I know that every member of this committee has followed the writings of Ely Culbertson, with his plan for international organization and a quota for an international police force-he has just within the last 2 or 3 weeks gotten out a pamphlet, from which I want to quote a few lines. Maybe you think I exaggerate, but here is what Ely Culbertson says: So powerful are the pressures of the balance-of-power mechanism that I greatly fear that sooner or later, and probably before 1950, this war-with-Russia party will impel the United States to the verge of the most stupid catastrophe in history-a war against Soviet Russia. And I will remind the committee that Ely Culbertson is not a Communist, or anything near that-far from it, but is a very successful bridge player, contract and otherwise. He is not a party-liner, but he does know the world situation and he knows what is brewing. I don't say that we haven't got intelligence-not at all-I say we haven't shown it yet. We must realize that the world is going to be cartelized; the question is whether governmentally or nongovernmentally. If governmentally, peace is possible and probable; if by nongovernment "government," war, however futile, is probably inevitable. I noticed that one of the witnesses the other day referred to Switzerland as a country which didn't get involved in war because Switzerland has had universal military training. That witness, the name slips me, was in error, I think. Switzerland has not become involved in war, in my judgment, because Switzerland during the war has been collecting from Americans, paying for German cartelizing, and vice versa, and has been the honest broker, and few want to interfere with a system of private profit. The late President Roosevelt stated that we were fighting to preserve the system of private enterprise and profit. That is a matter, I hope, that Congress will take a longer view of, because that would mean we are sure to have another war, because, gentlemen, this is a world revolution. We may like it or not. Those of you members of this committee who have been in France recently, or anywhere in Europe, know what the situation there is. We know perfectly well that most of the countries of Europe are going to have socialized economy. I don't know what is going to be the outcome of the British election, but I was keenly interested in reading carefully the platform of the British Labor Party as set out in their pamphlet which they have issued for this election, and which I got only a few days ago. They do not advocate anything like universal compulsory military training, there is not a reference to it, so far as I can discover, even by implication. May I read a few lines? I don't want to take longer than the average witness who has been before this committee. We must prevent another war, and that means we must have such an international organization as will give all nations real security against future aggression. But Britain can only play her full part in such an international plan if our spirit as shown in our handling of home affairs is firm, wise, and determined. This statement of policy, therefore, begins at home. May I read the main points? I am not going to overburden or encumber the record with a whole lot of it. I can't think of anything that would be more enlightening to the Members of the Congress and to this committee than to memorize this program of the British Labor Party, because, although "Win with Winnie" may carry him through this election, it is probable that it will-the Labor Party will get within 15, or at the outside 40, as many votes as the majority, in the House of Commons. First, the whole of the national resources, in land, material, and labour must be fully employed. Production must be raised to the highest level and related to purchasing power. Overproduction is not the cause of depression and unemployment; it is underconsumption that is responsible. It is doubtful whether we have ever, except in war, used the whole of our productive capacity. This must be corrected because, upon our ability to produce and organize a fair and generous distribution of the product, the standard of living of our people depends. Secondly, a high and constant purchasing power can be maintained through good wages, social services and insurance, and taxation which bears less heavily on the lower-income groups. But everybody knows that money and savings lose their value f prices rise, so rents and the prices of the necessities of life will be controlled. Thirdly, planned investment in essential industries and on houses, schools, hospitals, and civic centres will occupy a large field of capital expenditure. A national-investment board will determine social priorities and promote better timing in private investment. In suitable cases we would transfer the use of efficient Government factories from war production to meet the needs of peace. The location of new factories will be suitably controlled, and where necessary the Government will itself build factories. There must be no depressed areas in the new Britain. Fourthly, the Bank of England with its financial powers must be brought under public ownership, and the operations of the other banks harmonized with industrial needs. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am quoting this because we all of us know the British Labor Party is not a part of the Comintern, or Third International, it is a British labor organization and a very efficient organization. And here are the immediate things: Public ownership of fuel and power industries, not conscription of men. It is rather ironical, but on this side of the Atlantic, in the United States, in talking about insuring post war peace, we are talking about conscripting the manpower, while in Britain they are talking about conscripting the productive plant. I think they have shown good intelligence and, if I am correctly informed, representatives of most of the labor organizations are going to appear opposing universal military training, compulsory military training, and I am hoping that some divine guidance may lead them to be as intelligent on economics as the British labor movement. I think it will be more probable when the maximum salary of American labor leaders, like that in Britain, is around $6,000 or maybe $7,000. What they suggest is public ownership of the fuel and power industries, first; (2) public ownership of inland transport; (3) public ownership of iron and steel. That is significant, because we have somebody who has been very closely tied up with J. P. Morgan & Co., and United States Steel, as Secretary of State. You must remember what saved Mussolini and made fascism in Italy possible was J. P. Morgan's loan of $100,000.000, around 1924 or 1925, which Senator Borah, and others, vigorously opposed, but you see what happened Chairman WOODRUM. Mr. Marsh, I didn't recall that Mussolini was saved. Mr. MARSH. What? Chairman WOODRUM. I didn't recall that Mussolini was saved. Mr. MARSH. Well, you couldn't save him in perpetuity, any more than you can save the profit system in perpetuity, but it gave him too long a lease on life. I would say that Mussolini was saved too long, and that is a statement I am sure you will all agree with, and every boy who is buried or dead in the soil of Italy. I agree that he was not saved permanently, but I must say that I don't think that J. P. Morgan & Co. cancelled the saving, it was some outraged Italians. Now, continuing: (4) Public supervision of monopolies and cartels; (5) a firm and clear-cut program for the export trade; (6) the shaping of suitable economic and price controls; (7) the better organization of government departments. And I looked in vain for anything, any suggestion from the most progressive labor movement under a democratic country, for advocacy of compulsory military training. I would like to read just a few paragraphs from a statement made by our vice president, Dr. Colston E. Warne; head of the economics department, Amherst College, in his debate with Mr. Wendell Berge, Assistant Attorney General, on the subject What substitute for private international cartels, Dr. Warne said: Cartels are not devices schemed up by wicked people. They are the private international authority which has grown up in the absence of an international government. The basic reason for private international cartels was the desire for private profits, which would be reduced, or might even disappear, without the division of territory and business between the nationals of countries composing the cartels. The technique was sound. The objective-restricting consumption to increase profits-was vicious. The important lesson from the rule of this private supergovernment of cartels is that, unless governments acts cooperatively, to insure an economy of abundance for all the peoples of the world-nongovernment enterprises will again combine, criminally, or under laws they obtain, to keep the peoples of the world on a scarcity, profit-insuring level. In the past every nation, including the United States, has encouraged extensive cartel practices. Our Webb-Pomerene Act gave full power to our corporations to combine in export transactions and, although the act specified that such combinations were not to pluck American consumers, it was the clear expectation that the foreigner might be the victim of international combination. I Gentlemen of the committee, I realize that you are not writing a law. presume some law will be drafted. But this war was inevitable the way we were going. I am going to quote a criticism of the New Deal's policies in which the critic stated, some 3 or 4 years after the New Deal started, and after we had gone in debt something like 16 or 17 billion dollars: We have not done a single one of the things necessary in America. All we have been doing is to buy time. That critic was Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, and she was correct. I admit she had to pipe down shortly afterward, but she was correct. You are facing a world in which you will find that either intelligence or violence is ging to rule. Let me repeat. It is too late for us to strut around the world and say we have got the bases and we have the soldiers. It will be too late 5 years from now. If we propose to fight Russia-let's admit right off that we have got to hop to it. It won't settle a thing, but I hope before this hearing is over that each member of the committee will venture his-well, what shall I say?-"guess" isn't right for a Member of Congress-his "estimate" or his "conjec ture," that is a long word, as to whom we are going to fight-Russia, Britain, France, China-oh, I am getting into our allies, am I not. We know we won't fight with Germany, because we are going to, at least we are expecting we are going to keep her disarmed, and some folks expect it, the cartelists do not. Japan-well, Japan isn't going to be in any shape to fight us, and I would say the burden of proof on future enemies rests upon those who have advocated compulsory military training and have not realized that you have got to change the economic system before you have a chance at peace. I am sure that this committee has learned a good many facts recently, and so, with this statement I will be glad to submit to any questions. Chairman WoODRUM. Thank you, Mr. Marsh. Mr. MARSH. Thank you, sir. Chairman WOODRUM. The next speaker listed today was Dr. James Mendenhall, chairman, legislative committee, department of supervision and curriculum development of the National Education Association. Dr. Mendenhall is not able to be here today, and has sent in a statement representing the views of his organization, which I will ask to have incorporated in the record. (The statement referred to follows:) THE DEPARTMENT OF SUPERVISION AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT, SELECT COMMITTEE ON POSTWAR MILITARY POLICY, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: Following is the official statement of the executive committee of the department of Supervision and curriculum development: It is possible that within the near future the people of the United States will make a decision which will affect the lives of millions of young Americans. The people, through their Congress, may decide for or against compulsory military service after the war. It is our conviction that legislation requiring such military service should not be passed. We fully recognize that at the present time universal military service for all able-bodied men is a vital necessity to winning the war and to laying the foundation for a free, secure, and peaceful way of life for all peoples of the world. It is inconceivable, however, that we shall be so unsuccessful in making a just peace that we will need to maintain indefinitely an army of such proportions as to require the services of all the boys of the Nation. If it should transpire that universal military service becomes the pattern of the nations of the world we reconize that our country may be forced to conform to that practice. But now we should be making every ffeort to see that the world does not continue to be an armed camp. There are those who argue for military training on the basis of its value to youth. As an association devoted to education, we believe that better training for competent citizenship and satisfying personal living can be offered by civilian than by military agencies. - Health, discipline, citizenship, and other outcomes claimed for military training are needs of our entire population and should be made possible to all of all ages. These matters are the rights of citizens and the obligations of their Government. As such, they are of civilian concern and should be provided for through civilian means. Thus, it is our conviction that the enactment of legislation for compulsory military training at the present time for the postwar years would be a disastrous blow at the prospects for a just and enduring peace and is in no way justified as a means to better educating the citizens of our democracy. The poll of members on this statement indicated 80 percent of those responding agreed with the statement of the executive committee, 20 percent disagreed. When asked, "Do you favor compulsory military training for all young men after the war?” 77 percent say, no; 22 percent, yes; and 1 percent, uncertain. Eighty-four percent either have already written their Congressmen or will do so soon. Very truly yours, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SUPERVISION AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT By THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY. Chairman WOODRUM. Our next witness for today is Dr. William Heard Kilpatrick, representing the Liberal Party of New York State. Dr. Kilpatrick, we are very glad to hear from you. Dr. KILPATRICK. I apologize that I was not here at 2 o'clock; my train was late. Mr. VINSON. Who is the Doctor, Mr. Chairman? I didn't hear his name clearly. Chairman WOODRUM. Dr. Kilpatrick, representing the Liberal Party of New York State. That is correct, is it not, Doctor? Dr. KILPATRICK. Yes, sir; the Liberal Party of New York. At least, it is in New York. STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM HEARD KILPATRICK, LIBERAL PARTY OF NEW YORK STATE The Liberal Party is opposed to the present adoption of proposed universal conscription. It believes that the United States Government must do all possible to support what is being done, and we hope will be done at San Francisco, and the Liberal Party believes that we should await the passage or the adoption of the proposed conscription bill until those plans are more clearly developed and then, until it shall seem wise. At the present time unilateral action on our part could easily create mistrust. It might seem to show, in advance, a lack of faith in what is being done at San Francisco. Such conscription would create a larger force than probably will be expected from the United States Government, and the question will be then: Why a larger force than that asked of the United States? Against whom? Against certainly-certainly not against any small nation, because the proposed plan would take care of the small nations, and certainly not against Great Britain-possibly against Russia. As I read the report in the Times this morning of what was said here yesterday, one of the witnesses said definitely that we mut prepare against Russia. It seems to the Liberal Party that that would be most unfortunate. I may recall to those of you who are not acquainted with the New York political situation, that the Liberal Party came into existence in opposition to the Communist influence within the labor group, so that it has no affiliation with Russia in a Communist sense, only as Americans. We feel that we must cooperate, and if we were to take this stand now, adopt universal military conscription, it could easily look to Russia that we mistrusted them, especially as so many people in this country are saying that we must fight Russia. It seems to us, then, however desirable not to raise doubts in the mind of Russia. |