You have found an item located in the Kentuckiana Digital Library.
No. 90 "The American Constitution - Whose Heritage? The Self- Reliant or Those Who Would Be Wards of the Government?" Speech of Frederick H. Stinchfield before the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Utah State Bar Association, January 18, 1936.
No. 90 "The American Constitution - Whose Heritage? The Self- Reliant or Those Who Would Be Wards of the Government?" Speech of Frederick H. Stinchfield before the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Utah State Bar Association, January 18, 1936. American Liberty League. 400dpi TIFF G4 page images Digital Library Services, University of Kentucky Libraries Lexington, Kentucky Am_Lib_Leag_90 These pages may freely searched and displayed. Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. No. 90 "The American Constitution - Whose Heritage? The Self- Reliant or Those Who Would Be Wards of the Government?" Speech of Frederick H. Stinchfield before the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Utah State Bar Association, January 18, 1936. American Liberty League. American Liberty League. Washington, D.C. 1936. This electronic text file was created by Optical Character Recognition (OCR). No corrections have been made to the OCR-ed text and no editing has been done to the content of the original document. Encoding has been done through an automated process using the recommendations for Level 1 of the TEI in Libraries Guidelines. Digital page images are linked to the text file. AN INVITATION TO JOIN THE AMERICAN LIBERTY LEAGUE We extend to every American citizen who believes in the fundamental principles which gave birth to the Constitution of the United States an invitation to become a member of the American Liberty League. You may indicate your acceptance of this invitation by filling in the necessary information as to your name and address on the enrollment blank below and mailing it to American Liberty League, National Press Building, Washington, D. C. There are no fees or dues. If you are willing and able to give monetary help for the League's support your contribution will be appreciated, as our activities are supported entirely by the voluntary gifts of our members. ENROLLMENT BLANK Date__ I favor the principles and purposes of the American Liberty League and request that I be enrolled as a f regular ] tt V* contributing Signature_ j member. *As a contributing member I desire to give $_ to help support the activities of the League: Cash herewith__ Installments as follows: _ The American Constitution Whose Heritage? The Self-Reliant or Those Who Would Be Wards of the Government ? â˜… â˜… â˜… Speech of FREDERICK H. STINCHFIELD Member National Advisory Council and National Lawyers Committee of the American Liberty League Fifth Annual Meeting of the Utah State Bar Association, Salt Lake City, Utah January 18, 1936 AMERICAN LIBERTY LEAGUE National Headquarters NATIONAL PRESS BUILDING WASHINGTON, D. C. â˜… â˜… Document No. 90 The American Constitution Whose Heritage ? HEN you have finished with this pamphlet please pass it on to some friend or acquaintance who might be interested, calling his attention to the membership blank on page 24, The Self-Reliant or Those Who Would Be Wards of Government? â˜… T'rllS is not a political speech. Nowadays whenever one mentions the Constitution and his belief in it, its violators cry "Politics." It is true that in Washington, for nearly three years, proposals have been advanced with which I am not in accord. Very many of the things done in current politics transgress, to me, basic principles of liberty. When the money changers were driven from the temple, it was because of the indignities offered the temple and its sacred character. To those who had sullied the temple, however, it was the loss of its control which stirred their objections. The people of the United States believe in the American Constitution. I'm sure of it! They will not have it destroyed. We need not be troubled by those who ascribe to us unworthy motives. Let them look to themselves! w We HAVE heard it said that the Constitution be amended; that the social conditions of today require a different basic law than did the conditions of 150 years ago. But no one selects particular clauses of the Constitution and declares for their change. Washington has preferred illegal, in place of legal changes to the Constitution, violence instead of order. If the laws already passed had been sustained by the courts, the Constitution would already in fact have changed its fundamental character, without formal amendment. So very many statutes have been passed which invade the Constitution that one feels it ought to be possible from all the evidence to determine the primary purpose of the Administration. Out of a search for that underlying pur-3 pose I have tried to weave the ideas which it is hoped will tonight be expressed to you. Courts, lawyers, politicians debate vigorously about particular sections of the Constitution. They argue about interstate commerce, the power to tax and the incidental right to favor particular sections of the country, due process of law and states' rights. All sections of the Constitution seem involved. There must be an underlying purpose. What is it? It's a new philosophy of government, isn't it? Already NBA, with its innumerable codes, has been declared invalid by the Supreme Court. So, too, the Frazier-Lemke Act, in its determination to take from a mortgagee the security upon which his money was lent. And now the triple A has gone down the same long trail. Again the Court has ruled that the Constitution may not be changed by indirection, that the use to which all the land in the United States is put cannot be controlled from Washington. Lower courts have held invalid the Guffey Bill and the Wagner Relations Bill, the Public Utility Holding Company Bill. What is the philosophy underlying all this? The determination of that question is the interesting thing. Let us consider, shortly, some of the statutes that have been passed. There isn't time to cover them all. They are legion. But together they must paint some picture of intention. You remember nra. It provided for codes of fair practice in all lines of business everywhere. Laymen wrote those codes and determined what they considered fair practice. Punishment was provided for violation. Amongst other things, competition was controlled or eliminated. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act was waived. No business man was his own master. Collective bargaining was enshrined. The rights of labor unions were given precedence. Company unions were decried, substantially banned. The Guffey Coal Bill was passed. Congress was ordered to enact it, no matter how reasonable the doubt as to its constitutionality. The provisions are more extreme than those of NRA. There are the same codes. There is not only the NRA punishment for those who disobey, but an additional punishment of 13% per cent of the mine value of the coal, upon those who refuse to yield. Again, no mine owner is his own master, either as to his own coal or its sale, nor albeit the equal of his employees. The Labor Relations statute goes to the uttermost limits in depriving an employer of any control over his labor relations. The Utility Holding Company Bill contains substantially a death provision for utility holding companies. Millions of investors in the stocks of those companies would, by the law, be deprived of their property. The bill could lead only, in the end, to government ownership of all public utilities. Every officer and stockholder of a utility is made but a servant in his own house. In a very vigorous opinion, a federal court has declared the law unconstitutional. The Tennessee Valley Administration Act declares for government ownership of all utilities as directly as if the exact words were in the bill. The government proposes to go into the distribution of electric power and of all the means of bringing electric power and light to aU citizens. Everyone connected with a utility would ultimately be but a government employee. AAA would have told every man what, where, and how much to sow, and when and how much to reap. AAA is a new version of the adage "As ye sow, so also shall you reap." The Social Security Bill will, in not many years, result in the accumulation of 80 billions of dollars under the control of the federal government for distribution to a limited part of the citizenry. The Potato Control Bill would have more rigidly enslaved its devotees, even to the extent of punishing him who would not be an informer against his neighbors. Go through the rest of the list of recent legislation. You will find the same result. The the- ory must be that those who cry will be given help, but the self-reliant will be condemned. You may describe the theory as the destruction of individualism or the upbuilding of a paternalistic form of government, or what you will. No one word expresses the tendency. But the result will be the destruction of self-reliance in every citizen of the United States. i inquire whether the Constitution was established for the increase of self-reliance, or to develop the spirit of dependency? This inquiry leads us to a consideration of the conditions existing just as and after the Constitution was adopted. Was the feeling that we should build a nation of self-reliant people or a nation of whiners? Was it the purpose to give a man the reward of self-sacrifice and independent action, or to make him a ward of government? The evidence is clear enough to me. We used to be a virile, self-reliant people. The possession of that spirit has been our boast. Our accomplishments have been based upon the universality of self-reliance. Has there been a change, that the theory of paternalism could have received so much support, even for a brief period? Millions of people seem, for the time being, to have accepted the principle of the destruction of self-reliance. Perhaps that has happened because it is easy, in times of stress, to appeal to the weaknesses of mankind, to have them agree that their difficulties are not of their own making but arise from the evil-doings of other people. What a difference it might have made, could we have heard from someone in official authority in the last six years that a man's misfortune is brought about by himself in part or in whole. But no man has been told by government to search his own heart and decide whether or not he was prodigal in the use of his property before the crash came. Every man has been told that his fellow citizens, if possessed of any property whatever, have been responsible for his ills. We must for 6 the time have believed it. Yet it seems impossible. We, Americans! The founders of a New World! That was not our spirit once. It isn't reflected in the Constitution. We were at one time willing to ascribe our misfortunes to our own lack of wisdom and self-control, to tighten the belt, and to repair our own shortcomings. No greater harm could have been done to us than to offer constant encouragement to the spirit of the elimination of self-blame and a placing of the fault upon others. Self-reliance accepts generously the results of its own misdeeds. Dependency places the blame elsewhere. No man in governmental authority has recently said, as did Grover Cleveland, that he thought the principle to be that it was the duty of citizens to support government, not the duty of the government to support citizens. No man and no government owes you or me the duty of caring for us. We owe that duty to ourselves. What were the conditions at the time of the American Revolution? Were they better than today? The attempt has been made, in some of our recent laws, to give them validity by reason of the extraordinarily unfortunate conditions which have existed since 1929. The Fra-zier-Lemke Bill attempted to take from creditors their security, without compensation, because of the needs of necessitous debtors. We have, in Minnesota, a moratorium act. It was sustained by the Supreme Court by a majority decision because it left with the mortgagee his security. The United States Supreme Court in this case, quoting from the Federalist, said as to conditions when the Constitution was written: **The widespread distress following the revolutionary period and the plight of debtors had called forth in the States an ignoble array of legislative schemes for the defeat of creditors and the invasion of contractual obligations. Legislative interferences had been so numerous and extreme that the confidence essential to prosperous trade had been undermined and the utter destruction of credit was 7 threatened. 'The sober people of America* were convinced that some 'thorough reform' was needed which would 'inspire a general prudence and in* dustry, and give a regular course to the business of society.'" The Court further approved of the statement of Chief Justice Marshall in Ogden v. Saunders: "The power of changing the relative situation of debtor and creditor, of interfering with contracts, a power which comes home to every man, touches the interest of all, and controls the conduct of every individual in those things which he supposes to be proper for bis own exclusive management, had been used to such an excess by the state legislatures, as to break in upon the ordinary intercourse of society, and destroy all confidence between man and man. This mischief had become so great, so alarming, as not only to impair commercial intercourse, and threaten the existence of credit, but to sap the morals of the people, and destroy the sanctity of private faith." We don't need to develop the thought further. Isn't it clear that the Constitution was adopted with the basic determination to increase self-reliance and to make people look after themselves; not to yield to the weakness of the wasteful, and not to deprive self-reliance of the value of its perseverance, its thrift, its labor and its self-sacrifice? In Ogden v. Saunders, to which Chief Justice Hughes referred, Chief Justice Marshall went so far as to believe that no state could pass an insolvency law which would deprive a creditor of his right to pursue the property of his debtor, even if the insolvency law was passed after the contract relations arose between debtor and creditor. Yet no man can tell me that the heart of Chief Justice Marshall was hard or his spirit unsacrificing. I am sure he could have been as sympathetic with unhappy and unfortunate people as any man in power today. But I am just as certain that he believed that principles of strength, of self-reliance, should not be destroyed, or even lessened because people lacking self-reliance were being called upon to pay, in unhappiness and misfortune, the debt arising out of their lack of self- reliance. In the case of a particular individual it is easy and well to be sympathetic with the unfortunate, even when perhaps the misfortune is the result of a person's own misdeeds. It is quite a different thing to establish such sympathy as a principle of life and of a nation. But no man can build the laws of a country to fit the case of every individual citizen as the situation arises. We have had, until recently, a government of laws, and not a government of men choosing to apply each law as the individual case arises, ascribing to the one who applies the law the omniscience of the divine. We can, with benefit to ourselves, read a quotation from Grotius, written hundreds of years ago, with relation to the character of contractual relationships. He said: "On this subject we are supplied with noble arguments from the divine oracles, which inform us that Cod himself, who can be limited by no established rules of law, would act contrary to his own nature, if he did not perform his promises. ... It is a most sacred command of nature, and guides the whole order of human life, that every man fulfill his contracts." Mr. Justice Trimble, in Ogden v. Saunders, also quoted with approval from the Federalist: "The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and with indignation, that sudden changes and legislative interferences in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators; and snares to the more industrious and less informed part of the community. They have seen, too, that one legislative interference is but the link of a long chain of repetitions; every subsequent interference being naturally produced by the effects of the preceding. They very rightly infer, therefore, that some thorough reform is wanting, which will banish speculations on public measures, inspire a general prudence and industry, and give a regular course to the business of society." Chief Justice Marshall said: "In the rudest state of nature a man governs himself, and labors for his own purposes. That which he acquires is his own, at least while in his pos- session, and he may transfer it to another. This transfer passes his right to that other. Hence the right to barter. One man may have acquired more skins than are necessary for his protection from the cold; another more food than is necessary for his immediate use. They agree each to supply the wants of the other from his surplus. Is this contract without obligation? If one of them, having received and eaten the food he needed, refuses to deliver the skin, may not the other rightfully compel him to deliver it? Or two persons agree to unite their strength and skill to hunt together for their mutual advantage, engaging to divide the animal they shall master. Can one of them rightfully take the whole? or, should he attempt it, may not the other force him to a division? If the anBWer to these questions must affirm the duty of keeping faith between these parties, and the right to enforce it if violated, the answer admits the obligation of con-tracts, because upon that obligation depends the right to enforce them. Superior strength may give the power, but cannot give the right. The rightfulness of coercion must depend on the pre-existing obligation to do that for which compulsion is used. It is no objection to the principle, that the injured party may be the weakest." IT HAS been out of fashion of late to say anything which even seems to suggest a defense of the rich, or, for that matter, the well-to-do. So far have we gone from the principle that this is a government of laws and not of men, that we find ourselves not free to declare that every man, rich or poor, is entitled to the benefit of fair treatment. Consider with me, in this situation we are discussing, the rich men. Can we be unjust and unfair to them without repercussions in our own souls? At their death men may now have taken from them substantially all of the property which they have accumulated. There have been not a few cases in which the taxes assessed against an estate have been greater than the value of the property. We hear it declared by rich citizens that they are paying up to 90 per cent of their total income in taxes. They accumulated that money, did they not, under the rules of the game which existed at the time of the accumulation? No governmental agency has attempted to take 10 from them their property or their incomes by reason of misdeeds done by them in years past. The money is taken from them in the guise of taxation. This is the so-called distribution of wealth. Do you know of any rule of conduct amongst men other than under government which permits the change of the rules after the event? Do you find any feeling of safety when you consider that, no matter how little you may accumulate by self-reliance and self-sacrifice, that money may be taken from you or your heirs by laws not now in effect? Should you not be able to rely upon the supposition that if you comply with the rules of the game, you will be entitled to the benefits? Of what use is self-reliance and self-sacrifice? If people, exercising no self-reliance, no self-sacrifice, doing little work, constantly imprudent, may in later years take from you or your family that which you have fairly gained, will you subscribe to that as a good principle of government or a principle tending to sincere development of the soul? Are not fairness and justice attributes of God, and ought they not, therefore, to be attributes of government? Are we to change the Biblical precept so that it will read, "It is more blessed to receive than to give"? OBSERVE the Public Utility Holding Company BiU! Can it it be interpreted as anything other than an attempt at distribution of wealth, and its control by government? Entirely forgotten are the millions of people who still, on the basis of the rules of life as then established, invested billions of dollars in these companies. From them will be taken, just as directly as under taxes, the property they have assembled by thrift and foresight. While this is being written, the Supreme Court has passed upon AAA. Certainly here also was intended distribution of wealth. Billions of dollars were, and were to continue to be taken from every citizen, and given to one class of citizens. The Social Security Bill you 11 are yourselves now considering. Ultimately its 80 billions of dollars will be in the government coffers, for such use as those then in control of the government may deem desirable. If private citizens, having gained property, now find it unsafe from appropriation of the government without compensation, who is there so rash as to say that these 80 billions of dollars directly in the control of the government will be used for the purposes for which the money has been collected? And two-thirds of that money will have been paid into the treasury by those who are not benefited. AN INTERESTING book has recently been put on your book-shelves. It is even a best seller, although written by a scientist. Its title is "Man, the Unknown." Its author is Alexis Carrel. If you have not taken the book from your shelves, do so. You will find its philosophy interesting. Some of his remarks are appropriate here. Let me refer to them. You will find him saying: "Another error, due to the confusion of the concepts of human being and individual, is democratic equality. This dogma is now breaking down under the blows of the experience of the nations. It is, therefore, unnecessary to insist upon its falseness. But its success has been astonishingly long. How could humanity accept such faith for so many years? The democratic creed does not take account of the constitution of our body and of our consciousness. It does not apply to the concrete fact which the individual is. Indeed, human beings are equal. But individuals are not. The equality of their rights is an illusion. The feeble-minded and the man of genius should not be equal before the law. * * * It is obvious that, on the contrary, individual inequalities must be respected. In modern society the great, the small, the average, and the mediocre are needed. But we should not attempt to develop the higher types by the same procedures as the lower. The standardization of men by the democratic ideal has already determined the predominance of the weak. Everywhere, the weak are preferred to the strong. They are aided and protected, often admired. Like the invalid, the criminal, and the insane, they attract 12 the sympathy of the public. The myth of equality, the love of the symbol, the contempt for the concrete fact, are, in a large measure, guilty of the collapse of individuality. As it was impossible to raise the inferior types, the only means of producing democratic equality among men was to bring all to the lowest level. Thus vanished personality." And again as to our depression: "Fortunately, an event unforeseen by engineers, economists, and politicians took place. The superb edifice of American finance and economics suddenly collapsed. At first, the public did not believe in the reality of such a catastrophe. Its faith was not disturbed. The explanations given by the economists were heard with docility. Prosperity would return. But prosperity has not returned. Today, the more intelligent heads of the flock are beginning to doubt. Are the causes of the crisis uniquely economic and financial? Should we not also incriminate the corruption and the stupidity of the politicians and the financiers, the ignorance and the illusions of the economists? Has not modern life decreased the intelligence and the morality of the whole nation? * * * Does not the world crisis depend on individual and social factors that are more important than the economic ones? It is to he hoped that the spectacle of civilization at this beginning of its decline will compel us to ascertain whether the causes of the catastrophe do not lie within ourselves, as well as in our institutions. * * * In fact, the economic crisis came before the complete destruction of our ancestral qualities by the idleness, corruption, and softness of life." Again we find him saying: "The only way to obviate the disastrous predominance of the weak is to develop the strong. Our efforts to render normal the unfit are evidently useless. We should, then, turn our attention toward promoting the optimum growth of the fit. By making the strong still stronger, we could effectively help the weak. * * * Instead of leveling organic and mental inequalities, we should amplify them and construct greater men." And also: "The descendants of the founders of American civilization may still possess the ancestral qualities. These qualities are generally hidden under the cloak of degeneration. But this degeneration is often superficial. It comes chiefly from education, idleness, lack of responsibility and moral discipline." 13 Further: "In democratic countries, such as the United States and France, for example, any man had the possibility during the last century of rising to the position his capacities enabled him to hold. Today, most of the members of the proletarian class owe their situation to the hereditary weakness of their organs and their mind. * * * Today, the weak should not be artificially maintained in wealth and power. * * * Each individual must rise or sink to the level for which he is fitted by the quality of his tissues and of his bouI. * * * Modern nations will save themselves by developing the strong. Not by protecting the weak." Dr. Carrel tells us why there has been so much legislation running counter to the self-reliance of our Constitution: "Moral Bense is almost completely ignored by modern society. We have, in fact, suppressed its manifestations. All are imbued with irresponsibility. Those who discern good and evil, who are industrious and provident, remain poor and are looked upon as morons. The woman who has several children, who devotes herself to their education, instead of to her own career, is considered weak-minded. If a man saves a little money for his wife and the education of his children, this money is stolen from him by enterprising financiers. Or taken by the government and distributed to those who have been reduced to want by their own improvidence and the short-sightedness of manufacturers, bankers, and economists." Further: "We have been living under the delusion that democracies would survive through the weak and short-sighted efforts of the ignorant. We begin to understand that they are decaying." In the gold clause decision Mr. Justice Mc-Reynolds spoke for conscience: "Acquiescence in the decision just announced is impossible. * * * To let oneself slide down the easy slope offered by the course of events and to dull one's mind against danger * * * that is precisely to fail in one's obligation of responsibility." I remind you of what Judge Otis just said in a decision with reference to the National Labor Relations Act: 14 "The individual employe is dealt with by the act as an incompetent. The Government must protect him even from himself. He is the ward of the United States to be cared for by his guardian even as if he were a member of an uncivilized tribe of Indians or a recently emancipated slave." I find in the last Atlantic, in an article by Albert Jay Nock on "Free Speech and Plain Language," the following statements: "Again, expediency suggested that the care of our poor be made a government job. It gets results, but at what price? First, the organization of mendicancy and subvention into a permanent political asset. Second, the indoctrination of our whole citizenry with a false and dangerous idea of the State and its functions that the State is something to be run to in any emergency, trivial or serious, to settle matters out of hand. "This idea encourages, invites, nay, insists upon what Professor Ortega y Gasset rightly calls the gravest danger that today threatens civilization: the absorption of all spontaneous social efforts by the State. 'When the mass suffers any ill-fortune, or simply feels some strong appetite, its great temptation is that permanent, sure possibility of obtaining everything without effort, struggle, doubt or risk merely by touching a button and setting the mighty machine in motion.'" BtfT even if we were to accept the principle of utter dependence on government and the destruction of self-reliance, one must ask Who will be the distributors of the benefits to those who will not stand alone? Who gives this help? These people who distribute billions of dollars without let or hindrance are men temporarily in office. If they were the wisest of men, they would still be only men. Their counterparts, however, can be found throughout the land. Their experience has been gained by association with you and me, all of us. Their hearts are what society has made them. Their capacities are what they have learned in this world. Their wisdom is not divine. These are the men who ascribe to themselves the omniscience to properly distribute, as they and their agents may determine, the billions of dollars which they 15 take by force from the citizens of this country. "On what food do these our Caesars feed that they have grown so great?" What has changed these officials of ours from just ordinary citizens to divine representatives with all wisdom and all power? Why are we to hope that their unselfishness is greater, that their power of self-sacrifice is more than it used to be? They were chosen from amongst us. Is there any evidence that, having become government officials, they have become better than the rest of us? Are they wiser or more self-sacrificing, handling billions of dollars as government officials, than as members of the community? What is there that gives us faith? It can't be faith in promises, because in the present instance, even at the risk of having this talk called political, one must refer to the fact that these men went into office upon promises no important part of which has been carried out and almost every portion of which has been violated. Is it in such men that we shall place our faith as to doing the conscientious and unselfish thing? The Supreme Court in the days of Ogden v. Saunders believed promises between man and man to have divine origin, and their validity to exist in the nature of things. Grotius believed it. The Supreme Court in the gold decisions, although sustaining the law which cut almost in two the value of the gold dollar, ascribed to the government that was doing it an utter lack of morality. So that even if we were to subscribe to a theoretical principle that government is less selfish than individuals, we must remember that in fact democratic government is but individuals, temporarily clothed with power. In truth, if history teaches us anything, it is that the possession of power corrodes the soul, makes the possessor arbitrary, makes him do unwise and selfish things. TrlE feeling abides with me that this discussion is bound to fall upon listening ears. This is Deseret, the land of the working bee, isn't it? 16 Utah has had experience with the Federal Government. That experience was, moreover, in days different from these, days when the possession of property was not regarded as the earmark of criminality; when the industrious, the self-sacrificing, were honored; when to have labored hard and to have been wise was regarded as a mark of honor. Yet we recall that about fifty years ago one of your large holders of property found that property confiscated by the Federal Government because your conventional habits were supposed to run counter to the declared conventions of the rest of the United States. Undoubtedly there is some credit to be attached to the government in that, not so many years afterwards, the property was returned to you. I have heard no indication of the intention of the present governmental despoilers to return property to those from whom it is taken. One reads also of your miracles, of the intervention of an outside power to destroy the grasshoppers that were exhausting your sub-' stance. But I know of no reason to expect gulls which will destroy the locusts known as tax-gatherers. To rid yourselves of them must be your own self-reliant job without divine assistance. I have always understood the theory of self-reliance to be honored in the declaration of the tenth commandment: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's." Can you tell me of any law passed in violation of the Constitution which does not authorize each and every one of us to fiU our souls with covetousness of our better-situated neighbor? E CAN test ourselves as to whether self-reliance is still our portion. For the gauge of battle has been thrown down to us. In California, Professor Tugwell stated that we who are opposed to the invasion of the Constitution 17 are "enemies" and that we must be removed "along with the moral system which supports" us. He further declared that revolution will come unless the present regime is continued in power, and that his followers must oust the thrifty amongst us who are enemies of the regime. We have been threatened for nearly three years now with revolution when we have been asked to yield to the laws which our Supreme Court has courageously said violate the Constitution. And Mr. Tugwell tells us that he and his associates must be able "for once and all to establish a farmer-worker alliance which will carry all before it," and that how it is done is "historically unimportant." He further tells us who believe in thrift, that "we have been pitiable, grubbing creatures, laboring to make money and hide it away like misers for our children. Because we were little exploiters, we have been tolerant of big ones; because we were tolerant of little hoards, we could not object to big ones." Do you find yourself described as a little exploiter any different from those from whom 85 to 90 per cent of their yearly earnings are taken in taxes, or different from those from whom, at their death, enormous percentages are taken for alleged uses of government? How soon will the day come under the present alleged ideals before a man with but a little will be regarded as one who is an exploiter? And how soon will the day be when any man who by labor, self-sacrifice, yielding of present enjoyment, will be regarded as an enemy, and whose income and property will be used for those who have gone along the primrose path of carelessness and disregard for the morrow? For my part, I wish you would accept the chaUenge. I'd take joy in a battle between the thrifty and the improvident I It is little wonder that the Sinclaired Tugwell should speak as he did. Another, whose words you will recognize, said only a few days ago and to have said it to men seems unbelievable -"In 34 months we have built up new instruments 18 of public power. In the hands of the people's government, this power is wholesome and proper." Tell me, if this public power is in the hands of false prophets, what then? I HAVE no doubt that the Constitution of the United States was written with the hope of developing strength and self-reliance, and that it was not made with the notion of promoting utter dependence upon the powers of government. It is that fundamental lesson taught by the Constitution which I see invaded by all of the legislation which has been passed in the last two years. It is for you to say whether our Constitution shall retain in it the spirit of our forefathers, or this new spirit of weakness, paternalism, and utter dependence on government. PAMPHLETS AVAILABLE Â£]OPIES of the following pamphlets and other League literature may be obtained upon application to the League's national headquarters. Statement of Principles and Purposes American Liberty League Its Platform The $4,880,000,000 Emergency Relief Appropriation Act The Bonus Inflation The Thirty Hour Week Bill The Holding Company Bill The Bituminous Coal Bill Price Control The Labor Relations Bill The Farmers' Home Bill The TV A 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 Potato Control 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 Govern- A Program for Congress The 1937 Budget The President Wants More Power (leaflet) The National Labor Relations Act Summary of Conclusions from Report of the National Lawyers Committee Straws Which Tell An Open Letter to the President By Dr. Neil Carothers How to Meet the Issue SpeecA by W. E. Borah The Duty of the Church to the Social Order Speech by S. Wells Utley The American Bar The Trustee of American Institutions Speech by Albert C. Ritchie Two Amazing Years Speech by Nicholas Roosevelt Legislation By Coercion or Constitution Speech by Jouett Shouse PAMPHLETS AVAILABLE (continued) The Impediment of Democracy Speech by Fitzgerald Hall The Spirit of Americanism Speech by William H. Ellis The Test of Citizenship Speech by Dean Carl W. Ackerman Today's Lessons for Tomorrow Speech by Captain William H. Stayton "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 Committte 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 Arousing Class Prejudices Speech by Jouett Shouse The Fallacies and Dangers of the Townsend Plan-^Speecft by Dr. Walter E. Spahr What of 1936? Speech by James P. Warburg Americanism at the Crossroads Speech by R. E. Desvernine The Constitution and the New Deal Speech by James M. Carson