Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "321497564",
    "label": "Draft of Speech by President Harry S. Truman at Baylor University",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/321497564"
}

{
    "id": "321497564",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/321497564",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Draft of Speech by President Harry S. Truman at Baylor University",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/321497564",
    "collections": [
        "President's Secretary's Files (Truman Administration)",
        "Speech Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/201505/735124/735124-09-001.tif",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/201505/735124/735124-09-001.tif",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/201505/735124/735124-09-001.tif",
    "imageCount": 21,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/321497564",
    "naId": 321497564,
    "levelOfDescription": "item",
    "productionDates": [
        {
            "day": 28,
            "logicalDate": "1947-02-28",
            "month": 2,
            "year": 1947
        }
    ],
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 21,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/201505/735124/735124-09.pdf",
    "mediaId": "00941900a0b158b6",
    "ocrText": "Draft of 2/28/47\nSPEECH AT BAYLOR UNIVERSITY\n-------------------------\nARCHWES-IND\nRECIUIDS\nINDIA\nU.S.\nSERVICE\"\nBOVERNMEN\nIt is with a I real sense of gratification that I meet\nwith you today on the beautiful campus of Baylor University in Waco.\nof this\nI congratulate you on the outstanding achievements this great uni-\nversity has ouring attated in the one hundred and one years of its existence.\nI am sincerely grateful for the degree of Doctor of Laws that you\nhave bestowed upon me, and I am honored to become a fellow alumnus\nof the distinguished men and women of this institution who have\ncontributed so much to make our country great.\nOn this occasion, and at this particular time, I believe\nwill\nthis it would be especially appropriate if I directe my remarks to\nthree subjects of vital concern, not only to every person here, but\nto every person in the world.\nThese subjects are peace - freedom - and world trade.\nIt may not seem, e-o, that these three\nsubjects are closely related, but the grave lessons of the past prove\nthat they are inseparable.\nMany of our people, here in America, once thought that we\ncould escape the troubles of the world by staying within our own\nborders. Two terrible wars have shown us how wrong they were. We\nSANTA ARGHINES PRETIONAL RECORDS TOUSAU ARE OF\n- 2 -\nE.D. SERVICE\" BOVERNMENT\nknow, today, that we cannot find security in isolation. If us are to\nlive at peace, we must join with other nations in a continuing effort\nto organize the world for peace. Science and invention have left us\nno alternative.\nAfter the First World War, the United States proposed a League\nof Nations, an organization to maintain order in the world. But when\nour proposal was accepted and the League was established, this country\nfailed to become a member.\nCan any thinking person fail to realize, today, what that\nmistake cost this nation and cost the world?\nThis time we are taking a different course. Our country has\nparticipated fully in building the United Nations, in setting up its\ncouncils, its committees and commissions, and in putting them to work.\nWe are doing everything within our power to foster international\ncooperation. We have dedicated ourselves to its success.\nThis is not, and it must never be, the policy of a single\nadministration or a single party. It is the policy of all the people\nof the United States. We, in America, do not want another war.\nanother was\nAnd in our determination to prevent #, we have been, and we still\nare, unanimous.\n- 3 -\nBut we shall have to admit that some among us do not fully\nrealize the things that we must do to carry out this policy. There\nare still those who seem to believe that we can confine our\ncooperation with other countries to political relationships; that\nwe need not cooperate where economic questions are involved. This\nsmall, but vocal, minority would be willing, for instance, that we\nagree on such matters as trusteeships, security forces, armaments,\nand the control of atomic energy. They might consent to our\nperticipation in activities concerned with relief and refugees, with\nhealth and welfare, and with cultural interchange. But they would\nnot have us eome to agreement or even enter into discussion --\nwith other nations on problems affecting trade.\nThis attitude has sometimes led to the assertion that\nthere should be bipartisan support for the foreign policy of the\nUnited States, but that there need not be bipartisan support for\nthe foreign economic policy of the United States.\nSuch a statement simply does not make sense.\n- 4 -\nOur foreign relations, whether political or economic,\nare willing\nare indivisible. We cannot say that ve are agreed to cooperate\nin the one field and unwilling to cooperate in the other., And\nMARTH 8.8. STATE\nI am glad to note that leaders in both parties have recognized\nthat fact.\nThe members of the United Nations have renounced aggres-\nsion as & method of settling their political differences. Instead\nof putting armies on the march, they have now agreed to sit down\naround a table and talk things out. In any dispute, each party\nwill present its case. The interests of all will be considered,\nand a fair and Just solution will be found. This is the vay of\ninternational order. It is the way of a civilized community.\nAnd it applies, with equal logic, to the settlement of economic\ndifferences.\nEconomic conflict is not spectacular--at least at\nfirst. But it is always serious. One nation may take action\nin behalf of its own producers, without notifying other nations,\nor consulting them, or even considering how they may be affected.\n- 5 -\nIt may cut down its purchases of another country's goods, by\nraising its tariff or imposing an embargo or a system of quotas\non imports. And when it does this, some producer, in the other\ncountry, will find the door to his market suddenly slammed and\nbolted in his face.\nOr a nation may subsidize its exports, selling its goods\nabroad below their cost. And when it does this, a producer in\nsome other country will find his market flooded with the goods that\nhave been dumped.\nIn either case, the producer gete engry, just as you\nor I would get angry if such a thing were done to us. Profits\nthe profucer\nhave disappeared; workers are dismissed. He feels that he has\nbeen wronged, without varning and without reason. He appeals to\nhis government for action. His government retalistes, and another\nround of tariff boosts, embargoes, quotas, and subsidies is under\nway. This is economic war. And, in the end, everyone loses,*\nan accounts MAS?\nCertainly, nobody von the last economic war. As each\nbattle of the economic war of the 'thirties vas fought, the\nthe\nand tragic result became more inevitable. From the tariff of\n- 6 -\nHawley and Smoot, the world went on to Ottawa and the\nsystem of imperial preferences, from Ottawa to the elaborate\nand detailed restrictions developed for Nazi Germany by\nDr. Schacht. Nor did it stop there. Nations strangled\nSAUTAM\nnormal trade and discriminated against their neighbors, all\nMARRY\naround the world.\nAnd who among their peoples were the gainers? Not\nthe depositors who lost their savings in the failure of the\nbanks. Not the farmers who lost their farms. Not the mil-\nlooking\nlions who walked the streets - looked for work. I do not\nmean to say that economic conflict was the sole cause of the\ndepression. But I do say that it vas a major cause.\nNow, as in 1920, we have reached a turning point\nin history. National economies have been disrupted by\nthe war. The future 1s uncertain everywhere. Economic\npolicies are in a state of flux. And, in this atmosphere\nof doubt and hesitation, the decisive factor will\nbe the type of leadership that the United States gives\nto the world. 4 We are the Clant of the economic\n- 7 -\nworld. Whether we like it or not, the future pattern of\neconomic relations depends on us. The world is waiting\nand watching tio see what we shall do. The choice is ours.\nWe can lead the nations to economic peace or we can plunge\nthen into economic war. There must be no question as to\nwhat our course shall be. The must not go through the\n'thirties once again.\nThere is abundant evidence, I think, that these\ncarlier nistakes will not be repeated. We have already\nmade a good start. Our Covernment has participated fully in\nsetting up, under the United Nations, agencies of inter-\nnational cooperation for dealing with relief and refugees,\nwith food and agriculture, with shipping and aviation, with\nloans for reconstruction and development and with the\nstabilization of currencies. And now, so that there may be\n+\nno need and no excuse for economic warfare, our government\nhas proposed, and others have agreed, that there be set up,\nin the United Nations, another agency of world cooperation\nwhich is to be concerned with problems and policies affecting\ntrade. This is the International Trade Organisation.\n- 8 -\nThis organisation would apply to commercial\nrelationships the same principle of fair dealing that the\nUnited Nations is applying to political affairs. Instead\nof retaining unlimited freedom to commit acts of economic\naggression, its members would adopt a code of economic\nSALUTY ARGUIVES A TRATICOLAND UNITED\nE.S. ESRVICE\" government\nethics and agree to live according to its rules. Instead\nof adopting measures that might be harmful to others, without\nwarning and without consultation, countries would sit down\naround the table and talk things out. In any dispute, each\nparty would present its case. The interest of all would be\nconsidered, and a fair and just solution would be found.\ninternational\nIn economics, as in politics, this is the way to peace.\nThe work of drafting a world trade charter was\nbegun by the United States. It was carried forward by a\nPreparatory Committee of eighteen nations meeting in London\nlast fall. It should be completed at a second meeting of\nthis Condittee in Geneva, beginning on April tenth.\nThe progress that has already been made on this\nproject is one of the most heartening developments Maru has\notherwed. since the war.\n- 9 -\nIf the nations can agree to observe a code of good\nconduct in international trade, they will cooperate nore\nreadily in other international affairs. Such agreement\nwill prevent the bitterness that is engendered by an economic\nwar. It vill provide an atmosphere congenial to\nthe preservation of the peace.\nAs a part of this program, we have asked the other\nnations of the world to join us in reducing barriers to\ntrade. We have not asked then to remove all barriers. Nor\nhave TO offered to do so ourselves. But we have proposed\nnegotiations directed toward the reduction of tariffs, here\nand atroad, toward the elimination of other restrictive\nmeasures and the abandonment of discriminatory proctices.\nThese negotiations are to be undertaken at the neeting which\nopens in Geneva next month. The success of this project is\nessential to the establishment of the International Trade\nOrganization, to the effective operation of the International\nand\nBank and the Monebery Fund, to the strength of the whole\nN\nUnited Nations structure of cooperation in economic and\npolitical affairs.\n- 10 -\nThe negotiations at Geneva must not fail.\nNow there is one thing that Americans value even more\nthan peace. It is freedom. Freedom of worship - free-\ndom of speech - and freedom of enterprise. It must be\ntrue that the first two of these freedoms are related to\nthe third. For, throughout history, freedom of worship\nand freedom of speech have been most frequently enjoyed\nin those societies that have accorded a considerable\nmeasure of freedom to individual enterprise. Freedom\nhas flourished where power has been dispersed. It has\nlanguished where power has been too highly centralized.\nSo our devotion to freedom of enterprise, in the United\nStates, has deeper roots than a desire to protect the\nprofits of ownership. It is part and parcel of what we\ncall - American.\nThe pattern of international trade that is most con-\nducive to freedom of enterprise is one in which the major\ndecisions are made by private buyers and sellers, under\nconditions of active competition, and not by governments.\n- 11 -\nUnder such a system, buyers make their purchases, and sellers\nmake their sales, at whatever time and place and in what-\nover quantities they choose, relying for guidance on\nwhatever prices the market may afford. Goods move from\nGATES\ncountry to country in response to economic opportunities.\n8.8.\nGovernments may impose tariffs, but they do not dictate\nthe quantity of trade, the sources of imports, or the\ndestination of exports. Individual transactions are a nat-\nter of private choice.\nThis is the essence of free enterprise.\nThe pattern of trade that is least conducive to free-\ndom of enterprise is one in which decisions are made by\ngovernments. Under such a system, the quantity of purchases\nand sales, the sources of imports, and the destination of\nexports are distated by public officials. In some cases,\ntrade may be conducted by the state. In others, part or\nall of it may be left in private hands. But, even 80, the\ntrader is not free. Governments make all if the important\nchoices and he adjusts himself to them as best he can.\nThis was the pattern of the seventeenth and eighteenth\ncenturies. Unless we act, and act decisively, it will be\nthe pattern of the next century.\n- 12 -\nEverywhere on earth, nations are under economic\npressure. Countries that were devastated by the war are\nseeking to reconstruct their industries. Their need to\nimport, in the months that lie ahoad, will exceed their\ncapacity to export. And so they feel that imports must\nbe rigidly controlled. Countries that have lagged in their\ndevelopment are seeking to industrialise. In order that new\nindustries may be established, they, too, feel. that competing\nimports must be rigidly controlled. Nor is this all, The\nproducts of same countries are in great demand. But buyers\n+\noutside their borders do not hold the money of these countries\nin quantities large enough to enable them to pay for the goods\nthey want. And they find these monies difficult to earn. In-\nporting countries, when they make their purchases, therefore\nseek to discriminate against countries whose currencies are\nscarce.\nHere, again, they feel that importe must be\nrigidly controlled.\nOne way to cut down on imports is by curtailing\nthe freedom of traders to use foreign money to pay for imported\n- 13 -\ngoods. But recourse to this device is now limited by the\nterms of the British loan agreement and the rules of the\nInternational Monstary Fund. Another way to out down on\nimports is by raising tariffs. But if controls over trade\nare really to be tight, tariffs are not enough. Trastic\nmeasures are still at hand. Quotas can be imposed on 10-\nparts, product by product, country by country, and month\nby month. Importers can be forbidden to buy abroad without\nobtaining licenses. Those who buy more than is permitted\ncan be fined or jailed. Brerything that comes into a\ncountry can be loopt within the limits University determined by\na central plan. This is regisentation. And this is the\ndirection in which much of the world is headed at the present\ntime.\nIf this trend is not reversed, the Government of the\nUnited States will be under pressure, sconer or later, to use\nthese same devices in the fight for markets and for rese materials.\nAnd if the Government were to yield to this prossure, it would\nshortly find itsalf in the business of allocating foreign goods\n- 14 -\namong importers and foreign markets among exporters and\ntelling overy trader what he could buy or sell, and how much,\nand when, and where. This is precisely what we have been\ntrying to get usay from, as rapidly as possible, ever since\nthe war. It is not the American way. And It is not the\nway to peace.\nFortunately, an alternative has been offered to\nthe world in The Charter of the International Trade Organiza-\ntion that is to be considered at Ceneva in the coming month.\nThe Charter would limit the present freedom of governments\nto impose detailed administrative regulations on their foreign\ntrade. The International Trade Organization would require\nits member nations to confine such controls to exceptional\ncases, in the immediate future, and to abandon them entirely,\nsoon\nas quickly as they can.\nThe trade-agreement negotiations that will acces-\npany consideration of the Charter, should enable countries\nthat are now in difficulty to work their way out of it by\naffording them readier access to the markets of the\nworld. This program is designed to restore and preserve\n- 15 -\na trading system that is consistent with continuing free-\ndom of enterprise in every country that chooses freedom\nfor its own economy. It is a program that will serve the\ninterests of other nations as well as those of the United\nStates.\nIf these negotiations are to be successful, we our-\nselves must make the same commitments that we ask of all\nthe other nations of the world. We must be prepared to\nmake concessions Down if we are to obtain conces-\nsions from others in return. If these negotiations were\nto fail, our hope of an early restoration of an interna-\ntional order in which private trade can flourish would be\nlost. I say again, they must not fail.\nThe program that we have been discussing will make\nour foreign trade larger than it otherwise would be. This\nmeans that exports will be larger. It also means that in-\nports will be larger. And many people are afraid of imports.\nThey are afraid because they have assumed that we cannot\ntake more products from abroad unless we produce just that\nmuch less at home.\n- 16 -\nFortunately, this is not the case. The size of our\nmarket is not forever fixed. It is smaller when we attempt\nBAITH B.W. ARBRIVES \"NATIONAL CERTIFICA TROUSN SUVERNINT AND OFFICE\nto isolate ourselves from the other countries of the world.\nIt is larger when TO have a thriving foreign trade. Our\nimports were down to 8 billion dollars in 1932; they were up\nto five billion in 1946. But few would contend that 1932\nwas a better year than 1946 for solling goods, or making\nprofits, or finding jobs. Business is poor when markets\nare small. Business is good when markets are big. It is\nthe purpose of the coming negotiations to lower existing\nbarriers to trade so that markets, everywhere, may grow.\nI said to the Congress, when it last considered the\nextension of the Trade Agreements Act, and I now reiterate,\nthat domestic interests will be safeguarded in this process\nof expanding trade. But there still are those who sincerely\nfear that the trade agreement negotiations will prove\ndisastrous to the interests of particular producing groups.\nTheir misgivings are not well founded. 1 I should like\n- 17 -\nto reassure them by explaining the situation as simply\nand as briefly as I can.\n(1) The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act has\nbeen on the books since 1934. It has been adminis-\nSTATE MATHINAL UNITED\ntered with painstaking care and strict impartiality.\nSome 30 agreements with other countries have been\nmade. And trade has grown, to the great benefit of\nour economy.\n(2) This Government does not intend, in the con-\ning negotiations, to eliminate tariffs or establish\nfree trade. All that is contemplated is the reduction\nremoval\nof tariffs, the climination of discriminations, and\nthe achievement, not of free trade, but of freer trade.\n(3) In the process of negotiation, tariffs will\nnot be out across the board. Action will be selectives\nsome rates may be out substantially, others moderately,\nand others not at all.\n(4) In return for these concessions, we shall\nseek and obtain consessions from other countries to\nbenefit our export trade.\n- 18 -\n(5) It should be remembered that millions of Americans --\non farms, in factories, on the railroads, in export and import\nbusinesses, in shipping, aviation, banking and insurance, in\nwholesale establishments and in retail stores. depend on foreign\ntrade for some portion of their livelihood. If we are to protect\nthe interests of these people, in their investments and their\nemployment, ve must see to it that our trade does not decline.\nFor example, we exported in 1946 over three billion dollars worth\nof agricultural products alone, mostly grain, cotton, tobacco,\ndairy products and eggs. If we should lose a substantial part of\nthis foreign market, the incomes of over six million farm families\nwould be materially reduced and their buying power for the products\nof our factories greatly curtailed.\n(6) There is, however, no intention to sacrifice\none group to benefit another group. Negotiations will be\ndirected toward obtaining larger markets, both foreign and\ndomestic, for the benefit of all.\n- 19 -\n(7) No tariff rate will be reduced until an exhaus-\ntive study has been made, until every person who wishes a\nhearing has been heard, and careful consideration given to\nhis case.\n(8) In every future agreement, there will be a\nclause that permits this Government-or any other government-\nto modify or withdraw a concession if it should result, or\nthreaten to result, in serious injury to a domestic industry.\nThis is now required by the Executive Order which I issued on\nFebruary 25, following extensive conferences between officials\nin the Department of State and majority leaders in the Senate.\nAll\nthese points-the history of trade-agreement operations, the way in which\nnegotiations are conducted, the protection afforded by the safeguarding clause-\nis\nshould provide assurance, if assurance were needed, that domestic interests\nwill not be injured.\nBut we have other interests also at stake. We are concerned with\npeace. We are concerned with freedom. These are the vital interests of all\nthe people of the United States.\nThe policy of reducing barriers to trade is a settled policy of this\nGovernment. It is embodied in the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, fathered\nand administered for many years by Cordell Hull. It is reflected in the\nOF\nINJURY\nAMERICA\n\"NATIONAL\nARCHIVES AND\n- 20 -\nRECEIPS\nLUNDRY\n0.5.\nG\nSERVICE\nBUYERNMENT\nCharter of the International Trade Organization. It is one of the cornerstones\nof our plans for peace. It is a policy from which we cannot-and must not-\nturn aside.\npervent\nmake\nTo those among us--and there are still a few-who would seek to turn\nto partisan political advantage,\nthis policy to political account, I can say only this: Take care! Times have\nchanged. Our position in the world has changed. The temper of our people has\nchanged. The slogans of 1896 are sadly out of date. Isolationism, after two\nworld wars, is not a political asset. It is a confession of mental and moral\nbankruptcy.\nHappily, our foreign economic policy does not now rest upon a base\nof narrow partisanship. Leaders in both parties have expressed their faith\nin its essential purposes. Here, as elsewhere in our foreign relations, I\nshall welcome a continuation of bipartisan support.\nOur people are united. They have come to a realization of their\nresponsibilities. They are ready to assume their role of leadership. They\nare determined upon an international order in which peace and freedom shall\nendure.\n2/- vo"
}