Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
Facts Forum News, Vol.5, No. 8, August 1956
File 069
File size: 33.18 MB
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
Facts Forum. Facts Forum News, Vol.5, No. 8, August 1956 - File 069. 1956-08. University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. June 4, 2020. https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/1469/show/1468.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Facts Forum. (1956-08). Facts Forum News, Vol.5, No. 8, August 1956 - File 069. Facts Forum News, 1955-1956. University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/1469/show/1468

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Facts Forum, Facts Forum News, Vol.5, No. 8, August 1956 - File 069, 1956-08, Facts Forum News, 1955-1956, University of Houston Libraries, accessed June 4, 2020, https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/1469/show/1468.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

URL
Embed Image
Compound Item Description
Title Facts Forum News, Vol.5, No. 8, August 1956
Series Title Facts Forum News
Creator
  • Facts Forum
Publisher Facts Forum
Date August 1956
Language eng
Subject
  • Anti-communist movements
  • Conservatism
  • Politics and government
  • Hunt, H. L.
Place
  • Dallas, Texas
Genre
  • journals (periodicals)
Type
  • Text
Identifier AP2.F146 v. 5 1956; OCLC: 1352973
Collection
  • University of Houston Libraries
  • Facts Forum News
Rights No Copyright - United States: This item is in the public domain in the United States and may be used freely in the United States. The item may not be in the public domain under the copyright laws of other countries.
Item Description
Title File 069
Transcript Facts lered the JaL 1 8 '56 • Should it Expand • or Expire? Do we need ELECTORAL REFORM? y Ill Editor's Mail Ba~ket FORTY-EIGHT GUARDS Thanks for the article on interposition. Excellent! States' rights has indeed become more than a regional problem. lnciclentally, Russi<t is puzzled and stymied as to how to take O\'('r such a country as the Unikel Stat<•s. Tlwy couldn't just take the centr;.11 government and go,·ernmcntal "head" and thus get all, because the states arc in the way. Let's guard the deterrent - states' rights! HOME-ADE L. v. CLEVELAND The Highway \lagazine Henniker, '\cw llampshire You would be doing a great service to Americans if you would print a copy of the enclosed petition, which is being circulated locally. It is to be hoped that from the reading of this pc•tition others will be impelled to seek their (·ongrC>ssmen's willingness to further new Chil Defense legislation. This petition is based on testimonies offered heforc the Senate• Subcommittee of the GovernmC'nt Opt'rations Comrnittcc, headed ably by the 1 lonornble Chet Iloli­fielcl. \\'e. the under,il{nC'd, do not f)('lil've that Chil D<'f<•me i'i a pun•ly local i'\'it1C'. \\·e ht·li('\(' that an attack on nn American city \\Ould h<' nn att.1t:k on th<' Unit<'d StatC's, and that Ch ii Ddt·no;(• 'ihould ha\"(~ an C'qual standinc: "ith thl' army, navy, air force, m.1rint"~. and coast 'Nard. So, W\' hc·n·h~· pNition for frclcral funclo; for Chil D<·fomt', to ht• allocatc·cl proportionat{'ly accorclln~ to tar~C't ilT<'il population, and, that o;uch IC'~hl.1tion he· Jl.l'i'iNI a'i c;hall prO\ idC' for thC' r{'oomnwncl.ttiom made for c;un ival before the GO\,·rnnwnt Op<•rationo; CommittC'e's hear­in~ s on Ch ii D<'fC'nc;e. £, "'-'" \!. s" '"T 119 Eustis Street Roxbury 19, ~lassachusctts FAN (applauds) FARE I hC'li<·,·c that tlw C'Ondt'nsc·d article of CC'C'il Palrn!'r's grt'at book, The British Socialist Ill-Farr Stair, is on<' of the most important !'\W puhlislwd in this nation. I C'an only hop<• that it has tlw wid<-st circula­tion. It should b" n·ad by ""'TY legislator in \\'ashington and """'Y l.ibor leader as well. Congratuhttions to you for your foresight in cl1oosing this subje"t for publication. ADOl.PllE \ft. 'JOU 722 "\orth B!'clford Ori,·c ll<"<'rly 11 ills, California DISPLACED PERSONS I ha\·c lwcn rcadin.{{ \vith llltl'f<""t your ~1rtic:lcs on foreign affairs, and would like to call att<'ntion to "hat is happ!'ning at our ft.d - th!' plight of th<' Anwrican citiz<'n who, through mis;1dH:nturc or <·onsoliclation of ('Olllp.lni('s, is foru·d to look for another position, and is fifty years of age or more. Th!'sc n1C'n and women arc quite often the heads of families, arc buying a home, or arc preparing children for college, and quite often h~l\'C' small resources at their command. The bitterness arous<'d by the rcfus,11 of corporations to employ these middle-aged can only be imagin<'d. R. c. P11ELPS 1707 Church Stred CalvC'slon, Texas A TOM BOMB YEAR 11 As a retir<'cl science teacher of twenty­fi\ ·c years t'\pcrienCl', I was interested in ~Ir. Sehlic:lwnmaicr's letter, in your issue of .\lay, HJ.56 [a Hcadc•rs Report item which told of Classrooms, Inc., a citizens' fund­raisin, tt proj<'Cl to soln• the classroom short­age in Orlando, Florida]. It is fin<• that an appeal could be made to Ch1ssrooms, Inc. But in Atom Bomh Year l l, when we are falling lwhind Russia in our output of sd<•ntists and technicians, there also should I><' Laboratories, Inc., Drawing Boom.Ii, Inc., Observatories, Inc., and Green­houses, Inc. HAPPY BIRTHDAY! R. E . Dow"'" Box 357 Blacksburg, Virginia Th" group [ p<ctun·cl a hon·] is c<'i<'hrating an oldstC'r's birthday. [I lonoree '"" \lrs. John lk<wcl1ct Brin<', 'l 1, shown at far right.] lnstC'ad of tll<' birthday cak<', Farts Forum rnagaz11ws Wt'r<' pa<.is('d around - discussion and spirits ros<· high. \ good time \vas held b} all. 011<' !(ll<''l said, "I low wdl we C'm­plO)' l'd our afll·rnoon." 1k"il wish('s for tlw ('Ontinucd Sll('('t'S'i of Fact.\ Forum Snc~. which has grown like a giant from the '('ry first little pamphlet. \Ins. }011' Avc.us1 <'E D \LY 10 LarC'h Hoad C.unbridg1', \ l<is,adH1'<·tts The fo llowing lette rs ore only o few of mo•r we hove rece ived which reveal that the fu ror about mode rn a rt still persists as analyzed in two a rticles publ ished in Facts Forum News. !"Art for Whose Sake," by Esther Jul ia Pell· Fe b., 1956, issue; ond "Mode rn Art ond Fr•,. dom," by Rene d' Hornoncourt, J une, 1956, issue VS. ON MODERN ART R<•: d'J l,trnoncourt versus Pcls- "Art for Whose Sake?" \ lost artists and educators agree that th'i art of a p<'riod reflects the thi<lking no< cnltun• of the period. During th<' Century of Progress the Ari lnstit11t<' of Chicago had on displ;1)' th works of conh'mporary artists from all cotlfl' tric•s. After finishing a tour of tlw gallcri< · I ask<'cl myself what one word would ht'· '"'"' <') what [ had just looked upon •"1 clecicl<'cl on "confusion." Two months l,ttt J heard a prominent American l<'durcr "· that lw had b<'<'n asking the wis<' and l~ J,.arn<'cl up and clown the land what o; word would b<'sl e\[>r<'SS th" stat<' of l country an.~I of t!1c .~vorld, and they .. agre<'d on confusion. ~ l ocl"rn art may he the e>pressioo ' I individua lism, h11t modem art and con111111 \ nism han· S<'V('ntl things in common - thti ar<' both the '''pression of sadistic, pcr"'·rt< I distorted, or confus<'d thinkio~· LnLA C. \\'11n ...:£\. 9:30 Snnnysid<' A ,.,.n• Chicago, Illinois There has always b""" cn<d<' and clepran•d art, along" '' 1 those [e\amples of art] susl·'~ in~ truth, morality, and be.ill The question of thes<' times st·t:ll to b<', "\\'hy is it !'hos<'n to 11; bdor<' the public for ,no~!." inspiration and toward what. Iii" Probably it is lik<' modern I era tu re; the mon<"y go<·s for t 1 ' (Co11ti1wcd 011 l'aμ,c ,>- IN \',\TC S1101.:L Do Dt S1 s, Do W SPEAK! p, Fon1- (I J>l\L S, In T;.l\ IFF s C< Tiuu.1 Se Se Vi Conde1· JlooK F l'o Sln 1V ... ,. 0 Tt \\'l\\ 1 E\n P J>oLL Q l'oLL J] Stoc \'I Pl a few of monY that the furor is onolyzed in Forum Ne~s. her Julio Peli. Art and Fre•· e, 1956, issue. els - "Art for agree th;1t thd thinking nn !(r<'SS the \ rt displa) th• :rom all cm111• the ~allerit '. cl would hr'· ed upon ,ui months I.ittr ,_ )('c:turer ~.t' wise ;.rnd ti nd wh11t 0~ state of t and the)' • • 0 expression I and con111l11 )!1ll1100 _ th~ tic pcr,·rrtl cd' thinl..in~· \\111 1T'£\. ysiclc ,\,T111 Illinois s been crtl_(l along'. ,,·it art] s11~.t.l11 . and hc.1111" •<'times srl'11 .'hOS('ll tO 11 for n1oclrl ·;J'' ml what. hi (' moclcrn 1 h g'O('S for I mi 11ap.l ;,. I Volume 5 Number 8 August, 1956 E mRARY HOWA ~ cou.nv JU'.'.IOR COLLEGE IN TH IS I S S U E_ ____ ..m...G. .. .. S.. P. R.. .IN.. .G.,_I_Fx.. A.. s _ '\ATO: S110lU> h E\.P ''o 011 Exrin1·? slIOl'LI) Tm. . s. hnncn.\TIO'< POLICY BE CnA'<CEo? Do DLFL ,s»s '\LED :-1L'<D1-.;c? Sen.1tor George A. Smathers Senator George H. Bender Do \VE NLEo ELL:rro11u. RLF01n1? SPE.\KI'<C OF L.\BOll ... . Political nion Spending: Sen. Richard L. cubcrgcr Hep. Edg.tr Hiestand Anti-Trust La\\S: Hep. Emanuel Celkr F'orn-Sr \II P1mc:n \MS Hep. Edgar Ilicst.rnd I' (Dt'scription of Facts Forum's \\'eckly T\' and Radio Sho"s) nE:ss, PnO\!OTIO,, '"o Pnop \ C\,D.\ in tlw U. S. Information Agency lntervit'\\ of Eugene Castle 1',.nnTs on Fm.E Tn.\DE? Sen. \\'illiam E. Jenner Cong. Hichard E. Lankford 1'1Iru1 L1TT1.L \\'onos To Our Constitution Sen. EH•r('(l \I . Dirksen . Sen. Thomas C. Hennings Vigil,rnt \Vomen Oppose Brick<'r-Dirksen Amendment Condensation of \\'onLD PE.\CE nY Cov1 ',,,., Fra11kli11 L. Maier lloo1;. Hn 11·\\·s . 'l'o St nscn1111.. . . . , tv "'D H \1)1() S< llLDl'LES O TL\T Jh LLS . • . \\• E 1''\l'G Lr;rn ns ro Till< EmTons I' At\:s Pnrz1·s ... Bo.' s and Girls I' Ott Qt 1:s110" "D Pou. Qm:s1ro' \\'1,,LHS OLL Jh:'>l LTS 1'011 )t''E . . · · Stoc" nm Tm. \lovrn 2 10 16 17 18 29 30 31 62 32 34 37 38 41 42 42 43 .53 ,55 ;)6 60 60 63 61 61 61 Photo Cu·dib Pa!!t' 29, St•n. Hil:hard I .. 't·uht·rJ.!t•r and H<•p Emanul'l Cdln. ""id1· "'mid Poto"; p.tJ.(t's .12 ;\nd :l:l, lh-ni Photo\ 1·xd11'iiH of S<•n , Gt•org<• A. Snrntlwr.:, \\"idt• "'orld; Bn1t"t' .\l g1•r. <.'IUITh'\y o l tlll' lh·puhlk.m 1 lqtrs. of D<tll;\s; pagt• 1:1, St•n. Thomas C. l knnini.:s, \\'idl' \\'orld Photo. 17j~l-"J··1c1 \l. Pl BLIC \TIO '\' of Fi1_cts Forum. Inc., ~) J.ttk.-.011 ~trnt, 1);1ll,1~ 1, 'In.ls. Puh!hlll'd 1ll(j1lhh 111 tlu 111krt·..,h of l'ac:l\ Forum p.~rllup.111ts ~'<: t>llu·r c:om·~·nwd \\_1th dis1wllinl.! puhhc .1p.tthy. 1 :ohd-d.1h m.uli11J.! prt\ ill·ges authorut•d at J).111.\\, · Prinkd in .S.A. Pr,no.\HI) 01 DIHJ·:CTORS_:, HohN~ II. ])(•dman, ~- 11.1~ 11t; John L. l).1le, \ 1ce-Pn·.,1cknt; \\"arn·n \1 C.t1,h<"rt, Jr., St·crt·tary; Jo<' '\,1,h, Tn·1hurn; ~- c·;} t·tt L.unlwrth, ~lrs. Sue ~kCrary, Hobert nia~l)\'JSOHY 00 \HD :. \fajor n. A. Ha.nh·y. Chair­P, ~/Dr. \ 1thur \. Smith, Lloyd E. Sk111~1t·r. J),l\id \fri tJ1c:klc·r, II.ml· E. HoJ.,!it•r. \\"illiam '· UJ,rntnn, \'till I. .\. Hmwl. Jr ., \t rs. \Valla<·<• _S,l\ al.!<'. \\.'. G. .\t1,/11<•r, _Do.1k \\"alhr, E. E. Mc0111llt·n, Gm t•rnor C ti~ Shl\l'r"I, G1·111•r;d AllH•rt C. \\'t•drnH'\t•r, \\a;1~~.I Holwrt L. \\'ood, ll anford \k,ickr, john l~·1CTs FOHU\I is a nationwide pul_1lic <·duci_1- i 11; or~.1.11u.1tion <h·d1t·.tkd to .iromllll.! puhht' l,qdit 1 1 111 1m1>e~rt.rnt t·tirn•nt t·H·nh ,u1d 'itimul.1t111~ ~11c;,~ u.11 1urt1c:1p.1tiun in tlw ~h.tprn~ of puhhc t',.<i-s Fonu~c Xuvs, August, 19.56 F\CI"S FOHU\1 is nonprofit and nonp;trli,,m, supporlinJ.! no politic.ti <.-.tn<l id.tt<• or p.trty. l·.1cts Forum's octh itit·s are d{·~ii.:ne<l to 1>n·st·nt 1101 ju\t ont• 'il·w of. a controH·r.i.11 i'i~ut•, hut op1x•,init \H'\\S, lwlit·\m~ th.\t it is tlw ru:ht ,llld tht· ohli­"' llion of tlw Amrric;.m peoplt• tht•mst•IH·s to k;.1n1 .111 tht• facts and <."Om<' to tht'ir own <..-ondusions. SIG,·1';1) AHTJCLES app<'aring in F \CTS FOHU\I 'E\\'S do not nl'ct·ss<Uily rqm::.st·nt the opinion of tlw {'dilors. \l .\:\USCHIPTS submitted to FACTS FOHU\f 'l•;\\"S should bt• nccomp;.rn it•d h~· sl.1mp<•d, st•lf­a_ ddr_1·\S<'d t'll\l'lopes. Puhl~'ihl•T HS\llllH'S _no n·,po11- s1hilitr for rdurn of unsoh <.·1t('() manu'icripts. SUBSCHIPT IO'\ R\TES in tlw U.S. and U.S . pm't''i\ions, $'1 1wr }"<'ilT, $.5 for two y<'ars, 1111cl $7 for :l }t'ars .. \11 o th t'r countrit•s, S I P<.'T }"t'ar. To 'it1hs1·rilh'. \t·t• pa.i.:t• 5.3. ('JI \'(;E OF ADDHESS: S<·nd old addrt•'is ( t•x.1cll>' ;IS imprinh•d on nm iii TH! lnhd of your c·op~ of tht• mai.tovin<') and 1ww addrt"Ss to FACTS FOHU\I 'l•:\\'S, Dt·parlmt·nt CA, D.tllao; 1, 'lcx;.\s. P1t .. 1-.c..• allow three wet·ks for chans,::eo,cr. Don'tMiss •.• IN THE NeKff6911e OF Facfg Fotum Newg Selections from The Great Pretense A Symposium on Anti-Stalinism and the 20th Congress of the Soviet Communist Party Prepared and released by the Committee on Un-American Activities A trul) '\aluable a~sortment of articles contributed by ~pedali .... t"' ~ell acquainted ~ith the cunningnc .... s of the So,ict Union. Jn the fore~o rcl , R<"p. Francis E. "''alters ( D-Pa. ), eh.airman of the eommiltee, ~arn .. , H ••• It j.., e,j_ dc•nt, eH'n thi!<l earl) , that , irrt"'spc•elh<' of the c·uu .. <' .... ~hid1 ma, haH" produccd anti-Stalini .. m, it is but a political artifice, fraudul<'nl and n1or(' dan~er- 01..., than an) oth<'r produced by the Kre mlin thu..; far. " Supreme Court Under Fire A great nrnn) per~on~ rnaintain that th e nin e uprernc Court ju..,tiec~, firmlJ e ntre n ched and St"eurc frorn political ill ~ind..,, are suh.,.tituting Jl...,~ - e holog~ for la~ .and S{)(' iolo~) for the C:ort...titution. Jrute deft'nd<'rS of !'!late ... ' right~ eharge 1hat rt't"ent Suprt•m e Court t.h.•(•i.,.ion~ refleet a judicial jour­n(''\ to the left of eentt'I". Rt'ad an nn~1I~ .. j..., of the .. e charge~ in the tH''-l j .. ...,uc of thi ~ nrngazine. A condensation of Bella V. Dodd's book, School of Darkness A' a ) oting id<·a)i,t, Bella V. Do<ld, eoll<"ge teaC'hcr and oHlornt") in .:\c~ \or"- Ci 1~ , r('<'<'hc·d intcn .. iH· train in~ from , anti ~ork<'d ~ith tirel <' .. ..., dc,o­tion for the Communi .. 1 Parh. lier mature in .... ight and legall) · t~ain cd mind e nahl<'d her to an.ah Z<' the com­muni" itic promi .. p"' of ~orl~I ht•tterment ~hieh had rni ·dcO llt'r. Shf' ~ritt•..., \hid· I) of her di .... illu .... io11111ent, of 1hc eor­ru1llne .... ~hi e h l!'thC' ~a " , of her break ~ith 1hc Part), and of th(• ine'\itahl<' pcr .. (•eution ~hich bef,?all imm<'diatel) and con1inuc!"I today . ' ht' tt'IJ.., ho" the r('eognition of the USSR b, our go'­ernment in 1932 ga\c imJl<'tU 'l to Coru­muni ... t e.xpan .. ion in Am<'ri•·n. Don't read this hook, if )OU 1>rcfcr to he .sere nt' ratllt'r than indilt'nunt, or if Jou prefer the i~noranec of hli ~s to kno" ing the bitter truth . Page 1 fs ing \ Ill N * UNITED STATES *CANADA *FRANCE *BELGIUM * GREAT BRITAIN *ITALY * LUXEMBOURG * THE NETHERLANDS *NORWAY *DENMARK *ICELAND *PORTUGAL *GREECE *TURKEY * FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF WEST GERMANY Should It Expand or Expire? THE statement made recently by Secretary of State John Foster Dulles that the time has come for NATO to advance from its initial stage into the "totality of its meaning" did not come as a surprise to those who have watched the career of • ·ATO during the past seven years - from whichever side of the fence. Yet this announcement has set in motion such a volume of comment, speeches, interviews, and analyses as to goad every thinking American into consid­ering very seriously the purposes and destiny of the 'orth Atlantic Treaty Ore;anization. With relatively minor exceptions, our mutual security program in Europe, alone; with fourteen other na­tions who signed the '\orth Atlantic Treaty, has been entrusted to the or­ganization implemented to carry out the provisions of that treaty- NATO. '\ow, with efforts being made to broaden its primary emphasis of main­taining a military defense against a common aggressor to include activity in economic and political areas, many people arc earnestly wondering about both the "mutual" and "security" phases of the program. Has _·'\TO been successful? Arc our defenses in the .\tlantic area adequate Page 2 to meet major aggression? Has the "new face" of the Russian collective leadership actually reduced interna­tional tension, and thereby reduced the need for a strong security program in Europe? Is it fair and necessary for the United States to pour such tremen­dous amounts of money and man­power - many times more than all the other A TO nations put together - into such a cooperative enterprise? Does the proposed expansion program mean world government, or a prelude to it? These are some of the vital ques­tions people are asking. Important de­cisions arc in the making, to be an­nounced in December of this year. .\mcrican citizens need to understand the issue and have a voice in the making of these decisions. l\ATO has not arisen from a single foundation, but rather from three: the awareness of a common heritage, the presence of a common danger, and a common determination to resist it. -o one can deny the multiplicity of spiritual, cultural, and personal tics that link the North Atlantic peoples. According to the 1950 census, there were more than 3.'3 million people liv­ing in the United States who either were born abroad or had parents horn abroad. Of this number, nearly half came from the fourteen other ATO countries. Because of blood tics, "'" have necessarily shared our cultt1rr:· traditions, educational concepts, rrh· gions, and basic political principle>· even though each nation has mai~­tained its own identity. The Atlantic community apparently was a livin~ reality long before a treaty stated it to be so. In the period following World W~r II the Soviet rulers made clear thr1r determination not only to hold fast to their Eurasian conquests and to ev ploit tl1eir resources and peoples for the aggrandizement of Soviet pow~r. but they made equally clear their 111; tention to continue the expansion ° Communist power into other areas. t Faced by tl1c grave peril of a grr•1 and menacing threat - the Russi•11; octopus - ten strategically loc•1tt" European nations, togctl1cr with the United States and Canada, signed · mutual security pact in 1949 known~· the North Atlantic Treaty. Those tr;' European nations are France, J3r gium, Britain, Italy, Luxembourg, tht' etherlands, Norway, Denmark, Jct land, Portugal. Later two more 11• 1· "t< tions, Greece and Turkey, and q1•1 1 recently tl1e Federal Republic of \\'l'' Germany, signed the treaty. Thl' c1o0r FACTS Fonu\1 1\'nvs, Au~11sl, 19.56 is still \tlanti tht> all 1ne11ts. In ti !antic ' are: "t1 lllon h, ll<•oplei de111ocr n1]<' of ~lelJ he to uni clefcns Peace 1 The IVith th 'n11; as a11thori libiJitv Ccrni~g Provisic l1hich l "'hc·n tl foreign •.ttc•ncJc s1on" at IVith .. I each ' •tt(•ncJa bi_ Scvc•c "l'oine C:o1111cil J:\ci-s I UBLIC OF .NY er ATO I tics, we · cultures. ·cpts, rcli· principles. fias maiJl· e Atlantic 1 a )ivin~ tatcd it to /orld \VM ~!car their old fast to nd to e\· eoplcs for ict power· r their iiY )ansion of ~r areas. of a grr•1t e Russ1'•111 y locate'1 · with tJir signed~ i known~, Those t<'11 mcc, 13rl· bourg, thl mark, Jcl more ri•1 • and quit< ic of \\'r>t The do<' is still open to other nations in the \tlantic community who desire to join th<' alliance and meet the require- 1nents. I· I~ the preamble to the 'orth \t­antic Treaty, till' avowed objecth cs are: "to safeguard the freedom , com­lllon lwritagt', and civilization of their ~oplcs, founded on till' principlt•s of c ernocracv, individual libcrtv, and the 1111<' of la;v"; "to promote st<;hilitv and ~·e]] !wing in the North Atlantic ;irea": to unite their efforts for collective defense and for the preservation of Peace and security." The parent organization is .\TO IVith the "forth Atlantic Council act: '0 ~ as the top body - the political a_11thoritv - charcred with the rcs1Jon- S1b·1· ' M . 1 ity of considering all matters con- ~etning the implementation of the 1~tt·isions of the Treaty. The Council, IV Heh formerly met only periodicall~ . f h<'n the several national ministers of a~teign affairs, defense, and finance S . tPnded, is now in "1Jcrmanent ses- 1110:· n " at ATO headquarters in Paris, e·'th "perm< nent representatives," .~ch with the rank of ambassador, in tc·ndancc. h .se,·<'ral times a year these sessions C:ccome ministerial meetings of the Otincil, b} reason of the attendance J:',..,_ ·· •S Fom·,r '\'t:\\'S, A11g11st, 19.'56 Upper picture: Fourteen NA TO notions meet in the Polois de Choillot in Paris for a session of the North Atlantic Ministerial Council. NATO now includes a fifteenth nation, the newly cre­ated Federol Republic of West Germany. Inset ( I. to r. l: Foreign Ministers Gaetano Martino cif Italy, Lester 8. Pearson of Canada, and Halvard M. Lange of Norwoy, sometimes referred to as the "three wise men,'' hove been appointed to explore ways and means of expanding the inter­ests ond activities of NATO. of the ministers mentioned. The most recent of these was held in Paris last \lay 4-5. Jt was following this last Paris conference that Secrctarv Dulles announced that a three-man commit­tee had hccn appointed to study and ,,·ork out a plan for expanding I\ TO. The Council is scn·cd bv an inter­national staff, headed bv ;{ sccretarv­!:(<" ncral, Lord Ismav of Britain, ai~d C<'rtain committees. The militarv com­m and under ATO is sjJ \PE (Supreme Headquarters, Allied Pow­ers, Europe), commanck•d hy Ameri­can General Alfred ~f. Gruenthcr. Sdwdulcd to replace General Grucn­tlwr, who retires at the year's pnd, is another American general, Lauris '\ors tad. Since the end of 'Vorlcl \Var II there seems to he littlP doubt in the minds of most Europeans that Ameri-can aid, cooperation, and support arc needed for adequate defense of Europe. But among Americans the need for Europe's cooperation and support is not so generally accepted. Some people deplore any tics which would automaticallv involve us in an armed dispute bch,;cen a single Euro­pean nation and an aggressor, and point out that our participation could possibly turn a minor disagreement betwpen two nations into a world con­flict. They maintain that building up our own defenses is far more impor­tant and that anything we contribute to collective securitv thcrehv actuallv weakens our own d~fcnsc. . . On the other hand, supporters of :\'.\TO sav that the verv fact an ag­gressor would havt> to fight the :\'ATO counh·ics all at the same time, is the sh·on!:(est dctcncnt against such skir­mishes. E,·cn minor skirmishes could result in the seizure of strategic bases, vanta!:(c points, or natural resources hy Soviet powers for future major blows. The record shows that not one armed conflict has de\ eloped in any of the ?\',\TO countries since the signing of the l\'orth Atlantic Trcatv. In C\amining tlw strat~·gic value of · the combination of N.\ TO resources primarily from the standpoint of Page 3 fs ing \ Ill WJUf WORI I) P!IO' 0 U. S. Air Force General Louris Norstad, air dep­uty to General Gruenther since 1953, will become Supreme Allied Commander in NATO when the latter relinquishes his post. America's own national self-interest, Robert \Iurphy, Deputy Under Secre­tary of State, observes: Stripped to its essence, the justification for C\ATO is a simple ewrcisc in clenicn­tary arithnwtic. '°orth Amerk-41 and free Europe combined now produce about 70 per cent of the world's manufactured goods, while the entire Soviet bloc, includ­ing China, produces only about 20 per cent. On the other hand, Soviet control of the territory and resources of \\ cstcrn Europe would give the So' id bloc 50 per cent of the total world's industrial pro­duction, as against :--;orth America's 40 per cent. The Alhntic nations, so long as they arc joined together, are in a position to maintain ckcisiYc industri;1l sup{·riority over the So,iel bloc for an indefinite period of years. Soviet domination of \\'estcrn Europe would rapidly shift the industri,1! balance to the Communist side. One of our gn·at deficiencies in the ~lobal stn1gglc \vith communism is man­power. The population of the Communist bloc outnumbers the American popula­tion by a margin of 5 to 1. But with free Europe and C\orth America joined to­gcthn, this margin is reduced to approxi­mately 2 to 1.1 Is this enough margin? Do we ha,·c a reasonable assurance of protection for the N'ATO area? General Gruen­ther, in a recent review of the situa­tion before a San Francisco audience, said, "I\o, we cannot give that assur­ance yet." He indicated, however, that if and when the Germans contribute some 12 divisions, 1,300 tactical air­craft, and a relatively small naval organization for use in the Baltic - all probably to be available within three \furphy, "The Foundations for the ".':orth At­lantic Trt•.\t~ On::.uu .... lti( n." Tlir Department of St.1te Bulll'tin, \pTil 16, 19.36, p. 616. Page 4 WJl)t; WOlll.ll l'JIO;I 0 General Alfred M. Gruenther, respected for his administrative ability and diplomacy as well as for his military leadership, will retire as com­mander of SHAPE, probably toward the close of this year. years - we shall he in a very good position. EH'n though the military \\'eight of Hussia is now heavier than that of the combined 'ATO countries, the SHAPE commander expressed his belief that our present strength and our capacity to retaliate is sufficient to assure us that a third world war is not imminent. Critics point out certain military weaknesses and difficulties in ATO and charge that it is "falling apart at the scams." High on the list of trouhll's is that sentiment is growing in \Vest Gt'rmany for a regular army plus a national militia instead of a demo­cratic draft army. If these pressures sho11ld prcrnil, the urgently needed Gt'rman contribution would dwindle. i\nother sign of strain is the with­drawal of many of France's troops from ATO positions to join other French troops battling the nationalist rebels in Algeria. The French ATO contribution now amounts to little more than land for bases and depots. Hi\'al claims in Cyprus by ATO members Greece and Turkey have caused such bitterness and strife that there is a possibility Greece might leave the alliance altogPthcr if Britain refuses to comply with Cypriot de­mands for unity with Greece. Such a \\'ithdrawal by Greece would definitc­lv weaken defrnsc of the vital eastern l;oundarv of the Atlantic: alliance. II ere in the U nitccl States drastic cuts have been made in President Eisenhower's requests for foreign aid, which include the amount he and KATO advisors consider minimuJll support of r\ATO. Also, there are rumblings of discontent among some of the smaller nations about the heav) financial burdens they bear under terms of the treaty. They were more than willing to bear these burdens when fearful of imminent attack, but not so willing when international ten· sions apparently arc lessened with the new change of Soviet tactics. To these discouraging clement> General Gruenther replies that '.\TO is, indeed, having its difficulties, but i• not falling apart at the seams. ProgreS' is being made in spite of the trouble<· One of the main evidences of this i< the Hussian estimate of the impor· tancc of NATO, given in a series of talks during the recent Twentieth Party Congress. There were 12 rnaio speakers at this Congress, includin~ Party chief Khrushchev, and 11 of these speeches cited as the first ohjct• tive of Soviet foreign policy the dis­memberment of AT0.2 \Vorking toward this encl, the }lus· sians strive unceasingly to stir up old rivalries and to emphasize all differ· cnccs and tensions between the mctlf her nations. They make the most o such sore spots as the Arab-Isr<ll'h conflict, the Cyprus riots, French­Algerian problems, and espech1ll~ have they thrown their weight agai11' 1 German reunification efforts. Most recently, Russia has a11· nounccd that the Bed army is to h<' reduced by 1,200,000 men, and h·" adopted a "new look" of rcasonahlt" ncss and desire for peaee. Wh.e~ NA TO nations continue to look wit suspicion and distrust on such parade-ground move, the So\'icts rn•1i full use of their reticence in proP'1 gandizing neutral nations. Considering more specifically pr(Y ksts against the financial outlay f~I the upkeep of the organization, it ~ pointed out that during its scven-yc.t history ATO has cost its menil>< nations $312 billion. Of this staggcri~;, sum, the nited States has contr1 utcd $252 billion, or more than 80 !~. cent of the total spent by all the t' countries. In other words, our N :\ 'f spending has equalled 90 per cent' our present official national debt. Co~ ceivahly, if we had managed to csr·111 these multi-billion-dollar ATO o~ lays, our national debt might no\\' $28 billion instead of $280 billion. 11 Also, there has been consider•1 1 . confusion, misunderstanding, or pl<•' ~ ·'Cnlt'nthn, "Gt•m·r.ll Gru<·nther Telb \\l\;1t :-" \i;l'~ Up To "ow," l S .\·t·u.:1 & \\oriel Jh/W June 8, !9.56, p. 104. FAC-IS Fom \I "\Fws, August, 19' lack of securit• threat~ and co Hrateg interesl secure Seen the nt•c ing sta and ed sary no are off< .\fan· to this. too mu return· the prl1 there \I and co CXistinB tions 0 Pean E functio Anot is the lllodcm fenses. were more e burdens ittack, but 1tional trn· :d with the s. clrmcnt' hat N\T0 !tics, but i' is. Progrc' 1e trouble<. ; of this i> tl1e impor· a series of Twentieth re 12 n1aiP includin~ 'and 11 of first objcC­cy the dis· ·1 the Jlt1<· . s,tir up old ~ all differ· ~ the mcn1i he most 0 \rab-Isnll'h ·s French 'cspeciall1 . I ight agan1' ts. a has a11 ny is to I n, and h•1 ' rcason;1\JI< [ICC. \\'hf' ) look "·itl m such ovicts m•1k , in prop.i· ifically pr"' outlay f~f zat1. on, it[r' ; scvcn-Y'"1 its mcmlil" s sta"geri11 ms c"o· ntr1·J r than 80 !~, r all the '11 our A per cent l debt. Co eel to esc•1l ATO 011 ght no'" 1' 1 billion. ~onsiclcn1b1 ng, or ph•' lack of <lcceptancc of the President's proposal for funds for long-range non­military '\ATO projects covering a Period of up to ten years. These ex­penditures would be related to our security by helping areas of the world threatened by Communist subversion and containing people, resources, and strategic locations which, in our own interests as well as theirs, should be secure from hostile alien domination. Secretary Dulles emphasizes that the n(•cd for this type of aid - in rais­ing tandards of living, public health, and education - is especially neces­sary now, since the Soviets themselves arc offering development aid. Many Americans object vehemently to this type of foreign aid, saying that too much is paid out for too little in tetum; others, who might approve of ~e principle of foreign aid, argue that t ere would he too much overlapping and competition between NATO and e.xisting agencies like the United a­tions or the Organization for Euro­fean Economic Cooperation, already Unctioning in that field. . Another controversial financial itrm 15 the maintenance and progressive ~odcmization of ATO's military dc­enses. \Vcapons and equipment wear out or become obsolete, and military plans require constant redsion. The furious advances of modern science and technology make it hard to keep equipment up to date. \Vhile some think atomic warfare has outmoded the type of resistance that ATO is prepared to give in case of an all-out attack, others think that keeping the best of tactical weapons is still absol­utely necessary, and is a means of <'qualizing the differences in our man­power as against Russian manpower. C. Burke Elbrick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Af­fairs, indicates that thr value to the Europeans, both in military and psy­chological tem1s, of acquiring guided missilrs and more advanced types of aircraft and electronic cquipmrnt can­not be overestimated. Ile furthermore states: It is lo our own benefit that we make tlH'S(' rnorc modern weapons a\'ailahlc as a m<"ans of insuring that Am<'rican troops in Europe will ha"'• at their side wcll­equipped forc.'<'S equally ahh.• to mount an <•ff('(:ti,·c d,.f<•nsc . Thcr<• is no (JU<'Stion bnt that t11" Euro­peans have become incn.•·tsingly ('OllC<'rned about tlw rapid chang<'s in tlw t<'chnology of mod<'rn warfare and tlwir limit<'d abil­ity to k<'<'P pace with tlw ll<'Wl'r d"'"lop­nwnts. Apart from the British .rncl, to a lesser extent, the FrPnch, our Europe.in allit.·s do not ha\·c the resoun:t·s Ill'l'l"SS~ln to devote to the large-scale r<'S('.trd1 an;! dcvdopm('nt of nt.·w weapons. Conse­quently most European countri('S an• look­ing primarily to the Unit<•d States to help thl'm kc<'P pace with thl' growing capabil­ities of the Sovi<•t bloc forces. By sharing the newer weapons as they are den•lop('d and produced, we can mah• it possible for lh<'m to partieipal<' more <'ffl'cti"'•ly in the defense of \\'<•stern Europ<' and thus to strengthen the deterrent power of the alli­ancc. 3 In support of the total financial pro­gram of NATO, and of thr huge amounts of moncv contributed b\' the United States, Se~retary ~lurphy .says, "I think it is time to lay at rrst the myth that the cost of th~ '.\'A TO pro­gram rests primarily upon the shoul­ders of the American taxpayer." He states that while our defense exprndi­tures arc much greater than those of other countries, our national income is nearly three times as great as that of all the other NATO nations combined. "Americans know," he continues, "that the United States has made \'erv large contributions to the cquipme1~t and training of the military forces of our European allies. But rclati,·cly few Elhrkk. "Tiu.• \futual St•curity Pro.i.:cram for Euro1w," T11c Dqmrtmnit of Stott Bulldin, .\pril 2:3, 19.56. t>· 677. fs ing :\mericans realize that these allies arc now spending six dollars from their own budget to match c\·cry dollar's worth of U. S. assistance thcv receive from us. All told, they arc con'tributing about $12 billion a year to the com­mon defense program." 1 Dollar costs in other countries arc not the same as in the United States, l'ithcr. For instance, some European soldiers arc paid only 12 cents a day. Added to their financial contribu­tions, the Europeans arc contributing industrial and economic resources, and hind for the bases and extensive radar network. Another word of explanation about the importance of NATO defenses is given by G(•ncral Gruenther. He says that one of the main reasons the Sodcts are against TATO is that the European NA TO countries furnish areas for bases. In the traditional pat­tern of strateg~, a nation that operates on interior lines has a great advantage. But in air war this isn't true. A nation operating on interior lines, with bases surrounding it, can he hit from 360 degrees. Hussia now is the interior nation, and we have an effective base system. General Grucnthcr continues by saying that people who want to "de­fend America with Americans onlv" do not take into consideration the. fact that these bases do not belong to ~\lurphy. op. cit., p. 6li. Americans, and that some svstcm of cooperation is absolute!} ncc~ssary." During the past year the free world has "itnessed what seems to he a drastic shift in Hussian policy. The demi-god Stalin, with all the brutality and evil which he represented, has been dethroned, and the new collcc­ti, ·c leadership is putting forth every effort to assurt• the \Vest that they are reasonable men - that we can do business with them. In foreign policy, instead of threatening violence they speak of peaceful coexistence and eco­nomic aid. They smile and go on good will tours instead of locking thcm­seh'cs up in the forbidding Kremlin. Thev are making a terrific bid for acc{:ptance in respectable \V cs tern circles. In domestic affairs the sway of the secret policc seems to have been some­what curtailed. Red leaders would have us believe there is greater toler­ance of independent thinking and that indi\iduals have a greater sense of freedom and security. Soviet doctrine and history are currently being rewrit­ten, literally as well as figuratively, for Hussian school children arc ex­cused from taking examinations in history; no one yet knows the "cor­rect'' answers! Co11ntrics living just over the border from the Red menace are even more aware of these changes than the rest Cnu·11tlwr 011. di. p. JO(i. of the world, and want desperately to believe that the "new look" is renl. What cffect is this having on 'ATO? Has the lessening of international ten· sion erased the need for such an elab· orate collective security system? Iceland, vital to TATO defenses be­cause of its strategic position as •' warning station far to the north and because of its important role in the sc3 lines of communication across the At· ]antic, finds some attraction in the idea of neutrality as being safe, plaus· ible, and considerably cheaper. It h~> never had soldicrs within its border> before, and now this little country of 125,000 people hear and read that tht' Soviets arc smiling. \Vhy, they ar'I asking, is it necessary to have all those soldiers in their country now? There is, of course, a very substantial ek mcnt in Iceland that feels, along with the other ATO nations, that ncutr<1l· ity in an interdependent free world.i; too delicate a situation to maint<ll11 and that a good look in pcrsprcti,·r would reveal the Russian smiles to b• a clever ruse to lull the free world iota relaxing its vigil. . A growing spirit of neutralism v evident to some extent also in 'or\\'d and D(•nmark, and perhaps jn some the oth r nations. There arc many people in tl~I United States, too, who bclieve th·\ Hussia docs not want war - not th·1 I she has swerved in the lrast From th An American Lie"· tenant Colonel (fotf ground) gives t hf'' rl class of officers ' North Atlanti~ tiO' Treaty Organ••• , nations instruct10 " the use of the 75 mm. and 57 "'"', recoilless rifles 0 Fort Benning, Ga· t The men reprcS''(o seven of the N.A countries. Co111rn but ti Would plans : T. Fl> cast 01 The (>Ositio art• inl Olunist is true is a g Conun hands Out th• and fr They : Albani. otht-rs P<>pula hatred RO\'('rn Th<• }(hn1sh grab 11 to quiet reason sian It·~ in\f>lvc.: t'Onq1u· hazard. \\:ar , 11 ~<·ntJ,. tki.1ns' do to ti F't1rtlw1 so.callc ing the Ordc·r tr spc•nclir ticularl· nations. to orga ~01·ernr A.111cri • its us{'f be cliss1 Pri111ari feel it , encc] t~ . In ap icy cha Voices t ~<'lit ar hat pol night, a ~ta.ntial 01ng a thc•ir 0 thc·ir 1., . 0 l11sio11 l'hc nc, ltiorc•o,·1 ~11se t te(' nat ll>ork oJ hacked perately to k" is real Jn ATO? 1tional ten· ~h an e)ab· ;tern? efenses bc­ition as •' north and c in the seJ oss the N ion in the ;afe, plaus· tper. It ha' its border. country of ad that the thev are • ~e all· thosr .ow? There tantial ele­along ,,~th 1at neutnil· ee world h ) maintain· perspceti1' :miles to ht' , world in10 mtralisrn i> 1in ron''ll: ; in sornc 0 I . t11e ? e Ill ii >elicvc th• - not th.11 1st frorn ti~ mericon Lie~· t Colonel I fort d) gives th1 o" of officers ' Atlanti~ tiO' y Organrt• \S instructioll 1e of the 75 and 57 '""'t less rifles 0 Jenning, Ga· 1 nen reprcs•ro of the N.A ries. Communist goal of world domination, hut that as a practical matter war would he e\trcmelv hazardous to her plans at this time. Commentator John T. Flynn observed in a lllutual Broad­cast on lllay 20, 1956: The Hussian lmders ha1c taken tll<' P<>sition that they want no more war and ar(• inl<.' rt'~l('d only in making: their Com­munist systl'm work. Now, I helic,·c that is tru<'. ] don't ml'an I bclic,·c comnumism is a good thiug, but I belic1<' that the Communist leaders haYe now got on their hands th(' t•normous problem of carrying: out th,:ir promis<•s to produce ahundanc:(' and frc<'dom for tll<'S<' hordl's of slan·s. Th<'y arc trying to make th<' CZ<·chs and Albanians and Poll's and lluugarians aud oth<·rs trust th<'m. Actually, th<'S<' 1arious P<>pulations hat<' tll<' Hussians, and th.it hatred is the !(real hazard for the Hussian govt•mment. Th<· big problem that confronts \Ir. l<hnishelwv and ~tr. Bulganin is not to grab mor(' lands and p<'oplt's hut to try to qui<'t thos<' tlwy alrcwly hav<'. For that '<'ason it is p<•rfretly obvious that th<' Hus­sian kadt•rs want no war. lf th(•y lweamc in,oln·d in a war with tlw W<•st, all th<'S<' "'""IUl'rc'CI 1wopll's would h<• a frightful hazard So tlw Russian leaders want no \\..ir not lwl'aust• tllC'v an• swt>d and ~''"ti<'. hut h"eauS<' they ar<' practical poli­h(' i,lns and are afraid of what w,\r would do to tlwrn.' F11rth<>rmorc, ,\Ir. Flnm accusC's the ~0-call<'d intC'rnatiom{lists of promot­ing the fC'ar of war with Russia in 0rd<'r to promote' the boom of fantastic 5P(•ncling on militarism, and more par­ticularh in order to convince N >\TO n~tions. that thcv arc now compt'llC'cl to organize mor~ solidly along world government lines. BC'licving this, many ~lllcricans feel that NATO has SC'rved ~ti 11sC'fulncss - that it should either ''<! cl1ssoh-cd or remain as it is now, ftiniarily a militaiy organization. Thry cc] it should ccrtainlv not ])(' hroacl­enc< J to t'ncompass other fields. . In appraising what the Russian pol­icy chatwC's mean SC'cretarv Dullt's ~·1 ces the~ opinion o' f the State. DPpart- 111\'llt and the President whl'n hC' warns th<tt policy can he changed again ovt'r­Otght, an~! that there has been no suh­~ ta_ntial proof that the Soviets are th01ng an) thing other than building up th (''.r own strength and furthC'ring . 11 t·ir own intcrC'sts by creating the ~i'tsion that they arc more reasonable. 111 1 (' ll<'ct•ssity for their new attitude, 4 °rt•on•r, has been brought about])('­f tisc the unitv and strength of the tc<' nations de;,,onstratecl hv the nct- h~~ k o f mutua 1 sccun' tv trea. tH· 'S, amI ~eked by our mobile ;triking power, 12~J.lhin, "fi1·hind tlw l lt•adlin<·<;," Hro.uk;\\t \f­h \f11t11.ll .. nro;1dc.1\lin"' Sy.,t1·m, \fay 20, Hl>O. ·.,,1 ••Iii· . "1 lw \lutu.11 St•cunty ProL!ram and thC' ~ ~11111 S~·t·mih," nw l)qwrt111(·11t of State IJullc­. l.ty 11, 1 <).)6, p. 789. F.._c,.s Fo11t·,1 '\'i;ws, August, 1956 Lord Ismay, Secre­tory- General of NATO, stonds before the official NATO flag ond emblem, which is white on o novy blue back­ground. He explains the symbolism of the flag as being "a four -pointed star representing the compass that keeps us on the right rood, the path of peace, and a circle repre­senting the unity thot binds together the fifteen countries of NATO. w1ru: WOlll.ll PHOTO have shown the Soviet rulers the futil­ity of their policies of violence.' lllr. Dulles points out that even though they have admitted some of the lit•s and false tcstimonv which marked political trials of tl;t' Stalin era, they have failed to repudiate "t\\'o of the most outrageous lies en·r per­petrated by any gO\ernment. and both perpl'trated by Stalin: the lie that South Korea was the aggressor in the Korean \l'ar, and the lie that the l nited Nations forces in that war used germ warfare against the Chinese Communists."8 Our Secretary of State has urged that if "·c want the Communists to continue dt•sisting from dolcncc, we had ))('ttcr continue doing the things which have led them to desist, for tlw Sovil'ts have not lost the capacity to he violent. Their old policies could quickly reappear if we faltered in the >Jolicics which have checked them. • The most significant thing about tlw Atlantic alliance, sav its advocatC's, is not so much what ·has happened as what has 1101 happened. Before NATO began, for instance, "'e were harassed hy a long series of crises in Europe, such as the Communist war in Greece', the' Berlin blockade, tlw Czechoslovak coup, military threats against '\'orwa~ and Turkcv, and so forth. On the otlwr hand, sin~e NATO came into being tht'rc have been no militarv hostilitiC's of am kind in the Europe~n arra and thl' Communists have gained no addi­tional territory. Illustrating this point Secretary ~lurphy remarked: Our currenl situation reminds me of a story J once heard about a highway that .O.l)ullt•s, "The> Tinw Has Com(' to F.,11.lnd ''\TO,'" U. S. l\"t·u;s & World Jteport. \l,1y ·l, 19)0, ll· 10 t. went through a mountain ,·ilbge. Then' \\as a H'ry high cliff at a sh;trp turn in thl' highway, and <Juih.• a m1mlwr of tran.•lcrs laik-d to rnak<• it. There was {'Onsi<kr;1hll' .lgitation for a projcl'l to build a ft.'JH..'<.' at this point, and this was t.·n·ntt1.tll) clonl'. After S<.'Y<.•ral }"<.•ars had gone h~. how­< ·n·r, a tran:ler happ<.·ned to hl' p~tssin.g thro11g-h the ,·illag<.' and noti<.·<'d that the fcnl'e had been n•moYcd. 1 ll' stopped to ask one of the nathTs ahout it 1md n·­cdn ·d a n•ry simple l'\planation. ''\\·c I-cpl tlw f<•nc<' tlwn· for ahout thn·<· 1 l'ilrs," th<' old fellow said, "hut nohod) fl'll off the cliff any more, so IH' took it d0\\"11.''9 \\'hat about disarmament? The an­nouncement that the So\'il't L'nion had reduced its armed forces In 1,200,000 ans\\'ercd a question that for mort' than a year has pcrplc\cd \\'ashington t''perts "ho study the statistics that come out of the So\ict l'nion. It seems these specialists had noticed an unc\­plaincd rise in the labor force, particu­larh in agriculture. of more' than a million people in the fall of 19.54. They now believe this increase came from the cut in the armed forces, proh­ahh- made a vcar and a half ago and just now an~ounccd because of the' propaganda rnlue. 10 lllany of these laborers an' belie' ed to he working in munitions plants, on atomic or hydro­gen bomb projects, or in other ways strengthening their military might. .\dditionallv, Secrctarv Dulles re­minded the ;, oriel that ·wt' had pro­posed at the recent London Disarma­ment Conference mutual manpowC'r reductions twice as large' under an inspection system, which the Russians rejected. \\'ithout some kind of an inspection system we lun·c no wa~ of knowing whether the Hussian figures on disarmament arc correct or not. '\lurph'. ''''-cit., p. 019. _ 1"'Hu.,\i.l," Jlummi LH·nt.t, Ju1w 2, 1 C) >fl, Jl. r> Page 7 fs ing 1tl \ HI . .\!so. the large, well-trained, and splendidly-equipped forces of Com­munist China, 400 million strong, re­main intact and under the direction and control of the Kremlin. ~lost of the foregoing look at NATO has dealt with its present weaknesses and strengths in an effort to evaluate its effecti\'eness in the past and its potential usefulness for the future. :\o\\, "'hat is the answer to the cur­rent contro,·ers\: Should '\.\TO {'X­pand or expire'.' The proposal has been made to tlw • • orth Atlantic Council ll\ SPeretar\' Dulles, hacked ll\ Presicient Eisen'­hower and the C: S. Department of State, that:'\'.\ TO - without changing its military role - expand its acti\·ities to cover more comprchensi\'('ly the field of economics and politics. This is based on the premise that hasicall) the Atlantic community has so much in common that it sh~11Id he able to do more in common. For the first few \'Cars of '\ATO the unih-ing moti\'C admittedh "as fear. Also'. the foreign minist~rs helien! that the one thing aho,·e all others that contributed to failure in the past has been disunity among our own allies. '\ow, in the words of Canada's Lester B. Pearson, ";'\!\TO cannot en­dure permanent!) on fear alone." How, then, to continue the program so that the member nations, without the inccnti,-e of fear, "ill not rehtx their n(•cessan" militarv \'igil? Dulles' ans;ver to tl;is is to broaden '\_ \ TO's interests and activities so as better to serve the nations in an advis­ory capacity. Such expanded acti\'ities \\'Olild enable the member nations to he better informed and to work to­gether cooperati\·ely for changes that hold a possibility of good. Expansion \\'Olild allow NATO to he for some­thing rather than merely against some­thing-" This new enlargement program could he carried out within the frame­work of Article II of the original treat)·, which reads: Th<" P.trlil'S will contrihutC' IO\\,trel tlw furtllf'r cl<"H0 lopnl<'nt of peaceful and friendly inkrnational rt."Lttions In: strenl.!;th­t: ning dwir fn.·<-· institutions. b}· hringing ahout a h<:tkr 1111cl~:rslandin,Lt' of tlu.· prin­<: ipks upon which tht·S(' institutions are fonndc·cl, and hy promoting rnnclitions of stabilitr and wdl-lwing. Th<'y will sc·C'k to <'liminatc conflict in tht'ir inkmationc.1l t:eonomit· polid<·s and will cntourng-c cc:o­nomie eoll.1boration h<·twc·<·n any or all of tlwm. ..\t the last meeting of the :\orth At- 1. DullM, "The Timr Has Come to Expand ., \TO,""' 011 cit., p. 106. Page 8 PRESIDENT'S LETTER TO SENATOR GEORGE (WHITE HOUSE PRESS RELEASE DATED MAY 9) Dear Walter: I know that your present term in the Senate expires this year. In view of that fact, I should like to say two things to you: It has been my great hope that you would continue on in the Senate where you have been able to make so great a contribution to peace through helping to develop and sustain a non-partisan foreign policy. Your contribution in that respect has been in­calculable and I believe it was the overwhelming desire of the American people that you would have found yourself able to con­tinue in the Senate. I can, however, realize that you may desire to concentrate more exclusively on the great problems of war and peace which confront our nation, free of other responsibilities which inevitably go with the Senatorship. If that is your preference, I earnestly hope that you will be willing to act for this nation with reference to the development of the North Atlantic Community so that it will in greater unity and greater effec­tiveness serve the cause of international peace and the preservation of those ideals of human liberty and freedom which are so deeply rooted in the Community. As you know, at the latest meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Council, it was decided to explore ways and means by which the North Atlantic Community, through the NATO Council or other­wise, might more fully realize its potential for peace and human welfare. I regard the contribution which the United States can make to this project as of the utmost importance and feel that it may indeed play a decisive role in the achievement of a just and durable peace and the preservation of the great values inherent in our Western civilization. It would be a great service to the nation and, indeed in a broader sense, to the whole world if you would be willing, for as long as I may hold my present office, to act as my Personal Repre­sentative and Special Ambassador in the development of this new evolutionary step within the North Atlantic Community. In case you do feel impelled to lay down the responsibilities of your present office, I can think of no way where you could better serve our nation and more fittingly crown your great career as a statesman. I may say that Foster Dulles has asked me to express his warm concurrence in what I say and that he greatly hopes that you will favorably consider this important mission. With warm personal regard, !antic Council in Paris, when Dulles present{'{! this plan, three foreign min­isters "ere s!'lect(•d to explore the pos­sibilities and to present suggestions and recommendations for implemen­tation: Lester B. Pearson of Canada, Gaetano \lartino of ltalv, and IIalvard ~!. Lange of '\'orway. They are pres­ently ,-isiting the capitals of the mem­ber nations, concentrating on search­ing for ideas that could defeat com- Sincerely, DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER munism in its drive to win over ti uncommitted nations of Asia, \ fri< and the \ Iiddlc East. Here in the United States, Pr<'' dent Eisenhower, the first command• of SHAPE, enthusiastically endor;• the new outlook for ATO, to the t tent that he has asked retiring Scn•1t• Walter F. George ( D-Ga.) to be I• personal representative and spec•· am hassador to investigate the po>' FACTS Fo11u:-.1 hilities treat\· Wiia of tlw ent it s Prepan m{'C'lin• to disc tions tc Fori ~ATO and T1 a tragi plosi,-c tion af Cyprus last m. th<'re i Prohler Europe mi llion The leaders the So r<'scrve Plete h l'Ornmo strengtl causpd ing this On<' E11rope man, ~ he• of~·{ T!w · help cl Europci troop < l(<tnda. Since \\ho\\'( criml' {' l't!•ign flroe<'ss l'hc·ir r \no Jlolitici c·o11rw \no \ \To l.tck of ihips. 1 trimc· t tllorp f tllc·«tin~ bil(gc•r lio11s an ~<>\·Prnr tn<>rp su \ \'hat n1·1v pli lire eor n1(•n1hl·1 ll1p ln lrr·art,· \1. • ' ' tll)~ \ ate ay in the .ti on rtisan l in-of the con-ntrate ii ch h rence, antic fee- 1 which 1tic r which 1ther­i human ; can that it >t and iherent in a for as ~epre­s new 1 case /OUr r serve > a his that in OYN ti \.sia, \fri( '.ates, prt" cmnman<lt ly cndors' ) to the' ,ing Scn•11' ) to be Ii rnd spcc1• ~ the po'' hilitiC's of broader functions !or the treaty organization. \\'hat, specifically, would he some of tht• nc•w duties of NATO? At pres­ent it sct'ms the foreign ministers read Prepared speeches at their infrequent meNings, hut have little opportunity to discuss and to hammer out sol11- tions to problems that affect them all. For instance, in recent months three ~ATO memlwrs - Britain, Greece, and Turkev - have been involved in a tragic dispute over Cyprus, an ex­plosi\ ·e situation in view of its posi­tion affecting the \liddle East. Yet Cypn1s was not even discussed in the last meeting. In the present set-up there is no chance to discuss other ProhlPms of the \I iddlc East, although Europe depends upon millions and millions of harrPls of ~liddle East oil. The French attitude, under the new leadt>rship of .\!. Pineau, of accepting the Sovi<'t smile campaign without reserve and of showing an almost com­plete lack of intcrC'st in the proposC'd l'Ommon market as a kev clC'mcnt in strt•ngthcning the Atlanti~ community ~a11s<'d sharp dismay and concern dur­ing this same meeting. On<' of thr greatest problems facing E11ropt' is th<' reunification of GC'r­manv, and N \TO leadrrs frcl it could he of H•al help in an advisory capacity. Tiw new NATO Council might also ~c·lp dispel neutralism in \Vestem <:.11ropr now encouraged bv Soviet troop c,uts and constant Rc~l propa­ganda. Sine<' 19t5, over 650 million people \\ho W<'n' non-self-governing have lw­trmw C'ight<'<'n independent and sov­" rc•ign nations, and others arC' in the ~nicc•ss of hrcoming indrpendrnt. \hc•ir prohkms arc great. A hroad<'r \To rnulcl hC'lp chart their future Political economic and militarv t ' ' . \>11r~p where it '.iffects the present \ \10 community. The present 1; 1 :To recognizrs its need for and ,] ~k of support by all national lcader-llps. The Dulles plan seeks to over­~ mc this by providing for longer, 0rc frequent, and hclter-prepan•cl ~<-<tings '' ith the foreign ministers; t"lggc•r staffs for the national clelega- 1011s aucl more information from thC'ir ~riv<'nimC'nts; and authoritv to discuss %rp subjects before a crisis breaks. \Vhat has been the response to this ~r·iv plan? It is too soon yet lo know le complde reactions of the other ~te111h<·r nations, hut the response in 1 'l' l nited States has ranged from 1 ~ r-'· 1rt ) acceptance to I) l· ttcr n•i·e e t·w n. · l.111) ''ho faH>r the general plan as , ..... c:rs Fonl '>L "\t:"·s, A11g11st, 1956 outlined In \Ir. Dulles are prepared to go c\·c1; beyond this very fle,ihle organization into a supra-national go\'­crnmcnt. \Vhat is the basis for these hitter protests? Some point to the present military weaknesses, saying that C'\'cn aftt•r such staggering amounts of moncv have been pourrd into the armi1{g and maintenance of a com­mon army, the commander of its forc<'s tells us that NATO is not quite prepared to protect Europe'. They point out that equipment is lwcoming obsolete almost as fast as it is being supplied, and maintain atomic war- Sen. William E. Jenner !R-lnd.l asks "How much hove the Communists gained in Asia because we arc allied with the European powers?" fare has outmoded 'ATO's methods of defense. These criticisms, together with the apparent lessening of international tension, contribute a great deal to the feeling that it is time now for '\'ATO to rdirt', or at least stand still. Senator William E. Jenner ( H-Ind.) summarized much of the opposition to N \TO in a recent spc<•ch before a patriotic rally of For America when he said: I h;1w n(•n•r lwli<"n·d in tlw "'""'·pt of n.·$ZiOn<tl defense. Tiu.• So' id fon.'l'S are disp<»<"d by om• grand stratc!(y. \\ h) should W<' di,·idc our fore<•s? It is foll). I Jiaq• nt•n•r helil'n•d the So\il'l leaders intended to atta<:k Europe. They ha' e won most of Asia without laq.~('-Sc:alc war. They do not want to lolk(' O\ <'r a \\ ('stern Euro1w r('duccd to ruins hy homhing. l <''('Tl q11<'slio11 wlwtlwr we han· not lost mor<', 111ilitarily, by allying mirs(•ht·s with the c:olonial nations of Ettro1w than we !(ain<'d hy \;,\TO's arnwd fortTs. \\"hen fin: dl\·isions of '.'. \TO troops appear in French Africa, to fi!(ht against Arabs who arc ask in!( for liberty. wt• lost" military strength from ~lorocco to Pakis­tan. How much kwc the Connnunists ~ained in Asia, lwcausc we are allied with tlw European colcmial powt•rs° For all th<' billions we haYc spent on NATO, I sec no proof that wt• arc militarily strongl'f than we were st~n•n or l'ight y!'ars ago.1 :.1 B\· far the most explosi\'e issue in­voh: ed, howe,·er, is the question of just how far this new expansion pro­gram will go. \\'here \viii it stop? Op­ponents contend that this is merely the opening wedge in a mo\'e that would c\·entuallv lead to the dc,·clop­mcnt of a globai go\'ernment, causing a surrender of our SO\'crcignty. Srnator John W. Bricker ( R-Ohio) is a strong critic of the plan, calling it an "c,ploration of the desirability of junking the American Declaration of Independence." Ile envisions the plan as one in which "the United States would become a vassal province in a rrgional superstate evolving out of '.\T0.'''3 Senator Jenner secs 1ATO's task as being twofold: first, to plan a joint strategv for defense of the \Vest; and scconc( to help manufacture the "parts" of a world go\'crnmcnt, and to condition the member nations quietly to gi\'e up their familiar independence and tlll'ir unique political iclcals. 11 \Vhat the various candidates for President believe about international go\'crnmcnt and treaties which might supercede the Bill of Rights has be­come an election issue of major magni­tude. Se,·eral of the presidential aspir­ants \\ithin both major parties ha\'e r'prcssecl thcmsch cs as being for a much closer cooperatin• elfort of tlw Atlantic communit\', e\·cn to the c'tent of actual union - .if not now, then at some time in the foreseeable future. Others are diamrtrically opposrd to what thev call the "onr world" con­ecpt of i1~tcrnational relations. The "Atlantic Union" plan, which is supported by a number of U. S. sena­tors; the "Federal Union" plan. with widespread support abroad; the "Unit­ed \\'oriel Federalists" plan - these arc becoming familiar terms in foreign polic} vocabulary. Candidates are h<n - ing to make their \'iews known. This is onl\' a hare outline of the thinking that. will go into the impor­tant decision whieh is at present in the making: Should NATO expand or expire? E:>D 1.. . J~·n1wr, from a 'illt·<"c:h in Cam<'J.::iL' ll.lll, '\t•\\ Yo;!: ·~~!~l"\~~~nl;l7. ~ 9 j~~:c:tion l"tH·?" ll. S. \"rn:s & \\'oriel Report, Ft·hm.u·y 21, 19-36, P· H2. HJL·nncr, 011. dt . Page 9 fs ing: \. HI The immigration policy of this country is embodied in the Walter-McCarran Act of 1952, which was passed over ex-President Truman's veto. The Act has been constantly under fire since that time. Some humanitarians ask that barriers to immigration be removed, making it possible for the homeless and downtrodden to find sanctuary in this country. Wary patriots point out that liberalization of our immigration policy may be part of a master plan to populate the country with subversive hordes. Facts Forum News presents here both viewpoints on this question . . . Should the U. S. Immigration Policy Be Changed~ Presented first are views of those who do not favor a change in the present immigration policy J lJDCIXG from the Hood of immi­grants who arc being washed to the shores of America, one might think that the coun try has become a giant blotter, one with the express pur­pose of absorbing all the surplus peo­ple of the world. Indeed, if one is to believe the hue and cry raised by pressure groups, he mav think that it is mandatorv for the L-nited Stat<'s to accept all immi­grants. :\II propaganda to the contrary, it must be rem<'mhercd that it is still .1 prh ilcge to be allowed entry into the United States, not an inalienable right. \!any gullible "bleeding hearts" are all for casting aside the Waltcr­\ lcCarran Immigration Act and wel­coming the hordes of people clamor­ing for entry into the country. Pro­ponc• nts of the i\ct claim that if such "gulliherals" ha,·e their way, the coun­try may well ha,·e not one Trojan horse in the national camp, hut mil­lions. \!any informed people arc saying, '"Let those who have judgment to ex­!' rcise start exercising it." For pressure groups are working overtime to change the \Valtcr-\fcCarran Act, with Communi>ts cheering from the e;ranclstand. Those favoring the Act charge that some of the opposing groups lean so far to the left that many members have permanent curvature Page 10 of the spine. They allege that if these groups have their way, Communists and fellow-travelers will swell the population. Perhaps the most overworked ap­proach in the campaigns of these opposing pressure groups is an affect­ed sympathy for the downtrodden people of over-populated countries. Persons favoring our present immigra­tion policy state that the "emotion engineers" are masters of this sort of thing. It is alleged that if these groups have their way, a national crime, in the liberalization of immigration, will he committed in the name of suffering humanity. I nclivicluals favoring the Walter­i\ lcCarran Act say it might be well for the empathetic and the do-gooders to pause and take stock. If immigration bars arc let clown to the traffic of new citizens, America, too, will become ornrcrowdcd. A simple, mathematical e\planation reveals why America can­not soh-c the population problems of the world. Take Europe, for example - each year its population increases three million. America cannot begin to contribute anything toward the sol­ution of such a problem. It has been said that the greatest tragedy regarding immigration is the wav that soft-hearted Americans are being misled. nder the guise of humanitarian proposals a campaign of misrepresentation has been rcspoo· sihle for misleading newspapers, con1 mentators and far too many other into thinking that the immigratiof policy of the country is in need 0 1 I drastic changes. Actually, the aim ? enemies of the Act is not to change 11· as stated by Congressman Walter, bll1 to destroy it.1 . Almost every issue of Commun\ publications in the United States cal· for either a weakening or a destruc­tion of the Walter-McCarran Act. Th\ in itself is proof enough that the A~ is doing one of the jobs intende which is to prevent as many subve~· sives from entering the country as ~' possible. . , I The American Legion rccog111ie the clanger, and is in favor of th1 h f · · ti011 Act. T (' present rate o imm1gn1 J suits the economy of the country, ant the Legion understands that under th~ present quota there will be cnotl~. jobs for all, which will include rettirP ing vet<'rans.2 The following was stated in a s!"" cial tribute by the American Legion Tlw American Legion is for the \\'alter· McCarran Act !){'cause we finally have .9 law which provid<•s rffectivc weapons 1~: our fight against subversives ... because 1 -- . 1nf·pn·,1·11tativc ]~rnncis E. \Valtcr, "Tht> 1~• \ Ahout tht• lmmi~rntion Act," Rcarll'r'., Di~nt <' 19.5.1), p. 7. " s<'Should Ba.sic Changes Be Made in U. S .• llXlS'o gr.1tion Policy?" T11e Conl(renionul Dilo!nt, \ ol· No. 1 (January, 19.56). p. 29. now mo <l<·1>0rta agaimt ha"c h< or anotl it r<'tain ... h~· been n• in a v<'r Daug tion arc to the 0Pposc tnight ( The 120 pa~ tions. I hill, bu Veto bv by 57 'ti cally, b Democr 0ver a 1 ly, to hi It has hysteric through ~ chari . ve yca1 1nvcstig1 ~·ent in ~lllmi.gra 1tnmigra ~esents 1tnmigra this lcgi1 longest of lcgis Congrcs . 'fhe I lice we~ for adm nati1rali; made u1 the pre1 \\·cnt th the hun llients w Not c 11Jstice . Rf n a] Fon' avor h .\~ency · no gov~· . l!:ncm 1 ' both~ nents f lib 0 h era] < <Its are are . I give ~Ttnula tintric• I 'l'he A. Y 154.o I. S. ed1 en rcspoO' apcrs, con1• any other> . ~ mmigrat1° in need 01 the airn °1 't J change 1· Walter, b111 Commufll' d States call· a dcstrut" .1 1 Act. 'fJJI' ~ iat the A 0 1 intende · my subve~; untry as v . e~ I rccogniz vor of the . ·o~ mm1gr<1tl 1 )Untn' an' . ' tht t under h he enotl~ ude return· d in a sp<" an Legion· the Waltrr· ally have .1 weapon~ ·~; . because 1 r "The 1'~ ;Dig<' t pl.t.: in u. s.111l~ Ji/.l£'¥t, Vol· now mak<"'! possible the supervision and deportation of literally thousands of ali<'ns against whom final warrants of deportation have ])('m issued hut who, for one reason or another, were undcportablc ... bcca11Sc it retains the national origins quota systc•m · .. because all racial discrimination has been n·mov<•d from our immigration laws in a vc•ry rC'a1istic rnanncr.3 Daughters of the American Revolu­tion arc also aware of the threat posed to the country, and urge patriots to Oppose weakening amendments which lllight dcstrov the Immigration Act.• The \Valt~r-McCarran Act covers 1.20 pages, and has 307 separate sec­tions. President Tmman vetoed thC' hill, but Congress passed it over his Veto bv 278 to 113 in the Honse, and by 57 'to 26 in the Senate. ParcnthC'ti­cal! y, both authors of the Act were Democrats. And, since it was passed over a Trnman veto, it seems, general­ly, to have bipartisan favor. It has hecn charged that the Act is hysterical legislation that was "rushed" through CongrC'ss.5 It cannot, in truth, be charged as "hysterical," for almost ~Ve years of hearings, of study, and of 1nvestigation and intense research ~·ent into the making of this basic ~lllmigration law. Dealing with both 11llmigration ancl naturalization, it rep­resents a recodification of all the 11llmigration laws. TllC' time spent on :his legislation is said to have been the 0ngest ever devoted to any single bit of legislation in all the histo1y of Congress. . 'fhe Departments of State and Jus­} 1ce \Vere the two agencies responsible Or administering the immigration and naturalization laws. Therefore, they ~ade up committees to give help to t le preparation of the Act. The Act ~ent through six entire revisions. All e hundreds of immigration cnact­lllcnts were made into a single law. Not only did the Departments of ~11stice and State favor the hill in its f naJ form, but it was also viewed with ~Vor by the Central Intelligence ~cncv. It is a matter of record that no ,IT. ,o•v emment agency oppose cl 1' t• i Enemies of the Act maintain that it n both reactionary and Fascist. Propo­l'bnts of the Act say that it is the most h era! of laws. For instance, racial a <Its are removed. Countries of Asia /e given quotas hased on the same ~flll11la as the one for European ilntrirs. ly 1'hc Act sets a limit of approximatr- 154,000 immigrants who can l1C' , .. ~ ConRrr•rinnol Recorcl (19.S!l) .. p. A27A7. tra1~ ho11Jrl lfa<iic f'.hanJ.?<''I Be:- \fade m U. S. Jmm1· H n Poti<·y?" op. cit., p. 3 l. '"Pr ~·ntatiH• Frnncis E. \Valt«r, op cit., P· 2. 'Ews, August, 1956 admitted to this counh'V in any one year. This is divided in'to natio.nality quotas, which arc based on the crnsus of 19:20. The Act is vcrv hard on Com­munists, criminals, anci subversives. Granted, the existing law docs re­quire careful examination of those persons entering the country. But ask those who uphold the Act - is it not hettC'r to inconvenience the thousands of aliens who enter than to endanger the millions of citizens who rc:,siclc hrrc? To foreigner has any inherrnt right to come to this country. After all, these same proponents ask, what is the use of having laws if they arr not clrsigncd to protect the p('oplc of America? If t•ncmirs of the \Valter-i\IcCarran Representative Francis E. Wolter ( D-Penn. l, co­author of the Wolter-McCorron Act, who stated that enemies of the Act didn't wont to change it; rather, they wished to destroy it. Immigration Act have thrir way, the cloors will he thrown oprn to the crowds of Europran Socialists and worse, claim those favoring the Act. Thev state that these pcoplr, dn·nchrcl hv ;ocialistic ideology, would acid to tl;r already-mounting volume of So­cialists' votes in the large industrial centers of the country. A provision of the Act, indicative of its lihrralitv is that alien wives, hus­hancls, anci' ~hildren of United States citizens arc now permittrcl to rnter the country quota-free. The "trickle" of immigrants has also hecn increased to a somewhat larger flow because of the provision for non-quota groups. This has increased the annual immi­gration total to approximately 200,000. The Act employs selectivity in thr choice of immigrants. Its aim is to select those immigrants who most like­ly \\'Otild be useful to the counh·y and he integrated most easily into the American culture. The three categories set up are: first, relatives of American citizens; second, those of skilled or exceptional training; and, third, all others. Fifty per cent of each quota is reserved for the category of the skillecl or exceptionally-h·ainecl. If less than fifty per cent of the skilled category apply, then thC' balance is absorbed hv other categories. ·It has bren chargrd that the Act precludes an important psychological weapon - namely, that of offering refuge to those people escaping from behind the Iron Curtain. However, it must be remembered that in \Vest Germany alone there are ten million refugees from communism. In other countries of Europe there is probably an equal number. For the United States to attempt to ahsorh these peo­ple would be foolhardy. Not only would it not solve thrir problem, but it would create a prohlrm at home. And this countrv has long since passed thC' point whcr~ it can ohservc unre­trictrd immigration, which many opponents of the \Valter-\1cCarran Immigration Act seem to he seeking. A complaint heard frequently is that the Act makrs it ~?ssihle ,~o de­port large numbers of worthy peo­ple, and that denah1ralization is easy for naturalized citizens. These com­plaints are representative of the am­munition used hy word-mongers when attacking the Immigration Act. There arc good rcasons for such restrictions as the above. The Act kC'eps out of the country aliens who might endanger puhlic safety. Also, it makes it possible to deport aliens who engage in activities which endanger p11hlic safety. There are between three and five million aliens in the countrv illrgally. Due to loopholes in the ol~I law, de­portation orders could not be en­forced. For this reason, before the \Valter-.'.\!cCarran Act, hordes of for­eign- horn subversives and criminals walked the strerts in this nation. A statistic unfamiliar to many is the percentage of Communist Party mem­bers who were foreign horn. The fact is that 91.5 per cent were either for­eign born, married to pC'rsons who were foreign born, or were born of foreign parents. Also, more than half of them traced their origins to Russia or to her satellites. That was one rea­son for creating the Act, lo make it harder for aliens with objectionable Page 11 fs ing ideologies to get into the country ille­gally. Also, the :\ct makes it possible for nah1ralized citizens to be deported if the~· participate in subversive activ­itv within five vcars of naturalization . . The basis or' the present immigra­tion policy is the national-origins quota system. It nrccssarily follows that enemies of the Act attack in this area. President Truman stated that the system "breathes prc•judicc against the foreign-born."" IlrieAy, the national­origins quota system limits the num­ber of immigrants from any country to one-sixth of one per cent of the people of the United States who, in 1920, traced their origins hack to the country in question. A defense for the national-origins formula is that it works out a number b\· mathematics rather than by poli­ti~ s. First off, it limits the number of quota immigrants who can enter the country; next, it determines the na­tionality of immigrants in order to maintain a population pattern. It puts quota nations on an t>qual basis, and it puts immigration out of the reach of pressure groups. The svstem has Haws in it, to be sure. Fo~ one thing, in 1920 the popu­lation of the country was mostly of European origin. Thus, Northern and \Vestcrn Europeans have larger quotas than Southern and Eastern Euro­peans. The largest quotas arc for Great Britain, Northern Ireland, and Germany. A point of fact argued by those fa\·oring the present law is that many nations are close to the United States in culture and customs, with subse­quent resprct for law. People from these countries arc, therefore, more easilv woven into the mosaic of Amer­ican °democracv. A proposed 0 changc in the national­origins quota system is that of a uni­fied quota. This system would have an administrative agency appointrd by the Presidrnt, with the responsibility of choosing among different nationali­ties. Opponents of this plan state that one needs no crvstal ball to see that this brings im~igration within the scope of politics and pressure groups, whrreas immigration is now blessedly rcmon·d from these influences. It is left to the people of Americt to decide whether they want an immt gration policy which is for their pro­tection, or one based on the desires of other countries, some of which are u1 friendly and a few of which woul< like to sre this country destroyed. The Walter-McCarran Act i• claimed by its proponents to be th most effective weapon against suhn sion that this country has ever devise J t is no great secret that repeal of tlw Act is one of the top objectives of th Communists. And repeal of this Act~ almost certain to be an issue in ti forthcoming presidential election. The main reason the Communi>t wish the Act to be repealed is becat111 it will facilitate the entrance of Krcf11 !in supporters into this country, and i will also stop the deportation of Co111 munist aliens. Proof that the Act was overwhrhn ingly accepted at its inception shown by the way in which varioll' departments worked on it - all ti governmrntal agencies participated· thr formulation of it - and more th 100 patriotic, religious, and ci1 ~ rIDM&[6~1?o~@ ~..::..-:---:--==---~~o WALTER- MCCARRAN IMMIGRATION ACT 0 0 ---- --~- HOULD HIS Page 12 organi to tlu from t Pro tee the Point , tions l front ( In a mittec in 195 that a had tJ­tions These known carryir in rega Sup1 "pink" all th( have l• the Ac the op Atta1 Pally f People two 101 munist ~tess o \"alter ~arnpai ed by I also bi York ; Critics stated 1 h)'per-( crirnin· all and Inc1 a left-\, Senat01 '4-hrna: ~eirnli1 ing in Were f, alinost One ahout t Versy friends' r~tric ' favorin say th; "'Ould I c'<ln lab (D.ca the Se; --- 'lbid "'') ··Il a,11 !""'ii RJ ''"''°' ""a.~,('~~ "''Irnmi• "'Ibid, 11\\.'·1 VJtt ,.•,Ii;; nt an imlll~ r their prll' te desires ol nich arc UI hich wouk ;troy ed. an Act i• s to be th inst suh,·cr vcr dcvisci 'peal of th ~tivcs of th ,f this Act r :ssuc in ti~ •lcction. :ornmunist· dis hcc<u111 ce of Krcn1 rntry, and 1 ion of Coll' ovcrwhcln nception 1ich varioU it - all th rtici pa tcd J)I cl morC' thJI and ci'1' 0 0 organizations endorsed it. Opposition to tlw \ct came for the most part from the American Committee For the Protection of the Foreign Born and the ational Lawyers' Guild. As a Point of fact, both of these organiza­tions have been cited as Communist­front organizations.7 In a report to the American Com­mittee for Protection of Foreign Born in 1954, one Ahner Green remarked that a movement for repeal of thC' Act had the help of a hundred organiza­tions in as manv as fifteen states. These organizatio'ns, Green let it hC' known, operated for the purpose' of ~rrying out the Communist party line in regard to immigration.a SupportC'rs of the Act claim that "pink" and "libC'ral" organizations with all thC'ir criticisms and accusations, have led many people to believe that the Act is un-American, when, really, the opposite is true. Attacks in the press come princi­Pally from the Daily Worker and the People's Daily World. These are the two leading newspapers of the Com­munist Party. However, when Con­P, ress OVC'rrocle the veto and made the \"alter-McCnrran Act a public Jaw, campaigns against the Act we're start­ed by not only the Dail!/ Worker, but also by the New York Times, New York Ilerald Trilnme and othcrs.0 Critics of these ncwspapC'r campaigns htated that the usual approach was the Vper-emotional clrivel' 0 about clis­cr1irnination, about suspicion toward a I and higotrv toward some. In CongrC'ss. the Act was opposC'd hy ~left-wing cotC'rie, among which WC'rP r:nators Humphrey of MinnC'sota and hman of cw York William F. ~eirnlich charged in an article appC'ar­tng in American 1\ferrnry that they Were for opening all the gates to an almost unrestricted nood of aliC'ns. 1 ' One of the most amazing things abont the present immigration contro­~~ rsy is the fact that the "good ttends" of labor are all for relaxing }l'strictions on immigration. ThosP 5 :ayv oring our prespnt restrictC'cl policy that this inAux of chPap labor 0uld hinc!C'r rather than hPlp Ameri­~ labor. Senator Walter F. GC'orgc th ·Ca.), in a speech on the noor of ....:_senate, May 22, 1952, stated hC' 'Ibid "t ., .P· 5. Bf'lt ;:irnlf:ration : America'<; Trojan Hore;<'." Don "} "r>ort., (hullc·tin). Oc•cc·mlwr :JO, 191).5. ~~~ B. Mntthewc;, "lmmi~rnton: 1956 hsuc," .,,1 C'ari. M rrcu ry ( Octohl'r, I 9.5.5 ) . rtlm11.(r.1tiou: Amc·rica'c; Trojan lion<'," op. cit. "'id. V,J::~',i,lli.\.m F. lf<'imlich. "ImmiL,trntion Vic;as for • 111e .Am<:rkan Mercury (F<.'hruary, J~J.56). !:\,._ , .. s FOH\''.\l 'Ews, August, 19.56 hC'lie,·cd in restrictions on immigra­tion in the interest of the American worker. Individuals who are satisfi('cl with the present legislation state that any­thing more than a pcrfunctOr} e\ami­nation of the \ValtC'r-''1cCarran Act will disclose it to be fair and impartial, a law fashioned by e\pcrts. These ex­perts had no axe to grind; they were intC'rested in preserving and protect­ing the American wav of life. On the other hand, claim th.e propon('nts of our present law, the groups who work clay and night to destroy the Act, if only by attrition, are the Reels, the pinks, the misguided, and the profes­sional promoters and politicians who would clcnucle the American eagle of frathers in a swap for minority-bloc votes. Jt is charged that such groups do not speak specifically when malign­ing the Act. They are accused of em­ploying tergiversation and utilizing the old emotional '110kum" that has been successful for decades. sing this tried-and-true approaC'h, they speak of discrimination and racism. They are charged with concocting and disseminating propaganda, and, under the guise of humanitarianism, of organizing pressure groups. Persons who support the present law claim that the left-wing proposal of opm-door immigration, with its resulting political control, could not kC'ep from becoming a VC'ritahlC' carni­val of fraud, pressures and corrnption. TllC'y claim that immigration would he a political football, to he kickC'd by unscrupulous political aspirants. Such politicians might promise minority blocs that if they voted right, immi­gration doors would open magically to friends in distant lands - this at the expense of other countries. Visas for votes would be the result.12 It has been charged that the one­worldcrs m·c satisfied with making a "circus" out of the \ValtC'r-\fcCarran Act controversy. \Vhilc they SC'em con­tent with pointing out the c!C'ficimcics of the Act and its "inhuman" humanC'­ncss, in t11e background thC'v are working hard to have immigration controlled on an international basis. 13 Proponents of the \Valtcr-\fcCarran Act warn patriots not to he deceived. They state that the knife is being sharpened, and through immigration the subversives are hoping to slice some collective throats. These sup­porters of the present law claim that the entire ethnic and cultural compo­sition of the nation could be altered by the influx of a "controlled" people into t11e country. This, they say, is the real conspiracy bC'l1ind a proposed loosening of immigration restrictions. ;\Iany who favor making no change in the present system say that the Communists are in business at the same old stand; that the product is the same - onlv the label is diffcrC'nt. Thev warn that America can be inun­dat~ d by a Red tide of immigration. They plead that it is the eleventh hour, that the clanger is real, and that if the immigration policy is changed, the countrv will he in need, not onlv of a mod~rn Horatius at the hriclg~, but of a Paul Bunyan finger for the leaky immigration dike. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Presented below are views of those who propose a change in the present immigration policy * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "J" A'.\CEllICA is to remain a citadel of frcC'dom, if it is to continue to he known throughout the world as a haven for the oppressed, then there must he changes in the immigration polic~· as reflected today by the \Val­ter-:\ lcCmnrn Immigration A t." Thus say many persons, including a number of national legislators. Those native-born citizens who cry that a relaxation of the present immi­gration policy would result in an "opC'n sesame" for Socialists and Com­munists mi~ht be considered by some to be alarmists. It is pardonable, per-haps, that in such perilous times tllC're arc al\\'a\'s some who will breathe cl<'an air ~ml smell smoke - or, more aptly, perhaps, who sC'e every signal light in immigration traffic as red. President Eisenhower has stated that the \\'alter-~!cCarran Act should be rC'written, and that a better law should be written that would strike an unbigotccl balance llC'lWC'C'n the welfare of the country and the "pray­erful hopes" of the homeless and 12Jbid. t:l"Corrallinj,! the Trojan Hore;<' Collc>d lmmhrra­tion," Don Bell Revorts (bulll'tin), \111y 18, 1956. Page 13 I fs ing \ ill On t• oppressed. Former President Truman said that the national-origins svstem "breathes prejudice" against th.e foreign born, and that it shows racial and religious discrimination. Others label the Act as hvsterieal legislation which was rushed .through Congress; also, that the Act is both reactionary, Fascist, and raeist. 1 They claim, further, that passage of the Act marked a new high in American big­otrv and narrowmindedness. Thev ch<irge that never before were ther~ so many barriers to immigration, and that never before were so manv rea­sons given as grounds for dcpo;tation of many Americans who were foreign horn. Senators Lehman, Humphrey, \Iorse, Kefauver, i\loody, Benton, and Douglas led a fight against the orig­inal hill, and they were able to force acceptance of 21 amendments before the bil1 passed through the Senate by a vote of 44 to 28. The objections to the Walter-\lc­Carran Act are manv. For one thing, a foreign-born American can have his citizenship taken away and he deport­ed if it is proved that he once be­longed to a subversive movement, no matter if he is a perfectly good Amer­ican at present. i\loreovcr, the Act puts native-born Americans abroad in danger of loss of citizenship without so much as a hearing. The Act expands the powers of im­migration officials, consuls, and the attorney general. The opinions of these people arc basis enough for ex­clusion or deportation, without benefit of a judicial review. l'nder the Act political and reli­gious refugees may he deported, and the Act reduces further immigration of such people. _\dditionally, the Act is responsible for many obstacles to international travel for citizens and non-citizens alike. A large number of organizations have, from the beginning, opposed the \\'alter-\lcCarran Act, and have car­ried on a running fight to ha,·e it repealed. i\lany such organizations are religious or racial groups, together with most of the merged CIO-AFL labor groups. Opponents of the \Valter-\lcCarran <\ct claim that the national-origins svs­tem, as an immigration policy, has been responsible for much resentment against the United States in foreign 1"Corrallinst the Trojan Hor;e Callt·d lmmi<rra­lion," Don Bell Reports (hullc.·tin). \fay 18, 19.56. Page 14 WIDE WOIU.O PllOTO Forme; President Truman, who said that the national -origins quota system "breathes prejudice against the foreign born, and is the embodiment of racial and religious discriminations." countries. Also, they state that such a policy refutes the oft-heard cry of equality of opportunity for all peoples in America, regardless of race, creed, or color. To many the Walter-McCarran Act represents a philosophy of fear and distrust of foreigners abroad and aliens within. So long as this situation exists, America cannot in truth be re­garded as a haven for the oppressed. Furthermore, as things stand now, many potentially valuable immigrants are pre\ entcd from ever reaching the shores of America. So, in the thinking of many Americans, the \Valter-\lc­Carran Act is a monument to the in­consistency between words and deeds. \lost p;oponcnts of the Act justify their positions on the basis of national security. The Act, in short, makes it difficult for foreigners to enter Amer­ica, and makes it easy to deport those who have entered. Also, these pro­ponents spend a great deal of their time discrediting opponents of the present immi~ration policy, charging them as being dupes of the Commu­nists. If the above is true, many persons of prominence must be so labelccl. Opponents of the Act claim that it is a familiar method of attack to label as Communists, Socialists or leftists those who do not agree with the policies of any given side. Departing from the political aspects for a time, and considering only the historical, it must be rt'membered that ,\merica was settled by refugees in the beginning, by persecuted pcopk and by those who wanted to start a fresh life in a new land. They wanted religious and political freedom. As the trickle from abroad became a steady stream, there came the Eng· lish, Germans, French, Irish, Jews. Czechs, Italians, Creeks, Poles, and Serbs - potential Americans all. These people helped populate a countr1 which has become the wealthiest. most productive nation in the world Immigrants have been responsibl£ for many accomplishments. The build· ing of transcontinental railroads in the nincteC'nth century was accomplished only through the help of Chinese and Irish immigrants. Farms were cut out of the wilderness by Scandinavian and German immigrants. And great eastern factories are presently being run iil large part by immigrants and their chilclrc•n - representing many racr>- During times of war immigrant> h;n e alwavs been in the thick of tht fight with. our armies. And not onl1 have they contributed muscle and bravery, hut brain-power as well. Jin· migrants have made names for thcJll· selves in all fields of endeavor.~ Taking the above into consider•1· tion, would it not be acceptable, a' well as humanitarian, to welcome to­day those people who are fleeing froJ11 tyrrany in their native countries? Thi> is not to say that everyone should h• welcomed with open arms, for ther• are those who would like to destro1 the American system of government/ murderers, thieves, and suhversh«'' Immigrants should be both limitt and screened, of course. But on th• other hand it would seem that th• system should not preclude entn111t' into this country of those men of gi<ll1t intellectual stature, or those men ,,·h are exceptionaUy gifted - seientist1 1 musicians, educators, artists, ail' others. For example, where would Arneric he toclav if it were not for those scir11 tists who fled from persecution ''1 home and came to America, some 0 them ultimately to assist in produci1~ the nuclear weapons which hrlpt this country to win World War JI \Vhat would have happened if ot enemies in that war had posscssc 1 I these skilled men and, as a matter course, the nuclear weapons? ,., It has been said that some pro I· sions of the present immigration p<1 icy arc more closely related to coJI' munistic philosophies than they are t• I 1"Should n,1\iC Chan~('S BC' \fadC" _in u. s. JfO"" gr.1t111n l'oli<.·> !'" Cvnw<.·Hional Do;e~t (J.u1tJ Hfi6>, p. 21. FAc·rs Fo11u'r ~Ews, August, 19·1' the tr< try, a agree. Sen; \l.Y. ), ate Jw gratior 22, 19i ran Ac tures c Ile St< lated t ed it, f that th lllined Would throug Ont be de~ from e Opp Act cla z.1tion from tt forced numbe tinetior born ai A fa Carrun Potenti ltnti) COurse, l'stablis that or Until pr Prop1 .'\ct ha atin.v " ne . On~,vi! 'lllrnigr. OIJ)y Of Of the l .\ct sta basis ia organiz. eraJ im of them 1'hos1 era} im 'lllrnigr the A~ '"ouJd l no . b !" h JO I 'tt er c During lllore irr t;1llle in th <\nott <tt ma ~r \J lllarri nitcd Other co Op po ~ct say .om. id became ~the Eni:· ish, Jews, Poles, and : all. These a countr) wealthiest. the world. ·esponsible The build· Jads in thr ~omplishecl hinese and 'TC cut out navian and cat castcrJJ ing run iJJ and their 1any races. immigrant' ~ick of tht :1 not on1' 1usclc and swell. J111· ; for thcn1· vor.2 consider•1· eptable, n' •elcome to­eeing fro111 1tries? Thi' should lJt ., for ther< to destro' 1ernment/ ubversin'' 1th )imitr• But on th• n that th• le entn1nc• 1en of gi<iJlt e men ,vh1 . scientist\· ·tists, aoil ld AmeriC: ·hose scil'11 . . • .,t :ccut10n '1 :a, some 0 ¢ I produci11 ich heJpeJ d War JI' ncd if 01· . posscssr, a matter 0 1s? . 1' ome pro\ ~ration p0 eel to co1 I tC they are the traditions of freedom in this coun­try, and there are many who will agree. Senator Herbert H. Lehman (D­\ l.Y.), in a statement before the Sen­ate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immi­gration and Naturalization, November 22, 1955, said that the Waltcr-McCar­ran Act adopted most of the worst fea­tures of old laws and added new evils. Ile stated, further, that the Act iso­lated the country rather than protect­ed it, for it could be taken for granted that those su hvcrsives who were dcter- 111ined to enter the United States Would he resourceful enough to enter through either l\fcxico or Canada.3 On the other hand those who would be desirable citizens are prevented from entering the country. Opponents of the \Valter- 1cCarran Act claim that citizenship hy naturali­zation can he too easily taken away from the "side-door" citizen; he can he forced to forfeit it for anv one of a number of reasons. Thcref~re, the dis­tinction is too great between native­born and naturalized citizens. A false premise of the \Valter-:\lc­Carrun Act is that all immigrants art' Potential Communists and subversives 11nti1 proved otherwise. This, of course, is in contradiction to the long­established tradition in this country that one is innocent of wrongdoing Until proved guilty. Proponents of the Waltcr-l\1cCarran A.ct have another argument against a.ny "new look" in liberality, immigra­tion- wise: they hold that increased 11Tl111igration would threaten the econ­oiny of the country by affecting wages ~F the native-born. Opponents of tlw b·ct. state that this argument has no as1s in fact, because if it did, labor organizations would not favor a lih­erfal immigration policy, which most 0 them do. Those persons who favor a more lib­eral immigration policy claim that if :hl11igration ever begins to endanger ,,.e American economy, the shut-off n °uld be practicallv automatic. \Vhrn e1?th jobs arc available, immi."., rants D :r do not come or do not sta~. tn Unng the depression of the 1930 s ~.1°rc immigrants left this country than 'me into it. thi\nother thing to bear in mind is 0tt many American citizens, because lJ 1!1arriage or other reasons, leave the Oth1ted States each year and move to er countries. ~Opponents of the Walter-1\IcCarran ~t say it is no great secret that the ''""· p . 12. l\ r'ts FoRl''>r 'Ews, A11g11st, 19.56 \<:t is archaic and in need of a facc­lifting. Even those who favor the Act are agreed, for the most part, that some changes might prove beneficial. The Act contains provisions which burden international transportation companies. Designed primarily to pro­tect citizens from dangerous aliens, under certain conditions the law im­poses fines and penalties on steamship lines and airlines. For example, if an alien misrepresents his eligibility to enter the countrv and is admitted tem­porarily, the ca;Tier is made respon­sible. It must pay for many expenses, l'AOI JJH O~ .• S \" Senator Herbert H. Lehman !D-N.Y.l, above, stated that the Walter-McCarran Act has iso­lated this country rather than protected it. in addition to the return fare of tlw alien. And this applies, even if an alien has been given permission to rnter the country by the State Depart­ment, already has his visa, and has been approved by the Immigration Service. Still, the carrier can he fined as much as $1,000 for bringing him.• The carrier must, in addition, fur­nish office space and facilities for the 1 mmigration Service, even though tlw Service is performing a public func­tion. Under the present law foreigners who come to this countiy for tempo­rary visits are required lo meet the same tests as those coming as perma­nent immigrants. This, of course, necessitates considerable work. The President, in a state of the Union mes­sage, recommended that temporary 1 isitors he subjected to modified re­quiren1cnts. 5 481 Conwn~ional Record ( 1956), p. 1412. /hid ., J). 12~)9 . President Eisenhower's opposition to the Act is one of long standing. Holding that the Act is discriminatory he has asked that the number of pc~~ sons allowed to come into this country each year be based on the 1950 rather than the 1920 census. Also, he favors a flexibility of quotas, so that if any one country does not utilize its quota, another may be able to do so. For ex­ample, unused quotas for Great Brit­ain, Austria, or Germany might be apportioned to Italy or Greece.6 President Eisenhower stated that the United States has al\\'avs wel­comed immigrants to its shore~. In his message the President said: Experience in the postwar world dt•m­onstratcs that the present nation.11-origins method of admitting aliens net•ds to be re­examined, and a new Syt;tem adoptN'.I which will admit aliens within allowable numbers according to new guidelines and standards.' Representative Torbert JI. :\Iac­Donald ( D-:\Iass.) remarked that the immigration laws needed thorough rc­Yision, that the time had come to stop shadowboxing on such a l'ital issue. He held that it was in the best inter­ests of the countrv for the \\'alter­:\ lcCarran Act to b~ abolished and re­placed by one without national or racial bias.s The present law states, in actuality, that an Englishman or a Gl'rman is welcome in this countrv, but that a Greek, Italian, etc., is n~t. This, natu­rally, is an un-American concept. This is judging a man by his national­itv rather than bv his indil'idual \\;Orth.9 Communists. have pounced on this like a hungry dog on a hone, using it as propaganda against Amer­ica. For this law says, in effect, that for biological reasons all immigrants are "equal," but that some arc more equal than others. In other words some can enter the United States only if they are from an "approved" coun­try. This, opponents of the Act claim, is reminiscent of Ilitlerism. America has always represented multiple cul­tures. It is this plurality which lends color and variety to the great national scene. If America is to remain the bright and shining symbol of freedom, jus­tice, and equality, if it is to avoid the patina of bigotry and suspicion, it nec­essarily follows that unfair and archaic laws must be amended. Ter­ror- stricken inhabitants, shrouded in (Co11ti1111cd on page 54) fl/bid., p. A751. ' Ibid ., p. 1998. "llJid., J>. A751. 1"'Amt·ric:,\'s Hac:i\t Tmmh:~rntion Lav.·," the San 1-'rancisco Call-Bulhtlrt , J.inuaT) 16, 1956. Page 15 fs ing: p ( v 111 11 I' N •t l Do Defenses Need Mending? \\J11•. \\CllUlt l'llOTO Bender cmcl S mathers, A REP and a DE ll, Discussecl our de fense On Fact Forum one P.U. Says Smathers, " JP e're weak!" ays Bender, " We' re strong!" On " both sides" of defense, Who's right, antl who's wrong? Do po liti<·al <·ons ide r a tions influenl'e del'i sions in the De fense De partment to the d etriment Gf o ur n a ti onal we lfa re as has heen <• ha q~ed hy former Chief of Staff Gen eral Matthew Ridgeway? The conflicting opinions of Sen ator George A. Smathers ( D-Fla. ), shown al right a hove, and e n a tor George II. Bender ( R-Ohio ), left, on a r el'ent Fac ts Forum program po int to the da n ger of a partisan a1>proach regarding our n ational defense n eed s. SEX.HOR S:-.1u111:ns: I wish \\ith all m\· heart that I could sa\· that Ot;r current ddcnsl' prc;gram offers national sl'curit}, but the weight of provable evidence indicates a creeping deterioration in our d('f('nse position. \\'(• have faliPn bl'hind the SO\ iC't in thC' dc\'l'lopmrnt of the inter­continental guided missiles, and it ap­pears now that we arc in grave danger of losing the contest for air superiority and en·n for technical superiority on the ground. .\kantimc, on se\·eral fronts about the \\·orld, thl' Communists han• launched the big push to grab the British o\·crseas bases upon which our medium-range striking pO\\Cr is al­most totally dependent. This renewed aggressive attitude of the Communists is testimony to the decline of our rela­tive position in defense. If the free world's O\·crseas bases fall our striking power disappears, because our princi­pal air weapon at this point is the medium bomber, the B--17. This bomber must h:wc land bases within Page 16 range of the Soviet Union for success­ful operation. i\ loreover, our supply of long-range intercontinental bombers is pitifully inadl'<p1ate. The main long-distance bomber is still the lumbering B-36. The new B-52 jet bombC'r would meet the need if produced on a large sca le, hut wl' have onlv a handful of B-52's and an extrl'nwl}· limited production scll('dulc which se('S some seventeen being produced each month. ThcsC' are the specific of our problem in air power - a problem \\·hich forms the basis of General Xathan Twining's re­eent statcmC'nt that Hussia has (and I quote him ) "long since passed us" in the quantity of our air power, and is now rapidly narrowing the C'nitecl States margin of superiority in the quality of their planes. While intercontinental missilC's af­ford an alternati,·c field to de\l'lop this long-range striking power which is so essential to deter aggn•ssion, in this field , too, tlH' t; nit('d States effort is sadly lagging. Trcrnr Gardner, the chief of research for the Air Foret' n•signed just a few clays ago in p(I)' tl'st against too little attC'ntion and t~ little mom') for tllC' development. tlw intl'rcontinenal ballistics missil• Addl'cl cause for concern about rt" sl'arch has been provided by Gener Twining (who, of eourse, is tllC' Ch11 of Sta IT of tlw Air Foree) whC'll 1¥ said that the Soviet is grC'atly incrC''.( ing its research and d('\'elopment ' forts. And then General Twini1~ warnl'd , " It is apparent that the) ~ putting more money and morC' nit'i into this hattll' of the laboratories th~1 is the LT nited States." Both General Twining and the •1 Force Secretary, i\Ir. Quarles, h•11 tagged this current Air Force hulh· by saying that it is inclel'd austrrt I What an admission coming dirccl from the chiefs of the air power then sehes! I ndeC'd, these arc no time» I seems to me, for austerity in our 11 tiona l security program. \ t sea, too, it seems to m(' th<1t 01 cldense posture is not all th<tt F \l 1s Fon1.n1 :\Ews, August, 1# shoul but t rnarir IVOrJd On Posed this y one n ninet< Whid fare abo:1t for th four resen 170 d ing tc ready Warf a The rnovin rnents Our s~ nologi not g Corn11 alone. Per] deve]< forrne1 ll.iclgci sions i Unfort ca] coi se]] ti iced c Senate are la1 Pro poi a half budge The Viewe1 the su ~Oncer lSan_ can ai by fue of se lllents CialJy \Vashi ~elve i •ng th tures. securit ~ nt ew a t 1111 lls. ~ Air Foret' ago in prO' 1tion and I~ clopment ;tics missil• 11 about rr I bv Gener·' is ·the Chi• e) when Iv •atly incrc"; ~lopment c ·al Twini11• hat they '1rl I more nif'I ratories th~ and the ·1 uarles, h•1~ 'oree buch. N'd austrr : ling direct power thrP no times. y in our 11 I me th<tt v• all tlu1t should he. \Ve dominate the surface, but the Communists have more sub­marines than docs the entire free World put together. On land the Administration pro­posed to reduce the armv still more this year to a size of little more than one million men. We now have about nin~tecn divisions including just three Whlch are equipped for atomic war­fare, although there's some question ~bout whether or not they arc ready for that. Russia and her satcllit<•s have our hundred divisions, regular and ~eserv.e._ !he Soviet Union itself has . 70 d1v1s1ons, three of which, accord­ing to the Chicago Tribune, have al­ready been well-equipped for atomic Warfare. The indication here is that Hussia is moving ahead in all technical develop­ments. Certainly the essential field for our superioritv is this matter of tech­nological dev~·lorJments since we arc nCo t going to he able ' to match the 0mmunists by sheer manpower alone. d Perhaps the most distressing recent foevelopment is the charge made by ll:nner Chief of Staff General \latthew .•d~cway in which he savs that "deci-sion s m· the Defense Dcpa· rtrnen t W<'rc Unfortunately based on manv politi­cal\ considerations." Senator Dick Hus­~ e • the chairman of the Armed Serv­~~ s Com~1it.tee of the United States natc, said Just the other dav that we' Par e Ia ggm· g in our air effort.· And he /~scs to add at least a billion and b d f dollars to the new Air Force u get. v· The developments which I have re-tht ewcd cngcn d er grave doubt about Coe survival of future generations. \ Jy is ncem is not from the slant of a part­caan - but rather I speak as an AnlC'ri­b n, and as a father, who is troubled oi the somewhat indetcrminatt> comse llJ security measures. These develop­Ci ·e~ts call upon Americans and espc­\\ l~s~ the executive leadership at de] .ngto~ to search its sou I and in Ve mto its motives in further rcduc­.__ g these national defense cxpcndi­• ures \V sec '. e must not gamble ,, ith the linty of this nation. * * S t~ATOR BENDEn: I believe we have ha le best defense machine that we lie Ve had in our entire history. I bc­ca Ve! our leadership is competent and larP.a rle. We elected a great President en ge Y because of his military cxperi-ce. crtainly he knows what is hap· 1' .\(.'rs Foni.,~1 NEws, Attgust, 1956 pening in the Defense Department as well as in all of its branches. \Ve ha,·c had testimony from our experts on what the facts are concerning our defense. Some people have the quality of saying nothing with an immense amount of seriousness. Yesterday and the day before and week before that the airwaves were thick with accusa­tions about the deficiencies of our de­fense. I need not use superlatin•s nor indulge in spurious conversation to make my point. There has not been a war in this centun under a lkpubli­can adminish-.1tio~. President Eiscn­ho\\' er stopped the war in Korea. In his administration he has !wen intent in keeping us out of war b} h;n ing the best defense of any country in the world. I do not know of a better de­tt' 1Tent to war than a strong ddensc, without fanfare, without blowing of trumpets, and without ostentation. This administration is keeping the peace. As a matter of fact, everything is booming hut the guns. ,\ir Force Secretary Quarles rcas-sured the nation on Fcbruar} 1 , as far as the nation's defense strength is con­cerned, after scan: remarks bv certain statesmen rclatin.g to SO\·ict propa­ganda boasts of superior achievements in the missiles field. In testimony before the House Ap­propriations Subcommittee early in February, an enlarged version of the February 18 release, \Ir. Quarles made these points: 1. The United States is probably well ahead of Hussia in the guided missiles race. 2. A missile armed with a nuclear warhead is horrifying hut it docs not kill vou anv deader than a bomber docs. with a~ atomic bomb. 3. Long-range bombers arc the best way of reaching targets and will con­tinue to be in any war occurring in the next five years. 4. America will have B-52 bombers which can do a better job than an} - bodv will he able to do with missiles for some time to come. 5. Even if Russian boasts of the de- (Continucd on page 39) \ ill Election year and party conventions focus our attention once again on the validity of our present system of election. Do you approve of the way we elect the Presi­dent and Vice President? Is the electoral college obsolete? Does your vote really count? Here is an appraisal of the present and projected electoral provisions. THE method of election of the President and Vice President of the L:nited States was not only the source of considerable and voci­ferous debate before the adoption of the Constitution; it has continued to be a target for proposals of "reform" throughout most of the 167 Years of our history as a nation. During the Constih1tional Con\'ention of 17S7 two major opposing points of vie\\ de\·el­opcd: that of creating a strong cen­tralized federal government, and that of emphasizing the n•lativc independ­ence of the states in all matters, with slight federal authority. The tempest is still raging. The Great Compromise of 1787 en­deavored to incorporate both points of \"iew insofar as possible, not only by the creation of a republic, but· neces­sarilv also in the method of election of the President and Vice President. The Page 18 system adopted then and still used is that of an electoral college. Three major revisions have been made to Article II of the Constitution through the years, but none of these deals with the electoral college, or has tampered with state laws of unit rule. L:nit rule means that the slate of elec­tors in each state which obtains the greatest number of votes, whether or not a majority, is empowered to cast all of the vote~ allocated to the state. Amendment XII changed the pro­' is ion for sPlecting the President and Vice President in case an election does not indicate a majority. Amendment XX is the "Lame Duck" amendment, which changed the date of termina­tion of office of congressmen to take care of the awkward problem created \\hen a member of Congress is defeat­ed in the :'\ovemlwr election, yet has several months to serve. The last change, Amendment XXII, prohibit' the President from serving for rnor<' than two terms. A presidential election year is '1 natural time to raise the question of whether or not the electoral system i< adequate. This year is no e~ceptioll· although any change adopted would not affect this year's contest. The• sub­ject has been debated at length in th<' Senate this spring, hut as yet no ckc1· sions have been reached. Very few people defend the present system as being entirely fair or ju,l· Under the operation of the unit rul<' for example, there have been thrl'' Presidents elected who did not c,·c11 gain the popular vote. Out of the huJl" dreds of proposals submitted to CoJlj gress for improvement of the elector>l college system, why haven' t all' changes been made? There are two primary reason': FACTS Fonl" '\'Fws, A11g11sl, J9.Jli First. invol tutio1 sumi1 two-t Coni! fourt. cens1 that I ing t Woul, ly it . a mo1 The amen age t Sett ~ foU0 ,. Wha1 Uni the el Presic that ner a1 of ele1 a tors in the electo state c cornp1 to wh they I IVith t Pres id ing a cast a1 If I Ccives sen ta the th1 est n 'oting states ~arc!]~ state • Vote ol is nec1 Simi Presicl1 c•lcctor ea int candid . Fee]( tcs of the la\1 llieetin their h toraJ b1 State Which ~OVcrn J:l•irty a ~rd en IJt in' •re llni prohibit' for mort 1 year is '1 1uestion of 11 system i> e'ceptioJl· >tcd would t. The sub· ngth in th' ·ct no dcci· the prcscllt air or ju>1· ' unit n1lt'­bccn thrC' I .l not c,cn of the ]11111• ed to Co11· 1e elcctor•11 .vcn't ,111~ y reason~· 1gust, 19·1' First, a change in the electoral process invokes an amendment to the Consti­tution, a complicated and time-con­suming procedure which requires a two-thirds vote by both branches of Congress, plus ratification by thrcc­fourths of the states. Second, the con­census after each attempt seems to be that the proposed change, in attempt­ing to solve one or more problems, Would create others, so that apparent­ly it would he better to hold off until a more perfect solution presents itself. The most progress such a proposl'CI amendment has ever made was pass­age by the Senate of the Lodge-Gos­sett amendment in 1950, onlv to he followed hy defeat in the Ilo;1se. What Is the Present System? Under the present procedure for the election of the President and Vice President, the Constitution provides that each statr appoint, in such man­Oc> r as its legislature directs, a numhcr of electors equal to the number of scn­~ tors and representatives of that state 1n the U. S. Congress. Although the electors, meeting in their respective state capitals, arc not under any legal compulsion to vote for the candidates th to whom they arc pledged, in general ey cast their votes in accordance ~ith. their pledges. The candidates for . rcs1ck•nt and Vice President rccc•iv­tng a majority of the electoral votes cast arc elected. If no candidate for President rc­Ccivcs a majority, the House of H.cprc­: entativcs chooses the President from he thn•c candidates having the gn•at­Cst num her of electoral votes. This Voting in the House is conducted hv states, each state having one vote r~­~ ardless of its size the vote of each state hcing dctcr~incd hv separate 1V5 ote of its delegation. A majority vole necessary for election. - p Similarly, if no candidate for Vice .resident receives a majority from the ~dectoral college, the outcome is dPcid­c in the Senate from the two highest candidates. I . Federal statutes govern the mcchan­tChs of t J1 e electoral process, including Ille laws determining time of clPction, th e:ting of the electors and casting of t eir ballots, and counting of the clec­OtaJ ballots in Congress. \\/~·tatc laws determine the manner in ~ 1ch tho electors arc chosc•n and t>0Vern other election procedures and ~tty activities within their respective b,,;c'.ers. These laws naturally vary, «re in .one· important aspect the states 1t111form: they have all adopted the t' !tr Ts Font''-! 'Ews, August, 19.56 "u nit rule." This means, for example, if one• state has 24 electoral \'Otes, and a popular election gives 14 for the electors on the slate of the Democratic party and 10 for the H.cpuhlican, the Democrats would control all 24 votes. As originally conceived, the elec­toral college was intended to be com­posed of men of ability and reputa­tion, who would exercise an independ­ent judgment in their selection of the President and Vice President. At first lhc states cl1·ct1'd or appointc·d m!'mbers to the electoral co]Jc.ge by dis­tricts. There was no such thing as a party slat!' of electors. Thm in 1800 s<•ver.11 norlh!'rn anti-Jdf!'rson st;1te lc•gislahm•s anwnd!'d th!'ir election laws in such a way that the voter would vote for a ge1wral lickt·t of the state's entire quota of clec· tors. Thus an t'ntire state bloc of electors would he elected by majority vole, and th!' minority of pro-Jefferson rnt!'rs, in those' slal<•s, would have no n•pr<•senla· tin·s in the electoral collegt'. The Virginia Assembly then adopted a similar law in deft•nse of Jefferson, and the "unit rule" was on its way toward h<•ing nniv(•rsal - as it is today. It has rC'mainccl common to all slates down through the years. It is, of courS<'. to the advantag:C' of whichever political party is dominant in a >lal<' to retain the system. Legally, the electors cannot he hound to vole in the clt•ctoral collc•gt• for any nominee, but may vote as they plPasP. Politically and morally, howe\·t·r, th!'y arc pledged in advance as a unit and lhey so ml<' with rare exception. Thus the "unit rnl1.'' is part stale law and parl political !'uslom which has gained the force of Iaw. 1 Reasons for Maintaining Present System Proponents of the present electoral system defend it primarily on the basis that it has served the people rea­sonably well for many years, in spite of certain defects. l\Iore specificall), they say unit rule has discouraged the growth of minority parties. Thp two. party system, as opposed to multiplc­party or coalition government, is gen· crall) conceded to be an integral part of the success story of American go\'· crnmcnt. None of the sponsors of con­temporary proposals for change, at any rate, want to encourage the de\'d· opnwnt of splinter parties, the scourge of European politics. Homer Fergu· son, U. S. Ambassador to the Philip­pines and former senator, says: It is perhaps lhc besl commentary on the importance and durabilil) of the two­p; uty system that this country has known 70 polilieal parlit•s in its history, each of which has decled al lmsl om• member of Congr<'ss. But ea('h Oil<.\ and in a n•ry short time, disappeared or was ahsorh{'d in Oil(' of the two major parti(•s. This did 1" \\"hat tlw Law !\•ow Prol-ides," Con,;rcs.donal Diμ1 \I, .\pril, 19.56, p. 102. not happt•n by luck or chance. The elec­toral system itself had much to do with it. - .. Under the present unit system, minoritv political groups, usually advocating c;. treme views, rarely attract enough votes to capture the electoral \'Ole of a state. At most, they can swing their voting strength hC'twecn the two major parties .... Their inability to !(ain <'lectoral vot1•s under the unit rule dcprivt's them of incentive to remain comp.wt and to grow as indi' idual parties. At the same time, lht>ir limitC'd ,·otin!( strength is enou!(h to cause f<•m1ent in the major parties, which arc forced to clean house and adopt new ideas to gain the aid of minority groups. The result is to prcs·cnt fragmentation into multiple parties with all its attendant es·ils, and to prescn·e and to im·igoratc the two-part) systen1.2 Some who favor the present system, or at least who feel that the hcst pos­sible alternative has not heen pro­duced as yet, point out that the elec­toral college is federal in its concept, preserving tl1c basic rights of the states to vote as states. Defects in Present System The defects of the prevailing meth­od of election, according to those who would change it, are threefold: ( 1) Retention of the office of elec­tor. The electoral college has degener­ated into a mere rubber stamp, say its critics. Instead of heing selected for ability, prestige, and keen judgment, as envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, present-day electors are often unknown, completely meaning­less to the average voter. :--.Jore important, the indi\'idual elec­tor is only morally and politically hound to \'Otc for candidates of his party. Legally, there is the possihilit) that electors may disregard their pledges, thereby conceivably creating a dangerous sih1ation. For instance, if on election day it appeared that one candidate needed but one electoral \'Otc to command a majority in the electoral college, the pressure on indi­Yidual electors would he tremendous. One or more such changed \'Otes, under the unit rule, could change the \'Otc of the entire state, perhaps has - ing a dcci ivc role in tl1e total election picture. There is the risk, furthermore, that a successful candidate for the Presi­dency or Vice Presidency will become incapacitated between the date of the election and the date on which tl1e electoral college mPets. The selection of a substitute candidate would ncccs· sarily be left to the discretion of the electoral college. :"Should the 'Proportiorlill' Electoral Method Be Adopk<ll" ibid., 1>. 109. Page 19 fs ing \ 1tl ( 2) Elections in the II ouse of Rep­resentatii: es. 'Vhcn no presidential candidate rccei,·es a majority of the electoral votes, the House of Repre­sentatives is designated in the Consti­tution as the final umpire. This would give all states, regardless of population equal power in elrcting the President. Similarly, if a candidate for Vice Presi­dent does not carry the majority elec­toral vote, the Senate will determine the victor. This is entirely contrary to the basic principle of the whole ap­proach to presidential elections, name­ly, that each state's relative voting power shall be measured in terms both of the state as a unit (represent­ed bv the two electoral votes for the two ~ena tors) and the state in terms of relative population ( represented by the number of electoral votes for the number of representatives) . Of course, such an emergency situation has not happened very often. There are only two instances in the his torv of the countrv, 1801 and 18:!.5, in which Con­gress has thus performed the duties of the electoral college. ( 3) The 1111it rnle method of count­ing electoral votes. Opponents of this general ticket method contend that literallv millions of American voters are dis-franchised in every presidential election. The 1948 elections furnish an excellent example of this point: \Ir. Dewey received in the 16 states which he carried a total of 8.6 million votes. These 16 states gave him a total of 189 electoral ,·otes. But in the 32 states which \Ir. Dewey failed to carry, he had a total of 1:3.3 million ,·otl's. This great mass of popular votes for \Ir. Dewey g;1ve him not one sing-le e1e<:toral YOlc and, therefore, countl'd for naught. They were of no morl' C'ff<'ct than if they had not been cast at all. In the 191~ elections, \Ir. Dewey w;\S cn·dited with all of Connecticut's eight electoral votes, even though he command­<' d but a bare plurality of the popubr votes. Some 42:3,000 vot<'S were cast for \Ir. Tnnnan, hut tlwse \'Otes w<'re whollv disregctrded in the comput;1tion of \I;. Tnnnan's el<'ctoral str<'ngth, and, actually, they were all credited to \Ir. D<"Wcy. In other words, th<·se ·12·3,000 ,·otcs were compukcl preciselr the opposite of the way they were cast.' Senator Herbert Lehman of Xew York as well as many others, pointed out in the Senate debates that under the unit rule system the weighting of electoral votes is not fair. In South Carolina in 19..t'l, for example, it was demonstrated that one electoral vote represented 17,000 people, while in California an electoral vote represent­ed 168,000 people. In :\'cw York one a:St"n. te Committtt Re-port, ibid., pp. 106 &: 108. Page 20 1952 RESULTS UNDER THREE METHODS Result of the Popular and Electoral Vote Cast in 1952 Presidential Election Comparing the totals under ( l) the present system, ( 2) the proposc·d "proportional" plan and ( 3) the proposed "district" plan. Thr Elect.oral Vote - Tota Party Prr(.'('nt Htate Popular It IRRbubliran) (I) (2) (31 Vote D {Dt'mocrat) Prea't. Proportional DUitr1ct SJl'm. 8y11tf>m System .\!aha.ma 12fl,120 35.0 R I 6-1.5 D II D 3.S.5 R 7.1 D I 11 D .\rizona. 2fi0,56!l 58.4 R 41.6 D 4R 2.3 ll l.7D iR .\rkansa.'\ . . 101,800 43.8 R 55.!l D D 3.5 ll 4 . .5D 1 ll 7D California 5, 11 I ,8-l!l 56.4 R 42.7 D 32 H. 18.0 R 13.7 D 26 R 6D ('olorado fh10,103 C.0.3 R 38.!l D 6 ll 3.6 R 2.3D 6R ('on1w<'tirut 1,0%,!lll .55.7 R 13.!l J) 8 ll 1..5 R 3.5 D Sil D!'lmrnr<' 171,010 .51.7 R 17.!lD 31l 1.6 ll 1.4 D 3 ll Florida !l88,!l8() 55.0 R 4.5.0 D JO ll li..5 R 4.5 D 1 n I 3D G('orμ;ia 651,303 30.6 R 69.4 D 12 J) 3.7 ll 8.3 D 12 D Tela ho 276,2;;.J 65.4 R 31.4 D 4 1l 2.6 ll 1.4 D 4 RI lllinois .. 1, 181,058 54. R 4.5.0 D 27 ll 14.8 1l 12. l.5]) 20 ll 7D Indiana 1,055,325 .58.1 R 41.0 D 13 ll 7.6 R 5.3 D 12 R 1 D Iowa 1,208,773 63.8 R 35.6 D JO R 6.1 R 3 .. 5 D 10 ll Kansas . 8!>6, 16(; 68. ll 30 . .5 D 8 ll .5 . .5R 2.1 D 8 ll K<•nful'ky H\)3,118 Hl.8 R 19.!l D JO D 5.0 ll .5.0]) 3 ll iD Louisiana . . (i,iJ,!);;2 17. I ll 52.9 D JO D 1.7 R 5 3 J) J ll !JD ~I11im' 3;;1,786 fili.O ll 33.8 [) 5ll 3.3 ll 1.7 [) 5H \larylnrul !102,07 I 5,;.1 R 13.8 D !) ll r, 0 Jl 3.() I) 8R ID :\lnssn.c•hus(.•tts 2,3 3,3!18 51.2 R 15 . .5 [) l(jll 8.7 ll 7.3 [) 12 ll IP \lic·hignn 2,798,5!)2 .55.1 R 11.0 I) 20 ll I I. I ll 8.8]) 16 R ID \linrwsotu. I ,37!1,~83 ,;,;.3 ll I I.I ]) I I ll 6. I ll 1.8]) !l ll 2D :\I ississippi .. 28.;,.110 39 6 Il !i0.4 l) 8 I) 3.2 R 1.8 D Ill 7D \fissouri 1,8!12,0<i2 ,;0.7 H I!!. I D 13 ll !i.6 ll 6.1 J) 9R ID :\Ion tuna 21i.i,037 :;!l.J ll 10.1 I) 1 Jl 2.1 ll I .6 I) I Il I X<•hrnska (i()!J,fif,() (i!J.2 ll 30.8 I) (j ll 1.2 ll l .8 I) 6 ll Xevnd" 82,1!10 61.1 ll 38.6 ]) 3 Jl I .8 ll I .2 I) 3 H I :\(•w llnmpshir(' 212,%2 ()().() ll 3!l.l D 1 Jl 2.1 H t .G D 1 Il ;\('\\ . . kr-:-;t·y 2, I 1!1,5.51 5U.8 ll 12.0 D )(i ll !1. I ll (i.7 I) 13 ll 3p .:\(•W :\ft•Xi('O 238,()()8 •i5. I ll I 1.3 I) I ll 2.2 ll I .8 I) Ill :\('\\ York 7,128,21 I 55.1 ll 13.!l [) 15 Il 21 !I ll J!l.O I) 31 R l I D \ ort h ( 'nrolinn l,210,!110 Hi. I Il 53 9 I) l I I) H.5 ll 7.5]) I Il JO D :\orlh Dakota 270,127 71.0 R 28.1 D I ll 2.8 ll I. I D I Il Ohio 3,100,7.i.~ ;;6.8 ll 13.2 I) 2,; ll l I 2 ll 10 8 I) 21 Il I () Oklahoma !118,!ISJ ,;u; H 15.1 I) 8 ll I I ll 3 (i I) 7 H I Il ()rpp:on rnl.i,O.i!I liOUH 38() [) n ll 3.U H 2.3 I) (i ll Pt'1111sylvnnia I ,.i.'iO ,.;02 52.I H tr..!l I) 32 ll HUI ll I .i.0 I) 22 H 10 () Hhmh• Island I I I, J\IS .il.O ll 1!1.0 I) I ll 2.01 H J.ll() I) 3 Il I I) :4outh ('arolinu. 311,121 Ill. I Il ;i0.7 I) 8 I) :u ll I. I I) 3 ll ,; p .'outh I>akoln 2!11,2S:l li!l.3 ll 30.7 I) ill 2.8 ll I .2]) I ll Tt'Tlll('S:o.l'P 8!12,.i5:l •iO.O ll l!l.7 J) I I ll 5.5 ll 5.17 I) 5 ll 6 J) ']'t•xa:-; 2,0ili,8 )(\ 53. l ll 16.7 ]) 2 I ll 12.7 ll I 1.2 I) I (i ll D l"tah :J2!1,:;51 ,;s.n R I l. I I) I Jl 2. I ll I .(i ]) I ll Yl'rmont 153,.;.;7 7 l.5 ll 28.2 [) :l ll 2.1 ll .8 I) 3H Yirginia 1;1n,mm ;iti.3 ll 13.1 I) 12 ll ti.8 ll 5.2 I) JO ll 2D \\'ushingtcm 1,102,708 .;1.1 R 11.7 J) !I H ).!} ll 1.0 [) !l ll \\ t·..;t Virgin ill s1:i,:;1x IS.Ill I 51 .9]) 8 I) :J.'I H 1.2 [) 2H r.P \\'1sc·onsin 1,li07,:l70 Hl.0 ll 38.7 I) 12 H 7.3 H I.HD ti H l JJ \Vyoming 12!1,251 li2.7 H 37. I I> :l ll I.ii H l. l ]) 3H I -- Toi al lil,511,SHJ .;;; .J H I 1.1 I) I 12 ~\I 2~~.;; ll 2:l!J.8 I) ;i7;, ll 1;,(i p I I I % B I> ~ Reprinted by perm1uion from the pro and con publication, Co111r1~1J1011al DiXHI, April, I 9Hi, P· 10· electoral Yote represented even more people. 1 Proponents of electoral reform con­tend that unit rule results in too much emphasis being placed on the larger, so-calkd "swing" states in presidential campaigns. It is pointC'd out that there --=Con.r.:re ~ional Record, \f.irch 2.'J, 19.56, p. 4839. is a natural temptation for a candicJ.111 who can win 45 electoral vote's fr0 111 New York State alone to concentn11' his campaign in that state, and. -~ I natural temptation for a party to pit candidates from the larger states. f11r· thermore, strategy frequently dict,11<'' that important concessions be made ti' FM is Font '1 '\ 1-ws, A11g11 st, J9.¢ minor ccntt•1 tion , partv of S~t Son <'lhnic in c:ha th,. Ill blocs th,. st \Ol«.•s <knli~1 in 48 lions J>olitiC' ·• Pt·rf \\:ar<·s thty s tanclid a natic "Ptwal Thr \\ith d activi~ Of thp. since' 1 lost; IJ lllajoril thpir v \ not 1illit ru a Pres 11ith le hut ,1 i lt'adin~ lion ha of Ada lI.irrisc !lection nal" plan (3) Oi.titrirt System 4R ~~I GR B Il 3R 7R 4R 0 ll 2 ll OR SR 3R Ill 5R SR 2R 6R !l R Ill 9R 4R 6 ll 3ll ·1 ll 3 ){ ·1 H JH 11{ 4 ){ ll D iD GD 3D J2D 7D ID 7D 9D JD tD 1D 2D iD 1D 31) IJ !) JO D J Jl J () 7 ll I Il HI! 2 ll JO J1 3 R I Il 3R ;,JJ ·I ll 5 R 6 Il 6 ll D I ll 3 ll o R 2 D fl ll 2 H 6 P J H J p 3H ii R J.i<i fl t candicl•1tl' votes f ro111 ·onccntr•1t' .te, and-~ rty to P1' ;tatcs. ft1f" ly dicta!"' be made tt' 1g11st, 19-1' rninorit) groups found in metropolitan C<·nt<•rs "·ho often can swing an elec­tion within a state from one major Party to the other. Senator Karl \!undt of South Dakota explains further: Sometim<'s lh<.'se minorit) hlo{'s an.• tthnic, religious, political or <'COnornic iu ('harackr, but in tlw main they inhabit thp nwtropolitan communities, when• such hlcx:s ean hold tlw balance of pow('r in tlw stal<"s with large blocks of el<"doral \Olt's, to the point of dt'terrnining prl'si <kntial decisions for 17.5 million pmpl<' 11.1 18 states. Such groups and org:aniza­l1011s should han• the right to OJWrall' J~>litieall~· in our body politic. Tlwy han· a P<·rf!'<·t right to endeavor to sdl tlwir War('s to the a,·eragc ,·otC'r. Ilowen•r, ... th<·y should h,. <'Omp<·lled, as pr<•sidmtial <.u1didat<"s should b<• compdl<•d, to make a nationwid<· appeal, instead of a localized "PPc·al. Thr unit rule method is charg<'d l\ith discouraging individual political activit\ in "sure" statrs. FC'\v mcmlwrs 0_f tlw- minority party hothrr to vote, ~incc• they know their votes will he Ost; nor do manv members of the lllajority party vot~, since they know tl1<'ir votes are not needed. \notlwr serious shortcoming of the 11nit rule svstem is tlw possihilit\ that a Prcsidc~t can he elcct<•d not onlv hith l~ss than a majority popular vote, I ~-'t 11·1th fewer popular votes than his t'. .idmg oppone
File Name uhlib_1352973_v005_n008_069.pdf