U.S. History 2

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE

. FIRST SESSION OF THE SEVENTY-FOURTH CONGRESS

OF

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VOLUME 79-PART 7 MAY 6, 1935, TO MAY 23, 1935

(Pages 6999 to 8118)

UNITED STATES

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1935

1935 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 7049 to apply their pressure throughout America. They saw to it thereafter that nothing more was said about too few people owning too much, or about too many people owning too little. They muzzled down on everything as tight as a drum. From 1920 to 1929 they chained business and ban.ks _and roped in all of the businesses and institutions of this country four times as tight as they had ever held them. In the first year of Hoover's reign with more foodstuffs and more wearing apparel, more manufac­ tured articles, more houses, and more of everything else than this country had ever seen in all of its history, notwithstanding all our abundance of everything for which our people had any need, there began to come about the first wave of our greatest hunger, nakedness, homelessness, and destitution in this land where there was too much of everything.

Why was that? It was because of the fact that in spite of those conditions of

too few owning too much, as we found to exist in 1916, that as a matter of fact in the 14 years time which followed from 1916 to 1930 those conditions grew to be two times as bad as they were when they were complained about in 1916. The study of the Fed­ eral Trade Commission, made in 1930, said:

"The foregoing table shows that about 1 percent of the esti­ mated number of decedents owned about 59 percent of the esti­ mated wealth and that more than 90 percent was owned by about 13 percenf of this number."

So you will see from a comparison of these two Government re­ ports that 1 percent of the people owned as much in 1930 as 2 percent of the people owned in 1916. So it proved that the Government was correct in 1916 when it warned that too much of the wealth in the hands of too few people was bringing on calamity; for when we reached 1930, with the condition growing from bad to worse, the whole country collapsed and misery was brought upon the population in the land that was fiowing with milk and money.

From the studies which I made I charged along about the years 1932-33 on the fioor of the United States Senate that 4 percent of the people owned 85 percent of the wealth and that 96 percent of Qur people owned less than 16 percent of the wealth. I charged that 70 percent of the people of the United States didn't owu enough to pay their debts. There was considerable ridicule made against the figures which I gave. During the last month of April, of this very year, the newspaper in New York City with the largest circulation, the Daily News, announced that it would send a special representative to Washington to investigate the figures which I had given out. So it sent here a gentleman named Lowell Limpus, and in the issue of the Daily News of Monday, April 8, 1935, just 8 weeks ago, here is what that great newspaper said. I quote their words:

"Four percent own 87 percent of United States, News survey shows."

Now, that is the headline of this newspaper. I will read you from the article of this newspaper of April 8, 1935:

"The News recently suggested editorially that figures quoted in current discussions on the distribution of wealth 'ought to be proved or disapproved by an official survey.' No figures being available, the News instituted a survey of its own. The results are covered in a series of articles, of which this is the first."

Now I continue to quote from this article. Here is what they said: -

" The News survey simply brings the picture up to date--0r as nearly so as figures permit. It reveals the following facts:

" Less than 4 percent are getting 38.5 percent of the aggregate national income. They .own and control more than 87 percent of the national wealth. · "The poor are getting poorer. The national income is steadily

draining into fewer and fewer pockets. The Nation's wealth is rapidly coming under the control of a mere handful of men.''

I quote further from this article in the Daily News: " The facts were there, but they were ignored. It remained for

Senator HUEY LONG and his ilk to force them to the attention of the public.

HUEY LONG OPENED BOOKS

"He adopted a technique which had never occurred to the stu­ dents. Huey mounted a soap box and beat a bass drum. The public stopped to listen. The News survey reveals that he knew what he was talking about--but so did the students who preceded him."

So now, my friends, I will not take the time to read you further what this big newspaper which checked up on my figures has said, but it took the time to write an editorial, and here is what the editorial of the New York Daily News of April 11, 1935, says:

"When HUEY LONG in his .share-the-wealth reply to General Johnson said that 1 percent of Americans own 59 percent of Amer­ ica's wealth, while 4 percent own between 85 percent and 95 per­ cent of the wealth, we knew he was a liar. We intimated as much and added that somebody ought to look into this question and get the true figures on American wealth distribution in order to refute this demagogue LONG.

"The News then assigned one of its most competent investiga­ tors, Lowell Limpus, to the job of digging up the figures. • • • And so Lowell Limpus went to Washington and worked for weeks in the Library of Congress and elsewhere to root up the true figures with which to confound LONG.

"The results of that research are now being published in the News. And to the consternation of many people (including· our-

selves when we first heard of them), the results of that research show that LONG had essentially the correct dope.

" The gist of the Limp us findings is this: " More than 96 percent of .the workers in the United States

receive less than the $2,000 a year which is regarded as •sufficient only for basic necessities.'

"According to the United States Federal Trade Commission, in 1926, 1 percent of the people dying did own 59 percent of the wealth reported; and since that time the rich have been getting richer in proportion and the poor poorer.

" When Limpus discovered that such was the picture of wealth distribution in the United States he wired the News that his data would prove very startling, and that probably his findings could not be published.

" It was decided, after some deliberation, to publish them never­ theless. That decision was made on the ground that the ostrich act of sticking our heads in the sand, blinding ourselves to facts wm only do us harm in the long run. To suppress these facts might damper down some unrest for a while. But it is these facts which are causing the unrest. The eventual kick-back would be much more serious if the facts continued to be kept under cover.

"And they are ominous facts. _ It has happened time and again that when a nation's wealth has become concentrated in too few hands, and ways of redistributing part of it peaceably have not been worked out, ways of redistributing it by violence have been adopted in time--as in France and Russia. And as long as mass purchasing power stays down and continues to shrink, there will be overproduction of the bathtubs, cars, radios, etc., which we like to think are elements in the American standard of living."

Will the balance of the newspapers do what this newspaper has done, or will they continue to be blind and lead the balance of the blind into the mire of destruction and ruin?

But the great journalistic thought of the present day refuses to see the light. The Saturday Evening Post of this week, dated May 4, 1935, has this leading editorial, from which I quote as follows:

" FACTS ARE STUBBORN

"Rarely does any subject receive so much attention as the Hon­ orable HUEY LONG. There is grave discussion as to how he will affect the fortunes both of the new deal and of the Republican Party. • • • Everyone has an opinion as to whether he is a 'menace' or not; the view taken depending on many different factors. • • The core of Senator LoNG's plan is to take away from all persons such wealth as they have in excess of $1,000,000, givmg ·them the right to choose what particular kinds of property they will keep within the maximum permitted. Of the total wealth thus appropriated, he suggests that something less than half be used to educate young people and that some­ thing over half be used to bring families having less than $5,000 of property up to that figure. • • • This country has no official figures or even accurate estimates concerning the distribu­ tion of wealth. All that can be done is to capitalize for estimate purposes the incomes reported by the Bureau of Internal Reve­ nue, and on this basis, LoNG's estimate of the wealth to be shared is 14 or 15 times too high."

I have not the time to read further from this editorial. You will see that it confiicts with two reports of the Government and the recent study made by the · New York Daily News, to say noth­ ing of my own calculations; but now note that this Saturday Eve­ ning Post article says that there are no figures to show the dis­ tribution of wealth. Because of that, I now ask you to let me read to you what this very same Saturday Evening Post said in its issue of September 23, 1916. That editorial is headed "Are We Rich or Poor?" And here is what the Saturday Evening Post itself said:

" The man who studies wealth in the United States from sta­ tistics only will get nowhere with the subjects, because all the statistics afford only an inconclusive suggestion. Along one statis­ tical line you can figure out a natio_n bustling with wealth; along another a bloated plutocracy comprising 1 percent of the popula­ tion lording it over a starveling horde with only a thin margin of merely well-to-do in between."

What is the matter with you, Saturday Evening Post? Here you are saying there are no figures to show any such thing as I am saying, when nearly 20 years ago, when you were allowed to be honest, you .told the people that 1 percent of the people had a stranglehold on nearly everything the country had in it. Why, this magazine doesn't know that I was its scholar in 1916 and it helped to push me along in this fight, and now, after 20 ye~rs of effort, it has failed to remember what it knew way back yonder and which everybody else has begun to find out at this late date.

So now, my friends, you have heard me read how a great New York newspaper, after investigation, has declared that all I have said about the bad distribution of this Nation's wealth is true. I have been severely condemned and ridiculed, over a period of many years, for persisting in giving the people the facts regarding this bad situation. Time after time, all that I have said has been pronounced false. Now they are beginning to say that it is all too true and too sad. I join them in their statements. It is too true and too sad. But we have been about our work to correct this situation. That is why the share-our-wealth societies are forming in every nook and corner of America. They are meeting tonight. Soon there will be share-our-wealth societies for every­ one to meet. They have a great work to perform. Here is what we stand for, in a nutshell:

1. We propose that every family in America shall at least own a homestead equal in value to not less than one-third the average

7050 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE.· MAY 7. family wealth. The average family wealth of America, at normal values, is approximately $16,000. So our first proposition means that every family will have a home and the comforts of a home up to a value of not less than $5,000, · '

2. We propose that no family shall own more than 300 times the average family wealth, which mea~ that no family shall possess more than a wealth of approximately $5,000,000. And we think that is too much. The two propositions together mean that no family shall own less than one-third of the average family wealth, nor shall any fatnily own more than 300 times the average­ family wealth. That is to say that none should be so poor as to have less than one-third of the average, and none should be so rich a.s to have more than 300 times the average.

3. We next propose that every family shall have an income equal to at least one-third of the average family income in America. If all were allowed to work, according to our statistics, there would be an average family income of from $5,000 to $10,000 per year. So, therefore, in addition to the home which every family would own and the comforts of life which every f8.mily would enjoy, evert fa.mily would make not less than $2,000 to $3,000 per year upon which to live and educate their children.

4. We propose that no family shall have an income of more than 300 times the average family income. Less the income taxes, this would mean an annual income of $1,000,000 would be the maximum allowed to any one family in 1 year. The third and fourth propositions simply mean that no family should earn less than one-third the average, and no fa.mlly should earn more than 300 times the average; none to make too much, none to make too llttle. Everyone to have the things required for life; every man a king.

5. We propose a pension to the old people. Under our proposal taxes would not be levied upon the sons and daughters, nor the working people to support their aged fathers and mothers. But on the contrary, such support as would be ·given for old-age pen­ sions would be borne solely by the surplus money which the Gov­ ernment would rake off of the big fortunes and big inheritances.

6. We propose to care for the veterans of our wars, including the immediate cash payment of the soldiers' bonus, and last, but not least, we propose that every child in America shall have a right to education and training, not only through grammar and high school, but also through college and universities. And this edu­ cation and training would be of such extent as will equip each child to battle on fair terms in the work which it is compelled to perform throughout life. We would not have it that a child could go to college or university provided his parents had the money on which to send him, but it would be the right of every child under our plan to the costs, including living expenses of col­ lege and university training, which could be done by our country at a cost considerably less than is required for the military train­ ing which has been given to the youth in the past.

My plan is that our Government should call 1n this surplus wealth above a few million to any one family and· then distribute it out to those who have the need of the same. Some criticize that plan, but it is prescribed by the Bible. I read you the words:

"And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

" Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold. ·

"And laid them down the apostles' feet: and distribution· was made unto every men according as he had need." (See Acts, ch. 4, verses 32-36.) _

It is our purpose that every man should pursue a. calling that means a living to himself and his family in peace and comfort; that the shelter and home of every family should be their own. That is as the Bible says it should be. I read you the words:

"And they shall beat ·their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more, but they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid" (Micah, ch. 4, verses 3 and 4).

We say that none shall be too rich and none too poor. The Bible says such is as it should be. I read you the words:

"Give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me With food con­ venient for me; lest I be full and deny Thee and say, •Who is the Lord? ' or lest I be poor and steal, and take the name of my God in vain " (Proverbs, ch. 30, verses 8 and 9) .

And we say if these statutes of God are observed our people shall·live in peace and comfort forever. The Bible says so. I read you the words:

"If you walk in my statutes • • • ye shall eat your bread to the full and dwell in your land safely, and I will give peace in the land, and ye shall lie . there and nothing should make you afraid" {Leviticus, ch. 26, verses 3 to 17).

Let no one tell you that it is difficult to redistribute the wealth of this land; it matters not how rich or great one may be, when he dies his wealth must be distributed anyway. The law of God shows bow it bas been done throughout time. Nothing is more sensible or better understood than the redistribution of property. The laws of God command it. It is required of all nations that live. (See Leviticus, ch. 26.) Today our Nation is cursed with an overload of debt; public and private debts aggregate $262,000,- 000,000. That is more than $2,000 to every person. . Under the present set-up this burden of debt can never be paid. It will for­ ever condemn our people.

The laws of our Lord command that such burden of debt must be wiped out of extstence so that a people may have a fair chance 1n life. (See Deuteronomy, ch. 15.)

So let us be about our work. It ls simple. Why Ile ye here idle? There is enough for all. Let there be peace in the land. Let our children be happy.

Our fight is now on here in the United States Senate to pay the soldiers' bonus. It is a debt which is due the soldiers who fought our wars. We are fighting to keep the Patman bill, which actually pays this bonus, from being sidetracked. The bill is already past the. House of Representatives. Maybe you would like to wire your Uruted States Senator tonight to ask him to stand for the Patman bill tomorrow.

I would llke to hear from any of you if you wish to concern yourself with the work that we have in hand. If you want a copy of my speech, I will send it upon request. You can write to me here in Washington, D. C., care of the United States Senate.

How wonderful, how great, how fruitful to all thls great land of ours can .be. We only have to eliminate useless greed, provide that none shall be too big and none too small. Beautiful America can rise to the opportunity before it. It means to us all:

Every man a king.

PRINTING OF TELEGRAMS IN THE RECORD Mr. ASHURST. Mr. Pre~ident, I have been such a con­

firmed and casehardened sinner with respect to printiilg matters in the RECORD ·that I am somewhat reluctant at this moment to ask that certain telegrams which I have re­ ceived be printed in the RECORD; but, inasmuch as it is im­ possible for me to reply to all such telegrams, for the rea­ son, among others, that I do not wish to make too severe a drain upon our contingent fund, I ask that these telegrams be printed in the RECORD.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I have no intention of ob­

jecting to the request of tbe Senator from Arizona, but I should like to suggest that I have on my desk telegrams which I have received within the last 2 days to the number of 2,200, by actual count; and if the Senator from Arizona is going to have the telegrams received by him printed in the RECORD, and every other Member of the Senate is going to have the telegrams rec-eived by him printed in the RECORD, the RECORD will expand to unheard-of proportions. So far as I am concerned, as I ~ve said, I do not intend to object to the request of the Senator from Arizona, but I will object to · the request of any other Seriator to print a lot of tele­ grams in the RECORD.

Mr. FLETCHER. l\41'. President, may I ask the Senatot from Arizona to withdraw his request? All Senators are receiving numerous telegrams of a similar character. To have them printed in the RECORD would establiEh a prece­ dent; arid every other Senator would want to do the same thing. Furtherm9re, it would cost thousands of dollars. So I submit to the Senator, in consideration of the expense which would be involved and the precedent which would be created, if he will not withdraw his request?

Mr. ASHURST. Mr. President, I cannot be insensible to the courteous aind, I think, reasonable request which has been made by the Senator from Missouri [Mr. CLARK] and the Senator from Florida [Mr. FLETCHER] . . However, I think it is my duty as a Senator to let my constituents know that, at least, I received their telegrams though I cannot answer them. My private purse woilld not admif of my paying the tolls; my constituents ·would resent the action if I should send them telegrams marked "collect", and I do not feel that the contingent expense fund should be charged with the cost.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. ASHURST. Certainly. Mr. CLARK. The basis of my suggestion was that I en­

tirely understand the situation of the Senator from Arizona. There are some of us here who cannot even send out form letters answering propaganda letters and telegrams which we receive. I received in one Sunday morning's mail 6,000 letters on the subject of the holding-company bill. Of course, I recognized that those were propaganda letters, in- spired by a certain soilrce which I well understood; but I should like to let my constituents know that their letters had been received and make an acknowledgement even -by a form letter. However, the demands of the ordinary sena­ torial duties upon my office force are such that I was not