EXTENSION OF REMARKS

OF

HON. HARRY S. TRUMAN

OF MISSOURI

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

Friday, January 21 (legislative day of Wednesday, January 5), 1938

---------- 

ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION WITH HON. THEODORE F. GREEN, OF RHODE ISLAND

Senator Green. Now that we are at last talking seriously, doesn’t it seem to you, somehow, during all this Christmas celebration as though we heard again the "Multitude of the Heavenly Host, praising God, and saying, ‘Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to men of good will.’" Like the shepherds, we shall soon be celebrating in spirit the birth in the city of David of the founder of Christianity. Though we Christians have the most direct reason for this celebration, there are among our neighbors many whose religious beliefs and practices are as dear to them as ours are to us. They, too, may well join us in the celebration, because their freedom to worship God differently is based on Christ’s teachings. We must not forget that we have no certainty at all of being free to practice our own religion unless we see to it that they are safe to practice theirs, or to practice none at all if that is their wish. Their freedom is our guaranty of freedom.

Miss Farmer . Yes; the Prince of Peace was also a Jewish worker of Galilee. There can be no peace on earth without tolerance and respect for those with whom we disagree. I think those of us who are Christians have a right to call ourselves such just as long as we refrain from stirring up discord and strife. That’s good Rhode Island doctrine, isn’t it, Senator Green?

Senator Green. Miss Farmer, that is a happy illustration. For that is what Roger Williams put in his book Soul Liberty, and put into practice in the early days of the town of Providence. It has since become the law of the land incorporated into the Constitution of these United States and of every State in the Union.

Mr. Meredith. Like all great principles which have widened man’s horizon, it did not remain confined to the place of its nativity.

Senator Green. But we are apt to forget the sufferings he and others like him bore, before their ideas were accepted. At the outset, those who disagreed with Roger Williams and his companions, tried to suppress, and when unsuccessful expelled as dangerous fellows, Roger Williams and his companions, just as today some of those who are loudest in their praise of Americanism and democracy persecute and attempt to expel people with whom they do not agree. Such over-zealous people sometimes call themselves "vigilantes," but whatever else they may be vigilant about, I am certain they are not vigilant about preserving liberty.

Mr. Meredith. He was a great fellow, that Roger Williams, wasn’t he? I learned about him from my first school teacher, who was a good Baptist and was rightly proud of him. Maybe she gave him too big a place in history, but I doubt it – not when one thinks of the courage of the man. That early Pilgrim and Puritan theocracy was something to buck up against, particularly in January. Imagine what it meant to receive a sentence of deportation -–the judges of the time called it "enlargement" – in the midst of a New England winter. Of course, he could have allowed sentence to be passed on him and be sent back to England where it came from. He’d be comfortable and safe there so long as he conformed. He chose the freedom of preaching what he believed to be true – and so hit off into the woods with six companions – and, well, we have the first amendment to our Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion."

Miss Farmer. What got him into trouble with the authorities, Mr. Senator?

Mr. Arthur. Indians, did you say, Senator?

Senator Green. Yes, Mr. Arthur; in this case it was Indians. Well, that more or less precipitated matters. Then Williams announced his famous doctrine, which was considered absolute heresy -–that the church and the state should be separated – that the authority of the state should concern itself with civil matters and not interfere in matters of conscience. Now, the point was that in the colonial government, church and state were one – in other words, as Mr. Meredith has pointed out, the state was a theocracy. So, Williams’ ideas were not only heretical, they were also seditious.

Miss Farmer. That certainly brings it down to the present, doesn’t it, Senator? I wish history could be taught like that. If it were, I think we’d appreciate so much better the freedoms we have and naturally be more concerned with preserving and extending them. Take this party here this evening – all of you feel safe in saying what you want – and I haven’t the least bit of compunction in disagreeing with any of you ---

Senator Green. Your prerogative under the Constitution, Miss Farmer.

Miss Farmer. Anyway, here we all are, sitting here in safety; we don’t have to go peering behind pictures to find out if there’s a dictaphone planted; we’re not whispering and looking over our shoulders, frightened to death whether or not we’re going to be arrested and clapped into jail because we are celebrating Christmas in our own way.

Mr. Meredith. You’re right, Frances. And we’re not safe because the doors are closed and shutters barred. We’re safe because those who framed our Constitution and developed our Constitution made it their particular business to see to it that we would be safe; we and those who come after us. How tragic it is that there are so few places left in the world where the same thing can be said.

Miss Farmer. Not even everywhere in this country, Burgess. There are places in our own country where you can’t have a party like this and be sure you won’t be broken in on. Oh, not Christmas parties, true enough, but gatherings of people who come to talk over things that interest them – maybe their own personal problems that other people feel they should talk over. The old, old struggle for freedom of conscience isn’t over by any means.

Senator Green. You’re right, Miss Farmer, for freedom of conscience and for all other sorts of freedom, too.

Mr. Meredith. Do you not think, Senator, that our vigilance must not be directed alone to preserving our liberties? Security to enjoy, without the means of enjoyment, is empty. We sit here not only safe in the freedom of our conscience but warm, and clothed, with food on the table. I know such talk is not customary at a festival time, but I should feel false to the spirit of Christmas if I did not think of the babies of America today, to whom no kings will come bearing gifts. Of the man who cannot say to the woman, "This is my love; wear it." Of the father who cannot say to his child, "This is my love; handle it." For these the day of gifts will go unmarked, a number upon a piece of paper!

Senator Green. Mr. Meredith, in all parts of the country today these people will be looking about them and asking, "Why, why, in a land of plenty is there no cornucopia for us, no horn of plenty, to hang upon our Christmas tree! Whatever the exact figures may be, no one can deny that there has been a very great increase in wealth and also in the disparity between the very rich and the very poor.

Almost all our attention has hitherto been given to the production of wealth and very little to its fair distribution. The great capitalists have overreached themselves in their ambition. They have not only by the application of economic laws but also fortunes. No one begrudges them their wealth except to the extent that it was accumulated at the expense of their fellow men. But now, if the game is to go on, the rules must be made fairer so as to give the ordinary consuming citizen a better chance.

Efforts should be directed primarily to a modification of the capitalistic system rather than to efforts to restore this system and retain it unchanged.

Mrs. Arthur. What sort of efforts can be made? What sort of modification have you in mind? I am sorry to ask you the two questions, but the answer to both are very important to all of us.

Senator Green. It seems obvious to me, Mrs. Arthur, that we must try to modify the capitalistic system so that a larger proportion of the profits of labor goes to the laborer and a less proportion to the capitalist. The result of the present distribution is before us, and resulted in the last great depression.

The manufacturer had to cease production, not because people did not want his goods, but because they could not afford to buy them. They had no money. There is a way of remedying the evil. That is somehow to get more money into the pockets of the masses of the people, the consuming public, so that they can buy. This creates a demand which the manufacturer can meet. Even if the share of the profits of the manufacturer is less, it does not necessarily follow that his total profits will be less. But even if it were less it would be better for him than the alternative which otherwise faces him.