You have found an item located in the Kentuckiana Digital Library.
No. 84 "Arousing Class Prejudices" Speech of Jouett Shouse, Broadcast by Columbia Broadcasting System on December 23, 1935. American Liberty League. 400dpi TIFF G4 page images Digital Library Services, University of Kentucky Libraries Lexington, Kentucky Am_Lib_Leag_84 These pages may freely searched and displayed. Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. No. 84 "Arousing Class Prejudices" Speech of Jouett Shouse, Broadcast by Columbia Broadcasting System on December 23, 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: Statement of Principles and Purposes American Liberty League Its Platform An Analysis of the President's Budget Message The Bonus Inflation The Thirty Hour Week Bill The Holding Company Bill Price Control The Labor Relations Bill The Farmers' Home Bill The TVA Amendments The Supreme Court and the New Deal The Revised AAA Amendments The President's Tax Program Expanding Bureaucracy Lawmaking by Executive Order New Deal Laws in Federal Courts Consumers and the AAA Budget Prospects Dangerous Experimentation Economic Planning Mistaken But Not New Work Relief The AAA and Our Form of Government Alternatives to the American Form of Government A Program for Congress The National Labor Relations Act Summary of Conclusions from report of the National Lawyers Committee Straws Which Tell How to Meet the Issue Speech by W. E. Borah The American Bar The Trustee of American Institutions Speech by Albert C. Ritchie The People's Money Speech by Dr. W. E. Spahr Legislation By Coercion or Constitution Speech by Jouett Shouse The Imperilment of Democracy Speech by Fitzgerald Hall The Test of Citizenship Speech by Dean Carl W. Ackerman "Breathing Spells" Speech by Jouett Shouse The Duty of the Lawyer in the Present Crisis Speech by James M. Beck The Constitution and the Supreme Court Speech by Borden Burr The Economic Necessity in the Southern States for a Return to the Constitution Speech by Forney Johnston The National Lawyers Committee of the American Liberty League Speech by Ethan A. H. Shepley Our Growing National Debt and Inflation Speech by Dr. E. W. Kemmerer Inflation is Bad Business Speech by Dr. Neil Carothers The Real Significance of the Constitutional Issue Speech by R. E. Desvernine â˜… AMERICAN LIBERTY LEAGUE NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING WASHINGTON, D. C. Arousing Class Prejudices â˜… â˜… â˜… Speech of JOUETT SHOUSE President of the American Liberty League Columbia Broadcasting System December 23, 1935 AMERICAN LIBERTY LEAGUE National Headquarters NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING WASHINGTON, D. C. Document No. 84 Arousing Class Prejudices â˜… At ATLANTA, Georgia, on November 29th last, President Roosevelt made the opening speech of his campaign for renomination and reelection. The speech will be notable in history. Not because it was a brilliant defense of the administration, not because it refuted the arguments of the President's critics. It was notable because it was apparently designed to create class prejudices, to arouse class hatreds, to fan the flame of class antagonisms. Insofar as I am aware, no other President of the United States ever resorted to such methods in the attempt to further his political fortunes. Ten days after the Atlanta speech Mr. Roosevelt addressed the American Farm Bureau Federation at Chicago. There he declared that he and his associates are the only people who are working toward "the destruction of class antagonism and malice," and, by inference at least, that those who oppose the socialistic policies, the impossible experiments, the gigantic waste, the huge bureaucracy of his administration are guilty of arraying class against class. The President selected as the date for his Chicago speech the very time that had been set weeks before for the opening of the argument before the Supreme Court at Washington on the constitutionality of the AAA. You will recall that when the National Lawyers Committee of the American Liberty League made public its report on the National Labor Relations Act, before even a single case on the subject was pending anywhere, Secretary Ickes as spokesman for the administration declared that our Committee was insulting the Court and that its action was "impudent." What of the President of the United States? He is the head of a coordinate branch of the government, of equal importance with the judiciary, but of no greater importance under our Constitution. At the very moment when the Supreme Court was listening to con- tentions that the AAA was unconstitutional Mr. Roosevelt put behind this measure all of the power of the presidential office. He even went so far as to say that if it should be held illegal by the Courts another similar act would be passed and benefits to the farmers continued and this despite the fact that it is the Congress and not the President that is supposed to make the laws under Our scheme of government. However, that also is not surprising. Months ago the American people were given striking examples of Mr. Roosevelt's contempt for the Constitution. At the end of last May, four days after the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court against the NRA, Mr. Roosevelt made a speech of more than an hour to Washington correspondents bitterly attacking the Court and saying its decision had taken us back to the "horse and buggy days." If that speech meant anything it clearly implied that he favors an amendment to the Constitution which would deprive the Court of its power to declare legislative acts unconstitutional, but he has not dared to present such an amendment because of the distinctly unfavorable reaction of the country. He did, though, assert a few weeks later in a letter to the Chairman of a House Committee that Congress should pass the Coal Control bill despite doubts as to the constitutionality of the measure, no matter how reasonable. The Atlanta speech embodied a distinct effort to create class prejudices and class hatreds. The Chicago speech, like the speech to the newspaper correspondents on May 31st, was a definite attempt to arouse classes of our people against the judicial branch of our government. Those facts must be faced. The President is now booked for another speech. Let me tell you about the setting that has been arranged for it. It will be under the auspices of the Democratic National Committee at a Jackson Day Banquet on January 8th. The charge to those who attend will be $50 per plate. Invitations to the dinner have been sent to the holders of many important Federal jobs. This includes even Republican members of semi-judicial bodies such as the Board of Tax Appeals. At least part of the dinner invitations to Federal officials have gone by registered mail. Receipt by the addressees thus becomes a matter of record. In an explanatory note enclosed with the invitations it is stated: "Five dollars of this amount covers the cost of the dinner. The remaining $45 goes to the Democratic National Campaign Fund." The announcement of the dinner was made by Chairman James A. Farley of the Democratic National Committee which sent out the invitations. Now it happens that Mr. Farley is not only the head of the National Committee, Mr. Roosevelt's campaign manager and the official dispenser of all Federal patronage, but that he is also Postmaster-General, a member of Mr. Roosevelt's Cabinet and therefore a Federal official. It is impossible, as pointed out by Senator Norris of Nebraska, to separate Mr. Farley into two different personalities. When he is Postmaster-General he is still Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. When he is Chairman of the Democratic National Committee he is still Postmaster-General. Let me read you a portion of Section 312 of the Revised Statutes of the U. S.: "It is unlawful for . . . any officer or employee of the United States, or any person receiving any salary or compensation for services from money derived from the Treasury of the United States, to directly or indirectly solicit, receive, or be in any manner concerned in soliciting or receiving, any assessment, subscription or contribution for any political purpose whatever, from any other such officer, employee, or person." The quotation I have just given is from the Corrupt Practices Act. It applies to any and every employee of the government whether under Civil Service or not. It applies also either to soliciting or receiving contributions. Did Postmaster-General Farley have anything to do with the sending out of these campaign fund invitations, which were sent out by the Committee of which he is Chairman? If he 4 did, what about the law? If he did not, what is he going to do about this brazen attempt of his Committee to hold up government employees? In ACCEPTING a degree conferred upon him by Yale University in June of 1934 Mr. Roosevelt made the pious declaration that he knew nothing about the politics of the men he appointed to office. Mr. Farley has never so attempted to camouflage his purposes. Consistently and ruthlessly he has enforced the spoils system. Not only must an applicant prove his party subservience but he must also prove that he was F.R.B.C. that is, that he was for Roosevelt before the Chicago convention. In the enormous bureaucracy built up under this administration more than two hundred and thirty thousand civil employees have been added to the government payroll. The vast majority of these have been selected on the basis of partisan patronage and without reference to Civil Service regulations. Indeed, it is not too much to say that this administration has done more to destroy the Civil Service than has any other administration since the Civil Service Act was inaugurated by Grover Cleveland. And now this horde of government employees is being asked to contribute to the Roosevelt-Farley campaign fund through the expedient of Jackson Day dinners to be held at different points in the country. ^0 THOSE who have analyzed the New Deal philosophy it is apparent that the AAA embodies the very basis of it. Under the guise of benefits to the farmers the effort ia being made to regiment and to regulate the whole life of the American people. If production of certain crops is to be limited and controlled, the production of all crops must be limited and controlled. The regulation of potatoes is the natural and inevitable consequence of the regulation of wheat and corn and cotton and tobacco. If hogs are to be controlled so must cattle and 5 sheep. But the system cannot stop there. Those who handle or manufacture or distribute the products of the farmer must also be regulated. Severe penalties must be attached for any violation and so we must finally have, as in the Potato Control Act, punishment for either buyer or seller who by a hair's breadth infringes the law. SPOKESMEN for the administration say the program meets with the approval of the interested farmers. They cite what they term the huge vote of approval in the recent corn-hog referendum. They do not tell you that out of 3,500,000 potential voters less than one million took part. Nor do they tell you some other important details. Let me read you an editorial published by Wallace M. Short in the Unionist and Public Forum of Sioux City, Iowa, the home state of Mr. Wallace, Secretary of Agriculture. Soon after the referendum vote Mr. Short wrote: "On our way to Estherville last Thursday, Oct. 31, we stopped to see a friend in High Lake township, Emmet county. We discovered how the Corn-Hog referendum was conducted in one township the Corn-Hog committeemen visited each farmer of the township and labored with him to vote for the Corn-Hog program. The committeeman handed the farmer a ballot, and where possible got him to mark it for the Corn-Hog program. If the farmer was unwilling to do so, the committeeman visited him again. If the farmer still held out, he received a third visit. This third visit in tome cases was on Friday night before the election on Saturday. One or more farmers still declined to mark the ballot for the program, saying he would vote at the polling place on Saturday. Then the committeeman informed the farmer that he would not have a chance to vote at the polls, as all the farmers had been seen and the polls would not be opened for voting. A few farmers visited the polling place on Saturday and found the place closed, so had no chance to vote. The election officials merely took out of their pockets the votes they had secured in their canvass of the township from house to house, and counted them, and announced the result without the trouble of going to the polling place. "If any person desires to question these facts, let him call on us for the proof and we will furnish it." All will agree, I think, that these are serious charges. Either they are true or false. If true 6 they cast real doubt upon the fairness of a professed referendum held and directed by a very important executive department of this administration. The editorial that I have quoted was published on November 7th last. It was widely copied in Iowa and elsewhere. I have a photostat of a letter from Mr. Short to Arthur T. Wallace of Des Moines, Iowa, dated December 12th, 1935. In it he says that not a single statement made in his editorial has been questioned. I FOR one refuse to believe that either the American people as a whole, or any considerable portion or class of them, is prepared to accept governmental regimentation and dictation. I refuse to believe that for the sake of what seem temporary benefits doled out by a paternalistic government they will surrender the liberty which is their birthright. I refuse to believe that they will endorse the attempt to array one class of our population against another or to arouse prejudice toward the Supreme Court in the exercise of its judicial function to uphold the Constitution. Fortunately each day more and more all of us, of whatever class and wherever situated, are realizing that the Constitution is our safeguard and our defense against oppression. As Walter Lippmann so well puts it: "There is no conviction so vital to the American people as the conviction that no one anywhere at any time shall have a monopoly of unlimited power. It is upon that conviction that the Republic rests."