Mr. STRICKER. That is right, sir. If the committee is interested, I have the actual statement which Mr. Lincoln made in the debate with Douglas, and you can see the difference.

Mr. McCowEN. We would like to have it.

Mr. STRICKER. He said:

That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles-right and wrong-throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity, and the other the "divine right of kings." It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, "You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it." No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of the king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyranical principle.

(The two pamphlets referred to were filed with the committee.) Mr. McCOWEN. You may proceed with your statement, after which we will adjourn for 30 minutes on account of the roll call.

Mr. STRICKER. This is an example of how the name of a great man, venerated throughout the Nation can be taken over to camouflage purposes which may be totally alien, even hostile to everything this great man believed in and fought for. To take Lincoln's words, tear them out of context and reword them to fit a totally different purpose is apparently the type of thing considered as education by those responsible for conducting this public course, as well as by the UAW-CIO. May I remind you that the booklet in question is a publication of the UAW-CIO, part of the $500,000 program of education which has been referred to before this committee.

After I had attended two classes the UAW-CIO made an official protest to General Motors Corp. regarding my presence in the class. Let me draw to your attention, gentlemen, that this was not a class held in a union hall, nor were the costs paid by the UAW-CIO. This was a public class, held in a public building, and supported by public funds. Furthermore, I had enrolled in the regular manner and paid the required registration fee. I raise for your consideration the question of the propriety of such an objection.

In concluding, I respectfully suggest to the committee as well the impropriety of a publicly paid instructor in a publicly supported classroom directly or indirectly soliciting funds for a political organization.

In the previous hearings on H. R. 6202 the committee raised a very vital question with respect to the use of these classes for purposes other than educational in the strict sense of the term. Congressman Owens said he did not want to furnish a gun to a man who was out to get him. This question raised by the committee is fully answered, in my opinion, by the quotation on the last page of the pamphlet Prices: "Fight back with a buck to PAC.”

*

Mr. McCowEN. You mean these booklets were paid for by public funds?

Mr. STRICKER. I don't know whether all of the booklets were paid for by public funds. They were distributed in a public classroom by an instructor who is, according to the circular of the University of Michigan, part of the educational service furnished, and I read you this from a pamphlet put out by the university. It says:

The fees charged by Workers Educational Service cover only a small part of the cost of the program. Most of the expense comes out of a grant made by the State legislature and administered by the University of Michigan.

Now, as to how much was furnished by the union at their expense, what the division of expense in the course was, I don't know. Certainly, by the university's own statement a lot of it was paid for by the public.

Mr. McCOWEN. You mean that some of the cost of these booklets might have been paid by tax funds.

Mr. STRICKER. That is right.

Mr. McCowEN. The committee stands adjourned until 10:55, on account of roll call-30 minutes.

(Whereupon the committee stood in recess for 30 minutes.) Mr. McCOWEN. The committee will come to order.

Mr. Landis, any questions?

Mr. LANDIS. Mr. Stricker, this program in Michigan was put on, of course, at the university and financed by the appropriation of the State legislature; is that correct?

Mr. STRICKER. I think so. I know that I paid a dollar and a half and the circular says that the fees collected are only a very small part of it. It says:

Most of this expense comes out of a grant made by the State legislature and administered by the University of Michigan.

Now, I have made no search of my own as to how the program is financed beyond this little statement that you have before you. That is the only thing I can testify to. That is the only thing I know. Mr. LANDIS. How many sessions did you attend?

Mr. STRICKER. I attended two sessions.

Mr. LANDIS. How many sessions constituted the course?

Mr. STRICKER. This course was to be a session a week for 6 weeks, each session would last an hour and a half. So I took a third of the course and I dropped out of the course inasmuch as an objection had been made by the union to the corporation to my being present at the courses and I did not want to be present in a course where I was not wanted.

Mr. LANDIS. Now, the two sessions that you attended, were they lecture courses or did they have a textbook?

Mr. STRICKER. The only material that was distributed were these pamphlets and a couple of mimeographed sheets at the second session with some Bureau of Labor statistics. These mimeographed sheets had nothing on them that would be controversial, there was no argument about anything on those sheets, but there was no textbook used. These books were handed out and these mimeographed sheets to which I have referred.

Mr. LANDIS. Who had charge of the two sessions?

Mr. STRICKER. Mr. Jacobs at both sessions.

Mr. LANDIS. Oh, he was in charge of both sessions?

Mr. STRICKER. He was in charge of the lectures; he was the instructor for the course and handled the whole program.

Mr. LANDIS. Was he a former laborer?

Mr. STRICKER. Mr. Jacobs in discussing unemployment, when he was talking about the float, this business about the 32 million people

unemployed, made a remark something like this: One of the students in the class asked what he meant by "float" and he said, "When I left the OPA and before I came out here to work for Victor Reuther I was unemployed; I was part of the float." That was paraphrasing pretty closely what he said.

Mr. LANDIS. And Victor Reuther is a brother of Walter Reuther? Mr. STRICKER. That is right. He is the director of the educational department of the UAW, which, according to the statement on this pamphlet, is responsible for its publication.

Mr. LANDIS. Was this book just handed out, or was it referred to at any time?

Mr. STRICKER. No, not any of the books were specifically referred to. They were handed out by the instructor when the students came into the class and when the class was over. He made a point that "this is material that you ought to have and you ought to read."

Mr. LANDIS. Mr. Chairman, I would like for the record to show these statements which I have marked here, "Prices are going higher," on page 5, and also the statements on pages 22 and 23, 32, and 43, together with the accompanying cartoons.

Mr. McCowEN. Without objection they will be included in the record.

A dumb guy is supposed to be one who doesn't have sense enough to come in out of the rain.

Is a fellow dumb if he doesn't have sense enough to come in out of an inflation?

Take Senator Taft. He said in the Senate on January 16, 1948, that high prices are good because they ration scarce goods. He says, come on out in the inflation, the water's fine.

You don't need radar to see that the boys are meeting in the back room of the Waldorf-Astoria again to work out the details of another plot.

Last time they cooked up the propaganda and passed around the hat to pay for the false and misleading advertising that was smoke screen for the TaftHartley Act.

This time they are working to repeal the Fair Labor Standards Act which provides for a 40-hour week and time and a half for overtime, among other things.

C. E. Wilson, president of GM, whose mind always goes back to his $30,000 prize bull when he thinks of labor problems (if he could only stick a ring in each worker's nose), said, speaking at a meeting of newspaper editors, that what we need is production. We've got to increase the productivity of the workers and abolish the 40-hour week so we can put in a 45-hour week.

It's possible that C. E. Wilson doesn't know any better, but the man who wrote his speech does.

The speech was the "new look" in monopoly propaganda.

It's a mixture of poison and confusion and it's deliberate.
To get straight in your mind, ask some questions.

CORPORATIONS TAKE MORE THAN THEIR SHARE OF NATIONAL INCOME

Question. Then you said that it is not true that the way our national income is shared today is fair. What do you mean by that?

Answer. The newspapers and the monopolies say that before we can increase wages we must increase production (or productivity, the way they put it):

But right now the country is producing around 200 billion dollars' worth of goods and services.

Your share of that is what you buy for what you get in pay.

C. E. Wilson's share of that 200 billion dollars is what he buys with what he gets in the pay, bonus, dividends, and benefits that the DuPonts give him.

Now to make an obvious comparison of your share and C. E. Wilson's share, C. E. Wilson's benefits include the right to draw a pension of $25,000 a year after he retires.

Is it fair that a man who gets a quarter of a million dollars a year from GM should also get $25,000 a year pension after he is too old to work, but that a man who gets around $2,500 a year (you) should get tossed out on the street as too old to work?

Or, to give C. E. a rest, is it fair that 10 percent of the population of the country should own 60 percent of all the savings held by all the families in the country? Or that 50 percent of the families in the country should only have 31⁄2 percent of the savings held by all the families in the country?

Mr. McCowEN. I want to ask one question there.

Did I understand that these books were not used as textbooks and they were not referred to during the class hour but merely passed out at the opening of the session or before it and referred to at the close? Is that all the reference?

Mr. STRICKER. That is right. They were referred to at the opening and the close of the session. The material which he taught in this first session was largely taken from the President's economic report. They were partial quotes, various statistics from the President's report, which were not available to the class but most of the same quotes actually are in this little booklet.

This booklet actually is a very good text for what he said; the statistics and the figures are in there, his reference to the 17 billion corporate profits, and the rest of it; but there wasn't any reference to the booklets as a text as such. There wasn't anything else distributed as a text, including the President's report.

Mr. McCOWEN. That is, there were no specific quotations from these booklets during the course of the session?

Mr. STRICKER. No.

Mr. LANDIS. Would your contention be, then, that if we have a Federal extension course, it should be continued on a similar basis as it is conducted here?

Mr. STRICKER. Well, all I know is that having read the transcript of the hearings before your committee and the Senate hearings that the Michigan experience has been referred to as a prototype of the type of education that would be given, and I am only testifying as to what I saw.

Mr. LANDIS. That is all.

Mr. McCowEN. Mr. Schwabe?

Mr. SCHWABE. Mr. Stricker, how did you happen to take the course at the University of Michigan?

Mr. STRICKER. My interest in taking the course was that the course was advertised as a course in industrial economics, and our particular section in General Motors is the industrial economics section, so I really enrolled from that standpoint.