The Waterbury Democrat., 1936-01-29

.seA dinner gpeech before the Amer night The text of Senator Robin. stitutIon as . Bible. Not Q spe- cific proposal in the whole batch. Just c rehash of confusing and meaningless generalities.
 Business Uprise
 Why the Happy Warrior" even went further than that. He boldly asserted that our great offensive to overcome the depression and Ad- | just the nations economic life had accomplished nothing and brought us nowhere. Is that 8 serious declaration or does 1t come under the heading of oratorical license? challenge the accuracy of that assertion. Why, a table recently compiled shows that in the. three years of the New Deal, as compared to the last three years of the old deal, unemployment has declined 90 per cent, cotton, wheat and corn have increased 100 per cent or more in value, industrial production has gone up 5l per cent, listed stocks have increased 134 per cent in value and listed bonds 22 per cent.
 The progress of our recovery is apparent to every man who looks about him and the story of it's onward march fairly leaps at you every day from the pages of the daily press. Bear in mind that when the Roosevelt administration came into power, hungry and aban- doned men in the cities were searching the garbage pals for waste scraps and the American farmers were halting court fore- closures by physical force which borders little short of revolution. And former Governor Smith says there has been no progress.
 President Roosevelt had not been in the White House twenty-four hours before bankers and other big business men now grouped in the Liberty League appealed to him to do something" to "do anything" to relieve the paralysis of business and to save them.
 Change of Heart
 The President and the Congress responded to their appeals, saved the banks and in saving them also saved the insurance companies; saved the railroads, the farms and the homes. No sooner had these suppliants been made secure than they began to complain ot the very processes by which their fortunes had been preserved against bank ruptcy. They did not when they needed help brand government aid to private enterprises as socialistic or comrnunistic, nor did they cofn- plain of the government engaging in what is normally private enter. prise. Now, being secure, they re- gard it as violate of sound principle to accord the same assistance to others which they themselves have enjoyed.
 So much for what the Roosevelt administration has accomplished. Now let's look at MT. Smiths other criticism of the present Democratic Administrator. You recall that before the Liberty Leaguers he started to read the democratic plat form of 1882, but for some strange reason he never finished 1t. I won- der why7 Was there something further along condemning stock market Inanipulatoins that he didn't like to read before his wealthy friends?
 In any event, he charged that the New Deal was fostering and pro- noting class hatred; second, that 1t enacted an unconstitutional farm program and an unconstitutional N. R. A.; third, that public money was being wasted; fourth, that Con- gress had abdicated it's powers to the executive, and fifth, in Q flag. waving, soul-stirring crescendo he charged the New Deal with trying to undermine the Constitution and Supreme Court while 1t fastened a socialistic and communicate dicta- torship upon this country.
 Look at the Record
 Let's look at the record. Why, Governor Smith, from your own lips, with your own words, with your own matchless talent for illuminat- ing the dark places of public dis cussion, I shall prove that you have advocated and championed every basic principle that has been writ- ten into law by the Roosevelt ad- ministration.
 Tn his spee ech on Saturday night MT. Smith made the ugly charge that the New Deal Is fomenting class hatred. Let me read you what he said when he was addressing the Alumni Association of Harvard uni. versity on June 9, 1883:
 T remember when we first spoke about the workmen's compensation act the court of appeals of our own state set aside the first enactment as being contrary to the Constitu- ion. I remember when we enacted the child welfare act it was referred to as paternalism and as socialism.
 "Our whole democracy at that time seemed to be devoted to the part that constitutional law and statute law was intended only for the protection of property and of