Eleanor Roosevelt: My Day (1946)

101

April 27, 1946

NEW YORK, Friday – Last Tuesday evening, Miss Thompson and I drove from Hyde Park over to Millbrook, N.Y., where I spoke at a conference at Bennett Junior College. We enjoyed dining with Miss Carrol, the president of the college, and with her sister, the faculty adviser and three members of the student committee who were organizing the conference.

They had chosen as their subject “Widening Our Horizons.” Very wisely, they are looking at these horizons from the point of view of their own activities – literary, artistic and academic – as well as from the point of view of national and international situations.

After my talk, there was only one question, which was about my impressions of the Russian delegation at the London meeting of the United Nations. Then we went to the main student building, where I met many of the faculty and students. I was interested to find that the college has girls from many different sections of the United States, a few from Puerto Rico, and some from South American countries.

Wednesday morning, I came down to New York. After keeping a few appointments at my office, I took a plane from Newark for Louisville, Ky., where the Women’s Action Committee for Lasting Peace was holding a conference. I had no business going to Louisville at this time because I have been extremely busy at home, but one lets oneself be persuaded and, when the time comes, willy-nilly one must go. On arrival, I had very little time before I had to make my speech.

The next day, Thursday, I flew back to New York. In the evening, I joined Mr. and Mrs. Henry Morgenthau, Jr., and some friends of theirs, who were my guests at the annual African dance festival at Carnegie Hall. I think it was done in a much more professional style this year, with less waiting around and much closer following of the schedule.

Today has been a succession of appointments, one following closely upon another. It will end this evening with my speaking at an institute which the United States Student Assembly has arranged at the New School for Social Research.

This organization sent a representative to the World Youth meeting in London and then on to Russia, so I think they have a very keen sense of the situation in Europe and are most anxious to pass along to their student groups in the various colleges a sense of real responsibility in thinking through the problems of the future.

102

April 29, 1946

HYDE PARK, Sunday – So many tributes have been paid in the last few days to Chief Justice Harlan Stone that I have waited until now to add my little word of appreciation for a very great citizen. He was a liberal and stood out many times for the liberal point of view. I think the quality which a casual acquaintance, such as I was, sensed most keenly about him was his calm courage. You knew instinctively that if he believed in a thing, he would stand by it.

He and Mrs. Stone always seemed to me a wonderful couple, in complete sympathy in the way they faced life and lived it. I only hope that having had years when the problems of life could be shared, Mrs. Stone as she now faces life alone will be able to draw strength from the past.

Justice and Mrs. Stone lived together with so much purpose in life that I am quite sure she will find the courage to continue to work toward the ends they both believed in. Lives such as Chief Justice Stone’s contribute to the character of a nation. Each life is a brick in the nation’s wall of defense, for the spirit of the good man strengthens the spirit of those who take up his fight and follow after him.

My aunt, Mrs. David Gray, and I drove up to Hyde Park yesterday morning in the cold and rain. Part of the time it was actually snowing; but when we arrived, Fala greeted us with such warmth that I had to take him for a walk in the woods at once, regardless of the weather. A bright wood fire burned on my hearth and when I got back I was glad to warm myself in front of it.

Yesterday we had several guests at lunch. Then Mrs. Gray and I went to the old house to hunt for various things which belonged to other people and which my mother-in-law had stored for them. I had been meaning to find them and send them to their owners ever since I moved them to the cottage, but I have been neglectful. Triumphantly I discovered them all and I hope this week they will start to their destinations. Whenever I look at the accumulation of things that I still have to sort, and whose eventual disposition I must decide, I am really filled with dismay as to when I shall find the time.

Then we went over to the big house, as Mrs. Gray wanted to see it again. We found that even in this bad weather there were a goodly number of people wandering around and seeing the sights. We came back at last and hugged the fire, but were nevertheless very grateful for the rain – for it has saved several thousand little trees which we planted, and I am sure has meant a great deal to all of the farmers of the neighborhood.

103

April 30, 1946

NEW YORK, Monday – The blue sky returned to us yesterday and, luckily, cold as the weather was, it was not quite freezing, so our fruit blossoms and our plants are still unhurt.

As I walked through the woods, I noticed many more small violets hidden under the winter leaves, and my lilies-of-the-valley are pushing their little green shoots up through the ground. Fortunately, our dogwood is not so far out as some of the trees along the parkway. I would like to have it wait ten days or so for its full magnificence on the top of our hill, since my son and daughter-in-law, who are away on a lecture trip, will not be able to enjoy it until then.

I am beginning to get letters from veterans and from people who have to live on fixed incomes, complaining about the high cost of living and the difficulty of finding inexpensive clothes. The manufacturers make more profit these days if they make expensive clothes, so people who can only afford the less expensive variety are having a hard time. In the old days, a man’s suit could be bought for $35, but now it costs at least $50; and a woman’s dress which could be bought for $15 now costs at least $30. Food prices have gone up too.

Yet the House of Representatives has passed a bill to curtail OPA and make it even less effective than it is at present! OPA is the only defense that the people have against the powerful interest lobbies, each of which is anxious to increase the price of its particular product, regardless of what happens to the people or to the prices of other products.

We can only hope that the Senate will stand firm and will not only reject the limitations in the House bill, but will really give OPA the funds to function properly.

It has been a long fight to put the control of our economic system in the hands of the government, where it can be administered in the interests of the people as a whole. Now Congress, under the influence of powerful lobbies, is rapidly trying to return control to big business. It may be that individual Congressmen do not realize just what they are doing, but they are heading us straight for inflation and accepting the old “boom and bust” ideas, instead of sticking to the plan of ironing out the peaks and the valleys and trying to keep us on a fairly even keel.

Chester Bowles, Stabilization Director, and Paul Porter, Price Administrator, are doing their best but, without the support of the people, who are the ones most affected by what happens to OPA, these two men will be defeated by the representatives of the people.

Write to your Representatives in Congress. Writing to me is of very little use!

104

May 1, 1946

NEW YORK, Tuesday – Yesterday noon, I had the pleasure of meeting at lunch some of my colleagues on the Human Rights Commission of the U.N. Economic and Social Council. As usually happens, there was some confusion about contacting a few of them. And our French colleague, Prof. Rene Cassin, was delayed somewhere on an airplane.

Besides myself, only three members of the commission were present. But there were also Henri Laugier, Assistant Secretary General, who is in charge of all of the Council’s commissions on social affairs, Dr. Schmidt, who is secretary to all the six commissions now meeting in New York, and Mrs. Joseph Lash, who is secretary for the Human Rights Commission.

This was our first opportunity to talk together, and we found that Mr. Laugier and the gentleman from Yugoslavia preferred to speak in French. The rest of the group felt more at home in English.

After lunch, we drove to Hunter College for the first meeting of the commission at 3 o’clock. The predominant number of members speak English, but everything is translated into French—a little item which I, as chairman, kept forgetting until I suddenly looked at the translator and noticed that his expression was somewhat agonized. I realized then that I had completely forgotten to give him a chance to translate my remarks!

Mr. Laugier made us a serious and inspiring speech, but I think all of us fully realize that our responsibility is great. Being chairman rather frightened me, since I am not very good on parliamentary law! Fortunately, we adopted the rules of procedure which were suggested for the commission, so I only have to keep them before me in case any difference of opinion crops up.

The Economic and Social Council appointed this “nuclear” commission to serve for one year and to make recommendations as to the permanent setup for the commission. Nine members were invited to serve. They were chosen as individuals, not representing any governments, who would be competent to work on the questions which would probably come up in the field of human rights.

It will be up to us to recommend whether this method of choice will be continued or whether the members later will be chosen to represent governments. In view of the fact that the commission will only make recommendations and that the Economic and Social Council, to which the recommendations go, is made up of representatives of government, it seems to me that the governments will have the final decisions in any case.

The Subcommission on the Status of Women met after our commission ended its meeting, and three of our members had been appointed to serve on this subcommission. I was among the number but, yesterday, having made two engagements for the late afternoon, I could not stay for the subcommission meeting at 5 o’clock. I will, however, be on hand for all the meetings in the future, I hope.

Last evening, I spoke at the Women’s Trade Union League’s annual meeting, and today I am attending both a morning and afternoon session of the Human Rights Commission.

105

May 2, 1946

NEW YORK, Wednesday – Yesterday morning, I began the day by making a recording at the NBC studios for the Treasury bond-selling campaign. I think it was done in record time! Since only fifteen minutes was all that I could give, that was the time I spent in the studio!

Gradually the mystery of getting around New York City on the subways is solving itself for me. I discovered yesterday morning that I could start from 50th Street on the 8th Avenue uptown subway, get off at Kingsbridge Road, and find myself within a short walk of Hunter College. Even though the subways are the quickest way of getting around town, going a long distance takes time, and I have finally had to realize that the trip from Washington Square to Hunter College takes from 50 to 55 minutes. Today I am making the experiment of driving my car up to the college to see if I make better time!

At the second meeting of the Human Rights Commission yesterday morning, we progressed to the next points on our agenda, but the delegate from Russia, Nikoli Kriukov, drew our attention to the fact that we had had no time to examine certain documents which we were expected to consider. It seemed wise, therefore, to leave these particular documents for a later session, when all of us will have had a chance to go over them more carefully. We adjourned at 12 o’clock to give everybody time, before the afternoon session, to read certain portions of the Preparatory Commission’s report and some of the discussions in the Economic and Social Council on the subject of setting up the Human Rights Commission.

Between sessions, I was able to attend a luncheon given by Miss Dorothy Kenyon for the members of the Subcommission on the Status of Women.

When we met again at 3 o’clock, we began to consider the definite recommendations we should make for setting up the permanent Human Rights Commission. There seemed to be fairly general agreement that approximately 18 members would be a large enough number for service on the permanent commission, but the only point on which there was no dissent was that those named should be eligible for reappointment. There is, as yet, no general agreement on whether to recommend that the members of the commission represent governments or be chosen as individuals, nor are we agreed as to the length of service.

The discussion yesterday was purely informal, to ascertain the first thoughts of the commission members on these questions. Their points of view may change with further discussion.

It was with great pleasure that we welcomed Prof. Rene Cassin, the delegate from France, who had been delayed in his air trip to this country but who arrived during the afternoon session.

I reached home in time to see, for a short time, a young New Zealand woman married to an American – Mrs. Grover Churchill. Her husband served in the Navy during the war. Now that she has come here, she does some lecturing on her native New Zealand.

106

May 3, 1946

NEW YORK, Thursday – The other evening, I attended and spoke at a dinner for the United Jewish Appeal. It was given for men in the entertainment field. Billy Rose, the producer, presided and spoke with deep feeling of his experience in visiting displaced persons’ camps in Germany last November. The generous response of those present at the dinner was truly heart-warming.

The experiment of driving up to Hunter College yesterday was fairly successful, but it still took me nearly 50 minutes to make the trip! It is a pleasanter trip by car, but I am not sure that driving in New York City isn’t more wearisome than taking the subway, even though the latter doesn’t start at your own door and bring you back there.

I was attending, as an ex-officio member, the meetings of the United Nations Subcommission on the Status of Women. Their chief discussion yesterday centered on the purpose for which the subcommission was appointed. They finally decided that their objective was to raise the status of women so as to achieve equality with men and greater freedom. In the course of the next few meetings, I think, they will undertake to examine the methods through which this can be accomplished and the areas in which the work must begin.

As in the case of the temporary Human Rights Commission, they will only make recommendations to the Economic and Social Council, but their recommendations will look toward the establishment of a permanent subcommission, and that permanent group will be able to do a great deal to change the world atmosphere in regard to women.

Miss Thompson and I lunched with George Bye to discuss some business, and late in the afternoon, when I got home from the United Nations meetings, I found a British publisher, Frederick Muller, and the Countess Regina Regis de Oliveira waiting to have tea with me. I was so late that we had been talking only a few minutes when Dr. Algernon Black, of the Ethical Culture Society, came in.

I asked him to tell me about the Encampment for Citizenship which the American Ethical Union is sponsoring at the Fieldston School, New York, from July 1st to August 10th. It sounds like an exciting adventure.

The age group is to be from 17 to 23, and any young people throughout the United States – veterans, students, farmers, teachers, industrial workers – anyone within the age group and able to meet the qualifications may enjoy this interesting experience. The great city of New York will be used as a laboratory, and some outstanding educators will be the directors in the various fields of activity.

As the name of the encampment implies, it is an effort to help the young people of today to understand their world in transition. We have won a war, but we still have a peace to win, and to do that successfully, our young people must know more about being good citizens than their elders knew.

107

May 4, 1946

NEW YORK, Friday – I forgot to tell you that, the other evening, at the New School for Social Research, in the lounge where we had our refreshments, I noticed a very interesting exhibit of paintings by a young Brazilian artist, Djanira. She is only 32 years old. Her ancestry is Indian and Austrian. She comes from a small town in the backlands of Brazil and has had to fight for a living all of her life.

She is largely self-taught and only began to use colors less than five years ago, but her pictures have sold in both France and England. She paints the world in which she has lived, the world of everyday people, and her work has vitality and strength. I am sure these paintings will interest those in our country who are looking for new talent.

I went to take this opportunity to thank literally thousands of people who wrote to me around April 12, in commemoration of the anniversary of my husband’s death. They have sent me poems and “thoughts” and stories and dreams and letters. I should like to answer every individual personally, but as that is not possible, I want to tell them through this column how deeply I appreciate their thoughts of my husband.

If they remember Maeterlinck’s “Blue Bird,” they will recall that in that story people live again as those on earth think of them. If that is so, the many people who have expressed the hope that the things my husband cared for and lived for will not be lost to us can rest assured that his spirit goes marching on with the help of their thoughts.

As a result of an interview written by Gretta Palmer in which I told of some of the European conditions, letters have been pouring in from people in this country who would like to get in touch with some family in Europe and to feel that they are contributing individually to that family’s better living and greater happiness. I know that American Relief for France will provide the names of needy French families or children, and I am quite sure that the organizations representing other nations in this country will be glad to do the same.

This kind of individual contact has value now because of the material help it will bring, and it will also have value for us in the future because of the amount we will learn about families similar to our own in other nations throughout the world.

108

May 6, 1946

HYDE PARK, Sunday – The habit of saying grace is all too rarely part of our daily lives, and yet, in the face of starvation all over the world, every one of us in this country should say grace with our whole hearts each time we sit down to our easily acquired and ample meals. A pertinent cartoon by Herblock, illustrating this theme, appeared recently in the Washington Post. The background shows a sea of starving children’s faces, and in the foreground sit three somewhat elderly people, completely comfortable, correct, virtuous and conventional-looking. The table before them is groaning with food, and the caption reads: “Shall We Say Grace?”

With the cartoon, sent to me from Washington, was a page out of the Congressional Record, containing an article reprinted by Senator Wagner. Entitled “A Bill of Duties” and written by John Kirkland Clark – a distinguished member of the bar who had published this article in the May 1945 issue of the Bar Bulletin of the New York County Lawyers Association – its thesis is one that I think should be emphasized over and over again. In democracies we are apt to talk a great deal about our “rights,” but Mr. Clark points out that every right has a corresponding duty.

I do not agree with all that he says about WPA jobs, because I have traveled too much in this country and seen too many schools, bridges, civic centers, roads and swimming pools built by the WPA not to realize that much good and valuable work was accomplished. I entirely agree, however, with his thesis that all work, of whatever nature, should be done to the limit of the abilities of the man who is performing the job. I do not believe that any man who is not working to the full extent of his ability can really get satisfaction out of his work.

Mr. Clark points out the reasons why the now organized masses are making some of the same mistakes which organized business made in the past. I cannot quote here the whole of this interesting article, but there is one point which service on one of the United Nations commissions makes me want to bring before everyone’s eye. Mr. Clark writes: “If we join a union of nations to see to it that peace is maintained throughout the world – to enforce the right to peaceful living of nations – it will be necessary to discharge the duty implicit in the pledge, which is that we must accept a determination made not solely by ourselves as to when measures for the enforcement of peace must be taken – in which we must presumably join.”

I think we even have a duty sometimes, when we are citizens of a democracy, to express ourselves in opposition to the policies which may for the moment be the policies of the majority within our own country. For that is the only way that people may be brought to think along new lines, and the majority of today may become the minority of tomorrow. In other words, each individual in a democracy has the duty to live up to the standards which he believes are right. This may sometimes be a disagreeable duty. But when you believe in the right of equality among men, then you must accept the duty of individual thinking and living by your own standards.

109

May 7, 1946

NEW YORK, Monday – I took up the paper one day last week and, after reading it through, decided that something is the matter with us as a people, for our representatives in Congress are becoming temporizers. They are unable to make up their minds about anything because the American people are not clear and determined in their own minds where they stand and where they are going. A day later I read Mr. Walter Lippmann’s column: “A Report on Europe.”

His column will frighten a good many people, but I am very glad that he wrote it, because I am one of the people who believe that the sooner we face facts the better. No great power should gain any territory whatsoever out of this past war.

The great trouble internationally today is that we have built no confidence in each other. We think in the same old terms of individual strength and control through our own power. We forget that if that is the way we are going to think and act, we might just as well not have set up the United Nations. We might just as well never have ended the last war, for we are surely preparing for the next. Those who set up the United Nations believed in building collective power. Thus we could protect the rights of smaller nations of the world. The greater nations needed no more territory. In fact, in many cases some of their territory should become virtually self-governing and independent.

Great Britain and Russia and even the United States, where their military authorities are concerned, have all grown away, apparently, from this concept. But I hope that the United States can most easily recall it, and I think it is absolutely essential that the United States do so at once. Either we make peace and restore the world to a peaceful basis, or we prepare ourselves for the end of our civilization. If we are going to make peace, I think we are quite right in seeing to it that Central Europe is made impotent to start another war. I think we should aim, as far as possible, to make the small nations really free from military and political control on the part of the great nations. Therefore, we must build up in the United Nations a strong force, moral as well as military, that may be used against anyone who attempts to coerce any other peoples throughout the world.

We must become one world, and we realize today that we are far from being one world. There is only one way and that is by working together. Gradually we will come to see each other’s point of view and modify our own. We will come to trust each other. Someday there must be one world or there can not be peace and the only machinery we have to achieve that end is the United Nations. It is not strong today, but it can become strong if we are determined to make it so.

110

May 8, 1946

NEW YORK, Tuesday – Let us examine some of the things here at home which, I think, are jeopardizing the world as a whole. We seem to be too weak to make domestic decisions. How, then, are we going to lead in international affairs?

Let me point out some of the things which stare at us from the pages of the newspapers day after day.

We put off deciding what we shall do about conscription. It seems to me it would be fairly simple to accept the fact that there are needs which must be met at the present time, to make a decision to cover the next few years, and then to consider what our permanent policy shall be in the light of new events. But no, we just decide to do nothing for a short time!

The world is starving, and we know that even Fiorello H. La Guardia, UNRRA Director, dynamic as he is, has not been able to get us really to face the problem. Yet we, the people, do not demand to be told what must be done and agree to do it.

We are horrified when Prime Minister Attlee of Great Britain makes an announcement that, if the findings of the Joint Anglo-American Commission which has been studying the question of Palestine are carried out, we must bear our share of responsibility. Yet any one must have known, when the British asked us to undertake a joint inquiry, that they would expect us to do our share in carrying out the findings. We put good men on that commission. If we believe in their findings, we should be willing to back them up.

We temporize and cannot decide whether or not to pass the British loan. If we wait long enough, the value to us of the use of that money by Great Britain will be far less.

The people seem fairly well aroused on the subject of OPA at present, but they have let it hang in the balance for months and months, until now it is very possible that, even if we succeed in getting Congress to remove the restrictions placed on OPA, it will be too late for OPA to keep the cost of living within bounds.

Anyone must know that the great and important thing is to get into full production. Yet Mr. La Guardia sends a letter in vain to Ezra van Hoit, chairman of the Bituminus Coal Conference, and to John L. Lewis, president of the United Mine Workers, pointing out very clearly the effect of the coal strike on the food situation in Europe.

Many of our people who have relatives in foreign countries know that, when we do not mine coal, the industries and railroads in European countries stop functioning. This affects world recovery, and world recovery in the long run will affect us. This is the broad picture. We can see how this type of selfishness is affecting us in the domestic picture, and yet we do nothing.

We are at a point now where, if we do not get production, wages will mean very little to the average man and woman in this country, because the cost of living cannot be kept down. We, the people, must wake up and do some thinking and make some demands on our Congressional leaders for positive action. Our leaders in business and labor must also wake up.

111

May 9, 1946

NEW YORK, Wednesday – For a very long time, the coal industry of this country has been in a bad way. During the depression, we discovered how badly organized it was, and that the miners were among the people who suffered more than any others in the working groups of this nation.

It should not have been a surprise to us even then, for we had had a number of investigating bodies looking into this industry, each one of which had made recommendations. When my husband was Assistant Secretary of the Navy during the last war, I can remember that Mrs. Borden Harriman served as a member of one of these groups, and that, when I spoke to Justice Louis Brandeis hopefully about the reorganization of the coal industry, he remarked: “My dear, nothing will happen. These findings will be pigeonholed just as all the others have been.”

John L. Lewis, president of the United Mine Workers, became an important labor leader because he cared enough about the miners to do something on their behalf. But even today, despite all the publicity that he has gained in one way or another, the basic wage of a coal miner is still low and the working conditions are still deplorable. Many other union leaders have succeeded in getting industrial leaders to cooperate on a far broader scale and have achieved far greater results than Mr. Lewis has achieved in his dealings with the coal-mine owners.

We have to admit that he has some tough gentlemen to deal with, but he is said to be tough himself when necessary. He does not even trust his own followers enough to tell them how he intends to administer the welfare fund he is asking for their benefit, and yet that is of vital importance to them. His good name and theirs is at stake. This fund should be placed under every possible safeguard and handled with proper publicity.

I see by the papers that Mr. Lewis is not at all disturbed by the present discomfort and future hardship which he is creating for his fellow citizens throughout this country, nor by the much more serious implications in the present situation for the people of other countries who are struggling toward recovery in a war-torn world. Mr. Lewis takes their hardships with calmness because he feels that the anger of the people will turn against the mine owners and not against his labor leadership.

However, I am afraid that, for once, his judgment is not entirely correct. True, the people will be angry with the industrial leaders who have been lacking in vision for so long, and they will feel, as I do, that these industrialists have shown themselves incapable of real leadership in the economic and moral field in this great world crisis. Nevertheless, the industrialists are not going to be blamed alone. When the man in the street is really uncomfortable, he is going to blame also the leadership of any labor group which brings about his discomfort.

One so rarely sees either an industrial leader or a labor leader who puts these questions on the plane where they should be – in terms of what our actions mean to the world, not to ourselves alone, and what the results of our actions today are going to mean to our workers and to our entire economy five years from now.

112

May 10, 1946

NEW YORK, Thursday – I have been thinking a good deal about the President’s proposal to Congress that all the countries in this hemisphere join together in a joint defense system. In many ways there would be advantages to this system if it developed confidence and greater knowledge among us in this hemisphere.

It should bring about a feeling of interdependence which perhaps we need to develop on a regional scale before we develop it fully on a worldwide scale. I hope we would make it clear, however, that this would be a joint undertaking and in no way would change the individual political freedom of each nation.

In some areas of the world, military cooperation seems to mean political domination by one or more nations. This, I think, interferes with the liberty of smaller countries. Basically, those of us who are trying to build up the United Nations must realize that, even though some regions may have military power, their military power must at all times be the joint knowledge of all the other nations and must be available through the United Nations for keeping peace in the world. The more we learn to use joint power, the more we should be able to reduce, even on a regional basis, the power of individual nations.

This does not mean that I want to see us grow into a flabby country, with men who are unable to defend it physically. We might as well face the fact that defense in the future, as well as aggression, needs mechanical equipment and scientific research.

I think, too, that we need to devote our energies to better health, stronger, finer people, better educated, better fed and, above all, better disciplined. If democracy is to succeed, we need well-disciplined citizens who use their citizenship with intelligence.

Prof. William James used to say that, in a successful society, there would be found some equivalent for the good qualities which war brings forth in human beings, such as unselfishness, the recognition of the real brotherhood of man, and the basic human values which are recognized on the battlefield, where people are free of any artificial surroundings. There is only one real moral equivalent, and that is complete devotion to the improvement of man’s condition.

Since that depends very largely on the elimination of war, and since the elimination of war depends very largely on the development of citizens throughout the world who insist on being free to think for themselves and to express their beliefs, we must work for these objectives. Governments respond to the development of their citizens in the democracies, so our responsibility seems clear.

113

May 11, 1946

NEW YORK, Friday – It seems to me that perhaps I ought to catch up a little on my usual diary! Last Saturday, I had the great pleasure of having Miss Gabriela Mistral, the well-known Chilean poetess, and Mr. and Mrs. Andrei Gromyko drive up to Hyde Park to lunch with me.

I had met all of them before but I had had merely a casual introduction to Miss Mistral. As I have great admiration for this winner of the 1945 Nobel Prize for Literature, I was delighted to have a chance to really talk to her.

She is one of Chile’s permanent consuls in San Diego, but her interests are far from being political. As she is a humanitarian, she wishes to see changed anything which is unjust either for men or women. But her real interest is in literature and the arts, and not in whether a vote will be needed in order to obtain some of the things people are entitled to. She had a most interesting face, and I hope the day will come when I will have the opportunity to talk with her in leisurely fashion about the many things in which we both are interested.

After Miss Mistral had gone back to New York City to fill a radio engagement, I drove Mr. and Mrs. Gromyko around to see my husband’s hilltop cottage, his trees, and finally the library and the big house. Mr. Gromyko was long-suffering and endured having Fala practically sit in his lap during most of the time we were driving!

On Sunday, the members of the United Nations Human Rights Commission and the members of the Subcommission on the Status of Women all came up for a picnic lunch before visiting the big house and library. They got started from New York City rather late and, I think, had the usual difficulty finding exactly where they were supposed to arrive, so lunch was a bit late. But I enjoyed having them and hoped they did not find my hospitality too informal.

Monday saw us all back at work in New York but, that afternoon, a case of shingles which I had been fighting for over a week got a little the better of me. I left Prof. Rene Cassin to preside at the afternoon session of the Human Rights Commission. And all day Tuesday, I deserted the Subcommission on the Status of Women. But by Wednesday, I was able to start out again at 9:30, stay at Hunter College all day, and even keep my speaking engagement for the evening.

The subcommission is having a rather hard time finishing its report on schedule, but they are due to hand it to the Human Rights Commission on Monday so that we may go over it on Tuesday. Our own work is progressing fairly well. Today we will take up the consideration of what our recommendations should be on freedom of information. Certainly freedom of information, whether it means freedom of the press or of any other avenue of information, is one of the very important factors in the future peace of the world.

Last night, I spoke for a few minutes for the Jewish Welfare Fund, and today I shall speak for a very brief time at the opening of the new Medical Rehabilitation Clinic which the Veterans Administration has established here in New York City.

114

May 13, 1946

HYDE PARK, Sunday – On Friday in New York I had the pleasure of having Mrs. Gertrude Millin, the well-known writer, and her husband, a South African judge, for a brief chat. I had not seen Mrs. Millin since she was over here long ago, when she came to see my husband and myself. The years roll by very quickly and it seems hardly possible that so many could have passed since her visit.

The Hon. Josephus Daniels also was in New York City on Friday and I was very happy to have a chance for a little visit with him. He is one of the most remarkable men I know of his age. This second World War saw him ready to go back to work on his newspaper just as though he were a young man, and thus he freed his sons to do whatever work seemed to them more essential. I am devoted to Mr. Daniels, and I only hope that old age will make me as wise and kindly as he is. I haven’t so many years in which to catch up to him, however, so I doubt if I can hope for his wisdom.

I got home from the United Nations session around 6 Friday evening and left soon after to drive to Hyde Park. It was breathtakingly beautiful the whole way up. There is one place on the parkway where both white and pink dogwood mingle together. The maples are still covered with their little red curling leaves and the green on the willows is the loveliest pale green imaginable. As we got further up to where one can look out from the heights westward over the fields, the sun was setting and the sky was a lovely red.

We had a few guests here Saturday, and in the afternoon I took a visitor over to see Wiltwyck School. Mist and rain were with us all day. But it was a soft, soaking rain which any farmer would enjoy, and in spite of one or two cold nights, I do not think the apple blossoms have really been hurt.

My son and daughter-in-law came home from California this afternoon and found the dogwood around their cottage just as beautiful as I hoped they would.

Miss Thompson and I are leaving Hyde Park this morning because I promised to speak at the Lewisohn Stadium at a citizens’ meeting this afternoon where my son, Franklin Jr., is to be chairman. A number of organizations, including the Union for Democratic Action, organized this meeting and I was made honorary chairman. I learned long ago that honorary chairmen are not called upon to do any real work, for which I am deeply grateful.

Late this afternoon Mr. and Mrs. Julien Bryan are going to call for me and give me the great pleasure of seeing some of the latest movies which Mr. Bryan has made. I have been hoping to see these for a long time, since he has been doing what I have long wanted to see done – namely, he is using movies to increase people’s knowledge of each other.

115

May 14, 1946

NEW YORK, Monday – On arriving here yesterday, having driven from Hyde Park through torrents of rain, we were greeted by a message that, because of the weather, the mayor had decided to call off the citizens, “Save OPA” rally which was to have been held at 2:30 at the Lewisohn Stadium. I was sorry for the committee in charge, but patted myself on the back as I thought of all the pleasant things I could do with a free afternoon.

But that was not to last long! In about an hour, they called back to say that, since the sun was now out and the weather man was evidently wrong in his predictions of more rain, we would all meet at the stadium at 3 o’clock.

My son Franklin, Jr., who was to preside, arrived a little late with his wife because they had to drive in from Long Island. The meeting progressed and, much to my surprise, in spite of the last-minute changes, about 5,000 people were on hand.

It was a responsive audience. And it was one of the rare occasions on which representatives of the CIO and the AFL both spoke on the same platform on the same side of a question.

The Mayor, congratulating those who had come to this meeting, announced that we were going to be behind Chester Bowles, Stabilization Director, right through this fight, and that, if one rally were not enough, we would go right on having them until the weather man found it convenient to have a wonderful day for us!

Gradually, I am discovering various things which I think will be helpful to veterans. For instance, I have just found that the Department of the Interior has what they call “A Small Tract Program.” Under this program, the department may sell or lease public-domain land in small tracts for homes or camps, for health, convalescent or recreational purposes, or for business sites.

The greatest activity has been in the desert areas of Southern California, and in the vicinity of Los Angeles. But the Interior Department has been endeavoring to expand the program to all the public land in the West and in the South.

There is so much housing difficulty nowadays that this small-tract program is a great help. You may improve your land as you wish and, except when it is used for business purposes, it is leased for $5.00 a year. When it is used for business, the charge is only a small percentage of the gross business.

So far, no land has been sold. One very good reason, I think, is that the program is not yet sufficiently well planned. For instance, in a desert area a test well should be dug, so that a prospective buyer would have some idea how far he might have to go down for water.

The number of people who have put in applications for land is up to 10,000. But very few improvements have been made so far, since what has been leased has been largely for health purposes and probably very little money is available.

116

May 15, 1946

NEW YORK, Tuesday – I forgot entirely on Sunday to tell you of an art exhibition at the library in Hyde Park which I had the pleasure of seeing. The artist, Olin Dows, had sent me a card remarking that this might be the only time his war paintings would be gathered together. Of course, I was most anxious to see them.

They are well worth seeing, not only as paintings but because of the picture they give of our soldiers in Europe. The weariness and the dirt are there, but so are the alertness and the strength. I enjoyed the little while that I spent looking at the collection.

Mr. Dows is one of our native products. The murals in both the little postoffice in Hyde Park and the postoffice in Rhinebeck, N.Y., were done by him some years ago.

Yesterday afternoon, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights virtually finished the major part of its current work. There remains, of course, the consideration of the report of the Subcommission on the Status of Women, which will come today, and the final going-over of the Commission’s whole report as put together in one document by the secretariat and the rapporteur, Mr. K. C. Neogy of India.

Bearing in mind that we, a nuclear commission, were asked to make recommendations for the setup of the full commission and for its work and plans, I think we have done a helpful piece of work. The real work, of course, remains to be done in the next series of meetings, when the actual writing of an international bill of rights will have to be undertaken; and when the full subcommission on the status of women, and one on freedom of information, will be setup and will begin their work.

We have felt that there could be no human rights without freedom of information. Therefore, we have recommended only this one new subcommission, wanting to give it priority over everything else. It will involve much work, because information today is not furnished just by the press. The radio and the movie industry take a great part in informing the people of the world.

Of course, in this country, all these avenues of information are very highly developed and they are run as extensive businesses. There is no government control, and whatever information the government itself furnishes, either at home or abroad, is very jealously watched by those avenues of information which are run as private enterprises.

In many other countries, however, the situation will be very different for a long time. Freedom of information as we understand it may be almost unattainable in many parts of the world for some time to come.

I am sure everyone read with great interest the report which Herbert Hoover made to the President on his return from his worldwide trip. It is gratifying to know that the world grain deficit is less today than it was when he started out. Though his solutions for the problem seem to involve decisions on the part of Great Britain and Russia, which have not as yet been made, still it seems probable that any nation will do the maximum that they are able to do under the circumstances.

It is obvious that rationing in this country would not provide the food needed for famine relief abroad, but if the amount set aside for shipment is very great, it is bound to reduce our home supplies. It seems to me, therefore, that it would be fairer to plan as soon as possible on rationing such things as must be curtailed. That would mean that all of us would get our fair share at home, and all of us would make a common sacrifice.

117

May 16, 1946

NEW YORK, Wednesday – Sometimes I think it is very difficult for people really to grasp the details of any kind of organization. For instance, at the United Nations meeting yesterday, I was asked about a rumor that I had asked President Truman to relieve me of any further responsibility of serving with the Human Rights Commission. That rumor shows that it is not understood that, if I were to ask to be relieved, I should have to ask the Economic and Social Council, since they and not President Truman appointed me. Needless to say, the rumor had no foundation in fact.

On Monday evening, I spoke at the Book and Author Night sponsored jointly by the New York Herald Tribune and the American Booksellers Association, which is holding its first convention in three years. The theme of the evening was “One World or None.”

When Wendell Willkie gave us that phrase “One World,” he gave us an aspiration, but I am terribly afraid we will go to sleep believing that we actually have One World and will forget that, in order to make it a reality, we have vast areas to cover in which we have taken only the very first steps. There are great differences between the people in different parts of the world because of differences in background and experience.

In my talk, I tried to point out some of the differences between the government of the USSR and our own in the mere conception of certain functions and in the methods of achieving certain results. The Russians have lived under their form of government only twenty-five years. We have had over a century and a half in which gradually to change one thing after another and to correct some of our mistakes and inadequacies.

I pointed out that we would do well to remember that once upon a time we led a revolution, once upon a time we were pioneers, treading new paths, learning new ways, and being greeted, when any of us turned up in the Old World, as strange and rather terrifying characters! Some of us have read some of the early diaries of travellers from the Old World, who were not as famous as Charles Dickens but all of whom took us neatly apart because of our lack of airs and graces in those early days!

We had virtues, however, and one of them was persistence. It is quite evident today that we will need persistence in order to win through to a better understanding of other peoples of the world about whom we know little – the Russians, the Chinese, and many other great peoples who are different from ourselves but are so well worth knowing.

We think our way of doing things is a good way, and we have a right to believe in it until someone else proves to us that their way is better. However, we should not deny to other people the right to their way of thinking and acting. Somehow, we should be the bridge between the Old World and the New, and should find the way to compromise and adjustment. For get along we must, if that One World of Wendell Willkie’s is to be a reality.