You have found an item located in the Kentuckiana Digital Library.
No. 39 "The New Deal: Its Unsound Theories And Irreconcilable Policies" Address of Ralph M. Shaw before the Georgia Bar Association, May 31, 1935. American Liberty League. 400dpi TIFF G4 page images Digital Library Services, University of Kentucky Libraries Lexington, Kentucky Am_Lib_Leag_39 These pages may freely searched and displayed. Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. No. 39 "The New Deal: Its Unsound Theories And Irreconcilable Policies" Address of Ralph M. Shaw before the Georgia Bar Association, May 31, 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. Pamphlets Available â˜… Copies of the following pamphlets and other League literature may be obtained upon application to the League's national headquarters: Why, The American Liberty League? The Tenth Commandment ' 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 Analysis of the $4,880,000,000 Emergency Relief Appropriation Act Economic Security The Bonus Inflation Democracy or Bureaucracy? Speech by Jouett Shouse The Thirty Hour Week The Constitution Still Stands Speech by Jouett Shouse The Pending Banking Bill The Holding Company Bill The Legislative Situation Speech by Jouett Shouse "What is the Constitution Between Friends?" Speech by James M. Beck Where Are We Going? Speech by James W. W adsworth Price Control Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow The Labor Relations Bill Government by Experiment Speech by Dr. Neil Carothers How Inflation Affects the Average Family Speech by Dr. Ray Bert Westerfield The AAA Amendments Political Banking Speech by Dr. Walter E. Spahr The Bituminous Coal Bill Regimenting the Farmers Speech by Dr. G. W. Dyer Extension of the NRA Human Rights and the Constitution Speech by R. E. Desvernine The Farmers' Home Bill The TVA Amendments â˜… AMERICAN LIBERTY LEAGUE NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING WASHINGTON, D. C. â˜… â˜… THE NEW DEAL ITS UNSOUND THEORIES AND IRRECONCILABLE POLICIES â˜… â˜… â˜… Address of RALPH M. SHAW Chairman of the Illinois Division of the American Liberty League, before the Georgia Bar Association, at Sealsland,Georgia, May 31, 1935 AMERICAN LIBERTY LEAGUE Rational Headquarters NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING WASHINGTON, D. C. â˜… â˜… Document No. 39 The New Deal â˜… Its Unsound Theories and Irreconcilable Policies "What experience and history teach is this: That peoples and governments never have learned anything from history, nor acted on principles deduced from it." (Hegel) The accuracy of the statement contained in the foregoing quotation from Hegel could never be more fittingly illustrated than by the conditions which obtain in this country at the present time. We Americans, and especially the members of our profession, are confused, bewildered and dismayed, but not because of a mere economic depression. Like depressions have existed since authentic history began and will doubtless continue for countless years to come until, if ever, millennium arrives. But millennium is not yet here, and in the meantime we are confused, bewildered and dismayed by reason of novel, weird, fantastic and vague legislation in contravention of all past experience and quite beyond the comprehension of a normal mind. We listen to legislators, executives and demagogues who talk in terms of billions of dollars, of millions of families on relief, and we are told of hitherto unknown principles, rights, duties, obligations and regulations. These laws and regulations are so complex that they stupefy reason. The figures are so stupendous that no one can understand them or apply them, just as years ago when, as children in school, we were told that the sun was so many millions of miles away from the earth, we said, "Oh," but it didn't mean anything concrete or tangible to our childish minds. Accordingly, this morning I propose, if I can, to reduce all these grandiose figures and strange and weird concepts of rights, duties, obligations and regulations to first principles, and to illustrate them in such simple terms and phraseology that he who runs can read and understand. 3 Two Postulates Without fear of successful contradiction, 1 submit to this convention of able lawyers, that a nation is nothing more or less than an accumulation of families; that the family is the basic unit of government and that families are composed of individuals with interests in common because of long, intimate and familiar relationship. Further, that what is true of "the family" is equally true of a group of families, and is also equally true of the grand accumulation of families which constitute the nation. If a family continues to overspend, it goes broke and it necessarily follows that if a nation continues to overspend, it must also become bankrupt, its credit destroyed and the standard of living of the individuals who compose it be reduced to the want level. This is such a self-evident proposition that I almost crave your indulgence for making it. In connection with the foregoing proposition, and as a part of it (for the two should be considered jointly), I submit for your consideration a postulate or aphorism, the accuracy of which is also not open to debate. It is as follows: "Justice to one is injustice to no one, But mercy to some may be injustice to many." I urge your earnest consideration of these postulates. If they are constantly borne in mind, then irrespective of how the New Deal is defined whether it is merely aimed towards recovery, as some of its adherents claim; or whether it is merely pointed towards reform, as some of its adherents claim; or whether it has a more sinister objective (reference to which will be made hereinafter) the fact remains that, bearing these postulates in mind, there will be no difficulty in analyzing, dissecting and thoroughly appreciating the unsound principles and irreconcilable policies of the so-called "New Deal." Some of the empirical idealists who are sponsoring it predicate their support upon what they call the desirability or necessity of "social" justice. Of course, we lawyers know that "justice" is "justice" whether it be in the courtroom or in the ballroom or in the market place, and that the preface of the word "social" to the word "justice" adds nothing to its meaning or luster. But because these empirical idealists seem to attach some importance to the word "social" as a prefix to the word "justice," suppose we consider the phrase in its entirety. The New Deal's Conception of "Social Injustice" and "Social Justice" Just what is "social justice" or "social injustice?" Suppose we apply the phrase to what is ordinarily called the social side of life. Here we have on the one hand a beautiful, charming, comely woman, or a brilliant, intelligent man, and on the other hand an unintelligent, unattractive, dowdy woman, or a shiftless, unkempt, unattractive man. Certainly, the former have a great advantage over the latter in all of the social activities and competitions of life. Is that a social injustice? Under the theories of the New Deal, it surely must be. Therefore, according to New Deal theories, society should proceed to remedy the injustice by law. Obviously, however, since society can not possibly enforce a law which would vest in the homely and the unintelligent the qualities of comeliness and intelligence, in order to remedy the injustice, the law must find some way to mar or destroy the charm and intelligence of those who have the advantage. Thus, we obtain so-called "social justice." Obviously, however, such an inhuman process is gross injustice to those who are maimed. Nevertheless, that's the logic of the New Deal. Transfer the consideration of the phrase "social justice" to the realm of athletics. Here we have a ten second man on the university track team; your Bobby Jones at golf (I would like to call him our Bobby Jones because, after all, he is a national figure); Ty Cobb, of baseball fame, or Dixie Howell as a fullback. Their competitors are unable to successfully compete with them. Is that a social injustice? Is it fair that one man should run in ten seconds, while his competitor can't run in better than twenty? Is it fair that Mr. Jones should have an advantage over his competitors at golf, or Mr. Cobb at baseball, or Mr. Howell in football? Obviously, if logic means anything these gentlemen have an advantage in competition with their competitors to which they are not entitled. Accordingly, society passes a law to remove the injustice. However, since society can not enforce a law which would increase the speed of the twenty second man to ten seconds, or make a golfer out of a dub, or a brilliant baseball player or fullback out of a third-rate substitute, society, by law, hamstrings the ten second man, maims Mr. Jones, Mr. Cobb and Mr. Howell to the end that their excellence is impaired and their superiority is destroyed. Thus, irrespective of the injustice to the gentlemen we have hamstrung and maimed, "social justice" has been accomplished. That is the logic of the New Deal. Still again apply the phrase "social justice" to the industrial side of life. On the one hand you have a thrifty, ambitious or lucky (if you please) group of men, in whatever line of endeavor they may be engaged, and on the other a group who are thriftless and indolent and unlucky. The former succeed. They attain an enviable status in society, a competency, nay, even a vast fortune for themselves and their descendants. Is that a social injustice? If the tenets of the New Deal are to be accurately applied, it surely is. So the Legislature passes a law to remedy it. Obviously, however, since society, by law, can not energize the thriftless and the incompetent and place them on a parity with the thrifty and the competent, society, by law, proceeds to destroy the capacity of the thrifty, or their incentive to exercise it. Thus New Dealers claim society has destroyed "social injustice" and weeded out the "privileged." But is that justice to those whose capacity and incentive have been destroyed and who have been weeded out? The New Dealers say that it is. That is the logic of the New Deal. To reverse the situation, here's an evangelical broadcaster of national reputation with a voice, a command of rhetoric and an extraordinary capacity for influencing people who can't think for themselves. Others who desire to influence the same class of people may not compete successfully with him. Isn't that a social injustice? Oughtn't it be remedied by law? According to the tenets of the New Deal it is, and it should. But, since society knows of no law which will vest in the unskillful the capacity to influence and move the unthinking, society proceeds by law to emasculate the voice of the evangelical broadcaster of national reputation. Isn't that an "injustice" to the broadcaster? Personally, I think it is. Nevertheless, that's the logic of the New Deal. I illustrate further. Here are five gentlemen in the front row. They are starting out in life in the same city block or on adjacent farms or plantations. Each has the right to plan for himself as he wishes for the future. They each establish, or ought to establish each for himself, the standard of life which they wish. Certainly, even New Dealers would concede that. Number one is frugal, thrifty and continent if you please, lucky. Over the years he accumulates sufficient to take care of himself and his family in his declining years. The next three are not so farsighted and lucky (if you please), but they do fairly well. The fifth has no vision, or if he has, refuses to exercise it; no energy, or if he has, prefers to spend it in riotous living. He brings a family into the world of such size and number that there is not the remotest chance of his ever being able to provide for them, either in good times or bad. Then comes depression. Number one, because of his foresight and vision and luck (if you please) is able to get through with comparative comfort. Number two, three and four, by exercising then the virtues which number one has exercised always, are able to pull through, but number five is starving. Now, this discussion has nothing whatever to do with what any one or all of the four may voluntarily do for number five. This discussion is centered only upon what society ought to compel number one to do for number five. If the New Dealers are running society, by law and against his will, they take away from number one the results of his foresight and thrift and give it to number five. Is that justice to number one? Is that not punishing number one for his virtue and rewarding number five for his vice? That, however, is the logic and avowed purpose of the New Deal. Just one further illustration before I leave this branch of this address. Last September in California I was arguing with a New Dealer about the virtues of Sinclair's EPIC, sometimes called "Ending Poverty in California," and sometimes paraphrased as "Everybody Poor in California." We were making no headway. Finally the New Dealer, who thoroughly believed in what he was defending said, "We are not getting anywhere. Suppose we begin again. Suppose we start from something about which we both agree. Of course (he said), you believe in the 'more abundant life' for the 'underprivileged.' " "Well (I said), not so fast. Suppose you define the phrase 'the more abundant life' and suppose you define the word 'underprivileged.' " Of course, he couldn't do it in any satisfactory phraseology and neither can any one else, be he ever so blest with a honied vocabulary. The phrase "the more abundant life for the underprivileged" is just a glamorous combination of words to lull the thoughtless and the indigent into beautiful daydreams of accomplishment and happiness without effort on their part. Then I said to the New Dealer: "If you mean by the more abundant life that one would like to see every man who does not have what he wants get it, if he can, then every one believes in the 'more abundant life.' But if you mean by the more abundant life that every man who does not have what he wants, has the right to demand and take it, or under the guise of law, either through taxes or by force, have it taken for him from somebody else, I don't believe in the so-called 'more abundant life' and no nation could survive under such a regime. But what is far more important, suppose we discuss the meaning of the word 'underprivileged.'" It couldn't be done, and since the abstract was getting no results, I suggested a switch to the concrete and asked him where he would place a certain individual whom we both knew, was he privileged or underprivileged? The New Dealer said with a sneer, "Oh, he is one of the privileged." "Well (I said), where would you have placed him forty years ago, when (as I knew the fact to be) like millions of other citizens, he walked the streets of a large city looking for a job, with few acquaintances and no friends, without a dime in his pockets except the money that he had borrowed where would you have placed him then?" Both logic and honesty required him to say, "At that time he was one of the underprivileged." "Well," I asked (and I now ask every individual in this audience and in this country who is sufficiently interested in the subject to consider the question), "what was it that took the one time 'underprivileged' into the ranks of the 'privileged'? The State gave him no bounty; no privileges, no exclusive grant, no magnificent largess. It was work, character, natural ability and good luck, if you please " Another question necessarily follows: Is it "social justice" to deprive such a man of what he has accomplished and to destroy his incentive to accomplish more, and give it to somebody else? The New Dealer is forced to answer this inquiry "Yes." That is the logic of the New Deal. LaFollette's Representative Some months ago an attractive young man came into my office in Chicago and presented his card. In the lower left-hand corner there appeared the words, "Special Representative of the Honorable Robert M. LaFollette, Senator from Wisconsin." I don't know whether Senator LaFollette sent him or not, but the gentleman said he did. After the amenities of the occasion were over, he said he had called to enlist me as one of a group in Illinois to sponsor Senator LaFollette's social propaganda in my State. Upon inquiry as to the nature of his program, he said: "Senator LaFollette has a number of planks in his program, to the first of which, I am sure, you will agree. The first is: Every man has a right to a job." I asked, "Are you using your terms advisedly?" He repeated, "Certainly. Every man has a right to a job." "Well," I said, "to me rights connote 'duties.' It is inconceivable to think of a right without a correlative duty. If every man has a right to a job, then it is somebody's duty to give him a job, because 'rights' are enforceable against those who owe 'duties.' " Continuing, I said, "Here is a supposed stranger at the door. He wants a job. Is it your duty to give him a job?" "Certainly not," was the answer. "Well," I asked, "is it my duty to give him a job?" "Certainly not," was the answer. "Well," 1 said, "don't we (you and I) fairly represent a cross-section of society? Whose duty is it to give the stranger a job?" "No," I said, "a man. by his own energy, intelligence, thrift, tenacity of purpose, enterprise and all of the other virtues which go to make men efficient, must get a job for himself, if he can. A decent and desirable society can never survive by imposing duties where there are no correlative rights or vice versa." The logic of the New Deal is that "duties" may be imposed by law upon some and vested as "rights" in others, but the recipients of the "rights" under New Deal law have no obligations of any kind to those upon whom the duties are imposed. A New Slavery Ladies and gentlemen, prior to the year 1860 there existed in our country a social status recog-in nized by law. Under that status, some groups in the society had the right, by law, to expropriate the time and labor of other groups. The exploiters were under no legal obligation to the exploited, except as enlightened self-love imposed it. The status was called slavery. On the one hand stood the masters, among whom were my ancestors. On the other were the slaves. Seventy years have since elapsed and according to the New Dealers a new status in society is now being created. Under this new status, it is proposed by taxation to confiscate the property of some citizens; expropriate the time and labor of those who work and are still willing to work and to give the proceeds thereof to those who don't work, many of whom are unwilling to work. The latter have a legal right to enjoy the property, the time and the service of the former. The former have merely a duty which they may be compelled to perform. Those who receive the benefits of the property taken and the time and labor expropriated are under no obligation whatever to those from whom it is taken. I don't know what you call it, but I call such a status slavery. The only difference between this present status and the slavery that obtained prior to 1860 is this: That in the present status the inefficient become the masters and the efficient and the thrifty are the slaves. That is the logic of the New Deal. But, says some one who is troubled by the logic of this analysis and desires to divert the mind from reason to sentiment, you are placing too much emphasis on "property rights" and not â– enough on "human rights." The answer is simple and convincing. In the first place, property has no rights. The correct phrase is "rights in property." If there is such a thing as a human right, I know of no human right which is dearer to civilized man than the right to work for, acquire and keep for his own, property. Property is substantially synonymous with capital. Capital means safety. Nations with capital have high standards of living. Families with capital have certain freedom from want. Capital has never been acquired by any one except through thrift, frugality, saving, foresight and vision (with sometimes a little luck), either by the person who acquired it or by some ancestor who acquired it for him. The Unsoundness of "Sharing the Wealth" Theory But, says some one gifted with more demagogic vision than with keen power of logical analysis, some people have taken more than their fair share of the capital. Never was there a more malicious misrepresentation of an economic fact made by an ambitious demagogue to thoughtless people incapable of thinking for themselves. Such an assertion connotes the concept that in some way, somehow, there has been created a pile of wealth, loaded upon a table, from which some people have seized more than their fair share. Such a suggestion indicates a total want on the part of the individual making it, whenever it is made, wherever it is made, or by whomsoever it is made, of the true concept of how capital or wealth is created. One illustration will suffice. I suppose that if the slogan "Share the Wealth" should ever be translated into an actual effort to do so, the fortune which Mr. Ford is credited with having amassed would be taken from him. But the fact is that that wealth would never have existed if it had not been for Mr. Ford or some other genius equally as capable. It was not created by some one else and piled upon the table and then seized by him. On the contrary, he created the wealth himself, and by his genius and ability, management and vision, he put into operation the activities which created it. He produced a car by the production of which he brought luxury to millions of homes otherwise unobtainable. He gave employment to millions of employees in his own factories and in the factories and mines and railroads which produce and transport the raw material. He made it him-12 self. In so doing, he added materially to the wealth and happiness of millions. To take away from him by law the results of his achievement and give it to somebody else who has accomplished nothing but failure would be a crime not only against him but a crime against society. Yet in its ultimate analysis that's what the New Deal advocates. That is the logic of the New Deal. Summary of New Deal Theories Ladies and gentlemen, I have been attempting during this portion of my address, by illustration or otherwise, to put the logic or lack of logic of the New Deal in such plain phrases that a high school student could thoroughly understand and grasp. However, the whole theory of the New Deal may be summed up in a few sentences. The New Deal is nothing more or less than an effort sponsored by inexperienced sentimentalists and demagogues to take away from the thrifty what the thrifty or their ancestors have accumulated, or may accumulate, and to give it to others who have not earned it, or whose ancestors haven't earned it for them, and who never would have earned it and never will earn it, and thus indirectly to destroy the incentive for all future accumulation. Such a purpose is in defiance of everything that history teaches and of the tenets upon which our civilization has been founded. The Declaration of Independence recites, and our whole theory of society is predicated upon the concept: "That men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." As children we were taught that it was the right and duty of each man to pursue and acquire happiness for himself. But the New Deal says that this is not so; that it is not the duty of each one to acquire happiness and contentment for himself, if he can, but that the duty is imposed upon somebody else to make other people happy and furnish them contentment, even 13 if in so doing he makes himself unhappy and is destroyed. Thank God, since the decision of the Supreme Court in Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad on May 6th, there is grave doubt as to whether such a duty exists or may be imposed by one group upon another under the Constitution of the United States. Present Legal Status I pass to the second branch of this address, to-wit, the legal status and the irreconcilability of New Deal legislation. As to its constitutionality: In my judgment, it is not fitting at this time for me to indulge in prophecies as to what the Supreme Court of the United States will hold in certain cases involving this identical question which have already been, or soon will be, argued before it. Suffice it to say that as early as 1866, in Ex parte Milligan, in the 4th of Wallace, on page 212, referring to the Constitution of the United States, the Supreme Court of the United States used the following language: "No doctrine, involving more pernicious conclusions, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its (the Constitution's) provisions can be suspended during the exigencies of government." Still again in 1907, in Kansas v. Colorado, when the government was claiming the right to exercise a power not granted to it by the Constitution, the Supreme Court, referring to the Tenth Amendment, said on page 90: "this amendment, which was seemingly adopted with prescience of just such contention as the present, disclosed the widespread fear that the National Government might, under the pressure of a supposed general welfare, attempt to exercise powers which had not been granted. . . . The people who adopted the Constitution knew that in the nature of things they could not foresee all the questions which might arise in the future, all the circumstances which might call for the exercise of further national powers than those granted to the United States, and after making provision for an amendment to the Constitution by which any needed additional powers would be granted, they reserved to themselves all powers not so delegated." 14 Within the recent past in the lower courts, that distinguished counselor and citizen, the Honorable Forney Johnson, has been successful in applying the constitutional principles in which I believe to the Tennessee Valley Authority. I express the hope that he will be equally as successful in the Supreme Court. In Panama Refining Company v. Ryan, 293 U. S. 388, the Oil Code and the legislation purporting to authorize it have been held unconstitutional. In the case of Railroad Retirement Board, et al. v. The Alton Railroad Co. (already referred to), the Railroad Pension Bill has been declared unconstitutional. On Monday, the 27th instant, the Supreme Court handed down its now two famous decisions in the Frazier-Lemke and Schechter Cases. In one it held the Frazier-Lemke Act unconstitutional. In the other, to-wit, the Schechter Case, broadly speaking, it held the N. I. R. A. Act unconstitutional. Both decisions were unanimous, though in the Schechter Case two Justices, in an opinion especially concurring, expressed the thought that the Court had gone too far. It is much too soon for a careful lawyer to attempt to analyze and dissect the far-reaching effect of these two decisions, but it may be safely said that in them the Court has measured up to the high ideals of its past. To the end that you may thoroughly understand the all-important questions involved in the Schechter Case, the following is quoted from the argument of Mr. Frederick H. Wood, one of the Schechter Company's counsel: "The Congress, therefore, affirmatively undertook by this act to authorize the President to regulate the wages and hours of persons employed under the codes established under the act. Some 540 codes have been adopted under the act. Every one of these codes contains a regulation of hours and wages required to be observed by all the members of the industry to which it applies, to be enforced by criminal prosecution. "The codes so approved range from the regulation of the children's garment industry, to the regulation of persons 'engaged in the preparation of dead 15 human bodies, for burial' and the erection of monuments over such bodies after they have been buried thus literally undertaking to regulate human activity from the cradle to the grave, and beyond." The concluding sentence of Mr. Wood's brilliant argument is as follows: "If, as many may believe, the Federal Government should be converted into some form of national socialistic state whether Soviet, Fascist, or Nazi it may be accomplished only by the submission of a Constitutional amendment, upon which submission the people of the United States will have a right to determine whether or not they desire such change to be made. It may not be accomplished by an Act of Congress." The Court in its decision in the Schechter Case has apparently adopted the views so eloquently stated by Mr. Wood, to-wit, that a change may not be made in the Constitution of the United States by a mere wish of a New Dealer enacted into law by a complacent Congress. These two cases were pet cases of the New Dealers. By its decisions in these cases, the Court has delivered another stinging rebuke. I express the ardent hope that when decisions in other cases yet to come are handed down, involving other fantastic theories of New Dealers, the Court will see no reason for modifying the decisions in the Oil Case, the Pension Case, the Frazier-Lemke Case and the Schechter Case. But suppose we indulge in the assumption that the Court, in some other case, for some reason which seems logical to it, gives some constitutional encouragement to the New Dealers; or suppose we should indulge in the unthinkable assumption that the Court may be packed for the express purpose of forcing a constitutional decision, irrespective of reason, logic and ethics. What then may be said? I submit for your consideration that the conglomeration of heterogeneous laws enacted by the Congress at the request of the New Dealers and the regulations issued under the pretended authority thereof are so full of unsound, absurd, uneconomic, irreconcilable and contradictory 16 policies as to justify the suspicion, even though it may not prove the fact, that they were not passed for the pretended purpose of reform or the simulated purpose of recovery, but, on the contrary, as many believe, were and are deliberately calculated and designed to destroy liberty and the civilization which we inherited from our ancestors or, stated in other words, were and are deliberately designed to Sovietize or Nazi-ize the Republic; but in any event to destroy it. This I now propose to discuss. I do not think for a moment that I can tell to this audience anything that you do not already know, but i propose to try and assemble, if possible, somewhat graphically, in parallel columns as it were, many of the practices, promulgations and legislative enactments of the New Dealers, to the end that the utter futility of this legislation to accomplish its pretended purpose will be clearly recognized and the suspicions above suggested will be greatly emphasized. Compilation of Historical Incidents There was recently handed to me what purports to be a copy of a compilation in existence in the Department of Agriculture, prepared by the librarian of the Bureau of Markets and Crop Estimates, of many, if not all, of the attempts made by various nations, since authentic history began to regiment prices, wages, production and fees. This compilation contains, among other things, the following language: "In connection with this control, it would seem that every possible expedient and experiment had been tried." The compilation discloses the fact that regimentation of the character which presently obtains in the United States today was tried in Egypt in 2830 B.C. and failed. It was tried in Athens 404 B.C. and failed. It was tried in Rome during the reign of Diocletian in 301 A.D. Though it miserably failed then, sixty years later, it was tried during the reign of the Emperor Julian with equally disastrous results. It was tried in Great Britain about the year 17 1200, in the Dutch Republic in 1584, in India in 1770, and in Great Britain again in 1866, in France during the tragic period of the French Revolution. The summary at the close of this interesting compilation discloses the fact that wherever and whenever the experiment was tried it miserably failed, was followed by financial disaster and, at times, with political destruction. Yet in the face of these historic facts, which are, or ought to be known at least by New Dealers in the Department of Agriculture, and in direct contravention of all the lessons which man can learn from experience and history, the New Dealers proceed blithely on their way attempting to regiment production, prices, labor and liberty. On the one hand, under the pretense that there is too much arable acreage in production, some people are taxed to pay other people not to work and thus to diminish arable acreage in production. The gentlemen at the head of the A. A. A. still pretend to believe that the New Deal's program in this respect is basically satisfactory. From the point of view of a New Dealer who is inspired with the hope of being able to destroy our civilization this may be so, but from the point of view of a patriotic American citizen who is interested in economic recovery, it is tragically unsound. Grain which should have been produced on American farms by American laborers is being imported. Cotton goods are coming into the country from foreign looms in unbelievable quantities. The Brazilians, the Egyptians, the Africans, and the Japanese have grasped the opportunity in cotton. Largely relieved of American competition by New Deal folly they have planted huge acreage in cotton and installed American machinery to occupy our abandoned markets. Surely the New Dealers should be proud of their accomplishments in this particular field of endeavor, for it has produced the following results: 18 1. It has brought economic ruin to millions of tenant farmers who have been forced out of production and placed on relief. 2. It has raised the price of food and clothing for millions of citizen consumers. 3. Our export markets have been lost. 4. Our money which should have been paid to American workmen in the grain and cotton fields and to have supported their families has been paid by the millions to workmen abroad; and, finally 5. The taxpayer has been triply burdened in that the taxpayer has been assessed to keep land out of production. The taxpayer has been assessed to furnish relief to thousands who would otherwise have been self-supporting. And the taxpayer's cost of living has been indefensibly increased. The consequences now being clear, the Government in 1935, has advised the spring wheat farmers to grow all the wheat they can, but that they will still receive their cash dole. In other words, the New Dealers propose to raise taxes to make gifts to farmers for producing what they were originally paid for not producing. As Dr. Carothers, of Lehigh University, said in his broadcast of April 7, 1935: "When an experiment reaches this stage it ought to go into receivership." Simultaneously with the taxation of some people to pay other people to reduce the arable acreage under production and still under the pretense of saving or protecting the farmer, the Government is taxing taxpayers in order to pay for the cost of irrigating thousands of nonproductive acres to the end that they may increase arable acreage which may thus enter into competition with other arable acreage which the farmers are paid not to cultivate. This, in and of itself, is an indefensible burden to the nation. It is reductio ad absurdum. As stated in the words of Dr. Dyer of Vander-bilt University, the Secretary of Agriculture has "... called on American farmers to repudiate constitutional freedom, to repudiate the theory of Jefferson that the pursuit of happiness is a valuable right of the individuals, and hence take orders from him in pursuing their activities as farmers. 19 He made it plain that the farmer must henceforth get permission from him to plant his crop, and must plant and cultivate and destroy or market under his direction." Complexity and Simplicity The complexity of the New Deal is beautiful in its simplicity or, to reverse the statement, the simplicity of the New Deal is beautiful in its complexity. On the one hand, the consumers must be protected by the preservation of competition. On the other hand, business must be protected by the restraint of competition. On the one hand, labor is to be protected in its consumer capacity by free competition and in its wage earning capacity by the limitation of competition. On the one hand, wages must be increased in order to force purchasing power up. On the other hand, though costs go up, prices must go down to satisfy the consumer. Such simplicity and complexity suggests the thought that by law it is possible to provide that a man going on a journey must meet himself coming back before he gets started. Public Utilities The absurdity and irreconcilability of the legislative and regulative policies of the New Dealers, and their destructive characteristics, become more and more conspicuous the more they are investigated. Public utilities are being blamed because by capital investment they have anticipated consumptive demand to too great an extent and that thereby such utilities are enabled to charge rates to earn a return upon such unnecessary capital expenditure. On the other hand, business is being urged to spend more and more, irrespective of whether any expenditure is justified or not. But the most amazing paradox of this particular situation is found in the fact that, notwithstanding the foregoing criticism, taxpayers are being taxed to finance the Tennessee Valley Authority, where a 20 power production plant is now being constructed far in excess of anything that the community demands, or ever will demand. Thus in the name of the public interest do the New Dealers play the game, "Heads I win, Tails you lose," and over and above anything and everything, they play the game to make the taxpayer suffer, to destroy accumulated wealth and impoverish the efficient and thereby to lower the standard of living for everyone, the efficient and the inefficient alike. Not only is the taxpayer being taxed to produce unnecessary power in the T. V. A. and other like enterprises, but the taxpayer is being further taxed and accumulated capital being wasted and exhausted to the end that taxes so raised may be used to put other taxpayers out of business by destroying their investments. Witness the proposed activities of the Tennessee Valley Authority in Knoxville and elsewhere, with which you are so familiar. To make inconsistency more inconsistent, the New Dealers have been giving out the impression that irrespective of the attack on utility holding companies, they propose to let utility operating companies alone. Notwithstanding this impression, New Dealers have on more than one occasion, by giving (not lending) to the municipalities sums seized from taxpayers, encouraged municipalities to construct power plants, the effect of which would be to destroy the private plants already in existence. The latest information which has come to my attention took place in San Angelo, Texas, in April of this year. As the result of some agitation, there was a suggestion that the municipality make a bond issue and construct a municipal power system in San Angelo. The direct effect of the new plant would have been to destroy the investments of the taxpayers who owned the securities of the private plant then satisfactorily and successfully operating. Notwithstanding the suggestion that New Dealers would leave private operating companies alone, a few days before the vote on -the bond issue was to come before the voters, there was 21 published in the San Angelo Standard Times, to-wit, on April 28, 1935, what purported to be a letter from the Public Works Administrator's office in Washington, addressed to the City Manager, from which I quote partially as follows: "Washington, D. C. April 22, 1935. "Although no formal allotment has so far been made, the Public Works Administration will favorably consider your application under docket No. 6756 for a grant of 30 per cent of the cost of labor and material not to exceed 1236,000, provided the result of the election to be held May 14, 1935, on the issuance of revenue bonds is affirmative, and that you are able to dispose of the bonds under satisfactory terms at private sale, and devote the proceeds therefrom to the remainder oj the cost of constructing the project subject to the rules and regulations of the Public Works Administration." Thank God, the voters were fair enough and sane enough to defeat the plan. Further comment is unnecessary. By this method of attack, the New Dealers, by one fell swoop, accomplish three highly commendable purposes (if I may be permitted to be sarcastic), at least so they would have us believe. 1. They burden the taxpayer from whom the tax is collected. 2. They destroy another taxpayer and such other taxpayer's investments; and 3. They limit the source from which future taxes can be collected, thereby limiting the source of all taxes and increasing the burden of future taxes upon such taxpayers as may have anything left to be taxed. Destruction of Wealth Research discloses no method in the ravenous madness of the New Dealers. In 1933, the eyes of the New Dealers were swollen with tears and their voices ruined by sobbing because of the distress of millions of suffering citizens. Taxes were levied for the ostensible purpose of bringing relief to the suffering. Thereupon, these taxes were spent in the purchase of millions of hogs. What did they do with the hogs? Did they feed 22 them to, or use them for the benefit of the starving millions? They did not. Notwithstanding, the newspapers reported that it is now being claimed by New Dealers that these hogs were not ruthlessly killed and destroyed, the official records of the Department of Agriculture refute the claim. The public in Chicago knew the facts and no claims to the contrary will stand the test of honest investigation. The theory seems to have been that by the destruction of valuable foodstuff and the refusal to give it to suffering thousands who had needlessly been thrown out of employment by uneconomic government policies, wealth could be more quickly exhausted, public discontent be more quickly aroused and thus a status created which would make it easier to break down the civilization created by our ancestors. But I am sure you would much prefer to hear Dr. Dyer of Vanderbilt University, discuss the matter in his own magnificent satirical style. I quote from Dr. Dyer: "Then news came from his provinces that the supply of hogs was large and that this indicated that the prices of bacon and fresh pork and hams would be within the reach of the poor, that every family might have bacon for breakfast and a roast of pork on Sunday. This news aroused the anger of the dictator in a most unusual way. Nature had taken up arms against him again in the interest of the millions of the poor. In order to crush nature's forces once for all he gave orders to murder five million hogs and destroy the meat, and warned his vassals not to let nature start anything like that again. His orders were not to permit any human being to get one single ounce of the meat from these hogs for food. It was all right to feed it to rats and wild cats and worms, but it must be denied to any human being whatever his state of need and poverty. "The dictator was victorious in his battle with nature. The 5,000,000 hogs were murdered and destroyed, and only the rich and government employees and others of good incomes can afford to buy breakfast bacon at thirty-five and forty cents a pound." Ladies and gentlemen, the destruction of pigs, the ploughing under of cotton and grain, and the 23 taxation of taxpayers to pay people not to work, or to make not working easier, is nothing more or less than the destruction of wealth and accumulated capital. It proceeds upon the unconscionable theory that, by the destruction of capital, society increases both welfare and wealth. The theory is absurd on its face. It is in direct conflict with all the lessons which history teaches and all the long and bitter experience which society experienced in emerging from a state of poverty. To state is to refute it. Nevertheless, that is the logic of the New Dealers. Criticism Invited Critics Denounced I repeat the more one investigates the New Deal, the more its inconsistencies develop. On the one hand, there emanates from the New Dealers an ostensibly mellifluous invitation for criticism, suggestion or complaint. On the other hand, when such adverse criticism is made, not only is it not met on its merits, but the critic is denounced in terms of unsparing sarcasm and scathing terminology. Critics are designated by New Dealers as: ". . . Tories, inhuman creatures with small minds, and no imagination; sinister oppressors of the poor, greedy and selfish, without sense enough to know what they are doing." On the one hand, the New Deal editor of a New Deal newspaper, published by a wealthy friend of New Dealers, assures businessmen that they have nothing really to fear from the New Deal, while the Administration of the F.E.R.A. says that "this is a fight on the part of the have-nots to seize the property of the haves." That is the logic of the New Deal. Government of Men, Not of Law Again New Dealers continue to pretend that this is still a government of law and not by men. Nevertheless, when the Belcher Case came before the Supreme Court, the New Dealers dared not try it. Now, we lawyers know that when a law of the 24 United States is held unconstitutional by a District Court, the decision becomes the law of the district only and does not of necessity become the law of the land until and unless it is confirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States. But what shall be said of a case where the District Court has held a law unconstitutional; where the Government appeals and then dismisses its appeal? Is that not equivalent to saying that in the opinion of the Administration the decision below is sound? Nevertheless, notwithstanding the N.R.A. has been held to be unconstitutional, and notwithstanding the Government did not dare to try the case, we find emanating from the Executive Department of the New Dealers orders that prosecution shall go on to the same extent as if the Belcher Case had not been decided against the Government. I said that the New Dealers pretend that this is still a government of law and not of men. If it is a government of law, it should stand for the honest performance of obligation by government. But the New Dealers have no conception of the meaning of honest performance by government of its obligations. They have dishonored honor; demoralized morale and crucified integrity. Upon the entrance of our country into the late war, I, as doubtless many of my listeners did, had the proud privilege of offering for sale in the theaters of Chicago, the Liberty Bonds of the United States. It was with great pride that I stated to the audiences that thronged the theaters, that this was the safest bond that the finest Government in the history of man had ever offered, or could possibly offer, to patriotic citizens; that behind it there was pledged the full faith and integrity of a Government which had never welched, and would never welch, on its obligations. The bonds were sold. The War was won. And now, eighteen years later, there has been developed by the New Dealers a theory that it must not be a breach either of the Constitution of the United States or of public integrity and morality if, through some legislative leger-25 demain, the Administration should decline to fulfill the Government's obligations on its Liberty Bonds. Now suppose we ascribe to the New Dealers an honest belief that what they did was morally commendable and legally constitutional. Nevertheless, when the constitutionality of the legislation, under the protection of which the repudiation of obligations was to be accomplished, was submitted to the Supreme Court it was declared to be an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional power. Every Congressman, and every Senator, and every man holding an executive position in the Administration is required to take, and does take, before he may take his seat in Congress or administer the obligations of his office, an oath by which he swears to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Have the New Dealers done anything to repair their broken oaths and breach of trust? Have they enacted, or attempted to enact, new legislation which would re-establish the full faith of the credit of the United States? They have not. If my friend owes me a debt and can not pay, I bear with him, but if my friend owes me a debt and dishonorably disables himself from paying me, he ceases to be my friend. If I incur an obligation and honorably try to discharge it and am unable, I regret it, but if I incur an obligation and dishonorably dishonor it, I lose my self-respect. Accordingly, I am asking you, when it comes to questions of morality and integrity, as the same are illustrated by the conduct of the New Dealers, how can Americans reproach or sneer at foreign countries for failing to meet their obligations to us when our own Government has failed to meet its lawful obligations to our own nationals? Nay, more than that, if this nation should ever again be confronted with the necessity of incurring obligations to finance another war, how could any citizen sell its Liberty Bonds? How could he ever again pledge the faith and 26 credit of the United States behind its obligations? Priming the Pump But it is said that all of this potpourri of irreconcilable legislation is merely an effort to prime the pump. Prime the pump! What a glorified combination of words to conceal inconsistent laws and immoral acts. I submit the question: Can crimes be turned into virtues by a mere change of terminology? Propaganda The hypocrisy of the New Deal was never more beautifully illustrated than in the attitude of the New Deal towards what the New Deal calls propaganda. When any private enterprise attempts to protect itself from unjust public or political attack by government bureaucrats and empiricists by circularizing the public, it is denounced as being engaged in propaganda, and the word is used with a sneer to indicate something improper and indefensible. On the other hand, never since government began has there been such a flood of propaganda, paid for by the seizure of other people's money, as now emanates from Washington on behalf of the New Dealers. Propaganda, when promulgated by a bureaucrat in support of an untried theory or an immoral law is applauded. New Dealers claim it is being utilized "to lead a benighted people into the haven of eternal happiness." On the other hand, when it is employed in the defense of a business assailed by an unjust bureaucracy, there are no terms so scurrilous that they may not be applied to it. On October 22, 1913, Congress passed a law (Paragraph 54, Title V, United States Code Annotated) which provides: "No money appropriated by any act shall be used for the compensation of any publicity expert unless specifically appropriated for that purpose." Yet the mails and the radio stations are filled with the propaganda of publicity experts of the Administration and the moneys which are spent for publicity purposes run into the millions. Someone may say such acts do not technically fall squarely within the prohibitions of the act. But I observe that the Federal Reserve Board has recently announced the appointment of a personal relations counsel, which is nothing more or less than a glorified phrase to describe a "press agent." What would be said if the Supreme Court of the United States should appoint a press agent? And how can the appointment be reconciled with either the prohibitions of the act or the attacks made by the New Dealers upon the efforts of businessmen to protect their business interests when assailed? Conclusion But why go further? I submit to your intelligence that: You can't recover prosperity by producing less and less and dividing more and more. You can't recover prosperity by making security insecure. You can't recover prosperity by seizing the accumulation of the thrifty and distributing it to the thriftless and the unlucky. You can't recover prosperity by confiscating property and giving away other people's money. You can't recover prosperity by dishonoring governmental pledges, by teaching citizens to dishonor their own pledges and to attribute their misfortunes to the failure of some one else to perform a duty which some one else never owed them at any time under any circumstances. If you could do this, to use the language of your own distinguished Governor, "You can make water run uphill. You can spend yourself out I of debt. You can drink yourself sober." Ladies and gentlemen of the Georgia Bar Association, though almost done, this address ^ would be far from complete if I did not make one final indictment. The New Deal is the enemy of and the destroyer of the most precious heritage of the English speaking race the heritage of liberty. 28 Since King John was compelled to grant Magna Carta on the field of Runnymede, the English speaking race has fought, bled and died for liberty. They have never knowingly surrendered it. Private enterprise under the protection of liberty, has created a standard of living in America today, enjoyed by rich and poor alike, beyond and above that enjoyed by any other nation since authentic history began. All agree that this could not possibly have been attained except by free men acting under the aegis of liberty. But the New Deal is the deadly enemy of liberty. It seeks by indirect methods and mias-mic influence to destroy indirectly what it would never dare to challenge the American people to surrender. Through the control of credit; the control of business; the control of agriculture; the control of transportation; the control of the supposed freedom of the air; and the control of liberty, the New Dealers have attempted to seize complete governmental authority over the entire economic life of the nation. The attempted subordination of the press, directly or indirectly, has not yet been abandoned. The fact is, though it is called the New Deal, it is not a new deal. It is the same weapon of despotism which monarchs and dictators have used since history began. There is no escape from its malignity. It fiddles while Rome burns. It discourages incentive. It retards recovery and may wholly prevent it. Its arguments are threats and bulldozing and grand juries. Its profligate wastage surpasses the imagination. It paralyzes hope and creates fear. It is saturated with pretense and insincerity. It corrupts morality and breaks faith with its own nationals. Its bureaucracy is as offensive as the army of a Stalin. 29 It creates more debts in time of peace than in time of war. It flagrantly violates the great political platform upon which it was swept into power by a hopeful nation. It destroys, or attempts to destroy, the Constitution the bulwark of our liberties. Because of it, our children and our children's children will arise to call us "Cursed." In short, unless annihilated, it will annihilate the Republic. Instead of free men, we shall be slaves. That, ladies and gentlemen, is my opinion of and my indictment of the New Deal. I thank you. 30