Ask the Scholar
Page 1 of 1
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
The original documents are located in Box D15, folder "St. Olaf College Political Emphasis
Week, March 12, 1959" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech
File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box D15 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
ADDRESS OF REP. GERALD R. FORD, JR.
St. Olaf College: Political Emphasis Week
March 12, 1959
The United States of America is the "Land of the Free and the Home of the
Brave. Minnesota is the "Land of a Thousand Lakes." Northfield I am told is the
city of'colleges, cows, contentment, and coeds." What a delightful place to live
and study. I was pleased of course, to accept the invitation which brought me to
Northfield and St. Olaf College for the first time. I understand, however, that
Jesse James preceeded me to Northfield and in shooting up the town left his indelible
mark. I do not expect that my visit will be of such historic significance, but I
do trust that it will be more constructive.
It isn't every day that an Episcopalian can address a group of Lutherans so
close to St. Patrick's Day. But I understand that St. Olaf was a sort of St. Patrick
for Norway and that this Norwegian Saint Christianized his country in the 11th Century.
It is altogether fitting that this college should bear his name.
While I had never visited your city and campus before, I was, of course, familiar
with your nationally known choir which has toured Michigan and brought its inspiring
music to thousands of our people. We know of "Giants in the Earth" and of the great
literary, scholastic and Christian heritage which is yours here at St. Olaf.
My good friend and the able Congressman from this district, A1 Quie, graduated
from St. Olaf in 1950. He is now doing an outstanding job in the House of Representa-
tives and is a real credit to his alma mater.
ADDRESS OF REP. GERALD R. FORD, JR.
St. Olaf College: Political Emphasis Week
March 12, 1959
a a Republican Views Party
I am glad to see that here at St. Olaf you are calling this week of
special activity, "Political Emphasis Week." Frankly, I am very pleased to note
the emphasis on the "political." We hear a great deal about good citizenship, and
we have speeches and conferences on governmental ideals and principles. Many people
are satisfied when they concern themselves with public affairs, but when you mention
the word "politics" these same people throw up their hands in some holy terror and
act as if you are mentioning the unmentionable or using a dirty word.
Now all of us are dedicated to the great American constitutional ideals.
We believe that every American citizen should interest himself in civic problems and
public affairs. But the cold fact remains that these great principles of government
are attained and these public affairs handled through the instrumentality that we
know as"politics"
The only way in which our democratic system of government can operate is
through a political system involving campaigns, elections, appointments, defeats,
agreements, disagreements, compromises, and the factional disputes and the cooperative
efforts of a good many people in the political arena. It is politics and the poli-
ticians which give life and blood and breath to the still bones of a constitutional
system. Again let me congratulate you for stressing "politics" during this week.
You are college men and women. Sad to say, too often in the past our
college trained people have been satisfied to recline impotently in the wings and
merely observe the political scene or at the most, they have cheered their respective
teams from the sidelines. Many of them have even become expert "Monday-morning
quarterbacks" on practically every public issue. If I present any challenge to you
this evening, it is the challenge to get out of the bleechers onto the playing
field. I sincerely hope that every one of you will become an active member of the
political party of your choice. That is the most practical way I know to have an
effective voice in government. Join the team, play ball, follow the rules and you
will not only have a good time, but will be making a concrete contribution to good
government, to your community and to your country.
A few years ago a national survey organization asked parents how many of
them wanted their children to go into political life. 70% of all of those questioned
insisted that they did not want their boys and girls to get into politics. Only
three out of ten wanted their children to have anything to do with the practical
FORD
LIBRARY
2
aspects of government under our constitutional system. This to me was as tragic as
it is revealing. It is a clear indication that we have a call to action in this area
of our thinking on government service. There is no better way of answering this call
than to plunge in as early as practical and become an active, hard-working, responsible
member of the party of your choice.
To you at St. Olaf I recommend active party membership and support of the
party ticket as one of the major marks of a good American citizen. Just in passing
let me say that I think for too long we in this country have glorified the independent
voter. He is usually a fine citizen and a competent, discerning voter. But one of
the things we need badly in this country, I believe, are strong, political parties
united
who may be held responsible for the action or inaction of all public officials elected
through those parties.
I know, of course, what you hear so often: "There is no difference between
the Democrats and the Republicans. I simply vote for the best man." Now I hope you
always vote for the best man, and of course, I trust the best man will be a member of
your party; and he will be if you, and others like you, are active in that party to
see that constructive and competent candidates are chosen in the first instance. But,
I do believe there are differences in our two major parties today. This evening I
speak only as a member of the Republican Party. I understand that my good friend and
colleague, Representative Coffin of Maine will be with you tomorrow night. I trust that
after hearing the two of us, some fundamental differences will become apparent.
Let me list for you quickly, five points which I believe summarize the basic
principles and philosophy of the Republican Party today:
(1) GOVERNMENT IS ORGANIZED TO PROVIDE AN EQUAL PROTECTION FOR, AND TO PROMOTE
THE GENERAL WELFARE OF, ALL THE PEOPLE. As the preamble to the U. S. Constitution
states, we have organized government primarily to protect ourselves against enemies
both within and without, and to promote the general welfare. It is elementary that we
have the armed forces with all their military hardware to protect this nation and its
people from foreign aggression. We also have a well-organized system of internal
law-enforcement to protect our people against the criminal element. But in any
situation in which you find more than one person involved, there are bound to come
disagreements and conflicts of one type or another. You find it in families, you find
it in churches, schools, communities, states, nations, the world. In this country of
175 million people of varying backgrounds, interests, and aspirations, living in 49
states and under varying economic and social conditions, there will of necessity be an
3
endless struggle for power, for domination, or for a simple place in the sun. I am
sure that we can agree that there must be some impartial arbitrator, (that is, as
impartial as it is humanly possible to be) whose task it is to conciliate and
arbitrate the differences which arise in this vast population. That arbitrator must
represent the best interest of all the people. He may not be dominated by any special
social, or economic group which is dedicated to promote the interest of that group. He
must be the umpire to see that the laws are obeyed for the good of all the people.
Not only must we have an impartial arbitrator or the umpire to make certain
that the laws are obeyed, but it is imperative that the institution we know as govern-
ment see that the laws are fair, just, and for the equal benefit for all segments of
the population. The Republican Party is a party of no specific group. It is dedicated
to the promotion of the general welfare; it is the party of all the people.
(2) IN EXPRESSING AN ACCEPTABLE NATIONAL POLICY, WE CAN AND SHOULD BE LIBERAL
IN HUMAN RELATIONS AND CONSERVATIVE IN ECONOMIC AFFAIRS. This you will recognize, of
course, as a paraphrase of President Eisenhower's well known statement. I don't think
It is not contraductory t some have implied
there is anything in this whatsoever. The Republican Party believes that
we must improve the lot of every individual living under this government. With ≈ our
Judes Christian heritage, the American people believe in the inherent dignity and worth
of every individual. When it is, therefore, liberal and progressive to advance the
happiness and comfort of an individual and the community, the Republican Party Today is for
it.
But, President Eisenhower went on to say that we were conservative in economic
affairs. In other words, we are not going to be liberal with other people's money and
property. Thomas Jefferson wrote that among the inalienable rights of men were life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You know, I am sure, that when he used the
phrase "the pursuit of happiness," he was referring to the right of owning property.
This is one of the inalienable rights along with life and liberty, and the Republican
Party means to protect your right to own that portion of this world's goods which you
are able to accumulate by proper and legitimate means. Of course, every single
individual has an obligation to use these goods for the benefit of all. But that is
not to say that we may indiscriminately take from those who have to give to those who
have not. This leads me to my third basic principle.
(3) A SOUND AND RESPONSIBLE FISCAL POLICY IS IMPERATIVE TO GOOD GOVERNMENT.
I do not apologize for saying that the Republican Party believes in a balanced
4
budget. We do not insist upon a balanced budget simply because of economic and
social theory or because it has been traditional to pay one's bills. We believe in a
balanced budget because it is the only responsible and honest thing to do in a time
when we are not faced with a great national emergency. Deficit financing on the part
of the federal government fans the flames of inflation which insidiously burn larger
holes in everyone's pocket book. Deficit financing passes on to generations yet unborn,
a burden which we who are reaping the benefits ought to be willing to shoulder. Deficit
financing adds to the federal budget enormous interest payments, and I am convinced,
serves as a very bad example for many of our people who are encouraged to live beyond
their means on the assumption that deficit financing is a good and proper way to live.
(4) OUR WAY OF LIFE IS FOSTERED BEST BY KEEPING PUBLIC AFFAIRS AS CLOSE AS
POSSIBLE TO THE PEOPLE CONCERNED. The Republican Party trusts the good sense of all
the people. The Republican Party believes that our democratic way of life is best
insured by having the elected officials of the people close at hand where the people
themselves can maintain a proper scrutiny of all their public acts. I have often told
some of my friends who hold local offices that really they have a much tougher job
than I. Any disgruntled or dissatisfied taxpayer can easily get them on the telephone
or corner them on the street and they must have the answers for him at that moment. In
contrast, a member of Congress while the House and Senate are in session is miles away
from his constituents and less accessible to any irate voter.
I sincerely believe that we have better schools when the rules and regulations
are made by the local school board, chosen by the patrons of the school and accountable
to them.
When our city streets are not properly maintained, the citizens of the town
can get hold of the Mayor and Council and demand improvement, or find out how much
it is going to cost them to have the improvement. When law enforcement is in the
hands of the local police and sheriff, the people affected by any malfeasance or
nonfeasance can get at the officer pretty quickly.
The more we move governmental activity to Washington, the more difficult it
becomes for the individuals in the community to make their voice felt in those things
which affect them most closely. Of course, such matters as national defense, coinage
of money, regulations of interstate and foreign commerce must by the very nature of
their operation be on the national level. Republicans believe that in order to protect
your interests and the interests of all the people, as much governmental activity as
is practical should be kept as close as possible to the people through the local
5
and state political units.
(5) OFFICIALS OF GOVERNMENT MUST EXHIBIT THE HIGHEST MORAL AND ETHICAL
STANDARDS IN BOTH THEIR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LIVES. I do not make this as a pious
platitude, nor do I contend that the Republican officeholders have a monopoly on
the highest moral and ethical standard. But I do say to you that as a principle
of the Republican Party, conduct of the highest moral and ethical character is demanded,
and that we will not defend nor protect those who fail to adhere to these standards.
They must and should be removed from government. President Grover Cleveland said
some years ago, "A public office is a public trust," and that is still so true.
Having listed the five basic principles of the Republican Party, I would now
like to touch upon a number of the specific national issues which I understand you
will be discussing and debating in your own Congressional sessions.
FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION: One of the major issues before the present Congress
in which we are all interested and which I understand will be debated in your sessions
is the question of federal aid to education. As you know, last year the Congress
adopted the National Defense Education Act. Among other things this legislation
provides for loans and other assistance to capable students who need financial aid.
It also establishes certain other programs to assist the development of the many
resources and technical skills of our young people. I think it is a sound approach
to those aspects to the problem of education that especially concerned the Congress
last year.
In that legislation we supplied financial assistance to capable individuals
who need help to complete their college training. The taxpayers' money is to be
repaid over a period of years under easy terms. In order to encourage the preparation
of teachers, the act provides for the cancellation of up to 50% of those loans made
to college students who go into teaching for at least five years. I supported this
legislation and can find no serious fault with its operation thus far.
This year, however, we are confronted with a new and different approach in
the form of HR 22, the Metcalf bill, which would authorize federal aid for school
construction and teachers' salaries. The House Committee on Education and Labor is
presently holding hearings on this bill, although a number of other proposals have been
made and the Administration had its own plan introduced.
Some recent history may be helpful in discussing this issue. In the first
session of the 85th Congress I opposed the parliamentary maneuver by which the Kelley
6
School Construction Bill (HR 1) was defeated in the House on July 25, 1957. I voted
against the motion to strike the enacting clause of HR 1 and thus kill the bill. (The
vote was 209-203 to strike.)
While I did not agree with all the provisions of the Kelley Bill, I did want
to have the opportunity to vote in favor of a substitute proposal which was to have
been presented. The Kelley Bill called for the distribution of federal funds to the
states on the basis of school population. The substitute proposal would have taken
into consideration the needs of the various states and the extent to which they have
demonstrated their own efforts to meet these needs. In August, 1957 I said that a
"good argument can be made that Uncle Sam should offer temporary assistance to alleviate
the shortage of classrooms in those specific communities where there is a need and
where local citizens have conscientiously tried to solve their classroom deficiencies."
The Metcalf bill as proposed in 1959 will allocate federal funds to the
states solely on the basis of school population. Within each state, however, priority
for school construction is to be given to those local districts where the need is
greatest.
The bill authorizes a state to use the federal money for either school
construction or teachers' salaries or both. However, there is nothing in the bill to
assure that any teacher will receive an increase in salary because of the enactment
of this legislation nor is there any assurance that a single classroom will be constructed
in a given state. More important, however, there is nothing to guarantee that the sum
total of all monies, local, state, and federal, spent on education will be increased
by the passage of HR 22.
It is estimated that the first year's cost To the federal Treasury will be
over a billion dollars with this figure rising to $4.7 billion on 1962-63 and increasing
annually thereafter with population growth.
Unfortunately the Education and Labor Committee seems to be practically
ignoring the recommendations by Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare Flemming
and President Eisenhower. Those who oppose the President's proposal and support the
Metcalf approach believe that we must hand out additional federal funds for school
construction or operation without any strings attached whatsoever and regardless of the
needs in the states for this assistance, and regardless of whether the individual
states have demonstrated a willingness to carry out their educational obligations.
I was a little surprised recently to read in a speech delivered on the
floor of the House condemning the Administration's proposals that a major objection
7
was the legal impediment which would limit the number of school districts which
could participate in the Administration's program. The Administration's five-year
program provides among other things that the U. S. Government will undertake to
advance half the debt service on school construction bonds issued by needy school
districts provided the State advances the other half. The local school district
would be required to maintain a reasonable tax effort. The funds under the Administra-
tion's plan would be distributed among the states on the basis of need for school
buildings and the relative degree of effort which the state school districts are
making to meet the classroom shortage. In condemning this plan, the speaker introduced
a tabulation showing the percentage of districts by states which have reached legal
indebtedness or millage limits as of April, 1958. In Minnesota only 12% of the district
had reached the legal limit. In my own state of Michigan there is no legal maximum
but it was stated that 15% are at a practical limit. In North Dakota it was 2% of
the total, in South Dakota 20%, in Iowa less than 10%, in Wisconsin less than 1% and
Nebraska has no districts at a maximum.
But even more amazing, this same speaker went on to show that in order for
the states to avail themselves of the provisions of the Administration's bill to borrow
funds, constitutional amendments would have to be accepted or a referendum held, or the
legislators would have to take action. In other words, he acknowledged that if the
people of the states involved wish to take action to increase state and local support
of education, it could be done by legislative action or a vote of the people. For
instance, here in Minnesota he reported a constitutional amendment would be necessary,
as would be the case in Wisconsin and most other states. The point is this: It is yet
to be shown that we are not able in most states to meet our education needs without
further burdening the federal taxpayer. In those states where there is a real need
and where a demonstrated effort has been made to solve the problem, I see, in light of
the principles which I have mentioned above, a justifiable basis for certain federal
aid to education with emphasis on school construction.
LABOR LEGISLATION: Another major issue before the present Congress lies in
the area of labor-management relations. The revelations of the McClellan Committee
have well demonstrated thatremedial legislation in this area is most essential. A
number of helpful and constructive bills have been introduced in both houses of
Congress to pave the way for an effective legislative proposal. Senator Kennedy has
made his recommendations. Senator McClellan has introduced bills. President
Eisenhower has sent up a program listing 20 points for consideration by the Congress,
8
and Chairman Barden of the House Committee on Education and Labor has introduced
two specific bills. We who are not members of the Committee on Education and Labor
are awaiting the report from the Committee on its recommendations. Senator Kennedy's
bill has merit; the 1959 version is better than that before the House last year. The
President's proposals are stronger, especially in reference to secondary boycotts and
the so-called black-mail picketing which Mr. Kennedy avoids completely. I hope the
Congress will take constructive action to curb the abuses in the labor organizations
which have been demonstrated before the McClellan Committee.
Our purpose in legislating should not be to destroy labor unions, nor even
to hinder any of their legitimate objectives and activity. We are not talking about
anti-labor legislation. Unions are here to stay. They serve a good and worthwhile
purpose. But one of the main objectives of proposed legislation is to make the
leadership in every union more responsive to the needs and wishes of the rank and
file membership. This legislation is to protect the interest of all union members,
and the employers, and particularly the public at large. We hope to see legislation
in this area which will carry out the first basic principle which I enumerated, that it
is the responsibility of the government to protect the best interest of all the
people.
This brings us of course, to the consideration of the so-called right- to-
work issue. In any consideration of this problem, I personally prefer to discuss
"mandatory membership" rather than "right-to-work." The question involved is that
of "compulsion" rather than "right." But, the common terminology is "right-to-work,"
so let's use that.
The Taft-Hartley Bill as you know outlaws the closed shop, but authorizes
the union shop unless a given state by legislative action or by referendum of the
people decides to adopt the right-to-work provision. The right-to-work issue should
be settled on an individual state basis, preferably by a state-wide referendum where
all our voters have an opportunity to participate. Because I believe the federal
government should not continue unnecessarily to expand its power and because I favor
an increased emphasis on keeping government close to the people, I insist that the
right-to-work issue is fundamentally a problem for the people of each state. With
the varying social, economic, and political difference among our people and our
states, it is more democratic in my judgment to let thepeople who are affected de-
cide the issue in their own states.
May I add, however, that if I were an employee of an organization which
had a union, I would not only join that union, but I would be an active member of it.
9
Furthermore, if I were an employer, I would not oppose the unionization of my workers,
but would foster among them and their leaders a high sense of responsibility to the
company and its products.
FARM POLICY: Let us now look at another issue which will be considered in
your deliberations, that of a sound and effective farm policy. That we want the
farmers of our country to share in every economic advancement goes without saying.
That we must have a strong and virile agriculture is self-evident. The question is
simply whether the present farm policy às reflected in federal law is best for our
farmers, consumers and the country as a whole.
President Eisenhower pointed out in his special message to the Congress on
January 29th that while there are some 250 farm commodities produced in the United
States, present law has required that prices on only twelve of these be supported at
prescribed minimum levels. It is this requirement together with the level of required
support that has created our farm surplus problems. He also pointed out that three
of the twelve mandatory products (wheat, corn, and cotton) account for about 85% of
the federal inventory of price supported commodities though they produce only 20% of
the total farm cash income.
The President presented three indictments against the price support and
production-control program and demonstrated that it has not worked. First he showed
that most of the dollars are spent on the production of a relatively few large producers.
Second, that the control program doesn't control; and third, that the program is
excessively expensive. On July 1, 1959 total government investment in farm commodities
will total $9.1 billion. During the present fiscal year the net budgetary outlay for
programs of the stabilization of farm prices and farm income will be $5.4 billion.
I am not here to recommend the complete and immediate abolition of all price
supports. I know that any basic revision will have to be done gradually. The Recom-
mendations of Secretary Benson consistently have been aimed at sounder and more con-
structive programs. Rigid price supports have proved ineffective. At the very least,
there must be more discretion given to the Secretary of Agriculture in this whole area.
Some progress was made when the growers of corn chose by a referendum vote, program
changes which include supports based on a new formula with no production limitations.
Many of you have read, I am sure, of the case of Stanley Yankus of Dowagiac,
Michigan. Mr. Yankus' experience dramatically points up the difficulty we get into
when we attemtp to control every aspect of life from Washington. It is another
illustration of the fact that the small family-type farmer whom we want to preserve
10
and protect, does not profit by governmental control over his production.
Mr. Yankus' attitude, actions, and predicament although dramatic, must be
more completely analyzed to be understood. It is apparent that he has not used the
available means for presenting his case to the proper authorities. He has placed him-
self over against the Supreme Court of the United States as the final authority on the
constitutionality of a federal law. But, the case of Mr. Yankus is a graphic illus-
tration of the extent to which our legislative acts departed from those principles and
ideals which made America a haven for oppressed peoples from all over the world. If
we had followed the recommendations of Secretary Benson and the President during the
past five or six years we wouldn't find ourselves with the contradictory, incongruous
and unworkable policies which now afflict us in the area of American agriculture.
CIVIL RIGHTS AND POWERS OF THE COURTS: I have been told that your session of
the House of Representatives will also debate Civil Rights and the question of the
limitation of the powers of the Supreme Court. I am confident that there isn't a
person here this evening who is not absolutely convinced that no American citizen may
be denied the rights and privileges of American citizenship simply because of his
race, color, religion, or national arigin. I am certain that no one here would demand
that an American citizen be restricted in his use of public transportation or public
eating places, in the selection of a job or a home site, or in the school to which he
is to send his children, or in exercising of the elective franchise, simply and solely
because of his race, color, religion, or national origin.
In light of the five Republican Principles which I have enumerated, and
consistent with our Christian heritage and constitutional principles, we can not believe
otherwise, nor act in any other manner. The Republican Party is united in its deter-
mination to protect and promote the general welfare of all American citizens. Conse-
quently, it has consistently supported sound and constructive legislation to insure to
all our people their inalienable rights, the achievement of which formed the basis of
the organization of this nation and government.
This means that we endorse the unanimous decision of the U. S. Supreme Court
in the school segregation cases. We recognize that the implementation of this
decision requires the re-thinking of a social philosophy in every state of the union.
We recognize that progress may come slowly, but progress must be made. It is not a
question of whether you or I like the decision. Here we come face to face with the
practical application not only of American constitutional principles, but also our
Christian heritage.
11
Closely allied with the current debate on Civil Rights ia the periodic
suggestion that the powers of the Supreme Court should be curtailed. Under our federal
system we have three equal and coordinate branches of government. There is the
legislative, the executive, and the judicial. We admire and defend this system not
necessarily because it is the most efficient, but primarily because it is the safest
for all our people. It is the best system developed anywhere for the protection of
the individual's rights and privileges and the best insurance against the rise of a
dictatorial system.
In any consideration on the limitations of the power of the courts, I think
it is important to point out first that no one branch of the government is infallible
nor should it completely dominate the other two. In the enactment of legislation,
the Congress always takes into consideration the constitutionality of the proposal.
If it is evident to a majority of the members of the Congress that a given bill is
unconstitutional, that bill has very little chance of being enacted. Likewise, the
President in passing upon the legislation sent him by the House and the Senate, must
pass upon its constitutionality. Presidents have repeatedly vetoed acts of the Congress
on the basis of a questionable constitutionality.
Assuming, however, that the act becomes law and some citizen alleges that
his rights and privileges are being infringed, it becomes the duty of the court to
pass specifically upon the constitutionality. I don't think that any of us will insist
that the court is any more infallible than the President or a majority of the members
of the Congress. You know as well as I that the Supreme Court has reversed itself in
a good many instances and has modified its decision in many cases. But the court's
responsibility is clear; it shares in the guardianship of our liberties, and its
decisions must be respected.
While the court in its own sphere is free to exercise its legitimate powers,
it may become necessary for the Congress as an equal branch in the government to enact
remedial legislation or to propose constitutional amendments because of court decisions.
For example, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution was necessitated by a court ruling
that a federal graduated income tax was unconstitutional. Last year the Congress
considered but did not enact, legislation steming from the well-known Mallory case
involving the proper procedure in arraignment of a suspect who confessed to a crime.
Without passing upon the merits of this case or the Supreme Court's decision, I am sure
that you will acknowledge that reasonable and honest men can disagree on what consti-
tutes proper procedure.
12
Likewise the Congress considered legislation to override the Supreme Court's
decision in the Nelson case when the court freed a person convicted as a Communist
under Pennsylvania law on the theory that the Congress had preempted the entire field
of legislation in reference to subversion. Here we are in an area where the Congress
should make known to the court that it had no intention of preempting the field and
that the court's decision declaring the Pennsylvania Sedition Act in so far as it
would apply to subversive activities against the United States ought to be modified.
You will note, my friends, that I am not recommending that the Supreme Court's
power be limited in any respect. I believe that the courts have been and are one of
the bulworks guarding the individual's liberties. I want no restriction on the powers
of the judiciary to protect any and all rights of American Citizens. This is consistent
with the principles of the Republican Party. On the other hand, if and when the court
takes action which a majority of the members of the Congress feel is improper and
uncalled for, the Congress must exercise its power to remedy the situation through
proper legislative action.
We had a good example of this just a week ago Monday when a bill was considered
and passed on the consent calendar to define the term "organized" as used in the Smith
Act. In June of 1957 the Supreme Court in the case of Yates VS. U. S. freed 14 known
Communists who had been convicted of conspiring to overthrow the U. S. Government by
force and violence and of organizing groups for the same purpose. One of the bases
upon which the court reversed the conviction was its interpretation of the term "organ-
ized." The court said that this term did not include such activities as recruiting of
members, organizing groups within the framework of the Communist Party, etc., and that
it was not the intention of the Congress to have the word include such activities.
Here the court was interpreting the intention of the Congress. The bill as passed
a week ago Monday specifically stating that it is the intention of the Congress to
include in the term "organize" such activities as recruiting of members, organization
of groups within the framework of the Communist Party. If this bill becomes law, the
Congress is not limiting the powers of the court, but simply explaining its own
intention and clarifying the meaning of a term for the benefit of our law enforcement
officers and the court.
The Republican Party will not destroy or weaken our judicial system. It does,
however, want the judiciary to know that its specific decisions will be analyzed by
the Congress and will be subject to remedial legislation when that appears essential.
This is consistent with well-established practice.
13
MUTUAL SECURITY: Another issue which I believe will confront your delibera-
tions this evening and tomorrow is that of foreign aid or our Mutual Security Program.
Let me say right at the outset that when we get into the area of foreign affairs,
we should drop any partisanship or party consideration. Our Mutual Security Program
is not an issue on which Democrats and Republicans as such disagree.
The first principle of the Republican Party which I listed calls for the
adequate protection of all the American people. Unless we can defend ourselves
against the Communist conspiracy and maintain our own sovereignty and the existence
of a free world, we won't have to worry much about anything else we may talk about
tonight. Our Mutual Security Program is first, directly and indirectly, a national
security measure.
The Mutual Security Program is basically sound and necessary because:
1. It enables the United States to have over 250 military bases on
foreign territory.
2. It cuts the costs of our own direct expenditures for defense and
reduces the draft calls by Selective Service.
3. It helps protect the sources of our supply of many strategic materials.
4. It helps U. S. farms, business, and labor when nearly 80¢ of every
dollar of mutual security funds are spent in the first instance in
the United States.
5. It is a major United States weapon in the cold war against Communist
imperialism.
6. It strengthens our allies and friends, militarily and economically.
7. It is our best insurance against Communist penetration of the neutral
nations.
You have heard this program described from time to time as a giveaway program. A year
ago Secretary of State Dulles made a masterful presentation in support of our Mutual
Security Program before my subcommittee on Appropriations for Foreign Operations. I
would like to quote two paragraphs from his testimony:
"The 'giveaway' SO often complained of would have occurred if we had not had
this program or if we should slacked it now. Without a Mutual Security Program we
would indeed have 'givenaway' half of Europe to chaos or Communism. We would have
'givenaway' Greece and Turkey and the Eastern Mediterranean to Soviet control. We
would have 'givenaway' Iran, and Russian access to the Persian Gulf and the Indian
Ocean -- and the economic strength of Europe which depends heavily on Middle Eastern
oil. We would have 'givenaway' Korea; and the Republic of China and Vietnam -- and
in all likelihood the rest of Southeast Asia. The 'giveaway' would reach or come
dangerously close to Pakistan and India -- the great Asian subcontinent with a fifth
14
of the entire human race.
"If we now weaken in our determination and slacken in our pace, we will
indeed 'give away' to Communism in the next few years the control of a dozen or more
nations with enough people and resources to change the balance of power irretrievably
against us. We would indeed 'give away' bases and allied forces essential to our own
strategic defense system. We would indeed 'give away' the access which we and other
free nations have to resources essential to our own industry and to trade essential
to our own welfare and prosperity."
We sometimes forget to what extent the U. S. is dependant on other parts of
the world for essential raw materials. Of 39 strategic materials that are necessary
for production in the U. S., we are self-sufficient in only 9. For example, we import
96% of our nicket, 86% of our manganese; 91% of our chrome, 100% of our tin, industrial
diamonds, and natural rubber; 98% of our platinum, and 80% of the cobalt we use in
industry and defense.
It is also significant, I think, although this should not be used as the
first argument for the Mutual Security Program, that 78% of the funds appropriated for
this program are spent right in the U. S. in the very first instance. The jobs of
over 600 thousand American farmers and industrial workers can be directly attributed
to these expenditures. And, finally, I want to reiterate that this Mutual Security
Program enables us to have over 250 military bases on foreign territory. Without this
program, we would have to pull back our military defense pretty close to our natural
boundaries. Under the Mutual Security Program, we are able to bind a ring of steel
around the Iron Curtain, and right up close.
DEFENSE: In conclusion, I want to say just a few words about matters that
may or may not come up in your deliberations, but which are being debated vigorously
in the Congress, on the air, and through the press. This is the question of the
adequacy of our national defense and how
we stand in relation to Russia.
As one who has been close to the Department of Defense for seven years as a
member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Department of Defense, I would like
to make a few pertinent comments.
Annually our committee hears and interrogates the civilian and military leaders
of the country. All of these, Democrats, Republicans, or independents, are able, con-
scientious, responsible, and patriotic men.
While it is the responsibility of the Executive Branch to initiate and
administer the defense programs, the Congress must double-check the plans and
15
administrative action, and make certain that the taxpayers' dollars are well spent.
Neither branch of the government has a monopoly on information or wisdom but both
must and can work together for a stronger and better America.
The people of the United States can afford whatever amount is really
required for our national defense. In fact, we cannot afford anything less. I can
assure you that the President had this in mind when he submitted his defense budget.
The Congress should be guided by the same principle when it makes the appropriations.
Another significant fact to consider is that the security of the United States
is not dependent upon one military service nor upon one weapon system. Missiles of all
types are most important but they are but one element in the great arsenal of defense.
Intercontinental ballistic missiles occupy a prominent position among modern weapons
but they are but one of many necessary instruments for our national security.
The United States at the moment has tremendous retaliatory power, defensively
and offensively. We have over 500 B-52s (long-range jet bombers) which can carry an
atomic payload to the heart of Russia and return without refueling. We have over a
thousand B-47s (medium-range jet bombers) which can do the same with in-flight refueling
operations.
But more important, because of our overseas bases the heart of Russia is
right next door. The heart of the United States if 5,000 miles from Russia. Short and
medium-range missiles capable of more accurate control mean much more to us than to
the USSR. From our bases in Great Britain and other allied countries our 1,500-mile
missile can be devastatingly effective. By June, 1959 the 5,500-mile Atlas weapon
system will be in operation and the initial squadrons will be augmented on schedule.
Moreover, a strong U. S. Naval carrier force can provide planes to move into
enemy nations from many directions if this becomes necessary. We have a submarine
fleet with missile capability. During early 1960 the first POLARIS ballistic-missile
equipped submarines will join the fleet and other will follow.
I am convinced that we have a well-rounded and fully adequate defense system,
ready and able to protect this country in any crisis whether a general or limited war.
Your government, through the President, our military leaders, and the Congress, will
continue to improve and modify this system to meet changing conditions and keep in
step with technological advancements.
This day at St. Olaf has been a mose pleasant one. I enjoyed the sessions
this noon and afternoon and you have been a kind and courteous audience this
16
evening. As I indicated at the beginning, I hope my appearance in Northfield has
been constructive. I realize, however, there will be disagreements with some of the
things I have said during your deliberations to follow, but this is inherent in our
system. I trust, however, that your thinking will be stimulated and that your
discussions will be profitable.
ADDRESS OF REP. GERALD R. FORD, JR.
St. Olaf College: Political Emphasis Week
March 12, 1959
I am glad to see that here at St, Claf you are calling this week of
special activity, "Political Emphasis Week." Frankly, I am very pleased to note
the emphasis on the "political." We hear a great deal about good citizenship, and
we have speeches and conferences on governmental ideals and principles. Many people
are satisfied when they concern themselves with public affairs, but when you mention
the word "politics" these same people throw up their hands in some holy terror and
act as if you are mentioning the unmentionable or using a dirty word.
Now all of us are dedicated to the great American constitutional ideals.
We believe that every American citizen should interest himself in civic problems and
public affairs. But the cold fact remains that these great principles of government
are attained and these public affairs handled through the instrumentality that we
know as"politics,"
The only way in which our Democratic system of government can operate is
through a political system involving campaigns, elections, appointments, defeats,
agreements, disagreements, compromises, and the factional disputes and the cooperative
efforts of a good many people in the political arena. It is politics and the poli-
ticians which give life and blood and breath to the still bones of a constitutional
system. Again let me congratulate you for stressing "politics" during this week.
You are college men and women. Sad to say, too often in the past our
college trained people have been satisfied to recline impotently in the wings and
merely observe the political scene or at the most, they have cheered their respective
teams from the sidelines. Many of them have even become expert "Monday-morning
quarterbacks" on practically every public issue. If I present any challenge to you
this evening, it is the challenge to get down out of the bleechers onto the playing
field. I sincerely hope that every one of you will become an active member of the
political party of your choice. That is the most practical way I know to have an
effective voice in government. Join the team, play ball, follow the rules and you
will not only have a good time, but will be making a concrete contribution to good
government, to your community and to your country.
A few years ago a national survey organization asked parents how many of
them wanted their children to go into political life. 70% of all of those questioned
insisted that they did not want their boys and girls to get into politics. Only
three out of ten wanted their children to have anything to do with the practical
GERALD R.FORD LIBRARY
2
aspects of government under our constitutional system. This to me was as tragic as
it is revealing. It is a clear indication that we have a call to action in this area
of our thinking on government service. There is no better way of answering this call
than to plunge in as early as practical and become an active, hard-working, responsible
member of the party of your choice.
To you at St. Olaf I recommend active party membership and support of the
party ticket as one of the major marks of a good American citizen. Just in passing
let me say that I think for too long we in this country have glorified the independent
voter. He is usually a fine citizen and a competent, discerning voter. But one of
the things we need badly in this country, I believe, are strong, united political parties
who may be held responsible for the action or inaction of all public officials elected
through those parties.
I know, of course, what you hear go often: "There is no difference between
the Democrats and the Republicans. I simply vote for the best man." Now I hope you
always vote for the best man, and of course, I trust the best man will be a member of
your party; and he will be if you, and others like you, are active in that party to
see that constructive and competent candidates are chosen in the first instance. But,
I do believe there are differences in our two major parties today. This evening I
speak only as a member of the Republican Party. I understand that my good friend and
colleague, Representative Coffin of Maine will be with you tomorrow night. I trust that
after hearing the two of us, some fundamental differences will become apparent.
Let me list for you quickly, five points which I believe summarize the basic
principles and philosophy of the Republican Party today:
(1) GOVERNMENT IS ORGANIZED TO PROVIDE AN EQUAL PROTECTION FOR, AND TO PROMOTE
THE GENERAL WELFARE OF, ALL THE PEOPLE. As the preamble to the U. S. Constitution
states, we have organized government primarily to protect ourselves against enemies
both within and without, and to promote the general welfare. It is elementary that we
have the armed forces with all their military hardware to protect this nation and its
people from foreign aggression. We also have a well-organized system of internal
law-enforcement to protect our people against the criminal element. But in any
situation in which you find more than one person involved, there are bound to come
disagreements and conflicts of one type or another. You find it in families, you find
it in churches, schools, communities, states, nations, the world. In this country of
175 million people of varying backgrounds, interests, and aspirations, living in 49
states and under varying economic and social conditions, there will of necessity be an
FORD
3
endless struggle for power, for domination, or for a simple place in the sun. I am
sure that we can agree that there must be some impartial arbitrator, (that is, as
impartial as it is humanly possible to be) whose task it is to conciliate and
arbitrate the differences which arise in this vast population. That arbitrator must
represent the best interest of all the people. He may not be dominated by any special
social, or economic group which is dedicated to promote the interest of that group. He
must be the unpire to see that the laws are obeyed for the good of all the people.
Not only must we have an impartial arbitrator or the unpire to make certain
that the laws are obeyed, but it is imperative that the institution we know as govern-
ment see that the laws are fair, just, and for the equal benefit for all segments of
the population. The Republican Party is a party of no specific group. It is dedicated
to the promotion of the general welfare; it is the party of all the people.
(2) IN EXPRESSING AN ACCEPTABLE NATIONAL POLICY, WE CAN AND SHOULD BE LIBERAL
IN HUMAN RELATIONS AND CONSERVATIVE IN ECONOMIC AFFAIRS. This you will recognise, of
course, as a paraphrase of President Eisenhower's well known statement. I don't think
there is anything contradictory in this whatsoever. The Republican Party believes that
we must improve the lot of every individual living under this government. With a
Jude-Christian heritage, the American people believe in the inherent dignity and worth
of every individual. When it is, therefore, liberal and progressive to advance the
happiness and comfort of an individual and the community, the Republican Party is for
it.
But, President Eisenhower went on to say that we were conservative in economic
affairs. In other words, we are not going to be liberal with other people's money and
property. Thomas Jefferson wrote that among the inalienable rights of men were life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You know, I am sure, that when he used the
phrase "the pursuit of happiness," he was referring to the right of owning property.
This is one of the inalienable rights along with life and liberty, and the Republican
Party means to protect your right to own that portion of this world's goods which you
are able to accumulate by proper and legitimate means. Of course, every single
individual has an obligation to use these goods for the benefit of all. But that is
not to say that we may indiscriminately take from those who have to give to those who
have not. This leads me to my third basic principle.
(3) A SOUND AND RESPONSIBLE FISCAL POLICY IS IMPERATIVE TO GOOD GOVERNMENT.
I do not apologize for saying that the Republican Party believes in a balanced
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
4
budget. We do not insist upon a balanced budget simply because of economic and
social theory or because it has been traditional to pay one's bills. We believe in a
balanced budget because it is the only responsible and honest thing to do in a time
when we are not faced with a great national emergency. Deficit financing on the part
of the federal government fans the flames of inflation which insidiously burn larger
holes in everyone's pocket book. Deficit financing passes on to generations yet unborn,
a burden which we who are reaping the benefits ought to be willing to shoulder. Deficit
financing adds to the federal budget enormous interest payments, and I am convinced,
serves as a very bad example for many of our people who are encouraged to live beyond
their means on the assumption that deficit financing is a good and proper way to live.
(4) OUR WAY OF LIFE IS FOSTERED BEST BY KEEPING PUBLIC AFFAIRS AS CLOSE AS
POSSIBLE TO THE PEOPLE CONCERNED. The Republican Party trusts the good sense of all
the people. The Republican Party believes that our democratic way of life is best
insured by having the elected officials of the people close at hand where the people
themselves can maintain a proper scrutiny of all their public acts. I have often told
some of my friends who hold local offices that really they have a much tougher job
than I. Any disgruntled or dissatisfied taxpayer can easily get them on the telephone
or corner them on the street and they must have the answers for him at that moment. In
contrast, a member of Congress while the House and Senate are in session is miles away
from his constituents and less accessible to any irate voter.
I sincerely believe that we have better schools when the rules and regulations
are made by the local school board, chosen by the patrons of the school and accountable
to them.
When our city streets are not properly maintained, the citizens of the town
can get hold of the Mayor and Council and demand improvement, or find out how much
it is going to cost them to have the improvement. When Law enforcement is in the
hands of the local police and sheriff, the people affected by any malfeasance or
nonfeasance can get at the officer pretty quickly.
The more we move governmental activity to Washington, the more difficult it
becomes for the individuals in the community to make their voice felt in those things
which affect them most closely. Of course, such matters as national defense, coinage
of money, regulations of interstate and foreign commerce must by the very nature of
their operation be on the national level. Republicans believe that in order to protect
your interests and the interests of all the people, as much governmental activity as
is practical should be kept as close as possible to the people through the local
GERALD
5
and state political units.
(5) OFFICIALS OF GOVERNMENT MUST EXHIBIT THE HIGHEST MORAL AND ETHICAL
STANDARDS IN BOTH THEIR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LIVES. I do not make this as a pious
platitude, nor do I contend that the Republican officeholders have a monopoly on
the highest moral and ethical standard. But I do say to you that as a principle
of the Republican Party, conduct of the highest moral and ethical character is demanded,
and that we will not defend nor protect those who fail to adhere to these standards.
They must and should be removed from government. President Grover Cleveland said
some years ago, "A public office is a public trust," and that is still so true.
Having listed the five basic principles of the Republican Party, I would now
like to touch upon a number of the specific national issues which I understand you
will be discussing and debating in your own Congressional sessions.
FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION: One of the major issues before the present Congress
in which we are all interested and which I understand will be debated in your sessions
is the question of federal aid to education. As you know, last year the Congress
adopted the National Defense Education Act. Among other things this legislation
provides for loans and other assistance to capable students who need financial aid.
It also establishes certain other programs to assist the development of the many
resources and technical skills of our young people. I think it is a sound approach
to those aspects to the problem of education that especially concerned the Congress
last year.
In that legislation we supplied financial assistance to capable individuals
who need help to complete their college training. The taxpayers' money is to be
repaid over a period of years under easy terms. In order to encourage the preparation
of teachers, the act provides for the cancellation of up to 50% of those loans made
to college students who go into teaching for at least five years. I supported this
legislation and can find no serious fault with its operation thus far.
This year, however, we are confronted with a new and different approach in
the form of HR 22, the Metcalf bill, which would authorize federal aid for school
construction and teachers' salaries. The House Committee on Education and Labor is
presently holding hearings on this bill, although a number of other proposals have been
made and the Administration had its own plan introduced.
Some recent history may be helpful in discussing this issue. In the first
session of the 85th Congress I opposed the parliamentary maneuver by which the Kelley
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
6
School Construction Bill (HR 1) was defeated in the House on July 25, 1957. I voted
against the motion to strike the enacting clause of HR 1 and thus kill the bill. (The
vote was 209-203 to strike.)
While I did not agree with all the provisions of the Kelley Bill, I did want
to have the opportunity to vote in favor of a substitute proposal which was to have
been presented. The Kelley Bill called for the distribution of federal funds to the
states on the basis of school population. The substitute proposal would have taken
into consideration the needs of the various states and the extent to which they have
demonstrated their own efforts to meet these needs. In August, 1957 I said that a
"good argument can be made that Uncle Sam should offer temporary assistance to alleviate
the shortage of classrooms in those specific communities where there is a need and
where local citizens have conscientiously tried to solve their classroom deficiencies."
The Metcalf bill as proposed in 1959 will allocate federal funds to the
states solely on the basis of school population. Within each state, however, priority
for school construction is to be given to those local districts where the need is
greatest.
The bill authorizes a state to use the federal money for either school
construction or teachers' salaries or both. However, there is nothing in the bill to
assure that any teacher will receive an increase in salary because of the enactment
of this legislation nor is there any assurance that a single classroom will be constructed
in a given state. More important, however, there is nothing to guarantee that the sum
total of all monies, local, state, and federal, spent on education will be increased
by the passage of HR 22.
It is estimated that the first year's cost w the federal Treasury will be
over a billion dollars with this figure rising to $4.7 billion on 1962-63 and increasing
annually thereafter with population growth.
Unfortunately the Education and Labor Committee seems to be practically
ignoring the recomendations by Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare Flemning
and President Eisenhower. Those who oppose the President's proposal and support the
Metcalf approach believe that we must hand out additional federal funds for school
construction or operation without any strings attached whatsoever and regardless of the
needs in the states for this assistance, and regardless of whether the individual
states have demonstrated a willingness to carry out their educational obligations.
I was a little surprised recently to read in a speech delivered on the
floor of the House condemning the Administration's proposals that a major objection
GERALD
7
was the legal impediment which would limit the number of school districts which
could participate in the Administration's program. The Administration's five-year
program provides among other things that the U. S. Government will undertake to
advance half the debt service on school construction bonds issued by needy school
districts provided the State advances the other half. The local school district
would be required to maintain a reasonable tax effort. The funds under the Administra-
tion's plan would be distributed among the states on the basis of need for school
buildings and the relative degree of effort which the state school districts are
making to meet the classroom shortage. In condemning this plan, the speaker introduced
a tabulation showing the percentage of districts by states which have reached legal
indebtedness or millage limits as of April, 1958. In Minnesota only 12% of the district
had reached the legal limit. In my own state of Michigan there is no legal maximum
but it was stated that 15% are at a practical limit. In North Dakota it was 2% of
the total, in South Dakota 20%, in Iowa less than 10%, in Wisconsin less than 1% and
Nebraska has no districts at a maximum.
But even more amazing, this same speaker went on to show that in order for
the states to avail themselves of the provisions of the Administration's bill to borrow
funds, constitutional amendments would have to be accepted or a referendum held, or the
legislators would have to take action. In other words, he acknowledged that if the
people of the states involved wish to take action to increase state and local support
of education, it could be done by legislative action or a vote of the people. For
instance, here in Minnesota he reported a constitutional amendment would be necessary,
as would be the case in Wisconsin and most other states. The point is this: It is yet
to be shown that we are not able in most states to meet our education needs without
further burdening the federal taxpayer. In those states where there is a real need
and where a demonstrated effort has been made to solve the problem, I see, in light of
the principles which I have mentioned above, a justifiable basis for certain federal
aid to education with emphasis on school construction.
LABOR LEGISLATION: Another major issue before the present Congress lies in
the area of labor-management relations. The revelations of the McClellan Committee
have well demonstrated thatremedial legislation in this area is most essential. A
number of helpful and constructive bills have been introduced in both houses of
Congress to pave the way for an effective legislative proposal. Senator Kennedy has
made his recommendations. Senator McClellan has introduced bills. President
Eisenhower has sent up a program listing 20 points for consideration by the Congress,
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
8
and Chairman Barden of the House Committee on Education and Labor has introduced
two specific bills. We who are not members of the Committee on Education and Labor
are awaiting the report from the Committee on its recommendations. Senator Kennedy's
bill has merit; the 1959 version is better than that before the House last year. The
President's proposals are stronger, especially in reference to secondary boycotts and
the so-called black-mail picketing which Mr. Kennedy avoids completely. I hope the
Congress will take constructive action to curb the abuses in the labor organizations
which have been demonstrated before the NeGlellan Committee.
Our purpose in legislating should not be to destroy labor unions, nor even
to hinder any of their legitimate objectives and activity. We are not talking about
anti-labor legislation. Unions are here to stay. They serve a good and worthwhile
purpose. But one of the main objectives of proposed legislation 1s to make the
leadership in every union more responsive to the needs and wishes of the rank and
file membership. This legislation is to protect the interest of all union members,
and the employers, and particularly the public at large. We hope to see legislation
in this area which will carry out the first basic principle which I enumerated, that it
is the responsibility of the government to protect the best interest of all the
people.
This brings us of course, to the consideration of the so-called right- to-
work issue. In any consideration of this problem, I personally prefer to discuss
"mandatory membership" rather than "right-to-work." The question involved is that
of "compulsion" rather than "right." But, the common terminology is "right-to-work,"
80 let's use that.
The Taft-Hartley Bill as you know outlaws the closed shop, but authorizes
the union shop unless a given state by legislative action or by referendum of the
people decides to adopt the right-to-work provision. The right-to-work issue should
be settled on an individual state basis, preferably by a state-wide referendum where
all our voters have an opportunity to participate. Because I believe the federal
government should not continue unnecessarily to expand its power and because I favor
an increased emphasis on keeping government close to the people, I insist that the
right-to-work issue is fundamentally a problem for the people of each state. With
the varying social, economic, and political difference among our people and our
states, it is more democratic in my judgment to let thepeople who are affected de-
cide the issue in their own states.
May I add, however, that if I were an employee of an organisation which
had a union, I would not only join that union, but I would be an active member of
GERALD
9
Furthermore, if I were an employer, I would not oppose the unionization of my workers,
but would foster among them and their leaders a high sense of responsibility to the
company and its products.
FARM POLICY: Let us now look at another issue which will be considered in
your deliberations, that of a sound and effective farm policy. That we want the
farmers of our country to share in every economic advancement goes without saying.
That we must have a strong and virile agriculture is self-evident. The question is
simply whether the present farm policy as reflected in federal law is best for our
farmers, consumers and the country as a whole.
President Eisenhower pointed out in his special message to the Congress on
January 29th that while there are some 250 farm commodities produced in the United
States, present law has required that prices on only twelve of these be supported at
prescribed minamum levels. It is this requirement together with the level of required
support that has created our farm surplus problems. lie also pointed out that three
of the twelve mandatory products (wheat, corn, and cotton) account for about 85% of
the federal inventory of price supported commodities though they produce only 20% of
the total farm cash income.
The President presented three indictments against the price support and
production-control program and demonstrated that it has not worked. First he showed
that most of the dollars are spent on the production of a relatively few large producers.
Second, that the control program doesn't control; and third, that the program is
excessively expensive. On July 1, 1959 total government investment in farm commodities
will total $9.1 billion. During the present fiscal year the net budgetary outlay for
programs of the stabilization of farm prices and farm income will be $5.4 billion.
I am not here to recommend the complete and immediate abolition of all price
supports. I know that any basic revision will have to be done gradually. The Recom-
mendations of Secretary Benson consistently have been aimed at sounder and more con-
structive programs. Rigid price supports have proved ineffective. At the very least,
there must be more discretion given to the Secretary of Agriculture in this whole area.
Some progress was made when the growers of corn chose by a referendum vote, program
changes which include supports based on a new formula with no production limitations.
Many of you have read, I am sure, of the case of Stanley Yankus of Dowagiac,
Michigan. Mr. Yankus' experience dramatically points up the difficulty we get into
when we attemtp to control every aspect of life from Washington. It is another
illustration of the fact that the small family-type farmer whom we want to preserve
GERALD R.FORD LIBRARY
10
and protect, does not profit by governmental control over his production.
Hr. Yankus' attitude, actions, and predicament although dramatic, must be
more completely analysed to be understood. It is apparent that he has not used the
available means for presenting his case to the proper authorities. He has placed him-
self over against the Supreme Court of the United States as the final authority on the
constitutionality of a federal law. But, the case of Mr. Yankus is a graphic illus-
tration of the extent to which our legislative acts departed from those principles and
ideals which made America a haven for oppressed peoples from all over the world. If
we had followed the recommendations of Secretary Benson and the President during the
past five or six years we wouldn't find ourselves with the contradictory, incongruous
and unworkable policies which now afflict us in the area of American agriculture.
CIVIL RIGHTS AND POWERS OF THE COURTS: I have been told that your session of
the House of Representatives will also debate Civil Rights and the question of the
limitation of the powers of the Supreme Court. I am confident that there isn't a
person here this evening who is not absolutely convinced that no American citizen may
be denied the rights and privileges of American citizenship simply because of his
race, color, religion, or national origin. I am certain that no one here would demand
that an American citizen be restricted in his use of public transportation or public
eating places, in the selection of a job or a home site, or in the school to which he
is to send his children, or in exercising of the elective franchise, simply and solely
because of his race, color, religion, or national origin.
In light of the five Republican Principles which I have enumerated, and
consistent with our Christian heritage and constitutional principles, we can not believe
otherwise, nor act in any other manner. The Republican Party is united in its deter-
mination to protect and promote the general welfare of all American citizens. Conse-
quently, it has consistently supported sound and constructive legislation to insure to
all our people their inalienable rights, the achievement of which formed the basis of
the organization of this nation and government.
This means that we endorse the unanimous decision of the U. S. Supreme Court
in the school segregation cases. We recognize that the implementation of this
decision requires the re-thinking of a social philosophy in every state of the union.
We recognize that progress may come slowly, but progress must be made. It is not a
question of whether you or I like the decision. Here we come face to face with the
practical application not only of American constitutional principles, but also our
Christian heritage.
GERALD
11
Closely allied with the current debate on Civil Rights is the periodical
suggestion that the powers of the Supreme Court should be curtailed. Under our federal
system we have three equal and coordinate branches of government. There is the
legislative, the executive, and the judicial. We admire and defend this system not
necessarily because it is the most efficient, but primarily because it is the safest
for all our people. It is the best system developed anywhere for the protection of
the dádividual's rights and privileges and the best insurance against the rise of a
dictatorial system.
In any consideration on the limitations of the power of the courts, I think
it is important to point out first that no one branch of the government is infallible
nor should it completely dominate the other two. In the enacÊment of legislation,
the Congress always takes into consideration the constitutionality of the proposal.
If it is evident to a majority of the members of the Congress that a given bill is
unconstitutional, that bill has very little chance of being enacted. Likewise, the
President in passing upon the legislation sent him by the House and the Senate, must
pass upon its constitutionality. Presidents have repeatedly vetood acts of the Congress
on the basis of a questionable constitutionality.
Assuming, however, that the act becomes law and some citizen alleges that
his rights and privileges are being infringed, it becomes the duty of the court to
pass specifically upon the constitutionality. I don't think that any of us will insist
that the court is any more infallible than the President or a majority of the members
of the Congress. You know as well as I that the Supreme Court has reversed itself in
a good many instances and has modified its decision in many cases. But the court's
responsibility is clear; it shares in the guardianship of our liberties, and its
decisions must be respected.
While the court in its own sphere is free to exercise its legitimate powers,
it may become necessary for the Congress as an equal branch in the government to enact
remedial legislation or to propose constitutional amendments because of court decisions.
For example, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution was necessitated by a court ruling
that a federal graduated income tax was unconstitutional. Last year the Congress
considered but did not enact, legislation steming from the well-known Mallory case
involving the proper procedure in arraignment of a suspect who confessed to a crime.
Without passing upon the merits of this case or the Supreme Court's decision, I am sure
that you will acknowledge that reasonable and honest men can disagree on what consti-
tutes proper procedure.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
12
Likewise the Congress considered legislation to override the Supreme Court's
decision in the Nelson case when the court freed a person convicted as a Communist
under Pennsylvania law on the theory that the Congress had preemped the entire field
of legislation in reference to subversion. Here we are in an area where the Congress
should make known to the court that it had no intention of preempting the field and
that the court's decision declaring the Pennsylvania Sedition Act in 80 far as it
would apply to subtersive activities against the United States ought to be modified.
You will note, my friends, that I am not recommending that the Supreme Court's
power be limited in any respect. I believe that the courts have been and are one of
the bulworks guarding the individual's liberties. I want no restriction on the powers
of the judiciary to protect any and all rights of American Citizens. This is consistent
with the principles of the Republican Party. On the other hand, if and when the court
takes action which a majority of the members of the Congress feel is improper and
uncalled for, the Congress must exercise its power to remedy the situation through
proper legislative action.
We had a good example of this just a week ago Monday when a bill was considered
and passed on the consent calendar to define the term "organized" as used in the Smith
Act. In June of 1957 the Supreme Court in the case of Tates vs. U. S. freed 14 known
Communists who had been convicted of conspiring to overthrow the U. S. Government by
force and violence and of organizing groups for the same purpose. One of the bases
upon which the court reversed the conviction was its interpretation of the term "organ-
ised." The court said that this term did not include such activities as recruiting of
members, organizing groups within the frameword of the Communist Party, etc., and that
it was not the intention of the Congress to have the word include such activities.
Here the court was interpreting the intention of the Congress. The bill as passed
a week ago Monday specifically stating that it is the intention of the Congress to
include in the term "organise" such activities as recruiting of members, organization
of groups within the framswork of the Communist Party. If this bill becomes law, the
Congress is not limiting the powers of the court, but simply explaining its own
intention and clarifying the meaning of a term for the benefit of our law enforcement
officers and the court.
The Republican Party will not destroy or weaken our judicial system. It does,
however, want the judiciary to know that its specific decisions will be analyzed by
the Congress and will be subject to remedical legislation when that appears essential.
This is consistent with well-established practice.
BERALD FORD VIBRARY
13
MUTUAL SECURITY: Another issue which I believe will confront your delibera-
tions this evening and tomorrow is that of foreign aid or our Mutual Security Program.
Let me say right at the outsent that when we get into the area of foreign affairs,
we should drop any partisanship or party consideration. Our Mutual Security Program
is not an issue on which Democrate and Republicans as such disagree.
The first principle of the Republican Party which I listed calls for the
adequate protection of all the American people. Unless we can defend ourselves
against the Communist conspiracy and maintain our own sovereignty and the existence
of a free world, we won't have to worry much about anything else we may talk about
tonight. Our Mutual Security Program is first, directly and indirectly, a national
security measure.
The Mutual Security Program is basically sound and necessary because:
1. It enables the United States to have over 250 military bases on
foreign territory.
2. It cuts the costs of our own direct expenditures for defense and
reduces the draft calls by Selective Service.
3. It helps protect the sources of our supply of many strategic materials.
4. It helps U. S. farms, business, and labor when nearly 804 of every
dollar of mutual security funds are spent in the first instance in
the United States.
5. It is a major United States weapon in the cold war against Communist
imperialism.
6. It strengthens our allies and friends, militarily and economically.
7. It is our best insurance against Communist penetration of the neutral
nations.
You have heard this program described from time to time as a giveaway program. A year
ago Secretary of State Dulles made a masterful presentation in support of our Mutual
Security Program before my subcommittee on Appropriations for Foreign Operations. I
would like to quote two paragraphs from his testimony:
"The 'giveaway' so often complained of would have occurred if we had not had
this program or if we should slacked it now. Without a Mitual Security Program we
would indeed have Agivenaway' half of Europe to chaos or Communism. We would have
'givenaway' Greece and Turkey and the Eastern Mediterranean to Soviet control. We
would have 'givenaway' Iran, and Russian access to the Persian Gulf and the Indian
Ocean - and the economic strength of Europe which depends heavily on Middle Eastern
a
oil. We would have 'givenaway' Korea; and the Republic of China and Vietnam - and
in all likelihood the rest of Southeast Asia. The 'givesway' would reach or come
dangerously close to Pakistan and India - the great Asian subcontinent with a fifth
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
14
of the entire human race.
"If we now weaken in our determination and alsaken in our pace, we will
indeed 'give away' to Communism in the next few years the control of a dosen or more
nations with enough people and resources to change the balance of power irretrievably
against us. We would indeed 'give away' bases and allied forces essential to our own
strategic defense system. We would indeed "give away! the access which we and other
free nations have to resources essential to our own industry and to trade essential
to our own welfare and prosperity."
We sometimes forget to what extent the U. S. is dependant on other parts of
the world for essential raw materials. of 29 strategic materials that are necessary
for production in the U. S., we are self-sufficient in only 9. For example, we import
96% of our nicket, 86% of our manganese; 91% of our chrome, 100% of our tin, industrial
diamonds, and natural rubber; 98% of our platinum, and 80% of the cobalt we use in
industry and defense.
It is also significant, I think, although this should not be used as the
first argument for the Mutual Security Program, that 78% of the funds appropriated for
this program are spent right in the U. S. in the very first instance. The jobs of
over 600 thousand American farmers and industrial workers can be directly attributed
to these expenditures. And, finally, I want to reiterate that this Mutual Security
Program enables us to have over 250 military bases on foreign territory. Without this
program, we would have to pull back our military defense pretty close to our natural
boundaries. Under the Mutual Security Program, we are able to bind a ring of steel
around the Iron Curtain, and right up close.
DEFENSE: In conclusion, I want to say just a few words about matters that
may or may not come up in your deliberations, but which are being debated vigorously
in the Congress, on the air, and through the press. This is the question of the
adequacy of our national defense and how we stand in relation to Russia.
As one who has been close to the Department of Defense for seven years as a
member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Department of Defense, I would like
to make a few pertinent comments.
Annually our committee hears and interrogates the civilian and military leaders
of the country. All of these, Democrats, Republicans, or independents, are able, con-
scientious, responsible, and patriotic men.
While it is the responsibility of the Recutive Branch to initiate and
administer the defense programs, the Congress must double-check the plans and
GERALD
15
administrative action, and make certain that the taxpayers' dollars are well spent.
Neither branch of the government has a monopoly on information or wisdom but both
must and can work together for a stronger and better America.
The people of the United States can afford whatever amount is really
required for our national defense. In fact, we cannot afford anything less. I can
assure you that the President had this in mind when he submitted his defense budget.
The Congress should be guided by the same principle when it makes the appropriations.
Another significant fact to consider is that the security of the United States
is not dependent upon one military service nor upon one weapon system. Missiles of all
types are most important but they are but one element in the great arsenal of defense.
Intercentinental ballistic missiles occupy a prominent position among modern weapons
but they are but one of many necessary instruments for our national security.
The United States at the moment has tremendous retaliatory power, defensively
and offensively. We have over 500 B-52s (long-range jet bombers) which can carry an
atomic payload to the heart of Russia and return without refueling. We have over a
thousand B-47s (medium-range jet bombers) which can do the same with in-flight refueling
operations.
But more important, because of our overseas bases the heart of Russia is
right next door. The heart of the United States if 5,000 miles from Russia. Short and
medium-range missiles capable of more accurate control mean much more to us than to
the USSR. From our bases in Great Britain and other allied countries our 1,500-mile
missile can be devastatingly effective. By June, 1959 the 5,500-mile Atlas weapon
system will be in operation and the initial squadrons will be augmented on schedule.
Moreover, a strong U. S. Naval carrier force can provide planes to move into
enery nations from many directions if this becomes necessary. We have a submarine
fleet with missile capability. During early 1960 the first POLARIS ballistic-missile
equipped submarines will join the fleet and other will follow.
I am convinced that we have a well-rounded and fully adequate defense system,
ready and able to protect this country in any crisis whether a general or limited war.
Your government, through the President, our military leaders, and the Congress, will
continue to improve and modify this system to meet changing conditions and keep the
step with technological advancements.
This day at St. Olaf has been a most pleasant one. I enjoyed the sessions
this noon and afternoon and you have been a kind and courteous audience this
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
16
evening. As I indicated at the beginning, I hope my appearance in Northfield has
been constructive. I realize, however, there will be disagreements with some of the
things I have said during your deliberations to follow, but this is inherent in our
system. I trust, however, that your thinking will be stimulated and that your
discussions will be profitable.
ANNUSI GERALD FORD
Political Emphasis Wuk
/
lt. Olap College. 3/12/59
Interluction - - Storis 1). Texas Tougham
3) Great, great man -
2/. Rotary speech-
N.S. - the Free & The Home 8 the Brave.
Minnesota - Tand of a 1000 Tabes.
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
northfuld - City of colleges, crus, contentment + couls.
We hive in a great country Mennesota is a wonderful state, northfuld choir
is a beautiful city + of cream AT. old is a fine school Earth
The
page of history. 2 can't compute for the + efforts history broks more but tonot construction my memorks
Jesse James procedud me here - left his radelible mark for
2
Introductory memorhs (contenued)
Isn't every day Episerpalian can address a group 8 Tutterans
As close To st. Patrch Days.
2 understand st. Old was a me 3 At. Patrick for norway
& that This Norwegen Saint Christeanged his country
in 11th century
AL QUIE - graduated in 1950.
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
3
POLITICAL EMPHASIS WEEK.
Pleased with emphasis on Political
all concerned with public affairs.
deducated to american constitutional ideals.
Only way democratic systems write - political system.
Politics + politicians give life, blood T breath to The
still Gmes of a conditutional system
College praduates for prome To sit in N reduction,
monday morning QBs. GET .IN the GAME.
Survey - 70% of parents against children in politico BERALD
ORD
Michigan appearance - voter higher vegestration carls.
LIBRARI
Independent Voter - glorfud. Vote for but man.
(4)
can't Gould strong partus if predominate form is the
Inlependent other.
Hope you will always Note for but man but 2
trust he will always the a Republican.
Must develope lasic differences between the PARTIES.
Philosopheral differences must & do spirt.
Coffin + me.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
I
5
Government is organizal to pride an equal protection
for, + to promote The General Welfare of, ALL the Phople
Preamble - we have organized government for:
to protect against Inemis from
within o without.
4. informent.
1/ Melitary
However - where 175 million people - brund to be
GOV'T disagreements must be The imported arbitator.
can This promote the Henaral Wilfare
FORD LIBRARY
II In Expressing an acceptable national Policy, We Can L6
Y through be Februal in Human Relations & Conservator
in Economic affairs.
G.O.P. believes the lot 8 all should be improval.
Belowe in amherent deputy & worth 7, the
when feberal T progressive to advance happeness &
comfort of an interndual r community 6,O.P. infor it.
G.O.P. believes in inalienable right to require property.
Jefferm - indianable rights of men ware life, Worty +
person't of hoppinson.
FORD
Anit has no right to take
Person has right to acquire but must use property
III a sound Respirable Fiscal Policy is Imperation
L7
to Good Government
G.O.P. believes in, works for balanced bubjet.
No applights.
Deposit francing fans Hames of inflation.
Bad stample for our citizens.
FORD & LIBRARY BERALD
4 Our way of Tife to Fostenal But By Keeping L8
Public afperso as Close as Possible to the People Concernal
G.O.P. truts good Alnol fall the people.
Frad Marks have tougher job.
Better school, law enfracement its
Further goint any from people less interest
by The People of less neograbile result
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
I Officials of Government must Cablet the Highest la
Moral & Exhical Standards in Both their Public & Printe
Five
not a piono platated - non Lo Republicans have monophy
But G.D, P. demands this standard
will not protect or defend
FORD LIBRARY
Federal aid to Education
to
1). national Defener Education act -
help meedy students
teaching - 50%
school production
science sympment
2). Meterife Bill - H.R. 22 -
imstimetion & salario
cat belling I "5 Whim
3) Kelly Bill Th - H.R. /
no quaranter
85th Congrens.
LEGAL Indebreoness
1957 - Parkamentary more.
4). Esenhwar Proposal
Mean Mich 12% no 18% Leyal q. limit limit 86% 86 il Comprass "I - - payment debt pnancing brand m mul & demonderated FORD affort
N.D- 2% is Then 1070 - the 12 Unyant have cortain To The - action. states n Coral communities GERA while RART
20wn
-
SPEECH OF DULLES BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE:
"The 'giveaway' so often complained of would have occurred if we had not had this
program or if we should slacken it now. Without a Mutual Security Program we would
indeed have 'givenaway' half of Europe to chaos or Communism. We would have 'given away'
Greece and Turkey and the Eastern Mediterranean to Soviet control. We would have 'given
away' Iran, and Russian access to the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean -- and the
economic strength of Europe which depends heavily on Middle Eastern oil. We would have
'given away' Korea; and the Republic of China and Vietnam - and in all likelihood the
rest of Southeast Asia. The 'give away' would reach or come dangerously close to Pakistan
and India -- the great Asian subcontinent with a fifth of the entire human race."
"If we now weaken in our determination and slacken in our pace, we will indeed 'give
away' to Communism in the next few years the control of a dozen or more nations GERA with
LIBRARY
(2)
enough people and resources to chang the balance of power irretrievably against us.
We would indeed 'give away' bases and allied forces essential to our own strategic defense
system. We would indeed 'give away' the access which we and other free nations have to
resources essential to our own industry and to trade essential to our own welfare and
prosperity."
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Fabor Legatation
L"
Obnoin need - mc Chellan Committee
Mc Klanedy dellar
Barlon
Evenhwer
Purpose 7 Legalation - unins not to more destroy prespossive but to make to
members.
Right to work- - computsion
Taft-Harthy
FORD & LIBRARY 078870
Farm Policy
L12
Objective - fromers must share in semmic admintment
from production must be adjuste for one much.
Manage - 250 from communities
12 supported a mememen Levels.
38 the 12 account for 85% of faboral
inventory. or investment. cron Whint,
Record shows 1 1) most dollars for large producers
cotton
2). Cratool program doesn't work.
31. Expensive - $9.1 Whom.
Change-
- Illustration of programs foulure
GERALD
Civil R ights
13
In america - no denied of nights.
G.O.P. has been in the foregramed in
real achievement in Civil Rights.
1). Legislation
2). Endress Improme et. decesion
Supreme a - no brand good mailbble
Three (3) syml handles
Duty of 1) 16 Z 7/1 review and logalation
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
3) Preemption - Nelson can.
2/. mallory bill
pt
Mustul because -
Benefits Bases
2/. Selective service
3% Strategic ram makerals - 9.439
surfacement in
Import 96% - midel
4). got 3 way dollar spent in 4.5.
86" 91 " " " - - - magnesure ten of forebber 7/. 6). 5% strengthers Prevents Cord war aller washin
100
penetation of n entrals
no "gweavay"
GERALD AMERGIT FORD
Defense
/15
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
Page data
- Page
- 1
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- document
- Media ID
- 839278a8ae47179e
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 4525747
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "4525747",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4525747",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "St. Olaf College Political Emphasis Week, March 12, 1959",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4525747",
"collections": [
"Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers",
"Speeches"
],
"subjects": [
"Agriculture",
"Civil rights",
"Education",
"Federal aid",
"Foreign aid",
"Legislation",
"National security",
"Political affairs",
"Right to labor"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4525747.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4525747.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4525747.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "4525747",
"label": "St. Olaf College Political Emphasis Week, March 12, 1959",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4525747"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "4525747",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4525747",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "St. Olaf College Political Emphasis Week, March 12, 1959",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4525747",
"collections": [
"Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers",
"Speeches"
],
"subjects": [
"Agriculture",
"Civil rights",
"Education",
"Federal aid",
"Foreign aid",
"Legislation",
"National security",
"Political affairs",
"Right to labor"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4525747.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4525747.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4525747.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4525747",
"naId": 4525747,
"coverageEndDate": {
"logicalDate": "1959-03-31",
"month": 3,
"year": 1959
},
"coverageStartDate": {
"logicalDate": "1959-03-01",
"month": 3,
"year": 1959
},
"levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 1,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "document",
"url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4525747.pdf",
"mediaId": "839278a8ae47179e",
"ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box D15, folder \"St. Olaf College Political Emphasis\nWeek, March 12, 1959\" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech\nFile at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nDigitized from Box D15 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nADDRESS OF REP. GERALD R. FORD, JR.\nSt. Olaf College: Political Emphasis Week\nMarch 12, 1959\nThe United States of America is the \"Land of the Free and the Home of the\nBrave. Minnesota is the \"Land of a Thousand Lakes.\" Northfield I am told is the\ncity of'colleges, cows, contentment, and coeds.\" What a delightful place to live\nand study. I was pleased of course, to accept the invitation which brought me to\nNorthfield and St. Olaf College for the first time. I understand, however, that\nJesse James preceeded me to Northfield and in shooting up the town left his indelible\nmark. I do not expect that my visit will be of such historic significance, but I\ndo trust that it will be more constructive.\nIt isn't every day that an Episcopalian can address a group of Lutherans so\nclose to St. Patrick's Day. But I understand that St. Olaf was a sort of St. Patrick\nfor Norway and that this Norwegian Saint Christianized his country in the 11th Century.\nIt is altogether fitting that this college should bear his name.\nWhile I had never visited your city and campus before, I was, of course, familiar\nwith your nationally known choir which has toured Michigan and brought its inspiring\nmusic to thousands of our people. We know of \"Giants in the Earth\" and of the great\nliterary, scholastic and Christian heritage which is yours here at St. Olaf.\nMy good friend and the able Congressman from this district, A1 Quie, graduated\nfrom St. Olaf in 1950. He is now doing an outstanding job in the House of Representa-\ntives and is a real credit to his alma mater.\nADDRESS OF REP. GERALD R. FORD, JR.\nSt. Olaf College: Political Emphasis Week\nMarch 12, 1959\na a Republican Views Party\nI am glad to see that here at St. Olaf you are calling this week of\nspecial activity, \"Political Emphasis Week.\" Frankly, I am very pleased to note\nthe emphasis on the \"political.\" We hear a great deal about good citizenship, and\nwe have speeches and conferences on governmental ideals and principles. Many people\nare satisfied when they concern themselves with public affairs, but when you mention\nthe word \"politics\" these same people throw up their hands in some holy terror and\nact as if you are mentioning the unmentionable or using a dirty word.\nNow all of us are dedicated to the great American constitutional ideals.\nWe believe that every American citizen should interest himself in civic problems and\npublic affairs. But the cold fact remains that these great principles of government\nare attained and these public affairs handled through the instrumentality that we\nknow as\"politics\"\nThe only way in which our democratic system of government can operate is\nthrough a political system involving campaigns, elections, appointments, defeats,\nagreements, disagreements, compromises, and the factional disputes and the cooperative\nefforts of a good many people in the political arena. It is politics and the poli-\nticians which give life and blood and breath to the still bones of a constitutional\nsystem. Again let me congratulate you for stressing \"politics\" during this week.\nYou are college men and women. Sad to say, too often in the past our\ncollege trained people have been satisfied to recline impotently in the wings and\nmerely observe the political scene or at the most, they have cheered their respective\nteams from the sidelines. Many of them have even become expert \"Monday-morning\nquarterbacks\" on practically every public issue. If I present any challenge to you\nthis evening, it is the challenge to get out of the bleechers onto the playing\nfield. I sincerely hope that every one of you will become an active member of the\npolitical party of your choice. That is the most practical way I know to have an\neffective voice in government. Join the team, play ball, follow the rules and you\nwill not only have a good time, but will be making a concrete contribution to good\ngovernment, to your community and to your country.\nA few years ago a national survey organization asked parents how many of\nthem wanted their children to go into political life. 70% of all of those questioned\ninsisted that they did not want their boys and girls to get into politics. Only\nthree out of ten wanted their children to have anything to do with the practical\nFORD\nLIBRARY\n2\naspects of government under our constitutional system. This to me was as tragic as\nit is revealing. It is a clear indication that we have a call to action in this area\nof our thinking on government service. There is no better way of answering this call\nthan to plunge in as early as practical and become an active, hard-working, responsible\nmember of the party of your choice.\nTo you at St. Olaf I recommend active party membership and support of the\nparty ticket as one of the major marks of a good American citizen. Just in passing\nlet me say that I think for too long we in this country have glorified the independent\nvoter. He is usually a fine citizen and a competent, discerning voter. But one of\nthe things we need badly in this country, I believe, are strong, political parties\nunited\nwho may be held responsible for the action or inaction of all public officials elected\nthrough those parties.\nI know, of course, what you hear so often: \"There is no difference between\nthe Democrats and the Republicans. I simply vote for the best man.\" Now I hope you\nalways vote for the best man, and of course, I trust the best man will be a member of\nyour party; and he will be if you, and others like you, are active in that party to\nsee that constructive and competent candidates are chosen in the first instance. But,\nI do believe there are differences in our two major parties today. This evening I\nspeak only as a member of the Republican Party. I understand that my good friend and\ncolleague, Representative Coffin of Maine will be with you tomorrow night. I trust that\nafter hearing the two of us, some fundamental differences will become apparent.\nLet me list for you quickly, five points which I believe summarize the basic\nprinciples and philosophy of the Republican Party today:\n(1) GOVERNMENT IS ORGANIZED TO PROVIDE AN EQUAL PROTECTION FOR, AND TO PROMOTE\nTHE GENERAL WELFARE OF, ALL THE PEOPLE. As the preamble to the U. S. Constitution\nstates, we have organized government primarily to protect ourselves against enemies\nboth within and without, and to promote the general welfare. It is elementary that we\nhave the armed forces with all their military hardware to protect this nation and its\npeople from foreign aggression. We also have a well-organized system of internal\nlaw-enforcement to protect our people against the criminal element. But in any\nsituation in which you find more than one person involved, there are bound to come\ndisagreements and conflicts of one type or another. You find it in families, you find\nit in churches, schools, communities, states, nations, the world. In this country of\n175 million people of varying backgrounds, interests, and aspirations, living in 49\nstates and under varying economic and social conditions, there will of necessity be an\n3\nendless struggle for power, for domination, or for a simple place in the sun. I am\nsure that we can agree that there must be some impartial arbitrator, (that is, as\nimpartial as it is humanly possible to be) whose task it is to conciliate and\narbitrate the differences which arise in this vast population. That arbitrator must\nrepresent the best interest of all the people. He may not be dominated by any special\nsocial, or economic group which is dedicated to promote the interest of that group. He\nmust be the umpire to see that the laws are obeyed for the good of all the people.\nNot only must we have an impartial arbitrator or the umpire to make certain\nthat the laws are obeyed, but it is imperative that the institution we know as govern-\nment see that the laws are fair, just, and for the equal benefit for all segments of\nthe population. The Republican Party is a party of no specific group. It is dedicated\nto the promotion of the general welfare; it is the party of all the people.\n(2) IN EXPRESSING AN ACCEPTABLE NATIONAL POLICY, WE CAN AND SHOULD BE LIBERAL\nIN HUMAN RELATIONS AND CONSERVATIVE IN ECONOMIC AFFAIRS. This you will recognize, of\ncourse, as a paraphrase of President Eisenhower's well known statement. I don't think\nIt is not contraductory t some have implied\nthere is anything in this whatsoever. The Republican Party believes that\nwe must improve the lot of every individual living under this government. With ≈ our\nJudes Christian heritage, the American people believe in the inherent dignity and worth\nof every individual. When it is, therefore, liberal and progressive to advance the\nhappiness and comfort of an individual and the community, the Republican Party Today is for\nit.\nBut, President Eisenhower went on to say that we were conservative in economic\naffairs. In other words, we are not going to be liberal with other people's money and\nproperty. Thomas Jefferson wrote that among the inalienable rights of men were life,\nliberty and the pursuit of happiness. You know, I am sure, that when he used the\nphrase \"the pursuit of happiness,\" he was referring to the right of owning property.\nThis is one of the inalienable rights along with life and liberty, and the Republican\nParty means to protect your right to own that portion of this world's goods which you\nare able to accumulate by proper and legitimate means. Of course, every single\nindividual has an obligation to use these goods for the benefit of all. But that is\nnot to say that we may indiscriminately take from those who have to give to those who\nhave not. This leads me to my third basic principle.\n(3) A SOUND AND RESPONSIBLE FISCAL POLICY IS IMPERATIVE TO GOOD GOVERNMENT.\nI do not apologize for saying that the Republican Party believes in a balanced\n4\nbudget. We do not insist upon a balanced budget simply because of economic and\nsocial theory or because it has been traditional to pay one's bills. We believe in a\nbalanced budget because it is the only responsible and honest thing to do in a time\nwhen we are not faced with a great national emergency. Deficit financing on the part\nof the federal government fans the flames of inflation which insidiously burn larger\nholes in everyone's pocket book. Deficit financing passes on to generations yet unborn,\na burden which we who are reaping the benefits ought to be willing to shoulder. Deficit\nfinancing adds to the federal budget enormous interest payments, and I am convinced,\nserves as a very bad example for many of our people who are encouraged to live beyond\ntheir means on the assumption that deficit financing is a good and proper way to live.\n(4) OUR WAY OF LIFE IS FOSTERED BEST BY KEEPING PUBLIC AFFAIRS AS CLOSE AS\nPOSSIBLE TO THE PEOPLE CONCERNED. The Republican Party trusts the good sense of all\nthe people. The Republican Party believes that our democratic way of life is best\ninsured by having the elected officials of the people close at hand where the people\nthemselves can maintain a proper scrutiny of all their public acts. I have often told\nsome of my friends who hold local offices that really they have a much tougher job\nthan I. Any disgruntled or dissatisfied taxpayer can easily get them on the telephone\nor corner them on the street and they must have the answers for him at that moment. In\ncontrast, a member of Congress while the House and Senate are in session is miles away\nfrom his constituents and less accessible to any irate voter.\nI sincerely believe that we have better schools when the rules and regulations\nare made by the local school board, chosen by the patrons of the school and accountable\nto them.\nWhen our city streets are not properly maintained, the citizens of the town\ncan get hold of the Mayor and Council and demand improvement, or find out how much\nit is going to cost them to have the improvement. When law enforcement is in the\nhands of the local police and sheriff, the people affected by any malfeasance or\nnonfeasance can get at the officer pretty quickly.\nThe more we move governmental activity to Washington, the more difficult it\nbecomes for the individuals in the community to make their voice felt in those things\nwhich affect them most closely. Of course, such matters as national defense, coinage\nof money, regulations of interstate and foreign commerce must by the very nature of\ntheir operation be on the national level. Republicans believe that in order to protect\nyour interests and the interests of all the people, as much governmental activity as\nis practical should be kept as close as possible to the people through the local\n5\nand state political units.\n(5) OFFICIALS OF GOVERNMENT MUST EXHIBIT THE HIGHEST MORAL AND ETHICAL\nSTANDARDS IN BOTH THEIR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LIVES. I do not make this as a pious\nplatitude, nor do I contend that the Republican officeholders have a monopoly on\nthe highest moral and ethical standard. But I do say to you that as a principle\nof the Republican Party, conduct of the highest moral and ethical character is demanded,\nand that we will not defend nor protect those who fail to adhere to these standards.\nThey must and should be removed from government. President Grover Cleveland said\nsome years ago, \"A public office is a public trust,\" and that is still so true.\nHaving listed the five basic principles of the Republican Party, I would now\nlike to touch upon a number of the specific national issues which I understand you\nwill be discussing and debating in your own Congressional sessions.\nFEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION: One of the major issues before the present Congress\nin which we are all interested and which I understand will be debated in your sessions\nis the question of federal aid to education. As you know, last year the Congress\nadopted the National Defense Education Act. Among other things this legislation\nprovides for loans and other assistance to capable students who need financial aid.\nIt also establishes certain other programs to assist the development of the many\nresources and technical skills of our young people. I think it is a sound approach\nto those aspects to the problem of education that especially concerned the Congress\nlast year.\nIn that legislation we supplied financial assistance to capable individuals\nwho need help to complete their college training. The taxpayers' money is to be\nrepaid over a period of years under easy terms. In order to encourage the preparation\nof teachers, the act provides for the cancellation of up to 50% of those loans made\nto college students who go into teaching for at least five years. I supported this\nlegislation and can find no serious fault with its operation thus far.\nThis year, however, we are confronted with a new and different approach in\nthe form of HR 22, the Metcalf bill, which would authorize federal aid for school\nconstruction and teachers' salaries. The House Committee on Education and Labor is\npresently holding hearings on this bill, although a number of other proposals have been\nmade and the Administration had its own plan introduced.\nSome recent history may be helpful in discussing this issue. In the first\nsession of the 85th Congress I opposed the parliamentary maneuver by which the Kelley\n6\nSchool Construction Bill (HR 1) was defeated in the House on July 25, 1957. I voted\nagainst the motion to strike the enacting clause of HR 1 and thus kill the bill. (The\nvote was 209-203 to strike.)\nWhile I did not agree with all the provisions of the Kelley Bill, I did want\nto have the opportunity to vote in favor of a substitute proposal which was to have\nbeen presented. The Kelley Bill called for the distribution of federal funds to the\nstates on the basis of school population. The substitute proposal would have taken\ninto consideration the needs of the various states and the extent to which they have\ndemonstrated their own efforts to meet these needs. In August, 1957 I said that a\n\"good argument can be made that Uncle Sam should offer temporary assistance to alleviate\nthe shortage of classrooms in those specific communities where there is a need and\nwhere local citizens have conscientiously tried to solve their classroom deficiencies.\"\nThe Metcalf bill as proposed in 1959 will allocate federal funds to the\nstates solely on the basis of school population. Within each state, however, priority\nfor school construction is to be given to those local districts where the need is\ngreatest.\nThe bill authorizes a state to use the federal money for either school\nconstruction or teachers' salaries or both. However, there is nothing in the bill to\nassure that any teacher will receive an increase in salary because of the enactment\nof this legislation nor is there any assurance that a single classroom will be constructed\nin a given state. More important, however, there is nothing to guarantee that the sum\ntotal of all monies, local, state, and federal, spent on education will be increased\nby the passage of HR 22.\nIt is estimated that the first year's cost To the federal Treasury will be\nover a billion dollars with this figure rising to $4.7 billion on 1962-63 and increasing\nannually thereafter with population growth.\nUnfortunately the Education and Labor Committee seems to be practically\nignoring the recommendations by Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare Flemming\nand President Eisenhower. Those who oppose the President's proposal and support the\nMetcalf approach believe that we must hand out additional federal funds for school\nconstruction or operation without any strings attached whatsoever and regardless of the\nneeds in the states for this assistance, and regardless of whether the individual\nstates have demonstrated a willingness to carry out their educational obligations.\nI was a little surprised recently to read in a speech delivered on the\nfloor of the House condemning the Administration's proposals that a major objection\n7\nwas the legal impediment which would limit the number of school districts which\ncould participate in the Administration's program. The Administration's five-year\nprogram provides among other things that the U. S. Government will undertake to\nadvance half the debt service on school construction bonds issued by needy school\ndistricts provided the State advances the other half. The local school district\nwould be required to maintain a reasonable tax effort. The funds under the Administra-\ntion's plan would be distributed among the states on the basis of need for school\nbuildings and the relative degree of effort which the state school districts are\nmaking to meet the classroom shortage. In condemning this plan, the speaker introduced\na tabulation showing the percentage of districts by states which have reached legal\nindebtedness or millage limits as of April, 1958. In Minnesota only 12% of the district\nhad reached the legal limit. In my own state of Michigan there is no legal maximum\nbut it was stated that 15% are at a practical limit. In North Dakota it was 2% of\nthe total, in South Dakota 20%, in Iowa less than 10%, in Wisconsin less than 1% and\nNebraska has no districts at a maximum.\nBut even more amazing, this same speaker went on to show that in order for\nthe states to avail themselves of the provisions of the Administration's bill to borrow\nfunds, constitutional amendments would have to be accepted or a referendum held, or the\nlegislators would have to take action. In other words, he acknowledged that if the\npeople of the states involved wish to take action to increase state and local support\nof education, it could be done by legislative action or a vote of the people. For\ninstance, here in Minnesota he reported a constitutional amendment would be necessary,\nas would be the case in Wisconsin and most other states. The point is this: It is yet\nto be shown that we are not able in most states to meet our education needs without\nfurther burdening the federal taxpayer. In those states where there is a real need\nand where a demonstrated effort has been made to solve the problem, I see, in light of\nthe principles which I have mentioned above, a justifiable basis for certain federal\naid to education with emphasis on school construction.\nLABOR LEGISLATION: Another major issue before the present Congress lies in\nthe area of labor-management relations. The revelations of the McClellan Committee\nhave well demonstrated thatremedial legislation in this area is most essential. A\nnumber of helpful and constructive bills have been introduced in both houses of\nCongress to pave the way for an effective legislative proposal. Senator Kennedy has\nmade his recommendations. Senator McClellan has introduced bills. President\nEisenhower has sent up a program listing 20 points for consideration by the Congress,\n8\nand Chairman Barden of the House Committee on Education and Labor has introduced\ntwo specific bills. We who are not members of the Committee on Education and Labor\nare awaiting the report from the Committee on its recommendations. Senator Kennedy's\nbill has merit; the 1959 version is better than that before the House last year. The\nPresident's proposals are stronger, especially in reference to secondary boycotts and\nthe so-called black-mail picketing which Mr. Kennedy avoids completely. I hope the\nCongress will take constructive action to curb the abuses in the labor organizations\nwhich have been demonstrated before the McClellan Committee.\nOur purpose in legislating should not be to destroy labor unions, nor even\nto hinder any of their legitimate objectives and activity. We are not talking about\nanti-labor legislation. Unions are here to stay. They serve a good and worthwhile\npurpose. But one of the main objectives of proposed legislation is to make the\nleadership in every union more responsive to the needs and wishes of the rank and\nfile membership. This legislation is to protect the interest of all union members,\nand the employers, and particularly the public at large. We hope to see legislation\nin this area which will carry out the first basic principle which I enumerated, that it\nis the responsibility of the government to protect the best interest of all the\npeople.\nThis brings us of course, to the consideration of the so-called right- to-\nwork issue. In any consideration of this problem, I personally prefer to discuss\n\"mandatory membership\" rather than \"right-to-work.\" The question involved is that\nof \"compulsion\" rather than \"right.\" But, the common terminology is \"right-to-work,\"\nso let's use that.\nThe Taft-Hartley Bill as you know outlaws the closed shop, but authorizes\nthe union shop unless a given state by legislative action or by referendum of the\npeople decides to adopt the right-to-work provision. The right-to-work issue should\nbe settled on an individual state basis, preferably by a state-wide referendum where\nall our voters have an opportunity to participate. Because I believe the federal\ngovernment should not continue unnecessarily to expand its power and because I favor\nan increased emphasis on keeping government close to the people, I insist that the\nright-to-work issue is fundamentally a problem for the people of each state. With\nthe varying social, economic, and political difference among our people and our\nstates, it is more democratic in my judgment to let thepeople who are affected de-\ncide the issue in their own states.\nMay I add, however, that if I were an employee of an organization which\nhad a union, I would not only join that union, but I would be an active member of it.\n9\nFurthermore, if I were an employer, I would not oppose the unionization of my workers,\nbut would foster among them and their leaders a high sense of responsibility to the\ncompany and its products.\nFARM POLICY: Let us now look at another issue which will be considered in\nyour deliberations, that of a sound and effective farm policy. That we want the\nfarmers of our country to share in every economic advancement goes without saying.\nThat we must have a strong and virile agriculture is self-evident. The question is\nsimply whether the present farm policy às reflected in federal law is best for our\nfarmers, consumers and the country as a whole.\nPresident Eisenhower pointed out in his special message to the Congress on\nJanuary 29th that while there are some 250 farm commodities produced in the United\nStates, present law has required that prices on only twelve of these be supported at\nprescribed minimum levels. It is this requirement together with the level of required\nsupport that has created our farm surplus problems. He also pointed out that three\nof the twelve mandatory products (wheat, corn, and cotton) account for about 85% of\nthe federal inventory of price supported commodities though they produce only 20% of\nthe total farm cash income.\nThe President presented three indictments against the price support and\nproduction-control program and demonstrated that it has not worked. First he showed\nthat most of the dollars are spent on the production of a relatively few large producers.\nSecond, that the control program doesn't control; and third, that the program is\nexcessively expensive. On July 1, 1959 total government investment in farm commodities\nwill total $9.1 billion. During the present fiscal year the net budgetary outlay for\nprograms of the stabilization of farm prices and farm income will be $5.4 billion.\nI am not here to recommend the complete and immediate abolition of all price\nsupports. I know that any basic revision will have to be done gradually. The Recom-\nmendations of Secretary Benson consistently have been aimed at sounder and more con-\nstructive programs. Rigid price supports have proved ineffective. At the very least,\nthere must be more discretion given to the Secretary of Agriculture in this whole area.\nSome progress was made when the growers of corn chose by a referendum vote, program\nchanges which include supports based on a new formula with no production limitations.\nMany of you have read, I am sure, of the case of Stanley Yankus of Dowagiac,\nMichigan. Mr. Yankus' experience dramatically points up the difficulty we get into\nwhen we attemtp to control every aspect of life from Washington. It is another\nillustration of the fact that the small family-type farmer whom we want to preserve\n10\nand protect, does not profit by governmental control over his production.\nMr. Yankus' attitude, actions, and predicament although dramatic, must be\nmore completely analyzed to be understood. It is apparent that he has not used the\navailable means for presenting his case to the proper authorities. He has placed him-\nself over against the Supreme Court of the United States as the final authority on the\nconstitutionality of a federal law. But, the case of Mr. Yankus is a graphic illus-\ntration of the extent to which our legislative acts departed from those principles and\nideals which made America a haven for oppressed peoples from all over the world. If\nwe had followed the recommendations of Secretary Benson and the President during the\npast five or six years we wouldn't find ourselves with the contradictory, incongruous\nand unworkable policies which now afflict us in the area of American agriculture.\nCIVIL RIGHTS AND POWERS OF THE COURTS: I have been told that your session of\nthe House of Representatives will also debate Civil Rights and the question of the\nlimitation of the powers of the Supreme Court. I am confident that there isn't a\nperson here this evening who is not absolutely convinced that no American citizen may\nbe denied the rights and privileges of American citizenship simply because of his\nrace, color, religion, or national arigin. I am certain that no one here would demand\nthat an American citizen be restricted in his use of public transportation or public\neating places, in the selection of a job or a home site, or in the school to which he\nis to send his children, or in exercising of the elective franchise, simply and solely\nbecause of his race, color, religion, or national origin.\nIn light of the five Republican Principles which I have enumerated, and\nconsistent with our Christian heritage and constitutional principles, we can not believe\notherwise, nor act in any other manner. The Republican Party is united in its deter-\nmination to protect and promote the general welfare of all American citizens. Conse-\nquently, it has consistently supported sound and constructive legislation to insure to\nall our people their inalienable rights, the achievement of which formed the basis of\nthe organization of this nation and government.\nThis means that we endorse the unanimous decision of the U. S. Supreme Court\nin the school segregation cases. We recognize that the implementation of this\ndecision requires the re-thinking of a social philosophy in every state of the union.\nWe recognize that progress may come slowly, but progress must be made. It is not a\nquestion of whether you or I like the decision. Here we come face to face with the\npractical application not only of American constitutional principles, but also our\nChristian heritage.\n11\nClosely allied with the current debate on Civil Rights ia the periodic\nsuggestion that the powers of the Supreme Court should be curtailed. Under our federal\nsystem we have three equal and coordinate branches of government. There is the\nlegislative, the executive, and the judicial. We admire and defend this system not\nnecessarily because it is the most efficient, but primarily because it is the safest\nfor all our people. It is the best system developed anywhere for the protection of\nthe individual's rights and privileges and the best insurance against the rise of a\ndictatorial system.\nIn any consideration on the limitations of the power of the courts, I think\nit is important to point out first that no one branch of the government is infallible\nnor should it completely dominate the other two. In the enactment of legislation,\nthe Congress always takes into consideration the constitutionality of the proposal.\nIf it is evident to a majority of the members of the Congress that a given bill is\nunconstitutional, that bill has very little chance of being enacted. Likewise, the\nPresident in passing upon the legislation sent him by the House and the Senate, must\npass upon its constitutionality. Presidents have repeatedly vetoed acts of the Congress\non the basis of a questionable constitutionality.\nAssuming, however, that the act becomes law and some citizen alleges that\nhis rights and privileges are being infringed, it becomes the duty of the court to\npass specifically upon the constitutionality. I don't think that any of us will insist\nthat the court is any more infallible than the President or a majority of the members\nof the Congress. You know as well as I that the Supreme Court has reversed itself in\na good many instances and has modified its decision in many cases. But the court's\nresponsibility is clear; it shares in the guardianship of our liberties, and its\ndecisions must be respected.\nWhile the court in its own sphere is free to exercise its legitimate powers,\nit may become necessary for the Congress as an equal branch in the government to enact\nremedial legislation or to propose constitutional amendments because of court decisions.\nFor example, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution was necessitated by a court ruling\nthat a federal graduated income tax was unconstitutional. Last year the Congress\nconsidered but did not enact, legislation steming from the well-known Mallory case\ninvolving the proper procedure in arraignment of a suspect who confessed to a crime.\nWithout passing upon the merits of this case or the Supreme Court's decision, I am sure\nthat you will acknowledge that reasonable and honest men can disagree on what consti-\ntutes proper procedure.\n12\nLikewise the Congress considered legislation to override the Supreme Court's\ndecision in the Nelson case when the court freed a person convicted as a Communist\nunder Pennsylvania law on the theory that the Congress had preempted the entire field\nof legislation in reference to subversion. Here we are in an area where the Congress\nshould make known to the court that it had no intention of preempting the field and\nthat the court's decision declaring the Pennsylvania Sedition Act in so far as it\nwould apply to subversive activities against the United States ought to be modified.\nYou will note, my friends, that I am not recommending that the Supreme Court's\npower be limited in any respect. I believe that the courts have been and are one of\nthe bulworks guarding the individual's liberties. I want no restriction on the powers\nof the judiciary to protect any and all rights of American Citizens. This is consistent\nwith the principles of the Republican Party. On the other hand, if and when the court\ntakes action which a majority of the members of the Congress feel is improper and\nuncalled for, the Congress must exercise its power to remedy the situation through\nproper legislative action.\nWe had a good example of this just a week ago Monday when a bill was considered\nand passed on the consent calendar to define the term \"organized\" as used in the Smith\nAct. In June of 1957 the Supreme Court in the case of Yates VS. U. S. freed 14 known\nCommunists who had been convicted of conspiring to overthrow the U. S. Government by\nforce and violence and of organizing groups for the same purpose. One of the bases\nupon which the court reversed the conviction was its interpretation of the term \"organ-\nized.\" The court said that this term did not include such activities as recruiting of\nmembers, organizing groups within the framework of the Communist Party, etc., and that\nit was not the intention of the Congress to have the word include such activities.\nHere the court was interpreting the intention of the Congress. The bill as passed\na week ago Monday specifically stating that it is the intention of the Congress to\ninclude in the term \"organize\" such activities as recruiting of members, organization\nof groups within the framework of the Communist Party. If this bill becomes law, the\nCongress is not limiting the powers of the court, but simply explaining its own\nintention and clarifying the meaning of a term for the benefit of our law enforcement\nofficers and the court.\nThe Republican Party will not destroy or weaken our judicial system. It does,\nhowever, want the judiciary to know that its specific decisions will be analyzed by\nthe Congress and will be subject to remedial legislation when that appears essential.\nThis is consistent with well-established practice.\n13\nMUTUAL SECURITY: Another issue which I believe will confront your delibera-\ntions this evening and tomorrow is that of foreign aid or our Mutual Security Program.\nLet me say right at the outset that when we get into the area of foreign affairs,\nwe should drop any partisanship or party consideration. Our Mutual Security Program\nis not an issue on which Democrats and Republicans as such disagree.\nThe first principle of the Republican Party which I listed calls for the\nadequate protection of all the American people. Unless we can defend ourselves\nagainst the Communist conspiracy and maintain our own sovereignty and the existence\nof a free world, we won't have to worry much about anything else we may talk about\ntonight. Our Mutual Security Program is first, directly and indirectly, a national\nsecurity measure.\nThe Mutual Security Program is basically sound and necessary because:\n1. It enables the United States to have over 250 military bases on\nforeign territory.\n2. It cuts the costs of our own direct expenditures for defense and\nreduces the draft calls by Selective Service.\n3. It helps protect the sources of our supply of many strategic materials.\n4. It helps U. S. farms, business, and labor when nearly 80¢ of every\ndollar of mutual security funds are spent in the first instance in\nthe United States.\n5. It is a major United States weapon in the cold war against Communist\nimperialism.\n6. It strengthens our allies and friends, militarily and economically.\n7. It is our best insurance against Communist penetration of the neutral\nnations.\nYou have heard this program described from time to time as a giveaway program. A year\nago Secretary of State Dulles made a masterful presentation in support of our Mutual\nSecurity Program before my subcommittee on Appropriations for Foreign Operations. I\nwould like to quote two paragraphs from his testimony:\n\"The 'giveaway' SO often complained of would have occurred if we had not had\nthis program or if we should slacked it now. Without a Mutual Security Program we\nwould indeed have 'givenaway' half of Europe to chaos or Communism. We would have\n'givenaway' Greece and Turkey and the Eastern Mediterranean to Soviet control. We\nwould have 'givenaway' Iran, and Russian access to the Persian Gulf and the Indian\nOcean -- and the economic strength of Europe which depends heavily on Middle Eastern\noil. We would have 'givenaway' Korea; and the Republic of China and Vietnam -- and\nin all likelihood the rest of Southeast Asia. The 'giveaway' would reach or come\ndangerously close to Pakistan and India -- the great Asian subcontinent with a fifth\n14\nof the entire human race.\n\"If we now weaken in our determination and slacken in our pace, we will\nindeed 'give away' to Communism in the next few years the control of a dozen or more\nnations with enough people and resources to change the balance of power irretrievably\nagainst us. We would indeed 'give away' bases and allied forces essential to our own\nstrategic defense system. We would indeed 'give away' the access which we and other\nfree nations have to resources essential to our own industry and to trade essential\nto our own welfare and prosperity.\"\nWe sometimes forget to what extent the U. S. is dependant on other parts of\nthe world for essential raw materials. Of 39 strategic materials that are necessary\nfor production in the U. S., we are self-sufficient in only 9. For example, we import\n96% of our nicket, 86% of our manganese; 91% of our chrome, 100% of our tin, industrial\ndiamonds, and natural rubber; 98% of our platinum, and 80% of the cobalt we use in\nindustry and defense.\nIt is also significant, I think, although this should not be used as the\nfirst argument for the Mutual Security Program, that 78% of the funds appropriated for\nthis program are spent right in the U. S. in the very first instance. The jobs of\nover 600 thousand American farmers and industrial workers can be directly attributed\nto these expenditures. And, finally, I want to reiterate that this Mutual Security\nProgram enables us to have over 250 military bases on foreign territory. Without this\nprogram, we would have to pull back our military defense pretty close to our natural\nboundaries. Under the Mutual Security Program, we are able to bind a ring of steel\naround the Iron Curtain, and right up close.\nDEFENSE: In conclusion, I want to say just a few words about matters that\nmay or may not come up in your deliberations, but which are being debated vigorously\nin the Congress, on the air, and through the press. This is the question of the\nadequacy of our national defense and how\nwe stand in relation to Russia.\nAs one who has been close to the Department of Defense for seven years as a\nmember of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Department of Defense, I would like\nto make a few pertinent comments.\nAnnually our committee hears and interrogates the civilian and military leaders\nof the country. All of these, Democrats, Republicans, or independents, are able, con-\nscientious, responsible, and patriotic men.\nWhile it is the responsibility of the Executive Branch to initiate and\nadminister the defense programs, the Congress must double-check the plans and\n15\nadministrative action, and make certain that the taxpayers' dollars are well spent.\nNeither branch of the government has a monopoly on information or wisdom but both\nmust and can work together for a stronger and better America.\nThe people of the United States can afford whatever amount is really\nrequired for our national defense. In fact, we cannot afford anything less. I can\nassure you that the President had this in mind when he submitted his defense budget.\nThe Congress should be guided by the same principle when it makes the appropriations.\nAnother significant fact to consider is that the security of the United States\nis not dependent upon one military service nor upon one weapon system. Missiles of all\ntypes are most important but they are but one element in the great arsenal of defense.\nIntercontinental ballistic missiles occupy a prominent position among modern weapons\nbut they are but one of many necessary instruments for our national security.\nThe United States at the moment has tremendous retaliatory power, defensively\nand offensively. We have over 500 B-52s (long-range jet bombers) which can carry an\natomic payload to the heart of Russia and return without refueling. We have over a\nthousand B-47s (medium-range jet bombers) which can do the same with in-flight refueling\noperations.\nBut more important, because of our overseas bases the heart of Russia is\nright next door. The heart of the United States if 5,000 miles from Russia. Short and\nmedium-range missiles capable of more accurate control mean much more to us than to\nthe USSR. From our bases in Great Britain and other allied countries our 1,500-mile\nmissile can be devastatingly effective. By June, 1959 the 5,500-mile Atlas weapon\nsystem will be in operation and the initial squadrons will be augmented on schedule.\nMoreover, a strong U. S. Naval carrier force can provide planes to move into\nenemy nations from many directions if this becomes necessary. We have a submarine\nfleet with missile capability. During early 1960 the first POLARIS ballistic-missile\nequipped submarines will join the fleet and other will follow.\nI am convinced that we have a well-rounded and fully adequate defense system,\nready and able to protect this country in any crisis whether a general or limited war.\nYour government, through the President, our military leaders, and the Congress, will\ncontinue to improve and modify this system to meet changing conditions and keep in\nstep with technological advancements.\nThis day at St. Olaf has been a mose pleasant one. I enjoyed the sessions\nthis noon and afternoon and you have been a kind and courteous audience this\n16\nevening. As I indicated at the beginning, I hope my appearance in Northfield has\nbeen constructive. I realize, however, there will be disagreements with some of the\nthings I have said during your deliberations to follow, but this is inherent in our\nsystem. I trust, however, that your thinking will be stimulated and that your\ndiscussions will be profitable.\nADDRESS OF REP. GERALD R. FORD, JR.\nSt. Olaf College: Political Emphasis Week\nMarch 12, 1959\nI am glad to see that here at St, Claf you are calling this week of\nspecial activity, \"Political Emphasis Week.\" Frankly, I am very pleased to note\nthe emphasis on the \"political.\" We hear a great deal about good citizenship, and\nwe have speeches and conferences on governmental ideals and principles. Many people\nare satisfied when they concern themselves with public affairs, but when you mention\nthe word \"politics\" these same people throw up their hands in some holy terror and\nact as if you are mentioning the unmentionable or using a dirty word.\nNow all of us are dedicated to the great American constitutional ideals.\nWe believe that every American citizen should interest himself in civic problems and\npublic affairs. But the cold fact remains that these great principles of government\nare attained and these public affairs handled through the instrumentality that we\nknow as\"politics,\"\nThe only way in which our Democratic system of government can operate is\nthrough a political system involving campaigns, elections, appointments, defeats,\nagreements, disagreements, compromises, and the factional disputes and the cooperative\nefforts of a good many people in the political arena. It is politics and the poli-\nticians which give life and blood and breath to the still bones of a constitutional\nsystem. Again let me congratulate you for stressing \"politics\" during this week.\nYou are college men and women. Sad to say, too often in the past our\ncollege trained people have been satisfied to recline impotently in the wings and\nmerely observe the political scene or at the most, they have cheered their respective\nteams from the sidelines. Many of them have even become expert \"Monday-morning\nquarterbacks\" on practically every public issue. If I present any challenge to you\nthis evening, it is the challenge to get down out of the bleechers onto the playing\nfield. I sincerely hope that every one of you will become an active member of the\npolitical party of your choice. That is the most practical way I know to have an\neffective voice in government. Join the team, play ball, follow the rules and you\nwill not only have a good time, but will be making a concrete contribution to good\ngovernment, to your community and to your country.\nA few years ago a national survey organization asked parents how many of\nthem wanted their children to go into political life. 70% of all of those questioned\ninsisted that they did not want their boys and girls to get into politics. Only\nthree out of ten wanted their children to have anything to do with the practical\nGERALD R.FORD LIBRARY\n2\naspects of government under our constitutional system. This to me was as tragic as\nit is revealing. It is a clear indication that we have a call to action in this area\nof our thinking on government service. There is no better way of answering this call\nthan to plunge in as early as practical and become an active, hard-working, responsible\nmember of the party of your choice.\nTo you at St. Olaf I recommend active party membership and support of the\nparty ticket as one of the major marks of a good American citizen. Just in passing\nlet me say that I think for too long we in this country have glorified the independent\nvoter. He is usually a fine citizen and a competent, discerning voter. But one of\nthe things we need badly in this country, I believe, are strong, united political parties\nwho may be held responsible for the action or inaction of all public officials elected\nthrough those parties.\nI know, of course, what you hear go often: \"There is no difference between\nthe Democrats and the Republicans. I simply vote for the best man.\" Now I hope you\nalways vote for the best man, and of course, I trust the best man will be a member of\nyour party; and he will be if you, and others like you, are active in that party to\nsee that constructive and competent candidates are chosen in the first instance. But,\nI do believe there are differences in our two major parties today. This evening I\nspeak only as a member of the Republican Party. I understand that my good friend and\ncolleague, Representative Coffin of Maine will be with you tomorrow night. I trust that\nafter hearing the two of us, some fundamental differences will become apparent.\nLet me list for you quickly, five points which I believe summarize the basic\nprinciples and philosophy of the Republican Party today:\n(1) GOVERNMENT IS ORGANIZED TO PROVIDE AN EQUAL PROTECTION FOR, AND TO PROMOTE\nTHE GENERAL WELFARE OF, ALL THE PEOPLE. As the preamble to the U. S. Constitution\nstates, we have organized government primarily to protect ourselves against enemies\nboth within and without, and to promote the general welfare. It is elementary that we\nhave the armed forces with all their military hardware to protect this nation and its\npeople from foreign aggression. We also have a well-organized system of internal\nlaw-enforcement to protect our people against the criminal element. But in any\nsituation in which you find more than one person involved, there are bound to come\ndisagreements and conflicts of one type or another. You find it in families, you find\nit in churches, schools, communities, states, nations, the world. In this country of\n175 million people of varying backgrounds, interests, and aspirations, living in 49\nstates and under varying economic and social conditions, there will of necessity be an\nFORD\n3\nendless struggle for power, for domination, or for a simple place in the sun. I am\nsure that we can agree that there must be some impartial arbitrator, (that is, as\nimpartial as it is humanly possible to be) whose task it is to conciliate and\narbitrate the differences which arise in this vast population. That arbitrator must\nrepresent the best interest of all the people. He may not be dominated by any special\nsocial, or economic group which is dedicated to promote the interest of that group. He\nmust be the unpire to see that the laws are obeyed for the good of all the people.\nNot only must we have an impartial arbitrator or the unpire to make certain\nthat the laws are obeyed, but it is imperative that the institution we know as govern-\nment see that the laws are fair, just, and for the equal benefit for all segments of\nthe population. The Republican Party is a party of no specific group. It is dedicated\nto the promotion of the general welfare; it is the party of all the people.\n(2) IN EXPRESSING AN ACCEPTABLE NATIONAL POLICY, WE CAN AND SHOULD BE LIBERAL\nIN HUMAN RELATIONS AND CONSERVATIVE IN ECONOMIC AFFAIRS. This you will recognise, of\ncourse, as a paraphrase of President Eisenhower's well known statement. I don't think\nthere is anything contradictory in this whatsoever. The Republican Party believes that\nwe must improve the lot of every individual living under this government. With a\nJude-Christian heritage, the American people believe in the inherent dignity and worth\nof every individual. When it is, therefore, liberal and progressive to advance the\nhappiness and comfort of an individual and the community, the Republican Party is for\nit.\nBut, President Eisenhower went on to say that we were conservative in economic\naffairs. In other words, we are not going to be liberal with other people's money and\nproperty. Thomas Jefferson wrote that among the inalienable rights of men were life,\nliberty and the pursuit of happiness. You know, I am sure, that when he used the\nphrase \"the pursuit of happiness,\" he was referring to the right of owning property.\nThis is one of the inalienable rights along with life and liberty, and the Republican\nParty means to protect your right to own that portion of this world's goods which you\nare able to accumulate by proper and legitimate means. Of course, every single\nindividual has an obligation to use these goods for the benefit of all. But that is\nnot to say that we may indiscriminately take from those who have to give to those who\nhave not. This leads me to my third basic principle.\n(3) A SOUND AND RESPONSIBLE FISCAL POLICY IS IMPERATIVE TO GOOD GOVERNMENT.\nI do not apologize for saying that the Republican Party believes in a balanced\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\n4\nbudget. We do not insist upon a balanced budget simply because of economic and\nsocial theory or because it has been traditional to pay one's bills. We believe in a\nbalanced budget because it is the only responsible and honest thing to do in a time\nwhen we are not faced with a great national emergency. Deficit financing on the part\nof the federal government fans the flames of inflation which insidiously burn larger\nholes in everyone's pocket book. Deficit financing passes on to generations yet unborn,\na burden which we who are reaping the benefits ought to be willing to shoulder. Deficit\nfinancing adds to the federal budget enormous interest payments, and I am convinced,\nserves as a very bad example for many of our people who are encouraged to live beyond\ntheir means on the assumption that deficit financing is a good and proper way to live.\n(4) OUR WAY OF LIFE IS FOSTERED BEST BY KEEPING PUBLIC AFFAIRS AS CLOSE AS\nPOSSIBLE TO THE PEOPLE CONCERNED. The Republican Party trusts the good sense of all\nthe people. The Republican Party believes that our democratic way of life is best\ninsured by having the elected officials of the people close at hand where the people\nthemselves can maintain a proper scrutiny of all their public acts. I have often told\nsome of my friends who hold local offices that really they have a much tougher job\nthan I. Any disgruntled or dissatisfied taxpayer can easily get them on the telephone\nor corner them on the street and they must have the answers for him at that moment. In\ncontrast, a member of Congress while the House and Senate are in session is miles away\nfrom his constituents and less accessible to any irate voter.\nI sincerely believe that we have better schools when the rules and regulations\nare made by the local school board, chosen by the patrons of the school and accountable\nto them.\nWhen our city streets are not properly maintained, the citizens of the town\ncan get hold of the Mayor and Council and demand improvement, or find out how much\nit is going to cost them to have the improvement. When Law enforcement is in the\nhands of the local police and sheriff, the people affected by any malfeasance or\nnonfeasance can get at the officer pretty quickly.\nThe more we move governmental activity to Washington, the more difficult it\nbecomes for the individuals in the community to make their voice felt in those things\nwhich affect them most closely. Of course, such matters as national defense, coinage\nof money, regulations of interstate and foreign commerce must by the very nature of\ntheir operation be on the national level. Republicans believe that in order to protect\nyour interests and the interests of all the people, as much governmental activity as\nis practical should be kept as close as possible to the people through the local\nGERALD\n5\nand state political units.\n(5) OFFICIALS OF GOVERNMENT MUST EXHIBIT THE HIGHEST MORAL AND ETHICAL\nSTANDARDS IN BOTH THEIR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LIVES. I do not make this as a pious\nplatitude, nor do I contend that the Republican officeholders have a monopoly on\nthe highest moral and ethical standard. But I do say to you that as a principle\nof the Republican Party, conduct of the highest moral and ethical character is demanded,\nand that we will not defend nor protect those who fail to adhere to these standards.\nThey must and should be removed from government. President Grover Cleveland said\nsome years ago, \"A public office is a public trust,\" and that is still so true.\nHaving listed the five basic principles of the Republican Party, I would now\nlike to touch upon a number of the specific national issues which I understand you\nwill be discussing and debating in your own Congressional sessions.\nFEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION: One of the major issues before the present Congress\nin which we are all interested and which I understand will be debated in your sessions\nis the question of federal aid to education. As you know, last year the Congress\nadopted the National Defense Education Act. Among other things this legislation\nprovides for loans and other assistance to capable students who need financial aid.\nIt also establishes certain other programs to assist the development of the many\nresources and technical skills of our young people. I think it is a sound approach\nto those aspects to the problem of education that especially concerned the Congress\nlast year.\nIn that legislation we supplied financial assistance to capable individuals\nwho need help to complete their college training. The taxpayers' money is to be\nrepaid over a period of years under easy terms. In order to encourage the preparation\nof teachers, the act provides for the cancellation of up to 50% of those loans made\nto college students who go into teaching for at least five years. I supported this\nlegislation and can find no serious fault with its operation thus far.\nThis year, however, we are confronted with a new and different approach in\nthe form of HR 22, the Metcalf bill, which would authorize federal aid for school\nconstruction and teachers' salaries. The House Committee on Education and Labor is\npresently holding hearings on this bill, although a number of other proposals have been\nmade and the Administration had its own plan introduced.\nSome recent history may be helpful in discussing this issue. In the first\nsession of the 85th Congress I opposed the parliamentary maneuver by which the Kelley\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\n6\nSchool Construction Bill (HR 1) was defeated in the House on July 25, 1957. I voted\nagainst the motion to strike the enacting clause of HR 1 and thus kill the bill. (The\nvote was 209-203 to strike.)\nWhile I did not agree with all the provisions of the Kelley Bill, I did want\nto have the opportunity to vote in favor of a substitute proposal which was to have\nbeen presented. The Kelley Bill called for the distribution of federal funds to the\nstates on the basis of school population. The substitute proposal would have taken\ninto consideration the needs of the various states and the extent to which they have\ndemonstrated their own efforts to meet these needs. In August, 1957 I said that a\n\"good argument can be made that Uncle Sam should offer temporary assistance to alleviate\nthe shortage of classrooms in those specific communities where there is a need and\nwhere local citizens have conscientiously tried to solve their classroom deficiencies.\"\nThe Metcalf bill as proposed in 1959 will allocate federal funds to the\nstates solely on the basis of school population. Within each state, however, priority\nfor school construction is to be given to those local districts where the need is\ngreatest.\nThe bill authorizes a state to use the federal money for either school\nconstruction or teachers' salaries or both. However, there is nothing in the bill to\nassure that any teacher will receive an increase in salary because of the enactment\nof this legislation nor is there any assurance that a single classroom will be constructed\nin a given state. More important, however, there is nothing to guarantee that the sum\ntotal of all monies, local, state, and federal, spent on education will be increased\nby the passage of HR 22.\nIt is estimated that the first year's cost w the federal Treasury will be\nover a billion dollars with this figure rising to $4.7 billion on 1962-63 and increasing\nannually thereafter with population growth.\nUnfortunately the Education and Labor Committee seems to be practically\nignoring the recomendations by Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare Flemning\nand President Eisenhower. Those who oppose the President's proposal and support the\nMetcalf approach believe that we must hand out additional federal funds for school\nconstruction or operation without any strings attached whatsoever and regardless of the\nneeds in the states for this assistance, and regardless of whether the individual\nstates have demonstrated a willingness to carry out their educational obligations.\nI was a little surprised recently to read in a speech delivered on the\nfloor of the House condemning the Administration's proposals that a major objection\nGERALD\n7\nwas the legal impediment which would limit the number of school districts which\ncould participate in the Administration's program. The Administration's five-year\nprogram provides among other things that the U. S. Government will undertake to\nadvance half the debt service on school construction bonds issued by needy school\ndistricts provided the State advances the other half. The local school district\nwould be required to maintain a reasonable tax effort. The funds under the Administra-\ntion's plan would be distributed among the states on the basis of need for school\nbuildings and the relative degree of effort which the state school districts are\nmaking to meet the classroom shortage. In condemning this plan, the speaker introduced\na tabulation showing the percentage of districts by states which have reached legal\nindebtedness or millage limits as of April, 1958. In Minnesota only 12% of the district\nhad reached the legal limit. In my own state of Michigan there is no legal maximum\nbut it was stated that 15% are at a practical limit. In North Dakota it was 2% of\nthe total, in South Dakota 20%, in Iowa less than 10%, in Wisconsin less than 1% and\nNebraska has no districts at a maximum.\nBut even more amazing, this same speaker went on to show that in order for\nthe states to avail themselves of the provisions of the Administration's bill to borrow\nfunds, constitutional amendments would have to be accepted or a referendum held, or the\nlegislators would have to take action. In other words, he acknowledged that if the\npeople of the states involved wish to take action to increase state and local support\nof education, it could be done by legislative action or a vote of the people. For\ninstance, here in Minnesota he reported a constitutional amendment would be necessary,\nas would be the case in Wisconsin and most other states. The point is this: It is yet\nto be shown that we are not able in most states to meet our education needs without\nfurther burdening the federal taxpayer. In those states where there is a real need\nand where a demonstrated effort has been made to solve the problem, I see, in light of\nthe principles which I have mentioned above, a justifiable basis for certain federal\naid to education with emphasis on school construction.\nLABOR LEGISLATION: Another major issue before the present Congress lies in\nthe area of labor-management relations. The revelations of the McClellan Committee\nhave well demonstrated thatremedial legislation in this area is most essential. A\nnumber of helpful and constructive bills have been introduced in both houses of\nCongress to pave the way for an effective legislative proposal. Senator Kennedy has\nmade his recommendations. Senator McClellan has introduced bills. President\nEisenhower has sent up a program listing 20 points for consideration by the Congress,\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\n8\nand Chairman Barden of the House Committee on Education and Labor has introduced\ntwo specific bills. We who are not members of the Committee on Education and Labor\nare awaiting the report from the Committee on its recommendations. Senator Kennedy's\nbill has merit; the 1959 version is better than that before the House last year. The\nPresident's proposals are stronger, especially in reference to secondary boycotts and\nthe so-called black-mail picketing which Mr. Kennedy avoids completely. I hope the\nCongress will take constructive action to curb the abuses in the labor organizations\nwhich have been demonstrated before the NeGlellan Committee.\nOur purpose in legislating should not be to destroy labor unions, nor even\nto hinder any of their legitimate objectives and activity. We are not talking about\nanti-labor legislation. Unions are here to stay. They serve a good and worthwhile\npurpose. But one of the main objectives of proposed legislation 1s to make the\nleadership in every union more responsive to the needs and wishes of the rank and\nfile membership. This legislation is to protect the interest of all union members,\nand the employers, and particularly the public at large. We hope to see legislation\nin this area which will carry out the first basic principle which I enumerated, that it\nis the responsibility of the government to protect the best interest of all the\npeople.\nThis brings us of course, to the consideration of the so-called right- to-\nwork issue. In any consideration of this problem, I personally prefer to discuss\n\"mandatory membership\" rather than \"right-to-work.\" The question involved is that\nof \"compulsion\" rather than \"right.\" But, the common terminology is \"right-to-work,\"\n80 let's use that.\nThe Taft-Hartley Bill as you know outlaws the closed shop, but authorizes\nthe union shop unless a given state by legislative action or by referendum of the\npeople decides to adopt the right-to-work provision. The right-to-work issue should\nbe settled on an individual state basis, preferably by a state-wide referendum where\nall our voters have an opportunity to participate. Because I believe the federal\ngovernment should not continue unnecessarily to expand its power and because I favor\nan increased emphasis on keeping government close to the people, I insist that the\nright-to-work issue is fundamentally a problem for the people of each state. With\nthe varying social, economic, and political difference among our people and our\nstates, it is more democratic in my judgment to let thepeople who are affected de-\ncide the issue in their own states.\nMay I add, however, that if I were an employee of an organisation which\nhad a union, I would not only join that union, but I would be an active member of\nGERALD\n9\nFurthermore, if I were an employer, I would not oppose the unionization of my workers,\nbut would foster among them and their leaders a high sense of responsibility to the\ncompany and its products.\nFARM POLICY: Let us now look at another issue which will be considered in\nyour deliberations, that of a sound and effective farm policy. That we want the\nfarmers of our country to share in every economic advancement goes without saying.\nThat we must have a strong and virile agriculture is self-evident. The question is\nsimply whether the present farm policy as reflected in federal law is best for our\nfarmers, consumers and the country as a whole.\nPresident Eisenhower pointed out in his special message to the Congress on\nJanuary 29th that while there are some 250 farm commodities produced in the United\nStates, present law has required that prices on only twelve of these be supported at\nprescribed minamum levels. It is this requirement together with the level of required\nsupport that has created our farm surplus problems. lie also pointed out that three\nof the twelve mandatory products (wheat, corn, and cotton) account for about 85% of\nthe federal inventory of price supported commodities though they produce only 20% of\nthe total farm cash income.\nThe President presented three indictments against the price support and\nproduction-control program and demonstrated that it has not worked. First he showed\nthat most of the dollars are spent on the production of a relatively few large producers.\nSecond, that the control program doesn't control; and third, that the program is\nexcessively expensive. On July 1, 1959 total government investment in farm commodities\nwill total $9.1 billion. During the present fiscal year the net budgetary outlay for\nprograms of the stabilization of farm prices and farm income will be $5.4 billion.\nI am not here to recommend the complete and immediate abolition of all price\nsupports. I know that any basic revision will have to be done gradually. The Recom-\nmendations of Secretary Benson consistently have been aimed at sounder and more con-\nstructive programs. Rigid price supports have proved ineffective. At the very least,\nthere must be more discretion given to the Secretary of Agriculture in this whole area.\nSome progress was made when the growers of corn chose by a referendum vote, program\nchanges which include supports based on a new formula with no production limitations.\nMany of you have read, I am sure, of the case of Stanley Yankus of Dowagiac,\nMichigan. Mr. Yankus' experience dramatically points up the difficulty we get into\nwhen we attemtp to control every aspect of life from Washington. It is another\nillustration of the fact that the small family-type farmer whom we want to preserve\nGERALD R.FORD LIBRARY\n10\nand protect, does not profit by governmental control over his production.\nHr. Yankus' attitude, actions, and predicament although dramatic, must be\nmore completely analysed to be understood. It is apparent that he has not used the\navailable means for presenting his case to the proper authorities. He has placed him-\nself over against the Supreme Court of the United States as the final authority on the\nconstitutionality of a federal law. But, the case of Mr. Yankus is a graphic illus-\ntration of the extent to which our legislative acts departed from those principles and\nideals which made America a haven for oppressed peoples from all over the world. If\nwe had followed the recommendations of Secretary Benson and the President during the\npast five or six years we wouldn't find ourselves with the contradictory, incongruous\nand unworkable policies which now afflict us in the area of American agriculture.\nCIVIL RIGHTS AND POWERS OF THE COURTS: I have been told that your session of\nthe House of Representatives will also debate Civil Rights and the question of the\nlimitation of the powers of the Supreme Court. I am confident that there isn't a\nperson here this evening who is not absolutely convinced that no American citizen may\nbe denied the rights and privileges of American citizenship simply because of his\nrace, color, religion, or national origin. I am certain that no one here would demand\nthat an American citizen be restricted in his use of public transportation or public\neating places, in the selection of a job or a home site, or in the school to which he\nis to send his children, or in exercising of the elective franchise, simply and solely\nbecause of his race, color, religion, or national origin.\nIn light of the five Republican Principles which I have enumerated, and\nconsistent with our Christian heritage and constitutional principles, we can not believe\notherwise, nor act in any other manner. The Republican Party is united in its deter-\nmination to protect and promote the general welfare of all American citizens. Conse-\nquently, it has consistently supported sound and constructive legislation to insure to\nall our people their inalienable rights, the achievement of which formed the basis of\nthe organization of this nation and government.\nThis means that we endorse the unanimous decision of the U. S. Supreme Court\nin the school segregation cases. We recognize that the implementation of this\ndecision requires the re-thinking of a social philosophy in every state of the union.\nWe recognize that progress may come slowly, but progress must be made. It is not a\nquestion of whether you or I like the decision. Here we come face to face with the\npractical application not only of American constitutional principles, but also our\nChristian heritage.\nGERALD\n11\nClosely allied with the current debate on Civil Rights is the periodical\nsuggestion that the powers of the Supreme Court should be curtailed. Under our federal\nsystem we have three equal and coordinate branches of government. There is the\nlegislative, the executive, and the judicial. We admire and defend this system not\nnecessarily because it is the most efficient, but primarily because it is the safest\nfor all our people. It is the best system developed anywhere for the protection of\nthe dádividual's rights and privileges and the best insurance against the rise of a\ndictatorial system.\nIn any consideration on the limitations of the power of the courts, I think\nit is important to point out first that no one branch of the government is infallible\nnor should it completely dominate the other two. In the enacÊment of legislation,\nthe Congress always takes into consideration the constitutionality of the proposal.\nIf it is evident to a majority of the members of the Congress that a given bill is\nunconstitutional, that bill has very little chance of being enacted. Likewise, the\nPresident in passing upon the legislation sent him by the House and the Senate, must\npass upon its constitutionality. Presidents have repeatedly vetood acts of the Congress\non the basis of a questionable constitutionality.\nAssuming, however, that the act becomes law and some citizen alleges that\nhis rights and privileges are being infringed, it becomes the duty of the court to\npass specifically upon the constitutionality. I don't think that any of us will insist\nthat the court is any more infallible than the President or a majority of the members\nof the Congress. You know as well as I that the Supreme Court has reversed itself in\na good many instances and has modified its decision in many cases. But the court's\nresponsibility is clear; it shares in the guardianship of our liberties, and its\ndecisions must be respected.\nWhile the court in its own sphere is free to exercise its legitimate powers,\nit may become necessary for the Congress as an equal branch in the government to enact\nremedial legislation or to propose constitutional amendments because of court decisions.\nFor example, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution was necessitated by a court ruling\nthat a federal graduated income tax was unconstitutional. Last year the Congress\nconsidered but did not enact, legislation steming from the well-known Mallory case\ninvolving the proper procedure in arraignment of a suspect who confessed to a crime.\nWithout passing upon the merits of this case or the Supreme Court's decision, I am sure\nthat you will acknowledge that reasonable and honest men can disagree on what consti-\ntutes proper procedure.\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\n12\nLikewise the Congress considered legislation to override the Supreme Court's\ndecision in the Nelson case when the court freed a person convicted as a Communist\nunder Pennsylvania law on the theory that the Congress had preemped the entire field\nof legislation in reference to subversion. Here we are in an area where the Congress\nshould make known to the court that it had no intention of preempting the field and\nthat the court's decision declaring the Pennsylvania Sedition Act in 80 far as it\nwould apply to subtersive activities against the United States ought to be modified.\nYou will note, my friends, that I am not recommending that the Supreme Court's\npower be limited in any respect. I believe that the courts have been and are one of\nthe bulworks guarding the individual's liberties. I want no restriction on the powers\nof the judiciary to protect any and all rights of American Citizens. This is consistent\nwith the principles of the Republican Party. On the other hand, if and when the court\ntakes action which a majority of the members of the Congress feel is improper and\nuncalled for, the Congress must exercise its power to remedy the situation through\nproper legislative action.\nWe had a good example of this just a week ago Monday when a bill was considered\nand passed on the consent calendar to define the term \"organized\" as used in the Smith\nAct. In June of 1957 the Supreme Court in the case of Tates vs. U. S. freed 14 known\nCommunists who had been convicted of conspiring to overthrow the U. S. Government by\nforce and violence and of organizing groups for the same purpose. One of the bases\nupon which the court reversed the conviction was its interpretation of the term \"organ-\nised.\" The court said that this term did not include such activities as recruiting of\nmembers, organizing groups within the frameword of the Communist Party, etc., and that\nit was not the intention of the Congress to have the word include such activities.\nHere the court was interpreting the intention of the Congress. The bill as passed\na week ago Monday specifically stating that it is the intention of the Congress to\ninclude in the term \"organise\" such activities as recruiting of members, organization\nof groups within the framswork of the Communist Party. If this bill becomes law, the\nCongress is not limiting the powers of the court, but simply explaining its own\nintention and clarifying the meaning of a term for the benefit of our law enforcement\nofficers and the court.\nThe Republican Party will not destroy or weaken our judicial system. It does,\nhowever, want the judiciary to know that its specific decisions will be analyzed by\nthe Congress and will be subject to remedical legislation when that appears essential.\nThis is consistent with well-established practice.\nBERALD FORD VIBRARY\n13\nMUTUAL SECURITY: Another issue which I believe will confront your delibera-\ntions this evening and tomorrow is that of foreign aid or our Mutual Security Program.\nLet me say right at the outsent that when we get into the area of foreign affairs,\nwe should drop any partisanship or party consideration. Our Mutual Security Program\nis not an issue on which Democrate and Republicans as such disagree.\nThe first principle of the Republican Party which I listed calls for the\nadequate protection of all the American people. Unless we can defend ourselves\nagainst the Communist conspiracy and maintain our own sovereignty and the existence\nof a free world, we won't have to worry much about anything else we may talk about\ntonight. Our Mutual Security Program is first, directly and indirectly, a national\nsecurity measure.\nThe Mutual Security Program is basically sound and necessary because:\n1. It enables the United States to have over 250 military bases on\nforeign territory.\n2. It cuts the costs of our own direct expenditures for defense and\nreduces the draft calls by Selective Service.\n3. It helps protect the sources of our supply of many strategic materials.\n4. It helps U. S. farms, business, and labor when nearly 804 of every\ndollar of mutual security funds are spent in the first instance in\nthe United States.\n5. It is a major United States weapon in the cold war against Communist\nimperialism.\n6. It strengthens our allies and friends, militarily and economically.\n7. It is our best insurance against Communist penetration of the neutral\nnations.\nYou have heard this program described from time to time as a giveaway program. A year\nago Secretary of State Dulles made a masterful presentation in support of our Mutual\nSecurity Program before my subcommittee on Appropriations for Foreign Operations. I\nwould like to quote two paragraphs from his testimony:\n\"The 'giveaway' so often complained of would have occurred if we had not had\nthis program or if we should slacked it now. Without a Mitual Security Program we\nwould indeed have Agivenaway' half of Europe to chaos or Communism. We would have\n'givenaway' Greece and Turkey and the Eastern Mediterranean to Soviet control. We\nwould have 'givenaway' Iran, and Russian access to the Persian Gulf and the Indian\nOcean - and the economic strength of Europe which depends heavily on Middle Eastern\na\noil. We would have 'givenaway' Korea; and the Republic of China and Vietnam - and\nin all likelihood the rest of Southeast Asia. The 'givesway' would reach or come\ndangerously close to Pakistan and India - the great Asian subcontinent with a fifth\nBERALD FORD LIBRARY\n14\nof the entire human race.\n\"If we now weaken in our determination and alsaken in our pace, we will\nindeed 'give away' to Communism in the next few years the control of a dosen or more\nnations with enough people and resources to change the balance of power irretrievably\nagainst us. We would indeed 'give away' bases and allied forces essential to our own\nstrategic defense system. We would indeed \"give away! the access which we and other\nfree nations have to resources essential to our own industry and to trade essential\nto our own welfare and prosperity.\"\nWe sometimes forget to what extent the U. S. is dependant on other parts of\nthe world for essential raw materials. of 29 strategic materials that are necessary\nfor production in the U. S., we are self-sufficient in only 9. For example, we import\n96% of our nicket, 86% of our manganese; 91% of our chrome, 100% of our tin, industrial\ndiamonds, and natural rubber; 98% of our platinum, and 80% of the cobalt we use in\nindustry and defense.\nIt is also significant, I think, although this should not be used as the\nfirst argument for the Mutual Security Program, that 78% of the funds appropriated for\nthis program are spent right in the U. S. in the very first instance. The jobs of\nover 600 thousand American farmers and industrial workers can be directly attributed\nto these expenditures. And, finally, I want to reiterate that this Mutual Security\nProgram enables us to have over 250 military bases on foreign territory. Without this\nprogram, we would have to pull back our military defense pretty close to our natural\nboundaries. Under the Mutual Security Program, we are able to bind a ring of steel\naround the Iron Curtain, and right up close.\nDEFENSE: In conclusion, I want to say just a few words about matters that\nmay or may not come up in your deliberations, but which are being debated vigorously\nin the Congress, on the air, and through the press. This is the question of the\nadequacy of our national defense and how we stand in relation to Russia.\nAs one who has been close to the Department of Defense for seven years as a\nmember of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Department of Defense, I would like\nto make a few pertinent comments.\nAnnually our committee hears and interrogates the civilian and military leaders\nof the country. All of these, Democrats, Republicans, or independents, are able, con-\nscientious, responsible, and patriotic men.\nWhile it is the responsibility of the Recutive Branch to initiate and\nadminister the defense programs, the Congress must double-check the plans and\nGERALD\n15\nadministrative action, and make certain that the taxpayers' dollars are well spent.\nNeither branch of the government has a monopoly on information or wisdom but both\nmust and can work together for a stronger and better America.\nThe people of the United States can afford whatever amount is really\nrequired for our national defense. In fact, we cannot afford anything less. I can\nassure you that the President had this in mind when he submitted his defense budget.\nThe Congress should be guided by the same principle when it makes the appropriations.\nAnother significant fact to consider is that the security of the United States\nis not dependent upon one military service nor upon one weapon system. Missiles of all\ntypes are most important but they are but one element in the great arsenal of defense.\nIntercentinental ballistic missiles occupy a prominent position among modern weapons\nbut they are but one of many necessary instruments for our national security.\nThe United States at the moment has tremendous retaliatory power, defensively\nand offensively. We have over 500 B-52s (long-range jet bombers) which can carry an\natomic payload to the heart of Russia and return without refueling. We have over a\nthousand B-47s (medium-range jet bombers) which can do the same with in-flight refueling\noperations.\nBut more important, because of our overseas bases the heart of Russia is\nright next door. The heart of the United States if 5,000 miles from Russia. Short and\nmedium-range missiles capable of more accurate control mean much more to us than to\nthe USSR. From our bases in Great Britain and other allied countries our 1,500-mile\nmissile can be devastatingly effective. By June, 1959 the 5,500-mile Atlas weapon\nsystem will be in operation and the initial squadrons will be augmented on schedule.\nMoreover, a strong U. S. Naval carrier force can provide planes to move into\nenery nations from many directions if this becomes necessary. We have a submarine\nfleet with missile capability. During early 1960 the first POLARIS ballistic-missile\nequipped submarines will join the fleet and other will follow.\nI am convinced that we have a well-rounded and fully adequate defense system,\nready and able to protect this country in any crisis whether a general or limited war.\nYour government, through the President, our military leaders, and the Congress, will\ncontinue to improve and modify this system to meet changing conditions and keep the\nstep with technological advancements.\nThis day at St. Olaf has been a most pleasant one. I enjoyed the sessions\nthis noon and afternoon and you have been a kind and courteous audience this\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\n16\nevening. As I indicated at the beginning, I hope my appearance in Northfield has\nbeen constructive. I realize, however, there will be disagreements with some of the\nthings I have said during your deliberations to follow, but this is inherent in our\nsystem. I trust, however, that your thinking will be stimulated and that your\ndiscussions will be profitable.\nANNUSI GERALD FORD\nPolitical Emphasis Wuk\n/\nlt. Olap College. 3/12/59\nInterluction - - Storis 1). Texas Tougham\n3) Great, great man -\n2/. Rotary speech-\nN.S. - the Free & The Home 8 the Brave.\nMinnesota - Tand of a 1000 Tabes.\nFORD is LIBRARY GERALD\nnorthfuld - City of colleges, crus, contentment + couls.\nWe hive in a great country Mennesota is a wonderful state, northfuld choir\nis a beautiful city + of cream AT. old is a fine school Earth\nThe\npage of history. 2 can't compute for the + efforts history broks more but tonot construction my memorks\nJesse James procedud me here - left his radelible mark for\n2\nIntroductory memorhs (contenued)\nIsn't every day Episerpalian can address a group 8 Tutterans\nAs close To st. Patrch Days.\n2 understand st. Old was a me 3 At. Patrick for norway\n& that This Norwegen Saint Christeanged his country\nin 11th century\nAL QUIE - graduated in 1950.\nFORD i LIBRARY GERALD\n3\nPOLITICAL EMPHASIS WEEK.\nPleased with emphasis on Political\nall concerned with public affairs.\ndeducated to american constitutional ideals.\nOnly way democratic systems write - political system.\nPolitics + politicians give life, blood T breath to The\nstill Gmes of a conditutional system\nCollege praduates for prome To sit in N reduction,\nmonday morning QBs. GET .IN the GAME.\nSurvey - 70% of parents against children in politico BERALD\nORD\nMichigan appearance - voter higher vegestration carls.\nLIBRARI\nIndependent Voter - glorfud. Vote for but man.\n(4)\ncan't Gould strong partus if predominate form is the\nInlependent other.\nHope you will always Note for but man but 2\ntrust he will always the a Republican.\nMust develope lasic differences between the PARTIES.\nPhilosopheral differences must & do spirt.\nCoffin + me.\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\nI\n5\nGovernment is organizal to pride an equal protection\nfor, + to promote The General Welfare of, ALL the Phople\nPreamble - we have organized government for:\nto protect against Inemis from\nwithin o without.\n4. informent.\n1/ Melitary\nHowever - where 175 million people - brund to be\nGOV'T disagreements must be The imported arbitator.\ncan This promote the Henaral Wilfare\nFORD LIBRARY\nII In Expressing an acceptable national Policy, We Can L6\nY through be Februal in Human Relations & Conservator\nin Economic affairs.\nG.O.P. believes the lot 8 all should be improval.\nBelowe in amherent deputy & worth 7, the\nwhen feberal T progressive to advance happeness &\ncomfort of an interndual r community 6,O.P. infor it.\nG.O.P. believes in inalienable right to require property.\nJefferm - indianable rights of men ware life, Worty +\nperson't of hoppinson.\nFORD\nAnit has no right to take\nPerson has right to acquire but must use property\nIII a sound Respirable Fiscal Policy is Imperation\nL7\nto Good Government\nG.O.P. believes in, works for balanced bubjet.\nNo applights.\nDeposit francing fans Hames of inflation.\nBad stample for our citizens.\nFORD & LIBRARY BERALD\n4 Our way of Tife to Fostenal But By Keeping L8\nPublic afperso as Close as Possible to the People Concernal\nG.O.P. truts good Alnol fall the people.\nFrad Marks have tougher job.\nBetter school, law enfracement its\nFurther goint any from people less interest\nby The People of less neograbile result\nBERALD FORD LIBRARY\nI Officials of Government must Cablet the Highest la\nMoral & Exhical Standards in Both their Public & Printe\nFive\nnot a piono platated - non Lo Republicans have monophy\nBut G.D, P. demands this standard\nwill not protect or defend\nFORD LIBRARY\nFederal aid to Education\nto\n1). national Defener Education act -\nhelp meedy students\nteaching - 50%\nschool production\nscience sympment\n2). Meterife Bill - H.R. 22 -\nimstimetion & salario\ncat belling I \"5 Whim\n3) Kelly Bill Th - H.R. /\nno quaranter\n85th Congrens.\nLEGAL Indebreoness\n1957 - Parkamentary more.\n4). Esenhwar Proposal\nMean Mich 12% no 18% Leyal q. limit limit 86% 86 il Comprass \"I - - payment debt pnancing brand m mul & demonderated FORD affort\nN.D- 2% is Then 1070 - the 12 Unyant have cortain To The - action. states n Coral communities GERA while RART\n20wn\n-\nSPEECH OF DULLES BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE:\n\"The 'giveaway' so often complained of would have occurred if we had not had this\nprogram or if we should slacken it now. Without a Mutual Security Program we would\nindeed have 'givenaway' half of Europe to chaos or Communism. We would have 'given away'\nGreece and Turkey and the Eastern Mediterranean to Soviet control. We would have 'given\naway' Iran, and Russian access to the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean -- and the\neconomic strength of Europe which depends heavily on Middle Eastern oil. We would have\n'given away' Korea; and the Republic of China and Vietnam - and in all likelihood the\nrest of Southeast Asia. The 'give away' would reach or come dangerously close to Pakistan\nand India -- the great Asian subcontinent with a fifth of the entire human race.\"\n\"If we now weaken in our determination and slacken in our pace, we will indeed 'give\naway' to Communism in the next few years the control of a dozen or more nations GERA with\nLIBRARY\n(2)\nenough people and resources to chang the balance of power irretrievably against us.\nWe would indeed 'give away' bases and allied forces essential to our own strategic defense\nsystem. We would indeed 'give away' the access which we and other free nations have to\nresources essential to our own industry and to trade essential to our own welfare and\nprosperity.\"\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\nFabor Legatation\nL\"\nObnoin need - mc Chellan Committee\nMc Klanedy dellar\nBarlon\nEvenhwer\nPurpose 7 Legalation - unins not to more destroy prespossive but to make to\nmembers.\nRight to work- - computsion\nTaft-Harthy\nFORD & LIBRARY 078870\nFarm Policy\nL12\nObjective - fromers must share in semmic admintment\nfrom production must be adjuste for one much.\nManage - 250 from communities\n12 supported a mememen Levels.\n38 the 12 account for 85% of faboral\ninventory. or investment. cron Whint,\nRecord shows 1 1) most dollars for large producers\ncotton\n2). Cratool program doesn't work.\n31. Expensive - $9.1 Whom.\nChange-\n- Illustration of programs foulure\nGERALD\nCivil R ights\n13\nIn america - no denied of nights.\nG.O.P. has been in the foregramed in\nreal achievement in Civil Rights.\n1). Legislation\n2). Endress Improme et. decesion\nSupreme a - no brand good mailbble\nThree (3) syml handles\nDuty of 1) 16 Z 7/1 review and logalation\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\n3) Preemption - Nelson can.\n2/. mallory bill\npt\nMustul because -\nBenefits Bases\n2/. Selective service\n3% Strategic ram makerals - 9.439\nsurfacement in\nImport 96% - midel\n4). got 3 way dollar spent in 4.5.\n86\" 91 \" \" \" - - - magnesure ten of forebber 7/. 6). 5% strengthers Prevents Cord war aller washin\n100\npenetation of n entrals\nno \"gweavay\"\nGERALD AMERGIT FORD\nDefense\n/15\nFORD is LIBRARY GERALD"
}