« PreviousContinue »
being advanced to kill it and implant instead another love and interest for another country.
I found countless people who are alert to this far-flung program of alien direction, domination, and control of our national economy, and even of our Government; people who resent this Union Now program and its world government, its new flag, and its international program of world politics put forward to supplant Old Glory and our constitutional Republic.
All of these organizations of women whom I represent have been opposed to every step which Congress has taken to lead us closer and closer to open warfare. These steps include among others the lifting of the embargo, the compulsory Draft Act, and the lend-lease bill. Each piece of legislation has taken from us vital constitutional rights; and now with S. 1579 it appears to us that this committee and Congress is on the verge of making it possible to completely socialize this Government and our people.
I believe this committee has a grave responsibility in the recommendations which it makes to the Senate, for this bill provides the machinery to make possible the complete destruction of all we hold dear.
I have listened to much of the testimony given before this committee by proponents of the bill, but it did not seem to be convincing as to the need for this measure.
We disapprove of this bill for the following reasons: 1. It is not essential to our national-defense program and is not
2.ational-defensential to our for the follow
2. It takes from our people the basic and constitutional rights of private property ownership.
3. It completes the President's power to take all or any part of any manufacturing plant or all or any part of real or personal property, including stocks, bonds, insurance policies, or even savings and bank accounts, and to dispose of these to any other person, corporation, bureau, or foreign country.
4. It permits the President to take over the entire stock of any corporation, operate the corporation, or dispose of the stock in any way he sees fit.
5. It completely changes our industrial eceonomy to a military economy under absolute control of military personnel or Governsnent bureaucrats.
6. It hits hardest the small manufacturers, their employees, and the communities dependent upon these enterprises.
7. It gives the President power to deprive investors in all private enterprise of any assurance or security of either capital or earnings.
8. It supplants individual initiative, private enterprise, and the profit system, which have built this country, with an indifferent bureaucracy wholly free from either ownership or trusteeship.
9. It makes all labor subservient to and dependent upon Government.
10. The bill provides the President with a grant of power to set aside our constitutional rights and give us instead a Nazi socialist regime.
Considering the bill now before this committee, it would appear those who drafted it believe that, as Congress has acquired the habit of granting blank-check requests on practically all of our money, it will now grant this blank check on all of our wealth and wealth-producing machinery. For that is exactly what this bill will do.
Its proponents claim this bill now before you greatly differs from the one originally introduced. We contend that a study of the wording of the committee print reveals that, while the phrasing is different, the intent and powers remain the same.
Let me call your attention to a passage in the printed record of these hearings, a discussion between Senator Lodge and Under Secretary of War Patterson. Senator Lodge asked the Under Secretary:
Now, take those words, "of any kind or character," at the beginning, what is the reed of that phrase there?
The Senator was referring to the phrase in line 7, page 1, of the original print. Under Secretary Patterson replied:
Well, that is supposed to make it broad enough for patents, contracts, shares of stock, if you like, or anything like that which might be most convenient; but it all has to do with national defense.
If someone can think of a happier form of wording that will accomplish what we are after and at the same time limit operations, it is all right with me.
Consider the phrasing of subsection (a) starting with line 9, page 4, of the committee print, and then also consider subsection (b), lines 15 to 18, on the same page. How can anyone say that the intent to grant the power to seize anything and everything that might be interpreted as being necessary to the so-called defense program is not covered under those sections?
Indeed, a study of the wording of those sections and comparison with the original wording convinces one that someone found that "happier form of wording that will accomplish what we want," as Mr. Patterson put it.
As has been pointed out to this committee by Senator Downey and by many witnesses, this bill is so drawn that it will permit the President to seize not only an entire plant, but any part thereof. One or two or more pieces of important machinery may be seized, removed from the plant and turned over to someone else, as the President may elect.
In many instances, as has been pointed out by other witnesses, the removal of a few pieces of important machinery from a plant may well cause a complete shut-down. The owner would be offered the appraised value of only the machinery seized. If he refused, ne could accept 75 percent of what was offered, then sue the Government for the value of the ruined plant.
Considering the experiences outlined to this committee by Mr. Barlow, and realizing that his experiences may well be the example rather than the exception of what we may expect to occur should this bill become law, how can anyone deny that this bill does not violate the entire Bill of Rights of the Constitution?
Having crippled the plant owner by removing a few pieces of machinery, what of the wage earners dependent upon that plant for their livelihood? Close the plant and you take away their jobs. In the smaller machine, machine-tool, and allied plants, I am reliably informed that many of these wage earners enter the plant as apprentices, following in the footsteps of their father, and probably
grandfather, and leave only on retirement or death. If this bill takes away their jobs as it threatens to do, what becomes of them?
According to reliable surveys, little communities have been built up around these smaller plants. These plants are the main source of income for the butcher, the baker, and the many other retail stores that go to make up a community. What of them, and their employees, when their main source of income is shut off ?
What of the homes that now are entirely dependent upon these plants for their source of income? What is to happen to them? You and I both know what will happen. Home life will be ruined, the morale of the family broken, lives destroyed. Is that the way of life we are seeking to protect by this measure?
We all realize the backbone of American industry is the hundreds of thousands of small enterprises and the millions of pobs they provide. These are the plants and the jobs that will be jeopardized by the passage of this measure.
How many such plants, how many such wage earners, what proportion of our entire population will have their very existence threatened by this bill should it become law ?
An examination of the survey of manufacturers conducted by the Bureau of Census, Department of Commerce, in 1939, reveals there were at that time a total of 9,335 machine and machine-tool plants in this country enjoying an average of only 50 wage earners or less.
Altogether these plants employed a total of 451,593 wage earners during that year, who were paid $642,101,816 in wages. Truly a sizable figure, even if it may sound small in these Halls of Congress, where one now is accustomed to hear figures quoted only in the billions of dollars.
These 451,593 wage earners, working during 1939 in the 9,335 machine and machine-tool plants mentioned, added $1,714,440,590 to the value of raw materials through manufacture.
This may sound small if one is thinking only of all the people everywhere in the world except in these United States. However, the total number of wage earners employed in these little plants was equal to 44 percent of the total number of wage earners employed by all of the railroads in this country during that same year. It was more than all the wage earners employed in our wide-flung telephone and telegraph systems throughout the country; twice the number of wage earners employed in producing motor vehicles in this country in 1938, and 94 percent of the wage earners employed in producing motor vehicles, motor-vehicle bodies, and motor-vehicle parts here in that same year. You will note I am only speaking now of the machine and machine-tool industry.
And, since we are told we must have legislation like this in order to prevent totalitarian nations from seizing our foreign, our export trade, we should realize that the value added to goods by manufacture by these 451.593 wage earners working in these small machine and machine-tool plants was equal to 53 percent of the total value of our entire export business for the year 1939.
That is only one side of the picture, gentlemen. Close these small machine and machine-tool plants and where will remaining manufacturing plants, using machinery, obtain the parts and new machinery necessary for repairs, replacements, and expansion which
they continually need if they are to remain in business? Wipe out this huge supply reservoir and you wipe out all allied and dependent plants. How many fall into that group?
Turning again to the Bureau of the Census survey previously quoted, we find there were 169,311 such plants in this country in 1939 employing an average of less than 50 wage earners each. These plants employed a total of 5,293,714 wage earners during the year 1939, who received in wages $5,753,611,654, and added to the value of raw materials through manufacture $16,919,945,240.
In other words, in just two groups of machine and allied plants employing on an average less than 50 wage earners each in 1939, we find they provided employment for 5,745,307 workers. That amounts to more than 5 times the total wage earners employed by the railroads during the same year; 14 times the wage earners employed in the telephone and telegraph systems of the country; 29 times the wage earners employed in the production of motor vehicles, and 12 times the wage earners employed in both motor vehicles, motor-vehi. cle body, and motor-vehicle parts plants in 1938.
Combined, these workers in little plants added a total value of $18,624,385,830 to goods by manufacture during 1939, a figure that represents nearly six times the total value of our entire export business for the same year. Actually, gentlemen, the wage earners employed in these small machine, machine-tool, and allied plants in 1939 represent 67 percent of all the wage earners employed in that year in manufacturing plants in the entire United States. And, considering family ratios to workers, the wage earners employed in these nearly 180,000 small plants threatened by this bill represent approximately 20 percent of our entire population.
If there is any basis for the oft-repeated claim that one-third of our population is ill-fed, ill-housed, and ill-clad, and therefore needing relief, just add these wage earners, their families, and the small retail merchants now dependent on these plants for their income to that ill-fed, ill-housed, ill-clad group allegedly needing relief, and we will have more than one-half of the Nation on Government dole. Is that the way of life this bill is designed to protect as a nationaldefense measure? If so, the women of this country definitely want none of it.
In addition to the effect on the home life of the wives and families of these small-plant wage earners threatened by this bill, how else will it affect the women of the country?
Women, more than any other one group, have the greatest financial stake in our private-enterprise system. This is evidenced by the fact that they own approximately 60 percent of the wealth of the country. This includes real estate, insurance policies, stocks and bonds, trust funds, savings bank accounts, and so forth. Approximately 80 percent of all life insurance policies are made payable to women. Much of the assets behind these policies are the securities, mortgages, or real estate of private enterprise. Women hold apprixomately 25 percent of the country's jobs; and certainly they have the greatest stake in the jobs of their menfolk, whether they are wage earners, the higher-salaried executive of management, or the officials of corporations. Jobs, earnings, and security for invested capital or savings are essential for the security of the home and the future of the family, if we are to continue our existence
by the private enterprise system, and surely American women have never looked with approval upon receiving either hand-outs or patronage from Government as the principal means of maintaining the family and home. In our opinion, this bill will be the sword of Damocles hanging over the head of every family in this country.
And why are we asked to permit all of this ? Under Secretary of War Patterson, in his letter to the chairman of this committee, dated June 2, 1941, declares enactment of this legislation is in accord with the President's program. What program ? Does anyone know? A program of national defense or international offense? Is the bill intended to further a program of war involvement? If it is, then it is contrary to the expressed desires of a wide majority of our people.
Is it to expedite the national defense program by compelling certain recalcitrant manufacturers to cooperate with that program? If that is the answer, then, as Mr. Patterson clearly set forth in that letter, there is all the law necessary now on the statute books to force such compliance in everything, except to force private citizens to give up personal property such as stocks and bonds, mentioned by Mr. Patterson as being covered by the phrase "of any kind or character” in the original bill, and still covered by the "happier form of wording” found in the print now before the committee.
Is this bill designed, then, to give someone the right to seize our personal belongings?
Secretary of War Stimson recently declared in a newspaper statement that this legislation must be passed in a hurry because many machine tools were not in use at all, or were in the hands of secondhand dealers who were trying to hold up the Government. An examination of the various laws set forth in Mr. Patterson's letter of June 2 convinces us that all necessary laws to put these unused machine tools to work are now in the statute books. Are we supposed to grant this socialistic, sovietized power just in order to get at a handful of hijacking second-hand dealers ?
Is it to expedite the President's so-called lend-lease program? If it is, it seems to us that that program has more than gone far enough, since we are now doing more for Britain than her own Dominions.
We have conscripted the youth of our country for forced training in our armed forces. Has Canada done that? Let me read you a United Press dispatch from Calgary, Alberta, Canada, dated June 28, 1941 :
CALGARY, ALBERTA., June 28 (U. P.)-Prime Minister King today rejected demands for conscription on grounds that a total war effort would be impossible from a disunited people.
The Prime Minister, making a tour of western Canada, made the statements in an address at a monster recruiting parade. He was answering agitation for conscription and criticism of his unwillingness to go to England for an Imperial conference. His speech was interrupted several times by hecklers who shouted “We want conscription."
The Prime Minister appealed to every youth to answer the recruiting (all and told the rally there would be no need of conscription "if every man does his own duty first before he concerns himself about the duty of his neighbor."
Another press story, sent from Sydney, Australia, June 2, by the Chicago Tribune Press Service, informs us that that Dominion has decided to keep its present system—that is, service for home defense is compulsory, but for foreign service entirely voluntary. Anothez news story under the same date line and by the same press service