Stable tax program needed to encourage post-war expansion
Two million veterans will want to set up business, Bearsley Ruml points out
By Beardsley Ruml, written for the United Press
…
Pvt. Buck has busy night piling up 80 dead Nazis
Joined the Army 14 years ago in Pittsburgh; didn’t even have rifle when battle started
…
Pearl Harbor probe pledged by Bricker
Democrats accused of ‘hiding facts’
Baltimore, Maryland (UP) –
Ohio Governor John Bricker said today he would do everything in his power to air immediately all the facts about Pearl Harbor if the Republican presidential slate is elected in November.
Declaring at a press conference that the Roosevelt administration should “give us the facts now,” the Republican vice-presidential candidate added that “there is nothing that happened in December 1941 that could possibly hurt the war effort now.”
Mr. Bricker came here for a series of conferences with GOP leaders and a speech tonight. At Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, last night, he called for an immediate trial of RAdm. Husband E. Kimmel and Maj. Gen. Walter C. Short, Navy and Army commanders at Pearl Harbor when the Japanese struck.
‘Won’t be periled’
In response to press conference questions as to what his attitude would be, in the event of a Republican victory, if the military staffs advised against publication of Pearl Harbor details, Mr. Bricker insisted that the war effort would not be imperiled by so doing.
Mr. Bricker said:
Divulging of the facts would establish confidence in the government once again. The American people are not subject to dictation. There is nothing to warrant withholding the facts of the disaster from them. The facts are known to the administration and it should come clean with the American people.
Mayor Theodore R. McKeldin welcomed the governor upon his arrival here, but a scheduled tour of shipyards was canceled.
At Wilkes-Barre, Mr. Bricker said the New Deal was attempting to preserve its “entrenched power” by propaganda, intimidation and suppression of vital news.
The Republican vice-presidential nominee made his fourth major speech in Pennsylvania within two days in his 3,250-mile Eastern campaign swing at the Wilkes-Barre Armory.
Mr. Bricker said that the Roosevelt administration is “spending hundreds of millions of dollars” to propagandize the President as the “indispensable man,” is “withholding news,” is purposely confusing the issues and has begun a campaign of “threats and intimidation” to win the election.
Hillman is mentioned
Answering a claim that “we must not change horses in midstream,” Mr. Bricker said:
The New Deal convention answered that one when it changed the off horse and Sidney Hillman holds the check line on the lead horse.
He said:
There is no other motive that could prompt keeping the American people in the dark. In a republic, a people’s government, there’s no place for secret commitments for closed door conferences. We want no armed guards keeping the American people in the dark as they did at the food conference. We want no more Dumbarton Oaks conclaves, considering the matters that the American people. who will ultimately foot the bill, do not know about.
The best assurance that the best interests of the American people will be protected by any commitments would be in the elections of Governor Thomas E. Dewey as President. The New Dealers are fighting to save their jobs. The Republicans are fighting to save the nation!
Strikes at Biddle
The campaign of intimidation and threats being carried on to preserve those jobs, Mr. Bricker said, more recently was under the leadership of Attorney General Francis J. Biddle. He recently “brought indictments against western railroads without the facts, admitting that it would take 18 months to secure the facts and try the case he had lodged,” Bricker said.
That indictment, Mr. Bricker said, was one of the “most unsound and demagogic effort that could be conceived.”
Mr. Bricker said:
If Attorney General Biddle represents the philosophy of the New Deal, then we are threatened with a dictatorship, right here at home should the New Dealer be successful in his campaign.
Stimson denies Army censors ballot mail
No envelope opened, Secretary says
Washington (UP) –
Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson answering claims that soldiers’ ballots had been opened by Army censors, declared today that “an investigation has not disclosed a single such envelope opened.”
He said orders were sent by the War Department Dec. 15, 1943, that any envelope marked as containing ballot material was not subject to censorship. This order, he said, has been reiterated in various War Department directives and, more recently, in Army radio instructions.
Senator studies need for probe
Washington (UP) –
Senator Homer Ferguson (R-MI), said today that there “might be a need for an investigation” into letters endorsing President Roosevelt which Mayor Edward J. Kelly of Chicago has sent to servicemen, provided any attempt has been made to tamper with election machinery.
He said, however, that evidence reaching him does not disclose any such attempt, and consequently, there probably will be no request for an investigation by the Senate Campaign Expenditures Committee.
Mr. Ferguson pointed out that under the 1944 Service Voting Act, “Kelly has a right to send any kind of propaganda he wants to the soldiers.”
GOP sends pleas, Navy officer says
Miami, Florida (UP) –
An officer at the Miami Naval Training Center reported today that Republican campaign literature had been received from Michigan, Minnesota and New Hampshire by sailors stationed here and that in the Michigan case such maternal was accompanied by a ballot.
Political talk laid to chaplain
Galesburg, Illinois (UP) –
Richard J. Lyons, Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, said today he had received a letter from a Coast Guardsman in New Guinea which charges that thousands of servicemen were forced to “remain in their seats” and listen to a political speech.
The letter was from Richard Smothers, former Marion, Illinois, businessman, Mr. Lyons said.
The letter said:
After a group of several thousand men had gathered for a show, they announced that we had to keep our seats, that they had acquired some wonderful speakers, including high-ranking officers who were carrying a message to all the war zones on the face of the earth.
As it is time for we servicemen to send for our ballots, I don’t believe I ever heard a more enthusiastic New Deal speech. The principal speaker was the President’s chaplain. He emphasized what a wonderful job our President, our Commander-in-Chief, I believe, is the way he put it, was doing.
The letter did not disclose the name of the chaplain.
No tea at this spree –
Nine-day drunken debauch ends in socialite’s death
Companion suffers acute alcoholism
…
Wallace to speak at 10:00 tonight
New York (UP) –
Vice President Henry A. Wallace delivers his first address advocating the reelection of President Roosevelt for a fourth term tonight at Madison Square Garden.
Mr. Wallace’s speech, to be delivered at a meeting sponsored by the Independent Voters’ Committee of the Arts and Sciences, will be broadcast nationally at 10:00 p.m. ET.
The address will be broadcast over WCAE.
Stage and screen actor Frederic March will preside. Other speakers will include Orson Welles, Sinclair Lewis, Serge Koussevitzky and sculptor Jo Davidson.
Millett: G.I. husbands may return to quite changed mate
Getting along independently has taught women a lot of lessons
By Ruth Millett
…
Stokes: Dewey technique
By Thomas L. Stokes
With Dewey party –
Governor Dewey has been long enough on the stump and has exercised sufficiently his talents as a political craftsman to provide some basis for judgment of his performance.
His technique becomes important because he is pitted against the master politician in the White House who enjoys that psychological advantage inherent in long-time winners, whether in politics, in sports or otherwise.
Polish, precision, perfection and attention to detail describe the Dewey technique.
On the platform, the Republican presidential candidate gives a studied performance. Every gesture, each emphasis, every tone is plotted in advance. He’s an actor who prepares himself deliberately for the role of the streamlined orator of the new school, always conscious of his radio audience, and attentive to it.
Offhand it might be supposed that this would result in a brittle performance, but the reaction he brings from his audiences does not substantiate this. They rise to the occasion with those sudden outbursts that delight the heart of the speaker, not an emotional frenzy such as a Roosevelt or a Willkie draws from a crowd, but in a spontaneous tribute to what he says.
A competent man
He stands here, a personable young man, looking under the lights somewhat younger than his 42 years, and you get the impression that the audience feels that here is an earnest and competent young man who wants to get ahead, and of whom they wish well.
People who gather at his meetings are those who for some years now have been seeking a match for the man in the White House, who want very much to see Mr. Roosevelt out of Washington. And this young man seems to have the energy and the confidence that may do the job.
It is a pleasant surprise, too, when he suddenly shows a light touch, a quick change of pace to penetrating irony, such as his enumeration in his Seattle speech of all the agencies in Washington through which labor cases must go.
That passage was cut short by a tumult of laughter before he got through telling them in a mock solemn tone, like calling railroad stations.
He has also the occasional climaxes of the blunt question, such as his repeated “is a fourth term indispensable to that?” in his Portland speech. Every time he asked the question his audience answered a boisterous “No.”
An affable listener
The Episcopal Bishop who delivered the invocation at Portland spoke of his campaign as “a crusade.” It is not exactly that in the frenzied meaning that Wendell Willkie gave to his 1940 campaign, but it is in an earnest sort of way, judging from the sober determination that he seems to arouse.
His public appearances are only a part of the job that he has cut out for himself.
The other part is the contact that Governor Dewey is making with local politicians, and representatives of various groups – business, labor, farmers.
He has seen the inside of more hotel rooms and less scenery than probably any other presidential candidate who took the required “Grand Tour” through the West.
Here he has shown himself an affable listener and more successful at easy and amiable small talk than one would suppose.
The young man has learned a lot, and there is nothing amateurish about him.
My four years in Hitler’s gray Paree –
Moral suffering almost beyond description
Written for the Pittsburgh Press
…
Allen: Hitler’s escape boat can keep going on down
By Gracie Allen
Hollywood, California –
This is National Dog Week and we are asked not to leave a single doghouse unoccupied. Well, I’m doing my share. But I’ll bet my husband will be glad when the week is over and he can come out. But our dog likes it – he’s sleeping on George’s bed.
I have been reading about Hitler’s special submarine in which he plans to escape when Germany surrenders. It is said to be equipped with special heating devices for the cold depths of the sea. Believe me, where Hitler is going he won’t need any heating devices.
Governor Thomas E. Dewey arrives in Los Angeles today on his campaign tour. I’m sure you will be anxious to know what kind of impression he makes on Hollywood’s beautiful glamor girls, so I’ll let you know later how he impresses us.
AL flag race reduced to two teams
Only Browns can beat out flying Tigers
By Glen Perkins, United Press staff writer
…
U.S. State Department (September 21, 1944)
Lot 60–D 224, Box 55: DO/PR/28
Memorandum by the Under Secretary of State to the Secretary of State
Washington, September 21, 1944
Subject: PROGRESS REPORT ON DUMBARTON OAKS CONVERSATIONS – TWENTY-NINTH DAY
During the night the secretariat prepared copies of the final draft of the agreed provisions of the document incorporating the final decisions made at the meeting of the Joint Steering Committee yesterday. Copies of this final draft, which is dated September 20, were sent to the British and Soviet Embassies last night about 9:00. Additional copies were distributed to the members of the American group this morning.
Meeting of the American group at 10:30 a.m.
I reported to the members of the American group the substance of the conversation which Secretary Hull and I had had with the President earlier this morning and, in particular, informed the members of the group that both the Secretary and the President are in full accord with the proposal that the Russian phase of the conversations be adjourned on the understanding that the text of the document as agreed to will be published soon together with the statement that questions of voting procedure in the Council and certain other matters are still under consideration and will be the subject of further negotiations among the Governments.
Consideration was given to the procedure to be followed during the Chinese phase of the conversations and to the methods by which the Latin American countries would receive advance copies of the agreed-upon text shortly before the date of publication.
In view of the anticipated delay in the receipt of replies by the British and Soviet groups based upon the final text of the document as communicated to London and Moscow by those groups last night, it was decided to cancel the regular Friday and Saturday meetings of the American group. The group was asked to stand by for any emergency call over the weekend, particularly Sunday afternoon. The next regular meeting was scheduled for Monday at 9:30 a.m.
Continuing activity by the secretariat
The secretariat was occupied during the remainder of the day with preparation of minutes and other documents.
Lot 60–D 224, Box 59: Stettinius Diary
Extract from the Personal Diary of the Under Secretary of State
Twenty-ninth Day, Thursday, September 21, 1944
9:30 Meeting in the President’s Bedroom with the President and the Secretary
I met the Secretary, [and] Messrs. Dunn and Pasvolsky met Admiral Willson and General Embick, downstairs in the White House promptly at 9:30. Mr. Hull and I were invited upstairs first.
I presented to the President the document as it stands this morning, reflecting the changes agreed upon at yesterday’s Joint Steering Committee meeting and told him that this was the complete draft and that it had been cabled last night to London and Moscow. I said that he and the Secretary were the only two on the American side who could suggest further changes but that we would of course be glad to take up with the other Governments any amendments which either of them might wish to suggest.
I then handed to the President the memorandum outlining the changes which had been made in this final draft from the September 15 draft which he had. He took this memorandum and promised to study it.
I then presented to the President the memorandum which the American Group had prepared in their all-day session yesterday which he went over carefully and then inquired, “Where are we at?” In answering this question, I referred to our conversation on Sunday in which I had outlined the formula for a possible recess, for publication of the document, and simultaneous announcements by the four governments stating that their representatives would meet again at a later date to settle the open questions. The President said he recalled the conversation. I then said, “You have a decision to reach and in making it there are important political and military considerations which should be taken into account.” I told him that General Embick and Admiral Willson, representing the Joint Chiefs, were downstairs and wished to make a statement to him on the military considerations. The President immediately commented that he did not think there were serious domestic political implications in the matter. He said this was in reality a preliminary working paper and that it was natural that it should take considerable time to work out such an important matter, and that it would naturally need to be reviewed in detail by the chiefs of the other major powers. He added that the whole subject was one to which Churchill had not yet given his attention and that he knew, from his recent conversations with him, that he would take some time to make up his mind on some of these issues. The President said that he would be glad to see the General and the Admiral.
The President and Mr. Hull then exchanged views on the whole subject. The President expressed the tentative opinion that the only course to pursue was to follow the recommendation of recessing as quickly as possible. I made it clear to him, however, that we could not do this until we heard from the British and Russian Governments and that Gromyko did not expect to hear until Monday. They discussed in some detail future plans for special meetings and the like. I found that there were no plans for an immediate meeting. This brought up the question as to whether we should mention a date in the communiqué for another meeting or leave the question entirely open. The President and Secretary seemed to feel that it would be all right to state November 15 or soon thereafter. The feeling seemed to be that it would be most difficult to settle the major open question except at a meeting between chiefs of states or between foreign ministers.
During this discussion, I told the President pointblank that I heard a rumor that he and Churchill had sent or were planning to send a joint cable to Stalin relating to world security and other matters and that it would be most helpful to us in the Department to know if such a message had been sent. He replied that a general wire of this nature had been sent, mainly on strategic military questions, but that it had mentioned that there were certain very vital matters on the world organization which would have to be settled between the three of them. He added that nothing in the way of a compromise or any new formula had been suggested. He said he would ask Admiral Leahy to send us a copy. (This was never received.) In view of this discussion, I did not bring up the question of his sending a further wire to Stalin today. At this point, I again referred to the group waiting downstairs and suggested it would be helpful for them to join us. However, the President and the Secretary were so engrossed in their discussion that they continued it for a while. I finally managed to get the group up and before taking them in reviewed quickly and generally the course which the discussion had taken. I then told the President that I thought he would be interested in hearing a statement on this matter from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. General Embick made a very direct and satisfactory statement, expressing General Marshall’s view that it was important that whatever course was followed it be handled in a harmonious and workable way so that there would be no prejudice to cooperation with the Soviet Union. He said that the President’s idea of postponing consideration of the major open question to a later meeting was agreeable. Admiral Willson expressed his concurrence in the General’s statement.
In the course of the meeting, I again called the President’s attention to the latest draft of the document and said that as there had been changes from the draft which he had previously reviewed I thought it was important for him to look over it. He indicated that he was pressed with a speech scheduled for Saturday which he hadn’t yet written, but I feel that he will read the document and let us hear from him on it. I suggested to the President that in one of his major campaign addresses he might wish to cover certain aspects of the world security developments. He agreed that this was important and asked me to communicate with Judge Rosenman on the matter. He asked me to send the Judge a memorandum immediately saying that he had suggested this and that he felt the Judge should talk it over with us. (I called Judge Rosenman on the phone and arranged for him to see Pasvolsky and Ben Cohen.)
I mentioned to the President how disappointed we were that we had not yet succeeded in getting the human rights and fundamental freedoms statement in the document but that we had and would continue to press the matter as hard as we know how. I told him that we had obtained agreement that Cadogan and Gromyko would raise this as a special matter with their Governments and he was gratified by that. On leaving I told the President that I hoped that we would not have to bother him again on this.
During the conversation, the President repeated that Eden is thoroughly familiar with the plan and that he was pleased with Eden’s understanding of it and approach to it. Eden had told him that he had told the Prime Minister that the matter was in good shape and that he would have a copy for him to study on his return to England. Eden told him that he hoped that shortly thereafter they could both take it up with their War Cabinet. The President also repeated what he had told me Sunday – the fact that he had been unable to arouse the Prime Minister’s interest in this question at any time when they were together. The Prime Minister kept saying to him that he had not reached this yet and that it would have to be discussed with the War Cabinet. The President was impressed by Cadogan’s attitude and approach to it as he was with Eden’s.
I told the President and the Secretary that I felt we must publish the plan even if the Russians and British should not agree. The Secretary and the President both felt this was very important.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
500.CC/9–2144
Memorandum by the Under Secretary of State to President Roosevelt and the Secretary of State
Washington, September 21, 1944
In the conversations with the Russians and British we have reached agreement except as to:
- Procedure of voting in the Security Council;
- Determination of initial members;
- Treatment of matters within the domestic jurisdiction of member states;
- Provision for amendment of the Charter; and
- If present efforts for agreement fail, promotion of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The problem with which we are most concerned is whether a permanent member of the Council should vote on matters relating to a dispute to which it is a party and, in consequence of the unanimity rule, have the power of veto. The Soviets insist that they should have this right and that permanent members should have the power of veto on all questions, except procedural matters, including the question of whether a dispute may be considered in the Security Council. The British maintain that no state party to a dispute should be entitled to vote. In the document we presented on July 18 we stated that a special procedure for voting in such cases should be worked out. During the conversations we have, under instructions, taken a position similar to that of the British.
Confronted by the choice between continuing the conversations in the hope of getting an early compromise on this issue, which appears unlikely at the technical level, or of adjourning, the American group has considered, among other serious questions, the following:
-
Whether adjournment without agreement on this issue could be placed in such a light as to avoid unfortunate domestic repercussions and unfavorable international consequences, both military and political;
-
Whether the consequences of such adjournment would adversely affect present and future military cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union;
-
Whether such adjournment would make necessary a public statement by this Government of its position on the voting question;
-
Whether the ensuing public debate would make more difficult subsequent acceptance of a compromise formula by this Government;
-
Whether the repercussions of such debates in other countries would make more difficult subsequent agreement between their governments and ours;
-
Whether the resulting delay would undermine public support for an international organization and jeopardize our participation through the building up of isolationist and other opposition here; and
-
Whether postponement of agreement, with opportunity for world debate, might in fact lead to a strengthened public support of a, satisfactory compromise and to less difficulties with small states, or whether the need for a compromise might so dissatisfy the small states as to be injurious to the establishment of the proposed organization, and to our Inter-American relations.
Having in mind the foregoing consideration, the American group, on balance, suggests that, subject to agreement among the three powers:
-
The conversations with the Soviets and British should be adjourned;
-
At that time a communiqué should be issued stating that the draft proposals have been submitted to the Governments who in due course will make a statement;
-
Conversations with the Chinese should start promptly;
-
At the conclusion of the conversations with the Chinese, any additional points requiring consideration should be submitted to the Soviet Government;
-
The proposals so agreed upon should thereafter be published as soon as possible and identic statements be made by the four Governments pointing out that these proposals cover most of the principal matters and that the Governments are continuing their consideration of remaining points; and
-
Since an acceptance of either extreme position on voting in the Council now appears highly improbable, an effort should be made at a higher level to reach agreement upon a compromise formula at the earliest moment, if possible before a public statement on the subject becomes necessary. Such a compromise might be along the lines of the formula projected on September 13, with possible improving amendments. Copy attached.
E S
Address by New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey
September 21, 1944, 11:00 p.m. EWT
Broadcast from San Francisco, California
It is mighty fine to come again to your great State of California and to see at first hand the progress you are making under my good friend, your distinguished Governor Earl Warren. I am happy too to hear from him that your next United States Senator will be your able Lieutenant Governor, Frederick F. Houser.
As I have traveled here, across this magnificent country of ours, I find that men and women everywhere are looking eagerly toward the peace which will follow our total victory over Germany and Japan.
I find that as they look ahead beyond the final victory, two great desires are paramount. We want political freedom and we also want economic security. The great question of the years ahead will be this: can we have both political freedom and economic security?
I believe we can. I believe we must find a way to have both. To solve that problem, we need a new administration. That’s why it’s time for a change.
The present administration has failed utterly to find a solution for that problem. Saturated us it is with the defeatist theory that America is past its prime, the New Deal can see only two possibilities for America – ever increasing regimentation as one alternative, and reaction as the other. It believes that economic security can only be purchased at the price of freedom.
That argument is false. Our people do not want to see this country dragged further and further toward complete government control over every aspect of our lives. Neither do we want to go back to the reactionary philosophy of dog-eat-dog.
Neither of these alternatives is necessary. There is a better way. There is an American way to meet the modern needs for greater economic stability and individual security within the framework of a free society.
Let’s consider a moment where we are today. We speak of freedom, but the farmer asks, “Does that mean freedom to go broke when there are peacetime surpluses and the prices of our crops fall ruinously?” Labor asks, “Does that mean freedom 1o walk the streets in bad years, looking for work at any price?”
These are questions which go to the heart of our problem. No man can be free when he stands in constant danger of hunger. By the same token, no man can be either free or secure under a government which seeks to regulate his whole life.
So, what is the solution? Must we accept the New Deal way of ever-increasing regimentation as the only escape from reaction? I think not.
Whether we like it or not, and regardless of the party in power, government is committed to some degree of economic direction. Certain government measures to influence broad economic conditions are both desirable and inevitable
Let me give you just three examples:
First. money and credit. Before we have finished financing the war, our national debt may be over $300 billion. The annual interest on that debt at current rates will be $6 billion.
That is more than the total annual cost of our national government in any peacetime year before the New Deal. That $6 billion a year must be raised by taxes before we begin to meet the current costs of government. We cannot afford a substantial rise in interest rates which would still further increase the cost of carrying our national debt.
So, one result of this unprecedented government debt which now faces us is this: In order to keep down taxes and prevent the price of government bonds from falling as they did after the last war, the federal government is going to have to keep interest rates stable.
Now let’s take up another vital aspect of our life – wages. In bygone days, working men and women worked for whatever they could get. When a lot of people were working for work, wages went down.
In hard times people had to work for literally starvation pay. That was one of the brutal ways our society adjusted itself to depressions under the old-time dog-eat-dog economy. Those days are never coming back again.
They are not coming back because we are never again going to submit to mass unemployment. Government’s first job in the peacetime years ahead will be to see that conditions exist which promote widespared job opportunities in private enterprise.
There are many means to that end including the creation of foreign markets and the promotion of foreign trade. If at any time there are no sufficient jobs in private employment to go around, then government can and must create additional job opportunities. There must be jobs for all.
We have unemployment insurance, old-age pensions and minimum wage laws. They are here to stay and we are going to broaden them. Tomorrow night on the radio from Los Angeles, I shall discuss some of the things we need to do to advance our social progress.
We have strong labor unions, protected by law in their rights to collective bargaining.
Moreover, we have developed over the years a social viewpoint which will not tolerate any solution to the economic cycle which rests upon the grinding down of the wages of working men and women.
So here again we recognize that our economy has become more subject to government action. The savage old cutthroat adjustments are gone for good. We simply will not tolerate them.
Now, consider agriculture. The farmer, too, has lived under the iron law of supply and demand. In wartime or when crops were normal and demand was good, the farmer prospered. When crops were big and demand was small, the farmer watched his produce go begging while his children were in need.
But the farmer had no control over either supply or demand. He might work his head off all summer long, and then lose everything. He had no protection from the inexorable swings of the economic cycle, which swept him alternately from good times to distress.
All that is also in the past. As a nation, we are committed to the proposition that the farmer must be protected against extreme fluctuations of prices. We are committed to the proposition that the prices of major farm crops must be supported against the menace of disastrous collapse.
We have undertaken that commitment for the sake of the entire nation. We know that depression on the farm leads to depression in the nation, just as unemployment and misery in the city leads to misery on the farm.
In agriculture, in labor and in money, we are committed to some degree of government intervention, in the free workings of our economic system. In many directions the free market which old-time economists talked about is gone.
Now, in all these, there exists an obvious danger to our fundamental freedoms. The danger is that in accepting the support of government in certain broad aspects of our economy, we may slip by stages into complete government control of our lives. In other words, in our search for economic security, we may lose forever our personal and political freedoms.
Not once in all the past 12 years has the New Deal faced this situation frankly and courageously.
Instead, it has sought to buy the favor of one group and then of another. It has pretended to be the generous uncle for each group, meanwhile playing one against the other for political profit. It has but up a towering bureaucracy which today reaches into the smallest village in the country and directly affects the lives of all our citizens.
Not content to deal with major economic factors, or possibly because it was not competent to deal with them, it has sought to fasten upon the individual citizen the deadening hand of bureaucratic control.
The result is that today we confront two dangerous alternatives. Under one, we may slip by gradual stages into complete government regulation of every aspect of our lives. Under the other, we may become so intolerant of the restraints and interferences in our lives as to take refuge in complete reaction.
Either of these courses would be tragic. Neither is necessary.
We have reached a point where we must make a crucial decision. We must decide this year whether we shall reject both of these courses and choose a new leadership pledged to attain a maximum of security without loss of our essential freedoms, and with neither malice nor favor toward any group or class.
For myself, I am utterly confident that America can achieve stability and lasting prosperity without the loss of any part of its political freedom.
Facing the world ahead and recognizing the necessity of a government active in promoting the best interests of individuals and of individual enterprise, we should establish three principles at the base of such action. All three of these principles are the exact opposite of the New Deal.
The first is that government action must be of a character consistent with the American system of opportunity for ail. Its objective must be not to restrict individual economic opportunity but to widen it. Government must do this without any reservations as to its faith in individual enterprise. It must promote fair trade and not consider trade as. something to be tolerated.
The second principle is that government action must be administered by men and women who believe in and understand American workers, American businessmen and American farmers. There has perhaps never been a time in our history when the character of the men who compose our government was so important as it is now.
The temptation to be bureaucratic, to usurp power, to puff themselves up has proved irresistible to those who have swarmed to Washington under the New Deal.
We must have men in government who have the strength of character to resist the inevitable temptation toward petty tyranny. We must have men in office who believe that the preservation of individual rights and freedoms is more important than the exaggeration of their own power.
Finally, we must have a new point of view toward the relationship between government and the people, The role of government cannot be the purely negative one of correcting abuse, of telling people what they may or may not do. Government must be the means by which our people, working together, seek to meet the problems that are too big for any one of us or any group of us to solve individually.
The industrial worker, however capable and energetic he may be, cannot in our modern society assure himself by his own unaided efforts continuity of employment. Even the largest industrial corporation cannot maintain employment, if the country as a whole is undergoing a depression.
Yet if there is one thing we are all agreed upon, it is that in the coming peacetime years, we in this country must have jobs and opportunity for all. That is everybody’s business. Therefore, it is the business of government. But how?
Where are we going to find these jobs for everyone who wants to work? Certainly, they will not be found in government itself. If all of us should go to work for the government, then our system would be no different from Communism or Fascism.
There can be jobs for all only if business, industry and agriculture are able to provide those jobs. There are no clever shortcuts to this goal. It cannot be achieved by some ingenious scheme concocted by a social dreamer in a government bureau.
The New Deal pulled rabbits out of hats for seven years and ended up in 1940 with 10 million still unemployed. We will achieve our objective only if we create an economic climate in which business, industry and agriculture can grow and flourish.
Our small businessmen, our farmers, the men who run our offices and factories and stores and mines must know that government wants each of them to succeed, that government stands ready, not to hinder, but to help. I am concerned only that our people shall have jobs, and people cannot have jobs if businessmen are afraid to go to work, if management is afraid to manage, if farmers are afraid to produce.
We want the enterprising men and women of America to make a success of their endeavors because that is the only way we can have a going American economy in which all our people can find work at decent pay.
We have seen in the war what can be dope when American technical and management skill is given a chance to do a job. All that was necessary was to give American enterprises the green light in order to bring forth miracles of production. In the same spirit, American business and American industry can be given the green light for peacetime production. Then we shall see peacetime miracles as we have seen wartime miracles.
There is much that government can do. Our repressive tax laws, which now operate to penalize incentive and to put a brake upon the kind of enterprise that makes job opportunities, must be drastically revised. We must have the kind of taxes that do not discourage, but encourage men to start new businesses and to expand old businesses. At another time, I shall discuss this question of taxes in detail.
Government regulations which discourage and wear down producers in every field must be revised. The whole atmosphere of studied hostility toward our job producing machinery must be replaced.
More than this, we must have laws that are sufficiently simple and clear so that men can know what they are allowed to do. Most of the laws passed by the New Deal and the regulations under them are so involved and complicated that it is impossible for even the ablest lawyer to advise what they mean.
The judges, when called upon to apply them, are violently divided among themselves. There can be neither freedom nor a healthy economy under laws and decrees which are so multitudinous that businessmen, labor leaders and indeed citizens generally, cannot be law abiding except by doing nothing.
The man who has an idea that could lead to greater job opportunities must feel that government is as anxious for him to succeed as he is himself. That means also that government must cease to pursue policies which foster antagonism and mutual distrust between workers and employers.
For too long we have been a nation divided and government has been the great divider. Now under the stress of war we have drawn closer together. We have come to appreciate a little better the part that each of us must play. Labor, industry and agriculture, each in its place, have made a mighty contribution to the winning of the war. We must learn to work together in peace as we have worked together in war. We must seek mutual understanding.
The worker, the farmer and the businessman are equals and are equally important. No one can disregard the interest of the others save to his own cost. No one can be master over the other two. No one is entitled to a voice in the affairs of government at the sacrifice of the others.
The government must be equally concerned with the welfare of all elements in our society. Government is not the property of any section of the country or any segment of our society. It should be the servant of all.
We are not going back to the days of unregulated business and finance. We are not going back to the days of unprotected farm prices. We are not going back to the leaf raking and the dole. We are not going down the New Deal road to total control of our daily lives. We are going forward on the better road. We are going forward to achieve in peace what the New Deal could only achieve at the cost of war – jobs and opportunity for all.
And we shall recover and preserve our individual freedom, which has once again been made sacred by the blood of American men.
who was the fascist policeman and what was he on trial for?
1 Like