You have found an item located in the Kentuckiana Digital Library.
No. 122 "The Liberty League - Old Friendships Destroyed" Speech of Hon. Daniel O. Hastings, Senator from Delaware, In the Senate of the United States, April 20, 1936. American Liberty League. 400dpi TIFF G4 page images Digital Library Services, University of Kentucky Libraries Lexington, Kentucky Am_Lib_Leag_122 These pages may freely searched and displayed. Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. No. 122 "The Liberty League - Old Friendships Destroyed" Speech of Hon. Daniel O. Hastings, Senator from Delaware, In the Senate of the United States, April 20, 1936. American Liberty League. American Liberty League. Washington, D.C. 1936. This electronic text file was created by Optical Character Recognition (OCR). No corrections have been made to the OCR-ed text and no editing has been done to the content of the original document. Encoding has been done through an automated process using the recommendations for Level 1 of the TEI in Libraries Guidelines. Digital page images are linked to the text file. JOIN THE AMERICAN LIBERTY LEAGUE The American Liberty League is organized to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States and to gather and disseminate information that (1) will teach the necessity of respect for the rights of persons and property as fundamental to every successful form of government and (2) will teach the duty of government to encourage and protect individual and gronp initiative and enterprise, to foster the right to work, earn, save, and acquire property, and to preserve the ownership and lawful use of property when acquired. The League believes in the doctrine expressed by George Washington in his Farewell Address that while the people may amend the Constitution to meet conditions arising in a changing world, there must "be no change by usurpation; for this * * * is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.1' Since the League is wholly dependent upon the contributions of its members for financial support it hopes that you will become a contributing member. However, if you cannot contribute it will welcome your support as a non-contributing member. Enrollment: Blank American Liberty League National Press Building Washington, D. C. Date......... I desire to be enrolled as a member of the American Liberty League. Name ................................. Street.................................. Town .................................. County.......................... State. Enclosed find my contribution of $....... to help support the activities of the League. THE LIBERTY LEAGUE-OLD FRIENDSHIPS DESTROYED â˜… â˜… â˜… HON. DANIEL O. HASTINGS Senator from Delaware In the Senate of the United States April 20, 1936 AMERICAN LIBERTY LEAGUE National Headquarters NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING WASHINGTON, D. C. (122) Document No. 122 The Liberty League Old Friendships Destroyed "\^^*HEJV you have finished with this pamphlet please pass it on to some friend or acquaintance who might be interested, calling his attention to the membership blank on page 24. â˜… I THINK IT MAY safely be said that the problem of the unemployed and the relief of the unemployed remains the most serious problem confronting the Nation today. We are told by the American Federation of Labor that the number of unemployed is something like 12,626,000 persons. This is a shocking statement when you take into consideration the billions of dollars that have been spent by the government in the effort to furnish relief, and other costly plans in what was once described as "priming the pump." My RECOLLECTION is that we were almost dumfounded when the President requested an appropriation of $3,300,000,000. We were shocked and confused when he asked for the $4,800,000,000 appropriation. And this, now, is followed in another twelve months by a request for $1,500,000,000 more. It might be well to note also that, in the last request made, no assurance is given that it will be sufficient for the next fiscal year, and we may very properly assume from the language of the President's message, that that billion and a half, if appropriated by the Congress, will be expended before the end of this calendar year. After some experience with the first huge appropriation which I have mentioned, I remember distinctly the applause that greeted the President in his Annual Message, delivered before a joint session of the two Houses of Congress on January 4, 1935, when he said: "The Federal Government must and shall quit this business of relief. "I am not willing that the vitality of our people be further sapped by the giving of cash, of market baskets, of a few hours of weekly work cutting grass, raking leaves or picking up papers in the public parks." 3 THE PRESIDENT then told us that there were one and a half million persons unemployed, who would have to be cared for "by states, by counties, by towns, by cities, by churches, and by private welfare agencies," as they were cared for before the depression. The President then recommended a new program of emergency public employment, and said that among the first principles of such public employment must be that: "AH work undertaken should be useful not just for a day, or a year, but useful in the sense that it creates future new wealth for the Nation." What a miserable mess has been made in carrying out this promise! On February 25th last, in some remarks I made in the Senate about the punishment of General Hagood by this Administration, because, when testifying before a House committee, he criticised the ease with which WPA money could be secured, I quoted from several newspapers serious criticism of the use of such funds. On MARCH 10TH, the distinguished Senator from Arkansas made a speech in the Senate upon this subject, taking as his text published criticisms by the Republican National Committee and the American Liberty League. The distinguished Senator, in that speech, not only defended "boondoggling," but he undertook to immortalize the word by tracing it to that sturdy American woodsman, Daniel Boone. The distinguished Senator made an investigation of his own. He stated: "On the basis of this factual report from the Works Progress Administration, I now charge the Republican National Committee and the miscalled Liberty League with *playing politics with human misery* and with attempting to make a political football out of the unfortunate unemployed in this country. They aim at President Roosevelt, but in reality they hope to ridicule and drive back into the soup lines the great number of unemployed men - 4 and women who are simply asking an opportunity to earn a living for themselves and their families in the old-fashioned and respectable American way." There has been so much criticism, much of it specific and convincing, alleging that those in charge of WPA funds and relief funds in various parts of the country were "playing politics with human misery" that I assume the distinguished Senator from Arkansas found it quite necessary to try to turn the tables and make that same charge against two organizations which disagree with the present Administration. IF IT BE TRUE that a great job has been done in the various works program and in the equitable contribution of money for relief, if it be as free from politics as the Senator from Arkansas says it is, then may I inquire what objection there can be to an honest investigation by a committee of the Senate, a majority of whom would certainly be selected from the Democratic side of the Senate? Such an investigation has been demanded by the constitutents of many Senators. The distinguished Senior Senator from Idaho has been urging it. The Junior Senator from West Virginia has placed before the Senate such facts as would seem of themselves to make such an investigation necessary. The Senior Senator from Pennsylvania introduced such a resolution, asking for only a small sum of money, and it was referred to a committee and reported by that committee favorably. This was not pleasing to the distinguished majority leader, and he immediately made some rapid and effective movements. In the first place, he had the report held up. He found that this small committee on Expenditures in the Executive Department had only two Democratic members and also had two Republican members, and that there were two vacancies. He immediately appointed two of the most prominent organization Democrats in the Sen-5 ate to fill those vacancies, and when you next see that resolution, it is quite different. All of the whereas clauses had heen stricken out, and, in addition to that, the dead Federal Emergency Relief Administration was included for investigation. It was then referred to the Democratic-controlled Audit and Control Committee, where it remains, and we are informed that action upon it has been postponed indefinitely. A great author has described the adroitness and cleverness of one of his characters by saying: "Accident might play whatever card it chose, he was there to trump it." So it is with the distinguished leader of the Majority. When he finds that he is about to lose the pot, he deliberately deals himself two aces. This is another illustration of what is meant by the "New Deal." DURING THE SENATOR'S speech of March 10th, there was a constant sarcastic reference to the Liberty League. It will be observed that he describes it "as the miscalled Liberty League," "The duPont Liberty League." He refers to Mr. Shouse as, "The $50,000-a-year front man of the Liberty League. . . . That the duPont brothers must have been shocked when Shouse showed them that classic example of undermining the moral fiber of children on relief." Then he referred to, "The arrogance of the Liberty League in attacking and ridiculing needy men and women, and children on relief"; and finally he got off the following wisecrack: "For the sake of keeping the record clear, I am going to adopt the language of a newspaper correspondent who, paraphrasing a famous expression, described Wilmington as *the city where the Raskobs speak only to duPonts and the duPonts speak only to God.'" The distinguished Junior Senator from Texas sustained this attack in a speech made in Baltimore on March 28th. His speech is described in the New York Herald Tribune, as follows: "Connally asserted the people knew the 'liberty' advocated by the American Liberty League was not that for which Washington and Jefferson fought. Instead, he said, the 'liberty which holds it (the league) together and which it is fighting to reinstate and preserve is the liberty to exploit and profiteer upon the American people.'" Perhaps both of these Senators got their idea about the Liberty League from a speech made by Mr. Farley on February 22nd, in Topeka, Kansas, in which he said: "First, let us take the miscalled American Liberty League, an organization of multi-millionaires which is run as a subsidiary of the Republican National Committee. ... A recent examination of its bottomless war-chest discloses that more than 70 per cent of the contributions came from the duPont family, or their allies in the automotive and other industries. They can well afford to give because, thanks to the Roosevelt policies, they are earning more money than any time in history. . . . They are ungrateful, and they want the people of the United States to be just as ungrateful as they are." EVER SINCE GOVERNOR SMITH made his speech at the Liberty League 5-dollar dinner, following the New Deal Jackson Day 50-dollar dinner, we have heard much criticism on the other side of this Chamber of the Liberty League. So far as I can recall, not a word has been said in reply. I do not pretend to speak for that organization, but I do propose, for a few moments, to point out some inconsistencies involved in that criticism, and particularly does this apply to the distinguished Senator from Arkansas. Let us get an idea of the set-up, from a political point of view, of this so-called "miscalled Liberty League," particularly so far as the support of Mr. Roosevelt in 1932 is concerned. We find the positions of President and Secretary of that organization to be held by prominent Democrats. We find more than a majority of the National Executive Committee, consisting of 23 members and which actually runs the organization, composed of Democrats, and it might be well to call your attention to the names of some of the members of this Executive Committee. There is the Hon. John W. Davis, who was the standard bearer of the Democratic Party in 1924. There is the Hon. Alfred E. Smith, who was the standard bearer of the Democratic Party in 1928. There is the Hon. Joseph B. Ely, the well-known former Democratic Governor of the great State of Massachusetts. One member only of the duPont family, Mr. Irenee duPont, is a member of that committee, and he was a strong supporter of Mr. Roosevelt in 1932. Mr. John J. Raskob, the former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, appears not to be a member of the Executive Committee, but he is among a long list belonging to the National Advisory Council. AND LET ME READ from the platform of the League and see how closely it follows the Democratic platform of 1932. It sets forth the principles for which it stands in the following language: "To preserve American institutions; to advocate economy in government; a sound fiscal policy, and the maintenance of a sound and stable currency; to further the restoration of employment and to oppose all unnecessary interference and competition by gov-eminent with legitimate industry; to support government in the obligation to provide for those who, because of involuntary unemployment or disability, cannot provide for themselves; to uphold the American principles that laws be made only by the direct representatives of the people in the Congress, and that the laws be interpreted only by the courts; to provide for the rank and file of the American people an opportunity to offset the influence of selfish groups; and to preserve for succeeding generations the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution." Those principles are so nearly in line with the Democratic platform of 1932 that you must conclude that the Liberty League was organized and is being controlled by those who believed in that platform and believed in the Democratic candidate for President. It is the kind of a platform to which Bainbridge Colby, the Secretary of State, and Newton D. Baker, the Secretary of War, under Woodrow Wilson, would approve. Former Senator Reed of Missouri would approve. The late Governor Ritchie of Maryland, a distinguished Democrat, did approve it. It is in line with the opinion of a host of other prominent Democrats, such as Lewis W. Douglas, efficient Director of the Budget during the early part of the present Administration; Col. Henry Breckinridge, Assistant Secretary of War during the first Wilson administration; Judge William R. Pattangall, former Justice of the Supreme Court of Maine; James P. Warburg, Treasury advisor to Roosevelt; Dean Acheson, Under-Secretary of the Treasury in the first part of the Roosevelt administration; George N. Peek, who held several important posts under the present administration; Forney Johnston and Borden Burr, two of the outstanding Democrats of Alabama; and many many others whom I shall not take the time to enumerate. WHO IS MR. JOUETT SHOUSE, the so-called "$50,000-a-year front man of the Liberty League?" (The fact is that his salary is $36,000 and not $50,000.) Why, Mr. Shouse is the man selected by Mr. Raskob shortly after the Democrats had met the most overwhelming defeat in its history, when in 1928 it was being led by Governor Smith as its candidate for President and Senator Robinson as its candidate for Vice President, And when did Mr. Shouse and Mr. Raskob become such a thorn in the flesh of the New Deal? When they refused to follow the New Deal into the morass of Socialism, and when it deliberately violated every Democratic principle for which all good Democrats stood when Mr. Roosevelt was nominated in 1932. On July 2, 1932, just after Mr. Roosevelt had been nominated, when he appeared before the Democratic National Committee in Chicago, he had this to say: "1 had hoped to get here while my old friend, John Raskob, was presiding. "I want to tell you all of the very splendid work that has been done for the party by the retiring chairman. It was his conception three years ago that gave to the party a permanent, active headquarters in Washington. "Mr. Raskob spoke to me at that time and we went over the plans. As you all know, my old friend, Jonett Shouse, was made chairman of the executive committee, and another old friend, Charlie Michel-son, was placed in charge of the publicity. They made the country realize that the Democratic party was very much alive. "I am interested that my Republican friends, after 1928, raised the old question 'Is the Democratic party dead?' The answer Mr. Shouse and Mr. Michelson gave to that resulted in 1930 not only in the election of a Democratic House, but in the election of more Democratic Governors and local officials than in any year since 1921. "These gentlemen deserve the gratitude of the party." AND WHO IS MR. JOHN J. RASKOB, referred to by the President? Why, he is the man who tried to elect Governor Smith President and Senator Robinson Vice President in 1928. He may not have been as skillful as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee as Mr. Farley, but the record shows that he did some things that were at the time necessary and essential. He did that which no other man had ever done for any political party in the form of contributions. On September 12, 1928, he contributed $50,-000 to the Democratic National Committee. On October 3rd, 3 weeks later, he contributed another $50,000. On November 14th, he loaned the committee $100,000, and during October and November the Democratic Party borrowed $1,500,000 from the County Trust Company of New York upon the endorsement of Mr. Raskob. On April 25, 1929, after the election was over 10 and the Democratic Party apparently was dead, Mr. Raskob contributed another $150,000 to the Democratic National Committee. A little later that year on two occasions he loaned the committee in the aggregate $40,000. In 1930, an election year, he loaned it $180,000, in 1931 the sum of $122,000, and then as they approached the campaign of 1932, when Mr. Roosevelt was the candidate, Mr. Raskob cancelled two loans of $50,000 each, amounting in the aggregate to $100,000, and on October 21, 1932, just before the election, he contributed $25,000. If you make a summary of these contributions and cancellations of loans, you will find that between September 12, 1928, and October 21, 1932, Mr. Raskob contributed to the Democratic Party the huge sum of $375,000. This, in addition to the large loans he personally made and other loans personally guaranteed. Were these contributions made in an effort "to ridicule and drive back into the soup lines the great number of unemployed men and women who are simply asking an opportunity to earn a living for themselves and their families in the old-fashioned and respectable American way," as the Senator from Arkansas says the Liberty League is now trying to do? Was he endeavoring to elect a President in order to "preserve the liberty to exploit and profiteer upon the American people," as has been charged by the Senator from Texas? Such suggestions are childish and bear all the evidence of fear. WHO ARE THE duPONT BROTHERS whom the Senator from Arkansas speaks of? Well, the duPont brothers, as we know them in Delaware, are Mr. Pierre S. duPont, Mr. Irenee duPont, and Mr. Lammot duPont, the only duPonts who take any interest in politics or make any substantial contributions. I assume the Senator from Arkansas referred to these brothers. And what do the records show with respect to their contributions? On August 15, 1928, 11 we find Mr. Pierre S. duPont contributing to the Democratic National Committee, for the purpose of electing Smith and Robinson to the offices of President and Vice President respectively, the sum of $50,000. We find Mr. P. S. duPont contributing again on April 25, 1929, after the campaign is over and when an effort is being made to revive the Democratic Party, the sum of $25,000. The only record I can find of contributions by Mr. P. S. duPont in 1932 is $15,000, and perhaps it is because his contributions that year were not so great that President Roosevelt and the Democratic Senators have turned against him. I had always understood that Mr. Irenee duPont had made a huge contribution to the Democratic Campaign Committee in 1932. But the only record that I can find is of April 4, 1933, and the contribution then amounted to $5,000. These are two of the duPont brothers whom the Senator from Arkansas speaks of so sarcastically. The other brother, Mr. Lammot duPont, who has always been a consistent Republican, made a contribution in 1932 to the Republican National Committee of $2,000. Mr. FARLEY made no complaint about the duPont brothers and Mr. Raskob so long as they continued their large contributions to the Democratic Party. He made no complaint about Mr. Irenee duPont when he sent Mr. Farley a check for $5,000 just a month after Mr. Roosevelt was inaugurated. In view of these facts, it is rather remarkable to have Mr. Farley state: "They are ungrateful and they want the people of the United States to be just as ungrateful as they are." If Mr. Farley had any real gratefulness in his own soul, he would not make such violent attacks upon those who had been such a help to the party he now represents as National Chairman. 12 If the members of the American Liberty League are making as much money as Mr. Farley says they are under the Roosevelt Administration; if they are greedy men, endeavoring "to exploit and profiteer upon the American people"; if their only interest is making money and have no concern about the liberties of the American citizens, it is strange, to say the least, to find them contributing so generously to an organization that is attempting to defeat Mr. Roosevelt for re-election. I have given you the political background of Mr. Shouse, Mr. Raskob and the duPont brothers, prior to the organization of the American Liberty League. NOW LET US TURN to one who is better known to the American people and particularly to the Democratic Party, and one who occupies an important place in this new organization, the former candidate for President on the Democratic ticket in 1928, Alfred E. Smith. I think it well at this point to read into the record Mr. Roosevelt's former opinion of this great man, who has so disgraced himself in the eyes of the present Administration by his activity in the Liberty League organization. It will be recalled that Mr. Roosevelt placed Governor Smith in nomination for President in New York on June 27, 1924, and on that occasion he said: "We need as President one in whom the masses of the people . . . will regain their lost faith; . . . confidence and faith such as this have been won by the Governor of this state. . . . The honest business man knows that he has never sought personal prefer* ment by demagogic attack on honest business. . . . This faith in him and in his fundamental rugged honesty, . . . are the reasons why this man above all others will bring order out of chaos in the National Capital. . . . His is a record of law enforcement. He believes that our Constitution needs no explaining. His record of twenty years as public servant proves that he stands on the Constitution from the First Article to the Seventh, and from the First Amendment to the Nineteenth, inclusive .... All the world loves a man who carves his own career. Much of the romance of Lincoln is in the life story 13 of our Governor. Born of American-born parents, he took upon his shoulders while still a boy the responsibility for the support of his family. A wage earner, willing with his hands, this man in the space of twenty years, without fortune, without fortuitous aid, with nothing to rely upon except his own indomitable courage, his own unflagging perseverance, his own magnificent ability, has risen to be a commanding and outstanding figure in the life of the Nation. This he has done, not with the art of a demagogue, not with the wiles of a trickster, but with a dignity, a knowledge and a wisdom that demonstrated him a statesman. "Our Governor not only represents the common people but he embodies in his very being the aspirations of the average man, so that when he speaks with the voice of America, he burns with the fire of a divine humanity the fire which has produced the greatest of leaders of the Democracies of the world. . . . His is the quality of militant leadership. . . . He has the rare power to express the great fundamental truths and ideals in homely language carrying conviction to the multitude. "He has a power to strike at error and wrongdoing that makes his adversaries quail before him. He has a personality that carries to every hearer not only the sincerity but the righteousness of what he says. He is the *Happy Warrior' of the political battlefield. ... If you will render your verdict in that sacred mood, it can only be for the nomination of the man whom I present to you the one above all others who has demonstrated his power, his ability to govern; this leader whose whole career gives convincing proof of his power to lead; this warrior whose record shows him invincible in defense of right and in attack on wrong; this man, beloved by all, trusted by all, respected by all; ... this man of destiny whom our State proudly dedicates to the Nation our own Alfred E. Smith." I desire to repeat one phrase used in that speech; "The honest business man knows that he has never sought personal preferment by demagogic attack on honest business.** I wonder whether any thinking and truthful person would dare to use that expression in reference to President Roosevelt. EXACTLY FOUR YEARS LATER, Mr. Roosevelt again placed Governor Smith in nomination 14 for President, and his admiration and praise of him had increased. In that speech he said among other things, "Slowly, surely the proper understanding of this man has spread from coast to coast, from north to south. He is well called *the Pathfinder to the open road for all true lovers of Humanity.'" Throughout that campaign as well as the campaign of 1932, Roosevelt continued to praise and laud Smith. Now let us see what the distinguished Senator from Arkansas thought of the man Smith who headed the ticket in 1928, and on which he was nominated as a candidate for Vice President. On July 1, 1928, just after the nomination, Senator Robinson had this to say: "More than any other man of his generation he is representative of that type of citizenship and public service which is never remote from the interest of the masses of this great country." In a telegram to Smith on that same day, he said this: "Your telegram happily recalls our intimate associations in previous campaigns. . . . With a sympathy that embraces every race and creed you have sought to be helpful to humanity and faithful to every public trust." Three days later, July 4th, he still had a high opinion of him, for he said: "All will recognize the magnetic and sympathetic qualities of this great political leader and will appreciate the courage, the fidelity and the efficiency of the man." On July 13th, nine days later, his opinion has not changed, for he said this: "Governor Smith is admired and loved by the people of his state beyond any other public man of his generation. It is his sterling, fearless honesty and sincere attachment to the welfare and best interests of the general public which are the basis of his popularity." Less than a week afterwards, he followed his praise with this language: "Governor Smith has done more to bring the benefits of government to the masses of people and 15 to make government humane than any other American statesman of the last fifty years. It is the faith in his loyalty and fidelity that has led millions to follow his leadership. His appeal goes directly to the multitudes who long for and deserve better living conditions. "Suspicion and hatred have searched every act of his life and have found him clean and incorruptible." In STRANGE CONTRAST to these complimentary expressions from the distinguished Senator from Arkansas, may I call your attention to his radio address, printed in the Congressional Record, under date of January 30th, showing the great strain and labor involved in his endeavor to answer the speech delivered by his old friend Smith at the American Liberty League dinner. As spokesman for and defender of the President, he turned his back upon his fellow nominee of the 1928 campaign, ignored the many complimentary expressions he had made of this Democratic leader, and practically charged him with having sold his political principles in order that he might associate with the wealthy duPonts and the wealthy Raskob. Ah, he must have overlooked those strenuous political days of 1928 and 1932 when Roosevelt, Smith, Robinson, Raskob and the duPonts were truly buddies, all interested in the same cause. May I inquire of the distinguished Senator from Arkansas, and other New Deal Senators, who may be able to speak for themselves and the President, whether they think they have kept faith with these Democrats who are so active in, if not actually controlling the Liberty League? Who is it that has repudiated the principles of Jefferson, the principles of the Democratic Party? Is it these Democratic members of the Liberty League or the New Dealers? I think no one can doubt the true answer to that question. The Democrats of the Liberty League have been consistent with Democratic principles and the Democratic platform of 1932. The New Dealers have violated nearly every declaration contained in that platform. The promise of economy in government, sound 16 money, no meddling and no competition with business enterprises, maintenance of States' Rights, loyalty to the Constitution, and the violation of many other promises absolutely condemn the New Deal in the minds and hearts of those who believed in the Democratic platform of 1932. The Liberty League is only one of many organizations determined to end the New Deal as soon as possible. Don't try to fool the people into believing that this is for some selfish purpose. The thinking men and women of the Nation are frightened today for the safety of their country. Those Democrats who supported Roosevelt in 1932 have been deceived and no man has a right to complain if those persons he has deceived, turn against him. Do NOT BLAME the Republican Party for taking away from you those persons whom you have always claimed as your own. There are about 100,000 members of the American Liberty League. A few of them are rich men, but 99 per cent of them are just plain, ordinary, honest folks. Twenty-three thousand individual men and women have been among the contributors to the funds of the League. A great majority of these members, both contributing and non-contributing, are Democrats who do not believe in the New Deal. This administration has lost them because it has violated its trust. Admit this as a fact; it will be good for your soul. Mr. Farley tells us this is to be a dirty campaign, but I hope he is mistaken. I hope he does not persuade his friends in the Senate to adopt any such course. There has been some evidence of it but that is because some Senators take their politics too seriously. Mr. Farley is not paying much attention to what you say or do. He is reiving upon his own skill and the fortunate position of Mr. Hopkins, plus the brains and position of Mr. Wallace and Mr. Tugwell. Those are the boys who have the Federal money; those are the boys who can give, those are the boys who can take away. 17 Mr. Farley knows how to take advantage of situations like this. In ADDITION TO THAT, I beg of the New Deal Senators to let up a little in your demagogic appeals to your "forgotten man." Do not be afraid to give the public all the facts about relief, the WPA, the AAA, the Florida Canal, the Passamaquoddy project, the St. Louis thirty million dollar memorial to Jefferson, and all the thousand and one other new fangled schemes to waste the people's money. Are you afraid you will lose the votes of those on relief when it is ultimately shown how favoritism has been practiced in administering that fund? Are you alarmed at the admission of Mr. Harry Hopkins that he would consider himself a damn fool if he did not select New Dealers to help him distribute the huge fund in his possession? Remember, the caution of some of his aids that: Not a citizen shall shiver Or go hungry in this section (If we're certain they'll "deliver" In the '36 election.) We relieve the starved and frozen With no hesitance or parley, (If the politics they've chosen Are approved by Mr. Farley!) Do not be ashamed to admit that in all parts of the country the New Deal is "playing politics with human misery," by requiring those who seek employment or relief from appointees of Hopkins that they register as Democrats and pledge themselves to vote the Democratic ticket. Do not be alarmed over the recent discovery that under a plea that the poor farmer must be relieved the processing tax was levied, a tax which has closed many factories, thrown thousands of people out of work, in order that Mr. Wallace might, among other generous acts, be able to place million dollar checks in the hands of some Southern corporations for agreeing not to do things. Do not let Mr. Wallace frighten 18 you by making you believe there is danger of the farmer's daughter being kidnapped. ALL THESE THINGS may go a long way in losing you the election, and while to lose the election may hurt your pride, there is just one very important thing to remember and one which ought to console you, and that is that for the Democrats to lose the next election means that the country will be greatly benefited; and that ought to be some satisfaction to real patriots, like yourselves. Indeed many people think that unless Mr. Roosevelt is defeated, our Constitution and our whole democratic form of government will be gone before the end of another four years. Personally I doubt whether you can do that, but I do feel sure that you will not be able to find jobs for the 12,626,000 people now out of work, and more than that, I am afraid another four years of Roosevelt will mean that the Federal Treasury will be busted. Of course, if you had kept your promises and followed the Democratic platform of 1932 you wouldn't be in such an embarrassing position. You would have Shouse, Raskob, Al Smith, John W. Davis, Pierre S. duPont, Irenee duPont, Jim Reed, Bainbridge Colby, Lou Douglas, George Peek and thousands of others who supported you in 1932, back of you now, but remember you let Roosevelt lead you into this New Deal and you have been following the shirt tail of the New Deal, believing it to be a symbol of Utopia and the more abundant life. I appreciate that you cannot turn back; you have gone too far, but think what a job you are going to have, writing the Democratic platform for the 1936 election. How can you expect the people to forget the promises you and Mr. Roosevelt made in 1932 and then broke? The Senator from Arkansas has not forgotten what Lincoln said about fooling the people, for he quoted it in a speech he made a few days ago. Remembering that quotation, you certainly cannot expect the people of the country to pay any attention to your 1936 19 platform, or President Roosevelt's promise to live up to it. THE ONLY THING you can do in order to be consistent in your 1936 platform is to make no specific promises other than to say that the New Deal Congress will do what President Roosevelt wants it to do, and that the President will decide from day to day what he wants done. This will be in complete accord with the record of this miscalled Democratic Administration. I suppose you will feel compelled to continue your demagogic appeals to the poor and against the rich, but the poor are intelligent too and you cannot hide from them what this Administration has done and what it has failed to do. At any rate, in my judgment, you lose the next election or the country will be in very real trouble, and so far as I am concerned, I welcome the efforts of every organization, every newspaper, every Democrat in the effort to see that this is the last year of the Roosevelt Administration. 20 PAMPHLETS AVAILABLE Â£OPIES of the following pamphlets and other League literature may be obtained upon application to the League's national headquarters. Statement of Principles and Purposes American Liberty League ItB Platform Inflation The Holding Company Bill The Farmers' Home Bill The Supreme Court and the New Deal Expanding Bureaucracy Lawmaking by Executive Order New Deal Laws in Federal Courts Dangerous Experimentation Economic Planning Mistaken But Not New Work Relief The AAA and Our Form of Government Alternatives to the American Form of Government A Program for Congress The 1937 Budget Professors and the New Deal Wealth and Income The Townsend Plan The Story of an Honest Man The New AAA The President's 1936 Tax Proposals New Work Relief Funds The President Wants More Power (leaflet) The Townsend Nightmare (leaflet) A Farmer Speaks (leaflet) Will It Be Ave Caesar? (leaflet) Our New Spoils System (leaflet) The Magi and the Showdown (leaflet) The National Labor Relations Act Summary of Conclusions from Report of the National Lawyers Committee Straws Which Tell An Open Letter to the President By Dr. Neil Carothers The Duty of the Church to the Social Order Speech by S. Wells Utley Two Amazing Years Speech by Nicholas Roosevelt PAMPHLETS AVAILABLE (continued) Legislation By Coercion or Constitution Speech by Jouett Shouse The Duty of the Lawyer in the Present Crisis Speech by James M. Beck The Constitution and the Supreme Court Speech by Borden Burr Inflation is Bad Business Speech by Dr. Neil Carothers Arousing Class Prejudices Speech by Jouett Shouse The Fallacies and Dangers of the TownBend Plan Speech by Dr. Walter E. Spahr What of 1936? Speech by James P. Warburg Americanism at the Crossroads Speech by R. E. Desvernine The Constitution and the New Deal Speech by James M. Carson The American Constitution Whose Heritage? Speech by Frederick H. Stinchfield The Redistribution of Power Speech by John W. Davis Time to Stop Speech by Dr. Neil Carothers The Facts In the Case Speech by Alfred E. Smith The Townsend Utopia Speech by Dr. Ray Bert Westerfield Inflation and Our Gold Reserve Speech by Dr. E. W. Kemmerer The Constitution The Fortress of Liberty Speech by James A. Reed Entrenched Greed Speech by Dr. G. B. Cutten The Right of Petition Speech by Jouett Shouse Should We Amend the Constitution to Grant the National Government General Welfare Powers? Speech by W. H. Rogers The New Inquisition Speech by Jouett Shouse It Can Be Done Speech by Merrill E. Otis The Voice of the Constitution Speech by Arthur H. Vandenberg Abuses of Power Speech by Jouett Shouse The Need for Constitutional Growth by Construction or Amendment Speech by R. E. Desvernine Shall We Have Constitutional Liberty, or Dictatorship ? Speech by James A. Reed