« PreviousContinue »
Mr. FENTON. Is that the regular population of Baltimore or is it the transient population? For instance, I know of a lot of people in my area are in Baltimore working in various plants. Were they counted as the population of Baltimore?
Mr. WILLISTON. In that estimated population I think the population was taken of what we regarded as, and what the Manpower Commission regarded as the Baltimore area, which was including certain suburbs of Baltimore in which there are war industries that are associated with Baltimore. And I cannot tell you exactly how that population of 1,250,000 was arrived at.
The CHAIRMAN. Let me interrupt the witness to suggest that this survey is available in this little brown booklet and a copy of it has been furnished to everyone of us.
Mr. FENTON. You spoke of the aid this bill would be to small industries, industries that are for the moment standing still. Do you think, Mr. Williston, that if industries had been distributed more equitably that we would not have this problem on our hands?
Mr. WILLISTON. I really think a pretty good job was done in distributing the war contracts. It was important to get them started quickly and they were given to people that had the kind of labor already trained that was available to do that kind of work. And I think anybody that had the plant, the equipment, the right kind of labor definitely at his door, could come to Washington and get a contract. I think that that has been exaggerated, the ill distribution.
Mr. FENTON. That is all.
Mr. WILLISTON. I appreciate very much, sir, the opportunity of coming before you.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
(The hearing was resumed at 2 p. m., pursuant to recess.)
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please be in order. Gentlemen, we have as a witness this afternoon a gentleman who has been a pioneer in the study of the character of legislation we are considering, who has been of great assistance to the Congress and to the committee in the preparation and enactment of the Wadsworth bill, relating to selective service, to establish a reservoir of manpower in peacetime. He has spent a great deal of his valuable time in the study of this subject, and perhaps has done a great deal of traveling over the country and over the world to better inform himself on that subject. I am sure his statement will be of interest to us and of great assistance.
I am glad to recognize at this time Mr. Grenville Clark, State of New York,
STATEMENT OF GRENVILLE CLARK, NEW YORK CITY Mr. CLARK. Mr. Chairman, you have given my name, and I am a lawyer by profession in New York. I am here in my individual capacity, but also as secretary-treasurer of a committee formed in December 1942, called the Citizens Committee for a National War Service Act.
I had something to do with the formation of that committee, and it is true, sir, that for about 15 months I have spent virtually all my time studying the subject of the most effective methods of mobilizing the manpower and the womanpower of the United States with relation to the requirements of this war. There is a tremendous amount about it that I do not know. I can merely claim to know some things about it.
I did start in about February 1942 to make a study of the subject, and that was related to my interest and work in connection with the Wadsworth-Burke bill in 1940. I want to say right now that I regard the pending Austin-Wadsworth bill, H. R. 1742, as merely a logical and necessary supplement to the military Selective Service Act.
I call this bill a Civilian Selective Service Act, conceived in the spirit and with the purpose of backing up and supplementing the military service act.
As you know, or certainly will hear from Mr. Bell, who has gone more deeply than I into the details of the corresponding laws of the other powers at war, every other major power at war has a comprehensive civilian selective service law. I mean Great Britain on the one hand, together with Australia and New Zealand, China, and Russia among our friends, and among our foes all of them, laws far more drastic, of course, than anything that is proposed in this bill.
The first thing I want to say with regard to this sepcific bill, and speaking on behalf of our committee, is that we believe this bill is wisely and carefully drawn, and we approve it and advocate it as written, with one exception. That exception is with regard to section 6 of the bill as introduced, on the subject of administration. The section as introduced intrusts the administration of the measure to the Chairman of the War Manpower Commission, without any requirement of a new appointment or of confirmation by the Senate. We proposed before the Senate Committee on Military Affairs a substitute for that particular section, and I would like to read that into the record.
The CHAIRMAN. What section is that?
Mr. CLARK. Section 6. The proposed alternative section I will now read:
SECTION 6. ADMINISTRATION.--The President shall, by and with the advise and consent of the Senate, appoint a director of national service to administer this Act and to have general responsibility, subject to the authority of the President and the provisions of this Act, for all aspects of the mobilization of manpower and womanpower for service under this Act; and such director shall receive compensation at the rate of $15,000 per annum.
We have a philosophy in suggesting that substitute, which is that the person in charge of the mobilization of manpower, whether under this act or without any act, but certainly under this act, has a responsibility at least as great, and authority at least as great, as any member of the Cabinet, and it is part of our fundamental custom of government that officials having such great powers and responsibilities should be nominated to the Senate. We think that is good government and that the people will have more confidence in the proper and just administration of this law if the man in charge of it were nominated according to the customary American procedure to the Senate, so that his name could be passed upon in the usual manner.
The CHAIRMAN. Pardon me for interrupting you, Mr. Clark, but as I understand the procedure in the Senate with respect to confirma
tion of Presidential nominations, they may refer the matter to the appropriate committee, and that committee has the alternative of holding hearings and developing fully the character of the man, his qualifications and his desirability in all lines, and in that way the direct representatives of the people would have something to say about whether or not he was a qualified man to put at the head of the organization. Mr. CLARK. That is precisely our reasoning and philosophy; yes, sir.
Mr. MARTIN. May I ask one question there? That change in section 6, then, comtemplates complete separation of the administration of this act from the War Manpower Commission?
Mr. Clark. It does not contemplate that there should be any new machinery or bureaucracy set up. On the contrary, the common sense thing and the thing that would doubtless happen is that the head of the administration would take over and adopt the existing machinery. But what it does contemplate is that the top man, the head of the administration of the manpower system, should be a man whose name had been nominated to the Senate.
Mr. Martin. And directly responsible to the President for its administration, rather than to any other board or commission?
Mr. CLARK. Precisely. As the suggested provision I just read states, Representative Martin, the proposed Director of National Service shalladminister this Act and have general responsibility, subject to the authority of the President and the provisions of this Act.
There is one other clause in section 4, subdivision (b), to which I wish to refer, reading as follows: Provided further, That every person assigned to service under this act, including every accepted volunteer, shall have the right to join any union or organization of employees, but no such person shall be obliged to join any such union or organization if he or she should not freely choose so to do.
My understanding is that the words I have just read are not included in H. R. 1742 as introduced, nor were they in the identical bill, S. 666, as introduced in the Senate.
The CHAIRMAN. Will you leave those suggested amendments with the clerk so that we may have them for consideration?
Mr. CLARK. Yes, sir. However, on the day after the bill was introduced in both Houses in identical form, without the clause I have just read, the introducers of the bills, Senator Austin and Mr. Wadsworth, issued a public statement to the effect that they had come to the conclusion that the clause I have just read should be included in the bill, and Senator Austin had it printed and proposed officially to the Senate Committee on Military Affairs, as if it were part of the bill as introduced in the Senate. So I refer to it as something that is now before Congress, although perhaps technically it is not before the House of Representatives. I am not informed on that. Our committee favors the provision I have just read on that subject as written.
Now, I have a prepared statement to save time that I will follow quite closely, though not literally, in which I have tried to sum up my analysis of the bill and the reasons why, in my judgment-and I think I can say in the judgment of our committee-because we have talked it over repeatedly—this bill should be enacted as soon as possible.
On this question of the mobilization of manpower, including womanpower, I submit the proposition that nothing less will suffice than the enactment of a comprehensive civilian selective service act along the lines of the pending Austin-Wadsworth bill. Until we have such a law, I submit that the mobilization of our full strength for the war will be utterly impossible, and I submit that the mobilization of our full strength is wise and necessary for the successful conclusion of the war.
I submit also that the time has long passed for further experiment with half measures, and that existing methods based on so-called indirect coercion represent a policy that has already been proven obnoxious and ineffective, and I submit that the already accrued delay in adopting the principle of a general legal obligation to aid the war effort has already prolonged the war, and will cost many valuable lives. I submit that any further delay will still further prolong the struggle and cause further loss of life, which will be an unnecessary loss that the people will not forget or condone, especially the nearer relatives of the boys in the service.
Therefore I submit that this very carefully framed Austin-Wadsworth bill should be enacted now, and that the present vacillation and fumbling with the subject must cease.
I digress for a moment to refer to my phrase that the bill is carefully framed, to say this bill was circulated in draft form 14 months ago, has been submitted to hundreds of capable minds in all walks of life in the country, has been through many editions, and was then combined with some features of Senator Austin's bill, which he prepared and introduced entirely independently of any efforts of myself or this committee, and that then there were brought in, in the last stage, other advisers, including Mr. Williston, who is one of the leading experts in the country on the training of men-Mr. Williston testified this morning. And, of course, it incorporates the very searching criticism of Mr. Wadsworth, and also, I should add, the searching criticism of the members of the legislative committee of the American Legion.
What I want to try to impress on the committee is that this is no flash in the pan. It is a bill that has been in preparation for well over a year, and has been subjected to the most rigid criticism by all kinds of men and women in civilian life, and by men of the highest experience in public life.
The CHAIRMAN. Also by military men, I imagine?
Now I wish, Mr. Chairman, to present briefly my reasons for the conclusions I have just mentioned. I do not wish to go in detail into the provisions of the act. I know that Mr. Wadsworth has done that in the most thorough way. I will take 2 or 3 minutes, though, so that we may have the subject before us to refer to the essentials of this bill.
Its central feature is the principle that in this critical war a legal obligation should rest upon every mature person not in the armed forces to aid the war effort by noncombatant service according to his or her ability. That is the central, fundamental feature on which the whole bill is based. If that is not right, the bill is not right. Everything else rests on that foundation. Under this principle a
· legal liability is imposed by the bill, but only subject to proper and carefully drawn exceptions, upon men 18 to 65, and upon women 18 to 50. I digress for a moment to say that that particular age was arrived at by a process of consultation, and is in a sense a compromise. Many women thought that the age limit for women, if you had such a bill at all, should be the same as for men, and pointed out that in England much of their best work in their war factories is being done by women over 50, and if anybody was to be legally liable for noncombatant war service at home, why cut it down to 507 My comment on that is that if in the judgment of representative women it seems more acceptable that that should be done, let it be done, but that for the present it seems to us age 50 for women is a reasonable limit.
This obligation just referred to simply corresponds in respect of civilian war work to the legal obligation for military service that now rests upon men 18 to 45, and as I said at the beginning, the bill is to be regarded as a logical and necessary supplement to the military Selective Service Act. It is a legal obligation similar to that adopted by every other major power in the war, friend and foe, Britain, China, Russia, and some of the British Dominions on the one hand, Germany and Japan on the other. It is the obligation that all these nations have found indispensable to this sort of war. It is the obligation for lack of which we have been unable, and will continue to be unable, to muster anything approaching our full strength.
· Now, since provision is already made under existing law for the registration of men liable for service, the bill calls only for the registration of women 18 to 50. As you gentlemen are all very well aware, the present law has already caused to be registered all men 18 to 65, and those coming 18 are automatically registered as of the day they reach 18. So there will be no new machinery for the registration of men. But there has been, of course, no registration at all of women, excepting locally, and not under any Federal law. All women must register, but women with children under 18 are not liable for service, nor are expectant mothers liable for service, and other safeguards are provided for cases of hardship in the case of both men and women. Those are the liability provisions and the registration provisions.
What happens next? It is provided that where there is a deficiency of workers for the war effort, in the airplane plants, the shipyards, the lumber camps, the copper mines, on the farms or anywhere else, there shall first be issued, whenever practicable, a call for volunteers. The purpose there is to give full scope to the volunteer service. As judged by British experience, volunteers will almost always come forward. I have been informed that in the nearly 3 years since May 22, 1940, when the British national service law was enacted, only about 500 orders have been issued for compulsory service. But I am also informed that without the legal sanction underneath, their great mobilization could not have been effected.
Summarizing that, I add that, judged by British experience, as I say, volunteers will usually come forward once the legal obligation is known to exist, which is the key to the whole matter, and there would be little, if any, need to resort to compulsory selection. How