for that purpose by Frank E. Gorrell, the then secretary of the National Canners Association. During the interven- ing years, the association has grown from very modest beginnings into an organiza= tion comprised of more than 70 members, large and small, including all but a very few of the canning establishments located in the State. THE NATIONAL CANNERS ASSOCIATION It is of special significance that on June 8, 1950, several Ohio canners will be in Washington to witness and take part in the dedication ceremonies of the new $1,000,000 research and administration building of the National Canners Association. This build- ing is the culmination of many years of planning and study by the canners of the Nation, and was built to fulfill the needs of this industry for continued research to better supply the people of this country with whole- some, nutritious, economical foods, conven- iently packaged, and readily available. OHIO CANNED FOOD ON CAPITOL MENU Ohio canners are pleased.to give Senators and Representatives from all sections of the United States the opportunity to enjoy the fine quality of Ohio’s canned foods. There- fore, they have supplied the tomatoes and sauerkraut that are being served Thursday, June 8, in both the Senate and House Restaurants. Ln Liberty or License, by Lloyd T. Binford, Chairman, Board of Censors, City of Memphis, Tenn. EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. JOHN E. RANKIN OF MISSISSIPPI IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, June 5, 1950 Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, if we do not protect our children from the evil influences which the Communists and their fellow travelers are trying to spread before their eyes and drum into their ears, then we may expect to see our country dragged down to destruction. _An article appeared in Collier’s maga- zine on May 6, 1950, entitled, “You Can’t See That Movie,” in reply to which Hon. Lloyd T. Binford, chairman of the board of censors of the city of Memphis, Tenn., in a letter to that magazine on May 30, 1950, said: May 30, 1950. The Eprror, CoLirer’s MAGAZINE, New York, N. Y. Dear Sir: In the article in your issue of May 6, You Can't See That Movie, Mr. Velie assumes, Without citing his authority, that censorship is an infringement on the rights and privileges of a discerning public regard- less of any State or city ordinance which created such censor board. The Mempis Board of Censors is not a volitient council but a judicial body author- ized by a syecial act of the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, under which the city of Memphis enacted an ordinance pro~ hibiting “immoral, lewd, or lascivious pic- tures” or “pictures which are inimical to public safety, health, morals, or welfare.” The ordinance provides that the chairman and two members of said board shall be the APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD judges, with one vote each, who shall fulfill their oaths of office by banning all movies or acts which violate the laws of the city of Memphis. The functior. of the Memphis Censor Board has been to carry out the purpose and spirit of the city ordinance. The members of the board, individually and as a board, have con- sistently endeavored to be just in their inter- pretation of the city ordinance, so as to give to the public desirable and acceptable enter- tainment. The board has never censored a picture because of Negro actors, and have certainly never censored an all-Negro cast, but it has censored pictures where Negroes take roles which are not consistent with our policy of segregation in the South. Rochester starred here recently in an all- Negro stage play and with Lena Horne in Cabin in the Sky. Lena Horne starred also in Stormy Weather at Loew’s State Theater. In the movie Curley the censor was not due to Negro and white children playing to- gether but because the Negro was in a white school—a condition that does not exist in the South. The board censors picvures in which out- laws such as Dillinger, the Daltons, and James brothers are glamorized, because chil. dren are apt to make heroes of them. Your riagazine article does not attempt to cefend Duel in the Sun and numerous other immoral, lewd, and lascivious pictures panned by this board. Anent its invectives on typewriters, hair-do, office, and octogenar- jans, I might remind your writer that some of the most brilliant minds at present and in the past history of America and England or, in fact, the world, are or were octoge- narians. The chairrian is duly sensible to the scorn and ridicule of his devotion to those timely virtues of morality and decency, which ac- counts for his aversion to exhibitions and performances which are profancly vulgar, im- moral, or obscene, regardle.s of the distin- guished dramatic ability of the performers, and he cannot agree with those who regard such as desirable entertainment or a eredit tu dramatic art, and sincerely regrets that he coes not merit the accusation of being puritanic, accepting Webster’s definition of such. But this may be a matter of no con- cern to those who apparenily believe there should be no laws requiring decency and morality in public entertainment. I am enclosing an article entitled “Liberty or License,” which sets forth my ideas on censorship. ‘You are free to use any or all parts of this if you so desire. Yours very truly, Luoxyp T. Bryrorp, Chairman, Memphis Boaru of Censors. With the foregoing letter Mr, Binford enclosed a copy of his article entitled “Liberty or License,’ which every patri- otic American, and especially every Christian American, ought to read. I am inserting it at this point. The article referred to follows: Lrserry or License (By Lloyd T. Binford, chairman, Memphis Board of Censors) Is censorship liberty or license; an in- fringement upon the rights and privileges of a discerning public, or a lawful restric- tion of public exhibitions and performances which are immoral, lewd, or lascivious, or those based upon stories of adultery and murder, or which glamorize gangsters and their way of life? Edmund Burke, the great English states- man and philosopher, declared: “Men are qualified for civil liberties in exact propor- tions to their disposition to put chains on their own appetites; in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption; in pro- portion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in pref-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD erence to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon the will and appetite is placed somewhere; and the less of 1t there 1s within, the more there must be of it without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of untemperate habits cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetiers.” Many of the leaders of the motion-picture industry of Hollywood have proved them- selves incapable or unwilling of putting choins on their own eppetites They have shown themselves to be lacking in soundness and sobriety of understanding. They steadily have become mole vain and pre- sumptuous, and they have scorned the coun- sels of the wise and the good—the cleigy, the educators, the social- and civic-minded citizens. So, instead of constantly whining about laws adopted to curb their destructive, ma- licious activities and making personal at- tacks on those selected by the people to cen- sor their revert s-= they would do well to examine “.c.e°* -, then curb their own passions which have, and which are, forging their fetters, All good Americans believe in liberty, but when individuals or groups confuse liberty and lcense, as the leaders of Hollywood have done, then do all good Americans believe that laws should be passed, or arrangements be made, to curb the activities of such indi- viduals or groups. Liberty is privilege. License is abuse of privilege. Liberty is freedom from domina- tion. License is a reckless doing of all that eaprice or passion may choose to do. Liberty is a sweel power of personal choice. License is a nasty disregard of propriety. There are those who control the Hollywood motlon-picture industry and have abused piiviluge. They have shown a nasty disre- gard for propriety. More—because of their rapacity tor money and power, they have commerclallzed vice, they have publicized perversion, avd they have glamorized crime and in smoraliy—ce.ereracy in all of its ugly forins——until more and more empty seats in the theaters sre more vividly revealing the indignation of those upon whom they, for far, far too long a time, have been inflicting their indecencles. Which is it to be for the gentlemen of Hollywood: liberty or license? Are they going to control their own, evi- dently abnormal appetites? Are they going to down their own vanityivd¢ vresers aie. noss? Are they going tore sy ter Cree garding p'cpr.e.y, Msten to the counsels of at least some or the wise and good, and enjoy frecdom from domination, the sweet power of rersonsl choice and the steady clicking of ..: ce tut. machines in the box offices of the wou Or are they going to ignore the handwriting on the wall, continue to permit their passions to rule thelr minds and have more and more legal restrictions placed on thelr industry, more and more censorship imposed on thelr productions, with the pub- lic staying away from their theaters in ever- increasing numbers? The decision in this matter is not up to lawmakers. Itis not up tocensors. It is not up to citizens. In the long run, it is up to the Hollywood producers, themselves; for those who really desire to enjoy self-govern- ment, must first learn to govern self. The great American banking system oper- ates under controls. Censorship in action? Yes. The medical profession has its legal curbs, as well as its own intermedical code of honor—the hippocratic oath. Censorship in action? Of course. The legal fraternity is subject to strict rules and ethics of beha- vior, Censorship in action? Certainly. The great American free press is prohibited from printing and distributing Mbelous, salacious, or okscene matter. Censorship in action? By all means. The Federal Communications Commission maintains strict vigilance over the business of broadcasting. Censorship In action? Every bit of it, Why, then, should not this powerful motion-picture industry, the mighty influence of which 1s felt all around the earth, be subjected to checks in the good, old American way? Why do leaders of this financial octopus, this immense propaganda machine, wail so loudly when the suggestion 1s made that they clean house, get r.d and stay rid of the Com- munists, and the marijuana addicts, and drunks, and libertines, and others of such ilk, and discontinue producing films which give the people of other lands a warped pic- ture of our land and distort the sense of valu.s and corrupt the impressive minds of the youth of all lands? is there some mysterious reason why leaders of Hollywood should ke permitted to ignore our American laws, our American principles, our American traditions, and dis- regard the proprieties of our many millions of Christian citizens? If there 1s, it is time we found out about it. Is not moral turpitude just as odoriferous in Hollywood as it is anywhere on earth? Is it not more far-reaching 1n its effect on oth- ers, due to the wide publicity given it by box-office-conscious advertising men, and money-hungry studio executives who labor under the false impression that maggots can successfully be used, forever, as magnets? Is it not significant that sroups have been formed all over this country, as well as in many foreign countries, to combat the evils of Hotrrrc-4, ied representatives from such «7 t+ 7: * +31 uv Cathohe Legion of Decency, the preview divisions of many churches, the Parent-Teachers Association, the Professional Women’s Clubs, the Univer- sity Women’s Clubs, the Y. W. C. A,, the D. A. R. and many other constructive groups? Is it too much to ask that historical pic- tures be historically correct? Is it too much to ask that no finger of derision be pointed at any religion? Is it too much to ask that no stones be cast at such things as moderation, temper- ance, fidelity, and other virtues? Is it too much to request that no disre- spect of law and order and of our American form of government be shown? Is it too much to expect of the big brains of Hollywood that they show at least a glim- mer of understanding of sectional and con- troveisial problems, then portray them fairly and honestly? Is it too much to demand that such sub- jects as marriage and family life be treated with due dignity in order that their bonds may be respected and strengthened? Is 16 too much to demand that fatherhood, motherhood, citizenship and patriotism be held in the high csteem such things should warrant? Many of the policy-makers of Hollywood look down upon the millions who view their pictures as uneducated morons with the undeveloped mentalities of early teen-agers. But millions of us who were not able, when young, to go to college, have learned in the tough school of experience that one doesn’t have to possess a doctor of philosophy to be a@ wise dad. Nor does it take a master of arts to be an excellent mom. And we know the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, liberty and license, things about which many of the leaders of Hollywood’s motion picture industry seem to be tragically confused. On May 8, 1950, at Santa Cruz, Calif, Dr. c. C. Trillingham, superintendent of the Los Angeles County Schools, speaking before the opening session of the annual conven-~ tion of the California Congress of Parents and Teachers, had this to say: “Decent citi- zens and their children have been, for en- tirely too long, the victims of those who, operating under the guise of freedom and democracy, have been permitted to sell any- thing, print anything, show anything, the result is increased lawlessness.” A4261 Dr. Trillingham declared that “suggestive and salacious literature, movies, the radio and televisicn shows that portray crime and violence, and debase family life, are evils that threaten children and youth” and he further spoke of those “unwholesome influences” at the r-* ¢* “eit termed a long hair. Ac. . ‘child welfare of the League of Nations analyzed 250 Hollywood-made films and found them—97 murders, 51 cases of aduitery, 19 seductions, 22 abductions, 45 suicides; of the characters in these 250 Holly- wood-made films, there were 176 thieves, 25 prostitutes, and 35 drunkards. Censorship is the guardian of children. Censership is the officer of the law who protects those endangered by unfortunates gone berserk. Censorship is the health officer to arrest and control contagion. Censorship is the conscience of the peo- ple, operating in America’s constructive sys- tem of checks and balances, to check the spreading of lust and licentiousness, de- stroyers of homes and nations as well as individuals. If the mction picture industrialists wish to avoid annoyance from lawmakers, censors, and citizens alike, they should discontinue the production of pictures that annoy all who believe in decency and are opposed to degradation. It is up to them to make a choice Which is it to be, gentlemen, liberty or license? Maintenance of Peace in the Near East EXTENSION OF REMARKS Or HON. EDITH NOURSE ROGERS OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, June 7, 1950 Mrs. ROGERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my re- marks in the Recorp, I include the fol- lowing letter and statements: Tue Wirt Houses, Washington, June 1, 1950, Hon. Epire Nourse Rocsrs, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Drar Mrs. Rocers: The President has re- received your letter of May 22, enclosing copies of telegrams addressed to you by Mr. James Cantor, president of Lowell United Jewish Appeal, Lowell, Mass., and Mr. Edward. Ziskind, president of the Lowell Hebrew Community Center, Lowell, Mass. By direction of the President, Iam sending you herewith, with the thought that you may wish to pass them on to your constitu- ents, the enclosed copies of a joint declara- tion by the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, as well as copies of a statement by the Presi- dent. Very sincerely yours, MartHew J. CONNELLY, Secretary to the President. STATEMENT BY THE VRESIDENT During the recent meeting in London, the Foreign Ministers of the United States, the United Kingdom, and France had an oppor- tunity to review the security and armaments situation in the Near East and to consider what action their Governments might take to provide greater stability in the drea. Asa result of this consultation, a three-power declaration is being issued. This is another of the many valuable results of the London meeting. The participation of the United States Government in the declaration emphasizes
AA4262 this country’s desire to promote the main- tenance of peace in the Near East. It is the belief of the United States Government that the declaration will stimulate, in the Arab States and Israel, increased confidence in future security, thus accelerating the pro- gress now being made in the Near East and contributing tcward the well-being of the peoples there. JOINT DECLARATION BY THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE UNITED STatTts, THE UNITED Kinepom, AND FRANCE The Governments of the United Kingdom, France and the United States today issued the following Joint Declaration: “The Governments of the United King- dom, France, and the United States, having had oceasion during the recent Foreign Min- isters’ meeting 1n London to review certain questions affecting the peace and stability of the Arab states and of Israel, and particu~ larly that of the supply of arms and war material to these states, have resolved to make the following statements: “1. The three Governments recognized that the Arab states and Israel all need to maintain a certain level of armed forces for the purposes of assuring their internal se- curity and their legitimate self-defense and to permit them to play their part in the de- fense of the area as a whole. All applica- tions for arms or war material for these countries will be considered in the light of these principles. In this connection the three governments wish to recall and re- affirm the terms of the statements made by their representatives on the Security Council on August 4, 1949, in which they declared their opposition to the development of an arms race between the Arab states and Israel. “9, The three governments declare that assurances have been received from all the states in question, to which they permit arms to be supplied from their countries, that the purchasing state does not intend to undertake any act of aggression against any other state. Similar assurances will be requested from any other state in the area to which they permit arms to be supplied in the future. “3. The three governments take this op- portunity of declaring their deep interest in and their desire to promote the establish- ment and maintenance of peace and sta- bility in the area and their unalterable op- position to the use of force or threat of force between any of the states in that area. The three governments, should they find that any of these states was preparing to violate frontiers or armistice lines, would, consistently with their obligations as mem~ bers of the United Nations, immediately take action, both within and outside the Unéted Nations, to prevent such violation.” Nothing But Victories EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WAYNE L. HAYS OF OHIO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, June 7, 1950 Mr. HAYS of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am including in the extension of my re- marks an editorial from the Christian Science Monitor for Tuesday, June 6, which I think is an outstanding expres- sion of the concept of American phi- losophy: NoTHING BuT VICTORIES Too many Americans are acting as if they were afraid of their shadows. One would never suspect they were the sons of pilgrims and pioneers. At a time when the United States has become the most powerful Nation in history millions of its citizens are think- ing defensively. They appear obsessed with security—seeking it almost wholly in mate- yial measures, military and economic. In this atmosphere General Marshall’s exhorta- tion to fear no “contest of ideas’ is welcome. In these times of cold-war tension it is easy to oversimplify the basic struggle in the world. On the diplomatic front it is visibly a power contest between the Soviet and the United States. But that is only the narrow- est aspect. There is a larger contest be- tween the ideas of tyranny and freedom. And beyond that is an even more pasic strug- gle between atheism and religion, between material and spiritual concepts of man. General Marshall was endeavoring to widen our view of the task in hand when he said that the world’s great need is for spiritual regeneration. The temptation continually is to use mate- rial means to combat ideas. In the present stage of mankind’s thinking, self-defense requires physical preparedness. But this distinguished soldier was urging Americans not to place complete dependence on mili- tary and material power. He reminded them that in any contest of ideas, honesty, free- dom, equality under law, tolerance and jus- tice will win. It would be helpful to remember that these ideas have proved revolutionary time and time again. It would be useful to re- call that America has long been an arsenal of inspiration. And what the world needs far more than it needs American money, ma- chines, or atomic bombs is fresh inspira- tion. It can get inspiration from America only if Americans get back to first prin- ciples and trust the ideas that have been the Nation’s foundation stones. Too much of the world sees 77"**!e." ccwurticr, crime, vulgar movies, teei) Gare ae en indus- trial strife, and boastful, iniolerant nation- alism as America’s chief products. These, too, are subversives. General Mar- shall pointed out that communism is only one of the ferments in the world which are challenging Americans today. He appealed for a wider regard for oppressed peoples and new visions which will kindle the imagina- tion. That compassion and those visions will find their firmest base in religion’s in- spiration. Let Americans trust the dynamic power of free ideas. Let them recall Wendell Phil- lips’ assurance: “Whether in chains or in laurels, Liberty knows nothing but victories.” Of course, that confidence comes from spiritual concepts of liberty. Today the re- ligious fundamentals for those concepts are more widely available than ever. Know- ing that, who can doubt that the future lies with those who embrace and practice the ideas of freedom and brotherhood? These grow from what Longfellow called the larger thought of God. A Wrong Foreign Policy in China and the Far East EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. LAWRENCE H. SMITH OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, June 7, 1950 Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I am including as part of my remarks a paper given by Mr. William Albert Harbison before the White Plains, N. Y.. Chamber of Commerce, on April APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 29, 1950. I commend it to all Members who are interested in what our forcign policy has been in China and the Far Hast: ; Our Fosrrcn Poticy Witn REFERENCE TO CHINA AND THE Far East Very gravely we are siluated today with a state of affairs more serious than confronted America prior to the Second World War. There are many educators and persons in high places, politically speaking, who today stand for appeasement, taking matters phil- cenvhically and going so far as to think that to. «7h tw «© Communists have . 2.77.) 7 substantial to add to present-day, ¢° 2. - tion and that we should not be too much concerned about the apparent aggression of the one political totalitarian power about which very much of world thought is now concentiated. We do have our Lattimores, our Services, our Leighton Stewarts, our formier Joe Stil- wells, our Henry Wallaces, and others of the same type as Philip Jessup, who at the recent conference at Bargkok advised his hearers that they had nothing to fear in commu- nism. Jessup’s apparent meaning was not that there was no danger of the infiltration or invasion by Chine or Russia of Indonesia and Indochina but that even should it occur there should be no fear of communism it- self. Perhaps from the standpoint of those who have not the evangelical faith as a basis of their convictions, whether Protestant or Catholic, there is some ground for their position. However, we are speaking from the stand- point of an American citizen who thinks of his country with institutions founded largely on a fundamental Christian basis, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant. We think in terms of the categorical and ontological dif- ference betwee. the heart of communism and the heart of the Christian faith. We think in terms of products and byproducts that emanate from these two fundamentally different positions. If the Government of communistic Soviet Russia was something else than a totall- tarian regime and if Marxian communism was not in its essence the inspiring basis of totalitarian aggression in the carrying out of its pattern of life, the western nations would not have the same cause for concern. It is well known by all parties today, how- ever, that we are dealing with just such a totalitarian enemy to Christian civilization. For over 100 years the representatives of the Christian faith, whether Protestant or Cath- olic, from Great Britain and the United States have carried on in China and in the Far East, As a corollary to the work and propagation of the Bible and Christian faith by these representatives Gen. Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang in China promulgated a constitution for the Chinese people in 1946 that went far beyond the expectations of the Communists in the northern part of the country. The Communists accepted the plan but when they discovered, under it, they would have to give up their military control in northern China they resumed hostilities against the Nationalist Government. In final answer to the smear campaign earried on by the leftists in America and abroad against Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang, it can be said, without refuta~ tion, that there was free access to all parts of China, under the Nationalist regime, for representatives of the American and British Bible Societies, the Pocket Testament League, the American and British Leprosy Missions and the missionaries of both the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches, whereas within any territory controlled by the Con:munists such representatives were threatened, imprisoned, and put to death. The United States has had an over-all for- eign policy eminently portrayed by such outstanding Secretaries of State as Hav.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Stimson, Root, Hull, and Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Republi- cans and Democrats alike they stood for the open door in China and for the integrity of that great country. At the close of the Boxer Rebellion in China, brilliantly exemplifying American policy, Secretary Hay alone among the four nations involved retused to accept payment for the lives of our nationals. He accepted $800,000 in property damage but turned back $11,000,000 of indemnity funds with the state- ment that 1t was impossible for China to pay for the lives of our citizens—they were invaluable. China on her part accepted the returned money as an act of friendship and with the proceeds until the money was exhausted sent her students over to the United States to be educated in our Christian colleges and State universities, Secretary Stimson, before the first inva- sion of Manchuria by the Japanese, endeav- ored to get Great Britain to unite with us in opposing Japan’s entering Manchuria. Unfortunately England, enjoying a lucrative commercial treaty with Japan, refused to join hands with the United States and Sec- retary Stimson did not feel justified with the weak condition of our own Army and Navy at that time in risking, single-handed, war with Japan. Unfortunately during the Franklin Roose- velt administration our country went so far in its leanings and sympathies toward com- munism, with special reference to its leader- ship, that the representatives of our country in China were almost all those who favored the communistic regime as opposed to the Kuomintang and Gen. Chiang Kai-shek, It was entircly possible had the leader- ship been different and had the United States unequivocally backed the Nationalist Government vith linave:al support during the past 3 or 4 years under the administra- tion of a strong military staff and civilian committee cooperating with Gen. Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang, Manchuria could have been held, the industrial center and source of raw materials for all its indus- try, and all China could have been retained under what would have eventually become representative government in that great country. Many warning voices and the advice of such leaders as General MacArthur, General Chennault, General Wedemeyer, Congress- man Judd, long a missionary in China, Am- bassador Bullitt, Admiral Radford, and others advocated the policy above outlined, but were not in a position to put it into effect because of the then leadership in Washington and the type of representatives sent out from there to China and the Far East. Through the failure of the United States, to all intents and purposes, China has been lost to a totalitarian regime under the direct dominance of Soviet Russia. That domi- nance is clearly depicted in the disclosure in the March issue of the Atlantic Monthly made by Nora Waln in the article on Young China at the Crossroads, In this article is a reported disclosure of the Harbin secret agreemont concerning Manchuria made he- tween Sovict Russia and the Chinese Com- munists. : The forced confession by physical duress of an innocent employee of our Embassy in IWungary and the still more recent shooting down of an unarmed plane of the United States over the Baltic are only up to date accumulating evidence of the outlaw char- acter of the government that we are dealing with in Soviet Russia. The British Intelligence Digest published by Kenneth de Courcy in London, Toronto, and New York in its April 1950 issue calls attention to the fact that what the Christian church of all creeds and interpretations has been predicting for 2,000 years as to the end of the present dispensation, scientists them- selves are now stating. Einstein’s warning, although discounted by de Courcy, is that the human race may wipe iiself out with the hydrogen bomb. At length the present administration through its Secretary of State has turned far away from its previous attitude as de- picted above in China and speaks out for a total diplomacy and the reply of Dean Ache- son to the dastardly shooting down of 10 Americans in an unarmed plane would ap- pear to indicate that today we have the ke- ginnings of a bipartisan and unequivocal approach to our foreign policy. Surely past history indicates that we should not recognize Communist China nor permit its entrance to the United Nations and the displacement of the Chinese Na- tionalists there. Under total diplomacy past history would further emphasize the strategic importance of giving every support including military aid to Gen. Chiang Kai-shek in his last stand on Formosa and his backing of guerrilla war- fare against the enslavement of Chinese cit~ izens in China proper. There is every logical reason why the west- ern nations should say thus far and no farther to totalitarian aggression and, with- out declaring war, stop with force, and push back all such aggression. Total diplomacy will logically include im- mediate demands for release of all Ameri- cans behind the iron curtain in either Rus- sia or China or their satellites and the neces- sary steps taken to accomplish this whether by force or otherwise, all with a benign pur- pose and without a declaration of war. Total diplomacy will ultimately require severing diplomatic relationship with Soviet Russia and the recognition of all Commu- nist totalitarian powers as anti-Cod and outlaw governments. Department of Agriculture’s Highest Award Goes to Woman for First Time EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. MELVIN PRICE Or ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, June 7, 1950 Mr. PRICE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rxcorp, I include herewith an article on Miss Lucy Maclay Alexander, formerly of Belle- ville, Ill, in my congressional district which appeared in the May 31, 1950 issue of Pathfinder. Miss Alexander on May 25, 1950, received frcm the United States Department of Agriculture its Distin- guished Service Award—the highest of its annual employee citations and the first to be awarded to a woman. A brother of Miss Alexander, Mr. Robert P. Alexander, resides in Belleville at 615 South Jackson Street: Tue Lapy Knows MgatT Little, precise, gray-haired Lucy Maclay Alexander has cooked or supervised the cook- ing of what would add up to a mountain of meat—some 2,900 cuts of beef, 3,800 cuts of lamb, 1,700 cuts of pork, 900 turkeys and 300 chickens. Because of this enormous cooking project, women all over the Nation today are cooking their family’s meat according to detailed, scientifically evolved recipes that didn’t exist 15 years ago. And for her contribution to it Miss Alexander this week received from the United States Department of Agriculture its Distinguished Service Award—the highest of AA4263 its annual employee citations and the first to be awarded to a woman. Miss Alexander, who grew up on an Illinois farm, came as a chemist to USDA $1 years ago. Then in 1926 she was transferred to the Department’s home economics research laboratories. There she started work on the how-to-produce-better-meat investigation in which three United States Department of Agriculture bureaus, 25 State experiment stations, and the National Livestock and Meat Board have participated. FALSE DOCTRINE Properly to judge the meat samples which came to the Bureau in Washington and to the 25 stations, it was necessary first to de- velop standardized cooking and testing meth- ods. By the time, seven years later, when these standards were published, the long- established idea that meats had to be seared to hold in their juices was well exploded. Work by Miss Alexander and other home economists had proved that cooking meats at low to moderate, instead of high tempera- tures, keeps protein tender, lessens shrink-= age and holds in juices. Cooking teachers accordingly began to change their tune. Cookbooks started giving temperature and time directions for cooking meats based on the type, cut, weight and degree of done- ness desired. Miss Alexander and her staff themselves wrote seven recipe leafiets, the latest of which, Meat for Thrifty Meals (1942) has been ordered by more than a million people. All of the recipes in this leaflet call for low, constant temperatures. Though this method is convenient and saves fuel, it isn’t always better for all cuts of meat than on2 which combines high and low termperatures. When Miss Alexander does a roast at home in her Washington, D. C., apartment, she starts it with a sear. “You can have a sear and slow finish function at a low average temperature,” she says. HOW MUCH GRAVY? Her tests have shown that a 1214-pound rib roast, placed on a rack 1n an open pan, will shrink, after roasting five hours at a constant temperature of 250° F. to 1034 pounds. Roasted four hours, with a 20- minute start at 500° and a quick switch to 300° for the finish, it will cook down a half-pound more, to 1044 pounds. The first method produces a half-pound of pan drip- pings, the second, a pound—not a serious loss if the cook wants a lot of gravy and prefers a richer brown on her roast. BUSMAN’S HOLIDAY Currently Miss Alexander and her staff at the Beltsville, Md., labs are doing only “desk cooking’—paper work with some of their accumulated research data. Even this keeps her so busy that she doesn’t have much time for kitchen cooking at home. “Why,” she says, “baking a cake would be a luxury.” Fortunately, her own favorite meat dish is one that can be turned out in a hurry. It’s not a fancy one. To meat expert Lucy Alexander nothing tastes better than gound beef with cream gravy. Know Your Waterways EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. HENRY D. LARCADE, JR. OF LOUISIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, June 5, 1950 Mr. LARCADE. My. Speaker, under authority to extend my remarks in the Appendix of the Recorp, I wish to sub- mit an article from the Washington Post,
A4264 of even date, by the Marine News, New York, as follows: Know Your WaTERwAys—SHIP TO Rart~—Raiw to SHIP Except for the low cost of water transpor- tation, it would be impossible for railroads to obtain the volume of traffic that they do on combined water and rail or rail and water tonnage. In many cases the cost of such tonnage, if handled solely by railways, would be excessive or prohibitive. An example is the millions of tons of coal carried annually ‘py rail to ports on the Great Lakes and the ast coast for transshipment by water. A Jarge part of this tonnage is again handled by railways after its movements by water. And whence comes most of the vast tonnage Ccar- ried by railways from coastal and inland ports into the near and far interior of the Nation? It comes from vessels using the splendid system of harbors and waterways— coastal, Great Lakes, and inland—prepared by the Federal Government. Certain ton- nage is naturally the business of railroads or trucks, Other tonnage is naturally the Dpusiness of waterways and can be so trans- ported with great benefits to consumers at costs no other system can approach, Trouble-Shooter Diplomat EXTENSION OF REMARKS 5 HON. LOUIS B. HELLER OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, June 7, 1950 Mr. HELLER. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rrc- orD I include the following article from the New York Times magazine section for June 4, 1950: TROUBLE-SHOOTER DIPLOMAT (By Gertrude Samuels) WasHINGTON.—One of the great figures in Israel’s diplomacy—a new art for one of the world’s newest democracies—is a scholarly man who is now emerging as his country’s No. 1 diplomatic trouble shooter. He is Eliahu Elath, the new Israel Minister to the Court of St. James. Step by step since long before Israel was a state, Mr. Blath has been used to make Israel's story and hopes understood in stra- tegic areas of the world, For years he fought—sometimes single-handed—for un- derstanding with the Arabs in typically di- rect fashion—by living with them in the desert, studying with their leaders, building friendships. Always he was moved on to where trouble was brewing and leadership counted. With understanding and sound relations in Washington of prime impor- tance, he was sent here after the war. Be- sides dealing with the State Department, he represented Israel at the San Francisco Con~ ference—for which the Jews had no ecreden- tials—and fought her battle for recognition in the United Nations. Two years ago he became Israel’s first Am~ pbassador to the United States. Tomorrow he filles to London, which recently accorded Israel full recognition and has thus become a new focus of diplomatic effort because of Britain’s role and influence in the Middle East. If and when India recognizes Isracl, he is expected to move on to that post, be- cause of its strategic importance for Israel’s security. It seems likely that London will find him— as this capital has found him—unique both as a diplomat and as a person. The three- story house at 2210 Massachusetts Avenue where he set up his embassy 2 years ago is so modest as to be easily overlooked among the pretentious facades of Embassy Row. Its pleasant reception room with its simple blue furnishings and Star of David flag made visitors vaguely aware of contrasts between this bit of sovereign soil and the formality of the city without. Hebrew and English mingled in telephone conversations. Young men and women on their way to second- and third-floor offices and archives called each other by first names, an Israeli custom. A youth in his twenties wore a leather glove over his right “hand.” On the second floor where Mr, Elath had his own sparsely furnished office—decorated with pictures of President Weizmann and shelves of books on Islam, American politics and philosophy—one soon realized that the openness, warmth, and informality of the embassy must stex1 from Mr. Elath himself. It is now exactly 25 years since he went to Palestine as a student and laborer, having fled from Russia for illegal Zionist activi- ties. And visiting and interviewing him, you come to know a man of so many dimen- sions, so much faith in human relation- ships, and, above all, so much humility amid his success that you are forcibly reminded of other typical Israelis like Ben-Gurion and Lubianiker, who also rose from the ranks to fight for an idea—and win a state. The paradoxical thing about Mr. Elath (pronounced aye-lot’) is that for all his informality he looks like a diplomat. He is a tall, strikingly handsome man in his late forties, who dresses conservatively (unlike the starchless Ben-Gurion). His hair is silvering at the temples. His green eyes are meditative or restless as he speaks in East- ern European accents, with the savoir-faire of the scholar, puting fact beside fact with quiet precision. And as you observe his dealings with peo- ple, you are conscious of a deep sensitiveness that makes him—sociologist, teacher, jour- nalist, diplomat—acutely responsive to the challenges of his mission. There is, in his direct manner, the hard realism of all who have been part of Israel’s struggle and who view the road ahead without illusions. But there is also frank nostalgia when he talks of the objective closest to his heart—peace with Israel’s Arab neighbors. He has lived among the Arabs, knows them intimately and counts many as his friends, in the Middle East, in Washington, and in London. Perhaps better than any other Israeli diplo- mat, Mr. Elath symbolizes his country’s hopes. He was made to order for Washing- ton, Itis a lobbying city and he has a special genius for infighting—for getting the facts across systematically to individuals who count; for reaching, when the going is tough, the right people at the right moment. Be- sides, he has spent half his life studying the Arabs and tells you bluntly that the future of Israel depends on the destiny of the whole Middle East. “Our victory,” he says, “was more than the victory of 650,000 over 40,000,000—more than @ military achievement. It was the great victory of an idea—the readiness of self- sacrifice to the ideal that there is justice. There are few accidents in world history, and it isn’t an accident that the Jewish State was established. It was, let us say, a reward for the 650,000 because 6,000,000 Jews had perished in the Hitler epoch. It was a reward to show that the sacrifice of the Jews of Israel was not in vain. “Israel,” he continues, “must and will con- tribute to humanity and to its neighbors. It must be a democratic example for other mations to follow. Development schemes such as the Jordan Valley Authority will benefit the whole Middle East. “For although we have been almost de- stroyed by them, there is no bitterness in our hearts toward our neighbors,” he says. ‘We need peace because of our immigrants—we APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD must absorb them, give them homes, develop their skills, put all of our modern scientific achievements to industrial use, turn all our energies to development. “and we want peace because I believe, with my thinking Arab friends—and we are not sentimental or mystical—that we will all per- ish if the whole of the Middle East does not raise its standards of living. The danger to us is not so much from a second round (though we don't underestimate the danger from their potentates) as with our remain- ing a flourishing oasis in a decaying society.” There are few Arab leaders in Washington whom Elath didn’t know as fellow alumni of American University in Beirut, or as fellow journalists or as fellow statesmen in the Middle East. Bonds with his Arab friends have not been severed by political differences, He knows that their hopes are Israel’s hopes: that political democracy can become a real- ity in the Arab countries only through im- provement of social and economic conditions for the sick and illiterate masses; that educa- tion now limited to the few must reach the remotest villages in this transition from the camel to the atomic age; that instead of fighting Jews, they must turn their energies to fighting disease and starvation. And he quietly adds: “We don’t expect understanding and peace to come overnight. The Arab Goliath is angry with the Israeli David. But I believe in the cooperation of the Arabs—and if I didn’t sincerely believe this, I wouldn’t be- lieve that Israel has a chance in the Middle East.” To understand Mr. Elath’s objectives, you have to see him -within the context of his country’s needs and dreams; you have to un- derstand the philosophy which he brought to Washington before Israel was born, for that seemingly hopeless struggle to get tradition- alists in this Government to reconsider their thinking about Palestine. He was born Eliahu Epstein (he adopted the Hebrew name Elath recently) in the Ukraine in 1908 and fled illegally to Palestine in 1924 after spending a year in Jail for Zionist activities. Many friends of that gen- eration “are still in Siberia.” The young Epstein dug ditches, worked on Royal Air Force installations, tilled the soil of a new kibbutz. Suddenly, “a new world opened for me.” On installations being built at the Jordan-Saudi Arabia. border he came in touch with Arabs. As he watched with wonder and excite- ment, “the Blble became a Baedeker’’—cen- turies-old customs were still practiced. And he decided to stay on, to study their way of life, in particular that of the nomads or Bedouins, ‘‘because I realized that we'd have to know the Arabs for our own security, not only as politicians but as people.” When a new school of Oriental studies was opened at Hebrew University, he enrolled on his certificate from the University of Kiev, to specialize in Arab affairs. Here he met and married his wife, Zahava, who was also a student. From Judah Magnes, president of the uni- versity, he received his “greatest inspiration and encouragement” to go to live among the Arabs and study there, rather than at Oxford or the German universities, as was the cus- tom. Ona scholarship, he went to Syria and for 8 months he made his life with the Bedouins now living in their tents, now wandering with them in the wild desert, accepted as one of them, learning their language. ‘When later, he continued has studies on a Rockefeller Foundation fellowship at the American University in Beirut, he was the only Jew in a class of 20 Arabs (many of whom today hold diplomatic posts). He traveled to the hinterlands again, dressed as an Arab in desert robes and kefflyeh, aspiring “to do everything to build bridges instead of walls with our Arab neighbors.” From those
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD and earlier homadic wanderings came numer~ ous studies and two books The Bedouins, Their Life and Customs, and The Population of Transjordan. . From 1934, when he joined the Middle East Division of the Jewish Agency, until 1945, Mr. Elath spent half of his time travel- ing in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Arabia, Egypt—sys- tematically meeting their leaders, learning ther attitude toward Zionism. The most critical and dangerous part of his career began 5 years ago—in Washington. Alone, and with no status, Mr. Elath came @s an observer to the San Francisco Confer- ence and as director of the Jewish Agency office. He found himself “more isolated than in the Syrian desert.” It was difficult “just to obtain the noblesse oblige of officials.” He met people in the State Department who were actively hostile, conditioned by politi- cal and economic ties in the Middle East; people who opposed Zionism or who were ignorant about Palestine; people whose way of thinking was so fixed that they disliked change and, anyway, ‘never got out of line.” Knowing these things was “my greatest asset because it gave me no illusions.” He set about, not to quarrel with his critics but to educate; if not to change their attitudes, at least to improve them. Thus, as his friends recount, Mr. Elath came to be Known as definitely partisan, put as one who never lied or exaggerated. He might be “wrong” from where they stood; he was never wrong on facts. Doggedly, sys- tematically, he showed them his people’s shortcomings and mistakes—and also his people’s logic. He showed them where ter- rorism was against their cause and worse for the Jews than the Arabs. He made it clear that “we were not against the British but against the policy of the British Govern- ment, for had not the same generation that produced Bevin also produced Balfour and other great men like Cecil, Lloyd George, Churchill?” Above all, he clarified the Arab picture. He explained that the Jews’ return to the Middle Hast was a political renaissance— that they were not the enfants terribles of that part of the world, that they were not there to help themselves alone, or even as missionaries, but really to integrate them- selves with the Middle Hast, combining their eastern origins with western elements; that whatever the Jewish numbers, they would always remain a minority in the Middle East, and so would understandably seek relation- ships with their Arab neighbors. The past 2 years have brought the most dramatic fulfillment of Mr. Elath’s work and hopes. The first milestone came on May 14, 1948, when the Jews proclaimed their state in Tel Aviv. And the story of American recognition is now a classic. The White House called minutes after Tel Aviv’s an- nouncement to ask whether Mr. Elath was prepared to accept recognition for his Gov-~- ernment. Mr. Elath promptly said he was— though he had no time to refer to his home ‘Government for approval, nor did he even know its name. He rapidly wrote the letter of acceptance in the name of the “Jewish state,” suddenly heard what it was to be called over the radio, rewrote it to read “State of Israel.” A second milestone came with America’s $100,000,000 loan to the infant state—“be- cause material support means political sup- port and stronger confidence in us.” The third milestone was American support for Israel's admission to the United Nations. One of Mr. Elath’s most cherished papers is a handwritten note from a representative of an Arab state: “Mr. Epstein (Elath), I welcome you, my friend. I hope you will take part in our debates.” Greatest among the factors that Mr. Elath credits for these successes is the support of Americans of all faiths, who saw parallels with their own fight for independence, for survival and the building of a democracy. His associates in London will find that Mr. Elath follows a rigorous schedule. A vora- cious reader, his working day in Washington began at home with American and foreign newspapers. He reached the embassy by 9 o’clock, put through telephone or teletype calls to Israeli representatives in New York, Los Angeles, Lake Success, and sent tele- graphic dispatches to his home Government. On a typical day he would receive the press, other ambassadors and Aubrey Eban, Israeli’s delegate to the UN and successor to Mr, Elath as Ambassador to Washington. He would lunch with Methodist clergymen and talk off-the-cuff for an hour on the cre- ation and goals of his country (while they took copious notes). Then he would go over to the State Department for a conference with Middle East experts. Next there would be staff meetings of first secretaries and the commercial and military attachés (stepped up recently by concern over arms shipments to Arab countries). His dispatches are said to have been brilliantly knowledgeable (and, as his American-born secretary adds patient- ly, “they kept us late’). On his way home to his apartment at the Shoreham Hotel, he would make a hurried stop to buy records of some Bach sonatas. For dinner, he and Mrs. Elath, a vivacious woman who studies sculpting, might enter- tain another Ambassador and his wife, For all his popularity in Washington, Mr. Elath gave the impression of a lonely, rest- less person. He dislikes the pomp and crowds of semiocfficial cocktail gatherings (there is little of this in modern Israel), and chafes egainst formal social walls which shut out lower-echelon diplomats whom he also longs to know. His tastes are simple—he turned down a $50,000 gift from the Washington Jewish community for an embassy, in favor of giving the money to the United Jewish Appeal for new immigrants. Just as Mr. Elath was a unique figure in Washington, so his staff, which numbers 39, contrasted sharply with that of older em- bassies. The Israeli diplomats are mostly ‘young and have scen service with the British and Israel defense armies. But the business of running a new embassy without adequate- ly trained personnel often posed problems. The difficulty had been to find people trained in delicate diplomatic work, with broad knowledge of the whole of the Middle East as well as the American mentality. As he put it, “It’s not Madison Square Garden which makes public opinion but the hard work of knowing individual people who count.” The feeling has been that Israel is send- ing out too many untrained people from the kibbutzim (collectives), or strong chauvin- ists with the old feelings of intrigue. One solution, some feel, is to pick a legation like Rome where candidates for the foreign service may receive pilot training before be- ing sent on to such major powers as the United States. Devotion and zeal, they say, are fine, but they don’t make up for the lack of wrained diplomatic technicians. The road ahead for Mr. Elath in this third year of Israel’s independence is full of the challenge he thrives on—the test of full understanding with Britain, the critical problems of Jerusalem, of Israel's economic struggle, and, above all, the quest for a real peace. Ask him the outcome on these tests, and he'll tell you: “We're not out of the woods. But our program is strong and just. Since we cannot afford the luxury of being pessimistic about the Arabs, we can continue to strive for their understanding and cooper- ation. These differences will be straightened out.” Seeing how the moving finger has already written, it all seems possible. A4265 Commencement Address by Ambassador Henri Bonnet at Florida State Univer- sity EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. SPESSARD L. HOLLAND OF FLORIDA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, June 7, 1950 Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, on Monday, June 5, at Tallahassee, Fia., His Excellency, Henri Bonnet, Ambassa- dor of the French Republic, delivered a highly interesting, eloquent, and inspir- ing speech at the graduation exercises of the Florida State University. In view of the traditional and long- standing friendship existing between the French people and the people of the United States and the fact that the dis- tinguished ambassador included in his scholarly address several highly impor- tant observations on current world prob- lems, particularly those referring to western Europe and to the recent sig- nificant proposals of the French Foreign Minister to create a pool of the heavy industries of France and of Germany, I ask unanimous consent that the address of Ambassador Bonnet may be inserted in the Appendix of the Recorp. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Rrecorp, as follows: I fully appreciate the privilege of being today the guest of Florida State University and of addressing such a distinguished gath- ering of professors and students at the end of a year of fruitful work, and on the eve of a holiday, which, I hope, will be for all of you most restful and propitious to the ful- fillment of the wishes and projects you may have formed during months of study. It is also a great joy for me to pay a visit to this wonderful State upon which nature has be- stowed her most glorious gifts, both of re- sources and beauties, and which, in the early days of the European settlements, Jean Ribaut, from Dieppe, France, one of the first pioneers, called ‘‘the fairest, fruitfullest, and pleasantest of all the world.” It is a source of pride to all Frenchmen that their country- men were among the first to open that rich and lovely part of the United States to Euro- pean civilization, and that the names of Laudonniere and Ribaut are forever associ- ated with the history of Florida where, with their heroic Huguenot followers, they toiled, suffered, and died, thus writing one of the most inspiring pages of that epic which is the founding of the United States of America. What a great lesson of courage and faith— upon which we must still meditate today— was bequeathed to us by those early set- tlers in their struggle against man and nature. They had come to the shores of America animated by their deep love for free- dom of thought and religion, and at the same time, by a noble spirit of adventure, anxious to open new lands to western culture and spread their faith to the New World. They were motivated also by an unshakable con- fidence in the future and in the unlimited possibilities offered by this land to human valor and ingenuity. Their destiny symbol- izes the whole history of mankind, ever ad- vancing along the paths of progress, and de- spite destructions and tragedies, realizing new achievements, thus ultimately adding to the wealth of human victories over all Kinds of adverse forces and creating a world
A4266 which science, art, and research are enrich- ing still with their many accomplishments and brilliant promises for the future. What a great lesson of tolerance and coop- eration is also to be found here; how much faster and smoother would be the pace of progress were we wise enough to put aside the misunderstandings, quarrels, and feuds which stained with blood the early days of the pioneers on these shores as well as the whole history of mankind. We now live in an era in which the necessity of cooperation in every field of human endeavor is more than ever to be stressed. A striking evidence of this need can be found in your daily studies at this beautiful university. The days have long passed when the mind could almost entirely master the field of human knowledge. This does not mean, obviously, that the youths of today should not be given a solid and extensive foundation of learning before specializing in their chosen branches of activity, in order to enable them to play their parts intelligently in the life of modern society. That is the way to prepare youth to exercise that most enviable privilege of a useful citizen—independence of judgment; that is to say, the ability to think for him~ self without accepting biased or false ideas, But there is nowadays no branch of study or research which does not depend to a large extent on the work being accomplished in related fields; it is not only through the work of the past generations that the scholar of this day builds up his store of knowledge, but also through the inventions, achieve-~ ments, and discoveries of his colleagues, those active in other domains as well as in his own, It is a fact that today no problem can be solved, no construction work accomplished, without a close cooperation among men en-~ gaged in the most diversified activities. Indeed, cooperation should be the motto of the world today, and I believe that the ideal of understanding, of mutual coopera- tion, of combined effort toward a common high goal is more urgently needed in the do- main of international relations than any- where else. Here again we might recall the lessons given to us by the pioneers; unlim- ited possibilities and shining promises are offered to a world where new victories over the unknown are constantly being won; and yet, at the same time, we are all of us con- scious of the terrible impending dangers, of the destruction and devastation which might once again spread over the globe and sweep away, as would a tidal wave, most of the wonders accumulated in our lands through years of patient efforts. We must gird ourselves against such a threat, and, in a@ common and tenacious endeavor, build up a durable peace. As you are about to enjoy a well-deserved vacation, I should hate to be unable to give you a word of hope and of confidence. True, there are dangers, but I remain convinced that we can still preserve peace for the com- ing generations. Unfortunately, there is no magic formula enabling us to reach this ob- jective which, undoubtedly, corresponds to the longing of millions and millions of the people on earth. The hopes which all of us, after the terrible ordeal of the last war, had placed in international cooperation, have not been fulfilled. A deep distrust and a sharp division have developed in our contemporary world; we had hoped to ensure peace by com- mon agreement, by the establishment of a collective security, by the outlawing of war; this remains our goal—the goal of the United Nations. But, meanwhile, we have had to resort to the older system of armed peace, of the prevention of war by the creation of a superior force to deter any possible aggres- sion. At this point, fortunately, one finds a ray of hope. If we are not in a position to build at once a United Nations endowed with decisive powers, if we cannot ensure now the undisputed reign of mternational jaw, giving universal foundations to collec- tive security, we can, at least, and must, act efficiently and promptly in a more limited sphere, strongly organizing our Western World, as a means of maintaining universal peace. Our hope resis on the successfully growing cooperation among the democratic peoples who dwell on the shores of the Atlantic Ocean—a powerful association of na- tions, rich in their civilization and their natural resources, possessing the same faith in freedom, the same respect for the dignity of man, the same love for peaceful progress, all of them firmly determined to fight if necessary for the preservation of the liberties inherited from their forefathers, but all of them convinced also that they must strive jn every way possible to bring about honor- ably the blessings of world peace. That cooperation among the peoples of the Western World was still further strength- ened recently on the occasion of the inter- allied meetings held in London, You will allow me to say a few words here on one of the most promising developments of this last period, one which, it is true, directly concerns my country, but which also is most important to the future of the world. You have sometimes heard doubts expressed on the ability of old Europe to unite. One of the proclaimed purposes of the Marshall plan was to help the old Continent to link its various peoples more closely, both eco- nomically and politically. I believe that it is not an overstatement to say that one of the most serious obstacles to inter-European cooperation will be removed when the re- cent dramatic proposal of my Government for an industrial union between France and Germany is implemented, as I am fully con- fident it will be. We in Europe did not do soon enough what, at the end of the eighteenth century, your founding fathers did when they decided to federate their Thirteen Colonies. In the meantime the industrial revolution of the nineteenth century took place, adding ter- rific economic difficulties to the political reasons which prevented a federation of Eu- rope—a lengthy heritage of wars, rivalries, ambitions, and deep-seated feuds. It is not an easier task to remove custom barriers from around nations of forty to fifty million inhabitants than it would be to suppress them here in your prosperous United States, but there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that something must be done in that direction that Europe must become a big market open to a broader and more fruitful competition, mor is there any doubt that there is a popular longing in the Old World for such an achievement. The problem is, How to begin? I think a solution was of-~ fered a few days ago by the French Foreign Minister when he proposed to create a pool of the heavy industries of France and of Germany. I do not need to stress the polit- ical consequences of such a bold act. In the terms of the decision of the French Cabi- net, “it would make war not only unthink- able but materially impossible” between two nations who have been enemies for a thou- sand years. It required a great deal of cour- age on the part of the French Government to make such a decision when, in the last decade, our country had once again been invaded and bled white, and during four long and dark years, ruthlessly oppressed by the Nazis, What I especially want to emphasize today is that a new principle is involved in the proposed agreement which may lead to en- tirely different and promising developments in Europe—a principle which would amount, when, applied, to the curtailment of the sov- ereignty of the participating nations in the vital field of their economic lives. The pur- pose of this agreement is to put the coal APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD and steel industries of Germany, ‘France, and of other countries of western Europe, shoul they desire to join us, as we hope they will, under a common high authority composed of independent and well-qualified personali- ties, appointed by the member governments and endowed with real powers of decision for the development and modernization of pro- duction, the broadening of markets, the ex- pansion of exports, and the improvement of the standard of living of the industrial work- ers in the participating countries. The powers of the high authority would be de- fined by a treaty to be ratified by the Parlia- ments of France, Germany, and any other nation becoming a member of this new asso- ciation, and after those ratifications have been obtained the decisions of the high au-« thority would be binding on all the par- ticipants in this enterprise. It would be the first step toward a federation of Europe; it might very well change the entire course of history for the old continent, . It 1s worth noting that such an organiza- tion would differ vastly from the cartels which have, from time to time, been formed to prevent competition within a given indus~ try; first, because the new arrangements would be both public and subject to public control instead of being based on secret agreements, Second, because the proposed industrial union would be supervised by in- dependent appointees, defending the in- terests of all, instead of being administered by the representatives of vested interests. Finally, because the objective of this project would be to ensure the merging of markets, the expansion of production and of competi- tion in the international fleld, instead of exploiting exclusively national markets pro- tected by restrictive practices. These developments aim at the reinforces ment of the Atlantic community because, internationally as well as nationally, the strength of a society rests on the vigor of its component parts. On one side of the ocean, there is the most powerful nation of our con- temporary world, the United States of Amer~ ica; on the other side, we must recreate grad- ually a group of nations closely united and fully able to develop their immense poten- tialities. Only thus will we be in a position to build together a stronghold of peace. I am happy to add, as a tribute to the policy followed by your Government and by your Congress, that the bold decisions now in the making could not have been taken without the help so generously given by the United States through the Marshall plan, enabling the countries of western Europe to rebuild their economic systems and renew- ing in them the confidence so indispensable to the planning of a better future. There can be no better proof of, nor more prom- ising a reward for, the farsightedness of the policy of the United States toward her old and faithful allies of the Western World. Less than 3 months ago, I was in France, and I can assure you that the wonderful con- tribution of the American people to the re~, covery of my country is deeply and fully ap- preciated by the hard-working French citi- zens. You may also be assured that the com~ munity of ideals shared by the founders of our two Republics remain intact, and that the youth of France has the same aspira- tions and the same enthusiasm which it has often been my privilege to see and admire in the youth of America, Let me express the sincere wish that many of you, and I would like to say all of you, will visit Paris and France in the not-too- distant future, and that as many French stu- dents as possible will be able to come here to see with their own eyes the great achieve- ments of the American people, so that the close and lasting friendship between the United States and France will not only en- dure, but become more and more a dear and living reality for our two nations.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Against Recognition of Red China REMARKS HON. LAWRENCE H. SMITH OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, June 7, 1950 Mr. SMITH of Wisconsin. Mr. Speak- er, I hope that our Government will re- sist every cffort that is being made to recognize the Chinese Communist gov- ernment in the United Nations. On last Friday the Gallup poll reported that public sentiment is more than 2 to 1 against recognizing Red China. If we really want to contain communism here is a good place to start. Notwithstand- ing the report we have to date that both England and France are for recognition, let us take a different course and act in accordance with the sentiment of the people of this country. As part of my remarks I include the following Gallus poll: Pusuic SENTIMENT Mort THan 2 TO 1 AGAINST RECOGNIZING RED CHINA—VOTERS IN SURVEY Lanp Ines or Breartisan Pourcy, Bur Say We Do Nor Havre Suc Poricy Now (By Gsorge Gallup, director, American Insti- tule of Public Opinion) PRINCETON, N. J., June 1.—Although Brit- aia’s Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin is urging that Red China be given a seat on the UN, American attitudes toward the Chinese Com- munist regime are just as hostile as ever. The latest survey by the American Insti- tute of Public Opinion finds, for instance, that diplomatic recognition of the Chinese Reds by the American Government is op- posed by a vote of more than 2 to 1. The question of the relationship of western democracies to the Chinese Communist regime is the basis of the current impasse in the United Nations. Refusal to seat the Red delegation has caused Russia to boycott the major functions of the UN, bringing much of its work to a standstill. While Britain has been friendly to the Red regime, Washington has remained adamant in refusing to extend diplomatic recognition to the Peiping Government. To determine whether American public sentiment had changed any toward the Chinese regime, the Institute put the ques- tion of recognition before a representative cross-section of the voling population after testing people’s knowledge of developments in China. It was found that approximately two voters out of every three (65 percent) had a correct idea of how China is governed. (All of the China mainland is governed by a Com- munist regime. The island of Formosa is govorned by the Nationalists.) The second question was: “Do you think the United States should recognize the new government in China—that is, do you think we should send an ambassador and have dealings with this government in China?” The vote: Percent Favor recognition 16 Opposed .-2--. we 40 No opinion... ew eee eee ee 9 Total. one nnn nen ee ene nee 65 Not familiar with China situation-.--.. 35 Grand total... ane 100 A similar survey in November 1949 showed a ratio of 20 percent for recognition, 42 per- cent against. VIEWS ON BIPARTISAN POLICY The admunistration’s China policy has been singled out for attack by a great many Re- publican leaders. They argue that we might have been able to prevent the fall of China into Communist hands if we had followed a different policy, and that if Republicans had been consulted by the administration in dealing with the problem of China the out- come might have been different. Actually, some Republicans contend we have a bipartisan foreign policy in name only. They say that it consists mainly in inviting Republican leaders to approve poli- cies that have already been determined upon by the administration. So far as the general public is concerned, the term “‘bipartisan foreign policy” is little known. Only one voter in every four knows what the phrase means or refers to. This “informed” group of voters say al- mest unanimously that a bipartisan foreign policy is a good idea, but most of them de- clare that we do not have such a policy now. Republicans, especially, claim that we do not. Here are the findings in the Institute survey: “When you hear or read about the term ‘bipartisan foreign policy,’ what does that mean to you?” Percent Generally correct answers............. 26 Don't know and incorrect__-.----_---..- 14 The term refers to joint determination by Republican and Democratic leaders of our actions and policies in dealing with other countries. The 26 percent familiar with the term were asked: “Do you think it is a good idea or a poor idea to have a bipartisan foreign policy?” The vote: Percent Good idea. 2 ee 21 Fair or poor 3 2 Total ~~~ -----.---- 26 “Would you say that we now have a bi- partisan foreign policy, or not?” Here is the over-all vote and the vote by parties: Repuh-| Demo-| All licans | crats | voters Percent| Percent| Percent Yos; We 10... ---nneneneennnnee 10 rt) 9 No; we do not. 21 9 14 Don’t KNOW. 2. .nnenenennenene 3 3 3 SS ae 34 21 26, NM soos Weneenee 66 79 74 Total... .-.-enenannnee 100 100 100 United States Foreign Policy EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. EDWARD H. REES OF KANSAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, June 7, 1950 Mr. REES. Mr. Speaker, on May 23, the Honorable Alf M. Landon, of Kansas, delivered an impressive and informative address at the convocation of the College of Emporia in Emporia, Kans., on the subject, United States Foreign Policy. Mr. Landon, as you know, is a former Governor of the State of Kansas, and A4267 was the candidate for the Presidency on the Republican ticket in 1936. Mr, Landon has given a great deal of consideration and study to our interna- tional problems, His views on the United States foreign policy are worthy of the careful consideration of the Members of this House, as well as the public at large. Unirep STATES FoREIGN PoLicy Before embarking on his nonpolitical ex- cursion to the Northwest, President Truman told the American people that the inter- national situation was improving. That re- markable statement followed close on the heels of General Bradley’s words that the world crisis had worsened in the past few months. The coid facts support General Bradley. For that reason I cannot succumb to the easy temptation to speak only what people may like to hear. If our great Nation is to survive we must face up to uncomfortable facts. The plain truth of the matter is that we are drifting toward disaster and unless we radically change our course we may soon find ourselves over an abyss. The Soviet possession of the atomic bomb has completely altered our struggle for sur- vival. Today our situation is extreme. Within the next few years it can become hopeless. Atomic scientist Harold C. Urey has warned that the next 2 years could—and probably will—see the atomic lead of the United States effectively wiped out. Perhaps that ominous prediction inspired Secretary of State Acheson to set 1954 as essential completion date for the Atlantic pact military defenses. If the Soviets attain atomic equality and retain their present overwhelming superior- ity on land and their comfortable margin of superiority in tactical air power they will be able to play with us like a cat with a mouse. The march of events for the past 5 years is making nonsense of most of the American plans to contain Soviet aggression. Once the American people see our situa- tion in proper perspective they can be de- pended on to deal with it effectively. In the race for survival it is later than we dare think. We won World War II at tremendous cost, and lost the peace. The foundations of American security will be undermined in the months which lie ahead unless frank leadership requires our people to pay a still heavier price for their own survival. I need not dwell long on the facts of Soviet aggression, Soviet leaders have made it quite clear that they seek the complete destruction of the non-Communist world. Whenever possible they have adhered to these aims in practice. Communist philosophy has always rejected all previous standards of interna- tional conduct. Trickery has been exalted to the number one principle in Soviet for- eign affairs. To the Kremlin no real dis- tinction exists between war and peace ex- cept in the emphasis placed on military or political and psychological pressures. Since VJ-day the Soviet Union has con- quered a greater empire than that won by Hitler and the Japanese at the height of their military aggression. The Soviet Union stands today as a more completely military state than Nazi Germany or ancient Sparta. Communist gains in Europe and Asia are as real as if they had been won in pitched battles against the West. Nothing breeds success like success. The Soviets are becoming confident if not down- right cocky. Malenkov, ranking man in the Politburo—possibly being groomed for Sta- lin’s successor—refiected this attitude when he recently stated “With the victory of the Chinese people, the people’s democracies of Europe and Asia together with the Soviet
A4268 socialist power embrace a population of approximately 800,000,000.” There is not one single action taken by the Soviet Union since the end of the war consistent with the aims of permanent peace. In the face of this threat the policies adopted by our Government have been con~ fused, faltering and invariable late. We have been slow to recognize the danger and slower in reacting to it. We have tried to preserve our peace by refusing to stand by our principles. One of the factors of the present crisis has been American indeci- sion and vacillation in high places. On the credit side the Administration be- latedly rejected the trend of appeasement so much in vogue in Washington when Churchill made his electrifying speech at Fulton, Mo., in 1946. But meanwhile we have lost the great nation of China to our cause and we have not even begun to ad- vance against the forces of tyranny. Expansion engenders expansion. The frontiers of communism have been advanc- ing while those of freedom have been re- ceding. As the free world is being com- pressed into a smaller and smaller area by the malignant growth of communism, the number of choices open to us become fewer. The appalling tragedy of the present situ- ation stems, in part, from the reluctance of our leaders to make these choices because they believe them unpopular with the people. My trust in the character of the American people is greater than that. To save our skins the false sense of security—created by groundless official assurances must be dis- pelled. Let us look at the record. Despite our tremendous efforts to restore peace and pros- perity to a war-torn world the underlying tension created by Soviet aggression con- tinues unabated. Despite our efforts to con- tain communism, the Soviet empire is rela- tively stronger today than at any time in the past. Despite our tardy efforts to restare our military strength the balance of military power is tipping toward the Kremlin. It will continue to do so unless we immediately mobilize our resources on a scale far beyond that contemplated by the administration. The inadequacy of American foreign policy can be seen on any map. It was also revealed by the insolent Soviet action in shooting down. the American plane in the Baltic with the loss of 10 American lives. It is an ironic fact that the United States at the peak of her power stands almost at bay before the assaults of a nation inferior to us spiritually, politically, and industrially. The only fair way to judge a policy is by the results it obtains. The conduct of American policy since the end of the war is a tragic failure by this standard. The primary weakness of our policy lies in the fact that it has never aimed at a clear cut, positive objective. It is absolutely es- sential to know where you’re going in order to make any progress. The only aims ever announced for our policy have been those of containment and resistance. Except in a few areas, such as Greece, we have been on the political defensive. Even the Atlantic Pact, the most positive step undertaken by the administration, is essentially defensive in character. It is time to move forward, for if we continue to hold only to negative objectives we will lose even them. In war whether hot or cold the side which stays permantly on the defensive will lose. Moreover, even our negative policy of con~ tainment has been applied inconsistently. I for one cannot view our loss of China as a triumph of American diplomacy. Whatever the true causes of this debacle may be the American position in the Far East has been weakened. The present rulers of China once described as agrarian reformers by State De- partment policymakers are tied to Moscow with a rod of iron, This defeat—one of the most far reaching in modern times—took place while our announced policy was to con- tain Communist aggression. . It is only fair to say, however, that things might be worse. Wallace and the appease- ment he championed was given his walking papers. We have made the great decision to stop the retreat in Europe, and finally in Asia. But we have not yet taken the offen- sive, we have not yet seized the initiative. Moscow has called the main plays in world politics since 1945. I look forward to the day when decisions made in Washington will give the evil men in the Kremlin as many sleepless nights as their schemes have brought to millions of free men the world over, This time of crisis calls for radical new decisions in our foreign policy. We need a brand of American leadership worthy of the name. The time we have to act in is veyy limited. It can be made to work for us if we strike out this moment on a new course. Unless we adopt a bold, new politi- eal program the Soviet Union will inevitably draw ahead. We read the history of the Roman Empire today because their political leaders were more courageous and had greater vision than the leaders of Carthage. Whether the future historians will write of our heroes and principles of freedom or of our national destruction depends on the type of leadership we receive during these crucial years before the Soviets can match our atomic stockpile Political objectives must be down to earth if they are going to influence action. The Soviets have never been squeamish in setting forth their avowed policy. “One or the other must conquer” ‘has been the motto of the Kremlin. Since it is obvious that none of our spiritual beliefs, none of the principles which have inspired our Wation since its foundation could survive the Communist conquest, the first objective of American foreign policy must be equall,; as bold, equally direct. In plain words, our primary objective must be the separation of the world-wide Communist Party from power. I do not suggest the elimination of the Communist Party will solve all the ills of the world, but I do assert that a just peace is impossible as long as the Soviet Union is ruled by the Communist Party. The only way to clear an area of rattle- snakes is to destroy their nests. The main nest of the Communists is in the Kremlin. As long as we continue to tackle communism only in places remote from the center, such as Greece or China or Iran, we can only gain indecisive results at the expense of great effort. We have poured millions of dollars into Greece yet we have not solved the problem of communism there. It is ob~ vious to anyone that the Communist cam- paign to conquer Greece will be renewed whenever it suits the Communist purpose to resume operations toward the Dardanelles. Our air lift to save Berlin from Communist domination also cost hundreds of millions of dollars, Yet today Berlin is no more secure than when the Soviets again per-~ mitted us to send food overland into this beleaguered city. Lacking a real objective the few victories ‘we have won in the cold war have achieved limited results entirely out of proportion to their vast costs. The Soviets on the other hand have really lost nothing by these abor- tive for .ys. I want to make it quite clear that our objective should be the destruction of the organism of the Communist Party and not the people it enslaves. Rather, we must d clare all people who are laboring under the yoke of that monstrous tyranny to be our allies. The Russian people themselves must be encouraged to join us in the battle for freedom. APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD I submit that in the world of today we Americans are the real revolutionaries. Our wisest course is to push our revolutionary ideas of political and economic freedom un- der the rule of law to the farthest corner of the earth. Just as our country could not exist half slave and half free, the world itself cannot endure divided as it is today. The time for making deals with Moscow has ended. Let those who say that a genuine peace can exist as long as the Communist leaders rule the Eremlin come forth and state the basis for their pipe dream. Modern technology has made the world one. That peace can be established as long as a permanent political schism exists be- tween east and west is out of the question. Let us be aS courageous as the Communist and recognize the life and death nature of the struggle. Once we establish the destruction of Com- munist power as our primary objective we can end the arift which still characterizes the conduct of our affairs. Practical politi- cal offensive campaigns can then be under- taken. First, we must end our cowardly acquics- cence to the status quo existing behind the iron curtain. We must publicly proclaim our sympathies with millions suffering from the jron heel of communism in Poland, Czecho- slovakia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Rumania, and the smaller countries of eastern Europe. We must hold open to them the hope of eventual liberation just ag we did to the people of Europe when they were subjected to Nazi tyranny, and to the people of China and the Philippines when they lived under Japanese militarism. These people enslaved by Com- munism must be told that the dawn of lib- erty will follow their night. That campaign is essential to all of our existing programs for unless the Soviets are forced to withdraw to thelr 1939 borders, there is no chance whatsoever of European recovery succeeding. The iron curtain stands as a barrier to the natural flow of trade between eastern and western Europe on which Europe’s healthy economic Ife de- pends. European recovery also requires European unity. Perhaps the most heartening omen on the entire world scene is the recent French offer to integrate thelr economy with that of Germany. Political and economic unity are inseparable and this concrete and enlightened action on the part of the French holds seeds of great promise. Huropean unity has been one of the constructive aims of our foreign policy but one that has not been prosecuted with all the skill and influ- ence we possess. Much of our European aid program has been conducted like a vast international WPA. It has not furthered practical steps toward European unity. As the arsenal of democracy quring World War II we properly insisted that our military equipment be used to gain the common objectives against the enemy. We are the arsenal of freedom in the cold war and in the interest of our European friends we must exercise our right to pro- mote European unity with every ship filled with American goods or arms. I believe Europeans will welcome this type of leader- ship. German unity must be one of our goals within the larger framework of a European order, Rather than trying to suppress this basic instinct of the German people we must encourage it. The iron curtain cuts squarely across Ger- meny. At Yalta the Soviets detached large areas from Germany as part of a clever, long- ranged political ‘swindle. This maneuver, which has become increasingly obvious, is to hold out the bait of these stolen territories as inducement for German unity within the Communist orbit. We must defeat this scheme. Germany is a vital member of the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD West and must become unified as a western nation and not as a Communist satellite. The unification of Germany as a member of the Atlantic community will crack the iron curtain at its weakest point. It will do more than any other single thing to destroy the base of Communist power. Our natural preoccupation with Europe must not make us forget the vast problems of Asia. We have a policy for China—an- nounced over 50 years ago by Secretary of State John Hay—the open-door policy. That policy was our guide in World War II, when much of China was overrun by the Japanese, and must continue to be ours dur-« ing the cold war, when all of China has been enslaved by the Communist puppets of Moscow. Nor can we forget Japan. Under present policies Japan will be supported by an Amer- ican dole for generations to come. A program must be found to harness the skill and in- dustry of the Japanese people so that they can support themselves and contribute to the mutual well-being of the millions of people in Asia and the Oceanic Islands. Each specific step I have advocated is a positive part of the over-all offensive to de- stroy the Communist power. Success achieved on any front will help crack the iron curtain and force the Communist power to disgorge its conquests. We cannot allow the Communists time to consolidate their gains to prepare new springboards for further ad- vances. Nor can we suffer the world-wide appendages of the Kremlin—the Communist Parties of France, of Italy, of Japan, of Latin- America, and even of the United States—to sabotage our offensive. We must cut the spinal cord of these fifth columns by severing their connection with Moscow. We must initiate a world-wide campaign to smash the apparatus by which the professional agents of Moscow sow the seeds of treason and dis- unity through the camp of the free world. Let vs rot pewrit necessity for this essen- tial cin: +.) oe obscured by false cries for evr ‘iierty, oy maudlin totalitarian lib- erals. Treason is not one of the civil Mber- ties defined by our Constitution. I can see no harm in any native Communist Party, but only the greatest peril In Moscow-di- rected fifth columns. The United Nations must become our bat- tleground for freedom. When the aims of the Charter of the United Nations are realized the cold war will be ended. When the aims of the United Nations are practiced in east~ ern Europe the iron curtain will melt away. The United Nations is a ready-made instru- ment through which the free peoples of the world cnn press their offensive for peace and survival. Perhaps the Soviet Union will not choose to remain in a revitalized United Nations. Today their participation in the United Na- tions is extremely limited. Of the 34 sepa- rate bodies, commissions, or agencies of the United Nations the Soviet Union has never joined or is horeotting 22. We can no longer permit Soviet obstructionism to block the real work the UN can accomplish. I realize that the measures I advocate to you today are far in advance of those officially sponsored by the administration, but the crisis we face will not be solved either by halfway policies or procrastination. A freedom offensive does not imply war. There are mony means at our disposal to force back the frontiers of communism short of war. We have great power and joined with our friends we must use this power to destroy tyranny. The dangers of a strong policy are infl-~ nitely less than those of a weak one. Sup- pose, for example, we remain on the political defensive and continue to spend $20,000,- 000,000 annually in national defense and for- eign aid? Twenty years from now, after spending four hundred billions on a fruit- less policy, we will be worse off than we are . XCVI—App.——269 today—and the Soviet Union will be immeas- urably stronger. A unified command under the Atlantic Pact means little unless the democracies of west~ ern Europe are prepared to back it up with the integration of their economics as well as military measures. There is, of course, the risk that an offensive policy will provide the men in the Kremlin to strike before their base system is utterly destroyed by the forces of freedom. This risk we must courageously accept as the lesser of two evils. There is a stronger chance that an accel- erated offensive policy will generate suffi- cient power for the western democracies to prevent world war III. Consequently, I can see no better path toward peace than to energetical!~ push for~ard the frontiers of freedom. The .11 233.- of tyranny will be our fate if we blindly refuse to make this choice in time. The time is now. Fifty-fifth Anniversary of Jewish War Veterans EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. OWEN BREWSTER OF MAINE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, June 7, 1950 Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, re- cently the Jewish War Veterans of the United States celebrated their fifty-fifth anniversary at a dinner in New York, at which occasion they honored Mr. Louis B. Mayer, one of America’s great civic leaders, by awarding him the gold medal of merit in recognition of his distin- guished service in behalf of world un- derstanding of America and the Ameri- can way of life. I was present at the dinner and noted the enthusiasm with which Mr. Mayer’s address was received by a large audience of distinguished Americans, and I ask unanimous consent to have Mr. Louis B. Mayer’s address inserted in the Appendix of the ConcREs- SIONAL RECORD. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: Your Eminence Cardinal Spellman, Mr. Toastmaster, Mr. National Commander, dis- tinguished guests, officers and men of the Jewish War Veterans of the United States, ladies and gentlemen, to say that I am deep- ly touched is entirely inadequate to express what isin my heart. I have been most for- tunate in having been honored before. But never have I experienced such depth of emotion as in this moment. I shall treasure “tt always, be inspired to be worthy of this trust, that I may truly live in the reflection of the high American ideals you cherish. General Klein, a veteran of two wars, has been generous with his praise. I have known this dynamic man for many years. I have learned to admire him for his devotion to his country and his untiring efforts to the cause of the Jewish War Veterans. He was a combat soldier in the recent war. He earned his promotions and medals on the field of battle from General Douglas MacArthur, one of the world’s greatest sol- dier-statesmen. I am proud to call Julius Klein my friend. Eric Johnston, the brilliant head of our motion picture industry, has been very kind in his remarks. I know he shares the grati- tude that overwhelms me; that these men A4269 and women, representing true greatness in the church, si :tesinansiip, education, the military, all flelds of endeavor, of all faiths and creeds, are gathered here for this occa- sion. And I cannot help but wonder what the foes of our democracy would say if they could look upon this banquet, in one of the world’s most magnificent hotels—owned by @ man who started as a bellboy—and honor- ing a son of immigrant parents. Where else on this earth, except in a nation of free people, could this happen? His Eminence Cardinal Spellman is not only a great churchman, but one of the kindliest men I have ever known. His friendship is a priceless gift. Your presence here this evening, Your Eminence, is an inspiration. I have always felt that being an American is a privilege. If I have served my country in any measure, Iam grateful, indeed, for the opvcertunity to have done so. But whatever cor-rinuuon of citizenship I may have ac- complished could only be very small before the towering patriotism and sacrifice symbol- ized here this evening by these fine men who fought the fight of freedom on the battle- fronts of our wars. The badge of Americanism you have pinned upon me is more precious than any honor I have ever known. [I am sure I shall achieve none greater. It is an emblem not lightly worn. I pray that I may wear it well. For these are times of challenge. The freedoms for which you, your fathers, grandfathers, yes, and great-grandfathers, fought are periled. Yes; I meant great-grandfathers. They were the early Jewish immigrants who founded your organization. They fought in the Civil War, 10,000 of them, 7 winning the Congressional Medal of Honor. They had come from despotic nations in Europe, and for them the freedoms of Amer- ica had a very special meaning. Their ex- periences in countries from which they had fled made this a sweet land of liberty, indeed. They needed no warning against complacent acceptance of the rights and human dignity enjoyed under our democracy. They knew they were worth fighting for. More than 50 years ago they founded the Jewish War Veterans organization, these ref- ugees from European tyranny, as a symbol of the readiness of Americans of their faith to defend with their lives the doctrines of spir- itual, political, and social freedom upon which our Nation was conceived. They wanted, too, to see the ideals for which they had fought, preserved, and hand-~ ed down to generations to come, that there might be carried forward in peace the unity of brotherhood they had enjoyed in time of their Nation’s need. How proud they would be if they could behold these sons of their sons who are gath- ered here tonight, and who have served so well in the fulfillment of this heritage of patriotic devotion. And long before these founders of your fine organization, there were others who had borne arms for freedom. They were with DeKalb and Pulaski in 1776, at Brandy- wine and Valley Forge. They shed their blood with their Christian comrades, that this Nation of freemen might be born. They fought on the high seas in 1812, joined Sam Houston at the Alamo, and charged San Juan Hill with Roosevelt’s Rough Riders. They were there not-because they were Jews. But because they were Ameri- cans. Those not fortunate enough to reach our friendly shores remained behind to defy the brutality of dictatorships and to eventually set up their own independent and sovereign state. Those brave men transformed a dis- mal desert into a living paradise and they are even now establishing a close kinship between our democracy—the oldest in exist- ence—and the state of Israel—the youngest.
A4270 America has always paid tribute to the op- pressed who by their own initiative and gallantry gained their independence and be- cause we are pioneers, we acclaim the pio- neers of Israel. Today the Jewish war veterans carry on the tradition of their founding fathers. Again they stand ready to defend, at any cost, this heritage of freedom—to repel those Zorces who would change our system of government, and substitute, in it place, a philosophy op- posed to every human dignity and liberty we enjoy. You cannot believe in God and be a Com- munist—because communism is synonymous with atheism. You cannot be a Communist and call yourself an American—because com- munism calls for the overthrow of that which is the envy of the world—and that is America. The Jewish war veterans—most of whom are also members of the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars. Disabled American Veterans, and other patriotic organizations— are committed to wage a total effort against these influences in America, and to here pre~ sent a solid front against those who would undermine our national security through racial, religious, and social tensions. Russia makes much capital on the ex- ploited myth of discrimination and preju- dice against minority groups in America. But I am quite certain there could exist no organization behind the iron curtain that even remotely resembles the Jewish War Veterans. Here in its membership we find employer and worker; manufacturer and union craftsman, Republican and Demo- crat, united with a singleness of thought and deed. This they would take away from you. Oh, the American way of life. It is soft, deca- dent, capitalistic, greedy. Well, if they have something better to offer, why don’t they let us see it? In fact, if they had something just as good, they would have no trouble selling it to their own people. We know, however, that they have failed there too, for the existence of a secret police, is proof enough their own people want no part of their so-called paradise. I always understood successful merchan- dising depends upon how attractively you display your wares to the customer. Now, if what Russia wants us to buy is so new and wonderful, so much better than anything we have now, why doesn’t she raise the cur- tain and let us see this superior brand? “America is rich only for the rich,” they shout. Certainly, America is rich. We only pray she may continue to so prosper. But is America only for the rich? There are in the United States today, I am. told, some 50,000,000 automobiles. Are they being driven only by the wealthy? Across the vast breadth of our land are spread great communities. Were in these homes swell the heart of America. Its fam- ily life. More than 40,000,000 of them. Forty million privately owned homes. I wonder, are they all millionaires? In our colleges, the institutions of high education, are 2,500,000 students, American boys and girls, studying to he scientists, clergymon, teachers, doctors, engineers, law- yers, merchants. Are they only from well- to-do families? Savings accounts, I am told, have reached an all-time high, some two hundred and twenty billion—in bank deposits, Govern-~ ment bonds, savings and loan associations. Is this exclusively the hoardings of capi- talistic giants? . No, my friends, the savings of the Ameri- can worker. And further, they have another $100,000,- 000,000 in insurance policies and pension reserves, Yes, if I were Joe Stalin I think I'd keep the iron curtain closed, too. Several years ago, I recall, Russia pounced upon some newsreels showing an unfortunate incident in Detroit. They exploited it frantically to show the people under Com- munist domination what a terrible place America was, But the whole effect of propa- ganda was lost when the Russian audience discovered that everybody in the newsreel was wearing shoes. They couldn’t believe their eyes. People flocked to see the film, not for the riots, but to see how even all Americans had shoes to wear. They yanked the film. But fast. Small wonder that American motion pic- tures are barred from Russia. They don’t dare let their people see them. How could the commissars of propaganda explain the thousands of workers’ automobiles outside our factories, or the homes of our workers, the smiling faces, the happy children, the clothes, the abundant food, the many com- monplace evidences of prosperity and hap- piness being enjoyed under the American way of life? The American motion picture has much to be proud of in its record of achievements, It reflects the fundamental concepts of the democratic freedom that gave it birth. It could have flourished only under our system of free enterprise. If I have been able to render a patriotic service, as you have honored me tonight, it is because I have been privileged to be a part of an industry dedi- cated to these American ideals. Today, as our Nation engages in un un- selfish struggle for world peace, the motion- picture industry stands ready, as always, to serve, As veterans, I am sure you know how important our films were in the factor of morale and training during the war. Motion pictures went with you, brought a reminder of home to you, in the training camps, front lines, tents, caves, ships, any place a projector could be set up. And mo- tion-picture personalities came to you in person, too. To Africa, France, England, into the jungles of New Guinea, that bit of entertainment might be yours for an hour or two, that you might see a familiar face and hear a familiar voice. Some 4,000 film personalities and en- tertainers served in this fox-hole circuit, organized by the Hollywood Victory Commit- tee. They made nearly 50,000 personal ap- pearances, traveled 4,000,000 miles by ship, plane, jeep, and foot to reach you. Besides that, they have made 20,000 appearances at hospitals in this country to visit your com- rades. We gave our films, thousands of prints, that our fighting men might be entertained. There were training films for the Armed Forces, documentary films for home and for- eign consumption, for war effort incentive, to fortify the determination for victory, to strengthen the ties with our allies. And most important of all was the contri- bution of thousands of our men and women of the motion-picture industry who served so gallantly in all branches of the Armed Forces. The spirit of Americanism with which the motion-picture industry pledged its efforts. to help win the war continues today in like contributions toward winning the peace. Such fine films as Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo, Bataan, Wake Island, Joe Smith—American, They Were Expendable, and The Story of Dr. Wassell have been followed by such pictures as Battleground, Command Decision, Iwo Jima, Task Force, and Twelve O’Clock High in rededication of America’s will to ve ina world of peace. I don’t blame Stalin for not showing our pictures in Russia. He couldn’t hold a pop- ulation of 180,000,000 in enslavement without keeping them in ignorance of conditions in America. The curtain of darkness was dropped not only to shield our eyes from the truth about Russia, but to hide from Russian eyes the truth about America. When the day comes, and that day must surely APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD come, that the light of truth penetrates that curtain, Mr. Stalin will have his hands very full indeed. Truth, my friends, is the most powerful weapon on earth. Thank God, we have it on our side. The Communists say we are not perfect. We're not. Nothing is, this side of Heaven, But show me any country that can anywhere maich our record of accomplishment for im- provement of living and working siandards, certainly the highest in the world; the great strides we have made in wiping out pcverty, increasing the opportunities under free en- terprise, advancements in education, health, welfare, all the things that contribute to the happiness, well-being, and independence of the individual. Show me something better than this, Mr, Stalin, and I'll become your No. 1 Com- munist. By nature we are a kind people, gentle, peace loving. We fight wars, but only when we have to. We are anything but militar- istic. We have never had any aspirations of conquest. We gave Cuba her freedom as she was able to enjoy her independence. We did the same with the Philippines. We have never wanted anything from anybody. We want nothing now. Most of all, we don’t want anything from Russia. We don’t even want to change her ideology. If she wants communism, that’s perfectly all right with me. But why should she want us to change our way of life, and to embrace a philosophy completely opposed to everything we hold so dear? The natural complacency of the American people is often mistaken. Some years ago I was concerned over the apathy of our peo- ple toward voting. I complained about it to my dear friend, William Randolph Hearst, told him that the people weren't paying enough attention to the best interests of their country. Mr. Hearst replied, “Son, let me tell you what I have discovered through the years. I admit there are periods in which our people coast along, cease to think, enjoy happy times, Then something very important hap- pens, and they begin to think, and when they begin to think, Louis, don’t worry; they always think it through.” I hope, I pray, we will not need another Pearl Harbor to arouse us to think, We have been hearing of a cold war so long it js now an accepted condition. Our Sec- retary of State talks of total diplomacy. Our military leaders warn there is no defense except the power and ability to overwhelm and destroy our enemy. Some say we can lose the next war without firing a shot, Our atom bomb is small comfort now. Yet we keep our doors wide open. Russians come and go pretty much as they please. They are entirely free to do anything in this country you and I can do, with the single exception of voting. But my real quasrel is with those who call themselves American Communists. They're not Russian Communists. Oh, no. These are different. They are Americans. American Communists. A very special brand. A rose by any other name, the poets say, smells just as sweet. But all Communists have the same odor to me, re- gardless of label. If communism creates such a paradise in Russia, I just can’t understand why these crackpots stay here. Why don't they go to this paradise of communism and enjoy all the happiness to be found there, and just leave us here to suffer in our misery? Surely we need no further evidence than the happenings of the past year to convince us that the danger is very real, Our well of freedom has been contaminated. We cannot and must not shut our eyes to the fact that there are subversive clements in our country. But we must also bear in mind that we live in a democracy where the law takes its natural and democratic course.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Iam certain the Federal Bureau of Inves- tigation under the able leadership of J. Edgar Hoover, is well able to ferret them out—the Department of Justice under the guidance of Attorney General J. Howard McGrath is well able to prosecute them and our courts can be depended upon to mete out justice. Some of our complacent friends assure us that nothing really serious is going to hap- pen, that the world is just experiencing growing pains, another way of saying a bloodless revolution, and that out of it will emerge philosophies of liberal thought, but far from communism. Just don’t worry. Fver-t*ivt will be all right. Don’t be old- zi CL ovra))©6 Don’t be a reactionary. Socialism is said to be far short of com- munism. Socialism? They tried it in Aus- tralia and New Zealand. Socialism was won by an overwhelming vote and then lost by an overwhelming vote. You are aware of the results of the recent elections in England, results which indicate that socialism is not well thought of as it used to be. As a former Canadian I have always held the British na- tion in great respect, a Rock of Gibraltar among the great nations of the world. Cer-~ tainly, there are no more courageous and sacrificing people on earth. But as that fine American, Al Smith, would say, “Let us look at the record.” I am afraid the record of this experiment in socialism is not a happy one. After World War I, England not only re- covered from her economic wounds, but man- aged to also help some of her sister nations to get back on their feet as well. But today under her socialistic regime, the record shows a far different story. Why? Little Holland, Belgium, even Finland with her problem of geographic location, are rapid’; tevcic:ir? thelr economic footing. But nucei.y Brie‘ is not. It is certainly not for us to say how England should or should not govern herself. That is for the people of England to say for themselves. The spirit of the English people is unconquerable. The Battle of Britain proves that. The re- cent elections are very significant. What Mr. Hearst said about American. people ap~ plies to all people who are free to think. No, socialism is no longer an experiment. Destroy the incentive of a man and you de- stroy his productivity. Destroy his produc- tivity and you destroy the nation. America, my friends, has become the cus~ todian of freedom, human dignity, economic security. It must remain so, at any cost. We must be strong, prepared, that no nation may dare attack. And, as long as we stand for ideals based upon the Ten Command-~ ments, we have nothing to fear. God was with us when we fought against dictators, He will be with us in any war against pagan aggression. Never, in all civilization, has the world so meeded God as now. Far too many of us, I am. afraid, have taken him for granted, per- haps forsaken his paths of righteousness, But today, in the face of the perils that confront us, there is a great rush back to God, in the churches, tabernacles, syna- gogues, seeking the guidance that only He can give to us, to lighten our hearts, to give us hope, and strength for the road ahead. ‘We must have faith, my friends. It is our greatest armor, our mightiest sword. Faith to believe in our fellowman, in our country, and in our God. Our battles are not yet won. The free- dom. for which you so gallantly fought is en- dangered. I charge you, veterans of our wars, with maintaining this freedom, that our rich heritage shall not perish; that the blood of your comrades shall not have been shed in vain. God grant you will continue. to be vigilant; that our torch of liberty may be held even higher, and shine even brighter in the hearts of free men in the world of peace, I thank you. Commencement Address by David E. Finley at University of South Carolina EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. BURNET R. MAYBANK OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, June 7, 1950 Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an address delivered by the Honorable David E. Finley, director of the National Gallery of Art, at the commencement exercises at the University of South Carolina, on June 5, 1950. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: I feel greatly honored that my own uni- versity should wish to confer an honorary degree upon me and should ask me to ad- dress this graduating class. No honor means s0 much to us as the approval of our own people, and though I have lived outside the State for 40 years, South Carolina is still home to me, as it is to all loyal South Caro- linians, and all South Carolinians that I have ever known or wish to know are loyal. “Home,” says T. S. Eliot, “is where one starts from.” And he adds, rather discon- certingly: “As we get older the world be- comes stranger, the pattern more compli- cated of dead and living.” And so, as I look around me today and see not only the mem- bers of the graduating class of 1950 but also many of those who graduated with me in the class of 1910, I cannot avoid contrasting the outlook on life which we had 40 years ago with that which you have today, as you try to make plans for the good life that you hope to enjoy in the years ahead. My own generation has been a transition one, during which we seem to have passed from a world of more or less stable values and fixed standards of morals and behavior, both personal and international, into a world where nothing appears to be stable and the old sense of security has disappeared. When I was at this university from 1906 to 1910, men thought they could predict with some degree of certainty what would be the conditions of life for themselves and their children within, at least, the foreseeable future. But now no intelligent man or woman can feel a complete sense of security about many of the things most vital to us which we formerly took for granted—I mean fundamental things, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nor do I mean to infer that the only threat to our linerties arises from totalitarian govern= ments, real and menacing as that threat most certainly is. We also carry the seeds of destruction within ourselves, when we show a willingness to abdicate our standards of morality or to regiment ourselves so that the individual becomes merged in the mass, as there has been a tendency to do in re- cent years, even in this fortunate country of ours. The dangers to our way of life that con- front us today did not arise suddenly nor are they primarily the results of the two World Wars through which we have passed, devastating as those wars have been. It is true that these wars brought about a de- moralization of Europe and a dislocation of economic relationships throughout that vast continent and its tributaries in Asia and Africa, so that in Europe a vacuum in power has been created, with the centers of power shifting to America and Russia. Further- more, as a result of the unprecedented in- A4271 crease in population in Europe during the last 150 years, the abundance of things that were available during the nineteenth century to satisfy Europe’s material wants has disappeared, giving rise to great uncer- tainty as to the future until new trade routes and other national alignments shall have become established. All of this, be- cause of our close affinity with Europe, has posed problems for us in America, which are neither easy of solution nor can they be brushed aside, as we were able to do in the happier and more carefree days before 1914, when England kept the world more or less stabilized, . In all the welter and confusion, however, we must not lose sight of the fact that even if the two World Wars had never happened and the new alinements I speak of had come gradually and less painfully we would still face problems of the greatest magnitude in adjusting ourselves to changes in our way of life that have been forced upon us as @ result of inventions and discoveries during the first half of the twentieth century. Our mode of living has been almost completely changed within the lifetime of many of those here present by new means of transportation, such as motorcars and airplanes; new methods of communication, such as the radio, television, and the movies; and a system of Nation-wide production and dis- tribution that has reached unprecedented de- velopment in this country in the last 50 years. On top of these and other inventions and discoveries which have so altered the manner and tempo of our daily lives, we, like Europe, have had the stress and disloca- tions of two World Wars from which we have emerged triumphant but shaken both in body and spirit. These are serious problems, but we know they are capable of solution if faced with courage and intelligence, as I am sure they will be, not only by my generation but by you, the coming generation, as you take over your responsibilities for the welfare and safety of this great country of ours. Such problems would be difficult of solu- tion at any time and under the most ideal conditions of peace and order in the world at large. But they are made far more diffi- cult by reason of the fact that we must at the same time face and overcome, or at least neutralize, the greatest threat to our free- dom and security that has arisen since west- ern Christendom was saved from the Asiatic hordes on the plains of Vienna in 1683. The concept of the free state versus the police state, with all that is implied in the sur- vival of our religious, cultural, and political freedom, is now at issue; and a decision is being forced upon us by powerful and ruth~ less men who would destroy our way of life if they could. It is the old conflict between Athens and Sparta—does the state exist for the individual or the individual for the state? Our great American experiment is one of freedom with diversity, and it has produced a@ system of government and society that does not allow men to be forced into a uni- form pattern or to be told what to think and what to create on the intellectual and spirt- uallevel. So long as that system is preserved. intact, we shall be safe. And while it is necessary to be on our guard against the in- filtration of totalitarian doctrines, there is no reason to fear that such an alien and materialistic philosophy will ever become es~ tablished here. In a great and powerful country, with a Christian civilization such as ours, the kind of doctrines to which I have just referred could be imposed only by force, as is now being done in some of the oldest and proud- est nations of eastern Europe, such as Ozechoslovakia, where the traditions of civil and religious liberty are as old and revered as in our own country. America has always been able to defend herself from outside enemies; and no one who knows the strengih
AA272 and vast resources of this country need fear for her ultimate safety or her ability to repel any attempt to impose an alien rule on us by force. Self-defense may be costly, put freedom is worth any price and your genera~ tion, no less than my own, does not need to be convinced of that fact. <A strong nation, equipped to defend itself and aware of dan~ gers that threaten it, is less likely to be ate tacked than one living in a fool’s paradise, as we have come to realize after the bitter experience of two long and costly World Wars. These dangers that I have spoken of are Jargely physical dangers and they can be met and overcome by physical means, if such means are employed with courage and energy. But there are other dangers more insidious and, in the end, more devastating against which courage and energy alone will not prevail. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty and nothing can save us from eventu- ally losing that liberty if ignorance and apathy should become national character- istics. If we are to be saved, a high degree of intelligence is needed and an informed public opinion, based upon an understand- ing of the facts, For, in a modern democ- racy stich as ours, the final decision must be made by the average man, who in the mass constitutes the ruling power and who, in the end, must pay the price for wrong decisions. And yet, today the average man is forced to make decisions about the most compli- eated questions of government, economics, sociology, and international relations, as to which he cannot properly inform himself without a clearer understanding of cause and effect than is possible under our present system of education. The tragedy of our times is that our progress in the conquest of matter has far outstripped our moral de- velopment. We have eaten of the tree of knowledge, of good and evil, and are only too aware of aur moral deficiencies which have been brought into sharper focus by the startling inventions and discoveries of recent years. As a result, we find ourselves involved in one of the great crises in history, when humanity is seeking new paths through the dangers and the potential blessings of the atomic age—an age when man has discovered new forces with unlimited possibilities for good and evil, but distrusts his capacity, as did the original Adam, to control them. More than 25 years ago, the well-known Spanish philosopher, José Ortega y Gasset, told us: “Our age is characterized by the strange presumption that it is ‘superior’ to all past time; more than that, by its leaving out of consideration all that is past, by recogniz- ing no classical or normative epochs, by look- ing on itself as a new life superior to all pre- vious forms and irreducible to them. We live at a time when a man believes himself fabu- lously capable of creation, but he does not know what to create. Lord of all things, he is not lord of himself. He feels lost amid his own abundance. With more means at his dis- posal, more knowledge, more technique than ever, it turns out that the world today goes the same way as the worst of worlds that have been; it simply drifts.” “Hence,” says Ortega y Gasset, “the strange combination of a@ sense of power and a sense of insecurity which has taken up its abode in the soul of modern man.” The Spanish philosopher has diagnosed our disease. But neither he nor anyone else has yet offered us a cure. And, indeed, there is no quick and easy cure, for the disease that afflicts us is deep-seated and will take a long time and great patience to eradicate. We are suffering from an incapacity to deal with the problems of our own lives and to find some solution for those problems as they affect us both in the mass and as individuals. Our incapacity is due in part to inertia, but in @ much greater degree to ignorance on our part as to the cause and effect of the forces we must control; and that ignorance is due to lack of education on the moral and in- tellectual, rather than the technical, level. We are far from ignorant in technical mat- ters. In fact, the world has never seen a great nations, such as ours, so ~roticiest and so highly organized on the “+. 1-41 .evel. We are the envy of the whole world in that respect. The American know-how, as it is called, is the goal toward which men are striving in England no less than in the re- mote and backward corners of Asia and Africa. Throughout the world there is a profound respect for the man who knows, especially in pure and applied science and in technological matters. In our own country we have elevated the specialist to a position in the community which, as a rule, he is not qualified to fill. Because he knows a great deal about his own special subject, we ex- pect him to speak with authority in other fields, in which he may be quite as ignorant as ourselves. The fault is largely in our system of edu- cation. The trend in recent years in this country has been to emphasize technological or vocational training, especially in the sciences, with the result that man is becom- ing specialized, knowing only his own sub- ject. On all other subjects his critical facul- tles are becoming dulled and he is being con- ditioned to depend for cultural nourishment on the movies, the popular magazines, tele- vision, and all the other means of Mass com- munication. Insofar as young people are concerned, their taste in their early years is being largely formed by what they see and hear at the movies or over the radio or read in the comic books, as they are called. Even a subject so important to sound citi- zenship as American history is given a minor place in our educational system. A Nation- wide study by the New York Times has dis- closed that at present only a little more than a third of our institutions of higher learning make United States history a required course for all undergraduates, while less than one~ third of our colleges ask a year of American history as a requirement for admission. The gravity of the situation is recognized by most educators, and conditions, I am happy to say, are improving but very slowly. The same situation exists in the field of the arts. Comparatively few colleges and universities have adequate courses in art or the history of art and still consider these subjects of minor importance as compared, for instance, with science. Fortunately we have in all parts of this country museums which are in a position to contribute to the education as well as the pleasure of the American people. There are great museums in many of our larger cities, as well as the National Gallery in Washington, which are equipped to offer you an opportunity to be- come familiar with many of the greatest works in the fleld of art. Likewise in Co- lumbia you have a newly established museum which, with your art department in this university, can make a valuable contribu- tion toward equipping you to enjoy many of the best things that life can offer you. You must, after all, live the whole of your own. life in your own company, so be sure that you have within yourself resources that will save you from too much boredom. Art and literature offer you, at the very Icast, an escape from the boredom of modern life, when our daily lives must so largely conform to the routine of the machine age and to the established patterns of mass production and distribution, even in the field of enter- tainment. You and others like you, who are recelving degrees from colleges and ‘universitics throughout this country, comprise in many respects the elite of our modern democratic civilization. You are at least equipped with a knowledge of certain facts and have had an opportunity to learn to think, which is an achievement of the greatest maonitude and, if acquired, will prove i=:yalias.c “Go you in the years to come. But I am sure that in your case, as in my own when I graduated from this university 40 years ago, there is a APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD clear realization of the fact that your real education has just begun and that you must now learn how to achieve the aims you have set for yourselves in life. No one has stated this more clearly than that great thinker and teacher, Dr. Werner Jaeger, who tells us: “Education is not the cultivation of certain abilities; 1¢ is not the communication of certain branches of knowledge, at least all that is significant only as a means and a stage in the process of education. The real essence of education is *that 1t enables men to reach the true aim of their lives. This effort cannot be restricted to the few years of what is called higher edu- cation. Either it takes a whole lifetime to reach its aim, or its aim can never be reached.” What Dr. Jaeger has said of the individual is true also of the whole body of citizens in a self-governing society, such as ours. The central problem of our lives today is the same that other civilizations have faced and failed to solve in the past. How can we educate the whole people to govern themselves in relation to each other and to the world at large? Tho age-old question asked by Socrates still waits for an answer: “Is education (in more than a technical sense) really possible?” Somehow we must answer that question in the affirmative, if America is to avoid the fate of the Greek city-state. For America, though continental in extent, has now be- come a city-state in the sense that all the people comprise one community, interde- pendent on each other and eev'rred with a system of communication il t «+ us in- formed of current happenings and ideas to an extent not possible even in Athens in the centuries preceding her fall. The Greeks were well aware that education was necessary for a self-governing socicty. They recognized, too, the importance of medicine for its social and cullural values, though they were more concerned with the maintenance of health than the treatment of disease. Demosthenes did his best to re- educate the Athenian democracy before it was too late. But, in the end, after the heroic and successful fight against the Per- sians, the citv-staite passed away, due largely to the inatllty of the average man and woman 10 widers and and lve up to their former greatness. They were faced with the grim necessity not only to fight Philip and his Macedonians but to obtain, by self-cdu- cation, a world outlook which would equip them to deal with world issues and so to’ preserve the great civilization which they and their ancestors had created. Greece failed to obtain that outlook and as a world force disappeared, though Iicllenism lived on, dispersed throughout tie world, 1o become later a vitalizing element in the western civilization of which we are a part. We, in America, are the heirs of the Medl- terranean world; and to Israel and Greece and Rome, as later to England and France, we owe much that is best in our culture and our ideas of freedom. But we are not only a religious and idealistic people; we are also a very practical one. And so we must flnud an answer to the challenge America faces today: How shall we preserve our liberty and our idealism in a world that is fast becoming regimented and apparently concerned mostly with materialistic ends? If we can succeed in saving ourselves and our own civilization, we shall no doubt achieve even greater things. Indeed, the im- pact of ideas from Amorica and western Europe upon Russia may eventually trans- form the outlook of that vast country, with its large and vigorous population, es Greek humanism transformed Rome and, merging with the Christian concept of life, gave us our western civilization. That is the challenge and the opportunity that is offered to you in the last half of the twentieth century. You have the possibility of seeing the world as it will ke 40 or 50 years from now. It may ke a world in which
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD atomic energy has been reduced to a humble and useful role in serving humanity, as elec- tricity does today. It may also be a world in which wars and the threat of annihila- tion are things of the past, because your gen- eration faced these dangers with courage and intelligence and so found a way out of the spiritual morass in which we now seem to be floundering. I believe that you will find the answer to some and, perhaps, all of these problems and for that reason I rather envy you in grad- uating today. For, I feel certain that, whether you know it or not, you have a glorious past still ahead of you. Hydroelectric Development in New England EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HENRY CABOT LODGE, JR. OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, June 7, 1950 Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an editorial entitled “The $64 Question,” published in the Boston (Mass.) Record of May 24, 1950, and an editorial entitled “Out in Cold,” published in the Boston (Mass.) American of May 25, 1950, relating to river development in New England. There being no objection, the edito- rials were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: {From the Boston (fass.) Record of May 24, 50] THE $64 QuESTION President Truman has in effect reminded members of the New England congressional delegation that they got almost nothing for their own communities in the recently-en- acted $1,'720,000,000 rivers and harbors bill although they have saddled their commu~- nities with the expense of dams, power plants, and other improvements for the South, West, and Middle West. And in this instance Mr, Truman is en- tirely right. With the exception of the survey of the Merrimack and Connecticut Rivers, which Senator Lopcz demanded and almost did not receive, New England is lterally left out in the cold. Not a cent to save cities like Lawrence, Lowell, and Manchester with their woefully obsolete and inadequate power in- stallations. Not a cent for Passamaquoddy, the biggest and most valuable tidal power site in the world. Not a cent for Enfield Rapids on the Connecticut line, which the Army engineers have called ‘‘one of the Nation’s finest and most desirable power sources.” There still is time for our Senators and Congressmen to exert themselves in behalf of their constituents and to bring home the hyd. oelectric power “bacon.” But will they risk antagonizing the selfish interests which have blocked the develop- ment of New England rivers for a full gen- eration? That’s the $64 question. os [From the Boston (Mass.) American of May 25, 1950] Our rw Comp Senator Lopez, a Republican, has the dis-~ tinction of being the only member of the New England congressional delegation to score in the recently enacted $1,720,000,000 rivers and harbors bill. He persuaded the Democratically con- trolled Congress to authorize a survey of the hydroelectric potentialities of the Connecti- cut and Merrimack Rivers and their tribu- taries. The other New England Senators and Con- gressmen got nothing, probably because most of them asked for nothing. This obviously angered President Truman, and he registered his indignation this week in a stinging message to the House of Repre- sentatives, in which he deplored the fact that New England was left out in the cold and implied that the Democrats from the area, who had repeatedly recorded themselves as favoring the development of water-power resources, had taken a political powder when southerners, westerners, and midwesterners were getting multi-million-dollar appropria- tions for their constituents. Of course, the present session of Congress has several weeks to go, and the New Eng- land Democrats, irked by Senator Lopces victory, may exert themselves before they come home to start their reelection fights. But the odds are against their accomplish- ing anything worth while. The South, West, and Midwest already have the hydroelectric gravy, and New England, as usual, is allowed to foot the bill. Louis Johnson: Bulldog of United States Defense EXTENSION OF REMARKS oF HON. CHET HOLIFIELD OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, May 22,:1950 Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Speaker, under ‘permission to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I would like to include an in- teresting article on our Secretary of De- fense, Louis Johnson, written by the well- known Washington reporter Tris Coffin, and appearing in the June 1950 Coronet magazine: Lovis JoHNSON: BULLDOG OF Uniren STATES DEFENSE—His Is THE UNENVIABLE JoB or SAFEGUARDING AMERICA AGAINST 4 Supprn ENEMY ATTACK ‘ (By Tris Coffin) United States Secretary of Defense Louis Sohnson, a big, restless American with enough vitality and endurance for a dozen men, has finally landed the job he sought for years. The job is to make sure you and I are not destroyed in a sudden attack by an enemy equipped with the hideous weapons that modern science has produced, As a result, Johnson is the second most powerful man in Washington, a top architect of Allied policy, and an administrator de- scribed by Herbert Hoover as the best in the Truman administration. However, the Gridiron Club, famed group of newspapermen in Washington, recently described Johnson’s work in a parody of the popular song, A Wonderful Guy: “All by by myself I am the whole Army; I’m the Navy and Air Force, too. I nod my head and the Congress plays dead, and now I have the White House in view.” The Secretary, who is called Louie or Colonel Johnson by friends, is tall and well- puilt, has eyes that look out shrewdly and directly, and a voice which is surprisingly soft, Like an old-time Army top sergeant, he sums up men and events swiftly, and makes blunt decisions. Such traits are not recently acquired; all his life Johnson has led the fight himself, A4273 rather than give orders from the side lines. As corporation lawyer, American Legion poli- tician, Assistant Secretary of War, and Dem- ocratic Party fund raiser, the present chief of United States defenses has thrived on hard work and conflict. Today in Washington, the world capital where sneak plays and hidden-ball tricks are accepted strategy, Johnson is the rare excep- tion. He prefers the old-fashioned, head- down, line buck. An intimate summed it up good-naturedly when he said, “Louis would rather try to kick his way through a brick wall than climb over it.” Most of Washington’s bureaucratic gen- erals never enter a battle without elaborate feeling-out tactics. These might include a planted story in a Washington column, a re- mark dropped at a cocktail party, or an at- tempt to gain a rival’s confidence by profuse friendship. But not Johnson. He has no cultivated friends among the press; he does not go to cocktail parties. Another significant clue to his personality is a casual remark he made during the recent bitter attack on him by Navy admirals and their adherents. A friend asked, ‘How can you be socalm? Congress is after your hide. Newspapers and radio commentators are de- manding your resignation.” The Secretary said quietly, “You forget. I was vaccinated in Washington before.” This is an understatement. Johnson went through a cruel ordeal as Assistant Secretary of War from 1937 until the summer of 1940. During that period, President Roosevelt felt he needed in the Little Cabinet a figure to represent the growing clamor among veter- ans’ groups for rearmament and to balance the isolationist tenor of some leading New Dealers. So Roosevelt selected Johnson, ex- national commander of the Legion and a minor figure in Democratic politics. John- s0n was supposed to sit quietly, take orders, and keep the Legion off the administration’s pack, In this job Johnson failed gloriously, as witness this story, never told before: Early in 1940, a memo was submitted to Assistant Secretary Johnson by Col. James H. Burns, today a major general and Johnson’s geopolitician. The report said war with Germany and Japan was inevitable, and that the United States would need a million- man Army and some $9,000,000,000 for arms. Johnson read the report carefully, turned to Burns, and said, “This is good. Take it down to the General Staff and tell them I want it approved in half an hour.” : The program was initialed within half an hour and Johnson bore it triumphantly to The White House for a historic meeting. He outlined the plan while Roosevelt puffed thoughtfully on a cigarette. Harry Hopkins sat in a corner. Gen. George C. Marshall, Chief of Staff listened intently. William S. Knudsen, the automobile production wizard and later codirector of the Office of Produc- tion Management, nodded at each recom- mendation. When Johnson finished speaking, the Presi- dent said: “I think in big terms, but this is too big. The American people will say I am leading them to war.” Knudsen, who had been primed by John- son, spoke up in a voice heavy with the ac- cent of his native Denmark: “Mr. President, do you want planes?” “Yes, Bill, but not $9,000,000,000 worth.” Knudsen Kept on stubbornly: “You want planes. I need money.” Sighing, Roosevelt said, “All right. TU accept the plan as far as planes are con- cerned.” The industrialist plunged on: “Mr. Presi- dent, do you want tanks?” Roosevelt looked quizzically at Johnson. Then he said, “I approve your program in toto. But let me start with a smaller figure. You make this less than five billion, and I can sell that to the public * * *.” All during the prewar era, Johnson was persuaded by Roosevelt to play an unhappy
A4274 game of deception. The President feared the vigorous intervention policies of John- son would injure him politically if he openly supported the Assistant Secretary. Also, Roosevelt was loath to fire Secretary of War Harry Woodring. So the President told Johnson to report directly to him, but to come in the side door. Meanwhile, key ad-~ ministration officials concerned with pre- paredness were told to cooperate with Johnson. A sample of Johnson’s technique was the way he got American arms to the British, after the bitter defeat at Dunkirk. The Assistant Secretary insisted that a large quantity of Amercan Army rifles be declared surplus and sold to Britain. Woodring re- fused to approve the deal. The Assistant Secretary waited until Woodring was out of town. Then he de- clared the rifles surplus and ordered them sold to Britain. With this off his chest, he went to the White House, reported what he had done, and said in jest, “Mr. President, if I have violated the law, I would like your promise of a pardon—in writing.” Roosevelt wrote a chit. “Louis, if you go to jail, Pll go with you.” The President, however, did not always pack up his hard-driving Assistant Secretary of War so solidly. This was due to a curious combination of Johnson’s own ambitions and the President’s faculty for appearing to promise the moon with green cheese. The moon, to Johnson, was to get the title of Sec- retary of War. Roosevelt later added the green cheese by suggesting in an impulsive moment that Johnson would make an ideal Vice President for the 1940 ticket. Johnson took both these promises serious- ly. His first jolt was at the Democratic Na- tional Convention in July. Cheerful and expectant, he strode into the hotel room where Hopkins and the city bosses were pick- ing a Vice President. The men looked up with glazed, weary eyes, and one is reported to have said, “Oh, my God, another hopeful.” The left wing of the New Deal feared John~ son, whom they glibly labeled an ‘‘American Legion conservative.” They cut his throat politically, and Henry A. Wallace was nom- inated for Vice President. But this was only a warm-up for the big disillusionment, the one which so toughened Johnson that he can now say calmly, “I’ve been vaccinated in Washington before.” A few days after the convention, Johnson was called to the White House, presumably to be appointed Secretary of War. It was a tense gathering. Steve Early, the White House press secretary and Johnson’s one steady friend in the inner circle, looked glum. Roosevelt was too friendly. Felix Frankfurter, a New Deal idea man before he became a Supreme Court Justice, had sold a great thought to the President. If Roosevelt, he argued, appointed Republi- cans as Secretaries of War and Navy, the GOP would be seriously weakened in the cam- paign. The news was broken to Johnson at this White House meeting. Anger flashed in his eyes; his fists knotted. Bernard Baruch went to him and said gently, “Son, don’t do anything you will regret later. Keep your temper.” On July 25, Johnson handed in his resig- nation. Then, bitter and lonely, he left Washington on a train for the West. He was followed by his friend Early, who said sooth- ingly that no one would blame Johnson if he rocked Washington by revealing the indig- nities he had suffered. But he would be a bigger man if he took his disappointment in silence. Johnson accepted the wise counsel. But from that day, he worked to be, ultimately, boss of the American defense establishment. Actually, the tough job of Secretary of Defense is almost tailor-made for Johnson. As a heavyweight boxer at the University of Virginia, he could outfight any man, and did. At 26 and a young lawyer, he was a hustling Democratic floor leader and com- mittee chairman in the West Virginia Legis- lature, A year later, he was fighting through the Meuse-Argonne offensive of World War I. Returning home as a colonel, he helped organize the Legion and rose to be com- mander in 1932, Off and on, Roosevelt brought him to Washington for public and political chores. His longest stretch was as Assistant Secretary of War from 1937 to 1940, His last mission for Roosevelt was to India as the President’s personal representative. Johnson brought home the friendship of India’s Gandhi and Nehru. In the 1948 political campaign, Johnson pitched in and raised money for what many thought was a hopeless cause, the re-election of Harry Truman. He was rewarded by nomination for Secretary of Defense on March 8, 1949. Jchnson has done a remarkable job in two fields—military strategy and administration. He has also acquired more enemies than all the rest of the Cabinet combined. When Johnson came to the Pentagon Building last year, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were deadlocked on strategy. The Air Force was preaching that an,armoda of B-36 bombers, capable of striking any target in the world, could win a war. The Navy re- torted that giant aircraft carriers, sur- rounded by protective warships, were the secret to victory. Meanwhile, the Army in- sisted that foot troops were needed to win objectives and hold them. Biuntly Johnson told the Joint Chiefs: “We are not going to dissipate our strength by having two or three different strategies. That will eat up money we can’t afford to waste.” Then he laid down the law. The B-36, or any later model of long-range bomber, would be the global striking force to retaliate against surprise Soviet blows. (The hydrogen bomb, which Johnson argued for in the recent wrangle within the adminis- tration, could burn Moscow to the ground.) Ground troops of our European allies should be equipped and trained to hold against Russian tanks, infantry, and bomb- ers. We should be willing to accept as allies any nation without aggressive aims, regard- less of its politics. This would include both Communist Yugoslavia and Fascist Spain. The American Army should be kept alerted, so that it could be enlarged, equipped, and sent to vital points in the shortest possible time. The role of the Navy was to convoy troops and supplies and keep the seas free of enemy submarines. To make sure there was no backsliding Johnson halted construction of the Navy’s superaircraft carrier. He stood stonily and calmly while being excorlated by the ad- mirals and their friends. He defied the wily chairman of the House Armed Services Com~= mittee, Cart Vinson. The only concession Johnson made was to allow the marines to remain as a separate élite force. The other side of his shield, the adminis- trative side, has earned Johnson both ap- plause and epithets. The Secretary cut $1,200,000,000 from the defense budget and lopped 141,300 civilian employees from the payroll. The mere thought of such mayhem would make most politiclans shudder, since each of the 141,300 has a Congressman or relatives who are loyal party workers. Characteristically, the Secretary announced his reforms at an open meeting, to which he had invited all Senators and Congressmen whose districts would be affected by econ- omies. They came with fire in their eyes. He outlined the cuts and said firmly, “I per- sonally will tolerate no WPA in Defense.” Johnson could not have carried his econ- omy program through without a well-knit team of assistants. His chief advisers in- clude Under Secretary Early, the master dip- lomat who has saved the blunt Secretary APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD from many 2 blunder, and Louis Renfrow, a jovial Reserve officer and friend of President Truman for more than 30 years. But even with Renfrow browsing around the White House, the palace guard slyly plants stories that Johnson is on the Presi- dent’s black list. The reason for these rumors is the suspicion, which Truman takes with a grain of salt, that the Secretary of Defense is running all-out for the Presidency. To a friend who recently asked him point-blank whether he was a candidate, Johnson re- plied candidly: “When I am through with this job, I couldn’t run for dog catcher.” Johnson is a realist. He would like, of course, to sit in the White House. But in his heart the Secretary knows the chances are dim. He has enemies in every hotel lobby, every cocktail salon, every politicians’ stag party in Washington. He is a conserva- tive in an administration that proudly in~ vites the label of ‘welfare state.” Although Johnson’s name appears daily in the newspapers, the door is firmly closed on his private life. He does not drink with “the boys,” and he avoids Washington soci- ety. Every week end, weather permitting, he flies into a different life at his home in Clarksburg, W. Va. : His first act at home is to walk alone be= neath the trees. The gardens are full of wild flowers, and orchids flourish in the greenhouse. An acquaintance, seeing the blooms for the first time, asked Johnson curiously, “How long have you gardencd?” The aloof mood left him, replaced by a boyish grin. “From childhood. The first money I ever made was from selling beans I'd grown.” A photograph in Johnson’s office gives another glimpse beneath the surface. It is the sensitive face of a philosopher, Pandit Nehru, Prime Minister of India. The in- scription is “To Louis in friendship.” At the end of a day, in the early evening, Johnson will walk to his office window. There he will stand quietly, looking at the Jefferson Memorial across the Potomac River. Then, cheerfully, he will stride into the outer office where secretaries are locking up their desks and say heartily, “Can I give any- one a Hft over the bridge to Washington?” A Thought for Memorial Day EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. EDWARD J. THYE OF MINNESOTA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, June 7, 1950 Mr. THYE. Mr. President, we, in Minnesota, have been unusually fortu- nate in the many communities through- out the State which have been served by alert and outstanding country weekly newspapers. There are nearly 500 of them and they rank among the best in the Nation on the basis of all standards. There are those who believe that big- time activity in journalism is concen- trated exclusively in large metropolitan Gaily papers or in the activities of na- tionally known columnists. Ido not wish to make any invidious comparisons, Mr. President, but I do want to make the statement that in the field of journalism,,. a really authentic voice, typical of our American life, is that of the country editor. I recently read in the Montevideo News, published in a small city in Minne-
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD sota by Mr. Ludwig I. Roe, a former pres- ident of the Minnesota Editorial Asso- ciation, an editorial which I believe indi- cates the thoughtfulness and insight of these leaders in journalism. It is en- titled “A Thought for Memorial Day” and it relates to the danger of too great dependence upon government. I ask unanimous consent that this editorial from the Montevideo News be printed in the Rrcorp as a part of my remarks at this point. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Rrcorp, as follows: A THOUGHT FoR MEMORIAL Day “The history of liberty is the history of the limitation of government power, not the in- crease of it.”’—-Wooprow WILSON. . What makes this statement of present in- terest is not who said it first—but who is saying it, and thinking about it, in 1950. It would be expected that Woodrow Wil- son, student and historian, philosopher and politician, would see that liberty lives when powers of government are limited. He was restating what Jefferson and Madison, Wash- ington, Franklin, and Hamilton put into the first set of ground rules for the great Amer~ ican game. But a statement with a famous man’s name pinned on it becomes a “quotation.” It comes to life when taken as a guide by somebody in your town. Harly in May we heard a young fellow put this up to a group of men and women. “The history of liberty is the history of the limitation of govern- ment power, not the increase of it.” He said it with a lot of seriousness. He was no big shot. Instead he was a young fellow working hard to make his way. He had been in the war, he had taught school, now he is a salesman. He had the right answer figured out—the way to keep liberty is to limit government power, not increase it. We hope he was talking for his generation. Wars have been fought to protect liberty. Lives have been paid in those wars. On Me- morial Day a million American families will be the more sharply reminded of the per- sonal investment made for liberty. Millions more will recall they put something into the defense too. Liberty can be threatened during times of peace—by the spread of government power—just as surely as it was threatened during war. Mr. Truman’s Political Morals EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. ROBERT F. RICH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, June 7, 1950 Mr. RICH. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rercorp, I include the following editorial from the Washington Times-Herald for May 26, 1950: Mr. Troman’s PoutricaL Moras Mr. Truman was asked at a recent press conference whether he had any comment on Senator Tarr’s statement that his adminis- tration was “politically {mmoral.” No, he had mone, the President responded. We shall therefore offer ours, ELECTION IN KANSAS CITY We shall first note that the statute of Umitations will run out Sunday on a matter in which Mr. Truman has some interest. On the night of May 27-28, 1947, the safe was blown in the office of Kansas City election commissioners and the ballots comprising the evidence of wholesale vote frauds in the Democratic Party primary of 1946 were stolen. Mr. Truman at the time was in a Kansas City ‘hotel just a few blocks away. That was the primary in which Mr. Tru- man had decreed that Representative Roger Slaughter, a Democrat, be purged. For 25 years Mr, Truman had enjoyed the support of the Kansas City machine built by the late Tom Pendergast and now run by Pendergast’s nephew, Jim. Slaughter had had the support of the machine in winning two terms in Congress. As a member of the Rules Committee, he failed to follow Truman’s orders. In July 1946 Truman summoned Jim Pen- dergast to Washington and personally de- manded Slaughter’s defeat. The President on July 18 informed his press conference that he had done so. On primary day he flew to Kansas City to throw the weight of a personal appearance into the campaign to unseat Slaughter. Mr. Truman’s hand-picked candidate, Enos Axtell, was nominated by 2,300 votes. Axtell failed to carry his own township. He lost every ward until he came to the four key wards under Pendergast’s control. In two precincts in these wards Slaughter was not credited with a single vote. According to Maurice Milligan, former Democratic United States attorney for west- ern Missouri, Axtell’s victory “smelled to high heaven of fraud.” Milligan’s successor, Sam M. Wear, and the Department of Justice, then under Tom Clark, now elevated to the United States Supreme Court, went through some perfunc- tory motions of investigating, but decided there was no case. Then the Jackson County grand jury stepped in. It indicted 71 Pendergast henchmen, reporting that there “had been a deliberate and calculated plan to miscount votes and otherwise steal the election” from Slaughter. The report of the grand Jury was received on May 27,1947. That night the courthouse safe was blown and the ballots stolen. The next day Attorney General Clark was trying to explain to a senatorial committee in Washington why he had shown so little interest in the Kansas City vote frauds. News of the safe blowing arrived just as he was about to depart to receive an hon- orary degree in Texas as a champion of civic virtue. The Senators called some more witnesses. Mr, Truman’s United States attorney for western Missouri, the dawdling Mr. Wear, appeared and admitted that, in the light of the safe blowing, things “looked suspicious.” But, added Mr. Wear, “I have an awfully good alibi.” Mr. Wear had been absent from Kansas City that night. He had an alibi. It is not usual for United States attorneys to offer alibis. PRESIDENT KEEPS QUIET Maurice Milligan takes up this story in his memoirs of his fight against the Pender- gast machine, originally published under the title of “Missouri Waltz.” He had broken the Pendergast machine once. He had sent 259 of the Pendergast mob to the peniten- tiary for fraud in the elections of 10 years before, when Tom Pendergast customarily counted 60,000 ghost votes. In 1989 Milligan caught up with the boss himself. Tom Pendergast pleaded guilty to evasion of $551,000 in income tax on unre- ported income of more than. $1,000,000. Of this sum, $305,000 represented bribes Pendergast had received for the settlement of a case involving the release to insurance companies of millions of dollars In oVer- charges on fire insurance premiums paid by Missouri policyholders. AA275 Pendergast got 15 months and was ordered to take no part in politics after his release from prison. He turned over the remnants of his machine to Jim Pendergast. President Truman for 25 years had been the friend and political creature of the Pen- dergasts. He was Tom’s third choice for the Senate in what looked like a losing year. The Truman luck—and the Pendergast methods of delivering an election—worked, and Harry was on his way to the White House. When Tom died in 1945, Truman, then Vice President, said, “He was my friend, and I was his,” and flew to the funeral. After Milligan’s work, Kansas City had honest elections for awhile, but upon Tru- man’s election as Vice President, Milligan was ousted as district attorney. Then in 1946, as President, Truman, in the words of Milligan, “breathed new life into an organi- zation that for all practical purposes was dead as a doornail.” He brought the Pendergast machine back to life and, with it, its vote frauds, corrup- tion, and gunplay, which recently resulted in the murder of Charles Binaggio and Charles Gargotta, underworld characters and Democratic politicians. The killing took place under a huge photograph of the Pres- ident himself. We quite understand why Mr. Truman has no comment. Trinity Evangelical and Reformed Church, Buffalo, N. Y. EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. ANTHONY F. TAURIELLO OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, June 7, 1950 Mr. TAURIELLO. Mr. Speaker, I want to call to the attention of the Mem- bers of Congress the splendid record of the Trinity Evangelical and Reformed Church of Buffalo, N. Y. This thriving parish has a fine his- tory of over 40 years of service to its community and its parishioners. It oc- cupies a respected place in the commu- nity of churches and has done much to bring about mutual understanding and cooperation among churches of the vari- ous denominations in western New York. Because of the diligent and fruitful labors of its ministers, whose efforts have have been productive of an abun- dant harvest, Trinity Church finds it necessary to embark upon a fund-raising campaign to enlarge its facilities in or- der to take care of its needs. Under leave to extend my remarks, I am herewith enclosing a brochure which tells the story of the rapid growth of this parish and the present necessity for its expansion: TRINITY IN RETROSPECT Forty-one years ago Trinity Evangelical and Reformed Church had its beginning. It had its origin as a reformed church. The site selected for this embryo church was at the corner of Suffolk and what is now Berk- shire Avenue. It was only a small house of worship, but apparently it was large enough to meet the needs of the small group of wor- shippers in those days when Kensington was largely woods, brush, and corn fields. This small chapel immediately became the meeting place for the community. It was the pioneer church of the Kensington area