Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T14:26:58.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Taking a Nickel Out of the Cash Register”: Statutory Renegotiation of Military Contracts and the Politics of Profit Control in the United States during World War II

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2010

Mark R. Wilson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

At 10:00 AM on September 24, 1943, James F. Lincoln, the sixty-year-old president and owner of the Lincoln Electric Company of Cleveland, Ohio, entered a meeting with U.S. Navy officials who wanted to discuss his company's recent earnings. A former Ohio State University football team captain and active supporter of the Republican Party, the outspoken Lincoln had already made it clear that he objected to the whole proceeding. One of the nation's leading suppliers of welding equipment, Lincoln's company had seen its sales boom since the beginning of World War II, as shipbuilders, aircraft producers, and other prime contractors demanded more welding machines and electrodes. Now, after a year of correspondence and preparations, the U.S. Navy had asked Lincoln to come to Washington to discuss how much of the company's 1942 profits were fair, and how much should be returned to the United States.

Type
Articles
Information
Law and History Review , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , May 2010 , pp. 343 - 383
Copyright
Copyright © the American Society for Legal History, Inc. 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Lincoln Electric Co. to Kenneth Rockey, September 16, 1942, James F. Lincoln to Loyall McLaren, August 3, 1943, both reproduced in Lincoln Electric Co. v. James V. Forrestal, Volume 3: Exhibits 55 and 56, box 7, James F. Lincoln Papers, Ms. 3569, Western Reserve Historical Society, Cleveland, Ohio; “Mr. Lincoln's Formula,” Fortune, February 1944, 143–45, 196–206.

2. “Minutes of the Meeting of the Price Adjustment Board of the Navy Department with Lincoln Electric Co.,” box 7, Lincoln Papers; December 22, 1943, memo on Lincoln Electric Company, folder “Renegotiation,” box 12, James V. Forrestal Papers, Mudd Library, Princeton University; John R. Paull, memo on Lincoln Electric for War Contracts Price Adjustment Board, September 25, 1947, folder “L”, box 7, entry 124 (WCPAB Correspondence Relating to Renegotiation, 1944–51), Record Group [RG] 335, National Archives [NA]. Because wartime tax levels were so high, Lincoln Electric's 1942 renegotiation refund of $3.25 million meant a net amount after taxes of about $600,000.

3. Forrestal-Lincoln correspondence and Lincoln pamphlet reproduced in Congressional Record 89 (October 27, 1943): A4548; Rockey to Forrestal memo on unilateral determinations, December 31, 1943, folder “Renegotiation,” box 12, Forrestal Papers.

4. Lincoln Electric Co. v. Knox, 77 F. Supp. 444 (1944); Lincoln Electric Co. v. Forrestal, 334 U.S. 841 (1948).

5. On the whole, World War II renegotiation lowered its subjects' pretax profit margins from an average of 18.5 percent on sales to 10.8 percent (Miller, John Perry, Pricing of Military Procurements [New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1949], 216Google Scholar).

6. Abels, Jules, “The 1943 Revenue Bill's Renegotiation Proposals,” Law & Contemporary Problems 10 (Autumn 1943): 399CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7. There has been no substantial study of renegotiation since the 1950s, when it was still an important form of profit control in military contracting. Important scholarly treatments include Osborn, Richards C., The Renegotiation of War Profits (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1948)Google Scholar; Miller, Pricing of Military Procurements; Arthur Lionel Friedman, “An Appraisal of Renegotiation of War Contracts, 1942–1945” (Ph.D. diss., Northwestern University, 1956). See also Smith, R. Elberton, The Army and Economic Mobilization (Washington, D.C.: Office of the Chief of Military History, 1959), 351–96Google Scholar; Connery, Robert H., The Navy and Industrial Mobilization in World War II (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1951), 266–92Google Scholar; Lane, Frederic C., Ships for Victory: A History of Shipbuilding under the U.S. Maritime Commission in World War II (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1951), 798–819Google Scholar.

8. Final Report of the War Contracts Price Adjustment Board, in folder “Final Report,” box 3, entry 124, RG 335, NA.

9. Lichter v. U.S., 334 U.S. 742 (1948), quotation at 766.

10. Hooks, Gregory, Forging the Military-Industrial Complex: World War II's Battle of the Potomac (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1991)Google Scholar; Waddell, Brian, The War Against the New Deal (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2001)Google Scholar; Koistinen, Paul A. C., Arsenal of World War II: The Political Economy of American Warfare, 1940–1945 (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2004)Google Scholar. One study of Navy procurement does point to the importance of renegotiation: Sparrow, Bartholomew H., From the Outside In: World War II and the American State (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1996), 180–85Google Scholar.

11. See also Leff, Mark H., “The Politics of Sacrifice on the American Home Front in World War II,” Journal of American History 77 (March 1991): 1296–1318CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12. Polenberg, Richard, War and Society: The United States, 1941–1945 (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1972), 90–91Google Scholar; Brody, David, “The New Deal and World War II,” in The New Deal: The National Level, ed. Braeman, John, Bremner, Robert H., and Brody, David (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1975), 1:292Google Scholar.

13. Brinkley, Alan, “The New Deal and the Idea of the State,” in The Rise and Fall of the New Deal Order, 1930–1980, ed. Fraser, Steve and Gerstle, Gary (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1989), 85–121Google Scholar; Katznelson, Ira and Pietrykowski, Bruce, “Rebuilding the American State: Evidence from the 1940s,” Studies in American Political Development 5 (Fall 1991): 301–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14. Hooks, Forging the Military-Industrial Complex; Waddell, War Against the New Deal.

15. Jacobs, Meg, “‘How About Some Meat?’: The Office of Price Administration, Consumption Politics, and State Building from the Bottom Up, 1941–1946,” Journal of American History 84 (December 1997): 910–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sparrow, James T., “‘Buying Our Boys Back’: The Mass Foundations of Fiscal Citizenship in World War II,” Journal of Policy History 20 (2008): 263–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Joanna Grisinger, “The Office of Price Administration and the War at Home,” paper delivered at the American Society for Legal History Conference, Dallas, Tex., Nov. 2009.

16. Lichtenstein, Nelson, “Labor in the Truman Era: Origins of the ‘Private Welfare State,’” in The Truman Presidency, ed. Lacey, Michael J. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 128–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Friedberg, Aaron, In the Shadow of the Garrison State: America's Antistatism and Its Cold War Grand Strategy (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hogan, Michael J., A Cross of Iron: Harry S. Truman and the Origins of the National Security State, 1945–1954 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zelizer, Julian, Taxing America: Wilbur D. Mills, Congress, and the State, 1945–1975 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998)Google Scholar; Klein, Jennifer, For All These Rights: Business, Labor, and the Shaping of America's Public-Private Welfare State (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2003)Google Scholar.

17. See, for example, Jacobs, Meg, Pocketbook Politics: Economic Citizenship in Twentieth-Century America (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2004), chap. 5–6Google Scholar; Workman, Andrew A., “Manufacturing Power: The Organizational Revival of the National Association of Manufacturers, 1941–1945,” Business History Review 78 (1998): 279–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18. Collins, Robert M., The Business Response to Keynes, 1929–1960 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1981)Google Scholar; Harris, Howell John, The Right to Manage: Industrial Relations Policies of American Business in the 1940s (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1982)Google Scholar; Fones-Wolf, Elizabeth A., Selling Free Enterprise: The Business Assault on Labor and Liberalism, 1945–60 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1994)Google Scholar; Workman, “Manufacturing Power.”

19. Fones-Wolf, Selling Free Enterprise; more recent treatments include Lichtman, Alan J., White Protestant Nation: The Rise of the American Conservative Movement (New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2008)Google Scholar; Phillips-Fein, Kim, Invisible Hands: The Making of the Conservative Movement from the New Deal to Reagan (New York: Norton, 2009)Google Scholar.

20. While this memory tended to concentrate on only the most prosperous firms, such as Du Pont, it was not unfounded. A U.S. Treasury study of major firms found that aggregate corporate net income after taxes in 1913 was $4.7 billion. This rose to $8.0 billion in 1917 and dropped to $5.1 billion in 1918 (Osborn, Renegotiation of War Profits, 48–58).

21. For more details on British and U.S. EPT policy, see Hensel, H. Struve and McClung, Richard G., “Profit Limitation Controls Prior to the Present War,” Law & Contemporary Problems 10 (Autumn 1943): 187–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Parkin, Norman C., “Renegotiation of War Contract Prices,” Journal of Business of the University of Chicago 17 (April 1944): 91–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Joseph Jacobs Thorndike III, “The Price of Civilization: Taxation for Depression and War, 1932–1945” (PhD diss., University of Virginia, 2005), 462–65.

22. Copy of Truman speech to Democratic National Committee banquet, Benjamin Franklin Hotel, Philadelphia, February 23, 1943, folder Truman Speeches 1941–42, box 3, Hugh A. Fulton Papers, Harry S. Truman Library, Independence, Mo.

23. Mrs. E. A. Leonard to Truman, March 4, 1942, folder National Defense Committee, box 119, Harry S. Truman Papers, Senatorial File, Truman Library.

24. Gallup, George H., The Gallop Poll: Public Opinion, 1935–1971 (New York: Random House, 1972), 1:328Google Scholar.

25. U.S. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 315 U.S. 289 (1942). This case is discussed at length in a well-researched recent article: Parrillo, Nicholas, “‘The Government at the Mercy of Its Contractors’: How the New Deal Lawyers Reshaped the Common Law to Challenge the Defense Industry in World War II,” Hastings Law Journal 57 (2005): 93–197Google Scholar.

26. Parrillo, “Government at the Mercy of Its Contractors,” 129–33.

27. U.S. v. Bethlehem Steel, 591–92.

28. Investigation of the National Defense Program: Hearings before the Committee on Naval Affairs, House of Representatives, 77th Cong., 2nd Sess. (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1942), 1:1–96.

29. Trussell, C. P., “Senate Body Votes War Profit Limits Despite Protests,” New York Times, April 5, 1942, 1Google Scholar.

30. Investigation of the National Defense Program [House Naval Affairs Committee 1942 hearings], 107–11; Minutes of April 27, 1942, WDPAB meeting, in binder “Minutes of Early Board Meetings, April 27, 1942–August 22, 1942,” box 1, entry 122 (War Department and Army PAB Minutes of Meetings), RG 335, NA; Connery, Navy and the Industrial Mobilization, 270.

31. Osborn, Renegotiation of War Profits, 17; Norman C. Parkin, “Renegotiation of War Contracts: Historical and Economic Aspects,” August 1943, all in folder “British Pricing Practices,” box 14, entry 376, RG 107, NA; Eiler, Keith E., Mobilizing America: Robert P. Patterson and the War Effort, 1940–1945 (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1997), 315–16Google Scholar.

32. Trussell, C. P., “War Profits Curb Passed by Senate,” New York Times, April 24, 1942, 12Google Scholar.

33. William L. Marbury testimony, October 21, 1947, in Investigation of the National Defense Program: Hearings before the Special Committee Investigating the National Defense Program, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 42: Renegotiation of Contracts, Industrial Mobilization Plan, Military Government in Germany (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1947), 25524–25.

34. Sanders, T. H., “Renegotiation of Contract Prices,” Harvard Business Review 21 (Winter 1943): 171–72Google Scholar.

35. Stearns memo to Browning, June 10, 1942, box 162, folder “Price Adjustment Board #1,” box 162, Robert P. Patterson Papers, Library of Congress.

36. Amberg memo to Patterson, June 14, 1942; Patterson memo to Services of Supply and Army Air Forces Materiel Command chiefs, June 30, 1942, folder “Price Adjustment Board #1,” box 162, Patterson Papers. See also Eiler, Mobilizing America, 318.

37. Biographies of Army PAB officials in Renegotiation of War Contracts: Hearings before the Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, 78th Cong., 1st Sess. (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1943), 901–22; Folder “Personnel,” box 34, entry 375, RG 107, NA.

38. Minutes of April 27, 1942, WDPAB meeting, in binder “Minutes of Early Board Meetings, April 27, 1942–August 22, 1942,” box 1, entry 122,RG 335, NA.

39. As he departed, Stearns urged Patterson to make it clear whether the WDPAB would enjoy real independence from Browning (Stearns to Patterson, July 28, 1942, folder “Price Adjustment Board #1,” box 162, Patterson Papers).

40. Minutes of July 31, 1942, WDPAB meeting, in binder “Minutes of Meetings 1942,” box 1, entry 122, RG 335, NA.

41. Browning memo to Karker, August 8, 1942, binder “Basic Documents, Vol. I,” box 3, entry 125 (Army Renegotiation Division—History of Army Dept. Renegotiation), RG 335, NA; U.S. War Department, “Principles, Policy and Procedure to Be Followed in Renegotiation” (August 10, 1942), and U.S. War Department, Navy Department, and Maritime Commission “Joint Statement” on renegotiation principles, both reproduced in Barton, Walter E., Renegotiation of Government Contracts (Indianapolis, Ind.: Bobbs-Merrill, 1952), 295–98.Google Scholar

42. Transcript of “Indoctrination #1”, August 27, 1942, in binder “Basic Documents, Vol. I,” box 3, entry 125 (Army Renegotiation Division—History of Army Dept. Renegotiation), RG 335, NA. Underlining in the original.

43. Capt. Thomas F. Staley Jr. and Joseph M. Dodge memo to Rockey, “The Negotiation Gap,” November 28, 1942, folder “235–281,” box 2, Kenneth H. Rockey Papers, Mudd Library, Princeton University.

44. Minutes of Meeting of Undersecretaries of War and Navy and Members and Representatives of War and Navy Price Adjustment Boards, February 6, 1943, folder “Reading File, Jan.–Feb. 1943,” box 1, entry 120 (Army Renegotiation Division, Reading File of the Legal Adviser, 1943–1951), RG 335, NA.

45. Copy of Patterson and Forrestal joint statement, February 9, 1943, folder “Renegotiation,” box 42, Forrestal Papers.

46. Browning comments in “Transcript of Proceedings, Army, Navy, Maritime & Treasury Price Adjustment Boards on the Renegotiation of War Contracts,” Edgewater Beach Hotel, Chicago, February 21–23, 1943, in box 57, entry 375 (War Department Price Adjustment Board Records, Decimal File), RG 107, NA.

47. “How's Your Renegotiation?” Fortune, February 1944, 141.

48. Bound typescript, “Proceedings: Closed Hearings of the Subcommittee on Price Adjustment, Special Committee Investigating the National Defense Program with War and Navy Departments and the Maritime Commission” (January 20–21, 1943), 3, 39–40, in box 15, Papers of Harry S. Truman, Senatorial File: Committee Proceedings, Truman Library.

49. Laird Bell to Rockey, December 22, 1943, Thomas D. Heed to Rockey, December 22, 1943, and W. T. Bacon to Rockey, December 28, 1943, folder “754-833,” box 5, Rockey Papers.

50. L. A. Keeler to Rockey, February 22, 1943, folder “340-395,” box 3, Rockey Papers.

51. “Proceedings: Closed Hearings of the Subcommittee on Price Adjustment, Special Committee Investigating the National Defense Program” (January 20–21, 1943), 180–81.

52. Renegotiation of War Contracts: Investigation of the Progress of the War Effort, Hearings before the Committee on Naval Affairs, House of Representatives, 78th Cong., 1st Sess. (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1943), 736.

53. Lanman testimony of June 16, 1943, in Renegotiation of War Contracts (1943), 601.

54. Minutes of “Indoctrination #5,” November 13, 1942, in binder “Basic Documents, Vol. I,” box 3, entry 125 (Army Renegotiation Division—History of Army Dept. Renegotiation), RG 335.

55. “Profits in a Vise,” Business Week, August 15, 1942, 14.

56. Frank McNaughton to James McConaughy, September 25, 1942, folder September 1942, box 3, McNaughton Papers, Truman Library.

57. Minutes of August 14, 1942 WDPAB meeting, in binder “Minutes of Meetings 1942,” box 1, entry 122, RG 335, NA.

58. Pangburn memo to Karker, “Letters to Senators about Renegotiation,” November 17, 1942, box 10, entry 375, RG 107, NA.

59. In the fall of 1941, for instance, Beech Aircraft Corporation general manager John P. Gaty wrote Senator Truman to complain of a proposed bill that might cap wartime profits at 7 percent of costs, which would presumably mean about 1.5 percent of costs after taxes. Such margins, Gaty complained, would not allow the aircraft industry to survive the postwar transition (John P. Gaty to Harry S. Truman, October 17, 1941, folder “National Defense—Aircraft Production,” box 113, Papers of Harry S. Truman, Senatorial File, Truman Library).

60. E. L. Davis to Truman, September 3, 1943, folder “Renegotiation,” box 158, Harry S. Truman Papers, Senatorial File.

61. Minutes of June 28, 1942, NPAB meeting with Northern Pump Co. enclosed in Frank Folsom to Hugh Fulton, July 27, 1942, folder [Truman Committee] Correspondence July–October 1942, box 120, Papers of Harry S. Truman, Senatorial File, Truman Library; Northern Pump Co. case summary in undated report, “Renegotiation Cases,” folder “Renegotiation,” box 12, Forrestal Papers.

62. Telegrams reproduced in Dictatorship over United States Industry under Public Law 528: Sabotage of Production, Development and Expansion—Towards Losing the War (Minneapolis: Northern Pump Co., 1942), copy in folder “200–234,” box 2, Rockey Papers; David A. Walsh, “War Profits and Legislative Policy,” in Coordinators' Transcript of Chicago Conference on War Contracts (Chicago: Coordinators' Corporation, 1944), 90.

63. “One Rugged Individualist vs. the Fuddy-Duddies: Hawley Cusses Washington but Turns Out Stuff,” Newsweek, November 9, 1942, 55.

64. “‘Renegotiation’ Is a Menace,” Wall Street Journal, September 24, 1942, 6; “N.Y. State Chamber Urges Repeal of Renegotiation Law,” Wall Street Journal, October 16, 1942, 5.

65. “Renegotiation Keeps Industry Stumbling in Fiscal Blackout,” Newsweek, October 19, 1942, 54.

66. Moser, John D., Right Turn: John T. Flynn and the Transformation of American Liberalism (New York: New York University Press, 2005)Google Scholar.

67. Flynn, John T., “‘Cost Plus,’ a World War Evil, Returns,” Barron's National Business and Financial Weekly, August 31, 1942, 3Google Scholar.

68. Karker to Lyons, September [sic] 28, 1942 [almost certainly August]; Stephens to Karker memo, September 7, 1942, box 1, entry 375, RG 107, NA.

69. Kenneth G. Kramer, “The Case for Renegotiation,” and [Shea, George], “The Editor's Comment,” Barron's National Business and Financial Weekly, September 28, 1942, 10Google Scholar; [Shea, George], “Why Any Renegotiation At All?” Barron's National Business and Financial Weekly, December 14, 1942, 10Google Scholar.

70. David Milton memo to Karker, September 14, 1942; Karker to Browning, September 17, 1942; Patterson to Browning, September 24, 1942, all in folder Price Adjustment Board #2[a], box 162, Patterson Papers.

71. Notes on speeches and radio addresses in folder “Speeches (Programs of Speeches Made) etc.,” box 18, entry 376, RG 107, NA.

72. Sharp memo on Korsmeyer meeting, September 17, 1943, box 2, entry 375, RG 107, NA.

73. Karker to Benson, November 16, 1942; Benson to Karker, December 31, 1942; Karker to Benson, January 5, 1943, all in file “Benson, George S.,” box 22, entry 375, RG 107, NA.

74. Karker memo to Patterson, September 25, 1942, folder Price Adjustment Board #2[a], box 162, Patterson Papers.

75. Account of December 20–22, 1942 Cincinnati conference in folder “Gregory Material on Renegotiation,” box 9, entry 376, RG 107, NA.

76. Sharp memo to Karker, October 29, 1942, box 1, entry 375, RG 107; Patterson, Robert P., “Renegotiation: What It Is; What It Does; How It Works,” Dun's Review, January 1943, 8–13, 32–34Google Scholar.

77. “Report of the Committee on the Renegotiation of War Contracts,” Business Advisory Council, January 14, 1943, folder “282-337,” box 3, Rockey Papers.

78. Circulation figures in folder “Speeches (Programs of Speeches Made) etc.,” box 18, entry 376, RG 107, NA.

79. “How We Take the Profiteer Out of War,” Saturday Evening Post, March 27, 1943, 100. Delighted with this editorial, Patterson immediately wrote the magazine's editor to praise him for the piece (Patterson to Ben Hibbs, March 29, 1942, folder Price Adjustment Board #2[a], box 162, Patterson Papers).

80. Forrestal to Vinson, February 13, 1943, in folder “Renegotiation,” box 42, Forrestal Papers.

81. Forrestal to Byrd, misfiled in folder “Oil #1”; Forrestal to Vinson, February 13, 1943, folder “Renegotiation,” both in box 171, Undersecretary of the Navy Files, entry 115, RG 80, NA.

82. Karker to Patterson, May 3, 1943, folder Price Adjustment Board #2[b], box 162, Patterson Papers.

83. War Department press release, “Army and Navy Enjoin Delays in Renegotiation Procedures,” July 26, 1943, box 163, folder Price Adjustment Board #3, box 163, Patterson Papers.

84. Renegotiation of Contracts: Hearings before the Committee on Finance, United States Senate, 77th Cong., 2nd Sess. (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1942); Renegotiation of Contracts: Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Finance, United States Senate, 77th Cong., 2nd Sess. (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1942). On the early amendments, see Connery, Navy and the Industrial Mobilization, 273–74; Smith, Army and Economic Mobilization, 355; Miller, Pricing of Military Procurements, 172.

85. Bound typescript, “Proceedings: Closed Hearings of the Subcommittee on Price Adjustment, Special Committee Investigating the National Defense Program with War and Navy Departments and the Maritime Commission,” January 20–21, 1943, in box 15, Papers of Harry S. Truman, Senatorial File: Committee Proceedings, Truman Library; “Proceedings: Closed Hearing of the Subcommittee on Price Adjustment, Special Committee Investigating the National Defense Program, February 10–11, 1943,” CIS Unpublished U.S. Senate Committee Hearings (78) SSt-T.99 [microfiche].

86. Investigation of the National Defense Program, Additional Report: Renegotiation of War Contracts, Senate Report 10, pt. 5, 78th Cong., 1st Sess., ser. 10758, quotation at 15; Truman speech to Executives' Club of Chicago, Hotel Sherman, June 4, 1943, folder Truman Speeches 1943, box 3, Hugh A. Fulton Papers, Truman Library.

87. Congressional Record 89 (May 3 and May 12, 1943): 3819, 4318–20.

88. Renegotiation of War Contracts (1943), 408, 414, 463, 694–96, 915, 921, 941, 972.

89. Ibid., 628–79, 758–59.

90. Ibid.

91. Renegotiation of War Contracts (Ways and Means 1943), 2–7.

92. Ibid., 218, 223, 260.

93. Ibid., 583–603, 691–94, 1064–96; Edward G. Budd Manufacturing Co. case summary in undated report, “Renegotiation Cases,” folder “Renegotiation,” box 12, Forrestal Papers.

94. Renegotiation of War Contracts (Ways and Means 1943), 347, 362, 488, 878.

95. Fuller, Hellen, “The Rich Get Richer,” New Republic, September 20, 1943, 383–84Google Scholar.

96. Robertson, Nathan, “War Profits and the Press,” Nation, October 9, 1943, 405–7Google Scholar.

97. Earl Wooley to Hon. Lindley Beckworth, September 12, 1942, enclosure in John W. Martyn, Office of the Secretary of War, to Beckworth, October 8, 1942, box 10, entry 375, RG 107.

98. W. W. Hartman to Patterson, September 21, 1943, folder Price Adjustment Board #4, box 163, Patterson Papers.

99. Patterson to Willard F. Rockwell, October 26, 1943, and November 9, 1943, folder Price Adjustment Board #4, box 163, Patterson Papers.

100. Revenue Act of 1943: Hearings before the Committee on Finance, United States Senate, 78th Cong., 1st Sess., on H.R. 3697 (Washington: GPO, 1944), 402–19.

101. Ibid., 1007–12, 1110–11.

102. Revenue Bill of 1943 [Senate Finance Committee majority report], Senate Report 627, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., ser. 10757; Patterson to Sen. Walter F. George, December 16, 1943, and Patterson to Sen. Scott Lucas, December 17, 1943, folder Price Adjustment Board #4, box 163, Patterson Papers.

103. MacIntosh, W. James, “The Renegotiation Act of 1943,” Coordinators' Transcript of Chicago Conference on War Contracts, 7Google Scholar.

104. Eugene Duffield to James Forrestal, December 17, 1943, folder “Renegotiation,” box 171, Undersecretary of the Navy Files, entry 115, RG 80, NA.

105. Lawrence, David, “Political Ammunition: Business Leaves Self Open to Attack in Fighting War Profits Renegotiation,” Washington Star, December 14, 1943Google Scholar, clipping in folder “722–753,” box 5, Rockey Papers; the significance of this piece, along with the columns of Arthur Krock discussed below, is noted in Walsh, “War Profits and Legislative Policy,” 92.

106. “War Profiteers,” Washington Post, December 15, 1943, 12; Lindley, Ernest, “War Profiteering: Fight on Renegotiation,” Washington Post, December 17, 1943, 17Google Scholar; “War Contracts,” Washington Post, December 18, 1943, 8; Lindley, Ernest, “Profiteering Barrier: Renegotiation,” Washington Post, December 21, 1943, 12Google Scholar; Krock, Arthur, “How Business Can Make Itself the Postwar Goat,” New York Times, December 16, 1943, 26Google Scholar; Krock, Arthur, “More on the Issue over Renegotiation,” New York Times, December 21, 1943, 26Google Scholar; “Renegotiation [editorial],” New York Times, December 23, 1943, 18; Krock, Arthur, “Renegotiation Issue Produces Name-Calling,” New York Times, December 23, 1943, 18Google Scholar.

107. Drew Pearson, Merry-Go-Round column, Washington Post, December 21, 1943, clipping in folder “754–833,” box 5, Rockey Papers.

108. “Seed of a Scandal Put into Tax Bill, Says Morgenthau,” New York Times, December 21, 1943, 1; “Taxes: Renegotiation Fight,” Time, January 3, 1944, 19; Robert P. Patterson letter to the editor, New York Times, December 30, 1943, 16. One New York City lawyer wrote Patterson immediately to praise him for this piece. “It simply must be made impossible,” he wrote, “for anyone to make excessive profits while the cream of our youth are suffering and dying all over the world” (Walter Brower to Patterson, December 30, 1943, folder Price Adjustment Board #5[b], box 163, Patterson Papers).

109. Dodge to Patterson, January 3, 1944, and Patterson to Dodge, January 4, 1944, folder Price Adjustment Board #5[b], box 163, Patterson Papers. See also Eiler, Mobilizing America, 324.

110. Rockey to Forrestal, December 28, 1943, folder “754–833,” box 5, Rockey Papers.

111. Copy of Walsh et al., January 4, 1944, press release in box 11, entry 375, RG 107; Revenue Bill of 1943 [Senate Finance Committee minority report], Senate Report 627, pt. 2, 78th Cong. 1st Sess., ser. 10757, 3, 13.

112. James F. Lincoln to Truman, January 3, 1944, and John G. Burton to Truman, January 25, 1944, folder Renegotiation, box 158, Harry S. Truman Papers, Senatorial File.

113. W. James MacIntosh to Patterson, January 8, 1944, folder Price Adjustment Board #5[b], box 163, Patterson Papers.

114. Smith, Army and Economic Mobilization, 357.

115. Miller, Pricing of Military Procurements, 177.

116. Keyerleber, Karl, “Renegotiation Rebellion,” Current History 6 (March 1944): 220Google Scholar.

117. Washington Post editorial, February 15, 1944, clipping in folder “901–981,” box 6, Rockey Papers.

118. “The Trend: The Profits of Renegotiation,” Business Week, February 12, 1944, 116.

119. Smith, Army and Economic Mobilization, 343–50; Connery, Navy and the Industrial Mobilization in World War II, 243–65; Miller, Pricing of Military Procurements, 188–201.

120. Forrestal to Frank M. Folsom, February 20, 1944, folder “Renegotiation,” box Miscellaneous Files, box 42, Forrestal Papers.

121. Reports on unilateral determinations in binder “October 1945 to May 1947,” box 2, entry 123 (War Contracts Price Adjustment Board, Meetings of Minutes, 1944–1951), RG 335, NA.

122. Lord Manufacturing Co. v. United States, 114 Ct. Cl. 199 (1949).

123. Friedman, “An Appraisal of Renegotiation of War Contracts,” 82–85, 174–93.

124. For example, Collier, Charles S., “Constitutionality of Statutory Renegotiation,” Law and Contemporary Problems 10 (Winter 1944): 353–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

125. Patterson to John B. Kelly, October 8, 1943, folder Price Adjustment Board #4, box 163, Patterson Papers. See also Eiler, Mobilizing America, 324–25.

126. MacIntosh, W. James, “The Renegotiation Act of 1943,” in Renegotiation and Termination of War Contracts, 1942–1944 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Law School and School of Business Administration, 1944), 64Google Scholar.

127. Spaulding v. Douglas Aircraft Co., 154 F.2d 419 (1946), at 426. During the war, George Washington University law professor Charles S. Collier had also compared the administrative determination of “excessive profits” to the work of the ICC (Collier, “Constitutionality of Statutory Renegotiation,” 364).

128. Spaulding v. Douglas Aircraft Co., 154 F.2d 419 (1946).

129. Stein Brothers Manufacturing Co. v. Secretary of War, 7 T.C. 863 (1946).

130. Ring Construction Corp. v. Secretary of War, 8 T.C. 1070 (1947), at 1085.

131. Lichter v. United States, 746, 754.

132. Ibid., 766, 768.

133. Final Report of the War Contracts Price Adjustment Board, in folder “Final Report,” box 3, entry 124 (WCPAB Correspondence Relating to Renegotiation, 1944–51), RG 335, NA.

134. Friedberg, In the Shadow of the Garrison State; Hogan, Cross of Iron.

135. Burns, Arthur Edward, “The Tax Court and Renegotiation,” Journal of Law and Economics 13 (October 1970): 311CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sternberg, Harry, Renegotiation of Government Contracts (New York: Practicing Law Institute, 1974)Google Scholar; Reid, T. R., “Barring Near Miracle, Renegotiation Board's Obituary Set,” Washington Post, July 9, 1978, A7Google Scholar.

136. Reid, T. R., “Renegotiation Unit, Rare Profit-Maker, Speeds to Extinction,” Washington Post, March 22, 1979, A1Google Scholar.