The Waterbury Democrat., 1936-10-02

of it comes to me. I'm a salaried man, I've never been anything else, I'm working for 8 salary. And there ain't any difference between me and any other salaried em- l ploye. Well, let's see how that comes. After I left Albany the first time I came down here to New York had no means, had to go to work. I left Albany on the 1st of January and was working on | the 2nd. I had no money to start in business, I had no profession because I didn't have enough early education to equip me for any kind of a profession. didn't have a rich aunt or rich uncle to take care of me.
 The same occurred in 1928 when returned to New York when of course I met men of means, but I didn't have to wait until came down to New York to meet them. met them while I was in Albany, and they're only paying me what they think I'm worth--I don't know anybody giving anything away.
 But let me say this, for the benefit of the New Deal critics, every decision that I ever had to make in my executive capacity has been made in the interest of the men that were working under me. sKickad Arnund'
 Now, of course, I make no apology for being in business. There's nothing dishonorable about business, whether it be large or whether it be small, or about business men, whether they be big or whether they be little, because in the last analysis we've got to look to the business men of this country if we are going to have a permanent solution of the unem- ployment question or any return to anything that looks like perm anent prosperity. But in the meantime the American business man is certainly having 8 swell time of it, getting kicked around all over the lot.
 Now the President in speaking in Syracuse at the State Conven- tion and he spoke about the rec ord at Albany. He's right. I bat tied as hard as a man possibly could for the factory laws, the workmen's compensation, for the child welfare bill. I went around the state of New York and I just took pounds off myself talking in favor of it before every audience that I could bring within reach of my voice, and I stand today just exactly where I stood then.
 But by contrast with the New Deal performance, let it be noted on the record that every one of these laws were passed within the four walls of the state conStitu- tion except one. That was the workmen's compensation act.
 The first act was declared void under our constitution by the Court of Appeals. but when the Court of Appeals rendered that decision the governor and the leg islative leaders did not go into a huddle and find fault with the court. What did they do? They proposed an amendment to the constitution and they submitted it to the people of the state and the people of the state ratified it and the workmen's compensation act was thereafter enacted in accord ance with the constitution.
 Must List
 Of course we had an. entirely different system in Albany, the president didn't speak about that. Here is the way we handled 1t. When the democrats won in Al- bany, the counsels of the governor and the legislative leaders sat down around table and we pre- pared the bill that would carry out the platform promises. But down in Washington there was an entirely different procedure. The bills were drawn by the brain trust in the White House and they were sent down to congress and with them the command, This must go." Why, it's 8 matter of record that in the newspaper conferences with the newspaper boys, the President himself point- ed to the bills that he said were on the must list"--that's sonle- thing that congress must do. Just consider for a moment the independence of the legislative ranks of our government. Our rep resentatives, the people that are speaking for us. are told what they must do. Now if A. A. A., N. R. A. the Guffey coal Dill, the Bankhead cotton act, the hot oil bill and all the rest of the unconstitutional enactrnents were good = if they were good-why is 1t that the New Deal didn't submit an amendment to the constitution of the United States so that they could be legal ly and properly enacted?
 ask the question and I'll arl- swer it myself. The answer to that question is that the New Deal was entirely unwilling to meet the is- sue of state rights. They pre- ferred to go up a dark alley and do 1t under cover and do 1t in spite of and not with the consent of the peoples constitution. Now. just @ little passing reference for the record. Before I leave this question of business associates, let me remind the enthusiastic spokesmen for the New Deal that they find 1t very convenient to forget that the present Chief Ex- ecutive whenever he earned . dole lar of private or public salary, he earned it as lawyer and as corporation executive in the Wall street district.
 Betrayed Party
 Now, there's another great ans wer makes Q great hit--it has to be more or less whispered and