Consolation, March 9, 1938
Download: PDF — Consolation, March 9, 1938
Contents
Amos Pinchot's Letter to the President 3
How Patriotic Are the Priests? 11
"Freedom of Speech as an Axiom" 12
"Adults Please Sign" 13
A Forgotten Roosevelt 14
A Simple Way to Get Well 16
Your Questions Answered by Judge Rutherford 17
No Apologies, Mr. O'Neal 17
Smiling on Murder 18
Britain 20
A Prisoner in Quebec 22
China and Japan 24
California 25
Jerseyville (Named After New Jersey) 26
By Trail and Stream and Garden Path (Winter and Spring) 27
British Comment 28
March Snow 31
Published every other Wednesday by
THE GOLDEN AGE PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC.
117 Adams St., Brooklyn, N. Y., U. S. A.
President Clayton J. Woodworth
Vice-President Nathan H. Knorr
Secretary and Treasurer Charles E. Wagner
Five Cents a Copy
$1 a year in the United States
$1.25 to Canada and all other countries
NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS
Remittances: For your own safety, remit by postal or express money order. When coin or currency is lost in the ordinary mails, there is no redress. Remittances from countries other than those named below may be made to the Brooklyn office, but only by international postal money order.
Receipt of a new or renewal subscription will be acknowledged only when requested. Notice of Expiration is sent with the journal one month before subscription expires. Please renew promptly to avoid loss of copies.
Send change of address direct to us rather than to the post office. Your request should reach us at least two weeks before the date of issue with which it is to take effect. Send your old as well as the new address. Copies will not be forwarded by the post office to your new address unless extra postage is provided by you.
Published also in Bohemian, Danish, Dutch, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Japanese, Norwegian, Polish, Spanish, Swedish.
OFFICES FOR OTHER COUNTRIES
England 34 Craven Terrace, London, W. 2
Canada 40 Irwin Avenue, Toronto 5, Ontario
Australia 7 Beresford Road, Strathfield, N.S.W.
South Africa 623 Boston House, Cape Town
Entered as second-class matter at Brooklyn, N. Y., under the Act of March 3, 1879.
Appetizers
Taking No Chances on Chris
◆ A while ago one of the Japanese steamships took a great big flock of Catholic ecclesiastics to Manila. There were so many, and the god that the priests order down from heaven was in such demand, that it was necessary to install three altars to keep from having things all gummed up. Saint Christopher is the Roman Catholic god that looks after transportation arrangements, but the canny Japanese were not taking any chances. In the chart room, to aid in the steering of the vessel, they had a little shrine in honor of one of the Yayorozu-Kami, their 8,000,000 deities. And so, with a first-class Yayorozu-Kami in the chart room, and Saint Christopher on the other three sides of the vessel, it sailed the seas all O.K. When you go on a trip it is best to have plenty of gods along, especially when some of them have shown from time to time that they are not to be depended upon.
One-Fourth Convert Each
◆ According to the "Reverend Father" George Herman Deery, ex-president of Marygrove College, Detroit, there are more than 40,000 Communist organizers in America "highly trained in all the arts of demagoguery and of mass psychology and organization". And as there are already some 50,000 Communists in the whole United States, as shown by their vote, then they must already have procured almost one-fourth of a convert each, and in a few generations or centuries they may get to be as strong as the Populists or Socialists who, at different times, have had as many as 2 or 3 or 5 or 6 members out of the 500 in the lower house of Congress. Horrors!
Air Bombing in India
◆ At the very time that the British Government advised the belligerents in Spain to refrain from air-bombing, it was itself following its settled policy of bombing the villages of the tribes on its frontier, and killing and mutilating men, women and children in northwest India. One wonders if, on hearing of the Hierarchy's murders in Spain, the Archhypocrite of Canterbury meekly folds his hands across his breadbasket and says, "Let us prey."
CONSOLATION
"And in His name shall the nations hope."—Matthew 12:21, A. R. V.
Volume XIX Brooklyn, N. Y., Wednesday, March 9, 1938 Number 482
Amos Pinchot's Letter to the President
[Amos R. Pinchot, Esq., is one of the foremost attorneys of New York city.—Ed.]
January 29, 1938.
The Hon. Franklin D. Roosevelt,
The White House,
Washington, D. C.
MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT:
In February 1937, soon after you sent your Supreme Court bill to Congress, I heard from sources which seemed fairly reliable:
(a) that you had become convinced that, in order to carry into effect your program of reform, you would require an enormous increase in the powers of the presidency;
(b) that, after constitutional barriers had been removed by the passage of the Supreme Court bill, there would follow a series of bills expanding your powers;
(c) that a bill reorganizing the executive branch of the government and lodging vast powers in your hands had, in fact, already been drafted by three men, chosen by you, and been presented in your behalf at an executive, that is to say closed, session of a special committee of Congress; and finally
(d) that this bill was of such a revolutionary, and indeed incredible, nature that it was being kept from the public and from members of Congress outside of the special committee.
Inasmuch as it would seem that any bill of this kind, prepared for the President at the government's expense, should be considered a public rather than a private document, I decided to secure a copy of the bill, but for many weeks all efforts were unsuccessful. Wherever I applied I was met either with the statement that the bill was unknown, or that it had not been printed and was not yet ready for distribution, or that the existing copies were being carefully guarded.
The clerk of the Senate Committee on Government Organization told me that the typewritten copies, which had been made when the bill was presented, had disappeared, and that, so far as he knew, there was but one left, and that was in the Committee's safe. He said the bill had not been printed and that copies would not be available.
A member of Congress from my state wrote: . In regard to your request for a copy of the original Brownlow Reorganization Bill, I would say that it is impossible to get one of these. There were only a very few of them printed [he was in error here; none was printed] and as nearly as I can find out they were all gathered up and kept from general distribution. I tried to get one several weeks ago for a friendly newspaper but was unable to do so . . . It is absolutely impossible to get the original bill.
A Democratic senator, whom I asked to help me in the matter, said that he had himself attempted to secure a copy of this bill, but had been unable to do so. Other sources, including an experienced Washington newspaper correspondent, proved equally unproductive.
In the course of time, however, I did obtain a copy of the bill. And, on reading it, found that its provisions were even more extraordinary than I had been led to suppose. Indeed, Mr. President, this bill strips Congress of the most important powers it now possesses, while, in effect, it transforms the government into a dictatorship presided over by you.
After eleven months in hiding, the bill was printed as an appendix to Senator Byrd's minority report on the so-called Byrnes' reorganization bill (S 2970). And on January 17, 1938, it was filed, and thereafter was briefly commented on in the press. But today, I believe that not one person in ten thousand knows of the bill's existence, and not one in a million has the slightest notion of its contents. For this reason, Mr. President, plus the fact that the question of executive reorganization is now before the country, I am writing you this letter at this time.
The Background of the Bill
May I go back a little, and remind you that, in the summer, fall, and early winter of 1935, you held a series of conferences with Mr. Brownlow of Washington, Professor Gulick of New York, and Professor Merriam of Chicago. And at these conferences you expressed your intention of reorganizing the executive branch of the government.
You then instructed these three men, known thereafter as the President's Committee, to make an investigation and report a reorganization plan. You set aside $100,000 from government relief funds to pay their expenses. Whereupon your Committee made the investigation and produced the report. And this report, covering seventy-two printed pages, and known as the Brownlow Report, you sent to Congress on January 12, 1937.
And you accompanied the report with a message signed by yourself, warmly approving it, and asking Congress to enact, as quickly as possible, the legislation required to carry its recommendations into effect.
In that message you said:
The Committee has now completed its work, and I transmit to you its report, Administrative Management in the Government of the United States. I have examined this report carefully and thoughtfully, and am convinced that it is a great document of permanent importance.
I endorse this program and feel confident that it will commend itself to you also with your knowledge of government, and to the vast majority of the citizens of the country who want and believe in efficient self-government.
In placing this program before you I realize that it will be said that I am recommending the increase of the powers of the Presidency. This is not true.
What I am placing before you is not the request for more power, but for the tools of management and the authority to distribute the work so that the President can effectively discharge those powers which the Constitution now places upon him.
So much, Mr. President, for the so-called Brownlow Report and your message, both of which were read in the Senate Chamber on January 12, 1937.
Four weeks later, that is to say on the morning of Tuesday, February 16, 1937, Messrs. Brownlow, Gulick and Merriam appeared at an executive, that is to say closed, session of the Special Joint Committee on Reorganization of Government Departments. And there, representing you, they submitted a bill covering some sixty-six typewritten pages, and entitled "The Reorganization Act of 1937." This bill I will now somewhat fully discuss.
The Bill
Mr. President, upon reading your bill, my first conclusion was that it must be a forgery. So far as I know, it is the most remarkable legislative proposal that has been made by any president. For, not by inference or indirection, but in plain language, it authorizes you not merely to reorganize, but, by executive order, to abolish, or to change the name and functions of every agency and office in the entire executive branch of the government—without consulting Congress—including those agencies and offices which have been created by Congress during the last 149 years to do the country's business.
And, what is still more incredible, it permits you to abolish, or change the functions of, the office of President, despite the fact that the presidency is a constitutional office, whose functions are described and bounded by the Constitution.
Moreover, the stenographic record of the executive session of February 16, 1937, proves that the bill was shown to you and discussed with you by Mr. Brownlow and his associates, before they presented it to the Special Joint Committee.
Owing to the length of the bill, I will only quote the text of some of the more important provisions. The sections dealing with Civil Service, fiscal control, and those providing for two new departments, and a National Resources Board, are so long and so complicated that I can only touch on them briefly.
On the other hand, I will quote all of the section entitled "Power of the President," and most of the section on definitions, because these two sections show the scope and purpose of the bill, and the nature of the powers it places in your hands. And I would like to say at this point not only that these quoted passages are fairly quoted, but that there is nothing in the rest of the bill which in any way tends to modify or change the meaning of the parts quoted.
Since this bill was submitted by your Committee of three, both houses of Congress have written bills of their own. And it is unlikely that your bill will either be passed or debated, though a motion to substitute your bill for any of these bills is possible at any time. But your bill is nevertheless of profound importance. And it should be carefully studied by the people. For it is a detailed, authentic description of the changes in American government you desired to make last February, and which, so far as the record shows, you still desire and intend.
The first paragraph in the bill is a statement of its purpose:
A BILL
To provide for the reorganization of agencies of the Government by transfer, retransfer, regrouping, coordination, consolidation, segregation, and abolition, to extend the merit system, to reorganize the auditing and accounting functions of the Government, to establish the Departments of Social Welfare and Public Works and the National Resources Board, to change the name of the Department of the Interior, and for other purposes.
Section 2, of Title I, reads as follows:
POWER OF THE PRESIDENT
Whenever the President, after investigation, shall find and declare that any transfer, retransfer, regrouping, coordination, consolidation, reorganization, segregation, or abolition of the whole or any part of any agency, or the functions thereof, is necessary to accomplish any of the purposes set forth in Section 1 of this Title, he may by Executive order:
(a) Transfer or retransfer the whole or any part of any agency, or the functions thereof, to the jurisdiction and control of any other agency;
(b) Establish any agency to receive the whole or any part of any other agency, or the functions thereof, and this shall include the power to establish Federal corporations and direct that such action be taken as may be necessary to effect the transfer to any such corporation of the assets and liabilities of any federally owned and controlled corporation or corporations and empower any such Federal corporation to exercise such functions as may be necessary to effectuate the purposes for which the federally owned and controlled corporation or corporations were established;
(c) Regroup, coordinate, consolidate, reorganize, or segregate the whole or any part of any agency, or the functions thereof; or
(d) Abolish the whole or any part of any agency, or the functions thereof, and this shall include the liquidation and dissolution of any federally owned and controlled corporation in accordance with the laws of the United States, or of any state, territory, or possession of the United States (including the Philippine Islands), or the District of Columbia, under which such corporation was organized; and
(e) Prescribe the name and functions of any agency transferred, retransferred, established, regrouped, co-ordinated, consolidated, reorganized or segregated under this Title, and the title, functions, tenure, and method of the appointment of its head, or of any of its officers or employees.
(I have underscored [italicized] the parts of this section to which I want to call attention.)
Summary of Powers of the President
Summing up the foregoing section, headed “Power of the President,” it authorizes you to reorganize, regroup, curtail, transfer, or wholly to abolish, or change the name and functions of each and every “agency” in the executive branch of the government. It permits you to decide the method of appointment of all heads, officers, and employees of all reorganized agencies, which means that, if the bill were enacted, your appointments would require no confirmation by the Senate.
It permits you to establish, without limit, new agencies to take over the functions of such agencies as you may abolish, or change in name and function, or transfer, in whole or in part. But it does not, in so many words, describe the meaning of the word “agency”, though the meaning seems plain enough.
Therefore, in order fully to grasp the significance of the section entitled “Power of the President,” let us turn to the section headed “General and Miscellaneous Provisions.” This section (Section 501 of Title V) defines the meaning of the important words used in the bill. And it makes abundantly clear the bill’s intention to strip Congress of power.
GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
When used in this Act unless the context indicates otherwise:
(a) The term “agency” includes the President or any executive department, independent establishment, commission, legislative court, board, bureau, service, administration, authority, federally owned and controlled corporation, agency, division, or activity of the United States, whether in the District of Columbia or in the field service, or any office, or part thereof, and shall include the municipal government of the District of Columbia, the Botanic Garden, Library of Congress, Library Buildings and Grounds, Government Printing Office, and the Smithsonian Institution; Provided, that the inclusion of the municipal government of the District of Columbia within the meaning of the term “agency” shall not be construed to authorize the abolition of the municipal government of the District of Columbia or the transfer of all the functions of such municipal government to any other agency.
In the foregoing words is found the only limitation to your power over federal agencies. For they protect the government of the District of Columbia from annihilation by executive order. To this extent the statement that the bill allows you to abolish "every" agency must be modified.
On the other hand, section 501 further strengthens your power by providing:
The term "functions" includes any rights, privileges, powers, duties, or functions, or any part thereof.
Thus, Mr. President, if your bill were passed, not only every agency, office, and function—always excepting these of the fortunate District of Columbia—but every right, privilege, power, or duty attaching thereto would be subject to abolition, alteration, or transfer by yourself, at your sole discretion, and without reference to Congress.
Provides No Congressional Check on Reorganization
In the past, various bills have empowered presidents to reorganize certain parts of the executive branch of the government, but always within well defined limits. And no previous bill has sought to give or even suggested giving a president such unbounded power as is conferred on you by this act.
Commenting on the 1932 reorganization bill, which authorized President Hoover to reorganize the departments, Senator Byrnes of South Carolina said, on August 16, 1937:
Any executive order issued under the act (of 1932) was required to be submitted to the Congress and might be set aside by resolution of either branch of the Congress.
But no such provision is found in your Reorganization Act of 1937.
And if such a bill as yours were passed, you could exercise all the powers enumerated in the section entitled "Power of the President" and clarified in the section entitled "General and Miscellaneous Provisions"—at will, with finality, and with no accountability to anyone.
In a word, the bill is so drawn that, through your power to abolish, or transfer, or change all federal agencies, their officers, and their functions, you can control the policies, decisions, and actions of these agencies. And especially, you can control the immensely important independent commissions and boards, which are primarily the instruments of Congress and not of the President.
As we all know, there are certain regulatory agencies in our government, some purely executive and others semi-judicial, upon whose policies and action depends, in large measure, the welfare of every section of the country. These agencies intimately affect the nation’s economic life, the life of every class of our people, of all consumers, of labor, of business, and agriculture. I have in mind such agencies as the Federal Reserve Board, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal Power Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, the Forest Service, the Federal Trade Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and others which I may refer to again.
Mr. President, any chief executive, armed with the powers granted in your bill, could shape with an iron hand the policies and decisions and action of all these agencies. For, if their policies, decisions, or action did not suit him, he could disestablish the agencies themselves, remove or discipline their officers, or change the functions of the agencies, as he pleased, in accordance with his own will, or his bias, or his political advantage.
You may reply that, if these powers were misused, Congress could enact a law repealing your bill; and then pass another reorganization bill limiting your authority. But such a repeal would be virtually impossible. For, your veto of the repealing act could only be overridden by a two-thirds vote of both houses. And any president with such money and job patronage as you possess, and fortified by the leverage on Congress which your reorganization bill provides, should have little difficulty in blocking any attempt at repeal by Congress.
Gives Executive Power to Annul Laws
Now, while we are on this subject—namely the power over Congress—your reorganization bill gives you—let me point out that the bill places in your hands what is, in effect, a new and unconstitutional authority to annul laws which Congress has passed.
Mr. President, almost every important law relating to industry, or labor, or to finance, or agriculture has—indeed must have—an agency, an executive instrument, charged with carrying its purposes into effect. The anti-trust laws have such an instrument in the Department of Justice, with the Federal Trade Commission acting both as a fact-finding and regulatory body. The so-called Guffey Coal Act has, as its enforcing instrument, a commission without which the purposes of the act cannot be achieved. The Wagner Act sets up the National Labor Relations Board as its executive arm for protecting labor's right to bargain collectively, and for preventing unfair labor practices.
It would be interesting to know what would be the reaction of Mr. William Green, or Mr. John L. Lewis, to the fact that a president of the United States, who is known as the champion of liberalism and labor, has sent to a closed session of a special congressional committee a bill empowering him, or, for that matter, any other President, to render the National Labor Relations Act void by:
(a) abolishing the Labor Board;
(b) by transferring the Board's functions and personnel to some other agency; and
(c) by changing the Board's functions and personnel.
Mr. President, I repeat that the section of your bill headed "Power of the President," which is quoted in full in this letter, in effect enables the President to annul any law passed by Congress, provided the law requires for its enforcement an executive agency. Your bill is a reactionary bill, for it turns the national legislature into a mere debating society, which may effectuate its policies only when the President approves.
It is a truism to say that, over a range of years, the attitude of the White House repeatedly changes from liberal to conservative, and from conservative to liberal. And recent events have shown that one can no more predict the mind of the president than the mind of the king.
If your bill were passed, it would place the laws relating to business, to consumers, and to agriculture in precisely the same state of uncertainty as those relating to labor. For the executive commissions and boards charged with enforcing these laws would function or not function according to the will of one man—namely the President.
America's most important and progressive policies—such as the policy of conservation of natural resources, the policy of preventing monopoly and encouraging competition, the policy of protecting wage earners and farmers, and other similar policies—did not spring into being over night. They developed through generations of public discussion, patient education, and unselfish work.
They have been embodied in laws passed by the people's representatives meeting in open debate in both houses of Congress, under the eyes of the people. This democratic method is the foundation of liberty and progress in every democracy in the world. And to protect this method against the encroachment of personal government behind closed doors is, especially at this time, the duty of all democratic nations.
To empower one man to nullify the laws which express our national policies, by abolishing or controlling the agencies which enforce them, is at once a blow to progress and a denial of the democratic principle.
At this point, Mr. President, let me remark that, so far as I know, informed persons agree that the executive branch needs reorganization. In the last few years the agencies of government have multiplied so fast and furiously, that our federal bureaucracy numbers nearly 900,000 people. And it is growing like a weed. In fact, these agencies, boards, commissions, authorities, corporations, et cetera, have become so numerous that they overlap, cancel each other's efforts, and create endless confusion and expense.
And, what is worse, this over-manned bureaucracy will gradually become as corrupt as it is costly and inefficient. But this condition, however unfortunate, should not be made the excuse for clothing you with such powers as Mussolini used in setting up his corporate state, or as Hitler seized in order to end the German republic, and reduce the Reichstag to a fiction.
And here, once more, I want to say and make it clear as sunlight, that, in this letter, I am not discussing the various reorganization bills which have been presented by either house of Congress, though certain of these bills contain some of the dangerous provisions in your bill. I am discussing only your bill, written for you by Messrs. Brownlow, Gulick and Merriam, and presented in your behalf to the Special Joint Committee on reorganization, at the executive session of February 16, 1937.
Who Was Responsible for the Bill?
Did the draft of your bill, submitted on February 16, 1937, have your approval? On this point we will consult the record. At the executive session Mr. Brownlow testified that he had shown the bill to you. He also stated that the bill puts in legislative form the recommendations contained in the Brownlow Report on reorganization. That was the report which you endorsed with such emphasis in your message of January 12, 1937.
When examined as to whether you approved the bill, Mr. Brownlow was non-committal. He said that he could not "undertake to speak for the President." Further questioned by committee members, he said the bill was "tentative" and offered as a basis of discussion. On the other hand, it was brought out that he and his colleagues took months to prepare it; that it was in the making back at the time when the Brownlow Report was being written; and that, in drawing the bill, he and Professors Gulick and Merriam were assisted by a skilled "legislative draftsman."
Mr. President, responsible men do not draft a bill providing for unparalleled changes in a nation's government, and present it to a congressional committee, and then spend days on end defending its provisions, as did Mr. Brownlow, Professor Gulick and Professor Merriam, unless its contents has been well considered—and, what is more, authorized.
And this should be especially true when a bill is written under instructions from the President himself, after conversations with him which extended through a summer. And, says Mr. Brownlow, "these conversations were renewed in September, October, and December." And Mr. Brownlow further says that, after the Brownlow Report was finished, and before he took your bill to the Joint Committee, additional conferences with you took place.
But, assuming that this first draft was tentative, the same can hardly be said of the revised, or second, draft, dated February 22, 1937, which contains practically the same provisions as the first draft. And, for three men, appointed and paid by you, to have offered such a bill, not once but twice, without assurance that it had your approval, would not merely have been a breach of trust but a piece of reckless effrontery.
I know Professor Merriam. I am acquainted with Professor Gulick. And I am told that Mr. Brownlow is a responsible and intelligent person. I believe these three men incapable of presenting in your behalf, even as a basis of discussion, a bill embodying such novel and astounding provisions, unless they were satisfied that they were acting with your full approval and consent. And, until an adequate explanation is forthcoming from you, your bill must be taken as expressing your views, and as a statement of the extent to which you planned to break the authority of Congress and expand your own by reorganizing the government.
Other Provisions of the Bill
Mr. President, in addition to the boards and commissions I have mentioned, your draft of the Executive Reorganization bill deals with many subjects. It gives you life and death, power over the ten federal departments, War, State, Labor, et cetera; over the Tariff Commission, the Court of Claims, the Communications Commission, and all other boards and commissions. It even presents you with the Library of Congress. This, like the rest, you can reorganize, abolish in whole or in part, or change in name and function, without leave of Congress.
Likewise, it permits you to create any number of new "receiving agencies," and to transfer existing agencies and their functions and appropriations to them. Under the bill you could, for instance, establish a new receiving agency headed, we will say, by your secretary, Mr. James Roosevelt, and transfer to his charge the army, or the navy, or the Federal Reserve, or the Communications Commission, or the National Labor Relations Board, or the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, and those various other agencies which loan money and allocate the vast sums which are spent for public works and other forms of relief. Or, if you preferred, you could rid the government of any or all of these agencies by merely signing your name to a piece of paper.
During the discussion of your bill at the February 16th hearing of the executive session, Congressman Cochran asked Mr. Brownlow, who was explaining the bill, the following question:
The power that you suggest be given to the President—that would enable him, if he so desired, to abolish, say the Federal Trade Commission, the Tariff Commission, the Communications Commission, or any other independent agency that is now set up in the executive branch of the service, would it not?
Mr. Brownlow:
"Well, he might."
Mr. Cochran:
"He could abolish the board and set up an individual."
As an example of how we may expect the administration to use its power of transfer, if your bill, or one like it, were enacted, let us take the case of the Forest Service, a very efficient agency which for years has been located in the Department of Agriculture, where the conservation policy is faithfully adhered to.
The Forest Service was organized by a great public servant, and the tradition he left behind him remains strong to this day. Yet, the Brownlow Report, which you so heartily endorse, recommends that government lands and natural resources, now in charge of the Forest Service, shall be transferred to the Department of the Interior, where a thoroughly bad tradition has prevailed, and where almost anyone, with a strong political pull, has been able to get about what he wants from the government.
It should be remembered that, long ago, President Theodore Roosevelt, with the consent of Congress, transferred the National Forests from the Interior Department to the Department of Agriculture, for the very reason that he could not trust the Interior Department to guard and administer them properly. Your bill now proposes to turn the National Forests back to the department where, like the oil resources, they were in constant jeopardy.
The Civil Service
Again, your bill, while it provides for extending the civil service, at the same time abolishes the Civil Service Commission and places the service under the President’s control. It authorizes the President to exempt from civil service requirements large numbers of employees. And it permits his agents to appoint, without limit, whatever new employees may be needed, and exempt them from civil service requirements.
Federal Accounting
Your bill deals with federal auditing and accounting. It abolishes the Comptroller General, who has served Congress as its watchdog over government spending. It does away with the pre-audit system, by which Congress keeps track of the expenditures before they are made. So that the diversion of funds to purposes unauthorized by Congress may be prevented. Your bill scraps the pre-audit in favor of a post-audit, to be made after the money is spent. In a word, the stable is locked after the horses are gone.
Mr. President, such an arrangement takes the nation’s purse strings from the hands of Congress, and places them in your hands.
Again, should Congress vote an appropriation for some purpose not approved by the White House, the bill permits the President to remove or control the agency designated to spend the money. Thus, as already pointed out, it permits the President to block or defeat the intention of Congress.
New Departments and National Resources Board
Your bill provides for two new government departments, which will certainly not tend toward economy. Nor will it reduce the number of federal employees, or the political power they give the White House. It provides for a National Resources Board, and this too will expand the federal personnel.
This National Resources Board is a very far-reaching proposal. It may be described as one of the New Deal’s more grandiose legislative reveries. It is to be the central agency through which the federal government will plan the economic activities of states, counties, and cities, and regiment them through new swarms of federal agents.
On November 14, 1937, Secretary Wallace stated that industry ought to be federally managed, and its volume and the character of its products regulated, very much as his ever normal granary plan proposes to regulate the quantity and character of crops on American farms. The National Resources Board is the embodiment of this thinking, and, apparently, of the thought of Assistant Attorney General Jackson, who announced, in his radio address of December 26, that the government should act as an “overseer of our industrial progress.”
Is This Democracy?
Mr. President, in brief summation, all the evidence shows that your draft of the reorganization bill was designed—and deliberately designed—to strip Congress of power and centralize control in the White House. If passed, it would unquestionably transform the government into a dictatorship. And I defy any competent person to read your bill without arriving at this conclusion.
It seems beyond belief that anyone could have expected Congress—even in its humble days before the court controversy started the rebellion in the upper House—to pass such a bill.
If, under White House pressure, the elected representatives of the people were to enact this measure, renouncing their own power and giving it to you, they would be like condemned men who, on the eve of execution, are required to dig their own graves.
And yet, if your Court bill of February 5th had been enacted, as you and your advisors expected, your Executive Reorganization bill of February 16th would undoubtedly have been the next order of business.
In your message of January 12, 1937, you told Congress and the public that your plan involved "nothing revolutionary," and no increase in your power. You said:
In placing this program before you I realize that it will be said that I am recommending the increase of the powers of the presidency. This is not true.
In that message you further stated that your objective was to preserve "that freedom of self-government which our forefathers fought to establish and hand down to us." And you said that your purpose was to give substance to the great dream of American democracy.
Mr. President, you ask very rightly for cooperation, and for confidence in the government. And all men and women of good will should work for that end. But how can there be confidence when the Chief Executive himself proposes to undermine the government and the principles of democracy on which it rests?
Will you not therefore, in the interest of the public, withdraw your recommendation for executive reorganization, and let the country concentrate on recovery?
Sincerely yours,
AMOS PINCHOT.
How Patriotic Are the Priests? (Continued from page 11)
article was to discourage Polish people from joining other than Polish Catholic churches.
Neither my wife nor I speak Polish, but when this article was published I made an appeal to a Polish Catholic priest, Reverend Justyn, of 199 Clark street, Buffalo, N. Y., explaining my whole case, and he informed me that the church has nothing to do with my affairs and cannot aid me. Subsequently I listened to Judge Rutherford's lectures and accepted the Truth and serve it.
I have a sister who is a nun, and am fond of her, but since I accepted the truth neither she nor any of my relatives will associate with me in any way and have repudiated me as a brother. I am also told that I am cursed because I send my children to the public schools.
In view of my experiences, I wonder just how patriotic are the priests of the Roman Catholic church. Does patriotism consist in hating real patriots who have done something for their country, and casting them to the dogs when they can no longer pay to keep up fine church buildings and palaces and automobiles, fine clothes and wines for the priests? Looks like it.—Stanley J. Patryas, Illinois.
How Law-abiding Are They?
◆ Police departments all over the country are in perplexity. They are endeavoring to discourage gambling, in every direction, but are balked at every turn by the religionists, particularly the agents and accomplices of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy, who encourage gambling to the point where they circumvent or directly oppose the law, going so far as to openly assert that they will carry out their schemes, law or no law. Here is the picture, then. Men who make no pretense of being religious are trying to safeguard the morals of the young and the ignorant, while the "custodians of religion" are encouraging the idea that one can live by luck and chance, instead of fostering industry and diligence as the proper course for those who would prosper. Who said religion is not of the Devil?
BINGO GUEST CARD
This is to certify that the holder of this card is entitled to play the first game free of charge.
Games start promptly every night at 8:00 P. M. Sundays 2:30 P. M.
Bring your friends and enjoy an evenings good clean entertainment.
Cash door prizes given away every thirty minutes.
9:00 P. M. $5.00 or more prize guaranteed.
10:00 P. M. $10.00 or more prize guaranteed.
11:00 P. M. $20.00 or more prize guaranteed.
2 CARDS 5c
EVERYONE WELCOME AMPLE SEATING ROOM
EUCLID BUS DIRECT TO THE DOOR
CHARITY BINGO
FOR THE BENEFIT OF
HOLY CROSS CHURCH
20020 LAKE SHORE BOULEVARD
OPPOSITE HOLY CROSS CHURCH How Patriotic Are the Priests?
TO LET them tell it, the Roman Catholic priests are the most patriotic persons in the country. Let me tell my little story and you be the judge of how patriotic they really are.
As a young man I enlisted in the United States army to fight the foe. I enlisted because I was a patriot, and also because I was a victim of propaganda. I see the same propaganda being spread today, to lure the youth into being fodder for the cannon. The church I belonged to urged the youth to enlist.
As a result of my military service I am today a human wreck. I saw service on seven major battle fronts. I was gassed and shell-shocked; am a victim of amnesia, neurasthenia, hysteria, psycho-neurosis with severe organic factors, insomnia, traumatic-epileptic seizures; am totally deaf in my right ear and moderately deaf in the left one; have chronic suppurative otitis media with perforated left ear drum membrane; and underwent a radical tuberculosis right ear mastoidectomy with no success. I have a wife and six children.
From 1919 to 1924 I did not receive one cent of compensation for my disabilities. In 1924 I was paid $10 per month; in 1926, $23.10 per month; then $63.00 per month; $79.00 per month; $55.75 per month; $90.00 per month; $70.85 per month; and now $80.40 per month.
ST. BARTHOLOMEW'S RECTORY
4941 PATTERSON AVE.
CHICAGO, ILL.
February 25, 1935
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Patryas:
In so far as you have consistently failed to fulfill your obligation of contributing to the support of this church, as you promised to do when joining it, I am forced to cancel your membership and take your name off the parish register.
This notice serves to cancel any obligation we may have had to serve you and your family in time of sickness or on other occasions. In the future, if you desire the services of a priest, do not ask or expect such from those attached to St. Bartholomew's.
Regretting the necessity of this action, I am,
Very truly yours,
S. J. Morrison
Pastor
A true picture of religion
Besides the list of disabilities which the government as above acknowledges and compensates I am a victim of chronic gastric ulcers, chronic nasal-pharyngitis, eczema, chronic fibrous pleurisy, symptoms of pulmonary tuberculosis, deviated nasal septum, right side tachycardia and potential inguinal hernia. For these disabilities I receive no Government benefits, being told by the Government that these are not service-connected disabilities, incurred since the war.
I am told that I cannot now be rated higher on my disabilities because my case is in litigation pending a suit I brought against the Government on the insurance that I carried while in the Army. This suit has been pending in the United States courts for over five years and it will take some time yet before it is disposed of.
Two of my oldest boys underwent a triple operation; another boy was also operated on; two other boys have asthma; my wife is suffering with severe chronic bronchitis; has had pleurisy; is ailing with chronic inflammation of the kidneys; has gall bladder trouble; is sick in bed, and is in a run-down condition, weighing only 105 pounds.
Up until the time I received the letter herewith [reproduced on this page—Ed.] I was a Roman Catholic. When I explained my troubles and circumstances, and how impossible it was for me to help pay for the upkeep of the church, I was ousted by the Reverend Morrison, as the letter shows.
In some manner unknown to me the Polish Catholic newspaper Polish National Alliance widely published the facts about me, to the effect that "Came poverty and misery, Polish family does not pay dues; Irish Catholic priest throws them out of his church". The apparent object of the publication of this
(Continued on page 10) "Freedom of Speech as an Axiom"
IF ONE is honest he has to hand it to the Catholic Hierarchy for continuously pretending to believe and practice in the United States what their own spokesmen in the Papal chair have repeatedly denounced. Thus, the Hierarchy has denied over and over again the right of free speech, has denounced it as a colossal error, has done everything possible to prevent Judge Rutherford from telling the truth over the radio, and yet, the Hierarchy in the United States, in its letter to the Hierarchy in Spain, had the unmitigated gall to make use of the following sentence:
Your words [recounting the alleged slaughter of priests in Spain] horrify us, who are wont to accept liberty of conscience and freedom of speech as an axiom.
Let that soak in. The United States Hierarchy is horrified because the Spanish Republic did not encourage the free use of churches as arms depots and stations in which to incite sedition and insurrection, but in America it has to admit, despite its infamous attempt to choke the wind off Judge Rutherford, that "freedom of speech as an axiom" is maintained here. Probably a private note went along to the bishops explaining that, though such freedom of speech is an axiom here, it is an axiom in which the Hierarchy does not believe, and as soon as it feels strong enough to do so it intends to dispose for ever of both the freedom and the axiom. Such is the Hierarchy.
No Freedom in Quebec
◆ That the Roman Catholic Hierarchy certainly does NOT believe in freedom of speech anywhere is abundantly proved by the statement of Cardinal Villeneuve at Quebec, November 1, 1937:
Paganism has many offers. Among them are freedom of speech, freedom to insult our traditions, our beliefs and our religion.
Notice how cleverly this is spliced together. The casual reader is led to believe that freedom of speech is necessarily opposed to the truth and what therefore the Roman Hierarchy holds as the essentials of civilization, namely, Catholic traditions, beliefs and religion, and therefore is in itself evil. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The prophets believed in freedom of speech, and were sawn asunder for it; Jesus believed in freedom of speech, and was put to death for it; the apostles did likewise, and eleven of the twelve are believed to have suffered martyrdom. The Roman Hierarchy hates freedom of speech because it fears the truth. Hence all its uproar against Judge Rutherford.
"For every wrongdoer hates the light, and does not come to the light, for fear his actions should be exposed and condemned. But he who does what is honest and right comes to the light."—John 3: 20, 21, Weymouth.
What Else Would He Do?
◆ Speaking in Jersey City the "Reverend Father" Matthew Toohey, of Newark, hailed Frank Hague, mayor of Jersey City, as "Public Enemy No. 1 of Communism" and in the same breath extolled Dictator Duplessis, of Quebec. What else would he do? All three of them belong to the gang that is bent on the destruction of human liberty and determined to bring all mankind under the iron heel of the Roman Hierarchy, whose rise was coincident with a rise of Europe's Dark Ages.
"Adults Please Sign"
LAMAR, Colorado, is a city of 4,500 inhabitants, 72 of whom do not use their own brains, but do as they are told by somebody who handed them a sheet of paper marked "Adults Please Sign". Among those that signed were 6 Geisers, 5 Hassers, 4 each of the Gruenloh, Emick, Idler, Weis, Denning, Fox and Smith families, 3 Linenbergers, 3 Williams' and 2 each of the McCall, O'Neil, Strain and Moran families, and there were 17 others trotting that Sunday in single harness besides the more or less single "Reverend Father" Benedict Pedrotti, who headed the list immediately under the words "Adults Please Sign".
Another priest signed under Pedrotti, but thought better of it and erased his name. Probably it was he who also tried to erase the words "Adults Please Sign" but did not do a good job. The ones who signed would have cheerfully signed their own death warrant without reading it or knowing what it was all about. What they did sign was a protest against a Spanish program of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of which not one of them probably understood one word.
The owner of the broadcasting station to whom the alleged protest was sent saw through the whole scheme and wrote a plain but kindly letter to Pedrotti reminding him that he himself is a Catholic, and a member of Pedrotti's church, and a supporter of it. He reminded Pedrotti that the only businessman on his list of 72 had been refused time on the radio for exploiting a lottery scheme; that the station had never shown a profit during its existence; that the words "bitterness", "prejudice," "vehemently," "decent Christians," "creeds," "decency," "germ of dissension" and "honesty" were used in the accompanying protest a little too freely to make a hit; and especially that the very same programs about which the list of adult signers protested so strongly when given in Spanish had only a few weeks previous been given in English and none of the alleged protesters said a word.
Mrs. George S. Williams, who purports to have written the protest, was the twelfth one to sign under "Reverend Father" Pedrotti, and her hubby, Dr. George Williams, was the last one on the "Adults Please Sign" list. One would think that he would have known better than to let Pedrotti make a fool of him. But some doctors are not so wise. Some of them have no more sense than Pedrotti himself.
Arizona's Sheep Trails
◆ Arizona's sheep trails, thirteen of them from north to south of the state, are from one to five miles wide, and are traversed twice every year by a half million sheep. Two mounted men and a dog keep the flocks moving at the rate of two or three miles per day. The routes are definitely marked by white stones a quarter of a mile apart and are mostly remote from human habitations. The herders are required to proceed at a set rate per day, so as to make room for the flocks of others that follow on behind.
Petrified Rushes in Arizona
◆ In Arizona's petrified forest there are a number of petrified giant rushes upright in place, four feet tall and eight inches in diameter. As in the fallen monarchs of the forest lying about them, the living cells have been changed into solid blocks of silica, agate chalcedony and jasper.
"Reverend" Judas, Denver, Colo.
◆ "Reverend" Judas, Denver, Colo., is a black goat, with white spots. His job, "Reverend"-like, is to get foolish sheep to race along behind him to the slaughter house. He has developed a taste for nicotine and, besides luring sheep to their destruction, enjoys nothing more than smoking a cigar.
Municipal Ownership in Fallon, Nev.
◆ Fallon, Nevada, 2,000 population, paid $6,000 for grading and graveling its roads, and $20,000 for asphaltic oil surfacing, without charging the citizens anything. Yes, you guessed it, Fallon has its own power and water systems.
Matanuska Colony Getting Along
◆ Although one-fourth of the families gave up the fight and returned to the States, the Matanuska (Alaska) colony is getting along. It now has 173 homes, 4 sawmills, a hospital and a high school, and is figuring on a creamery and cannery.
The Last of the Wild Horses
◆ The last of the wild horses, some 2,000 of them, are still ranging southern Idaho and northern Nevada. They will be rounded up, the best of them sold for work horses and the rest for chicken feed.
Lava Is Hot
◆ Lava is hot, and no mistake. Even a year after a volcanic eruption in Hawaii it is possible to cook steaks on black lava which at the time of eruption was a white-hot stream of molten rock.
Page 12 COLUMBIA December, 1933
A Forgotten Roosevelt
By Harry Wynne Kirwin
IT IS just eighty years since the first bishop of Newark, James Roosevelt Bayley, took possession of his see. History tells us that the day was a remarkable one. The sun was shining in all its glory as the 9:48 train arrived at the Center Street Depot. But it interests us not so much that the Bishop was greeted by a vast throng of the faithful in orderly parade, that many of his priests feared outbreaks from the non-Catholics of Newark, that not a discordant note jarred the occasion; rather it is the extraordinary personality of Newark's first bishop—James Roosevelt Bayley, a Catholic, a Bishop, and a Roosevelt.
Though America has never had the spectacle of a ruling family guiding its destinies from a throne, several famous families have left their imprint firm upon the story of this country. In the early days, it was the Adams family—Samuel, John and John Quincy. But in more recent times the family that has taken the lion's share of patriotic service is the Roosevelt family. First there was Teddy, youngest ever to become President of the United States. He wielded the big stick and in thunderous tones denounced the evils of the trusts. Now in the midst of this direful depression comes another Roosevelt to the call of the people, Franklin Roosevelt, the champion of the "Forgotten Man" and perhaps the most extraordinary President in our history. You may have the privilege to choose the greater man, but before you make your choice, let us see something of the apparently "Forgotten Man" of the Roosevelt family itself, a man who happened to be the first Roman Catholic bishop of Newark.
The great Archbishop Hughes, of New York, observing the vast influx of immigrants to his diocese, petitioned the Holy See in 1852 to divide his territory, then comprising the major portion of the state of New York and all of New Jersey. Accordingly, in October of the next year, Pope Pius IX created the diocese of Brooklyn and Newark. To the latter diocese he designated as its first bishop, James Roosevelt Bayley, the secretary of the Archbishop of New York. This young priest could boast a most noteworthy lineage. In him were blended the Celt and the Dutch, the Gaul and the Briton. His face was singularly handsome, and his whole manner bespoke the gentleman and the scholar. He brought to his position as first bishop of Newark, talent and culture, grace and elegance. His paternal grandfather, Dr. Richard Bayley, a famous physician, was primarily responsible for the laws of quarantine in New York State and gave his life in research for a cure of yellow fever. His mother, Grace Roosevelt, was the daughter of James Roosevelt, a prominent merchant of New York City and the great-grandfather of the thirty-second President of the United States, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Few men made greater impression upon their compeers than did the first bishop of Newark. Dean Flynn some years ago wrote this very beautiful description of his character:
"We see him as we saw him in our childhood, noble, dignified, gentle, winsome, a man among men, even as Saul, towering head and shoulders over all, attracting by his kindliness the lowliest, twining himself deep into the affections of his priests and compeers and commanding by his virtues the respect even of those who differed radically from his views."
James Roosevelt Bayley was born in New York City, August 23, 1814, the son of Dr. Guy Carleton Bayley and Grace Roosevelt. Reared as an Episcopalian, young Bayley spent his early schooldays in Mendham and afterwards at Mount Pleasant, near Amherst. This was in 1831. He left Amherst after his sophomore year, not without regret on the part of his classmates, whose testimony indicated the general esteem in which he was held. Their letters extolled his tact, his great courtesy to all, and his heartiness—this last a truly Rooseveltian characteristic. But more especially Rooseveltian was his love of the sea. Nicknamed "Commodore" in school, he had the greatest fancy for the sea and actually obtained the commission of midshipman in the Navy. But upon mature consideration he gave up his naval ambitions to devote himself more earnestly than ever to his studies.
Despite opportunities to pursue medicine as a career or to enter the business world, young Bayley went to Trinity College, Hartford, Connecticut, to prepare himself for the Episcopal ministry. When he had completed his work there, he was made rector of the Episcopal Church in Harlem. At that time Harlem was a country spot some miles outside of New York City. The misery and poverty of the Irish who inhabited this section was notorious. Yet Bayley marveled at the Catholic faith of these people. It stirred his soul to deep contemplation. Moreover, it aroused in him an ardent love of the Irish people, which he held throughout his life. Contacts such as this did much to accentuate certain religious doubts that flooded his mind. He had seen the course pursued by his saintly aunt, Elizabeth Bayley Seton, his father's sister, who left her Protestant affiliations to become a Catholic and the glorious foundress of the Sisters of Charity. What a splendid example was set for him here! It opened his eyes to the possibility of giving even greater service to God.
Most Reverend James Roosevelt Bayley
Dr. Richard Bayley | James Roosevelt
Eliza Bayley Seton (Mother Seton) | Guy Carleton Bayley m. Grace Roosevelt | Isaac Roosevelt
James Roosevelt Bayley (First Bishop of Newark) | James Roosevelt | Franklin D. Roosevelt
In the fall of 1841, he resigned his parish and journeyed to Rome. His relative sponsoring the journey felt that the sight of Rome would repel him from his Catholic tendencies. But they were sadly mistaken. The Eternal City witnessed his reception into the Catholic Church April 28, 1842, by the Jesuit Father Esmond. On the same day Cardinal Fransoni confirmed him. At once Bayley went to St. Sulpice, Paris, to prepare for the Catholic priesthood. Returning to America, he was ordained by Bishop Hughes March 2, 1844.
The Church in America, always ready to welcome every young Levite who would make the tremendous sacrifices of the priesthood, received Father Bayley with more than ordinary delight. This young man, so distinguished in appearance and so cultured, would most certainly bring credit to the despised, menial Catholic Church of that day. In despair, Archbishop Hughes saw the Catholic population increase by unprecedented bounds, yet he had so few priests to care for them. Therefore, Father Bayley found ample work to engage his time. His first task was to assist Father McCloskey (later Cardinal) in the establishment of Fordham College. That institution had for its first Vice-President and Dean none other than Father James Roosevelt Bayley, and it was Father Bayley who in the name of Archbishop Hughes delivered the college to the care of the Jesuits in 1847.
Pressing need now necessitated the appointment of Father Bayley to the pastorship at quarantine, Staten Island. Once again he found himself laboring among his favorite Irish immigrants, destitute and poverty-stricken people. In those days the duties of the pastor were something more than merely pastoral. The pastor frequently spent his days on horseback and his nights on errands of mercy. Bayley remained here but for one year. In 1848 Archbishop Hughes, recognizing the influence of his cultured training, transferred him to the cathedral and made him his secretary. While not engaged in secretarial duties, he wrote a very interesting and valuable sketch of early Catholicity in New York City. Then, in his thirty-ninth year, the genial "Roozy" Bayley, for so he was affectionately called by the Roosevelts, who never really resented his conversion, raised from his labors at Fordham, at Staten Island, and as secretary to the Archbishop, became the first Catholic bishop of Newark and the state of New Jersey.
What prospects greeted the first bishop of Newark in the autumn of 1853? He found a diocese with twenty-five priests, and as many churches, without a single house of learning, no religious orders, and no charitable institutions, except a small frame building rented as temporary orphan asylum under the care of five Sisters of Charity. The field was large and inviting. Situated between two great cities, the new bishopric received the surplus of an overflowing tide of immigration that brought with it multitudinous wants demanding instant attention. Besides, Catholics at that time were extremely poor, and constantly persecuted by their Protestant neighbors. But they were loyal to their Bishop and zealous for the welfare of the Church.
James Roosevelt Bayley faced his tremendous task with calm serenity. The ensuing years witnessed the steady forging ahead of Catholicity in New Jersey. Churches were built all over the state. Ably assisted by that great pioneer priest and bishop, Bernard McQuaid, he erected the first Catholic college in New Jersey—Seton Hall—naming it after his revered aunt, Mother Seton. In 1866 fire destroyed the original college plant. This unfortunate disaster might have crushed another man to the ground. But Bishop Bayley, with his typically Rooseveltian instincts, perceiving Father McQuaid's grave anxiety, after ascertaining whether lives were lost or injuries received, asked: "Father McQuaid, did they save my grandmother's blue armchair?"
…