Rosenfeld Susan. Encyclopedia of American Historical Documents

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

1352 ERA 8: The Great Depression and World War II

Japanese aliens living on the West Coast. They were put

into internment camps under harsh conditions. The

Supreme Court upheld the government’s argument that

this was a military necessity (a decision that has not been

overturned). Not until the 1980s did the American gov-

ernment admit that this action was wrong and pay repara-

tions to the former internees. Also ironic, since the

hallmark of Nazism was racism, American armed forces

remained racially segregated, and even anti-Semitism per-

sisted in many quarters. Neither African Americans nor

the famous “code-talking” Navajo Indians were awarded

Medals of Honor during or immediately after World War

II. Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush rectified this in

ceremonies during their administrations after many of the

recipients were deceased.

Despite persistent prejudice and discrimination,

minorities and women ultimately benefited from their expe-

riences during World War II, when everyone was needed in

the labor pool. African Americans won the backing of the

government for “fair labor standards,” and women com-

manded nontraditional jobs. Although the postwar econ-

omy, with its returning veterans, forced women out of the

workplace and the postwar culture discouraged women

from holding paying positions, their experience with eco-

nomic independence would eventually foster the second

wave of feminism beginning in the 1960s.

The Great Depression

and American Life in the 1930s

Near v. Minnesota, 1930

U.S. Supreme Court decision, issued on June 1, 1931, that

upheld the right of the press to criticize public officials. It

invalidated a Minnesota statute known as the “gag law,”

which allowed the courts to suppress a “malicious, scanda-

lous, and defamatory” periodical as a public nuisance. Under

this statute, the state had banned further publication of the

weekly

Saturday Press

(edited by J. M. Near) because it had

published a series of articles charging corruption among law

enforcement officers. In its 5-4 decision, the Court ruled the

law unconstitutional, maintaining that the state could not

exercise prior restraint by closing down a newspaper, although

it could prosecute for criminal libel after publication of objec-

tionable material. Subsequent decisions, notably

New York

Times v. United States

(403 U.S. 713 [1971]) and

United States

v. Progressive

(F. Supp. 990 [W.D. Wisconsin], 1979), how-

ever, appeared to allow prior restraint if national security was

threatened.

________________________

_______________________

Mr. Chief Justice Hughes delivered the opinion of the

Court.

Chapter 285 of the Session Laws of Minnesota for the

year 1925 provides for the abatement, as a public nuisance,

of a “malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper,

magazine or other periodical.” Section 1 of the act is as fol-

lows:

“Section 1. Any person who, as an individual, or as a

member or employee of a firm, or association or organiza-

tion, or as an officer, director, member or employee of a

corporation, shall be engaged in the business of regularly

or customarily producing, publishing or circulating, having

in possession, selling or giving away.

“(a) an obscene, lewd and lascivious newspaper, mag-

azine, or other periodical, or

“(b) a malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspa-

per, magazine or other periodical,

—is guilty of a nuisance, and all persons guilty of such

nuisance may be enjoined, as hereinafter provided.

“Participation in such business shall constitute a com-

mission of such nuisance and render the participant liable

and subject to the proceedings, orders and judgments pro-

vided for in this Act. Ownership, in whole or in part,

directly or indirectly, of any such periodical, or of any stock

or interest in any corporation or organization which owns

the same in whole or in part, or which publishes the same,

shall constitute such participation.

“In actions brought under (b) above, there shall be

available the defense that the truth was published with

good motives and for justifiable ends and in such actions

the plaintiff shall not have the right to report (sic) to issues

or editions of periodicals taking place more than three

months before the commencement of the action.”

Section 2 provides that, whenever any such nuisance

is committed or exists . . . a temporary injunction may be

granted. . . .

Under this statute (section 1, clause (b), the county

attorney of Hennepin county brought this action to enjoin

the publication of what was described as a “malicious,

scandalous and defamatory newspaper, magazine or other

periodical,” known as The Saturday Press, published by

the defendants in the city of Minneapolis. The complaint

alleged that the defendants . . . published and circulated

editions of that periodical which were “largely devoted to

malicious, scandalous and defamatory articles. . . .Without

attempting to summarize the contents of the voluminous

exhibits attached to the complaint, we deem it sufficient to

say that the articles charged, in substance, that a Jewish

gangster was in control of gambling, bootlegging, and rack-

eteering in Minneapolis, and that law enforcing officers

and agencies were not energetically performing their

duties. Most of the charges were directed against the chief

of police; he was charged with gross neglect of duty, illicit

relations with gangsters, and with participation in graft.

The county attorney was charged with knowing the exist-

ing conditions and with failure to take adequate measures

to remedy them. The mayor was accused of inefficiency

and dereliction. One member of the grand jury was stated

to be in sympathy with the gangsters. A special grand jury

and a special prosecutor were demanded to deal with the

situation in general, and, in particular, to investigate an

attempt to assassinate one Guilford, one of the original

defendants, who, it appears from the articles, was shot by

gangsters after the first issue of the periodical had been

published. There is no question but that the articles made

serious accusations against the public officers named and

others in connection with the prevalence of crimes and the

failure to expose and punish them.

At the beginning of the action on November 22, 1927,

and upon the verified complaint, an order was made

directing the defendants to show cause why a temporary

injunction should not issue and meanwhile forbidding the

defendants to publish, circulate, or have in their possession

any editions of the periodical from September 24, 1927, to

November 19, 1927, inclusive, and from publishing, circu-

lating or having in their possession, “any future editions to

said The Saturday Press” and “any publication, known by

any other name whatsoever containing malicious, scan-

dalous and defamatory matter of the kind alleged in plain-

tiff’s complaint herein or otherwise.”

The defendants demurred to the complaint upon the

ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a

cause of action, and on this demurrer challenged the con-

stitutionality of the statute. The district court overruled the

demurrer and certified the question of constitutionality to

the Supreme Court of the state. The Supreme Court sus-

tained the statute . . . and it is conceded by the appellee

that the act was thus held to be valid over the objection

that it violated not only the State Constitution, but also the

Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United

States.

Thereupon the defendant Near, the present appellant,

answered the complaint. He averred that he was the sole

owner and proprietor of the publication in question. He

admitted the publication of the articles in the issues

described in the complaint, but denied that they were

malicious, scandalous, or defamatory as alleged. He

expressly invoked the protection of the due process clause

of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case then came on for

trial. . . . .

The district court made findings of fact, which . . .

found in general terms that the editions in question were

“chiefly devoted to malicious, scandalous and defamatory

articles” concerning the individuals named. The court fur-

ther found that the defendants through these publications

“did engage in the business of regularly and customarily

producing, publishing and circulating a malicious, scan-

dalous and defamatory newspaper,” and that “the said pub-

lication”. . . constitutes a public nuisance under the laws of

the State.” Judgment was thereupon entered adjudging

that “the newspaper, magazine and periodical known as

The Saturday Press,” as a public nuisance, “be and is

hereby abated.” The judgment perpetually enjoined the

defendants “from producing, editing, publishing, circulat-

ing, having in their possession, selling or giving away any

publication whatsoever which is a malicious, scandalous or

defamatory newspaper, as defined by law,” and also “from

further conducting said nuisance under the name and title

of said The Saturday Press or any other name or title.”

The defendant Near appealed from this judgment to

the Supreme Court of the State, again asserting his right

under the Federal Constitution, and the judgment was

affirmed. . . .

From the judgment as thus affirmed, the defendant

Near appeals to this Court.

[1-3] This statute, for the suppression as a public nui-

sance of a newspaper of periodical, is unusual, if not

unique, and raises questions of grave importance tran-

scending the local interests involved in the particular

action. It is no longer open to doubt that the liberty of the

press and of speech is within the liberty safeguarded by the

due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from

invasion by state action. It was found impossible to con-

clude that this essential personal liberty of the citizen was

left unprotected by the general guaranty of fundamental

rights of person and property. . . . In maintaining this guar-

anty, the authority of the state to enact laws to promote the

The Great Depression and American Life in the 1930s 1353

health, safety, morals, and general welfare of its people is

necessarily admitted. The limits of this sovereign power

must always be determined with appropriate regard to the

particular subject of its exercise. . . . Liberty of speech and

of the press is also not an absolute right, and the state may

punish its abuse. . . . Liberty, in each of its phases, has its

history and connotation, and, in the present instance, the

inquiry is as to the historic conception of the liberty of the

press and whether the statute under review violates the

essential attributes of that liberty.

The appellee insists that the questions of the applica-

tion of the statute to appellant’s periodical, and of the con-

struction of the judgment of the trial court, are not

presented for review; that appellant’s sole attack was upon

the constitutionality of the statute, however it might be

applied. The appellee contends that no question either of

motive in the publication, or whether the decree goes

beyond the direction of the statute, is before us. The

appellant replies that, in his view, the plain terms of the

statute were not departed from in this case, and that, even

if they were, the statute is nevertheless unconstitutional

under any reasonable construction of its terms. The appel-

lant states that he has not argued that the temporary and

permanent injunctions were broader than were warranted

by the statute; he insists that what was done was properly

done if the statute is valid, and that the action taken under

the statute is a fair indication of its scope.

* * *

First. That statute is not aimed at the redress of individual

or private wrongs. Remedies for libel remain available and

unaffected. . . . In order to obtain an injunction to suppress

the future publication of the newspaper or periodical, it is

not necessary to prove the falsity of the charges that have

been made in the publication condemned. In the present

action there was no allegation that the matter published

was not true. It is alleged, and the statute requires the alle-

gation that the publication was “malicious.” But, as in pros-

ecutions for libel, there is no requirement of proof by the

state of malice in fact as distinguished from malice

inferred from the mere publication of the defamatory mat-

ter. The judgment in this case proceeded upon the mere

proof of publication. The statute permits the defense, not

of the truth alone, but only that the truth was published

with good motives and for justifiable ends. It is apparent

that under the statute the publication is to be regarded as

defamatory if it injures reputation, and that it is scandalous

if it circulates charges of reprehensible conduct, whether

criminal or otherwise, and the publication is thus deemed

to invite public reprobation and to constitute a public scan-

dal. The court sharply defined the purpose of the statute,

bringing out the precise point, in these words: “There is no

constitutional right to publish a fact merely because it is

true. It is a matter of common knowledge that prosecu-

tions under the criminal libel statutes do not result in effi-

cient repression or suppression of the evils of scandal. Men

who are the victims of such assaults seldom resort to the

courts. This is especially true if their sins are exposed and

the only question relates to whether it was done with good

motive and for justifiable ends. This law is not for the pro-

tection of the person attacked nor to punish the wrong

doer. It is for the protection of the public welfare.”

[5] Second. The statute is directed not simply at the

circulation of scandalous and defamatory statements with

regard to private citizens, but at the continued publication

by newspapers and periodicals of charges against public

officers of corruption, malfeasance in office, or serious

neglect of duty. Such charges by their very nature create a

public scandal. They are scandalous and defamatory within

the meaning of the statute, which has its normal operation

in relation to publications dealing prominently and chiefly

with the alleged derelictions of public officers.

Third. The object of the statute is not punishment, in

the ordinary sense, but suppression of the offending news-

paper or periodical. The reason for the enactment, as the

state court has said, is that prosecutions to enforce penal

statutes for libel do not result in “efficient repression or

suppression of the evils of scandal.” . . .Under this statute,

a publisher of a newspaper or periodical, undertaking to

conduct a campaign to expose and to censure official dere-

lictions, and devoting his publication principally to that

purpose, must face not simply the possibility of a verdict

against him in a suit or prosecution for libel, but a deter-

mination that his newspaper or periodical is a public nui-

sance to be abated, and that this abatement and

suppression will follow unless he is prepared with legal evi-

dence to prove the truth of the charges and also to satisfy

the court that, in addition to being true, the matter was

published with good motives and for justifiable ends.

This suppression is accomplished by enjoining publi-

cation, and that restraint is the object and effect of the

statute.

Fourth. The statute not only operates to suppress the

offending newspaper or periodical, but to put the pub-

lisher under an effective censorship. When a newspaper or

periodical is found to be “malicious, scandalous and

defamatory,” and is suppressed as such, resumption of

publication is punishable as a contempt of court by fine or

imprisonment. Thus, where a newspaper or periodical has

been suppressed because of the circulation of charges

against public officers of official misconduct, it would

seem to be clear that the renewal of the publication of such

charges would constitute a contempt, and that the judg-

ment would lay a permanent restraint upon the publisher,

to escape which he must satisfy the court as to the charac-

ter of a new publication. Whether he would be permitted

1354 ERA 8: The Great Depression and World War II

again to publish matter deemed to be derogatory to the

same or other public officers would depend upon the

court’s ruling. In the present instance the judgment

restrained the defendants from “publishing, circulating,

having in their possession, selling or giving away any pub-

lication whatsoever which is a malicious, scandalous or

defamatory newspaper, as defined by law.” The law gives

no definition except that covered by the words “scandalous

and defamatory,” and publications charging official mis-

conduct are of that class. While the court, answering the

objection that the judgment was too broad, saw no reason

for construing it as restraining the defendants “from oper-

ating a newspaper in harmony with the public welfare to

which all must yield,” and said that the defendants had not

indicated “any desire to conduct their business in the usual

and legitimate manner,” the manifest inference is that, at

least with respect to a new publication directed against

official misconduct, the defendant would be held, under

penalty of punishment for contempt as provided in the

statute, to a manner of publication which the court consid-

ered to be “usual and legitimate” and consistent with the

public welfare.

[6] If we cut through mere details of procedure, the

operation and effect of the statute in substance is that pub-

lic authorities may bring the owner or publisher of a news-

paper or periodical before a judge upon a charge of

conducting a business of publishing scandalous and defam-

atory matter—in particular that the matter consists of

charges against public officers of official dereliction—and,

unless the owner or publisher is able and disposed to bring

competent evidence to satisfy the judge that the charges

are true and are published with good motives and for jus-

tifiable ends, his newspaper or periodical is suppressed

and further publication is made punishable as a contempt.

This is of the essence of censorship.

[7] The question is whether a statute authorizing such

proceedings in restraint of publication is consistent with

the conception of the liberty of the press as historically

conceived and guaranteed. In determining the extent of

the constitutional protection, it has been generally, if not

universally, considered that it is the chief purpose of the

guaranty to prevent previous restraints upon publication.

. . .For whatever wrong the appellant has committed

or may commit, by his publications, the state appropriately

affords, both public and private redress by its libel laws. As

has been noted, the statute in question does not deal with

punishments; it provides for no punishment, except in case

of contempt for violation of the court’s order, but for sup-

pression and injunction—that is, for restraint upon publi-

cation.

The objection has also been made that the principle as

to immunity from previous restraint is stated too broadly,

if every such restraint is deemed to be prohibited. That is

undoubtedly true; the protection even as to previous

restraint is not absolutely unlimited. But the limitation has

been recognized only in exceptional cases. . . .

The exceptional nature of its limitations places in a

strong light the general conception that liberty of the

press, historically considered and taken up by the Federal

Constitution, has meant, principally although not exclu-

sively, immunity from previous restraints or censorship.

* * *

The fact that for approximately one hundred and fifty

years there has been almost an entire absence of attempts

to impose previous restraints upon publications relating to

the malfeasance of public officers is significant of the

deep-seated conviction that such restraints would violate

constitutional right. . . .

. . . The fact that the liberty of the press may be abused

by miscreant purveyors of scandal does not make any the

less necessary the immunity of the press from previous

restraint in dealing with official misconduct. Subsequent

punishment for such abuses as may exist is the appropriate

remedy, consistent with constitutional privilege.

* * *

[14] For these reasons we hold the statute, so far as it

authorized the proceedings in this action under clause (b)

of section 1, to be an infringement of the liberty of the

press guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. We

should add that this decision rests upon the operation and

effect of the statute, without regard to the question of the

truth of the charges contained in the particular periodical.

The fact that the public officers named in this case, and

those associated with the charges of official dereliction,

may be deemed to be impeccable, cannot affect the con-

clusion that the statute imposes an unconstitutional

restraint upon publication.

Judgment reversed.

Source:

Supreme Court Reporter, Vol. 51, pp. 625–639.

Franklin Roosevelt, “Forgotten Man,”

Radio Speech, 1932

National radio address delivered by Franklin D. Roosevelt,

then Democratic governor of New York, on April 7, 1932, in

which he argued that hope for national economic recovery

from the Great Depression resided with the ordinary farmer

and industrial worker—”the forgotten man at the bottom of the

economic pyramid.” Roosevelt spoke from Albany under the

auspices of the Democratic National Committee. An emerging

The Great Depression and American Life in the 1930s 1355

presidential candidate, he used the speech to present his alter-

native to the Republican Hoover administration’s economic

reform effort. Roosevelt likened the nation’s economic crisis in

1932 to the grave emergency America faced in 1916 as it

entered World War I. Just as America had mobilized econom-

ically for war from “bottom to top,” he asserted, so it now must

do to survive the depression. An economic reform program, he

said, must rest upon the “forgotten man,” who represented the

indispensable unit of economic power. Roosevelt advocated

federal measures to restore the farmer’s purchasing power,

provide mortgage relief to small banks and home owners, and

lower tariffs to promote export markets for American goods.

________________________

_______________________

Although I understand that I am talking under the aus-

pices of the Democratic National Committee, I do not

want to limit myself to politics. I do not want to feel that I

am addressing an audience of Democrats, nor that I speak

merely as a Democrat myself. The present condition for

our national affairs is too serious to be viewed through par-

tisan eyes for partisan purposes.

Fifteen years ago my public duty called me to an

active part in a great national emergency—the World War.

Success then was due to a leadership whose vision carried

beyond the timorous and futile gesture of sending a tiny

army of 150,000 trained soldiers and the regular Navy to

the aid of our Allies.

The generalship of that moment conceived of a whole

nation mobilized for war, economic, industrial, social and

military resources gathered into a vast unit, capable of and

actually in the process of throwing into the scales

10,000,000 men equipped with physical needs and sus-

tained by the realization that behind them were the united

efforts of 110,000,000 human beings. It was a great plan

because it was build from bottom to top and not from top

to bottom.

In my calm judgment, the nation faces today a more

grave emergency than in 1917.

It is said that Napoleon lost the Battle of Waterloo

because he forgot his infantry. He staked too much upon

the more spectacular but less substantial cavalry.

The present Administration in Washington provides a

close parallel. It has either forgotten or it does not want to

remember the infantry of our economic army.

These unhappy times call for the building of plans that

rest upon the forgotten, the unorganized but the indis-

pensable units of economic power, for plans like those of

1917 that build from the bottom up and not from the top

down, that put their faith once more in the forgotten man

at the bottom of the economic pyramid.

Obviously, these few minutes tonight permit no

opportunity to lay down the ten or a dozen closely related

objectives of a plan to meet our present emergency, but I

can draw a few essentials, a beginning, in fact, of a planned

program.

It is the habit of the unthinking to turn in times like

this to the illusions of economic magic. People suggest that

a huge expenditures of public funds by the Federal Gov-

ernment and by State and local governments will com-

pletely solve the unemployment problem. But it is clear

that even if we could raise many billions of dollars and find

definitely useful public works to spend these billions on,

even all that money would not give employment to the

7,000,000 or 10,000,000 people who are out of work.

Let us admit frankly that it would be only a stopgap.

A real economic cure must go to the killing of bacteria

in the system rather than to the treatment of external

symptoms.

How much do the shallow thinkers realize, for exam-

ple, that approximately one-half of our population, fifty or

sixty million people, earn their living by farming or in small

towns where existence immediately depends on farms.

They have today lost their purchasing power. Why? They

are receiving for farm products less than the cost to them

of growing these farm products.

The result of this loss of purchasing power is that

many other millions of people engaged in industry in the

cities cannot sell industrial products to the farming half of

the nation. This brings home to every city worker that his

own employment is directly tied up with the farmer’s dol-

lar. No nation can long continue half bankrupt. Main

Street, Broadway, the mills, the mines will close if half of

the buyers are broke.

I cannot escape the conclusion that one of the essen-

tials of a national program of restoration must be to restore

purchasing power to the farming half of the country. With-

out this the wheels of railroads and of factories will not

turn.

Closely associated with this first objective is the prob-

lem of keeping the home-owner and the farm-owner

where he is, without being dispossessed through the fore-

closure of his mortgage.

His relationship to the great banks of Chicago and

New York is pretty remote. The two billion dollar fund

which President Hoover and the Congress have put at the

disposal at the big banks, the railroads and the corpora-

tions of the nation is not for him.

His is a relationship to his little local bank or local loan

company. It is a sad fact that even though the local lender

in many cases does not want to evict the farmer or home-

owner by foreclosure proceedings, he is forced to do so in

order to keep his bank or company solvent. Here should be

an objective of government itself, to provide at least as

much assistance to the little fellow as it is now giving to the

large banks and corporations. That is another example of

building from the bottom up.

1356 ERA 8: The Great Depression and World War II

One other objective closely related to the problem of

selling American products is to provide a tariff policy

based upon economic common sense rather than upon

politics—hot air—pull.

This country during the past few years, culminating

with the Hawley-Smoot Tariff of 1929, has compelled the

world to build tariff fences so high that world trade is

decreasing to the vanishing point. The value of goods

internationally exchanged is today less than half of what it

was three or four years ago.

Every man and woman who gives any thought to the

subject knows that if our factories run even 80 per cent of

capability they will turn out more products that we as a

nation can possibly use ourselves.

The answer is that if they are to run on 80 per cent of

capacity we must sell some goods abroad. How can we do

that if the outside nations cannot pay us in cash—and we

know by sad experience that they cannot do that. The only

way they can pay us is in their own goods or raw materials,

but this foolish tariff of ours makes that impossible.

What we must do is this: To revise our tariff on the

basis of a reciprocal exchange of goods, allowing other

nations to buy and to pay for our goods by sending us such

of their goods as will not seriously throw any of our indus-

tries out of balance, and, incidentally, making impossible in

this county the continuance of pure monopolies which

cause us to pay excessive prices for many of the necessities

of life.

Such objectives as these three—restoring farmers’

buying power, relief to the small banks and homeowners

and a reconstructed tariff policy—these are only a part of

ten or dozen vital factors.

But they seem to be beyond the concern of a National

Administration which can think in terms only of the top of

the social and economic structure. They have sought tem-

porary relief from the top down rather than permanent

relief from the bottom up. They have totally failed to plan

ahead in a comprehensive way. They have waited until

something has cracked and then at the last moment have

sought to prevent total collapse.

It is high time to get back to fundamentals. It is high

time to admit with courage that we are in the midst of an

emergency at least equal to that of war. Let us mobilize to

meet it.

Source:

Landmark Documents in American History, Facts On File, Inc.

The Bonus March, 1932

A press release of July 28, 1932, from the White House to jus-

tify sending in troops to oust World War I veterans calling for

an immediate release of their “bonus.” President Herbert

Hoover was about to launch his presidential campaign, and

his controversial act, called “One of the blackest pages in our

history,” by California senator Hiram Johnson, was being se-

verely criticized.

A bonus had been offered in the World War Adjusted

Compensation Act of 1924, which was passed over the veto

of President Calvin Coolidge. This legislation provided

“adjusted compensation” for veterans of World War I, with

payment to be deferred until 1945. Each veteran was to

receive a dollar a day for service within the United States and

$1.25 a day for service abroad, payable in endowment insur-

ance policy certificates. Certificates valued at $3.5 billion

were issued, averaging about $1,000 per veteran. However,

unemployed and desperately poor veterans, suffering in the

Great Depression, marched to Washington, D.C., with their

families in 1932 to demand the entire bonus immediately.

This Bonus Expeditionary Force, consisted of between 17,000

and 25,000 people who erected a giant “Hooverville” shan-

tytown not far from the U.S. Capitol. When Congress failed to

pass a new bonus bill, 5,000 to 6,000 of the marchers

accepted President Hoover’s offer of return fares and left.

(Accurate statistics are hard to develop in this controversial

and politically charged episode.) Others refused to leave

their tent city, and rioting broke out resulting in two deaths

and many injuries to both marchers and police. The presi-

dent, on July 28, 1932, sent General Douglas MacArthur to

evict the remaining veterans. Ignoring orders neither to

arm his soldiers nor to move into the shantytown, MacArthur

used tanks and ordered his bayonet-carrying troops to burn

down the Hooverville. A number of injuries resulted. The

brutality of the soldiers added to President Hoover’s growing

unpopularity due to the Great Depression, and has overshad-

owed the riot that preceded it, in which the marchers acted

violently.

To justify sending in troops, President Hoover claimed

that radicals and communists, not veterans, had taken over the

leadership of the marchers. After the fact, he asked FBI (then

U.S. Bureau of Investigation) director J. Edgar Hoover to con-

firm the presence of communists. After checking his fingerprint

files, J. E. Hoover acknowledged only that the presence of

tanks may have prevented violence from the marchers. In

1936, over the veto of President Franklin D. Roosevelt,

Congress approved immediate payment.

________________________

_______________________

July 28, 1932.

The President said: “For some days police authorities and

Treasury officials have been endeavoring to persuade the

so-called bonus marchers to evacuate certain buildings

which they were occupying without permission. These

buildings are on sites where government construction is in

The Great Depression and American Life in the 1930s 1357

1358 ERA 8: The Great Depression and World War II

progress and their demolition was necessary in order to

extend employment in the district and to carry forward the

government’s construction program.

“This morning the occupants of these buildings were

notified to evacuate and at the request of the police did

evacuate the buildings concerned. Thereafter, however,

several thousand men from different camps marched in

and attacked the police with brickbats and otherwise injur-

ing several policemen, one probably fatally.

“I have received the attached letter from the Com-

missioners of the District of Columbia stating that they can

no longer preserve law and order in the District.

“In order to put an end to this rioting and defiance of

civil authority, I have asked the Army to assist the District

authorities to restore order.

“Congress made provision for the return home of the

so-called bonus marchers who have for many weeks been

given every opportunity of free assembly, free speech and

free petition to the Congress. Some 5,000 took advantage

of this arrangement and have returned to their homes. An

examination of a large number of names disclosed the fact

that a considerable part of those remaining are not veter-

ans; many are communists and persons with criminal

records.

“The veterans amongst these numbers are no doubt

unaware of the character of their companions and are

being led into violance [sic] which no government can tol-

erate.

“I have asked the Attorney General to investigate the

whole incident and to cooperate with the District civil

authorities in such measures against leaders and rioters as

may be necessary.”

Source:

Herbert Hoover Presidential Library and Museum. Hoover

Online Digital Archives. “Press Releases.” Available on-line.

URL: www.ecommcode.com/hoover/hooveronline/hoover

_and_the_depression/bonus_march/group_index.cfm?

GroupID=18. Accessed November 2003.

The New Deal

Franklin D. Roosevelt,

First Inaugural Address, 1933

Speech delivered by Franklin Delano Roosevelt on March 4,

1933, at his inauguration as the 32nd president of the United

States. His address, delivered at the height of the Great

Depression, offered reassurance to the nation and the promise

of prompt, vigorous action. Stating that “the only thing we

have to fear is fear itself,” Roosevelt castigated the nation’s

bankers for their “stubbornness and . . . incompetence” in the

face of the economic crisis, and broadly outlined his plan for

recovery. The greatest task, he stated, was to put people to

work; this he would accomplish in part by direct government

employment. He called for strict supervision of banking,

credit, and investment; a sound currency; and an end to spec-

ulation. Regarding hemispheric relations, he proposed the

“good neighbor” policy.

The depression continued through Roosevelt’s first term.

In his Second Inaugural Address he noted that the nation

faced the challenge of “tens of millions of its citizens [who] are

denied the greater part of what the very lowest standards of

today call the necessities of life. . . . I see one-third of a nation

ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished.” The president spoke, he

said, not in despair but in hope, “because the Nation, seeing

and understanding the injustice in it, proposes to paint it out.”

The address was delivered on January 20, 1937, the first time

a president was inaugurated on this day, which was set by the

Twentieth Amendment.

________________________

_______________________

I am certain that my fellow Americans expect that on

my induction into the Presidency I will address them with

a candor and a decision which the present situation of our

Nation impels. This is preeminently the time to speak the

truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we

shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country to-

day. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will

revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my

firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear

itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which

paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In

every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frank-

ness and vigor has met with that understanding and sup-

port of the people themselves which is essential to victory.

I am convinced that you will again give that support to

leadership in these critical days.

In such a spirit on my part and on yours we face our

common difficulties. They concern, thank God, only mate-

rial things. Values have shrunken to fantastic levels; taxes

have risen; our ability to pay has fallen; government of all

kinds is faced by serious curtailment of income; the means

of exchange are frozen in the currents of trade; the with-

ered leaves of industrial enterprise lie on every side; farm-

ers find no markets for their produce; the savings of many

years in thousands of families are gone.

More important, a host of unemployed citizens face

the grim problem of existence, and an equally great num-

ber toil with little return. Only a foolish optimist can deny

the dark realities of the moment.

Yet our distress comes from no failure of substance.

We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with

the perils which our forefathers conquered because they

believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be

thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human

efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a

generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the sup-

ply. Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of

mankind’s goods have failed, through their own stubborn-

ness and their own incompetence, have admitted their fail-

ure, and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money

changers stand indicated in the court of public opinion,

rejected by the hearts and minds of men.

True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast

in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of

credit they have proposed only the lending of more money.

Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our peo-

ple to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to

exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence.

They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers.

They have no vision, and when there is no vision the peo-

ple perish.

The money changers have fled from their high seats in

the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that

temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restora-

tion lies in the extent to which we apply social values more

noble than mere monetary profit.

Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it

lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative

effort. The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer

must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits.

These dark days will be worth all they cost us if they teach

us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to

minister to ourselves and to our fellow men.

Recognition of the falsity of material wealth as the

standard of success goes hand in hand with the abandon-

ment of the false belief that public office and high political

position are to be valued only by the standards of pride of

place and personal profit; and there must be an end to a

conduct in banking and in business which too often has

given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish

wrongdoing. Small wonder that confidence languishes, for

it thrives only on honesty, on honor, on the sacredness of

obligations, on faithful protection, on unselfish perfor-

mance; without them it cannot live.

Restoration calls, however, not for changes in ethics

alone. This Nation asks for action, and action now.

Our greatest primary task is to put people to work.

This is no unsolvable problem if we face it wisely and

courageously. It can be accomplished in part by direct

recruiting by the Government itself, treating the task as we

would treat the emergency of a war, but at the same time,

through this employment, accomplishing greatly needed

projects to stimulate and reorganize the use of our natural

resources.

Hand in hand with this we must frankly recognize the

overbalance of population in our industrial centers and, by

engaging on a national scale in a redistribution, endeavor

to provide a better use of the land for those best fitted for

the land. The task can be helped by definite efforts to raise

the values of agricultural products and with this the power

to purchase the output of our cities. It can be helped by

preventing realistically the tragedy of the growing loss

through foreclosure of our small homes and our farms. It

can be helped by insistence that the Federal, State, and

local governments act forthwith on the demand that their

cost be drastically reduced. It can be helped by the unify-

ing of relief activities which to-day are often scattered,

uneconomical, and unequal. It can be helped by national

planning for and supervision of all forms of transportation

and of communications and other utilities which have a

definitely public character. There are many ways in which

it can be helped, but it can never be helped merely by talk-

ing about it. We must act and act quickly.

Finally, in our progress toward a resumption of work

we require two safeguards against a return of the evils of

the old order; there must be a strict supervision of all bank-

ing and credits and investments; there must be an end to

speculation with other people’s money, and there must be

provision for an adequate but sound currency.

There are the lines of attack. I shall presently urge

upon a new Congress in special session detailed measures

for their fulfillment, and I shall seek the immediate assis-

tance of the several States.

Through this program of action we address ourselves

to putting our own national house in order and making

income balance outgo. Our international trade relations,

though vastly important, are in point of time and necessity

secondary to the establishment of a sound national econ-

The New Deal 1359

omy. I favor as a practical policy the putting of first things

first. I shall spare no effort to restore world trade by inter-

national economic readjustment, but the emergency at

home cannot wait on that accomplishment.

The basic thought that guides these specific means of

national recovery is not narrowly nationalistic. It is the

insistence, as a first consideration, upon the interdepen-

dence of the various elements in all parts of the United

States—a recognition of the old and permanently impor-

tant manifestation of the American spirit of the pioneer. It

is the way to recovery. It is the immediate way. It is the

strongest assurance that the recovery will endure.

In the field of world policy I would dedicate this

Nation to the policy of the good neighbor—the neighbor

who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so,

respects the rights of others—the neighbor who respects

his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements

in and with a world of neighbors.

If I read the temper of our people correctly, we now

realize as we have never realized before our interdepen-

dence on each other; that we can not merely take but we

must give as well; that if we are to go forward, we must

move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the

good of a common discipline, because without such disci-

pline no progress is made, no leadership becomes effec-

tive. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives

and property to such discipline, because it makes possible

a leadership which aims at a larger good. This I propose to

offer, pledging that the larger purposes will bind upon us

all as a sacred obligation with a unity of duty hitherto

evoked only in time of armed strife.

With this pledge taken, I assume unhesitatingly the

leadership of this great army of our people dedicated to a

disciplined attack upon our common problems.

Action in this image and to this end is feasible under

the form of government which we have inherited from our

ancestors. Our Constitution is so simple and practical that

it is possible always to meet extraordinary needs by

changes in emphasis and arrangement without loss of

essential form. That is why our constitutional system has

proved itself the most superbly enduring political mecha-

nism the modern world has produced. It has met every

stress of vast expansion of territory, of foreign wars, of bit-

ter internal strife, of world relations.

It is to be hoped that the normal balance of executive

and legislative authority may be wholly adequate to meet

the unprecedented task before us. But it may be that an

unprecedented demand and need for undelayed action

may call for temporary departure from that normal bal-

ance of public procedure.

I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recom-

mend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a

stricken world may require. These measures, or such other

measures as the Congress may built out of its experience

and wisdom, I shall seek, within my constitutional author-

ity to bring to speedy adoption.

But in the event that the Congress shall fail to take one

of these two courses, and in the event that the national

emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course

of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress

for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis—

broad Executive power to wage a war against the emer-

gency, as great as the power that would be given to me if

we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.

For the trust reposed in me I will return the courage

and the devotion that befit the time. I can do no less.

We face the arduous days that lie before us in the

warm courage of the national unity; with the clear con-

sciousness of seeking old and precious moral values; with

the clean satisfaction that comes from the stern perfor-

mance of duty by old and young alike. We aim at the assur-

ance of a rounded and permanent national life.

We do not distrust the future of essential democracy.

The people of the United States have not failed. In their

need they have registered a mandate that they want direct,

vigorous action. They have asked for discipline and direc-

tion under leadership. They have made me the present

instrument of their wishes. In the spirit of the gift I take it.

In this dedication of a Nation we humbly ask the

blessing of God. May He protect each and every one of us.

May He guide me in the days to come.

Source:

Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States,

1789–1965. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office,

1965.

Franklin Roosevelt,

Bank Holiday Declaration, 1933

Edict issued by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on March 5,

1933, and effective the following day, declaring a four-day

national banking holiday, halting all transactions in banks

(including Federal Reserve banks), trust companies, credit

unions, and other financial institutions. It also placed an

embargo on the export of silver, gold, and currency. Roosevelt,

claiming authority under the Trading with the Enemy Act of

1917, intended the emergency measure to allow time to pre-

pare legislation to handle the national crisis of bank failures

and to protect the nation’s diminishing gold reserves. The edict

allowed the use of scrip so that businesses might continue.

Four days later a special session of Congress gave the

president broad powers over the national banking and mone-

1360 ERA 8: The Great Depression and World War II

tary systems. The quickly passed Emergency Bank Relief Act

validating the Bank Holiday Declaration gave the president

control over gold transactions, authorized the issuance of new

Federal Reserve bank notes, forbade gold hoarding and

export, and authorized the Treasury Department to grant or

withhold licenses to reopen banks and to appoint conservators

for those of questionable soundness. Qualified banks were

permitted to begin reopening on March 13.

On January 30, 1934, the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 was

enacted. It removed the United States from a full gold standard

and placed it on a modified one. The act empowered the pres-

ident to reduce the gold content of the dollar to between 50

and 60 percent of its former weight and to change that value

within those limits as necessary. It made the government the

sole legal owner of monetary gold, prohibiting the domestic

use of gold as money, the redemption of dollars in gold, and

individual gold holdings (except under federal license for

specified purposes). While gold remained the currency

reserve, every dollar had to be fully backed by that metal. The

act also established a stabilization fund to balance interna-

tional payments. On January 31, President Franklin D. Roo-

sevelt used the authority.

________________________

_______________________

Whereas there have been heavy and unwarranted with-

drawals of gold and currency from our banking institutions

for the purpose of hoarding; and

Whereas continuous and increasingly extensive specu-

lative activity abroad in foreign exchange has resulted in

severe drains on the Nation’s stocks of gold; and

Whereas those conditions have created a national

emergency; and

Whereas it is in the best interests of all bank deposi-

tors that a period of respite be provided with a view to pre-

venting further hoarding of coin, bullion or currency or

speculation in foreign exchange and permitting the appli-

cation of appropriate measures to protect the interests for

our people; and

Whereas it is provided in Section 5 (b) of the Act of

October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. L. 411), as amended, “That the

President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under

such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means

of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign

exchange and the export, hoarding, melting, or earmark-

ings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency. . .”; and

Whereas it is provided in Section 16 of the said Act

“That whoever shall willfully violate any of the provisions

of this Act or of any license, rule, or regulation issued

thereunder, and whoever shall willfully violate, neglect, or

refuse to comply with any order of the President issued in

compliance with the provisions of this Act, shall, upon

conviction, be fined not more than $10,000, or, if a natu-

ral person, imprisoned for not more than ten years, or

both. . .”;

Now, therefore, I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of

the United States of America, in view of such national

emergency and by virtue of the authority vested in me by

said Act and in order to prevent the export, hoarding, or

earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, do

hereby proclaim, order, direct and declare that from Mon-

day, the Sixth day of March, to Thursday, the Ninth day of

March, Nineteen Hundred and Thirty-three, both dates

inclusive, there shall be maintained and observed by all

banking institutions and all branches thereof located in the

United States of America, including the territories and

insular possessions, a bank holiday, and that during said

period all banking transactions shall be suspended. During

such holiday, excepting as hereinafter provided, no such

banking institution or branch shall pay out, export, ear-

mark, or permit the withdrawal or transfer in any manner

or by any device whatsoever, of any gold or silver coin or

bullion or currency or take any other action which might

facilitate the hoarding thereof; nor shall any such banking

institution or branch pay out deposits, make loans or dis-

counts, deal in foreign exchange, transfer credits from the

United States to any place abroad, or transact any other

banking business whatsoever.

During such holiday, the Secretary of the Treasury,

with the approval of the President and under such regula-

tions as he may prescribe, is authorized and empowered

(a) to permit any or all of such banking institutions to per-

form any or all of the usual banking functions, (b) to direct,

require or permit the issuance of clearing house certifi-

cates or other evidences of claims against assets of banking

institutions, and (c) to authorize and direct the creation in

such banking institutions of special trust accounts for the

receipt of new deposits which shall be subject to with-

drawal on demand without any restriction or limitation and

shall be kept separately in cash or on deposit in Federal

Reserve Banks or invested in obligations of the United

States.

As used in this order the term “banking institutions”

shall include all Federal Reserve Banks, national banking

associations, banks, trust companies, savings banks, build-

ing and loan associations, credit unions, or other corpora-

tions, partnerships, associations or persons, engaged in the

business of receiving deposits, making loans, discounting

business paper, or transacting any other form of banking

business.

Source:

Franklin D. Roosevelt, The Public Papers and Addresses of

Franklin D. Roosevelt. New York: Random House,

1938–1950.

The New Deal 1361