Post-War Thinking


By L. E. FAULKNER, Vice-President, Mississippi Central Railroad Company

Delivered before the Hattiesburg Rotary Club, Hattiesburg, Miss., February 16, 1943

Vital Speeches of the Day, Vol. IX, pp. 437-442.

"NEVER get so busy that you haven't time to think" is the motto of William Martin Jeffers, National Rubber Director-the man who, under the American free enterprise system, went from call boy to President of a great transcontinental railroad. I believe most of us have been guilty of not thinking about our government. We have forgotten the words of Abraham Lincoln: "It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth". We have been so busy thinking about our own personal affairs that we have been living without any political philosophy. While we have been doing this there has grown up a government of the people, by the politicians, and for the pressuregroups. I repeat, we, the people, are to blame because we have been too busy to think about our government.

Before I start discussing post-war thinking may I ask you to do some thinking of the thinking which our God-fearing ancestors put into action when they framed our Constitution, which was described by Gladstone in these words: "It is the greatest work ever struck off by the brain and purpose of man at a given time".

Washington, presiding at the Convention called to draft our Constitution, said: "Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair, the event is in the hand of God".

After two months had been consumed in debate at the Convention and when there seemed no hope of an agreement between the representatives of the larger and the smallerstates, Benjamin Franklin arose in the Convention and stated:

"In this situation of this assembly, groping, as it were, in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of Lights to illuminate our understanding? In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for the Divine protection. Our prayers, sir, were heard;—and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor. To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? or do we imagine we no longer need its assistance? i have lived, sir, a long time; and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?" In his Farewell Address, Washington said: "Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports . . . . let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion."

John Adams, second President of the United States, said: "As the safety and prosperity of nations ultimately and essentially depend on the protection and the blessing of Almighty God, the national acknowledgment of this truth is not only an indispensable duty which the people owe to Him, but a duty whose natural influence is favorable to the promotion of that morality and piety without which social happiness cannot exist nor the blessings of a free government be enjoyed."

I could quote similar statements from many other Presidents of the United States, but I don't think it is necessary in order to remind us that our God-fearing ancestors founded our government on the spiritual principle of the sacredness of the individual soul. The sacredness of property rights stem directly from "Thou shalt not steal" and "Thou shalt not covet". The parable of the talents should explain why our forefathers did not adopt a socialistic political philosophy. Our forefathers held property to be a sacred human right—they made clear the fact that one of the three greatest inalienable rights, along with life and liberty, was private property; that all of our freedoms rest on the cornerstone of life, liberty and property; that freedom is—first of all—a concern of the soul.

Abraham Lincoln had this to say about the right to private property: "Property is the fruit of labor; property is desirable; it is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich, shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is homeless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own house shall be safe from violence when built."

It has been stated that mans need of freedom rests upon his responsibility for the choice between good and evil which confronts him at every stage and step of life—that the only basis of freedom is the Christian concept of man's nature—imperfect, weak, a sinner—yet made in God's image and responsible for his actions. How true this is! Past history proves this fact. Look at China—not interested in freedom until their Christian leader and thousands of his race had adopted the Christian religion. It has been further statedthat any philosophy which claims perfection for human beings denies freedom and leads to tyranny and totalitarianism. How true this is! And we must not forget this fact when we consider the "cradle to the grave" security plan. Consider Hitler and Mussolini.

Before I get into the subject of postwar thinking I would like to quote a few verses from the Bible:

2 Thessalonians 3:10: "And even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any should not work, neither should he eat."

1 Timothy 5:8: "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he had denied the faith, and is worse than infidel."

I do not agree with Fortune Magazine—Supplement to December issue where they state: "We propose that the government should underwrite permanent prosperity; that it be established government policy, whether Republican or Democratic, to maintain reasonably full employment in the United States."

When we turn the job of "cradle to the grave" security over to our government, thereby relieving the individual of his Christian duties and obligations as given to him by the Sermon on the Mount and the Ten Commandments, we shall have lost not only the most precious privileges which should be ours as individual Christians, but we will be taking a long step toward permitting the destruction of individual liberty—an endowment from the Creator of every individual man and woman. Liberty is of the spirit and no power, whether economic or political, or even governmental, has the right to encroach. Along with our inalienable rights given to us by our Constitution are inalienable obligations, such as self-restraint, insistence upon truth, order and justice, and co-operation in the human welfare. If any of these inalienable obligations, these individual Christian duties, are taken away from us by government underwriting then surely we shall lose our inalienable rights.

Under certain plans now being advocated by post-war planners, people in high authority, we would attempt to mix with our own American way of life some other social philosophy such as collectivism, regimentation or some form of national socialism, all of which have in common the idea of the servitude of the individual to the state. All of these philosophies seem to have as their end and object of civilization or pursuit of happiness the idea of being well fed and being looked after by the government from the day one is born to the day of his death. The advocates of these social philosophies, which are foreign to the American way of life, erroneously call "security" "freedom" and place security either ahead of or on an equal basis with freedom.

Under the American way of life we are free to worship, think, to hold opinions, speak out without fear—free to challenge wrong with surety of justice. The American way of life give each of us the right to choose our work, develop our talents, spend, save, invest, to accumulate property that may give protection in old age and to loved ones. Our system has been described as one of private property, competitive production and distribution of goods and services, and hope of profit, the payment of differential wages and salaries based on abilities and services, the saving of earnings and profits, the lending of them at interest through investment in our productive plan.

Those believing in our system believe that through competition we secure the most potential stimulant to improvement through progress, that the managers' restless night has done more to advance the practical arts than all the legislation upon the statute books, that ours is a system of losses to the less intelligent producers as well as profits to the moreintelligent, and while some individuals may at some times profit unduly or may abuse liberty, in the end it is the consumers that win through production of plenty of goods and services.

War spending, debt and taxes are the hard facts that, in the end, will govern the United States post-war policies now being advocated by many of the high government officials—policies which include "cradle to the grave" security, disability insurance, nationalized unemployment insurance, wider old age insurance, hospital insurance, a much larger food stamp plan, a much larger "pump priming" plan, etc., all patterned after England's Beveridge plan, which (quoting from the Beveridge Report) requires a double re-distribution of income. I shall have more to say about the Beveridge plan later, but right here let me quote from paragraph No. 15: "The plan is based on the diagnosis of want." This is a fine example of beginning with end instead of beginning—a fine example of building a superstructure without testing the foundation.

Some of our postwar planners would now make plans to put an additional burden of several billion dollars on the taxpayers before we know if they can survive the burden of the war debt now estimated to be 331 billion dollars by June 30, 1944. There never has been anything like it in American history, and it is not even approached by any other nation or combination of nations. Right now our representatives in Washington are puzzled as how to raise by taxation and compulsory savings an additional 16 billion dollars on account of our 109 billion dollar budget for the fiscal year beginning next July. Our budget for the next fiscal year is more than all federal spending for the first 143 years of the Nation's history. It is greater by 23 billion dollars than the combined budgets of Germany, England, Russia, Italy and Japan. I repeat, before we start building the superstructure of a plan to abolish want we better first see that the foundation, made up of such hard facts as debt and taxes, is safe.

Any attempt to formulate a scheme for "cradle to the grave" security would bring on heated discussions among our representatives at Washington and result in disrupting the unity which is so necessary in our efforts to reach a speedy victory. There are plenty of Democrats and Republicans representing the people at Washington who will put up a strenuous fight to preserve our present form of government if an attempt is made to adopt a "cradle to the grave" security plan.

Our representatives at Washington need the backing of the people whom they serve. Therefore, it is the duty of every Rotarian and every good citizen to do a lot of prayerful thinking, and at the proper time express themselves by petition to their representatives at Washington. This is vitally necessary, because "trial balloons" are being sent up by postwar planners at Washington, and when these "trial balloons" go up public opinion should promptly and vigorously speak out intelligently.

Vice President Wallace put out one of these "trial balloons" last May in an address entitled "The Century of the Common Man" and delivered before the "Free World Association." Let me quote a few paragraphs from Mr. Wallace's address:

"The peoples' revolution aims at peace and not at violence, but if the rights of the common man are attacked, it unleashes the ferocity of a she-bear who has lost a cub.

"Half in fun and half seriously, I said the other day to Madam Litvinoff: 'the object of this war is to make sure that everyone in the world has the privilege of drinking a quart of milk a day.' She replied: 'Yes, even a half a pint.' "

The record shows that Japan started the war by her ruthless attack on us at Pearl Harbor. To this date neither Con-

gress nor the people have committed us to a world revolution. It may be important in thinking of peace settlements and post-war conditions to set limited objectives, but I believe it is a mistake for post-war planners to paint a too rosy picture of the world or even of the United States. Utopian philosophy in the past has brought much of our present trouble to us. We are fighting to defend human liberty and render safe the way of life out forefathers died for that we might enjoy the freedom given us by our constitution.

It is interesting to contrast Mr. Wallace's speech of last May with the one made on December 28. In his address last May Mr. Wallace used the expression "common man" at least 13 times and the expression "Peoples' revolution" several times. Neither of these expressions was used in his radio address on December 28. Nor did he in his recent address either "half in fun and half seriously" state that everybody in the world should have the privilege of drinking a quart of milk a day. It is true that the two speeches go in the same direction, but the contrast is quite marked, and I think this is due to his "trial balloon" speech last May having been severely punctured by just criticism.

In Mr. Wallace's radio address of December 28 he stated "United States must back up military disarmament with psychological disarmament supervision, or at least inspection, of the school systems of Germany, and Japan, and to undo so far as possible the diabolical work of Hitler and the Japanese war lords in poisoning the minds of the young."

I believe this is a dangerous thought. To think for one minute that this country should have as its part in the postwar program the mission to educate Japan and Germany in the matter of controlling their school curricula is just impossible. We have plenty of housecleaning of our own to do along this very line, as well as many other lines. It is common knowledge that some of our colleges and universities teach a philosophy that places the state ahead of the individual and this is contrary to all three of our great religions as well as contrary to the American way of life.

When Hitler and his followers and the war-lords of Japan are defeated there will undoubtedly be many good people in each of the two countries who will be interested in seeing that truth is restored to their schools.

I wish to again mention England's Beveridge "cradle to grave" social security post-war plan, because our post-war planners seem to be following the Beveridge plan very closely. When Sir William Beveridge, Director of the London School of Economics, was asked the question, "What about the right to manage one's own business?" he is quoted as having replied as follows: "Private control of the means of production, whatever might be said for it on other grounds, cannot be described as an essential liberty of the British people." Sir William Beveridge is also quoted as having said, "National planning may mean the replacement of competitive private enterprise and profit by public monopoly not for profit." Mr. Alvin H. Hansen, of Harvard University, Foremost Consultant to Washington's National Resources Planning Board, apparently is thinking along the same lines as Beveridge because he has been quoted as saying: "Other extraordinary powers, such as, for instance, to effect wholesale social reforms will be delegated to the administration which will retain most, if not all, of its present extraordinary war-time powers."

Under the Beveridge "cradle to grave" social security postwar plan the individual would not need to strive for his own and his family's security. The state would provide social security from birth to death for everyone irrespective of occupation or income and this would include free medical service and death benefits.

President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill, in theAtlantic Charter, seem to chart the course for post-war planning for both countries, because in "Social Insurance and Allied Services" a report by Sir William Beveridge reads as follows:

". . . The fifth clause of the charter (The Atlantic Charter) declares the desire of the American and the British leaders 'to bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field, with the object of securing for all improved labour standards, economic advancement, and social security.' The proposals of this Report are designed as a practical contribution towards the "achievement of the social security which is named in the closing words. The proposals cover ground which must be covered, in one way or another, in transplanting the words of the Atlantic Charter into deeds. . . . They are a sign of the belief that the object of government in peace and in war is not the glory of its rulers or of races, but the happiness of the common man. . . ."

The Atlantic Charter speaks of the four freedoms, i.e., freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want and freedom from fear. The last two could more properly be called "securities." Neither one appears in our Constitution, but there is a freedom that appears in our Constitution which does not appear in the Atlantic Charter, and that is Private Free Enterprise. Private free enterprise was not only left out of the Atlantic Charter, but Mr. Wallace left it out of his discussion of post-war world problems in his speech last May. I have an idea that it was public opinion which made him at least mention Private enterprise in his radio address of December 28.

There are many post-war planners who would like to leave private free enterprise out of the post-war plans even though it is a fact that without private free enterprise this war would not be won. It has been stated that it took government-controlled Germany 9 years to build enough plants and equipment to fight a war; it took government-controlled Japan 25 years, and Russia 20 years. American industry under private free enterprise has done it in two years—built and tooled the plants to turn out 1,000 times the war material we could make before the war.

We are living in a very complex age. Great changes have brought about new social, economic and governmental patterns, many of which are foreign to the American way of life. Many of these changes have tended to destroy or reduce the influence of family life, religion, ethics, the faith of man in himself and in his laws, and even his faith in God. I am not capable, even if I were so inclined, to sermonize, but I do believe, however, that all good things accomplished by individuals or groups of individuals formed into nations are the result of God's Holy Spirit working through the individual, and that all bad things spring from individuals or nations as a result of sin in the individual. I believe in the sacredness of the individual, that the individual should always be placed ahead of the state.

If I were going to suggest a formula for the post-war period I would say that the all-important thing is Faith—the kind our forefathers had when they wrote such words as "And for the support of this Declaration with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor."

The faith that Capt. Rickenbacker and his men had when they read the Bible and prayed for food and water and that their lives would be saved!

Yes, the kind of faith Francis Scott Key was thinking of when he wrote in the "Star Spangled Banner" "Bless the power that hath made and preserved us a nation! Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, and this be our motto: 'In God is our Trust.' " Where would we find abetter motto for our guidance in solving our post-war problems?

It is a significant fact that when we leave God out of our plans there is failure. Review our planning, as a nation, between World War No. 1 and World War No. 2 and I believe that you will have to admit that the terrible mistakes made can only be accounted for by the fact that we were very short on the faith of our fathers. If this happens in the present post-war planning then results will be the same.

We have all been guilty, as individuals and as a nation, in leaving God out of our planning and pattern of our lives and patting ourselves on the back when we do something we think worthwhile, forgetting that all good things that we do are on account of God's Holy Spirit working in us. We have a good example of this error that we are all guilty of in connection with President Roosevelt's "State of the Union" address before the 78th Congress on January 7. The New York Times of January 10 states that the President started preparing his message on December 16, 1942, and that a week later he was joined in his labors by New York State's Supreme Court Justice Samuel I. Rosenman, who has helped Mr. Roosevelt with his major addresses and edited his state papers. In the third week Robert Sherwood, distinguished playwright, and O. W. I. official, was called in to assist. The New York Times further states that while the work on the address progressed the President sought the advice of a large number of officials, Cabinet members and military leaders. If one of this great number had only thought to put God in the President's address his report to the nation would have been more heartening to many of our people.

Some may say we must be practical about our thinking in connection with our post-war planning and state that all this which I have said about faith sounds very nice but ask if it is practical when post-war planning deals with such practical things as jobs for all those who desire to work. My reply is: Let's put first things first. First of all we need permanent spiritual prosperity before we need permanent material prosperity. Permanent material prosperity is the kind Fortune Magazine was talking about when they said "The government should underwrite permanent prosperity." One thing is certain: God's Holy Spirit can underwrite permanent spiritual prosperity, but who dares to state that any government can underwrite permanent material prosperity. Hitler and Mussolini tried it and failed. Another thing which is certain is material prosperity is a by-product of spiritual prosperity. Our forefathers won their fight for the freedoms our brave men are now fighting for because they placed spiritual prosperity ahead of that security which some now speak of as "cradle to the grave" security.

Would anyone accuse Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson as not being practical? These men prayed as they fought, and in victory or defeat their reliance on God was unshaken. All must admit that Abraham Lincoln was a practical man. In his Farewell Address to his friends at Springfield, preparatory to becoming the Sixteenth President of the United States, Lincoln said:

"A duty devolves upon me which is, perhaps, greater than that which has devolved upon any other man since the days of Washington. He never could have succeeded except for the aid of Divine Providence upon which he at ail times relied. I feel that I cannot succeed without the same Divine aid which sustained him; and in the same Almighty Being I place my reliance for support; and I hope you, my friends, will all pray that I may receive that Divine assistance, without which I cannot succeed."

Who would call General B. L. Montgomery, Commander of the British Eighth Army, impractical? General Montgomery reads the Bible to his troops at desert battle headquarters. How about our own General MacArthur, who by his words and his acts shows that he places God in the center of all his planning?

Four thousand of our nation's business and industrial leaders met in December to discuss post-war problems and they passed a resolution in which they put the words "With God's help."

I think we shall have to admit that the man who is not practical is the one who fails to seek God's Holy Spirit as the center of all his planning. Of course, we are all guilty in our failure to do this.

I would like to think of our nation's approach to our postwar problems in this way. Five men in a strong boat that our forefathers once rode in—not a "New Order" but the same old boat. At the bow of the boat I would place the motto "In God Is Our Trust." I would name the boat "Private Free Enterprise." It was with this motto and this name of the boat that our forefathers sailed so courageously and so successfully through some very rough waters.

In describing the five men in the boat I would not use the expression "Common Man" because there is no common man, but rather every one of them was made in God's image.

The Captain of the boat we know as "Uncle Sam"—he is the embodiment of our government. The other four men in the boat gave Captain Uncle Sam his job and they have the power to remove him if he starts rocking the boat and endangering their lives, and they will do just this because these four men realize that if the boat is rocked either by Uncle Sam or by either of them there is danger for all, because they are "all in the same boat."

The order in which I name the other four men in the boat has no significance as to their importance because there is no difference in their importance. Each has his all-important task to perform and all must realize that it is going to take "team work"—"give and take"—and as they look at their motto they also realize that the Golden Rule of reciprocity is the highest form of good behavior on the part of all.

The four men in the boat are the embodiment of what we commonly call Labor, Management, Farmer and the Great Middle Class. The first three, i.e., the Labor, Management and Farmer, as well as Uncle Sam, himself, have all been guilty, in the recent past, of "rocking the boat." At times the rocking has been quite severe, and all our people represented by the men in the boat have suffered. The great Middle Class has never taken any part in rocking the boat, although they have suffered greatly. It is becoming more and more apparent that if the boat rocking doesn't stop the great Middle Class will use their great power, the ballot box, in seeing that the boat rocking is stopped. However, this may not be necessary, because the representatives of Labor, Management and Farmer are beginning to see how important unity is to win the war. Undoubtedly they will profit by this when they are confronted with the serious problems which are bound to be present after the war and which will require that same unity of purpose for solving.

I believe it is too soon to do any blueprint post-war planning so far as machinery for an international court or machinery for disarming and keeping disarmed those parts of the world which would break the peace. Certainly the United States should do nothing now or later in an attempt to impose our form of government on any other people.

Jan Masaryk, Foreign Minister of Czecho-slovakia, in an article which appeared in The New York Times of January 31, 1943, said:

"Well-intentioned Americans are constantly sending us elaborate reports and plans for the rehabilitation of Europe. Some would treat it like a disciplined, fully organized police

state, full of hospitals, clinics, lecture halls, civic centers—everything except the breath of freedom. We are fighting, when all is said and done, for freedom and independence."

Continuing, Jan Masaryk said: "Domination is hateful even when the dominating power is paternal, solicitous and beneficent."

I do think that Secretary Hull was correct when he was recently quoted as saying: "Let each country stand on its own feet and earn its own way to a higher standard of living."

There is a type of post-war planning which is not too soon to do. I refer to the post-war planning recently started by the Committee for Economic Development. This is an organization of businessmen set up on regional bases, staffed for research by economists. The CED has gone to work on a long range program to aid national, community and county preparation for the problems of peace. This organization is not a government body, although it has the approval of the State and Commerce Departments and the Federal Reserve System. Their work will be done in the interest of public welfare with particular stress on small business units. Case studies before the committee indicate that some companies who have set up within their own organizations plans for reconversion to peace-time production foresee business as large or larger than their present wartime output. The committee believes that full employment, under private free enterprise, after the war will bring higher American standards of living than ever known in the past.

The National Association of Manufacturers of the United States of America is another organization that is giving serious thought to post-war problems as they affect our own country. Last December the War Congress of American Industry, which was sponsored by the National Association of Manufacturers, held a meeting at which there were 4,000 of the nation's business and industrial leaders. In this meeting they gave the following program as Industry's post-war goals:

"1. Preservation of the Constitution of the United States and the rights, freedoms and opportunities which it guarantees.

"2. Opportunity for all in America to gain true security with self-respect through their own ability and effort, and the right to receive wages, salaries, and profits commensurate with their performance and usefulness to society.

"3. A prosperous and self-reliant agriculture.

"4. Steady employment in free, private enterprise for all who are able and willing to work.

"5. A chance for people to save, and an incentive to put their savings to work in private shops and businesses.

"6. A progressively higher standard of living for the American people."

The Congress of American Industry also made a pledge of its own, reading as follows:

"The Congress of American Industry pledges all the skill and resourcefulness of industrial management to production for victory, to the end that no fighting man or civilian of the United Nations shall lose his life for lack of weapons or supplies.

"The Congress of American Industry further pledges that when, with God's help, the United Nations are victorious, industry will be ready to turn its skill and resourcefulness to the works of peace, to new wonders of production and plenty, which will provide employment for returning soldiers and sailors and all others, and enable the American people to resume their historic upward march, spiritually and materially, as free men."

I submit it is better to place the job of our post-war planning, as it affects our own Nation, in the hands of businessmen like those working with the Committee for Economic Development, the National Association of Manufacturers of the United States of America and similar organizations who believe, with God's help, in the preservation of the Constitution of the United States and the rights, freedoms and opportunities which it guarantees, than it is to place the planning in the hands of men who have never had to meet a payroll—men like Prof. Alvin H. Hansen of Harvard University, the foremost Consultant to Washington's National Resources Planning Board.

After the war we must repossess those rights which have been surrendered since Pearl Harbor—some of the very rights we are now fighting for—the surrender of which has, in many instances, resulted in government by men rather than government by laws. The philosophy of regimentation, collectivism, communism, or socialism cannot be combined or mixed with the philosophy of the American way of life. Many of our post-war planners think this can be done, but they are wrong. If I had the time and you the patience I could give many reasons why we cannot go half way with Mussolini or Hitler and preserve our form of government. History has proved this fact. Any philosophy that places the state ahead of the individual will eventually result in the individual losing all of his freedoms.

After the war is won a new tax system will be necessary—one which will permit business to keep enough profits to warrant adventure into new investments and new services, thereby making it possible to furnish jobs to all who are able and willing to work. If this is not done the private free enterprise system which has made our country great will be destroyed

and in its stead we will have government bureaucracy. On the subject of government bureaucracy Mr. Robert J. Watt, International representative of the American Federation of Labor, recently said: "After this war I want no gigantic governmental Reconstruction Finance Corporation to finance business and dominate it, and I want no gigantic government Works Progress Administration to employ labor and dominate it." In conclusion may I state:

First, I believe that many of the post-war objectives sought for our own people are good, but I do not believe in many of the methods proposed for reaching these objectives. Ibelieve that any post-war plan that seeks to abolish want by redistribution of income or by any socialistic method is contrary to our three great religions and contrary to the American way of life under our Constitution. I repeat, I do not believe our post-war problems can be successfully solved if we ignore the principles and methods bequeathed to us by our forefathers.

Second, I believe that private free enterprise, properly encouraged and fairly regulated by our government, which, after all, is the people, will furnish steady employment for all who are able and willing to work. If our government is to be a fair umpire for private free enterprise then it must not be a player in the game, but, on the contrary, must not compete with free industry and free labor.

I believe that private free enterprise can successfully solve the post-war problems because of the magic production performance of man and management since Pearl Harbor and on account of the lessons learned as to the importance of harmony between man and management. Research, speeded by the war, has brought forward the magic of mill and laboratory—new tools, material and medicine. More new ideas have been put into use in a year than in the last five years. All of this is going to play an important part in advancing the standard of living and the standard of health. Under this method of solving our post-war problems at home we shall have security with self-respect and without adding to an already top-heavy debt and interest charge by large scale pump-priming. Under the free enterprise method we will also prevent the making of a new class of people who would feel that their government owes them a living—a people who could be easily controlled by unscrupulous politicians.

Third, I believe that all Rotarians and all other good citizens have a tremendous responsibility as well as a sacred privilege to perform in doing post-war thinking and making our constructive thoughts known to our representatives at Washington as post-war plans are presented for legislative action. Samuel Johnson once said:

"About things about which the public thinks long it commonly attains to think right."

I believe it is the solemn duty of all good citizens to use the rights granted them by our Constitution to see that, in the words of Lincoln, never too often quoted, "government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth."