of Congress should be written in precise language, and that words and phrases of uncertain meaning should be defined so that the citizens, legislators, and the administrators of the law know what the law requires. This bill clearly fails to meet that standard. Presumably, the sponsors of this bill hope that the bill, if enacted, will result in a condition formerly called "prosperity" or "good times." These older terms were inclusive and indicated a high level of production and consumption, and great satisfaction for all citizens, farmers, professional men, employers, and wage earners. The new term "full employment" is more circumscribed and refers not to the general welfare of all but to the welfare of a special class, those who work for wages.

Prosperity comes when we have abundance of goods and services. And labor is not the sole cause of abundance. Other factors which cause abundance are natural resources, technological improvements, accumulation of capital, equitable laws, and many other things.

Our objectives should be abundance, not full employment. The depth of absurdity in glorifying the means rather than the end was reached by Sir William Beveridge, who said in his book on Full Employment, "It is better to employ people on digging holes and filling them up again than not to employ them at all." The American people, typical of themselves, found a word for that kind of operation, boondoggling.

Are the objectives of the bill a proper and legitimate field for congressional action? We had a very lengthy, carefully prepared statement in which we set forth the reasons and justifications for concluding that this bill would be unconstitutional, because it is class legislation and intended to benefit a special class and be paid for by all others who may not in themselves, either directly or indirectly, benefit.

The bill also provides an affirmative right, that is to say, that Congress create a right in addition to the individual's inherent right, and to coercively effectuate that right.

On page 5-I am full aware of the fact that by skipping through this the continuity of our presentation is not so effective, but

Mr. WHITTINGTON (interposing). Mr. Chairman, is the witness going to file his statement?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. We can read it as fast as he can read it over there. Mr. KANE. Mr. Whittington, the great trouble, as I view it, is the possibility of so many Congressmen and men on other committees who are busy with other matters failing to read in its entirety.

The phrase "the right to work" may be defined in two ways at least: (a) It may mean that no person or group of persons has the right to interfere with or hinder a person who alone or in voluntary cooperation with others desires to work. In this sense it means the preservation of a valuable freedom. Thus a picket line that prevents a workingman from passing through a factory gate may be said to deny to the workmen the right to work; (b) it may mean that job seekers have the legal right to compel certain persons or groups of persons to employ them. In this sense, those designated by law as having the obligation to employ the job seekers are denied the right not to employ. It is this second definition which applies in the original draft of the bill, and we quote that statement.

Skipping down to the last paragraph on page 5, the right to work as defined under 5, or under (b) is in conflict with the right to property. We can have one of these rights but we cannot have both. The right to property is simply the right of the individual to own, possess, and use that which he has produced or legitimately acquired, but the right to work, as contemplated by this bill, requires the Government to take property from the owners and give this property to workmen, so that the workmen can produce something that neither the public, the employees, nor the taxpayers will buy of their own free will. Such a right to work impairs the right to property. The Communists have treated this subject of the right to work on numerous occasions, and we quote transcripts from some of their magazines, the Communist Manifesto of 1847, on page 6. In 1848 the French Communists passed a right-to-work law, and it worked so badly that it was repealed in about 6 months.

The Russian Communists have a right-to-work article in their constitution of 1936, which is current and reads as follows:

Citizens of the U. S. S. R. have the right to toil, that is, the right to receive guaranteed work with payment for their toil in accordance with the quantity and quality. The right to toil is insured by the socialist organization of national economies, by the increasing growth of the productive forces of Soviet society, the elimination of the possibility of economic crisis and the liquidation of unemployment.

The CHAIRMAN. They also say in that same part of the constitution if they didn't work they didn't eat.

Mr. KANE. Mr. Chairman, we didn't want to labor the question. We knew that you gentlemen were informed even beyond ourselves, and we could have made this much more extensive but we tried to point out the essence of the very thing that is proposed here. This is not a new idea.

The CHAIRMAN. They have a little different approach, though, in carrying out their mandate.

Mr. KANE. Yes; they have. My son was honorably discharged from the service of the Nation, and I was proud of the fact that he served, with the rest of us, and he has all the security that was necessary for any human being to exist. He had food and shelter and clothing. The CHAIRMAN. And medical attention?

Mr. KANE. And medical attention, and presumed remuneration under the GI bill of rights, and things of that nature, but I hope that my son and my son's son don't have to live with that constantly over their heads. I hope that we can get the good of the old days, because we know that which was good and we want to hold fast to it, and this proposed legislation goes down a dead-end street, not a blind alley. A blind alley is something you get into and you don't know where you are at, but this is a dead-end street, and the end of it is something utterly different than what we are familiar with in the American form or the American philosophy of government. I don't believe we should constantly take care of a man who doesn't help to take care of himself.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what I wanted to add in the rest of that constitution of the Soviet Republic.

Mr. KANE. Yes; I do not have that right at hand.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Have you got a copy of the 1848 law passed by the French?

Mr. KANE. We have a copy of it. I don't have it with me, no, sir. Mr. WHITTINGTON. Will you mail it in here to us, because we have a lot of reference to it?

Mr. KANE. We should like to do that for you. We certainly shall. Mr. HOFFMAN. Here is the Soviet Constitution. I don't find that place now.

Mr. KANE. Will you supply it, Mr. Hoffman, or shall we supply it from Detroit?

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Whittington wants you to supply the act of the French Chamber of Deputies of 1848, This is the Soviet Constitution here that Mr. Hoffman is referring to.

Mr. KANE. I would like it to appear in the record, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, that when I made that statement I made it with every degree of sincerity. We have the act or portions of the act that will support this extract. To find the act in its entirety, Mr. Whittington, I am not sure that we can do that.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. You have the extract from the Soviet Constitution, haven't you? You haven't got any extract here from the French Act, have you? I don't find it.

The CHAIRMAN. Following the citation in the constitution there, it also provides that those who don't work, don't eat. They don't tolerate any drones or people who don't work in the Soviet Republic.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. The French Act of 1848 has been mentioned by the witness here, and I would like to have it in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. I am having some information worked up on that, Mr. Whittington, and I hope to have it by Friday.

Mr. KANE. We will do our best to assist you in any way we can. It is interesting to note that the principal advocate of full-employment laws in Britain, Sir William Beveridge-and I think he is now a member of the new Cabinet-is a Socialist who does not believe in private property. He says in his book on full employment:

The list of essential liberties given above does not include liberty of a private citizen to own means of production and to employ other citizens in operating them at a wage, but if it should be shown that abolition of private property and the needs of production was necessary for full employment, this abolition would have to be undertaken.

We do not believe we should take the first step in a program which might eventually compel all workmen to work for the Government. We do not believe that the majority of workmen are Socialists or Communists, or that they want the effects, desirable or undesirable, that might result from the enactment of this bill. As the bill stands the effects would be negligible. It proposes estimates and such things to be prepared in connection with the National Budget. The mountain labors and brings forth a mouse. The law which was hailed to bring full employment produces nothing but reports and estimates, and there is the real danger in this law as we see it. It is a commitment upon the highest legislative body in the world, the one that is closest to our heart, and if it ever commits itself to this impracticable plan it will necessarily have to continue, because public opinion, especially those who have been misled by the illusive statement of full employment, defined and interpreted by each person in his own way, I hesitate to hazard a guess as to how it will end.

The CHAIRMAN. Right at that point, the testimony before our committee has been entirely to the effect that this bill would not guarantee

a job to everyone or insure any person a job. I have been reading the hearings on the Senate bill held by the subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency, and I notice the statement by Mr. Wolf, of the National Lawyers Guild, that appears on page 812 of the Senate hearing, reading as follows:

The dictionary defines "assure" as follows: "to make sure or certain; to inspire confidence by declaration or promise." This latter gives us a clue to the real basis for the objections. The promise by Congress of job opportunities will inspire confidence in the people of the country; they will rely on the assurance of their Government. And they will expect this promise to be effectively implemented.

In other words, the people who are dealing with this bill believe that it does assure full employment, and they believe that the Congress is bound by it. He says further in that next paragraph on page 812: A promise is a commitment, and the public relies on its legislators to honor their commitments.

If that does not show to me and to the rest of the committee that the proponents of this bill think that this is a commitment on the part of Congress I can't understand the English language.

Mr. KANE. Mr. Chairman, why should not the succeeding Congresses fulfill the commitments of any preceding Congress? When we seriously study a piece of legislation with such ramifications and such great import we realize it will affect the lives of every man, woman, and child in the Nation.

Mr. RICH. May I ask this question right there of the chairman of our committee? Isn't it a fact that when we pass legislation with an implication that Congress must do something it has been the custom in Congress to have legislation passed with the idea that this does not cost us anything or that we are not obligated to a certain thing, but after the bill is passed the obligations then naturally follow?

The CHAIRMAN. That isn't my experience heretofore.

Mr. KANE. That has been my opinion for quite some time. If I were ever privileged to be a Member of any Congress I would think that any solemn promise of any previous Congress would be something that I should make every effort to fulfill.

Senator Murray himself stated in the Congressional Record on January 22, in answer to the question, "Does the bill guarantee everyone the kind of job he wants?" and his answer was, "This is not a bill to guarantee jobs to any individual." Now, I defy any Member of Congress to stop people on the street and ask them whether they have that impression or not.

The CHAIRMAN. I just read from the statement of one witness over there before the committee that had an opposite view. He did think it guaranteed jobs to individuals.

Mr. KANE. That is what I mean. I mean you Members of Congress ask the man on the street if he interprets "full employment"-which is a catch phrase, beautiful, alluring-whether "full employment” guarantees him a job or not, and see what his answer is.

Mr. HOFFMAN. You mean he will say "Yes"?

Mr. KANE. Certainly.

The CHAIRMAN. He thinks he will get a job tomorrow if this bill is passed.

Mr. RICH. If we pass this legislation what will be the effect on the

general public to try to create jobs? They will think Congress is going to create all the jobs, won't they?

Mr. KANE. They certainly will.

Mr. RICH. And then the initiative of the individual to create jobs, what is going to happen to that?

Mr. KANE. I wish I had the wisdom to foresee that, but I just have common sense to aid me in my thinking, and when it gets down to the point where the right to a job is created which impinges upon the rights of other citizens who are employed, to the point of where the right to a job involves the responsibility first on the part of the private employer, and if he is unable to meet that responsibility-and we know many reasons why there are numerous times that he is unable to do it because he just can't put people on the pay roll like you put them on the public pay roll-and if private employers do not put these men onto a job, then this bill pledges the United States Government to make such expenditures and do such things, whether they are wanted or not, in the way of public works, whether they are desirable or not, to be paid for out of the taxes assessed on people who do not benefit from them, and there is only one answer to that, Mr. Rich, in my opinion, and that is Government ownership.

Mr. RICH. That is what is going to happen.

The CHAIRMAN. And at remunerative wages too.

Mr. KANE. Well, we have asked a lot of questions in this paper of ours, Mr. Chairman, on the phraseology that I skipped, the undefined phrases. One of them is "remunerative wages." But we ask those questions with the utmost sincerity.

The CHAIRMAN. We have a law on the statute books now that where workmen are employed on Federal public works the prevailing wages in the local community shall be paid the workmen.

Mr. KANE. Yes; I know we have that.

The CHAIRMAN. I would think that would not leave any doubt but what it would take a lot of money to give 60,000,000 people jobs on public works projects.

Mr. RICH. Since I have been in Congress, since 1930, I have heard more crackpots around the Capitol here suggesting things that the Government ought to get into, and the Government did get into many of them, and we have had a national deficit ever since.

Mr. KANE. Well, this bill is predicated on a continuation of deficit financing, and there is a vast difference between today, the moment at which this continuation is proposed, and when it really began. We now have a $300,000,000,000 public debt over our heads, and at that time we were not so badly off."

A totalitarian state which controls production, consumption, and labor can not only guarantee work to all but can also compel everyone to work. All leftists insist that labor has been treated by employers as a commodity and that that is the capitalistic attitude toward the worker. The bill, however, makes workers into commodities. If it is carried out as originally planned, a worker from the Detroit area, probably a skilled mechanic, will become a concrete mixer in Mississippi, or vice versa, or worse, or "worser," if I may say that.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, the full danger of committing the Federal Government to giving jobs to everyone who is not employed is not necessarily in this bill; it is in the legislation that will be necessary to follow in order to implement this bill. Isn't that true?