FOR HUMANE CAUSES, 1949-1963 Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Jerry M. Anderson 1964 PAUL H. DOUGLAS: INSURGENT SENATE SPOKESMAN- - . 9:516 w LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled PAUL H . DOUGLAS: INSURGENT SERATE SPOKESMAN FOR HUMANE CAUSES: 1919-1963 presented bg J EBRY M. ANDERSON has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Mdegree in Speech ML \ \ Major professor Date November 20, 1961; 0-169 —"—‘ ._.___ ' ...._. ‘0" u n,.. D u . 0:... a. x'. ‘9‘. '. 0.3 o S I. :..§ .. .I a...“ 4 ABSTRACT PAUL H. DOUGLAS: INSURGENT SENATE SPOKESMAN FOR HUMANE CAUSES\, 1949-1963 by Jerry MQVAnderson A New England farm boy reared in the reform era of the Progressive movement, Paul H. Douglas earned a Ph.D. and became a distinguished professor, nationally recognized expert on economic and labor relations problems, prolific author, government consultant, city alderman, and Marine hero at age fifty prior to becoming a U. 5. Senator. The study analyzes the Senate speaking of Douglas, who on over 6,000 occasions, including over 190 speeches from prepared manuscripts, has been a fervent and persistent spokesman for legislation to carry out what he considers to be the proper function of government--to lower the barriers to man's economic, social, intellectual, and spiritual development. The organization of the study is both chronological and tOpical, divided into four parts. Part One, “The Shaping of a Senator,“ consists of Chapters I-III which interpret biographical-historical events in Douglas' life up to 1949. Part Two, ”The Senator's World," consists of Chapters Iv and V. two topical chapters developing the milieu and conditions affecting Senate speaking, Douglas' concept of rhetorical theory, and his methods of speech preparation. Part Three, "The Senator Speaks," contains Chapters VI—VIII. Chapters % . c I . Q' I .' .5111. analyze 3‘1 ‘3 I“ Mg .1. ea " J“! UN“ to...- . ’1!" o ,3 A 'h ' Val-2:. and #:42- v . , “ N " 9 A. . M :f :2. Sang. . ~i.,‘ a t 3.] . e ' an“: 'm ‘93:. .. ‘ d C 5:, "Y9. . Q a . 1.. lot. 1.3...95 . '. U. G.“ ‘4' 3...: "‘- 0;» T ‘0. ...‘ x. | a ti ‘ \- V _v.. ‘15...“|a. ‘5...‘.. ' I I l".. _ '5‘“: ‘!_A_ ' “In. I“. e . Q ‘¢‘~ ‘ Q. ‘ "M ' '0» t‘. . 0.. :‘5 EN. ‘l V. ‘ § H Jerry M. Anderson VI and VII analyze by Congressional sessions the occasions, topics, and constituents of rhetorical proof in debates, colloquies, and other remarks in the Senate, from nearly 2,000 items in Douglas' speech files, observations of his Speaking, personal interviews with the subject and his\staff, the daily and yearly Congressional Record, and other sources. Chapter VIII analyzes the Illinois Democrat's speaking against the 1950 natural gas bill as an illustrative-example of his public address. Part Four, ”The Vital Signs," evaluates Douglas' Senate speaking, primarily in terms of accepted rhetorical canons, and includes related conclusions regarding the function and role of speaking in the Senate with proposals for increasing its importance. Paul Douglas considers the Senate a national forum and has adapted his messages well to the immediate audience of colleagues, the Congressional Record, and agents of the mass media, although his speeches on economic matters are often overburdened with statistical evidence which may impede intelligibility. Douglas is thorough in preparation and responsible in analysis. He blends effectively ethical, psychological, and legical factors of invention throughout his speeches, with rational demonstration through argument his forte. Ethical Proof is strongest in the introduction and enforces the credibility he enjoys with his colleagues as a man of integrity and knowledge and as one who creates infectious good will, a tenet of his Quaker religion. Psychological proof is in- . n ‘- :3:e:' m: 1:: 359.1. ‘ o:- uns at... .g _,. a “I .- :.':.... .. "2.. . c . m. ‘ ‘ p -¢a" -. . I M . al.1354152, gab-Iva,” " ' -- ‘ l . 35. $213.3 we 3. 5 o~.—- . .qu mm- 3 A'._"" I .54. m... .93....‘Hvu ‘ 3353. :‘is use -‘ ‘-... u n ”and. 3‘:- ¢ ‘ ' “:59 .3: Bus amen-35 ‘l.‘l' A‘ ‘ \ Wine .4 D‘s :eas::;: ‘ L a mud :f {ESSA-1": ;_ :l .... ... ._. ‘ ‘ "to - -~ ‘- ....:5....... .533 .95: :5‘ 3' , l "‘5“ A gets. §v§u§AVu. :e C‘ “‘ ._‘ ‘ age: “5““. " V... \ _ “ a~u:‘ §-.‘,,( hi‘. ‘ \‘Sl‘l' “Ed‘s :. “2:31“. ~"QD ~n ~t _ n . \VII-¢3§e:: 3...; .. ‘h.. I‘ ti. ‘ - \._ 511‘ “it“! ”Peas in, . ‘ e o in .935 2‘ s 3‘ \t- . ‘ "315mm 5 ii. .455!“ unseen“ 3‘ :‘n t «.1 tr: is enancnal inter causes. PM .. Jerry M. Anderson corporated most intensely in the conclusions of his speeches in the form of appeals to justice, patriotism, altruism, and humanitarianism, [although he employs a variety of motive appeals, various forms of suggestion, attention, multisensory language, vivid description and narration throughout his speeches. His use of logical proof provides a ”mind-filling" experience for his audiences each time he Speaks. The over- all structure of his reasoning is deductive: but he uses all four forms of reasoning in the deveIOpment of his arguments, with sign reasoning used less than that from analOgy, example. and causal relation. He'supplements abundant factual evidence With expert testimony, thinks quickly, and presents cogent arguments in debate, focusing on issues and not personalities in conduct consistent with his personal code of ethics. The audible and visible aSpects of his delivery are generally adequate in terms of the typical norms. While relatively unsuccessful in personally securing enactment of legislation he has championed, during his career he has been a conscience of reform in influencing legislative action in the national interest-~a voice of insurgency for humane causes. Paul H. Douglas has been an ethical and reSponsible Senate speaker practicing sound rhetorical principles. His speeches are marked by careful reasoning and argumentative skill, the most essential qualities of an Effective legislative speaker. §3§K§132§NRKD ANDERSON ‘ 1965 \ l— in En ”m3 .‘ 303 HL'E‘HS : Jerry I PAUL H. DOUGLAS: INSURGENT SENATE SPOKESMAN FOR HUMANE CAUSES, 1949-1963 by Jerry Méihnderson A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Speedh 1964 AM The artist wishes ‘3 “at: assisted :9, the .. 1"” 3‘. "u React}: 3. 5a :95“ JFeech at y. Mnhlga.’ ‘.- 3.5.9st and 5:;ew. 5e . Eta: ‘tllde is upteSSe 333111339," 0.. :{ode 5.3a”, an!“ a... :3" 1: : 5!: the min ”:s‘tziat. E L Qfien ithe stuiy thrcuch . Seaheful 52;:EC‘ . :ghs hit-.15 3335' ‘::l ‘ \I Quinta: ;e5eari atifin "'5: 3»: lid??? 13:13. 15 ii a” a“ ASIC 1!". \PI \ “ex t :1:th 4.2.. 1nd -\ Elm aside'a-J-e peril: - , his t. i. 3‘ mini-m Miami:K full: t all Stages iaif‘sictii elk“ “at? St ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation to all who assisted in the preparation of this study. He is indebted to Dr. Kenneth G. Hance, Director of Graduate Studies in Speech at Michigan State University, who served as major professor and supervised the research. Gratitude is expressed to the other members of the guidance committee, Dr. Frederick G. Alexander, Dr. Gilman M. Ostrander, and Dr. David C. Ralph, for their cements in reviewing the manuscript. They, along with Dr. Hance and other members of the Department of Speech faculty, stimulated interest in the study through their courses. Grateful appreciation is also expressed to Senator Paul H. Douglas and his Washington staff for their cooperation and interest in the study and their cordial reception while the writer conducted research in the Senator's office. Appreciation is also expressed to Dr. Donald H. Ecroyd f°r Providing a basic index to Douglas‘ speech files while in Washington, D.C.. and to Dr. Maxine Schnitzer Ferris for re- :ieWing a considerable portion of the manuscript in its final ages. The author also wishes to acknowledge his parents, Mr. 23“ Mi:- Jens 3. Anderson, whose understanding and counsel er e years have been an important factor in his continuing academic pursuits. f To his wife, Betty, the author is eSpecially indebted or her efforts in this task. She has provided unending en- couragement, understanding, and support. She has also lived 21th the study at all stages of its development and been the Ypist in its preliminary stages and the chief proof reader. er Self-sacrificing devotion to the cause has made the com- Pletion ‘of this endeavor possi bl e. Messrs 2mm: DOOI........... HE 053: 15-13 5 ‘* ’53 trauma 5 a aide 35 Refs: Front: ; gm 3‘ aim“? 0.“. a 1 3mm“ Soc: Pk"11"5‘3'5-5‘: of 1m” Douglas Phase Cne 303:1; :- imam ufiiififi 5C1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page AcmomgmMENTs 0.0...O....0...’........0.00.0...0000 ii INTRODUCTION CCOOOOOCOOOOOOOCODOOOOOCOCOCCCQOO0...... vi PART ONE: THE SHAPING OF A SENATOR Chapter I. THE INTELLECTUAL FOUNDATIONS .............. 2 A Cycle of Reform 2 Frontier Farm Boy : Embarking on a Chosen Career 1; Infectious Good Will-—The Social Philosophy of a Quaker 12 Doctor Douglas 15 Phase One Concluded « 18 II. APPRENTICESHIP FOR PUBLIC SERVICE ......... 20 Climate of Opinion-—Normalcy 20 Progressive Roots 22 A Prolific Pen in Agitation for Social Change 24 A First-Hand View of the Communist Experiment 26 Norman Thomas and the World Tomorrow 28 "Lessons from the Last Decade“ 30 Depression Warnings 33 One Man Destruction of an Empire 35 Measuring the Material Progress of the Worker 38 Independent Political Action with John Dewey 40 Government Service 43 Theory of Wages and Controlling Depressions 45 Writing, Speaking, Politics 47 Guardian of America Against Fascism and CommuniSm 47 More Public Service 49 "Perfessor"--Alderman from the Fifth Ward 50 Patrolling the Ward for Freedom of the Press 55 iii Losing chaign Sonnet 3*. Phase No Ccn" u m. “115 251.“: TC 1 :5;- 'ate Of Spin} of war 5 Drnatic che Pavate bu 5:155 Seeking a P1“ ac ”4‘41” 'Rins'e t 33 5 Senators: ‘ Reina-.5 for' .3 .633.” and 5:»... c.388tm: Page Three. .3" O! V" 43 :3“1ul :4 .d Chqfier III. IV. _¥ iv Losing Campaign for the Senate Nomination Phase Two Concluded PARRIS ISLAND TO CAPITOL HILL ............. Climate of Opinion-«Realities of War A Dramatic Move Private Douglas Seeking a Place on the Ballot Douglas "Runs" for Election U. 5. Senator Douglas--Some Reasons for Victory Teacher and Scholar in a Larger Classroom Phase Three Concluded On to Capitol Hill PART TWO: THE SENATOR'S WORLD THE SENATE ENVIRONMENT .................... Congress--A Model of Democracy? The Senate Operation Impressions of a Freshman Senator Liabilities and Assets of the Office THE SENATOR'S WORLD OF COMMUNICATION ...,, The Senator and the Process Represent Whom? The Mass Media Other Message Channels Speech in Committees Speech in the Senate The Congressional Record The Speaker Looks at His Art Preparing to Take the Floor The Senate Forum PART THREE: THE SENATOR SPEAKS INTRODUCTION: THE STUDY or INVENTION . . .. .. The Approach and Methodology of Part III Bacon on Invention Aristotle on Invention Concept of Invention in This Analysis 93 94 103 113 134 137 138 141 150 158 159 164 185 194 205 209 211 211 212 212 The ltrpmach Armagnac in i Selection cf a: Sample 3:“ c: of the 7-: 5mm '67:: 233‘s: .1}: Map. See: an! iiihty-tas: 2:: hm Sessmz‘. “33:5 Sesszct Signage”: :; Eats: 5935; Semna‘ Sess;:: 319533-2hiré :3, 3‘45: 52551:: 5530-15 Sessxc: “it's-fart}. :; CT. 538‘. Sessic: 591ml 595510: \. a". n“ “I . _ M You ya at: :::-l‘\.1 Elihu-ass gm Firs: 593510: . 5”“ Sesszm first ‘ ”Sign cl . 1963 §matNPeeche x. . Qmpter Page The Approach 219 Arrangement in Part III 220 Selection of an Illustrative- Example 221 Accuracy of the Text 223 VI. SENATOR WITH IDEAS: 1949-1956 0.0.0.0...... 225 The Man Seen and Heard 225 Eighty-first Congress: 1949-1950 229 First Session 230 Second Session 240 Eighty-second Congress: 1951-1952 248 First Session 248 Second Session 256 Eighty-third Congress: 1953-1954 263 First Session 264 Second Session 271 Eighty-fourth Congress: 1955—1956 277 First Session 277 Second Session 281 VII. SENATOR WITH IDEAS: 1957-1963 .‘C..."..... 289 Eighty-fifth Congress: 1957-1958 289 First Session 290 Second Session 296 ‘ Eighty-sixth Congress: 1959-1960 303 ‘ First Session 304 Second Session 31 Eighty-seventh Congress: 1960-1961 321 First Session 321 Second Session 326 Eighty-eighth Congress: First Session 1963 332 Summary-Speeches: 1949-1963 340 Setting and Circumstances 342 Factors of Persuasion e44 “BIC-'3 inII. AGAINST THE NATURAL GAS BILL ............... 342 Summary Interpretations PART FOUR: THE VITAL SIGNS .OIOQOOOOCUCCCOCOIOO IBIBLIOGWHY OOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOCO..66...00.00.00.060... ”PENDIXA.CCOUOCCOOCOOIOICOOOOOOCOOIOOCOCCOO-.00.... 454 APPENDIX B ,. .OOOOOOOCQOOCCC00......COOOOOCIOOOOOOIICOCO 400 AP PBNDIXC.CCOOOOOO00......OCUOOOO..OQOOCOOCOOOOCOI-C 463 IX. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS \ \ 'Sacethinc Stirs 1:: t' '-," ‘ . A o 3 ~33 31133 J": 1""- OIS- 3,?!5 Emir: Doug; as has 1?: spcketa: fer h: a: .l'l‘ I... ‘ a u .nsare Wis, 'tc 13: r n. 5. hr v-v Q. Ibu| \‘ \.. ‘ I . same: m: 2:1." . e. e: \' ' :IQ. AJQ‘ Cug‘end far! 5: \ 53 Of the '\ INTRODUCTION Paul H: Douglas as a Suhigct for Study "Something stirs in the hearts of men when someone challenges authority and tradition."1 Throughout his life- time,Paul Howard Douglas has been such a challenger, an ___.___.. .— .———_.._.. _- insurgent spokesman for humane causes, seeking to preserve the dignity of man and insure equal opportunity. In his own words, "to lower-the barriers and enable peOple who come , into the world “booted and Spurred' economically and social- 1y to have the same Opportunity as those who by inheritance 1 enter it 'saddled and bridled' with wealth. "2 i A New England farm boy growing to manhood during the reform era of the American Progressive Movement, Paul Ha Douglas earned a Ph. D. at Columbia University and be- came a nationally recognized eXpert on economic and fiscal matters, a distinguished professor and noted author, con- sultant on labor problems, city alderman, Marine hero, and at the age of 56 a U. S. Senator. His rise to the U. S. E 1James MacGregor Burns, "Foreword" to The Senate Tighlishnent, by Joseph S. Clark (New York: Hill and Wang, I P. so 2 Speech by Paul H. Douglas, East Lansing, Michigan, October 5, 1964. vi P hand the lpmh" °f tzetected mm” in in: @1391“? “9°“ am he abject Of 911‘ 225m 1949-1953 a chief imposition: Which IhOV ii' Douglas ha: fen-cat tiapropcsitm: to "I 'I“ \k‘ivimalg to p ptC remote S‘- wnht. to me 3a“ :5 ha bent in order to ash: t‘Imcqoals, and to take is ~ tat of mllmive na Wkly. He has consul iii Senate 1 in he :ponloz N “NONI welfare: Q! 3:0: echo“ of manner: Q. I 3151M“, vii Senate and the speeches of his fifteen years as a leading and reapected Spokesman in that body, as well as the con- ditions impinging upon those messages, challenge investiga- tion. The subject of this study, Paul H. Douglas, has been from 1949-1963 a chief Senate spokesman for a variety of propositions which show no consistency with any “party line.“ Douglas has fervently and frequently been a Spokes- man for propositions to protect the dignity and freedom of the individual, to promote man‘s moral and intellectual development, to make man master of his economy through gOVernment in order to achieve individual and national economic goals, and to make government a dynamic and flex- ible agent of collective national wisdom to serve man more effectively. He has considered himself a national- interest Senator in Sponsoring and championing legislation for the national welfare: civil rights: social welfare: the protection of consumers' interests; the protection of Small business, labor, and the family farm: the promotion of a balanced budget in normal times, checks against in- flation, closing tax IOOpholes, and improved federal debt mamaSement, economy and high ethical standards in govern- ment: the preservation of natural resources: and the im- Plementation of humane and firm foreign policy. Douglas has been called a hard-boiled idealist, frustrated senator, a leader for the hazards of the future, senator with ideas, rebel in Illinois, ferocious independent, a P_ v11. Shim} and consists: w and other a tie: is madly clauifi fan and n 'memnmn that the age of 72, he seam: speak“ mm?!“ F: 3! he purpose of this .35";1l813 the L'. 5. ‘ial usages-intrinsic «than: t: a lesser its cf the situation-4 \ . 9 eat-anon. it will be c 5?: e 4. .he topics he smke aw- “! Stand: on such t ‘hev 9. 's'he audimces . ,__-.___——————.- ._ ..-_. ..._. _.. __._ _.___.—— viii “Red-baiter,“ and consistently more damaging things by the Chicagg Tribune and other media in opposition to him. Douglas is broadly classified as a "liberal” on domestic affairs and an “internationalist” on foreign affairs. Robust at the age of 72, he is today in constant demand as a public Speaker throughout the nation. Purpgse of the Study The purpose of this study is to analyze the Speak- ing of Douglas in the U. 8. Senate with emphasis on his verbal messages-~intrinsic aspects of the speaking situation--and to a lesser degree on the related extrinsic aSpects of the situation--the speaker, the audience, and the occasion. It will be concerned with the speaker: who he was, the tOpics he. spoke on, the factors underlying his particular stands on such topics, and the ends he hoped to achieve. The audiences he addressed will be considered with regard to who they were, their attitude toward the Speaker, their attitude toward the topics discussed by the speaker, and their response to his speeches. The occasions on which Douglas spoke will also be considered from the standpoints of when, where, and why he spoke, the conditions under which he spoke, and the measurable results, if any, of his Speaking. Insofar as the accuracy Of what he said and how he said it can be established, the manner of delivery evident and eSpecially the factors of inventional proof employed will be studied. The methods mention practiced 1:1 3:1. en. the rhetoric 2:, ti sooty will not 2 thrill adapt to inc: a‘au the peeking of Pa in: Senate. the liaitaticn: “tried 1949-1963. " A» a ,1 . Ninth! aenator': are Sump-x n I. 4‘. ‘n I a 01d: 15:: mm subject's w” emidethe L‘. 5. 59‘ Al that study. he vari< ‘21“: Rpm {me “a 1 ‘ n u H ix of preparation practiced by the Speaker will be considered briefly. while the rhetorical elements of style, arrange- ment, and memory will not be explicitly studied. The study will attempt to describe, analyze, interpret, and evaluate the Speaking of Paul H. Douglas in the United States Senate. Limit ationg . Time limitations will be imposed on the study by the period 1949-1963. It will be limited in scope to focus on the Senator‘s speaking in the Senate Chamber in Washington, D.C. Only incidental consideration will be given to the subject's public address in his various roles outside the U. S. Senate prior to and during the period of study. The various roles of Douglas in his lifetime, apart from and including being a U. 5. Senator, and the U. 8. Senate as the environment for his public address are considered as relevant factors conditioning his Senate speaking. Intrigsig Merit of the Study The study of a contemporary speaker such as Donglas has intrinsic merit. If it can be assumed that the U. 5. Senate is an important organ of the national QOVernment, then a figure such as Senator Paul H. Douglas, as a member of it, merits study as a national spokesman in political action. Public address, the practice of rhetoric, has served, and will continue to serve, as an 3!": {one in mum“. ”one h“ 1‘ ponucs. 1" "'°‘ C103“: ”I. &{931 ”regard 1t 83 a ti annual that ‘" t' of wait as 3 m in [filmed a: W, u an mutual E lam. Paul Douglas rain: tfinghll public address and as an iapcttant -‘- Elem aspired nose I flashy sunny: and X 1115mm“: of the at 39m; the nest outstand :45!!! colleague, Sana: Wtutifled, '5y lo: 5'? Smator of my the 451532 3m early in 3 ll \4; Wish! 86%“ t . 0 “Elie and a. l “Ian Speak. x important force in realizing political action. Rhetoric has long been the handmaid of politics. Its association should be made even closer, more direct. While it is not necessary to regard it as a branch of rhetoric, it is essential that we recognize fully the importance of speechcraft as a means of realizing desirable ends in political action.1 Moreover, as an individual political practitioner and Senator, Paul Douglas reinforces the merit intrinsic in studying his public address by the reputation he has developed as an important member of the Senate. The fact that he has acquired some reputation as a Senator is evidenced by surveys and ratings by his colleagues, duly noted in the text of the study, which at times have rated him among the most outstanding members of the Senate. As his former colleague, Senator Herbert H. Lehman of New York has testified, "By long odds the most useful and in- spiring Senator of my time was Paul H. Douglas, of Illinois."2 Even early in his career as a freshman Senator, Douglas seemed to enjoy considerable prestige in the Senate and as a Speaker, as reflected in the following stat ements J'I..est:er Thonssen and A. Craig Baird, S eech Criticism (New York: Ronald Press Company, 1948,. p. 466. zAllan Nevins,“Paul Douglas: A Leader for the Hazards of the Future,“ (Address, Chicago, Illinois, June 27, 1960) reprinted in the Congressional Record, 86th c3ongress, Second Session, July 2, 1960, p. 558765. Xi ml“ ”W my Old 33.11139“! m m mug I‘. sell. 3° 1' 11x“ hehu IN" ‘ ‘ and {:03 ch! mate: .‘ radio amulu ) "9141? 5mm u h“ m. ‘he 'w hqlll is no loft! hmfllic addrel' F“ In, lid 1! 3°! M: I Cm: study will 3“ Intrinsic :erit in 17:: team : all: its: t' award the present I t |'iilhllut a km W“ Sim. economic, and re *hsiduauon (and tl {i a ‘ Mata tev valid val “at it has on occasion xi Douglas enjoys a rather remarkable prestige. Many old Washington hands claim they cannot remember when a nechmer to the Senate has suc- ceeded in making such an immediate place for him- self. He is liked and respected by his colleagues: he has received a widespread and favorable press... and from the number and nature of the platform and radio engagements he fills it would seem he is rapidly becoming the philosophical spokesman of the liberal Fair Deal position as Senator Taft has become the spokesman fof the conservatives. Douglas is no lofty oracle. Haslus public address played a significant role in this status, and if so, how, and to what extent are questions Whidathis study will attempt to answer. Intrinsic merit in the study of a contemporary figure results also from the unique opportunity the critic haste record the present events as he observes and lives them “Without a keen awareness of the social, intellectual, political, economic, and religious milieu of the period mmercnnsideration (and those preceding it) the student cmaformulate few valid value judgments of public address.“2 The writer has on occasion had the opportunity to observe the speaker in action in the preparation and delivery of a speech and view the immediate responses of the audiences addressed. The most important contribution that studies in contemporary public address can make to total continuing research is to record the present 1Mortimer Smith, “Senator Paul H. Douglas,“ A111. erigan Mercury, '71 (July, 1950), p. 27. 2Paul A. Boase, “Background Reading in American gimme Address, " peech Teaches, VII (January. 1958). pp. -64. xii match. ”PM to provide .‘uture ' mum“ 05 “1'” observations 05 ‘9' mediate “51"“ public mix“?n '50 M“. It would "9‘- created...“ “"3“ theory”.- 759 9’ image the r0114!" 1: addition to the inject, there is 3221' "anti-critical apple! barman to tha study it; :5 gublic address not; of rhetorical 1..the Historical-Z gradi'ttive value a: newscast. It -.-a xii accurately, completely, and expertly, and thus to provide future scholars, who will have the advantages of historical perspective, with observations of speakers as they speak, of the immediate audience as they listen, and of public reaction shortly after the Speech is over. It would seem that the amount of work in contemporary public address ought to be in- creased...as useful contribution to rhetorical theory.... The preservation of materials will increase the reliability of future studies.1 In addition to the merit intrinsic in a contempor- ary subject, there is merit in the application of the historical-critical approach in the study of any speaker. This approach to the study of a Speaker contributes to the history of public address and can add to, and support, the present body of rhetorical theory. ...the Historical-Critical approach may have predictive value and thus contribute to theory development. It may do so by reporting, analyzing, interpreting, and appraising the activities of both skilled and unskilled firactitioners...it may provide empirical data, which can be] then projected into hypotheses or theory.2 Distinctiveness of the Study This study of the Senate speaking of Paul H. Douglas does not duplicate other research, and is thus distinctive. At the present time there is no book or even a section of a book which gives special consideration to his career in the U. 3. Senate. No definitive biography has been J'Wayne N. Thompson, “Contemporary Public Address as a Research Area,“ ggarterly Journal of Smech, XL (February, 1954), p. 233. 2Kenneth G. Hance, "The Historical-Critical Type of Research: a lie-examination,” Central States 8 eech Journal, XIII (Spring, 1961), p. 167. iii. So edition of hi smotngraphy underva "mm; as autobiogr 5;... 1m: 2 leave the aena 25:: tallt'. etrath. n: :‘e Snater... . - .- gfi' 1554 “3.123%. n 5" :.',.:£ All“ 53:? 351‘ :f n‘ ‘ . ‘ itacase mass :2. Pita: Y Seurces 13;; ltslas, the volition \\ I A. u.‘ "sattent b... Sefiatl 53.. . $3qu ‘35:: 320mm .Fi'd Eilxon.‘ serencoe t: i 5:". “he“ Cf xiii published. No edition of his Speeches exists. The Senator has an autobiography underway, about which he commented: "I‘m writing an autobiography now, but it won't be published until after I leave the Senate or after my death because .7 intend to tell the truth. I've written up to the point where I enter the Senate now. "1 One doctoral dissertation"2 on Douglas' 1954 campaign Speaking, completed in 1955, does not duplicate the emphasis of this study. Two Master's theses, which are case studies of only single addresses, have also been written. 3 Mategials and Sources of the Study Primary sources included personal correSpondence with Douglas, the voluminous product of his pen in books 1Statement by Senator Douglas in interview of May 24, 1963. 2Hugh Cordier, "Paul Douglas 1954 Senatorial Campaign with Special Reference to Television," (unpublished Ph.D. gissprtation, Department of Speech, University of Illinois, 955 . 3Dietrich Hill, "Meeting the Charge of Communism: A Study of a Speech Given by Paul H. Douglas, September 22, 1948, at Urbana, Illinois" (unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Speech, University of Illinois, 1949); A. Douglas MacRae, “A Rhetorical Analysis of Paul H. Douglas's Senate Address on the Submerged Lands Controversy” (un- Published Master's thesis, Department of Speech, State University of Iowa, 1955). Xl'i 3.5.35in8. ”non“ 1 anaemia-other at“ 3'5, 55mm Ialhlngm "only; of1963. The 5' itahaiart :ateriali 4103 "33111.1: autmbile 'U he writer spat ‘4‘- attt's inhuman office tam-n: occasions,1 3.5mm, observe and oh: 9‘ I": i been text for the d! S. observe his banal" wit other Visitors, h: xiv and periodicals, personal interviews, and copies of all ex- tant materials--other than very personal correSpondence-- in the Senator‘s Washington files from the 1948 campaign through May of 1963. The Senator and his staff made avail- able abundant materials and sources, which constituted literally an automobile "trunkload.” The writer Spent the week of May 20, 1963, in the ! Senator's Washington office and was able to interview him on several occasions,1 observe his methods of speech preparation, observe and even assist in making corrections Record, observe his handling of interviews with constitu- ; of a speech text for the daily edition of the Congressional ants and other visitors, his associations with colleagues, ‘ and his general schedule and activities during this period. He also accompanied Douglas to a subcommittee ; hearing and listened and observed him testify. From the gallery of the Senate Chamber, the writer was able to observe the actions of the Senator on several occasions and witnessed the delivery of a prepared address. He was then allowed to visit the official reporting room of the Senate and follow the address as it underwent changes in preparation for printing in the daily edition of the Con- gressiong; Rgco (1.2 The visit in May of 1963 also made it possible to interview various members of Douglas' staff 1Notable among interviews, varying in length from . 5 to 70 minutes, was the one tape recorded on May 24 which his staff reported was the first in which the Senator was taped except for those which were broadcast on radio or television. 2See Appendix A. snore times and to 02 at gained access at thi teas and other useful :' baths visit, the v1 Wits Senate on at Wale secondary a r ' ‘. 4:1. ...s from the Washing \ -. added a mtnber o: , A mid weqrasa, vriti: ‘3‘: Satori: and Putl: “Weaver: and “er E, and ' ' Motive of 'a‘ kite: . Politics, he he 4‘4: since his elect " om XV one or more times and to observe their activities. The writer gained access at this time to scrapbooks of Senate speeches and other useful data in the Senator's office.1 Prior to this visit, the writer had witnessed the speaker addressing the Senate on at least two other occasions. Notable secondary sources, in addition to the materials from the Washington office and interviews of his staff, included a number of recent books written on the Senate and Congress, writings in current history, publica- tions in Rhetoric and Public Address, information from various newspapers and periodicals, the Congressional M, and many other materials cited throughout the text and listed in the bibliography. The writer's own background and interests have al- so contributed knowledge and insight to the study of Paul H. Douglas. A native of Wisconsin and an interested student of politics, he has followed the career of the Senator since his election to the U. S. Senate. While active in politics, and as a member of the State Ad- ministrative Board of the Central Committee of the Denocratic Party of Wisconsin in 1958, he was exposed to the ideology of Douglas because of the influence the Senator had in Wisconsin as a national party spokesman. l'l'nose materials used for the analysis of verbal messages and questions concerning their accuracy and com- Pleteness will not be considered here because they are discussed in the Introduction to Part Three. z 25mm to the Senato shed in 1959 vhen a 1’ the constituent while ten: and Public Andre! miter gained some ins instances of Paul Sou; {112:3 of his base state its, located a few :1 ”5m and the ate: at“: n h u t- e. ..ave provlaed b ": um \ MI", 0mg zat xvi His exposure to the Senator's ideology and public address continued in 1959 when a resident of Illinois and a Douglas constituent while pursuing graduate study in Rhetoric and Public Address. Then, for the next two years, the writer gained some insight into the environment and circumstances of Paul Douglas' formative years and the politics of his home state while teaching at the University of Maine, located a few miles from the Senator's hometown of NeWport and alma mater of Bowdoin College. These cir- cumstances have provided both motivation and insight for the study. 'Organization of the Study The organization of the study combines the chrono- logical and topical methods of development and is divided into four parts. Part One, "The Shaping of a Senator," is chronological and consists of three chapters dealing 1 with biographical-historical matters influential as con- ditioning factors in Douglas' life which served to prepare him for his role as a Senator and Senate speaker. Chapter I considers that period of his life from 1892-1924, from his birth and formative years in Maine through the compla tion of his Ph. D. at Columbia, and is entitled ”The Intellectual Foundations. “ Chapter II deals with the pe'riod, 1924-1941, from his entry into the arena of Politics and reform to the time of his unexpected enlist- ment into the Marines as a private at age fifty, and is c O are 'A;_:: stice 3:1; - insislani to Capital .-. -..: it; in 30:15. 'der 2: fielmontc the L‘. 5. 5 again . the broad ' ' 33C. 'The Senatcr's '6: likechical in man; iifitm‘x for mug: :: :2 fun .“. «sets a so "e senate can out. occasgo.1 5°, ‘ Gish ‘ I ‘5 1m °Perate in wing-H iiit elki \. “9 car e \\ n a {it Ct. '1- E' ‘0 rem“ ills ' “Elva - _.._- - xvii entitled "Apprenticeship for Public Service." Chapter III, "Farris Island to Capitol Hill,“ includes the period of his Marine duty in World War II through his successful campaign and election to the U. 5. Senate. Against the broad “backdr0p" provided by Part One, Part Two, "The Senator's World,” consists of two chapters which are topical in arrangement to provide the most work- able framework for attempting to deve10p the milieu in which he functions as a Speaker in the Senate Chamber. The materials develOped in both Parts One and Two are based upon an assumption held by the writer that the rhetorical critic who divorces himself intentionally or unconsciously from the climate of the times, the stream of events, and the other conditions affecting the man and his speaking finds himself in an untenable position. Oral communication is a social act and therefore largely the product of forces which are brought to bear on the life of the Speaker as well as the immediate conditions and circumstances of the setting and occasion for his public address. Public ad- dress does not operate in a vacuum, and critical judgments regarding the excellence and effectiveness of a practitioner Of public speaking can neither be valid nor reliable apart from consideration of the conditional factors which affect the communication act. Therefore, just as Chapters I-III attenpt to report, analyze, and interpret the develOpment Of the man entering the Senate in the context of the in- fluence of the time he lived and activities he eXperienced, l\ , xvii 3m N and V cm 1: mm environ!“ i“ '1 mum: bees-.139 a 5' angered his Public a‘ hmt,‘ seeks to t“ sister see the fore assets and liabilities 21“.}: for his public aid heart the iogressmhs tan freshmen Senator "ifie. Chapter V, “The ‘titied to follow logi Wanted by focusing kg“ \ an: of Cumuicat 'u ion xviii Chapters IV and V narrow in focus to consider the more immediate environment in which he found it necessary to function upon becoming a Senator, and the factors there whichtanpered his public address. Chapter IV, “The Senate Environment," seeks to take the reader inside Congress and the Senate to see the forces operative in a Senator's life, the assets and liabilities of his office, the general con- ditions for his public address in the Senate Chamber, and to report the impressions of Paul Douglas as he recorded them as a freshman Senator. In the tOpical progression of Part Two, Chapter V, "The Senator's World of Communication,“ is intended to follow logically and build upon what has been presented by focusing on the role of the Senator in the nexus of communication in which he finds himself. From this overview of the Senator's world of communication, the conditions surrounding public address in the Senate gain perspective. Douglas' concept of rhetorical theory and his general methods of speech preparation provide what seems to be a logical conclusion to this chapter and a pertinent transition from the gestalt of the first two parts to the more specific analysis of his verbal messages. Part Three, “The Senator Speaks," begins with two chapters developed chronologically by sessions of Congress to provide a profile of his Senate speaking career through the “generalized approach.“ Chapter VI, entitled “Senator with Ideas: 1949-1956," begins with a description of the man seen and heard on the Senate floor to provide some alizatioo of the '9‘”: action and mam“ uh“ title: on the @091“! ‘ intent: of hi! tomb“ an; mughly the second title! 'Smto: with I: this of the discussion fines, and invention 1" illegeriod defined. 3" 1 m. Ida . mid, and logical 1 gal . It 4 Speech, against 0. woomvide u. illustn no the Senate. "“ xix visualization of the speaker's manner of delivery for the discussion and analysis which follows in the remainder of the chapter on the topics, the occasions, and inventional constituents of his speeches from 1949-1956. Chapter VII, covering roughly the second half of Douglas' Senate career, is entitled "Senator with Ideas: 1957-1963” and is a con- tinuation of the discussion and analysis of topics, occasions, and invention in addresses, debates, and colloquies for the period defined. Chapter VIII analyzes the ethical, PSYChOIOgical, and logical factors of persuasion in Douglas‘ speech, ”Against the Natural Gas 3111," March 21-22, 1950. to provide an illustrative-example of his public address in the Senate. The rationale for the approach and the methodology are defined in the Introduction to Part III Which precedes Chapter VI. The final section, Part IV entitled "The Vital Signs,“ provides the summaries and conclusions growing out °f this study: "Senator Paul H. Douglas: Insurgent Senate SPOReSman for Humane Causes." From the empirical data in the Study, this chapter attempts to provide evaluative Jildgments resulting primarily from the artistic method of criticism which may add to, and serve to support, existing knowledge of rhetorical theory- i ,! PART ONE THE SHAPING OF A SENATOR 33 :t'l'E' : ‘ghpe I Lena" ‘115‘3 '“ 0“ is ....,. to 32:15 "3 'thh, though 00:31 :33: s, set the stace " a“ “I Ch L a “ “Q 9‘ I O to b able» u S ent'.‘ ”(arm 4' ‘MAZEH :. ¥ I I y t..e gm“ 2‘..." \.'.thg : . .. o. the 1:3“3 Vly I §:‘~I. I‘v“\ 1w . W 3 10 ‘ 5 .sz' at. ‘:“\« nu“ ~ . sand 343's} M {if ”WW? six *eca‘ tan! ‘ etmnmist teach g s 31:5 ~ talisman. floral . c “i. v luarine v “as p i, re ‘ I‘m: h per, mrt and 'Y 3 V0 CHAPTER I THE INTELLECTUAL FOUNDATIONS A Cycle of Reform American history is marked by cycles. The period | from about 1890 to World War II can be considered a cycle of reform, which, though considerably modified in the 1890‘s and 1920's, set the stage for politics during the greater -—.——- part of the twentieth century. That cycle of reform was ; Characterized by the uprising expressed most eloquently in ' the PopuliSm of the 1890's, the Progressive Movement lasting from about 1900 to 1920, and the New Deal and Fair Deal of the 1930's and 1940‘s.1 Within the perspective of this ' period of roughly six decades Paul H. Douglas, a farm 1903’ Who became economist, teacher, author, consultant on labor problems, alderman, moral and insurgent reformer, and twice- W0“dad Marine, was preparing for his role as a spokesman Of national import and U. 3. Senator after 1949- In this chapter, the historical, economic, social, polineal. religious, and intellectual forces impinging Upon Paul 3° DOuglas in the initial three decades of that reform Cyele will be focused upon first. 1 . Richard H f ”P f R f (New York: V1 0 stadter lbs Age 0 e orm utage‘Ramdom House, 1955): p. 3. here" ‘1‘. 21'.“ [0:3 :13: the zodest e307”- :2. Sis early 11;”83135 :5: :uth north-CE?!” 2; tie ingression an: : ‘7 mutation of geld) #51435 005: “f 1. Inc." ascents, safari-“.3 E .. mine" .3 the 59- 0“5875511 far: out “HER '1 e“ Side.“ :1 513‘ :55: ‘ I 9.431.. the mil :1 {We ‘3 "MEf Cutie: J‘s: Frontier Farm Boy Reared in this reform era, Paul Howard Douglas was born into the modest economic surroundings of James and Annie (Smith) Douglas in Salem, Massachusetts, March 26, 1892. His early impressions and associations, however, are connected with north-central Maine, where his family moved during the depression and panic of 1893 (caused mainly by heavy exportation of gold), where "conditions were almost as - primitive as those of Lincoln's frontier days.“1 His pater- l nal forbearers, seafaring people of Scottish origin, had I settled in Maine in the seventeenth century.2 On a small farm outside Newport,3 Maine, young Paul 1 Douglas worked side by side with his father, struggling for subsistence in the small clearing of the sandy, rock-infested soil where his chief duties included gathering maple sap and milking cows. Milking cows, Douglas later contended, "should be requisite for all aspiring politicians, for it strengthens One's hands for handshaking, and the hand movement is nearly —_.__ lCurrent Biography Yearbook, 1949, ed. Anne Rothe, PP. 166-168. 2Ibid. 3The citizens of Newport, (population 1296 in 1960 census) in writer‘s personal interviews at the high school and on Main Street in 1960, are proud of native-son Douglas, Curious about how he became so liberal, and recall little of him or his family. :Ilt' E1: anther died Vh‘ éhsfataer married :1 31359.95“: pro-'13; man. :aaes Douglas. “mulling saleaean. tint: mm heavy rel mast an early age. 'I‘lt‘: has father c: fills stepcther and “filmed u take a M {mailed to east of fishy. Douglas recall Hy family we: eretore smear mural doctrine :utal influence c '- nWoods was th gamed to and ' “l the fiuckl'i Egg. ivegbod ream maaa Wink: ‘ mt. I read :tmm. Ida larl ch“: mbscrlbad he no da c 1 “Titling paper 01 rev u mmumge of 1 Icarefully' the same. "1 His mother died when Douglas was four years old, and his father remarried shortly thereafter. The marginal return of the farm proving to be economically inadequate, his father, James Douglas, returned to his former occupation as a travelling salesman. The absence of his father caused Douglas to assume heavy reaponsibilities for the upkeep of the farm at an early age. With his father on the road, he was under the guid- ance of his stepmother and her brother, “an iconoclast who was inclined to take a swig too much of hard cider, "2 but who subscribed to most of the leading muckraking publications of the day. Douglas recalls: My family were Yankee Democrats and therefore somewhat critical of the prevailing political doctrines of the time. A funda- mental influence on me while growing up in the Maine woods was the reading I did as a boy. I was exposed to and read the literature of the times: the muckraker magazines, McClures Magazine, Everybody's Magazine, La Follette's Pro ressive magazine, and from time to time Bryan's IWilliam Jennings BryanJ magazine, and the rest. I read the articles of Lincoln Steffens, Ida Tarbell, and Ray Stannard Baker. We also subscribed to the New York World, which came two days late and was the big crusading paper of the country at that time. Although I grew up in the Maine woods, I had the influence of journals of the outside world, which I carefully read, and a Democratic family. lWriter's personal interview with Paul H. Douglas, U. S. Senator, U. 5. Senate Office Building, Wash., D.C., May 24, 1963. 2.Joe Alex Morris. "Senator Douglas: Hard-Boiled Idealist,“ Saturday Evening Post, August 6, 1949, p, 27. ST-a‘tgr‘rlma w‘lhh DoualaSn Op; cit. Tm special ”Fe“ ante expose hluelf t: 1;: mpenrate for 364?] 1:: eterlfie 59‘3”“! 13m ter: of grn-ar 51 :teverythng that me "~':£.'.L' athme fre: ;1 Apart fro: his read 3-'-t::c:cf injustices 1 -'.'::':ere.'.a1ne at an ea: 125:: hrs philosophy a: 124:, as well as has :Rfimive labor legul Asehoy I ua1 star can; re: f: :26 maeceasful st! - radian Pectin ““1 JWelaa also 1 lat 4 “Financed as a in of ‘ JEnecratlc f4 ,. MD. influenced l 5 This special appetite for the muckrakers and the desire to expose himself to ideas by reading at'an early age helped compensate for Douglas‘ lack of formal education prior to entering Newport, Maine, High School. He attended only one term of grammar school, but he read from cover-to- cover everything that came into the house, and his stepmother tutored him at home from grammar school texts.l Apart from his reading, Douglas attributes the observation of injustices in labor conditions he observed in northern Maine at an early age as laying the early found- ation for his philosophy and later efforts on behalf of the common man, as well as his special interest in labor problems and protective labor legislation. As a boy I watched the exploitation of lumber camp men for low pay. I also observed the unsuccessful strike of section hands on the Canadian Pacific Railroad in Maine who were working for poor pa because none of the oper- ating fees [profitsfi of the railroad were help- ing them.2 Paul Douglas also recalls certain of the personal abuses he eatperienced as a boy, because he was identified as a member of a Democratic family in Maine. This placed him in an outgroup, influenced and reinforced his Opposition to the doninant Republicanism of his state, and made him un- afraid of being in the minority. Most noteworthy, he re- calls, was the Memorial Day Parade-«one of the top yearly L 1Curr§nt Biography Yearbook, 92. cit.. p. 166. 2Interview with Douglas, Op, cit. massacre} This annual p4 affair in Maine. 5 two, i think only eclnol. who were '51 failiee. 'u'e were let they put at at to oonta-ainate the realized that we HI line and we got so; 5% writer in l' thief. '59 30139135: :2: T419. Ihermer he found| =55} 3W Parade: a reh 7hWiener, bul amazon “m- " in: em before huh ‘ “Edie; to refute thd‘ one school. 30 dudhaggage office 0 '1“. ud kept up his d :HM the curriculi I did My BNiel int events in Newport.1 This annual parade became a Republican affair in Maine. There were a few kids in our town, I think only one other when I got to high school, who were known to be members of Democratic families. We were always allowed to march too, but they put us at the end of the line, so as not to contaminate the rest of them. Gradually we realized that we were always pat at the end of the line and we got sore about it. . A Time writer in 1950 after interviewing Douglas concluded: “He [Douglas] never got over being sore at in- justice, whenever he found it. He was from this point [the Memorial Day Parade] a rebel, a reformer, a crusader for the boys at the end of the line. “3 The Democrats, Douglas remembers, were blamed for Opposing the Civil War. "50, I got started as a liberal Democrat even before high school and more during those years in seeking to refute that inaccurate point of view."4 In high school, Douglas worked part-time in the ex- press and baggage office of the Maine Central Railroad in Newport, and kept up his chores on the farm.5 There is no evidence that the curriculum or teachers of Newport High School had any special influence or made any long-lasting lIbid. 21bid. 3“rviaking of a Maverick," Time, January 16, 1950, P. 16. 4Interview with Douglas, op, cit. slbid. 1 :rrrioa in preparing 3 :eeteemae later in 1 there he vividly real that given in prepare fine in the tradition ‘ o 0. mm, . l mu on content an truncation. Z-lcw granule: sreech, coached with ephee :.et:lor.-n:: fact: the of the: with 1 :5: 4‘ i. u..." ' l‘ V- at Em... A ‘ :1 the debate team F?- to Boudoir. M I: lie: . “h: Douglas en “'53“ seventv wiles “I “:93 as: “this Sleeav l' m e?! “in; . ' . M Dougl“ calls ‘dl “I he; M133 7 contribution in preparing Douglas for the responsibilities he was to assume later in the United States Senate. The one experience he vividly recalls in high school was the train- ing he was given in preparation for his commencement address, which was in the tradition of the Elocution Movement. Of course, I believe good public speaking rests on content and is a very important form of communication. However, in high school for my graduation speech, I had an elocution teacher who coached with emphasis on gesticulation and in- . flection--not facts. Unfortunately, I carried ' some of that with me to college, and didn't get rid of it until I was well along at Bowdoin and on the debate team.1 On to Bowdoin. Columbia, and Harvard In 1909, Douglas entered Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine, about seventy miles south of Newport, which he describes as e A somewhat sleepy New England liberal arts college to which I took an already firmly l established liberal Democratic philoSOphy... i And to me the term “liberal“ means tolerance of our fellow beings, and, in terms of govern- ! ment, removing as many of the barriers as we 3 can to human personality development. Bowdoin is also the alma mater of Longfellow and Franklin Pierce, whom Douglas calls "one of the poorest Presidents the country ever had.“3 An old Bowdoin classmate of Douglas, Sumner Pike, rennenbering him as a tall, gangling rebel, has noted: 3Joseph S. Clark, The Senate Establishment (New York- 30- Zwaa rather 1 gym Taft. who "' :hgl“: n3 Kat! .'. Bebe, who V“ :1 sexy four years. my]: leader. 3 5. Wild 9 with 11 lieeaany other eal emerge of earning hi "-:;1eseonae Douglas 1 finally waiting on tel smashing, and sell: 35H. six feet two in: firindivereity of : in}. seen as both athlete tee-I. .ui! center on the Ihh" net. Douglas 1 s We ‘ “1°: and a Phi 1 51f tr years after 1 an M Boudoin, i e: a“ an undergradui .fi \ tillMin We 9 l . M “minor wii “l! in ! hiding me to he being a meal "“91" elated: 8 I was rather to the right of William Howard Taft, who was then President, and he [Douglas] was rather to the left of Eugene V. Debs, who was tried for something about every four years. Douglas was a radical campus leader. If he could find a minority he would go with it.1 Like many other earnest young men, appreciation of the challenge of earning his own livelihood became a con— tinuing lesson as Douglas worked his way through college in Brunswick by waiting on tables, mixing concrete. farming, baggage smashing, and selling gelatin desserts. But the raw-boned, six feet two inch student displayed tremendous energy and a diversity of interests while acquiring some reputation as both athlete and scholar at Bowdoin. He found time to play center on the football team and be a member of the boxing team. Douglas was graduated in 1913 with an economics major and a Phi 2 Beta Kappa key. Fifty years after his graduation from the pine- Bhaded campus of Bowdoin, Douglas recalls two acadenic ex- periences as an undergraduate which have proven particularly beneficial to him. ”The first was the courses in labor Pmblems and management with John Cabot which had a marked influence in leading me to career work in these areas."3 The Second was being a member of the debate team. Of this experienCe Douglas stated: \\ 1 Morris, op. cit., p. 107. “I was on the debating team my 2 Interview with DouglaS. 22.; Si":- 3 Ibid. to: and senior year. ’a‘e W- at“: George Pierce 3! am: debating by “‘1“? firewall-being of can t huglas also recall tre'slronresa and Power destiny Jame.‘2 'r fling-he careers of the fiatiorris, Posert If. lite to aiaire.3 1":18 re ..... 9 junior and senior year. We studied William Trufant Foster's Armentation and Debating. Foster, as you know, was a student of George Pierce Baker. I have tried to extend the lesson of debating by using sound logic and concrete facts for the well-being of man to all of my speaking."1 Douglas also recalls that at Bowdoin he “read Henry George's Prggress and Poverty with much interest, and Josiah Royce and Henry James.“2 He also took a special interest in studying the careers of Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, George W. Norris, Robert M. LaFollette, Sr., and others whom he came to admire.3 His reading was not restricted, however, to American political figures, the careers and public address of Fox, Pitt, and Disraeli being familiar to Douglas from reading Chauncey Goodrich's Select British Eloguence and other sources.4 In 1913, he began two years of study at Columbia University. 3Ibid. 4Comments by Paul H. Douglas to the writer while re- writing the text for the Congressional Record following his Speech in the U. 5. Senate on May 23, 1963, "To repeal the amendment to pay balance of awards for war damage compensa- tion made by the Philippine War Damage Commission under the terms of the Philippine Rehabilitation Act of April 20, 1946, and to authorize the apprOpriation of $73,000,000 for that PurPOSe, approved August 30, 1962. " Here I 90‘ 3° mumt Vthh V33 first got nterest legislation. 55“ are: was getting successful severe!!! workers to organlz east side of Sew Y- Clothing Barkers. was a poll watcher steel votes, and 2 us arrested for p .aige Willie: Mao's Cilia relates that '3’ w .‘zaza scool speed 1y win-dens more 8pm ““5 always Syn-apart. . Professor Henn- E51151: are on :e, thr 3:: I in becoming a ltu, ‘ l \ 1". Here I got acquainted with the labor movement which was just getting underway, and first got interested in protective labor legislation. After the triangle fire, when labor was getting organized, I worked in the successful movement of the ladies' garment workers to organize the sweat shape on the east side of New York and the Amalgamated Clothing Workers. In the election of 1914, I was a poll watcher. Tammany was trying to steal votes, and I protected against them. I was arrested for protecting and brought before Judge William MacAdoo, who was a fine man.l Douglas relates that “my whole experience in college and graduate school Opened my eyes to the problem of the under- dog and made me more sympathetic to his problans. But I 2 Douglas further think I was always sympathetic to him.“ stated: "Professor Henry R. Seeger at Columbia had a pro- found influence on me, through his courses in labor and tax Problems, in becoming aware of the problems of the work- ing man. "3 A scholarship was supplemented with part-time jobs during the two years at Columbia, and Douglas received a Master's degree in economics in 1915. He then accepted a graduate scholarship from Harvard for a year of study which exposed him to a philosophy of economics and labor-management relations quite different from that to which he had been ex- POSed at Bowdoin and Columbia. The experience at Harvard has left a lasting impression. *— 1Interview with Douglas, op. cit. 21bid. 3mm. The eoonoaic only one or two n Ibole disliked po wealthy and the p hportance. This never felt too we Ecbarking or. a he: the fall of $3.5. faced and net th 3372:13ng it, Paul :5: Profession of C011 be»; “1'0“th 18ft Ham! lift: on, M109 the 191 “it “111101: in 1917 his 11 The economics department at Harvard, with only one or two notable exceptions, on the whole disliked poor people and sided with the wealthy and the powerful, and those of social importance. This repelled me, and I have never felt too warmly toward Harvard since.l Embarking on a Chosen Career From the fall of 1916 to the spring of 1920, when theILS. faced and met the crisis of a world war and was recovering from it, Paul Douglas was embarking upon his dumen profession of college teaching. At the age of unmty-four he left Harvard to take his first teaching position. During the 1916-1917 academic year he served as wiinstructor of economics at the University of Illinois. Heleft Illinois in 1917 to become an instructor and then amustant professor of economics at Reed College in Portland, Orenm. Then he interrupted his teaching career in 1918 to serve as a labor disputes adjuster for the Emergency Fleet Corporation. The next year, 1919-20, found the restless amiadventuresome Douglas at the University of Washington m:Seatt1e as an associate professor of economics. When aSKed from what associations with teaching colleagues he hmiprofited most, Douglas turned to the year at the maversity of Washington in his reply. During the year I was at Washington, Vernon L. Parrington was there, but I don‘t remember meeting him. I had large classes which kept me busy. However. I did meet fre- quently and greatly profited frOm my dis- cussionswith J. Wilson Smith, a close friend, consultant, and colleague of Parrington, who is credited with pioneering the application of economic to political theory . Smith called M 1Ibid. 17 attention to th urban- areae and th regressive revue Pngreeslve lioveee :5 the Pepullst no email 1319?.) 30491“ 3° fficagc, were he was a 152:3,1920-23: assoCi 23111945, 3 5:11 pt he niter' 5 later We ' n and teaching collar»; 2W! . Edy curing his tea Tzcse Who knew hi"! Effie: hie as th {‘33 as an unden «- personality b1 “meets recall a 12 my attention to the under-representation of urban areas and the problems of the POpulist- Progressive Movement. He showed me how the Progressive Movement was merely an outgrowth of the Populist Movenent which stayed under- ground.1 In 1920 Douglas joined the faculty of the University of Chicago, where he was an assistant professor of industrial relations, 1920-23: associate professor, 1923-25: and from then until 1948, a full professor.2 One writer's interviews with Douglas's former stu- dents and teaching colleagues reveal the change in Douglas' personality during his teaching career: Those who knew him in his early teaching days renember him as thin, sad-eyed, and about as Jolly as an undertaker,- but as he put on weight his personality blossomed so that his later students recall a self—assured, friendly man who was often full of high Spirits and a sort of sanitary humor. 3 Infectious Good Will-~The Social Philosophy of a Quaker World War I created a philoSOphical question for Douglas. His sympathies, of course, were with the Allied Powers, but he was opposed to any involvement other than economic assistance on the part of the United States. Like Norris and La Follette, whom he admired, he opposed the m 11bid. 2Current Biography Yearbook, Op, cit. 3Mortimer Smith, "Senator Paul H. Douglas,” American Merc , July, 1950, p. 28. avg-r '::-:ed States‘ anti? in ‘3 certhenr, Douglas dit 2*on introapection In stead of the we: h: ital urination. Si; sheaf defective eyeeicj minutes adjuster v i:- - . ‘ ..zns Eels, death 2:. Perhaps the 2:5: ‘e‘h . ~,::-:e a». «NE 1?. the '1' '~'-.‘- titties icuglas be 33' I: was because ' e : t.“ 'I '5'. w: the eigh 4.35 3’: ”Wailing 51 13 United States' entry in the war. When the United States did enter the war, Douglas didn't enlist until after a long period of intrOSpection and struggle with his conscience; near the end of the war he went to an Army fort for a physical examination. DiSqualified from military service be- cause of defective eyesight/1 he then took the Job as a labor disputes adjuster with the Emergency Fleet Corporation as it was being deactivated in 1918-19. Perhaps the most compelling cause for his hesitancy to become active in the war effort was the fact that in his early twenties Douglas became a member of the Society of Friends. It was because he had chanced to read the Journal of John Woolman, the eighteenth century Quaker who devoted his life to persuading slave—holders to free their slaves, that he gained interest in the Society of Friends. From this, Douglas not only took the commandment "that ye love one another," but also learned the efficacy of good works-- that combination of spirituality and practicality which marks the Quaker faith. In an interview in the early 1930's Douglas chose a figurative analogy to clarify his faith in the importance 0f good will: - In the Quaker tenets, for the first time I realized the contagious power of good will. If like a biologist, one views life as a struggle between bacteria, still one must admit that ill will is divisive and destructive, and good will lMorris, op= cit., pp. 110-111. 133nm”? and c035 11“: the}. 1' to I infective 261“" ‘ the imeval Of f0} good '1“ much is m; 1 have 12' doctrine taught by of good will make! creative pmcess c pole: of frienilin ether 990919 and c' In brief: . A a: i ' stealing of ~31 ate. - ...e axiety of Friend xiii; m Cabell Fhilli a“filial \. 319‘ I . cub“? it”; haa ‘ a raetionshi nan. Anothe :‘h‘ ' Nation . with good \ “We into politic 14 is uniting and constructive. The problem of life, then, is to increase the 'bacteria', the infective centers of friendliness. It is not the approval of formulas but the radiating of good will which is ultimately the creative power. This I have believed to be the central doctrine taught by Christ: that this radiating of good will makes one a participant in the creative process of life... In brief, I do have great faith in the power of friendliness and good will to touch 1 other people and change many of their attitudes. His reading of John Woolman2 and his association with the Society of Friends has had a long lasting effect on an integral part of the social philosophy of Paul Douglas. According to Cabell Phillips, writing in the New York Times ME in 1951, ”...Douglas‘ concept of morality of public duty and human relationships has remained patterned on those of John Woolman."3 Another writer has attributed Douglas' Pre‘°¢¢upation with good works as the motivating force for his entrance into politics: \ Y lDevere Allen, ed., Adventuresome Americans (New Ork: Farrar and Rinehart, 1932 , p. 182. Do 2Paul Douglas' oldest son is named John Woolman uglas. The Saturday, March 16, 1963: state edit—1°“ Of f a 0'8 American, p. 1., "Midwest In Brief," reported the 01lowing: "The United States Senate. by voice ”tee has ggnfinned the nomination of John W. Douglas, son Cf Senator “1 H' 130149138, to be assistant United States attorney 33:21} dDOUglas, 42, who received unanimous approval of the u iciary committee, will head the civil division of e justice department. at 3 u ‘ Cabe11 Ph 1] .. v beral . New York '1‘ i ips, "Paul Douglas Instincti e Li , \. imes Magazine, June 24, 1951. p- 10- has the POint °f 1390mm thing a? a makerisn 15 n: private spiritufl with good works. ‘ politics.l Throughout his ac- ‘tjhs sens to have had an and not only gait 123111; of those Who: ‘ 15 From the point of view of the public the important thing about his [Douglas] conversion to Quakerism is not the effect it had on his private spiritual nature but the preoccupation with good works, which finally drove him into politics.1 Throughout his academic and political careers, Paul Douglas seems to have had the unique ability to create goodwill and not only gain the respect but maintain the friendship of those whom he has opposed. Doctor Douglas Paul Douglas returned to Columbia University in 1921 to template the requirements for a Doctor of Philosophy Degree in economics. He was awarded the degree in 1923; his doctoral dissertation, American Apprenticeship and Ipdustrial Education, was a scholarly and penetrating, if Sometimes pedantic, analysis reflecting his main interest and concern for the labor force. This dissertation of nearly 700 pages traces the origin, deveIOpment, and decay of apprenticeship to early twentieth century America. Douglas showed the decline of apprenticeship in what he terms “the Machine Era" of his time and cited the need for greater vocational education for children "because apprenticeship alone is not adequate--as a means of alleviating the lack of employment and economic opportunities for the labor force."2 13mith, pp. 93.5.. p. 29. 2Paul H. Douglas, “American Apprenticeship and Indus- trial Education," published in Studies in Histo Economics, 331d Public Law ed. Faculty of Political Science of Columbia University New York: Columbia University, 1921), XCV, 2, 216 and pgssim. hemmed “1° 9mm 23mg“ the follow capital and labor. “‘2': its division of the “1611005“ and the basic Ioti lective efforts in :ay be at once Fm of industrial 11f! selves.1 ‘t‘sieoootesded 'cannot ftlemlife into the totem;- itself.‘2 ‘2 2‘: technoIOgi cal advan inst. Ihe dissertation i ills ~ Denise it sets fc 16 Having analyzed the problems and developed the need, Douglas then advocated the following solutions: Capital and labor, in spite of its impersonal- ity, its division of labor, the ephemerality of the relationship between worker and employer, and the basic motive of profit, turn their col- lective efforts into harmony, so that children may be at once protected from the undue burdens of industrial life and enabled to develop them- selves.1 This he contended ”cannot be done primarily by trying to breathe new life into the decaying system of formal apprenticeship itself, "2 but must be developed in view of modern technological advances and present conditions of employment. The dissertation is a landmark in the career of Douglas because it sets forth a seventeen-point program which is an early statement of several of the proposals Douglas has advocated in his life-long crusade of economic reform. The first point in his proposal advocated raising the age of compulsory full-time education to sixteen years, 3 a requirement that now has become law in most states. At that time fourteen years was the maximum accepted age: and in many states youths, out of family financial need, were entering into full-time factory employment before the age of fourteen. He proposed free tuition and scholarships to Children of poor families: revision of the curriculum to M 1113101., p. 331. 21pm, 31bid. um preocational T11 “cries in! the Smith-5‘49 i;-for the two additlc tentate capulfiol'y ed nope: week for child: then: and prohibition “s‘irstfull-tiie Job 1 33156 proposed the sets tools for workers over ‘Cfiimal training depai 3‘35 legislation prov: 3133 of foam apprgnt; :35” in the salaries c aimless: and the . imam“ t0 adainist. the ‘ ‘ l7 combine prevocational guidance and general education-- Douglas saw the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 as an encouraging sign--for the two additional years, from fourteen to six- teen: state compulsory education for a minimum of eight hours per week for children between the ages of sixteen and eighteen: and prohibition by law of any youth entering as his first full-time Job such trades as newsboy or bootblack. He also proposed the establishment of voluntary night schools for workers over eighteen years of age and of vocational training departments in all industries: the enact- ment of legislation providing for registration and super— vision of formal apprenticeship programs by all states: in- creases in the salaries of teachers of vocational indus- trial subjects: and the creation of a federal department of education to administer this program. Although pri- marily a state program, it was to be financed by "social Surplus" gained from personal income, excess profits, and inheritance taxes collected by the federal government.1 The proposal was revolutionary in its time, but received little attention then. With his wife, the former Dorothy S. Wolff, whom he met and married in 1915 when she was a fellow graduate student at Columbia, Doctor Paul Douglas returned in 1923 to his teaching position in industrial relations at the University of Chicago. J”nun. , pp. 331-339. Phgl; Paul Douala“ 1““ itradition of PM: e331 ti mm Eofstadter ‘. apolitical sentiments * sinned} and the ”'4 Perhaps beta Suited States has 5 country through nistory, 'ts main een, as a react: that is, popular. Stone, the early year timons of his oersor "333% doctrines were :19 05 t‘o-oerican histon Fit: = . .r.or its retort: o 3‘ Vere often called 1: “in? intact justice toe K“ K barriers and to e. 123 SOCIQI and econ. \igiolls faith be 16 Phase One Concluded Paul Douglas' intellectual foundations deve10ped in the tradition of progressive reform, an ideological climate which Richard Hofstadter has said is the tradition upon which the political sentiments of most intellectuals in America were formed,1 and the cause Hofstadter concluded is: Perhaps because in its politics the United States has been so reliably conservative a country through the greater part of its history, its main intellectual traditions have been, as a reaction, “liberal", as we say-- that is, pepular, democratic, progressive.2 Phase one, the early years of Paul Howard Douglas, when the foundations of his personal political, social, economic, and religious doctrines were developed, coincided with that cycle of American history labelled the Progressive Era-- peculiar for its reform efforts. The leaders of this move- ment were often called insurgent for their efforts and goals in seeking exact justice between man and his fellow man to remove barriers and to extend the function of government to equalize social and economic conditions. A personal religious faith based upon good will and good works welded with education, his exposure to the progressive literature, climate of Opinion, and events of this era were to have a long-lasting effect in developing the causes for which Paul Douglas was to become a leading oral advocate in the Senate J'Hofstadter, cg, c t., p. 12. 293$- : Po 13o :‘te-"ooited States over elation of his ms. 3 Thus, the first ; mo of the formation Electoral foundations, '31:: of the insurgent 3-21 refoner--Faul 3-1. its; professor sought ”new new: «. a.‘ ‘I ‘ ~. .. the reagh-and.tm 19 of the United States over a quarter of a century after the completion of his Ph. D. at Columbia. Thus, the first phase, and perhaps most important because of the formation of basic assumptions and ideas, intellectual foundations, had been by 1923 completed in the shaping of the insurgent Spokesman for humane causes-- liberal reformer-~Paul H. Douglas. In the period to follow, the young professor sought to apply his academic arguments and thus exposed himself to a rugged initiation and educa- tion in the rough-and-tumble arena of practical politics. 1.? niPREA‘TZCZa-hu koomist-refcreer :M“ ‘ h“ \ \. . s' . "‘n M \I: 5' >e ‘e .M“ . I I l 1 “' “'3 Mince. ‘ e I 5 Q “:31 In 9 a and es;ec‘.al Ne .. the Progressv o s .01.‘ l uttzeth center}. e' o o . e‘ Oh :sistent with . e 1“ t;!y§1 ......es 17‘. S‘ ..a‘ CC. - h‘n . ' if “.2 the :e. w :9? H .ere, A k 3'. CHAPTER II APPRENTICESHIP FOR PUBLIC SERVICE Economist-reformer Dougl as' assumptions for helping the common man and especially the laboring force were largely developed in the Progressive Era of the first two decades of the twentieth century. His ideology and actions remained quite consistent with the Progressive tradition through the twenties and thirties in spite of the shifting economic, social, and political conditions of those two decades. Douglas‘ activities during this period, after the completion of his doctorate to his involvement in World War II, will. be con- sidered here. Climate of Opinionw-"ijmalcy" The status ggg of the main stream of American thought in the mid-nineteen twenties reflected general public apathy and political conservatism. The crisis faced by the nation in World War I had been strenuous, and the American public was trying to forget that ordeal. A whole generation in the twenties was infected by an “eat-drink-and-be-merry-for—tomorrow-we-may-die" spirit. Business reached new heights of prosperity in this post—war era, a prosperity which provided an easy and natural escape 20 :"- . g . a ...EEHCL’ES 13 .1V& 3.13 stair great and excess mood as the backhane ezeatever was .1006 "‘ an: the nation. It save refer: this? e >246“ n "H £3111"; had i" .- J I ‘ in! l e ‘a an ..anner of *‘ .N 50551.: 5:” v -*'~‘°"l'izet:i :5: :; 'HA ‘ *vr‘i‘icfi m l. . ...£ 4:2; . S\r‘cthre "at” \- - 1!" 53‘s mac-Is, Criti,‘ ‘ tlfl‘ -\ their I 51' t .u “1' 0: n u’CSQt t‘a l ‘11 ~ U 3' “m . a U CO‘n‘ “919:1 - “as sreqn 5" u. t “.9 I" 21 for Americans to live and feast on the fruits of “normalcy" in their great and prosperous nation. The businessman was perceived as the backbone of the nation, and it was assumed that whatever was good for him must therefore necessarily be good for the nation. It was evident that the era of pro— gressive reform which had marked the first two decades of the twentieth century had passed as "Fighting“ Bob LaFollette flew the last banner of the Independent Progressive party in the 1924 Presidential election as a mere ideological protest. The activities of the Ku Klux Klan and the results of the Scopes and Sacco-Vanzetti trials reflected the levelling effect of "normalcy". The prevailing norms of American Opinion structure were indifferent and certainly not receptive to change, criticism, or the raising of issues which might tamper with, or upset, this period of escape. It was in this climate of Opinion that Paul H. Douglas, upon completion of his doctorate program, returned to his classroom at the University of Chicago in 1924. It was a period in which the "blue collar” laboring man seeming— ly had become the ”forgotten man" swept aside by the crushing focus on the businessman as the backbone of American pros- perity. The young professor of industrial relations at the University of Chicago had not, however, forgotten the labor- 1'“! man in America, nor was he personally willing to be cast aside in the unintellectual current of the times. Paul H. noWiles set out with new vigor to practice his basic assump- t11°!" ”that a professor has a basic and scholarly responsibility . c :1". were as a critic 0- £ it .0 .m- of improving Mac the 1923-'5 ~‘o:soc‘.ai change Rev C A- ::o. inertheless, ’ §‘V“' ' ‘ 93- a ., , A . {1:3 artistic: vs " r I i I_ T" A. \u * » ‘r :e -he.c&.ehDE' 9“, ‘izeei for justice b-etwe In;' A; '“nu ‘ " ‘ an oan ‘; ' ‘v‘ o‘- ~-L'0:e.':v: an: he .e.... 22 to serve as a critic of the society in which he lives toward the end of improving it for the welfare of his fellow man."1 Progressive Roots During the 1920‘s and early 1930's Douglas' agita- tion for social change had taken on a decided anti-capitalistic tinge. Nevertheless, from his early reading of the muckrakers and his admiration of the Wisconsin Idea set forth by Robert Marion LaFollette, Sr., he deve10ped firm convictions about the need for justice between man. He held that every man was amitled to his God-given natural rights to life, liberty, amiproperty: and he became vehemently opposed to the "cmfitalistic greed of big business" and its domination of government which he observed in the 1920's. He agreed with the good-government Progressives that everything must be done toreturn government to the "hands of the people," and to equalize wealth so as to provide for the welfare of all i citizens. The function of the federal government is to provide for the people. It is laid down in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self evident," inalienable rights and the pursuit of happiness for every man. In the general welfare clause of the Constitution, the Preamble, and Section 8 of the Constitution, and as Abraham Lincoln said, a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people," that the government should do for the people what they cannot do for themselves--what they cannot do as well for them- selves. That is a clear statement by Lincoln and 1Interview with Douglas, Op, cit. allav life I'VE 3‘- sold-be uses: as a they can't dc 33 g for their.1 iltinug'n he has :3 i! II n I In. a 6 'U'lvet getting tEee can g. I 2 were: so, a“ 0 It: att trio of the “sensor: . 4...“. . \ we ' a .F I Q 3'“... A. “ 'JL .29 c 13m the inf‘ .‘JEECE C ‘u‘" 0'. ' \1: ..e :GCS A: v. KEV-SIT, I..e .. .2.“- .— --Ae .. “l n .P“. s to :rcnl-‘A l ‘0 .‘p "= 90333.5: a- ; . a "P h: ‘ \ a...Oc.,se: one ,1, ‘ Q \.‘ .0. hilt \ 23 all my life I've never been able to see why it could be used as a conservative doctrine. What they can‘t do as well, the government should do for them.1 Although he has not been as optimistic as LaFollette was about getting the facts to the people; Douglas accepted, was influenced by, and attempted to implement all these major demands of the Wisconsin Idea: (1) to extend the function of government to equalize social and economic conditions, and (2) remove the influence of corrupt government, and (3) change the forms of government to give majority control.3 While the “farm bloc" in Congress made feeble attempts in the 1920‘s to provide legislation to help the farmer, Douglas, the economist, emphasized economic changes in the system and focused his reform wriznj :r l'T-ifl‘O‘z'i 17 biz-21'... :7: the growing working classes in industry. During the administra— tions of Harding,Coolidge, and Hoover, the inability to pro- Vide equal economic Opportunity became a source of increasing concern to Douglas from 1921-1932. The vested hand of business interests and corruption added to his skeptical view 0f the laissez faire system of government and economic theory Operative in this era. Douglas advocated measures which at the time were con- Sidered socialistic, but which since then have become law: “ lb; (1. 2See content footnote 2, page 32. I 33dward N. Dean, The LaFollettes and the Wisconsin 413$ (New York: Rinehart,l947) , passim. '. state aid 5:: var-cit; 25.3! mal sewnty. Airclzfzc Per. L: M 25 ‘ -.';Las' oral .‘I'M'n‘ .A 0‘ A OIII “Ih'iv UV 5:9 sac-s' ”h I" fl'lfl. '1'! Q. . «.4 us s.”v&a..‘ ‘- ‘o-“Ie‘ ' I “n. in“, F a“..- care-35..., as a“ “-95 555295 2115 “Erica: SCCiety -.. .-. '1 I ""I .‘ v p :luu Nae lea. U 85 Heater. N.“ '\~.:: :‘I ‘92“. : ~‘ “R U III '\ l““ I I....3 at zar'para I 0 .“ \‘lh.es 1F :8“ ~““ on .‘. Al. "4 L“ a - M I VA!“ 9"" A‘ ‘ ‘3 V. 3“: :2 l'qu 'n h . .4 ..e “a: :1 24 (1) state aid for, working mothers, (2) unemployment insurance, and (3) social security.1 A Prolific Pen in Agitation for Social Change If Douglas' oral communication was restricted almost exclusively to the captive audience of students in his class- room, his scholarly publications were soon to establish him a national reputation as an economist. Academician Paul H. Douglas assumed his professional role as a scholarly critic of American society by focusing his assault on the status gig; with the best weapon he then had--a prolific pen. Paul Douglas was already a well-published writer and scholar by 1924. Beginning in 1916, with his first publi- cation while at Harvard,2 he had by 1924 published twenty- two articles in ten different pOpular and scholarly publica- tions on a variety of current economic and political subjects.3 In 1921 he had co-authored an article with his wife, Dorothy, which was awarded first prize in the American Economic Review contest. This llB-page article appealed for greater philanthropic and charitable acts by those who have "ouacquired wealth beyond their needs..." to others who "...through no fault of their own are unable to realize the lDouglas, “Why I am for Thomas,“ 02. cit., pp. 268-70. 2 2"Compulsion vs. Ideals,” New Republic, July 1, 1916, P- 29, 3Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature, 1916-1923. W New Republic, October 24,1925, pp. 203-70. W {29.9.31 joys of life... 51:12 appeals: for 'si': 52:, efficzently and e fittiziz' 1: equalizm; 'LS'lrl-IZQS, 1t mind as' “Inc‘- Li Mpa'lu an. ‘,‘NME u s “c0“15‘V-0 ..' : Q "EEu .3 mm: it. 332‘s “6231:1325 under was! '0' mutate retuz: he I «a. :‘Lssertati CT. 25X '5‘». I “:w- aavccaze ‘Mr Oh §ve Eu N. 5 mid .I =}' crzmary stand ""l‘ Iql!‘ ‘ ‘I n - Th‘.S|I;M‘ $3 olar ' \ Il‘. 25 elemental joys of life....“1 The persistent theme of that article appealed for "public demonstration of what organized effort, efficiently and economically directed, is able to accomplish" in equalizing economic conditions.2 Typical of his writings, it included extensive statistical evidence supporting his conclusions. In 1923 he published a book en— titled The Worker in Mgdern Democratic Society, which criticized the conditions under which the laborer worked and the dis— proportionate return he received for his efforts. His doctoral dissertation next added to his moral crusade as an insurgent advocate for the betterment of the worker in modern society. By ordinary standards, therefore, Douglas was a highly published scholar by 1924. But this was only the be- ginning of a scholarly contribution which now includes over 300 articles in some 240 different popular and scholarly pub- lications and over twenty books, authored or co-authored by DOuglas in his lifetime. The fact that the teachings and writings of Douglas reached more than an academic audience first became evident in 1924, "I was assailed by unidentified conservative elements "3 as a Spreader of socialist and communist doctrines for advocating the equalization of economic opportunities and the ‘— lPaul and Dorothy Douglas. "What Can a Man Afford?" Micah Economic Beview, XI (December, 1921), 118. 2 Ibid.J assim. 3Interview with Douglas, opg cit. 111 7525::th10: of wealth. taste :1: resignation 5 33:25:53. 1'. 1925 Dougl as ;: 21? me, Races and 1 through: his national impose of this took '. :JEVEQE than." The 'i?“‘ .- a mug-ass: wage. He 1 U. .. .4 ch, 3.... e'Hers re\ ‘ A. ‘.‘ t.- ‘-.4" \ a QII “strlL 0": u .: ‘=‘v 20 redistribution of wealth. An attempt by these groups to pressure his resignation at the University of Chicago proved unsuccessful . In 1925 Douglas published a comprehensive analysis of family income, Wages and the Family,1 "his first major book which brought him national renown among social scientists."2 The purpose of this book was to "solve the dilemma of the living wage theory." The solution prescribed by Douglas was a family-based wage. He proposed fixing a minimum wage for each wage earner with added allowances for dependent wives, children, and others reliant on the wage earner for support. He used the industrial wage plans of EurOpe and Australia for precedent, support, and amplification of his proposal. Cautioning throughout that the potential danger of the plan lay in placing too much control in the hands of the employer, which would lead to discriminatory practices in the allotment 0f wages, Douglas urged that appropriate federal legislation must be enacted to prevent such discrimination.3 A First-Hand View of the Communist Experiment In 1926, Douglas was once again on the move. He served as a visiting lecturer at Amherst College in 1926 and .1927. also acting as an economic advisor to a trade union R“ 1Paul H. Douglas. Wages and the Famil (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 19255. 2.- . - . . .. . 'siographical sketch of Senator Paul :1. Douglas 223.211.)," ffficial release from the oifice of «1.1». Eenator Paul H. Douclas, °57 ' a I p. 1 3Douglas, Iiagegtand the family, on. cit., oass__1__.:_ i _ ll _ :ssicntc Russia, which 1 '- zininaineer's :qu hatter being assured 1 ’u l M- I 4 :‘UJU. .5119: 3.". air-“'- are .U“.l aw- ' ‘ H In: “tn inczfia: ‘55:... Y: I ' n ...Ss.c."..se::5. ;; "a” 533m}: When a 1‘ ‘II ' . R“? .Ia’ ‘ . n he.“ he he: “at -. I.v ~ 53-2.?! A ' 5. Ease ha: .AEe. U i“: n 'U .1: 4‘: ‘ ' eauue: that l- 1 "l I \.. “ms ‘33: Starea b u "‘ filthy". :HH and executl'“ :kii‘q a‘n ‘ "Wt (\Terlc .‘mer. I2 Chat ‘ ° ‘0 f“. ‘ “‘0 ‘:\ : “‘ tr‘al ~ql‘ h‘ . ‘ " 1'04 \l fi' ‘ I “It! a j ..i “i 27 russion to Russia, which was organized by the editor of the Loammtive Engineer's Journal. Douglas joined the mission mfly after being assured that no communists were members of the group.1 It is reported that outside of Moscow the American grmu>visited an airplane factory where some of the workers greeted them with indignant protests against the Sacco-Vanzetti fnush the book, Real Wages in the United States, for WhiCh he had been compiling data for six years. The studv Was an attempt to "measure the material progress which the Workers have obtained"4 during the years studied, 1890-1926. He Computed a new index to measure the cost of living. set f°rth new series of wage rates, prepared averageS 0f the \ 1 Interview with DouglaS, 22.. 935° 2Morris, Op. cit., p. 107. Interview with Douglas, 22; SAS- 4 . ‘ 1890 Paul H- Douglas, Real We as in the United states: Pref‘lgzs (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1930 , e Vii. ace, p :31 earnings of ext-7:191 threat since 15-32 W: =.';;'.':1e wage-earning cl- ..... neasuze the r final? wage rates 3:. f 1“ “l 'i .x..._ uaSS. «n‘le tw- 'e .;:e: 1: the “lam" bv’ b .\2:~ “‘ ..r ...1ch- he 90:15 ' . e‘ I 39 annual earnings of employed workers, and compiled data on un- employment since-189O in order to obtain the earnings of the eligible wage-earning class as a whole. It was thus possible for him to measure the relative purchasing power of hourly and weekly wage rates and of the yearly income of the total working class. While twenty-two million workers were in- cluded in the measure, the only two classes of considerable size for which he could work out a continuous index were domestic servants and mercantile employees. The following tenets stand out from among the forty- six conclusions reached by Douglas: (1) Net incomes of all occupations increased, primarily due to production increases and the threat, if not the organization, of voluntary unionism; (2) the proportion which wages and salaries formed of the total value product of manufacturing increased from 1899 to 1921, but decreased since then; and (3) the real earnings of the employed remained relatively constant from 1923-27, while employers' profits were rising—-consequent1y an "appreciable factor in the extra-ordinary increase of stock market values...."1 The results of this study tended to support Douglas‘ con- tention that the employee-working class was not receiving its fair share of "real" wages or disposable income. The study also reinforced Douglas‘ conviction that his ore-depression Prescriptive proposals to equalize income and cut down Speculation would have helped prevent the economic collapse. M 152323, pp. 581-590. .‘u , .. _ a satanic. N. . .. " eta. ~ I ' 1' “:55. "‘ 1'.‘ ......- . ..- ..._.-_- - _ - 0.1: rate; a -1 .:-_,__ ::s.epcrte: 1" tr e :- . Fe ... ...._._.. :- . ;.IE. 9.1.. “U“. u. _ .v n 1" c‘ -. " 0-... ‘,-_ - 1' “:- o. .: ; .:. a}... __ kI-3“':“' "—.-;- ~¢ all... n... _' . ~ ‘ v . ..‘v ‘- “Uh ~: “"4: on i. . ~:-, ‘ ‘ I... ~ ~‘R\~ ' e _ etil ..s..b..:_ .. -Z' ‘ ~~ \ '\_- M H I:V i‘.‘ea :‘e “ s. ~“-. '~ I“ . N“ "' “fix" “:_ ... pet¥u._ ~‘- “r in . l¢..,\}:: :: tn: “A ... ~‘ “123“?“ i: " y :‘zmmplex: %UQ1a 40 A companion text, The mov~e_n_e'n_t_o£ Monev and Real Wages in the United Statesi 1926—23, published by Douglas in 1931, demonstrated a continuation of the same wage te!i\'":(-."!".- cies reported in the earlier volume. Here Qouglas studiec. the chart of real wages as would a sympathetic physician tabulating the rise and fall of the temperature of a beloved patient laboring with a dread disease. His find- ings on real wages from 1890—1928, are classic, and are In) cited in most texts dealing with any ecor-omic analysis 0;- . . . - . l contemporary Unitec states history. Independent political action with John Dcwe" Douglas dedicated his book, The Coming of a iiew y Espgy, published in 19 32, to John Dewey, a bniversitr of Chicago colleague, as th ”cast representative of the new . . . .. . .- 2 . . . . Spirit in American poritical lite." Dewey, in writing the Foreward to the cook, reciprocated: We have here no remote academic argunent for the coming of a new political movement. We have a vivid and authoritative picture of the existing American scene-~documented, con- crete, moving...not dealing with the opinions of the author as to why there should be a change...but with the factors in our indus- trial and social life which are bound to bring one into existence.... This book should be compulsory reading for all citizens.3 l . . . . _ Real wages in the economic milieu arter 1923 was not studied by Douglas, perhaps because his life became more complex. 2i’aul H. Douglas, The Coming of a Ivew Party (.eew Yorkzi-icGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1932), dedication page. 3.Ibi<3.., pp. vii-viii. ‘ 1 “ a h . 7'3 “7713a u. . I *1 * ‘ ;_.1.. .., 23:19:: me -2...” .. 3...--. :-v~~9\na 9... 4 ..4 ~='-=-.N v I: u g "‘"a‘ '- u. .. "s . '= ~.'. .... v. u..- . M £...:: ar- ,._.y.ra:_:, e‘.“ 1". 523-255 5 nine: earlzer, was (”w "new a. . "—5 hu— n...» - . . -:~...,. \- ‘ A u....~..€S m. a _e: '4“ I» H .. -.., \- - s, :~ s t ~V"U\ nut ‘-. ‘--.‘ ""w ‘ 0:... .__A ~ "“ "N: ;.. : .. :3 t . PSYGGS 5:; Z R a ; H ‘ ”5.1-3. .33: t‘e C "I. -; k"“!-A.| ‘ ‘ “Ht: 5 Nu .. §-¢u.~l: an} \L,§v~,u ‘ - K h ‘ ...5, "an. t: the Em . ““3"“ ~._ l _ “‘4 \. ~ a . “h .2: a; 1.3:”), a _ ' "~h will .".'~.' - 74 c: q‘l. . w ‘ ‘ t Challc‘mc“ ‘ is 41 The__Cgming of a New Party enunciated more compre- hensively the family wage program first outlined in Wages and the Family (1925). The Family Wage Plan was a means of alleviating the dominant problem Douglas saw in society—- the well—being of the men and women with dependents. ‘l‘o Douglas, democracy, either political or industrial, was a means to an end-—the security of the family. The plan, as outlined earlier, was to make the family, not the individual worker, the unit for calculation of wages. If there were 100 factories in a certain community employing 100 workers each, or 10,000 in all, each employer would pay his pro- portional share into a central fund based upon the number of his employees and their dependents. An equitable sum of money based upon the cost of living index, in addition to the employee's individual salary, would be paid for dependents, not to the employee but to his wife or the woman who cared for his dependent children.1 Logical and humane though this plan might be, there is little evidence that it received any wide-spread apoli— cation.2 However, William P. Hapgood, wealthy by in- heritance and owner of a large canning factory in Indiana, did use the Family Plan on an experimental basis during the early 1930's "to challenge the assumption of a capitalism the: roots in laissez faire and a harsh, primitive naturalism" —_—.-——-——-- lIbid. , oassim. 2In 1963, .Jouglas had this to say about the far-ii" flage Plan, when asked if he still favored it; "-~.ot so moon oecause of the increased nature of population."-—Interview With Douglas, 00, cit. .1. .- ‘ " r-~p 5 ~3.-E.:_ 'r‘ :5 ‘5‘. 2: __ ,2. "I --... ., _,_ 1 l...":~... "‘ "~-.. s _"I" ;..: U.‘ «4.:“2' ‘;._ . - _,_ l ‘ 42 which, as a “Jeffersonian democrat believing in individual- 1 . . .. imm“ he felt he must challenge. The testimony availnole indicates that Hangood and his employees found ha 011? . F 2 satisiactory. The Family Wage Elan was the economic oasis for the 1932 third party advocated by Douglas with the strong support of University of Chicago colleague, Jon“ tewsj. Paul Douglas and John Dewey had WOIKGG together to form the League for Inuependent rolitical action in 13GB: 1 formed tne Loaywo for 1 Action in i973 oocause we -4. John Jewey an; Independent iolitica could not accept the Democratic part“ 7c it ex— isted then. It was not a construct1‘.v--T but just a tool of hi; city machine r and the southern denocracv. do .el impossible to reform it. do \ i : dependent political action was he . and I were close for fiou‘ to five ‘oers. The Coming q: a uE' Party appears to hive been nrterily a political camprign publication is dection, which clearly aimed at rromotint the princivies afthe League for InieoenCent :oli;ical notion tart: in Umt election with anphasis on the incorporation of Us Faflly Wage Elan. Erevious consiieration had been :ivtn u>giving the League the Farmer-Labor party label, tut - a. thmzwas discarded because it was felt that the plh"u'tj Rflmld draw as well from the farming and labor electorate -u__ _ _ 2 . ”Interview with Douglas, 09. Cit. bag a U 1' or 'n- U...’.A1. V - . - H Ian "‘A-A.: . 2 -~ ': on.:=v" . ‘. ‘ . ' n ~‘ "F ." ‘3":7-Q: I: :1. b g‘. v. .n I...- . . ~' a " ' are: u.'. . .niz 'GC’ .1 t. ‘1' J. '00-. .-_.-- \n q A ~~v:...= ~~o .... ,. , ‘ n \ ‘9 .I‘A ~u‘_~ ‘ u. ‘ - ‘ .4 "'0 .4 ¥ " VJ .- . . "‘I\ P‘ ‘ ~. ‘ . ”I 0 '9 .- “I b ‘e‘ a I“ b H .4 I . {h ‘h‘ : =A:..avfll‘ ‘ “ A ~~_.".:‘ -33» \ n" F ‘ \ .- °n~ ‘- ‘ I‘IL‘CI \e .‘ C .. ‘ . ‘-.A ‘ “‘!‘ . ‘ ‘C‘u"‘= ‘05 ‘ c‘mv 5”; -. \ I. \A ‘ _ ~‘fi. h ‘AQ "\ v ~u¥< de"3:r: ‘ \tg‘fln“ in. I "v . b — an sh“ ‘~.n VI 5.. “Va. 1"“ v "e LQR‘ I R ‘ . be". '(‘55 :F\\ \ ‘ O awag I“ 11‘. ‘ 1 g . ‘r‘ vb ‘ S‘J".‘ h p \ ‘ r: A. " 5 new - m, ‘|- ‘ In 4s sflth L.I.P.A. on the ballot. Moreover, it was felt that thevdnnesota Farm-Labor party would join the League any- wmn and the Farmer—Labor title would be too exclusive of other interest groups.1 The L.I.P.A. was only one of many minor parties grow— ing out of this restless period. The 1932 election ballot amtained more minor parties than any previous one in history. By the summer of 1932 there were twenty-six 'ihird parties”: many of them inconsequential, but their very existence a sign of the unsettled and trying times. finnimal scattered labor support was gained by the League for Independent Political Action.2 Douglas the liberal insurgent in 1932 did not dmose to back Democratic party nominee, Franklin Delano kmsevelt, even though he did so later. The League for Independent Political action kept going until 1935 when the New Deal began with the passage of the Social Security Act and the Wagner nct. That year the New deal really got down to the masses of the mnerican people and this took away the pressures for a third party. In 1936 I supported Roosevelt, and we really have not had a third party movement since then.3 gpvernment Service After Roosevelt's victory in 1932, Douglas Served fnmml933-35 on the Consumers Advisory Board of the sational l . ._ . . - ~ . Lou1s Azamic, Dynajlte (sloucester, mass.: Ester math, 1934), oassim. 21bid. 3Interview with Douglas, 0:, cit. ' .: Achinistration 1'3.ch he had no great ile' Johnson, 'cmamd .‘nosition to the an its-to be one of the its: Douglas 3:1 ‘17. he was no 5:: :I.‘ “0" ' taming giver. '3": e :3“. ‘5 ‘ . a. aymlntzents, a:- ~- ~-~=. filthy ‘ .. me sing :zsiirecwr 05 me 5 Qatar! to the pans-’1 teaconsultafit and utilize salons“: Elli! ‘. m U. Roosevelt, t h: Stuc “an i ‘ 1’1 Sum De in 1 E 86¢:th e W: SUbsec 44 Recovery Administration until it was declared unconstitutional, although he had no great admiration for General Hugh 5. "Blue Eagle" Johnson, "commander-in chief" of the N.R.A.l and was in opposition to the principle of the N.R.A., which he con- sidered to be one of the New Deal panaceas. Wham Douglas joined the N.R.A. Consumers Advisory Board, he was no stranger to government service, his publica- tions having given him enough prOminence to lead to several government appointments, both on the state and federal levels. Within the single year of 1930, he had served as acting director of the Swarthmore Unemployment Study, as secretary to the Pennsylvania Commission on Unemployment; and as a consultant and secretary to the New York Committee to Stabilize Employment, the last at the invitation of Franklin D. Roosevelt, then governor of New York. Douglas also served as a member of the Illinois Housing Commission frcm 1931 to 1933. He is credited with drafting the Illinois State Utilities Act of 1933 to reduce electricity and gas rates, and also with formulating, in 1935, the Illinois Old Age Pension Act. 2 Douglas had studied unemployment and unemployment insurance in Europe in 1931 on a Guggenheim Fellowship. From this research, he subsequently published in 19 33 Standards of m _‘Unen' Eloyment Insurance, dedicated to the economist, John R. \— 1Time, April 27, 1943, p. 15. 2National Cyclogedia of American Biography (New York, 1949)! P. 400. hens, which develope: "smog “It“... . A 'u any . “ s as . u- “nus C ‘6 ‘ “ \n ‘1- I .. v... c . :_. 5 § - uv “U¥es \. ‘0! ' 5 Q. N "I - I... A. “a. .- ~ “ . \ ‘7‘“ . ~_.~ .. F's -. I“. an. ‘ " A I t...: ~'\‘\ ,I‘ ‘ ~*\ ‘3: . " :‘A I . . ‘ by t“ _:‘... ‘ u. ‘.‘ A h..- " CV u N ' \h‘ N..‘:=S 45 Commons, which deveIOped an affirmative case for unemployment insurance. 1 Theory of Wages and Controlling Depression Douglas produced his distinguished work, Theory of Eggs} in 1934, for which he was awarded the $5,000 Hart, - Schaffner and Marx prize in international competition. The thesis of this book was essentially a restatement of the need. to distribute proportionately the surplus income to the were earning class and the indigent in American society, elimi- nating the wastes of the canitalistic system of SKY-IOC' -. i a fan “13"“. \ “\,S c:f “‘ 5He also. Ii‘\ WIN \ I CO'n'rltte en 1 ‘ aocia‘l ‘ d Jen. Kur‘ tev' - ls‘lC)?! ()2: \ t the ‘ \ lorris ‘ Paula fi(t\fiw ‘01 Qrk bu; 0 Lo: 49 Douglas explained to J. A. Morris in 1949 his membership in groups and movenents he had joined to fight Fascism, but some of which turned out to be communist—dominated: In my ardor against Hitler and Mussolini it may have been that I did not sufficiently investigate some groups in whose behalf I was approached by reputable persons. But when I discovered the presence of communists, I got out. Nobody has fought me more bitterly than the communists. Back in 19 30 he sponsored and put through a resolution barring them from membership in the third-party movement [6.9. the League for Political Action; . While he did not abandon his support of the wor‘.- ing class upon returning from this trip, his chief concern after 1935 was the prevention of Fascism and Communism “boring from within." More Public Service Following the. passage of the 1935 federal social Security Act, he wrote social Securitv in the United States (19362,2 a favorable analysis of the nature and benefits of the act. :‘rom 1935-19... , advisory committee to the Unite-i States écnate an-i thr- z‘ederal Social Security Boari‘, the latter grour: wart-(in; :--~ the revision of the original social Lac—curi’t‘v ..ct. in. L" n"‘. I! l. . Morris, Op. Cit., p. 39-. 9 u - 'Paul H. Douglas, Social becurit'r 11‘- ?Eitfiéfl New York, London: 'Jhittleshy House, 2-Lc3raw-dii_1. 935 . . g d—‘— v.— . - -. . A .2. "1 . 'fi. .::~1.a.e- ...e u- nu re: 1925 t:- ,- n‘ n‘ -.1et $279k. ::&S':‘ . "- - p 0%. n l-a ms. .3. rule .1 as.: .e 2‘0 -:.',.... J... -1 -~ ml =lv..bl‘..v “5-. 5-. Met"- .nsc ""' ”IQ... Val ‘~' ~ “$253 I: :r- =.. .' ~v. 1 "313‘s, Tatn‘re . ‘5 ‘ 34 ~.. I! “fins. 4 ‘ int fiat : _ ‘ h "\h M i L “its web ~ ‘ ~ 0‘ , “eat 50 ‘ he formulated the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act.“L From 1925 to 1941, is gained valuable experience and met several crises as chairman of the board of arbitra— tion for the newspaper publishing industry. He handed don/T. some eighty-five decisions in the adjudication of 1:323:— management conflicts, in the longest term in this capacity; A - 4 served by any man. "ierfessor" - alderman from the Fifth liars; A group of Jniversitv of cnicago friends in l 13:: asked Douglas to run for city aldeman from Chica Fifth Ward, a ward consisting of a con-"rlzmereticn of rich, poor, and middle class voters in which the L‘cnivei::si.i’.ir is located. Douglas, who had been insth-ental i1. =oti.ir=r__~ this group to back an independent cat-ruffle for the council consented to try for a place on the ballot in («.9 "notorious, machine-dominated city council of tricazc. Douglas explained his candidacy: "Because I Tantzd t2) dramatize the fact that the aldeman's position was a mi-— lic trust and not a plum tree...."4 While Cool: Count Democrats were split on Douglas, hayor tau-3rd ..e‘.‘_j_- offered to support Douglas as the regular Jenn-3;:atit- non-inst: 11957 Official Biographical sketch, on. cit. 21bid. 3Julian J. eteen, "Douglas of Illinois," Natin: January 31, 1948, pp. 127—28. ‘ 41957 Official Biographical a me who ha: legislatio: extending 1 laws and ‘ 79 (6) The extension of social security: as one who has helped to draft some of the basic legislation in this field, I naturally favor extending the coverage of our social-security laws and paying more adequate pensions and benefits because of the greatly increased cost of'living. (7) The restoration of collective bargain— ing. The recent Taft-Hartley act gives to anti— union employers the power to break almost every union in the country and should never have been passed. Since it now embodies the original Wagner Act, its repeal should be accompanied by the simultaneous passage of another act reestablishing the original Wagner act together with certain improvements agreed upon by unions and employers. (8) The development of our forests and rivers to prevent floods, to provide a timoer reserve and recreational areas, to furnish irrigation facilities and, where practicable, to generate power. (9) An all-out effort to get a greater degree of competition in American business in order to expand output, lower prices and dis- tribute economic power more broadly. Our farm program should, in my Opinion, rest on three pillars: (a) an extensive pro- gram of soil conservation which would include effective measures for better and cheaper fertilizer to break the present stranglehold imposed by the fertilizer trust; (b) an in— creased demand for farm products obtained by extending the school— lunch program so that every child in America will have the chance for a hot noon meal at a reasonable price; (C) the provision of a guaranteed total o-r proportional net income for farmers as a whole equal to that which they enjoyed from 1941 to 1945. This would not require rigid acreage limitation, or the maintenance of fixed prices. With respect to foreign affairs, he affirmed the following broad, ideological statements of policy: Mo: p. 21. L a? United fiat atomic an. e ani the ca continue t essential I an. and b iev their earl Strength a :‘med the the Japan: forties, 5 There is e Comunis: Self in I] Czechoslo‘ to back 1;; aggression AS '11 aggressio; to help f The Xarsh direction sive acts inten‘tion East 011 for We“: royalty F “nflm «‘1 mi so“18 of It is a 5 free and inamu POWerful pGhee st mule de: 0 1'“E3031 00 80 I am in favor of the fullest use of the United Nations, the international control of atomic energy, the reduction of trade barriers, and the develOpment of full economic c00pera- tion among nations. I believe in the Marshall Plan and shall continue to support it, since I regard it as essential to the rebuilding of EurOpe. I am Opposed to all acts of aggression and believe that they should be checked in their early stages before they gather too much strength and threaten our own safety. I con- demned the aggression of Hitler, Mussolini and the Japanese military during the thirties and forties, and did all I could to resist it. There is a similar moral obligation to resist Communist aggression, which has manifested it- self in Iran, Eastern EurOpe, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. I believe in an adequate national defense to back up the United Nations and to check aggression. As we help to free men from the fear of aggression, we should also work constructively to help free them from want and injustice. The MarShall Plan is a great step in this direction. If Russia would cease her aggres— sive acts and give convincing proof of peaceful intentions, she could be admitted to a Near East oil consortium, where there is enough oil for everyone. Under this arrangement, the royalty payments could go to the poverty- stricken peeple of those countries. A mighty struggle is going on for the souls of men and the possession of states. It is a struggle between those who believe in a free and humane society and those who believe in a police state. We have beaten off one powerful attempt to establish the fascist police state upon the world. A glacial age would descend upon the earth were the police state of communism to be triumphant. For it al- so imposes a dictatorship over the press, radio, schools, and churches. Communism, like fascism, takes the peOple on a one—way ride. For once it gets power, it destroys the democratic alternatives to it and does not accord to others the rights it claimed as a minority. It thus sets up a system which cannot be reversed by democratic methods. Wherever the Communists have taken over the government they have been ruthless in suppressing all opposition. Everywhere they have set up police states where men are arrested ‘ sent eased re '4: r'--year terms at the beginning of each Congress. Unlike the House Committee, the Senate's policy committees are formally provided for by law and each of them has a regular Staff2 and a budget. __ lSee Clark, Congress: The Sagless Branch, 93. 2L9, PP. 10, 11, and ssi . for a discussion of the Democratic Conferences in the Senate since 1956. 2The recent Bobby Baker incident in 1964 has called Pilblic attention to this staff. Robert G. Baker was Secretary to the Democratic majority. There are fit «nosed of thirteen of those committees in (member of the uni timous service is n :baiman (the majorit unuous service) may 0i the key planks of 9m (1.e. the scum beincmpetent or as Mmansmp accordi itY means th at chain \ 1S [i ehator Jo: iflYork; Hill and PP. 42-43: 'The r ply a“ Approprizn: .oreign Relations. in senator “We Commute: 105 There are fifteen standing committees in the Senate composed of thirteen to twenty-one members, the chairmen of those committees being chosen on the basis of seniority.l (The member of the minority party with the longest con- tinuous service is the ranking minority member.) The chairman (the majority party member with the longest con- tinuous service) may be completely opposed to one or more of the key planks of his party's national legislative pro- gram (i.e. the Southern Senators on civil rights) or could be incompetent or senile, but he has the right to the chairmanship according to seniority.2 The rule of senior- ity means that chairmen are in reality not chosen by their —— ‘— 1Senator Joseph S. Clark, The Senate Establishment (New York: Hill and Wang, Amsrican Century Series, 1963 , pp. 42-43: “The prize committees in the Senate historic- ally are Appropriations. Finance, Armed Services, and Foreign Relations.“ Senator Douglas has been a menber of the Senate Finance Committee since 1956. 2Raymond Moley, “Frosty Touch of Age," Newsweek, December 23, 1963, p. 80: ”The chairmen of the seven oom- mittees of the Senate who will have most to do with the great issues before Congress in 1964 have reached an average age just short of 69. In the House the most important committee chairmen average 72.“ Clark, Congress: The Sapless Branch, 22‘ £1.33” pp, 183-184: “Five Democratic Senate committee chairmen are in oPPOSition to the platform of their party in the area of the committee's jurisdiction. As a result the seniority system in the Senate was a factor in watering down or de- laYing action on important legislative recommendations of the Kennedy Administration in the field of civil rights, tax reduction and reform, and agriculture. “ Also see page 183 of Clark, Congress: The Sapless W. for a roster of 88th Congress important Senate oomittee chairmen at the end of 1963, their tenure and age, colleague“ or party ‘ their states. “1° 91‘ hmfimfiehlda Once elected snaking la“: 1“ p attacking the “he: overseeing admmistl mittees or by the important source of quiries provide a f‘ Opportunity for int «mmceon controv In addition Senate and House, 0 iiitees or their su Probe particular pr allPle of the invesi Problems was the Si Harxys Tunas wh World War II an fins. Another we °f sinator Joseph Congress 1 meIthe Constitui s“bioenaed and re: \ See Chap 106 colleagues or party conference but rather by voters of their states, who give them seniority by sending then back to the Senate in election after election. Once elected, Senators need information and opinion in making laws, in publicizing governmental activities, in attacking the other party or political officials, and in overseeing administration agencies. Hearings by standing committees or by their subcommittees are probably the most important source of information and opinion. These in- quiries provide a forum for expert witnesses, and some Opportunity for interested citizens to submit views and evidence on controversial bills.l In addition to the day-to-day inquiries of the Senate and House, or by joint, regular and standing com- mittees or their subcommittees, special investigations to Probe particular problems are frequently set up. One ex... annple of the investigatory power of the Senate on Special problems was the Senate committee headed by then Senator Harry S Truman which investigated waste and inefficiency in World War II and presented several constructive sugges- tions. Another was the committee on un-American activities Of Senator Joseph McCarthy. Congress is given special investigatory powers under the Constitution. Private witnesses may be legally Subpoenaed and required to testify. The failure of wit- nesses to testify can result in punishment for contempt h J‘See chapter-V on speech in committees. ofcmgress if the 1 over which Congress iothe purposes of t gressiomal investi‘!a court of law because not prosecute. New nittees have been a: nature that their am into disrepute, and have come from Sena source of power to Often singularly po The Senator laPortant and power Btitutional and p0] State POIitiCAI org °f important cunnii tothe Wishes of c often {teeive net 1‘ Wasted with a recent Years the s fertile breeding g \\ pa 1ttease: tion c1 Semat’t 9r! 107 of Congress if the investigation is concerned with matters over WhiCh Congress has power and the questions are relevant to the purposes of the investigation.1 Procedures for con- gressional investigations are more flexible than in a court of law‘because their purpose is to gain information, not prosecute. Nevertheless, some of the members of com- nuttees have‘been so eager for results of a sensational nature that their methods have brought the investigation into disrepute, and the severest criticisms frequently have come from Senate members.2 ‘Hearings also provide one source of power to the Senate, but individual members are often singularly powerful. The Senator as an individual is frequently a very important and powerful person. For example, the con- stitutional and political powers he often wields in a state political organization or in powerful chairmanships of important committees have caused Presidents to defer to the wishes of certain veteran SenatorS. His speeches often receive national attention, and his name comes to be associated with a particular stand on public issues. In recent years the Senate has also proved to be the most fertile breeding ground for Presidents and Presidential ¥ _-_. 1Witnesses have frequently refused to testify on Particular matters, citing as grounds the self incrimina- tion clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. 2See Irving M. Ives, ”In Place of Congressional 'Circuses,'“ New York Times Magazine, August 27, 1950; and Scott W. Lucas, Congressional Hearings A Plea for Reform," EfiW'York Times Magazine, Mardh 19, 1950. ncniueeu.1 Moreover, bolstered by arranges In a ser society. Ea< and perquisit his own right in tune... across lines of solidaritj a united facl the Presiden‘ privileges on he sense of solider 0f live-and-let-l ive las resulted in prac 0fnumbers. differs i ibeconsutunon co, The framers “a small delibew Mm“: gave the , tnce With that pres “It given the spec in? Of impeached Of f “ital appointment tons a“ by indium lithelr states. Hist”? ha 0i k,K’Wel‘ of the he h ave increased in 1%try s don B. JOhnSoa. 23““5 am L 108 nominees.1 Moreover, the power of individual Senators is bolstered by arrangements in the upper chamber. In a sense the Senate is a mutual protection society. Each member tends to guard the rights and perquisites of his fellow Senator--so that his own rights and perquisites will be protected in turn.... Senatorial solidarity often cuts across lines of party and issue.... Sudh a sense of solidarity means that the Senate may show a united face against some outside force, such as the President, that seems to be challenging its privileges and powers. Ihe sense of solidarity prOpagated by compromise and a motto of live-and-letclive within the Senate add to its power. What has resulted in practice from the interpersonal associations of menbers differs from the function which the framers of the Constitution conceived for the Senate. The framers of the Constitution, viewing the Senate as a small deliberative body of wise men removed from ordinary politics, gave the upper chamber special functions in accord- ance with that presumed capacity of its menbers. Senators were given the special power over making treaties, the try- in9'of impeached officials, consent as a body for major federal appointments, and a resultant power of advise and consent by individual Senators on federal appointments with- in their states. History has witnessed an overlapping of the spheres of power of the two houses of Congress, and the Senate seems to have increased relatively its power. “..- “~~__ arry S. Truman, Richard Nixon, John F. Kennedy, Iwndon 3. Johnson, and Barry Goldwater. 2Burns and Peltason, Op, cit., p. 424. lhile the House was the Senate's fiscal though the House sti relations through cc wasted the Senate policy making. The treaties must be at present, has beam Weston on foreigo Presidential appoin' the: foreign offic increasingly import “‘t‘EWY-ratlfyin udthreatenlng st: toait as a murt c Wemngg. me POtent: upper house have b; “thin, senator pa within the Senate delivered in the 8 There are the can“: Republican “all but figmatj each 0th: trol t main 3:9 ! Plagidmt; as gone 1 109 While the House was to originate bills for raising revenue, the Senate's fiscal role now rivals that of the House. Al- though the House still has important powers over foreign relations through control of apprOpriations, it has not unseated the Senate from a privileged position in foreign policy making. The Senate, reinforced by the fact that all treaties must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senators present, has become the senior partner as a Congressional Spokesman on foreign policy. The Senate's power to veto Presidential appointment of ambassadors, ministers, and other foreign officials inherently gives it power in the increasingly important area of foreign affairs along with its treaty-ratifying authority. The one other potential and threatening strength of the Senate lies in its power to sit as a court of judgment upon officials in impeaChment proceedings. The potential power and practices of the U. s. upper‘house have brought it considerable criticism from W1thin. Senator Paul Douglas as one of the critics from within the Senate exposed existent problems in a Speech delivered in the Senate February 21, 1963s There are the liberal and progressive Denocrats, the conservative Denocrats, the conservative Republicans, and the liberal Republicans--a small but gallant band. The two center groups, conservative Democrats and conservative Republicans, work in very close alliance with each other, dominate the major committees, con- trol the procedures of the Senate, and in the main stymie the legislation for which the presidential candidate of the Democratic Party has gone to the country. There is on facts, but‘ foam to ca; minded o: Andersen's who had a 1 for him wh paraded in very naive clothes.‘ and the pe nose. The facts of t similar to soperor ha Consi 14 chaime 2 from the States in I rei Suppose ti meld cal] and its f( The Cited: m refer to 1 senate. I pg ting the been that °f 1egisl I also fe creasing appeal to 1y saying t you d all We E The: really ca °Perates gressiom est, 0 ‘ date. a: Yet became ‘ rate that “Y from In Short nakednes importan the firs 110 There is no use, to my mind, in denying these facts, but apparently it is regarded as bad form to call attention to them. I am reminded of the story in Hans Christian Andersen's “Fairy Tales." about the emperor who had a suit of clothes supposedly woven for him which was in reality nonexistent. He paraded in this suit of clothes. Finally, a very naive boy said, ”The emperor has no clothes.“ Then the illusion was punctured and the people saw the king in his full naked- ness. The reluctance of some to discuss the facts of the organization of the Senate is similar to the reluctance to admit that the emperor had no clothes. Consider the committee chairmanships. 0f 14 chairmen, 10 come from the Southern States, 2 from the Southwestern States, and 2 from States in other parts of the country. I refer to the bipartisan coalition-~I suppose the Senator from Pennsylvania [Clar would call it the senatorial establishment-- and its followers. I suppose the author of The Citadel [William S. Whité] would call it the club. They mean the same thing and largely refer to the same persons. They control the Senate. I personally believe the result of permit- ting the coalition's dominance to continue has been that we have not moved forward in the field of legislation as rapidly as we Should.have done. I also feel, as a Democrat, that it is of in- creasing disadvantage to the party in making an appeal to the country, because people are proper- ly saying, ”You campaign on these platforms, but you do not or cannot put them into effect when we elect you." Therefore, the bipartisan alliance, which really carries out the Republican platform, Operates against.rmmocratic senatorial and con- gressional candidates from the North and the West, Operates against our presidential candi- date, and is indeed an albatross around the neck of the Denocratic Party. Yet we are not supposed to talk about it because we might offend someone or might indi- cate that matters are decided in a different way from the way they are discussed in public. In short, we should not call attention to the nakedness of the emperor. However, I happen to be one who believes that the truth in these matters is extremely important and that to recognize the facts is the first step toward cure. We all know it is first: cure ”I” he 18 1110 as 10 fine, he will no Not until widen measures adopted Douglas and f practices make the wc Nev Senate Office Bui Symbol of the Union c tend that the actual authoritative priorii roe-elected, and then dual state interests than to office, at t' the union of the sta queotly not the sum lation in the best i critics note further egills! at the dis 111 so in the field of medicine. Diagnosis comes first: cure comes second. As long as one denies he is ill, as long as he believes everything is fine, he will not take steps to cure the situation. Not until evidence piles up, crippling symptoms appear, and real sickness develops are corrective measures adopted.1 Douglas and fellow critics contend that the Senate practices make the words inscribed above the door of the New Senate Office Building, “The Senate is the Living Symbol of the Union of the States,” an untruth. They con- tend that the actual Operation of the Senate gives authoritative priority to Senators who are consistently re-elected, and therefore members give priority to indivi- dual state interests, which will win them votes and return than to office, at the expense of the national interest-- the union of the states. Consequently, the whole is fre- quently not the sum of its parts in efforts to enact legis- lation in the best interest of the nation. Moreover, critics note further that the disruptive procedural methods legally at the disposal of Senators add to this 1Clark, The Senate Establishment, op, cit., pp. 123- 124. On April 27, 1963, Senators Clark and Douglas released the following joint statement on the publication of their speeches in the Senate Establishment concerning the Senate: "We regret that the Citadel Press is reprinting the sPeaches which we delivered in the Senate on February 19 and 21, 1963 concerning the Senate Establishment. While we stand by what we said, we do not want to have it go before the country under the auSpices of this press. We are not able to prevent this, however, because Speeches in the Congressional Record are not copyrighted and anyone may reprint without restriction any material °r191nating therein. The record of the Citadel Press does not command Confidence, and we wish it to be understood that we have not authorized any publication of our statements under its auspices." irresponsibility, raic ing minorities to neg: andhis colleagues vi: popular will, but are system that could gel face of minorities ca members, once they at of the majority party ran and which a major Dating in the electic the motivation to fa: state, regional, or : cedence over nations irresponsible to the Bach me baron, scare responsible he asks vote who in turn on their bel In an attain steps in 1946 to se‘ ship of Senator Rob A. S. Mike Monroney reorganization of improvements in its moinstitutions we: Rsorgenization Act 112 irresponsibility, raising havoc with majority rule, allow- ing minorities to negate and structure proceedings. Douglas and his colleagues wish the Senate to be a microcosm of popular will, but are distraught because a strong party system that could galvanize a majority of members in the face of minorities cannot gain control and discipline members, once they are in office, to enact the legislation of the majority party's national platform upon which they ran and which a majority of the national populous partici- pating in the election gave a stamp of approval. Instead, the motivation to fall in line with individual wishes of state, regional, or Special interest groups gains pre- cedence over national legislation and results in divisions irresponsible to the nation as a whole. Each member of Congress is an independent baron, scarcely hindered by party discipline, responsible only to his constituents from whom he asks votes and campaign contributions and who in turn ask for intercession with Government on their behalf.1 In an attempt to answer the critics, Congress took steps in 1946 to set its house in order under the leader- ship of Senator Robert M. LaFollette, Jr., and Congressman A. S. Mike Monroney, who headed a joint committee on the re-organization of Congress to make recommendations for improvements in its procedures. Amended and diluted, its recommendations were enacted into law as the Legislative 2 Reorganization Act of 1946 and went into effect with the lBen H. Bajdikian, ”Safari into Washington's Nether- world," New York Times Magazine, January 19, 1964, p. 71. 2 See Burns and Peltason, 02, cit., pp. 445~448. lightieth Cmsresso T1 the number of mitts: mugs, Its 10'. in constitutional que 8‘ groups. Provisions fo. assistance to Congress formrk on legislatio and the filibuster rem reforms in the Senate, success. Both the cri Snate and Congress ac; creased efficiency anc These inadeque out what Paul Douglas POIitician: ". . .to or like satisfactory adj 113 Eightieth Congress. The Act made inroads in streamlining the number of committees, but also seemed to spawn more subcommittees. Its lobbying control provisions have resulted in constitutional questions and do not cover all lobbyist groups. Provisions for additional staff in legislative assistance to Congressmen helped some in freeing their time for work on legislation, but the vital problems of seniority and the filibuster remained unanswered. Attempts at other reforms in the Senate, since 1946, have met with little success. Both the critics and many of the defenders of the Senate and Congress agree that further steps toward in- creased efficiency and reaponsibility are needed. These inadequacies restrict Senators from carrying out what Paul Douglas once said was the proper role of a politician: “...to practice the art of the possible...and make satisfactory adjustments within the existing balance of forces, ...and with the human material available...be a use- ful social carpenter...."1 Impressions of a Freshman Senator What are the feelings and expectations of a Senator? "Only the toad beneath the harrow can feel the sharpness of its prongs,“2 ‘to use an analogy of Douglas: thus, a member 1Paul H. Douglas, "Hero as Politician," New Republic, December 14, 1953, p. 16, in reviewing the Biography of Senator Robert M. LaFollette, Sr., written by Belle (Mrs. Robert) LaFollette. 2Paul H. Douglas, "Report from a Freshman Senator," flew York Times Magazine, March 20, 1949, p. 10. I i I of the swat“ and per who has not Yet built peculiarities. is 1" ‘ question. 5933‘“ Pa‘ he was first 61mg” There is a new senator the first of ‘ on a number ° mind when he thing. be 3e“ Benton. Webst Summer. John LaFollette an before himol For exar cal Illinois "Little Glam Stephen A. DC tradition hum it should 8“ assurance. If a zealous sense of humility. t' ulnation to follow 1 great men from the p life-long student of Stubs he wished to i arriving in Washingt “Blatant, Frank Mo: 1 Custom h; A uritt lhei en their names r desks 2 Douglas, “ 114 of the Senate, and perhaps a new Senator fresh on the scene who has not yet built up an immunity to the Senate's peculiarities, is in the best position to answer that question. Senator Paul Douglas reports his reactions when he was first elected: There is a moment on election night when a new Senator feels himself to be a new Adam, the first of his breed. But on that score, as on a number of others he begins to change his_ mind when he comes to the Senate. For one thing, he senses that giants like Clay, Calhoun, Benton, Webster, Stephen A. Douglas, Davis, Sumner, John Sharp Williams, "Fighting Bob" LaFollette and George Norris have been there before him.1 For example, I am now filling the identi- cal Illinois seat occupied a century ago by the “Little Giant" who bore the name of our clan, Stephen A. Douglas. The realization of that tradition humbles a freshman at first. In time it should prove a source of strength and re- assurance. If a zealous new Senator is moved in awe to a sense of humility, that humility is tempered with deter- mination to follow in the footsteps of one or more of those great men from the past. In the case of Paul Douglas, a life—long student of great Senators, the choice of foot- Steps he wished to follow was an easy one. Shortly after arriving in Washington, the Senatoroelect turned to his assistant, Frank McCullock, in Suite 109 assigned to him 1A custom has developed whereby Senators haVe written their names in the bottom of the lower drawer of their desks. 2Douglas, "Report from a Freshman Senator," p. 10, in the Old Senate Off: isto be half as good 1Clark. @1195 52-53: The Congressm one of the three Hous persive, overadorned, i'hetvo newest are, 1 designed and expensiv get a suite of at lea Rayburn House Office tin . A Senator will three before the New several years ago). of both houses get a< hideaways in the Cap: constit The suites an vents or rh to believe they Eire Ceilings are high, t' the furnishings Cong describe them) . The lavishly enhanced by light a fire, a hidd facilities. 1 5 , i 7 I- I“. -———_— 115 in the 01d Senate Office Building,1 and said: ”All I want is to be half as good a Senator as old George Norris.“2 A w *— lClark, Congress: The Sapless Branch, Op, cit., pp. The Congressman gets an office in Washington in one of the three House or two Senate office buildings-- ex- pensive, overadorned, inefficient buildings all of them. The two newest are, inexcusably, the most tasteless, poorly designed and expensive of them all. A Representative will get a suite of at least three rooms now'that the Sam Rayburn House Office Building is completed (he used to get two). A Senator will get five or six rooms (he used to get three before the New S.O.B.--as it is known--was built several years ago). Committee chairmen and senior members of both houses get additional rooms, committee suites and hideaways in the Capitol itself. The suites appear to be designed to impress the constituents or perhaps the member's ego: it is impossible to believe they were designed for genuine office use. The ceilings are high, the rooms deep, the woodwork massive and the furnishings Congressional (there is no other way to describe them). The member's personal office is usually laviShly enhanced by a marble fireplace in which you can't light a fire, a hidden wall safe that is rarely used, a refrigerator that is very useful indeed and private toilet facilities. In the newer office buildings some thought has been given to built-in shelves and space for filing cabinets, but not much. And it is common to see the rather Edwardian elegance of the huge rooms in the Old Senate Office Building cut up and crisscrossed with ugly, homemade (in the carpentry shop in the basement) room dividers so that place can be found for the equipment, material and tools of work, and so that those on the staff who require it can have some semblance of privacy. It is typical that in my office the stationery must be stored in large, handsome, old-fashioned walnut bookcases with glass doors and curtains. In addition, the Congressman may have an office or several offices right in his own district or state, usually in some federal building-~a courthouse or post office, for example. These are rent-free and he gets an allowance to caver the housekeeping cost to the govern- ment of servicing them with heat, electricity, cleaning and 30 on. Because they are in ordinary federal buildings under the jurisdiction of the General Services Administra- tion, these offices are a far cry from the Washington head- quarters and are more likely to be shabby and underequipped.“ 52-53: 2Strout, op: cit., p. 14. According to Douglas, living tradition--the personal relations be‘ For anot‘ learns that t) perhaps one o quisite conrt of Senators W paigns are in develop a £0“ spears which floor of the differ, they exception”. . interest§ an< ment, “15; to be worthy of both part: What assistax paring himself to as learning resource is day. when a new memb tion for Senators 31 hrs to be followed information on his a Wan. as well as 1 Mil and how it man sets forth the allon stationery, not.) tel ephox However, 116 According to Douglas, the neophyte Senator soon senses a‘ living tradition--the courteous decorum in the inter- personal relations between colleagues. For another thing, a freshman Senator learns that the sense of a living tradition is perhaps one of the reasons for the almost ex- quisite courtesy which prevails in the dealing of Senators with each other. Our political cam- paigns are indeed rough and a candidate has to develOp a tough hide to withstand the poisoned spears which are driven into him. But on the floor of the Senate, however much Senators may differ, they behave like gentlemen [with rare exception] . In a world of sharply differing interests and ideas, this is no mean achieve- ment. This, also, makes the freshman anxious to be worthy of his fellows. the man able men of both parties in the U. S. Senate. What assistance does the new member receive in pre- paring himself to assume his new position? The first learning resource is provided immediately after election day, When a new member is forwarded a pamphlet, "Informa- tion for Senators Elect.” That document tells him proce- dure to be followed in the allocation of office suites, information on his salary, and the Congressional retirement system, as well as the clerk hire allotment at his dis- POSal and how it may be distributed. The pamphlet also sets forth the allowances available to him for travel, Stationery, telephone and telegrams, stamps, and his state office.2 However, this tells the new member nothing about lDouglas, "Report from a Freshman Senator," p. lo. 2Senator Douglas maintains his state office at 337 U.S. Court House, Chicago, with Douglas Anderson presently heading the staff of five peOple. hovto adjust to the awiromnent.l Educational 0 the first few weeks C are held for new Sena facilities such as tl vision facilities lo: Capitol Building for and Senate rules. U1 House of Representat Senator prior to ele exPatience. While P Washington, he found as a Senator. Before I car What I wulr had previous because, in local goven before Cong; live the 11 It is relat t is a so evidence an to be Cmpe the ”mole t0 assumg f POSItion,2 The in gaged in GE reflection 117 how'to adjust to the customs, manners, and mores of his new environment.1 Educational opportunities are also provided during the first few weeks of a new Congress: orientation classes are held for new Senators to familiarize them with Special facilities such as the use at cost of the radio and tele- vision facilities located in the Senate wing of the Capitol Building for taped programs, other Special services, and Senate rules. Unless a new Senator has served in the House of Representatives or been on the staff of a Senator prior to election, he faces a considerable learning experience. While Paul Douglas was no stranger to Washington, he found much to be learned upon going there as a Senator. Before I came to Washington I thought I knew what I would be up against because my wife had previously served a term in Congress and because, in addition to my eXperience in local government, I had frequently testified before Congressional committees.... One must live the life of a Senator to know its pains. It is relatively easy to offer advice. But it is a soul-trying eXperience after weighing evidence and conflicting claims and interests to be compelled to decide what is the best for the peOple of the U.S. and then, as one must, to assume full responsibility for that position. The image of a member of Congress en- gaged in debate of issues or in study and reflection on the problems of the nation and 1Paul Douglas received considerable counsel from his Illinois Democratic colleague and majority leader in the Senate, Scott Lucas (the only Democratic Senator from aMidwestern state in the 80th Congress), and others, such as Joseph C. O'Mahoney of Wyoming, (see Douglas, “Report from a Freshman Senator," 92. s;§.). 2Douglas, “Report from a Freshman Senator, “ Op, cit., p. 10. freedom'ls a4 time. At an: gresnnan is r housing deve. or phoning a1 to a cnnstitr letter to a - for his son' class. Speedy gran: or lon campaigns to Congressman“ offices into train static and communic doubts that for the sala °n1Y walk by 1398 late at the lights 5 Since 1 increased 3: grown to in: duties: its plex'Ooo Tl' day is Simp] only the m members of C to fulfill t to dQVQlOp a By can us. 118 freedom is accurate for only a fraction of his time. At any point in his workday, the Con— gressman is more likely to be talking about a housing development with municipal officials, or phoning an executive agency for an answer to a constituent complaint, or dictating a letter to a citizen who wants some information for his son‘s term paper for a school civics class. Speedy air travel, the low cost of tele- grams or long-distance telephone calls and campaigns to encourage citizens to “write your Congressman” have turned most Congressional offices into Operations resembling a complex train station, post office, airlines tenninal and communications center.... Any citizen who doubts that he is getting an honest day of work for the salary he pays his Congressman need only walk by the Senate or House office build- ings late at night or on weekends. Most of the lights are burning.... Since 1946 the nation's population has increased 33 percent, its government has grown to include many more services and duties, its problems are infinitely more com- plex.... The essential problem of Congress to- day is simply that there is more to do but only the same number of men to do it. The members of Congress have to find time enough to fulfill their thousands of obligations and to deve10p a Congressional system in whidh they can use their time most efficiently.1 The most pressing day-to-day demands for the time of Senators and Congressmen are not directly linked to legislative tasks. They come from constituents. And the constituency of a member of Congress is not limited to his home state or district. He gives primary attention to the peOple “back home," but as a U.S. Senator or Representative, his constituency is the whole nation.2 1Representative Henry S. Reuss (D. Wis.) has sug- gested that Congress institute a new type of administrative counsel Who would handle many of the service functions of Senators and Representatives. The ombudsman, as he is called in the Scandanavian countries, deals primarily with constituent problems, thus allowing members to spend more time on the study of legislation. See Congressional Record, July 16, 1963 (daily ed.), p. 12067. "‘""‘ zfiumphrey, opI cit., p. 39. The fact that lative work load is a] live evidence. An acv that the 83rd C0119?“ legislative proposals approved a total of to President signed into These statistics do n apart on particular 1 llilantitative increase W18 considered. I lhe84th Congress, 'a and 1956, indicated t hearings and execut ix "Rh 224 sessions of in election year, C or line sessions in his 1 M'l po 1 21am \‘I p. l 119 The fact that each Congress assumes a larger legis- lative work load is also borne out in part by some compara- tive evidence. An accounting by the White House concluded that the 83rd Congress of 1953 and 1954 approved 29 major I The 87th Congress of 1961 and 1962 legislative proposals. approved a total of more than 1,000 public bills, and the President signed into law 73 major legislative proposals.2 These statistics do not analyze the total amount of time Spent on particular legislative matters, but do indicate quantitative increases in the volume of legislative pro- posals considered. In terms of actual hours, a survey of the 84th Congress, "a typical Congress,”3 meeting in 1955 and 1956, indicated that the Senate had held 3,951 committee hearings and executive sessions (11,677 hours) as contrasted with 224 sessions of the Senate (1,361 hours).4 In 1962, an election year, Congress met in one of the longest peace- time sessions in history.5 Congress met continually from lIbid., p. 129. 2Ibid., p. 129. 3Contained in the pamphlet for visitors to the U.S. Senate prepared by Senate Committee on Rules and Administra- tion and entitled, U.S. Senate: Eighty-eighth congress, First Session, 92‘ g;£., p. 5. 41b1d. 5Clark, Congress: The Sapless Branch, op. cit., p. 164. "The Reor anization Act of 1946 requires that Congress shall go home 0: July 31 each year, having passed all apprOpriation bills and other necessary legislation. That law of discip ine has not as yet been obeyed and it is not possible to mandamus a le islature." 9 Ibid., p. 235: “Recent dates of adjournment are early January ‘0 “lid" In the final 1 Hill grew 15"“ on the year 1‘- President and just long enov Even consider: 1923 was atypical in l tine and legislative 1 0n the matter freslnan Senator, exp time needed for resea matters in responsibl routine work. And that stra fact that one fundamental d crushing burd [of The Labo which Dou holding two a repeal of the itself has ta of my time ea 120 early January to mid-October.1 In the final months, a few old-timers on Capitol Hill grew frustrated enough to look back fondly on the year 1923, when Warren Harding was President and the Congress convened in Marsh just long enough to recess until December. Even considering that the Congressional session of 1923 was atypical in brevity, the duties of Senators in rou- tine and legislative work have become increasingly demanding. On the matter of work load, Paul Douglas, as a freshman Senator, expressed concern over the conflict between time needed for research and critical analysis of legislative matters in responsible decision-making and time demanded by routine work. And that strain is intensified too by the fact that one is forced to make many such fundamental decisions in the midst of a crushing burden of routine work. The Labor Committee, for example, [of which Douglas was a manbefl has been holding two and three hearings a day on the repeal of the Taft-Hartley law and this in itself has taken from five to eight hours of my time each day. Then there are the . meetings of the Banking and Currency Committee and Joint Committee on the 3cogomicIRepoit on ' I a so servin an w ere . am rying $215311 gmlaboring oar?! But in addition to all this, I must also help to answer the mail \‘-G——-—._H.—. Si 1 : A t 30 1957,- August 24, 1958: September 11, lgggrféggggmberu§?sl960; September 27, 1961: October 13, l 0 .N 962’ and ngfm:?rli2; laggroughout recent history no important legislation has been enacted in a Presidential year after the first national convention meets in July. [However, in 1964 the Anti-Poverty Bill was passed on August 10, after the Republican National Convention] . lHumphrey, op. cit., Po 129' ZIbid. which now am day,1 and m and meet cal chronicle a Senate was n 7-8230 AM. papers 8:30-9:30 A. the race today's 9:30-11 AM. repeal. 11-12. Heal 12-1P.M. '. 1-2 PM. L1 2-2130 P.M. ment. (1‘ 2330-5 P.M. 5-6330 PM. grams 6:30-7:30 P consul 7:30-10 Pm 10-12. Rea learn: more n \ In 1963. i to nearly 1500 avg 0 an avarage of 9 While in the Senat and reported to hi 121 which now averages over 700 communications a day,1 and which one morning reached 1,700, and meet callers and delegations. Let me Chronicle a fairly representative day when the Senate was not in session: 7-8:30 A.M. Rise, breakfast, read two morning papers and study memoranda for hearings. 8:30-9:30 AiM. Look over mail, answer some of the most important letters and block out today's policy with the staff. 9:30—11 A.M. Hearings on the Taft-Hartley repeal. 11-12. Hearings on the housing bill. 12-1 P.M. Work on correSpondence and see visitors. 1-2 P.M. Lundh with constituents. 2-2330 P.M. See delegations and telephone Govern- ment departments. 2330-5 P.M. Hearings on the Taft-Hartley repeal. 5-6330 P.M. Sign 250 pieces of mail, send tele- grams on pressing matters of business. 6:30-7:30 Pm“. Dinner with group which wants to consult on legislation. 7:30—10 P.M. Hearings on the Taft-Hartley repeal. 10-12. Read two evening papers and several weekly Journals. Clean up correspondence and study more material on Taft-Hartley law and housing 1In 1963, the number of communications had increased to nearly 1500 average a day and letters to be answered to an average of 900 a day, as observed by the writer while in the Senator's Washington office from May 20-24,l963 and reported to him by members of Senator Douglas' staff. Douglas' regular Washington office staff in 1963 consisted of 18 people, and 4 additional "patronage“ members. No less than 8 of these people work full-time in composing letters to answer correSpondence. The Chicago office in- cludes 5 staff members. Clark. CW. 22. sis" P. 54: "On the Senate side of the Hill the allowance for staff and equipment is much larger, and the Senatorial staff is therefore not only more numerous but more Special- ized. As a Senator from a large state I receive approxe imately $170,000 each year from the government for these Purposes. Under a system so complicated as to be un- intelligible, the larger states get more money, but not PrOportionately more, than the states with smaller pOpulations." I pmble day. 12‘30 AM. G The schedule Douglas had anticipat leouglaS. ”Re pp. 10-11. In 1963, wit!“ carried an article en Go,‘ Sunday, April 2E Hashington correspond lined the schedule of Douglas. That attic] interviews with his I 1963, would indicate 1963 was as follows: Ssh-8:00 Ln. Rise relevant mati washington p 8100-8130 ILM. Brea‘ ing through Record notin 3‘30 M1. Leave wit Senate Offic drive and hi picks him up 9'00‘9850 5J4, Arr-1 members and his pockets Reflect on late conclus 2f that e 122 problems. block out radio speech for next day. 1 12:30 A.M. Go to bed. The schedule was seemingly more strenuous than Dr. Douglas had anticipated, for he went on to say: i w _~-— lDouglas, ”Report from a Freshmsn Senator," 22:. 91.5., pp. 10-11. In 1963, with Congress in session, Chicago's American carried an article entitled "An Illinois Senator on the Go Go,“ Sunday, April 28, 1963, p. 42, by Robert Gruenberg, Washington correspondent. The article discussed and out- lined the schedule of a typical day in the life of Senator Douglas. That article plus observations of Douglas and interviews with his staff by the writer the week of May 20th, 1963, would indicate that a typical workday for Douglas in 1963 was as follows: 5:30-8:00 A.M. Rise, dress, read thoroughly and clip relevant materials from the Q§g_19;k_zim§§ and a Washington paper (Washington Post)-an hour on each. 8:00—8:30 A.M. Breakfast with his wife, Emily, while glanc- ing through the home-delivered c0py of the Congressional Record/noting what both houses did the previous day. 8330 A.M. Leave with his wife for his office in the Old Senate Office Building. (The Senator does not drive and his wife ordinarily takes him to work and picks him up.) 9'00-9850 A.M. Arrive at the office, greet main staff members and pass out clippings from newSpapers from his pockets to his staff, check morning's mail. Reflect on personal actions of past day and formu- late conclusions as to what might be done in light of that experience to improve future actions, and ”mend any fences.” Browse through several Illinois newspapers: Chicago, Springfield, Carbondale, Peoria, Decatur, St. Louis, and several others. Dictate a hasty half dozen replies to letters that require immediate answering--sometimes disposing of them with a single word or reference to a form letter or release of a statement from files that can be adapted for reply. Go back to reading Congressional Record from previous day as time permits. Confer briefly with administrative assistant and/or legis~ lative assistant or other staff. Assemble materials for meeting of Joint Economic Committee. Leave for committee meeting (or to attend one of the other committees on which he serves, or testify before an- other committee or subcommittee). 10:00-12:50 P.M. As chairman, convene the meeting of the Joint Economic Committee and hear testimony and interrogate witnesses (‘31 journ meeting 1:00-1:30 m. Am" ten constitue date With C0“ government CO 1'35‘2‘15 POM. ' Lunc 2:25-2:40 9.14. - Retu room and meet brief appoint vote, remark his administr assistant or he Spends on from day to c' and has prio: 2:40-3:10 PM. Confe turning from on special 31 return to of: 3:10-3:20 PM. Hold 3035 P 4'00'4‘15 PM. 4:20 hit. Make radi Leave for me: William Prox in virtually front" of th committee me the Senate a .01. Single ti and both Dou floor for th Proxmire to mission-debs econOmic inn oOutwittee ma for tape rm -——_——-——a- .- . 123 witnesses (this meeting was on steel prices), ad- journ meeting and return to office. 1:00-1:30 P.M. Arrive back at office and greet eight to ten constituents in anteroom. Leave for a luncheon date with constituents or Congressional or other government colleagues. 2:25-2:40 P.M. - Return to office and greet visitors in ante- room and meet with people in inner office who have brief appointments. Leave for Senate chamber to vote, remark or deliver an address, accompanied by his administrative assistant and/or legislative assistant or another key staff member. (The time he Spends on the Senate Floor, of course, varies from day to day depending upon the calendar of bills and has priority over other activities.) 2:40-3:10 P.M. Confer with staff members going to and re- turning from Senate chamber while walking and riding on special subway train, vote on bill [in this case} , return to office. 3:10-3:20 P.M. Hold conference with administrative assistant. Leave for meeting to sit with Senate colleague, William Proxmire (D. Wis.) on subcommittee meeting in virtually hidden meeting room—~the new ”east front” of the Capitol. most committee and sub- committee meetings are held in conference rooms in the Senate and House office buildings. 3:35 P.M. Single ring of summoning bell interrupts meeting and both Douglas and Proxmire rush to the Senate floor for the second vote of the day. Return with Proxmire to subcommittee hearings and finish dis- cussion-debate with Yale economic professors on economic innovations in government. 4:00-4:15 P.M. lO-minute conference in office with expert on defense procurement summoned by Douglas on sub- committee matter. Leave for Capitol basement studio for tape recording. 4‘20 P.M. Make radio tape-cwithout script--on credit unions and their usefulness to be played over Illinois stations, at request of Credit Union National Associ- ation. While leaving studio, he learns that the Senate has adjourned and two amendments he had planned to introduce right after tape recording session will have to be postponed until the next day. 4:30 P.M. Nap on couch of his office (or in the "den-hide- away" provided for him as a Senator with seniority in the basement of the Capitol under the Senate chamber) just after adjournment of the Senate and before checking the corrections in the Record made by his Legislative Assistant, or assisting in making corrections in the Record. While he rests, represent- atives from area redevelOpment administration are conferring with Administrative Assistant and he will brief the Senator on the matter later in the evening. (The Administrative.Assistant,persona1 secretary, I am fl how 1 ng a ma far three mc it has not at reached the 1.‘ deaionoooo senator is m: the office. “ Hard work alc amsnber of the U. 5 the desire to meet h reaching decisions ; It is r worry which One feels ti forces but a each of whi: truth. Gnu 118? 18 the and bitter ‘ ‘ and other k 5 most matter ”09.14. 10~minut representat 20d a mum . rebiozen a 2:00 P'Mo Greet sr large pile 7 by aides. most of st attend 10315 Po“. Retgt: Journals. 1 ”‘30 MfmGgst‘: 1 huglas, $k$fl£,, p. 11 124 I am frank to sav that I do not know for how 1 ng a man can keep up such a pace. Thus far three months after arriving in Washingtonfi it has not seemed to slacken.I thought I had reached the ultimate in work when I ran for election.... But the job of serving as a Senator is no less strenuous than running for the office. Hard work alone is not all that places a strain on a member of the U. 3. Senate. If he is conscientious in the desire to meet his responsibilities, deliberation in reaching decisions proves wearying. according to Douglas: It is not merely work, however, but also worry which characterizes a Senator‘s life. One feels the tug not merely of conflicting forces but also of sharply Opposing ideas, in each of which one recognizes some element of truth. On which side does the greater merit lie? Is there a way of resolving the sharp and bitter conflicts in some higher synthesis and other key staff act on behalf of Douglas on most matters in the office during the day.) 5:30 P.M. lO-minute conference in office with Chicago representatives of National Labor Relations Board and a woman active in fight for U.S. approval of krebiozen as a cancer-fighting drug. 6:00 P.M. Greet some 35 tourist voters in anteroom. 6:40 P.M. Glance thnough, sign, and note criticisms on large pile of most important mail brought to him by aides. 7:10 P.M. Confer with Administrative Assistant, after most of staff have left, while both prepare to attend a dinner honoring an old friend. 10:15 P.M. Return home. Read evening papers, weekly journals, clean up correSpondence and miscel- laneous work. 12: 30 A.M. Go to bed. lDouglas, "Report from a Freshman Senator,“ shag-LEO! p0 11 o which will ene‘ u n a higher fgound and put The new Senate and have conviction fc the qualities of self- science. No Senator ‘ constituency and sati Interspe come the rep: neglected by make concerni the criticism like my vote: zens who dis; Opinions and the surface ‘ loneliness a night interf it not for t friends [and ing? Never fenowship, Sense of mm decisions pt A Sena secution col feet that h a1‘13 not Onl he 31193 On Capable of there is Q] dents Who, nevemihvele: We to n: \T\ Do“glee, flu p, llZ. 2 Rose, 0 slee " e “in?“ h° (10% r ,‘..u 3 13°“ 1:: g" ps 1129 8, 125 which will enable the national life to proceed upon a higher level and if so, how can it be found and put into effect?1 The new Senator has to be prepared for criticism and'have conviction for his decisions and acts. He needs the qualities of self-reliance to stand alone with his con- science. No Senator can hope to please all elements of his constituency and satisfy all divergent interests. Interspersed with these worries there come the reproaches of old friends who feel neglected by decisions which I have had to make concerning appointments and patronage: the criticism of home newSpapers who do not like my votes, and the irate letters of citi- zens who disagree with my real or fancied Opinions and acts. Is it small wonder, beneath the surface of a Senator’s life there is deep loneliness and also many inquietudes which at night interfere with sleep2 and which, were it not for the reassurance of my wife and friends [and staff] , would seem overpower- ing? Never does a man realize the need for fellowship, for religious faith, and for a sense of humor more than when these worries and decisions pour in upon him as a Senator. A Senator is not suffering from a per— secution complex when he recognizes the sober fact that he has a multitude of enemies who are not only ready to shout to the world when he slips on a banana peel, but who are quite capable of strewing them in his path. And there is also a certain number of correspon- dents who, with the best will in the world, nevertheless regard a freshman Senator as fair game to fill their columns. 1Douglas, ”Report from a Freshman Senator,“ op, s-g-Ll p0 1120 2Ross, 0 cit., p. 134. “He thouglaEI is indefatigable. A poor Sleeper. he does much of reading in snatches during the night. 0 o 0“ 3Douglas, "Report from a Freshman Senator," op= Elia! p. 112. ' Douglas, soon out that the statement When asked by a mall theLabor Comittee m nu, he replied, the of time “...if the Se and evenings and fore parties are too time These w: the air was 1 of cordite. Smoke I hear the press th cocktail hou thank you, I moment, 1 ca tences about off such a r themselves < Subjects. 1 whYl When I it 19. my i‘ The whole 0 Shakespeare th not ma add. doth 1 out °f trou aonor may 1 makes a good 59mm 126 Douglas, soon after arriving in Washington, found out that the statements of a Senator are ”fair game.“ When asked by a small group of reporters when he thought the Labor Committee would complete hearings on a new labor bill, he replied, they should finish within a set period of time ”...if the Senators would only work late afternoons and evenings and forego the cocktail hour.... Cocktail parties are too time consuming."1 These words were no sooner spoken than the air was filled with debris and the scent of cordite. From somewhere behind a pall of smoke I heard shrill voices tell me through the press that if I didn't like the Washington cocktail hour all I had to do was say, "no, thank you, I can‘t come today.” And to this moment, I cannot understand why a few sen- tences about labor hearings should have set off such a hubbub in which everyone purged themselves of bile on a lot of irrelevant subjects. But that is what happened. It is why, when I am now asked what day of the week it is, my instinctive reply is “No comment." The whole of this summons to my memory Shakespeare's observation that ”Honor alone doth not make a good surgeon." Neither, I add, doth it make a good Senator or keep him out of trouble. Honor may be an attribute, but the question of what makes a good Senator defies any simple answer. As the late 1Douglas, "Report from a Freshman Senator," 22; gig., p. 72: A. J. Morris, 92‘ 935., p. 110.,reporting on this incident, noted that when the reporters began scribbling furious notes, Douglas gazed at them in dismay and turned aPpealingly to his veteran Congresswoman wife: “Emily, Please come help me. I‘ve put my foot in it again.“ Mrs. Douglas is reported to have been tart but equal to the occasion. "Don't worry about the invitations dear,“ She said briskly. “People are curious because you're new, but your glamor will soon wear off." 2Douglas, Report from a Freshman Senator," 22.. Lite. p0 72- John P. Kennedy. “11‘ 1957: There a Senator, no D scouting repo his time, his his politics, nearly an in; Paul Douglas, as a DE traits-more than hon: Something mo. needed, some physical end sense of man a bright hel traits may 1: his inductio can be absor in the place quired thror system.2 Although a ‘ positions resulting dfiends it as a sou it is with regard t “on that he Choose LEI. me wdShington Senate's sq tion of the the CMiU Which it 3 127 John F. Kennedy, while still a U. S. Senator, stated in 19578 There are no standard tests to apply to a Senator, no Dun and Bradstreet rating, no scouting reports. His talents may vary with his time, his contributions may be limited by his politics, to judge his true greatness...is nearly an impossible task. Paul Douglas, as a new Senator, felt that a combination of traits—more than honor——were needed to be a ”good“ Senator. Something more--and a great deal of it is needed, something in the way of caution, physical endurance, a sense of selection, sense of maneuver, and the inner tinkle of a bright hell's-bells air. Some of these traits may be inherent in a person prior to his induction into the Senate. Some of them can be absorbed from the memories which hover in the place. And some of then may be ac- quired through the senior-Junior tutorial system. Although a critic of the entrenchment in power positions resulting from the seniority system, Douglas defends it as a source of information for new members. And it is with regard to the small group environment of committee work that he chooses to focus that analysis and defense. Let me say here that I had arrived in Washington full of misgivings about the Senate's seniority system. Yet the opera- tion of that System, as it has unfolded in the committees to which I have been assigned, has brought home some of the practical ends which it serves. Stated negatively, I am 1John F. Kennedy quoted in Davis 5. Broder, “What Makes a Great Senator," N York Times Ma azine, June 14, 19640 p. 15. In Profiles in Courage ZNew York: Pocket Books, Inc., 1957), John F. Kennedy selected Senators for profile On the basis of personal and moral courage. 2Douglas, "Report from a Freshman Senator,“ Op, Lit" p. 72. convinced tha‘ chairman of a unlikely pros of the Senate expert in a p knowledge f0! into a policy fortunately, The seni with a stead: records of ti their jurisd rejected, win mained silen‘ and who stoo Junior Senat splendid put to remove at the older ha this same or before, and turned down senior Senaw Junior as a whole cats], For a1 hearings th ance to a n deed one of Senator car In additior Other colleagues. 5 with information f for facts, ideas, sources are the Pr interest QIOup's, < gross and its Leg: so“mes. \\ 1 mg 0'] w— * all. , 128 convinced that no new Senator can or should be chairman of a Senate committee, even if that unlikely prospect were opened to him. Outside of the Senate, he may be the world's foremost expert in a particular field of interest, but knowledge for its own sake, and knowledge woven into a policy of legislative action are, un- fortunately, two different things. The seniority system provides the Senate with a steady flow of leaders who know the past records of the legislative proposals under their jurisdiction, why they were accepted or rejected, who testified on their behalf or re- mained silent, who gave way and compromised and who stood firm under fire. And though the Junior Senator can applaud himself for the splendid purity of a scheme he had once devised to remove at least one of the nation's ills, the older hands around the place may know that this same scheme has been examined in detail before, and for many practical reasons was turned down flat. In all these matters, the senior Senator or the senior member serves the junior as a file of memories dealing with the whole catalog of legislative cunning. For all their wear and tear, the committee hearings themselves are of incalculable import- ance to a new Senator. These hearings are in- deed one of the principal mains by which a new Senator can educate himself. In addition to the committee hearings and from Other colleagues, Senators are able to educate themselves with information from several sources in the constant quest for facts, ideas, and advice. Most notable of these Sources are the President, administrative agencies, interest groups, constituents, their own Library of Con- gress and its Legislative ReferenCe Service, and many other ' sources. 1 " Ibid. , p. 72. If one r comes evident a Senator to study of a pl the departmer own staff vi] final analysi is true or fa in the commii out his thou which they a Sometimes, h tions in com fool because under an att which trampl But once his result is be lightened pl.‘ There are oi find personal answe: cause of the force, Nasion on members , den>gat'°rl"-even un what 1‘013 Should lo °Pinions?2 Again, some; to this qua: . What, 1“ Shaping as my duty a JUdicial Ellery {esp \ M00 p. 129 If one reviews the Senatorial day, it be- comes evident that there is not much chance for a Senator to undertake a profound or Cloistered study Of a problem. The research personnel in the department may be Of some help to him. His own staff will be Of greater help. But in the final analysis, he must learn for himself what is true or false. And he can only find that out in the committee hearings. Here, he must argue out his thoughts publicly even as the facts on which they are based are presented to him. Sometimes, he gets tripped up by his improvisa- tions in committee sessions and feels like a fool because of it. Sometimes, his head spins under an attack from an unexpected quarter which tramples down his hastily built defenses. But once his injured pride is mended, the net result is both self-education and a more en- lightened public Opinion.1 There are other questions to which a Senator must find personal answers. One which is critical both be- cause Of the force, intensity, and consistency Of its per- suasion on members Of Congress, and because Of its sometimes derogatory--even unethical—-image with the public, is: What role should lobbyists play in shaping legislative Opinions?2 Again, Douglas has extensive Opinions in answer to this question. What, then, about the effect of lobbies in shaping legislative decisions? I regard it as my duty to listen both courteously and with a judicial mind to the representatives Of every responsible group. For every group in a 1 Ibid., p. 74. 2In 1946, as a part Of the Congressional Reorgani- zation Act, Congress passed the Regulation of Lobbying title requiring the registration Of those who seek to in- fluence legislation. By 1963, some 6,500 lobbyists had so registered.-Clark,Congress: The Sapless Branch, Op. cit., p. 69. g e “eluted. 2 0 M14” democracy has both to the {I To this degrm But it is a w later to vote cause of fear allowed himse‘ Even a 1: ing of Specie however, that practice a gr a lesser deg: only do group get, but even demands mom: can afford. to select the discharge the The challenge in constant one to Senator its °°mplexi1 his constituency. There a. whiCh a Sena. Seeking the inVOIVQ Such t0 Oneia par t° Personal “Ch questio ‘1 luterest AS to t answer takes :1 prOCQGux “the hOpe of pm When the 81mm; VOt \\ 1s. gel: and hince 1952 is Staff 1 D°u91as, n P. 74. . 130 democracy has the right to present its case both to the public and to the Legislature. To this degree lobbies are of distinct aid. But it is a very different thing for a legis- lator to vote with a pressure group either be- cause of fear or because of favors he has allowed himself to receive.1 Even a brief experience with the lobby- ing of special interests makes a Senator wish, however, that the members of these groups would practice a greater degree of self-restraint and a lesser degree of a group selfishness. Not only do groups ask for more than they expect to get, but even the sum of all their bed-rock demands amounts to far more than the country can afford. It is properly the job of Congress to select the most urgent of these needs and to discharge those which are most acute.2 The challenge of resolving conflicts of interests is a constant one to any public official. And with a U.S. Senator its complexities are great because of the scope of his constituency. There are, of course, a number of questions which a Senator, new or old, can only answer by seeking the inner light of conscience. They may involve such matters as the obligations one owes to one's party as against those which are owed to personal convictions. Or they may involve such questions as a reconciliation of the nation- al interest with a state interest. As to the first question, my tentative answer takes this form: Support one‘s party in all procedural matters everywhere. Argue sub- stantive programs within party councils in the hope of gaining a majority within a party. But when the chips are down in the Senate, a Senator should vote his profound individual convictions 1Since 1952, Douglas has held to a policy for him- Self and his staff that no gift worth more than $2.50 is to be accepted. 2Douglas, “Report from a Freshman Senator,“ 2h 9%.! p. 74. . on substant“ with or agair expect any 3‘ science and ‘ the printipl‘ Convention 1‘ in the 99““1 President T1“ As to t? it demands *4 teacher: ins tion in the as to the na states.1 Even if the5 Senator, concern fol image of the body 01 The Senate, in addi‘ noted, has been des mid-twentieth centu \ 1M” p. 131 on substantive matters regardless of who is with or against him. Fortunately, I do not expect any sharp conflict between my con- science and party policy, since I believe in the principles of our Philadelphia Denocratic Convention in Philadelphia in 1945] platform and in the general foreign and domestic programs of President Truman. As to the second question, the answer to it demands that the Senator try to become a teacher: instructing the state as to its func- tion in the nation, and instructing the nation as to the nature of at least one of its states.1 Even if these questions can be resolved by a Senator, concern for not only his personal image but the image of the body of which he is a part cannot escape him. The Senate, in addition to the basic criticisms already noted, has been described by such perjorative terms in the mid-twentieth century as being a ”rich man‘s club,"2 an 1Ibid., p. 74. 2In the Second Session of the 89th Congress, July 1964, in the debate over the bill for a congressional pay boost of $7,500 a year, (which was passed and raised Senators' salaries from $22,500 to $30,000) the term, "Rich Man's Club," was frequently used and with considerable evi- dence from statements of assets by some Senators to substan- tiate the claim. At least twenty Senators were reported to be millionaires. Paul Douglas's financial statement, noted as one of the most complete, ranked him among the less afflu- ent with assets of $163,000. See U.S. News and World Report, July 13, 1964, pp. 39-40, "Is the U.S. Congress a 'Rich MafiTs Club'?“ The concern over personal wealth being a requisite to run for high state and national office has become of in- creasing concern in recent years because of the high cost of canpaigns, the inadequacy of salaries in meeting Operat- ing eXpenses-‘some contend, and the matriculation of independ- ently wealthy citizens to candidacy and election. Moreover, among many segments of the population, during the 1960 Presidential campaign, an implicit trust developed in the ethical standards of rich men in public office ”because they Will not put their hands in the till,“ and a mistrust of men of lesser wealth because they might need money and be 'exclusive club,"1 a nillionaire's club, a these labels were dir charge of control by certain groups, or by tive to holding off it more diversified oco Spectm of public 1: concern for the $33.12 “1° dWarhency of in Edward day American a Country, " was also km the U.S. 39, Senate Cham] noonday pro: “89 with n that you in for the Sen Plied' “I f pray for th \ telpten to ”be: 211 : ”in Clark, (3&2 n 3 illiam 5 ‘ w (New York: h 3 ‘ Y Joae 132 3 2 an “Establishment," a l a "citadel," "exclusive club,“ millionaire's club, a lawyer's club, and others. Most of these labels were directed toward the suggestion or direct charge of control by wealth and excessive dominance by certain groups, or by vocations (such as lawyers) condu- cive to holding office at the expense of the election of more diversified occupational groups to represent a broader spectrum of public interest. Douglas has'expressed his concern for the ethos of the body in which he serves and the divergency of interests represented in it: Edward Everett Hale is known to present day Americans as the author of "The Man Without a Country.“ But at the turn of the century, he was also known as the wry-tongued chaplain of the U.S. Senate. One day, as he walked to the Senate Chamber to do his duty and offer his noonday prayer, one of his friends fell in step with him and said, "I suppose, Mr. Hale, that you first look at the country and than pray for the Senate." "0n the contrary," Hale re- plied, “I first look at the Senate and then I pray for the country.“ tempted to embezzling corruption. Clark, Congress: The Sapless Branch, 22; gig., p, 61: “Whatever the arrangements, the Congressman must live in two places and travel back and forth between them a great deal. This imposes a heavy financial burden. It costs me money, quite a lot of my own money every year, to be a United States Senator. For those who have nothing in their pocket to take out, ways must be found to supplement the inadequate salary and expenses now paid members of Songress. Usually this means beating one's way along the honorarium“ trail picking up two hundred dollars here, five hundred there, to pay for the groceries and shoes for the kids." 1Burns and Peltason, op. cit., p. 416. 2William S. White, Citadel: The Story of the U s. §£EEE§ (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1957). ' 3Joseph S. Clark, The Senate Establishment (New York: 3111 and Wang, 1963). In the d the Senate 3‘ aires' Club “ were a board tions W1C“ t happened in E of waay‘B 5‘ any one Of u The lawyer8 ‘ of the Senatl professors i! assortment 0 doctors, and Sons of thes no more weal h“ Broder, Dan In one basic tinctiveness of the Striking single fad ey are unconmon A: described the typich ecade as a "late an ant, native-born ma fiddle-class origin IJoiner'.ll As Mr. .5. Senators and Characteristics is hat probably less 30";an signif icar officeghzidEEe pre: 133 In the day when this barb was first voiced, the Senate seemed little more than a million- aires' club whose members used it as though it were a board of directors room for the corpora- tions which they served. As against what happened in Hale's day, the private vocations of today's Senators offer no clue as to where any one of them will stand on any public issue. The lawyers still hold a comfortable majority of the Senate seats, with former University professors in second place, and a scattered assortment of businessmen, newspaper publishers, doctors, and farmers sharing third place. Some of these men are rich. Some of them have no more wealth than is represented by their 1Broder, David 3., "What Makes a Great Senator?" New York Times Magazine, June 14, 1964, p. 15: In one basic sense, Washington's belief in the dis- tinctiveness of the Senate is well-justified. The most striking single fact about the Senators we have is that they are uncommon Americans. Prof. Donald R. Matthews described the typical Senator of the post-World War II decade as a ”late middle-aged or elderly, white, Protest- ant, native-born man with rural or small-town and upper- middle—class origins, a college-educated lawyer and a 'joiner‘.“ As Mr. Matthews noted in his classic study, "U.S. Senators and Their World," this combination of characteristics is so far from the norm of American society that “probably less than 5 percent of the American people have any significant chance of ever serving in the Senate so long as the present informal 'requirements' for the office hold.” The major abnormality about Senators, in career terms, is that they are professional officeholders. Mr. Matthews found that almost half the post—war Senators achieved their first public office before they turned 30 and that three-quarters of them were on the public payroll before they were 40. The average member had Spent approx- imately half his adult life in office-holding--even before he became a Senator. Of the 100 current Senators, 66 came to that body directly from other public offices: 21 more relied chiefly on the fame won in prior public service--service which, in most cases, had terminated only briefly before their Senate Campaigns began. That leaves only 13 of today's Senators Who launched their campaigns from reputations earned out- Side public office. Most of these men are “political accidents“ of one sort or another. government Pa group is thei pat views VIN fixed classex The impressi: after moving into th only a few weeks con and a little frustra plexities of being a risen to this high r on a positive note: For all vying for p bustering, Congress he the supreme czussion.2 Liabili The Senate the frUstrations o h“ effective he 1 constituents. H is u“ my in which criticism. Tensic his life, \\ 1 p, 76‘ Douglas, 134 government pay. What makes their conduct as a group is their relative independence from the pat views whiCY are commonly identified with fixed classes. The impressions of first-term Senator Paul Douglas after moving into this new world and holding that office only a few weeks convey a feeling of one who is overwhelmed and a little frustrated by the unforeseen demands and com- plexities of being a Senator but also pleased to have risen to this high office. He summarized his impressions on a positive note: For all the seeming petty bickering, the vying for partisan advantage and even fili- bustering, the present Senate of the Blst Congress has a great sense of its function as the supreme forum in the world of free dis- cussion. Liabilities and Assets_of the Offigg The Senator's world is filled with long hours and the frustrations of a complex reaponsibility. No matter how effective he is he can never satisfy all friends and constituents. His job will not make him rich, and he and the body in which he serves will be constantly Open to criticism. Tension and conflict are dominant elements of his life. 1Douglas, "Report from a Freshman Senator," op. cit., p. 76. 2Douglas, ”Report from a Freshman Senator," gpL‘§;§., P. 76. See also Chapter IV, ”The Wonderful World of Congress," in Clark, Congress: The Sapless Branch, 92; gig. See also Burns and Peltason, gp. cit., pp. 425-439, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,“ for a further discussion of the life of Congressmen. But with the and the perplexities indignities which so which the Senator fi select influential 9 people in the nation hm. If he has an . since in a denocrac ance-he can satisf accompanies the cha SC096.Hhich inclué Provide the satisfa mdin prescribing unique world which Channel his effort dedicated, The pa relations and the “meringue, one it understandings am “eluded : He [Senat his cons: of his cc own Pride and the 1 must Judc \‘. N 1 Ben a W 135 But with the diversity and complexity of his life and the perplexities, frustrations, disappointments, and indignities which accompany it, there are satisfactions which the Senator finds in his mrld. He is a member of a select influential group which includes only 100 chosen people in the nation. If he enjoys publicity, it can be had. If he has an active ego and a love for power--and since in a democracy power is related to public accept- ance--he can satisfy his ego.1 An emotional excitement accompanies the challenge of his Job which is national in scope, which includes fashioning paths of history, and can provide the satisfaction that comes from helping others and in prescribing a better world for them. It is a unique world which allows a man with a sense of duty to channel his efforts in advancing principles to which he is dedicated. The participation in the interplay of human relations and the struggle for power provides an unusual experience, one in which he can constantly develOp new understandings and insights. As the late John F. Kennedy concluded: He [Eenator:]cannot ignore the pressure groups, his constituents, his party, the comradeship of his colleagues, the needs of his family, his own pride in office, the necessity for compromise and the importance of remaining in office. He must judge for himself which path to choose, ‘4 *— ———.—_—~— —' ‘— lBen H. Bajdikian, “Bleed, but Bleed Inwardly," New York Times Magazine. August 9. 1954: Pa 10. tinuance in point and on is a diffi The U. S. s the complex social barriers of the sta tion of its legisla import that constan their Senatorial wo survival is to com ence of their colle larger national and lKennedY o 136 which step will most help or hinder the ideals to which he is committed. He realizes that once he begins to weigh each issue in terms of his chances for re-election, once he begins to compromise away his principles on one issue after another for fear that to do otherwise would halt his career and prevent future fights for principle, then he has lost the very freedom of conscience whiCh justifies his con- tinuance in office. But to decide at whidh point and on which issue he will risk his career is a difficult and soul-searching decision.1 The U. S. Senate is in many ways a microcosm of the complex social structure and maze of communication barriers of the states and territories under the jurisdic- tion of its legislation. And one challenge of great single import that constantly confronts the Paul H. Douglases in their Senatorial world and is essential to their political survival is to communicate within the Senate to the audi- ence of their colleagues and outside the Chamber to the larger national audience, their constituency. ‘—-———— lKennedy, Profiles in CourageI Op, cit., p. 10. mmicat ion than ' with the audience 0 Representatives) t support. His idea municeted to at is a national repr to reach that lazy in his on state gmups in several the United States ‘ of state and local meanings and verb receive than from a reSponsible and meet the communit holds. The epea‘ mm of his disc written discouri uses a variety ' interest. persu F CHAPTER V THE SENATORJS WORLD OF COMMUNICATION A Senator of the United States faces a supreme communication challenge. He is challenged to communicate math the audience of his Senatorial colleagues (and Representatives) to inform them and attempt to evoke their support. His ideas, feelings, and actions must also be communicated to other agencies of the U. 8. Government. As a national representative. he also has a responsibility to reaCh that larger and diverse audience of constituents in his own state and more frequently peOple in interest groups in several or all of the states and territories of the United States, including party officials and officials of state and local governments. Not only must he transmit meanings and verbal messages as a source. he must also receive them from others. To stay in office and serve as a reSponsible and effective legislator, the Senator must meet the communication challenge inherent in the office as holds. The Speaking he does in the Senate is only one Fr“:‘m of his discourse. In addition to oral discourse, written discourse plays an important role in his work. He uses a variety of available channels to inform, stimula-- interest, persuade--and at times entertain—~audiences 137 within and outside t interaction with ot mrce and receiver Paul Dougla ‘: this study, gains p leans by which he i: transmitted to him. provide that perspe in separate sectio munication proc in the flow of mes audiences and the use of the mass m channels. Next, t record resulting f sidered. Then, wi to the chapters th Senate, the final take up, in order Congressional Reg methods in prepar B In his W Source. encoder. 138 within and outside the Senate. Through direct and indirect interaction with others, he must be effective both as a source and receiver of meanings and messages. Paul Douglas' Speaking in the Senate, the focus of this study, gains perspective by examining the other major means by which he transmits meanings and meanings are transmitted to him. The purpose of this chapter is to provide that perspective, first, by viewing the following in separate sections, and in this order: the nature of the communication process with the Senator as the focal point in the flow of messages and meanings, his relationship to audiences and the difficulties of audience analysis, the use of the mass media, and the use of various other message channels. Next, the Senator's discourse and the written record resulting from it in Senate committees are con- sidered. Then, with the foregoing sections as a background to the chapters that follow on Douglas' speaking in the Senate, the final sections of this chapter will briefly take up, in orders the role of speech in the Senate, the Congressional Record, Douglas' rhetorical theory, and his methods in preparing speeches to be delivered in the Senate. The Senator and The Process In his world of communication, the Senator is a source, encoder, channel selector and user, decoder, an” receiver.11'1e is steps to transnit 3:31 and written ver hearings, and other :ie'Concressional .33 government renounce news releases to nex Eeoks he publishes, its function as a r fret: his audience 5 he decades and. as fled, or stimulate nessages of 0th :5 iiscourse which he The need ‘ life is of increas the complex and im mmunication met? modern technology. creased popul at 5.01 national govern-he 0f Communication Inc. 1 196° ’ 315 tlilton Wiksell , Wadsworth Publis i {T-'————_——_—_—_—___‘—_——————‘————————rrhas _file,, 139 and receiver.1 He is an important source of messages he attenp-s to transmit inside and outside the Senate, through oral and written verbal communication by speeches, committee hearings, and other face-to~face communication, the telephone, the ggngressional_Record, transcripts of committee hearings, government memorandas, newsletters, letters, telegrams, and news releases to newSpapers and periodicals, articles and books he publishes, and radio and television appearances. His function as a receiver is important, for the responses from his audience serve to transmit messages to him which he decodes and as a consequence ideas are planted, or modi- fied, or stimulated, or action results. He receives the messages of others in the same forms of oral and written discourse which he uses when he is a source of communication. The need for effective communication in a Senator's life is of increasing importance in an age experiencing the complex and improved development and application of communication methods resulting from the advancement of modern technology, and at the same time experiencing in- creased pOpulation and the growth and complexity of the national government. American democratic-representative ‘ _ ———— — ' 1For a comprehensive discussion of the nature of the communication process, see David K. Berlo, The Process of Communication (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 19605: also see Kenneth G. Hance, David C. Ralph, Milton Wiksell, Principles of Speaking (Belmont, Ca11f,: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Inc., 1962). PP- 5~12. government is a gove Comunicatio in; from one mind to mid be no need for to be audience-one: can abort his audie the available chann adequate informatio public opinion and criterion in using interests. Ideall on every issue. 3 ing opinion struc census. At times, the issues result: absence of such 01 necessary to serum formulate opinion most of his colle urge to speak and his audience tow: Senators to act ling one, defini task which is no and frequently a Sstator" s first What audience, 1 140 government is a government by communication. Communication is the process of transmitting mean- ing from one mind to another. Without an audience there would be no need for communication. Paul Douglas attempts to be audience-oriented: that is, he seeks to learn all he can about his audiences and be reSponsive to them. Yet, the available channels frequently provide him with in- adequate information. He wishes to know the climate of public opinion and attenpts to take soundings of it as one criterion in using his office to act in their best interests. Ideally, he would like to determine consensus on every issue. But the increasingly complex and conflict ing Opinion structure makes it difficult to determine con- sensus. At times, apathy or a lack of comprehension of the issues results in an absence of opinion. In the absence of such Opinion, the Senator frequently finds it necessary to serve as a teacher, and his messages seek to formulate Opinion structure consistent with his own. Like most of his colleagues, Paul Douglas feels a compelling urge to speak and act in behalf of the best interests of his audience toward the end of influencing fellow Senators to act in that interest. If the urge is a compel- ling one, defining best interest,on most issues, becomes a task which is never clear out, almost always difficult, and frequently an impossible one. Consequently, the Senator's first question in audience analysis becomes, what audience, or represent whom? easi Sena tor on the indt ho ten or arm a s1 141 W? Segments of the constituency whose interests can be easily defined and are consistent with those of the Senator naturally receive special attention. A U. s. Sena- tor is motivated to work hardest for those who have been moso directly reSponsible for putting him in office and whose continued support is needed to stay there. He is indebted to state and local party leaders and party'members who have personally worked in his behalf. He is highly responsive to the interests of the leadership and members of organized groups--especially occupational interest groups--who have supported his candidacy. A Senator from a state with a mixed industrial and agricultural economy who gained or wishes support from national groups with strong state agencies, representing a large bloc of voters, such as the A.F.L.-C.I.0. and Farm Bureau, W111: apart from the fact that they have strong lobbies, attempt to act in their behalf on measures they individual- ly favor, or seek to find a road of compromise action when the interests of two or more powerful interest groups con- flict. Senators from a state dominated primarily by one interest finds his task in determining the prevailing Opinion of his audience of constituents easier than those elected from states with a diversity of interests. Senator Paul Douglas, elected from a large state with a «iivei 142 diverse economic structure. considers his position prefer- able to the man elected from a narrow; one-interest state. Douglas's state, consisting of many interest groups, serves as a kind of microcosm of the diverse nation. It is desirable to represent a broad in- terest because then no one interest is likely to exercise too much control. And I am sorry for people who come from one-industry states, those with silver or gambling interests only. Madison recognized this in the 10th Essay of the Federalist when he pointed out one of the best safeguards of democracy is having a sufficient number of interests so that they act as a check against each other. He applied it to the fed- eral government, but it is also true within a state. And I think it is true that I've been able to be so independent in the Senate, largely because I am fortunate to be from a state with broad interests. Illinois has industries and agriculture, a variety of industries, and also they have the labor movement, and the REA COOperatives. These different interests tend to neutralize any concentration of power. And there is another point of interest, a third group of interest [agriculture and industry seemingly the broad classification of two groups] the interest of the consumers, and I have served I them almost as a Special concern. A Senator should consider the entire nation as his con- stituency and those people coming from broad states who are not subjected primarily to any one control find it easiest to do this.1 If the Senator from a state with broad interests is less likely to become a "tool“ of any one interest, there is no objective formula by which he can determine consensus or personally arrive at clear-cut stands on most issues. This problem is perhaps crystallized best to those 1Interview with Douglas, op. cit. . ._ ._._——- — - 143 in the upper house of Congress when the moment of decision faces them in answering the roll call, which demands a categorical "aye" or "no" vote on important bills--a time whiCh Senator Douglas early in his career called “a searching of the soul.“1 As the clerk called our names.... Many times we felt that the truest answer was neither “aye“ nor “no" but ”maybe".... When our names are called, the time for objectivity ends. What lies behind the words that are spoken? What leads one Senator to vote ”aye" and another "no“? This question is not only of absorbing interest to a gallery that in- cludes all of America. Men on the Senate floor also ask the same question. "How,“ we ask, ”did we get that way and how did the fellow next to us, or on the other side of the room reach the same or an Opposite conclusion?”2 Douglas provides an extended and analytical answer to this basic question, whiCh points up the perplexity and complexity of the challenge which Senators face in dissecting their audience and determining a climate of Opinion. In illuminating the situation, Douglas writes as one who has conscientiously ”searched his soul“ several times in the period of a little over one year in the Senate. The "realists," as always, have a simple answer. They explain that a Senator either votes according to the weight of his mail or by a rule-of-thumb estimate of how political — .w' ‘— lPaul 5. Douglas. “A Senator's Vote: A searching of the Soul,“ NewflXgrkgEimes MagazineI April 30, 1950, D. 9. 2Ibid., 0. 9. ‘- 144 forces are balanced in the home state. The more cynical among the realists add that a Senator votes the way some political boss, some utility or banking magnate, or some labor leader wants him to vote. In this view, a Senator is a moral puppet who reaponds more or less automatically to external pressures exerted on him by organized groups in the com- munity at large. Now, there may be Senators who cast votes in this manner. But if there are such, I do not know them. All Senators, of course, are sensitive to the climate of Opinion. They must be. How else would representative govern- ment function? All Senators, too, read their mail. They are quick to Spot and give a special weight to unprompted, Open-hearted letters, whether they are scratched on rough paper or written on embossed stationery. They all make tabulations on how the Spontaneous mail runs when a controversial issue is approaching a vote. But eXperience has taught them that the volume of mail is no true index to public Opinion: that the most articulate are often those who have a concentrated special interest; that the great mass of the public, with its diffuse general interest, would, if pressed, frequently state views contrary to those voiced by the ”disciplined letter-writers." In itself, of course, there is nothing virtuous or evil about "disciplined letter- writing." Saints and sinners alike haye used the device to influence public policy. More- over, there is no difference between a thousand identical letters or postcards sent in by indi- vidual members of an organization, or a thousand signatures on a document sent in by the secretary of the organization. Both are aspects of the right of petition. But the question here is how the best soundings of public Opinion can be made by a Senator. In a great state every group interest divides itself into an infinite number of con- flicting internal parts, so much so that the 1"No king ever wielded a scepter more powerful . than a nickel pencil in the hands of an American voter. 399 We. the People: Story g§_the U.S. Capitol, Op. c1t.. 9. lig. 2Douglas, “A Senator's Vote: A Searching of the SOUl," OE: Cite: p. 9' 145 differences within groups are Often greater than the differences between them. To whom, then, should a Senator listen? I believe his most accurate sounding of public Opinion comes about in an almost subjective way. The Senator, returning to his home state, throws himself open to a tidal wave of voices, of heavings and pullings this and that way. Gradually, and almost unobtrusively, the clamor of many voices somehow yields a consensus that is clearly identifiable to him. Whether he agrees with that consensus or Whether he tries to Change it is another matter. Bill Herndon used to eXplain this to Abraham Lincoln by saying that "he felt things in his bones." And Lincoln, in reply would comically refer to this as "Herndon's bone philOSOphy." Yet Herndon was closer to the truth than Lincoln suspected. Some Senators, overburdened with the routine of office work, are often unable, o forget, to return to their point of origin. Others who make these returns for political soundings eXpose themselves to the charge that they are neglecting their duties in Washington. But the quality of their decisions inevitably becomes better or worse according to the degree to which they can immerse themselves in the bath of genuine public Opinion. Apart from these immersions, a Senator has certain selected points of contact which enter into the complex of forces that shape his vote.2 The "selected points of contact" develOped next by Douglas indicate a belief he holds in the concept of responsible Opinion leaders and their effectiveness as creditable sources of communication, representing the constituency. There are people in America Of experience, objectivity, a devotion to the common good, and a unique skill in making prudent deciSions -—- ~— lDouglas regularly returns to Illinois on alternate weekends when Congress is in session. “A Senator's Vote: A Searching of the 2Douglas, Soul," 02: cit., pp. 9 and 38. 146 regarding public matters. No one elected them to their posts of Opinion makers. They are that by the sheer force Of their arguments. Most generally, they are content to express their viewpoint to a Senator over the telephone or by a brief call at his Office. But whether they do it this way, or invite the nation to eavesdrOp, they command enormous attention. These devoted servants of the common good may not make up a Senator's mind on how'he should vote. But what these men and women say must be answered by a Senator before he casts his vote.1 Thirteen years later in 1963, Douglas was more definitive about one group of "Opinion makers.” He Observed that certain lobbyists“...who have been tugging and pulling at you and whose Opinion you reSpect because they are thorough in their analysis of facts related to a bill sit in the gallery as a voice of conscience when you rise on the floor.”2 A second important group of Opinion leaders whiCh impressed and influenced Douglas as a freshman Senator were colleagues in the Senate whose names were called early in the roll call. More than anything else his dis- cussion of this group as sources points up the difficulty he eXperiences in deciding which way to vote and the doubt existing even at the beginning Of the roll call. In this connection, [Opinion makers] it is America's good fortune that there are several of these aristocratic democrats who lIbid., p. 38. 2Interview with Douglas, op. cit. 147 are members Of the present Senate. One, whom we all deeply respect, is the man whose name is called first at voting time. He is Senator George D. Aiken, Republican of Vermont, who can neither be bought nor bluffed, fooled nor frightened. I Openly confess that there have been times in the Senate when my mind has been in great doubt right up to the voting time. And then Senator Aiken's name would be called. And I, for one, have often been in- fluenced by the character of his sturdy res- ponse to the clerk. Like the rest of us, he may err on an issue of fact. But, like his Democratic counterpart, Senator Frank P. Graham Of North Carolina, he has never, to my knowledge, erred on a moral principle. However, Douglas concludes he cannot possibly analyze thoroughly each individual issue and therefore must establish general principles to be applied in his vote on particular measures. Is there any thread that runs through a series of separate votes cast by a Senator? At first glance the answer seems to be a negative one. Yet the appearance of pure pragmatism in Senate voting is highly decep- tive. For all the wide range of matters on which they cast their votes, in one way or an- other, all Senators have repeatedly asked and answered the basic queStions in politics. What, for instance, should be the relationship between the One and the Many? What should be the relationship between the leaders and the people? What should be left to the Operation of custom and what should be made the subject Of law? Which body of practices should be institutionalized and which ones should be left in a free-floating state? At what point must the system of rights be made to intersect with the system of duties? What is the area in which the right of dis- sent can Operate without subverting the will of 1Douglas, "A Senator's Vote: A Searching of the Soul." op. cit., p. 38. ...—a———_____ _ _ the majority? These are timeless questions asked everywhere. in each vote on a particu- lar measure the Senators also vote on a general principle. Indeed, it is the operation of the general principle on their thoughts which gives a discernible inner unity in most of their decisions.1 The valid application of general principles to particular cases and the need to do so under pressure on the Senate floor Douglas notes to be an added complication and barrier to objective decision making. He notes also that there is a reluctance by Senators to report the factors and inner stresses which surround their decision making. At the same time, while the general principle can be stated and examined object- ively, its application to a particular case is Often undertaken in a mood of emotional stress. A politician, no less than a surgeon, is commonly reluctant to describe these inner stresses. It is not because his motives are base, or because an open statement of his own struggle would disturb the patient with whose life he is entrusted. It is due more to the reluctance of Americans in all walks of life to eXpose their inner thoughts and deepest values. The decision may come "...after an inner struggle between my heart and my head, between my sym- Q pathies and my reason...."” in the dead of night, in solitude an hour before the roll call, or from deter- mining the hidden agenda of a bill. He concludes that the 111:1 0; 2mm 3Ibid., p. 42. 149 vote of a Senator lends itself to no concise eXplanation. Yet all the foregoing does not really explain how and why a Senator casts his vote this way instead of that. When the committee hearings and the important books and articles on a proposal are read, when the mail has been appraised, when the briefs and arguments have been weighed, when the wise men, living and dead, have been consulted, the Senator still faces the task of moving his own lips to say yes or no. On the clerk's list, his name stands out in all its solitude. And that is the way he must vote. It is also, I believe, the primary way in which he decides before hand how he is go- ing to vote. His hour of decision is not seen by the outer world. It can come in the dead of night, in periods of reverie, in one's office after the day's work is done, over the breakfast or dinner table with one‘s family, or in a taxicab ride to or from the Capitol. It is at these times, I believe, that the final decisions which affect the life of the nation are generally made. The tension of roll-call merely expresses the decisions which ninety-six widely differing men, with different backgrounds, have already made in the quiet of their individual consciences.l From Douglas' frank appraisal as a new Senator, three conclusions can be reached: (1) Senators search for evidence to analyze their audiences: (2) they try to analyze rational aspects of actions or decisions facing them: and (3) personal convictions and principles combine with l and 2 in the amalgamated Opinion structure of the Senator to affect in various degrees his actions at particular times. There is another consistent influence which determines senatorial behavior. In a word, that 1Ibid., p. 42, 150 influence is compromise--that term used more Often to define the practice of politics than any other. The Senator finds it necessary to compromise, modify personal position to line up with party, ideological blocs, economic blocs, sectional blocs,or some other group with which he finds it necessary to be associated to marShal consistent support. In his votes and identifications, the Senator knows well that it is necessary to compromise on less vital matters to gain support on those more vital to him. The choice of what is relatively more vital is still strongly influenced by the results of audience analysis--whenever results are possible. The Senator's raison d‘étre is the audience, and the web of communication which surrounds Douglas as a Senator has as main strands the channels between him and his audience. Important of those channels are the ones reaching to large audiences in Illinois or the nation. The Mass Media Newspapers, periodicals, radio, and television help the Senator meet a positive responsibility to educate the public about his business and the business of the nation. It is a rare Senator who is not anxious to Project himself to the voter and have his favorable thoughts and actions transmitted through all channels of the communications media. Newspapers serve as one important channel of the mass media. However good the press coverage in washington 151 may be, most important to a Senator is what gets printed and reported back home. Newspaper coverage is important to Paul Douglas, in Spite of his reservations about their ownership and control1 and the tendency of some reporters to sensationalize minor actions of public officials.2 He realizes that the press Operates under the constant pressure of deadlines, causing reporters to think in cliches and to write slogans, and, therefore, prefer to have Senators do likewise. He is also aware that, as a rule, the press has no time to listen or discuss and some- times not even the time to think, and that the result is an inevitable distortion from oversimplification and com- pression.3 Yet, in spite of these shortcomings and V—w w—I—wv— k; 1See page 32, footnote 2, in Chapter II. 2See page l24 in Chapter IV. 3"In 1947 a commission on Freedom of the Press headed by Chancellor Robert M. Hutchins of the University of Chicago, recommended that the federal government should set up its own communication agencies--a government-owned newspaper, perhaps--to tell the peOple Of its plans and policies, if private agencies did not do the job. To en- courage criticism of the press from within and from out- side, it proposed the creation of a “new and independent agency" to "appraise and report annually upon the perform- ance of the press." And the commission called for the maintenance of competition among the larger newspapers by means of the anti-trust laws. (In 1945, during the com- mission'sdsliberations, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Ageociated Prg§§_yy_pnited State§_that the ex- clusive membership laws of the Associated Press, whereby certain newSpapers were denied access to AP facilities violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.)” From Burns and Peltason, gp‘_cit., p. 309. HutchiHTE Commission later issued this statement: "The urgent and perplexing issues which confront our country, the new dangers which encompass our free society, 152 partisan editorial policies of some papers, he realizes the need for press coverage and attempts to get it. The Offices of Senator Douglas have sent out hundreds of press releases each year he has been in Office. In his WaShington office alone, eighteen legal-size, four-drawer high files, 36 inches deep are filled almost exclusively with chronological file folders containing cepies of press 1 Releases go out releases and Speech texts since 1949. on all Speeches, statements in committee and on the floor of the Senate, Special actions on behalf Of constituents, l, 1 'J. I some COpies of government documents, intra-gcvertnent memos, correSpondence, travels of the Senator, reprints from the Record, scripts of radio and television pro- grams, and almost any other actions by him, and sometimes by members of his staff, that are judged worthy of bring~ ing to the attention of government officials or the public and help to keep the man in a favorable public Spotlight. Purely state and local news, such as the letting of govern- ment contracts, postmaster appointments, awards, and hospital grants receive much more play in the local dailies and weekly press than some major statement on a national issue. “—- m-U—o—m —— r.— w—r i. '— the new fatefulness attaching to every step in foreign Policy and to what the press publishes about it, mean that the preservation of democracy and perhaps of civilization may now depend upon a free and reSponsible press." From A Free and R soonsible Press (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1947), pp. 105-106. 1From observations of the writer who was given the Opportunity to peruse all of the files of Senator Douglas and collect copies of all materials,when more than one file copy was available, during the week Of May 20,1963. 153 However, releasing the speeches and news items is no guarantee that they will receive effective coverage or receive any print at all. In the highly competitive struggle for press coverage, the effective release of news items has become a kind of strategic game, and timing is the most important maneuver of that strategy. Dr. Howard Shuman, who has been closer to Douglas than any other man on his staff in recent years, and is Douglas‘ administra- 1 tive assistant,“ has explained the procedure in the release of text of Speeches. We submit the text of most speeches to the press the day before they are scheduled to be delivered. This is done at 4:30 P.M. or after for release the following day or it won't get in print. How well and when you distribute the Speech is often the key to its importance. This has been especially true with the Chicago papers, our most important source in reaching the Illinois constituency. You are at the mercy of the press's whims. You have no real way of knowing the impact a SpeeCh will have. First, that can only be determined after it is delivered, and secondly, the neWSpapers often just don't print it and the space they give it is a factor in its importance. So, planning ahead and timing become critical in the final impact of a Speech. To try to insure that it gets coverage, you try to time it and play every angle. lHoward Shuman, 3.3., h.A., rh.7. Howard shunan, formerly Instructor in Economics at the UniverSity of Illinois, was first appointed in 1955 as research assistant to work on tax problems and on economic issues before the JOint Economic Committee, of which Senator Douglas is Chairman. Shuman holds degrees from the Universitv of Illinois, University of Michigan, and Oxford Universitv, England. In 1949 he was awarded a Rotary :oundation ‘ fellowship for graduate study at Oxford, and in 1952 he becane the third American to be elected President of the Oxford Union Debating Society in its 130 year hiStory. In that position he debated such well-known figures as Clement fittlee and Paul Reynaud, ex-Prime Ministers of Britain and 1‘ rance.--Press release , 19 55. 154 And you never know what they will print. For example, we released the text of the May 9 (1963) Montana Resources Speech in the Senate, which was important and on a new issue, but the press said "no new eXposé," and they gave it back-page coverage. The editors said, "that material came out nine weeks before," or "I heard bits of that before." If they had, it was from reading the transcript of Committee hearings one week before, but it had not been presented in the form of a speech in the Senate and the stand had not received press coverage. The press always insists on new stuff. You never know what they consider will be fresh material. The Senator's Speech against the high cost installation of additional garage space under the Capitol was a relatively short, small Speech, but made a big Splash as new, fresh material. The press is also motivated to print what they think they can predict as being a failure or success as a speech. If a press conference is held by the President or another administrative Official on the day a Speech is delivered in the Senate, the Senate Speech gets back page billing.l The need to release texts of speeches one day prior to their scheduled delivery may result in other problems. If the agenda is such that the Speech cannot be delivered on the day scheduled, any press coverage of the Speech appearing that day becomes fictional.2 Moreover, if platform adjustments are made in the text of the Speech when it is actually delivered to adapt to changes in circumstances occurring since the prepared text had been released or to meet the arguments of pre- Vious speakers inthe Senate, the text released is in- accurate. Senator Douglas almost always delivers the entire _— —_—__ _— _ 1Interview by the writer with Howard Shunan, Mar 4?, 1963. 2 . . Copies of releases of 12 Speeches in tne Douglas files are marked in long hand"never delivered.’ There is no evidence that those speeches received press coverage. 155 prepared text of a major address on the floor of the Senate, but he frequently makes adjustments in an impromptu manner or from brief notes delivered extemporaneously either before delivering the text, or after the conclusion Of it. Releases to radio and television on the same events are frequently shorter but sometimes the same ones as those sent to nSWSpapers. As a new Senator, Douglas was considered by many to be emerging as the Senate spokesman for the liberals1 and made frequent appearances on network radio and television. He still uses these media, but the number of his appearances has declined in recent years. Public affairs programs on radio have been a favorite Of Douglas. He has appeared several times on NBC'S ”American Forum of the Air,“ the “University of Chicago Roundtable," and Chicago radio station WGN'S “The Northwestern University Reviewing Stand."2 Douglas has also delivered major addresses over all the national radio networks in his career, and has also been a sub- stitute on news commentary programs from time to time, Such as for Drew Pearson on radio in the early nineteen fifies. In recent years, he has been asked to appear more often as an economic and fiscal expert than as a party Spokesman. — _—‘ 1Many articles appearing on Douglas in the Senate in 1949-1952 wrote of Robert Taft and Paul Douglas as the Senate Spokesman for the two major parties. w 2Douglas has been called upon several times as an eXpert in the "Northwestern Reviewing Stand" annual program devoted to an analysis of the national high school debate ”..._.—A- “.— - ..fl—__...-—_p——-.——u .— 156 Douglas has also used radio to report to the voters of Illinois with a 5-minute bi-weekly radio broad- cast, which began by being broadcast over 12 Illinois stations and has increased to over 50 stations} The pro- gram, entitled "Senator Douglas Reports," is tape recorded in one of the studios in the basement under the Senate chamber, on the radio and TV gallery just above the chamber, or in his Office, and follows an interview format, with Special guests interviewed by Douglas. Those guests have ranged from national and state govern- mental leaders to the children of constituents and Douglas' own children. This program has in recent years included Mrs. Emily Douglas as the Senator's interviewer most of the time. When the program becomes the Paul and Emily Show, or features Douglas and one of his staff, the script seems to be worked out 'very precisely prior to the taping Of it.2 In addition to radio, Douglas has used the im- proved technology and television facilities in the Capitol to video tape Special programs to be sent back to Illinois television stations for viewing. When Congress is in session, Paul Douglas and Everett Dirksen video tape a half-hour bi-weekly television program called ‘ *— —-— ‘— “v“...— 1A 1962 Press Release stated Douglas' weekly radio and semi-monthly television reports to Illinois are broad- cast Over a network of 52 radio stations and 8 television Stations. 'n._ _——_——-. 157 "Your Senators Report,“1 for broadcast on Illinois stations. The program helps educate constituents on the issues and controversies of the day, and it gives a plat- form for each Senator to enunciate his personal and party positions on issues. By mutual consent, the program has gone Off the air when either Senator has been up for re- election. Douglas has also appeared frequently on net- work public affairs Specials2 and interviews for news broadcasts. Another mass media channel used by Douglas since 1949 has been popular periodicals. He has contributed articles on analysis of the proceedings of the Senate, Operation of the government, elections, politics, philo- sophy, and on specific issues in such publications as the New York Times MagazineI New Republic, Repgrter, and the “m * ‘ w—v— _—~ *There is Little teamwork between these two partisan adversaries otherwise. Evidence of this is available from the unusually vigorous campaign Douglas undertook to unseat Dirksen in his successful bid for re-election in 1962, especially up until the time Dirksen's campaign was interrupted by being recalled to Washington as a key Congressional leader to meet with President Kennedy on the Cuban crisis. Further evidence Of this breach was the commentary of the press regarding how unusual it was that Douglas and Dirksen had made positive reference to eaCh other's stand in the issue of clcture and on the 1964 Civil Rights Bill. 2Douglas appeared on five different hour-long net- work television Special programs on all three major networks during the period January 1963-June 1964. The writer wit- nessed the video taping of an interview with Senator Douglas in his office by Howard K. Smith of ABC on May 22, 1963. 158 Reader's Digest.1 Senator Douglas has made extensive use of the mass media Of communications to educate his constituents and, in the Madison Avenue phrase, "project his image." other Message Channelg The telephone is important as a means Of expedit- ing business in the complex organization of the national government. Hundreds of local and long distance calls come in and go out of Paul Douglas' Office each day from Senate colleagues, people in other agencies cm'the govern- ment, and constituents. The Senator's administrative staff have the most important calls channelled to them by the receptionist who handles calls on matters of Senatorial courtesy. Those calls reaching the Senator have been screened carefully. Calls dealing with legislative policy from other menbers of the government find one or more of Douglas' key staff on extensions listening, joining in the conversation, and serving as sources of information for the Senator. When the Senator is out of his officeg.Administrative Assistant Howard Shuman serves as the key SpOkesman tor the Senator on matters of tOp priority.l Another important message channel used by Douglas A - . - 4 Is the intra-governtentai memorandum. ——-'—-. “-.._.—F i ‘— —‘-'-' 1The writer observed that Shuman typically Spends 35-minutes of every hour on the phone from 10 A.H. to 5 P.M. on weekdays. 2The number Of copies of most memos has increased On the average from 7 to 16 in the past decade, which some oonclude, reflects the growth of government. 159 The monthly newsletter is another means used by Douglas to keep his constituents informed. His newsletters since 1949 have varied in length from one to fifteen pages printed on one side and report a variety of his activities or the intensity of his efforts on particular legislation. Circulation of the newsletter is concentrated in covering Illinois voters. Another channel for communicating ideas and en- hancing gghgg is provided by occasional Speaking oppor- tunities and other public appearances Which bring him into direct contact with the public in Illinois and else- where. Throughout his Senate career, Douglas has been in constant demand and he has used this platform to good advantage. On almost every bi-weekly trip to Illinois Douglas accepts one or two Speaking Opportunities. The mass media,various “the: indire . u. ‘f .I’ 5"» b- .3” fl) ’- as W ge channels and Speaking appearances outside of Washington constitute one part of the total communications media important to a Senator. The Senator‘s direct face-touface oral communication in carrying out his duties in Washington, D.C., is the other important part of his com- munication portfolio. The role of his oral discourse and the written record resulting from it in formal legislative proceedings will be considered next. Speech in Committees "It is not far from the truth to say that Congress in session is Congress on public exhibition, while Congress 160 1 in its committee rooms is Congress at work," Woodrow Wilson wrote in 1885. Senators do spend a great deal of time in committee rooms. The hearings of standing committees, sub-committees, joint committees, and gg 399 or Special committees Open to the public, allow interested citizens and expert Spokesmen of special interest to testify and be interrogated by the committee members on pending legislation or special prOblems. Supposedly a “verbatim record”2 of these proceedings is recorded, this record serving as a ridh source of .‘ _— ‘_____ _‘ _ 1Quoted in Clark, Congress: Thquapless Branch, 22‘ cit., p. 67. 2The record of proceedings is reported by reliable sources (Burns and Peltason, 92‘ gig.. p. 411, and others) to be verbatim: however, there are many exceptions when editorial changes are made and additional comments not delivered by a witness may be entered at his request. For example, the writer witnessed the preparation of a subcommittee statement for Senator Paul Douglas by Kenneth Gray, Legislative Assistant, and the revisions of that statement by Douglas: the combined result of which was the script used by Douglas and which is in the possession of the writer. The writer also witnessed and recorded actual testimony of Douglas before the subcommittee. A comparison of the original text prepared by Gray and Douglas to what Douglas actually said, and compared further to what was later printed as the statement of Douglas in the printed record of the proceedings of the hearings,shows considerable discrepancy both in deletions and additions to the statement. The statement by Douglas serving as a case in point was delivered at 11:00 A.M. on Wednesday, May 22, 1963. A statement in Hearings Before_the Subcommitteg_on Constitu: Mal Rights [chairman Sam J. Ervin, Jr.. D. S. Carolina?) of the Committee of the Judigiary, United Statesfisenate, Eighty-eighth Congress, Egret Session on S. 1117 and S. 1219 Pills Relating to the_ExtenSIon of the IEederaII Civil Rights Commission, and appears as record in the bound Printed proceedings titled same, pages 33-39. After the usual salutation to the chairman, Douglas noted he was a mcspcnscr af 5. 1117, which he 161 information for Congressional delegates and providing the general public insight into the Operations of government. The hearings help to ferret out facts and provide opinions which have considerable prior infLuence on Senators‘ actions when a bill which has been the subject of a hearing comes to the Senate floor for debate.1 The Congressional hearing or committee report is a mine of useful information to those seeking to be informed on special problems or issues. ‘ 'T— specifically was testifying in behalf. These Opening re- marks do appear verbatim in the record of proceedings. Then, the Senator said, “I realize that the com- mittee has many witnesses to come before it, and I wil merely paraphrase the first five pages of my statementtéhe first eight pages, 5 typed on legal-sized paper and 3 on 8"xll“ paper with penciled corrections in long hand by Gray and Douglas here, then return to read the concluding section" three pages of his concluding remarks were those typewritten by Gray and nine more pages were on lined paper from a legal pad written in pencil by the Senator on every other line while he was in the committee room waiting for the witness appearing before him to complete testimonyfl. The printed record of the Senator's statement includes the exact typed statement of the five pages prepared by Gray (with changes only in paragraph structure) 395 the para- phrased statement of these pages which Douglas actually presented. Nor does the printed record include Jouglas' actual statements regarding the fact he would only para- phrase those 5 pages in the interest of the subcommittee's time, an obvious deletion. There is no reason to believe that such major changes could be any mere oversight or lack of accurate recording by the shorthand reporter. lCommittee action has more influence in the House of Representatives because debate on bills coming out of Committee is so sharply limited in that larger body, while in the Senate,debate is potentially unlimited due to the r'ight of filibuster, and more opportunity exists for bills to be debated. 162 Committee hearings have served as the primary source in develOping the reputations of certain Senators for their educational efforts. For example, the late Senator Estes Kefauver turned the spotlight on connections between interstate and international gangsters and crooked local politicians through his efforts as chairman of the antimonOpoly Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee of the Senate. Through the efforts of his subcommittee in the late 1950's and early 1960's, local law enforcement agencies convicted and sent several corrupt persons to jail. Other Senators recently making their name better known and providing valuable information through the efforts of special committees and subcommittees which they have chaired include: Henry Jackson's Subcommittee on National Security Organization: Hubert Humphrey's Sub- committee on Disarmament: Eugene McCarthy's Special Com- mittee on Unemployment of 1959-1960: Pat McNamara's Special Committee on Problems of the Aging: and Paul Douglas' hear- ings on the Truth in Lending Bill. The action of committees to kill bills, pigeon- hole them for weeks, amend them beyond recognition, or Speed them on their way is taken in Executive Session, from which visitors are barred, and of which no transcript is available. It is impossible to determine exactly what takes place in these sessions, except with what can be determinedfrom hearsay evidence, but there can be no ques- tion that these sessions are important in vital decision 163 making. Those committee decisions made in Executive Session are by majority vote, and the nonpublic character of these sessions is defended by experts as "promoting the free interplay of ideas among committee members. Com- promises and alternatives can be shaped in a fluid environ- ment.”1 Committee work consumes a great deal of Paul Douglas‘ time. He has served as a member of three standing committees of the Senate, and as the chairman of none of them in his fifteen years of Senate Service. From 1949- 1953, he was a member of the Labor and Public Welfare Committee: since 1949, a member of the Banking and Currency Committee: since 1956, a member of the Finance Committee. He is presently alternate chairman of the Joint Economic Committee with Representative Richard Bolling, of Missouri. Ikuglas has been conscientious in his committee work, but as his liberal colleague Senator Joseph Clark has stated, "The luck of the seniority draw has been unkind to Paul Douglas and Hubert Humphrey, neither of whom chair a com- mittee but both of whom have more seniority than three of their colleagues who came later to the Senate, but are now 2 , . . chairmen of important committees." A maverick tendency by —— _wt _— —— ‘7 ———fi 1 '\ I 1 H I Y ' ' O . hertran A. cross, r.3'L§nglatlY§ strlc:-e (new York: hcdraw Hill Book Company, Inc., 1953), pp. 309-310, 164 Douglas to bolt from established lines of party voting is a cause of that ”unkind luck of the seniority draw."l Active as a member and chairman of a variety of subcommittees on legislation and investigating activities of special interest to him, he has nevertheless been read— ily available and frequently called upon for eXpert testi- mony before other subcommittees of which he has not been a member. While on his way to testify in behalf of the four- year extension of the Federal Civil Rights Commission before a subcommittee on Constitutional Rights on May 21, 1963, Douglas summarized the role of Speech in committee: I believe that every effort must be made to find and recognize the facts and get as close to the truth as possible. The work of committees is a very important means by which this can be done. You can get various views and facts from peOple Speaking and being cuestioned as I will today. Moreover, the report resulting from the give and take in the discussion of the committee members can give direction to bills before they come on the floor. The fact that interested pSOple can be heard and Senators get a chance to verbalize their interests helps to satisfy all parties, no matter what happens to the matter at issue in the end.2 Speech in the_Senate m Speech in the Senate, usually associated with formal addresses, must also include impromptu remarks, _—__ “L— 1Evidence of this hereafter in Chapter VI. ZStatement of Douglas to writer while walking through the corridor of the Old Senate Building en route to testify before subcommittee on May 21, 1963. 165 extemporaneous debate, formal prepared speeches delivered from or without manuscripts--all forms of oral verbal com- munication. Among those members who have become the most vocal critics of Senate procedure, it has become a handy cliche to say something to the effect that not a single vote is influenced by Speeches on the floor.1 But the causal link between Speaking and voting is hard to establish. Another group of Senators who minimize the importance of speech in the Senate are those who feel they are not as effective speakers as some of their colleagues.2 The subject of the importance of speech in the Senate has led Sir Denis Brogan to assert: “Debating in the Senate and still more in the House attracts little public attention since it is expected by millions of voters that the real business is done elsewhere--in the committee rooms. Thus, one of the most important functions of any legislative body--that of being an educational forum--is lost."3 Those who accept Brogan's assertion as valid are quick to characterize the Speaking and also attribute causes for the decline. 1The late Senator Carter Glass found this handy to use in talking about almost every bit of floor action, and more recently, for exanple, Joseph Clark and William Proxmire have made similar statements. 2See David S. Broder (political reporter for the Washington Post), ”Great Speeches aren't Necessarily Good Politics,“I New Yp 5 Times Magazzne, March 29, 1964, pp. 7, 22, 24, 25. _ ‘. 3Introduction to Conuress:;:he Sapless Branch by Sir Denis Brogan, p. x111. 166 What has happened is that modern politi- cians have been drawn further and further from the sources of the regional richness of language into the drab uniformity of Federal prose. A variety of styles has tended to merge into a single, shapeless, toneless, and characterless style-«a sort of lowest-common-denominator American. When Webster debated Hayne, the clash was not just of views but of styles--of language as much as of law. But today's New England Yankee inheritors of the Webster mantle stand mute. The region's best orator is probably Senator John Pastore of Rhode Island, an Italian-American who brings a Mediterranean passion to debate. Similarly, the great Southern oratorical tradition is being juggled precariously between generations. Young Russell Long of Louisiana may inherit it from Georgia's Richard Russell, but many question whether he has the intellect and the tempera- ment to carry it well. Sam Srvin of North Carolina and Thruston Morton of Kentucky are almost in the late Alben Barkley's class as storytellers, but who is there in the West or the Midwest who can turn a thought to poetry, as William Jennings Bryan did in this Speech on Prohibition? The decline of political oratory is, I believe, directly related to the slovenly standards of Speech in Washington. Men come to the capital with some distinctive freshness of expression but their styles are sOon ground to pulp by the terrible attrition of communicating in Federal prose with other Congressmen and bureaucrats. Listen to a typical exchange between, say, the Secretary of Treasury in any Administration and the rank- ing members of the House Ways and Means Committee, and you can believe the English language is dying.1 No one will debate the fact that Speaking in the Senate has changed markedly in the twentieth century-- eSpecially in the last decade. Yet speedh in the Senate Chamber is still an important vehicle in legislative 910ceedings, as long as the Senate chamber is still the h ——_ ‘— ‘ —— —-—— 1Broder, “Great Speeches Aren't Necessarily Good Politics," op, cit., p. 22. 167 setting for some develOpment, critical evaluation, and finalizing of important legislation. But what changes his public address in the Senate experiment? History and public education have naturally chosen to enshrine the "finest hours“ of the Senate and embellish them: the oratory of Clay, Calhoun, and Webster in the Compromise of 1850 and Robert M. LaFollette, Sr., Speaking to halt the armed-ship bill amid a hurricane of denunci- ation in 1917 are vivid illustrations of great Speakers practicing their art in the Senate. These and other memorable occasions of great Speaking have become the traditional earmarks of a heritage which mention of the Senate instantaneously connotes to many Americans and sets a standard of eXpectation by which all Speaking in the Senate is to be measured. When Daniel Webster and his colleagues and Fighting Bob LaFollette made their memorable addresses the nation was younger. The number of issues serving as catalytic forces for those speeches, the total number of issues and bills before Congress, the diversity of interests, and pluralistic nature of soc1ety represented in the Senate chamber than were less complex than today. It was easier to arrive at a clear-cut stand.l Moreover, today competition from the mass media in gaining public NN-ufi — —— _ l C be rl e s Cl an F . wowfifii 533.111.5410.“ .213 $ees It (The Brookings institution, December, 1963), n. l Clapp asserts that it is a political liability for member of Congress to be too exacting in their stands, because their words in Congress will be used against them 33 Opponents at election time. ..._.. mw—-~ -~. “cu-- 7: U] I\) 168 attention has called less attention to Senate Speaking. There is no way to measure comparatively how well the top Senate Speakers as named by their Senate colleagues in l959-—Hubert Humphrey, Richard Russell, Everett Dirksen, William Knowland, and Paul Douglas--measure up to the great Senate Speakers of the past.1 Nor is there a valid measure to compare the Speeches of the past decade, for example, on civil rights, U. S. foreign policy, taxes, reapportionment, and poverty, against great Speeches of the past. But com- pared to the great moments of oratory in the tradition of nineteenth century Senate Speaking, the style of speaking in the Senate today, and in America, has become less em- bellished. Like the speaking in America today outside of the Senate the manner of delivery is more conversations; than oratorical. There is an absence of the grand style of oratory prevalent in nineteenth century oratory and Congressional debate in Con- gressional Speaking. This absence is, however, a reflection of the disappearance of the grand style from all phases of contenporary Speaking. This is not to say that Congressional Speaking lacks power or substance. host of the old style and delivery went when the Chatauqu: w“ h.* 1Philip K. Thompkins and Wilmer A. Linkugel, "Speech in the Senate," Todayis Speech, February, 1959, p. 32. 2Clapp, The Congressman--d;§_flork as He Sees It, 9. 126. Congressman Clapp contends that the advent of tele- vision has resulted in conversational Speaking in Congress-- not old-time oratory-~because members of Congress become con- ditioned to the needs of the mass media and the orator does not come through favorably on television. Senator Hubert Humphrey quoted in Broder, "Great Speeches aren't necessarily Good Politics,“ new York Time§_§aaazing, March 29, 1964, Po 25. has reached the same conclusion in nothing that tele- vision Speaking must be a chat between the politician and the fanily in their living room, in the manner of the Roosevelt "fireside chats." 169 Movenent was replaced by methods of transmitting informa- tion, culture, and entertainment to the public at their doorstep and now in their home.1 Likewise, the number of occasions in the Senate When a large audience on the floor and in the gallery attentively listen to a Speaker has declined as it has in America outside of the Senate.2 Is it any less important today? The 1959 survey by Thompkins and Linkugel in which thirty-six (no names were given) of the ninety-Six members of the Senate replied to their questionnaire pro- vides a partial answer. To What extent does speech influence legisla- tion in the Senate: very little, little, a fair amount, much, very much? Thirty-four senators answered this question: Very much ............0 MUCh 00.000.00.00000004 A fair amount .......17 Little .000000000000008 Very little ..........5 Is Speech in the Senate today more important, equally important, or less important than one hundred years ago? Thirty-two senators answered this question. One declined to answer it because, he said, "I wasn't here." More important ........0 Equally important......7 LeSS important. 0 o oo o no 25 In the future, do you SXpect Speech in the Senate to be more important, equally important, less important than today? _ ._ - .- lEarl Cain, ”Is Senate Debate Significant?" Today's Speech, III (April 1955), pp. 10-12. 2For Douglas' views on the changes in public address in america, see "The Speaker Looes at this Art“ in this Chapter. l70 Thirty-one CEhirty-twé] responded to this question: More important........0 Equally important....27 Less important........5 It is interesting to note that while the senators feel that Speech is less important in the Senate than it was 100 years ago, they believe that in the future it will re- main as important as it is now. To these open-ended questions, most Senators qualified their answers to indicate that they included speech in committee in defining the questioners' use of "speech in the Senate.” There was also evidence of a con- sensus among the qualified answers that Speech in committees had relatively increased a great deal in importance, but no clear conclusion can be drawn from this that Speaking on the floor of the Senate has therefore declined. In 1963, Paul Douglas answered the questions: "What is the role of Speech in the Senate today? How significant is public Speaking as such today?”2 It is much different than it was, say, twenty or thirty years ago as I know of it, largely due to the tempo of the times and Lyndon Johnson. He was not much of a Speaker himself. He wanted to discourage Speaking. When you started to Speak, he'd come rOund and tug at your arm and ask you. ”How long are you going to speak?” He' always be pestering you to cut it out éouglas chuckle , and so forth, and he would leave the floor. He loved to do things in -——---—u_- ..._T. _fl_ — ~ lThompkins and Linkugel, 02, cit., p. 30. fi ‘euestions asked by the writer in interview with Douglas, May 24. 1963. Speech in the Senate,” 171 cloakroom. I would say there has been a steady diminution of the kind of Speeches you had thirty years ago. Don‘t you think so? Nevertheless, it is very important. You get votes from speaking. And what is very important, you get material across to influence your colleagues and your constituents through the geogrd. And I would have to say that the indirect influence is more important than the direct influence. But there Should be no mis- taking the fact that Speech is still a very necessary and important form of communication on the Senate floor.1 Administrative Assistant Shuman has stated “that the quality of Speakers in the Senate has declined today because too few of its members are willing to engage in debate and controversy in analyzing issues before them."2 The question of how significant public Speaking is in the Senate today defies any clear-cut answer. In setting the scene for critical evaluation of Douglas' Speaking to follow, summarily, these broad conclusions can be made at this time: (1) Speaking in the Senate has changed in style and delivery in the past thirty years and espeCially the past decade, and can be characterized as less "oratorical" and more conversational: (2) the changes in Senate speaking reflect the changes in the public address of the nation: and (3) the role of speech on the Senate floor, if it has taken on new characteristics, is still important in the legislative process. —_ 1Interview with Douglas,gp. cit. , 2Statement by Shuman in Interview with the writer May 22, 1963. 172 The main facets of decorum, customs, traditions, manners, mores, and procedures-~the conditions--encouraging and inhibiting floor Speaking warrant some attention in better understanding the speaking of Douglas and Speech in the Senate.1 The Opening statement of Douglas in his maiden Speech provides an appropriate beginning for that discussion of factors affecting Speech in the Senate. Mr. President, as a freshman Senator, with, I hOpe some sense of modesty, I had not planned on speaking before this body for some time, and then to Speak nnly on substantive questions, and not on procedural matters.2 By “modesty,“ Douglas really meant that it was downright brash of him to take the floor for a Speech so soon after entering that body. It is common knowledge that a new Senator is, out of respect, eXpected to direct the use of his communication skills to critical listening and reading, not Speaking. On this point, the late President Kennedy recalls of his early days in the Senate: After I had been in the Senate about two months in 1953, I got up to take part in the debate as a new member. And, after Speaking for a few minutes, I sat down near Senator Hayden and said, I"Senator, what's the differ- ence between the Senate as you knew it and now?“ ~\~- 1See also for more detail Claoo, The Congressmap—— His Work as_ He Sees_ It, _p_ cit., and George H. Haynes, The Senate of the Jnited States New York: Russell and Russell, 19607, passim. " 2Press release of text of speech by Paul H. Douglas. The Surrender to the Pi libuster," delivered March 17, 1949, in the U. S. Senate. 173 And the Senator said, “New'members did not speak in those days.“ So I went back to my seat.1 Joseph Clark sums up his recollections of a ninety- minute lesson he received from his self-sought tutor,- Senator Humphrey, prior to entering the Senate in 1957. "In essence he (Humphrey/7! said. 'Keep your mouth shut and your eyes open...Paul Douglas and I will help you. Lyndon Johnson runs the Senate...And above all keep your mouth Shut for a while."2 Thus, in the tradition of the Senate, this one unwritten role for a new Senator greatly inhibits his participation as a Speaker. Noise on the senate floor may be another cause for discouraging Speaking. This Situation has led James Reston to comment caustically:. "The effect of giving a Senator an opportunity to talk to an attentive audience is much the same as giving a dog a succulent bone. In both instances the reaction is to both drool and bark."3 However, the "barking" has to be louder to compete with the other acti- vities on the floor. Customs such as this one affect Speaking in the Senate, so of course do the written rules and procedure. ‘— fi‘_ _ 1Tom Wicker, "It is the People Who Face the Test," New York Times Ma azine, December 8, 1963, p. 115. 2 pp. 1‘2. Clark, Congress: The Sapless Branch, op, cit., —_—— 174 The rules of the Senate1 allow much more latitude for debate than the House. The traditional assumption has had it that the Senate as the smaller of the two bodies should be the forum for debate-~the debating society of Federal Government. While debate in the House is subject to a strictly enforced rule of germaneness with a time limitation on Speeches, the Senate is more lenient.2 It is possible for Senators to go on in we arisome and irrelevant talk on the floor, if they wish to do so, such as in the case of fili- busters. The current Senate's mos: outSpoken critic of its procedure, Joseph Clark, has this to say about the This is not to say that debate does not sometimes rise to high levels, particularly in the short, sharp clash of minds in colloquy just before a controversial bill goes to vote. It does. But there are small oases in a desert of tediousness.’ k of ruling (1 Another detrimental result of this la on geimaneness, Clark aces on to say: -.---_I--———-—.-—- -‘ ~— - -— " 1‘ y a . . H See A; £3; and manual pf Ene_bn£ged_3tates S na e, c annual edition, on ntaining Standing Rules and Orders of the Senate, fferson_ s Manual _and Cleaves' M_anual, ZVatk'n_s and Riddick on Senate procedu;e- also Ha aynes, The Senate of the United States, on sit. 2 . Senator John East.ore of Rnode Isl.and, floor- managed a rules change in January, 1964, which now r debate to be germane for three hours eaC“ day. 3 , . 74 Clark, Congress: fhe Sa cless Branch, cc, cit., p. o 175 ...is they Eenators] often attempt to communi- cate when they have nothing to say. This has resulted in those devastating reprints of the Congressional Record appearing from time to time in the New_Yo£K§r under the heading "Wind on Capitol Hill." It has also made Congressmen E§enators and Representative the butt of many a cartoon, Litchy's ”Senator Snort“ being the prototype.1 But one cannot indict the rule for the abuse resulting by irresnonsible practitioners. The privileges or Opportunity for greater freedom of eXpression carries with it a res— ponsibility to use it appropriately. The lack of rules imposing limitations on Speaking, epitomized by the right to filibuster, is peculiar only to the U. 5. Senate. Once a Senator gains the floor, he has the right to it until he relinquishes it voluntarily or be- cause of eXhaustion. This right to unlimited debate,which can be terminated only by cloture, can be used to delay the proceedings in order to prevent a vote.2 In August of 1957 Senator Strom Thurmcnd of South Carolina set the record for filibuster by holding the floor continuously for twenty—four lIbid., p. 74. 2In August, 1964, Paul Douglas lead a filibuster against the "Dirksen-Mansfield Amendment-rider" on the 1964 "Foreign aid Money Bill" designed to delay the effects of the U. 3. Supreme Court ruling that both houses of state legis- latures must be apportioned by pOpulation. When asked how long talk would go on, Douglas raplied, "Until we win this battle." Douglas told the Senate Friday, AugustlA, 1964, the objective of the airksen- Mansfield proposal is to buy time so that a proposed con- stitutional amendment to nullify the Supreme Court‘s one-man one-vote decision could be pushed through malapoortioned legislatures. "The attempt to attach the rider to the foreign-aid bill was designed to place it beyond the power of a Presiden- tial veto, he said.” Quoted in Lansing St te ggurnal, Saturda", August 1“ 1°54 ”front_nag§. -'—"‘. 176 hours and eighteen minutes1 during the debate on the 1957 Civil Rights Bill which was floor-managed by Douglas. Under the rule of cloture, adOpted in 1917 and contained in famous Rule XXII, members sign a petition, one day later the question of curtailing debate is put to a vote. If two-thirds of the Senators vote for cloture, then Senators wishing to Speak on the motion may speak for no more than an hour before the motion is brought to a vote. Cloture can be applied to all motions except those calling for a change in the Senate rules, which means that a fili- buster to prevent a vote on a motion to change Senate rules curtailing filibusters could not be tenninated by cloture. If the filibuster is considered undesirable, it can be outlawed only by an advisory ruling from the Chair by the Vice-President at the beginning of each Congress alIOWing the Senate to adopt its own rules by a majority vote. Vice-President Nixon so ruled in 1959 and 1961, but it did not receive the necessary votes to carry. If such a ruling had passed, it would have allowed the opportunity for debate to be terminated by majority rule and at the Same time ended the concept of the Senate being a continuing body whose rules carry over from one Congress to another. --‘ _ -.._-. . M h - ——— ' — —' fl 1 *Clark, ancres§i_zh§*8apless Branch, gprg$5,, p, 190. Remarks during a filibuster need not be germane. A 1961 study by Senator Clark and his staff found nongermane Speeches occupied one-third of the Record, excluding in- sertions of printed matter. 177 When'Vice-President Lyndon B. Johnson was asked to rule on this matter in 1963, he took the position that any sudh constitutional ruling must be made by the Senate itself, not by its constitutional presiding officer, thus, revising the Nixon advisory ruling. The technicalities of parliamentary law in the Senate affecting Speaking are many. The rule that any Senator may raise the question as to the presence of a quorum at any time allows for bringing an audience to the chamber long enough to answer the roll-call.l And this lSenator Clark, Congress: The Sapless Branch, pp. 192-195, reports an interesting account of the difficulty he eXperienced in attempting to have Senators in attendance to hear his argument for an amendment he wished to present. On Tuesday, November 26, 1963, I was prepared to call up an amendment to a "continuing resolution" preposed by the ApprOpriations Committee permitting government departments to continue spending until January ll, 1963, at the rate appropriated for the preceding year. Some such continuing resolution was necessary since at that time only four of the twelve regular appropriations bills had been passed. My amendment would have changed the date to December 31, 1963. Hopefully this would have expedited action on the appDOpriation bills.... I was anxious to get as many Senators as possible to the floor to hear my argument. Since I was going to ask for a roll call vote I needed at least eleven Senators on the floor to join in my request for the "ayes and nays’. The continuing resolution was called up at around one o‘clock, when most Senators were eating lunch. To prevent immediate p assage of the resolution by voice vot: I had to call up my amen-dment rioht awav. Pherc were ha a dozen Senators on the floor. I sucggest-ed the absence of a quorum. The clerk called the roll The bells rang twice in the Senate side of the Capitol and in the two Senate Office Buildings where committee rooms and Senators' offices are located. A few Senators drifted into the chamber, answered their names and departed.... The clerk haying completed calling the roll, a Quorum not being present, Danny Inouye, Senator from Hawaii, Who was in the chair, directed Ted iansure, the clerk, to 'call the roll of the absentees. ' The bells rang three F— 178 rule is hard to reconcile with another rule stating that no Senator shall interrupt another in debate without his con- sent, and to obtain consent, he shall first address the Chair. “' "' -flw-—~ .- —' H_~—- - _— times, more Senators filed in, answered to their names and departed.... I knew then that fifty-one Senators had answered to their names and that a quorum was tedhnically present.... There were only seven Senators in the chamber, four less than the number necessary to get the "ayes and nayes." "A quorum is present," repeated Inouye. I was on my feet. "Mr. President, the Senator from Pennsylvania takes judicial notice of the fact that a quorum is not present and asks the clerk to observe that there are only seven Senators present in the chamber,“ I said. Danny consulted Floyd Riddick, the assistant Parliamentarian. Then he announced, "The record shows that a quorum responded. " I was in a quandary. Under the rules I could not ask for another quorum call until the Senate "transacted business.” I searched my mind for a quick way out and began to talk rather aimlessly, hOping some bright idea would come to me. Relief came from an uneXpected quarter. Everett Dirksen broke in. "Mr. President, is it the transaction of business to address a parliamentary inquiry to the chair?" he said. Danny conferred with Riddick briefly and then told him that it was not. "Is it the transaction of business to ask un- animous consent to insert a matter in the Record " Dirksen said. Danny turned to Riddick again. Then he announced that it would be if the requeSt was granted. Dirksen asked me to yield, whidh I was glad to do. He then got unanimous consent to make an insertion in the Begorg and turned to me. “Go ahead, Joe, get your quorum call,‘ he said, ”but call it off when you get enough Senators here to give you the ”ayes and nays”. I was happy to comply. Sixteen Senators showed up a few minutes later. I got the ayes and nays ordered. and we went ahead with a two-hour debate on my amendment. It failed to pass 20-63. This incident is typical. Except just before a roll-call vote which has been announced in advance, Senators will not come to the floor. 179 Votes on most decisions are by a simple viva-voce vote in reSponse to the presiding officer's call for “ayes and nays." A division is called on important matters to second the vote. Unanimous consent may be asked from the chair with a near empty chamber, and if no objection is voiced, business may proceed on the matter in question. Senators and the presiding officer usually use discretion in manipulating the rules in the tradition of ”live and let live," but because they are loosely interpreted they are sometimes abused. Above all, they do serve in the parlia- mentary tradition of protecting the individual and minor— ities, if those desiring protection call for the use and application of the rules for that purpose. There are those who contend that the rules of the Senate are made to be broken because the body of Senators act as a law unto themselves. Perhaps the late Senator Henry Cabot Lodge put it well when he said about the transaction of business and rules to govern the Senate: Under these century—old rules, for which there is often a fine disregard, the Senate still transacts its business, largely by un- animous consent, and with a consideration for the wishes and convenience of each Senator very agreeable to them, although not a little laughed at by an irreverent public.l Yet the rules of this continuous body, many of Which date back to 1789 and the first Congress impede lHenry Cabot Lodge, Quoted in Haynes, The Senate of 229 United States, op, cit., p. 338. 180 constructive Speaking and more responsible action. Many of those rules still in existence were intended to serve a body consisting of some twenty members. One is the require- ment that the Journal of the preceding day's session is to be read the following day unless unanimous consent to dis— pense with the reading is obtained. An obsolete rule from the days when the Journal was kept in longhand, the reading is now utilized for purposes of delay. Another is the morning period reserved for minor business called the “morning hour," but which lasts much longer. More expedi- tious conduct of this non-legislative business would leave more time for the speaking on legislation. Still another, the absence of rules to encourage Speaking germane to the matter at issue, is time consuming and in fact drives an audience away from the Chamber. In recent years innumerable proposals to update the parliamentary procedures of the Senate have been un- successful. Along with the introduction of reform bills on the floor of the Senate, the Congressional Record has been filled in recent years with news articles attacking Congressional performance and attributing its cause to inadequate rules and procedure. So far this band of reformers-~Senators Clinton Anderson, Clark, Douglas, Proxmire, E. L. Bollett, Thomas Kudhel, Clifford Case, Jacob Javits, Pastors, Frank Church, and Leverett Saltonstall-- have had to rationalize temporarily their lack of success for improving the conditions of the arena for more con- Structive public address in statements such as the one made 181 recently by Charles Clapp. Clapp contends that parliamen- tary law is not too totally important, only in a few maneuvering cases or in blocking or obstructing bills. It is not basic to success. "Expertness is handy but not significant.“1 On behalf of himself and Paul Douglas, Howard Shuman, drawing upon his Speech training and knowledge of debate, has outlined a very definite prOposal for improv- ing conditions for debate in the Senate: Debates on great issues should be sdheduled in the Senate. On such and such a date, a debate on foreign policy should be scheduled with a Specific resolution. Each side should pick Speakers and limit each of them to Speak for say 20 minutes alternatively for and against the resolution. Debates could be scheduled on economic policy, the budget, civil rights, and foreign policy. This would result in the Senate having more influence. It would serve to sharpen party lines in a desirable way. Most importantly, it would make the Senate a better debating institution for which it was intended to be. Now it tends to be hit and miss in debat- ing. True debating of this kind only takes place now under unanimous consent when a bill is passed.2 Shuman's prOposal, like others for improving pro— cedures and conditions for Speech and debate in the Senate, assumes that the Senate can and should do much more to fill a potential role it has for great speaking. His pronosal, like most of the others, does not presume that Speech in lClapp. on, cit., p. 127. 2Interview with Shuman. 90: cit. 182 the Senate is not of significance today, but that it could be much more important, that the Senate is the place for great debating. Also affecting the Speaking in the Senate is the process by which a proposal becomes a law. The process can take as many as 28 stages with several variations depending upon the type of bill and other variables.1 Speech is, however, encouraged in the Senate by the absolute immunity members have for whatever they say on the floor, before a Congressional committee, or in connection with Congressional business. They may not be sued for libel or Slander nor in any way called to question before any court. To preserve conditions for this freedom, electronic equipment of the mass media is barred from audibly and visibly recording activities in the Chamber by a rule of the Senate. The fact that voters may and do make known their disapproval and the Senate can discipline members whose remarks are not in good taste does, however, tend to temper public address. Of particular importance to speaking in Congres is the matter of the gghgg of individual Speakers. How members perceive a fellow speaker in terms of competence, high character, good will, and also the position of leadership and power he holds, as a result of these factors 1See, for example, Stephen K. Bailey, Congress Makes a Law (New York: Columbia University Press, 19SOY. 183 or others greatly affect responses to his public address. Charles Clapp, in his recent study of the House of Representatives, cites an Opinion equally relevant to the Senate and in studying the Speaking of any Senate member. Most House members are more impressed by who is making a Speech about a particular pro- position than by what is said on the subject. I am not saying that they would just judge by whether or not they like an individual. What is important is their evaluation of his know— ledge and mastery of the subject and his ex- perience in the field.1 Congressman Jerry Voorhis, however, takes quite a different stand and stresses the importance of the substan- tive material, although he seems to concur with Clapp that the credibility of the individual speaker is important-- eSpecially as perceived by his audience through the confi- dent delivery and substance of the speech. By and large it may be said that evident sincerity, simple directness and naturalness of delivery, and assumed self-confidence are vital factors in Congressional Speaking. But the most persuasive element of all is persuasive content--fact and argument which are clear and convincing not only to the Speaker but to the listening members...the one indis- pensable factor in effective Congressional speaking is to give the House or the Senate the impression that they are listening to one who has mastered all the essential facts and perfectly certain he is right. The one paramount desire of the members is to be as certain as possible that they can defend the position they take when the vote is cast.... The want to know as nearly as possible the exact reasons for their own actions. Aside from the desire of a high percentage of members that they have done the right thing, there looms 1‘Clapp, op= cit., p. 125. 184 the absolute necessity (from the Congressman's vieWpoint of persuading his constituents that he did t e right thing. The Congressional audience is composed not of people who come to listen, but of potential Speakers, most of Whom will, at the beginning of a speech at least, harbor the belief that they themselves could do the job better.1 Both of these men and referring to factors of EEEQE: and the gthgg of Paul H. Douglas will be a major criterion in judging his effectiveness as a Senate speaker. In viewing contemporary speaking in the Senate, one conclusion seems clear. The U. 8. Senate Chamber of the mid-twentieth century is more than an ennobling shrine to its past public address. It is a living forum for important Speaking of the present and the future. Earl Cain, a rhetorical critic studying debate in the Senate, has con- eluded: In our representative system of government, Senate debate serves to function as advice, counsel, and reflection. A Senator may not al- ways seek to persuade his colleagues nor even hOpe to Change public Opinion on an issue. But the fact that he has the right of debate and the privilege of publicity in the Congressional Record and in the press guarantees a full hear- ing for his arguments. In this guarantee lies the significance of contemporary Senate debate.2 The Senator has to adjust the invention of his SPeaches to focus through two lenses: face-to-face communi- cation and the indirect influence of Speaking in the Senate resulting from its written record, the Congressional Record. _— — '- 1Jerry Voorhis. "Effective Speaking in Congress,“ Quarter1y_Jgurnal of Speech, 34 (December, 1948), p. 463. 2Cain, "Is Senate Debate Significant?“ OE. cit., p. 27. 185 The Congressional Record On a late afternoon in November of 1961, Paul Douglas was on his feet addressing the Senate: Senator Warren Magnuson stOpped momentarily as he walked by and in low tones l informed him that nobody was listening. To that, Douglas might have replied in effect that he was "Speaking for the record." It is not unusual for any Speaker to use the phrase, “speaking for the record," to arrest Special attention and cue his audience for a special point, clarify a statement, or refute a misquotation of a statement he has made earlier. But in the housesof Congress, when a Speaker says he is Speak- ing for the record, although it could be to rationalize a lack of attention, it usually has a very concise meaning. The record denotes the Congressional Record.2 A Senator uses the Record to project himself, in a favorable way to his colleagues, related individuals and 1"In the Kitchen with Maggie,” Time, November 24, 1961, p. 12. 2For a history and criticism Of the Record see Elizabeth Gregory McPherson. “Reporting the Debates of Congress," Quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol. XXVIil (April, 1942, pp. 141-148: Elizabeth Gregory.McPherson, "Major Publications of Gales and Seaton," Quarterly Journal of Sneegh,‘Vol. XXXI (December 1945), pp. 430-439: Richard L. Neuberger, "The Congressional;Recgrg_;s Not a Record," New_YOrk Times MagazineL April 20, 1958, pp. 14, 94—95: Reprinted in thEICOngressional Record-:Senate, Vol. 104:5, April 21, 1958, pp. 6816-118: 60n,Robinson, "Are Speeches in Congress Reported accurately,”I Qggrterly Journal of Speech, Vol. XXVIII(February , 1942), pp. 3312. gn 19: v; o i :1 t1 0 01 i 1 l c K , J 186 groups, and constituents. From it he gains ideas for legislation and speeches. Its "Daily Digest” section pro- vides him with a capsule record of current activities in Congress, enabling him to become aware of matters that might otherwise escape his attention. The Record is divided into four sections: House floor activities, Senate floor activities, an appendix, and the daily digest. Approximately 47,000 COpies are cir- culated each day.1 The main receivers in this circulation outside of Washington are state politicians, educational institutions, editors, authors, teachers, union officials, interest groups, and opinion leaders in every segment of life. The nature of readership is an important factor in audience adaptation for Congressional delegates in pre- paring their contributions. Each daily issue,averaging 150 pages of small print, is bound as a “paperback" each two weeks and in hard covers yearly. ; ~—— lClapp. 22. Sign p. 131. and messages: as. cit,, p. 131: Neuberger, pp; 233., p. 95. From 16,000 pages in 1945, the number of pages has increased to about 30,000 pages in 1962. In 1957, with a circulation of 43,000, it cost the Government $1,700,000 to publish the Record. Each Senator may send the Record free to one hundred of his constituents, and every Representative may place sixty-eight constituents on the mailing list. A paid subscription to the Record costs $1.50 a month while Congress is in session. There are only about 1,500 total paid subscriptions. "The Record for the first nine months 0f the Eighty-eighth Congress filled 25,000 pages,,,.u The cost of the Record was brought to the attention of his col- leagues by economy-minded Paul Douglas in the third line of his maiden speech, he stated an intent of being brief be- cause "...each page of the Congressional Record costs the taXpayer $71.00...? The cost of the Record has risen some $20.00 a page since 1949, now costing slightly over $90.00 for each printed page. 187 Theoretically, the Record is the Official journal of what takes place in daily floor sessions. It reports the progress of a bill as it goes through reading, debate, perhaps amendment, and voting. Everything said is recorded by Official reporters. The recording process moves like a well-oiled machine.1 "In the Old days of steel penpoints, some stenographers worked with tiny ink bottles strapped to their fingers."2 Today six skilled shorthand reporters record activities in relays of ten minutes at a stretch, stationing themselves with pen and notebook as near to the speaker as possible to insure the best audible reception. Each reporter records for ten minutes out of every hour: When a reporter has finished his ten minutes, he goes immediately into the Recording Room off the Senate chamber and painstakingly reads his notes into a dictaphone, after which they are typed by one of the SXperienced typists in an inner room adjacent to the main recording room. As a further precaution the reporter reads the typed transcript for accuracy, and then it is submitted to the chief reporter or his assistant, neither of whom work on the floor, who read carefully every transcript. These final readers possess the authority and knowledge to make such __.._ _— 1The writer observed a speech delivered by Douglas on May 23, 1963, and visited the Room for Official Reporters of Debate off the Senate chamber to observe the procedure in recording the Speech, and sat in with the Senator and the Legislative Assistant Kenneth Gray in re—writing the Speech for the Record. See Appendix A. Other information was ob- tained in a luncheon discussion with Gray and Roy Emerson, Legislative Assistant to Senator Eugene McCarthy, on May 24,1963. 2Wei the Pgople, p. 131. 188 changes in syntax and grammar as seem necessary to "...pre— serve Senatorial reputations for profundity. MalaprOpisms in Speech--but not in substance--are eliminated. Con- tractions get ironed out into finished phrases.“l The transcribed Sheets are numbered, and then given to Senators or their staff members for revision, usually within thirty minutes after being taken down on the floor. After the Senator revises and alters as he chooses, corrected COpieS are sent nightly to the Government Printing Office for inclusion in the next morning's daily edition of the Record. The Congressional Record is not COpyrighted, therefore the written discourse resulting from Speaking gets careful revisions in appraisal and changes because the Record is readily quoted. The recording procedure by the professional staff of reporters seems as verbatim (except for changes in grammar and syntax) as is humanly possible. It is a re~ markably efficient method and "No group working on Capitol Hill is comprised more truly of career peOple than those who compile the Congressional Record."2 But while a major portion of the Record is a record of debate on the floor, it is not a true one, nor is it intended to be. Rather it is "substantially a verbatim reproduction of proceedings."3 __ v —_——.———————r _— lNeuberger, on, cit., p. 95. 21bid. 3c1app, p. 132. 189 The problem of authenticity in the report Of what was said results from the latitude exercised by Senators and their staff in making changes, after the fact, before the daily Record is printed. The official transcript of speaking is frequently revised, amended, subtracted from, and embellished with additions. ”Senators and Representatives are permitted to doctor and edit their Speeches virtually at will."1 A large glass-topped circular table in the Room for Official Reporters is made available for Senators and their staff to work on revision of the Record.2 Some peOple are under the impression that remarks can only be extended in the Appendix of the daily Record. This they may be and usually are placed in the body of the Record along with a statement something like this: “I ask un- animous consent that my remarks may be placed in the Record just after or immediately pre- ceding the remarks made by the gentleman from Missouri."3 The rule whidh reads that only minor changes are to be made in remarks on the Senate floor is ignored and flagrantly violated. Speeches are often substantially lNeuberger, Op, cit., p. 14. ZDouglas' staff work at this table and then Cheek out the changes with the Senator, who usually makes additional revisions whenever time permits, either in his seniority den under the Senate chamber or elseWhere. 3Statement by Representative Curtis of Missouri, APril 16, 1958, Congressional Record--House, Vol. 109, P. 6594. “_‘— " 190 rewritten. Not only are changes made for the daily gggggg, but frequently changes are made when the two-week "paper- bac " Record is sent out to Congressional offices for proofing prior to submitting it for hard binding in the yearly 329259. Speeches may also appear in the Appendix, out of context, if Senators delay returning their revised daily edition. Technically, remarks actually delivered in the Senate are to be printed in bold print and all else in smaller print. However, "...in the actual body of the Record, these inclusions [also in bold print] may be of virtually unlimited length, although, generally Speaking, they must be germane to the matter under discussion.“1 In the House a member can Speak perfunctorily for two minutes and then receive unanimous consent to extend his remarks to enter material later for a two~hour phantom Speech. The editing by Senators must originate, at least, from oral remarks actually made on the Senate floor. The inclusion of clear afterthoughts may sharpen the force and make arguments more cogent, the speaker wittier, and even make it appear to a reader that a Senator actually vanquished in debate was the victor. ”Deletions and additions offset the relevance and meaning of remarks in . .2 colloquy and can make others’ remarks meaningless.'I Members A # * _v— w ‘— 1Neuberger, Op. cit., p. 94. ZClapp, cg. cit., p. 132. 191 have even been known to reverse positions, and it is not unusual for criticism in the heat of debate to be removed.1 These are only some of the problems that accrue from the latitude which is exercised in changing the Record. Why, then, is this policy continued? PrOponents for preserving the Status 322 argue: (l) The Opportunity to extend remarks conserves time for Speaking on the floor: (2) it permits members to correct grammatical errors and impolitic statements: (3) it gives constituents and colleagues better insight into the real thinking of men when they have the right to sit down and reflect on statements apart from the heat of debate:2 (4) it provides an Opportunity to add important legislative history to a bill in the Record which takes too long to review on the floor: (5) it imposes less inhibitions on Speakers: (6) public education materials can be put in the Appendix: (7) printing the materials of constituents pleases and appeases them, and they pay for the Record: and (8) it is an invaluable research source for speeches. Another argument related to 5 above and sometimes raised is that if the Rggggg was not dressed up it would be very bad reading-- "even a comic book,"3 whidh is less than complimentary to the quality of Speaking in Congress. ___fi___— lSee ggggressional Record—-Senate, 193:9, July 16, 1957, pp. 11799-11801, for a heated colloquy on correcting the Record regarding Senator Kerr's comment that President Eisenhower is a man "without fiscal brains.“ 2Clapp, p. 132. 31bid., p. 132. 192 Perhaps the argument not frequently presented is one related to 3 above, and that is, the real stand you want to take but didn't can be accurately conveyed. There have been a number of indictments levelled at 1 this procedure, especially in the past decade. Those Opponents argue: (1) that the Record now presents a false legislative history and after all that is the real reason for it: (2) that a true verbatim transcript would impose a restraint on some personal abuse and character assassinations and elevate the real dignity of the Senate needed in the eyes of the public: (3) the Appendix has become a mere depository for any and all materials, most of Which are not relevant to proceedings--editorials, reports, Speeches, poems, essays, letters, recipes, and testimonialszy (4) it discourages speaking because members refrain from orally 1Two recent, but unsuccessful, prOposalS by Senators Clark and Neuberger for changing the Record are noteworthy. See Cong, Record—-Senate, Vol. 104:5, April 21, 1958, p. 6818. Also Vol. 103:12, August 22, 1957, pp. 11565-66 for remarks by the late Sen. Richard L. Neuberger of Oregon, the most outspoken critic of the Senate in recent years. He presented a prOposal for changing the Record in the form of a resolution (S. Res. 193, 85th Congress) to the Senate in August of 1957, See also Con ressional Record--Senate, Vol. 104:5, April 21, 1958, pp. 6816-18, for Senator Allott's remarks relative to is sue of reporting in the 3229—3-31: and. re- print Of Neuberger's New Y r Ti e article ”The Congressional a I The second reSOlutiO Record is not a Recor ," Op, c t. _ 13. Con., Res. 22, 88th Congress) was submitted for a second time (first in 1962) by Senator Joseph Clark on February 21, 1963, and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration. Clark proposed a study he made to streamline the Record. See Clark, The Senate Establishment, pp, gi£., p. 113, for his resolution. 2Clapp, op. cit., p. 139. 193 expressing real opinions and wait to get into print a letter pOpular with interest groups and send reprints to them: (5) by refraining from speaking and taking stands a Senator shirks his reSponsibility: (5) the many extraneous items put in the Appendix clutter up the Record to the degree that it does not serve as well to give the reader insight into the proceedings, serves little educational value because of the difficulty in ferreting out apprOpri- ate materials, and discourages public reading: (7) the printing and reprinting of materials from it for distribu- tion to constituents is a cheap and unethical campaign method: (8) the printing of non-gepnane materials is a wasteful use of taxpayers' money: and (9) likewise, the argument that it becomes a veritable research source for speeches assumes that taxnayers' money should be Spent for this when equivalent research could be conducted much more 0 economically. Any Speech critic studying public ddress . ., c k. . in Congress and encountering the problems or authenticating What was actually said cannot help but be in sympathy with those members advocating steps toward a more verpatim Record. Paul Douglas is aware of the figcord's use as a ts to use It vehicle for positive communication and attemp well. He seems constantly aware of its importance, an: - - - - .: .. .x - 5 ~r~ ~' ' 9,3?" " A“, 33 llfilltathDS, ..inCl chqu *lltl§' 1.9-91.5 bu at in rJTJ-KD u. l- ' those references is one he mace Senate floor. Typical of '\ A pea-q. on February 21, 196;. 194 ...and I am not Speaking to a crowded Senate, either, exactly. Very few of the lords of the press are now in the Press Gallery. But our words will appear in the angressional Recogg, which some peOple read: and voices in this country are not entirely muffled. If not as valuable as it could be in recording what is actually said in the Senate, the Record is Of con~ siderable value and an integral part and tool in a Senator‘s work. In a sense, it is the textbook, if an inaccurate one, of a Senator. The Speaker Looks at His Ar; In the U. S. Senator‘s complex world of communica- tion, being an effective practitioner of the art of public Speaking is not only useful but essential to him. Practitioner Senator Paul H. Douglas has enumerated his views on the theory of public Speaking, his concept of rhetorical theory. An examination of Douglas‘ statements On rhetorical theory makes the analysis of his verbal message in Part III more meaningful. It is perhaps apprOpriate to examine first a i f. ‘- Douglas' views on the characteristics of contemporary - ' 5 y» speaking in America because they reinforce those .eached earlier in describing changes in speech in the Senate. In 1958, while touring Illinois to present his annual report 1Clark, The Senate Establishmegp, op. ci ., p. 131. 195 to the peeple in person and lend a hand to Democrats up for election, he stopped to compare the speaking of his world of politics with that of the Lincoln-Douglas era on the centennial Of those historic debates.1 The first difference, Douglas notes, is the length of Speeches. The first and most obvious difference be- tween the political Speeches of today and those of a century ago is that today's are much shorter. Television and radio have no doubt limited the tolerance of the listeners. When Lincoln and Douglas crossed words, each was allotted an hour and a half, and, if the contemporary accounts can be believed, the crowds listened with close attention throughout the three hours' struggle. It was not unusual then for orators to Speak for two or three hours. In my youth I can remember how ”Old Bob" LaFollette would frequently exceed even this limit and once, the legend goes, he started as the moon rose and only stOpped as the sun appeared over the Wisconsin prairies. Today no one dares to speak an hour. If you go over thirty-five minutes you are un- pOpular, while twenty minutes is considered about right. This is especially hard for those of us who are Senators and accustomed to develOp our arguments in some detail. My wife, who served in Congress before me, some- times remarks, a little wryly, that a Senator can condense into an hour what an ordinary man can say in five minutes. Certainly a political Speech today, if it is to bear fruit, needs a lot of pruning.2 —-' lStatements to the writer by Douglas' key staff members during the week of May 20, 1963, indicate Douglas makes little distinction in rhetorical theory between Speeches within and outside of the Senate, except for adapting to particular audiences. 2Paul H. Douglas, ”Is Campaign Oratory a waste of Breath?" New York Times Magazine, October 19, 1958, p. 20. 196 The difference in the size of audiences and some causes for it are next considered. A second great difference between the speeches today and those heard by our grand- fathers is that the crowds are now much smaller. In the days of Lincoln and Douglas there were few, if any, competing attractions. Politics and religion were the chief intellectual interests of the peOple and orators and politi- cians attracted almost as much attention as do the movie stars and television personalities of today. A Lincoln-Douglas debate in 1958 would not draw the 12,000 who a century ago came to Charleston, or the still greater numbers who listened through a chilling October day at Galesburg. Outside the big cities a gathering of 200 is respectable today and an attendance of 500 is really heartwarming.l Reflecting on the general complacency of the public and a decline of public interest in politics, Douglas notes changes in the occasions and circumstances of political Speeches as motivational devices to attract an audience. relationship of these changes to th today. Another notable change is in the places of public meetings. County rallies were formerly held in the courthouses, while the rural precinct meetings were held in the schools. But Since the seats were hard, the rooms poorly lighted and either too hot or too cold and always at the tOp of long flights of stairs, attendancefiat these meetings declined rapidly during the :orties. Today a more common gathering is the potluck supper put on by women. In warmer weather, the men often take over with their fish fries. at these meetings, good food and sociability give a great lift to political morale. Douglas next discusses the changes in style and the e general ends of Speaking 197 Still a third difference between the Speeches of today and those of a century or more ago lies in their style. The great pre- Civil War orators in this country, such as Webster, Clay, Calhoun, Benton and Douglas, were schooled in the literary traditions of the eighteenth century. Their oratory was in- volved and magniloquent. In the mouth of a Winston Churchill or a Bryan this manner of Speaking has, even in modern times, thrilled millions. But it is today almost<3bsolete. The late Senator Neely of West Virginia was probably the last great extemplar. Today the emphasis is upon exposition rather than oratory. And here again radio and television have had their effect. Clarity, directness and logic are the qualities which the public wants in a Speaker. Short words of Anglo-Saxon origin are preferred to Latinisms and to be effective the sentences and paragraphs should be brief and to the point. On the subject of style in the Senate, Douglas has commented:"You can say things better in simple and direct language than with big words and complex sentences, and clear logic and sound evidence are crucial." The final change to which Douglas points suggests a change not only in the type of Speakers in contemporary times but also the complexity of issues. Finally, the tone of modern Speaking is far more moderate than it was. We have had some vituperative Speakers in Congress during the last two decades, but even at their height these men could not match the stinging bitter- ness and personal abuse that marked the Speeches Of John Randolph and Charles bumner. lIbid., pp. 26 and 72. 2Statement by Douglas to writer, May 23, 1963. 198 Even the victims of McCarthyism were not heaped with the poisonous epithets that were Showered upon William Jennings Bryan when he first ran for the Presidency in 1896. There is today an increasing desire for fair play and a recognition that no one party or cause is either wholly good or evil. The result is that the bitter demogOgue, who seeks to stir up hatred, generally and in the long run destroys himself. Joyce Cary's political character who stated that his aim was not to inform, but to arouse, still has his followers, but I believe they are far fewer than before. Although Douglas does not condone nor himself practice vituperation in his speaking, and he is above all for fair play, yet he expresses concern that the tone of speaking in Congress today does not hit hard at the issues. This is reflected by another concern that people more capable and interested in debating the issues are not entering the legislative branch of government. It would be helpful if pSOple with greater intellectual ability would run for office in the legislative branch. There are not enough in the Congress, and it is partly their fault. They think they are too precious to take part in any rough and tumble, and prefer to preserve their virtue. The simplicity in style and moderation in tone of public Speaecause the matter was still under study.2 The following .ay, Indiana Republican State Senator Bontrager read to the indiana legislature: "It is President Kennedy and nobody else Who has established the blockade of the Port“... the delay in federal action on the port is "another installment payment to the Senator Paul Douglas-Chicago Mayor Richard Daley machine for having delivered enough Votes from Chicago to give Kennedy his eyelash victory in 1960." fwo days later, Indiana's U. 8. Democratic Senator Bayh, toting'that the previous weekend Udall had sent a team of :hree Congressional delegates with Douglas to the Dunes, alasted Douglas as the instigator of Interior Secretary Jdall's rescinding an invitation to Bethlehem Steel :epresentatives to come to Washington to talk about the {arbor project. Bayh went on to note that Indiana was do- 4 ing quite well with two Senators and did not need a third. 1-3; and reprint of Record 1-4. 1Release of text, pp. (daily), February 7, 1963, pp. t Dead-~White House," Chicago's 2"Dunes Harbor no 3 American, February 13, 1953: P- 31bid., February 14, 1963, p. 3. 4 y 16, 1963, p. 3. Chicago's American, Februar 335 The next day House Republican leader Halleck (the Dunes is in his district) reported that he had assurances from Bethlehem Steel that they intended to level the Dunes to develop a mill as scheduled, in spite of Douglas' protests.l Then on February 21, Governor Welsh of Indiana indicted Douglas and the Budget Bureau for holding up special reports from the Army Corps of Engineers.2 Welsh favored - the harbor being built by state or even Federal funds.3 But it was Bethlehem Steel which helped clear up the matter on February 26 by issuing a statement that their r plant and total development of the harbor was ten years ) away--"if it‘s built."4 After this, on March 6 the Indiana Senate withdrew a $21 million bill to start development of the harbor.5 Douglas had been very quiet during this period. The harbor project seemed to be dead and the Dunes saved when the Army Engineers ordered a delay in the moving of sand from the Dunes to Northwestern University and told the contracting firms to clean up the harbor.6 lIbid., February 17, p. 11. 2Ibid., February 21, pp. 1 a 4. 3In a front page story on February 23, "Dunes Harbor Issue: Who Pays, Profits?" Chicago's American indicted the use of federal funds, pp. 1: 5. 4Chicago's American, February 26, pp. 1 a 4, 51b1d., March 6, p. 3. 6“Halt Removal of Sands," Chicago‘s American, April 18, 1963, p. 1. ‘ 7 W .7 r ' r r 7 7 if firiflifirrifflfii 7* 336 Hearings.--During March, the Illinois Senator was again holding hearings on defense procurement. On April 15,1 he gave a twenty-five minute speech in tribute to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and his program reducing costs in defense procurement in the Senate. In April he was also urging Finance Committee chairman under- way on the tax cut bill. ' On steel prices.--In April, at the request of President Kennedy, Douglas began hearings on steel prices. Chaired by Douglas, this Special Joint Economic Subcommittee ; on steel industry prices attracted much attention.2 The committee hearings on steel ended on May 2, and on May 9 Douglas addressed the Senate for some thirty minutes.3 Armed with numerous tables for support of his arguments, he explained that higher shipping rates were being paid by nations for steel imported from the U. S. than from other countries, thus leaving the U.S. in a disadvantageous com- petitive position on the world steel market. He suggested possible collusion between steel companies and shipping companies,but apparent discrimination against American 1Release of text, pp. 1-5. 2see “Congress to Hold Inquiry on Steel More Prices Rise." New York Times, April 16, 1963, p. A l & 457 also Ibid., April 17, p. 36, "Steel Under Study," (editorial); and "JFK Silent, But 'Backs' Douglas' Steel Probe,“ Chicago‘s American, April 17, 1963, p. 8. 3 ReleaSE of text, pp. 1‘12. 337 :oducts by international cartels had not been investigated 7 the U. 5. Agency with jurisdiction in these matters-~The iritime Commission. Finally, he noted that the Maritime nmnission could produce no satisfactory answer for the Lgher shipping costs, and Douglas ended by urging that 1e Senate charge the Commission to do more than "look“ into 113 matter. ' Philippine war reparations.--Late in the afternoon E May 23, he gave a Speech, which lasted for more than an bur and included a colloquy with Senator Russell Long, of Duisiana. Douglas and Long, were presenting an amendment 3 disallow apprOpriations for a 1946 act on Philippine War eparations. In his Speech, the Illinois Senator argued nat additional apprOpriations should not be granted for Jlfillment of the terms of the Philippine War Reparations :t of 1946 to pay damages of World War II to that country. >uglas contended that the U. 8. had already amply ful- illed its responsibility in this matter, pointing out that revious amendments cutting apprOpriations for the 1946 :t Should be considered. He argued that corruption and 1e fulfillment of unauthorized promises by lobbyists seemed 3 be the only rationale for the continued payment. More- ver, he cited the fact that the Philippines had long since acovered from war damage and had long since gained its idependence from the U. S. territorial status it held at 1e time of the 1946 Act.1 Douglas and Long were voted down 1 See Congressional Daily Record, May 23, 1963, pp. 366-8870 and Appendix B. 338 as their amendment failed at 6:40 P.M. by 45-22.1 Civil rights.--He continued his work on civil rights and other concerns with testimony before committees during May and June. Strategy was developing for Senate debate on the Administration's civil rights bill presented to Congress in June, a time of outbreaks in Birmingham and elsewhere. Work was slow on the civil rights bill. Debate in committee began in June, with Douglas actively supporting the omnibus bill for equal access for Negroes to all public facilities, authority for the Government to bring suits against school segregation, and the elimination of job discrimination.2 But it was not until June of 1964 that major civil rights legislation was passed. While the debates continued, the Negro population was making plans for a massive march on Washington in August. He and his wife joined in the orderly civil rights march of 200,000 in Washington on August 29. Area redevelogment,-~On June 12, the House rejected Douglas' bill for an additional $450 million for area re- development by a vote of 209-205. Douglas pushed for Senate debate on the bill.3 lIbid., p. 8870. 2On July 5, Chicago's American reported that Mayor Daley was jeered and Douglas cheered at an NAACP rally. 3"Jobs Bill is Revised in Senate," Chicago‘s American, June 16,.1963, p. 7. 339 Test ban treaty.--In late July the East-West Test Ban Treaty was negotiated and then subsequently passed in the Senate by the necessary two—thirds vote. heartedly supported this treaty. Douglas whole- Committee work.--Just as civil rights dominated the news, it also dominated Douglas' work--most of it off the floor in committees. Douglas was also working for the Administration's foreign aid and tax cut bills which were bogged down in committee. The final days.--The Senate, involved in floor debate on the Administration's Foreign Aid Bill, was shocked on November 22 to learn of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. with Kennedy, the Senate. Paul Douglas, who had worked joined those presenting an eulogy to him in In March of 1962, Douglas had said of Kennedy: "I like him very much...and since he has become President he has adopted with fervor many of the things that are Close to my heart.“ Vice-President Lyndon B. Johnson, sworn in as 1 President immediately, stated in an address to a joint session that he would continue the Kennedy program. The Congress responded by passing the Foreign Aid Bill just before adjournment, but the thorny civil rights and tax cut 1Douglas quoted in McGratho 22L EéEo. p. 44. During the first four years, Theodore Sorensen, was on Douglas' Wash. staff. ‘ Sorensen joined the staff of Sen. John F. Kennedy in 1953, after Douglas recommended him to Kennedy. ‘ 340 311151 remained for the next session. It was not a satisfying session for Douglas. He had worked especially hard in committee to get the Kennedy program through, but was only moderately successful. With the death of Kennedy, future support from the White House for causes of personal concern to him, eSpecially those related to Illinois, looked dim, for the new President and Douglas had seldom seen eye-to-eye in the Senate.2 Summa£y3 Speeches 3 1949-1963 Extant items in his Washington file since 1949 indi— cate that Senator Douglas delivered over 190 Senate Speeches 1Douglas was interviewed on CBS television news broadcasts on December 12, 1963, disclosing a dozen oil millionaires paid little or no income tax in 1963 due to tax loophole. “People," Spgrts Illustrated, December 13, 1963, P. 50, lightly reported that Douglas had given lukewarm en- dorsement to professional football player Pete Retzloff's suggestion that the new tax bill allow professional athletes a deduction for depletion of their physical strength, stamina, and skills, “but that Douglas did not accept a fellow Senator‘s Squestion for similar allowances to legislators because ‘when a legislator outlives his usefulness. he becomes a lobbyist and his earning power increases.'" 2Howard Shuman reports "that one time (no date given) after Johnson had mopped-up the floor against us, the Senator turned to me as we reached the elevator and said, 'Punch that button three times and let's pretend we are Senators.'"--From Shuman interview of May 22, 1963. 3During his Senate career, Paul Douglas has been awarded honorary Doctor of Law degrees by 19 colleges and universities including Lake Forest, MacMurray, Knox, DePaul, Brandeis, Swarthmore, Bowdoin and Oberlin, a Doctor of Literature degree from Rollins and a Doctor of Civil Law degree from Bucknell. 341 from prepared manuscripts ranging in length from five minutes to the better part of three days, an average of thirteen each session. Entries in the indexes of the Record during that same period indicate he addressed the chair nearly 6,000 times, an average of close to 400 each year, ranging in length from multi-day addresses to brief remarks requesting entry of some printed material into the Record. He Spoke on an average of over 140 different subjects each year, repeating many of them every session. CHAPTER‘VIII AGAINST THE NATURAL GAS BILL Mardh 21-22, 1950 Set ing_and Circumstances __— Natural gas as a public utility has become of in- creasing importance in the last three decades. The dis- covery of several new sources of natural gas, plus the awareness that it was cheap, competitive with coal, a clean fuel with a higher heat content than manufactured gas, and was going to waste because of a lack of means to tran5port it to industrial centers, eSpecially those in the Midwest, caused an extensive network of pipe lines to be built. This network has made gas available to millions of homes and to industrial centers. The control of the networks be- came critical because gas could be most economically trans- ported only by pipe line, and the crossing of pipe lines over state lines led to the question of the role which the Federal Government should assume in the potential mon0poly of this resource'by those concerns controlling pipe lines. The natural gas bill of 1950 in question (8. 1498) was jointly sponsored by Senators Kerr and Thomas from Oklahoma, a state rich in gas resources, and reported by 342 343 fohnson of Texas from another state noted for its natural [as reserve. S. 1498 was a bill to amend the Natural Gas sct of 1938 by repealing regulatory price rates fixed by :he Federal Power Commission for non-tranSporters (independ- ent producers and gatherers) of natural gas in interstate sales. The provisions of the act and the evolution of the .ssue are develOped in Paul Douglas' Speech and therefore ' rill be examined in the analysis of his speeCh. After the normal proceedings of hearings on the bill .n February and March, the bill came on to the floor on larCh l6 and was the subject of debate for three days prior :0 the delivery of Douglas' major address on March 21-22. >aul Douglas had been active in the previous debates and had risen briefly late on the afternoon of March 20, using ex- >lanation as argument in preliminary remarks to his major 1ddress, "Against the Natural Gas Bill,“ to set the stage for'his Speech of the next day for his audience of 54 Danocrats and 42 Republicans. 0n the afternoon of March 21, Douglas held the floor for over five hours, of which two hours were taken up in iebate and collquY. He made brief reference to the pre- rious day's (March 20) statement in "off-the-cuff" remarks Ln the introduction to this Speech. He continued his pre- pared remarks for an hour the next afternoon, March 22, and amidst constant hedkling, yielded the floor, and requested "the conclusion of my remarKS" (about two hourS' worth) be 344 printed in the Record} Factors of Persuasion With a neutral or hostile audience a persuasive Speaker usually makes some attenpt to establish or reinforce his ethical persuasion by creating rapport and good will, establishing good character and transmitting an image of competence. Douglas did this by comparison to his Opposition. is attempted to convey comparatively better gghgg by both logical and psychological methods of persuasion. He began by a capsule review of his remarks of the previous day and of the debate to date, and contended that the prOponents of the bill had been notably silent in pre- senting any affirmative case. ...except for the brief Openin statement made by the Senator from Colorado Mr. Johnsor] , the preponents of the Kerr bill had not advanced any direct, coherent, or connected series of arguments for their measure. While we have had three full days of debate upon the Kerr bill, the prOponents have apparently been Sitting back and not presenting their case. Seven Opponents of the measure have taken the floor and, as they have done so, have been subjected to a barrage of questioning. But, aside from the senior Senator from Colorado, the preponents of the measure have not themselves presented arguments ' for the bill in any coherent and concrete manner.2 v.fi—u— _ _— w ‘— lSee Congressional Record--SenateI 81st Cong., 2nd Sess., Vol. 96, Part 3, Mardh 21, 1950, pp. 3710-3736, and March 22, 1950, pp. 3778-3784. Douglas had delivered all of the text of the extant cepy of the Speech in his file, but added several remarks in platform adjustments. 21bid., March 21, 1950, p. 3710. 345 ‘With this introduction Of his refutation based upon an attack on negative evidence (a lack Of it) by the Opposition, he continued along this line by implicatively Showing fair play on his part in fulfilling his reSponsibility as an advocate, added invective and the clear implication Of the weakness and a lack of reSponsibility in meeting a burden Of proof in the defense of the bill by the Opposition. He re- called that yesterday "in the interest of clarity, fair play and Christian charity.... I devoted my time then to stating the arguments which might be advanced in support Of the Kerr 3111."1 The Speaker chose to continue with this appeal, and with a “straw man“ tedhnique restated the tOp arguments he had constructed and refuted for the Opposition the previous day. In the time which I then had available, I was able to take up only two arguments which the prOponents of this bill might advance; namely, first, that it was designed to end confusion: and, second, that the Kerr bill is sharply differentiated from the Moore—Rizley bill Of unhappy memory. I tried to state those two arguments accurately and fairly. But, inasmuch as those two contentions are, to my mind, unsound and lead to wrong conclusions, I also felt com- pelled tO Show the fallacy Of those arguments.2 In his attempt at personal image-building by being altruistic, kind, and charitable, he went on to note that he would be pleased to mention other arguments for the Opposition "to Show their incorrectness, should the prOponents Of the 346 bill continue to be coy.”l He was attempting to establish negative ethical persuasion for the Opposition at this point (thus building up his own) and with clear sarcasm challenge them to Speak out, if they could, on behalf Of their bill. He next used an analogy playing on the term "disease" to attack the Opponents: It is sometimes valuable to inoculate a person - with a small dose Of the disease against which one is trying to protect him, in order that his system may become immune to further attack. Should the proponents Of this measure continue to hold back and not present their arguments, I may be compelled to hold the floor for a brief additional time on their behalf, and then to try as best I may to demolish the arguments which they themselves should have brought forward.2 After this attempt to discredit, he made his trans- ition to introduce the real purpose of his stand on the floor: ...to discuss this measure itself and to indicate the reasons why in my judgment it is a bad bill and why the Senate should not pass it, and why, if by any chance the Senate does pass it, the President Of the United States Should veto it.3 It was then that Douglas clearly attempted to develOp Positive gthgg: first, by the method of common ground, and second by making even more succinct the division Of Opinion between himself and the Opposition. He commended the three Senators for presenting the bill because it was a germane matter for Congress,4 not administrative agencies, to handle —_ _— T—_ 3 Ibid., pp. 3710-3711. w 432$§.. p. 3711. This represents the beginning of 118 prepared text as indicated by the file copy. 347 uth “Shifting personnel and at times their somewhat chang- .ng viewpoints.“l However, he went on to say: I happen to believe that the Senators from Oklahoma and Texas are mistaken in wanting to exempt from regulation the price of gas whidh is Charged by producers and gatherers who are not affiliated with the pipe lines.... In my judgment this group might better be termed “nontranSporting producers and gatherers,“ rather than independent producers, inasmuch as the word "independent” suggests that they are companies small in size or indi- viduals in overalls, which they distinctly are not. The nontranSporting producers and gatherers, as I shall Show in the course Of my address, are, in the main, the big oil and gas companies, subsidiaries and affiliates Of Standard Oil, Shell, Gulf, Skelly, Phillips, Republic, and so on. The attempt to put over- alls on these companies and to dress them up as independents is at variance with the facts. aving noted that he had quite a different referent for the ey terms, he said, ”in the interest Of clarity of language-- believe, semantic clarity...we should refer to this group... S nontranSporting producers and gatherers.”3 He then concluded his general introduction by pre- aring his audience for what was to come by an initial lmmary and partitioning Of what he intended tO do. He told lem: "I have a somewhat lengthy Speech,” which they al- aady eXpected, "divided into a series Of issues."4 Next, 32295: p. 3711. 2.1.2.9.- 3M- 4Ibid. 1 348 in an attempt to "goad" the Opposition yet explicitly show consideration for the audience while implicitly desiring to prevent interruption and maintain continuity, he continued: ...and I know that the proponents of the measure, though they may be coy about taking the floor directly, are expert and pertinacious in questioning. I suggest to them that I shall be very gladto yield at the conclusion Of each one of the subdivisions of my address, and to submit to questioning on the subject matter Of the subdivision completed. But I hOpe that I may be permitted to develop a coherent argument within each subdivision and then, after a decent period of time has passed in questioning on one subdivision, that I may pass tO another. Thus, he was really planning to present four separate speeches. He went on with an appeal to fair play by stating that he had placed the text of his first speech into their Elbe sponsor§ hands to enable them to follow him on the basic issue SO that "their questioning may be closer and more precise.“2 Finally, he used direct and positive sugges- tion and an appeal to pride in requesting that two Of the principal Opponents might stay to listen: I shall appreciate it if the distinguished junior Senator from Oklahoma and the dis- tinguished junior Senator from Texas, if they are in the Chamber, may now listen to the first part Of my speech, so that their questioning may be even more vigorous than it would be otherwise. lIbid. 349 In a ten-minute introduction he had built his ethical appeal by suggesting the absence of apparent competence on the part of the sponsors of the bill, blitzing them with shame appeals, direct indictments, and challenges. Logic- ally, he generalized about the lack of evidence and the fallacious nature Of any rationale for the bill, and lastly attempted to convey his comparative intellectual strength (and integrity) by defining terms and partitioning his speech in an orderly manner. It was a harsh beginning that probably arrested attention and seemed to set the stage for a battle, if the affirmative could be provoked into assuming a burden of proof for their prOposal. He had concentrated on stimulating and arousing interest. He may also have felt the need to arouse his audience because on this issue neither were the lines as clear cut nor was there as much deep con- cern by a majority Of members as there would be on some other issue such as civil rights. But Douglas felt strongly about the issue and wanted to make sure he did justice to the case for his Side, and he hOped to provoke the sponsors of the bill to stand up and be heard so that the Senate would weigh the evidence. He began the body of the first of his four speeches with a rhetorical question: "Mr. President, what are the basic issues which are involved in the bill?" His answers to the question came in the form of a contention, followed by SUpport through a chain of deductive reasoning and a con- CIusion about the need for price regulation for the monOpoly of the gas line. He stated that the Kerr Bill made that 350 regulation impossible. I think it will be shown that natural gas is basically dissimilar tO coal, Oil, COpper and other raw'materials since all elements in the industry from the producers and gatherers through the pipe-line companies to the dis- tributors to the ultimate consumers are bound irretrievably and organically to each other by the pipe lines and mains which carry the gas and which effectively prevent anyone along the way from disengaging himself and getting his supplies elsewhere. If a producer of coal or fuel Oil raises his price, a buyer can have trucks or railroads haul his supplies from an- other producer which charges a lower price. Thus competition is feasible in the case Of coal or fuel Oil. But gas can be economically trans- ported only by pipe lines, and if a gas producer raises his price, the SXpense Of tearing up a pipe line, and laying a new one prevents a buyer from taking advantage Of a lower price in a different field. Since the tranSpOrtation of gas is therefore in its nature monOpOlistic and not competitive, I believe that price regulation should be applied to the nontranSporting pro- ducers as well as the interstate pipe lines them- selves. But the Kerr-Thomas bill would prevent this and does SO Specifically. It specifically prevents the nontranSporting producers and gatherers from having the price Of the gas which they sell to the interstate pipe lines regulated by the Federal Power Commission. Another argument in the debate to date against price regulation of gas had been to make gas analogous to coal: if coal was not regulated, why then should gas be so regulated? Douglas answered by testing the analogy and showing that compared cases were not alike in all reSpects and differences must be accounted for. Coal, as pointed out, could be trans- ported in any number Of ways, but gas could not; and with that he had hOped to eliminate that argument. However, at that point Senator Earl Long of Louisiana was on his feet to 351 contend that Douglas "persists in making the same error, and I Should like to aSk a question.... “1 Douglas would not yield and tersely said SO. He said that he regretted that Long had not been in the Chamber when it was made clear that he would only yield at the end Of Subdivisions Of his Speech. A challenge to Lyndon Johnson to Show that gas can be economically shipped some other way to give consumers a choice followed. he went When the distinguished Senator from Texas is able to demonstrate that gas can be so trans- ported economically, I shall then prOpose that the Federal Natural Gas Act be repealed. But so long as gas goes through a gas main, then it is my belief that we Should retain regulation all the way through.2 Concluding his stand on that core issue in question, on to develOp sub-prOpOSitions. The first of those sub-prOpositions was that “producers, pipe-line companies, distributors, and consumers are bound together." He argued: That is the way in which the gathering lines or mains connecting the producing wells with the pipe lines tie in the nontranSporting producers and gatherers and the pipe lines together and hence also bind the distributing companies and the consumers together with them in an organic unity from which none Of them can withdraw. It costs a great deal Of money to lay the gathering lines which connect the gas wells with the pipe line. It does not pay to lay duplicating lines SO that the same well or group Of wells supplies different pipe lineS.3 352 After an SXpression of modesty at being familiar ‘with gas only as a consumer from his home usage, he next cited statistical evidence on the cost Of pipelines and gathering lines which he challenged ”Should therefore be subject to correction by the very distinguished experts in this industry, who happen tO be proponents Of the bill.”1 Without documentation, he stated that “it is my understanding from the figures I have worked out“2 that a mile of major pipeline accompanied by compressor stations would cost $70,000, without stations between $25,000 and $50,000, and that “small main lines" (the terms "small“ and "main“ were not defined) cost $3,500 to $5,000 a mile, and the cost Of lateral pipelines from wells to the main line between $5,000 and $20,000 a mile. He used restatement to request the “experts Show him where he is in error,“ stated again that once the lines are laid, the cost is SO great it does not pay to lay duplicating lines, nor tear them up. This, he concluded by analogy, “is not a trial marriage: it is a contract until death do them part." Thus far he had merely shown they are bound together, but had Shown no evil. The evil, he concluded, is Shown by two instances: in the thirties when supply exceeded demand, the pipe lines by monOpoly kept prices up: and when demand exceeds supply and new lines are being laid to newly discovered supplies, 353 the nontranSporting producers can “call the shots" on prices because Of the need for his supply, and it is the consumers who must ”foot the bill.” He turned to the result Of higher prices next in an attempt to pull his reasoning together. DiSplaying the typical Senate decorum which nevertheless can so kindly ridicule and even suggest deceit, he turned again to Lyndon JOhnson to have it out with him rather than Kerr (Thomas seems to have been a "silent partner“ in the issue). Mr. President, in this connection I Should like to call attention to a statement which I am sure was inadvertently made by the distinguished junior Senator from Texas (Mr. Johnson) when we ‘were debating last week. He said there had not been a single instance of higher prices being charged by nontranSporting producers and gatherers in connection withla request by a pipe line for higher prices. JOhnson may have been the focal point Of the Opposition because Kerr was a more formidable debater than Johnson. Having little regard for any positive persuasion, Johnson preferred coercing rather than leading thoughts in his per- suasion, and attacking not conciliating. Kerr's attaCks were not restricted tO issues but were equally personal. In correcting Lyndon Johnson, Douglas cited he did gO to the Federal Power Commission for evidence and reported that in thirteen cases pipelines had been forced to increase prices due to increased costs.2 He concluded: “Higher costs at the beginning Of the process represent, therefore, n *1 1Ibid., p. 3712. 2Ibid. 354 hdgher gas prices at its end."1 The argument becane clearer, but the connection between cause and effect presupposes con- siderable faith by the audience in the proof of the advocate. Although Douglas had in a little over a year in the Senate establiShed that he was highly competent as a researcher and possessed great ability to reason, in this case he was so vehemently Opposed it could be asked, did he draw a valid ' link between the cause and effect: It was at best a form of reasoning from Sign and it was not clear whether the relationship was accidental or coincidental and reciprocal. i ‘I Once again, Douglas returned to appeals of good will by explaining that he did not question the “good faith" Of the bill's proponents."2 I am convinced that they sincerely feel they are right, that they are merely Spelling out what they believe to be the original intent Of Congress, and what in the summer of 1947 was the tentative Opinion Of the majority Of the Federal Power Commission.3 However, he went on to note again that he disagreed with emotive language, he attempted to reinforce his ties with those who had spoken out against the bill, listing their house in re-identifying them with his cause and showing by implication that the number On his side rising to Oppose had outweighed those in support. I Should like tO assure those Senators that while I feel compelled tO draw my sword in behalf Of what I believe to be the interest of the public, I shall tip my rapier with a I H 0' H 0.: 0 N!" H 0" H D; o w 5’ p. Q. o 355 nose, and I can assure them that there is no venom on its point. I hOpe they will, in turn, give those Of us who are Opposed to this measure equal credit for good intentions. I hOpe they will believe that the junior Senator from Missouri (hr. Kem , whose very able address on this subject last Friday Should be read by every Senator, was swayed by the public interest when he rose to attack the»Kerr bill, and that the same pr ciple swayed the senior Senator from Maine Mr. Brewstefl yester— day when h spoke, the junior Senator from Tennessee Mr. Kefauvefl , the senior Senator from North Dakota Mr. angeé] , the junior Senator from Iowa Mr. Gillettg , and all the other.Members Of the Senate. Next, in a concise initial summary-analysis in a twofold partition, he prepared his audience for what was to come by referring to the next two issues as "simple, yet crucial in their nature. They can be stated in two forms. I Shall state the first form, and then the second form. The first form is this." Should (a) the field price Of natural gas going into the interstate pipe lines be allowed to rise to the full extent Of what the domestic and industrial markets for gas will bear?2 *n this prOposition Of policy, he argued that it should not e enacted because it would allow owners of reserves to "pocket“ virtually all the cost advantages Of gas over coal or fuel Oil. Then, "turning the tables," he noted that ince the prOponents have produced some "handsome charts" hich served to support his point, he had also prepared some which further supported the point.3 The evidence he cited g Ibid. 21pm. 3Ibid. 356 was from a 1948 report of a Texas pipe-line company showing that for industrial purposes in its "service area" it could sell gas for half the price per B.t.u. as coal and one-third Of fuel Oil cost.1 He flattered his audience by inferring their apparent knowledge Of what a B.t.u. was, but then proceeded to define it to insure clarity. The point he wished to make, reasoning apparently from this 1948 evidence, one example, was that the Kerr bill would remove the regu— lation and the result would be that gas would lose its cost advantage on the market. Multiplying a presumed raise Of 20-30 cents per 1000 cubic feet, he estimated that a raise in gas prices to the fuel-oil equivalent would cost $500 million in 1952.2 At this point Senator Long attempted to interrupt Douglas, but he graciously refused to yield and went on to the second "real" issue, stated as an alternative in the form of a prejudiced prOposition Of policy. I shall now state the other alternative or (b) should the field price Of natural gas sold in interstate commerce be subject to regulation which, while yielding an adequate return on the legitimate amounts invested, would give the consumers the benefits which the use of gas brings in excess Of these legitimate costs and returns.3 In an apparent attempt to diSplay good character through fairness, he made sure the audience understood that J's—q. ..-—- ..._. ..« lIbi Q: 0 ZIbid. .— 3Ibid., p. 3712 ——t 357 he and his colleagues wanted to see a Preasonable“ profit but not an "excessive"one.1 This was his support for the second proposition, which really constituted his personal answer to the first and assumed that the same evidence rejecting the first, therefore, affirmed the second. He had spoken for some twenty-five minutes in his "first speech," which was essentially an introduction to the other three. After the history and origin and develop- ment Of some points Of clash, he was ready to conclude the first part. In a conclusion Of ten minutes, he first re— iterated that he had presented the economic and legal problems Of the bill and then in a mixed psychological- logical appeal stated the alternatives. If we believe that the producers of gas should be allowed to charge whatever the traffic will bear, we should vote for the Kerr—ThOmas bill. If we believe that gas is a utility, we Should vote against it and give a mandate to the Federal Power Commission to regulate the field prices of gas for interstate commerce subject, of course, to review by the courts. Next, he chose to state the alternatives to the bill in a psychological appeal aimed not only at their Christian sense Of altruism and fair play and democratic patriotic principles by language loaded with value labels in “human terms," but also implicitly their sense Of self-preservation and job security by his enphasis on serving the wealthy H U' p. Q. Q l a .5 | 1 358 few or the 40,000,000. stated in human rather than in abstract terms, it is a question of whether we should allow these concentrated gains to fall into the hands of the small groups of big and wealthy oil companies and oilmen who now control the vast preponderance of the oil and gas resources of the Nation or whether these advantages should be shared with the 40,000,000 and more consumers and the thousands of industrial users. Phrased still more simply, it is whether the great gifts of nature, placed here, we believe, by divine power, are to be appropriated by the few or be administered as a trusteeship for the people of the Nation when these resources are essential to consumers but do not lend themselves to com- petitive methods of sales and distribution. If we believe they should be appropriated by the wealthy few, we should vote for the Kerr-Thomas bill. If we believe they should be utilized for the many, we should vote against it.1 To this, he added an appeal to economy and magnified the importance of the decision before them. "The stakes are large" and could amount to billions of dollars, he told his audience. "We should not allow personalities to obscure our judgments,” these are the issues. Then using the appeal of a legal precedent, he noted that the Supreme Court in 1947 unanimously ruled in favor of protection of the consumers in a case dealing with a similar set of facts. He concluded by arguing that the 1938 act was meant to do what the Kerr bill is trying to repeal.2 In the final plea of his conclusion he sought to refute what had become a key issue. In 1947, Mr. Olds, a member of the Federal Power Commission, had voted with the 1 id., pp. 3712-3713. 2:13:01. , p. 371 3. 359 other members of the Commission to rule tentatively against regulation of the nontranSporting producers but then had reversed positions a year later. In both the reference to the decision of the court and Mr. Olds‘ change of mind, Douglas seemed to be reasoning: I shall not make judgments on those incidents but they do support our case, don't they? You draw the conclusion. Moreover, we can, of course, see that past legal and human evidence compel the rejection of the bill, but even more, we must act on the facts of here and now and they only reinforce its rejection. He concluded with the plea: "...we should not try to evade the basic decision which only we must now make by blaming the Supreme Court or the Federal Power Commission. We must make up our own minds." The one basic issue developed in this first Speech was: should the price of gas by "independents“ sold to interstate pipelines be regulated? Douglas used all three factors of persuasion with particular reliance on psychological appeals to attempt to move his audience to an affirmative POSition. At the conclusion of "Speech I," Senator Long, who had been anxiously waiting, was the first to take the floor in interrogation. He began by presenting 1935 statistics from the U. 5. Bureau of Mines and the Department of Labor to show that the cost of fuel oil and coal for heating had been cheaper than the cost of gas in 1935, and argued it was only because gas (under the regulation of prices by 360 nontranSporting producers up to 1947) had gone down while the other two had risen that it was cheaper now, and asked Douglas if he was aware of that fact. Douglas answered Long by stating Long had cited prices paid by domestic con- sumers, not prices paid commercially or industrially. But Long rejoindered. “I was under the impression that the Senator was seeking to protect the housewife, not major in- . dustries.“l Douglas replied that he sought to protect both, and curiously noted that Long had quoted higher prices to the consumer in 1948 than he had. Douglas then requoted his figures which showed gas prices were less than those stated by Long. Douglas was obviously trying to establish facts. When Long accused him of "being kinder” to the gas interests than Lyndon Johnson had been in statistics, Douglas replied: I am not trying to be kind or unkind. I am merely trying to give the facts. And here are figures drawn from the volume, Gas Facts, published by the American Gas Association.2 Long asked: "Those figures relate to what?" Douglas replied I‘to residential natural-gas service.” Long asked, if they were based on per million B.t.u.'s. Douglas replied: “To per thousand cubic feet, but that is a million B.t.u.‘s." Long said Douglas' computation "was not exactly correct" and that the two units are different: Douglas replied that Mr. Kerr, who sits two chairs away, is an expert and can correct lIbid., p. 3713. 2Ib g. 361 me if I am wrong.1 Kerr, however, did not respond. Long then went back to the contention that coal and oil rose to twice the price of gas while gas prices dropped. He questioned why gas should be denied the same advantage that coal and oil have. Douglas argued that coal and oil can be regulated on the basis of competition-«neither has to go through pipe lines. Long then dropped this line of argu- ment and moved to a slightly different one. He argued that because gas is tranSported only by pipe lineit costs less, and going back again to the same statistics from 1935, charged that Douglas was wrong. Douglas replied that Long's figures were inaccurately exces- sive and referred him to a hearing report. But Long retorted that the lower gas prices figures stated by Douglas would support his arguments. Douglas admitted this to be "un— intentionally" true but asked him to look at hearing reports for average figures which supported those presented in his speech. Long then noted that the hearing reports also showed that gas prices had gone down while oil and coal prices had risen "enormously.“2 Then Long asked Douglas to admit that the facts show pipelines nade gas prices go down. Economist Douglas replied with a more complete analysis of supply and demand: Mr. President, I do not need to explain to gentlemen in the gas fields what has lIbid., 21bid., p. 3714. 362 happened in the gas industry during the past 15 years. What has happened is that a great natural resource has been made available in large quantities by the introduction of pipe lines and gathering lines, and that these re- sources have been made available to the con- sumers. I think that is very fine. Incidental- ly, the pipe lines have done very well out of it, and the nontranSporting producers and gatherers have done extremely well out of it. No one has been hurt. But now what the pro- ponents of the bill would allow is to let the price of natural gas increase and thus give unconscionable profit to the producers in the field, to the detriment of the consumer. Why should Senators resent the consumer receiving a break from the low prices of natural gas so long as the producers and gatherers and pipe- line companies have done well? If economies are possible, why not help the consumer.1 Following this the two Senators exdhanged super- latives in tribute to the greatness of each other, and Long asked Douglas to look at a particular chart in the back of the Chamber. The chart showed that the gas industry had had the smallest price rise of any consumer product, including food and housing, since 1939. Douglas then shifted the burden of proof to Long in asking if he was contending that gas prices should have risen as fast as coal and oil? No, Long replied, but it Shows that gas without control went down in price while everything else was increasing in price. To this Douglas replied that everyone was happy from 1939- 1947, but look at the upward movement in gas prices since then. Long noted that all prices have gone up. Douglas then commended Long's work on the basing-point bill, which lIbid. , p. 3714. 363 Long had mentioned. However/it appears Douglas felt this debate had gone far enough, for he heaped on the prestige suggestion to Long and noted how they had fought "shoulder- to shoulder“ on other matters Which is one of the great attributes of the Senate body, and he attempted to conclude by saying: Mr. President, we are not attempting to make our case on the basis of relative profits in the gas industry at the present time, as com- pared with previous times. Later I shall submit evidence to show that profits in relationship to invested capital are extremely high, so far as this industry is concerned. It is on that basis, and on that basis alone, that I shall present my discussion, not on the basis of profits made to- day as compared with those made in 1939.1 -——._— But Long was not willing to conclude yet, and pointed out that he knew Douglas was not Opposed to high profit. Douglas qualified, “if there is competition...but in the case of a natural monOpoly, such as gas, high profits under those conditions are an indication that the consumer is be- ing not only temporarily gouged but permanently gouged."2 Long next cited the case of his home state where poor people have wells drilled but no pipe line: certainly that is not a monOpoly? Douglas' only reply was that he would deal with mthat later. Then, Senator Kerr rose for the first time and asked if Douglas was aware that the introduction of natural gas ‘into an area reduced the combined price of natural and amanufactured gas. Douglas said he was. Kerr then pointed lIbid., p. 3715. 2Ibid. 364 out that Douglas had neglected to show this in his analysis and‘has used Charts that gave only natural gas price figures, not combined figures; Douglas countered that he had been referring to charts the proponents of the bill had advanced in debate. Then, referring to a particular chart to answer Kerr's question Douglas said the chart "relates to a mixture. No, I withdraw that statement. The chart only relates to natural gas itself.”l Kerr pressed the mistake and asked, "Does the Senator from Illinois believe that he will find ?"2 Douglas reSponded: that he was wrong in that regard "Yes: and whenever I am wrong, I am glad to admit it.“3 He then admitted that ”the record will show“ that natural gas prices had declined up to 1947, but it will also show that mixed gases in several locations resulted in reduction of price.4 And Kerr concluded "And its price will do so in the future, when it is permitted to be used."5 Douglas then informed Kerr that he was not arguing against natural gas, "it is one of God's blessings. But...the benefits of "6 natural gas should be shared with consumers.... To support his position further, Kerr brought up again the fact that the 1939-1947 gas prices Douglas had stated were lower than those presented by the proponents of the bill. Ad- mitted that was so up to 1947, Douglas said he would give h ‘__ A.._ __ _— ‘ ‘1 —— — T —— _' "' — w—V ' v __ 1 id., ____ P- 2Ibi 3715. Q; o Ibi Q: o 3 4 H bi Q: o l U! H U‘ p. Q. o E! 365 ‘Kerr later figures in the balance of his speeCh. But he had enough of this debate and wanted to get the rest of his wcase on the floor. Douglas had made no headway in this thirty-minute *debate and, in fact, lost ground because of the persistent magnification by Long and.Kerr of five-year old prices he had quoted whiCh tended to indicate his conclusions were inconsistent with the evidence. His honest approach of "Yes, but" in admitting that those figures from before 1947 ‘indicated natural gas prices had gone down While others rose should have helped develOp his good character by shows ing honesty, integrity, sincerity, and earnestness to the critical listeners. However, since Long and Kerr largely ignored the “but“ part of his answers or the qualifications, the casual listener may have concluded that the speaker was fallacious in his reasoning. Before moving to Part II of his address, Douglas attempted to synthesize the debate in his favor by point- ing out that Long's conclusion that gas prices had gone down while the price of unregulated prices had gone up only proved that there was regulation at the consumers end. He pointed out that the price of electricity from 1935-1948 fell 13% indicating that the regulatory system does work. Finally. he said a look at the financial statements of big gas and electrical companies would show they are both doing well.1 This implicative refutation may have helped to 1Ibid., p. 3715. 366 clarify his position, but it was not sharply adapted to the conclusions of the Opposition to which Douglas heped to counter. At least it appears that Douglas had some know- ledge of the fact that one can afford to admit minor vulner- able points to avoid committing the fallacy of "pigheaded- ness" and being illogical for mere defense sake. The second speech, or subdivision of this Speech, dealt with the historical develOpment of natural-gas regulation. It was an attempt through historical precedent and events to show cause for rejection of the bill. As a rationale for dealing with the evolution of the issue, he began: I wiSh now to take up the historical develOpment of natural-gas regulation, because I think it will clear up some of the mis- apprehensions which have developed, and which have been eXpressed on the floor of the Senate by the proponents of the bill. While our decision must primarily look forward to what is best for our country in the future rather than backward in an effort to find inconsistencies of interpretation, it will help to put our problems more sharply in focus if we briefly review some of the history, and see how they came into being.1 This presentation of the history of natural-gas regulation indicated competence and knowledge of the subject, but Douglas may also have lost much attention, for there is a natural disinterest among many impatient listeners that results from anticipation of having to hear a prolonged historical develOpment. Nevertheless, Douglas went on. First,he re-created the early recognition of the monOpolistic nature of gas sales to consumers, _* .114 fiv_ “—— __._ *m l id., p. 3715. 367 ”...like that Of electrical power and water...consumers were given a Hobson's choice. They had to take gas from one company or go without."1 In concluding, he exclaimed that the gas-distributing companies, charged the consumer what the traffic could bear and "reaped monOpolistic profits."2 Moreover, they were analogous before regulation to power, water, traction, and telephone companies (already regulated). ' Second, as a result Of this monOpoly, the states tried to meet the problem by regulation in ”an attempt to avoid public ownership...but public regulation to protect 5 consumers."3 State regulatory commissions were set up to regulate private ownership and Operation. Anticipating argument, he stated: “It was not socialism, as some may imply, but America's answer to socialism.“4 The state com- nissions Operated with varying success, he concluded, because aften the big companies to be controlled instead controlled :he commission. At least regulation did keep prices somewhat .Ower on intrastate tranSporting than what they would have aeen by private monOpoly alone. However, difficulty arose aver interstate tranSporting. The first interstate problem >ccurred in the Ohio River Valley where gas was shipped from Jest Virginia to Ohio and Pennsylvania, and the coal distri- >uting companies "became tied to the gas lines in the same manner the consumers were tied to them."5 _ From this start, A . _ _— v ‘— Ibid.p. 3715. A“ ..._. v—v——— ‘- NH Ibid. Ibid. 368 .glas continued, the prelude was set and ”the battle we : nOW’waging over the gas fields Of the Southwest had its .al run."l Next, he focused on the events which rendered the ate regulatory commission legally ineffective by the U.S. preme Court decision negating their power to regulate gas a product in interstate commerce. While the sale of gas was recognized as a public utility, a no-man's land was thus created which was exempt from regulation in which the private companies were thus enabled to charge monOpoly prices and hence were allowed to reap unreasonable profits at the eXpense of the consumers. 2 followed this by showing howrthe discovery Of the Texas inhandle, Oklahoma, and Kansas reserves highlighted the need >r Federal action. Gas was going to waste in many cases lat pipe lines were built to transport it to the industrial ties. "The pipe~line companies thus formed Often came to being as a joint enterprise Of the big city utilities th the owners Of the gas reserves.” Citing several amples of this joint enterprise in the 1920's and 1930's, ended with the case of Samuel Insull, and alluded to his ght against Insull's monOpOlistic activities. Insull, in dition to traction ventures, also controlled the PeOples as Company of Chicago which had a monOpoly. It was, Douglas easoned, because Of these and similar cases that the 1938 :tural Gas Act was passed "to occupy this field in which 9“ lIbid., p. 3716. Ibid. 369 came Court has held that the States may not act." [Section 1 (331 “the tranSportation of natural gas in interstate commerce, “...“the sale in interstate commerce of natural gas for resale for ultimate public consum tion“... “and natural gas com anies engage in such tranSportation or sa e." Furthermore the act defined a natural-gas company to be "a erson engaged in the tranSportation of natur gas in interstate commerce or the sale in inter- statez commerce O such gas for resale" --section 2 6 . then argued and deduced: ...while attention was primarily centered on the pipe-line companies which were at that time, 1938, the main producers, Congress also granted the Federal Power Commission the power to regulate the price which the nontranSporting producers and gatherers got for their gas when it was sold to the interstate pipe lines, because the sale in interstate commerce of natural gas for resale for ultimate public con- sumption was to be regulated.3 Nor does the fact that the act exempted the production and gathering of natural gas from regu ation mean that Congress intended this exemption to apply to the sale Of the natural gas after it has been gathered and as it started to flow into the pipe lines on its sub- terranean journey to the ultimate consumers in other States.4 In tracing the results Of this legislation, the aaker concluded: But whatever may have been its intrinsic authority, whether from the very beginning the Federal Power Commission believed it had the authority to deal with prices charged by non- transporting producers and gatherers, or whether 1 2 —————'fi.—' — ~——————— Ibid., p. 3716. “a 370 it did not believe it had that power, the Federal Power Commission wisely chose to attack the immediate evil in its course Of procedure. That was the great discrepancy 'between the cost Of the gas which the pipe- line companies produced and tranSported, and the final charge which they made for it. : on to cite examples of jurisdiction by the PFC and ned its role then: It is perfectly true that the Commission during this period did not attempt to take jurisdiction Over the prices charged for gas by the nontranSporting producers and gatherers. That is perfectly true. But I submit that it was largely true because the Commission was busy with the pipe lines, which were then the primary problem. iorted that the price of natural gas remained low and 2, linking flhat effect to the Commission‘s good work. >mmission did not, he contended, find time to deal with ten subordinate problem Of nontranSporting producers. This feeling was strengthened by the common belief which was then cultivated that the non- tranSporting producers were genuine small- 1 scale independents who, competing fiercely with eaCh other, did not need regulation. a stated that the Appalachian nontranSporting producers .therers do tend to be small and independent, but the independent producer is generally not the case else- »in the nation. In answer to Long and Kerr, Douglas considered these ”natural reasons" why the FPC had not attempted to [— lIbid. 2Ibid. 3Ibid. 371 Lte the group in question from 1940—1947. Turning :o a review of the court cases showing jurisdiction of 338 act to regulate in the area which the Kerr bill pts to repeal. he then followed with an analysis of 947 FPC tentative ruling that, in Spite of Supreme ; rulings, they would not attempt to take Jurisdiction sales in interstate commerce by nontranSporting pro- rs and gatherers. He went on to analyze the membership he commission, noting that the one dissenter was a blican and had never been charged with "radicalism," {err and his colleagues would contend,l and that an- :r reversed his position in 1948 after a study by the showed monOpoly. He had now reached the portion of his prepared text :h contained his analysis of the rising prices and in- asing degree of concentration: Whatever report we take, if we go back to the basis of agreed-upon facts, it is perfectly clear that the reports revealed that one change was going on in the field, and that the Commission's views had been 2 erroneous in reSpect to two other matters. aking down his argument, he first contended: "the in- :igation showed that the price of natural gas in the Ld, Which had been relatively stable for the preceding rears, was just beginning to move up rather rapidly." 372 his he concluded the Commission had to then, in 1948, this matter. Second, he posited: ...they found that gas was being produced in the southwestern field primarily not so much by small independents in overalls, as had been true in the Appalachians, or by the sturdy wildcatters, as by the big companies, sudh as Phillips, Skelly, the Standard companies1 Sun, Texas, Republic,.Magnolia, and.the like. ,‘he contended that it was becoming evident that gas antrolled, not by the pipe-line companies under ation, but by the big nontransporters and gatherers. The inference he drew from these three points was to protect gas consumers by interstate regulation with- egulating the price of dominant nontranSporting pro- s was "like trying to make an omelet without eggs or ay Hamlet without the Dane."2 Apparently Senator ver agreed with this conclusion, because Douglas Ld to him for a question. Kefauver's question, support- ouglas' argument, simply pointed up the magnitude of tion for the nontranSporters of the Kerr bill. ver, as a lawyer, then pointed out that the Clayton Act cover any proven violations of fair prices, but to the violation was difficult. Long rose and stated the wording of the 1938 bill was intentionally vague used against as well as for unfair prices, and con- ? that Kerr was merely trying to clarify it. At this 1 l —— T Ibid., p. 3718. 121d. Ibid. NH w 373 Douglas said: "I am ready to buy a bouquet of rs and present them to the distinguished junior or from Oklahoma (Mr. Kerr) for bringing this matter e the Congress,"1 but that he did not agree with 5 Opinion, and he appealed for all Senators to vote st the bill. Directing a final statement on this to Kerr, he queried: “Now I should like to ask the iguished junior Senator from Oklahoma whether he would r violets or crocuses?"2 Kerr, according to the Record, Laughter when he responded: ..."let me say that inasmuch 1ave not yet seen either one tendered to me, I am in a position to decide."3 In a brief colloquy with Kefauver, who was generally :hetic to the bill, Douglas made explicit for the first :hat he would like to see the Kerr bill voted down and .ative action taken to insure price control because the Ld shirked its reSponsibility in this matter. Before .ng the floor to Kefauver later, he said he wanted to _uce a wisecrack, which according to the gggggg produced er; at best it showed that Douglas was still congenial s point. He "wisecracked" that appointing Congressmen ' Supreme Court would be the only way of having the 4 follow intent of Congress in decisions. Ibid., p. 3718. 374 Long and Douglas exchanged interpretations of a tion by a present member of the FPC used by Kerr in ks on the bill. When they neared the end of this con- , Kerr rose and suggested that Douglas should “quote not misquote him." Douglas replied that he had no in- :f misquoting him. Kerr said he would give the quota- again and then paraphrased it; Douglas, with the ' 1 in hand, followed him word for word, stopped and :ted him four times. in an obvious attenpt to seek acy to avoid having Kerr shift ground in interpolations, ’ 3 also show he was better prepared than Kerr and more ate.l Kerr then asked Douglas if he knew the difference an a "distributing company“ and a ”tranSporting" 1y. Douglas answered: “I should say that a pipe line so a distributing company.“2 To this, Kerr said: The only reason the Senator would say that is because he does not know. If the Senator is interested in any kind of an explanation of the language, the Senator from Oklahoma would be delighted to give it to him. .3, Douglas said: "I hope the Senator from Oklahoma on In time will take up that question."4 Kerr saw this lg to suggest that Douglas feared debating him by say- “The Senator asked me not to leave, and I thought he d a discussion."5 With personality attacks by these lIbid. , p. 3719. 21bid. 31b1d. 4&9. p. 3720 SIbid. l 375 'midable adversaries in the forefront, Douglas ed his position with: “I am not going to turn over the ”1 for a speech by the Senator from Oklahoma, point- . that Senator Brewster from Maine had allowed this .en to him the day before and lost the floor. Kerr ed that he didn't blame Douglas for not wanting to the same position as Brewster. To this, Douglas :d that he had occupied the same room at Bowdoin that er once had and it was left in good order. After :change, Kerr decided to move back to the role of 'gator on questions relevant to the issue.2 The most heated debate between Douglas and Kerr was begin. Kerr began the confrontation by attempting :redit Douglas' knowledge and competence on the issue. Mr. KERR. I asked the Senator if he understood the difference between sales for resale or so-called wholesale sales, and the ordinary sale of gas by a producer. Mr. DOUGLAS. I should say that a wholesale sale would be a sale in large quantities to a company which did not con- sume the product itself, but passed it on and resold.the large quantities to a number of other purdhasers. Therefore, I should say that a sale at wholesale would be a sale by a gas producer and gatherer to an interstate pipe line, in large quantities, which the pipe line then tranSports and distributes. ‘Mr. KERR. Is not the junior Senator from Illinois aware of the fact that the average producer does not sell either to a '— —-I--.- 376 pipe-line company or to a distributor or a gatherer for resale? Is he not aware of the fact that when a producer sells gas to a gatherer who comes to the wells to buy, he has no more control over whether that gas is resold, manufacturer into fertilizer, or manufactured into carbon black, than if he had had no part in it what ever?1 Douglas, not content to allow Kerr to be the aggres- tempted to shift the burden of proof with questions point. Mr. DOUGLAS. Is it not a fact that a great part of it does go for resale? Some of it is diverted for local industrial uses around Texas, but most of it is resold. Mr. KERR. Quite the contrary. Most of it is not resold. Mr. DOUGLAS. Are all the gas figures wrong, then? Mr. KERR. No: but we are often wrong when we try to read them and do not understand them, as is the junior Senator from Illinois when he refers to the sale by a producer to a gatherer as being a wholesale sale of gas. It has about the same resemblance to the whole- sale sale of gas as would the sale by a fanner of a carload of wheat, when he sells it to the miller who makes it into flour.2 At that point Kerr sharply took every advantage of ' politeness. Mr. DOUGLAS. I am somewhat at a loss-- Mr. KERR. I am aware of that fact. [laughtefi Bear in mind that the junior Senator from Oklahoma came into this debate only at what he thought was the Senator's invitation. Mr. DOUGLAS. I am always delighted to have the Senator from Oklahoma participate. I was going to say that I am somewhat at a loss to understand some of the points which the Senator has introduced. Is he maintaining that the gas which is gathered in Oklahoma and Texas l 3 id., p. 3720. l 2 9 1d 1. 377 does not go North through pipe lines for com- mercial or industrial use? If not, what happens to it? Mr. KERR. Most of the gas produced, even in the great State of Texas, is consumed in Texas. Most of the gas produced in all the gas-producing States is consumed in the States in which it is produced. Mr. DOUGLAS. The able junior Senator from Oklahoma is perfectly aware of the fact that we are not saying that intrastate sales should be federally regulated. We are merely saying that interstate sales should be ' regulated. Mr. KERR. The junior Senator from Oklahoma came into this discussion when it was apparent that the junior Senator from Illinois was confusing the language of the act which refers to sales by a producer to a local ; gatherer over which the producer has no more control than has the producer of wheat or corn over the product made and the action taken by the grist mill or the miller to whom the product is sold. Mr. DOUGLAS. I would again reply to my very able friend that we are saying only that sales for resale in interstate commerce should be federally regulated. Sales in intrastate commerce for local consumption should not be thus regulated, but sales for resale in inter- state commerce should be regulated. We submit that gas sold by producers and gatherers to pipe lines, which goes across State lines and is resold, comes under the provision of the act, and should come under its provisions. Mr. KERR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a further question? Mr. DOUGLAS. I shall be glad to yield for a quest ion. Mr. KERR. The average producer never sells either to a tranSporter, an interstate pipe line, or a distributor. 1 Mr. DOUGLAS. Does he sell to a gatherer? The emnity grew, with Douglas willing to meet Kerr ground. Mr. KERR. He sells to a gatherer, to a carbon-black plant, or a gasoline-extraction lIbid. , p. 37 20. 378 plant, having complete control over it. In that regard, the Senator from Illinois made a proposal the result of which, if he were serious, or if the junior Senator from Oklahoma were technical, would cause the junior Senator from Illinois to become a joint author of the bill. Mr. DOUGLAS. God deliver us from that: Mr. KERR. I am sure that He will, to our mutual gratification. Mr. DOUGLAS. The mutual gratification of both the good Lord and the junior Senator from Oklahoma? The Senator can include me in that. I should like to be with the Lord, and I should like to be with the junior Senator from Oklahoma, but not on this particular question. Mr. KERR. When the producer sells the gas, the purchaser may make it into liquid, which may be tranSported in trucks, boxcars, wagons, or any other vehicle. Much of it is so tranSported, and much of it in that form goes into the State of the junior Senator from Illinois. Mr. DOUGLAS. In the form of carbon black, in trucks? Mr. KERR. No: in the form of liquefied gas, transPorted in trucks or cars. Mr. DOUGLAS. That exactly brings out the point I have been trying to establish. When gas can be shipped econOmically by truck, by railroad, or by barge, so as to compete with gas shipped in pipe lines. we do not want to regulate it, because the purchaser can buy from any one of a number of possible suppliers. But when it comes in by pipe line without effective competition, we do want to regulate it, because the purchaser is tied to the seller. That is all we are trying to do, and that is what the Senator from Oklahoma is trying to prevent. Mr. KERR. Therein is the basic error on the part of the junior Senator from Illinois, because he can never accomplish what he has referred to. One hundred percent of the gas which the producer sells may be carried in trucks, barges, or boxcars-- Mr. DOUGLAS. I have a gas range in my house. If I can get gas which is shipped by truck, as cheaply as it can be tranSported through a pipe line that will be fine. But that gas range is hitched up to a gas main. Mr. KERR. If it is, it was hitched up by the junior Senator from Illinois. Mr. DOUGLAS. I did not hitch it up. The company hitched it up. 379 Mr. KERR. There are hundreds of distri- butors in Cook County, Ill., who will sell to the junior Senator from Illinois all the gas he wants in liquid form. in steel containers, which has been shipped into the State by truck, barge, or boxcar, and is available for him to purdhase at any time he wants it. According to the rules, as the speaker holding the auglas was not supposed to be asking questions but 3 to them. However he chose to interrogate in self and keep the issues in perspective. Mr. DOUGLAS. I have two questions. First, what is the relative amount of gas which is shipped by truck for household and industrial uses, as compared with gas sent through pipe lines? Second, what are the comparative prices of the two? Mr. KERR. I am glad the junior Senator from Illinois asked me the question. Mr. DOUGLAS. The junior Senator from Illinois would be glad if the junior Senator frOm Oklahoma would answer the question. Mr. KERR. He aims to. I thought I had the exact figures. Tens of millions of dollars worth of natural gas is shipped in that way. Mr. DOUGLAS. For domestic use? Mr. KERR. For domestic use. Mr. DOUGLAS. Not industrial use? Not in the form of carbon black? Mr. KERR. Not in the form of carbon black. Carbon black is the result of natural gas which has been used. Liquefied gas is gas in a different form, and may be used for either industrial or household purposes. It is avail— able, and is being shipped by thousands of car- loads all over the Nation. It is being shipped into the State which is so ably represented by the junior Senator from Illinois, and is used by tens of thousands of his constituents, and is available at any time to any of them. Mr. DOUGLAS. I inquired about shipments by railroads, as compared with shipments by pipe line, and about comparative prices. 380 . Mr. KERR. There is much more shipped by pipe line. Mr. DOUGLAS. How much more? 1r. KERR. There is much more shipped by pipe line than in the other way. After all, I am giving the junior Senator from Illinois more knowledge in a few minutes than he has in some weeks. If he will give me a list of questions he has in mind, I shall give him detailed answers. However, every cubic foot of gas can be liquefied and can be shipped in the manner which has been described by the junior Senator from Oklahoma. Mr. DOUGLAS. At what cost? Is it commer- cially practicable for the consumer to buy it in that form in competition with gas delivered through a main? Mr. KERR. Yes: it is commercially practicable to do it. Mr. DOUGLAS. Why is investment being made in the construction of pipe lines? Why is not gas shipped by truck and railroad, if that is the best way to ship it? Mr. KERR. I am glad to have that ques- tion asked. Pipe lines are built for the bene- fit of consumers. Mr. DOUGLAS. Is it merely a philanthropic venture? Mr. KERR. No: not at all: far from it. Pipe lines are built for the benefit of the consumer and not for the benefit of the pro— ducer. Mr. DOUGLAS. I thought pipe lines were built for the benefit of the consumer, and also to get a return on the capital invested in their construction. Mr. KERR. Not at all. The producers do not own them. They do not build them and they have no purpose in building them. Mr. DOUGLAS. I refer to the companies which organized them. Mr. KERR. They are built for the benefit of the consumer. However, When the junior Senator from Illinois makes the broad statement that he will become a joint author of the bill when gas can be transported by any other method, I wish to state to him that he will either have to retract the statement or become a joint author of the bill. Mr. DOUGLAS. I should have said when gas can be tranSported economically in that manner in any appreciable quantity. Mr. KERR. It is now. Mr. DOUGLAS. For urban consumption? 381 Mr. KERR. It is now. Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield for a question, but I would like to say that, first, gas which is liquefied is much more expensive than that sent by pipe lines, and, second, it is not used for domestic consumption where pipe lines are available. Therefore, it cannot compete. It is interesting that other Senators tended to t of the debate when these two adversaries were in- - in battle. Douglas obviously had shown a superiority ence, but Kerr probably felt his lack of preparation debate was explained by the fact that he had d at Douglas' request—-even though Kerr was the key of the bill. Then, Senator Robertson of Virginia directed a n to both Douglas and Kerr to explain the reason for Federal Government Control at the point of origin of ct before it is ever moved. A ten—minute period of tion by Douglas was followed by another Kerr-Douglas e. Mr. DOUGLAS. I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma. Mr. KERR. Is not the Senator from Illinois aware of the fact that section 1 (b) of the Natural Gas Act does not say that certain things shall be and certain other things shall not be regulated, but that the provision to which he refers reads as follows-— Mr. DOUGLAS. Is the Senator about to quote section 1 (b)? Mr. KERR. Yes. Mr. DOUGLAS. Which chapter? Mr. KERR. The act is not divided into chapters. It is section 1 (b) of the act. Mr. DOUGLAS. I have it. I have the United States Code, which is divided into 1113101.. pp. 3720-3721. 382 Chapters. I beg the Senator's pardon. I did not wish to score a point on the Senator. I have the provision here. Mr. KERR. I know it by heart. I will ask the Senator to follow it in the law: The provisions of this act shall apply to the tranSportation of natural gas in interstate commerce. to the sale of natural gas in interstate commerce-- Mr. DOUGLAS. There is no “natural gas“ at that point. Mr. KERR. The section continues: to the sale in interstate commerce of natural gas for resale for ultimate public consumption for commercial, industrial, and domestic purposes-— Mr. DOUGLAS. Or any other use. Mr. ROBERTSON. Did not the Senator from Oklahoma leave out a comma? (Laughter) Mr. KERR. I may have-- and to natural-gas companies engaged in such transportation or sale, but-- And I will interpolate a little here, and if it is incorrect, the Senator from Illinois will correct me. The provisions of this act—— shall not apply to any other transportation or sale...or to the local distribution of natural gas or to the facilities used for such local distribution. Mr. DOUGLAS. It says "distribution," rather than "local distribution." Mr. KERR. "Local" was by interpolation. Mr. DOUGLAS. That is all right. Mr. KERR. "Or to the production or gathering of natural gas." Mr. DOUGLAS. Period. Mr. KERR. Period. The end of section 1 (b). In other words, the provision does not set forth that certain regulations shall be had with reference to certain operations. It specifically states that the provisions of the act shall apply on the one hand to certain designated operations and on the other hand it says that the sections of the act shall not 383 even apply to the production or gathering of gas. Is that not correct? Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I find my- self 1n a very difficult position. Yesterday the Presiding Officer compelled the Senator from Maine (Mr. Brewster), or tried to compel the Senator from Maine, to take his seat because he permitted a fellow Senator to make a speech under the guise of a question. I hOpe the distinguished Presiding Officer at the present time does not compel me to take my seat, be- cause the very able junior Senator from Oklahoma made a Speech under the guise of a question. I therefore ask unanimous consent that I may be permitted to reply to this question without losing my rights to the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Lyndon B. Johnson) As the Senator is no doubt aware, he does not need such consent. Mr. DOUGLAS. No: the ruling which was made yesterday was that a Senator did need such consent. Do I understand, therefore, that the Senator from Illinois-- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Parliamentarian advises the Chair that the Senator has that privilege. Mr. DOUGLAS. I thank the Chair: I should like to ask the junior Senator from Oklahoma what conclusion he draws from section 1 (b) which he quoted with great accuracy, or with relative accuracy. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will say to the Senator from Illinois that he is prohibited from asking a question of the Senator from Oklahoma. Mr. DOUGLAS. Since I am prohibited from asking a question I will say that I cannot understand at all What the Senator from Oklahoma means by his reference to this passage of the act. Mr. KERR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question there? Mr. DOUGLAS. I am glad to yield for a question. Mr. KERR. The Senator from Illinois thinks the provisions of the act have some relevancy to this matter, does he not? Mr. DOUGLAS. Of course they do. Mr. KERR. The Senator from Illinois has been setting forth, has he not--and this is another question. if the Senator will yield-— certain conclusions based upon the language of the act? 384 Mr. DOUGLAS. The conclusion which the Senator from Illinois has been setting forth only goes as far as the unanimous opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court in the Interstate case. The United States Supreme Court in the Interstate case, in the unanimous Opinion, handed down by the United States Supreme Court in the Interstate case. The United States Supreme Court in the Interstate case, in the unanimous opinion, said that this phrase from the act-- "The provisions of this act shall apply to the transportation of natural gas in inter— state commerce, to the sale in the interstate commerce of natural gas for resale for ultimate public consumption for domestic, commercial, industrial, or any other use--" Constituted authority for the Federal Power Commission to fix the price of gas at which one producing company could sell gas to other pipe- line companies in the field. That is all I have said and it is not for me to pronounce a unanimous Opinion of the United States Supreme Court to be foolish. Robertson then indicated that neither Douglas nor d clearly answered his original question on federal at the point of origin. Douglas replied that he prefer federal control, but it was a lesser of hen compared to private price fixing. He went on to err from the Record as having said: “I will tell .nkly the purpose of the Kerr Act is to take people mm under the jurisdiction of the Federal Power Com- ., not put them under it."2 Douglas said that Kerr acerned that the Commission had jurisdiction over at present. Kerr reSponded by asking Douglas, “Don't 1 1a., pp. 3721—3722. 2 1d 3723. _00 p0 385 ~ren know“ that in the Committee my bill was changed on revision you refer to. In his reply, Douglas pointed flat in the debates of the day before Lyndon JOhnson semed to nod assent to Douglas' remarks that the pur- cf the variants of the'Kerr bill was the same. on was at this time presiding, and Douglas asked him y to nod assent (so as not break parliamentary rules) nat Douglas had said was accurate. Johnson replied "at the proper time and proper place“ he would make iews on the matter known—~“the Senator from Illinois have ample opportunity to understand, if possible, the s of the Senator from Texas.” Douglas returned the z “I may say that I do hOpe the junior Senator fnmn s will present his views and that he will be able to ess them clearly.“ A moment later, Johnson again ruled 1 'las out of order for directing a question to Kerr. At this time, after a 35-minute SpeeCh and nearly our and onedhalf of debate, Douglas said to the sur- e, no doubt, of those who thought he was between parts his speedh that he would now like to finiSh his second ech. In about four minutes he gave a brief summary and led his audience‘s attention to the FPC hearing going on ~currently in Bartlesville, Oklahoma, to determine ether the Phillips Petroleum Company was justified in .sing its price five cents per 1,000 cubic feet to the 386 -an-Wisconsin Pipe Line Company. Concluding. he said .f the Kerr bill is enacted, the Commission will not lurisdiction over sales of natural gas to pipe lines xtran8porting producers and gatherers.1 This concluding part Of his second speech was igh but redundant in the analysis of the history of the . His main appeals were directed against the inten- of the Kerr bill. Perhaps his most important accom- nent had been to draw Kerr into the debate, although as spent most of the time on the defensive when would preferred Kerr to assume that position. There is evi- - in the Record that Kerr was in the Chamber during the of Douglas' stand on the floor, but he refrained from mutation and rose only occasionally during debate and >quy for clarifying comments. The third "speech"2 began with Opening remarks aring further the original question from Robertson. In >ing, Douglas made it clear that he was not casting :sions on the members of any of the wealthy families were the beneficiaries of family fortunes controlling :al gas, but answered that the Kerr bill would primarily Eit "the Leviathans such as Standard Oil, Phillips, the 5 Company, Gulf, Sun Oil, Shell,...and the Rockefellers, dellons, the Pews, the Phillipses and Queen Wilhelmina alland.“3 He concluded that Federal Control would be lIbid” p. 3723. 2See Appendix C for text of this Speech. 3angressional Record-~Senate, op. cit., p. 3724. __ 387 ser of evils. Moving to the third speech, he told his audience “I epart slightly from the advance copies of my speech.“1 I now want to take up three rather closely related points, first the degree of concen- tration of ownership and control in the sales of gas; second, the concentration and control in the gas reserves; and third, the question Of the profits made by these companies to see whether or not they are suffering.2 Following this deductive pattern of two propositions and what appeared to be the results from the proof a two facts, he showed inherent evil in the third. proceeded to examine the degree of concentration of ip and control in production. With his evidence merely prefaced with "it is true" ed hearings as documentation in the table entered Record), he moved to the core of his analysis by ...there are 2,300 producers of natural gas in the country who sell to the interstate pipe lines--l,600 of those are in the Appalachian area. I call particularly to the attention of the Senate the fact that 3 percent of the 2,300 or 69, accounted for 70 percent of all the sales in 1947. But the most important thing to remember is that the seven Southwestern States, Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas contain nearly 90 percent of all the gas reserves in the country.3 The evidence he cited was from 1947, but he con- :y citing projected figures for 1952 “printed in the 3 and...not challenged by the proponents of the bill,“ 388 Lnalyzed twelve companies, headed by Phillips Petroleum % percent, control over 50 percent of the sales. The first twelve companies, which I have read, will sell in all, more than 50 percent of all the gas which will be trans- ported in two years out of the southwestern area and sold to pipe lines, and the 23 re- maining companies will sell a further 22 per- cent; so that the first 35 companies will sell 72 percent of the total, or l,67l,000,000,000 . cubic feet, leaving to the remaining 565 pro- ducers 654,000,000 000 cubic feet, or 28 per— cent Of the total. Mr. President, the table is interesting because the majority of the companies shown on it are either the major oil and gas companies or their affiliates. Stanolind, Humble, and Magnolia, which are No. 3, No. 6, and No. 7, respectively in the list, are affiliates of Standard Oil of Indiana, Standard Oil of New Jersey, and SoconySVaSuum, which is, of course, Standard of New York. The proponents insist, according to Douglas, that tion among these companies will keep prices and hence down. But to understand the degree that competition st among nontranSporting producers, the degree of ration in individual fields must be examined, because be economically tranSported only through pipe lines. If the audience concurred with Douglas‘ premise on ngle transportation limitation and not with Kerr on e forms of transportation for gas, the persuasion is He continued his analysis by citing more statisti- dance: lIbid., p. 3724. 21bid., p. 3725. 389 ...in Louisiana, nine fields with a combined reserve of one and one-half trillion cubic feet are 100 percent owned by the Texas CO. No company other than the Texas Co. has owner- ship in those nine fields. The pipe—line companies will have to go to the Texas Co. for natural gas in those fields , if they are to get any natural gas from those fields. In Texas, three fields with reserves of three- fourths of a billion cubic feet are owned by the Shell CO. in percentages of 71, 96, and 100 percent. The study of 80 individual fields with combined reserves of 15,500,000,000,000 cubic feet which I have just inserted shows that they are all owned in amounts varying from 50 to 100 percent by one, two, or three companies.1 From these examples, he moved to a geographic .s of production with tables to show that the two : natural gas fields in the United States, Texas Pan- and Hugoton have one-fourth of the entire reserves country and that only 10 companies, led by Phillips gum, control three—fifths of these reserves,2 “As a of fact, 33 companies hold 62% percent of all oil : acreage in the entire United States."3 Were these :ompanies making profits? The Senator entered ex- of evidence to show that in one year in 1948 the tOp vanies averaged a 24 percent profit after taxes on stock and surplus. Making a comparative analysis, I concluded: “These profits can only be called :nal in view of the 7 or 8 percent normally considered 4 ellent return." To use total dollar profits as further Ibid., p. 3727. NH Ibid. Ibid., p. 3728. Ibid., p. 3729. 390 rt of his contention of excess profits, Douglas showed :3 ranging from $186 million for the Humble-Standard 1y of New Jersey, which ranked fourth in interstate of natural gas, to a low of $73 million for Phillips, ranked first in sales of natural gas. Concluding that 5 bill would skyrocket these profits, he stated in age designed to evoke sympathy for the small operator is being exploited by the "Robber Barons”: "These are mall potatoes. It is not the kind of money made by Operators wearing overalls."1 This evidence probably reinforced a presupposition >y most of his colleagues in the audience and the 1. However, the profit figures were industry-wide ; figures and not those specifically from gas sales. )int being made, however, was probably that these Lies in control of natural gas were "well-heeled" and nicely and it was hardly necessary to give them more :tion to control their market. On the question of gas , Douglas explained in response to a question from r Holland of Florida that profit figures on gas alone ot available and that he was not trying to overstate idence. Thus, he had sought to establish the basic case said he would at the outset, using the rough fact ce and what seemed to be valid conclusions delivered 1mm. , p. 3729. 391 uage familiar to his audience and psychologically ng their sympathy and faith in his case. But he was ough yet. Next, he went on to show how under the status quo ere other symptoms of artificial means of eliminating tion by informal price agreements (in Spite of the Anti-Trust Act) and "most-favored-nation" contracts re a stipulated minimum price which all pipe-line es must pay in a given area. Moreover, he cited price figures in natural gas since 1948--"doubling . pling prices."l He also noted "escalator clauses“ racts providing for automatic increases in prices at is of l, 2, 4, or 5 years between oil companies and rtation companies. Senator Humphrey then rose to reinforce the Senator‘s :s by asking leading questions which would restate :lusions in analysis of what Douglas had presented :h would illustrate as further proof additional ans where what the speaker said was happening { was. Long then attenpted to show that Douglas had atypical period in citing price rises since 1948. One last piece of evidence was a table to show how gas prices had gone up diSprOportionately to the production, including gross and net profits. I again served as counsel for the defense in a colloquy material.2 .— lIbid., p. 3729. 21bid., p. 3733. 392 This ended Douglas' third Speech. It was relatively .ear and concise considering the voluminous statistical ridence. He interpreted the evidence effectively so that me audience should have had little difficulty in compre- ending it. It was a cogently logical speech in its evelOpment and well supported. As to the third prOposition elated to his first two, as to whether the companies >ntrolling gas reserves and sales ”were suffering,“ the newer would seem to be a resounding ”no” after the netydminute case. The hour of 6:00 P.M. which had been agreed upon >r adjournment was approaching, so debate on the issues >llowed this third Speech. Jflowever, there was what mounted to a minor debate on whether Douglas should retain 1e floor the following day to continue his Speech. In an iexpected maneuver, that was probably as much calculated a slow Douglas down and get him to shorten his Speech as : was to rescind his privilege to hold the floor, Senator EFarland of Arizona rose to challenge Douglas' right to ntain the floor, which McFarland did only after persist- t effort to get Douglas to yield as he was finiShing the lloquy with Humphrey.l McFarland advised the Chair that this was the scond day (counting the brief remarks of the day previous) mat the Senator from Illinois had Spoken on this bill. 1Ibid., p. 3734. w 393 He used an hour yesterday and has Spoken all day, going into the second day, he is Charged with filibustering. Certainly I should not want to see the Senator ffom Illinois charged with filibustering. He has today farmed out the time, and we have been rather lenient with him: we‘have permitted him to farm out time to other Senators... I shall not object, Mr. President, to the request, but tomorrow I may decide-~and I ex- pect to be on the floor-~that it is necessary to object if the regular order is not fOllowed, because I do not think it is a good precedent to allow one Senator to farm out time and con- duct the business of the Senate by occuPying the floor. I consider that a poor policy.2 The Illinois Senator was ready with refutation e Charges. First, Mr. President, let me deal with the statements made by the junior Senator from .Arizona to the effect that I have farmed out my time to a number of other Members of the Senate. I yielded as a matter of courtesy to Members of the Senate. I would have much preferred to Speak continuously and to develOp my arguments. I have tried to comport myself according to the standards of the Senate, and I have not farmed out my time... While I know that the Senator from Arizona meant nothing ill in his references, I wish to make it perfectly clear that I have not been tying up the business of the Senate. I have been attempting to let the business of the Senate proceed. That is my first point. The second point I wish to make concerns filibustering. So far as filibustering is con- earned, it is not my intention, nor is it my practice, to filibuster. We have before us an fmportant bill, and it needs to be discussed, and it needs to be discussed thoroughly--very thoroughly, indeed. I challenge any Member of the Senate to say that I have Spoken extraneously. _; ‘__‘ -_____._ __.__. —_ _' ‘— '— lIbid., p. 3734. 21bid., p. 3735. 31bid. 394 I have not given any recipes for ”pot likker" and I have not thrown anything else into my Speech: neither‘have I given any quotations from Obscure southern writers. I have tried to stick to the point. I am sure that when the peOple of the country know the facts they will not accuse me of filibustering.l After this Speech, Lyndon Johnson took the floor for ~ first time, his remarks giving some evidence that he had great liking for what Douglas had been saying or doing: I wiSh to make the Observation that it is a matter of no concern to me how*the Senator from Illinois and those Opposed to the bill con- duct themselves on this floor. I hOpe that his seniority in this body does not entitle him to determine howrthe proponents of the bill shall conduct themselves. The chairman of the full committee, a long-respected Member of this body, eXplained the bill, and while it was not ex- plained to the complete satisfaction of the junior Senator from Illinois, it was explained to the Senate. We have no desire to influence the Opinion of the Senator from Illinois, but the prOponents of the bill are prepared to say whatever they desire to say, when they desire to say it.2 After some sampling of Opinion from Long, Humphrey, . others, McFarland agreed not to object to Douglas' right the floor the next day. The next day as the session convened on March 22 1 after routine business had been set aside, Paul Douglas : on his feet presenting the fourth of his Speeches, aning with a brief review of the third Speech which was to vide continuity. _— 1Ibid., p. 3735. 2Ibid., pp. 3735-3736. 395 His theme was still that of increased prices, and 2 began by analyzing price rises by states. After present- Lg the figures from a table state by state, he concluded: It is an interesting fact that the consumers of the four West South Central States--Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Tean--would pay out very large sums to the already swollen profits of the big nontranSporting gas producers. In other words, there are consumers in Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Texas, as well as gas producers, although this fact is sometimes lost sight of. The point may, perhaps, be made that the Opponents of this bill are denying to the gas- producing States certain things to which they are entitled. It might be claimed, for example, that we are preventing those States from building up their schools, their road systems, or other necessary State services, by placing a ceiling on the earning power of their gas wells. That is not the case. I want to 'make it clear that we have no desire to hold down the tax revenues of the Southwestern States, nor are we doing so in Opposing this bill. It is perfectly all right for those States to impose severence taxes on the oil and gas and to collect some of the money from the peOple of consuming States through the sale of their natural resources. 3 followed this up by what appears to be an attempt to .scredit the Sponsors of the bill through implication. The same interests who are puShing the Kerr bill are, I feel sure, Opposing the enact- ment of severance taxes which might be levied by the States. I think it would be a fine thing if the peOple of those States could get a larger share of the return from the great2 natural resources which lie under the soil. .th a note of concern for the South, he appealed: lIbid., March 22, 1950, p. 3779. 21bid. 396 ...it is a sad story, how the financial interests of the North and East have helped to gut the natural resources of the South. Although I come from the Midwest, I want to see the South get the benefit of the natural resources which lie there. In leading up to his statement of concern for the South, the Speaker had again made personal reference to the good work of Mr. Long, this time in helping Long's Louisiana get a just return from outside financial interests. This amounted to an invitation for Long to take the floor, and he did, to amplify the amount of public capital gained from gas taxes and severance taxes in Lousiana. When Long concluded, Douglas reviewed the bills Long had voted for, such as federal aid to education, which gave Special financial help to the South, thereby creating more good will perhaps to pull supporting votes from that area toward him. This was the extent of the fourth part of his presentation. Either his time had elaSped or cloakroom pressure or strategy had caused the Presiding Officer to ask if he would yield the floor. Douglas made one final plea summarily for his colleagues to view logically the compara- tive, reasoning and evidence supporting his position, and with a psychological appeal, to be humanitarian, and seek economic equalitarianism by a vote of “no." he ended on an appeal to his audience as rational thinkers and high-minded statesmen acting in behalf of the nation. 397 I ask Members of the Senate to consider the issue, that they read the debates and the testi- ‘mony, and that, as I hOpe and I am sure will happen they will decide the issue according to what they believe to be for the best interests of the United States as a whole.-1 The other two hours of his prepared text were utered in the Record and included these topical headings: tmparison with Previous Bills: Profit Possibilities if :gulatory Power is Withdrawn: Possible Price Increases :Spite Long-Term Contracts: Fairness of FPC Rate~Making blicy: General FPC Policies on Rates: Allowance of Dryehole :illing and Exploration Costs: FPC Statement: Fairness of rudent Investment Rate Procedure: Threats of Gas Producers' :rike: Inadequacy of State Regulation: Advantages of arving the Utility Market: No Danger of Oil Industry igulation: Reported Views of the Executive; Natural Gas in >ngress: Exempting NontranSporting Producers Exempts Great 11k of Gas from Price Regulation. The fourth Speech had ended abruptly just as the .rst had begun by moving immediately to the issue in lestion. In this final Speech, Paul H. Douglas, seemed to 3 full of conviction for his subject, and had used a iriety of appeals from all three rhetorical factors of proof 1 attempting to move his colleagues to believe as he did and >te as he would on this bill. _ h -w- w—~m~——u -- ‘— —— ~— n—o -- W Ibid., p. 3780. 398 Summary - Interpretations The issues relating to the 1950 natural gas bill are complex. In his Opposition to the bill, Senator ouglas employed ethical, psychological, and logical factors f persuasion in his Speech. His ethical proof was aimed at establishing compara- ively greater competence than his Opponents by thorough nd responsible analysis of the available evidence. He ought to establish good character through integrity, incerity, fairness, and earnestness. The Speaker‘s under- tanding of the need for creating good will and establishing apport with his audience-~and even his Opponents in ebate-—was obvious throughout. His attempts at creating ood will,‘however, did not preclude being firm and aggres- ive when necessary in attacking the case of the prOponents f the bill and meeting them personally in the give-and-take f debate. The psychological proof included attention devices, lthough he frequently became so immersed in fact evidence nd historical detail that he probably lost attention and mpeded the clear perception and understanding of his earers. Motive appeals, the use of suggestion and vivid escription were employed in an attempt to stimulate and avorably diSpose his colleagues. The use of his charts and nalYSiS of the visual charts of the Opposition helped to :1arify and to make vivid his stand. 399 .More than anything else be employed logical factors of persuasion. He made extensive use of statistical fact evidence and, to a lesser degree, SXpert and credible opinion evidence from sources such as the Supreme Court and FPO, and, through supportive interpretations, applied it to his stand. The structure of reasoning was deductive and inductive. Deductively, he reasoned from main prOpositions through subprOpositions applied to Specific cases in the form of arguments against the bill. His inductive reason- ing included the use of analogy, causal relation, example, and sign. In short, Paul H. Douglas marshaled all three factors of inventional proof as available means of persuasion in Opposing S. 1498. While other speeches by Douglas might be characterized as ones primarily emphasizing ethical or psychological factors of invention, this Speech was clearly one of logical proof based on rational demonstration through argumentation . Measurable Resppnse Following Douglas‘ address, the longest Speech on ‘the bill, debate continued on March 23 and 24.1 Senator Kerr rose for a brief address in defense of the bill on March 25, followed by debate on March 27 and 28.2 Agreement b lCongressional Record-~Senate, Op, cit., pp. 3897- ___' —— _- 3899, 3910-3919, 3921, 4000-4042. 21bido. pp. 4086-4098, 4116, 4189-4223, 4228-4230. * 400 was reached for a vote on the bill on March 29 at 4:00 P.M. The efforts of the Senators from the natural gas states seemed successful when the bill was passed by a 44-38 vote: and a subsequent motion by Douglas to recommit was rejected by 45-37, as were amendments by O'Mahoney andkefauver.l The House moved rapidly on the bill, passing it three days later by a Slim 176-174 margin.2 The.Kerr'measure was vetoed by President Truman on April 15..3 The New York Times reported the text of Truman's veto message on April 16, in which Truman contended that the bill puts “curbs on the FPC which are not in the public interest."4 However, Kerr did not try to have the veto overridden, but did assail the President in a series of press releases.5 Douglas, as might be expected, released a statement on April 16 hailing the veto.6 Apart from the vote on the bill and Truman's veto, not directly attributable to Douglas' Speech7, there was _—___d—n_ ‘— _ —. lIbid., pp. 4270-4304: New York Times, April 3, 1950. p.3. New YOrk Times, April 1, 1950, p. 8. UN Ibid., April 16, 1950, p. l. .9- Ibid., p. 51. 51mg” April 16, 1950, p. 16, April 17, p. 22, April 28, p. 32. 61bid., April 16, 1950, p. 1. 7Americans for Denocratic Action urged Truman to veto (New York Times, April 3, p. 2) as did the 0.1.0. and 16 mayors 0f major cities (New York Timgg, April 6, p. 54). Speaker Sam RaYburn and other close party friends from the gas producing states, plus the gas lobbyists, were urging Truman to sign the bill into law. 401 little measurable response to Douglas‘ address and the debates and colloquies in which he engaged on March 21-22. The New York Tim reported in paraphrased form the argu- ments presented by Douglas and noted the debate with Kerr on.March 22, page three. In periodicals and newSpapers accounts of the debate on the gas issue, Douglas was recog- nized as a leader of the Opposition, but little Special attention was given to his remarks on March 21 and 22.1 The Speech serves to illustrate Douglas' Senate Speaking, but also, as in most legislative Speeches, its effect on the outcome Of impending legislation is difficult to isolate and measure. However, if causal relationships to voting behavior are not clear, the artistic merit of the speech as analyzed for its constituents of proof can be weighed and that has been the primary purpose of this chapter. 1See for example Time, Newsweek, U. 3, News and WOrld Re rt issues of March and April, 1950. PART FOUR THE VITAL SIGNS CHAPTER IX SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This study of the Senate Speaking of Paul H. Douglas, as noted in the Introduction, has been develOped within the framework of a philosophy of rhetorical criticism which assumes that oral communication is a social act and the product of all conditions and forces which are brought to bear on the Speaker. Moreover, it is a philoSOphy which holds that speech is an art reducible to principles, and the proper object of the study is to make judgments about the effectiveness of the speaker based on norms arising from rhetorical principles,derived from the theory of rhetoric and related fields from classical to modern times. It assumes, therefore, that criticism should em- phasize the ”artistic" methods of appraisal with a framework for evaluation based on rhetorical principles; not solely “results" or outcomes of a Speaker's efforts, nor by attempting to ascertain the "truth“ of the message he attered, nor by merely evaluating the gth9§_of the speaker. If ideally criticism should include consideration of all of :he elements of every Speaking situation, limitations must be imposed to emphasize certain elements for purposes of evaluation relevant to the subject and the available 403 404 materials of the study. Douglas' Senate Speaking has been viewed with enphasis on his rhetorical invention in oral messages, with related consideration given to the Speaker, his audiences, and the environment and occasions of his speaking. As a Speaker in the U. 3. Senate, Paul Douglas provided evidence for his eXpressed beliefnthat public Speaking is an important form of communication and is necessary in effecting political action. He delivered over 190 speeches from prepared manuscripts and rose to address the chair more than 6,000 times in the fifteen'year period studied. lHis Speaking has reflected his reSpect for public speaking, and understanding of rhetorical principles. From thorough investigation and analysis, the Senator held firm convictions that the tOpics on which he spoke - the legislative causes he advocated - served to provide a better world for his fellow man. They incorp- orated the liberal philosophy he has held Since his formative years, that the prOper role of government is to lower the barriers to man's personality development. The topics of the Senator's Speaking and legisla- tive efforts during his career may be grouped under nine general subject headings: (l) the preservation of indivi- dual and civil rightS--by ending discrimination in voting rights, and providing equality of Opportunity in employ- ment: (2? the improvement of social welfare for all Peopleu-by increased educational opportunities, slum clear- ance and adequate housing, urban redevelOpment. area ..._- _ _-—_. .—_;—-. -——— _r _ 3 fi _— 405 redevelOpment and reduced unemployment protection of pen- sion and welfare funds, and improved retirement benefits and health care for the aged: (3) the protection of con- sumers' interests and rights--by stable prices and interest rates, a progressive income tax and ending un- necessary excise taxes; (4) the protection of small business, labor, and the family farm--by checks against monOpoly and price fixing, labor benefits and higher minimum wage, and protection of the small farms against low prices from market flooding by corporation-Sized farms: (5) the promotion of “sound" fiscal policy-~by a balanced budget in normal times, checks against inflation, closing tax loopholes, and improved federal debt management: (6) the need for economy in government and'high ethical standards--Douglas was a “watchdog" over the economy and wanted protection against government waste in military and civilian activities, and the prevention of costly sub- sidies: (7) the improvement of practices of ”good" govern- ment and internal security--by promoting measures to insure representative government, improved election methods, internal reorganization of the Senate and Congress, and by combatting eSpionage and subversive activities While safeguarding citizens' rights: (8) the preservation of natural resources: and (9) the enforcement of a humane and firm foreign policy accompanied by low tariffs--by strong national defense against communist aggression, economic, technical, and social assistance to underprivileged peoples, efforts to insure the civil rights of captive 406 peoples, strong regional alliances and support of the United Nations, and reciprocal trade agreements. Assumptions about the nature of man and the role of government (political philosophy) are revealed in the actions of an elected representative charged with legislat- ing and Speaking for the nation's peOple. The tOpics and prepositions of Senator Douglas' Speeches and writings both express and imply the underlying value standards and basic assumptions of the man, and they have direct bearing on his rhetorical invention. The six propositions to follow attenpt to uncover and crystallize the personal philos0phy of Paul H. Douglas. Douglas held: (1) that government should serve to protect the dignity and freedom of the individual: (2) that government should promote man's moral and intellectual develOpment in priority to the acquisition of wealth: \ (3) that man is the master of his economy and through ; government can adhieve national economic goals; (4) that ‘ government should be the agent of collective national 3 wisdom, not an impersonal monster: (5) that government Should be dynamic. flexible and pragmatic in seeking and ‘ testing new methods to serve man more effectively: and (6) ; that men and governments are capable of living together in peace by negotiating differences (man is rational). These broad beliefs regarding ends of government ‘ might be claimed by "conservatives," "moderates,” or "liberals,” for these labels are relative and they shift 407 with the context of a given situation in a given period. But these assumptions are the belief and value structure of a man-~Paul Douglas--not a political label, and have been reflected by his actions for the past fifteen years. Douglas was never able to enjoy the rewards of a holding a moderate position nor engage in the practice of compromise considered necessary to a Senator and politician in order to line up necessary support for his cause. Nor did he have any great liking for the ”wheeling and dealing” of the cloakroom, but sought to bring the issue to the forefront and staked his principled stands on the facts as he saw them, in the give and take of competing oral per- suasion in the Chamber of the Senate. Time after time he backed heartfelt, high-minded, and seemingly hopeless crusades and went down to defeat when the votes were tallied. Influenced by the reform Spirit of the Progressive Movement, Douglas has remained throughout his life, both as a professor and Senator, an outspoken, constructive critic of society in his writings and actions. In the Senate, it was almost always clear to his Senate colleagues from the out- set where he stood on particular issues. In the tradition of George W. Norris, after whom he patterned his Senate career, he Spoke out plainly and uncompromisingly for his "liberal” causes. ‘His whole background, from being reared in a Deno- cratic family in a Republican society to the assaults on him as a ”Red baiter” in the 1948 campaign, had kindled his Spirit as an insurgent reformer in the Senate. His colleagues knew that 408 Douglas would vote, as he indicated, with his conscience on any given substantive issue. but as a member of his party of Northern Democrats on procedural matters. And while there is no evidenceto indicate that his integrity was ever questioned by his colleagues, some, such as Milliken and Kerr, have found fault and become distraught with his highsminded approach. In thermid-twentieth century, Paul Douglas is re— markably unique - an oddity - in the U. S. Senate. He has taken exacting stands showing little concern for the poli- tical liability involved in such actions. If his measur- able legislative successes have been relatively few over the years asxmeasured by the number of bills he Sponsored Which have been enacted into law under his name,‘he has served muCh the sane role as a strong third party in American political history, a voice of ideological protest. Douglas has been a Senate conscience of reform, and one of the forces which'has kept that body from steering a con- sistent middle course of political action in an era of conformity from which even the membership of the Senate/in reflecting the will or lack of it by constituents/cannot be immune. Douglas has served to offset the influence of his counterparts on the extreme right, the Robert Tafts, Barry Goldwaters, perhaps Strom Thurmonds. As a Speaker who believes that substance should subordinate form, and that discussion of the "issues" is good and can be digested by all members of the audience, he has not been an insurgent V 409 for that sake alone, but a constructive force as an idealist for substantive reasons as he sees: them and interprets them. Early in his career, Douglas enjoyed unusual pres- tige in the Senate because Of the unusual background Of scholarly, political, and military experiences and accom- plishments he brought to it. As a crusader for humane causes in his first term with little reverence for the Senate's unwritten rules Of seniority relating to the con- duct Of a new'man, and with his ability to practice the Quaker tenet of creating infectious good will and possessing little or no animosity, he was tolerated and even reSpected. Perhaps he was reSpected for another reason, the ends he sought for his fellow man stirred the hearts Of most Of his colleagues/for they could idealistically identify with the causes even though they could not argue that it was feasible to enact most of the measures he advocated. Moreover, he was welcomed and reSpected from the start as a special ex- pert and the ranking authority on fiscal and economic affairs needed in the Senate. Yet,from a position by one evaluation which ranked him as number one among the “most effective U.S. Senators“ in 1951, he has in the most recent rating of 1964 declined and moved tO the other end of the ratings to be listed among the top four “least effective U. 5. Senators“ by the same rating system, con- sisting of a combined Opinion survey Of his colleagues and the Washington Press corps conducted by Pageant 410 Magazine. NO definition has been given in either rating for the term “effective.“ If effective is equated with the number Of bills introduced and passed or by some "batting average" determined by the number Of times such bills have been introduced and failed, Douglas is one Of the "least effective.“ Likewise, if “effective" is defined with relation to the number Of key committee positions held according tO eligibility by seniority, Douglas does not stack up well in their “results” measure either: and the reasons he does not are Obvious. He has chosen tOO Often to be a maverick to bolt and stand apart from the party line, even align himself with the Opposition as he did frequently with the Eisenhower Administration in stands on several issues he thought were right. As an independent divorced from a moderate doctrine, he has not been able to maximize vote support from divergent elements in the Senate, and he is not perceived as a man to have championing a bill: conse- quently,his colleagues do not now turn to him as much for this role. No doubt with the passage Of years and his militant minority stand, he has, even though highly res- pected as a man and colleague, become suSpect so that even on bills in which he stands with a majority, he has con- ditioned his colleagues to become reluctant to call upon him as a leader. At the same time he has made several adjustments in his stands to meet shifts in economic, social, political, national, and world conditions, but his positions remain extreme as compared to those Of most Of his ..._..- 11‘- 411 colleagues. His leaderShip has been sought more in recent years as an expert on economic and fiscal matters than as a prestige source to lead legislation. He is in constant demand as an eXpert source in testimony before committees. He is also consulted as a source by fellow“members from all parts Of the nation as a well-informed national-interest Senator who,when the nation and Illinois come into con- flict, puts the nation above the voters he is dependent upon for re-election in Illinois. Paul Douglas has also made a necessary adjustment to the Senate environment and although sometimes frus- trated'by its rules--which he has tried to Change-éhe'has learned tO work within it. He also seeks to use with maximum effectiveness, the message channels available in the Senator's world of communication. If his prestige as a legislator has declined, the relation Of his speaking to this decline in a perceived leadership role among his colleagues defies measurement. The Thompkins and Linkugel survey, however, of 1959 indicated that Douglas' colleagues ranked him among the tOp Speakers in the Senate. As a legislator who Speaks most frequently with a persuasive end in sight, Douglas has had the Opportunity to Speak to an audience which has consisted Of more Democrats than Republicans. Although there is a Sharp division'between the northern and southern wings Of the Democratic Senate delegation on such matters as civil rights and state‘s rights, this audience makeup should 412 ‘have provided a favorable reception to Douglas on many matters. The alignment between the northern liberals from both parties on civil rights and other policies when the Democratic ranks were split was also helpful. In seeking the support Of this audience, Douglas has *blended ethical,psychological, and logical proofs in his Speeches. As a man highly respected for qualities of per- sonal integrity, knowledge, and expert analysis Of his Subjects, although an extreme liberal out Of the mainstream Of Senate thinking, Douglas chose to incorporate strong ethical proofs in the introduction Of his speeches to strengthen his credibility. Psychological proofs were generally evident throughout his Speeches, but most notably in the conclusions where he sought to reach a climax in evcking his desired response. Logical proofs were eSpecial- ly packed into the body of Speeches and were drawn from historical precedent, personal Observations and eXperienceS, and particularly voluminous fact and credible Opinion evidence from Official documents, government Officials/and experts On the topics under consideration. In providing ethical proof, Douglas frequently began his speeches by calling attention to the thorough research undertaken on the topic under consideration either through the use Of suggestion or by direct statements. This method coupled with eXplicit evidence of his effort by the very nature Of the SOOpe and depth of the substance Of the material he went on to present, helped him tO be E; 413 perceived as a.man Of competence. His intelligence, know- ledge, scholarly reputation, and the evidence Of prepared- ness from previous speaking added to his reputation Of competency. When Douglas spake, even in debate and colloquy, the audience prepared itself for a “mindpfilling” session. He gave the impression Of one who has mastered all the basic facts and is sure‘he is right. The reputation Of this man for good character and good will has overshadowed that Of most Of his colleagues during'his fifteen years Of Senate service. This has been an immeasurable asset to him as a man who has been a frequent Spokesman for minority causes. He has develOped a reputation on and Off the Senate floor as a man Of in- tegrity, who is friendly, likable, warm, earnest and sincere. Although he has never been in the ”inner circle" because Of his maverick stands, he is well liked by most Of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. In his speeches he seeks to establish good will by very personal reference to his colleagues in glowing superlatives that go beyond those Of the norms Of Senate decorum. The first portion Of many Speeches consists Of a paragraph stressing the good character Of one or more Of his colleagues stand» ing with him or against him on an issue. There are times when it would appear he could kill Off support with too much kindness. A man possessing a fine sense of intellectual wit, he interSperses it well throughout a Speech. He is generous in the give—andntake Of debate, never taking un- fair advantage because he adheres tO a strict code Of '_'F IFw—F-—-'rfl1— 414 ethics which carries over to debating issues, not personal- ities. ‘He has been known on frequent occasions tO suggest to colleagues indulging in personal attack that such tactics are not in keeping with accepted American standards of fair debating. .His.belief in the importance Ofpre— serving the dignity and worth Of the individual can be seen in his speaking. His use of psychological proof includes extensive use Of figurative language, eSpecially in the form of analogies. He enjoys using vivid narration and description. Hortatorical appeals frequently dominate the conclusion Of his Speeches in an attempt to create desire by challenges tO patriotism and altruism. Attempting to employ his con- cept Of simple style, he employs familiar terms and also' multisensory words, even slang, and colloquialisms. In Sharp contrast to cogent reasoning and quantity Of evidence, Douglas will Often make a sharp change Of pace in a Speech tO arrest attention, then return intensely to the serious point he is making. Although he uses primarily a direct approach in develOping his arguments, it is obvious he is aware Of the value Of indirect suggestion as he includes it as part of the conclusion Of argument. The use Of negative suggestion is not a part Of his rhetorical methods, but positive suggestion is and in keeping with his positive approach to problems. Rhetorical questions are another means bywhicm he seeks attention and audience . involvement in attempts to lead his hearers to conclusions 415 consistent with his own. In short, Senate Speaker Douglas adapts most Of the available materials Of psychological proof into his speeches, the amount and kind is largely determined by the audience's attitude toward his tOpics. There arises considerable doubt as to the "instantaneous intelligibility“ and accurate perception possible by his audience, because Of his tendency to over- burden them with complex evidence. Even considering that his Senate audiences were a critical audience Of potential speakers on the same tOpics and supposedly informed, there is no reason tO believe that most Of then had the necessary economic background to graSp the theoretical principles upon which many Of Douglas' assumptions and contentions were based. It is evident that Douglas was aware there did not exist any consistent frame Of reference by many of his colleagues equal tO his own, for he carefully parti- tioned his Speeches, using initial summaries and internal summaries, and tried to key the audience for what was to come and conclude in fairly simple terms the results of his evidence. However, Often his arrangement called attention to itself because he belabored it for clarity. Even though'he practiced his belief that plain language and simple sentences make it possible for all listeners to understand "good stuff,"as he put it, on basic issues, it .is doubtful whether the majority Of his listeners compre- hended his analysis Of evidence but rather only the con- clusions drawn from it. The listeners‘ faith in the 416 credibility of Douglas to analyze the material with.compe- tence was a critical factor in determining his ability to create belief for his prOpositions. The frequent use Of restatement, examples, illustrations, and visual aids helped to compensate for the inherent complexity of most Of his topics because they dealt with economic and fiscal matters. The thorough research and remarkable storehouse Of knowledge Of this well-read intellectual with an excellent memory set him above other Speakers in the Senate Of his time, Douglas provided his audience with a weighty develOp- ment Of content in almost every Speech during the fifteen years. As an advocate, Douglas always took full reSpon- sibility for the burden Of proof on new prOposals he advocated and did not attempt tO shift ground. He was careful to define terms, but frequently used prejudiced language in so doing, i.e., the Speech against the Kerr gas bill. He relied mainly on definitions by example, SXplanation, and common usage. However,on occasion,he employed comparison and contrast and authority from government eXperts or documents for definition. The over-all structure Of reasoning in his Speeches was most frequently deductive, employing an ex- tended syllogism. Internally, he used the four available types Of inductive argument: from Sign, causal relation, example, and analogy to develOp his contentions. Sign reasoning was employed less frequently than the others, 417 while the connections between cause and effects was usually unbroken, free Of intervening causes, and the effect desig- nated was usually attributed as being produced by the cause. He was seemingly careful in reasoning from example to select those apparent and representative from an adequate sampling, but he did not always account for negative instances. The literal analogy was a Special favorite Of Douglas, and.he was careful in most instances to select essentially comparable cases and account for differences. His breadth Of literary knowledge Often caused him to overwork figurative analogies for illustrative and attention purposes in order to add variety and Spice to heavily burdened statistical factual development . The two common fallacies Of his reasoning were a tendency to overstate his evidence by an unreasonable ex- tension Of his argument from "some" to ”all" Situations when not warranted, and to force into arbitrary categories ideas that were somewhere between. He enjoyed applying reductio ag_absurdgm methods to opponents' cases in a spirit of friendly competition and had some repair available in almost all cases to follow up a direct refutation approach by having the ability to think quickly, critically, and develOp cogent lines of reasoning. In Speeches outside the Senate, as corroborated by Brandes' findings, Douglas was Often careless about documenting his evidence, but on the Senate floor he care- fully qualified most of his sources and dated them. Per- haps as a former debater and one who had to defend his 418 position frequently, he had become highly conscious Of the need to test thoroughly his evidence and reasoning. The greatest problem Douglas encountered was in selecting situations from which to reason and sources familiar tO his audience. Because of this, he found it necessary to employ exposition as argument in most Of his Speeches. In terms Of preparation, each prepared address went through a thorough period of research, followed by a period Of gestation in which several revisions were made whenever time permitted. The combined effort of Douglas and his key staff members resulted in a product which essentially included the original intent and ideas Of the Speaker. When he rose to Speak, apart from his Yankee twang and a tendency to overwork the chOpping right hand gesture, critics have found little of an Objectionable nature in Douglas' speaking. His voice is clear and resonant, but sometimes strains to a point Of harShness when he seeks by volume to stress a point. The deliberate rate Of his Speaking with adequate variety in pitch and force, made his messages easily audible in the Senate chamber. His audiences have viewed an imposing figure Of 6'4" whose posture tends to detract from his stature because he stands stOOped oveerost Of the time. 'His “rumpled suit“ appearance and unkempt dress have not 419 positively enforced his ethos, except for those who accept this as the intellectual image. In impromptu Speeches, which he enjoys the most, he has a tendency to be over- animated and roams up and down the aisle of the Senate. In reading from prepared texts, he vocally interprets the material well and maintains good eye contact. At times he tends to Speak at a high emotional pitch and appears to "rant" for brief periods. The visible and audible aSpects Of his delivery are on the whole quite good and allowvhim to communicate effectively in the Senate Chamber. This study Of Paul Douglas' Senate Speaking has necessarily given consideration to the environment Of his Speaking. Therefore some conclusions about Speech in the Senate and recommendations tO imprOve its role and function as a vehicle for legislation action naturally grow out Of this study. These conclusions and recommendations seem apprOpriate here prior to summarily appraising the Senate Speaking of Douglas, the major subject Of the study, and rawing it to a close. Three general conclusions about Speaking in the enate stand out: (1) Speech in the U. S. Senate today is O less necessary to legislative action than in times past: owever, the prestige of the Senate as an important organ f national government may have declined and as a natural esult minimized the importance Of the Speaking Of its embers. (2) There is evidence that the role and function f Speech in committee work and related legislative 420 activities and duties Of Senators has increased prOportion- ately to speaking in floor business due to the increased amount Of legislation under consideration and increases in the SOOpe Of members' duties. (3) Speaking in the Senate' reflects the same changes as speech outside of it in con- temporary Hmerica: Speeches are Shorter in length, less embellished and simpler in style, delivered in a conver- sational manner in contrast with the more formal oratorical tendencies of the past, and more exPOSitory in tone,as contrasted with the more fervent persuasive efforts Of bygone years due to the increasing complexity Of issues and Opinion structure and the absence of readily discern- ible clear-cut positions from which firm and vigorous stands can be taken. If Speech in the Senate is no less necessary today than in times past, it could,however, serve a more important role and function in the legislative proceedings than it does presently by some changes in the rules,proce- dures,and attitudes affecting it. First, by revisions in the Senate rules to encourage remarks to be more germane and thus focus on the issues related to legislation under consideration. Second, by rule changes providing for a more orderly procedure and exact scheduling of times for debate on legislation to allow Senators to reserve time in their schedule to plan better and prepare more thoroughly for participation in floor proceedings. Third, Speech in the Senate could be significantly improved by rule changes 421 encouraging members to be on the floor more frequently and for longer periods each day that the Senate is in Session. Fourth, increased staff assistance to Senators in handling constituent and other necessary duties would allow members more time for participation in floor activities and con- sideration Of legislation. Five, speech in the Senate could be improved by an enlightened organization Of com- mittees and committee rules to encourage more extensive and intensive consideration Of legislation on the floor Of the Senate rather than outside Of it. Six, a revision Of the cumbersome route which a bill may take before it reaches the floor for debate would allow consideration of more issues by all menbers. Seven, by better partisan and non—partisan organization through more frequent con- ferences Of menbers in party, regional and other interest groups to plan strategy on legislation and select prin- cipal Speakers on impending legislation, issues could be more readily focused upon and debate encouraged. Eight, the lessening Of restrictions placed on the participation of nSW“members through unwritten rules Of seniority would encourage them to speak out and be.more active in the proceedings, as would better orientation procedures to ’ prepare them to take an active role earlier in their career. Nine, Speaking in the Senate could also be improved by rotating important committee and other posi- tions to eliminate members from one-party states insured Of re-election term after term from dominating powerful 422 positions through seniority and, because Of their power, discouraging voices of Opposition to them on the floor of the Senate. Ten, the image Of the Senate as a forum for reSponsible and effective public address could be improved by a concerted effort by the memberShip as a whole to use their rhetOrical and dialectical abilities more Skillfully in preparing and presenting Speeches in the Senate, and at the same time encourage agents of the mass media to provide more enlightened and extensive coverage Of Senate activities. Eleven, Speech in the Senate would be more influential in the nation if its memberShip as a whole would exert more influence in exercising the Senate's potential and legal power as the upper house in exerting itself more firmly to ~ the President and agencies of the Executive branch of government and the Supreme Court. Lastly, Speech in the Senate could be improved by revising the rules governing the recording Of Official proceedings to eliminate the in- clusion Of extraneous materials in the Congressional Record, to provide an accurate and complete verbatim transcript Of proceedings, and to cOpyright thquggggg in order to pro- tect members from being excessively quoted and misquoted. If the foregoing recommendations could be imple- mented in the U. S. Senate, more Open discussion and debate on the issues might be encouraged. Moreover, such Changes could.help the Senate to come closer to resembling a model for denocracy, freedom of Speech, and debating, and become the supreme educational forum many peOple expect it to be. 423 As a Senate speaker, Paul H. Douglas has made an effective adjustment to the limitations and Opportunities for speaking in that environment. Since 1949 he has used the medium Of public Speaking tO present a variety Of ideas in a wide SCOpe Of interests. The most persistent tOpics in his Senate Speeches have been those dealing with means to improve the conditions and Opportunities for man tO develOp himself socially, economically, intellectually, and spiritually--humane causes. AS a Speaker, he‘has been effective as measured by his understanding and appreciation Of the oral communication process and his ability to apply sound rhetorical principles as a practitioner Of public address. In Speaking to the immediate audience Of Senators and to the peOple outside the Senate Chamber through the Congressional Record and the agents Of theemass media, he has attempted to adjust his meaning tO both audiences without sacrificing personal principles on tOpics for which he had conviction and was competently prepared to Speak. Heaemploys well all three factors Of rhetorical invention, with rational demonstration through argument his forte, An ethical and reSponsible speaker, his Speeches possess breadth Of knowledge, careful reasoning, and argumentative skill, the most essential qualities Of an effective legis— lative Speaker. Serving in a body where the potential privilege and Opportunity exist for a Speaker to eXpress his Opinions Openly, Douglas has been an outSpoken insur- gent in the U. S. Senate, and has played a significant 424 role in influencing legislative action, public Opinion, and American history since 1949. If the causes on which Paul Douglas has focused his Speaking efforts have diminished in scope in recent years, the intensity Of his efforts for causes remaining has increased. The burst of enthusiasm for his new job which marked the entrance Of this man into the Senate over fifteen years ago has decreased slightly, if any. “He seems to enjoy his independent role and the Opportunity to be a leading Spokesman to a gallery that includes all Of America. The Senate Chamber to Douglas is not an ennobling shrine tO its past public address, but rather a living forum for important Speaking Of the present and future. Senator Paul H. Douglas of sound mind and physical condition is a man who has lived an extremely active.1ife. Elected tO the U. S. Senate later in life than most Of its members, he will be seventy-four years Old when his present erm SXpires in 1966. Men Older than he have sought re- ection and been returned to Capitol Hill. Unless a esire to live a less active life away from the pressures nd frustrations of a Senator's work subordinates the call for continued public service, there is no reason tO aelieve that Senator Douglas will not seek another term and continue to serve as an insurgent Senate Spokesman for 'mmane (2311868. B IBL IOG RAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Abell, Aaron. A.Historyyof the United StateSLVOI. II. New York: Charles Schribner and Sons, 1951. Adamic, Louis. D amigg, Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1960 E;93%,, Allen, Devere (Ed.). Adventurous Americans, New York: Farrar & Rinehart. Allen, Frederick Lewis. Only Yesterday. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1931, Bantam Books, 1959. :i;__. .. Since Yesterday, New York: Bantam Books, 1939, 1940. Auer, J. Jeffery. An Igtroduction to Research infiSpeeChL New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959. Bailey, Stephen K. Congress Makes a LawI New York: Columbia University Press, 1950. Baird. A. Craig. American Public Address, 1740-1952, New York: McGraweHill Book Company, 1956. Berlo, David K. The Process of Communication, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960. Billington, Ray Allen. American History After 1865. Paterson, N.J.: Littlefield, Adams & CO., 1963. Bining, Arthur C. A Histggy of the United States. Vol, III New York: Charles Schribner and Sons, 1951. Brigance, William Norwood- (ed.), A Histogy and Criticism_ Of American Public Address, Vols. I and II. New YOrk: Russell and Russell, 1960. Bryce, James. Modern Democracies. Vol. I. New York: Macmillan Company, 1924. Burdette, Franklin L. Filibusterin in the Senate. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1940. 426 427 Burnham, James. Congress and the American TraditionI Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1959. Burns, James MacGregor. The Deadlock of Democracy, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: PrenticeéHall, 1963. Burns, James MacGregor and Peltason, Jack Walter. Govern- ment by the People,I Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: PrenticeAHall, 1954. Clapp, Charles L. The Congressmanizgég Work a§.He Sees It. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1963. Clark, Joseph 5. Congress: The Sapless Brancht New York: Harper and Row, 1964. . The_Senatg_Establishment, New York: Hill and Wang, 1963. Doan, Edward N. The LaFollettes_ and the Wisconsin Idea, New York: Rinehart, 1947. Douglas, Paul H. (ed.), Adam Smith. l7Z§-l9g§, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1928. . “American Apprenticeship and Industrial Education," Studies in HistorXLEcgnomicg and Public Law, New York: Columbia University Press, 1921:~ . The Coming of a New Pam y. New York: Whittlesey House, McGrawbHill Book Company, 1932. . Controlling Depressions. New York: W. w. Norton and Company, 1935. . Economy in National Government, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952. _l . Ethics in Government, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1952. __. . The M vement of None and Real Earnin s in the United States 1926-1928. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930. __ . The Problems of Unemployment, New York: Macmillan Company, 1931. _i . Real Wages in the United States 1890-1926. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1930. —_ . Eggig;_8ecurityyin;the United States, New YOrk. __London: Whittlesey House, McGrawaHill, 1936. 428 Douglas, Paul H. (ed. ). Standards of _Unm mployment Igsu urance, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1933. , and Gregg, Lewis H. Studies in Consumer Expendi- ture, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1947. . Theory of Wages, New York: Macmillan Company, 1934. . Wages and_ the _Family, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1925. , Hitchcock, Curtice, and Atkins, Willard E. The Worker in Modern Economic Society, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1923. . What Can a Man_Afford? With Dorothy Douglas and Carl S. Joslyn, two essays. American Economic Association, 1921. Dow, Clyde W. (ed. ). An Introduction to Graduate Study in Spe eech and Theatre, East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1961. Drury, Allen. Advise and Consent, Garden City, N. J.: Doubleday, 1959. Foster, William Trufant. Arggmentation and Debating, New York: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1908. Freedman, Leonard and Colter, Cornelius P. (eds.). Issues of the Sixties, Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1961. Freeley, Austin J. Mg umentation and Debate, San Francisco: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1961. Goldman, Eric F. Rendezvous with Destiny, Revised edition, New York: Vintage Books, 1952, 1956. . The Crucial Decade and After: America, 1945-1960, Revised edition, New York: Vintage Books, 1960. Gross, Bertram M. The ngislative Struggle, New'York: McGraWbHill Book Company, 1953. Hance, Kenneth G., Ralph, David C., and Wiksell, Milton J. Principles of Speaking, Belmont, Calif. 3 Wadsworth PubliShing Company, 1962. Hesseltine, William B. The Rise and Fall of Third Parties-- From Anti-Masonry to Wallace, Washington, D. C. : Gloucester, Mass. : Peter Smith, 1957 [194 4.—.-- .1 429 Hesseltine, William B. Third-Party_Movements in the U,S., Princeton, N. J.: Van Nostrand, 1962. Haynes, George H. The Senate of the United Statgg, New York: Russell and Russell, 1960. Hodhmuth, MarieK . (ed. ). A History and Criticism of American Public Address, Vol. III, New York: Longmans, Green and Company, 1955. Hofstadter, Richard. The Age of Reform, New York: Vintage- Random House, 1955. Key, V.O., Jr. Public Opinion and American Democragy, New YOrk: Alfred A. Knopf, 1961. . Politics, Parties and Pressure Group_, 4th ed., New York: Thomas Y. fCrowell Company, 1958. Kennedy, John F. Profiles in Courage, New York: Pocket Books, Inc., 1957. Laidler, Harry W. and Thomas, Norman (eds.). The Socialism of Our Time, (Paul Douglas, “Lesson from the Last Decade, pp. 29-58) New YOrk: The Vanguard Press, League for Industrial Democracy, 1929. Leiter, Robert D. Labor Problems and Egade Unionism, New YOrk: Barnes and Noble, 1952. Lubell, Samuel. The Future of American Politics, Revised edition, New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1956. MadKay, Kenneth C. The Progressive Movement of 1924. New York: Columbia University Press, 1948. Matthews, Donald R. 2.5- Senators and Their world, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1960. McBurney, James H. and Hance, Kenneth G. Discussion in Human Affaigg, New York: Harper and Brothers, I§93§ , 1950. McBurney, James N., O'Neill, James M., and Mills, Glen D. Aggumpntation and Debate, N.Y.: Macmillan Co., 1951. McBurney, James H. and Wrage, Ernest J. The Art of_ Good Sp_ech, New York: Prentice-Ha11,1953. Minnick, Wayne C. The Art of Persuasion; Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1957. Mitchell, Broadus. Depression Dgggde (1929-412. New York: Rinehart, 1947. 430 Montague, Basil (ed.). The Works of Francis BaconI Vol. II, New ed., London, 1825. National Cyclgpedia of American Biggraphy. New York, 1949. Nidhols, Marie Hochmuth. Rhetoric and Criticism. Baton ' Route: Louisiana State University Press, 1963. Nye, Russell B. Midwestern Progressive Politiqg, East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1951. Ostrander, Gilman M. A Profile History of the United States. New York: McGrawéHill Book Company, 1964. _Parrish, Wayland M. and Hochmuth, Marie. Ameriggn Speeches. New York: Longmans, Green and Company, 1954. Peel, Roy V. and Donnelly, Thomas C. The 1932 Campaigg: An Agalysis, New York: Farrar & Rinehart, 1935. Ranney, Austin, Kendall, Willmore, and Latham, Earl. Democracy and the American Party System, New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1956. Reid, Loren (ed. ). American Public Address: Studies in Honor of Albert_ Craig Baird, Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1961. . First Priqgiples of Public Speaking, Columbia, Missouri: Artcraft Press, 1960. Rothe, Anna (ed.). Current Biography Yearbook, 1949. Salter, J. T. (ed.). Public Men In and 033-: of Office, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1946. Samuelson, Paul A. Economics: An Introducto ogy Analysis, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1955. Schnapper, M.B. The Truman Prggram, Washington, D.C.: Public Affairs Press, 1949. Shannon, David A. The Great Depression, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1960. Spanier, John W. American Foreigg Poligy Since World War. II, New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1960. Thonssen, Lester and Baird, A. Craig. £22222.E£32_C13mo New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1948. Truman, Harry S. Memoirs: Years of Trial and nge, New York: Doubleday and Company, 1956. 431 Vinacke, Harold M. Far Eastern Politics in the Postwar Period New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1956. WeI the PeOples The Story“ of the United States Ca api itol, Washington, D. C.: United States Capitol Historical Society, 1964. Welldon, J. E. C. The _Rhetoric of Aristotle, London, New York: Macmillan Company, 1886. White, Theodore H. The Making_ of the President 1960 New Atheneum House (Cardinal Edition) 1961. White, William S Citadel: The Story of_ the U. S__Seflagg, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1956, 1957. Wrage, Ernest and Baskerville, Barnet. Cont__porary Forum: American Speeches“ on _Twentieth Century Issues, New YOrk: Harper and Brothers, 1962. Karmic d1 <3 sleiagéfisicfll es Alsop, Joseph and Stewart. "The Washington CorreSpondent,” EnCQPnter, XII (January 1959), pp. 54- 63. "Author and the Crocodile," Time, april 5, 1954, n 19 Badiner, Robert. "'New Look' in Illinois,”l_‘1_a£;_q_r3. April 30, 1949, pp. 491-93. Bajdikian, Ben H. “Safari into Washington's Netherworlc, Newle r5..iP..i.m_§§_..gMa ages. January 19. 1964. p. "’1. . "Bleed, but Bleed Inwardlyfl'Nea- 'c.rk ynng Aug. 9, 1964, p. 10. ’ \U ' n I u(' l "“1" -.-'~‘L‘e‘ Baker, Russell. ”Has the Senate Gone Gray Flannel?“ New Xgrk Times gagggigg, July 19, 1959, p.11. "Barrier to Civil Rights,“ America,August 19, 1956. p. 454. Beard, Charles A. "In Defense of Congress," Ameri_an Mercury, November. 1942, pp. 529-35. . “The Presidential Appointments," Nation, July 22, 1931, 82-84. 432 ”Biography of Paul H. Douglas," Egrrent Biggraphy, April, 1949. PP. 166-168. Boase, Paul A. ”Background Reading in American Public Address," Speech Teacher, January, 1958, pp. 61-64. Boyd, E. "Too Many Lawyers in Washington," American Magazin§,CLIII(March,1952), 24-5+. Braden, Waldo W. "The Senate Debate on the League of Nations, l9lB-l920--An Overview,“ Southern Speech Journal, XXV (Fall, 1959), 273-281. Broder, David 8. “Great Speeches Aren't Necessarily Good Politics," New Xgrk Times Magazigg, March 29, 1964, pp. 7, 22, 24-5. "What Makes a Great Senator?" New Ybrk Times Magazine, June, 1964, pp. 15, 80-81. Brown, Edgar. “Senator Paul Douglas-~His Career and Ideals," Chicago Herald-American, November 10, 1948, p. 4. Burns, James McGregor. "Goldwater Challenges the'4-Party System,*” New York Times Magazine, June 28, 1964, pp. 7, 56-7T_62. "Bushwackers Work on Douglas," 53w Republic, Cain, Earl. “Is Senate Debate Significant?" Today's §p§ech, III (April 1955), 10-12, 26-7. . "Obstacles to Early Congressional Reporting," Southern Speech Journal, XXVII (Spring, 1962). 239-47. . "Why Analyze Congressional Debate?" 35A Speaker, XXXVJI(May, 1955), 11-14, 24. Too, Has Conflicts of Interests, Case, Clifford. “Congresst 12 13 - l New York Times Magazing, May 19. 1953. pp. 49. Chica o's American, July 1962 - June 1963. "Chicago City Council, 1959-1963," Chicago's Sunday AmericanI April 7, 1963, p. 39. "The Case for Danocratic Liberalism,“ Cla J h S. "’ rk: osep July 11, 1964, pp, 14-17, 40. Saturday Revieg, Cleveland, Charles B. "Douglas vs. Meek," Chicago Daily_ News, April 15, 1954, p. 3. 433 "Congress to Hold Inquiry on Steel, More Prices Rise," New York Times, April 16, 1963, no. 1. 45. "Connecting Men and Jobs," Survey, December 1 1930 253-6. ' ' ”Corn and the Colonel,” New Republic, November 15. 1948. P- 7. Croft, Albert J. "The Function of Rhetorical Criticism " Qggrterlnygugggl of SpeecQLXLII (October, 1956, 233. "Cross Section Studies in the Cobb-Douglas Function,” Journal of_gglitics and Economy,XXXXVII (Decembel,1939)o 761-85. "Democrats at Twilight,” Newsweek, October 18, 1948, pp. 36-38. "Democrats View," Commonwegl, August 17. 1956. PP. 486-89. Derieux, I. C. “Big Grab at Washington," Colliers, February 11, 195Qpp.20-1+. "Douglas: His Policy,” New Republic, June 28, 1948, pp. 20- 21. 1 “Douglas vs. Truman," Time, July 30, 1951, p. 1.. Douglas, Mrs. Emily (Mrs. Paul). "Biographical Note," Publishers Weegix, April 24, 1948, p. 1922. Douglas, Paul H. "Absenteeism?n Labor." Political Science anrterly,XXXIV (December 1919), 59 - . . "A Catholic Can Become President,” Coronet, VL (March 1959), 104-111. . "American Labor Relations Acts.” American EQQBQE‘LCJEYQy, XXVII (December 19375, 735-61. . "Amount and Nature of the Allowances Under a Family Allowance System,” Journal of Politics and Economy, XXX (February 19257,— 45-59. H o ation of Haiti ” Pelgticfl . American ccup o 7T7727§33zt XXXXII Science anrterly,.XXXXII (June, 192 (September 1927 , 508-96. ”Amemica Plans for Unemployment Insurance," 484-86. Survey, February 1. 1931. PP- 434 Douglas, Pail E. ”Are There Laws of Production?“ biblioa por ra t, American Economic Review xxxv ' ~‘.' 1938)’ 35-41. _ ..— 9 III (Maren. . ”Are We Headed Toward Collectivism7' New York Times Magazine, December 18, 1949, p. 7+. . "A Senator's Vote: A Searching of the Soul," figw.§ork Times Magazine, April 30, 1950, pp. 9, 38, . 2. . “Bad and the Good in U. 3.,“ Foreigp Affairs, xxx: (July, 1955), 535-45. *— . . "Basis of Unemployment Insurance,” Christian Sfiflfiwflflh December 19, 1934, pp, 1618-20. . "Best Advice I Ever Had,” Reader‘s Digest, June, 1954, pp. 31-32. . “Chicago's Financial Muddle," New Republic, February 13, 1930, pp. 324-6. . "Cobb-Douglas Function and Trade Union Policy," American Economic Rgview, XXIX (December, L339), . "Compulsion vs. Idealso" E2!_§22221$SJ July 11 191%, p. 229. . “Computation of Labor Turnover," American Economic Review, x (MarCh 1920), 106-8. _______,. “Conventions and the Papular Will," New Republic, March 28, 1935, pp. 11-15. . ”Definition of Conditions of Labor," Qparterly 13.911.13.941 of Economics. XXXIII