George
William Norris was born in Sandusky,
Ohio, on 11th July, 1861. His father, a small farmer, died in 1864
and the family lived in near poverty.
After
graduating from Baldwin University he became a school teacher while
continuing to study law. Norris was admitted to the bar in 1883 and
practiced law in Furnas County before being elected district judge
(1895-1902).
His
first wife, Pluma Lashley died giving birth to her third child (Hazel,
Marian and Gertrude). In 1903 Norris married Ellie Leonard, a schoolteacher
from San Jose, California. In 1906 Ellie Norris gave birth to twin
boys but they both died soon afterwards.
A member of the Republican Party,
Norris was a member of the House of Representatives (1903-13) and
the Senate (1913-43). An independent thinker he opposed United States
entry into the First World War.
During
the war the government built a hydro-electric plant and two munitions
factories on the Tennessee River. After the war, Norris and John
Rankin of Mississippi drafted a bill that would enable these facilities
to be converted for peacetime purposes. Norris twice persuaded Congress
to pass this legislation, but both times it was vetoed by the president,
first by Calvin Coolidge, and then by
Herbert Hoover. They both argued that
as the plant would be government owned, it would be an example of
socialist planning. Something that both
men were strongly against.
Norris
gradually emerged as the leader of the progressive wing of the party.
Others with similar views to Norris in the Senate included William
Borah,
Henrik Shipstead, Bronson
Cutting, Lynn Frazier, Robert
LaFollette Jr., John Elmer Thomas
and Burton
K. Wheeler.
Norris was also friendly with Huey
P. Long.
Norris
became disillusioned with the Republican
Party and
in 1928 he supported Alfred
Smith,
the democratic candidate for president, instead of Herbert
Hoover.
In
1932 presidential elections Norris campaigned for Franklin
D. Roosevelt.
Roosevelt
agreed with what Norris was trying to do and believing it would stimulate
the economy of one of the poorest regions in the United States, gave
it his full support. On 10th April, 1933, Roosevelt asked Congress
to set up the Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA). The munitions factory became a chemical plant manufacturing
fertilizers and the hydroelectric plant now generated power for parts
of seven states (Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky,
Alabama, Mississippi). The first of the TVA's dams was named Norris
Dam.
The
support he gave to Franklin
D. Roosevelt upset the Republican
Party and in 1936 Norris was forced to stand as an independent
in Nebraska. He won but was defeated in his attempt to get elected
in 1942. George William
Norris died in McCook, Nebraska, on 2nd September, 1944. His
autobiography, Fighting Liberal,
was published in 1945.
(1)
George
Norris, Fighting
Liberal (1945)
President Harding was one of the most kindly and amiable
of men. It seemed to me that instinctively he reposed too much confidence
in his friends, and that he shrank from giving hurt. That generous
judgment did not account for the developments of the following months
which shocked the American people.
In the Senate he had been
a dependable conservative in all of his thought and his votes.
In the White House he
symbolized Ohio political machine politics. There came to Washington
on the heels of this new administration a curious crew, with an amazingly
blunted, repulsive conception of public service and the responsibilities
of public office.
Even more significant,
the currents of national thought reversed themselves. Great wealth
took possession of the government. It was reflected in Mr. Harding's
selection of a cabinet. It characterized all political utterances.
The stock phrase, "Less government in business, and more business
in government" was, I recognize, a natural reaction against the
necessary regimentation of people in wartime. But it brought into
the places of high responsibility men who could
not be expected to have a far-sighted view of public service, combining
qualities of unselfishness and high devotion to public trust.
It was not long before
Washington, the most sensitive of all American cities to scandal,
buzzed with gossip.
(2)
George
Norris, speech
(4th April, 1917)
While I am most emphatically and sincerely opposed to taking any step
that will force our country into the useless and senseless war now
being waged in Europe, yet, if this resolution passes, I shall not
permit my feeling of opposition to its passage to interfere in any
way with" my duty either as a senator or as a citizen in bringing
success and victory to American arms. I am bitterly opposed to my
country entering the war, but if, notwithstanding my opposition, we
do enter it, all of my energy and all of my power will be behind our
flag in carrying it on to victory.
The resolution now before
the Senate is a declaration of war. Before taking this momentous step,
and while standing on the brink of this terrible vortex, we ought
to pause and calmly and judiciously consider the terrible consequences
of the step we are about to take. We ought to consider likewise the
route we have recently traveled and ascertain whether we have reached
our present position in a way that is compatible with the neutral
position which we claimed to occupy at the beginning and through the
various stages of this unholy and unrighteous war.
No close student of recent
history will deny that both Great Britain and Germany have, on numerous
occasions since the beginning of the war, flagrantly violated in the
most serious manner the rights of neutral vessels and neutral nations
under existing international law, as recognized up to the beginning
of this war by the civilized world.
The reason given by the
President in asking Congress to declare war against Germany is that
the German government has declared certain war zones, within which,
by the use of submarines, she sinks, without notice, American ships
and destroys American lives. The first war zone was declared by Great
Britain. She gave us and the world notice of it on the 4th day of
November, 1914. The zone became effective Nov. 5, 1914. This zone
so declared by Great Britain covered the whole of the North Sea. The
first German war zone was declared on the 4th day of February, 1915,
just three months after the British war zone was declared. Germany
gave fifteen days' notice of the establishment of her zone, which
became effective on the 18th day of February, 1915. The German war
zone covered the English Channel and the high seawaters around the
British Isles.
It is unnecessary to cite
authority to show that both of these orders declaring military zones
were illegal and contrary to international law. It is sufficient to
say that our government has officially declared both of them to be
illegal and has officially protested against both of them. The only
difference is that in the case of Germany we have persisted in our
protest, while in the case of England we have submitted.
What was our duty as a
government and what were our rights when we were confronted with these
extraordinary orders declaring these military zones? First, we could
have defied both of them and could have gone to war against both of
these nations for this violation of international law and interference
with our neutral rights. Second, we had the technical right to defy
one and to acquiesce in the other. Third, we could, while denouncing
them both as illegal, have acquiesced in them both and thus remained
neutral with both sides, although not agreeing with either as to the
righteousness of their respective orders. We could have said to American
shipowners that, while these orders are both contrary to international
law and are both unjust, we do not believe that the provocation is
sufficient to cause us to go to war for the defense of our rights
as a neutral nation, and, therefore, American ships and American citizens
will go into these zones at their own peril and risk.
Fourth, we might have
declared an embargo against the shipping from American ports of any
merchandise to either one of these governments that persisted in maintaining
its military zone. We might have refused to permit the sailing of
any ship from any American port to either of these military zones.
In my judgment, if we had pursued this course, the zones would have
been of short duration. England would have been compelled to take
her mines out of the North Sea in order to get any supplies from our
country. When her mines were taken out of the North Sea then the German
ports upon the North Sea would have been accessible to American shipping
and Germany would have been compelled to cease her submarine warfare
in order to get any supplies from our nation into German North Sea
ports.
There are a great many
American citizens who feel that we owe it as a duty to humanity to
take part in this war. Many instances of cruelty and inhumanity can
be found on both sides. Men are often biased in their judgment on
account of their sympathy and their interests. To my mind, what we
ought to have maintained from the beginning was the strictest neutrality.
If we had done this, I do not believe we would have been on the verge
of war at the present
time. We had a right as a nation, if we
desired, to cease at any time to be neutral.
We had a technical right to respect the English
war zone and to disregard the German
war zone, but we could not do that and
be neutral.
(3)
George Norris, letter to Walter Locke, editor of the Nebraska State
Journal, about the formation of the League
of Nations (18th March, 1918)
During practically all of my public life, I have been a sincere advocate
of an agreement between the leading nations of the world to set up
all the necessary international machinery that would bring about a
practical abolition of war between civilized nations. I advocated
it long before the great world war commenced, and to keep the American
government in a position to lead in such a movement, I used it as
one of the arguments against our entering into the war. I thought
we should be better able to lead if we stayed out. I may have been
mistaken in this because subsequent events have determined that we
are now in such a position that if we unite upon a fair and honorable
plan, the entire civilized world will be disposed to follow. I realize
that no such thing can be brought about unless every man and every
nation approaches the subject with a willingness to compromise, with
a willingness even to sacrifice some of his own cherished opinions,
in order to bring the nations together. Nothing has ever happened
in my life in which I felt a deeper interest or for which I would
make a greater sacrifice. I am willing that somebody else shall get
all the honor and all the praise if this cherished thing can be realized.
I think we ought to take
the world as it is and not as we would like to have it. It seems,
therefore, inadvisable to me to enter into any agreement that would
make it necessary for us or, for that matter, for any other nation
to maintain standing armies for the support of new and independent
governments that it is intended to establish among semi-civilized
people. Such a course not only is dangerous and will in my judgment
bring failure to that part of the enterprise, but it is in no sense
necessary to maintain the peace of the world. The right kind of a
league between nations that can be numbered on the fingers of one
hand will insure a permanent peace.
Our activities would not
be confined to Europe and Asia, but we would have on that theory ample
reasons to go into Mexico and other countries located in the western
hemisphere. There is not much danger of the smaller nations if the
big nations will behave.
We ought to disarm Germany
completely. We ought to disarm Turkey completely. We ought to disarm
Austria. We ought to destroy every fort along every international
boundary line in Europe. This would be an easy thing to do if we and
our allies would announce that it must be done. And when it is done,
we ought to follow the example by disarming ourselves. No nation ought
to keep a navy larger than is necessary to do police duty. If the
world is disarmed, and remains disarmed, there
will be no more world wars. If these leading nations would agree,
in addition to this, that an international court of arbitration should
be set up, that no nation should engage in conquest, that no secret
treaty would be entered into or recognized, the danger of war would
be as completely averted as it is possible for human beings to avert
it. The constitution ought to specifically state that every nation
is left entirely independent and supreme in its internal affairs,
such as regulating emigration and all other similar matters.
(4)
George Norris wrote about the Teapot Dome
Scandal in his autobiography, Fighting Liberal (1945)
Still another impressive bit of evidence of national apathy presented
itself in the Teapot Dome scandal. It
had its origin in the early months of the Harding administration.
It became the subject of common gossip in Washington, and yet
no betrayal of public trust resisted exposure and punishment more
tenaciously.
Teapot Dome involved the
conservation of the oil resources of the United States, especially
those situated upon the public lands. The investigation of alleged
irregularities had been in progress for some time, under the auspices
of the Senate Committee on Public Lands and Surveys, when the decision
was reached to institute court action to cancel the leases granted
to private interests at Teapot Dome and Elk Hills.
My old friend Robert M.
La Follette of Wisconsin, always alert and vigilant, had introduced
and procured passage of the two resolutions - Senate Resolution 282,
and Senate Resolution 294 - authorizing the Public Lands Committee
to make the inquiry. Out of it came the evidence supporting the inescapable
conviction that immense combinations of wealth, large corporations,
under leases fraudulently obtained, were systematically robbing the
government of the oil stored in the public lands by Nature. The evidence
pointed straight to the guilt of a former colleague, A. B. Fall of
New Mexico, who had become Secretary of the Interior.
(5)
George Norris, statement on the financial policies of Andrew
Mellon (December,
1925)
The revenue bill as passed in the House is indefensible. In a nutshell
it is a millionaires' bill. Practically all the reductions made are
on the taxes of the incomes of those who are immensely wealthy Mr.
Mellon himself gets a larger personal reduction than the aggregate
of practically all the taxpayers in the state of Nebraska. The reduction
of inheritance taxes on big fortunes contained in this bill is a greater
step backward than has been taken by Congress since the war. It was
passed by the House without fair consideration, without reasonable
opportunity for debate, and is a demonstration of the working of the
new rules just adopted by that body, enabling a few men who are alleged
leaders to dominate the House and handle it as completely as the master
controls his servant.
(6)
George Norris wrote about the Tennessee
Valley Authority in
his autobiography, Fighting Liberal (1945)
Norris Dam, provided for under the original TVA act, is about twenty
miles to the northwest of Knoxville on the Clinch River, a Tennessee
tributary. It holds back the largest amount of flood waters except
that which will be impounded by Kentucky Dam. Norris Dam has had a
very material effect upon the navigability of the Tennessee River
itself and upon the floods of the Tennessee, Ohio, and the Mississippi.
It holds back the surplus waters of a number of Tennessee tributaries
which otherwise would discharge a huge volume of water into the main
river at a time when flood conditions are aggravated.
In 1937 one of the most
damaging floods east of the Mississippi that have ever been recorded
would have been intensified had it not been for the effect of Norris
Dam upon the flow of the Ohio and the Mississippi.
The city of Cairo, located
on the Ohio River, between the mouth of the Ohio and the mouth of
the Tennessee, often has been damaged greatly by floods. There is
no doubt but the city would have been engulfed and possibly destroyed
in this particular case had it not been for Norris Dam.
It may seem impossible
that Norris Dam, roughly seven hundred miles distant from Cairo by
river, should have saved that city from destruction. Yet the waters
of the Ohio at Cairo had risen to the danger point and then above,
the levees for the city's protection were in danger of being washed
out. At the critical hour, eminent engineers, making careful computations,
reached the conclusion that the huge volume of flood waters stored
back of Norris Dam had saved Cairo and had greatly diminished the
floods along the entire Ohio and Mississippi.
(7)
Harold
L. Ickes, The Autobiography of
a Curmudgeon (1943)
I have attempted to sketch briefly PWA's direct contribution to national
defense. Because of the leeway that it had under the law to make grants
to cover the entire cost of Federal projects, PWA was able to undertake
some others that, while useful in peacetime, are just as important
for war purposes as are munitions themselves.
I particularly have in
mind hydroelectric power developments. Where would we be today with
a scarcity of power already making itself felt, and a greater lack
facing us during the next few years, if we had not gone in for the
most stupendous program of power development in history?
We claim no credit for
the conception of Boulder Dam or of the TVA. But we hurried Boulder
Dam to completion after we came in in 1933 and finished it two years
ahead of schedule. The power now being generated there is indispensable
to the war. And while the main credit for the TVA must gratefully
go to that really fine elder statesman, George W.
Norris, the records will show that it was PWA encouragement
- encouragement in the form of coin of the realm - that gave
it not only the means but the opportunity to expand into
the vitally important project that it is.
(8)
George Norris wrote about Lend Lease
in his autobiography, Fighting Liberal (1945)
No single piece of legislation attracted my attention more than the
program of Lend-Lease. I took a great interest in its passage by Congress;
and I believe that it not only has shortened the war, perhaps by years,
but may have saved the free peoples of the world.
In the Senate the Lend-Lease
bill produced one of the bitterest struggles of a bitter period. I
never could understand from the arguments developed in the debate
why any member of the Senate objected to the passage of the act. In
all of the discussion, it seemed to me, the opposition to Lend-Lease
closed its eyes and refused to recognize the circumstances responsible
for the proposal.
Hitler's triumphs had
simplified America's choice. Either this country could accept him
and try to get along with him, or it had to stem the march of his
armies in his plan of world conquest. I place no faith in his protestation
of a peaceful attitude toward the countries of the western hemisphere.
His every deed and utterance established that once he had made himself
supreme in Europe, Africa, and Asia the next step would be conquest
of the Americas.
When I voted for Lend-Lease,
under which the President was authorized to make contracts with the
governments of nations opposing the Axis powers for weapons and supplies
of war, it was a very minor consideration to me whether the beneficiaries
of Lend-Lease made repayment for the material furnished them. I felt
strongly that the United States should be glad to furnish this assistance,
even if it never was repaid, because the sacrifice of human life which
our ultimate allies made was infinitely greater than the financial
sacrifice involved.
Available from Amazon Books
(order below)
