A270 flagrant violations of elementary right and justice. The sooner we get that stern truth through our heads in an atomic age, the better for us and our children. Poland is thus once more the outstanding acid test of our real intentions. Again I say that unless we do something effective about this imperative challenge to our professed principles and policies, we shall be found wanting, will show ourselves to be time- servers and hypocrites, and may expect to reap most unpleasant consequences, The diplomatic Rake’s Progress of Po- lana's betrayal, worthy of the pen of a modern Hogarth, is a tale so long and intricate that I can only summarize it in the brief time at my disposal. It begins with Poland’s de- termination to resist Nazi aggression in 1939, on the faith of treaty pledges by Britain and France guaranteeing Polish sovereignty and integrity. Then came the Russian stab in the back and Poland's partition between the totalitarian giants, Hitler and Stalin. Yet, when those arch-despoilers fell out, Poland did not profit; basically because London and Washington did not hold Moscow to the Pledges it had categorically made. Those pledges are first found in the Atlantic Char- ter, to which Soviet Russia subscribed in 1942. They were reiterated in the agree- ments concluded between Churchill, Roose- velt, and Stalin, first at Tehran and again at Yalta. The Yalta Declaration of February 11, 1945, not only reiterates the adherence of the signatories to the Atlantic Charter and the embryonic United Nations but specifi- cally provides for an independent Poland and @ provisional Polish Government pledged to the holding of free and unfettered elec- tions as soon as possible on the basis of uni- versal suffrage and secret ballot. How those promises have been Kept is shown by our recent note to the Soviet Gov- ernment, after our repeated protests to the Moscow-dominated puppet regime at War- saw had been contemptuously flouted. Go- ing over the heads of those Warsaw stooges to the source of real authority, our State Department complained to the Kremlin: The methods used by the (Polish) Govern- ment in its efforts to eliminate the partici- pation of the Polish Peasant Party in the elections include political arrests and mur- ders, compulsory enrollment of Polish Peas- ant Party members in the bloc political parties, dismissal of Polish Peasant Party members from their employment, searches of homes, attacks by secret police and mem- bers of the Communist Party on Polish Peas- ant Party premises and party congresses, sus- pension and restriction by Government au- thorities on Polish Peasant Party meetings, suspension of party activities, suppression of the party press, etc. The long catalog of offenses cited in our note, of which merely part is here quoted, only faintly portrays the bloody reign of terror vividly described by foreign news cor- respondents and in official dispatches by our and other diplomatic representatives, some of which have been made public. Yet, in face of all this, the Soviet Government has had the effrontery to reject our note and blandly asserts that no interference in Po- land is needed by the Yalta signatories, since all goes well there. Thus backed up to the hilt by Moscow, the Warsaw puppet regime is not only carry- ing out its farcical elections according to specifications but is obviously planning to visit dire retribution on all opponents to Its ruthless will. The terror seems thus slated to go on to the bitter end. Our rebuff by Moscow is thus complete. And it should be understood that the par- allel protests of the British Government have been similarly defiled. What should Wash- ington and London do about it? The best program I have seen advocated comes from the pen of William Henry Chamberlin, one of our outstanding authorities on world af- fairs, with special knowledge of Soviet Rus- sia and its aims. Writing in the current is- sue of the New Leader, Chamberlin says: “It seems to me that there is only one logical, honorable, straightforward thing for the United States Government to do. This is to declare, on the basis of the overwhelm- ing evidence, that the forthcoming election is a fraudulent sham; that we can no longer recognize the usurping, carpet-bagging group of Comintern agentg that is so obviously unable to face the chances of a free election as having any legitimate claim to be con- sidered the Government of Poland. “We should break off diplomatic relations or, if the argument is raised that we need & source of information, we should with- draw our ambassador. We should make it clear that no loans or credits involving American participation will be granted to any Polish regime that does not derive its authority from a genuinely free and unfet- tered election. And we should publicly and officially express the hope that the Polish people will succeed in overthrowing by force & regime which has given them no oppor- tunity to repudiate it by peaceful and legal means. “An American diplomatic offensive of this kind [continues Chamberlin] would have the effect of a thunderclap throughout east- ern Europe, It would shake every Red Quis- ling regime from the Baltic to the Adriatic. It would be a tremendous impulse to the morale of the gallant Polish Maquis, who have already reduced the authority of the puppet government to a nullity in large areas of the country. “Such action would be fully justified by the express wording of the compact into which we entered at Yalta. And we would really lose nothing by taking a vigorous stand. Is anyone, inside or outside the State Department, still so naive as to believe that any Communist-dominated regime anywhere can be anything but an enemy of our country? “The idea that we can peacefully divide up the world with Russia and buy security in this hemisphere by acqutescing tn the stamping out of the Jast sparks of liberty in eastern Europe is not only immoral, but stupidly mis- taken. The Communist fifth-column offen- sive against America is world-wide in scope. William Lawrence, on the basis of a recent trip in South America, reports in the New York Times that Communist parties are a main channel for the dissemination of anti- American prcpaganda. General Marshall, Just before he left China, declared that Chi- nese Communist propaganda (dutifully re- echoed by a corps of far-eastern fellow- travelers in this country, as the new Secre- tary of State might have added), ‘has given plain evidence of a determined purpose to mislead the Chinese people and the world and to arouse a bitter hatred of Americans.’ The more aid and comfort we can give to the forces of freedom behind the fron cur- tain, the less resources Moscow will possess for !ts propaganda offensive in other parts of the world." Thus speaks William Henry Chamberlin out of his wealth of knowledge and personal experience. Regular listeners to these broadcasts will not be surprised when I say that I endorse every word of his proposal, because it represents the standpoint I have taken for years. Such a program Officially announced and unflinchingly pursued by the American Government, in Close association with what would almost certainly be parallel action on the part of the British Govern- ment, would give a world sick of totalitarian aggression and longing for truly liberal, en- lightened leadership, the cue it has long awaited and which countless millions today almost agonizingly crave. The moral imponderables would swing un- erringly to our side when we at last came out ‘unequivocally for the redemption of commit- ments which we have distressingly ignored Or nullified in our vain quest for appease- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ment—vain, because the object of that false policy cannot, basically, be appeased. Certainly, to acquiesce in or overlook the insolent challenge flung us by Warsaw and Moscow over the fuke elections and attend- ant reign of terror in Poland would spell a diplomatic surrender of the first magnitude. After such a capitulation we should go into the negotiations over the settlement of Ger- Many with two strikes against us. There is only one way to insure a new and better world. That is along the path of righteousness and justice. If that path be temporarily obscured by an overgrowth of noxious obstructionism, the overgrowth must be cut away. The path itself cannot be abandoned, because there is no detour, = - Squeeze in Cocoa EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. THOMAS L. OWENS OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 23, 1947 Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Recorp, I include the following editorial from the Chicago Sunday Tribune of January 19, 1947: SQUEEZE IN COCOA The British Government Control Board, which is operating a cartel in West African cocoa beans, comprising about half of the normal world supply, has offered American cocoa dealers 20,000 tons at 25 cents a pound, plus freight. This is an advance of 6 cents a pound within a month and contrasts with a price of 15 cents a pound commanded Dy Bra- zilian cocoa last October, and an average price of slightly less than 5 cents a pound from all sources in the nine prewar years 1932-40. Not unnaturally, American dealers feel that the British cartel is trying to gouge them and have refused to buy. One consequence is a shortage of chocolate bars. The British Government, arguing that be- cause of shipping difficulties private trade channels could not handle the cocoa crop, moved in and assumed control in the war year 1939-40. It bought the entire West Afri- can crop and marketed it at a fixed price of 44 cents a pound. In November 1944 the Government issued a white paper announcing its intention to continue wartime purchase and price controls over the West African crop after the war. The extension of controls was justified for an entirely different reason from the original plea of a shipping shortage. The Government said that control was to be main- tained in order to avoid “vagaries of specula- tion” in world markets. The cocoa cartel is manifesting the usual British predilection for trying to wring extor- tionate profits out of those who must deal with British-controlled monopoly markets. The same sort of thing that is happening now in cocoa happened in rubber in 1925, when the British and Dutch international combine put the price up to well above a dollar, treb- ling it from the previous profitable base price within a very short time. America, as the principal rubber consumer, was the designated victim of this gouge, but the users here, under the leadership of Mr. Hoover, resisted the cartel by withholding orders and engaging in wide-scale reclama- tion of used rubber. This eventually brought the price down within reason. The cocoa and chocolate industry can expect no help from the administration, and particularly the State Department, which goes on burbling that foreign loans and tariff concessions are all that are necessary to stimulate manufac- tures and trade in raw commodities.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD The Development of the Colorado River Basin EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ERNEST W. McFARLAND OF ARIZONA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, January 20 (legislative day of Wednesday, January 15). 1947 Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. President, one of the major problems before the West today is that of the use of the waters of the Colorado River. Everyone of the seven States of the river basin—Wyo- ming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and California—is vi- tally concerned with the use of these waters. To a greater degree than in any other major river basin in the United States, the lands of the Colorado River Basin are arid. The Bureau of Reclamation of the De- partment of the Interior has prepared a great report on the Colorado River Basin. This report should be on the must-read list of all students of the West. An able discussion of the situation presently confronting the Colorado River Basin was made by the Honorable Wil- liam E. Warne, Assistant Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, before the National Reclamation Association at Omaha, Nebr., last October 11. I ask unanimous eonsent that the ad- dress delivered by Mr. Warne be printed in the Recorp. I am informed by the Government Printing Office that the manuscript of the address will, it is estimated, make about three and one-quarter printed pages of the Recorp, and will cost $195. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Mr. Chairman, I have never had an assign- ment that I appreciated more than this one to discuss with the National Reclamation Association a plan for the development of the Colorado River Basin. If you will par- don a brief personal reference, I shall tell you why. Almost since I can remember, the great, arid basin of the Colorado has been home to me. I was reared on an irrigated farm in the Imperial Valley of California. I recall dog days when the ditches were empty and we, long past worrying about the daried-up alfalfa, anxiously hoarded water for the cows lest the ponds themselves go dry. And I remember springs when the water ran thick with red mud and we were afraid that the river again would turn in upon us as it did in 1906. As a young man, I learned more of these droughts and floods. I saw the great river eo low because of drought that I could have waded across it near Yuma almost without wetting my knees. Another year I stood on the levees in Mexico with dirty flood waters lapping almost at my feet. One hundred thousand people in the towns and on the farms stretching to the Salton Sea had only those few inches between them and disaster. The history made by the explorers, the irrigationists, and the engineers who tried to conquer the Colorado has interested me ever since the night I attended my first pub- No meeting at the Alamo country school- house. There I heard the late Mark Rose of Holtville, Calif., explain to my father and other men of the farm bureau how the con- struction of a great dam in Boulder Canyon would remove our danger. More than 20 years later, I joined the staff of the Bureau of Reclamation in time to take a small part in the completion of Boulder Dam, so long the hope, and now the salvation of my old neighbors. The people of the Imperial Valley and those of other areas along the lower river no longer are terrorized by the Colorado. Floods are caught in Luke Mead and the effects of droughts are eliminated by releases through Boulder Dam. The lower Colorado is in harness. The main stem, itself, is under complete control, and plans are wider consideration fur dams to control the two bad-acting downstreum tributaries, the Gila and Bill Williams Rivers. This Ufe-long connection with the Colo- rado River Basin makes me proud now to have a purt in preparing a plan tor the second stage of the development of the river, History tells us that in 1539 and 1540 Fran- scisco de Ulloa and Hernundo de Alarcon sailed up the Gulf of California and proved that Californin was not an island. They found a great river where a strait was ex- pected. This river was not friendly as were 80 many other American rivers. Instead of providing a highway for explorers, truppers, and emigrants to use in entering the coun- try, the Colorado at many places proved an impassable barrier. Its canyons were the high-water mark of the northward march of the Spanish Dons and Padres. None knew where the river went after it entered the upper canyons, None knew whence the river came as it reached the delta. Some old maps show two or more rivers in its place. For many decades the river was named and renamed. Varfous sections of it were given different names. For a while, it was called the Firebrand River, and over another stretch of years it was the River of the Martyrs. Not until our generation did it become known as the Colorado River from ita source at Grand Lake all the way down to the sea. Since the Colorado was so difficult, it does not surprise us to find that the explorers, trappers and early emigrants took a dim view of this river. Lt. J. C. Ives in 1857, three centuries after discovery of the river, in sum- ming up for them, said: “The region last explored is, of course, al- together valueless. It can be approached only from the south, and after entering it, there is nothing to do but leave. Ours was the first, and doubtless will be the last, party of whites to visit this profitless locality. It seems intended by nature that the Colorado River along the greater portion of its lone and majestic way shall be forever unvisited and unmolested.” Yes, less than 100 years ago Lieutenant Ives, the head of an expedition sent by our Govern- ment, rendered that verdict on the first 800 years of acquaintance with the Colorado River. He wrote the paragraphs as he turned back in his steel, paddle-wheel boat, The Explorer, having reached almost the exact spot where Boulder Dam today stands. One of Lieutenant Ives’ sketches of the profitless locality in his report looks very much like the actual site of the dam. The captain of The Explorer could not foresee that in less than 100 years the hydro- electric energy that could be taken from the river at the rapids that turned back his boat would make the building of Boulder Dam profitable. I want to remind you of Lieutenant Ives’ verdict, a little later, as we attempt to look ahead for another century or so in the Colorado River Basin. The Mormons in the upper tributaries and Dr. Oliver M. Wozencraft on the lower river found in irrigation the key to unlock the wealth of the basin. The Mormons tn 1847 had to use the waters of Utah in order to exist in their newly chosen homeland, They A271 were soon establishing irrigation colonies along many of the streams that joined to make up the Colorado. Dr. Wozencraft reached Fort Yuma on his way to California during the gold rush. He heard talk of a plan to cut the west bank of the Colorado River to fill up the Sulton sink. The object of this plan was to make it pos- sible to travel by boat across the terrible desert of this below-sea-level valley. Dr. Wo2Zencraft saw, however, that if the river could be diverted simply to inundate a greut valley it could be diverted to irrigate the dry alluvial soil that formed the wide floor of that valley. Several decades later, Charies R. Rockwood and others develoned the Imperial Valley by carrying out the Wozencraft plan. Men, since these beginnings, have worked diligently to devise and promote plans to use the Coloradc River. There is no area in the United States where the use of the waters of a river is more im- portant. The Colorado River drains 242,000 square miles in the United States. Its basin makes up one-twelfth of the land area of con- tinental United States. The basin is arid or semiarid throughout except at very high alti- tudes. I have traveled from the tundra where the Colorado rises at the tops of the Rockies 1,400 miles to the sandy waste where the 'idal bore enters the delta, and each of the areas of the basin 1s short of rainfall Some are dry all the year, as is the case of the Imperial Valley where my teacher once dismissed the class so that we could go out and run in the rain. It was the only storm we had that year. Other areas of the basin are dry only during certain seasons. But this basin is and for ages has been dry. The magnificent canyons that set the Colorado River apart from among all of the rivers of the world were carved by & great river that ran through the land. That is why the canyon walls rises spectacularly to 6,000 feet. If the Colorado River had been made great by waters that ran off the land, the walls probably would have been shaped by the falling and flowing water into smooth, round hills long before this. From the time of the cliff dwellers right on down to today, men who have chosen to live in the Colorado River Basin have had to irri- gate land to provide food for themselves. Our irrigation methods have improved over those of the prehistoric Indian who carried the water to his corn hills in an ollas on his head, but in the Colorado River Basin men have irrigated the land or moved on. Red men or white men, pagan or Christian, Mormon or Catholic, Spanish, Mexican, or American, irri- gated the land or got out. In the future, also, we will find that the number of Americans who can live in the Colorado River Basin will have a direct re- lationship with the amount of water used there for irrigation. In 1869, the new attitude that the Colo- rado River must be used was held by Maj. John Wesley Powell, when he headed the first successful exploration of the canyon sections of the river. The names of others who made important studies of the river, C. H. Birdseye, A. P. Davis, F. E. Weymouth, Walker R. Young, E. C. LaRue, come to mind, but there was none more colorful than the one-armed Civil War veteran who sat in a chair bolted to the deck of a boat as he ran the rapids of the river. Major Powell lived to preach water conservation and to influence the making of the reclamation law that has been so beneficial in the de- velopment of the Colorado River. The Colorado River was too big a prob- lem for one man, or agency, or Stute to handle alone. Cooperation was required among all interests to achieve the results these studies foretold. By 1920 the governors of the seven States of the basin were organizing meetings to plan joint action. In that year, at one of the meetings, Delph E. Carpenter, of Colorado, made the novel proposal that Wyoming,
A272 Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Cali- fornia, and Arizona, all being sovereign States, exercise the treaty-making powers re- served in the Federal Constitution as a means of cementing an agreement on the interstate division of the waters of the Colo- rado River. Carpenter's key of complete cooperation unlocked the puzzle that the interstate character of the river presented. In Santa Fe on November 24, 1922, the Colorado River compact was completed. This then unique interstate treaty divided the waters of the Colorado River system between the upper and the lower basins at Lee Ferry by pro- viding that each basin could have the bene- ficial consumptive use of 7,500,000 acre-feet of water annually, that the lower basin could increase its beneficial consumptive use of such water by 1,000,000 acre-feet of water annually, and that the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming will not deplete the flow of the river at Lee Ferry below an aggregate of 75,000,000 acre-feet during any period of 10 consecutive years. This compact has been scrutinized micro- scopically and there are many opinions con- cerning some of its provisions. But the compact has borne as fruit the Boulder Can- yon project and the entire first stage of de- velopment of the Colorado River. I am sure that its makers consider themselves more than amply rewarded by these results. Made possible by the compact was the construction of Boulder, Davis, Parker, and Imperial Dams, of the All-American Canal, the Colorado River aqueduct serving south- ern California cities, and of new irrigation rojects such as the Gila and the Colorado- ig Thompson. Among other results of the compact was legislation authorizing and directing the Bureau of Reclamation to make studies and prepare a comprehensive plan for further development of the Colorado River Basin. A few months ago, after years of work in close cooperation with the States and other agencies, the Bureau of Reclamation pre- sented to Secretary of the Interior J. A. Krug ® comprehensive report on the development of the water resources of the Colorado River Basin for irrigation, power produc- tion, and other beneficial uses. This is the book. Those of you who want copies may obtain them on the table outside the door after the meeting this morning. Take stock with me for a moment of what this report discloses, for we are now at the point of considering the plan for devising the second stage of development of the basin. The report shows that not quite half of the water of the Colorado River is used now. It shows that there are 134 potential projects within the basin that are worthy of consid- eration at this time in connection with the second stage of development. Of these proj- ects 100 are in the upper basin, where the lesser development occurred during the first stage. The 1384 projects would irrigate 2,656,230 acres of land that are now dry or inadequately watered, 1,734,980 above Lee Ferry and 921,250 below. Of this total 1,533,960 acres would be lands not heretofore cultivated at all. The report further shows that, in addition, 500,000 acre-feet of water have been allowed for irrigation of upland pastures for use in connection with grazing, both in national forests and on other public lands. The report shows that 38 hydroelec- tric power plants with a total installed ca- pacity of more than 8,500,000 kilowatts are Possible as a part of the development pro- gram. The report notes opportunities use- fully to divert water for use in other adja- cent basins. The report reemphasizes the fact, however, that there are more oppor- tunities to use waters of the great Colorado Basin than can be supplied by the reliable annual water yield of the Colorado River. This again brings the entire basin squarely face to face with the problem that confronted the seven States back in 1920, r co operation is required or development is likely to be suspended for 10 or 20 years if it is not permanently stopped at this point. The question is: What water will be used where in the further development of the Golorado River Basin? This time, however, there are guideposts to aid in the working out of a mutual program, and the task should be easier. As guides there ore the Colorado River compact and the Mexican Water Treaty that was ratified in 1946. These set the amounts of water required for delivery at two critical points, Lee Ferry, the dividing point of the upper and the lower basins and the Mexican border, below which the river is out of the reach and jurisdiction of the United States. This treaty, which provides that Mexico shall acquire no right to the waters of the river in excess of 1,500,- 000 acre-feet of water a year, serves to re- move a major uncertainty that previously had faced those who were at work develop- ing the basin; namely, the limit of Mexico's right. This had to be done before the divi- sion and use of waters on the United States’ side safely could be carried much further. Another advantage we have today is that we have a tried and proven method of negotiat- ing and confirming interstate water agree- ments. The Secretary of the Interior, acting through Reclamation Commissioner Michael W. Straus and in accordance with the rec- ommendation of Regional Directors E. O. Larson and E. A, Moritz, joint authors of the comprehensive report, has asked the basin States to determine their respective rights to deplete the flow of the Colorado River consistent with the Colorado River compact. He has asked also for the recom- mendations of the seven States for construc- tion of projects in the next stage of develop- ment, the stream-flow depletions of which will assuredly fal] within the ultimate allo- cations of the water which may be made to the individual States. Secretary Krug had thus to turn to the States. The reclama- tion law now provides and always has pro- vided that we shall proceed in conformity with State laws regarding water rights. Thus, when we are faced with potential de- mand in the Colorado River Basin exceeding the water supply, we must turn to the States for the exercise of their responsibilities to tell us what their water rights consist of. The Flood Control Act of 1944 requires that reclamation plans be laid before the affected States in order that they may comment to us and through us to the Congress on the soundness and desirability of the works and schemes proposed. The chalienge to cooperate and to proceed with the development of the Colorado Basin was quickly accepted. . Governors Hunt, of Wyoming, Vivian, of Colorado, Maw, of Utah, and Dempsey, of New Mexico, met in Cheyenne July 22 with Federal Commissioner Harry W. Bashore, rep- resenting President Truman, to organize for negotiation of a compact regarding the wa- ters of the upper basin. Arizona, which has some interests in the upper basin, was rep- resented, Several meetings have since been held of the Compact Commission and its engineering committee. Conscientious men are earnestly at work and I have every con- fidence they will be able to eliminate perhaps the biggest uncertainty in the basin today, namely, the question as to how the upper- basin waters are to be divided. The old Committee of Sixteen, having two representatives from each basin State and two of the power allottees at Boulder Dam, has been succeeded by the Colorado River Basin States Committee. This group, or at least a large part of it, has met and will con- tinue to meet, I understand, in the interests of promoting a mutual plan for the develop- ment of the entire Colorado River Basin, Other groups are similarly engaged. The Bu- reau of Reclamation is working with all of APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD these groups with the avowed purpose of aiding and assisting in the development of the specifics of a plan for the second stage of development of the basin. The governor of each of the seven States has assigned to responsible men of his staff, in addition, the task of reviewing and com- menting on the comprehensive report. Be- cause of the size and scope of the report, we will withhold it from submission to the Congress 90 days longer than we are re- quired to withhold it under the law so that the States will have more time for review and comment, The stakes for which all are playing in this game of get-together are extremely high. If there is developed a mutually agreeable plan as a result of the work now under way in the States, a plan that might well involve the construction of a billion dollars or more of projects for irrigation, power, river regu- lation, and related purposes, I believe that the plan can be justified before the American people, authorized for construction as the second stage, and financed by the Congress, In this event the projects could be con- structed in the near future and put to use. This second stage that I visualize will occupy the construction forces for perhaps another 15 years, as the first stage has occupied the construction forces for the past 15 years, but it will not exhaust either the water or the possibilities of the Colorado River Basin. No, the development of the Colorado River Basin to the point at which the last drop of water that can be provided will be put to beneficial use is 100 years away and perhaps much farther. Please keep that firmly in mind. There will be unused water in the Colorado River to waste into the sea for per- haps another century, long after any sensi- ble and justifiable second stage of develop- ment is completed and put to use. At this moment the principal danger in the Colorado River situation is that the fine tradition of agreement and mutual effort that has served the seven basin States so well in the past may be abandoned because of fear. Some who are interested in develop- ments that have already been made fear that water they hope to use may be committed elsewhere in the second stage of development. I consider this fear wholly groundless. The second stage of development cannot and, in my opinion, should not be a 100-year plan, as it would have to be to necessitate a decision now on the question of where to use the last drop of water that can be made available in the Colorado Basin to its seven States. We should not create obstacles to our pres- ent progress by borrowing troubles from the future, troubles that I believe will prove to have been imaginary. The second stage should be a 10- or a 15- or at most a 20-year program that can be completed with com- fortable water margins around all edges. There are no seers who can peer 100 years into the future. Therefore, none can lay out a plan today that would be considered satis- factory in the year 2046. Our long-range plans are not strait-jackets. They are useful in providing general guides and limits when they reach beyond one or at most two decades. The best we can hope to do today is to lay out a line of action in connection with the development of a great river basin that will hold for 10, 15, or 20 years, and to revise our long-range plans at 10-year inter- vals to meet ever-changing conditions. Suppose, for example, we successors of Lieutenant Ives in the Colorado River Basin had found ourselves bound for 100 years by his plan for the Colorado River. Remember, he said in 1857 that no one would ever visit the canyon section of the river again. But 73 years later we were constructing the world’s greatest dam at the spot on which he made his dismal and myopic forecast. If we had not reserved and exercised the right to re- vise Lieutenant Ives’ long-range plan for the Colorado River, we would still have 11 years
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD to sit out to complete a century of inac- tivity. Instead, the pioneers introduced and ex- panded tirrigation—were beginning to, in fact, when Lieutenant Ives made his voyage. This development and improved techniques in transmitting electric energy made Boulder and other great dams in the river both nec- essary and practical. Every State and every locality of the Col- orado River Basin will reap rich rewards and the entire Nation will benefit from a sound second stage of development. Los Angeles and southern California generally need power that the second stage will make avail- able in the sower river. Southern Nevada and Arizona need part of the power, as well. The Imperial, Yuma, Coachella and Palo Verde Valleys need the long-range protec- tion that the great main stream regulating reservoirs will provide. This regulation will be helpful also in meeting national respon- sibilities assumed in connection with the administration of the Mexican Water Treaty. Developed areas in Arizona require supple- mental water to stave off sharp curtailment of growth and production. The metropoli- tan areas of Salt Lake City and Denver need Plentiful low-cost hydroelectric power, and they, too, must have the support of supple- mental water diversions from the Colorado River. New Mexico and Wyoming and the other upper basin States are critically in need of further irrigation development within the basin. To demonstrate how acute this re- quirement for new irrigation and industrial development is, let me cite the fact that in 1940 the density of population within the Colorado River Basin was but 3.6 per square mile, less than one-tenth of the national average of 44.2. New wealth and activity of extreme im- portance is possible through the application of a part of the great reservoir of hydroelec- tric energy to the development of the latent mineral resources of the basin. Utah and Colorado are the leading domestic sources of vanadium, uranium, radium, and molyb- denum. Precious metals, copper, natural gas and oil, and one-fourth of the Nation’s bi- tuminous and sub-bituminous-coal reserves are found in the basin. Great beds of thinly covered phosphate rock center around the corner common to Utah, Wyoming, and Col- orado; the foundation of a future fertilizer industry of mammoth size. Take a look at southern Nevada. It will be instructive. Be- cause Boulder Dam provided a source of plentiful, cheap power, a great electrometal- lurgical industry grew up near Las Vegas during the war It was a war baby, but while the magnesium plant is not making mag- nesium now, there are half a dozen smaller, new industries occupying the buildings and there is a-great scramble for a power supply to make possible the entrance of more into the field. Parenthetically, let me say that this is not an isolated instance, for nearly 100 percent of the power that we installed for war has been picked up already by in- dustry. However, if sufficient low-cost power can be made available soon enough, the transition from war activity to a wholly new postwar economy will be made comparative- ly painlessly and southern Nevada will be permanently benefited. Let other areas take heed. Let the Nation take heed, too, of its need to prosecute plans for the orderly de- velopment of these latent resources for fu- ture prosperity and security. The Colorado River is but half utilized. Therefore, it makes no sense to say, whether you are a Californian, as I am, or a resident of any other of the seven States, that we must stop building in order to protect what has been done in the first stage. The people of the lower basin were the first to reject completely the philosophy of Lieutenant Ives. They believed that something con- structive should be done with the Colorado River. By their demonstrated need and their XCINI—App.——18 dogged perseverance they won the support of nearly the whole basin for Boulder Dam. They obtained, in consequence, the immense first-stage benefits for the basin as a whole. The second stage of development, I feel sure, will merit the support of all of those who fought the good fight for the control and use of the first half of the waters of the river. The second stage will place other great dams in the main stem, stretch high-voltage lines over other deserts to additional cities, bring water through diversion tunnels, aque- ducts, and through canals to found and sup- port cities, and to create and sustain great new farming areas. Yes, there is mutual need for further de- velopment of the Colorado River from one end of the basin to the other, and therefore, log- ically there should be a mutual purpose among the seven States. All the residents of every section of the seven States will be bene- fited. Whether or not they realize it, they have a personal interest and stake in the success of the cooperative efforts now under way. Those who lived in fear of drought and flood and won their long fight for security with the aid of their basin neighbors, must now come to the assistance of thelr earlier benefactors and help the second stage to ma- terialize. Some who agree that a logical second stage could hold no dangers for any water user who has benefited from the first stage, say in sin- cere perplexity: “Yes; but what will be the solutions of these problems that are 100 years or so in the future? May not suffering be introduced when the time comes to divide the last drop of water in the river?” At the very outset of the atomic age, who knows what wholly unbelievable answers to these problems may be possible 100 years hence? The electric age, in which we all live so familiarly today, answered Lieutenant Ives’ problem of the “‘profitless locality” com- pletely in much less than 100 years. However, the answer to the 100-year prob- lem does not have to be left to atomic en- ergy. It is perfectly possible to bring new water into southern California and the Colo- rado River Basin from the surpluses of other and more distant streams. Yes; it would be costly by present standards. But it may become entirely practicable by future stand- ards. And some other basins within reach will have surplus waters in the future, as now. Ts it fantastic to think of such an answer to the 100-year problem of the Colorado River? I do not think so. Already surplus waters from the Sacramento are being trans- ferred by the Central Valley project of Cali- fornia to the San Joaquin Basin, which will effect a shift, when the project is completed, of 500 miles southward of a water supply from Mount Shasta to below Bakersfield. Feasible means of bringing surplus water from the Trinity or the Klamath Rivers into the Sac- ramento Valley could now be devised, if it were warranted. And since the Colorado River aqueduct was completed and is now being extended to San Diego, nearly 300 miles from the Colorado River over deserts and high rugged mountains, who will say that an aque- duct from the San Joaquin Valley through the Tehachapis to southern California ts im- possible if and when surplus waters are brought that far south? By exchange among power plants it is possible to operate great power systems much more extensive than it would be practical to operate by transmitting power from a single source. What thinking man can say the eventual transportation, by exchange or otherwise, of surplus waters great distances is impossible and may not be- come practical and within the range of finan- cial feasibility in much less than 100 years? I believe it is not too early to begin the long preliminaries that must precede the oompletion of any such magnificent plan, A273 The Congress would do well to authorize and direct the Bureau of Reclamation to start the preliminary engineering work in a small way without delay. For fear of misinterpretation, however, let me state perfectly plainly that the second Stage of development of the Colorado River Basin need not be tied to the importation of water to the Colorado River Basin from any outside stream. So long as in excess of half of the flow of the Colorado River is unused, the straits are certainly not that dire. No State at the present is utilizing the minimum firm allocation of water that was made by or to it. No State or locality is hurt by projects that are bullt now. And no State is about to be hurt by any pending specific proposal. California, the largest water user among the Seven States, last year diverted only about 3,500,000 acre-feet, materially less than the 4,400,000 acre-feet of firm (III-A) water to which she has limited herself. I have a recollection that the Supreme Court said in the Boulder Dam case some- thing like this, if 1 may be permitted a non- legal paraphrase of its opinion: “A vague fear that eventually there may be a shortage of water in the river does not provide cause for legal action which might halt develop- ment now.” The Colorado River already has been placed in harness by the process of the States of the basin and the Federal Government cooper- ating to eliminate the hazards of flood and drought along the lower river and to bring the positive benefits of irrigation and cheap power over wider areas. We have the plan and the skill to carry that development a long and profitable second step forward. Co- operation and the dedication of all interests to the mutual purpose are required to get it done. There is no real danger in letting the distant future contend with some of the ulti- mate problems, especially since we have be- gun to see practical solutions for them today. The Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation stand ready to assist any and all interests in the Colorado River Basin to compose differences and arrive at a mutual plan for the second stage of develop- ment. We think that this second stage of the development of the Colorado River Basin should start from the year 1946. Jewry’s Role in World War Il EXTENSION OF REMARKS oO) HON. HOMER E. CAPEHART OF INDIANA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, January 24 (legislative day of Wednesday, January 15), 1947 Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the REcorp a statement entitled ‘Truman Shares Pride in United States Jewry’s Role in World War 11”; an address entitled “Our War Record,” delivered by Louis I. Dublin; and an ad- dress delivered by Maj. Gen. Lewis B. Hershey, Director of the Selective Serv- ice System, at a dinner given by the Na- tional Jewish Welfare Board at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York City, on January 9, 1947. There being no objection, the state- ment and addresses were ordered to be printed in the RrEcorp, as follows: TRUMAN SHARES PRIDE IN UNITED STATES JEWRY'S ROLE IN WORLD WAR IT President Harry S. Truman sent his greet- ings and best wishes to the dinner audience
A274 at the National Jewish Welfare Board's war records meeting at the Waldorf Astoria last night, through Selective Service Director Lewis B. Hershey, principal speaker at the event. “The President is deeply uware of the con- tributions made by the National Jewish Wel- fare Board,” General Hershey said. “I know that he shares the pride of all Americans in the history of the American Jewish com- munity’s achievement—a history now made available by the Bureau of War Records to us and to posterity.” OUR WAR RECORD (By Louis I. Dublin, Ph. D.) I share with all of you here tonight great pride in the service to our country of more than half a million Jewish men and women in the fight for human liberty and decency. The quality of this service has been high and some of the beat examples of it are here to- night in the persons of the ex-service men who are our honored guests. Tonight we also celebrate the successful completion of a major undertaking in connection with the service of our half million men and women. Like every other group in the country, we are greatly interested in our achievement. We want the cold, hard facts of our participa- tion in the war. Now we have them and we have a glorious story to tell. A great deal of effort—of time and money— went into this undertaking. If ours were a well-ordered world, it would hardly have been necessary to have put so much effort into it. But, as you will remember, the cir- cumstances of the war period and of the events leading up to it were anything but the orderly circumstances of an orderly ity groups. It was the day of the colossal He; the bigger, the better. The chief victims of all, some American citizens engaged in thie dirty work. We, therefore, were com- do this job of completing our rec- it never was done before. We knew we had to put our heart into it and to pro- duce a record that would convince through its reliability and completeness even those who would malign us. The credit goes to Frank Weil, who even before we entered into the war, had the fore- sight to arrange to meet the inevitable charges regarding the military service of Jews. In the early fall of 1941 he asked me if I would direct a committee to compile the facts on Jewish participation in the forth- coming military effort. He made only one condition, and that was that the work be done with the greatest accuracy and with the best technical skill. I would not have taken the assignment on any other basis. Mr. Weil and others will tell you later the develop- ments of this war-records project. I do want, however, at this point to thank Mr. Weil for the opportunity he gave me and my col- leagues to serve the Jewish Welfare Board in this important task, and also to thank his fellow officers and the executives of the Jew- ish Welfare Board for their unflagging and wholehearted interest and support of our project, The assembling and analysis of the great mass of war records was a long and hard job. In the nature of the case, the whole effort had to be decentralized. But we had to keep in touch with virtually every Jewish com- munity in the country and help them or- ganize their record system. Think of the accomplishment. We have in the files at the board not only a huge number of service records, but also the records of nearly 40,000 casualties, including 11,000 of our honored de We have the facts on the 27,000 men an@ women whose deeds of valor and merit were so outstanding as to receive recogni- tion—and their awards total 50,000, And re- inember—these are all carefully suthenti- cated records. We did not accept rumor or hearsay. We have spared no pains to make sure that everything that went into th> files was accurate. We have leaned over back- ward in order that no one could say, at any time, that we were making wild guesses or inflating figures to make them appear that Jews were doing more than their share of the fighting and dying. We resisted efforts from some quarters, even friendly ones, to issue figures that would give this appearance. The same thoroughness and care was applied to every aspect of our work, including the many surveys dnd sampling studies on the number of Jews in service in various com- munities. We have tried our utmost, and 1 am sure we have succeeded in giving to the American people as a whole and to American Jews an honest and reliable record of the military services of Americans of Jewish faith during World War II. The planning and the work of assembling the records was anything but a one-man job. Many distinguished and able statis- tictuns and social scientista served on our technical committees. So that you may know the high caliber of the group, let me read their names to you: Harry L. Lurie. vice chairman; Prof. Salo W. Baron, Elisha M. Friedman, William B. Herlands, Dr. Maurice B. Hexter, Leffert Holz, Prof. Daniel Kats, Dr. Isador Lubin, Dr. Julius B. Maller, Her- bert H. Marks, Prof. Otto Nathan, Dr. Mor+ ton Seidenfeld, Dr. Maurice Taylor. Dr. Joseph Zubin. These men have given generously of their time and skill to help plan and guide this great work. There were many technical problems to solve and they helped. We profited from their resourcefulness and from their good judgment. I take this oppor- tunity to thank them all. But the ultimate success of the job de- pended very largely on professional leader- ship and guidance. At the beginning, Mr. Samuel Leff was extremely useful in getting us organized. Later, when we could gage the situation better, we recognized the need to put the responsibility for the work in the hands of a person who had not only thor- ough training and large experience in sta- tistical studies but also in community or- ganimation among American Jews. This is a rare combination indeed. There was one man for the job and that was Sam Kohs. It was our good fortune that we got him. Mr. Kohs’ ba ad and qualifications made him the ideal person for our difficult task. Early in his professional career Dr. Kohs was a psychologist, and as an essential part of his preparation he had a thorough grounding in statistics and statistical meth- ods. From a teaching career in psychology, Kohs was called into Jewish community work and served in many phases of that work. He was, for a long time, director of the Department of Social Tech: in the Graduate School of Jewish Social Work in New York City. He next developed and directed the resettlement program of the National Refugee Service. In 1941, just be- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD country and cur people for the success of this historic undertaking. Time permits me to mention only a few of the many individuals who have given vital assistance to us. I must, however, mention the splendid work of Mr. Leffert Holz, who traveled up and down the land doing mis- sionary work for war records and helped to organize many of our regional, State, and local units. Gathering war records was not the most glamorous job of all the wartime activities of the Jewish Welfare Bonrd, but, as a laymar talking to lay leaders, Mr Holz was able to carry his conviction to responsi- ble community leaders to get the necessary local backing for the work. New York City was, of course, our major problem. This city has never really been well organized for any single Jewish cause let alone for a task of this kind, which was without glory to anyone and yet required long and sustained effort. Fortunately, we are not lacking in courageous and self-sacri- ficing citizens. Jacob Bleibtreu is one ot them. He knew the difficulties of tackling the job of New York, and he was not fright- ened by them. He has carried the responsi- bility for getting a war records program into operation in New York City, and I take this opportunity to express our thanks for his efforts and accomplishment. With the enormous mass of records that we accumulated, the board was faced with the problem of how these records, which were in constant use, could be tapped as needed to provide current reports on the numbers of casualties and awards as well as listings of the names of casualties. To those of us who are used to these problems, the answer is simple. It ia a job for tabulation by modern mechanical methods. Everyone has heard of modern tabulating machinery. Por the occasional needs of the bureau of war records, it was inadvisable to install the expensive machinery and the el re- quired to run it. We knew that the Inter- national Business Machines Co. had a serviee to do such jobs for outside tions, and we went there with our problem. What we did not know was that that great organization was willing and anxious to help us out without any cost whatsoever to the board. For the committee and the board, 1 vant to thank Mr. Thomas J. Watson, who comes pretty near being New York's best citizen, and Mr. Jarvis Bell, of the Interna- tional Business Machines Co., for giv- ing us this vital help not only freely but with the utmost promptness and courtesy. ‘Thanks to them, the efficiency of our opera- tions was increased and valuable information was available for use in short order. Thus, in celebrating the completion of our project, we pay our tribute to the many people who made it possible. To you and to them, I would emphasize again and again that what we have produced is not a thing for the moment but something of perma- nent value to the country and to the Jewish people. As so Often happens also, the by- products of this work should prove as valua- ble as the product itself. For in gathering this information, we have had to organize all over the country for a common purpose. We have discovered leaders and abilities all over the country. We have learned how to work together on the national] as well as on the local level. I hope that this has created bonds and disclosed skilled resources for other efforts within Jewish communities that will work to their benefit and that of our fellow citisens. Tonight I am proud of our people—proud of their war service, proud of their proven leaders to whom we can look to help meet the problems that are ahead! We meet tonight to note the successful completion of a most worthwhile task by
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the bureau of war records of the National Jewish Welfare Board, We were at war when this task was begun. America was putting forth every ounce of her energy to prevent defeat until she could mobilize her men and her resources so that she might win. There was no complacency then. There was no certainty of victory. The road ahead was dif- ficult, uphill, and uncertain. The National Jewish Welfare Board found their program of service to Jewish men and women in the armed forces increasing hourly. There had been few in the forces in 1940, but war had brought thousands of inductions; eventually the number was to reach 600,000. It was fortunate indeed that this great organization had the habit of successful achievement. The National Jewish Welfare Board had experienced more than 30 ycars in programs for the welfare of Jewish men and women, We who are ancient enough to have been in World War I remembered this or- ganization in that war. We saw its work at home, we saw it in France. In the days when the bureau of war rec- ords was preparing the ground work for its great task the program of the parent organ- ization was following the American forces in their global deployment. In every branch of our armed forces and in every theater of our world-wide battle- fields there were Jewish men and women meeting their responsibilities as American citizens. These men and women, as they served, as they fought, as they bled, and as they died, made the records that it has been the high privilege of this bureau to record with such accuracy and thoroughness, These records are typical of America’s participation in World War II, and the JWB is publishing @ two-volume set of books based on the bu- reau’s material, to be called: “American Jews in World War II.” The bureau's files offer a very large sample study, for there is one from each group of 25 members of our armed forces. Some of these men fought above the clouds, others fought beneath the scas. Some waded ashore in Normandy in the Army Ground Forces, others as marines fought for coral beaches on faraway islands in the Pa- cific. In these lists ure the names of doctors, dentists, scientists, and technicians. On these rolls is the name of » man who died leading the division he commanded; above and below his name on the list are privates first class who gave their lives fighting for America. In these records are the names of many who served their country well and have returned to carry on the less glorious but no less necessary responsibilities of Amer- ican citizenship. Among these names are others whose bcedies must ever bear the scars of battle. Battles waged that the most of us in America might be spared the terrifying experiences that have come to so many on this earth during the last decade, In this list are those who gave their lives in the services of their country. These con- tributions should never be forgotten by a grateful America. I wonder, have they? When our existence hung in balance and we were afraid, we saw no other alternative but that our young men must serve, must fight, must die if necessary, to save us all. Those were dangerous times. We saw our young men go, to be gone we know not how long, to face hardship, privation, perhaps death. We said then we would never forget the part they played. The fighting war has been over for more than a year. How much are we willing to sacrifice now—today to hold the peace they gave so much to win? Is it America or only scattered unrepresenta- tive voices that cry today that we must not interfere with home, education, or an easy life, even for a few months, in order that another young America might be prepared to prevent World War III? We are proud when we read the record of achievement of these men and women. We are proud that in her hour of trial our Na- tion had young men and young women of the ability, fortitude, and loyalty that these records display. Our pride is not primarily in the fact that these men and women who played so well their part were Jewish. Our pride lies primarily in the fact that they were a typical cross-section of the men and women of America in a national emergency. Our pride is in the fact that in the days of war they played their part not as Jewish men and women but as Americans. The crisis which brought them into the armed forces was a danger to America. They fought to save America for no particular kind of Amer- icans but for all Americans. ‘That was the spirit in war. That must be the spirit in peace. In victory there is great satisfaction. When we win, we are so relieved that compla- cency comes easily, When success comes, we forget how neur we came to failure. Unless we are wise we shall fail to learn as much from success as many have learned from de- feat. It is so easy, so pleasant, to breathe more freely once the danger seems to be passed, It takes energy, will power, per- severance, to work to keep the peace, even as it took all of these to gain the peace. I should be the last to deny any American the right to feel the greatest pride in the accom- plishments of his Nation during the past 6 years. The achievements of the combined efforts of all of its people were little short of miraculous. The strength she was able to build after war was upon her proved the power of a free people once they are aroused. The unity that danger engendered indicates what a people can do when they have a com- mon objective to which they are all irrevo- cably committed. We proved in war that as a people we know how to win wars once we are committed to battle and provided we have allies who can help us avoid defeat un- til we are prepared to gain victory. It re- quired 2 or 3 years, but eventually we de- veloped our resources of manpower and ma- terials until they were trained fighting men, equipped with a wealth of munitions unlike any that our enemies or allies could provide. We became strong enough to make our ene- mies sue for peace after several years of war. No one cun say but it is very doubtful that we should have been forced into the war if our enemics had Known first that we would fight and secondly that we could fight with the effectiveness that we did. Our problem is to find a way “to let the world know for what we will fight and to take such measures as will insure a reasonable chance that all can understand our capacity to fight when and if we must. Certainly every nation and every citizen of every nation should desire peuce. The test comes when we decide what we value more than we value peace. In the past 30 years in the United States the citizens have not been clear in their minds for what they would fight and for what they would not fight. If the citizens of America were uncertain as to the things for which they would fight if the necessity arose, should we have been surprised that nations came to believe that we would not and could not fight? Yes, America has always prided herself on the fact that she is peace loving. Is she willing to give up her political freedom to maintain the peace? Is she willing to give up her religious freedom to maintain the peuce? Is she willing to give up her economic freedom to maintain the peace? If the answer to these questions is no, and from her history I must assume that it is no, then what do we mean when we claim to be peace loving? May I assume that we want peace if we can have it and retain our individual right to participate in our Government. We want the right to vote. The right to debate. The right to disagree, generally, when our party is out of power and often when it is in power. A275 May I assume that we want peace if we may have it and with it the right to worship as we please or not to worship if we choose. The right to preach, The right not to listen. The right to attend church and the right to Stuy away. May I assume that we want peace if we may have it and still retain our standard of living. We want the right to belong to a labor union or the National Association of Manufacturers and that the members of each shall determine the policies of each and that you and I as citizens of these United States can disagree wholeheartedly with the policies of both. So as we pause tonight to commemorate the contributions of the Jewish men and women in accepting their individual respon- sibilities and liabilities as American citizens in our armed forces during World War II, let us pledge ourselves to maintain the Na- tion for whose safety they offered their lives. By strength they won the war and saved the Nation. Without strength we shall not keep the peace they won. President Truman voiced his concern for the future on December 20, 1946, in his in- formal remarks to his Advisory Commission on Universal Training when he said: “I have been somewhat of a student of history, and I have discovered that great republics of the past always passed out when their peoples became prosperous and fat and lazy, and were not willing to assume their responsibilities, “In other words, when the Romans and the Greeks and some of the ancient Mesopo- tamian countries turned to mercenary de- fense forces, they ended. That is, when the people of a nation would not do the necessary service to continue their government, it ended eventually in one way or another, That has been true of modern nations also.” If our Nation is to be strong, then each citizen must be willing and able to take his full share in the liabilities as well as the privileges of citizenship. This means that he works at the duties of citizenship and is ready and trained to fight to maintain his Nation if the necessity arises. The citizen’s responsibilities in a democracy ure greut; unless he accepts them democracy cannot live. His primary interest must ever be in the United States of America. His interest or his sympathies in other nations or peo- ples must be secondary and operative cnly when they do not interfere with his obliga- tions as an American citizen, In conclusion, the significance that must not be lost is that it was as American citi- zens that the Jewish men and women in these records served, fought, and died that this Nation might live. Industrial Labor Relations EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. ELBERT D. THOMAS OF UTAH IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, January 2¢ (legislative day of Wednesday, January 15), 1947 Mr, THOMAS of Utah. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have in- serted in the Appendix of the REcoRD an article written by Dr. Thomas H. Howells and appearing in the Daily Camera, of Boulder, Colo., Saturday, December 14, 1946, dealing with industry-labor rela- tions.
A276 There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: A PERMANENT REMEDY FOR STRIKES? (By Thomas H. Howells) A stand-by rationing system for every per- son in the country, roughly, similar to the one used during the war, should be pro- vided by legislative action. Its purpose would be to punish strikers, however, rather than to save food; therefore, the old plan should be modified for the sake of simplicity and workability. Books of coupons should be issued to each person, bearing ration points in the same de- nom{nation us money. On governmental or- der, buyers would be required to furnish the same value in ration points as money, when- ever goods (1. e., food, electricity, gasoline) are purchased. A sufficient number of points should be given each person to provide ade- quately for (but not in excess of) his needs. Ration points would, of course, not be re- quired for purchases until an emergency arose and an Executive proclamation was is- sued. Everyone would be required, however, to keep his coupons on hand, available for use when necessary. It might be desirable also to issue special types of easily dis- tinguishable coupons to employees in the principal industries; i. e., red coupons to the miners, blue coupons to railway workers, yellow coupons to railway management group, etc. If a national strike were called, and the situation demanded prompt action to control it, this latent rationing system could be im- mediately activated by joint action of the Congress and the President, with the pro- vision that the coupons of the strikers, and their dependents, should be invalidated. By this means society would simply stop serv- ing those who have refused to serve it. Necessary special provisions in case of such rationing would be: (1) Local boards to adjust individual inequities; (2) an early test vote of confidence by the general electorate, perhaps using electrical voting machines. If the privileges of striking to obtain their rights is thus dented certain groups of work- ers, it is only fair that an effective alternative force should be provided for use in bargain- ing with their employers. Otherwise the workers might be exploited unmercifully. In this reference, attention should be called to the fact that, under the present system of striking in order to enforce demands, em- ployees penalize themselves in order to pe- nalize their employers. They voluntarily suffer the entire loss of their wages in order to compel their employer to suffer similar losses. In other words, they cut off their noses in order to spite their employers’ faces. This is an uneconomic method for all con- cerned, especially the innocent public; it would be much better if a less disastrous way could be devised. It is therefore proposed that, if workers are obliged to continue work under penalty of a rationing system, they should be allowed to initiate, as an alternative of striking, the following program, which must of course be provided for beforehand by legislative action: An agency of the Government should take over the industry, and during the period of its control it should: | 1. Pay the workers one-half of their pre- vious wages. 2. Maintain the plant and pay al] operating and developmental expense. 8. Bell the product of the industry and collect payment. 4. Confiscate to the Government all the profits of operation; therefore, no payment would be made to the company. The advantages of this arrangement would 1. No logs to the public of the services of the industry. 2. The workers would not need to penalize themselves as much as they do now in order to penalize their employers. 8. The owners should be gratified that their business would not be destroyed; their only loss would be profits. 4. An additional source of public revenue would be provided. . In justification, if the strikers, as a body, can refuse to sell their services to the com- munity, then the community, as a body, has a right to refuse to sell its services to the strikers. Yet the workers should be able to sell their services effectively without pauperizing their families. Asia and the State Department EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. JAMES E. MURRAY OF MONTANA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, January 24 (legislative day of Wednesday, January 15), 1947 Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the CONGRESSIONAL REC- orp an article, Asia and the State De- partment, written by Owen Lattimore, director of the Walter Hines Page School of International Relations. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: ASIA AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT (By Owen Lattimore) WASHINGTON.— The appointment and speedy confirmation of Gen. George C. Mar- shall as Secretary of State have drawn a flood of comment. Most of it is interesting. Great men are not always interesting men, but General Marshall is one of the great men of our time who, in spite of his modest avoid- ance of publicity, has always had, without asking for it, the interest of the people. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., in a book review in the current issue of thé Atlantic Monthly, says acidly that “smal] men have now suc- ceeded great men in the United States, but small problems have not succeeded great problems.” General Marshall stands apart from this sweeping condemnution. He is a great man who can cope with the greatest problems; and it is not only America that knows it. The world knows it. Yet in all the comment about General Marshall, and about the problems that will now come to his desk, one most important combination of circumstances has been over- looked, and that is the significance, in the bureaucracy of the State Department, of Gen- eral Marshall's exceptional experience in Asia and knowledge of Asiatic affairs. He is the first Secretary of State in our history whose knowledge of Asiatic affairs 1s greater than his knowledge of any other sector of our for- eign relations, and the first Secretary of State to step into office directly from an assign- ment of topmost policy-making importance in Asia. Only people who have been dealing with the Far Eastern Division of the Department of State over a period of years can fully ap- preciate the significance of its state. It is the literal truth that the upper crust of the State Department bureaucracy has always tended to reduce policy in Asia to a second or third priority, as compared to policy in Europe. Men in the Far Eastern Division and APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD its subdivision have had to waste hours of ingenuity in wriggling through channels to get far-eastern questions taken up—and taken up in time—by Secretaries preoccupied with European and Latin-American decisions, controversies, pressures, and counterpres- sures. Particularly damaging to the devolpment , Of @ well-rounded national policy has been the practice—not dead yet—of subordinating the recommendations of various far-eastern desks to review by the desks dealing with European powers which have possessions and interests in Asia. These things are impor- tant in a bureaucracy, and the State Depart- ment is one of the most bureaucratic bu- reaucracies in Washington. The bureaucrats whose vested interests are in European policy have almost always been able to »lock, or at least to narrow, the channels by which the far easterners had to approach the Secretary. It is true that Dean Acheson, as Under Sec- retary, has done a great deal to improve the working of a poor organizational system, by sacrificing an enormous amount of time to conferences at which all division chiefs have their say in the presence of other division chiefs. It is true also that the Far Bustern Division is at present exceptionally strong becauce its Chief, John Carter Vincent, in ad- dition to his thorough grasp of far-eastern policy, has had a good deal of European ex- perience and has a knowledge of European politics which puts him on a level footing with the European experts. Vincent had the confidence of Byrnes, and he will certainly have the continuing con- fidence of Marshall; but had the successor of Byrnes been almost anyone but Marshall, Acheson and Vincent and the Far Eastern Di- vision would have had to start once more on the old weary treadmill of “briefing” and educating a Secretary who, through no fault of his own, would instinctively have called the European expert in and kept the far- eastern specialist waiting in the corridor whenever he had to make a choice tn the allcecation of urgent demands on his time. While people naturally think of Marshall very largely in terms of his recent China ex- perience, tt is important to recall that this is not his only far-eastern experience. He had an earlier spell of service in China with the Fifteenth Infantry, the American regi- ment which used to garrison Tientsin, and in that assignment he had a ringside view of China in the war-lord period. As a younger man, moreover, he had a brilliant record in the Philippines. Finally, as Chief of Staff in the war years, he had China within his fleld of view as well as Europe and Russia, It should not be forgotten that “Uncle Joe” Stillwell, that great man whose greatness has not yet been adequately recognized either in China or in America, was a “Marshall man.” Because of all this, the Marshall appoint- ment hes almost as important a bearing on policy in Japan as on policy tn China. The spectacular MacArthur shadow has fallen across the policy-making functions of Washington from the moment that General MacArthur set foot in Japan as conqueror, as the symbol of American policy, and as the exponent of American policy whenever criticized or even questioned by the Rus- sians, the British, and sometimes the Chi- nese. It is not an exaggeration to say that General of the Army Marshall will be the first and only American since the death of President Roosevelt to appraach problems of policy in Japan without the political and psychological handicap of being dwarfed by the giant stature of General of the Army MacArthur, The relationship between the two will not work out in any vulgar controversy. Both men are too big for that. But Marshall ig the Democratic Secretary of State in an ad- ministration which the Republicans can outvote at any time; and MacArthur, in the
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD hero-worship of some of the Republicans, is a strange heraldic figure, both a Wild Bull of the Pampas and a Sacred Cow. Although under Marshall Asiatic policy will take its proper and proportional place in American world policy without tedious bureaucratic lobbying and maneuvering, the other components of our world policy will not be distorted. Marshall has a4 full grasp of the transition from war policy to postwar policy. He has never succumbed to either the tradition of contempt for the British or the tradition of implacable hate for the Rus- sians which are characteristic of many of our professional Army and Navy men, but there is not the slightest danger that he will be taken into camp by either the Rus- sians or the British. We may fairly expect from General Mar- shall an integration of the policy of safe- guarding and advancing the American in- terest with a policy of retaining what needs to be retained from the grand alliance which won the war. Development of the United Nations Toward World Government EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. GLEN H. TAYLOR OF IDAHO IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, January 24 legislative day of Wednesday, January 15), 1947 Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the REc- ORD a Speech made by Mr. Henry Usborne, a leading new member of the British Par- liament on November 12, 1946, on the subject of the development of the United Nations toward the great goal of world government. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: Mr. Henry Ussorne (Birmingham, Acock's Green). I beg to move that an humble ad- dress be presented to His Majesty as follows: “Most Gracious Sovereign, we, Your Maj- esty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the gracious speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.” It is with much apprehension and anxiety that I have gathered up my courage to move this address, for I am well aware of my short- comings and of my inexperience. In the 16 months during which it has been my privi- lege to represent the people of Acock’s Green I have learned that sympathy here is always given in full measure to any member who endeavors to do his duty, is true to his con- science, and is honest and outspoken. It is on this basis, and in all humility, that I wish to address, through you, Mr. Speaker, my remarks to the House this afternoon, I am not really a politician but an engi- neer. I am much more at home examining a blueprint than I am when I have to ex- amine a Government white paper. I have spent all the years of my working life in Birmingham, that city of a thousand indus- tries, peopled for the most part by techni- cians and engineers life myself. In Hall Green and Acock’s Green, the constituency I have the honor to represent, live the peo- ple who knew how to make it, who in their thousands filled the factories of Birmingham, where, at the time of Dunkerque and in the subsequent years of the war, the miracle of production took place. They, my people, suffered, and many died, under the fury of the nightly attacks on Birmingham in the dreadful winter of 1940. But they did not fiinch, and production soared in mounting curves till finally the ghastly struggle was over, and the opportunity was won—the op- portunity to secure a dynamic, lasting peace for all mankind, so that never again would this senseless slaughter have to be repeated. In July 1945, when our victory was certain though the last stages of the fighting still continued, the people of Acock's Green sent me here to represent them, because I believe they knew then the nature of peace and the conditions which we must create if it is to be made secure and permanent for all time. It was for this reason, I believe, that they chose me. I used these words in my election address: “Peace, and with it happiness, Justice, and freedom for all men—these are ideals impos- sible of attainment unless we are willing to work and to suffer for them. There can be no new order in Europe or anywhere else without a change of outlook and of renun- ciation on our part. We must discard all our old ideas about nationalism and Class and wealth, and learn to regard ourselves as units of humanity, sharers of the world's wealth and the world's problems in common. In the future which I hope to see we will have to create a United States of Europe as an integral part of the Federation of the World. This is possible even in our lifetime if we start working for it now. No peace will be permanent until we achieve it.” That was part of the platform on which I stood. For the fulfillment of that pledge my constituents sent me here to West- minster. I am well aware of the tribute which is being paid to my people by the choice of myself to move this address this afternoon. I have also been for 8 years an elected member of the Counci] of Federa) Union, that society of idealists—and we do not mind being called idealists—who work to- gether to study the problems and conditions ef peace. Today that organization has grown to world stature, and only recently at a conference in Luxemburg was incorpo- rated under a new name, the Movement for World Federal Government. More than 40 members of this Parliament are members of it; in almost every country of the world you will come across our people, speaking dif- ferent languages, holding different ideolo- gies, and surmounting the barriers Of na- tionalism, of class and creed, by their de- termination to work together for one single goal; namely, the creation of an effective world parliament which may save us from atomic destruction, and, by the only method known to man, secure world order with free- dom based on law and justice. Only ulti- mately by government, we believe, can one hope to abolish the international anarchy out of which the world's difficulties now s0 largely arise. We believe that there is no short cut to peace; there is no alternative to government. In the speech with which the honorable gentleman, the member for Watford (Mr. J. Freeman), so ably moved the address this time last year, referring to the San Fran- cisco Charter, he used these words: “It must be the concern of His Majesty's Government to breathe life into these blue- prints and to make a living organism of peace and plenty * * * but it will not be done * © © by the stereotyped methods of old- fashioned diplomacy. Something new is needed.” (Official report, 16th August, 1945; vol. 418, ch. 78.) Today, I think all of us in this House share those views. Indeed, we know that what is needed is effective world govern- ment, as the Foreign Secretary and the lead- ers of all parties have so frequently stated. In this connection might I make one plea to His Majesty's ministers. It would be this A277 That they should continue ceaselessly to stress on every possible occasion that it is their desire to see effective world govern- ment, elected by the people, ultimately cre- ated. For we know that that task is so great and so urgent we cannot hope to carry it through unless we have the driving power of world public opinion behind us; and it will make it so much easier for us, the com- mon people in every land, to canalize this overwhelming desire for a just and lasting peace if the ministers who speak for Britain leave no doubt that they too believe that world government can be and is being achieved, and if in their pronouncements and their policies they indicate the need for its success. In this way, with Britain’s lead, I believe we can perform that miracle, and provide a world of permanent peace for future generations to enjoy, a world in which the abundant resources which now lie latent will be fully developed for the good of all man- kind. Unfortunately, today, as is so tragically ap- parent from the meetings now taking place in New York, there is an underlying fear that each big power, in the genuine interests of its own security, is looking to military strategy for its defense. Yet, we, the common people of Britain, know the absurdity of that thesis, and recognize that in this atomic age there is only one form of security for any of us; that is, the security, not of force but of effec- tive international law, and the order which can be based upon it. Until we have that law, which only world government can make, every nation must, of course, provide its own armed forces for its own protection, in con- formity with article 43 of the Charter of the United Nations. The United Nations organi- zation is the overriding factor, as indeed it must be, in British foreign policy. Neverthe- less, immediately the United Nations organi- zation can be developed into, or be replaced by, a real and effective world government elected by the people, with a police force of its own to enforce its law, my constituents will ask me, or whoever then represents them, to propose on their behalf that Britain shall demobilize its armed forces and merge its defense and sovereignty in the greater sover- eignty of all mankind. Iam well aware that this goal of which I speak is some way off. But surely nothing worthwhile was ever achieved without great effort and a supreme cingle-mindedness of purpose. My constituents and I knew the difficulties that lay ahead when our troops were beaten back from the shores of Dun- kerque, and we knew the long odds against our ultimate success. Yet, in five short years we had succeeded. We are now prepared to repeat that all-out effort, and to keep it up indefinitely till permanent peace for all time is ultimately secured; for that is the end for which we fought the war, that was the pur- pose of our victory. We know what is in- volved, we are prepared to work for it, and to spend and to be spent in that endeavor. With God's help, and with high courage, I believe we shall succeed. Number of Federal Employees EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. ALEXANDER WILEY OF WISCONSIN IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Friday, January 24 (legislative day of Wednesday, January 15), 1947 Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be re- printed in the Appendix of the Recorp the text of a debate on the size of the
A278 Government’s establishment, recently conducted by the magazine Pic in its issue of October 1946. Participating in the debate were the senior Senator from California [Mr. Downey], Mr. Norman M. Littell, Mr. John W. Hanes, and my- self. There being no objection, the matter was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: SHouLD WE Have FEWER GOVERNMENT ‘WORKERS? (Compiled by Jack H. Pollack) SENATOR ALEXANDER WILEY Yes Absolutely, yes! The Federal Government has much too many employees. Too many for good government. Too many for efficiency. Too many for American taxpayers with a $275,000,000,000 national debt over their head tosupport. Too many menacing your liberty and freedom, and mine, just as top-heavy Eu- ropean bureaucracies have always menaced freedom abroad. How can we be sure of this? Here's how. Committees and individuals investigating the sprawling Government have again and again reported incredible duplication of effort in Federal agencies, terrible overlap- ping of function, mountains of useless paper work, disgracefully slow work habits in bureaucrats who have a master complex, look down their noses at the public. Why does Uncle Sam today have three times as many job holders hanging on to his coat tails as he had in prewar years? Why is there today the fantastically large ratio of approximately one Government job holder for every 18 individuals engaged in private enterprise? Why does the Baghdad of Bloated Bureaucracy, Washington, D. C., talk about more and more Government jobs in- stead of less and less, more and more Federal red tape to strangle business and agricul- ture instead of less and less? Why does the Government waste its personne! in over- staffed offices, so that constituents have told me: “I came down here to work for Uncle Sam, hoping that I would be of service. But my office is full of people sitting around and doing nothing. I'm just twiddling my thumbs, and I don’t intend to continue to draw down a salary from the taxpayers’ hard- earned funds. So I’m quitting.” Why does the Federa] Government have so many employees? To call a spade a spade, here are a few reasons why: Because bureaucratic officials who have once felt the power of having a horde of underlings serve them never want to give up that power and disband the horde. Because power begets more power and bu- reaucracy begets more bureaucracy. Because Uncle Sam pays salaries partly on the basis of the number of subordinates which a given bureaucrat has, and thus serves to encourage the bureaucrat to get more subordinates whether he needs them or not, and thereby increase his salary. Because there are government theorists and schemcrs who want to centralize more power in the Federa] Government and reduce the State and local authorities to nonenti- ties. So what? So this. If you and I would save our liberty, we must do everything possi- ble to have the swollen Federal pay roll de- flated to prewar size and, in particular, to have dictator-minded bureaucrats dismissed. We must demand of our Government that it use scientifiC management to save men, money, materials, and time. We must de- centralize Federal power to the grassroots of the country. We must get rid of the con- cept that the Government should know all, should control and do all. SENATOR SHERIDAN DOWNEY No We can cut the number of Federal em- ployees in half only by cutting thelr work in half. But first we must decide what work to stop. For example, we could drop half of the employees of the Veterans’ Admin- istration by deciding that we will give our veterans about half the hospital and medical care they now get, and ask them to wait twice as long to receive compensation for wounds and injuries suffered in battle, or any other benefits a grateful public wants them to have. Likewise we could drop half of our postal employees by deciding that we did not par- ticularly care how fast our mail is collected, sorted, transported, and delivered, and that we would good-naturedly put up with the re- sulting delays and the eventual break-down of our most efficient postal system. The number of civilian employees working for the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps is somewhat over a million—about the same number now employed in all other agencies of the Government combined. We could, then, cut the entire Federal personne! in half with one fell stroke by simply deciding that we will have no Army, no Navy, and no Ma- rine Corps. A 50 percent cut would mean eliminating 1,200,000 employees and the work which they now do throughout the 48 States. Outside of the Army, Navy, Veterans’ Administra- tion, and postal service there are about 580,- Q00 Federal employees in the continental United States. If all services of the Federal Government except these four were aban- doned, there still would not be a 50-percent reduction. Even if, in addition, half the ci- villian employees of the Army and Navy were dropped, the cut would not total 50 percent. Another 60,000 would have to be dropped from the Veterans’ Administration and the postal service. Extreme as they are, these examples illus- trate the nature of the problem. While no one disagrees that the present size of the Federal service should be reduced, there is little sense in an approach which sets a goal in terms of a fixed percentage. The problem is not one of arithmetic. It is one of na- tional policy and program, based on what the people of the country, acting through their representatives in Washington, want the Federal Government to do. It is a prob- lem involving questions like these: What current services to the public should be stopped? Which ones curtailed or expanded? What new ones, important to national wel- fare during the present period, undertaken? It is impossible to give the public all the different kinds of services now available through the Government, or maintain our world position of security as a Nation, and still arbitrarily reduce Federal workers 60 percent. I have heard a good deal of irresponsible criticism lately of the Federal worker. Most of it is unfounded. The vast majority of Government employees are conscientious, hard-working citizens who are in no sense of the word squandering the taxpayers’ money. LAWYER NORMAN M, LITTELL No From years of contact with the Govern- ment agencies and thousands of Govern- ment employees, I believe that the proposal to cut Federal employment in half is crude, blind, unintelligent, and uninformed. To blame high taxes on Federal employment, as is now being done, is sheer demagoguery. Every informed citizen ought to know that over 95 cents out of every taxpayer's dollar goes for wars—past, present, or future. But suppose we do try to cut Federal em- ployment in half—where does that half come off? No sane citizen would advocate abolish- APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ing the War and Navy Departments or even cutting them arbitrarily in half. Nor re- ducing the Post Office staff by one-half and risk the delaying and paralyzing effects upon American industry and the vast confusion in human relationships. Would anyone cur- tail the safety of life at sea by cutting through the far-flung lighthouse service, the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey, the Coast Guard and life-saving services? Would anyone cut in two the United States Forest Service, whose limited personne! can barely keep under control the ever-present forest fire menace which annually destroys millions of dollars of national timber re- sources? Would anyone cut in half the graz- ing service, which saves from complete de- struction, through overgrazing and other abuses, the vast areas of grazing land in the public domain? Should we give up protec- tion of the great national parks by the Park Service which we city folks visit during va- cation? Along with other false charges about the superfiuity of Government employees, it is believed in some unthinking quarters that these jobs are sinecures for people who do not wish to work. This is a gross libel on Government employees. Of course there are lazy people ‘in Government. There are lazy people everywhere. From many contacts with private industry either us a director or as legal counsel for private corporations be- fore serving in Government and after return- ing to private practice, I can assure you that the number of lazy people is about equally distributed in both private and public indus- try. Human nature is the same wherever you find it, but I have never seen harder work, more efficiently done, than in the Govern- ment, The most universal of all rules is that men wish to do something constructive and crea- tive. The instinct to build and achieve is deep in all of us, and nowhere is it more evi- dent than in public service. So great is the appeal that innumerable men and women take much of their compensation in the sat- isfaction of serving their country, declining higher salaries and other opportunities out- side of Government because they have found @ way of life in public service which offers enduring satisfaction. I say more power to them, more pay to them, more credit and public recognition to them, and a lot less talk about cutting them in two. CORPORATION EXECUTIVE JOHN W. HANES Yes The Federal Government has far too many employees. I know it. You know it. Many Government employees and officials know it too. New Federal] activities were added dur- ing thé war. Old activities, in some in- stances, were expanded under the guise of war necessity. All required additional employees. But now that the war is over, the time has come to demobilize Government opera- tions, increase efficiency, and reduce expenses to levels that will make possible debt retire- ment and lowered taxes. A congressional committee reveals that this year there were 2,505,482 civilian Government employees (excluding those outside continental United States) contrasted with 928,836 civilian em- ployees in December 1989, Since VJ-day, there have been substantial reductions in war-agency employment. But this trend has been negated in part by rapidly expanding non-war-agency employment. There are, of course, good reasons for some of these increases. Part is due to the after- math of the war. For example, the Veterans’ Administration has increased by 67,000. Part 1s explained by changes in the methods of reporting the number of employees, as in
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the Post Office Department, which now counts as full-time several thousand em- ployees not previously so reported. There are other explanations. But these do not explain the increases in ordinary old-line agencies, where war-agency employees have been brought into the regular service. Many agencies used the war as an excuse to take on new activities. In this group as a whole, employees increased by almost 385,- 000—from 678,494 in 1939 to 1,063,213 in December 1945—a rise of 56.7 percent. Fur- ther increases in these agencies at a time when we should be demobilizing our war ac- tivities doesn’t make sense. Yet further increases are in prospect. The 1947 budget, for instance, contemplated 35,000 man-years of employment for the De- partment of Commerce, as contrasted with 21,000 in 1945; 1947 personnel expenditures were estimated at $115,000,000 as compared with $77,000,000 for 1945. And increases were proposed for other departments. We may be demobilizing our Army and Navy. We may be cutting down the pay roll of some of the war agencies. But we are not demobilizing Government as a whole. What is the solution? To my mind, four steps are necessary if individual and local government rights are to be preserved. 1, Return to State and local jurisdictions those functions assumed by the Federal Gov- ernment. 2. Eliminate overlapping and duplicating agency and bureau effort in similar fields. 3. Improve Federal personnel administra- tion, 4. Stop filling vacancies created by retire- ments until the Federal pay roll is back to its prewar level. America, Today and Tomorrow EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CLYDE R. HOEY OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, January 27, 1947 Mr. HOEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have inserted in the Appendix of the Recorp the address which I made to the fortieth annual meeting of the Life Insurance Associa- tion of America, on December 13, 1946, at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Recorp as follows: I am delighted to have this opportunity today to come to speak to this very splendid gathering. I am highly indebted to your president for the gracious presentation. He Was so much kinder to me than a friend of the late Senator James of Kentucky was in presenting him to a Kentucky audience that Iam all the more gratcful. This friend of Senator James was a very plain, blunt man, and in presenting him to a Kentucky au- dicnce, he said, “Now, ladies and gentlemen, Iam not going to bore you with a speech to- day, but I will introduce to you a man who will.” Iam deeply indebted to my friend for saving me from that. It is good to be here, I have always been an ardent believer in life insurance. My first policy was taken out when I was 17 years of age, after I had bought a country newspaper on credit and the policy was secured on my own motion for the benefit of my creditors, I have been taking out policies ever since for the benefit of my creditors, and inciden- tally for the protection of my family. Life insurance is one of the greatest stabilizers in our American economy. I have great admiration for your associa- tion, and especially since I observed that Grover Cleveland was your first general counsel. Any organization that had a man of his judgment and wisdom to start it along the line of public service ought to have suc- ceeded even as your organization has done. I believe that insurance people generally are rather optimistic, hopeful. I like that. You know, I think we can learn a great deal from our Negro citizens, I come from the South, as you observe. I know about the character of the Negroes, and I think we can learn a great dexl trom their philosophy. I read Hambone in the papers. You know, Hambone is a character who represents the Negro racc. Not long ago, he came in on Monday morning, and he had a particularly radiant expression on his face. His landlord, his boss, seemed to have admiration for any- body who could feel good Monday morning. He said, “Hambone, you look like you ure feeling good this morning.” He said, “Yes, sir, buss, I am feeling good.” “What did you do over the week end that you feel s0 good this morning?" “Boss, I cun't tell you that, but I will tell you this, if you would just go with me one Saturday night you wouldn’t be a white man again for anything in the world.” Your distinguished president indicated that I had held a great many political offices, and I have. When I was 17 years of uge, along about the sume time I was running this newspaper, I went as a delegate to a con- gressional convention that met over the mountains in my State. In those days, you know, we nominated the Members of Con- gress in conventions, and at this convention the delegates were filled up with things, a good many of them, other than enthusiasm. We stayed in session all night, trying to nominate a candidate. Early morning came, sunrise, and we adjourned for breakfast. In that town close by was living a distinguished educator, Dr. R. L. Abernethy, who was then president of Rutherford College, a tall, hand- some man who wore a Prince Albert coat and silk hat and presented a very impressive ap- pearance. One delegate, half intoxicated, didn't know who he was and clapped him on the shoulder and said, “What office are you running for?” “l am a candidate for the kingdom of heaven,” said Dr. Abernethy. , “Brother,” said the inebriated one, “you will be elected. There is not another man in this town running against you.” I think you might be interested, as all good Americans are wherever they assemble, in taking a little inventory of our situation. We had a great many interesting things to deal with in the last Congress. We shall have a great many more intcresting ones to deal with in the torthcoming Congress. I think the last Congress deserves a good deal of credit for the bills which it killed as well as for those which it passed. You know, a very important public service sometimes is to stop legisiation rather than to make it. Upon the whole, I think we can complain of the fact that too many laws are adopted without giving thorough and full considera- tion to the effect they would have upon our time and upon the future, and I believe that we are getting down in our reorganization method so that more time shall be given. In the last Congress we passed a great many measures, some of which I think will be really beneficial to the country and others which will not—at least it is questionable whether they will—and those that were killed in the light of the reason and common sense and the judgment of Congress will redound to the public good. A279 One of the measures presented to that Con- gress was the Fair Employment Practice Act which was defeated. There was a great deal of criticism about that measure, about its defeat. People talked about a filibuster as if it was a very adverse thing. Filibusters are not good things always, but sometimes they are very helpful. Thomas Jefferson believed in them. He provided in his Manual of Laws for tilibusters. It is the only way by which a minority can stop venal legislation if the ma- jority have not awakened to the dangers in- cident to its passage. This measure when it was presented to the Congress, by the way, had a very fine name— Fair Employment Practice Act; nobody could be opposed to that name, but it was very much of a misnomer, and those of us who op- posed it sought to portray its real signiti- cance to the people of the Congress and of the United States. I made the first long speech that I had made in the Congress on that bill. I set forth 12 reasons why I thought it was inimical to the interests of America J approached it as an American citizen rather than a south- erner, although I am au intense southerner and yet a still more intense American. Incidentally, after having discussed all of these views from the American standpoint, I discussed the racial features involved in it because, of course, support stemmed from a racial base. In discussing that, I sought to disabuse the minds of the Sennte as well as of the country of the idea and the thought that the South discriminates against Negroes. You know that is the general opinion. I can well understand how that opinion prevails, and yet I do not think that there is the basis for it that so many people imagine. For instance, I pointed out that the great State of New York and the great States of Pennsylvania and of Ohio and of Michigan permit all children, Negroes and white, to go to the same schools, but tha: they do not per- mit the Negroes to teach in any very large numbers in those schools. I contrasted North Carolina as an example, For instance, I said that the State of Penn- sylvania has two-fifths as many Negro citi- zens as North Carolina has, and yet there are only 400 Negro school teachers in the State of Pennsylvania. If Pennsylvania had as many Negroes as North Carolina has and gave the same proportion of teachers, they would have 900 Negro school teachers, whereas North Carolina has 17,435 Negro school teachers. Then I mentioned the further fact that In North Curolina we maintain five colleges solely for the Negroes, and that every profes- sor in those colleges and every president is a Negro. I took the figures with reference to the other States and made a comparison in the same sort of fashion and emphasized this idea, that in North Carolina we provide that every Negro child from the day it first enters school until it graduates from the university is taught by a member of his own roce, and that we emphasize race pride in- steed of race prejudice, race integrity in- stead of race amalgamation and equality of opportunity instead of social equality. After discussing those things, I elaborated a little more to show about the lack of dis- crimination, giving the number of Negro doctors we had in North Carolina and the number of Negro lawyers and the number of Negro bankers, I mentioned the further fact thut we have more Negro banks in North Curolina than in all of the Nation north of the Mason and Dixon's line, and that is a fact. Then I mentioned that we had the largest Negro insurance company in the world in North Carolina, and sevcral othcr things. I was very much gratified that. the Senators gave me good attention, a thing that they do not always do when e Senator speaks. You are doing a very good job if you get a
A280 small proportion of the number to remain and Usten. Anyway, one of my distinguished Republican friends came up to me afterwards and said, “Senator, I have listened to your speech with a great deal of interest. There is Just one thing that worrtes me about this whole situation.” T said, “What is that?” He said, “After hearing your speech, I am just sorry that I am not a Negro and live tn North Carolina.” There were two great problems confronting this country after the surrender of our enemies in the recent World War. One was, of course, a reconversion from a wartime basis to peacetime, and the other was the adjustment of our international affairs. We had had an amazing record of production. Tho farmers and the manufacturers and all of those who were producing in this country had surpassed even their own highest ex- pectation of what they might do during this period of the war. The whole Nation had been converted to a war basis, and now when the war suddenly terminates, the op- portunity comes for us to be converted to a peacetime basis. I was struck with the desire in this coun- try to change over, the purpose to do so, but we had a great many people who were pre- dicting and prophesying evil, as we alwuys have. There were those who started out with the theory that now we must have full employment in this country and predicting that we are going to have vast unemploy- ment and therefore we must pass a bill to provide for full employment. They advocated passing a bill to provide for 625 a week pay for 26 weeks to every person who was out of & job and applied for one and didn’t get it. The Congress killed that measure, which I thought was very wise. I think it would have protracted unemployment. We have no real unemployment. Industry and busi- ness provided work for everybody, and the only difficulty was getting people to work. There was a job for everybody who wanted to work in some field of activity, and so we went through this period of reconversion, as the distinguished Ambassador, Hon. Ray Ather- ton, ha~ said, with very great credit to this country and probably with less halting and with less slowing down of the processes than any other country could have dared to have hoped for. As we pass over this period, we have other things that the economists, the planners and the researchers and newspaper columnists and radio commentators are holding out be- fore the country to increase the fear and distrust of this Nation. They started out first to talk about inflation. They said, “We are going to be engulfed in such inflation as will literally destroy our economy,” and they said that there was just one way to prevent that and that was to retain OPA with all of its full controls and powers. There were those among them who would have liked to have fastened upon this Nation a permanent regimentation and would have liked to have had a planned economy adopted for America. The people of this country were not in favor of that. They wanted to revert to the normal standards as rapidly as possible. They wanted to be relieved of regimenta- tion which they had gladly accepted during the period of the war, but they wanted to be relieved of it just as early as possible, and business wanted to be free. We cherish free- dom in America. We like the idea of 8 man being able to direct his own affairs and to proceed with his own policy and to procure what he desires so long as he does not take away from somebody else his rights and his privileges or invade their sacred precincts, So the OPA in a large measure passed out in response to the wishes of the people of Amer- ica, and we have not had drastic inflation. We have higher prices, but we do not have the sort of inflation that was prophesied. Now the economists and the researchers and the planners are all busy working up & depression and in everything you read they are télling about how bad it is going to be in this country, what a great depression we are going to have, and the danger about that sort of thing is that almost anything that you assert plausibly or forcibly or continuously enough, no matter how illogical it may be— if you continue to repeat it over all the means of communication at hand, you make an impression upon the public mind, and after a while you create fear and distrust, and that, I think, is responsible for the very great decline that occurred on the stock mar+ ket both as to cotton and especially as to stocks generally when billions were Jost with- out any appreciable reason or without any firm foundation for it. Those who spread the word about this country that we are bound to have a depres- sion follow this sort of reasoning: They say that historically we have had depressions following war, and since we have had the greatest war of all time, then necessarily we must have the greatest depression. That ts a fallacious argument, and I do not believe that it is Justified. Your great insurance companies are in- terested in maintaining the stability of this country and maintaining prosperous con+ ditions and maintaining the sort of economy that shall endure, and I think you realize that America has the basis upon which to go forward in building a firm, stable economy even in this period of reaction from the war, without the disastrous effects of a general depression. What are the facts about it? Is there any special reason to feel that we should have a depression? What ts it that causes a depres- sion? Of course the first thing is loss of confi- dence, and then the next thing is the fail- ing purchasing power of the people of a na- tion which results in unemployment and in taking away the markets for the goods which are produced on the farms and in the fac- tories. What are the facts about our situation today? The earning power of the people of America today will approximate in the year 1946, $170,000,000,000. It will require about $40,000,000,000 of that to pay the taxes to the United States Government. That will leave $130,000,000,000 to buy goods with, to pur- chase the things which we have not been able to get and which we desire and to make in- vestments and to build homes. That cer- tainly should strengthen and sustain our economy. What is the money situation? There never has been an hour in all human history when the financial structures of this Nation were in such fine condition as they are today. We have gone for 8 years now, or practically 3 years, without a bank failure in the whole United States. In the single period of 4 years we had more than 5,000 bank failures in the midst of the depression. Today, for more than 3 years, or nearly 3 years, not a single bank failure in the whole United States. And we have on deposit in the banks of this country $166,000,000,000, in round figures, representing the current savings and the cash of the citizens of the United States. Is there any reason why that money is not available to develop new enterprises and to advance the interests of business in every line and to make for the development and progress of this Nation? In addition to that, we have in America $274,000,000,000 of outstanding Government bonds owned by the people of the United States. With these bonds being liquidated over a period of years, there will be a con- tinual payment to the citizens of the United States of billions of dollars as each year passes which will furnish a great reservoir of funds for the purpose of purchasing the things which they desire and for investing in whatever enterprises may attract them or appeal to their judgment and wisdom. In addition to that, heretofore we have had panics or depressions when we had no means APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD for providing for unemployment. Today every single State in the Union has a vast, huge unemployment fund in its treasury. Every State has millions of dollars for that purpose. So when there is a slowness of work or when there is a stoppage of industry of any kind not occasioned by strikes, instead of people having to go on relief or having to appeal to charity, they will be receiving the compensation from the fund which has been created by their contribution and by the contribution of the employers of the Nation. This vast sum is available to tide over these periods when people are unemployed or wher. there is a scarcity of work or slackening of demand for products in any particular line of industry. Therefore, with these things and with the further fact that in the United States today we need the things that industry can produce and that the farmer can grow, and we need them in increasing volume both for the sat- isfaction of our home markets and for satis- fying our export trade, which is increasing and which can be, and shall be, very properly directed along the line of taking up the sur- plus from the farm and factory in this land, I think we can take great encouragement and hope. Another thing which I think those who are predicting depressions and who are working overtime in trying to create fear and distrust in the public mind fail to note, is that con- ditions have changed in America. In 1932 only 50 percent of the people of the United States could buy the necessities of life. They didn’t have the money. Today 98 percent, according to statistics, of the people of the United States have the money to buy the necessities of life. With that vast extent of purchasing power residuary in the people of this Nation, there isn't any reason to talk about a depression and certainly not to undertake to bring it on by artificial means. I think this Nation should take account of its strength and of its power and of its resources and with that should bear up with the sort of confidence that shall look unafraid toward tomorrow. There is one thing that gives some pause, and that is our labor situation. However, 1 think that we might remember this, and that was referred to by the Ambassador in his magnificent address, that even this year we are producing higher than we produced dur- ing the period of the last 5 years, even with all the strikes we have had and with all the hold-ups and with all the interferences, We are still producing, and I believe that the new Congress is going to have to deal in a very sensible sort of way with this question of labor relations. I think we have some very unwise and very unfair labor laws now in force. I have been in favor of modifying the Wagner Act. I think it ought to be. Ido not believe in any sort of law that works unfairly upon any seg- ment of our population. I do not believe in any law that requires the making of contracts and then only binds one party to the con- tract. I do not believe that you can make any law that will be satisfactory to the people of America when it binds the employer and the management and lets the labor union go scot free. In that sort of fashion, you know, you make a contract for a year and in a month’s time or 6 weeks’ time, one party can violate with impunity whereas the other must be held to strict accountability. There are so many things in connection with this that I think ought to be changed, not with the idea of pursuing any antilabor policy but with the idea of taking away from labor the exemptions which have been improperly granted to labor in the time of its weakness. Now that it has grown strong and mighty in its organization, it ought to be subjected to the same laws that govern other organiza- tions. We have in this country about 12,000,000 people who belong to labor unions, approxi- mately that number. We have 58,000,000 who
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD are holding jobs and drawing either wages or salaries from them, and we have 140,000,000 people as our total population. I do not think in America we can afford to let any group or any segment of our population take charge of the country, and I do not think that we can afford to let them dominate the situation and tell the balance of the world and America what we are going to do. I believe in being absolutely fair to labor in all relationships and safeguarding all of their rights, but I do not think that the right to strike 1s an absolute rigbt. I agree with President Woodrow Wilson when he said that the right to strike is not absolute, but only a relative right, and that no union has a right to strike against the public interest. I think in America we are going to have to make some sort of provision by which the great indus- tries which furnish the very lifeblood of the Nation cannot be paralyzed by the dictations of one man or of a group of people. I think that in the public utilities and in the coal mines and in the transportation facilities there must be some sort of method provided by which America cannot be suddenly halted in its economy and have the whole Nation standing on tiptoe waiting to see whether or not some man, in utter disregard of the rights of the people of this Nation, shall cause suf- fering and, sometimes, even starvation of the people of the land. I think that America is too great for that. I think it 1s too powerful. I think that as we approach the discussion of this matter, we must do so in justice and in fairness to everybody concerned, but with a high sense of obligation to the people of this whole Nation, and I believe that America is set to perform its duty in that respect in providing laws that shall safeguard the rights of every man who toils and labors, to guar- antee to him reasonable return for his labor and reasonable working conditions and all of the things that go with it, but that likewise shall insure to the public the fact that these agencies shall continue and go forward and that they shall not re halted and stopped and paralyzed. Over in one of the northern cities there was a strike in an electric-power plant, and the power was off and the lights were off, and it was necessary in the hospitals that emer- gency operations be performed by candle- light. That sort of thing ought not to be permitted to occur, and I think that our economy can be so ordered, and I believe the common sense of the American people will sustain it, and even the men who compose the labor unions of this Nation will recog- nize its justice when proper provision is made to prevent strikes in essential industries. I think that any organization that has grown as great as the labor unions ought to be regu- lated and ought to be required to report with reference to their expenditures just like other organizations. It ought also be re- quired to report to the men who have con- tributed this fund—all of its members. You know we have exempted the labor unions from practically all the laws.’ That has been the trouble. The unions received, this year, dues in America amounting to €418,000,000. Of course, they don’t pay a cent of tax on that. I am not so concerned about that, but I am concerned that the men who pay in all of this money shall know what becomes of it and likewise that the Government should have some sort of re- ports, regulation, and control as it does of other organizations. A corporation cannot make contributions to elect Senators and Representatives, but the unions can contribute all they want to for that purpose, and spend all they please. We in America need to realize that there is just as much danger in a monopoly of labor as there is in a monopoly of money or any- thing else. When we have the antitrust law we ought not to exempt, as we have done, the labor unions from the operation of a meas- ure like that. I think the great forces of the law must work equitably and reasonably upon all the people of the United States if we are to maintain our freedom. America is a great country. I was so ine terested in the Ambassador's statement about the influence of America, about how the people in Canada think about it. Today, not- withstanding all the untoward things that are occurring in this country, I am prouder of America than at any time in all the past. I believe this is about the highest hour in human history. I think, as I look over the world and see the position which America has taken both in the conduct of the war and in its aftermath, that we are entitled to be regarded as an unselfish nation. I do not think the charge is true that we are a people who deal solely in material things, that we are shylocks. You cannot believe that applies to America when you stop to realize that of all the funds contributed last year and this year to UNRRA for the relief of the suffering and starving and the naked of this world, America has donated 71 per- cent and the balance of the world contrib- uted 29 percent. We have cast out upon the waters this bread for the relief of humankind over the earth, and I believe that it shall come back to us manyfold in time to come, Another thing we have had a great deal of discussion about is the conduct of the war and the use of the atomic bomb. I think you might be interested in a conversation that I had with President Truman just 4 weeks after the atomic bomb was used. I notice that Albert Einstein, the scientist, said in a recent speech that if President Roosevelt had lived, the atomic bomb would not have been dropped. I think he is wrong about that, President Roosevelt authorized the expenditure of more than 82,000,000,000 for the perfecting and developing of the bomb, and there wasn’t but one purpose in his doir» that and that was to use it to shorten the war and to save American lives and to save the lives of the people of the world. There is one thing I think would interest you that the President said in the White House conversation after the bomb was dropped. Of course, before the bomb could be dropped, the President of the United States, as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, had to give the order. The Chief of Staff reported to him, saying, “Mr. Presi- dent, we have perfected this bomb and tried it out in New Mexico. We want to use it. We have selected Hiroshima as the place to use it in Japan. If we drop the bomb, we will kill a hundred thousand, perhaps 200,- 000 people, at one time. We will devastate that country in that immediate vicinity, but we will end the war and we will save Ameri- can lives.” Then it was recounted to the President how we went from island to island in the Pacific, and everywhere we went, as we landed on the beachheads, we had to drive the Japs back, that they continued to shoot from pockets all about, and the cas- ualties were very heavy. We had literally to exterminate every Japanese soldier on the island. The President was told that if we continued in that way we were going to pay @ heavy tribute in lives before the war was won. We were already killing a lot of women and children dropping bombs over Japan. The President was told that if we used the atomic bomb we could accomplish our pur- pose speedily. After hearing all the reasoning, President Truman stated that this was the most tre- mendous decision he had ever been called upon to make, but he decided to have the bomb dropped, and I think properly so. But there is one thing which I think you should remember and every American should remember with pride. Notwithstanding that Japan attacked us treacherously and infa- mously as a thief in the night and even while her ministers were still in conference with ours in Washington, yet we did not drop the bomb on Japan without giving them A281 notice. We notified the Emperor and legis- lative body of Japan and we set the hour and told them that unless Japan surrendered before that time we were going to visit un- precedented destruction upon their land and people. Instead of surrendering, Japan sent back a very discourteous and defiant note, She thought, of course, that we were bluffing, that we had nothing new, and then the bomb was dropped. The world knows the result. I think it should always be remembered that even in the high crisis of war, America had the humaneness and the conception of fairness and justice to other nations even at war to give them notice in advance of devas- tation like that. Then I am proud of America because of the position which she is taking now. You know, I think the adoption of the United Nations Charter was a marvelous achieve- ment. I know it is discredited in some re- Bpects by some people because they are con- stantly referring to it in the same sort of way that these oth2rs talk about depres- sions and about inflation and everything else. They are all the time magnifying war and voicing the opinion that we have got to have another war, and they are depreciating the effect of the labors of the United Nations. I do not think that is justified. I think the meeting in San Francisco last year did & wonderful job. After 10 weeks of delib- eration and of discussion and disagreement, finally we unanimously adopted the United Nations Charter by the 60 nations partici- pating, and that was a great achievement. Every single representative, every nation there represented signed this United Na- tions Charter. This document ranks second to the Con- stitution of the United States. Our Con- stitution represents a Magna Carta for the people of the United States. The United Nations Charter is the Magna Carta of the world, and as we think in terms of what has been accomplished already, we can say that it has not been a failure. Have you noticed all the sensational re- ports every time a conference 1s held, saying, well, it is about to break up, they have so many disagreements, can’t agree about any- thing, and it is all going to be a failure, and yet the fact is that every single conference that has been held has agreed about some- thing, and something very material. Every time a conference has adjourned, we have adjourned upon higher ground than when we met. That will be true of this conference now completing its labor in New York City as it was of the one in Paris. We are approach- ing the consideration of the final things about the planning for peace and the United Nations, s0 that we will bring to pass the long drawn out hopes and aspirations of mankind as we look for a peaceful world. America must be patient. You know, our people are rather emotional. They want a thing done right now, and they want it done in just exactly the way they wish it to be. They are rather intolerant of anybody who differs with them about it. America is a strong nation. A strong man, conscious of his own power and his own resources, can afford to be patient even while he is firm. America is a mighty and a strong nation and America can afford to be patient even as she is firm, Because she is conscious of her own power; her own prestige, her own resources, her own ability, she can afford to deal patiently with other nations. We are getting to a better understanding with other nations. Take the case of Rus- sia. There are two things that Russia needs to know, and she is learning those rapidly. One is that Russia ought to understand that America ia not trying to tell her what kind of government she shall have, and we do not propose to dictate to her how she shall manage her internal affairs, and by the same reasoning we do not propose that Russia shall dictate to us the «ind of government
A282 we shall have or how we shall manage the internal affairs of the United States. We do not propose for Russia or any other nation to impose their will and dominating purpose upon any of the small nations. We covet only for other nations sumewhat of the privileges which we ourselves enjoy, the privilege of liberty, of freedom, of justice, and standing as a ruther unselfish nation. We want to see if we cannot ald in leading the nations of this world along the dimly lighted pathway to the exalted purposes of free government among pcoples, to the de- termination by them of their own great pur- poses, and as we go along this way, I think we shall assume to ourselves, as we associate with other nations, somewhat of the strength and the virtue and the power of the united public thought of the world. Have you read this United Nations Char- ter? Of course you haven't read all of it, it is too long, but you should read the pre- amble. I shall not quote it tn detail but merely the substance. I like the way it be- gins. It says something like this: We, the peoples of the United Nations of the earth, do hereby solemnly covenant and agree with each other that we will not go to war, that we will settle matters by arbitration, by dis- cussion, by agreement-—-and all through it runs the thought that this great dreamed- for peace for mankind must be realized in the days and years and even centuries ahead, to the end that we shall not with each re- curring quarter of a century have to sacrifice upon the altar of war, the finest and the best youth of our land. I do not believe that the United Nations is a failure. I do not believe that this or- ganization shall fail. I think it is just as possible to preserve peace in the world as it is to have orderly government in the United States. We have 48 States. Each State is independent, autonomous and main- tains its own sovereignty, and yet one State does not go to war with another when con- troversies arise. We submit it to the United States Supreme Court, and the determination of that court is final and we accept it. If it wasn't accepted, they could requisition all of the power of the United States to enforce that decree. In similar fashion, there is no reason why the member states of the United Nations should have to go to war to settle contro- versies that arise. I do not believe that this idea and con- cept of universal peace is a utopian dream. I do not think it is merely an idealistic con- ception. I believe it is possible in our day and in our generation. I am looking for- ward toward that. I am thinking and hop- ing that America shall remain strong and mighty and powerful at home and that she shall exercise a dominating influence with the other nations of the world in the inter- est of preserving peace. I believe in the America of yesterday, the America that you know and that I know and that we love, the America that we have lived for, the America that many have died for, and that many more have been willing to die for in arder to preserve the heritage, the marvelous heritage, of liberty and free- dom and of justice which hag been ours through the years. I think the future lends much reassurance to us, both at home and abroad. T like the spirit of a great English poet, Sir Owen Seaman, who wrote, in the very dark hours of the war, these few lines which I should like to read to you. They epitomize to my mind the spirit of Great Britain and the spirit of America and of the world, of those who hope and strive for that day to dawn which will bring forth the peaceful tomorrows. You that have faith to look with fearless eyes Beyond the tragedy of a world at strife, And trust that out of night and death shall rise The dawn of ampler life; Rejoice, whatever anguish rend your heart, That God has given you, for a priceless dower, To live in these great times and have your part In Preedom's crowning hour; That you may tell your sons who see the ight High in the heaven, their heritage to take: “I saw the powers of darkness put to Aight! I saw the morning break!” Today I believe that the morning is about to break upon God's world, and as the sun shall course across this earth and come to the western horizon, flooding the world with soft, mellow light of eventide—the calmness and the serenity of that hour shall be em- blematic of the calmness and serenity and the Peace of God's whole world— Our fathers’ God, to Thee, Author of liberty, To Thee we sing; Long may our land be bright With freedom’s holy light; Protect us by Thy might, Great God, our King! Reduction of Tariff on Sugar EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WILLIAM S. HILL OF COLORADO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 27, 1947 Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, January 24, I appeared before the United States Tariff Commission relative to the reduction of the tariff on sugar. Sup- porting me in my position on this matter were the following organizations: The American Sugar Cane League, Farmers and Manufacturers Beet Sugar Associa- tion, Hawaiian Sugar Planters Associa- tion, and United States Beet Sugar Asso- ciation. Domestic sugar, we believe, presents a special problem in the consideration of the proposed trade-agreements program, because the industry operates under a system of Government supervision unique in American agriculture. It is probably a fact that no other food indus- try has been under such complete Gov- ernment control during the war period as has the domestic sugar industry. Pro- duction and sales controls are still in ef- fect, and sugar, which continues in short supply, is the only commodity still being rationed to all classes of trade and con- sumers. We are, however, approaching a time when supply will again equal or ex- ceed the consumptive demand. The problem of making an orderly transition from these extensive controls to a more normal status of sugar-trade operation fs at the present time giving men of the in- dustry deep concern. The normal pattern of the world’s sugar economy has been greatly changed through the influence of war. The total effect upon our continental and insular economy is yet unknown. In these cir- cumstances of disruption and uncertainty it would seem highly inadvisable to add further confusion and uncertainty by re- ducing the rate of tariff which now re- mains after four successive reductions APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD between the years 1934 and 1942. present rate would be wholly inadequate protection for the domestic industry should the quota system be abandoned. These four reductions have aggregated 6214 percent of the rates that prevailed prior to June 8, 1934. Should the Presi- dent exercise to the full extent the au- thority granted under the provisions of the new Trade Agreements Act and again reduce the tariff rate 50 percent, the ag- gregate reduction would be 8114 percent. In 1934 Congress first enacted sugar- quota legislation which placed controls on the supplies of sugar and since that time there have been four reductions in the rates of duty on sugar. The rates now in effect represent a reduction cf 50 percent from the rates prevailing at the time of the approval of the Foreign Trade Agreements Act, and q reduction of 621% percent from those specified in the Tariff Act of 1930. The first of the four reductions, effec- tive June 8, 1934, was made by the Presi- dent under the flexible provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930. By that action the rate of duty on 96-degree raw sugar im- ported from foreign countries other than Cuba was reduced from $2.50 to $1.8712 a hundred pounds, and the duty on Cuban 96-degree raw sugar was cut from $2 to $1.50 a hundred. Domestic producers of sugar beets and sugarcane were not, however, left without compensation against the impact of the lower rate of duty. On the same day the President signed the Executive order reducing the rate of duty he also approved the so- called Jones-Costigan amendment to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, which established a system of quotas and specified that a processing tax should be imposed on sugar at a rate not greater than the reduction of the duty. Pro- ceeds of the tax were used to make bene- fit payments to growers of sugar beets and sugarcane so that the protection af- forded domestic sugar producers might be maintained and, to quote the Presi- dent, they might obtain “a fairer return for their product.” Except for a brief interval in 1939, quotas remained in effect from 1934 until shortly before the attack which brought the United States into the war, and they have been the principal stabilizing influence in the sugar indus- try. The second reduction in duty became effective September 3, 1934, in the re- ciprocal-trade agreement between the United States and the Republic of Cuba. Under that agreement the rate of duty on Cuban raw sugar was reduced from $1.50 to 90 cents a hundred pounds. However, the agreement also contained @ certain measure of protection for the domestic producer since it provided that the duty would revert to $1.50 a hundred pounds whenever sugar quotas became inoperative. The value of that provision was demonstrated in September of 1939, when, with the outbreak of the war in Europe, it was deemed advisable to sus- pend quotas temporarily. The duty re- verted to $1.50 and continued at that level until the quotas were reinstated on December 26, 1939. The third reduction in duty came with the proclamation of a supplemental trade agreement with the Republic of Cuba, effective January 5, 1942. In that
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD agreement the rate of duty was reduced from 90 to 75 cents a hundred pounds, and the requirement that a higher rate of duty must prevail when quotas be- came inoperative was completely elimi- nated. The fourth reduction in the duty was written into the reciprocal trade agree- ment between the United States and Peru, effective July 29, 1942, which re- duced the rate of duty on 96-degree raw sugar imported from foreign countries other than Cuba from $1.8742 to 93% cents a hundred pounds. The rates of duty in the Peruvian agreement were applicable to all most-favored nations. The current rates of duty on sugar, considered alone, as previously stated, are wholly inadequate to maintain do- mestic production. In recent years differences in costs of production, once a yardstick for measur- ing tariffs, have been completely ignored. Nevertheless, it seems worth while to point out that the last investigation by the United States Tariff Commission, completed in 1934, indicated that the dif- ference in costs of production between the United States and Cuba was $1.50 a hundred pounds. In view of higher wage rates, higher taxes, and higher costs of all kinds in all domestic sugar- producing areas, it is a fair assumption that the differences in costs today are as great as they were at the time of the Tariff Commission’s study. Yet the pres- ent trade agreement would permit a re- duction in the rate of duty on Cuban sugar from 75 to 374% cents a hundred pounds which would equal only 25 per- cent of the difference in costs of produc- tion, as determined by the Commission, and only 18.375 percent of the rate es- tablished by the Tariff Act of 1930. Under leave to extend my remarks, I include the following statement: STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM 8. HILL, OF COLO- RADO, BEFORE THE UNITED STATES TARIFF COM- MISSION, FRIDAY, JANUARY 24, 1947 Gentlemen, it is a great honor, indeed, to be granted the privilege of appearing before this body, and I sincerely appreciate it. Rep- resenting the legislative branch of our Gov- ernment, in general the West and specifically the Second Congressional District of the State of Colorado, I appear before you in the interest of western agriculture and mining production. But particularly I wish to call your attention to the general situation of the sugar-beet industry. In the district I have the honor to represent, sugar-beet production and the processing of that farm product jis the most important agricultural activity. The sugar-beet industry has been protected by the Federal Government through various types of programs. This protection is abso- lutely essential if this industry is to grow and develop. Foreign areas producing sugar have, generally speaking, cheap labor, cheap land, and in many cases a lower tax rate, but in the end-result the production of sugar itself in these foreign areas fall far below the man- hour production of the continental beet- or cane-producing areas. The average acre of beet or sugarcane in the United States produces more sugar per acre than is produced in Cuba or offshore areas, and is produced more efficiently and the laborers are paid a higher wage. We believe that domestic sugar production, both beet and cane, presents to this group a problem of serious import; and we who repre- sent the industry, both the grower and proc- essor, hope you will give the proper consider. ation necessary and examine the issue thor- oughly enough that your deCision will in no Way curtail or hinder the expansion of the continental sugar program, The Second World War and the postwar period will definitely change our approach to the entire sugar economy. What the final result will be on our continental and insular sugar production cannot possibly be known or understood at this time. Under these cir- cumstances and facing these uncertainties, it dors seem proper and fitting that we should not add to the confusion and the disruption of our sugar program by reducing the rate of tariff on sugar at the present moment. Understanding as we do that the wartime authority to allocate sugar expires March 31, 1947, and the wartime authority to control the price of sugar June 30, 1947, and the Sugar Act December 31, 1947, it would seem advisable that the entire sugar producing and processing problems should be considered in its entirety. A reexamination and careful consideration of the entire issue might be made at this time and the details of the pro- gram worked out with the support and the assistance of the Congress. If we are to deal comprehensively and thoroughly with this most complicated world food problem, it does seem that action at the present moment in the light of world conditions would be highly inadvisable. Functions of Special Committee To Inves- tigate the National Defense Program EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. OWEN BREWSTER OF MAINE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Monday, January 27, 1947 Mr.BREWSTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Recorp an editorial entitled ‘‘Not the Major Aim,” published in the New York Herald Tribune, dealing with what would seem to have been the functions of the Committee Investigating the National Defense Program, which ap- peals to me as being so splendid an ex- position thereof that I think it might well be included in the ReEcorp. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: NOT THE MAJOR AIM Former Representative Andrew J. May and three members of the Garsson munitions combine have been indicted as a result of the study of the combine made by the Senate special war-investigating committee. It is a logical result and the courts can now deter- mine whether it was a justifiable result in the legal sense. But it is to be hoped that it will not be the only result. It is always in the public interest to ex- pose and to punish fraud. That, inevitably, will be one of the functions of the war-in- vestigating committee, which has just taken & new lease on life. But the search for indi- vidual malefactors will not be the primary purpose of the committee. Congress is not (except in cases involving impeachment) a judicial body, nor is it a police force. The detection of criminals is incidental to its major task of legislating wisely in the na- tional interest, which, of course, involves the study of law enforcement and law evasion. From the standpoint of Congress the dis- covery of frauds in war contracts should mean active research into the things which A2s3 made such frauds possible, and a study of the best methods of dealing with any future emergency which might again open the doors to similar crimes against the Government. This does not mean that guilty individ- uals should be permitted to escape censure, or any other punishment which the law and public opinion may mete out against them for their derelicttons. It docs mean that the congressional investigators should endeavor to fit each case into a general pattern and make this pattern as clear as possible to the public. Is the Garsson case typical? If so, to what extent does it represent criminality, punishable by law, and how much of it springs from the abuse of congressional in- fluence or general administrative laxity? Some of these questions must be answered by the courts, the others can be developed by the committee. But the committee will have the primary responsibility of seeing to it that the over-all picture becomes plain to Congress--which must do its best to close any loopholes in the law—and to the public. It must never allow either the excitement of pursuing wrongdoers or the prospect of par- tisan advantage to obscure its major aim. The Garsson case has never been clarified insofar as its relationship to public policy is concerned—perhaps it cannot be until a study of contract apportionment over the whole area of war industry has been com- pleted. But such clarification is the real goal of the war-investigating committee. We the People and the Law EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. JOHN F. KENNEDY OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 27, 1947 Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the ReEc- orD, I include the following sermon by the Most Reverend Lawrence J. Shehan, D.D. V.G., auxiliary bishop of Baltimore and Washington at the annual red mass at Catholic University on January 26, signalizing the opening of the courts and Congress: The juridical system ot any nation may be said to be one of the most trustworthy measures of its enlightenment. Surely no one would seriously maintain that wealth is any such measure. Until recently many moderns would have claimed this role for science, but the history of the last generation has shown the weakness of any such preten- sion. In a certain sense art, and in a trucr sense literature, may be regarded as a valid gage; but great art and great literature are often produced by a small group of geniu.cs who may not be truly representative of the people. Sometimes great literature actually Nas its origin in a reaction against a base or unenlightened culture. But the system of laws which a people develops, by which it chooses to live, which it uses as the frame- work of its civilization, by which it passes on all its legacy of material wealth, cultural achievement, and social gains, expresses as nothing else can the enlightenment of the people itself. Further than this it manifests in a most prectical way the concept which a nation has formed of itself, of its individual citizens, of its family life and all its social relationships. And these are undoubted tests of a nation’s enlightenment. Certainly our own country might well be content to have the mental and moral stature of its people judged by the system of laws which had its birth with the adoption of our Constitution.
A284 In the course of time it is almost inevitable that any juridical system should grow in size and complexity. It could not be other- wise in our own country, with its great ex- pansion of territory, with the rapid multi- plication of its citizens, with its unprece- dented increase in wealth, in industry, and {in commerce. But if any system of law is to retain its vitality, its meaning, and its usefulness, it must, in at least a general way, remain within the comprehension of the common pcople. It may become com- plex, as our great modern buildings have become complex, but if it is to fulfill its function it must be grounded on a firm foundation and its general plan must re- main intelligible to the ordinary man. It may seem presumptuous for one who is un- learned in this subject to speak to those who are deeply learned. But, on the other hand, the law is meant primarily, or at least mainly, for the common people, and a8 one of them it may not be inappropriate for me to attempt to state what we, the common people, look for in the law. First of all, we look to the law of our country to express and preserve our single most sacred civic heritage—the dignity, the freedom, and the equality of the individual. These things come to us, not as gifts of the state, but as natural and unalienable rights. We know, of course, that in our his- tory, under the freedom guaranteed by our Constitution, some have abused liberty to reduce great numbers of their fellow citizens to virtual economic slavery, robbing them at the same time of both their dignity and their equality. But, happily, those abuses have been largely eliminated, and those which may remain will, with proper vigilance, be cor- rected. The danger now is that in our zeal to curb the lawless liberty of some we shall slay the legitimate freedom and dignity of all, . The dignity, freedom, and happiness of the individual is inseparably bound up with the family, for it is only within and through the family that these objectives can be achieved by the masses of men. The family, moreover, is the basic unit of society and the foundation of our whole social structure. Our national welfare, therefore, depends upon the welfare of the family. We have a right then to look to the law to uphold and preserve the sanctity and stability of family “life. Unfortunately, in many jurisdictions there has been a tendency to enact and to favor legislation calculated to weaken the family and to further its disintegration. The alarming rapidity with which the divorce rate has risen and continues to rise makes all too evident the harmful effects of such legisla- tion, ang the abuses which have occurred in 80 many perts of this country have given rise to discussion about the desirability of uniform legislation. In whatever may be done we have a right to expect from our law and our legislators a genuine concern for the welfare of family life as the single most im- portant element in our general social wel- fare. What we should expect is a recogni- tion of the fact that in the very nature of things the family must be regarded as a stable and permanent unit, and that in such & unit the child in particular has the right to be reared and to find his happiness and se- curity. The law then should so safeguard the permanence and stability of the family that those who enter into the state of mar- tilage would be forced to realize that they are entering into a lifelong contract involv- ing sacred obligations which cannot be light- ly tossed aside. But it is not only the preservation of the family that we expect from the law. We look to it for the proper maintenance and order- ing of all those vital relationships which constitute our social life. The relationship most in the public consciousness at the pres- ent time is that between employer and em- ployee. As in the case of the family, so also in this and in all other important relation- ships, we look to the law to give expression, not to what any particular group feels it has the strength to demand, but to those prin- ciples of right reason and common sense from which alone justice can eventuate. This, of course, is but another way of saying that the civil law governing the family and all other relationships inust be founded on the natural moral law. This brings me to the further considera- tion that our whole juridical system should be regarded as founded on, as giving expres- sion or development to, and as buttressing, the natural law. That law, eternal and un- changeable, has received clear expression in the Ten Commandments which we derive from the Old Testament. But for the knowl- edge of that law we are not dependent on divine revelation. Jt car, be Known by hu- man reason as the law imposed by the Cre- ator on all men alike, although experience has shown that revelation was needed to em- phasize the eternal and unchangeable char- acter of that law. Unless civil law retains its roots in the natural law, it can have no stability and no real binding force in con- science; and unless it remains within the framework of the natural law, there is no telling to what extravagances men will go in their ideas of what may be made legal. In our own times there has been a tendency to disregard this connection of the civil with the natural luw and the restrictions placed by the latter on the former. The two most obvious recent examples ure of course the movements to legalize euthanasia, or so-called mercy killing. and sterilization. In our own country these two movements have their roots in a false sentimentalism. But we must remember that in Nazi Ger- many these same practices, seeking their justification in a blind sentimental attach- ment to the superior race, led to the horrible atrocities of Dachau, Buchenwald, and Belsen. Here, of course, it is assumed that practice would always be guided by a spirit of benevolence. But let us not assume that, once we have departed from the sanity of the natural law, we shall be superior to any other people in either wisdom or virtue. The horrors which marked almost every phase of the late war, even up to its last days, indicate all too clearly that, given sufficient incitement, any nation can be gullty of al- most any atrocity, once it has lost sight of those clear and safe concepts which have been given to us as the most fundamental guide of our conduct. A further characteristic which we have a right to find in our juridical system is that application of the law should be made justly and impartially to all. Our main traditional method of insuring such application has been an independent judiciary, which has been re- quired by an enlightened public opinion to maintain itself free from corrupting in- fluence of private interests and political hip. In the whole sphere of our political and social institutions there is nothing more important to each of us than that the judiciary should remain independent and should retain the highest ideals of per- sonal integrity, legal knowledge, and prac- tical wisdom. We of this country have a tradition of reverence for the judiciary; and no greater calamity could befall us than that the judiciary should not continue to merit that reverence. If, however, justice is to eventuate from even the most impeccable judiciary, it would seem that the laws themselves should not only be clearly expressed in terms com- prehensible to the layman, but that they should also continue to be interpreted ac- cording to the clear and certain meaning of the terms used. Considerable comment has arisen over the opinion expressed by an eminent jurist that: “The notion that be- cause the words of a statute are plain its meaning is also plain is merely pernicious oversimplification,” and over the use made of APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD those words by a member of the legal pro- fession in the Government service. All of us realize that even a clearly worded law, when applied to a situation not fully en- visioned when the law was enacted, may need light over and above that derived from the bare meaning of the words. But it has been contended that the words used hold a meaning much more startling than this. In any event, it would seem to the ordinary layman that nothing is better calculated to bring the law, the legal profession, and our whole juridical system into public cdium than the idea on the part of the average citizen that the law does not or may not mean what {t says, together with the infer- ence, which some have not failed to make, that the law is regarded as a sort of trap to the well-intentioned but unwary layman or as a device whereby those able to purchase the best legal service can obtain an unfair advantage over their neighbors and com- petitors. It is indeed understandable that in our complex world the application of the law to new and involved situations should not al- ways be immediately clear. In such circum- stances, it seems to the thoughtful and in- terested citizen that it is essential that the law should be interpreted and applied ac- cording to recognized principles and that there should be definite continuity in inter- pretation. Justice demands that the citi- zens should be able to know how existing law affects what they do or what they con- template doing. But this is possible only if the interpretation of the luw is made in the Nght of precedent and according to rule and principle. Perhaps such an interpretation of law will not always meet adequately new conditions which arise. In that case, in a democracy, we look for relief from the proper lawmaking body. We do not expect to see existing law twisted out of its obvious meaning to meet conditioris which are entirely new, or to fit into the latest concepts of social theory. If laws do not mean what they say, if there ts no order in their interpretation, if their ap- plication is not made in the light of history and experience, if they are tnterpreted solely in the light of present facts as seen by indi- vidual authorities from the point of view of newly arising political theory, then we can only say we are headed for legal chaos. Again, if justice to all is to be the outcome of our juridical system, the law must be re- garded as supreme and equally binding upon all who come within its purview. This means that not only must there be no privileged class beyond the reach of the law's arm; it means also that the Government itself must operate within the framework of the law. Only through true sovereignty of the law can the individual be protected from the arbi- trary action of government, or, rather. of those who for the time being hold the reins of government. This, on occasions, may seem to hamper the effectiveness of the Govern- ment. But in times of emergency. provision for prompt action on the part of the Govern- ment is made within our law; and it is better that a sound system of government under law be provided and maintained than that the Government itself should never be incon- venienced or delayed by the operation of the law. The supremacy of the law means that the liberty of all is to some degree restricted, the Government included; but only through the supremacy of law can our legitimate lib- erty be preserved. These are a few of the considerations which occur to one who, while not immediately in- volved in the complexities of the law und in the political and economic forces which are at work, yet thoughtfully ponders the system of law within whose framework his life must be lived and his work carried out. In view of these considerations certain modern trends which are manifesting themselves seem to give grounds for grave concern.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD I believe I cannot better describe those trends than by quoting words used recently by Dean Roscoe Pound. “We cannot,” he said, “be blind to the attacks upon our law * * * which are going on aggres- sively and persistently in the United States but are only a phase of the general attack throughout the world. * * * In the United States the realists, and on the con- tinent a type of nationalist and believer in a totalitarian policy, consider the idea of a state ruling according to law and not accord- ing to will as superstitious and decadent. They scoff at the idea of a people solemnly convenanting by constitution or bill of rights to keep to announced principles of right and justice and to reason, and striving by con- tinued adherence to judicial construction of the covenant to make it real in thelr po- litical behavior. * * * “Our American fundamental doctrine of the separation of powers,” he continues, “is under attack from those who urge that law is to be whatever is done officially. But the world has had not a little experience of late as to what rejection of that doctrine leads to. We were told under the Nazi regime that the separation of powers had disappeared from German public law. Russian writers tell us that the Soviet Constitution ‘ignores the separation of powers.’ They tell us that rights are not protected by law when they run counter to official policy. They tell us that law has an absolutely new meaning. It has no juristic rules but only technical soclal rules. There is no question of right and wrong, but only techniques of ordering be- havior. Law is not to be a guide to govern- ment, but an instrument of government. Reason gives way to force. “Some of them give up the very name of law, with its connotations of justice and rights and reason. One says, ‘Every conscious workman is aware that religion is the opiate of the people; but I believe that only a few realize also that law is an even more poison- ous and disturbing opiate.’” I would call special attention to this quo- tation which links religion and the law to- gether in condemnation. For the truth is that the traditional concept of law is funda- mentally a religious concept. We might go further and say that the concept of law in western civilization, and particularly in this country, has been a Christian concept, To begin with, it is based on that concept of man which was the product of Christian teaching and Christian belief—the concept of mun as free and equal, with essential rights springing from the fact that he has been endowed by his Creator with rational nature. It had its origin in the idea of man created by God as a social being, destined to live in society, and bound therefore by the natural law to reverence for and obedience to the legitimate government of the polity in which he lives, which in turn is equally bound by the natural law. The very opening sentence of the legal document which gave birth to this country as an independent Nation shows that our founding fathers based the whole legal structure of this country on the re- ligious concept of the moral law. It 18 not strange then that recent attacks made on our traditional legal concepts should be inti- mately connected with the rejection of re- ligious concepts. It is certainly questionable whether our traditional legal concepts can continue as vital realities apart from their religious foundation. We who retain religious faith should be particularly concerned to preserve the tradi- tional concepts and system of law which we have inherited in this country. By that I do not mean that we should remain stationary or become reactionary in our thinking, or that we should refuse to move with the times. Law must change to meet the new needs and problems which arise. But we have a special stake in preserving the fundamental concepts and the system itself which have come down to us; first, because they correspond to the most fundamental truths of human nature; second, because our most cherished institue tions are inseparably entwined with them; and, finally, because only under such concepts and such a system can religion continue to flourish. Since the modern trends threatening our legal heritage have their origin in a nonreli- gious or an antireligious spirit, it is not sur- prising that, once these trends have reached the fullness of their development, the de- struction of religion should become for those who have gone along with these trends a sort of primary obsession. The reuson is obvious, Religion in the nature of things stands for law. It places over all men, over all institu- tions, over the state itself, God's eternal law, especially as expressed in the law of our nae ture. It denies the validity of law or ordi- nance or dictate which is in contradiction to divine law. By its very nature then, religion finds itself in opposition to the personal rule of dictatorship, particularly if the dictator claims absolute power in the name of the state. It has been no mere accident that re- ligion in general and the church tn particular have found themselves the object of attack in each of the countries where totalitarian Influence’. have gained full sway. But it is not only religion that needs to fear modern movements opposed to our legal traditions. In their own way all personal liberty and every kind of free enterprise have quite as much to fear, for they too can flourish only under a rule of law. Short- sighted indeed is any individual, no matter what his economic status or his personal grievances, who would trade freedom under the law for the bondage of personal rule. Well may we in this country be proud of the juridical system and legal tradition which our forefathers have developed and be- quenthed to us. Under them our Nation has been able to grow to be the strongest on earth; yet all the while the individual has enjoyed the solid meat of true liberty— a liberty which has permitted him on the one hand to worship his God, to live his own life, and rear his family according to the dictates of conscience, and on the other hand has enabled him to produce and enjoy a material prosperity known to no other peo- ple under the sun. Under a system of law, preserving its continuity with the past and adapting itself to new problems, there is no question but that this country, which per- formed such miracles of production in the late war, can go on to produce in peace enough and to spare for all the citizens of this land. At the present time a special significance attaches to the maintenance and develop- ment of the tradition of freedom under the law sacred to this country. The nations of the world are in the slow and painful process of bringing into being an international or- ganization. It seems certain that our own country is destined to be the seat of that organization. Here will be gathered at fre- quent intervals, perhaps’ almost continu- ously, official representatives of nations from all over the world. If this country gives an outstanding demonstration of what can be accomplished by freedom within a great stable juridical system; if within the frame- work of the law we meet the problems of modern times and stand as a living example of the good life of freedom under the law, and as a contradiction of sll that is claimed for the newer trends toward state abso- lutism with its concomitant slavery, then there can be no doubt that we shall exert a telling influence on the political and social thinking of the rest of the world. At present our world stands poised between a free society governed by laws and a slave society of dictatorial rule; but it cannot long maintain its precarious balance. Can any one of us doubt that the side of freedom is the side of law? It is the present opportu- A285 nity of our country to draw the world in the direction of law and freedom. From the depths of our hearts we pray God that our country may not let this great opportunity slip from its grasp. The Capital Goes to the People EXTENSION OF REMARKS F HON. GEORGE W. GILLIE OF INDIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 27, 1947 Mr. GILLIE. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks in the Rec- orD, I include the following article by Franklin L. Burdette: [From the National Municipal Review ot September 1946] THR CapiraL GOES TO THE PEOPLE—INDIANA OrriciaLs Go Back To Home Towns To TaLK THINGS OvER WITH THE FOLKS, TEACH GOVERNMENT, LEARN OF NEEDS (By Franklin L. Burdette) “Bringing the capital of Indiana to the people” is the theme of a novel, State-wide program of civic education under the per- sonal leadership of Gov. Ralph F. Gates. In carefully organized community conferences, attended by the Governor, department heads, and other public officials, the work of the Indiana State government is discussed witn high-school seniors, college students, civic groups, and the general public. The first purpose of the conferences, the governor has said, is “to give the opportunity to the people of each community to see and talk with the heads of the various depart- ments of State government and to have ques- tions answered without the necessity of trav- eling to the capital of the State.” The sec- ond purposes “is that the heads of State departments may undcrstand more thor- oughly the problems of the local communt- ties.” Good government, Governor Gates believes, must be close to the people; for effoctiveness it must meet their needs, and for improvement it must depend on thetr support and understanding. Beginning in December 1945, five regional conferences have been conducted, each for one day, at East Chicago, South Bend, Evans- ville, Terre Haute, and New Albany. Not less than 8,000 high-school seniors or college stu- dents have attended the conferences, par- ticipating in study classes. High school or college buildings have been use as centers. particularly to emphasize among young citi- zens the responsibilities which confront them. All meetings and classes have been open to the public. In each community nonpolitical sponsor- ship has been arranged for the conference. Schools and colleges, chambers of commerce, and service clubs have appointed committees for local arrangements. Plans for each con- ference are made by the State department of commerce and public relations, headed by Lt. Gov. Richard T. James. Paul M. Ross, executive director of the department, is in charge of detailed arrangements. Costs of the programs are absorbed without specific pudgetary allocations by participating State departments and by cooperating local organ- izations, Morning sessions of conferences have been devoted to a preliminary convocation and to three class periods attended by high-school seniors. Virtually all seniors from public and parochial schools have attended, trans- portation being provided when necessary by
A286 school busses. Depending upon the popula- tion of the region selected, seniors have rep- resented schools in a single county or in as many as seven counties. CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION GIVEN Typically, officials from 18 State agencies which provide extensive public services are prepared to offer classroom instruction. Large attendance has at times required mul- tiple sections in each subject, and additional sections have occasionally been organized in the afternoon. State officials are encouraged to present busic information and to afford time for full discussion and for questions. Visual aids, including motion pictures, slides, and charts, are used in several classes, and literature is distributed freely. It is understood, upon the insistence of the Governor, that instruction must be non- partisan but that discussion may range fully over the services and problems of State de- partments. The State Department of Public Instruction has cooperated in making ad- vance arrangements with schools to facili- tate selection of the three class sessions which each student will attend, to encourage note- taking and participation in discussion, and to plan oral reports by students when they return to their schools. The Governor has whenever possible vis- ited various classes during the morning ses- sions and has held a press conference with student reporters from all school newspapers of the region. A civic luncheon program is usually arranged by one of the sponsoring organizations. GROUP CONFERENCES HELD Afternoon sessions are devoted to indi- vidual or group conferences. The widest ad- vance publicity fs given to the availability of State officials for conferences with local officials, citizens, or citizen groups. State departments have sent hundreds of letters of open invitation to organizations, to officers of counties, cities, towns, and townships, and to State officers and agents working in the area. Newspapers and radio stations have announced conference hours. Each State department represented at the afternoon ses- sions has maintained a separate temporary headquarters. State officials have been es- pecially prepared to discuss cooperation or specific services in the communities of the region. Attendance at the afternoon con- ferences has been both representative and large. No attempt has been made to reach final decisions at these afternoon conferences— sometimes called clinics by the newspapers. But State officials and many local groups have expressed enthusiastic appreciation for the contacts and frank discussions of prob- lems. Delegations have from time to time presented conflicts of opinion about local or regional needs, and such occasions have become informal public hearings. News- paper coverage has been extensive; in Terre Haute even questions and answers were printed. Experimentation has revealed that, meas- ured by attendance, the conference day is more effectively closed with a dinner meet- ing than with a program in an auditorium. As the principal speaker, the Governor has presented department heads with brief, non- partisan explanations of their functions in the State service. Questions are invited from the floor and the Governor assigns them to appropriate officials for answers. In practice, questions have been less readily volunteered by the adult audiences than by students meeting in the morning sessions. To avoid preparation of questions at the State capital, however, committees on local arrangements have been asked to suggest problems of sig- nificance and interest. Because of the early closing of rural schools, governmental service oonferences have not been scheduled from the middle of April until early fall. The 5 conferences already held will be augmented by at least 12 more in order to reach every section of the State. Favorable local reaction has resulted in many requests for annual con- ferences. The Governor expects to meet the requests, perhaps selecting a new center for each region when conferences are re- peated. The Indiana program of conferences is an outgrowth of Governor Gates' conviction that public officers, whether elected or appointed, should maintain the closest possible contacts with the people. In the broadest sense, the processes of civic education must flow in two directions. Officials and citizens are mutual- ly teachers and pupils. Both have govern- mental responsibilities and, by a method of sharing, problems may be halved and ac- complishments doubled. The Library of Congress EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. OREN HARRIS OF ARKANSAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 27, 1947 Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Speaker, every Member of Congress has an especia) in- terest in, and is indeed proud of, the Library of Congress. The Nation takes pride in the greatest library perhaps in the world. It is an inspiration to those who walk within its walls and observe not only one of the most beautiful and lustrous works of architecture but the compilation of the richest bureau of in- formation ever assembled. It would be presumptuous of me to adequately describe this work of art and knowledge. However, Mr: Horace C. Carlisle has described it beautifully and majestically in poetry in The Library of Congress, Treasure House of Beauty and Truth, The Library Is Not by Tourists Forgot, The Lovely Library of Congress, and The Librarian. Knowing that the Members would be interested in these beautiful and appro- priate descriptions, under unanimous consent, I include them in my remarks: Tre Lrexary oF CoNncRESS (By Horace C. Carlisle) THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS T-he Library of Congress, earth's climax in art, e H-armonizing in every effective design, E-ver Widening in wonders—eurprising the eart— L-ifte a life into visions—that never depart— I-n which wisdom and beauty and fitness combine. B-oth tradition’s and history's palmiest past, R-evelations, with priceless philosophies fraught, A-re enshrined here forever, to live and to last, Hretrospective reminders that hold, and hold ast, Y-esterday’s and today’s and tomorrow's best thought. O-ft, when thrilled with a rapture, too full to define, F-raught with high aspirations—enriched by @ prayer—~ APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD C-onsecration slips into the heart, to entwine O-ptimistic persuasions and feelings divine, N-ever felt in such perfect profusion else- where, G-od, Himself, seems to speak from these welcoming walls, R-ecognizing that all things, predestined to last, E-nshrined herein as if in response to His calls, S-hould be, down through the ages, till time’s curtain falls, S-afely guarded, as treasures, vouchsafed from the past, TREASURE HOUSE OF BEAUTY AND TRUTH When we sit, and watch the people, Ir the wide Library halls, Saurter thru it, secking wisdom From its cefling and its walls, Painted there in rich profusion, We in wonder meditate On the past, and ask the question, Will the future be as great? People, living in the present, Have the wisdom of the past To help them to build the future Still more beautiful and vast— But, by work, and not by conquest, Work of heart and mind and hand, Are all lasting works accomplished, After being wisely planned. Many of the finest people, From the corners of the earth, Come to this superb Library— For to scholars it is worth More than all the hoarded millions Of the Nation’s millionaires— This Library is the answer To today’s historians’ prayers. THE LIBRARY IS NOT BY TOURISTS FORGOT The Library of Congress is the recognized Masterpiece of all structural art— By the masters of learning it’s oft eulogized For the magical, logical part That it’s played in preserving the wisdom of men, Which enriched the historical past, By the products of chisel, of brush, and of pen, That should be kept intact till the last. Its rich, picturesque grandeur is nowhere excelled, Its rare sculptury can’t be surpassed, Its historic importance can’t be paralleled, For herein has been wisely amassed The best thought of the ages that has been enshrined In the languages of many lands, And these transcendent treasures recall to the mind The great work of antiquity’s hands. The Library of Congress is earth's beauty spot, It’s the Mecca to which tourists come, And secure, for their hearts, a rare forget- me-not, To take with them, when they return home. As the Wise Men looked forward to Bethle- hem’'s Star, They look backward with pleasure upon The Library of Congress, wherever they are, For what it for their own hearts has done. THE LOVELY LIBRARY OF CONGRESS In the matchless Library of Congress, en- shrined In America’s national heart, Are preserved the historical works of man- kind, Done in lit'rature, sculpture, and art, That the people, as time toward eternity moves, Walle thetr int'resta in men and things ast, May enjoy these creations, which Heaven ap- proves, As they silently speak from the past.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD From these volumes the tales of antiquity’s past Are retold to the truth-seeking mind— Here the progress of man, from the first to the last, Has been, by those before us, enshrined— The Library of Congress is everywhere known As the mecca for lovers of art, And for lovers of lit’rature—it stands alone, Beauty spot in America’s heart. For humanity’s sake, from the press of the past The great works, in all languages, rest In the Library's care, where they stand, justly classed By the scholars of earth as the best. When the ending of time bids farewell to the years, And they sleep in oblivion’s tomb, The Library of Congress, as now it appears, Methinks, may up in Heaven find room. THE LIBRARIAN L-uther H. Evans, the Library's Chief, U-nder whose management it is maintained, T-akes special pride that it is the belief, H-eld by his force, that the Library's gained E-ver since he has been given control— R-ight is his guide, and success js his goal. H-e, with the courge to keep keeping on, E-very night, in his dreams, happily sees V-isions of days better than those now gone; A-nd, as the future unfolds, by degrees, N-obly, expectantly, he's hoping to S-ee, later on, all his best dreams come true. T-rue to the trust that’s committed to him, H-e by his conscience alone is controlled. E-very new task he performs with a vim— L-ooking ahead, as the hours unfold, I-n swift succession, new duties that must B-e done in ways, both impartial and just. R-endering service to his fellow men, A-lways alert to the present-day needs, R-eady always with his voice and his pen, I-n his own manner and style he proceeds. A-ctions speak louder than words, yea, 1s true— N-ot what we say, 80 much, but what we do. Reduction of Income-Tax Rates EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. HAROLD KNUTSON OF MINNESOTA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 23, 1947 Mr. KNUTSON. Mr. Speaker, under permission granted me, there is herewith submitted for the REcorp a letter from Mr. Courtland Kelsey, of New York City, a recognized expert on Federal taxation, which, in my opinion, utterly demolishes the criticism that H. R. 1 would unfairly benefit high-income groups at the ex- pense of those in the lower brackets. In a subsequent letter, Mr. Kelscy pointed out the inequities of the present income-tax rates. For example, an indi- vidual with a $10,000 income pays more than 11 times as much taxes as a man with a $2,000 income, while a man with a $50,000 income pays more than 125 times as much. New York, January 10, 1947. Hon. Haro.tp KNUTSON, Chairman, Ways and Means Committee, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dear Sir: In a letter appearing in the New York Times of January 8, Mr. Hyman H. Bookbinder, assistant director of research, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, takes the position that the uniform reduc- tion in income-tax rates provided in H. R. 1 would unfairly benefit the higher income-tax groups, and offers the following table pur- porting to demonstrate it: Spendable income : Percent Total net income inereuse Present law| HF. R.1 $1, 162 $), 170 0.7 1,810 1, R48 21 2, 620 2, 696 2.9 4, 202 4, 362 a8 7,816 8, 242 5.6 25, 205 40, 164 19.7 36, 873 40, 408 34.3 G5, 446 112, 440 77 02, 536 167, W27 70. 6 160, 286 271, 177 (0. 4 Mathematically the figures are approx- imately correct and no doubt the same argu- ment will be made and the same or similar figures presented at the hearings before your committee. Like many other statistics, how- ever, those presented by Mr. Bookbinder should not be accepted at face value since they are confined to showing the increase in “spendable income” thrat would result from H. R. 1 and ignore the actual relation between the spendable incume and the total income of the two groups under the present law and as proposed by H. R. 1. It is quite obvious that if A now pays only 2 percent of his tofal income for taxes no possible reduction in taxes could increase his spendable income by more than 2 percent of the total income, while if B now pays 70 percent of his total income for taxes his spendable income could be increased by as much as 70 percent of his total income. It is equally obvious, however, that the reason for this is that 98 percent of A’s total income is already spendable, while only 30 percent of B's total income is spenduble. As a first step in determining whether the uniform 20 percent reduction in tax rates is “fair,” there- fore, the percentages of spendable income to total income should be substituted for the amounts of spendable income shown in Mr. Bookbinder’s table. The table would then be as follows: ] Spendable income Net incomo Present law H.R. Percent | Percent $1,200 416, 8 97.5 $2,000. 90, i 02. 4 S00 mol sre $10,000... 78.1 82.5 $50,000. - A 4 60.3 Sano. 36.9 40,5 $800,000... 21.8 47.4 $500,000... - 1s, A 31, 6 $1,000,000 . 2222-2222 ee -- eee ee 16.0 1 Because the higher income groups started with so much smuller percentages of spend- able income, the increases resulting from the reduction in rates are necessarily greater, but unless the percentages aftcr the increases are themselves unfair, there is nothing unfair about the increases. Mr. Bookbinder favors, as an alternative to uniform reduction of rates, un increase in the personal exemptions from $500 to $1,000 each. He says that this would increase the spend- able income of a $2,000-a-year family man by 10 percent, a $10,000-a-year mun by 3 per- cent, and a $100,000-a-year man by 1 per- cent, which he considers to be fairer. Since the $2,000-a-year man’s spendable income 1s now more than 90 percent of his total income, because of the present exemptions and the relatively low rate of tax, it is obvious that A287 doubling the exemptions could not possibly increase it by more than 10 percent. Doub- ling the exemptions, however, does increase the portion of the total income on which no tax whatever is paid and, on that basis, the percentages of increase are not 10 percent for the $2,000-a-year man, 3 percent for the $10,000-a-year man, and 1 percent for the $100,000-a-year man, but 50 percent, 10 per- cent, and 1 percent, respectively. Further- more, even if Mr. Bookbinder’s own method of dctermining the percentages of increase is adopted, the man whose spendable income is already 90.5 percent of his total income would have this increased by 10 percent; the man whose spendable income is already 78.1 per- cent would have this increased by 3 percent; while the man whose spendable income is now only 16 percent would have this in- creased by 1 percent. Payment of income tax has been truly likened to working a portion of the year for the Government without compensation. Ap- parently Mr. Bookbinder takes the position that if A now works 2 days and B works 20, when any change is made A’s work should be reduced from 2 days to 1 day, or 50 percent, but B's work should not be reduced from 20 days to 10 days, but only to 19 days, or 5 percent. As a result, B would then be re- quired to work 19 times as long as A in- stead of 10 times. If B's time were reduced by 10 days, he would necessarily have a greater reduction than A, since A's reduction cannot exceed the 2 days which he now works. But if B thereafter continues to work 10 days to A’s one, wherein is B's reduction unfair to A? I am enclosing a clipping from the Times and trust that you will not be swayed from your present position. Very truly yours, CourTLAND KELSEY. Rural Electrification Program Great Asset to Nation EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. ESTES KEFAUVER OF TENNESSEE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, January 27, 1947 Mr. KEFAUVER. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend my remarks, I wish to include an address delivered by me at the Tennessee Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Nashville, Tenn., on January 15, 1947. The address is as follows: The Federal rural electrification pro- gram constitutes one of the grcatest benefits that has ever come to the farmers of Amer- tca. It has done much to modernize the farming industry. It has brought to the farm the advantages of city life. It has made farméng interesting and attractive to young people so that in increasing numbers they are remaining on the farms of the country. This is of value not only to farms but to the Nation as a whole. Every citizen ouxht to understand the bencfits coming from this program so we can meet the attacks which will be made upon it. Of the approximatel; 6,000,000 farms in this country, only 3 percent had power line electric service in 1925 and only a little more than 10 percent in 1935. Commercial power companies had not found a way to operate profitably in rural areas that were outside the immedinte vicinity of cities and towns. In thinly scttled rural areas, farmers seek- ing electric service were thwarted ly high connection charges and expensive long-term contracts,