committees. The information and experience which industry has to offer
can still be obtained in this way. The
country will not suffer from it. but we
shall remove from each and every one
this suspicion that otherwise is likely
Views of Colonel Owsley:
Should the administration employ
"dollar a year men" in policymaking
positions in peacetime has Income a
highly controversial question. The pol-
icy of using men whose salaries arc paid
by industry in positions of decision in
the government arose as a wartime
emergency. It was the patriotic thing
to do, for industry to loan their top
executives without pay from the government, lo win the war. Government business has become highly technical.
The question arises: If it is the summit of patriotism to serve the government and the country in times of war
without pay, how much more important is it that those "indispensable men
of industry" who have the know-how-
shall serve the public interest in time
of peace to prevent war? The naton's
safety and defense is at stake. The yearning of every American is for peace with
honor. We can only have peace if we
are strong and powerful, so strong that
no enemy dare attack us. The man on
the street knows that the only reason we
have not been attacked by our enemies.
the Communists, is our possession of the
atomic bomb and the H-bomb, with the
overwhelming power and force that goes
with il for lutal destruction.
These developments did not come altogether from government employees.
They came largely from the men from
the research laboratories of our great
industries. It is imperative to have the
besl brains of the country serving the
nation to prevent war or, in the event
of hostility, to win the victory. I refuse
to define this question as one of public
service versus private interest.
Now there were many "dollar a year
men" in World War II, and at thc
close of the Korean War there was something like a thousand "key men of
industry," who knew their business,
serving in Washington without government pay. No scandals, no betrayal of
interest. Only one conflict has arisen
from high authority, and he had the
character to resign his public office.
All praise to him for this correct decision.
In the final summation of this question, it is true we are searching for men
of character, honesty, patriotism who
cannot be swerved out of the line of
duty. It is common knowledge that senators and members of the House, and high
government officials maintain private
connections from which they draw incomes, such as radio and television lecture contracts, the direction of their
home newspapers, connection with their
law firms and many other businesses, too
numerous to mention. Yet who is there
in America to say that the ranking mem
bers of Congress or high government
officials should be compelled to impoverish themselves because "some people" fear they would favor special
groups in Washington. The country's
thinking has risen above that level.
Business or no business in government? This is lhe question. The problem, of course, of how to draw the line
between personal interest and official
government responsibility is far from
solved. We are supposed In have a government of business men. That's what
thc President said he wanted. The people
overwhelmingly endorsed his poliev of
having a governmenl by business men.
How can you have a government by
business men unless you can bring the
business men In Washington?
The majority of these men are drawing salaries fa]- beyond lhat which lhe
governmenl pays and they cannot afford the sacrifice of giving up their
high salary from private industry and.
in many cases, le.as of seniority, be deprived of their retirement programs,
stock purchasing rights or profit sharing bonuses which have now become the
rule wilh large industry. We must not
exacl loo high a price, too great a sacrifice of the besl bretins of the country
or else we cannot expect them to serve.
There are restrictions—laws prohibiting men owning and retaining interests when drafted by governmenl
service. The nation is entitled lo the
faithful services of the best men emd
women available, regardless of who
pays the salaries.
(Continued from Page 52)
of war as the means to combat cruel
slavery by no means connotes continuation of a foreign policy designed to perpetuate in power a brutal Communisl
dictatorship. And we should most carefully refrain from letting ourselves be
propagandized and manipulated into
lending assistance to the Kremlin rulers
everv lime the excesses, brutality and
utter failure of their Communist system
get them into hot water. There is a very
considerable probability that the form
of insanity known as communism could
not for long hulil sway over its op-
pressed millions without the lavish help
it has so frequently obtained from the
Here Mr. Huddleston's observations
on "constructive" criticism are particularly apropos. We don't have to do any-
thing. We just have to stop doing the
wrong thing. We can turn deaf ears to
those who have consistently, year after
year, urged upon us policies which have
aided lhe Kremlin rulers—and have then
justified their false counsel on the
ground that the evil and tragic results
were inevitable. It is not even necessary
for us to ask why these counselors have-
been so persistently and disastrously
wrong, provided their counsel is ignored.
Bul politicians listen to Ihe loudesl
clamor in the so-called "media of information," and this is "Popular Diplomacy" in action.
Does anyone seriously believe that
strict abstinence from any support of
the Communist regime would provoke
war? And is it not more logical to suppose that the Communist empire, shut
off from outside help and confirmation,
would face the dissolution inevitably resultant from an abandonment of all
moral values of decency and common
humanity? Faced with the internal
fruits of the Communisl system, the
Kremlin rulers would be in a poor position lo consider external war. Military
defeat of Soviet Russia would not
destroy lhe false premises of communism. Ii must destroy itself, bul for this
to happen we must Iel it fail. Not until
then will we be able lo carry on any
meaningful international relations with
the elected representatives of almost a
billion people who have had no representation at Geneva, at the UN, or anywhere else in the world.
It is not our business to "liberate"
these people. Bul any amoral policy
which frustrates for one day llieir self-
liberation can buy us nothing but the
reward of an accomplice.
Popular Diplomacy and War offers
helpful insighl on how we eem follow a
path which will avoid another destructive war. Main of Mr. Huddleston's proposals would help us avoid supporting
an evil form of physical and mental
slavery. Much more' needs tn be written
to combat lhe pre sent tendency toward
ihis second form of erroneous lieitieuial
conduct. It is the issue now coming in
for increasing discussion. There is no
more In be gained from moral self-
destruction than frnm physical self-destruction.
(Continued mi Pagi '
FACTS FORUM NKWS. Octobei