Page images

put forth at the present time to decrease governmental agencies and remove the Government controls from industries with which it has no connection, that reconsideration of this bill at such time is indeed difficult to understand.

It would seem that it is just another agency to create many more jobs; and so far as the Government doing this any cheaper than private capital, we have never seen anything yet that has been done by the Government that has been done any cheaper than by a private contractor and private industry.

The Government, which has failed dismally in its own job of housing, believes it can show private enterprise how to do its job of housing.

An allegation frequently made is that private builders are opposed to housing low-income groups. That is probably the silliest statement that the professional houser makes. Does any seller ignore and oppose his greatest market?

The builder is not opposed to Government housing those who, through age, mental or physical infirmity, or pressing temporary need, cannot provide decent housing through their own effort. Such provision comes under the head of charity, and as such should be a matter of local determination and dispensation; and the service or commodity should be purchased on the open market. What builders oppose is a permanent national charity dole, miscalled public housing. Puble housing is a charity dole, on a permanent basis, dispensed to able-bodied, fully employed men and women, a European idea and practice grafted on the American economy.

The professional public houser asserts that from one-third to one-half of the citizens of America are poorly housed and therefore proper candidates for this dole. Do you believe, Senator, that America will still be a land of individual freedom, enjoying the high standard of free enterprise and initiative, when from one-third to one-half of its citizens are receiving a permanent charitable Government dole? Is this the best solution we can offer for a better and happier America-a dole which penalizes initiative and thrift and freezes ambition?

Won't you give this every consideration before going too far with it, as we can't see, for the life of us, where there is anything to be gained by having the Government go into this huge and expensive deal.

Thanking you, we are,

Very truly yours,

W. F. MARKER, President.

P. S.-It has just come to our attention that this bill is to be referred to as S. 866.

W. F. M.

Raleigh, March 26, 1947.

Re conversion legislation. Section 502-S866.

Secretary, Committee on Banking and Currency,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. HILL: I have just read the above-mentioned section, and as supervisor of State-chartered building and loan associations in North Carolina want to enter my protest to some of the language and provisions therein.

I have always felt that it was nothing but fair and right that conversions be permitted to work both ways. I am very anxious to see legislation enacted that will permit Federal associations to convert to a State charter, but unless this can be done without the approval of the Federal Home Loan Bank Administration and the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, I doubt very much if the purpose of the act will be accomplished.

Yours very truly,

T. E. BOBBITT, Deputy Commissioner of Insurance.


Madison 2, Wis., March 26, 9147.

Secretary, Committee on Banking and Currency,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. HILL: You have pending before your committee bill S. 866, known as the Taft-Ellender-Wagner bill. Under section 502 of this bill there is a provision relative to the conversion of Federal savings and loan associations to State-chartered institutions. There are two provisions in this bill which in my opinion should be eliminated and stricken from the bill or revamped.

(1) The bill provides that no Federal savings and loan association can convert to a State-chartered savings and loan association without the approval, by regulation or otherwise, of the Board or the Federal Home Loan Bank Administration or by the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation. We are of the opinion that this is unfair to restrict the conversion of savings and loan associations from using their own judgment in choosing the type of charter under which they wish to operate. It seems to us that the shareholders of a savings and loan institution should by their own choice decide this matter and not be subject to regulation by a Federal agency. The Board could, if they desired, take an arbitrary attitude and refuse to give its approval for conversion.

The majority of the States do not place these restrictions upon State-chartered associations who desire to convert into Federal savings and loan associations. The shareholders are given the power to decide under which charter they desire to operate, there being no restrictions whatsoever, and it is not necessary for them to secure the approval of a State supervisory body.

(2) The other provision which in our opinion should be eliminated is the provision that the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, if it so elected, may terminate the insurance of accounts of any Federal savings and loan association which converts to a State charter. Such insurance shall automatically terminate concurrently with the conversion. We feel that this is unfair, for the reason that if the savings and loan association was in such condition as to merit insurance of their accounts while they were a Federal association, the insurance should carry over and cover the accounts of a State-chartered institution. Converting to a State charter does not change the status of an association, and the accounts and soundness of the institution are identically the same after conversion as they were before. We therefore cannot see any reason why this provision should not be eliminated and stricken from the bill.

We trust that you will give these matters serious consideration before reporting favorably on the bill and recommending it for passage. Thanking you for your consideration in this matter, we are, Very truly yours,


Washington D. C.


Supervisor, Building and Loan Division.

KROH BROS., INC., Kansas City 5, Mo., March 26, 1947.

DEAR SENATOR: With all of the necessary overseas commitments facing us today it doesn't seem financially smart for our Government to jump into the housing business via the Wagner-Ellender-Taft bill. Even a rich country like the United States of America can go broke if it subscribes to every worthy movement.

Certainly hope you use your influence to see that the taxpayers are not saddled with the additional burden of a public-housing program. Once public housing gets started it's hard to imagine where it could logically be stopped, for if the Government starts supplying housing it might as well go all the socialistic route and guarantee food, clothing, and automobiles.

Very truly yours,



Washington 6, D. C., March 27, 1947.

Clerk, Senate Committee on Banking and Currency,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. HILL: Enclosed is a copy of a letter which the Committee on the Relationships of Higher Education to the Federal Government requested that I send to Senator Tobey.

Unfortunately I forgot to request that this letter be made a part of the record of the committee and read into the record. Will you please see that this is done so that the action of the Committee on Relationships may be made known to the other members of the committee.

Sincerely yours,


Secretary, Committee on the Relationships of Higher Education to the
Federal Government.

Washington 6, D. C. March 20, 1947.


Chairman, Committee on Banking and Currency,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR TOBEY: The Committee on the Relationships of Higher Education to the Federal Government of the American Council on Education has unanimously endorsed the general housing bill which is now before the Committee on Banking and Currency.

This is an extremely important piece of national legislation and through the provisions for long-term loans up to 95 percent of construction cost will be of very great assistance in meeting the serious housing problem which affects colleges and universities as well as the entire Nation.

Sincerely yours,


Secretary, Committee on the Relationships of Higher Education to the
Federal Government.

ROCHESTER 10, N. Y., March 24, 1947.


Senate Office Building,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR TOBEY: While the builders of this area are confident you will give every consideration to the Wagner-Ellender-Taft bill now before you, I cannot refrain from calling to your attention the accomplishments of the building industry since the termination of the war.

My observation is that the private builders have done a magnificent job in the face of unfavorable odds. With conditions returning to normalcy so far as supplies are concerned, I can conceive of no reason why the Government should enter the housing industry, unless you insist upon perpetuating the trend toward national socialism, which appears to be running rampant in the minds of many people in this country.

If we are going to send $400,000,000 to Greece to sell democracy, it is my suggesttion that they spend some of that money at home preserving democracy, and that cannot be done with the Government filling the place of private industry. Very truly yours,


Cranford, N. J., March 25, 1947.


House Office Building,

Washington, D. C.

SIR: We wish to voice our objection to passage of the Wagner-Ellender-Taft bill. We believe that this bill will tend to hamper the construction of homes by putting the Government in direct competition for labor, land, and material with private industry.

Respectfully yours,




Washington, D. C.

Fair Lawn, N. J., March 25, 1947.

Senator CHARLES W. TOBEY: The proposed Wagner-Ellender-Taft bill now before the Senate will have a disastrous effect on the Nation's building industry. If the home builders of America are left alone to do their jobs, without priorities and without Government intervention, they can and will take care of the present housing shortages. In stifling free enterprise, the Government cannot bring the Nation back to prosperity.

We wish to cite our last year's record for doing a job to help the veteran and the home seeker-162 houses built, 90 percent sold to veterans, 66 houses on a No-down-payment plan, and less than $60 per month carrying charges to the GI-all of this despite shortages of materials and price rises. We are only one of many throughout the country.

Help us to help the Nation's unhoused, by voting out the Wagner-Ellender-Taft bill. Yours very truly,


[From the Chicago Daily News, Monday, March 17, 1947]

For drooling hypocrisy and shameless distortion of facts, a pink ribbon should go to the National Public Housing Conference for its pronouncement on housing adopted at its convention here last week.

This congregation of Government housers, their feet firmly planted in the public trough, winked at the stars and resolved as follows:

"The National Public Housing Conference hails the vigorous leadership which organized labor has displayed in the fight to provide every American family with a decent home at a cost or rent that family can afford. *


[ocr errors]

After this bouquet of kisses to their political allies, the subsidy experts turned to the industry side of the picture:

"The home-building industry has been notorious for the extent to which it has continued its cumbersome, antiquated and monopolistic methods. Improvements in this important industry have long been overdue in order to achieve lower capital costs. Conventional builders must adopt improved techniques and methods such as the use of factory-made parts of structures and assembly-line site fabrication."

Nobody even remotely connected with building could have penned this fatuous misrepresentation by accident. What we have here is the insinuation that the selfish, blundering, antiquated system of private building ought to give way to noble, selfless bureaucracy, of inspired talents and inexhaustible financing by the taxpayer.

Then would we have prefabricated housing parts, factory-glazed windows, assembly-line economies? We would not. We would still find the vigorous leadership of organized labor fighting tooth and claw for the right to drive every last nail on the site, with one helper to hold it and another to kick the glass out of the preglazed windows. Also with a vigorous steward standing by to see that nobody hammered or even kicked very fast.

The industry needs to be modernized, beyond all doubt. But it won't come from pious perversions by professional spenders. It will come only when the long-suffering public is sufficiently aroused to demand and get the cooperation of labor with industry toward new methods and economies.


SEASHORE HOMES CORP., Margate City, N. J., March 26, 1947.

United States Senator from New Hampshire,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR TOBEY: We have read with considerable interest the various features of the Wagner-Ellender-Taft bill now under consideration and it is our considered judgment that the passage of this measure would create havoc in the home-building field.

The majority of builders in this country are able and qualified to produce the necessary housing. We cannot do so until there is a reasonable supply of materials and a willingness on the part of labor to remove present restrictive and arbitrary practices. Neither can the Government build these homes until these shackles are removed.

We can

We have built homes in recent years for the low-income groups. do so again. All we need is an opportunity to do our job without too much interference and without too many controls. The FHA has been a big help to private builders. Let them continue their good work unhampered and we can assure you that the building industry will provide all the homes this Nation needs.

We earnestly urge you to oppose the passage of this bill. Above all we urge you to continue the FHA as a separate and independent agency so that its remarkable record to date will not be interfered with in any way.

Very truly yours,

M. A. SARSHIK, President.

City of Little Rock, March 25, 1947.

Re: S. 866, Taft-Ellender-Wagner bill. Section 502.


Secretary, Committee on Banking and Currency,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: Our attention has been called to the proposed change in the Federal law for conversion of a Federal savings and loan association into that of a State savings and loan association. The change would seem to make it far more difficult for a Federal savings and loan association to convert to a State-regulated association than it is for a State-regulated association to convert to a Federal.

Our statute, Act 128 of 1935, permits a State savings and loan association to change to a Federal savings and loan association by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the outstanding shares, and, subsequently by filing a copy of the minutes with the Security Division of the State Bank Department of Arkansas. We believe that equity would dictate that it should be no more difficult to change from a Federal to a State institution than to change from a State to a Federal. For these reasons, we are filing our objection with your honorable committee.

Yours truly,


JOHN L. CARTER, Assistant Bank Commissioner.

NEW YORK 56, N. Y., March 24, 1947.

Chairman of Senate Banking Committee,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR TOBEY: The statements made by Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., Fiorello LaGuardia and union leaders before your committee impels the writer to call your atention to the enclosed article published in the New York Sun, August 10, 1946.

Former President Roosevelt, LaGuardia and union officials and men of like caliber are major contributing factors to the present precarious housing situation of today.

Whenever new methods of labor-saving devices to lower costs in building were developed, the unions struck against their use. Both President Roosevelt and LaGuardia played along with said union leaders and the increased costs were passed on to the public.

I can cite specific cases where the afore-mentioned procedure of waste used in Government building.

Please be advised that the writer is ready to appear before your committee at any time with 24 hours notice. He deems it important that you hear the productive engineer's knowledge in this matter.

Very truly yours,


« PreviousContinue »