ice of opinion as to how some of these brass hats act. I do think cretary Patterson has certainly been labor's friend.

Mr. LUHRSEN. I am not accusing him. What I am trying to get er is that the Honorable Patterson is sponsoring this legislation, at when asked in the House about these 2,000 men at Cincinnati at have just been laid off, why, he knew nothing about that. Now, we can show there are numerous men that could be transrred. There is nothing in the record introduced by the military to dicate that at all. If they do not know about it, they should know hether there is an oversupply in one place and an undersupply in nother.

Senator MAYBANK. If you have figures as to that, I am glad to hear

I have complained to the Navy Department as to the overaffing and large number of officers in the Charleston Navy Yard. know when a naval officer came back from the Pacific he was quite pset about the situation in the Boston Navy Yard, during the few onths he was there before he went out again, about the excess of fficers. I have no quarrel as to that.

Mr. LUHRSEN. I think, in view of the fact that the military are ponsoring this bill because of a shortage in manpower in production, a industry, they should give you facts and figures to show where the hortage is, what it is and where, and what they need. Nowhere in he testimony before the House committee, and I, of course, do not know what they said here, is there a single line on that score.

Now, I submit, if they say we need men, then we ought to know where they are needed and how many.

I am not saying that Secretary Patterson or any other Army officer does not give labor credit for having done a good job. I say they do. The only thing I criticize is that they come in here for compulsory legislation without knowing the reason, they can not prove there is a shortage of men on their evidence.

Senator MAYBANK. One of the principal things their testimony has shown, as I understand their position as to this bill, and as to their hurried request, it is for morale purposes even above the shortage of men. Now, I may be wrong, but that is the impression I have gotten from the hearings.

Mr. LUHRSEN. I will give you some figures later on, Senator, that I think will throw considerable enlightenment upon where we think the fault rests.

They have been encouraged to do this based upon the knowledge which has been continuously broadcast and repeated and repeated again and again, that the workers at home have been and are still doing a splendid job, not by compulsion but because of the voluntary and enthusiastic cooperative spirit as between the many diversified classes of occupations. Why destroy that practical, yes I might say spiritual, feeling of prayer and hope, each one for the other at home and abroad, by now advocating what is nothing more or less than a stepping stone to future slavery?

If labor were standing by itself and alone in the crusade of opposing this kind of legislation, we might have some doubt and suspicion that we might be wrong. But the fortunate thing, as we see it, is that the Army and Navy or those of military rank are the only, practically the only one supporting this slave labor legislation. An article appearing in the New York Times, January 21, written by C. F. Hughes,

entitled "The Merchant's Point of View," supports the statement I have just made. Here are excerpts from it:

The industrial viewpoint is (1) the shortages are local and can be fixed up best at the local level without disrupting the national set-up; (2) even if it was an overall emergency, compulsion would only result in general dissatisfaction and bring about the slow-down which usually happens when workers are unhappy.

From Detroit came the news that instead of a shortage there are 60,000 men and women unemployed and more than 50,000 drawing unemployment compensation. John L. Lovett, general manager of the Michigan Manufacturers' Association, asserted that the Detroit area could handle 20 percent more war contracts, and in a telegram to Michigan's Congressmen he stated: "We of the management believe that free labor will produce more than slave labor, and we are opposed to any compulsion on manpower in manufacturing plants."

The article quotes Mr. Baruch from his book, American Industry in the War:

Enforced and involuntary service for a private master

he noted

has been clearly and repeatedly defined by our Supreme Court as a slavery inhibited by the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution.

I have endeavored to keep up as best I can with arguments pro and con with respect to any compulsory labor legislation as it has been introduced from time to time. No one who has appeared before this committee or who may have argued elsewhere on this specific subject, has projected the sound logic with greater forcefulness and wisdom than has Mr. David Lawrence in his article entitled "When Democracy Breaks Down." It appears on pages 28 and 39 of the February 9, 1945, issue of United States News. It is a masterpiece especially applicable and apropos to the occasion. The time allotted hardly permits me to read it to you. I do, however, make the request that the entire article may be made a part of this hearing, so that future repetitious efforts of similar legislation may present coming posterity with a sound and useful negative reply. Every member of this committee as well as all the Members of both Houses should read it. The CHAIRMAN. Have you the article?

Mr. LUHRSFN. This is the article.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be inserted in the record.

(The article referred to, When Democracy Breaks Down, is as follows:)

WHEN DEMOCRACY BREAKS DOWN

(By David Lawrence)

The American people have been taught to believe that totalitarianism is bad and that democracy can wage war without adopting the Fascist formula of forced labor.

The American people have been taught to believe that involuntary servitude is bad. The Constitution explicitly forbids it.

Military service is not involuntary servitude because service for one's country is not service for anybody's individual profit.

But enforced service in a civilian plant, operated by civilians and in which civilians have a stock ownership and seek to make profits is involuntary servitude.

The cry that in the midst of war the Constitution must be abrogated is the same cry of expediency that the totalitarians use when they abrogate human rights. The House of Representatives has passed a manpower bill which calls for forced labor. It is a grave mistake in policy and marks a tragic chapter in the history of American democracy.

The truth is that our system of selecting manpower for war has not lived up to its name a "selective service" system. Congress must share some of the blame;

but, on the other hand, it is a fact that ample law to induct men by age groups has existed almost from the very beginning of the war emergency in 1940. Instead of applying the law, men were taken from nearly all ages up to 38 and hence many of the best troops-the younger men-were not inducted until recently. This was a waste of valuable time.

Delay in drafting youth.—Thus the country finally got, in 1944, a systematic plan for drafting younger men. After an inexcusable delay, all able-bodied persons from 18 through 29 are at last subject to immediate induction and only a few are deferred who are in essential positions in industry.

But what of those above 29?

Existing law gives the Military Establishment power to induct anyone up to the age of 45. The manpower shortage is directly traceable to the blunders of the military men who announced, first, that men over 35 were not useful for the Army and then, last year, agreed to an announcement that persons 30 and over would not be inducted until the supply of physically fit men under the age of 30 had been exhausted. The prospect of using that supply seemed remote.

This action, however, virtually promised exemption from military service to millions of persons in the age groups between 30 and 45, and it is small wonder that the exodus from essential jobs began, especially when military men abroad as well as on this side of the Atlantic were giving the American people, last autumn, stories of how the European war would soon be over.

Simple manpower plan available.-There are no mysteries about manpower control. We went through a series of painful changes at the War Production Board before a plan to control materials was adopted. A similar control of the flow of manpower could have been established long ago-and without forcing men to work for somebody's profit or face jail.

The plan, available ever since the war began and still available today, is simple. It does, of course, require the cooperation of the military men and it needs at least some degree of efficiency in allocating personnel in our armed services. But even at this late date and with the war against Japan likely to go on a couple of years longer, it is opportune for the Military Establishment to be required to introduce efficiency in the allocation and use of manpower. We learn now that too many men were allocated to ground forces of the Air Corps and not enough to Infantry. Whose mistake was that? Stories of wasted manpower in the armed services are heard on every side.

The first step now, however, should be to revoke the arrangement whereby most men between 30 and 45 are virtually assured that they will not be inducted into military service. No new law is needed to withdraw such a regulation.

The second step is to begin to replace those able-bodied men in the supply units of our forces overseas and in the camps in this country with men from the 30 to 45 age groups. This automatically increases our supply of reserves and gives the front lines what they need physically capable soldiers. If a

The system of deferments already in existence can continue to be used. man is not needed in an essential job or business or industry to help the war effort, he should be inducted into military service to fight or to replace some able-bodied man who can fight. The so-called Army standards, whereby boys with a broken eardrum or a spot on the lung acquired years ago are not inducted into some form of limited service in the Army, are ridiculous.

If the several million men between the ages of 30 and 45 knew tomorrow that they might be inducted into the armed forces to do limited service unless their civilian jobs were already in the essential groups, they would not need the threat of a jail sentence to find such jobs at once.

Why not accept limited service?-One argument offered by the Army men in rebuttal is that too many such men would then gladly enter the armed forces, whereas the Army does not want them. But would a man who now earns $40 or $50 a week and has a family to support rush into the Army to earn $50 a month and separate himself from his home? If any considerable number did, couldn't they work a typewriter or cook meals or run a jeep or do any one of a number of countless tasks behind the lines so that able-bodied men now doing those same chores could be released for combat duty? If the Army agreed to accept only 500,000 of these men for limited service, spreading the selection process over the next 18 months, the manpower situation in the United States would be solved immediately. Already, with the threat of legislation, the movement last week into essential industries was like a panic. The mere possibility of induction at $50 a month would be equally persuasive.

68966-45 -15