Page images

Without deprecating the sincerity of the sponsors of these projects, nor in any way discounting the value of the projects themselves, practical business reasoning compels us to point out to most of these petitioners the irrefutable fact that the Federal Treasury is not inexhaustible.

The national park system each year draws increasing millions of visitors. Travel to the historical areas alone in the system has increased from around 5 million in 1945 to 16 million in 1953. This means that 1 person out of every 10 in the United States visited a historic area last year.

More than a million persons viewed Independence Hall last year; more than a half million walked through the portals of Fort McHenry, the siege of which inspired the writing of The Star-Spangled Banner; and more than 200,000 schoolchildren visited the Lincoln Memorial in Washington.

To provide proper safeguards for the safety and convenience of these millions of visitors requires great sums of money.

Another heavy financial burden is placed on the Federal Government in the discharge of its responsibility to handle the millions who visit the national parks.

In fact, there has always been difficulty in securing adequate appropriations to maintain properly the facilities already a part of the system.

I am reluctant, therefore, to support any request for additions to the system until the present facilities can be brought up to standard. This can only be done by bigger appropriations, and in view of the administration's determined effort to balance the budget, any expansions in the park system in the immediate future appear to be foreclosed.

In the meantime, however, the park system is prepared to make available its scientific and technical skills to local groups, to States, and cities to assist any worthwhile local effort to develop historic areas or to aid in the proper planning and operation of local park systems.

Frankly, that is the best way to encourage and to develop this movement. Local control, authority at home instead of from Washington, will insure the continued support and cooperation of local people.

[merged small][ocr errors]

When he took his seat in the United States Senate, he brought to that body the valuable experience gained in many years of public service and devotion to the public welfare.

He served in the ranks as a soldier in World War I.

He served as a Senator in the legislature of his native State.

In recognition of his outstanding ability and his constructive statesmanship the people of his congressional district elected him for five successive terms in the House of Representatives.

He is now serving his first term in the United States Senate-and it is one of my great privileges to be associated with him as fellow members of the Senate Committee on Public Works.

My fellow Americans, with extreme pleasure and sincere pride, I present a great American, my good friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from Maryland, the Honorable J. GLENN BEALL.

ADDRESS OF SENATOR J. GLENN BEALL Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, this 200th anniversary of the Battle of Fort Necessity is an inspiring occasion, and it is a fitting one to rekindle in our hearts the patriotism which ennobled George Washington and to rededicate ourselves to the basic beliefs and ideals on which this Nation was founded.

On July 4, 1754, when the youthful commander marched away from this fort, no one could possibly have imagined the momentous events which would follow.

Let us, then, endeavor to put this engagement in its proper historic perspective. In 1754 the vastness of America was not even remotely appreciated. The colonists had partly penetrated the wilderness of America, and both England and France were rivaling for control of the seas, and the new land in America and India.

The French, moving in through Quebec, were building a defense line which reached to New Orleans. The English, acting primarily through their east-coast Colonies, were anxious to limit the advances of the French.

In Europe, the nations of Germany, Austria, Spain, and Russia, were gradually being drawn into the progressing conflict between France and England. The crowned heads of Europe were forming uneasy alliances, doomed not to succeed and which would bring to an end the reign of many an unhappy, incompetent, king and queen.

Here in America the colonists were looking with increasing concern over the string of small French forts established just beyond the Alleghenies. Small contingents were armed and sent out on scouting expeditions. When the colonists were sufficiently alarmed, troops were dispatched to warn the French out of the area.

On March 24, 1754, Governor James Glen, of South Carolina, in a message to the State Assembly made a significant statement. "Up tc this time," he declared, "the Colonies have acted as entirely separate and independent States." Benjamin Franklin was impelled to utter his famous declaration "Unite or die."

In April 1754, a small force from Virginia and South Carolina, led by Col. Joshua Fry and assisted by the 22-year-old George Washington, was at Wills Creek. Near the end of May, Fry died, and Washington was left in command. He was soon commissioned a colonel.

By July 1 Washington was at Great Meadows, and shortly before noon on July 3, 1754, a force of about 600 French and Indians appeared against Washington, who had a troop half that number.

On July 4 a truce was negotiated and Washington withdrew, unaware of the great damage his men had inflicted on an enemy with superior forces. The Battle of Fort Necessity had been a brief, small skirmish in the wilderness of an unexplored land.

However, with the hindsight of history that event can now be fully appreciated, and what is even more rare there was one man who recognized its significance even then. That was the prince of literary men, Voltaire, who was moved to write, “A cannon shot fired in the woods of America was the signal that sent all Europe in a blaze." Let us review what followed. George Washington here at Fort Necessity was taking the first concerted action by the Colonies, which would ultimately culminate in the Revolutionary War for Independence.

The battle marked the beginning of the French and Indian War in America, destined to forever remove France as a power in the New World.

The 2-day conflict between English and French forces provoke their national rivalry so that they engaged in the Seven Years War, which brought chaos and disaster in Europe and changed the maps of three continents.

The Seven Years War was to reveal to the French people that they were victims of a

system which had developed almost countless evils. It was to show that France was ruled by an absolute, divine right monarch; that monarch, Louis XV, was morally too slack to lead, and that whatever central control there was in France was exercised by the King's official mistress, Madame de Pompadour.

These events in France were leading inescapably to the Revolution of 1789, which changed the course of French history.

In England conditions were hardly better than in France, and the British effort was uncoordinated; but the English did produce as the English seem to possess a rare ability to do-a capable leader by the name of William Pitt. We named what was to become one of the great industrial cities of the world here in western Pennsylvania after the Prime Minister who led his country's successful effort to end any French empire in America and started England off on its empire program. The British were obligated to organize that expanding empire— and the resulting problems were to be the primary concern of Great Britain from that day to this.

The Peace of Paris, ending the Seven Years War, was signed in 1763, and exactly 20 years later the British were to sign another Peace of Paris, this time relinquishing the American Colonies and recognizing the United States of America, which had been led to victory by Gen. George Washington. The battle established Washington's reputation as a competent military commander, and brought him the prominence which was to influence his selection as General of the Continental Armies, and make him the unanimous choice as the first President of the United States.

Thus, we see that as a result of a small battle at an isolated outpost named "Fort Necessity," the history of the world was decisively changed.

In these tedious and perilous times we do not know just where a modern battle of Fort Necessity may occur. History may prove that it was in Korea, Indochina, or perhaps some other far-off, unknown spot where a single rifle shot may explode world war III.

We, and the nations of the free world, desire peace, frown on appeasement, and fear war. We are treading the dangerous, sinister path which can lead to a long period of uneasy peace or to the cataclysm of modern war.

On the National Archives Building in Washington there is inscribed "What Is Past, Is Prologue,” and if there is any point in studying history it is to learn how to conduct our affairs in the future.

History quite often seems to repeat itself; the words of great men at times seem more descriptive of a particular situation than anything which might be said today. We can learn from the past, and a circular to the States which George Washington wrote in 1783 seems to me most applicable today. Washington wrote as follows:

"The foundation of our empire was not laid in the gloomy age of ignorance and superstition, but at an epoch when the rights of mankind were better understood and more clearly defined, than at any former period, the researches of the human mind, after social happiness, have been carried to a great extent, the treasures of knowledge, acquired by the labors of philosophers, sages, and legislatures, through a long succession of years, are laid open for our use, and their collected wisdom may be happily applied in the establishment of our forms of government; the free cultivation of letters, the unbounded extension of commerce, the progressive refinement of manners, the growing liberalty of sentiment, and above all, the pure and benign light of revelation, have had a meliorating influence on' mankind and increased the blessings of society. At this auspicious period, the United States came into existence as a nation, and if their

citizens should not be completely free and happy, the fault will be entirely their own.

"Such is our situation, and such are our prospects; but notwithstanding the cup of blessing is thus reached out to us, notwithstanding happiness is ours, if we have a disposition to seize the occasion and make it our own; yet, it appears to me there is an option still left to the United States of America, that it is in their choice, and depends upon their conduct whether they will be respectable and prosperous, or contemptable and miserable as a nation; this is the time of their political probation, this is the moment when the eyes of the whole world are turned upon them, this is the moment to establish or ruin their national character forever."

There is much wisdom in these words by Washington, especially in his description of the intellectual atmosphere which prevailed and made possible the establishment of a government dedicated to securing the rights of man.

That those citizens who have preceded us fufilled the desires and aspirations of Washington by securing and continuing the blessings of society can be evidenced by the high standard of living which this Nation has enjoyed, and the freedoms which are the rights of every person in the United States.

Washington, however, warned that there is another option, and I believe it is an option facing us today; that it is within the choice of the people of this country and depends upon their conduct, whether they will be respectable and prosperous, or contemptible and miserable as a nation.

More than at any other time in our history, I believe, that alternative exists today. The people of every other nation are watching the conduct of the United States. Some are watching our conduct in the hope that we can lead the nations of the world in establishing peace, however uneasy that peace might be. Others are watching us with the hope that we will fail in that goal. There are yet others, in nations maintaining a posture of neutrality, who are watching us suspiciously, unsure whether our leadership can succeed.

How we conduct our affairs in our contacts and relations with other nations, and even how we conduct our internal affairs here in the United States, can very well determine whether our future is to be blessed with an era of peace or the holocaust of atomic war.

There is no pat formula or slogan, there is no rigid inflexible policy, which, if accepted, can lead to the peace and prosperity which we seek.

I personally do not accept the appeasement, and nonaggression pact suggestions which have been made by some of the outstanding world statesmen. Neither do I accept the idea that we must meet our enemy in mortal conflict and hand over the spoils

to the victor.

There must be found a middleway; there is surely some alternative to world war and complete appeasement of the Communists. I believe that under the leadership of President Eisenhower that this Nation can find respectable and honorable alternatives, thereby avoiding a recurrence of such events as those of 200 years ago which led to so many wars and social upheavals.

However, I believe that the United States of America cannot offer successful world leadership merely by defending the status quo. The rise of nationalism in many parts of the world, similar to that which occurred here in the United States 200 years ago, demands that we offer leadership which will permit these people and particularly those in Asia to gain the respectability of selfgovernment and the blessings which modern society has to give.

Here in Fayette County there are a good many people of Polish, Czechoslovakian

and Austrian descent, as well as from other small European nations. Today those countries are under Soviet oppression, and many of you have friends and relatives living behind the Communist Iron Curtain. You know better than I can tell you that communism means the revocation of all personal liberties and security.

I ask that you today join with me in rededicating ourselves to the honored traditions of the United States. A knowledge of our history car lead to a better understanding of world problems.

George Washington is reported to have once said, "With our fate will the destiny of unborn millions be involved." Our fate seems to be hanging suspended between war and peace and how we conduct ourselves in the immediate future will determine the destiny of all who follow us.

Our responsibility is great, let us pray that our conduct as a people and a nation is in the tradition of Washington, and that our descendants will respect and honor us as we do those great men who founded this Nation.


Ohio, recognized the strategic importance of the present site of the city of Pittsburgh. He noted his observations in his journal in these words and I quote:

"I spent some time viewing the rivers and the land in the fork, which I think extremely well situated for a fort as it has absolute control of both rivers."

Washington's suggestion was approved. The first attempt to build a fort at the point was defeated by the French. They strongly fortified the place, calling it Fort Duquesne.

The story of General Braddock's disastrous expedition against Fort Duquesne need not be repeated here, nor the march of General Forbes that raised the British flag over the ruins of Fort Duquesne after the French had set it afire and retreated.


The Forbes campaign of 1758 brought to a close one chapter of Washington's military The next chapter opened when the Second Continental Congress on June 15, 1775, unanimously elected him as commander in chief of its armies.

Earlier in the year he had been chosen by the Virginia Legislature as a delegate to the Continental Congress which was to meet in Philadelphia.

One biographer pictures Washington riding through the gateway of Mount Vernon on May 4, 1775, and states that when he turned his horse's head northward his career as a

On this sacred soil, sanctified by the blood of patriots, we meet in humble and reverent acknowledgment of our everlasting debt to the sublime character and majestic greatness Virginian ended and his career as an Ameriof George Washington.

We meet in commemoration of an event which had outstanding importance in the vast drama of human progress.

Here was enacted the first stirring scene in the glorious pageant of American liberty which culminated in the War for Independence and the birth of a new Nation, destined under God, to lead the world in material, cultural, and spiritual power.

For here, at Fort Necessity, George Washington was in command of Colonial troops engaged in the first united action on the part of the Colonies in defense of the western frontier against the hostile French and Indians.

For the youthful Colonel Washington, then at the age of 22, it was his first military combat and he emerged with the honors of war if not with victory.

In the language of this atomic age it might be said that it started a chain reaction which altered the course of world history and changed the map of three continents.

Historians have delved deeply into every phase of George Washington's illustrious career and his monumental achievements. His writings and his speeches have been studied with extreme care. The facts of his life as a planter, soldier, and statesman have been given the most exacting examination. Innumerable biographies of Washington have been published in almost every language of the globe.

But as we look back 200 years to his first combat engagement, we see a boy of 22, whose courage and character had been shaped by self-discipline, tireless energy, exposure to hardship and danger, devotion to duty, reverence for honor and truth, and a firm and abiding trust in God.

There can be no doubt that his contacts with the trappers, traders, and homesteaders of the western wilderness strengthened Washington's faith in his country and his fellowmen, his self-reliance, and his patriotism.

As a citizen, surveyor, and young soldier he saw the land he was to lead in battle against the mightiest military and naval power of his time.

Think of his dauntless courage as he set out on his first important mission—a journey of 1,000 miles through the snow-covered wilderness to deliver Governor Dinwiddie's ultimatum demanding that the French evacuate all the territory claimed by Virginia. It was on this perilous journey that the youthful soldier, reaching the forks of the

can began.

It is not necessary to relate to this distinguished audience the trials and tribulations, the hardships and heartbreaks, of those dark days of gloom and discouragement that followed.

Truly they were times that tried men's souls. We can only marvel at the patience, perseverance, and self-control of the great military leader who never lost faith in the final outcome.

Washington did not despair. Defeats were merely temporary setbacks. Every new disaster was met with new and firmer conviction that freemen, fighting for liberty, could not be defeated.

Surely Washington's faith in God sustained him in those difficult times. In victory and defeat his orders called upon his troops to attend divine services whenever it was possible to do so.

In one such order, issued when the Declaration of Independence was read to his troops, General Washington revealed his belief that liberty and religious faith are interwoven.

He stated, and I quote:

"The blessing and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary but especially so in times of public distress and danger. The general hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor so to live and act, as becomes a Christian soldier defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country."

The same spirit, linking religion and patriotism, was shown in a similar order issued at Valley Forge when General Washington received the welcome news that France had signed a treaty of alliance with the United States.

Washington's order directed the divine services be held each Sunday at 11 o'clock and then continued:

"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers we ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of patriot it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."

Two more references by George Washington to religion and morality are worth recalling on this occasion.

One was uttered when he was presiding over the Constitutional Convention in Independence Hall. It was suggested that some popular provisions be placed in the Constitution to please the people and to facilitate its adoption.

Washington rose. His voice was choked with emotion as he said:

"If to please the people we offer what we ourselves disapprove how can we afterwards defend our work?"

Then he added:

"Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair. The event is in the hands of God."

The other came when he prepared to put aside the cares and problems of the Presidential office.

In his famous Farewell Address Washington admonished his fellow citizens that religion and morality are the indispensable supports of political prosperity-the great pillars of human happiness. In that great American document Washington said:

"Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. * * * Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

The career of George Washington places before us a never to be forgotten lesson in loyalty, patriotism, devotion to our country, and faith in its sacred ideals.

Washington lived those ideals.

His integrity, his supreme sense of honor, his spirit of justice, and his conception of a greater United States all combined to fashion his fame.

His statesmanship reached the highest level because he had the courage to direct a government based on the concept that freedom of the individual is God's greatest gift to mankind.

Under that plan, in less than 200 years, free Americans have built the richest, the soundest, and the strongest Nation of all history. It was built on the solid foundation of equal justice, equal opportunity, and equal right to live, work, and succeed.

We have learned in peace and war that each generation must buy its freedom with sacrifice, sweat, tears, and blood.

The principles for which we must work and fight are the same today as in Washington's time.

The same freedoms, the same independence, the same way of life; the pursuit of the same happiness, the same rights of property, the same freedom of speech, of press, of religion, and of assembly-yes; the same freedom of action and enterprise.

Washington hated tyranny. If he were alive today he would fight communism with all the strength and vigor at his command.

He hated disloyalty. He hated dishonesty. Let us be inspired by his example to insist that everyone holding public office must be thoroughly honest-a true servant of the people, appreciating public office as a public trust.

Let us demand absolute loyalty from everyone in the Government service. Divided allegiance has no place in the American way of life.

Let us, like Washington, have the courage to be real Americans. We can pay no greater tribute to his immortal memory.


LEY AUTHORITY POWER Mr. HILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD the text of a letter which has been sent to President Eisenhower by the Tennessee Valley Public Power Association with reference to the proposed contract whereby the Atomic Energy Commission, under a directive of the President, would serve as a broker in the purchase of power for the Tennessee Valley Authority.

The municipally and cooperatively owned members of the power associa

tion are the major distributing agencies of TVA power. They have investments of some $400 million in this partnership with the Federal Government through its agency, the TVA. They have demonstrated most successfully how Federal, State, and local agencies can cooperate in the development of the Nation's power resources for the benefit of all the American people.

As the partner of the Government, they have a vital interest in the contract which AEC now is negotiating with the Dixon-Yates group and they are, in my opinion; quite properly protesting the signing of such a contract with a private utility combine.

So far the power distribution in the Tennessee Valley have been completely ignored in these negotiations. My colleagues and I are determined that their interests shall not be ignored.

There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:


JULY 6, 1954.

The White House, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: Please allow us to say in the very beginning that our organization is not concerned solely with a theory of government, but is very vitally concerned with what is going to happen to an investment of over $400 million that we have made in the distribution end of the Tennessee Valley power system. We became partners with the Federal Government a good many years ago. The Federal Government now has an investment of roughly $800 million in the power end of TVA and we, the people of the Tennessee Valley, have an investment of about $400 million. We believe this will explain to you our very keen interest in this subject.

In your recent press conference you stated that you wished to examine the Tennessee Valley power supply situation from every angle. At the same time you stated that you had instructed the Atomic Energy Commission to enter into an arrangement that This would make such a study pointless. arrangement, to buy power from the MidSouth-Southern Co. combine at Memphis, would be for a 25-year period and would cost the Federal Government a minimum of $90 million to $150 million in excess of other ways of securing the same block of power. The effect of the arrangement would be to weaken and ultimately to destroy the most efficient power supply system in the country. The Dixon-Yates arrangement would not facilitate a study; it would be choosing an answer before the study has been made. We respectfully urge that the Dixon-Yates proposal be rejected.

We have followed closely the developments in connection with the Dixon-Yates proposal, including the letters from the Director of the Bureau of the Budget which were read in the hearings of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy on June 17, and the testimony of the AEC at that hearing. These trouble us greatly.

First, we are concerned, because it seems clear that the proposed arrangements will not provide an adequate supply of power for the region's growing needs. We know from experience that these requirements are growing at a normal rate of about 750,000 kilowatts a year.

Therefore we were troubled when your budget message spoke in terms of 500,000 to 600,000 kilowatts as the amount by which TVA's supply for this area's loads might be increased by reducing its deliveries to AEC. Now we find that out of 600,000 kilowatts proposed to be obtained from Dixon-Yates, TVA is expected to find not only enough power for normal-load growth but

some 135,000 to 175,000 kilowatts for new load at Oak Ridge. This is in spite of the fact that your budget message said that “in the event * * * new defense loads develop, the question of starting additional generating units by the Tennessee Valley Authority will be reconsidered."

Second, we are concerned about the prospects of unnecessary increased power costs. We had understood from your budget mescage that any arrangements for AEC to buy power from other sources would be a matter between AEC and the other supplier. However, the letters of Budget Director Hughes state that the power would not be bought by AEC for its own use, with a reduction in TVA's commitment to AEC. Instead the power would be bought by AEC for TVA's use, and the testimony before the joint committee indicates that AEC expects TVA to pay the bulk of the extra costs to the Govern

ment of the Dixon-Yates power-extra costs estimated at $90 million to $150 million over the life of the proposed contract. The only part of these costs that AEC expects to pay is the taxes which the Dixon-Yates group would pay in Arkansas and which would be a duplication of the payments in lieu of taxes that TVA will bear in Tennessee and other States upon its sale of this power. We know from experience that TVA can be depended upon to obtain its power at the lowest possible cost. We do not have the same confidence that our needs will be met by AEC and Dixon-Yates with power of the lowest possible cost.

Third, we are apprehensive about the continued operation at maximum efficiency of an integrated regional power system designed to meet the power needs of an integrated area. We see in the Dixon-Yates proposal the introduction of divided management and divided responsibility, with a portion of this power system having no franchise in the area and coming in under terms negotiated with an agency which also has no responsibility for the region's power supply. We cannot believe that you are knowingly and intentionally requiring us, without local determination, to place our power supply problems again in the hands of these power systems who have fought us so bitterly ever since we made the choice by popular vote in favor of service from TVA. It took a generation of effort to free this region from the holding companies of which the Dixon-Yates companies are the successors. The DixonYates proposal is an effort to sell this area back to the power trust. It would be by Federal dictation, without the sort of local initiative and responsibility which we understand that you and the other leaders in your administration are anxious to encourage. Furthermore, the transfer of load would be made without a corresponding transfer of public utility responsibility to adjust the supply at all times to the growing power needs. For these reasons and those stated in the preceding paragraphs, we do not believe Dixon-Yates syndicate and AEC should determine the arrangements under which TVA is to furnish power for distribution by us to the 5 million people of this region.

In connection with our apprehension about the continued operation of a regional power system designed to serve the region, we also find it impossible to believe that you have been correctly informed about the power supply activities of TVA, in light of your press comments construing as a possible threat of TVA expansion into adjoining areas, the recommendation by TVA of a steam plant near the periphery of the area it serves. For practically a decade the area supplied by TVA power has not changed by as much as 1 percent. Memphis was one of TVA's first customers. It has been buying large amounts of power from TVA since 1938. The plant that TVA proposed to build at the Fulton site north of Memphis, like the Shawnee plant at Paducah, is smaller-not larger-than the known TVA loads in the

vicinity. TVA has a record of cooperative operating relationships with neighboring systems. In the light of all these facts, to interpret such TVA plants as a threat to expand into adjoining areas is to adopt a point of view heretofore suggested only in the wildest charges of spokesmen for the private power lobby.

Fourth, interested as we are in the welfare of the entire Nation, as well as our own region, we object to the wastefulness of an uneconomic investment. This scheme would place a plant at an uneconomical location; it would require an extra investment in transmission, extra cost of transportation of coal, and extra consumption of fuel, labor, and materials to offset the energy lost in unnecessary longer transmission. This scheme would require unnecessary duplication of State and local tax payments in two areas. It would involve unnecessarily high interest costs for money borrowed on the strength of the Government's credit. It was clear from the testimony before the joint committee that there is no doubt in the minds of anyone that these extra costs exist; the only question is whether they amount to as little as $3,685,000 a year (a large amount in itself) or to more than $52 million a year. For all these reasons, we are compelled to protest against the proposed Dixon-Yates contract.

In urging rejection of the Dixon-Yates proposal, we are only too well aware that the delays to date make it very late in this session of Congress to be expecting appropriation of funds for major expansion of TVA's generating capacity. We are also painfully

aware of the grave effects on this region of further postponement of new power generating capacity. Instead of the capacity being provided in advance of load growth, as should always be done, the construction of new capacity in this area is already being allowed for a second year to lag behind demands. Nevertheless, even though in 1957 this entire region must stop its forward economic march for a period corresponding to any further delays in action now, we would rather bear that burden than to start down a road which, in our judgment, can only lead to mounting economic waste and multiplying obstacles to sound regional development.

In view of the many agencies of the Government that are concerned in this matter, as well as the great public interest in it, we are sending copies of this letter to the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, the AEC Commissioners, and TVA Directors, members of the Appropriations Committees, and the press.

Respectfully yours,


By R. V. TAYLOR, President.

food supplies to Mexican communities food supplies to Mexican communities hit by the floods.

The work of the American Red Cross has been magnificent.

According to information furnished me by R. T. Schaeffer, National Director of Red Cross Disaster Services, approximately 2,000 families on the Texas side of the river have applied for assistance. They are being provided it. The cost will be in excess of $500,000.

The president of the American Red Cross, after conference with the Mexican Ambassador to the United States, offered the assistance of the American Red Cross to Mexico people affected. The American Ambassador to Mexico passed on to the Mexican Red Cross the information that the American Red Cross was prepared to assist to the extent of $50,000, either in cash or relief supplies. This offer of assistance was accepted. The relief is being extended in the form of food, clothing, and medical supplies.

The Fourth Army, which has headquarters in San Antonio, Tex., provided field kitchens and personnel to prepare food for flood victims on both sides of the river. Both the Army and the Air Force are to be commended in the highest terms for the outstanding service they rendered in this emergency.

A pontoon bridge went into operation between Laredo and Nuevo Laredo at 4:15 Tuesday afternoon, replacing the permanent structure swept away by the flood. A temporary bridge also has been established across the Rio Grande at Eagle Pass.

I am informed that, thanks to the prompt receipt of medical supplies, there appears to be no danger of an outbreak of either typhoid or malaria.

I have received a communication from His Excellency, Manuel Tello, Mexican Ambassador to the United States, expressing his personal appreciation and the gratitude of the Mexican Government for the passage last Thursday by the Senate of the concurrent resolution and for the emergency aid given Mexican people by agencies of our Government.

On behalf of the people of Texas, I express similar appreciation.

The cooperative effort between the United States and the Republic of Mexico has been most effective. It is my hope and belief that similar cooperation will mark accomplishment of the task

RELIEF FOR FLOOD VICTIMS ALONG which lies ahead-the permanent re


Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, on Thursday of last week I introduced for myself and my colleague, the junior Senator from Texas [Mr. DANIEL], a resolution expressing the desire of Congress that the United States offer any aid possible to victims in Texas and Mexico of the devastating floods along the Rio Grande. This resolution was promptly agreed to by the Senate.

I wish today to advise the Senators that much has been done. The Army and Air Force have been most cooperative in meeting Red Cross requests for medical supplies, transportation, personnel, and cooking equipment. The Civil Defense Administration, through its régional office, went promptly to work. The State Department acted with speed to help make possible the sending of

habilitation of the flood victims on both des of the Rio Grande.


Mr. BUTLER. Mr. President, during the latter part of June I attended a luncheon at the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. It was my great privilege and pleasure on that occasion to sit next to Mr. John W. Davis, formerly Democratic nominee for President of the United States, and certainly one of the most outstanding constitutional lawyers of our time. During the course of the luncheon I had the opportunity to talk with Mr. Davis concerning constitutional questions in which we have a common interest, including Senate Joint Resolution 44, which I introduced on

February 16, 1953, which overwhelmingly passed the Senate on May 11 last, and which I am most anxious be not now lost in these closing days of the 83d Congress.

Mr. Davis so completely answered the two principal objections made to the joint resolution during the course of the debate that I asked him if he would send a letter to the President of the United States and to the Democratic leadership of the House setting forth his views on the subject.

Senators will recall that during the debate the two principal objections made to the joint resolution were, first, that it had not been given sufficient study prior to passage by the Senate, and secondly, that it served no real purpose, and hence constituted but another "tinker" with the Constitution.

I asked Mr. Davis if I might deliver his letter to the President to which he agreed and which I did. Upon that occasion I asked the President if I might make the letter public, because I felt that it was of such great interest generally, and particularly to Members of Congress, that it should be made public. The President willingly agreed, subject to approval by Mr. Davis.

I then communicated with Mr. Davis, and he agreed that the letter might be made public. I also communicated with Mr. RAYBURN, the minority leader of the House of Representatives, and he agreed to permit the letter to him from Mr. Davis to be made public.

I therefore ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the body of the RECORD at this point as a part of my remarks the letter from Mr. Davis to the President of the United States and the letter from Mr. Davis to Hon. SAM RAYBURN.

There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:


NEW YORK, N. Y., June 29, 1954. White House,

Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: A resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution, known as Senate Joint Resolution 44, having passed the Senate is now pending in the House. I venture to commend this proposal to your favorable consideration should any occasion offer for your attention to it.

In summary, the amendment proposes to fix at nine the number of Justices of the Supreme Court, to remove from Congress in constitutional cases the power to impair the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and to require all Federal judges having appointments during good behavior to retire upon reaching the age of 75.

In general, I do not profess to be a friend of repeated amendments to the Federal Constitution. Especially do I deplore those amendments which are predicated on imaginary or hypothetical dangers or represent attempts to improve on the fundamental structure of our Government. Of these it can only be said that "Striving to better, oft we mar what's well."

This particular amendment, however, is designed to prevent the repetition of unfortunate incidents such as have already octrol the decisions of the Supreme Court by curred. There have been attempts to conincreasing its membership. There is at least one historic case where Congress, to prevent decision on a constitutional question, withdrew the case from the Court's jurisdiction.

[blocks in formation]

NEW YORK, N. Y., June 29, 1954. Hon. SAMUEL RAYBURN,

House Office Building,

Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. RAYBURN: I venture to express the hope that despite the pressure of legislative business the House will find time before adjournment to give its approval to Senate Joint Resolution 44, the proposed constitutional amendment fixing at 9 the number of Justices of the Supreme Court, removing from Congress in constitutional cases the power to impair the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and requiring all Federal judges with lifetime appointments to retire upon reaching 75.

In its editorial of May 19 the New York Times said: "This is a good time, when no such issue is before the country, to reinforce the inviolability and integrity of the Supreme Court."

The matter of forestalling future cyclical attacks upon the independence of the judiciary has been given intensive study for many years. As long ago as 1946 the Association of the Bar of the City of New York appointed a special committee to study the problem. In the following year it recommended a constitutional amendment including substantially the provisions that eventually became the proposed amendment now before the House. Thereafter similar approval was given by a committee of the New York State Bar Association, of which I was a member. The American Bar Association in 1950 added its endorsement after thorough study by distinguished committees and debates in its house of delegates at several annual meetings.

When the Senate voted it had before it the report of its Judiciary Committee, at whose hearing Justice Owen J. Roberts; Harrison Tweed, president of the American Law Institute; and several spokesmen of the American Bar Association from various parts of the country gave oral testimony.

In my opinion, Senate Joint Resolution 44 would plug up two dangerous loopholes in the judicial article of the Constitution, thereby safeguarding the separation of our Government into its legislative, executive, and judicial parts and as the Constitution contemplated.

Believe me, with warmest personal regards,
Sincerely yours,


The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CARLSON in the chair). Is there any further morning business?

Mr. CAPEHART. I shall be glad to yield to the Senator from Montana [Mr. MANSFIELD], who I understand desires to speak.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California will state it.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Has the unfinished business been laid before the Senate?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is inquiring whether there is any further morning business. If not, the Chair lays before the Senate the unfinished business.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 3589) to provide for the independent management of the ExportImport Bank of Washington under a Board of Directors, to provide for the representation of the bank on the National Advisory Council on International Monetary and Financial Problems and to increase the bank's lending authority. Mr. MANSFIELD obtained the floor. Mr. CAPEHART. Mr. President, will the Senator from Montana yield? Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield for a question.

Mr. CAPEHART. I do not believe there is any opposition to the pending measure. It was reported unanimously by the Committee on Banking and Currency, and was discussed at some length the other day. Unless Senators have questions about the measure I should like to suggest that we could pass the bill. It has been reported without amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Montana yield for that purpose?

Mr. MANSFIELD. I shall be glad to yield for that purpose for 2 or 3 minutes, provided I do not lose the floor.

Mr. CAPEHART. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Montana may yield for the purpose of passing the bill, without his losing the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I am forced to object. Several Members who are interested in the proposed legislation are not present. Therefore I object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.


Mr. GILLETTE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Montana, who I understand will speak at some length, may yield to me so that I may address the Senate for approximately 10 minutes, without the Senator from Montana losing the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and the Senator from Iowa may proceed.

Mr. GILLETTE. Mr. President, recently it has been urged by several important officials that if the Communist regime now controlling China should be admitted into the United Nations General Assembly, the United States should promptly withdraw entirely from the United Nations.

A resolution has been introduced which would bring about the automatic withdrawal of the United States from withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations, should the Chinese Communist regime be admitted.

Other legislative devices, including amendment of the foreign aid bill, are under discussion. There has been talk of forming a "bloc" in the Senate to demand adoption of some kind of restrictive legislation or resolution binding the United States in advance to take certain

steps relative to the United Nations if certain circumstances prevail.

It has been further suggested that the American people would reject the United Nations and our continued participation therein if the General Assembly should approve the admission of Communist China by the necessary two-thirds vote.

From these above statements it is possible to draw the conclusion that a concerted and organized drive is underway to wreck the United Nations if that world body votes in opposition to a given policy of our Government. Should this drive succeed, the United States would be the first member of the United Nations ever to threaten to quit because the game is not being played to our liking on a particular matter. Many other membernations have repeatedly suffered political defeats in the United Nations on matters of great importance to themselves; to date not one of them has handed in its resignation.

Mr. President, I stand second to no Member of the Senate in my opposition to the admission of Red China into the United Nations. I joined as one of the initial signers of the petition circulated by the "Committee for 1 Million Against the Admission of Communist China to the United Nations," which was formed last autumn under the honorary chairmanship of our former colleague, Ambassador Warren E. Austin, with a steering committee composed of such eminent men as the Hon. Joseph C. Grew, Representative Walter Judd, Representative John McCormack, the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sparkman, and the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Smith. This committee, of which I am proud to be a sponsor, has circulated this petition throughout the Nation, attracting hundreds of thousands of signatures. It clearly represents a formidable public opinion in this country, one which no foreign government should underestimate. At this very moment, while I am speaking on the floor of the Senate the news ticker carries the information that 1 million signatures have been obtained. I have always opposed admitting Communist China to the United Nations. I am opposed to it now. I shall be opposed to it for as long as that regime fails to live up to the standards of international behavior laid down by the charter as qualifications for admission to membership.

I am opposed to admitting Red China not only because it is a government that has sent its troops into aggressive war against American soldiers and caused tragic losses of life and limb among our troops and those of other U. N. members associated with us in stopping Red aggression in Korea. If I were opposed to admitting Red China on the ground alone of waging aggressive war, I would have opposed a considerable number of other present members of the United Nations which, through our Nation's history, have made war on us. I would also, in all consistency, be opposed, which I am not, to admitting Germany, Japan, Italy, Spain, and other countries now seeking membership in the United Nations.

To oppose Red China's admission to the United Nations on the sole ground

« PreviousContinue »