You have found an item located in the Kentuckiana Digital Library.
No. 14 "Democracy or Bureaucracy" Speech of Jouett Shouse Before the Philadelphia County League of Women Voters, February 4, 1935. American Liberty League. 400dpi TIFF G4 page images Digital Library Services, University of Kentucky Libraries Lexington, Kentucky Am_Lib_Leag_14 These pages may freely searched and displayed. Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. No. 14 "Democracy or Bureaucracy" Speech of Jouett Shouse Before the Philadelphia County League of Women Voters, February 4, 1935. American Liberty League. American Liberty League. Washington, D.C. 1935. 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. â˜… â˜… Democracy or - Bureaucracy â˜… â˜… â˜… Speech of JOUETT SHOUSE President, American Liberty League, Before the Philadelphia County League of Women Voters, February 4, 1935 â˜… AMERICAN LIBERTY LEAGUE National Headquarters NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING WASHINGTON, D. C. â˜… â˜… Document No. 14 Thi Democracy or Bureaucracy â˜… IE principles of the League of Women Voters and the principles of the American Liberty League are closely akin. Both believe in a sound government. Both believe in political progress, in social progress and in economic progress. Both believe in the education of the voters. Both believe that intelligent analysis of any problem is the most helpful step toward its solution. The League of Women Voters was organized essentially to educate the women of the country in the science of government following their nation-wide enfranchisement. The American Liberty League originated because of the belief that it would be a helpful thing to have at Washington a non-partisan organization to watch and analyze legislation and to inform the country if there should seem serious threat to undermine either the liberties of our citizens or the stable form of government upon which our Nation was founded and under which it has developed. In many lands and among many peoples the world-wide depression following the great War has caused revolution and overthrow of constituted authority. Dictatorships have been enthroned and despotism has despoiled the people alike of their liberties and of their property. In our own country there have been complaints of the accepted standards, impatience with restraints and a disposition, at least in some quarters, to attempt experimentation and change without reference to the ultimate consequences and without consideration of the loss of human rights that might result. â€ž . . The American Liberty Constitution T . , League was not organized Adequate for the to attempt to defeat any Nation's Needs political group nor was it formed either to oppose or to support any particular individual. Its primary purpose is to show that the Constitution is adequate to meet any need that now confronts us, just as it has met the needs of the past, and to emphasize that only through provisions of the Constitution are we protected in those personal rights which are the richest heritage of liberty. To that task it is dedicated. For that purpose, and that alone, it will strive to serve. I am sure it is not necessary in this presence to emphasize the need of careful watchfulness. The old saving, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty," has not lost its appeal. Its truth is more apparent today than in many years past because, in an entirely admirable desire to improve conditions, steps have been taken and are being taken which threaten the division of powers among the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches as provided by our Constitution, which undermine the dual form of Federal and State Governments and which strike at some of the most important safeguards of the individual citizen guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. May I say here that I have not the slightest disposition to criticize the motives of the President of the United States. On the contrary, I pay tribute to him for the courage, the industry and the persistence with which he has attacked the many and varied problems confronting his administration. No man ever gave himself more whole-heartedly to his people and there is none who could wish more earnestly than he for a return to conditions of prosperity. Indeed, there is no other to whom such return is so vital, because upon him devolves the terrific responsibility of attempting to restore employment, happiness and opportunity. But with all due regard for his excellent intent, with fuU appreciation of his high motive, one may disagree deeply with some of the methods which he advocates or employs. And if there is such disagreement, if there is the ground for fear 4 that the best intentioned efforts may result in disaster, then it is the plain duty of the citizen to voice his dissent and to point out the danger. Nor is the individual or the group of individuals who follow that course correctly subject to the charge that the attempt is mere obstruction. On the contrary, the most helpful service that can be rendered is constructive criticism. What the It is m that spirit that League the American Liberty is Doing League is attempting to inform the American people as to some of the matters of pending legislation. For four successive weeks it has made public careful analyses of matters of major importance. The first of these dealt with the President's budget message, the second with the National Recovery Administration, the third with the Emergency Relief Appropriation in the form in which it passed the House on January 24th and the fourth, which was given out today, attempts to analyze the intricate and vast Social Security Program upon which the President sent recently a special message to the Congress and the provisions of which are embodied in legislation now pending before the two Houses. Each of these documents has been essentially a factual study and each has been the only study of its kind thus far placed before the public. Each has attracted widespread attention and national publicity. They will be followed by other similar documents from time to time in the hope of affording useful information and assisting the Congress in the writing of proper legislation. They are entirely devoid of either partizanship or prejudice and there is no motive behind their presentation except the desire to help work out the best possible solution of pending problems. If the Liberty League had done nothing more than produce these factual studies it would thoroughly have justified its existence. But I 5 suggest to you that if there were any question as to the need of the League, the Emergency Relief Appropriation Bill as passed by the House ten days ago is the most convincing evidence of that need. It is a persuasive argument of the crying necessity of some organization which, without partisan prejudice, will devote itself to an analysis of legislation that threatens the preservation of our constitutional government. That measure, in the form of a Joint Resolution, appropriates the sum of $4,880,-000,000 to be spent by the President in whatever way and for whatever purpose he may see fit, without restraint or guidance or suggestion by the Congress and without any expression by the legislative body on matters of important policy which will be involved in connection with the expenditures. , . The amount of money Dictatorship contemplated is greater Danger in tnan tne totai annual cost Relief Bill of the government in any year from 1922 to 1931, inclusive. The action taken represents an abdication by the Congress of its responsibilities in a wide field of legislation. The policies that are involved would ordinarily engage the attention of at least a half dozen Standing Committees in each branch of the National Legislature. But no legislative guidance is even attempted. The authority conferred upon the Executive gives him the opportunity to reorganize the governmental machinery should he see fit; to create a vast new bureaucracy not answerable to the Congress, free from Civil Service restrictions, and, therefore, open to political spoilsmen, and to make rules and regulations within his own discretion, without let or restraint, for the violation of which fines may be imposed upon any citizen. A6 the pamphlet of the Liberty League very truly stated, this legislation represents "a step toward the European type of 6 dictatorship in which the parliamentary body becomes a nonentity." Let me quote from the bill itself the statement of its purposes: "to protect and to promote the general welfare, by (1) providing relief from the hardships attributable to widespread unemployment and conditions resulting therefrom, (2) relieving economic maladjustments, (3) alleviating distress, and/or (4) improving living and working conditions." In the carrying out of the provisions of the resolution the President is authorized in any manner he may see fit to "establish and prescribe the duties and functions of governmental agencies," to "consolidate, redistribute, abolish or transfer the functions and/or duties of, and transfer the property and/or personnel of any emergency governmental agency (including a corporation)," and to "delegate the powers conferred on him." He is further authorized "to guarantee loans to, or payments of, needy individuals; to make grants and/or loans and/or contracts; to acquire, by purchase or by the power of eminent domain, any real property or any interest therein, and improve, develop, maintain, grant, sell, lease (with or without the privilege of purchasing), or otherwise dispose of any such property or interest therein." Further, as already pointed out, "the President is authorized to prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out this Joint Resolution, and any willful violation of any such rule or regulation shall be punishable by fine of not to exceed $5,000." Is there any possible scheme which the wit of man could devise that would not come within the scope of the powers hereby granted? Safeguards Omitted from Measure It will be recalled that in his annual message to the Congress on January 5th the President served notice that he would ask for this grant of money which he said would be 7 used chiefly to carry out a work relief program. In that connection he outlined seven principles which he declared should govern the administration of the program. They were that all work undertaken should be useful, that compensation on emergency public projects should be at a lower rate than that obtaining for private employment, that projects selected should be those on which a large percentage of direct labor could be used, that self-liquidating projects should be given preference, that care should be taken to select projects which would compete as little as possible with private enterprise, that projects should be so planned as to assure work to persons now on relief and that the locations of the projects to be undertaken should be determined with a view to absorbing present unemployment. These were the specific recommendations made by the President as to limitations to govern the program. It is a notable fact, however, that in the bill as submitted by the White House and as passed by the House of Representatives on January 24th there is not even a suggestion of any of these principles. Objection to the terms of this resolution does not mean that the "pork barrel" method of appropriations is approved. Indeed, quite the contrary. The President should be authorized to designate and to allot the individual undertakings on the basis of need and justification. But the general character of the work and the important questions of policy involved should be directed by the Congress in the proper discharge of its duties. There is no disposition League Recog- here to que6tion the need niz.es Need for cf direct appropriation Federal Aid of Federal funds to deal with the relief situation. However we might wish that these matters could be taken care of by the states and their gov-8 ernmental subdivisions with the aid of private agencies, we have long ago passed the point where this is possible. In its declaration of aims and purposes immediately after its organization, the American Liberty League stated that it "thoroughly recognizes the obligation of our government to come to the relief of the men and women who are in distress because of unemployment through no fault of their own or who are suffering from affliction over which they could have no control." Moreover, the principle of returning to the local communities care for the unemployable, laid down by the President in his message of January 5th, is thoroughly sound, and his further suggestion of providing work relief wherever possible is in accord with American policy and American practice. This does not involve, however, the necessity for the erection of huge unnecessary buildings or the expenditure of large sums for projects of whatever kind that are not economically sound. Unfortunately, the experience of twenty months of the Public Works Administration has failed to justify that method of attempting to restore employment. Also, there has developed a basis of proper criticism in that the government has entered into competition with private enterprise and in more than one instance has furnished the money for a duplication of facilities which, of themselves, are an economic waste and have served to impair the legitimate investments of many citizens. On the other hand, unquestionably there are many sound and worthy enterprises upon which the government may properly embark which would afford widespread employment and would represent intelligent improvements rather than a waste of Federal funds. It might be suggested, furthermore, that with the enormous expenditures to which the government has been subjected, with the deficits that have been incurred since 1931 and that face us for a further indefinite period, every effort 9 should be made toward prudent economy rather than toward wasteful expenditure. But I am not attempting to argue here either the amount of the appropriation or the objective for which the money is asked an objective, indeed, with which I am in entire sympathy. My sole criticism is of the methods involved, the principles at stake and the dangers that lie ahead if this character of legislation shall be indulged in. More and more of recent Congress yearg the Congress ha8 Abdicates shown a disposition to Powers abdicate its functions. It has passed on to the Executive Branch of the government one power after another which belongs to the Legislative Branch until it is not surprising that the impression should have gone abroad that the Congress of late has become little more than a rubber stamp to approve Executive direction. Let us look for a moment at the spectacle presented in the House of Representatives week before last. Here was a Joint Resolution of scarcely a thousand words which sought to place in the hands of the President a sum greater than the total expenses of the government in any year from 1922 to 1931. It did not originate in the Appropriations Committee of the House. Whoever its author, and apparently some mystery attaches as to that individual, it was sent from the White House to the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee of the House of Representatives and was introduced by him. The only hearing on it lasted a little more than two hours. Even that was not participated in by the full Committee but simply by a small Sub-Committee. Only three witneses appeared, all of them spokesmen for the Administration and all urging passage of the resolution without the slightest change. A rule was proposed to 10 permit a single hour of general debate in the House, without permission for any amendment of the measure. Against this excessive dictation the Rules Committee of the House rebelled and a Democratic caucus was forced with the result that three hours of debate was permitted and two changes of importance in the original resolution were granted. Here is a measure, mind you, not only of tremendous import because of the huge appropriation involved but even more important because of the unlimited powers proposed to be conferred upon the Executive, and yet it was railroaded through one House of the Congress without adequate hearing by Committees, without permission for adequate debate, without the opportunity for adequate amendment or revision, and in less than two days' time that branch of the Congress, which presumably is most responsive to the popular will, was forced to sign on the dotted line a measure which transferred by one stroke of the pen to the Executive powers and rights never before surrendered by a legislative body and historically preserved to the Legislature as the direct representatives of the people. The measure is now before the Senate. What will be the result there I do not attempt to predict. Administration spokesmen affirm their confidence that it will pass without substantial change. On the other hand, Senator Glass, Chairman of the Appropriations Committee of the Senate, arranged proper hearings and there is the assurance of full discussion when the measure reaches the Senate floor. From the standpoint of the future of the American people, from the standpoint of the Congress, from the standpoint of the President himself, it is earnestly to be hoped that the measure will be so changed as to eliminate at least a part of its most serious faults. 11 As a very significant part Supreme Court of the whol(J procedure Decision your attention is directed Pertinent to the fact that through- out such debate as occurred during the consideration of the resolution in the House, constant references were made to a recent decision of the Supreme Court. That decision, handed down less than a month ago, held unconstitutional Section 9 (c) of the National Industrial Recovery Act. It is popularly known as the "Hot Oil Decision." By a vote of eight to one, the Court decided that Section 9 (c) was unconstitutional because of improper delegation of authority by the Congress to the Executive. In its decision the court said: "So far as this section is concerned, it gives to the President an unlimited authority to determine the policy and to lay down the prohibition, or not to lay it down, as he may see lit. And disobedience to his order is made a crime punishable by fine and imprisonment." The Court further said: "The Congress left the matter to the President without standard or rule, to be dealt with as he And the Court made the following lengthy observation on the general subject: "If section 9 (c) were held valid, it would be idle to pretend that anything would be left of limitations upon the power of the Congress to delegate its law-making function. The reasoning of the many decisions we have reviewed would be made vacuous and their distinctions nugatory. Instead of performing its law-making function the Congress could at will and as to such subjects as it chooses tranfer that function to the President or other officer or to administrative body. The question is not of the intrinsic importance of the particular statute before us, but of the constitutional processes of legislation which are an essential part of our system of government." It seems reasonable to presume that on the hasis of this recent decision of the Supreme Court there could scarcely be contention at least justified contention that the appropriation resolution which we are discussing could possibly be constitutional. The obvious comment, therefore, would be, well, why not attack it in the Courts if it passes Congress in unsatisfactory form? Therein, however, lies grave difficulty. It might be impossible to devise a plan whereby the measure could be gotten before the Supreme Court, at least before the enormous sum of money which it appropriates was either expended or pledged. The remedy should lie in the Congress as the protector of the people's rights. In view of the fact that there are so many important things to be discussed at the present time I may have devoted what seems to you an inordinate amount of time to this particular measure. In my opinion, however, it is the most revolutionary, the most unjustified and the most unwise attempt at absolute delegation of legislative authority to the Executive that we have ever witnessed in the history of this country. And, furthermore, in my opinion, if it passes and goes unchallenged in the Courts, it is a certain indication of the disintegration of the form of government under which we have lived and in which we have professed to believe. The issue involved is whether Democracy shall continue to hold sway in this Republic or whether Bureaucracy will take its place. Social Security Program The President has recently presented to the Congress a program for social security. The contemplated legislation includes unemployment insurance, old age benefits, aid for dependent children through mothers' pensions and an expanded program of public health activities. In my opinion the objectives sought will command the respect and the favor of a large majority of our citizens. Particularly 12 13 at this time does the idea of unemployment insurance have a popular appeal. The plight of the man who is ready and able to work but who cannot find a job wins sympathetic consideration at the hands of his fellow men and at the hands of his government. Quite aside from the humanitarian aspect it is highly desirable from the standpoint of our national welfare that a system shall be devised to insure some compensation in periods of depression where men are temporarily deprived of their ordinary means of livelihood. This particular problem, however, as well as the others suggested by the President's program, must be solved through cooperation between the Federal and State governments, and that is the plan which is at present in contemplation. Likewise as to old age benefits, there is general approval of the objective although there may be considerable disagreement as to the most intelligent method of achieving that objective. In the bill which has been presented to the Congress all features of the security program are combined in one huge legislative enactment. There is serious question of the wisdom of trying to solve these diverse problems in a single omnibus bill. However appealing the need may be, we must remember that this is not emergency legislation. It is a proposal, or perhaps more actually a group of proposals, to make far-reaching and permanent changes in the economic system of the country. Alteration of the most complicated and delicate relationships is involved. It is merely good sense to suggest that when Congress seeks to legislate on such subjects it should make sure that it proceeds with full knowledge and understanding of all the factors involved. No more intricate piece of legislation has been introduced than that which now impends. I have gone over the bill repeatedly with members of the research staff of the American 14 Liberty League and I confess that it is extremely difficult for me to comprehend, both in its provisions and in its implications. Any one of the four major features involved presents as much legislation as the average member of Congress is able to digest at any particular time and, therefore, the thought that the present comprehensive bill should be split up into its logical component parts. There are two essential tests which must be applied to all features of this security program, whether it is enacted in one bill or in several bills. First, the system set up must take due account of our dual form of government. The rights and the privileges of States must not be impaired. Devotion to the praiseworthy objectives must not be used as an excuse for establishing another huge Federal bureaucracy which shall attempt to dictate the most intimate details of private business. In other words, social security legislation must be enacted with due regard to the provisions of the Federal Constitution. President's Warning Praised The second major test to be applied is that of economic feasibility. Only harm will be done to those whom we seek to benefit if through ill-considered action we take steps beyond the capacity of our national Treasury and injurious to our national credit. I commend most heartily that paragraph of the President's message in which he said: "It is overwhelmingly important to avoid any danger of permanently discrediting the sound and necessary policy of Federal legislation for economic security by attempting to apply it on too ambitious a scale before actual experience has provided guidance for the permanently safe direction of such efforts." The President's own commission, in its report to the Congress which accompanied the Presi-15 dent's message, called attention to the fact that in the matter of old age benefits actuarial estimates submitted to it had shown such an increasing burden upon the Federal government as to create an almost intolerable drain in the course of forty-five years. Therefore this commission urged that a further study should be made in order to work out a program that would avoid excessive or perhaps impossible expenditure. In such circumstances it is the plain duty of the Congress to weigh with the utmost care each feature of this proposed legislation and not be swept oÂ£E its feet by the plea that the legislation should be passed immediately in order that necessary State laws shall be at once enacted by sitting legislatures. When carefully considered measures have come from the Federal Congress there will be no difficulty in securing such extra sessions of State legislatures as may be required to enact proper State laws. "Potential Enemies of There was held in Washington on January 16th a meeting called a National the Nation" Monetary Conference. It adopted a set of resolutions in which, among other things, it demanded that the government destroy the present Federal Reserve System and that it issue fiat currency to meet its obligations. I call particular attention to one paragraph of the resolutions which read as follows: "That for the guidance of Congress in a fuller understanding of the present low prices of agricultural commodities there be referred to the proper committee of Congress and accompanied by a proper appropriation a mandate to investigate the identity of holders of the outstanding obligations of the United States as of January 1, 1935, and of the real owners as distinguished from the nominal holders, together with the names and identities of all who have become creditors of the United States Government since January 1, 1935, with the object 16 of determining and disclosing potential enemies of this Nation here or abroad." You will observe that this resolution, by inference at least, designates creditors of our government as "potential enemies of this Nation." Who are the creditors of the government? They are the individuals and the institutions which hold government securities. The outstanding obligations of the government are now close to twenty-nine billions of dollars. Something like 60 per cent of this amount is held by the banks of the country. Just what does that mean? The banks bought these government securities with the money of their depositors. They hold these securities against their liability to their depositors. For all practical purposes the securities belong to the depositors. According to the latest available statistics there are more than thirty-six million savings bank depositors in the United States, in addition to the millions of commercial depositors. According to this resolution of the National Monetary Conference every one of these millions is a "potential enemy." Then there are those who have insurance policies and those who are protected by insurance policies. The World Almanac states that at the end of 1933 there were approximately thirty-two million ordinary life insurance policies in force and over eighty-one million industrial policies a total of one hundred and thirteen million policies all told. Thus an overwhelming proportion of the people of the United States are directly concerned with insurance policies and the benefits accruing therefrom. An insurance company does not keep your money or my money in cash. The money that we pay in premiums is invested and every insurance company is a large holder of government securities. In effect, therefore, those who own policies or those who will benefit from 17 policies are the owners of government securities. They number a vast majority of the people of the country, and under the resolution of the National Monetary Conference they are "potential enemies." But the list is not yet complete. Most of our hospitals, scientific foundations, colleges and universities, many of our churches and other institutions devoted to public service, have invested their funds in government securities. So by the same token they must be classified as "potential enemies." Within the week the United States Treasury has asked the Congress to permit it to issue some eleven billions of additional government bonds. It is proposed that a considerable part of these will be of small denominations, as low as $25.00, so as to induce the masses of the people of the country to buy securities of their government just as they were asked to do during the War. By the standards set up by the National Monetary Conference, each one of us who responds to this appeal to make direct purchase of these securities will become a "potential enemy" and should be investigated by a committee of the Congress because we have faith in the solvency and security of our government and are willing to loan our money to it at a time when its burdens are so heavy and the demands upon it so great. The resolution to which I have alluded was inserted in the Congressional Record of January 17th. When he obtained permission to print the resolution, Senator Thomas of Oklahoma announced that the Conference was attended by representatives of some sixteen organizations, but the names of only five organizations, through their representatives, were appended to the text as printed. Those five organizations are: The Sound Money League, The National Farmers Union, The National Depositors Committee, The National Union for Social Justice and The World Monetary Reform League. Th L'bert Before I close may I ' tell you a little more League's about the American Lib- Principles erty League and the pur- poses for which it stands. A short time ago it issued a ten-point platform representing its basic beliefs. I should like today to elaborate somewhat upon that platform and to give you my conception of the aims and purposes of the League. First, it was organized as a liberal, constructive body to do its part in the attempt to solve our national problems. It will assert itself to the uttermost in the effort to bring about business recovery, reduce unemployment and improve the living conditions of the average man. It will try in every way to aid in restoring the confidence of the people in themselves, in each other, in American institutions and in their government. The League believes that our Federal Constitution is a practical and efficient charter of both individual liberty and prosperity; that its provisions are a safeguard to the people in time of adversity as well as in time of prosperity. The League holds that under the provisions of our Constitution this country has witnessed a general diffusion of wealth unparalleled in the history of the world, has grown to greatness, has absorbed millions of people of alien birth into its population and has in the most realistic way assured to every citizen, however humble, his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The League believes that the violation of constitutional principles in time of emergency results in ultimate disaster, and that Benjamin Franklin spoke a great truth when he said: "A nation that gives up its liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." The League insists that it is a duty of government to encourage and protect individual and 19 group initiative and enterprise, to foster the right to work, earn, save and acquire property and to safeguard the ownership and lawful use of property when acquired. Government The League believes the Should Preserve primary object of gov-Rights eminent is to preserve human rights, but it also holds that human rights and property rights are inseparable and that the right to own property is among the most important of human rights. If this is to continue a land of opportunity the privilege must be preserved to every man to enjoy the fruit of his own ability and labor and to hand it on to his children. The League is opposed to any attempt to divide this country into classes and blocs. The class of so-called "capitalists" in America includes millions of savings bank depositors, holders of insurance policies and small shop keepers; it includes those who own their own homes, those who own farms or crops or live stock, those who own a few shares in any industrial enterprise; it includes widows and orphans whose sustenance depends on the protection of capital which has been passed on to them by their bread-winners; in fact, it includes an overwhelming majority of the people of the United States. All of them are sufferers from unconsidered attacks on the existing system. The League believes in economy in government. It believes in a balanced budget. It believes in the maintenance of a sound and stable currency. The League opposes all unnecessary competition by government with private enterprise. It opposes the socialization of industry and agriculture, the spread of monopoly, the growth of bureaucracy and the nationalization of property. The League recognizes that there can be no lasting recovery until all laborers, whether on 20 the farm, in the factory, at the forge, in the store or in the office, are receiving a reasonable return for their efforts. It recognizes also that capital is entitled to a fair return on its investment. To both objectives it will lend its earnest support. The League urges that the processes of recovery are retarded and not helped by the unnecessary and unwarranted interference with business and the outright destruction of property. The League favors every proper effort to effect and maintain conditions under which no one willing to work need suffer for the necessities of life. It advocates the protection and relief of those men, women and children who are in distress because of unemployment or misfortunes over which they have no control. The League condemns and will oppose legislators or any other public officials who do not obey their oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution. The League directs attention to the fact that under the stress of the depression a large number of temporary measures were enacted by the Congress; that these measures were frankly designated as experiments in the hope of reducing unemployment and aiding in business recovery. But the American people were told that unless these purposes were accomplished by the measures so framed, the experiments would be discontinued. Many of these expedients have involved vast expenditures of public funds and the value of at least some of them has not been proved. Appraisal of Experiments Requested The League believes that the American people are entitled to a prompt and frank appraisal of this experimental legislation and to be informed what experiments should be discarded and what should be perpetuated 21 either in their present form or with specific modifications. The League believes in the two-party system. It is not for one political party as against another. It appeals to both parties to endorse its principles. It will endeavor to persuade officers of government to adhere to these principles. The League will work vigorously, aggressively and constructively to keep government within its constitutional bounds and to keep representative government truly representative of all the people. It is enlisted for as many years as may be necessary to re-institute respect for the Constitution as the charter of principles of human liberty and human rights. To those who believe in the principles for which the League stands and who feel that it has the opportunity for useful work we extend a cordial invitation to join us. And to you, Madam Chairman, and to your associates in the League of Women Voters, I extend sincere thanks for the opportunity that has been given me to participate in your program. Pamphlets Available Copies of the following pamphlets may be obtained upon application to the League's national headquarters: American Liberty League Speech by Jouett Shouse The Tenth Commandment Why, The American Liberty League? Statement of Principles and Purposes Progress vs. Change Speech by Jouett Shouse Recovery, Relief and the Constitution Speech by Jouett Shouse American Liberty League Its Platform An Analysis of the President's Budget Message N. R. A. Its Past, and Recommendations for the Future Analysis of the $4,880,000,000 Emergency Relief Appropriation Act Economic Security A Study of Proposed Legislation Write to AMERICAN LIBERTY LEAGUE NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING WASHINGTON, D. C. 22