representing the country, of course, in asking for authority, but also would safeguard or tend to safeguard the interests of the people.

I point out on page 2 of this statement that we are threatened with war against totalitarianism, and yet, as I analyze the totalitarianism, it is nothing in the world but excessive concentration of power in the Executive.

We have been building up considerable of totalitarianism, it seems to me, right here in the United States in recent years, and this would be a further grant of power in that direction.

Mr. Patterson made the objection when he was before the committee, made the observation, that since the Nation is drafting its men for defense, it should draft property. Of course, it has been drafting property in the form of taxation ever since it started, but the drafting by taxes is a known and orderly process, whereas this would be a big proposition.

I point out, Mr. Chairman, that it seems to me we have got away from adequate consideration of important property rights. We have been listening for many years to people who have insisted that human rights, whatever they may call them, are vastly greater than property rights.

I believe that property rights are one of the three greatest human rights, and I think I can prove it by the constitutions of each of the 48 States.

The constitution of North Carolina points out among the inalienable rights three, which are life, liberty, enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor, and pursuit of happiness-and that same thing in one way or another is in all constitutions. I think Wyoming has it more emphatically than any other State, but it is equal in the first State constitution adopted, and that of the last, that of New Mexico. Those are the fundamentals, and we have been getting away from recognizing that property rights are inseparable from human rights.

Take away the property, and let all property become the holdings of the State, and how long would those human rights, like liberty of speech, the press, and religion last? We do not think very long, it seems to me that what we need to do is to get back to the sacredness of property rights which are the savings of the average man.

It seems to me that this principle of this bill, while I understand it was drawn in the War Department, it smacks a good deal of thought of the more drastic principles of the bills that have been introduced in Congress in recent years, and I want to point out for the record the similarity between some of those, anyway, who are responsible for some of those bills, and of the views of Mr. Harold Lasky, of London, who is of course a frequent visitor in the United States and who points out in his recent book Where Do We Go From Here, that he and his friends are seeking social revolution in England and he makes it rather clear that they are not interested in the war unless they get that as a result.

I think most of the people of the United States feel that we have done pretty well by our system of private enterprise. I do not know that we are ready to go to war in order to bring out social revolution as our major objective, inasmuch as that would overthrow the system of private enterprise.

There are one or two more points, Mr. Chairman, and I will be through.

It seems to me that the words "to requisition and to take over for the use of the United States" followed by the words "or its interest" is one of three or four phrases that are too broad and those are the phrases that make the bill, to a considerable extent, as objectionable as the other one.

I would not be surprised if under that provision property could be used in support of Soviet Russia in the new angle of the conflict that has come up, and for that to have been, in view of what has been disclosed to this Congress through the House Committee on Un-American Activities, and in New York State through the Craven committee, where we find we have got Communists right on the pay roll of the city and the State teaching the overthrow of our form of Government, for that to happen, would be, it seems to me, not, only extremely unfortunate, but I think it would be positively detrimental.

Senator DOWNEY. Mr. Chairman, may I intervene with a question? The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Senator DOWNEY. That can easily enough happen without this bill being passed; the United States Government may give any kind of aid and assistance to Russia which it wishes, which the witness has just pointed out has been seeking the destruction of our own Government, without the passage of this bill.

Mr. HART. I realize that, Senator, but for the bill to be passed with this phrase in it, in the right of the development of the last 10 days, would again be a direct blessing of this Congress to that.

I realize I have forgotten which House it was-that an amendment which would refuse the Executive the right to extend aid to Soviet Russia was defeated. It is my impression that it was the House, but I am not certain about that.

The CHAIRMAN. I introduced that in the Senate.

Senator BRIDGES. That was introduced in the Senate by Senator Reynolds.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Senator BRIDGES. Limiting it to Russia, and I had a limiting resolution to specify certain countries.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right.

Mr. HART. But I have a strange feeling that it is quite possible the Congress would not vote the same way about such an amendment at the present time. Then the likelihood of Russia getting in was remote in the minds of most of the authorities, military and otherwise, as I understand it, where as now it is, of course, an accomplished fact.

I want to see the British win-but it seems to me that the rushing in by the Evecutive within a couple of days after the war's breaking out between Germany and Russia, with assurances of aid to Russia, has really hurt Britain here in the United States, because it has aroused, I think, opposition of a lot of people who do not care particularly for Soviet Russia and in that way has been, it seems to me, a positive harm, and I have one more suggestion, Mr. Chairman, or two more points.

I object to the revolving fund here. I think that any funds from the proceeds of the sale of any property taken over should go back

into the Treasury and Congress should have to reappropriate them. Congress unquestionably will be in almost continual session. It can act very quickly if need arises, and will act, and it seems to me it would be losing sight of those funds, if those funds went into a revolving fund and could again be used by the Executive.

Lastly, I believe that this bill in whatever form you pass it—if you pass it in any form-I believe that every emergency measure that grants extraordinary power to the Executive ought to have a provision that that power shall terminate whenever the Senate, by resolution, shall declare that the emergency is passed. The Senate can be entirely depended upon not to embarrass the Executive by taking such stand as is unnecessary thereto but is warranted. But the reason for that is that such action might prove to be the one last step that would lead us into war, and I think that for the Senate to have the say on that point, checking what the Executive might have decided to do, would be decidedly in the interest of the country.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions? thank you very much, Mr. Hart.

Mr. HART. Thank you.

(The statement above referred to is as follows:)

If not, we

Senate bill No. 1579, as amended June 24, is an improvement over the draft of June 2.

Nevertheless, too much authority is delegated by this bill.

I object to the granting of this power by a blanket bill. It is important to grant the administration necessary powers. But it is equally important to safeguard the rights of the people. There are clauses in the amended bill under which a vague but vast amount of authority might be spelled out by overeager officials. Such are the clauses "or in its interest" in line 10, and "or component parts thereof," in line 11, and “or materials necessary for manufacture of such equipment or munitions," in lines 12 and 13 of page 4. The President, in a recent letter to the chairman of this committee, said that 17 different statutes were required during the World War to give the Executive needed powers of requisition. I think that precisely this piecemeal method of granting authority should be followed here. That, I take it, is one of the purposes for which Congress is in continual session.

The voting of this bill, even in the amended form, would be by just so much an abdication by the Congress. The abdication is in effect for an indefinite period, for it is to be "during any period of national emergency proclaimed by the President." There is no time limit that is in the slightest degree under the control of this Congress. The emergency, and hence the powers given the President, will terminate only when he says they may. That would place certain of the property and the savings of the supposedly free American people, and hence to a large extent the people themselves, completely in his hands. There is nothing democratic about that. And so long as the Executive controls one, vote more than one-third of either House of Congress, the people's representatives could not recall the powers granted by this bill.

The great purpose of this war, to the brink of which we have now been brought by forces not widely understood, is said to be to crush totalitarianism. If, as I believe, totalitarianism is simply another word for the excessive concentration of power in the Executive, then for 8 years we have been building up totalitarianism right here in the United States. And this bill, with its reckless sweep of authority, showing utter lack of consideration for the individual citizen, would go a long way toward complete totalitarianism here at home.

There has been a tendency the past years, not only in the Federal, but in many of the State governments, to take too lightly those rights of the people that are known as property rights. I submit that these inalienable rights to be the enjoyment of property, built up over a thousand years, ought not to be thrown away, or even placed in jeopardy, by a stroke of the pen. I assert that the Con

gress, out of regard for its own high prerogative, and as the steward of the sacred rights of the people, ought not to throw these rights away.

Mr. Patterson made the familiar observation to this committee that, since the Nation is drafting its young men for defense, it should have the same right to draft property for the same purpose whenever it becomes necessary. But, of course, government has always drafted property, through taxes, and none dispute the right. Much property is being drafted by taxes this year, and two or three times as much will be drafted next year. But that is an orderly process, definitely known and understood in advance; whereas the "drafting" that could take place under this bill would be of unknown extent. By thus placing all property in jeopardy, we would tend to demoralize a large part of private enterprise which is now producing both for civilian and defense use.

I submit that, even now, in this moment of threatened war, we should remember the important part that property plays in the fundamentals of our own form of government. The Constitution of every 1 of our 48 States has, in one form or another, a provision defining the three great inalienable rights of the people, as life, liberty, and property. These rights are further protected by the ninth amendment of the Federal Constitution.

Section I of the Bill of Rights of North Carolina contains these words:

"We hold it to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor, and the pursuit of happiness.'

Section 4 of article II of the Constitution of Missouri has this version:

"Natural rights: That all constitutional government is intended to promote the general welfare of the people, that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry; that to give security to these things is the principal office of government, and that when government does not confer this security, it fails of its chief design."

In recent years we have often heard the remark that human rights are greater than property rights. But property rights are in fact among the greatest of human rights. And if the people's Government fails to give security to "the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry," then it fails of one of its chief designs.

The danger is that the sweeping grant of power in this bill would make the seizing of property so easy that greater amounts of property might be taken than would be actually necessary. All property of the kinds described would be in a state of uncertainty. By placing property in such jeopardy, and by any considerable taking over of private property, the amount of property remaining in private hands would be reduced, and this reduced volume of property remaining in private hands would be forced to bear the greatly increased taxation of the future. For the country's private property constitutes the tools from the use of which all taxes must come. The inability of property remaining in private hands to yield such taxation would lead to the necessity of a still higher rate of taxation; thus starting a vicious upward spiral.

This bill threatens to disrupt the private enterprise system on which we must depend for the building up of our greatly needed defense. This system, whatever its faults, has brought the highest standard of living to the American people. It has brought the worker high wages, the investor a moderate returnon the average a very moderate return. It has brought a vast volume of production of goods at prices within reach of most of the people. The causes of these blessings have included moderate taxation, freedom from unreasonable political interference, freedom that has allowed anybody to start a new venture if he had the means or the credit, freedom of the worker to work or not to work. The chief cause, partly the result of the others, has been the existence of a hugh number of individuals who constituted the leadership of private enterprise, who competed with one another, all motivated by a desire to earn and save. Individual initiative and self-reliance have had full play. Out of the strivings of these people came that wealth which made us the most powerful Nation in the world.

I have read in the newspapers that this bill was drawn in the War Department. But the sweeping nature of the bill strongly suggests to me, the political and social philosophy of that group of Presidential advisers from whom other sweeping measures have come in the past. It is my conviction that this group

disbelieves in private enterprise and seeks to substitute some fanciful, untried scheme for it. They would like to scrap the social system that has, far more successfully than that of any other nation, harnessed the talents of the strong and able for the benefit of the people as a whole.

Men talk more plainly in Britain, sometimes, than they do here. The British counterpart of this American group is headed by Harold Laski, an avowed Marxist, who in his recently published book, Where Do We Go From Here?, makes clear that he seeks social revolution in England after the war. It is well known that Laski has great influence with American collectivists, who do not like private enterprise, probably because they do not understand it, and who seek to force this country into some Utopian scheme, the attempt to impose which will lead our people to disaster.

The amended bill gives the President the right "to requisition and take over for the use of the United States or its interest," certain property or rights in property, and to use this property "on such terms as he shall deem satisfactory." This would probably permit the taking over of property to be used in support of Communist Russia. This Congress, through its House Committee on Un-American Activities, has learned much in recent years of the scheming by this same Soviet Russia looking to the destruction of the Government of the United States. These schemes are in full operation today. At a very recent moment the Transport Workers Union, led by one closely connected with communism, if he is not himself a Communist, has been defying the government of the city of New York with its threat of a subway strike. The country is flooded by newspapers and magazines that support the Communist cause, in some cases being subsidized by it. The House committee found, on page 4 of its report of January 3, 1940, that "the Communist Party's activities constitute a violation of the Treaty of Recognition entered into by the Government of the United States and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1933." That report states, on page 4, that the Communist Party of the United States, a branch of the Soviet Government, is "a conspiracy masked as a political party that it "is actually functioning as a 'border patrol' on American shores for a foreign power."

*

*

As this committee doubtless knows, Communist propaganda, aided and encouraged by the Treaty of Recognition of 1933, has infiltrated many fields of activity in the United States. Its aim is to overthrow the American system and substitute communism. One of its most recent activities has been disclosed by the Rapp-Coudert Committee in the New York Legislature, in recent months it being shown that members of the Communist Party are on the pay roll of the taxpayers in New York City free colleges and schools. Many of its members are in public office.

Therefore, for the United States to take the property of its citizens and turn it over to Soviet Russia, while Russia itself, in violation of a solemn treaty, is engaged in the plan to destroy the Government of the United States, by force, would be something so novel, so craven, that at the very least it ought not to be done unless this Congress specifically authorizes it. Congress, it seems to me, should pass no bill that by indirection would authorize it.

I suggest, therefore, that there be inserted, at the end of section 1, the words: "And further provided, That nothing in this act or in any existing Federal law shall authorize the requisitioning and taking over of any property of any nature for, or for the benefit of, the Soviet Russian Government."

I object to the revolving fund set up by section 4 of the amended bill. Moneys received by the United States as the proceeds of any disposition of property sold or disposed of pursuant to the proposed bill should go back into the Treasury and require a new act of Congress before being made again available. The people have the right to feel that their representatives in Congress are to that further extent watching the spending of money even for defense when the furnishing of such money by the taxpayers is to be at such sacrifice as we taxpayers shall experience during the coming years.

Lastly, I submit that this bill, and every emergency measure that grants extraordinary power to the Executive, should have a provision that that power be terminated whenever the Senate shall, by resolution, declare the emergency has passed. The Senate can be depended upon not to embarrass the Executive by taking such a stand unless there should be ample warrant for such action. And in no other way can legislative power be safeguarded.

I earnestly beg the committee to amend this bill in line with the above suggestions.