Eleanor Roosevelt: My Day (1947)

141

June 13, 1947

NEW YORK, Thursday – The committee for drafting an international bill of rights reconvened yesterday morning out at Lake Success. The decision was made first of all to take up the document in which the Secretariat had compared the articles on human rights in their working paper with those presented by the United Kingdom in the form of a bill. One of the members remarked that since the United Kingdom has no written constitution, it might well have received comparatively little attention in the Secretariat draft, which is a composite of the seventy or more bills sent in by nations, organizations and individuals. The documentation, of course, covers all the national constitutions which include human rights and covers various other sources of information.

It did not take us very long to go over those articles which were mentioned in both the Secretariat draft and in the United Kingdom draft, and to hear the opinions of such members of the committee as wished to speak on the articles.

By the middle of the afternoon, we took up the Secretariat draft and decided to go through each article, not for the consideration of final wording, but to decide whether the substance should be included. I hope we will err on the side of including perhaps too many rights in the draft we present to the Human Rights Commission. I think they have a right to cut down and exclude, but we should be very careful to include as much as possible in the initial bill that we draft.

The delegate from the United Kingdom pointed out that to include many rights which obviously could not be implemented would be a waste of time. The United States’ position has been, however, that in this draft which will be presented to the Assembly by the Human Rights Commission, we should submit a general declaration of rights and principles. Then we could enter into conventions which would have the binding force of treaties. The United States’ view is that it would be impossible to have the two things joined in the same document. Of course, this point of view may be rejected by the Commission, and we cannot know until further discussion takes place.

It is conceded by all that the drafting committee has an obligation to explore and recommend methods of implementation. The United Kingdom has covered enforcement carefully in the bill they have submitted, and Australia has suggested methods of implementation. It is obvious, however, from the resolutions passed by the Economic and Social Council, that our first duty is to prepare a tentative draft of human rights.

As we came out of our morning meeting, I saw a tremendous gathering of “news hawks” around the American members of the Atomic Energy Commission. I was tempted to join the group but decided it would be difficult to hear in that crowd, and that I had better go and keep my luncheon engagement.

142

June 14, 1947

NEW YORK, Friday – I wonder if members of Congress are getting anything like the communications which I am getting on the Taft-Hartley Labor Bill. If they are, they must begin to be conscious of the fact that quite a number of people are not in favor of that bill. Sen. Robert A. Taft keeps insisting that it is really a bill designed to give both management and labor equal rights, but a great many people seem to think that it takes away rights which organized labor groups had acquired even before the Wagner Act was passed.

I have before me a telegram of several hundred words from the Chicago Typographical Union, and it reads as though it had been written by some men who were in a fighting mood.

They say: “Our members are aroused today as they never have been aroused before…. Still more are we alarmed and resentful, being a realistic as well as an idealistic organization, at the fact that Sen. Taft would deprive us of things which we possessed fifty years before the Wagner Act was adopted. For example, power to bargain for foremen and assistant foremen.… periodical elections to determine whether a majority of the employees in a given printing office wish to continue it as a so-called union shop, thereby compelling us to match resources in propaganda warfare with belligerent employers who wish to seduce our members from their natural allegiance to the oldest union in America.”

If I were in the House or the Senate, I think it would trouble me a good deal that so many workers feel this legislation is going to be harmful and take away protection in the earning of their livelihood – which is, after all, something very important even to non-union workers.

As I have said before, I think that many average people in this country have been embittered by the actions of labor leaders which have endangered their home comforts and frequently their jobs. A coal stoppage, for instance, is a very serious thing. But I am told on very good authority that this bill will not make it any more possible to prevent John L. Lewis from bringing on a strike in the coal industry than it has been before. I think individual regulations made by unions for their members sometimes irritate the public. But I think these things are not fundamental and could be taken up and negotiated, whereas this bill seems to me to strike at the fundamental rights and protection of labor.

To pass it will, I think, lead to unending agitation and unrest; and it will not achieve the one thing which we need above all else to achieve – namely, increased production. The more goods we produce, the more the prices will come down. Labor is both a producer and a consumer, and it is of paramount importance that all over the world people get to work, produce jobs, produce goods, and begin to fill the needs of the people. This bill will not help to achieve this essential factor in our return to a normal situation under our present free-enterprise system.

143

June 16, 1947

HYDE PARK, Sunday – It was quite evident to the Drafting Committee of the Bill of Human Rights, last Thursday afternoon, that all the representatives of governments sitting around the table were not completely familiar with what had already transpired in previous meetings. After one very eloquent and lengthy speech, one of the delegates remarked that a similar speech had been made by the representative of the same government in the Human Rights Commission itself before the commission’s last report had been transmitted to the Economic and Social Council.

The afternoon was spent in the expression of opinions as to the form in which a bill should be written. I think the consensus was that we would have to prepare, as a first draft, two drafts! One would be in the nature of a clear and brief declaration of principles. The other would be expressed more at length and in detail, but perhaps covering fewer general ideas, and would in form be a convention or law which could be accepted and ratified by the various governments and become a part of their own law.

The delegate from the USSR apparently felt that we should impart to every one of the 55 governments everything which had been before us, and then wait until each of the 55 governments sent in its suggestions and recommendations. This procedure being clearly a decision which would have to be taken either by the full commission or the Economic and Social Council, I think it was felt that we should continue with the work assigned to us – allowing at every point, however, for the inclusion of alternative texts, so that if there was divergence of opinion the Human Rights Commission would have a clear statement before it of all points of view.

Positively, one never knows what interesting people one may meet in New York City! As you may have already discovered, one of the most surprising and interesting groups is our New York taxi drivers. My latest find was a gentleman who told me that he drove a taxi just to be sure of a basic income. But he and his wife had taken several trips across the continent, since his hobby is painting and he often sold his pictures even though he only painted them for enjoyment.

He seemed one of those rare people who enjoyed his life as he went along. Some people are always complaining of the present, and then looking back upon that present with a feeling that it was rather a delightful past. They hurry toward the future in the hope that it will be more enjoyable than the present, and so life slips away and the joys of the moment are rarely savoured. My taxi man enjoyed his life. It is really a good combination: a philosophy, a hobby and a mechanical ability which assures you of a basic livelihood!

144

June 17, 1947

NEW YORK, Monday – On Saturday, my son Elliott and his wife and I did some really strenuous travelling! We left Hyde Park for Washington at 8:30 in the morning. We drove to New York, left the car there, and caught a train which got us into Washington just half an hour before we were due at the French Embassy to attend a mass presentation of decorations.

We got there on the minute and found the room already filled with the men who were to be decorated, and their families and friends. The French general made a charming speech in which he expressed the hope that the unity which had existed between our fighting forces during the war would continue to exist and help us to build a world at peace. Many of our acquaintances were being decorated, but I was, of course, particularly interested in my own son, and in Adm. Ross T. McIntire and in young Raymond Guest, who is a friend of my son Franklin and who stood next to Elliott in the line.

According to French custom, when the ceremonies were over we were given champagne with which to toast the men who had just been honored. Then we went out into the garden, where the greenery and the cool breezes made it delightful.

After two short hours in Washington, we caught a 5:30 plane back to New York. Here it was raining and the drive home in the dark promised to be none too pleasant, but as we got farther away from the city, it began to clear a little. We reached home around 10:30, and while we were tired, we were very happy to have been together on this memorable occasion.

Yesterday was not exactly a quiet Sunday, but it was a very pleasant one. A group from the New York Women’s Trade Union League came up to visit the Hyde Park library and house, and they came over to picnic on my grounds. Then I went over to the library to meet the members of the Passaic (N.J.) Textile Workers Union. A little later, I greeted Prince M. Mbadiwe and Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe of Nigeria and a group they brought with them.

Finally, Mr. Aviv Blackman, who is back from five years of service overseas, brought me a gift sent by the Sultan of Morocco. It was originally intended for my husband, but after his death Mr. Blackman was directed to put it into my hands for display in the library. This gift, a bedspread, has particular significance since the Sultan’s sisters embroidered it for him and the work on it must have taken many hours of their time.

We felt sad at leaving Hyde Park this morning, but I must be back at work at Lake Success.

145

June 18, 1947

NEW YORK, Tuesday – It took courage to veto the tax bill in view of all the things that were said by the Republicans beforehand and that are still being said with vehemence. One headline stated that Republicans denounced the veto as “dirty politics” – I suppose because the President might approve of tax reduction next year. Such a measure should be differently drawn, of course, so as to give a little more advantage to the mass of taxpayers in the lower-income brackets and a little less to the corporations! When more time has gone by and we do not need our revenues for absolutely necessary expenditures, as we do now, the Treasury might approve such a measure.

One newspaper calmly took the view that all the taxpayers of the country have been injured by this veto, whereas the great mass of taxpayers would have noticed very little difference in their taxes under this bill. Now, when corporations are making good returns on their capital investment, is the time when it hurts them the least to pay taxes.

I am frank to say that I should have liked a 20 percent reduction, but nevertheless I am glad the President vetoed the bill and glad the House has upheld his veto, for other considerations are more important than that a comparatively small number of people be pleased. My congratulations go to the President, and may his courage never grow less!

To turn to my United Nations activities, the small working committee that was entrusted over the weekend with trying to put on paper both a declaration and a convention which might serve as a first draft for the International Bill of Rights, made slow progress. Prof. Rene Cassin of France was asked to draw up the declaration, while the rest of the working committee checked off the points they thought might be included in an actual draft convention.

The latter group accomplished their work very quickly because it required no actual wording, but when they came together yesterday morning to go over the declaration point by point, they found the wording could produce untold pitfalls. They telephoned the other members of the drafting committee that they would not be ready until this morning, and so yesterday we only went over a part of Prof. Cassin’s draft.

What will happen when eight of us begin to find fault with the wording, I dread to contemplate. And if we on the drafting committee do succeed in agreeing, what will happen when the full Human Rights Commission of eighteen goes to work?

We have already decided that we will not be able to finish our work this week, and Prof. Cassin has agreed to stay over until next Monday night. Then he must return to France, so we must try to have our work completed. He and I did a short transcription in French during the lunch hour, so on the whole the day, as usual, was a busy one!

146

June 19, 1947

NEW YORK, Wednesday – One of the most interesting items of news that I have read in a long time was the report of the Baruch Committee on Physical Medicine, particularly the part dealing with the rehabilitation of disabled G.I.’s. In 1944, with a grant of $1,250,000, Bernard M. Baruch established this committee. He has encouraged physiotherapists to serve the needs of the men injured in the war.

Dr. Ray Lyman Wilbur, chairman of the committee, said a very significant thing and I wish it could become the slogan for all handicapped people. Instead of concentrating “on what you have lost,” the theme should always be “what have you left and how can we make the best use of it?”

Undoubtedly the work of this committee has stimulated other groups through the professional consultation and advice given by its scientific advisory committee to the universities participating in its program. However, the disabled veterans who benefit from this program and who, in spite of physical handicaps, earn a living and lead normal lives, are going to be the best encouragement to other handicapped people and will spread the word in the most practical way possible.

Sad as are the cases of boys injured in the war, there are more people injured by accidents on the road, in industry, and even in housework. For that reason, the value of this committee’s work will reach into thousands of households throughout this nation and will spread to other nations.

I saw a portrait the other night of Bernard M. Baruch’s father. He was a doctor in South Carolina and he inspired Mr. Baruch’s interest in physical medicine by his own work along these lines. His portrait shows one of the most beautiful faces I have ever seen. I am sure it is the greatest satisfaction to his son to have been able to help so many people who needed help, because in looking at the father’s face in the portrait, I know his life was dedicated to these ends.

147

June 20, 1947

NEW YORK, Thursday – This column is a report to all those who so kindly responded to the plea of the French missionary, Father Jean Delemer, for a church bell to call his congregation to prayer at his mission in Tanganyika, East Africa. I had hoped to be able to give you, at this time, word from the good Father himself of the arrival of the bell in Tanganyika. However, that will have to come later. Meanwhile, I think you would be interested in a letter sent to him by J. Austin Smith, president of the company that obtained the bell, so that you will know what your contributions have accomplished.

“Dear Father Delemer: I am happy to tell you that, ‘The Bell for Tanganyika’ has been shipped aboard the steamship Richard Rush and is expected to reach the port of Dar-Es-Salaam in about one month.

“I am enclosing herewith the necessary documents which will enable you to claim and to take possession of your bell. The freight charges have been prepaid so that you will have no costs to pay. It is not believed that your bell will be assessable as to any import duty because it is a gift and not a purchase. As a further reason for duty exemption, the bell is not a new one. It is an old bell with many valuable associations, but its value lies more in those intangible associations than in money value…

“I wish to thank you for the pleasure and the joy all of us have had in being privileged to be of some service to you.”

The other evening, some of the members of our Human Rights Commission drafting committee, with their wives, gathered in my little apartment and listened to music which gave us all a great deal of pleasure. Miss Angela Brama, who has been featured on several radio programs, sang some delightful songs and has a really beautiful voice. Miss Brama comes from Detroit and is studying in New York with Mme. Queena Mario, former Metropolitan star. She has a contract to sing a role in “Traviata” for some recordings soon to be made by Toscanini.

Someone has sent me an amusing clipping in which I am taken to task for the fact that nowadays I am so constantly in one place, and that my column no longer describes far-distant spots. I would remind this critic that the war has come to an end and many people are glad of it! One of the main reasons for my travelling abroad during the war was in order to see our service men who, unfortunately, had to travel willy-nilly to far-distant places. And before that, I traveled within this country in connection with the depression. But I always have loved being at home, and I find that I have an increasing appreciation of the interests surrounding one’s own home.

148

June 21, 1947

NEW YORK, Friday – The other day there was a speech made in Chicago by Robert R. Wason, chairman of the board of the National Association of Manufacturers. To anyone who has watched developments in Europe and seen the conditions there, it was a strange and unrealistic speech.

First he accused our Government of hamstringing American Production with “Communist economic controls,” while demanding more money and production to prop up “authoritarian states of Europe.” He apparently thinks that, if we did away with the gradual changes which have come about in this country and went back to the days which were only possible when we had a new continent to develop, we would then aid Europe best by exporting our economic system into countries whose conditions make it utterly impossible for anything of the kind to succeed.

Mr. Wason made the statement: “When competitive enterprise functions in Europe, only the governments will suffer because their controls will be reduced. The people will prosper because incentives will be restored.”

There is plenty of incentive today for every farmer in Europe to till his fields because he wants to eat, but unfortunately he has ground which is not prepared to bring forth ample harvests. He has no money with which to buy fertilizer or seed beyond what he himself has garnered and, above all else, he has little or no strength of body or of spirit. Men are trying all over Europe to start small businesses again. They have to join in cooperative enterprises because individually they haven’t enough to go ahead.

Even in our most individualistic days, our communities were cooperative communities. And unless there is cooperation in Europe on a very large scale, plus government help and international help, the job that has to be done in war-torn countries cannot possibly be accomplished.

As to the complaint that we help authoritarian countries, I think we had better be realistic. We are doing all in our power to help those countries which wish to be free and whose people want to function democratically. Our cardinal principle is that the people of the world shall be free, that they shall make their own changes and that we shall not interfere.

We have to live in the same world with some countries which we feel are authoritarian, but quite evidently the majority of their people are content. It would be well to realize, I think, that the better off these countries are, the less authoritarian they will probably remain. Therefore, from an economic standpoint, it is in our own interest that we help them to rehabilitate themselves and have a higher standard of living.

If Mr. Wason would concern himself more deeply in showing the world that our economic system works to the advantage of the majority of our people, and that, at the same time, we have learned to produce enough to keep the greater part of the world from starvation and to help them get back on their feet, I think he would be doing a real service.

149

June 23, 1947

HYDE PARK, Sunday – The ambassador of the USSR told a group in Chicago the other day that it was “possible and desirable for the Soviet Union and the United States to embark on a policy of cooperation in world affairs.” This is extremely interesting, since I can understand very well that at times it must seem to some of the USSR representatives in this country that we are unfair in our press and that we seek to create trouble instead of peace between the two nations. They do not always understand that the press in this country does not represent the government, nor does any one paper represent more than the policy of its owners.

Americans, when they read a certain paper, know exactly the kind of thinking and the group that is represented in its pages. But foreign representatives in this country, particularly those whose press is government-controlled, are apt to take the pronouncements that appear in the press much more seriously than do American citizens. This is unfortunate because it stirs up trouble between governments. Since individuals in this country can also express their opinions freely, regardless of how much backing they may have, that also creates difficulty and wrong impressions outside this country.

As people from other nations come here more often and talk more freely with our citizens, one can only hope that they will gradually learn not to take everything they hear or read as representing the views of either the government or the whole country.

Cooperation is based on negotiations. We must be able to give and take if we are going to work together. For that reason, it is important for the USSR to learn that when they have made a statement of policy, it is only the beginning of reaching an agreement. The final agreement can never be exactly what each individual nation suggested as a policy in the beginning. The policy must be modified by the suggestions of all the other nations. When that is done, then a joint policy can be agreed upon.

Too often, the USSR announces its position and then, though occasionally it changes the words, it never changes the position. That is not negotiation, nor cooperation. It presupposes that if you stick to your own position, you will wear the other people out and they will finally agree with you merely because they are too weary to go on with discussions. Fortunately, the Americans are not made that way. They wish to negotiate. They will willingly make concessions when they are convinced of the fairness and the wisdom of other suggestions. But they do not make concessions simply because they are being browbeaten.

I think it is not only possible but essential that the United States and the USSR learn to get on together, but I think there must be concessions on both sides.

150

June 24, 1947

NEW YORK, Monday – Several people reading my column on what I thought about the Taft-Hartley Bill assumed that I was trying to advise a veto. It surprised me somewhat because I cannot imagine myself presuming to advise the President of the United States on his actions. As a citizen, however, one has the right to have personal opinions about legislation. And when the President has done something that one feels is courageous and wise, one also has an obligation, I think, to say so.

I know quite well that he must have had much pressure beforehand from many influential quarters and making up one’s mind under those circumstances is not easy. Now that it is over, I want to congratulate him. I have no idea whether his action in vetoing the labor bill and the tax bill was politically wise or unwise. If you look in some papers, you are told it was political suicide. Only here and there will you find any suggestion that it might be a good idea for the President of the United States to do what he really thinks is right, after getting the best possible advice he can from experts.

I have often thought that, if it could be put simply enough so that one didn’t have to be an economist or a financial wizard the people of this country really would like to know what are the most important reasons advanced on both sides of such controversial questions, and how the President arrives at his final decision. I have an idea there are a lot of us who could understand the basic factors of these decisions and of the legislation which goes through Congress if someone would put it into more homely language.

I am particularly conscious of language of the moment because with every hour I spend on the bill-of-rights drafting committee of the Human Rights Commission, I realize more and more vividly how difficult it is to say things which mean the same thing to people from different parts of the world! When lawyers are doing it, they use legal language; when economists are doing it, they use financial phrases; when doctors speak, they use medical language. Each occupation or profession seems to have a phraseology of its own, and we poor ordinary people are lost in the maze.

I think probably there is something that happens almost every day to everyone of us that would illustrate some very complicated problem. But nobody thinks of using it as an illustration and we go on thinking that finance and government and medicine and so on exist in a world far beyond our power of understanding.

The people, however, do get a feeling about someone who has the courage to do what he thinks is right. And I have a feeling, too, that Congress, in overriding the President’s veto of the labor bill, may not find themselves so popular at home as they expect. No one likes the abuses in labor unions which have been ably pointed out by Westbrook Pegler and others, but such abuses are a tiny percentage of the labor movement. And organized labor does benefit all labor, whether organized or unorganized. The people have done a good deal of thinking about this particular bill!

151

June 25, 1947

NEW YORK, Tuesday – I am sure that a great many people must have read with great regret the report of the speech made by Justice Robert H. Jackson of the United States Supreme Court in which he was quoted as saying that the concept of one world was “sheer blarney.”

If Justice Jackson thinks that the people of this country did not clearly understand that we welcomed Russia as an ally in the war because she could help us to win the war and save many American lives, he must think we have very short memories. The American people remember that the Russians accepted a non-aggression pact with Germany because they were not prepared then to go to war and felt that this was the way to protect themselves for a time. When they were forced to go to war by invasion, they wanted the maximum help from the Western powers, and when we entered the war, we accepted their help. Though we knew the background, we also knew that a people who loved their own soil were going to fight to the death to protect it, and that, in doing so, they would help us to do away with Nazism and Fascism and save the lives of many of our young men.

It is not illogical to believe that these same people, if it is in their interests to do so, may find a way to build a peace together. When Wendell Willkie coined the phrase “One World,” he was of course premature if he meant that one world actually existed, but many of us believe he meant that one world would have to be made to exist if we wished to avoid the ultimate destruction of our civilization.

Civilizations have been destroyed before; they may be destroyed again. It is all a question of whether we have intelligence enough to lead the people of the world and make them believe that it is in our common interest to build one world.

What is the alternative which Justice Jackson suggests? Is it a recognition that at present the Russian form of government and the Russian beliefs are so at variance with ours that we must inevitably march towards mutual destruction? We can do that. In fact, it is the easiest thing in the world to do. I was impressed, when I was in Germany a year and a half ago, with the strides we had made in the art of destruction during the past twenty-five years.

I just wonder whether we want to continue along those lines or whether we want to try to think constructively and see if there are not ways in which two great nations may gradually work towards better understanding instead of towards complete misunderstanding. It makes me sad to have a man of the influence and standing of Justice Jackson take away the hope of youth and of many of his fellow citizens.

152

June 26, 1947

NEW YORK, Wednesday – The papers are full of the news of the number of coal miners who are just calmly walking off their jobs in protest against the Taft-Hartley labor law. Many of us have hoped for unity in this country and for the understanding, on the part of management and labor alike, that the economic salvation of the world lies in our productive capacity. Now we have created groups bitterly divided against each other.

If Congress wanted to hurt democracy and make it difficult for us to show what a united nation can do to give its people the widest distribution of opportunity through a successful, cooperative economic system, they could not have succeeded better. It will be a long time before peace will reign in the economic circles of this country.

I think the selection of Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower to head Columbia University is a very happy choice, and I am glad he has accepted. The students will certainly approve, for Gen. Eisenhower has a gift which helps him to understand young people. He showed it as a soldier and I am sure he will show it as the head of a great university. New York City will welcome him as one of its new and influential citizens.

Last night I attended a session of the annual convention of the General Federation of Women’s Clubs. They tell me there are more delegates present than they have been allowed to seat in the hotel’s big ballroom because of the fire laws. I feel sorry for those delegates who have not been able to attend the sessions they wished to attend, but there are many things in New York which visitors can find to do, so perhaps it is not quite as much of a tragedy as it might have been in a place which did not offer so many other attractions. Some of the ladies have confided to their hostesses that this is their first chance to see a real stage play and that they are certainly not going to leave New York without having been to the theater.

As I looked at the filled ballroom last night, I could not help realizing what very great power lies in the hands of women. I know only too well that direct action for them is sometimes difficult because the vast majority of women merge their lives into the lives of other people, to some extent at least. That, however, may be a great addition to their influence, because they may reach more people by the mere fact that they are tied to the interests of their families and communities.

153

June 27, 1947

HYDE PARK, Thursday – I have been taken to task for saying that the individual income-tax reduction bill of 1947 would have been of benefit to corporations, and I realize that I should have been more careful, for I know quite well that this particular bill dealt only with reduction of individual income taxes. In thinking of the whole question of taxes, however, I have always felt that there ought to be a way, when large corporations were doing as well as many of them seem to be doing at present, to keep their taxes up. The tendency, at the present time, is to give them relief as well as to relieve people in the higher-income brackets who are often associated with corporations or big business of some kind.

I feel that it would be of value if there were a way to do away with taxes on new small business enterprises until they showed a certain margin of profit, and perhaps on all such investments which are experimental but which, if successful, would create more jobs.

The income tax has always seemed to me a very fair way to tax people and I have no objection to the theory that every citizen should contribute something, but it seems to me it should be a very small percentage indeed for incomes in the lower brackets.

If Congress presents a new tax bill to the President to take effect in January instead of in July, I hope that it will be a bill which corrects some of the inequities in the first one. It should be a bill on which both the executive and the legislative branches of our Government have been able to cooperate before its provisions are finally settled upon.

In the course of the last few days I have received letters about babies and children for whom foster homes or parents have to be found. There are, of course, many worthwhile agencies that are handling this same problem. Many of these organizations find now that they have to enlarge their facilities in an effort to find foster homes, so that children who have lived in hospital wards and in temporary shelters for some time can really obtain proper care.

With additional trained workers, many of these agencies feel they could place more babies, since many childless couples are anxious to adopt them. In doing so, these reputable organizations could wipe out the scandalous, recently publicized “baby-selling racket.”

To find good foster parents and to get a child settled in a new home is well worthwhile, for that child’s whole future depends on the proper decisions being taken. One can only hope that these services will receive the encouragement of the public since today’s children mean so much to our country’s future.

154

June 28, 1947

HYDE PARK, Friday – The more I read of floods and homeless people and the tremendous losses in cash and crops, the more I wonder whether anyone remembers that once upon a time we had in the Government a special group, the National Resources Board, whose job was to study our national resources and to make recommendations for conservation and development. Had they been allowed to continue to function, this board could have helped the regular conservation agencies of the Government to prevent much of this loss.

With all these floods in the Middle West, tons of good topsoil is washed away, leaving our farmers poorer and our future less bright. We have held up the proposal for a Missouri Valley Authority, supposedly because we do not want to spend the money. If you add up all that we have lost in floods in the past five years, I think it would reach a sum of money which would have been enough to start a Missouri Valley Authority and to start the necessary work for flood control on many of the streams leading into the Mississippi River.

The States that have been benefited by the Tennessee Valley Authority are proof enough that such a project brings in good revenues and improves the life of the people over a large area. It can’t be pleasant to wake up and find yourself surrounded by water and to have your house and belongings badly damaged, as well as seeing the fields or the streets around you flooded and knowing of the loss this means to your neighborhood.

Our delay on such a program as the proposed Missouri Valley Authority shows our shortsightedness, for it would add greatly to our national wealth and the cost would be amortized in a very short time.

The papers yesterday carried a story giving another evidence of shortsightedness. This was that the General Federation of Women’s Clubs, at their convention in New York, defeated a resolution to endorse the Stratton bill which proposes that we should allow 400,000 displaced persons from Europe to come into this country in the next few years. Under this bill, we would receive people of various nationalities and religions, highly educated people like doctors and lawyers, as well as skilled workers and farm laborers – all of them people who have suffered greatly and who would come with gratitude in their hearts and with a determination to make good in their new homeland.

One delegate from Florida was most vociferous in her opposition, claiming that charity begins at home and that there are veterans coming out of our universities who are unable to find jobs. There are plenty of jobs in this country at present. It isn’t necessary to stay in Miami. Another delegate – from New York – said that we should not – take the people that Europe did not want, that they should stay in their own countries.

155

June 30, 1947

NEW YORK, Sunday – The General Federation of Women’s Clubs has fortunately reversed its stand and approved the Stratton bill providing for the entry of 400,000 displaced persons into this country. In the earlier debate, however, one member gave expression to the view, apparently shared by many people, that displaced persons should remain in their own countries and not be allowed to come here.

Perhaps the member did not realize that these displaced persons have no country. Where they once lived, there is now utter and complete destruction. They have seen their families killed and dispersed, and many of them would be suspect in the countries of their origin. Some of those countries are anxious to have them return, but not always for friendly reasons. They want them back either because they are desperately in need of workers to help rebuild, or because they claim that if displaced persons do not wish to return, they must be Fascist and therefore should be sent back for punishment.

Other people here, of course, think that the displaced persons must be Communist, or at least undesirable. Actually, just the reverse is true. Statistics show that most of the refugees who were fortunate enough to come to this country during the war years are now not only self-supporting, but employers of other people. Not a little of our success in the past has come because we have had new people coming to our country with fresh ideas and fresh determination to succeed.

I am beginning to think, from another action of the Federation, that the membership must be made up of fairly well-to-do ladies, for on Friday I read that they opposed rent controls because, they say, small owners are suffering. That seems difficult to believe. Most of the owners I speak to have been getting very fair rents in spite of controls, and at the same time they have not done any more repair work than was absolutely necessary on their property. If they had to do major repairs, of course, it would be hard now because of high prices. But by and large, nothing for rent goes begging these days. When everything is rented, that is the way small owners get the best returns on their money.

It is rather frightening to see history repeat itself. We are approximating so closely the thoughts and actions which took place after the first World War, that I should not be surprised to see us start before long on that downward path which came after the boom years of the Twenties. Perhaps there are a few boom years still before us. But having become a farmer, I hope we are not going to repeat the foolish actions which took so many farms away from the farmers and put them in the hands of the banks and insurance companies.

I am also sorry to note the cut Congress made in the appropriation for the Department of Agriculture, which reduces the soil conservation program so radically. It will be a bad blow to progress in the long-range plan for safeguarding our soil.

156

July 1, 1947

NEW YORK, Sunday – The General Federation of Women’s Clubs has fortunately reversed its stand and approved the Stratton bill providing for the entry of 400,000 displaced persons into this country. In the earlier debate, however, one member gave expression to the view, apparently shared by many people, that displaced persons should remain in their own countries and not be allowed to come here.

Perhaps the member did not realize that these displaced persons have no country. Where they once lived, there is now utter and complete destruction. They have seen their families killed and dispersed, and many of them would be suspect in the countries of their origin. Some of those countries are anxious to have them return, but not always for friendly reasons. They want them back either because they are desperately in need of workers to help rebuild, or because they claim that if displaced persons do not wish to return, they must be Fascist and therefore should be sent back for punishment.

Other people here, of course, think that the displaced persons must be Communist, or at least undesirable. Actually, just the reverse is true. Statistics show that most of the refugees who were fortunate enough to come to this country during the war years are now not only self-supporting, but employers of other people. Not a little of our success in the past has come because we have had new people coming to our country with fresh ideas and fresh determination to succeed.

I am beginning to think, from another action of the Federation, that the membership must be made up of fairly well-to-do ladies, for on Friday I read that they opposed rent controls because, they say, small owners are suffering. That seems difficult to believe. Most of the owners I speak to have been getting very fair rents in spite of controls, and at the same time they have not done any more repair work than was absolutely necessary on their property. If they had to do major repairs, of course, it would be hard now because of high prices. But by and large, nothing for rent goes begging these days. When everything is rented, that is the way small owners get the best returns on their money.

It is rather frightening to see history repeat itself. We are approximating so closely the thoughts and actions which took place after the first World War, that I should not be surprised to see us start before long on that downward path which came after the boom years of the Twenties. Perhaps there are a few boom years still before us. But having become a farmer, I hope we are not going to repeat the foolish actions which took so many farms away from the farmers and put them in the hands of the banks and insurance companies.

I am also sorry to note the cut Congress made in the appropriation for the Department of Agriculture, which reduces the soil conservation program so radically. It will be a bad blow to progress in the long-range plan for safeguarding our soil.

157

July 2, 1947

HYDE PARK, Tuesday – In Washington the other day, as I sat on the platform during President Truman’s address to the convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, I looked out over the sea of faces below us and thought how significant this meeting before the Lincoln Memorial must be to most of the people there.

Lincoln said that there should be no more slaves in our country, but he did not want to give people a freedom that meant nothing or that carried with it the bitterness of inferiority. Now, some eighty years later, we were gathered here to try really to achieve the ends which he envisioned but could not fully accomplish.

President Truman spoke words for the Government, in the presence of his Chief Justice and his Attorney General, which should give hope that tangible strides towards the fulfillment of Lincoln’s vision can now be taken. I was very proud that these words were being spoken. It made me feel that our country would be stronger because they were fearlessly spoken.

The sun made the top of the Washington Monument glisten before us, and somehow it seemed as though years of our history lay between the two monuments. And in my heart I said a prayer that this meeting might be the symbol that we really would lead the world in justice and brotherhood, and by so doing would make it possible for peace to grow in men’s hearts and justice to exist between man and man.

Sen. Wayne Morse of Oregon, who spoke first, also gave you a feeling of dedication to the new and better world of tomorrow which we may build if we are not too small, too mean and selfish, or too lacking in vision. There is no need to fight a military war with any nation on earth if we are prepared to fight on the spiritual, educational, political and economic levels for the ultimate good of mankind.

Before the meeting, I went to the White House and was happy to see Mrs. Truman and Margaret before they left for home. The White House grounds look lovely, and the house itself gleams with fresh paint. But the portico is temporarily barred off to all but pedestrians, because the storage space under the driveway has to be enlarged.

During the time we lived there, we unearthed President Jackson’s stable and thought we had done a fair job of providing new storage space. But more is now needed, and the summer is the time for making additions and repairs to the White House.

158

July 3, 1947

HYDE PARK, Wednesday – Last Monday, June 30th, UNRRA officially came to an end. This agency, established during the war, was the first great international organization to begin work after the war.

When it was decided last winter that we would not continue to support an international relief organization, I felt a certain sense of defeat. Much that was said at the time was true. We were told that Congress would appropriate no more money for relief administered on an international basis because they felt that, in certain countries, UNRRA funds had been used for political purposes by the governments in power. But when I listen now to what some of the people in Congress say, I wonder if we meant that we wanted to be sure these relief supplies were going to be controlled for our political purposes!

That may be wise, and perhaps starvation is a necessary threat to hold over people’s heads. But I can’t help thinking that, when we use such a threat, we are doing exactly what we blame others for having done. I wish that we could have gone on with an international organization for relief and rehabilitation and reformed that organization, instead of doing the job on the basis of helping people whom we alone decide are worth helping.

The decision is made, however, and we can only hope that it will be possible for us to give relief on a purely non-political basis, governed only by the needs of the people involved.

I liked very much the statement made by Maj. Gen. Lowell W. Rooks, Director General of UNRRA, on the eve of the closing of all UNRRA missions in Europe. He recounted their achievements, which are considerable. Many nations have been tided over the critical period immediately following the war. And though we cannot look with equanimity on present conditions in Europe, still if there had been no relief of this kind, Europe would have been far worse off.

UNRRA’s administration was sadly hampered at first when shipping was needed to win the war, and it was not until March 1945, two months before V-E Day, that their first full shipment was dispatched. Shipping was always one of their great difficulties. Once in Europe, they had good cooperation from the armies in moving staffs and supplies.

When UNRRA shipments are completed, the organization will have delivered nearly $3,000,000,000 worth of supplies in seventeen different countries. The value of relief provided after World War I was only about a third of what UNRRA has succeeded in distributing. It has conducted the largest peacetime shipping operation in world history.

About $1,000,000,000 was spent to help rehabilitate the internal economies of the receiving countries. $160,000,000 went for medical aid. $200,000,000 went for agricultural equipment, seeds, draft animals, tractors, and so on.

This is the beginning from which Secretary of State Marshall’s economic plan can take off. We salute UNRRA for work accomplished. And we have high hopes for the recovery of Europe through its own efforts and through the help which Secretary Marshall has proposed.

159

July 4, 1947

HYDE PARK, Thursday – I am very happy to see that in celebrating the Fourth of July, we are increasingly trying to make it a day of patriotic observance but without quite so much noise and danger to the young! I am sure that there is less excitement about a “safe and sane” Fourth but perhaps more real thought is given to the reasons which lead us to celebrate this Day.

The Declaration of Independence was a very great document. The men who wrote it, nearly all of them fairly young men, were of extraordinary calibre. There were very few of us in those days in the United States and we were a weak country compared to the great nations overseas. The tables are reversed today, we are the strong people and the nations overseas look to us for help. Just because we are strong, we are going through difficult times.

It is almost impossible for a nation that has as many potentialities as we have not to be selfish. When we realize that most of the men who left our shores to fight in far distant places, have returned with a greater perception and appreciation of their native land, we know that we will have to be careful or we will be arrogant as well as selfish. As a matter of fact, on the Fourth of July, we have much cause for humility. The war has been over for two years but we have not yet achieved a peaceful world, much less a world that we can honestly believe is beginning to go forward under its own power.

In spite of all we have, we are afraid, much more afraid than our ancestors who wrote the Declaration of Independence. They had the courage to take in people from all parts of the old world and they felt sure that they could weld them into one nation. We are fearful about taking in a paltry 400,000 for fear that they will upset our economy or be a bad influence in our body politic.

The General Federation of Women’s Clubs, at their annual meeting in New York City voted down the resolution to support the Stratton Bill. There could be only two reasons: one – that they thought the people who might come here would be undesirable; two – that they might upset our economy by adding to the labor supply when some people fear unemployment is drawing near. It did not seem to occur to anyone that this gesture to the suffering people of the world called for a little courage, some ingenuity and planning but that the difficulties involved would certainly not have daunted those among our ancestors who signed the Declaration of Independence.

I wish that on this Fourth of July we would rededicate ourselves to the great truths expressed in this Declaration and realize again that it is through the sharing of our great opportunities with the other people of the world that we have come to be a great nation.

160

July 5, 1947

HYDE PARK, Friday – Riding into New York City early yesterday morning on a very slow train, I had ample opportunity to read the whole of Mr. Molotov’s statement at the conference of Foreign Ministers in Paris. I had already read Secretary Marshall’s speech replying to the Soviet charges of imperialism.

I must say, after reading Mr. Molotov’s statement, that I was very much saddened. The examples which he used as to what the United States, or the committee setup, might demand, were utterly foolish. When you are lending your money, even to a private individual, you like to know the exact conditions which exist, and you wish to have at least a suggestion of the way in which the money will be used. If you approve of the plan, you take the risk.

Lending money is a risk, and it would show very little interest on our part if we did not make some inquiries into the situation and the future plans. This is especially important where it seems probable that money alone will not fully meet the situation, and that we might be asked in addition to provide skilled technicians and workers on various levels. That does not mean that we want to control the internal situation in other countries. They are free to refuse a loan. If they take it, it is reasonable that they give a certain amount of information.

Mr. Molotov knows as well as anyone else that we have no desire to control the economic plans of any nation or to take away their sovereignty. We have never tried to infiltrate in Russia and set up a party against the government. The Soviet government might well say that they would not permit that, but they are always rather annoyed when we complain about the political activities in many countries – activities which they must at least have countenanced at some time.

I realize that it must be very hard for them not to think that in this country, as a government and as a majority, people are opposed to the Russian nation. I wish they might remember, however, that the newspapers here represent individual owners and their own particular readers – and not the government or the majority of the people. I wish they might also realize that, while we believe in capitalism and in democracy, we are quite willing to let them believe in collectivism and communism.

We feel, nevertheless, that all other people in the world should be free to make their own choice. If a very great nation like Russia is so very strict in its control at home when it gains political and military influence, it may be strict in other countries. For that reason we want nations, large and small, to act freely and to make their choice without fearing the influence of well-organized minority groups within their borders.

The Marshall plan is a bona fide offer to help Europe get back on its feet. Mr. Molotov, in refusing to join the rest of Europe, is creating the very thing he says he fears, which is division instead of cooperation.