The people's voice. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1939-1969, 1947-05-23
BY CHARLES NJ. KELLEY
In R. r. Labor


81 2S7-107
Before the showdown, bipartisan
phalanx of supporters crushed NOR
than a score of efforts to modify tn
legislation and restrict the purpose
for which the money could be spent.
1t is entirely probable that had ;
secret vote been taken two weeks age
the bill would have been rejected.
Support came from various sources
and was dictated by several reasons
Many members who voted for the bill
declared the menace of communism is
so great this country, if. necessary
should go to war to check it.
Others felt that in an international
crisis it's best to stand by the ad-
ministration.
Didn't Want to Discredit Truman
To repudiate the Presidents prog
ram. speaker after speaker said, would
be to discredit him abroad.
Still other members tried to figure
out what is the popular side and cast
their votes accordingly
That the press, as so frequently hap
pens. may not have reflected public
opinion was emphasized by several
members, who recalled that a Gallup
poll, two polls by radio broadcasters
and several by house members all
showed that two Americans are
against the program for everyone who
favors it.
A peculiar thing was that the NOM
ent the supporters felt they had a ma
jority they put on the screws to shut
off debate This is characteristic of
the house regardless of the party in
control 1t is one of the reasons why
great many people oppose any limi
tation on debate in the senate.
Opponents of the bill protested loud
and long when they were given only a
third of the time allotted for debate.
Admits Purpose 70 Stop "Reds"
Generally the supporters followed
the line of Cong. Charles A. Eaton (R., |
N. j., chairman of the foreign affairs
committee He frankly admitted that
the program was designed to stop Rus
STA, and he insisted that the only way !
to deal with the soviets is to put up /
stiff front.
IF Greece and Italy go red" Eaton
said, Europe is gone. If we sit back
and remain inactive, Russia will take
over country after country"
The argument of the opposition also
followed a general pattern. 1t was
that the program is IAN invitation to
war; that we are throwing our money Il
into bottomless pit, and that in the
end only failure can be expected. since
ideas cannot be combatted with bull
let's"
Cong. Chef Holifield Dem, Calif.),
stressed the danger OF war. 81 con-
sider,' he said, "the Truman doctrine
as an undecIared declaration of war.
do not believe the administration has
made out case justifying war
Cong. Walter K. Granger Dem,
Utah argued that eve are asked to
give blank check and nobody knows
what it will cost in blood and money"
IF this is a proposition to stop So
yiet expansion" said Cong. Roy o.
Woodruff (Rep., Mich.), sit is a mere
lrop in the bucket. The final cost will
Tot be millions, but many billions. If
t is not to stop Russia, then we are
upon a course that is re-
to every American tradition"
Clayton Puts Cost at $50 Billions
Woodruff said Will Clayton, assist
mt secretary of war, told congression-
II committees that the cost of the
program will be not less than $50 bill /
ions over the next five years. II also
:ame out that since We Day we have
oaned S9,282 millions to 50 nations.
Cong. John A. Carroll Dem, Colo.),
veteran Of the two World Wars, de-
Jared he was amazed and depressed
It the utter callousness of warlike
tatements issued by certain members :
n support of this BILL
Carroll deplored the by-passing of
be United Nations, saying: ut is a
litter pill for the friends of peace to 4
kTFE II