Our Principles of Freedom Must Stand; E. S. Gambrell

Mr. Gambrell, of Atlanta, Georgia, was President of the American Bar Association during 1955-1956. This article is based upon his address before the Georgia Bar Association, December 8, 1955, in Atlanta. [326 ] The AmerIcan creed is premised upon a simple belief: that each human being is a creature of God and endowed by him with the dignity of·individuality. Each must be free to shape his own integrity and to seek his own destiny. It follows that he may not be treated as a statistic on an economic or sociological chart. Respecting this right of the individual man to realize his own potential, we have pledged ourselves in the most solemn compacts of government to allow to our fellows the greatest free dom of choice possible in the exigencies of living to gether. Home Rule Where choice must be limited to preserve the free dom of others, we have sought to assure that each shall have the greatest possible voice in making the collective decisions that will control his life, by keeping the powers of government as close as circumstances will permit to those subjected to the power. We have chosen to erect the structures of government in the belief that no na tional government should do what the states can do, that no state should do what the local government can do, and that no government should do what a man can do for himself. The movement for home rule for munici palities, the concern for states' rights,.and the demand for limitations of the federal treaty power, all are variations on this persistent theme-that government should not be removed from the hands of the governed, that choices which must be made collectively and not individually [ 327] should he made by the smallest feasible group according to its own needs.

It is almost trite to observe once more that these prin cipleswere enshrined in the Constitution by the wise men who gathered to lay the foundations for the govern ment under which freedom has flourished and our peo ple have prospered. The central government was to be entrusted with limited and specifically delegated powers. Only those matters that required uniform treatment, only those problems that demanded a national solution, were delivered up to the centralized power. The great catalog of human liberties contained in the first ten amendments to the Constitution endeavored to transmute the dignity of man into a living reality. In the turmoil of our time several of these inalienable rights have been brought to the forefront of our national con science. Freedom of speech and of the press, the right to assemble peaceably and the privilege against self-in crimination have all found their stanch and vocal advo cates. We have heard much of the first eight amendments; but in the clamor of controversy over these, our people seem to have suffered from a mass amnesia concerning the ninth and tenth amendments.

Tax Abuses A power most frequently and most flagrantly abused in the circumvention of the limitations on the federal gov ernment is the power of taxation. Only by the most elaborate and disingenuous pretense can we maintain [328 ] that many so-called taxes have any relation to supplying revenues for the legitimate operations of government. Still our courts have replied that if an exaction appears on its face to be a tax, we must close our eyes to its motive. To me, the gravest of the threats to American ideals is presented by the inordinate and pervasive power of the purse, the power of bounty, the power to spend. Tax collections far exceed the legitimate costs of operat ing the federal government within its delegated bounds. Government by largesse has begotten a centralized authority of monstrous proportions, and it has at the same time broken down the fundamental design within that central government for forestalling the corruption of absolute power. The doctrine of separation of powers, the system of checks and balances, teaches that neither the legislature nor the executive should be servile to the other. It was our plan that the legislative branch, repre sentative of and responsive to the popular will, would formulate policies which the executive would put into effect. But through the power of patronage, the plums of public works, and the bounties of benevolent paternalism, the legislature has been brought to heel. T()o often the executive has determined the national policy, 'and at best the legislature has become a censor of his programs, and at worst, a rubber stamp. Ironic though it may be, the powers by which the administrator has brought down the legislator were conferred by that same legislator.

At the same time, the powers constitutionally reserved to the states have been gradually usurped through this power to disburse, through what are euphemistically [329 ] referred to as ""grants-in-aid." Under more than 40 sep arate programs, the governments of the states have been offered the bounty of the Federal Treasury in return for the surrender of their constitutional rights to provide for the interests of their people. Violation of State Sovereignty It is an affront to the dignity of the states, and in con tempt of the principles of the federal system, to assume the states to be incompetent to handle their own affairs. And the notion that the central government is somehow providing aid when it drains the sources of tax revenue and doles out a minor share to the states upon bureau cratic conditions is a mischievous fiction. A government is not a productive enterprise-it does not create wealth, it does not contribute to the sum total of economic goods.

If there is·. a single well to fill a community's needs for water, the man who drains it dry and then distributes the water to his fellows upon conditions he chooses to lay down is not providing aid to his neighbors. Recognizing this simple truth, the Legislature of the State of Indiana in 1947 resolved: We have decided that there is no such thing as federal aid. We know that there is no wealth to tax that is not already within the boundaries of the 48 states. So we propose hence forth to tax ourselves and take care of ourselves. We are fed up with subsidies, doles, and paternalism. Ideally, each person, or more accurately each family, should control the· spending of what it has earned. In [ 330] the long run, no one else can comprehend as well the family's needs and aspirations, and no one can see to it that the fruits of their labor are put to better use. Responsibility for earning begets responsibility in spend ing. The further the power to spend is removed from the person whose toil and sweat created the power, the greater the likelihood of economic waste, to the detri ment of our common standard of living and to the bene fit of no one.

The concentration of vast wealth in the hands of a remote and centralized government penalizes thrift and encourages waste. The money is there to be spent, the thinking runs, and unless we get our share, someone else will. A community which would reject out of hand a proposal that a public building should be financed by voluntary contributions or by a tax laid by the towns people upon themselves will nevertheless clamor for federal funds for the purpose. It is difficult to respect money that has come from someone else's pocket. Uncharted Frontiers Today there are still uncharted frontiers-physical, spiritual, and intellectual-standing as our constant chal lenge. We may well lose our will and our ability to cope with these challenges if we develop and accept the habit of being satisfied with the meager crumbs of material security which some form of benevolent government would dole out to us. To the extent that we permit our selves to be so dependent upon government that we can [331 ] no longer think or achieve on our own-dependent on government for those things which traditionally we have provided for ourselves-we defeat the very meaning of democracy and permit government to rule rather than to serve the individual. By every step we take toward mak ing the government caretaker of our lives, we move toward making it our master.

Let us not fall into the error of thinking that the outcome of the struggle between communism and free dom will be determined by military and economic power alone. The greater war is the war of ideas, a spiritual war of moral and religious values. In this war we must deal with the minds and hearts of men and women and dem onstrate to them the blessings and satisfactions that come from freedom. They must learn that man is not a slave of the State and that the State is his servant. Education Is Key to Freedom Liberal education is the keystone of freedom. The search for truth is, as it has always been, the noblest experience of the human spirit. Weare false to ourselves and to our best instincts if we turn our backs on truth or close our eyes when it beckons. But the recent White House Conference on Education troubles me. Well intentioned, no doubt, it poses a seri ous threat to democracy and freedom. Although we may have great respect and genuine affection for the present occupant of the White House, we should remember that changes do take place; and we should ponder well the [332 ] lessons to be learned from Hitler's complete domination of the German people through the perversion of edu cation.

History teaches that liberties are seldom lost in a frontal attack leveled against them. The threat lies not in open challenge, but in apathy and complacency. Unused, our great freedoms may atrophy and weaken, and their enemies, through cunning propaganda and small but constant steps, may overtake us unaware. We should not be·so much concerned, then, about the danger to those liberties for which the defense has already been rallied. But there are other principles, no less basic to our form of government, which have been largely ignored. Man~s Right to Choose We have submitted more and more in recent years to governmental control of the pursuit of our livelihoods. We look more and more to government to satisfy our every want and need. And we are relinquishing the precious right of a man to make those choices which, if he is to be a man, he must make for himself. The right of man to be let alone has been relegated to a lower order in the scale of our common values. But it is a funda mental article· of our national faith that we shall not destroy the ancient landmarks in our effort to accommo date the demands for government authority to cope with modem needs. Our principles of freedom must stand as fixed and immovable monuments above the ebb and flow of the currents of change. Paramount and above all other [333 ] considerations, we must channel the How of progress within the order and limits of the law; the bulwark of the rule of law must hold firm.

I do not mean to paint the picture too darkly. The people of America still enjoy a degree of liberty unsur passed among the nations of the world, and they share a material abundance unknown to the past. There are signs of a returning sense of responsibility and of a renewed respect for principle in the federal administration and among the leaders of both great political parties. But we can glean small comfort when we recall how easily and how quickly the basic propositions of govern ment gave way in the recent past. The teachings of experience are plain. Our hopes are futile if we entrust our liberties to the written word alone; the. Constitution alone is not our salvation. Nor can the courts forever stem the tide. It has fallen to the lawyers, trained in the tradi tions of government of law and imbued with its spirit, to preserve for all the world the light of human liberty, set with such shining promise by our forebears. We must not only reaffirm our· faith in the social and moral order which has made us a great nation, but we must go out and implement that faith with action. As Thomas Paine said: ~~Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like·men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."

[334 ] UNEMPLOYMENT BY LEGAL DECREE t'l Bellina Bien LAST year, when Congress was debating the question of a new minimum wage law, labor unions were strong in their praise of such a bill. When the new minimum of $1.00 an hour for workers in "covered" industries became effective on March first of this year, they patted them selves on the back for their part in its passage. At the same time, they promised their members to work for broader coverage at a still higher rate. A minimum wage law, they would have us believe, is the open sesame to the utopia of higher living standards for everyone, par ticularly for the poor. But is it? Our first federal minimum wage law was enacted in 19SB-the so-called Fair Labor Standards Act. Its prin cipal objective was to foster "the minimum standards of living necessary for health, efficiency and well-being of workers." Our relationship with Puerto Rico then was such that the Act applied there also. Yet the Act led to such confusion and distress among Puerto Rican workers that they were later exempted from the 25¢ minimum Miss Bien is a member of the staff of the Foundation for Economic Education.